An Open Letter to Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Hi, Mike. You probably don’t know me (why would you, I’m just some random nut with a blog and a chip on his shoulder), but I know you. At least, I know of you. And I know about a certain letter you sent to a journalist recently, after there was some talk of you suing a different blogger for calling you nasty names and whatnot. The whole thing can be found here for those who don’t know about such things. Now, you say a lot of things there, but I’d like to focus on one in particular. About you not liking people calling you anti-science, and your attempts to turn over a new leaf as a real scientist. Bravo! I would love to see that. No snark, I’m being completely serious. You’ve said previously that your website gets something like upwards of 7 million pageviews per month, and getting these people onto the science train would be a great step forward.

 

So… What would you need to do? Well, I have a few things that come to mind. My first piece of advice: publish. I’ll be the first to admit that you’re going to run into a lot of bias. Bias against you. Many scientists are liable to look at you, think, “That guy? Ugh” and ignore your work. I’ll discuss why a bit later. But at the same time, you have the resources to do important research, and if you are earnest about it, you could try to team up with someone else, or publish under a pseudonym. The important part is to get a foot in the door. Do real scientific research with real results, and sooner or later people will have to take you seriously.

 

The second thing I can say is going to hurt a bit. You need to stop selling everything on your website which has not undergone clinical trials for efficacy. Everything. Every last item where you cannot point to a clinical trial and say, “This is incontrovertible evidence that this works” has to go. This is partially to minimize the bias against you in publishing. As said, I’ll get to that later. But for now, you need to start looking serious. Science-based medicine has a methodology that we use not because we want to but because anything else is utterly lacking. So things like the “Immune Cannon” have got to go. Want to keep selling them? Well, you’re the scientist – perform clinical trials to show that they work. This will have the double effect of improving your standing in the scientific community (after all, you’re risking some of your business by exposing it to criticism) and making your product more well-established. Indeed, anything with the so-called “Quack Miranda Warning” should probably get the boot as well. This is to make it clear that you’re serious about science, and following the evidence where it leads.

 

See, Mike, here’s the thing. You have no good faith left among skeptics and rationalists – the type of people who generally are scientists. None. Nada. Zip. Diddly squat. These people have watched your website and your actions and think to themselves, “Wow, this guy has the balls to call himself a scientist after the crap he pulled?”. Indeed, “Scopie’s Law” is generally extended to your site. Case in point, you say in your letter:

 

I’m finding this scientific route to research very rewarding and eye-opening. Yet when people like Mr. Entine learn that I have embraced a scientific discovery methodology, instead of being welcomed for pursuing scientific research, I am unfairly mocked for it. In Entine’s case in particular, I believe he referred to my laboratory work as “a joke.”

 

Yeah, Mike, you’re going to get that a lot. The one piece of research I’m most aware of from your laboratory was you looking at a chicken nugget under a microscope and calling what showed up weird. That’s not exactly groundbreaking research (have you looked at Vodka in a microscope? Now that’s trippy!), and you have that stacked up against your whole reputation as a quack, a charlatan, and nutcase.

 

…Yeah, I said I was going to get to this.

 

Mike, I hope you realize that in saying “I’d like to get into science” what most of us hear is “I’d like to completely turn over a new leaf”. At least, I sincerely hope that’s your goal. Because up until now, you haven’t been much of a scientist. You haven’t been doing science. You’ve been doing bare-bones, dishonest tabloid journalism for personal profit. After the naiveté wears off, what we hear is “I’d like to cover my bullshit in a veneer of respectability”. I want to believe you’re serious, I really do – if you would stop writing misleading and dishonest articles, about anything from Vaccines creating “zombies” to straight-up lying about what the Süddeutsche Zeitung said about Monsanto’s policies (the article referenced is probably here; it does NOT say what you claim it says), then the world would be a much better place. But it’s really hard to believe that after your track record of being basically Gary Null crossed with Alex Jones. So please – either make good on your word or stop pretending that you’re trying to be Mr. Science. Or at least stop pretending to support science while simultaneously pushing crap like this.

 

Sincerely,

-Angry Science