Gary Null, Cultivator of Dangerous Woo, Plants Seeds of Death

0

There was a time when Gary Null, a popular alternative health speaker and author, was the Deepak Chopra of nutrition. He’s written best-selling books (one of them about reversing the aging process) and like Chopra, has been featured by PBS during fundraising drives. Nearing 70, Null was in the news several years ago when he sued the manufacturer of his own dietary supplement, claiming it nearly killed him.


The self-help guru has had a long and interesting career. One reporter notes:

His first tome, “The Complete Guide to Health and Nutrition,” [published in 1986] led to a decades long column in Penthouse magazine, where Null railed on topics like the ineffectiveness of mainstream cancer treatment and the deadly health risks of vaccinations.

In the last decade, Null’s brand of quackery has given some fans pause with his trafficking in outright denialism. From Wikipedia:

In addition to his promotion of alternative cancer treatments, Null has argued that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS. In his  [2002] book AIDS: A Second Opinion, Null questioned the role of antiretroviral medication and instead advocated a range of dietary supplements for HIV-positive individuals.

Null, as you might expect, is fiercely opposed to genetically modified foods. Indeed, “natural health” proponents are among the most fanatical opponentsof GMOs.

Written By: Keith Kloor
continue to source article at blogs.discovermagazine.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. The same old big ag, big pharma conspiracy nonsense. Chopra says that god does not permit genetic engineering so perhaps that is a clue to the attitude of these people. Makes it all null and void (perhaps null and excrement is more apt) to me!

    • In reply to #1 by finchfinder:

      The same old big ag, big pharma conspiracy nonsense. Chopra says that god does not permit genetic engineering so perhaps that is a clue to the attitude of these people. Makes it all null and void (perhaps null and excrement is more apt) to me!

      The function of a big pharma is to make money period. Health has almost nothing to do with it. It is naive to expect them to have your best interest at heart. It is a wonderful coincidence how often saving lives is also profitable..

      Monsanto even tells you this explicitly.

      “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
      ~ Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications.
      New York Times Magazine, 1998-10-25

      It is not just market-ready products submitted to the FDA for approval that cause problems. It is all the experimental crops planted in open fields that the FDA never sees.

      • In Reply to #5 -

        ‘Monsanto even tells you this explicitly.

        “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”
        ~ Philip Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications. New York Times Magazine, 1998-10-25

        It is not just market-ready products submitted to the FDA for approval that cause problems. It is all the experimental crops planted in open fields that the FDA never sees.’

        In open fields you say? Where everyone, including the FDA, can seem them you say?

        You provide a source for your first claim but fail to provide for your second.

        Am I to understand that GM planting experiments done by ‘scientists’ (I recall there being a plea from a group of scientists asking protestors not to destroy their crops) are OK with you but not by Monsanto?

      • In reply to #5 by Roedy:

        Cause what problems, exactly? Hundreds of people have been eating GMO food for decades, and nobody’s pinned a single fatality on GMOs. Whereas a year or so back 53 Germans died from eating organic beansprouts.

        The loss of biodiversity is a risk, but it is a manageable risk. I do not doubt that a lot of biodiversity has been lost in my native Cotswolds since farmers for some inexplicable reason decided to colour all the fields yellow with oilseed rape, instead of – well, whatever used to be there. And once upon a time it was all ancient forest.

        • In reply to #9 by Stevehill:

          In reply to #5 by Roedy:

          Cause what problems, exactly? Hundreds of people have been eating GMO food for decades, and nobody’s pinned a single fatality on GMOs. Whereas a year or so back 53 Germans died from eating organic beansprouts.

          Actually a GMO was implicated in Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome which did have fatalities. It is unclear because the chemical which caused it has not been identified but it is believed that the use of a GMO in producing a tryptophan supplement led to the illness in people who consumed it.

          The loss of biodiversity is a risk, but it is a manageable risk. I do not doubt that a lot of biodiversity has been lost in my native Cotswolds since farmers for some inexplicable reason decided to colour all the fields yellow with oilseed rape, instead of – well, whatever used to be there. And once upon a time it was all ancient forest.

          Whether you believe that the risk is manageable or not depends on your level of ignorance of ecology. In fact those farming methods on the Cotswolds since the end of WWII are part of the changes that have caused a catastrophic decline in British Wildlife over the last 50 years http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22608800

          There are also tremendous problems in South America where GMOs have facilitated the massive destruction of habitats combined with increased destitution of the local populace.

    • In reply to #1 by finchfinder:

      The same old big ag, big pharma conspiracy nonsense. Chopra says that god does not permit genetic engineering so perhaps that is a clue to the attitude of these people. Makes it all null and void (perhaps null and excrement is more apt) to me!

      It’s not complete nonsense, just mostly. That’s part of the reason it’s so popular. The agricultural and pharmaceutical companies have behaved badly at times.

  2. We have inadvertantly and sometimes deliberatley genetically modified just about everything we’ve come into contact with through generations of agriculture. The wolf being a prime example and edible almonds, harvestable modern cereals, modern bananas, many cultured flowers, and even dog controlled sheep suddenly spring to mind.

    If any god doesn’t permit genetic engineering he/she/it lost the plot when they turned us loose on the planet.

  3. It is really questionable if this source is proper for a site dedicated to the rational examination of the science, because for the second time in a few days it has produced an article using tactics similar to those used by religious fundamentalists and creationists.. The last time it quote mined an article on the effects of GMO cause habitat destruction on the Monarch Butterfly to falsely say it was a myth.. This is the research http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00196.x/abstract

    This time it uses an argument analogous to the “Hitler was an atheist” nonsense ( He was of course a catholic)
    It finds the appropriately named Mr Null’s deluded and crazy ideas and paints it as if all those who have concerns about
    GMOs are similarly crazy.

    The fact is that there are many rational and scientific people who are concerned quite sensibly about GMO technology because it facilitates more intensive agriculture and a consequent effect on biodiversity. There are genuine concerns, that are rooted very clearly in ecological science, that show that loss of biodiversity will impact on the ecosystem services that we all take for granted. It doesn’t mean we should listen to any old loon like Null but it does mean that there are genuine rational concerns about the technology.

    There is also the question of it becoming cheaper to do and the problem of not being to put back into the bottle any dangerous products that a deluded lunatic might be able to make in the future. Look at the furore about the recent flu virus research.

  4. Is this “planting seeds of death” Null’s denial that HIV drugs work? Sounds a rather over dramatically way of putting it. The drugs have proved so successful I don’t know anyone today with HIV who believes Null.

    I refused to take the early HIV drugs on two grounds. They made me so sick I would rather be dead, and everyone I knew who took them was dead with in year. They clearly were not effective. To be fair about anything to do beliefs about HIV, you must tag them with the date. Early on there was good reason for paranoia and confusion, blocked sex education and even here in BC the premier tried to enact concentration camps. HIV oddly was a good thing for gay lib. It forced so many out of the closet only to die. It put us in a strangely more favourable light.

  5. Of all the woo merchants you may get into a debate with people like this are the most extreme and the most irrational you will ever have the misfortune to come across.

    Various things I’ve had thrown at me for daring to challenge the idea that cancer is best treated purely through nutrition / herbs are:

    I’m a stooge for Big Pharma ( the default position)

    Medical science has never cured anybody of anything (really I’m not making this up)

    Cancer is deliberately caused by big pharma in order to sell their wares.

    If people can’t live in harmony with nature then they bring their deaths on themselves.

    For this reason old people should accept their deaths: They are out of harmony with natural purpose (apparently)

    You can get rid of Cancer by negotiating with it as you exhale.
    And so on.

    The ignorance would be laughable were it not for the fact you come across so many people with cancer who have been duped into thinking they should throw away their clinically trialled medicine, stop chemo and put their trust in herbs.
    And you know they are committing suicide because they are scared,confused and desperate and vulnerable to exploitation by new age charlatans.
    its tragic and yet apparently entirely legal.

  6. Null, as you might expect, is fiercely opposed to genetically modified foods. Indeed, “natural health” proponents are among the most fanatical opponents of GMOs.

    There are serious nutritional and environmental concerns about GMOs, but those embroiled in their Naturalistic fallacy and quackery, are probably the last people to look to for an objective analysis!

  7. As you so rightly say Vorlund so much of our food has been genetically modified.Do the ‘natural eaters’ realise how modified their food is? To eat ‘naturally’ one would have a very limited diet, and the population would be restricted to hunter gatherers. Plenty of seafood though. Wouldn’t work. Oh! I wonder!!!!!! Maybe…………..

Leave a Reply