Factual · Powerful · Original · Iconoclastic
*We begin this volume with a rather bizarre exchange even by the standards of the Hate Mail section. The first letter was so non-specific yet vituperative that I thought it might be a fake, even though the main mark of fake hate mail is too many misspellings and this had “merely” seven. So I figured even if it was real, it would probably get her goat to insist it wasn’t. A few letters later she had me convinced both that her attacks are real and that there are some really spooky people out there. *
Subject: Horse pucky Fumento
I read the crap on your web site. You sure look like one of those nerdy little bastards that is [sic] equivalent to Needamier in the movie Animal House. You say you are a sergeant huh! [Actually, I said I was.] Well if I was [sic] a military man in your platoon, I'd wet the bed every night until I got transfered [sic] out. You obviously have an authority figure problem, and want to rebel against the establishment. It must be some anal retentiveness from all that "Yes Sir" military bit. Too bad you weren't housed with Charles Manson, then we would have a matched set of loonies. If I were your wife [sic], she should cut you off or do the Bobbit [sic] operation. [If she were my wife, I’d commit suicide. A divorce and annulment just wouldn’t be enough.] I bet [sic] she is a wimpy little thing that stays home without a career. Us [sic] feminists will take care of you in time!
Nice attempt to get into the hate mail pages but it didn't work. I see enough of the real stuff to tell the difference. Though I will say that if you were my wife, you wouldn’t be. You’d be the widow of a suicide.
So what are your qualififications [sic] to be a so called medical/science columnist. [sic] Do you have a PhD in a specific scientific field? What scientific peer reviewed [sic] journals accepted your so called [sic] scientific stuff? Probably not any from the crap that you publish. Who [sic] do you really think you're fooling besides yourself? Pure rubbish that you publish. [Ooh! A rhyme!]
You can keep trying, but adding a few misspellings doesn't help. Lots of people besides hatemailers don't know where the spell check key is.
Just as I thought, an arogant [sic] male asshole [Which is different in what way from the anus of a female?] that thinks he knows everything, but without any scientific credentials. When you earn the respect in a peer reviewed [sic] scientific journal, I might just give you a little credit you jerk. As for lawyers, they finish last with me too. I once dated a lawyer. He was a smug little jerk too [sic] that could only relate to his mother. I dumped him for a doctor that at least contributes to our society, and spent a little money on me. [This sentence is going to come back to haunt her.] What do you REALLY contribute to our society other than paper fluff that I can wipe my ass [*Apparently there’s some sort of anal fixation going on here; I’m glad I’m not an expert in these things.]* with. I don't know how your wife can put up with you. Go chase an ambulance or follow a hearse you dim lit. [I’m not well-lit?] I bet [sic] your platoon gave you the soap in pillow sheet beatings you litle [sic] fag.
*Give it up already. I told you I know a fake hate mailer when I see one. On the other hand, that you keep trying indicates that like real hate mailers there might be a problem there – too much time on your hands, if nothing else. And I hear tell that wiping one’s rear with book pages is really tough, newspaper pages less so but still quite uncomfortable, but pixels from a computer screen – downright impossible. *
You still didn't answer my question did you, and I am not really impressed? [sic] What are your scientific credentials meaning the academic institutions where you studied, and the conferred degrees in what scientific fields? What scientific journal editorial boards did you submit articles [sic, “To what . . .”] for peer review? In these days, anybody can publish a book, and such books are often not carefully scrutinized by peer experts in their field. So again Fumento, answer the question that I asked you a couple times. I have this feeling that when you cut through all your bull shit [I do believe that’s commonly spelled as one word.], you really can't, now can you?
Okay, I'll bite. What are your scientific credentials and what peer-reviewed journals have published your work? If you want to challenge my 16 years as a science journalist and five science books, you'd better have something on your side other than lesbianism and man-hating. And by the way, when used as a modifier, "peer-reviewed" is hyphenated. Meanwhile, here are just a few medical journal reviews from just my first book. Can I see your reviews?
Yes there is a problem you ego centered [sic] bubble head (sic,sic) It's your lack of credibility in science. You still didn't answer my questions now did you? What are your scientific credentials, and what peer reviewed [sic] journals have published your work? My feeling is that your so called [sic] scientific work would not make it past the front door of a journal editorial board, and their scientific peer [sic] review committee (before it is published). Gee, I thought being a lawyer you listened carefully to what people say. But being the typical dumb male that you are, you can't think from the other side of your brain and write at the same time. I can only hope that your wife would [sic] train you to be more responsible!
As far as lesbianism and man-hating, I just have contempt for people that aren't open minded and are blocked by their stupid male egotism, and yes you are right, I would rather be a lesbian than to have you touch me. As far as man hating, our society is plagued by wimpish [sic] males who want all the credit for those women who helped them. When my ex was in medical school, I worked my ass [There we go again.] off to pay for his med school training, and then after taking the Hippocratic oath [sic] he divorced me for some 22 year old [sic] nursing student. In the next decade, you and him [sic] will get the other end of the stick if you know what I mean from us women.
Wow! You are truly one sick puppy! I've got a Y chromosome so you see your ex-husband in me? Nor does it seem to occur to you that you are a hypocrite for dumping one husband and then becoming a man hater because the second one dumped you. Also, has it occurred to you that perhaps it wasn’t so much that he was attracted to her as that there was some aspect of your personality – quite evident in your emails – that made him flee as fast as his M.D. feet could take him? You need professional help, and you're right if you think I'm not the kind of professional to give it.
That's right Fumento, you're not right kind [sic] of professional to give instruction. I'm glad we could once agree!
[*And there I left it. I fear no man. But a woman like that? Well, let’s just say I don’t want to come home to a boiling bunny.*]
I Anthony, Center of the Universe
I heard you on Coast-to-Coast AM with Art Bell a couple of weeks ago and was intrigued. I read a number of the published articles on your web site across a variety of topics, but the area where I was disappointed was around the topic of diets and
Four years ago, I read "Enter the Zone" by Sears and followed it fairly religiously for 6 months. After that, I reverted to a toned-down version of the diet, but managed to keep off the 30 pounds I shed for four years.
My wife and I have been debating the veracity of Sears' theories and I was exploring your site, hoping for a scientific counter-argument to his claims. The closest thing I could find on your website was a lame comment from a back-cover pull quote, taken out of context. The full context of this quote, from my reading of his books, is that a person eating specific food combinations can burn more fat than someone eating a poor diet and combining it with exercise. Granted, Sears' pull quote is somewhat misleading, and is certainly driven by the marketing of the book, but taken in full context, has some scientific validity.
Anyway, I don't really care about the pull quote comment. However, from what I've read by you, I question whether you've read his book. I would like to see, either as a response to this email, or as an article on your web site, a scientific rebuttal of Sears and his theories. Specifically, I would like you to address:
I have looked elsewhere and the only rebuttals I've been able to find have been rebuttals of his marketing clips and the facts of his anecdotal stories. Nobody has come out (to my knowledge) with specific attacks against the scientific components of his nutritional
What little you have written about Sears has really just amounted to a name-calling battle. I would appreciate it if you could put some scientific evidence behind your rebuttals. Please consider this more a request than an attack on you.
To tell the truth I’m a little disappointed in you, too. You question whether I read Barry Sears’s book on alchemy – er, excuse me, obesity – but what you really seem to be questioning is whether I read my own article. Yes, there is that pull quote and yes the pull quote is a flagrant lie intended to do nothing more than sell books to poor schleps looking for yet another magic formula with which to lose weight rather than trying to eat less and exercise more. You could say that anybody stupid enough to believe you can lose more weight by watching TV than exercising deserves to lose his $25.00 and I assume that’s how Sears soothes his conscience. It remains, though, that he is in “The Lying Zone.”
More to the point, the same article that I wrote but which you seem to believe I didn’t read discussed a Tufts University study that evaluated the Sears “Zone” diet in comparison with three other popular diets. It found that more than a third of the Zoners dropped out within a year, even though these were not just people who pulled a book off a shelf but rather participants in an important study. Certainly the dropout rate for mere book buyers would have been far higher. Yet even among the 65 percent of the Zoners who stayed with the diet, though they began at an average weight of 220 pounds, mean weight loss was a grand total of five percent. Don’t bother running for the calculator; that comes out to all of 11 pounds. In other words, they started fat and they ended fat. And to reiterate, those were the “successful” ones. All of this is a little more substantive than merely alluding to and in fact graphically illustrating a disingenuous statement on the back of the book.
Now before I answer your ten concerns, you address this one: How egocentric can you be to think I should stop writing for a general audience and instead take time out to address 10 questions just for Mr. Anthony, Center of the Universe? I want you to drop absolutely everything in your life and write me a 400-page single-spaced essay on this. Don’t cheat by using something larger than a 12-point type.
Please consider this more a request than an attack on you. (Even if that’s exactly what it looks like.)
I don't dispute the facts you cited regarding the drop out rate or even the apparent success rate of those completing the program. However, these are just statistics and we both know that such statistics could be used to make whatever point needs to be made. Though you cited enough evidence to make your general point (about the fraud of diets), your article didn't have the depth I was originally hoping for after hearing you on C2C.
As I said, I haven't found anything out there that actually contradicts the scientific claims Barry makes in his book. I found at least 10 pages of science in his 200 page [sic] book, but yet no one has stepped up to challenge it. As someone who described himself (on the radio, anyway) as "sticking with scientific evidence," I thought you might consider a more in-depth criticism in the future. Perhaps I am the only person who cares, so if that's the case, please excuse the request.
Well Anthony, you’ve just personally wiped out a science that has guided man for at least 800 years, namely statistics. With no statistics civilization would come to a screeching halt. You couldn’t know how much seed to sow, how many mouths to feed, how many food stores to build, how many refrigerators to make, how many toilets to produce, how much sewage piping to lay. With no statistics, your employer would have no idea how much he’s overpaying you. But statistics are inconvenient for your purpose here, so you just pooh-pooh them. What else are you going to discover is worthless because it doesn’t suit your wants?
The reason you haven’t “found anything out there that actually contradicts” the claims Sears makes in his book is because you haven’t bothered to look. Even when I gave you a study that refuted The Zone, you wouldn’t bother to read about it. Then you had the audacity of trying to turn me into your own personal researcher, knowing you’d ignore anything I told you anyway. Even now you insist “nobody has stepped up” to challenge The Zone. Did you try plugging “Zone” and “diet” into PubMed? If you did you’d have seen plenty of material repudiating your quack friend, with rather telling titles such as “Going against the Grain: Flaws in the Zone Diet” published in a medical journal just last month. But you didn’t look, so it doesn’t exist. Did you try searching with Google? Or haven’t you heard of search engines? If you’d used one, you’d have found plenty of intelligent criticism by people like Gerald Reaven, M.D. at Stanford University. But PubMed and Google are as inconvenient as statistics, so you wipe them aside too.
What you found in The Zone was 10 pages of Sears Snake Oil, not science. He’s never published a scientific paper and he never will. Just today I saw a new book called The Peanut Butter Diet. It’s got more science than Planters has peanuts, if your definition of science is telling people anything they want to hear in order to make money.
So yes, I’ll stick with the scientific evidence and you can stick with The Zone, The Peanut Butter Diet, or any other form of quackery that makes you feel good even if it makes your body feel bad.
Subject: “Campos Has Scared You!!”
[This was in reference to a short review of Paul Campos’ “obesity is good for you” book I wrote for Amazon.com.]
LMAO! [Laughed My Ass Off!]
Laughed Your Brains Out!
Sure, I’m the scared one, Darin. That’s why Campos didn't even dare mention me or any of my writings, including my book, in the text of his book. He doesn't want people to know about it or me because anybody with the least knowledge of nutrition and human health in general knows he's not just misguided but an out-and-out liar who provides temporary comfort to certain fat, lazy people like those with the initials D.J.
ha ha ha ha
you sad little man.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. I'm not sad; I'm not little; and unlike you I don't resemble a baby pachyderm with a mortal fear of climbing a single set of steps.
[The baby pachyderm did not protest the description.]
Subj: Fw: your article is a bit rosy considering what the facts are
[4,176 words omitted.]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"
Dear Mr. Hartzman:
I’m fascinated that you would conclude with such a quote when that’s exactly what you did. The “icing” on my cake, as it were, was that shale oil or oil sands, which are already being extracted and sold by Canada, could provide hundreds of years of petroleum on top of the massive proved reserves we already have. You send a response of more than 4,000 words and yet ignore them. Sorry, but things don’t cease to exist because you find them inconvenient.
[*He then responded with this in the subject line: *do you believe that oil shale will be able to replace inexpensive oil?]
Insofar as you don’t bother to define “inexpensive,” I cannot answer that. Your massive treatise was to the effect that we were running out, not that we would simply be paying more. In the event, much of the oil sands in Canada can currently be removed profitably at $25.00 US a barrel, or $15 less than we’re currently paying. That leaves a fine profit margin. Yet that $25 extraction price was formerly much higher, but new technology brought the price down just as it has brought down the price of discovering, drilling, and pumping for petroleum. We can expect these extraction costs to continue to drop, even as they have with crude oil. Why I am explaining this to somebody who judging from his email address works at Wachovia Securities is a bit mystifying and, for Wachovia Securities customers, a bit spooky.
Nature Abhors an Ihor
Mike, thanks for an interesting viewpoint. Just a couple of questions if you don't mind. You state:
"Proved" oil reserves increased from 677 billion barrels in 1982 to 1,048 billion in 2002, a 55 percent increase.
How does this reconcile [sic] with statements made that there has been no major oil find [sic] since 1976? Do you have the fields discovered and the proven reserves? Some more supporting data would be very helpful.
Thanks for your help.
Actually I do mind, because there are 6.3 billion potential Ihors out there and only one of me and yet you don’t hesitate to turn me into your unpaid research assistant. You wouldn’t think of calling a plumber to your house to fix your faucet at no charge, yet that is exactly what you ask of me in order so that I may provide rope with which you may hang me. The data are from a report hyperlinked on my website. It’s quite reconcilable with a lack of major oil finds in that it could comprise lots of minor oil finds and simply expansion of proved reserves from current finds. From now on, please learn how to use a search engine.
Reading your reply convinces me you are a fraud.
Thanks. No reply is needed.
Dear Ihor Nakonecznyj at firstname.lastname@example.org:
My data are exact and I backed them up. You have no data, so you label me a fraud. No wonder your first name rhymes with the name of the ass in the Winnie-the-Pooh tales.
[And from now on, when a yahoo [in this case a literal one] insults me and then blocks my return message both his name and his address will be printed. Why should genius be anonymous?]
Shale oil requires more energy to extract than it's worth. I don't know how you managed to research that article without discovering who Hubbert is and what his oil production forecasting model says about oil. In 1955 Hubbert accurately predicted the 1971 (actual) initiation of U.S. Oil [sic] Production [sic] Decline [sic]. Using his method more than a few Doctorate [sic] level geologists [Out of how many thousands?] have predicted World Oil [sic] Production [sic] Decline's [sic] initiation for between 2003 and 2008. World [sic] Oil [sic] Production [sic] Decline is expected to reach critical within 4 years of onset, culminating in PERMANENT BLACKOUTS. Keep living in your fantasy land of ever-oil and you'll be consumed by such. Your rosy outlook, regarding a situation that will result in even fiercer power mongering than we're already observing, as well [sic] agricultural production falling beneath Earthly human necessity, is a tremendous disservice to your readers as well [sic] any who they infect with your misrepresentation of near future oil production.
This should help with your Oil [sic] Production [sic] research efforts:
Regarding your favorite website, I note that the first thing you see is a population trend line going straight up even as the UN data shows it curving sharply and peaking in about 45 years. In other words, it's as bogus as you are. As I noted in my article, and as you ignored, petroleum is already being extracted from oil sands and sold. But I guess you figure they're doing that at a loss out of the goodness of their hearts. I certainly know all about M. King Hubbert, including that he did no calculations regarding world oil production which was the entire focus of my article. But again, you were too busy responding to my piece to actually read it. And I love unsupported statements like "is expected." Expected by whom? By you and your DIEOFF.org. I suggest perhaps you should turn the name of that website into personal advice and allow the rest of us to manage the world's problems.
[The following are from feedback postings about a version of the oil article.]
Message: Fumento states,
“Oil sands worldwide could provide more than 500 years of oil at current usage rates.”
That sounds like a lot, if you view oil as a mineral. But when you view oil as a source of energy, then you have to take into account the hard, thermodynamic reality that extracting the stuff from oil sands nets you little or no energy, a concept called 'energy returned on energy invested' (EROEI). Proposing oil sands as a 'source' of energy is like pinning your hopes on a perpetual motion machine.
Well then by golly there must be such a thing as a perpetual motion machine! As my piece noted and you ignored:
*Because of reductions in production costs, some of this goop is already being extracted and sold. (Scotland was the first nation to do so – 150 years ago!) But the Canadian Energy Research Institute says that sustained oil prices of only $25 U.S. a barrel would make a huge portion of Canada's oil sands worth developing. That assumes (falsely) that there will be no efficiency improvements in the extraction process. *
You are also obviously ignorant that producing ALL types of energy, whether gasoline from crude or solar from panels (which require energy for production and maintenance) require some of the energy they produce.
Message: he [sic] works for the hudson [sic] institute [sic], who pays authors to write things that are in the big guys at the institutes [sic] best interests, not nessesarily [sic] any body [sic] elses.[sic]
board members inclulde [sic] richard [sic] perle [sic] and conrad [sic] black [sic], dan [sic] quale [sic] etc... and a bunch of big money in the investment and finance industry, which may help explain why there are links in the article of (stick) stocks you may want to buy that some other guys already own.
tech [sic] central [sic] station [sic] may want to be a little more careful with who [sic] they let write artcles [sic] on thier [sic] web site.
Conrad Black isn’t a board member and board members never tell us what to write. I pick each and every one of my topics with no interference from anybody. But isn't it such a pleasure to be able to ignore a long list of arguments backed up by solid data in favor of questioning the writer's motives! And it's SO helpful to the debate and to the education of others on what's obviously a matter of great importance to us all. Finally, TCS may want to install a spellchecker for message posters. Better yet, an idiot checker.
Message: Very disappointing [sic]. The utility of the preemptive rant as an attack television end-game move [Huh?] is well established, but it is no substitute for substance in an opening statement in cold type.
The subject is depletion curves as they ought to say in Texas, - [sic] stand and draw .
As they say in Virginia, "Sit and read." When you post a comment about an article, it's presumed you actually spent at least five seconds perusing it. In your case, the presumption is obviously false.
But What Destroyed His Brain?
[Hard to believe I know, but this letter is a response to a piece I did some years ago blasting HBO for making traditional fairy tales into multi-cultural slop.]
I was very please [sic] to have found the videos of Jack and the Beanstalk and other videos. The video [sic] was destroyed by my sons tv [sic]. I need to know how to get some more, please email me ad [sic] soon ad [sic] possible.
I believe those videos were destroyed by the direct intervention of God.
Allergic to Reality
Dear Mr. Fumento,
If you really believe that we have eaten the genetically modified soybean and "lived to tell the tale", you are sadly mistaken. We may have lived to tell a tale (but not the one you believe it is) only because we have spent untold time and money avoiding all foods contaminated with soybean oil (which is in just about all packaged foods). No less than half of my entire family, as well as a large number of other people that we know personally, are violently allergic to genetically modified soybeans and any of its derivative products. How do I know the food problems are due to genetically modified soybeans? Because before the advent of genetically modified soybeans, none of us were allergic to soybean products. The same can be said for the genetically modified corn now reaching the market. As of right now, genetically modified food is poison to many people. As such, it is a distinct disservice to those adversely affected by genetically modified foods, as well as to the general public, for you to advocate them.
Dear Mr. Harian:
The soy genome has yet to be fully sequenced, but based on our knowledge of other plants it will have tens of thousands of genes. Biotech soy has merely one new one added, and has tested negatively for all of the markers that would make something allergenic. I’ve always put scientific findings above personal anecdotes and I’m afraid I must do so here. But if you insist on believing this gene is so harmful to you, there’s a “database” of sorts that I would refer you to. It’s called “The Princess and the Pea.”
Dear Mr. Fumento,
The number of genes in any organism is immaterial to it's [sic] toxicity. It only takes a single gene to turn an innocuous organic substance toxic. It all relates, of course, to what that gene does. If it's [sic] prime purpose to create a substance that is toxic to some other organism, it makes very little difference how many gene's [sic] the organism has. Such is the nature of genetically modified soybeans. The main purpose of the added gene is to generate a substance that is toxic to organisims [sic] that attack the soybean plant, thus eliminating the need for pesticides. The poison generated by the plant is quite effective, otherwise the farmers would not bother with it. Unfortunately, it affects humans as well as insects. Perhaps some people are affected to a greater degree than others, possibly due to the difference in our genetic makeups [sic].
Since you are so familiar with the scientific method, you will recall that empirical testing is perhaps the most reliable with regard to test results. My observations and deductions are the results of empirical testing, as are the results of others who have been negatively
affected. This is not a trivial issue and will undoubtedly snowball, irregardless of the efforts of some, such as yourself, that attempt to put a benevolent spin on the problem
Of course, if you are being renumerated [sic] [Monsanto is renumbering me?] by the Monsanto's [sic] of this world, we understand your motivation. It should be noted, however, that more and more people refuse to be bamboozled by snake-oil salesmen, but we do tend to remember who they are.
Dear Mr. Harian:
No, it is not immaterial. The difference between biotech soy and non-biotech soy is perhaps one gene in 50,000 as opposed to the difference between two strains of soy which might well be thousands of genes. That gives you thousands of chances of being allergic to one type of soy over another. It’s also unfortunate for you that you don’t know a thing about that pea under your mattress, even though I explained how biotech soy works in the very column you responded to. What you are referring to are Bt-products, in which a bacillus germ gene is inserted into the plant, thereby making it lethal to attacking insects. As I pointed out at length in my piece, and as you ignored at length, biotech soy and Roundup Ready wheat contain a gene that makes them resistant to a specific weed killer called glyphosate. Since it doesn’t affect insects at all, it could hardly affect “humans as well as insects.”
As for your “empirical testing,” all you have provided is self-reported anecdotes and hearsay anecdotes. That is not empiricism; it is organic baloney. What you really need is a doctor who will give you a placebo to treat your hypochondria.
Of course, if you are being remunerated by the organic growers and environmentalist groups of this world, we understand your motivation. It should be noted however that, again I pointed out and again as you ignored, 15 percent more biotech crops were planted last year than the year before. Ergo, apparently more and more people are desirous of being “bamboozled” by “snake-oil salesmen.” You are a Luddite reactionary, and I look forward to the day that the last of your kind is consigned to a zoo.
[310 words of organic manure omitted.]
Yes, I'm sure you would like nothing better than to gag those who see your hype of frankenfoods [sic] for what it is. Charlatans very rarely like to have the truth be known. It cuts into their illgotten [sic] gains.
Give it up. Your last letter proved you know zilch about biotech soy. This one just shows your ability to produce enough fetid hot air to float 100 Hindenburgs. But I'm sure you only produce gas as a reaction to biotech refried beans, of which there are none.
Re: Prroject [sic] Shad 122 [sic] Veterans reunion
[This is from a hate mailer from Hate Mail 24, in reference to Project 112 Shad]
Yo, ASSHOLE....why not come and straighten us all out...????
See ya by the pool!
Dear Mr. Stone:
I regret that I cannot straighten you out because I am not a physician and therefore cannot prescribe antipsychotic drugs.
Come and FACE US, you coward!
Come and face me, you whining little excuse for a man. My address is [omitted.] There are good people fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and you're complaining because decades ago the military sprayed water on you as a surrogate for a toxin and now you've developed a potbelly and hemorrhoids so you blame it on them.
You have no idea whatsoever of whence you speak . . . you can only offer weak, vitriolic invectives. [Like calling somebody a “fuckhead,” as he does in his next correspondence I suppose.]
See, the FIVE heart operations I had in a year's time actually WORKED.
I have more tenacity in one hemmorhoid [sic] than you will EVER be able to muster.
You've got the date and time.
Be there, fuckhead.
“Whence” means “from where. So I have no idea “from where” I’m speaking, do I? And what you mean is that on five occasions people told you that you had no heart, by which they meant you were gutless. Only five? Finally, I’d rather not discuss your hemorrhoid problem, thank you very much. But I assume the doctor advised you to insert the Preparation H suppositories into your ears.
[He writes my address here.]"
"And what you mean is that on five occasions people told you that you had no heart, by which they meant you were gutless."
Better check with Dr. Groves, CU Med Cenyter [sic], Baylor and their study on Septal Ablations...I'm one of the very FEW people who has SURVIVED three of them.
You can say all you want, but it's not ME who is the GUTLESS WONDER.
I figure YOU are the "big shot" with all the influence, funding, and pull...so jump on a plane with your frequent liar miles and straighten us out, huh...???
Do you REALLY "think" that those of us who survived the last 30 to 40 years are going to give up, throw in the towel, and run off with our tails between our legs because YOU "said so".....????? :-D :-P :-D *1. 27th Engineer Battalion (Combat) (Airborne.) Not a straight-leg weenie like you.* *2. I suspect they told you at the “Cenyter” that you had a deviated septum.* *3. No, actually I’m the “big shot” with intelligence, integrity, and the ability to read.* *4. You were running around with your tails between your legs for decades before you heard of me. You want the world to feel sorry for you over nothing and you want to line your pockets with taxpayer dollars. You care nothing for people who have spent their lives working rather than jabbering about illnesses that don’t exist. Well tough luck, because I do. And I’m not about to quit now because of taunts from some big wimp with a pot belly and hemorrhoids.* *Sincerely, Michael Fumento* I meant WHAT APARTMENT, not where you learned to lay bricks, jerk. You must be pretty impressive jumping out of those planes with a trowel and load of cement. *I knew what you meant, and I also knew that despite your assumptions I live in a house. As to the trowel and cement stuff, I’ve always questioned whether you were actually in the Army at all. Now I question it further. Assuming you were, then while you were peeling potatoes we were training to jump out of planes to secure enough space behind Soviet lines to allow other engineers with heavy equipment to build airfields to allow straight-leg soldiers to fly in without getting their hair mussed up. But I sympathize with your ignorance in that weenies like you could never even imagine an act of courage greater than getting out of bed in the morning and live your life in terror because during Project SHAD somebody sprayed you with that horrible chemical known as H2O. Sincerely, Michael Fumento* Yet More Atkins Hate -------------------- **Heap on the Lard!** !(../hateml/28/burning20.gif)I just read your Dec [sic] 2002 article: "Hold the Lard" on the web. In it you ridicule the Atkins and all low carb diets. It seems to me that you and all the other establishment "experts" are simply afraid to admit that you have been wrong all these years, while presiding over the deteriorating health of Americans. We are carnivores, not cattle. Even mother's milk is composed of protein and fat, not pancake batter, because that is what we were designed to eat. [*Personal anecdote omitted.*] Grain is an excellent diet for ruminants and vermin but disasterous [sic] for humans. It is completely contrary to nature and common sense. I would encourage you to check the work of Dr [sic] Jan Kwasniewski of Poland and his books: Optimal Nutrition and Homo Optimus. He has worked wonders with Diabetes [sic], Heart Disease [sic], Arthritis [sic], and even diseases like Multiple Sclerosis [sic] and many others just by putting his patients on a diet of the foods humans were designed to eat. Naturally though, the "experts" there warn of the "dangers" of his diet and urge sick, overweight Poles to continue on the approved cattle-feed diet and to cut down even further on fat and red meat. Please check out Dr [sic] Kwasniewski. Respectfully, [*omitted*] Walsh *Dear Mr. Walsh:* *Just before I got your letter, I got one saying I was all wrong because the natural human diet is vegan. No meats, cheese, milk, or eggs. Now you insist the natural human diet is exactly the opposite. Both letters are written by idiots. We know what our ancestors ate – everything they could digest. In short, they were not herbivores and they were not carnivores, they were omnivores. I told him I never heard of a wooly mammoth made out of tofu. I must now tell you that the “gatherer” part of “hunter-gatherer” refers to collecting fruit, leaves, shoots, and roots. These are all essentially free of fat and protein. True, cavemen prized the occasional mastodon they were able to bring down or rabbit they were able to catch but it’s precisely because they were such rare treats and they were desperate for fat and protein. Today, Western man gets far more protein than he needs and volumes more fat. “Hunting” means going to McDonald’s or Burger King.* *As to your “common sense” attack on grain, how strange that human history essentially began with agriculture. We made virtually no progress for millions of years and as soon as we start cultivating crops – wham, we have something called civilization and are able to move out of caves.* *Finally, your beloved Dr. Kwasniewski should be called “Quackniewski.” Like your other hero, Atkins, he has never published a single paper in a medical or science journal. When you list the diseases you’ve said his diet has “worked wonders on” you’re simply repeating what he says. Not very bright. I’d suggest you do some reading on the diets of early homosapiens. What should strike you the most is not the difference in the micronutrients between what they ate and we eat but the portions. They spent their lives in semi-starvation. We eat like pigs and look like pigs – rather like Dr. Atkins when he died.* *Sincerely, Michael Fument*o !(../hateml/28/burning21.jpg)Mr Fumento, Thank you for the personal response to my email, however indignant. Forgive me for not being aware of your fame. The "furor" being caused "all over the world" by your work, as stated on your website, seems to have bypassed Chicago, where I lived for fifty years, and Arizona, where I have lived for two years. Perhaps I should have been listening to the Art (The Martians are coming!) Bell radio show all these years to get your scientific perspective, but I just can't get interested in the alien abduction and anal probe thing. After seeing your website photo, with your pixie pose and Village People (Macho, Macho Man!) mustache in front of the fireplace, I'm inclined to wonder if the anal probe aspect isn't indeed what "aroused" your interest in, and smarmy promotion of, Art Bell. Not that there's anything wrong with that, to each his own. No, Mr. Fumento, Dr. Kwasniewski never published a paper, but he never appeared on Art Bell's show either. Where are you appearing next? What highly esteemed scientific venue? Jerry Springer? Maury? I'll be sure to scan the TV Guide in case I don't get word through the "furor" that is sweeping the world. You're quite smitten with yourself, Mr, Fumento, you have a big head for someone who pontificates on medical issues copied from those who have done the work, and on which you have little education, training or expertise. You're a lawyer, Mr. Fumento. If I need advice on screwing some little old lady out of her house and savings, I'll give you a call, but for now, I'll get my medical advice from people trained in that field, rather than some sycophantic groupie quoting someone else's study to suit his purpose du jour. I'd call you a parasite Mr. Fumento, but I've already called you a lawyer and I don't want to be redundant. Ride those coattails Mr. Fomento, no need for an original thought, the work's been done for you, just repeat what others have said. No work, easy money. A highly successful "expert" such as yourself should really stop begging for money on your website though. It's your website, you pay for it. It makes you look like a cheapskate (are you?) and enhances your image as a shyster. You're a *self-made [sic] success story, act like it. And the constant whining about the millions Atkins made from his endeavors is very unbecoming and tiresome, drop it. Give credit where credit is due. Unlike you, he did the work, he deserved the rewards. He was neither impressed nor bothered by nay-saying, trifling, hangers-on such as yourself. He was an achiever. You're a babbling blow-hard in search of an original thought. As I close, a line from one of Shakespeare's plays comes to mind: "First thing, we kill all the lawyers!" [sic] Seems the Bard really had his finger on the pulse of the populace then........ and now. You're dismissed Michael, go chase an ambulance. [*omitted*] Walsh Dear Mr. Walsh: *Wonderful! I give you a scientific answer, you respond with 100 percent invective. That’s what keep my hate mail fans coming back for more. It’s all there: Making fun of my name, my looks, attacking my former profession, attacking me because of a single show I’ve been on, and saying that because you’ve never heard of me that nobody in all of Chicago has. (A rather egocentric view, one might think.) Truly wonderful! Except:* *I have appeared in both the Tribune and Sun-Times and the last time I was in Chicago I was on Milt Rosenberg’s WGN radio show, one of the most respected radio shows in the nation. So much for being a non-figure in Chicago.* !(../hateml/28/martyr3.jpg)*Regarding Art Bell, anybody in the least familiar with my work knows that debunking conspiracy theories (including those promulgated by your Polish friend and you) is what I’m best known for. There’s nothing that Art Bell promotes, including aliens at Roswell that is more bizarre than your theories and Dr. Quackniewski’s. Like Art Bell or not, he has an incredible following and I felt the need to reach his audience. I did nothing to promote his show; his show did much to promote my views. But I guess Nixon having gone to China makes him a commie, eh?* *The main problem with your attacks on my being a lawyer is that I’m not one. Yes, I got a J.D. and from a good school. And I joined the bar. I even practiced a few years, but never torts. So much for your ambulance chasing epithet. But I gave it up 16 years ago to be a health writer so I could limit the damage done by liars like Atkins and Quackniewski and airhead arrogant acolytes such as you. And even as you say that “I’ll get my medical advice from people trained in that field,” you’ve already admitted that Quackniewski is essentially regarded as a fruitcake by people trained in his field.* *As for Atkins “doing the work” because he ripped millions of people off, well, I just don’t see it that way. Personally, I hate tort lawyers but I’ve never met one as willing to inflict harm on others for personal gain as your hero. And such a hypocrisy, the world’s most successful diet shyster dying a fat pig.* *You also have interesting theories about posting “PayPal” and “Amazon.com” donation icons on websites. Websites, unlike sending emails during happy hour at the funny farm, cost money to build and maintain. Since I don’t make a fortune ripping people off like your buddies Atkins and Quackniewski, it hardly seems unfair to allow people to donate to maintain those websites.* *Finally, predictably you can’t even get Shakespeare right. The proper quote from Henry VI, Part 2 is: “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.” But keep trying; like that infinite number of monkeys typing away into infinity; if you keep blabbing away forever you might actually get something right. Well, in your case you may have to blab a little longer than forever – but I’m sure you’re up to it.* *Sincerely, Michael Fumento* More Gulf War Syndrome Hate --------------------------- **Thank You for Letting Me Waste Your Precious Time** !(../hateml/28/burning11.jpg)Sir...I stumbled upon some of your columns while looking through online publications concerning the issue of Gulf War Syndrome and was intrigued. Your early columns talked about the numerous different causes that were posited and how they had all turned out to be patently false and inaccurate. You complained of the lack of viable studies and, at one point, created a negative comparison between two studies based upon whether they were published in peer-reviewed journals or announced at conferences. I went searching for more of your work, interested to see if any of the peer-reviewed research over the past year or so altered your opinion or at least softened it. I was not surprised to see that you appear to have not changed your opinion in any way. One of the last pieces of yours that I read listed reasons why a certain study was unacceptable to you and one reason was that no other study had contained similar findings. There are now a number of studies, peer-reviewed and government-funded, that have similar findings...indicating that low level doses of sarin can have long term effects on the central nervous system. These are not restricted to Dr. Haley's studies, which you find worthless, include other studies using factor analysis and laboratory studies showing the effects of such chemicals on laboratory animals. Do you find all of these studies, and the British study that found that Gulf War Syndrome was not a psychological/stress-related illness, insignificant and unreliable...is that your stand? What causes you to dismiss these studies, but accept studies that contain similar science but believe there is no evidence of GWS? I am just interested in your view, as I have seen your early position and now have seen a growing body of evidence (not being covered much at all by the news media...so I wouldn't call it a mediademic) [*He means “media-genic;” spread by the media.*] that indicates that there is something to the issue of neurological impairment based on exposure to chemicals during the Gulf War. The Department of Defense has admitted that some number of veterans were exposed to some level of chemicals during the Gulf War, though their modeling and the report from the General Accounting Office differ in the reliability of the downwind message and plume height. I don't think it is a matter of if any were exposed, but how many and how much. Thank you for your time and I am interested in your where your views are today on this issue. [*omitted]* Martin, Ph.D. (LTC, US Army, Ret) *!(../hateml/28/martyr14.jpg)Dear Col. Martin:* *By newer studies do you mean those like that in the [American Journal of Preventative Medicine](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15165662), June 2004, that states in the abstract, “Since the 1991 Gulf War, more than 10 years and $1 billion dollars of health evaluations and research have been invested in understanding illnesses among Gulf War veterans. We examined the extensive published healthcare utilization data in an effort to summarize what has been learned. Using multiple search techniques, data as of June 2003 from four different national Gulf War health registries and numerous hospitalization and ambulatory care reports were reviewed. Thus far, published reports have not revealed a unique Gulf War syndrome nor identified specific exposures that might explain postwar morbidity.”* *My views today are where they were over ten years ago for the reasons given above. When you spend all that time and money to find zippo, it’s a good sign that there’s zippo to find. Moreover, official records in both the U.S. and U.K show that Gulf vets are no more likely to be sick or dead than matched controls who did not deploy and far less likely to be sick and dead than matched control civilians. As you know, it takes a tremendous amount of evidence to obtain a murder conviction in the country when no body can be found. In fact, it’s almost never done. Yet that is what you are asserting. Gulf vets are healthier, yet they suffer some mysterious illness. If you’ve actually read my articles, you know that time and again I expose the very studies you list as clear-cut baloney.* *Sure, there was that Perot-supported quack Abou-Donia with his animal studies; too bad more newspapers didn’t report that the amounts of chemicals to which he exposed those animals was enough to kill them outright. Nobody claims that GWS killed anybody instantly. The DoD was looking for some way to placate the activists and the guys with the purse strings in Congress so it said that some soldiers were “exposed” to chemicals using a standard that had never been used before (or since). If a plume containing a mix of sand, water, and a bit of nerve gas was miles above you on any given date then you’re classified as “exposed.” Yeah, it’s just a little bizarre, isn’t it? Rather like saying that since rain clouds were over my head today, I got drenched and struck by lightning. “Exposure” has traditionally meant “contact.” None of these people had contact with chemical agents. When sickness or mortality among Gulf vets starts to surpass that of other vets, you can come back to me and ask if I’ve changed my mind. Until then, the answer is “no.”* *Sincerely, Michael Fumento*