Bruce Lipton PhD: Quack, ignoramus
April 13, 2012People googling “Bruce Lipton quack” often get referred to this blog, as that phrase was briefly mentioned in a comment on one post or another. I always got a twinge of guilt that I hadn’t written about him yet, so here goes…
Bruce Lipton, PhD has made a name for himself as a more science-savvy version of Deepak Chopra. But Unlike Chopra, seems to have largely escaped the attention of the skeptic community. He peppers his talks with technical terms from biochemistry, hoping that no one with the relevant training will pay any close attention and call him to account. I have no relevant training, so I will deal with a fairly straight forward talk, and consider its merits.
This two minute video talk is probably a good place to start. No need to watch it. I’ve already sat through the whole two minutes of it and transcribed a few of his barely articulate and ungrammatical sentences.
Cancer quack Bruce Lipton PhD with face-lifted cancer quack Louise Hay
…
Lipton tells us that the earth is going through its sixth mass extinction, which scientists say is caused by human behavior. Lipton agrees. But that’s where any agreement between Bruce Lipton PhD and modern science finishes. Lipton finds a rather curious origin for the whole thing:
Much of this human behavior is in fact related to a concept that we arose in this garden as a total result of accident, when in fact this is the complete opposite from the…the…I mean…we were, we were….it was purpose and design through the entire process.
I’d like to play dumb here and say that he couldn’t possibly be referring to evolution, because that doesn’t propose that life arose by accident or chance. But I can’t play dumb. I know he means evolution, because Creationists talk like this all the time. Now, I can understand why the average member of the public hears the words “random mutation and natural selection”, and focuses on the easiest word — random. It takes a bit of background reading to clear up the confusion: genetic mutations are only “random” within some clearly defined parameters; and beyond that, natural selection is not random, (which is why the word selection appears rather prominently in the term).
But Bruce Lipton isn’t an average member of the public. He has a PhD in developmental biology! Why is he ignorant of the most basic concepts of his own field?
…I mean, we were, we were….it was purpose and design through the entire process.
This is straight up Intelligent Design creationism. New Agers usually don’t like to number themselves with fundamentalist Christians, and neither does Lipton. That’s probably why he pulled back from saying “we were…we were designed,” preferring instead to put it in the passive voice.
And the relevance about that is that when we bought into the Darwinian theory…
Hold it right there, buddy! Now this is really getting stupid. How can someone with a PhD in biology think that biologists “bought into” evolution? How can he not know why evolution is one of the foundational concepts of biology? (Hint for Bruce: it’s been confirmed and reconfirmed by every single finding in every possible field of study from plate tectonics to genetics.)
And his reference to “the Darwinian theory” is also telling. Creationists also make this error, thinking that evolution is “only a theory”, or only one theory among many. But “theory” in this sense means the practical application of established knowledge — obviously not Dr Lipton’s strong suit.
Lipton continues:
…when we bought into the Darwinian theory, we bought into a way of life that’s based on survival of the fittest and the struggle for life.
This is a common error even among academics. But that doesn’t make it any less dumb. Fittest doesn’t refer to gym training here; it refers to suitability to a particular habitat. As often as not, the fittest are the smaller ones or the ones who co-operate, or remain loyal, or the ones who turned vegetarian. This is really really basic stuff. Why doesn’t Lipton know it?
And the actual theory of evolution would be the survival of those that cooperate, and the, and the, community of life, and that’s a completely different way of looking at life.
You idiot, Bruce…..Cooperative and social behavior among animals is routinely considered in the light of natural selection. Darwin wrote about it at length, and since then, there’s about 150 years worth of research into it which you don’t seem to have noticed. You have some reading to do Dr Bruce.
…
So where is all this heading?
We are right now facing a major extinction which may surprise people who look at the world and don’t see much going on, it’s like that’s the big surprise, we are already into the final hoo har.
The Final Hoo Har:
This is a central part of the Lipton Theory of Evolution, and it’s starting to make me think that normal Creationists aren’t so bad after all. It refers to the Friday before Christmas of this year. Yup, that’s right. “The Darwinian theory” doesn’t predict that the world will end on Friday December 21st 2012. But the Lipton Theory does! [Cue music]
And yet I’m not concerned, for the very simple reason that the earth is a living thing, and um…
Okay Bruce, the earth is alive. Obviously they didn’t include any geology in your degree, as well as missing out 150 years worth of biology.
…as you’re very familiar, terminal cancer patients can be called out, everybody said man you’re out of here you’re dead, and they have a change of mind, and when they have a change of mind they have what we call a spontaneous remission.
Cancer quacks are always fearless in the face of cancer, as long as it’s not their own stupid ass on the line. As you can see, this is what Bruce Lipton uses his PhD for: to convince cancer sufferers to trust him and buy his books.
But he’s not limiting himself to scamming the sick. If you’re healthy and concerned about the state of the world, he’s got some of that PhD knowledge to help you too!
And what we are in need of right now is a change of mind. And when the human population grabs on to a new understanding of who they are in this picture, it will offer an opportunity for a remission, and this garden will come back in full form for those will be there understanding who we are in the garden.
That’s right folks, global warming, pollution, resource depletion and all that stuff all happened because we bought into the Darwinian theory!
But the Lipton Theory will solve it all!
Buy into it now and save the world from the Final Hoo Har!
…
UPDATE: See also Part Two — Bruce Lipton: Quack, Creationist, Buffoon, PhD
(Later Update: For a more thorough critique of Lipton’s teachings, see Motivational Biology with Dr Bruce Lipton, Cancer Quack.)
[...] In an earlier post, asking for targets for me to scrutinize, Yakaru suggested I look over Bruce Lipton. I was a bit slow in jumping into the topic, so Yakaru made a post of his own. [...]
One day you will wake up and realise you know nothing. And on that day you will be the happiest person alive. (Whatever ‘alive’ means)
No surprise that a Lipton fan isn’t sure what “alive” means. The basics of biology are not exactly Lipton’s strong suit.
I thought “fittest” simply meant those whose genes are perpetuated live on, as in Dawkins _The Selfish Gene_?
Yes, basically it does. Lipton is buying into a very common misunderstanding of the term. It’s often taken to mean that evolutionary theory has no place for co-operation among animals or humans. As you’*d know from reading The Selfish Gene – book that is often cited as advocating ruthless “evolutionary competition”, the book actually deals demonstrates how human altruism could easily have a genetic basis.
Of course, it’s quite an achievement for such a raving ignorant fool like Lipton to rise to the level of a common misconception.
I have cancer, am a triple qualified health professional with 5 years training and was given his video to watch by someone who gave me a massage after completing a triathlon. (They somehow thought I was negative ???) Now I know why – they presumed that was why I had cancer.
I wanted to throw my mug of tea at it in the first 2 minutes but in order that I can make an honest judgement I wasted another hour of my precious life becoming more and more angry. These guys are always starting their sales crap with claiming they have something ‘really interesting to share’. I don’t find sharing 25 year old science papers ‘interesting’.It was about as interesting as watching paint dry. I know this guy is a real nut job and I really worry that less positive cancer patients than myself (just completed a triathlon 2 days ago age 60 still in treatment) may take this BS to heart and beat themselves up for not being positive.
Stress has always been around and our ancestors had much more of it than us and yet cancer is increasing now predicted to be 1 in 3 people. It will affect all our friends and families.Stress was blamed for ulcers until a Nobel prize winner proved it was bacterial.
As for the poor parents of Autistic children being blamed for their child’s disease by not loving them is beyond the pale. We don’t KNOW what causes autism yet just as we don’t know everything about cancer.
This guy should be locked up and branded as dangerous. A cancer gene was discovered last year and the person to discover it was nominated for a Nobel prize (my oncology professor) but hey!
Why listen to an eminent and respected world class Professor of Oncology who also happens to be a consultant pathologist too and worked at Johns Hopkins,has peer reviewed over 300 papers when I can listen to a crock of irresponsible, money making, evangelical charlatan quack??
My heart goes out to those vulnerable and highly suggestive cancer sufferers who don’t know any better than to take this BS onboard.
The main beneficiaries of these videos and books are the salesmen/ex medics who profit from them. Mmmmm – wonder how much they have fleeced off the vulnerable.
I am planning to do some more on Lipton. There’s a part 2 of that video I used above, also 2 minutes long. So that will take up another 1000 words at least to debunk the worst parts of it.
It’s just a case of getting in the right frame of mind so I don’t start barking at the computer screen.
My impression is that many people only need to get a bit of a hint that someone like Lipton is talking rubbish, and they quickly see through it. It’s clear looking at the words people have googled that many already have doubts.
But for the fearful and the desperate it’s no doubt often a different story….
[...] commenter on the previous post, who has cancer, reported being given a Bruce Lipton video “by someone [...]
You are part of the system, a brainwashed individual that can’t see beyond the mechanics of the physical, that is why you are taking apart and braking down pieces of his argument because your brain is trained to work that way, yo have to dismantle the machine to look for the non local, like cutting the cable trying to see the electrical current with your eyes, good luck with that one.
Yes there are genes that make you predisposed to certain conditions but what turns them on or off are the signals from the environment, if you really think you are that smart instead of making ignorant conclusions, get yourself to a lab and run the experiment on your own, or maybe your knowledge does not allow you to do that, if that is the case then shut up and don’t talk about what you do not know.
I’m a Cuban Biologist with more than 30 years of experience and what Lipton talks about I know since the seventies and unlike you we do not have a pharmaceutical industry interfering with our scientific discoveries, that is why we cure people in our little island and you in the most advanced and egocentric nation of the world still dying victim of the most basic diseases like heart conditions.
GOD BLESS YOU
I will ignore your all your nasty personal accusations, and your unsubstantiated assertions, and your over-generalizations, and your obscure references, and your grandiose claims of superiority that you don’t seem to feel any need to back up…..
…and will instead ask you to clarify a couple of things.
You challenged me to do an experiment on genes –
“get yourself to a lab and run the experiment on your own”
– but you left out some vital information about the experiment. In fact you left out nearly all of the information about it.
Despite being a scientist, you forgot to include information like which gene (there are lots of them in the world, I understand) which environment (lots of them too) and which experiment?
“or maybe your knowledge does not allow you to do that, if that is the case then shut up and don’t talk about what you do not know.”
It’s hilariously funny that you accuse me of being too much of a coward to run an experiment without telling me which experiment it is. I actually thought you were a Poe for a while.
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law)
Also — and this important — where exactly did I deny that there are genes which are influenced by the environment?
Please notice that I am not disagreeing with you. I am asking you what the fuck you are talking about. You are being incredibly vague.
…
Second, you forgot to tell me what I got wrong in the post.
I accused Lipton of misrepresenting evolutionary theory–
* Evolution is not random, and he is plain wrong for forgetting the whole of natural selection.
* Evolution is not “aggressive” as he portrayed it, and I explained why.
* Evolutionary theory does include co-operation, and he was wrong to say that it doesn’t.
And of course, Lipton’s claim that evolutionary thought is leading to environmental destruction rests squarely on these errors. That is why I called him an ignoramus.
You failed to address any of that.
…
I think you missed the overarching rationale of Pepe’s argument, and repeated your mistake when you accused Lipton of being “plain wrong” on certain matters. See this: “a brainwashed individual that can’t see beyond the mechanics of the physical, that is why you are taking apart and braking down pieces of his argument”. The issue is your materialism and reductionism. In your reply, you failed to acknowledge the spiritual, and broke down pieces of arguments, finding them “wrong”, which is a binary, accusative, confrontational judgement, which is exactly the attitude that leads a species to a final hoo har, or at least, a pretty nasty ding dong. Finally, although he was rude to call you “brainwashed” and “ignorant”, he did have the good manners to commend you to his deity.
Great post btw.
Now come on! Did I ever deny we might be heading for a nasty ding dong? I think not! LOL
(Thanks for your humour!)
this is a far better look into him, for what it is worth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=868CWFe-lpE
Darin, first off, thanks for providing a link. and acknowledging that Lipton’s performance in the video I used isn’t much good.
You linked to an interview done by someone who shares similar beliefs to Lipton, and seemed keen to present him is a good light — but Lipton, never-the-less, gets his butt kicked!
He failed to name a single one of the “hundreds of studies” he claims support him. Not one. The interviewer repeatedly invited him to do so, but for some reason he didn’t do it. Why do you think that might be?
…
Metaphors about humanity being a single organism are pretty old (I heard it in about 1990) but Lipton is claiming it’s literally true, and that he’s got the studies to show that energy fields affect cells and DNA. But as he fails to identify any of these studies, all we are left with is his rather hysterical speculations. It’s not science, and as a PhD, Lipton should be ashamed of his ignorance.
If you can identify any of these supposed “hundreds of studies”, please post some of the names or references here!!! Otherwise, we can just stick to the nice metaphor and forget about Lipton’s worthless and fraudulent claims.
“…talking to Bruce Lipton, author of The Biology of Belief. We’re gonna learn some shit today, freaks!”
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
I missed that bit! Well he certainly did a good job of manifesting it.
He’s like a drunken New Ager who corners people at parties and raves at them about esoteric books he’s barely read and makes up all the details he can’t remember. It almost makes me appreciate proper pseudo-scientists.who at least conduct authentically fake research.
Is this a satirical blog post?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I’ve listened to Bruce Lipton interviews regarding parenting and epigenetics (he speaks of how a baby’s genes are created and altered depending on the parent’s and child’s own environment.)
I have not done much investigation into his claims but, aside from him being a terrible communicator, what he says does make sense to me.
When it comes to diseases, a person who has led a stressful childhood is much more likely to have all kinds of diseases – from heart disease to autoimmune disease to lung cancer. (See the ACE study)
I have no idea about this “cancer gene” but Bruce talks about the new science showing that environment does not simply turn genes on or off but that it actually alters the genes. Our blood carries information to alter our egg or sperm genes and then to the baby in utero to further alter the genes. And, when we are born our own experiences alter our genes. This is how we evolve.
Regarding stress, my understanding of modern stress is that it is more chronic in nature than it was in the past. I also imagine that modern foods, technologies and environment put stress on the body and mind. So much of it is not what our bodies are designed to deal with.
Bruce talks about the fact that our own mind can create or alleviate stress. Two people might have very different interpretations and reactions to the same environment. One might find it negative, unsupportive, stressful and other might find it positive. How they interpret the environment – how their mind reacts to the environment – will have a very powerful effect on the body chemistry and therefore their health. I think we can all agree that the happier and less stressed a person is the more healthy they will be.
Based on all this, I would agree with him that a healthy mind would help create a healthy body. Not sure that I agree with the ability to cure cancer by changing our mind. Surely, there are other factors contributing to poor health – food, pollution, toxins etc.
I wonder if you could share your thoughts re the above. Is it all completely loony?
Thanks for your thoughtful and sincere comment — a rare commodity on this thread so far! There is a lot there in your comment, but I’ll do my best to cover what I can.
Epigentics & Parenting
I don’t know what Lipton says about this, but in general, it does seem to be true that extreme stress in childhood can cause changes to DNA.
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/22/child-abuse-permanently-modifies-stress-genes-in-brains-of-s/
By studying the brains of suicide victims, Patrick McGowan from the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, found that child abuse modifies a gene called NR3C1 that affects a person’s ability to deal with stress. The changes it wrought were “epigenetic”, meaning that the gene’s DNA sequence wasn’t altered but it’s structure was modified to make it less active. These types of changes are very long-lasting, which strongly suggests that the trauma of child abuse could be permanently inscribed onto a person’s genes.
Note here that this is about damage caused to DNA in infants through extreme stress. I suspect Lipton may be using work similar to this to twist into an argument that if DNA can be damaged, then it can also be somehow improved. If he does say that, he’s misusing such research. Note also that proper scientific research like this clearly identifies or investigates physiological mechanisms by which the changes occur, and clearly delineates the limits of the research. And it builds on current knowledge and uses other research to support its conclusions.
What you’ll see Lipton doing is using tangentially relevant research as a launching pad for wild unsubstantiated leaps of speculation which he presents as fact.
You can catch him doing that if you watch how he constructs his arguments.
…
Your point about the modern world creating stress is a common one in New Age circles. There’s also, I guess a good measure of common sense involved in too, in that we usually feel happier wandering in a forest than down a crowded city street. But I think there’s also a good deal of marketing and image management going on there from those with “natural” products to sell.
Our quality of life has improved dramatically over the last decades and centuries, as reflected in increases in life expectancy and average height, and decreases in infant mortality.
…
You wrote:
“Bruce talks about the fact that our own mind can create or alleviate stress.”
I’d like to re-word that slightly, and change it to this: “It is completely obvious that our own mind can create or alleviate stress.” I’d be happy with that sentence in that form, because it really is not a new insight from Lipton. I’d place the issues you raise relating to it squarely in mainstream psychotherapy.
I would add though, that in cases where stress is extreme enough to damage a child’s DNA, thought is useless against it. The victim needs to be removed to a safe environment.
But suddenly jumping from there to cancer doesn’t make any sense to me. I think you might be following Lipton’s train of thought. I can understand why — he’s got a Ph.D and uses the terminology in a way that usually only experts are capable of doing. But he constructs very very flimsy arguments out of erroneous or irrelevant facts, strung together with speculations about mystical connections.
The mind can affect stress, but where is the connection between stress and cancer? More to the point, where is the connection between overcoming stress and healing cancer?
That is where Lipton’s work lies, and he hasn’t done it. He just sticks to speculating about it and using fancy terminology to mask the fact that the connections have not been demonstrated, either by him or anyone else.*
What I see Lipton doing is making a long string of connections, something like this:
Stress changes DNA;
Thought affects stress;
Therefore, thought affects DNA.
AND
Stress causes/heals cancer (wrong already);
Thought affects stress;
Therefore thought causes/heals cancer.
See what he’s doing? It sounds logical, but it isn’t science. He is being deceitful when he calls what he’s doing science; and being dangerous when he cloaks it in the authority of his Ph.D. It’s just fancy and unfounded speculation. That’s why he publishes with Hay House and never in a proper science journal.
This stuff is being widely researched, but Lipton has bypassed research and gone straight into sales mode.
…
* One reference: http://bit.ly/UfzmiR
This article outlines the research and concludes:
“No mechanism by which the mind can alter the course of cancer has been convincingly demonstrated. But the jury was still out until the late 2000s, when well-resourced, carefully designed trials — with survival as the primary endpoint — repeatedly failed to show that psychological interventions were effective.”
This stuff about thought affecting things touches on that problem with substance dualism and language. The thoughts are first person descriptions of physical brain events while stress and its physiological effects are a third person description.
I’m not exactly sure if there’s an exact point to be made about it, but it feels wonky, and Lipton is the sort of quack who’d probably take anything as proof of dualism.
Yep. I also think so. It’s both attractive and intuitively plausible that what we call “I” has all kinds of powers. It also rests on a whole complex of bad but highly attractive and marketable ideas that make up alternative medicine, which itself rests on an even bigger complex of bad but highly marketable ideas that make up New Age ideology.
More blogging needs to be done on all this!
I forgot to wish @mamajaba luck in sorting through it all. There’s a lot to sort out there, and it isn’t easy, but what I’ve often seen is that once we’ve managed to effectively debunk or see through one set of bogus claims, it gets easier. It’s a bit like the New Age has constructed a huge movie set and told people it’s reality, with facades saying “Quantum Physics Dept.” and “Cancer Research Dept” etc. One can wander through its streets for ages (reading thousands of books) and without realizing how much of it is fake.
One only needs a small tool kit to unscrew a lot of this stuff, and at some point the whole lot collapses all at once.
Lipton is probably a good place to start because despite all his fancy terminology, he constructs his arguments poorly and transparently enough for it to be fairly straight forward to dismantle them once one has realized that, yes they really are that bad.
How could you comment abut this study?
http://www.economist.com/node/18985981
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v1/n7/full/tp201121a.html
Thanks for your comment and the links.
The studies don’t support Lipton’s ideas. They deal with developmental damage caused by stress, and they don’t find that belief causes genetic changes, in the way Lipton asserts. According to Lipton, DNA sequences can be changed by belief. But these studies show the complete opposite, namely that once the damage is done, it is permanent.
What Lipton would need to show is that people suffering such damage could repair the damage by changing their beliefs. He has not shown shown that, despite the fact that genetics has, as these studies show, become sophisticated enough for such improvements to be clearly documented.
What Lipton would need to do is to find people with such damage, help them alter their beliefs, and then get a second reading showing the damage has been repaired.
Thank you very much.
How could you comment about this study?
http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/epigenetics/article/6034/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536531
anxiety/depression = negative thoughts that trigger/are triggered by negative feelings = become beliefs (long-term repetition)
PS1: Lipton does not ever say that long term negative/positive thinking (beliefs) cause genetic changes, but epigenetic changes.
PS2: Do not forget that prenatal period is the most exposed due to the most substantial development in terms of biology.
@Inna,
The above post criticized Lipton for not understanding the basics of evolutionary theory, and for claiming — without a shred of evidence — that belief is a cure for cancer.
The studies you refer to don’t support Lipton’s teachings regarding cancer, or any of his other teachings that I know of.
I have written a longer explanation of his ideas here —
http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/motivational-biology-with-dr-bruce-lipton-cancer-quack/
I suspect that you may be a little confused about exactly what Lipton’s teachings are, and how they relate to established science. Lipton flips back and forth between claiming that established science supports his views but is poorly understood by the public; and claiming that mainstream science is wrong. In fact, he totally misrepresents science and at times clearly does not understand it, and does not use any science at all to support his ideas. His teachings consist of blunt assertions and analogies presented as fact.
Please make sure that Lipton is in fact saying the things you think he is. And in any future comments, please add some quotes from him, and relate these quotes directly to any studies you link to!
I understand. I am not the partisan of Lipton’s ideas, but the sciences presented above says: thought and emotions affect cell’ s epigenome.
“Therefore, the experiences children have early in life—and the environments in which they have them—shape their developing brain architecture and strongly affect whether they grow up to be healthy, productive members of society. This growing scientific evidence supports the need for society to re-examine the way it thinks about the circumstances and experiences to which young children are exposed.” (May 2010, National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University) http://www.developingchild.net
But, definitely, you “hold the whole truth”; and, by the way, science is limited. Good luck with the site!
@Inna,
I am completely mystified as to what you mean. I didn’t write anything in the post or anywhere else, ever, that denies any of the research you refer to.
I don’t think that I “hold the whole truth” and nowhere have I ever said that science is not limited. You are attributing views to me that I don’t hold, and then criticizing me for them. Why? And why here, especially? What did I do wrong?
@Inna, that research may be true, and you may consider it exactly what Lipton says, and yet other things Lipton says may be untrue. Since much of what he says is confused and self-contradictory, it means little if you find something true in what he says. He criticises science for still being stuck in a mechanistic world view, but that molecules are machines. Which of his contradictory statements does he want us to take on board? Well, all of them, if possible. He doesn’t care.
The requirement for a rational, scientific view is that it is coherent. I don’t want to post lots of detail, but if you consider his views carefully, piece by piece, you will find that they are not coherent, and many of them are demonstrably wrong. I’ll mention just one out of dozens: his ridiculous assertion that Newtonian physics doesn’t involve energy. Most of our human-scale physics (working out a vehicle’s acceleration or petrol consumption, or the trajectory of a cricket ball, for instance) can be computed to a satisfactory degree with reference to Newtonian mechanics, but not without involving energy – potential energy, kinetic energy, heat energy, etc., just not spiritual energy, which Lipton would like you to believe quantum mechanics or relativity have ushered in.
Consider also that if his point was that thoughts affect biology via epigenetics, he would also have to accept the genes’ role in directing cell behaviour, but he states this an incorrect “assumption”, and makes the case that the cell membrane has that function. See, he just wants it all ways. I don’t think he cares much what points he makes as long as he can keep persuading people that he’s some kind of scientific-spiritual guru. He may just be an attention whore, or a huckster, or an ignoramus, or some combination. What he isn’t is right, and no, we don’t have to know everything to know that, we just have to know that one significant thing he asserts is garbage. Done, several times over.
He may just be rather confused, but presenting some facts (as many as possible) that appear to back up your overall view, while they actually don’t, is a common tactic of the con artist. It also appears to be a common logical error we are all prone to making, and it’s quite possible he doesn’t intend any deceit. But epigenetics hardly supports Lipton’s pseudoscience any more than historical records of a Roman king called Herod support the ressurection of Jesus.
Behind all this is the question of what Lipton’s main point is. Is it that thoughts affect human health? Yes? – well scientists everywhere have known that for decades if not centuries. Is it something more profound? Well, yes, but it’s just the usual vague newage blather that if we think happy thoughts everything will magically get better. The church of anti-materialism invites you to make a generous donation at the door in return for uplifting noises and scientific fairy-dust. How much are his dos, anybody know? It’s ok I’ve just googled. The recent “Uplift 2012″ was about $130 per head per day, Four days at about $400 a head or more, say they sell just a poxy 2000 tickets, that’s nearly a million right there. Not bad money for old rope. Work (play) about two days a month, that’s $6m p.a. to add to the book and DVD sales. And one of his followers has the gall to call us materialistic cancer cells working for the evil empire! Lipton must piss himself all the way to the bank.
“a raving ignorant fool like Lipton”
Lipton is not an ignorant fool. He has a PhD for a reputable university and he knows biology and genetic theory very well. He is however essentially selling a religious idea and peppering it full of scientific concepts to give himself credibility with those who don’t understand the science. His destruction of a theory of Darwin, while knowing perfectly well that the theories he’s supposedly destroying are not modern evolutionary theories, is an example of his intellectual dishonesty. He is very much in the mould of Lafayette Ron Hubbard, and has worked out that religion dressed as science makes a lot of money. His scare tactics on cancer patients with untreatable disease, selling them a last-minute spontaneous remission is particularly cynical.
i actually do think that Lipton is indeed foolish and ignorant. In all seriousness I don’t think anyone can fake having a mind as disordered and incoherent as that.
I wouldn’t insist on it if I hadn’t waded through the first hour of this lecture –
http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/motivational-biology-with-dr-bruce-lipton-cancer-quack/
– to write a post on it. I wound up having to transcribe nearly the whole thing and read it back in order to work out what the hell he was talking about.
I do, however think you are raising an extremely important consideration: that we shouldn’t underestimate just how calculated, cynical and at times evil many of these quackery and scamming operations are. I can’t count the number of times a cancer quack has swiftly trotted off to get chemo as soon as they get diagnosed with cancer.
I’m sure there is plenty of deliberate deception on Lipton’s part, but he also moving in circles where he is surrounded by people who affirm his message and his status as a “scientist”.
Ultimately, I decided to include some invective in this post in order to undermine his status and challenge his fans to realize that anyone with Ph.D should be ashamed to be talking such nonsense.
Thank you for writing this. I was given a book by Bruce Lipton and found it completely bananas (I am a biologist). Then I looked up the reviews and wondered how people could be that ignorant and why nobody calls this guy out on his quackery. And here you are, someone who does.
Thanks for your comment, @Mona. I appreciate it.
Looking at the comments his fans leave here, they don’t understand his teachings (no surprise), and instead they simply make up their own version of them, and attribute that version to Bruce Lipton PhD.
[…] the modern science of genetics and misinformed the public. He is supported in this position by a group of commenters here on this blog, who point to numerous research articles in peer-reviewed […]