Jake Crosby

Mike Adams of Natural News attacks David Gorski

Mike Adams of Natural News – nuclear stupidity about Gorski

by Michael Simpson
2021-06-02
2 Comments
Cancer, Denialism, Pseudoscience, Sanofi

This story is about Mike Adams of Natural News, considered the number one lunatic of the pseudoscience and anti-science pushing American Loons (a particularly vile form of worldwide loons).

Mike Adams, who styles himself as the Health Ranger (more like the anti-Health Ranger), runs the anti-science website, Natural News. Adams claims that Natural News is a science-based natural health advocacy organization, led by himself, a proclaimed “activist-turned-scientist.”

If you know nothing else about Natural News, Adams has claimed he’s a better scientist than Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Yes, let that sink in for a few minutes. Tyson thinks that evidence should be studied to form a conclusion, you know, the scientific method. Adams thinks that he can invent a few lame experiments to confirm his preconceived beliefs. That’s pseudoscience, in its purest form.

Mike Adams’ anti-science beliefs includes just about every important scientific fact of our modern world. He is an AIDS denier (meaning he doesn’t think that AIDS is caused by HIV). He is anti-vaccination. He is an 9/11 truther. He is an Obama birther. He thinks chemtrails exist. He has advocated violence against GMO supporters.

Mike Adams of Natural News encompasses the totality of science denialism in one wonderful package. If you wonder why he’s such a lunatic, it’s really just to sell his junk medicine to a naïve public. Essentially, he has used his “pseudoscience to sell his lies to the public.”

You might think there are no other lines he can cross. But you would then be underestimating his skills in lying and attacking those who support real science.

Evaluating scientific research quality for better skeptical analysis

by Michael Simpson
2015-09-26
113 Comments
Christopher Shaw, Creationism, GMO, Pseudoscience, Science journalism, Skepticism

This article has been substantially updated, and can be read here. Please read and comment at the newer article.

One of the most tiresome discussions that a scientific skeptic has when debunking and refuting pseudoscience or junk science (slightly different variations of the same theme) is what constitutes real evidence. You’d think that would be easy, “scientific evidence” should be the gold standard, but really, there is a range of evidence from garbage to convincing.

So this is my guide to amateur (and if I do a good job, professional) method to evaluating scientific research quality across the internet. This is a major update of my original article on this topic, with less emphasis on Wikipedia, and more detail about scientific authority and hierarchy of evidence.

In today’s world of instant news, with memes and 140 character analyses flying across social media pretending to present knowledge in a manner that makes it appear authoritative. Even detailed, 2000 word articles that I write are often considered to be too long, and people only read the title or the concluding paragraph. This happens all the time in the amateur science circles specifically. For example, many people only read the abstract and, even there, only the conclusion of the abstract for scientific articles.