Mike Adams crossed the line, and in a way that can't be ignored.

In terms of moral and ethical boundaries Mike Adams is well known for crossing the line often with his promotion of dangerous pseudoscience and disgusting conspiracy theories, as well as calling anyone that promotes real science, debunks his claims, or criticizes him a shill. He also says some other pretty horrible things about his critics (most of the time this is ignored because none of his critics really cares what he says about them, they're just more concerned over what he promotes and how he influences people), and in the case of Jon Entine, threatens to sue them.

A few days ago he crossed another line, and this one may just get him thrown in prison.

On his main website, Natural News, Adams wrote an article that can be best described as endorsing and encouraging the murder of anyone that supports Monsanto and the biotech industry in general (read his article here).

To quote his article:

"Monsanto collaborators who have signed on to accelerate heinous crimes being committed against humanity under the false promise of 'feeding the world' with toxic GMOs."

and...

"that it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity."

That pretty much says it all. He is saying that people that support GMO foods and the biotech industry should be killed, and that it is justifiable to do so.

He later went on to say that:

"For the record, in no way do I condone vigilante violence against anyone, and I believe every condemned criminal deserves a fair trial and a punishment that fits the crime. Do not misinterpret this article as any sort of call for violence, as I wholly disavow any such actions. I am a person who demands due process under the law for all those accused of crimes."

Yet those two lines, plus the title, Biotech genocide, Monsanto collaborators and the Nazi legacy of ‘science’ as justification for murder, clearly shows he means otherwise.

He then "endorsed" a website call Monsanto Collaborators which has a list of people that are claimed to be "collaborators" with Monsanto. Not surprising the people on this list are critics of his.

A day later in a poor attempt to do damage control (and perhaps avoid law enforcement investigating him) he went on to denounce Monsanto Collaborators, and not unexpectedly claimed it was a "shill" website meant to defame the anti-GMO movement. This denouncement looked not only very suspicious, but also makes one wonder why he would endorse such a website in the first place.

This denouncement means nothing, mostly because of his endorsement of killing GMO supporters, but also because evidence has pointed towards him as being the person in-charge of that website (read here and here) or at the very least being involved with it. This should be pretty obvious too considering the fact that everyone mention on the "collaborators" list are, as I said before, huge critics of his.

Mike Adams has been receiving a lot of criticism over the past couple of month, starting with his obvious attempt to intimidate Jon Entine to get him to retract an article that criticized him by threatening to sue Entine, as well as him intimidating Forbes to take down said article (you can still read the article here) to criticism of his appearance on Dr. Oz, to other random everyday criticisms of him.

Despite this criticism of him, all of which has been brought onto him by his own behavior as well as endorsement of dangerous pseudoscience and promotion of conspiracy theories, he has no right to make threats like this. Doing this will get you in trouble with law enforcement, and it does appear he is being investigated by the FBI.

The best way to counter criticism is by making good arguments with logic and evidence. Mike Adams does none of that. He just makes wild accusations and calls anyone that criticizes him a shill.

Update: Mike Adams has done some "cleaning up" of his original article by deleting certain parts that could be considered death threats. How ever, the original article can still be read here.

Special thanks to This Week in Pseudoscience for the link.

Monsanto Collaborators is also down due to "Bandwidth allocation exceeded", but you can still see the site here.

You can also read more about this situation here at Genetic Literacy Project.

Using the fear of God to promote a Anti-Vaccine agenda

Yesterday I saw an article making rounds on pro-science and anti-anti-vaccination Facebook pages that was written by a "Christian" blogger who was claiming that God does not support vaccines. (Read the article here)

The author of the article uses several classic anti-vaccination claims to spreed her propaganda, although the one that was mostly talked about in that article is the claim that vaccines contain parts from aborted fetuses, which is false.

She combines this along with passages from the bible and her "interpretation" of those passages in an attempt to make it seem like God does not approve of vaccines.

Before I begin I'm very well aware that many of you reading this are atheists, but for the moment just for fun consider the possibly that God exists, and if you are someone that believes that God exists then please and hear what I have to say.

First, God is, according to Judea-Christian beliefs, an all powerful being that created the Universe and everything about it, including what does and does not work.

If God is all powerful and didn't want people to use vaccines, then couldn't God just will vaccines not to work?

I asked this question in the comments section, and the author responded to me:

First, before anyone points it out I believe she meant to say (although I could be wrong) that research into vaccines have not been proven to be clinically effective. This is ofcourse not true. Vaccines are very effective, and there are multiple published research papers showing how effective vaccines are. Doing a simple Google Scholar search for vaccine effectiveness will bring up thousands of papers concerning vaccine effectiveness.

The second thing the author claims is that no vaccines have a life time immunity. This is completely false.

Certain vaccines (as seen here) only provide immunity for a few years, but for other vaccines they could give a person immunity against a disease for the rest of their life, although for most additional vaccinations are recommend just to be safe, and with certain vaccines, such as the MMR vaccine, getting another vaccination several years after the first one is usually all that it takes for lifetime immunity.

I replied to the author's reply to my comment pointing these things out to her, and also once again asking her the question if God did not want people to use vaccines then why didn't he just make them not work at all:

I asked my question in this way (although I did make a little typo near the end *grumbles*) in hopes of preventing her from skirting around the question.

Not only did she not answer my question, she didn't even publish my reply. This is not surprising since she is well known for not publishing comments she doesn't like and doesn't fit her views. Infact it's very surprising she published my original comment in the first place.

So why exactly did she not answer my question that if vaccines were against God's will then why would they work at all?

Probably because the answer is (atleast for people who believe that all that works in the Universe is a result of God's will) they wouldn't, but they do work, and even she doesn't say vaccines don't work, she just thinks they're not effective.

With this in mind only one logical conclusion can be made: Vaccines are okay with God.

So why does this woman insist that God is not okay vaccines? There are two possible reasons:

First, she truly feels that God is against vaccines, but when she's confronted by someone whom can poke holes in her logic she just ignores the person and anything that person may present that questions her beliefs and would force her to reconsider them.

Second, her beliefs about vaccines are separate from her belief in God, and that she is using the fear of God's wrath, along with cherry picked passages from the bible, her own interpretation of those passages, disinformation, misinformation, and good old fashion fear mongering to promote her own anti-vaccination propaganda.

5 Things I've noticed about... Creationists

Creationists are people who believe that God created all life on Earth, and for many of them they believe that evolution isn't real or even possible.

There are many things that I have noticed about creationist, and while I could list many of them, I have narrowed it down to five different things.

So here are five things I've noticed about creationists:

5. They want to force their beliefs onto others.

For years now fundamentalist Christians have been trying to sneak their belief in creationism into public class rooms across the United States. Ofcourse fundamentalist Christians don't actually call it creationism, they call it "Intelligent Design" and attempt to make it sound more "scientific". In reality it is not scientific at all. It is a religious belief that has no scientific backing and should not be taught in public schools at all, much less a science class room in a public school.

Despite the fact that creationism is not scientific, fundamentalist Christians still try to force creationism into science class rooms via electing public officials who are also creationists and will force the teaching of creationism into science classes, or at the very least have an advisory sticker placed on a science text book that claims that there are other "theories" concerning the origins of life and how it came to be today besides evolution, which is technically true, but the only one that is scientifically valid is evolution.

Some fundamentalist Christians have also made it quite clear that they really don't want evolution taught at all in schools, and only want creationism to be taught in schools. They especially don't want evolution taught to their own children, and will often homeschool their children if they can inorder to keep them from learning about evolution.

4. They think evolution isn't real because they believe it's never happened within our lifetimes.

One of the most common arguments made by creationists is that they claim that evolution cannot be real because they believe that it's never been observed.

What creationists either ignore, forget, or just don't know is that evolution has been observed, particularly with this planet's smallest lifeforms, bacteria.

Decades ago all bacterial infections could be have been treated with antibiotics, but because of our overuse and abuse of antibiotics some strains of certain bacteria have evolved to the point where none of our current antibiotics can kill them.

There are ofcourse other lifeforms who's evolution has been observed, not to mention the numerous fossils that help to back up evolutionary theory, but bacteria is one of the best examples of why evolution is real, not only because of how quickly it has evolved to become immune to antibiotics, but how obvious that evolution is.

3. They fight amongst each other.

Not all creationists are alike. Infact there are actually four different types of creationists.

There are the theological evolutionists who do accept the theory of evolution, they just believe that God had a hand in the process. Some might even argue that theological evolutionists aren't really creationists at all, just Christians that are trying to adapt their religious beliefs to modern science.

Then there are the old Earth creationists who do accept the fact that Earth is billions of years old and creatures like the dinosaurs were around before humans, just that God created all life and that evolution did not happen.

Then there are the young Earth creationist that believe that the Earth is only a little over 6,000 years old, and that dinosaurs roomed the Earth along with humans before Noah's flood.

Finally there are the no dinosaur creationists who believe that dinosaurs didn't even exist, and that the bones you see in museums were created by scientists, or by Satan.

Despite the fact that they all agree that God created life, none of these groups get along with each other, mainly due to the fact that they believe that their belief is the correct belief and that all others are either less Christian, or ironically, less scientifically valid.

2. They think there is a conspiracy to "hide the truth."

One of the main reasons why creationists, especially the young Earth types, reject the theory of evolution and the science behind it is because they believe there is a conspiracy by the scientific and atheist communities to hide "the truth" about evolution and creationism inorder to undermine and eventually eliminate Christianity.

The reality is there is no "conspiracy" to hide the truth about evolution and creationism. Evolution is science, and creationism is a religious belief.

Just because evolution doesn't go along one's beliefs doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth, it just means that person is unable to accept the facts.

In a way you could kind of say that the conspiracy theory that the "truth" about evolution is being suppressed is alot like every other conspiracy theory, not based on facts, but the inability to accept facts.

1. They always refer to the Bible.

In the end no matter how scientific of an argument they try to make, and no matter how much they resist trying to use it, ultimately in the end they will refer to the Bible and use it as a source of "proof".

For a many creationists this is more than enough to prove creationism and disprove evolution.

For most other people it doesn't.

Infact most people see such an argument for what it really is, and that is that creationists are using the Bible as a scapegoat inorder to avoid having to accept or even acknowledge the fact that evolution is real, and that the scientific evidence behind it proves it, and that something in the Bible isn't true.

5 Things I've noticed about... Mike Adams

Mike Adams, the creator of the website Natural News, and one of the biggest promoters of alternative medicine there is, also known as non-science and non-evidence based medicine.

Now many things have been said about him and the way he acts, and I myself have noticed a few things about him as well.

So here are five things I've noticed about Mike Adams:

5. He's a conspiracy theorist.

Mike Adams, despite the fact that his website, Natural News, constantly writes about stuff related to medicine (by that I mean bad mouthing science and evidence based medicine and promoting alternative medicine, no matter how ridiculous or dangerous it is) is neither a doctor, nor a scientist. He is a conspiracy theorist who promotes just about every conspiracy theory there is, although he mainly promotes "big pharma" conspiracy theories.

Even if he was an actual doctor or scientist with a legitimate degree in either science or medicine it still wouldn't matter, because what he's promoting is non-science based medicine, as well as other types of conspiracy theories besides just the big pharma ones, and he's using fear mongering and paranoia inorder to promote these things, as well as bash science and evidence based medicine.

Pretty much his only "connection" with the health industry is his self appointed title of "The Health Ranger", and that his website is used as an example by those in the health care industry and those who promote science based medicine as what a bad science website looks like.

4. He's against all forms of science based medicine.

Mike Adams isn't just someone whom believes that there are a few types of science based medicines and medical techniques that are bad for you. Nope, he's against them all, no matter how much scientific evidence there is showing that something works, like chemotherapy, or vaccines, or drugs that help fight HIV (which he thinks doesn't exist in the first place).

It almost seems like anything that's accepted and promoted by a valid and respected medical organization is automatically viewed by Adams as dangerous and part of a conspiracy. I bet he would even tell people who come to his website not to use homeopathy, acupuncture, or chiropractic "medicine" if several legitimate medical associations were to come out and say that this stuff works and works well. Infact I bet he would claim that people in homeopathy, acupuncture, or chiropractic "medicine" were hiding the fact that their stuff doesn't work, and that they were sending out shills, or just using brain washed idiots to spread disinformation and make threats to try to scare off people who questions them, and even go so far as to sue people who criticize them...

Hopefully you see the irony in the that last sentence there.

3. He's created a website that's a perfect example of Scopie's Law.

Scopie' Law read's as this:

"In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately... and gets you laughed out of the room."

While the original internet law is referring to another pseudoscience and conspiracy theory promoting website, Whale.to, it can easily be applied to Natural News. Infact some people even mistake Natural News as being the website originally talked about in Scopie's Law, and not Whale.to simply due to it's notoriousness for being wrong about everything.

Citing Natural News for anything other than an example of what a really bad science website looks like will make even the most open minded of skeptics disregard either an article or someone's argument, and pretty much view it as being bogus and full of lies.

2. He hates skeptics.

All conspiracy theorists and promoters of pseudoscience hates skeptics. Mike Adams is no exception. What is exceptional however is his venomousness towards skeptics [read here for an example].

He thinks that skeptics are willing to accept anything that "big pharma" says is good without question, and that we're all mindless zombies, simply because we don't believe what he believes, when in reality we accept science and evidence instead of unproven or disproven claims.

That's is just how he feels about your average skeptic like myself. Now with professional and famous skeptics, he thinks they are outright evil and has accused many of them of committing just about every sort of crime there is.

Maybe he doesn't actually not like skeptics? Maybe he just doesn't like people telling him he's wrong, and then using science and evidence to show him why he's wrong.

1. He's the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

What the Dunning-Kruger effect basically states is that people who are not very intelligent will often overestimate their own intelligence and don't question themselves over whether or not they are right or wrong.

Mike Adams is a prefect example of this.

His articles on his website are written in such a way that while it's obvious to most people that he doesn't know what he's talking about, it's also quite obvious that he thinks he knows what he is talking about.

This is probably the reason why he created a website like Natural News in the first place. He believes that alternative medicine is good for you, and that everything else is bad, and because he is so confident in his own intelligence he doesn't second guess himself, and doesn't believe that you should either.

And now... Part Six of Debunking House of Numbers

Finally, after over a month of fighting illegal DMCA takedown notices, threats of having his Youtube channel being taken down, threats of lawsuits (as well as other types of threats), having his personnel information shared by a bunch of AIDS denialists, as well as some of those same AIDS denialists trying to silence him in one of the most blatant examples of censorship abuse in internet history in what was a clear attempt by the creators of the "documentary" House of Number to silence any criticism of their so called film, and to hide the truth about their blatant deceptiveness and lying, Myles Power has finally released Part 6 of his Debunking of House of Numbers series.

In this part Myles's friend James Gurney from History of Infection talks about HIV replication and the evidence of it's existence.

Please enjoy!

Myles Power and his DMCA Situation

A very messed up situation has been going on for the past few days concerning a series of videos by one of my favorite science promoters and debunkers on Youtube, Myles Power.

His videos in which he debunks the AIDS denialist movie House of Numbers are being sent illegal DMCA takedown notices by Martin Penny and Knowledge Matters, the creators of House of Numbers, and this is after he got sent a takedown notice by a conspiracy theorist by the name of Liam Scheff (which he later retracted), who was interviewed in the film and presented as an investigative journalist, but as you can see in this screen shot you can tell just what type of person he really is:

So, why is it that these people do not want you to see these videos? Could it be that they do not wish for you to not know the truth about their film, and how deceptive it is? Could it be that they don't want you to find out the truth about HIV/AIDS denialism, and how dangerous and deadly it is?

Well, I think that you do deserve to know the truth!

So please watch the fifth part of Myles's debunking of House of Numbers and see what Liam and the creators of that movie do not want you to see:



Also, please listen to Myles's statement on this whole situation as well:



If you wish to read his statement on this situation please go to his Facebook page and his blog.

The big winner in the VA. Governor's race: Reason

Yesterday during the Virginia elections of 2013 there were many winners last night, the two biggest being Terry McAuliffe and Ralph Northam, both Democrats who won their bids for Governor and Lt. Governor, respectively. On the other hand the two biggest losers yesterday were Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson, both Republicans who lost their bids for Governor and Lt. Governor, respectively (the Attorney General's race is still to close to call at this point). But the biggest winner of this election didn't even run at all, and isn't even a person, but a philosophical ideal: reason.

With this victory over both Ken Cuccinelli and E.W. Jackson, Virginia voters have basically reject both men's extremist views and their blatant disregard of the law, civil liberties, and science when it suits them.

Both Cuccinelli and Jackson are notorious homophobics, and have made it very clear that they believe that homosexuality is wrong, and Cuccinelli even attempted to get U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it's own ruling that declared that archaic sodomy laws were unconstitutional, probably so he could have a legal way to prosecute homosexuals. He also wanted state colleges and universities to stop including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or like classification from their nondiscrimination policies.

Cuccinelli is also a climate change denier, and not only attempted to sue the EPA over it's findings of greenhouse gases being a danger to public health, and the federal standards for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks under the Clean Air Act, he even pretty much tried to use his own office to harass climate scientist Michael E. Mann, using the dubious claims that Dr. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws in relation to five research grants by allegedly manipulating climate change data. Fortunately Cuccinelli lost in his attempts to prosecute Dr. Mann.

Cuccinelli is also extremely anti-abortion, and sponsored numerous bills to try to "discourage" women from having an abortion (aka try to intimidate women into not having an abortion), but also tried to alter licensing and regulations of abortion clinics in the state of Virginia in a blatant attempt to shut them down. Heck, he even tried to ban birth control (which actually would have cut down on the number of abortions in Virginia).

There are ofcourse numerous other reasons why it was a good thing that Cuccinelli and Jackson did not win yesterday, and while McAuliffe and Northam were the winners, the big winners were science, tolerance, equality, civil rights, women's right, the poor, the environment, and ultimately reason and everyone in Virginia.