Natural “News” vs. Actual Science

Mike Adams: Quack of All Quackery

 

Recently I was asked if it was true that the mercury in vaccines caused autism. After a 15-minute giggle to myself, I attempted to correct the misinformation that had been provided. The person sent me the image below:

As you can imagine, this is utter pseudoscience. (I will not get into the science of vaccines and the abhorrent ridiculous behaviour and propaganda propagated by anti-vaccinators here, but they are idiotic). The post made me immediately think; Why are people still using Natural News for information? I mean, most of the posts read as actual satire, its hard to distinguish between Natural News and The Onion.

What is Natural News?

Basically, the website is an anti-science conspiracy website founded by Mike Adams. This self titled ‘Health Ranger’ specialises in posts about Anti-Vaccination, Global Warming denialism, Anti-GMO, Big Pharma and Alternative Treatments. Essentially, if there was a summery of the word ‘quack’ as a whole to be one person, Mike Adams is this person. For example, there are actual posts where this is claimed:

"(NaturalNews) The future of weaponry won't necessarily involve higher capacity firearms, more advanced bombs or better fighter jets. It will encompass an entirely new realm of genetically-modified (GM) bioweapons that threaten to destroy the human brain and cause irreversible genetic-level damage to the planet."

He also claims that the pharmaceutical industry is creating HIV Vaccinations to populate the masses with HIV so they can treat it for more money. That alone is surely logic enough for you to question the website and this mans integrity. But I’ll go on. All of the post by Adams and his band of pseudoscientific scaremongers have little to no evidence to back up any of the highly inaccurate claims they appear to have unearthed.

Hell No, GMO 

Not all too unsurprisingly, the anti-GMO activists write a hell of a lot about GMO’s making people ill, much more specifically, propagating the myth they are carcinogenic. Last year I stumbled upon this press release by Mike Adams calling (however indirectly) that journalist, publishes and scientists working on the subject of GMO’s be killed. Yes, killed:

"Just as history needed to record the names and deeds of Nazi war criminals, so too must all those collaborators who are promoting the death and destruction caused by GMOs be named for the historical record. The true extent of their collaboration with an anti-human regime will all become readily apparent once the GMO delusion collapses and mass global starvation becomes an inescapable reality."

Yeah, pretty much despicable in the face of overwhelming evidence (I recently wrote a post on GMO’s and looking at the actual science behind them, if you don’t know much about them read it). From this post, made by Adams, has stemmed a lot of support from Anti-GMO activists. After comparing GMO scientists to Nazis, Adams issued a post saying that It was ‘misprinted’ and ‘taken out of context’. This spewed a website, (weirdly in German) that has a list of all the scientists ‘proven’ to be working on GMO’s – for what reason? Destroy their credibility or injure them? Hopefully neither. But it exists, which is disgusting enough (the section with names on is 'under scientific construction). 

In his post defending the words published he closes with a disclaimer saying that the article isn’t a ‘call for violence, as I holy disvow any such actions, I am a person who demand due process under the law for all those accused of crimes’. Following this, he states:

"But what is the appropriate punishment for the criminal act of unleashing genetic pollution across our planet, contributing to mass crop failures, collapsing indigenous seed diversity, instigating widespread human starvation, suppressing scientific knowledge and dousing the world's farmlands with the toxic chemical glyphosate? How do you even decide on a punishment that can fit the scale and magnitude of such a collection of crimes?"

Yeah, holy disvow indeed. There is no shortage of studies proving that GMOS are perfectly safe. No ill effects have ever been proven from the ingestion of GMO food. Burden of proof is still on you guys; the scientific community is waiting. And whilst we are on the case, what is the price of fear-mongering and spreading pseudoscience? This stuff can (and does) actually harm people. Whereas there is no evidence for GMO and vaccinations harming people.

Astrology

In 2010, Adams wrote a post entitled: ‘Principle ofastrology proven to be scientific: planetary position imprints biological clocks of mammals’. Let that sentence sink in. Breath. Good, yeah? Ready for it. First paragraph of the post:

“(NaturalNews) Mention the word "astrology" and skeptics go into an epileptic fit. The idea that someone's personality could be imprinted at birth according to the position of the sun, moon and planets has long been derided as "quackery" by the so-called "scientific" community which resists any notion based on holistic connections between individuals and the cosmos. According to the conventional view, your genes and your parenting determine your personality, and the position of planet Earth at the time of your birth has nothing to do with it.”

I genuinely think this is the best paragraph I have ever read in my life. You can almost sense the tone that if he was stood in front you he would be smirking as he is trying to balance on his pedestal. The study in question was published in the journal Nature entitled Perinatal Photoperiod Imprints the Circadian Clock. Basically the study is looking at the seasonal light cycles effects on the biological rhythms of mice, showing that the biological rhythms of mice are effected by the varying day/night light (circadian cycle) with varying seasons. Funnily enough, not one planetary position is mentioned in the paper. Conclusion: how the f**k does this prove astrology?!

“To believe in astrology, all that's really required is to grasp the basic concepts of the interrelationships between all living things”

And to let go of the basic concepts of science right? I find it ironic that this man has actually typed the sentence “grasp basic concepts”. As a scientist and skeptic I know the good journals from the bad, as soon as I found out that this paper was published in Nature a high (if not the highest) impact factor journal. That tends to mean that the peer review process is so very rigorous, its probably not even worth trying to publish anything there if you have even the slightest bit of ambiguity in your study (I get that peer review is a bit up in arms at the moment, but Nature is very good for not publishing quackery)

Natural Cures for EVERYTHING

Now my favourite, if not specialism; the cures for everything. Mostly on Natural News you will find various cures for a lot of incurable diseases - the odd curable disease, but the natural remedy is better than the actual clinical trialed drugs. These cures just happenstance to also be sold on their website. My degree is in Analytical Chemistry and Forensics, so finding their ‘forensic food laboratory’ they put on their website about food labels and them ‘uncovering’ the truth from their ‘laboratory’ is actually hilarious. It is just a mass spectrometer – and the state of the lab is more than enough to removed the word ‘forensic’ from there. Forensics means: ‘application of science to the law’ not ‘science to back up pseudoscientific quackery’ (I use the term science very loosely there). 

  The website has plenty of articles on cures, and I mean plenty. I will take the first on I have seen on the ‘top 7 natural cures for cancer revealed’. Standard, we get the junk about cancer being so profitable that big pharma wont release the cure for it. Pharmaceutical companies aren't stupid, and they are quick to jump on the avenues for effective treatment therapies. There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, no matter what they are, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials. To suggest that the cure is being hidden with literally no evidence, is not only ridiculous it’s offensive to the community of dedicated, ridiculously hardworking scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research to cancer patients and their families. Each one of their ‘cures’ has shockingly little evidence and links to actual studies. Let me state this clearly, if a website is releasing multitudes of posts that are highly contradictory and highly fly in the face of scientific consensus. Don’t just read that one post and believe it, look around, it may be true, but there is a high probability that it probably isn’t, just like in he case with the ‘scientific proof’ for astrology above and this ridiculous post on how cannabis cures cancer and the skeptics are completely wrong about it – and this is my account of the actual science behind the myth. And even more; basil to cure cancer? There isn’t even one link in this article. Not even one to a ridiculous study or news article. Someone has sat down and typed this crap out without any evidence. Excellent reinforcement of my point here. There isn’t much left to say. 

Conclusion

Avoid natural news. If there is zero evidence for it, they will write posts about its efficacy. Save yourself some time: don’t bother with it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I cannot imagine how he is getting such a distorted impression of what science and the scientific method really is, but I strongly advise you stay away from anything with the words ‘Mike Adams’ and/or ‘Natural News’ in it. Mike Adams presents himself with all the characteristics of a conspiracy theorist. Big pharma is bad, the food industry is bad, vaccines are bad and all the people in big companies are fueled by a manipulative plot to harm the human population and profit from it. Under the pretence of its name, it is a highly trafficked and frequented website, hopefully from people just looking up pseudoscientific quackery, not the deplorable quality of information.

New Year, New Detox

The Bullshit Detox

So, with the New Year upon us we will be influxed with detox diets and diet plans.  People out there all over are willing to divulge the helpful advice you need in order to ‘detox’ your body of all its deadly toxins. Detoxes are essentially 'eat this for so many days and you will be rid of all toxins'. We have stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow giving essential advice on how to detox and cleanse your body this New Year. These detoxes are based on three premises described and debunked here by Scott Gavura. Essentially these are:

• ‘Toxins’ cause illness
• We are accumulating these ‘toxins’
• Detox diets remove these ‘toxins’

Why do people fall for these detox diets? Well, why do people fall for any pseudoscience? Marketing and media is essentially the answer, companies will do anything to convince you that toxins are in your body and they need to be removed. Celebrity endorsements are a great help as well, as you will see below with Goop (Gwyneth Paltrow). There is absolutely zero scientific evidence in the way of ‘detoxing’ will cleanse your body of ‘toxins’. This is because defining a toxin is an incredulous process, which most of the marketers don't do. The detox is a legitimate medical process, you cannot order a detoxification from a hospital, it is provided in life threatening circumstances, such as drug abstention. We call that rehabilitation.

GOOP

As this is the only one I have read in its entirety this year, this is the one I will focus on. I wrote a piece on Paltrow last year and her absolutely astonishing lack of scientific knowledge. So as you can imagine, she’s jumped entirely on this detox wagon. If you go to the page you will find her very scientific take on what a detox is and her plan of how to carry it out. We come to a section ‘does detoxing really work?’ where she puts:

“Yes. While it’s true that our bodies are great at detoxing on their own, it’s also true that these days, our environment and food system is overloaded with toxic and synthetic chemicals, making it tough for our systems to keep up. Detoxing is a nebulous and overly-marketed concept, though, and there’s a lot of crap out there…as sweat is one of our body’s most effective means for flushing toxins.”

I can’t be the only one seeing the irony in ‘there’s a lot of crap out there’, can I? I mean, this woman recommended ‘vaginal steaming’ for a cleaning purification ritual. Our body is exposed to a great range of chemicals, natural and synthetic. These chemicals being present in the body doesn’t infer, at all, harmful. It is true that our bodies are exceptional at detoxification. That is down to the kidneys, lymphatic system, liver and our very own skin that makes up this detoxification system, which is more than enough. Advocating people take infrared saunas to help them sweat out their ‘toxins’ is ridiculous. 

Goop then recommends that this advice of following the healthy eating plan is followed up by a colonic. ‘Detox’ pushers love a good colon, it’s their mecca of ‘science’. It appears as though this is just their go to organ for cleansing, something called ‘mucoid plaque’ or ‘toxic sludge’ needs to be removed. Shockingly, there is no evidence of this existing. Ever. These next sentences are taken directly from her site with a Q&A on 'does detoxing really work?':

“While doing my sauna experiment I discovered that we actually sweat out toxic plastics!”

“Our systems are not prepared for the onslaught of post-1950 synthetic toxins that we ingest, breathe, and absorb through our skin, on a daily basis.”

“Most of the synthetic chemicals we need to worry about are called lipophilic—that means they are attracted to fat. So if we are eating fatty meats or cheeses, the pesticides and other fat soluble chemicals in our environment will be concentrated in the fat."

I mean, who can argue with that logic? Shockingly, there no links to any of these studies they claim helps detox... Simply, because they do not exist. The site is actually promoting a torrid amount of scientific misinformation. I had to read the last quote about seven times in order to try to understand their thinking process. This piece was written by Bruce Lourie whose degree is in Geology and masters in Environmental Studies. I don’t think I would take any medical advice from someone with that status, but each to their own. Lipophilic does not essentially mean they are ‘attracted to fat’, it means they will dissolve in fats and oils. There is so much scientific misinformation in that sentence that I can’t even cope. 

But The Juice Diet is Good, Right?

No. I had a colleague discuss how a juice diet must be good for you as you are just drinking juice, so it must be healthier. ‘In the same way stabbing into your lung will get more oxygen into your body’ was my response and the sarcasm was lost. The juice diet or ‘juice cleanse’ involves living on organic fruits and vegetables blended into a juice, for a period of time. This includes incorporating ridiculous ingredients such Aloe Vera and Milk Thistle, which have absolutely no scientific evidence for the effects they claim it has on the body. The Nutribullet is a proponent of such work, it even comes with a book on how to help with 'curing cancer'. The basicity of it, is that you absorb more from the vegetables and fruit when it is in a drinkable form, giving you a much earned break from digestion and your body will be flushed of all toxins for a new clean bill of health. Again, these include absurd claims that are not backed up by any science at all. 

My favourite pseudoscience nonsense propagator The Food Babe has a lovely Suja Juice Cleanse (for a good $6.99 per bottle) and recommends you consume 6 per day. That’s a good $41.94 per day, she claims a three day cleanse should suffice so a good $125.82 should sort you out. If I were you, I'd follow this general rule: If it endorsed by Vani Hari, it is bullshit. Over here in the U.K. we have , The Juice Clinic, Boost, Forever Living, Nosh and many, many more all with similar claims and zero evidence.

Conclusion

It is impossible to detox your body through food and juice. These will not flush out imaginary toxins in your body and completely renew you. Companies and people promoting ‘detoxes’ are scammers, they know what they’re saying has no legitimacy or scientific evidence, yet they profit from selling it as so. The toxins they claim to flush out are not defined and they claim that organic will help detoxify you. Meaning that the toxins they are referring to are ‘pesticides’ which they believe are found in non-organic food. The Master Cleanse has a list of side effects, one of which stood out at me was ‘bad breath’, which is a perfect summation of the juice diet itself. This is most likely because of ketosis, not because you are detoxing. When you consume a pitiful amount of calories, which is what the juice diet is entailing, your body undergoes ketosis. There is no published peer reviewed evidence that detoxes do anything than rid you of money, sense and my respect. Your liver and/or kidney does not need a detox cleanse, it has a good regulation of enzymes that take care of that.

 

If you have any genuine medical concerns about 'detoxing' see a doctor for the same information I have provided for you. A dietitian is your best point of call for health/weight loss advice and information. A nutritionist/business person selling you something for £100+ because there is 'evidence it works' (there isn't), isn't looking out for your health, they're looking for your money. If you want to lose weight and eat healthy, cut out fatty foods and got to a gym. 

The [false]positive side of screening

Screening for Disease: Is earlier always better?

That title sounds a little wrong, you are thinking 'well, yes of course it is'. But bare with me. We have all heard of screening tests and are likely to have been through them. What is the harm in this? There is a lot of misinformation that is congregated around screening tests, leading to a lot of misunderstanding. Superficially, it appears to be good advice to give to ‘get something or other checked’. If there is something wrong in your body, you’d want to get it checked, yes? So, logically, we should be tested for everything regularly, yes? Well, no. We have an unfortunate thing in science called false positive. Meaning we would get a lot of anomalous results leading to a diagnosis and further tests to analyse something that isn’t actually there. 

Screening healthy people is a task that should be approached with caution. If you decline a screening, you will always have a little nagging voice in your head saying “what if?’ – you will, it is the nature of the human mind. So, should you have been offered the screening in the first place? I am going to focus on one type of screening in this blog; PSA. This is due to me researching into it naturally, and was not all too shocked at the information found. It was something I always somewhat knew, but not quite to this extent.

Prostate Screening

Prostate cancer is a very common cancer in men, occurring worldwide. There are two categories within prostate cancer, we have the aggressive and high death rate form and the slow growing, less likely to even have any symptoms. The latter of the two is most prominent and never really progresses to cause any health dangers during a patients’ lifetime, it is thought that 50% of men actually have the cancerous cells present - which will not develop. The screening test for prostate cancer is blood test in which they are looking for prostate specific antigen (PSA). A PSA test is looking at the levels of antigen in the blood, the test isn’t a ‘yes it is there’ or ‘no it is not there’, it requires interpretation. In an ideal world, we would like to have the rapid growing, life threatening cancers detected rather than the slow growing cancers as these don’t normally threaten a patients’ life. The side effects of prostate surgery to remove the cancer are invasive, scarring and leads to impotence, incontinence and cardiac problems.

PSA

PSA is an enzyme that is produced by prostate cells. Small amounts of PSA are observed in the blood at around 0.1-2.5ng/ml. Although, this appears to be very convoluted in the literature, many report the level is around 4-10ng/ml. So, if we don’t really have a consensus of the level that should be present normally, why would we look at it to detect cancers? These levels are said to be “normally” raised when prostate cancer is present. However, there are many other things that will effect PSA levels, including: ejaculation, weight, aspirin, infections and non-cancerous tumours. Evermore and more shockingly there is no clear cut-off level in which medical professionals use to differentiate those who have cancer and those who do not based on PSA levels. It is reported that 1 in 5 with clinically significant cancer will have a PSA level that is within the ‘normal’ reported range. If a doctor is using the 2.5nm/ml as the cut off, he could report cancer in a case with a PSA level <4.0 but higher than 2.5ng/ml. Even this report published by harvard have a different view of the levels that vary with age. Despite these limitations and high ability for misinterpretation, PSA routine testing is advised by medical professionals and companies that are selling these tests.  

 

Is there any harm in this?

Two questions that are required with any screening technique:

• Is there evidence to prove that early detection equates to a better overall outcome?
• Is there any harm from the testing?

In 2010, a systematic review was published in Biomedical Journal concluded that, as expected, PSA screening increased the likelihood prostate cancer diagnosis. However, it was found that there was no evidence of any impact on the death rate from the cancer itself (or the death rate overall for that matter). Risk factors, age and disease all need to be taken into consideration. Double blind randomized trials give very conflicting results with regards to the effectiveness and the test concentrates on disease specific mortality as opposed to the mortality overall. Richard Ablin, the discoverer of PSA recently wrote that the PSA test is being misused and is highly unreliable. Talking to New Scientist, Dr Ablin was reported stating:

“So, first is that PSA is not cancer-specific. Second, the level of PSA deemed worrying is arbitrary – 4 nanograms per millilitre or higher. As PSA is not cancer-specific, no level is diagnostic. Third, prostate cancer can be aggressive or, more often, very slow-growing. We can’t tell which is which.

Last, many men will develop prostate cancer by age 70. If an older man has a PSA level that prompts a biopsy, it is likely you will find cancer. Since you can’t tell if it’s aggressive, many men get treated unnecessarily – and risk life-altering side effects including impotence and incontinence”

 Source

This is all backed up by surmountable clinical trials. A study published in The New England Medical Journal screened over 1000 subjects before they saved one life. This lead, on average, to around 50 false positive patients, many of which unnecessarily undertook radiation therapy or even surgery. To put that into a simpler visual, this was taken from the Australian public health: 

“you have to screen 1408 men and treat an additional 48 men to prevent one prostate cancer death over 9 years. In other words, only 1 of those 48 men is going to benefit over the next 9 years; the other 47 … have undergone treatment for no benefit within this period.”

As stated prior, the treatment isn’t exactly nice and the side effects do change your life. We aren't seeing any better overall outcomes if we are including the unnecessary diagnoses (which we are) and we have a lot of harm from the testing, the over diagnosis. Thus, the two points that give the screening processes validation do not actually work.

Conclusion

Prostate cancer screening is easy, its just a blood test. But the results and the fallout are unaccountable. If 50% of men have the cancerous cells that wont progress into anything, then is it rational to have them undertake surgery? This screening method, like many others, is shadowed with over-diagnosis and the side effects from the treatment measures are significantly debilitating and life changing. So, should this still be being used? The decision is yours, the evidence is conflicting and mostly non-existent in the case for this particular screening technique. Don’t be fooled, this isn’t the only screening that actually has little success rate, there are many others - just as there are many others that are very effective. I am not discouraging (or trying to discourage) people from being screened from cancers, I just think there are many cases where it causes more harm and panic than good. At the bare minimum, the limitations of this and other screening processes should be clarified and communicated to a patient before the screening is carried out. 

There are plenty of books with sections on screening and the consensus amongst scientists with mass reviews of the evidence. I implore you to read them. 

Biomagnetics: Why are we still attracted?

Magnetic Healing

 I have been fortunate to have only red about this, but never really seen it, until know. Moving to a smaller city I have noticed a lot more chiropractic/homeopathic practices than I really do care to see. Whilst out shopping today I saw a fairly big stall branded ‘Magnetic Healing’ with a tagline of ‘Walk away pain free today; diabetic foot care’. I was more astonished by the amount of people crowding the stall than the stall itself. I first read about this in around 2013 and was thankful I had never seen it in the U.K., having only seen aspects of it before, seeing a full blown shop dedicated to it made me a little uneasy. 

What is Magnetic Healing?

Essentially, magnetic healing is exactly what it says; using magnets to heal pain. These magnets are in the form of charms, insoles and braces sold with the claims that they can relieve pain, increase energy and have a positive impact on mental and physical agility. It seems that the general public in the U.K. are still under the notion that pain can be healed by the use of magnetic energy. 

Source

Practitioners claim that the magnetic fields can positively effect blood and underlying tissues. I think this has gained much credibility via the use of magnets in clinical medicine. We use Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and we evaluate brain function with the measure of electrical impulses that travel through it. These practices are based on sound science and through years of research. As there is potential for a market by exploiting and bastardising magnetic properties, there are quacks to fill it. Essentially, what these people are selling are just regular magnets, such as the ones you put on your fridge. As you probably (hopefully) know, these have absolutely no effects. They will not penetrate beyond a few mm, let alone your skin to your tissues. Factually, haemoglobin isdiamagnetic (weakly, when oxygenated) the magnets, as stated, have fields way to low to have any effect (this website has some helpful diagrams and a much more in-depth explanation of this). If our body was affected by this weak of a magnet, then surely: 

 

a)    MRI would be made redundant

b)    We would be effected all the time

Any Evidence?

No. Only evidence (of value) is to the contrary. A study published quite a good while ago (1991) in The Journal of Nuclear Medicine studied the effects of magnets on the body and found that strengths of up to 1 Tesla had absolutely no effect. Many practitioners take away any basis of science and claim the effects are on the electromagnetic energy around the body, balancing and energising our auras. It has also been propagated as a treatment for cancer, diabetes and autism...

In 2008, a systematic review of all credible magnetic therapy studies published in The Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies journal, shockingly, found zero evidence to conclude the basis of any claims made by practitioners. In fact, you can test any claims for yourself with a small experiment, as I will do right now. As they claim that the magnet will affect your blood flow, placing a magnet on your skin will make the skin appear red as the blood will surely come to the surface, as they are attracting. I have placed a magnet on my arm, and on my lower leg. 10 Minutes later, I see no result. 30 Minutes later, I see no result. After an hour, every pain in my body from this cold has gone. THIS ACTUALLY WORKS. Oh wait, no. My mistake; absolutely nothing happened.

Law

The stall I saw had a website: www.magnetichealing.com which I was surprised to find has absolutely no information. It is essentially a place to find quick links to other websites, strange. If you were selling a product to people that you truly believed works, in the face of surmountable evidence, why would you not want to promote such products? Never thought I would be in support of homeopathy, but at least they stand on their own….merits? (I use that term for a lack of a better word, homeopathy has no merits).

In the early 2000’s there were numerous court rulings on practitioners making false claims about these products. As previously they were marketing magnets for cures, the companies marketing such products were sued and now use stupid phrases such as: ‘supports the healing process’ and the less glamorous ‘helps with’.

Not Medical Doctors…Then Who?

As I cannot find anyone to blame for the stall I saw today (other than the people working there, but I wasn’t going to ask questions in the middle of a Saturday afternoon in a busy shopping centre during the Christmas period. I’m not mental). I have found the website: biomagnetismusa.com which is a fascinating and riveting website aimed at people who haven’t an ounce of sense in their human body. Within this site, the author, Helana Guerrero, describes to the general public as to what magnetic healing actually is. Obviously using the classic pseudoscientific words as a marketing scam: Toxin, Detox, my favourite section is this:

“Virus and fungus live in acidic enviroment, bacteria and parasite alkaline. By placing magnets of the same polarity on each point, we push the charges towards each other and the area gets balanced, equilibrium is restore to a neutral pH, then pathogens instantly die since pathogens can not live in a neutral pH and we get rid ot them.”

That is copied and pasted as found, proof-reading is clearly not vital, then again, nor is fact-checking. One word completely defies this sentence: Homeostasis. This is the tendency of a system within a living organism (not always living) to maintain an equilibrium by reacting in regards to a stimulus. You should surely remember this from high school. This belief flies directly into the fact of our homeostatic biological nature. There is nothing really you can do, with the exception of what is essentially poison, to change your blood pH level. We have multiple feedback loops that have evolved through the ages to correct our pH level, magnets are not going to change that. You can’t easily affect blood pH, essentially, that is called poisoning. And that will obviously kill you. More on pH quackery can be found here.

Then we get to a better section, the disclaimer:

Helena Guerrero has been Certified to provide BioMagnetism Therapy by the El Centro de Investigacion de Biomagnetismo Medico, S.C.in Mexico, The University of Chapingo, Mexico and by Dr. Isaac Goiz Duran.
She is not a Medical Doctor, she is not making a medical diagnosis or providing medical advice or care.
You should see a Medical Doctor for medical care, and you should view BioMagnetism Therapy care as additional therapy to the medical care provided by a Medical Doctor.
Biomagnetism Therapy is not a substitute for Physician consultation, evaluation, or treatment.

Essentially reworded to: I’m not a medical doctor. This doesn’t work as a cure for anything. See a physician for actual care. At the end of homepage is a list of things that biotherapy apparently helps. It’s a long and amusing list, and its all thanks to Dr Isaac Duran, who has patented this biomagnetic treatment with absolutely zero evidence for it’s claims. Unfortunately the website doesn’t have a price list for how much it would cost for such a treatment to help with any ailments. Maybe if I get my head cut off one day I’ll visit for the cure, I’m sure magnets can fix that. 

Conclusion

Obviously it is frustrating to anyone with an ounce of scepticism, critical thinking and basic scientific knowledge, that people are falling for this and still forking money over to these shills. Of course, I would be wrong to have reviewed and questioned the science and practicality of this in the eyes of practitioners, they will claim that there is insurmountable evidence to prove the claims made. Who am I to argue with that? Oh wait, someone who actually knows what they are talking about and is not biased-ly trying to sell something. Either way, this remains a fringe science with only circumstantial testimonials as evidence. If you went for surgery and asked if a treatment worked and they said ‘well, Tom from Leeds says that I fixed him’ you’d be a little suspicious. Why not apply the same scepticism to people selling you magnets for cancer treatment? Read that last sentence again. Done.