1. Organic Consumers Association, and the groups it funds, like US Right To Know and the lawyer-run partisan attack site Sourcewatch, may be in a lot of trouble. Shortly after being revealed as the financial source for promoting anti-vaccine sentiment, they have now been shown to be working in collusion with the propaganda arm of the Kremlin.
Their goals are certainly in line. OCA would like to justify the millions it gets from its clients and increase market share for them without succeeding in the free market, while Russia has made no secret that American energy and food need to be kept out of Europe if Russia is to prevent NATO resistance to its political goals.
US Right To Know has been happy to help, hand-picking prominent pro-science targets (us) for extermination and sending them to Russian propaganda sites to manufacture "international" coverage. Naturally Russia Today has been happy to do so.
But the story does not end there. Sources have revealed that Gary Ruskin, the primary fundraiser for US Right To Know, is under scrutiny as being possibly in violation of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act because he has not filed as a foreign agent even though he may be representing the interests of foreign powers in a "political or quasi-political capacity".
More likely he is what the Russians began to commonly label as "useful idiots" in 1941.
2. Pot can do no wrong in modern times. Like cigarettes of the 1950s, government is turning a blind eye to the obvious because their constituents want it - freedom-loving people would like to have the government out of something in 2017 while some people are doing it anyway and want it to be legal.
But for dogs? Some believe it should be "medical" for dogs even though there is only anecdotal evidence it is even medical for people. A journalist writing in USA Today interviewed our Dr. Alex Berezow, who said, "You should never give your dog THC. Their bodies just can’t handle certain compounds. Chocolate will make them sick, and the same thing occurs with THC."
Yes, USA Today has us, and Russia Today has the hand-puppets of the Kremlin, 300 astroturf sites funded by organic marketing groups. That tells you all you need to know about the anti-science movement.
Here is hoping medicinal marijuana for dogs you may purchase does not have any THC, but like the supplements market, it is the unverified wild, wild west out there. So caveat emptor, pet owners.
3. CNET used us for insight into ways to mitigate the effects of allergy season - no, not a miracle herb, like US News & World Report has now taken to recommending for everything, but simply cleaning your mattress.
4. It's no secret that proper diet can lead to better health in lots of ways, but crash diets only cause short term weight loss and thus no health improvements at all. BlastingNews cited our Dr. Ruth Kava in their article on the risks of the fasting diet.
5. The Guardian linked to our recommendations in our Wall Street Journal article on how to properly deal with the opiod issue. While it's become fashionable to blame doctors, or pharmaceutical companies, or even pain patients, none of those are really accurate. Look for our detailed position paper in the coming months.
6. The Answer Man, Roger Schlueter, in Belleville News-Democrat and the Wisconsin Journal-Times, tackled whether or not pesticides can be harmful. Well, sure, everything can be harmful if you take enough of it. But despite what those getting paid to promote some food process or another claim, if it's an approved pesticide, it's safe. Yes, there are some inside EPA who want science thrown out in favor of epidemiological mischief, but they haven't given in yet.
He mentions the "alar on apples" scam that Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) manufactured with environmental PR agency Fenton Communications, and the caution about them is just as true today as it was then - when it comes to science, don't listen to them. They tell people that themselves when pressed on their actual expertise:
“We’re an advocacy group and we don’t hold ourselves out as scientific researchers.”
7. Did Omega-3 fatty acids lose some of their new-car smell in health circles?
In SELF, they note that a man ate fish every day for a year and nothing about his health changed. Despite what you may have read by someone trying to get a New York Times-bestselling diet book, these fats are not a miracle product. They interviewed our Dr. Ruth Kava, who noted there is no downside to eating fish (even though the just-mentioned NRDC also manufactured a 'mercury in salmon' controversy after we brought nationwide ridicule on them over alar) but omega-3s aren’t an end-all be-all when it comes to good health, and neither is any other one food or nutrient. “People tend to think of things as this is or isn’t a superfood, but I don’t think that we have any superfoods, really.”
She also recommended avoiding fish oil supplements unless your doctor specifically recommends them. “I’d rather see people get their nutrition from food.”
8. We get criticized by scaremongers who are not in the anti-food and anti-chemical fundraising business too. Sometimes by people who raise money undermining...fertility? Yes indeed.
I got no dog in the religion fight, my wife is communications director for a church and their whole group is terrific so I am clearly a fan of the benefits of a liturgical society, but when you claim your take on religion can be used to demonize children who had flawed mitochondria replaced, "three-person IVF" because mitochondria from a healthy mom replaces defective ones in an embryo, well, then, we are not going to be friends.
Discovery Institute attack dog Wesley Smith dredges up my past criticism of his anti-science beliefs as a way to claim that the term "anti-science" is being thrown around way too much.
Wielding the term “anti-science” as an epithet to stifle legitimate debate: I have been the subject of such attempted stifling. As first discussed in these pages a few years ago, I was branded “anti-science” by Glen Hank Campbell, now the head of the American Council on Science and Health, who accused me of “hating biology” and viewing IVF “as a tool of Lucifer.” What had I done to deserve such public shaming? I opposed plans to use a novel IVF procedure to create a “three-parent” baby.
How was that “anti-science?” I may have been misguided—though I don’t think I was—but I most certainly wasn’t opposing science, biology, or even reproductive technologies per se. I was making an ethical argument that it would be wrong to use this technique on humans, a position with which Campbell disagreed.
Sorry, this is a moral relativism/postmodernism-free zone, Mr. Smith. When someone exploits sick kids who are going to die, in order to promote denial of evolutionary biology, they get called what they are. Anti-science. And a lousy human being.
I mostly like how Wes tries to sound smart while walking back his claims about mitochondrial transplant, and claims I oppressed him, but his time huddled in his safe space ruined his psyche so much he can't even get my name correct. I am actually not the Rhinestone Cowboy.
9. Finally, SELF interviewed us again, this time to know if hydrogen water has a real benefit. While corporations run by muckspouts like that Greg Glassman guy at Crossfit, who thinks Coke causes Type 1 diabetes yet Pepsi doesn't, may want to bilk some money out of you by claiming so, it just isn't true.
The concept of hydrogen water is “total hooey,” Dr. Kava told them. “The idea that by doing something like bubbling more hydrogen through water or getting the oxygen and hydrogen to dissociate more quickly than usual is going to do anything to cure any disease or ailment is just not there.”
Save your money on the wellness water. Actually, you can save your money on anything with "wellness" in the description. And stop paying money for Crossfit. They're just exercise videos, you know how to exercise, and he is using your money to promote vaccine denial, attacks on American farmers, and who knows what else.