Michael Fumento

Note: The first set of hate mail came after I posted an item on "Advise and Dissent" to the effect that with only a handful of exceptions, blogsites are nothing but ego trips for people who can't get their material published anywhere else. Offhand I would say that applies to over 99 percent of them. That, in fact, is why you see references to a "blogosphere," because essentially these people are in their own self-contained world. But apparently some in that 99 percent and some of the handful of readers each gets didn't care for what was so obvious an observation. *

• It began with a blobby blogger named Rich Hailey who attacked what proved to be my prescient prognosis on SARS. I then fired back and he was so proud of being criticized by me (and probably of having been read by anyone), that he shot my posting to as many of his fellow bloggers as he could. Here's his original posting of April 24, 2003. Follow from there.*

Fumento strikes again! Remember Michael Fumento? He's the guy who says the Atkins diet doesn't work.

Well, he's at it again. He now claims that SARS isn't really a threat, that it's a scam to scare up more dollars for biotech companies. [Actually, I never wrote or said that anywhere.]

I'm beginning to think that Fumento takes up a contrarian position reflexively, rather than from conviction. After all, you don't get headlines by agreeing with everybody. I think his credibility ranks right up there with The Center for Science in the Public Interest. They're the geniuses who figured out that fast food is bad for you. On second thought, they were right about that. Fumento slips further down the credibility ladder. Next stop, used car salesmen [sic].

Dear Rich,

I'm wondering what that crow you're eating tastes like. Almost half a year into the epidemic and there have been a grand total of 8421 cases and 784 deaths worldwide. That's about the same number of people who died just today each from malaria and TB. There were only 21 new cases reported yesterday and the death rate is dropping. WHO figures also show the epidemic peaked before the end of March.

Isn't it sad that there are people out there with such one-dimensional minds as you that when the entire media get it right except for one guy, you feel you have to urinate on him?

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Posted on a blogger site called "Alley Writer's Yankee Jihad":

"Who is this pissy Michael Fumento guy? You never heard of him? Yeah, those were my first thoughts, too."

[My response:]

As I write this according to your own site counter I am the entire readership of your blog, one person currently online! Your total "hits" of 44,000 since you began blogging are probably smaller than the average circulation of one of the 400 newspapers that subscribe to my column. My main complaint against bloggers is that their sense of self-importance is more overwhelming than the emissions of a polecat. Thanks for making my case.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Snotty Remarks

I have read some of your stuff in the past but really haven't thought of you much since the early days of AIDs [sic]. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) linked to you today. I was stunned to read your childish rant about blogs. You are wrong about the influence of the blog readership outside the blogosphere. They represent cutting edge opinion-leaders in ALL spheres of endeavor in the USA. Furthermore fact-checking bloggers have had a huge impact on mainline media, recently bringing down Howell Raines, for example.

Your snotty remarks speak volumes about your EGO (me-me-me was the constant refrain in the commentary I read today), and reflect very poorly on your analytic ability.

Worth [omitted]

Dear Worthless,

You wrote absolutely nothing that contradicted my comments. I said a few blog sites can affect outside events (such as a *contributory role in the Haines case) but the overwhelming majority are essentially unread and worthless. "The "me-me-me" was because "I-I-I" was under direct attack. I suppose that if somebody criticized George Bush you would come to his aid by defending Hillary Clinton. And that will be the day I take advice from somebody who can't spell "AIDS." If you want to waste your life reading the rants (and it's interesting how many bloggers use that very term) of the uneducated, that's your right. But personally I'm capable of my own research and my own thinking.*

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

From an Idiot with a Keyboard

You said: "blogging has lowered the bar so low that literally any idiot with a keyboard can boast that his material is on the Internet."

Well, yes, quite true... Forgive me, but I've never read any of your books, nor heard or seen your appearances on TV and/or radio, or seen any article of yours in a newspaper. Like many of your audience, I suspect, all I've ever seen of your work has been on the internet. None of the local media outlets carry anything of yours. So, quite honestly, to me, YOU are a blogger... and your recent behavior seems to be a case of the Pot [sic] calling the Kettle [sic] black. Or proving your own point.

I'd've [Interesting contraction!] thought that an "author, journalist, and attorney..." and "...a science columnist for Scripps-Howard and a Senior Fellow..." would behave better in public... unless, as I tend to suspect, you aren't of much importance. I may not have read your work often before, but I shant [sic] read it at ALL now.

Sincerely,
Eric [omitted]

PS – Oh, in case you're wondering: nope, don't have a blog, though I do occasionally leave comments on some. I've better things to do with my time.

Dear Eric:

Let me ask you this: If you had never heard of Winston Churchill except for something of his posted on the Internet, who would it say more about - Churchill or you?

A blogger by definition is somebody who operates his own site for the purpose of posting comments, in hopes that somebody will come along and actually read those comments or, better yet, link to them. With a few such exceptions as Andrew Sullivan and Virginia Postrel, both of whose blogs I actually do sometimes read, he is not somebody who appears in newspapers, magazines, books, and directly on other people's websites. Nor is anybody who happens to operate his own website ipso facto a blogger. Nobody has granted you permission to change that definition, despite what you may think.

Finally, it's interesting that you're criticizing me when you postscript seems to indicate you agree with me. You're right; why post comments that nobody will ever read?

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Subjects: "Fumentos: [sic] The Fresh Fray Maker" and "Whip it Out"

From a blogger named Silflay Hraka, referring to mentions found on a search engine:

"Bill Quick" – 24,500 search results
"Silflay Hraka" – 10,200 search results
"Michael Fumento" – 5,210 search results

My guess as to the reason for the latest blog tempest is that Mr. Fumento has discovered, like many before him, that picking fights spikes one's traffic numbers. In short, he's a traffic troll.

For all he talks about how many hits the sites his columns appear on get, that's due to the popularity of the sites themselves rather than overwhelming hordes of Fumento groupies storming the portals in search of his latest scribblings. I suspect deep in his heart of hearts he knows this, despite his chest-pounding to the contrary.

If Mr. Fumento really is that popular, proving it is easy. All he has to do is put a publicly accessible web counter on his front page. Until then, he's the Internet equivalent of the guy who talks endlessly about cock size, yet never unzips his pants if there's anyone else in the room.

You just don't get it and never will. BLOGGERS measure their self-worth by visits to their page. That a hit may be half a second or half an hour is irrelevant. Journalists measure their success in other ways. That I'm nationally syndicated is one way. That my column goes out to over 400 newspapers is another. That my most recent column was picked up by both the *New York Post and the Chicago Sun-Times, with a combination of over 5 million readers, is another. That I've been printed repeatedly in the Wall Street Journal, the New Republic, National Review and Reader's Digest is another. That I've had a major piece in The Atlantic is another. That one of my columns became the source material for a column in a recent issue of Time is another. That I have five books to my name is another. My web page is an open archive for people to read my current and past articles, with a tiny little bit of space devoted to occasional comments. On the other hand, you do such things as present photos of your newborn son. That's quaint, but I'm not exactly sure what people other than you gain by that. Again, it's sheer blogger ego-centricism.) *

That you would ignore all of the above in favor of "hits" on a website shows just how utterly ignorant you are of how the real world works. Nobody cares about you and your hits but you and a few fellow bloggers. That's a few thousand people. I doubt if there's a single newspaper that carries me that has a readership as small as yours. So blog away into the stratosphere or blogosphere or whatever. Nobody cares any more than they care about local access TV. If you can write, you publish (and like Andrew Sullivan maybe blog as well). If you can't publish, you blog and measure your worth by how many times somebody clicks your screen - or if that fails, your proclaimed sizable penis. How pathetic.

By the way, my website does have a counter.

Michael Fumento

**Another Bill O'Reilly – Alas, without the Fame, Fortune, own TV Show . . . **

 Dear Mr. Fumento: 

I've lost a lot of respect for you after reading your attack on Rich Hailey. InstaPundit precisely fisked [sic] your cheap shots and fact-free attacks on bloggers.

Truly, you are channeling Bill O'Reilly. You both look extremely insecure and less admirable than a short while ago. Distorting Hailey's image [which I copied from his website] to make him appear fat is pretty low. It seems that abusing your opponents is more important than factual accuracy. Too bad for one who made his career as an erstwhile defender of sound science and factual accuracy.

I regret having mentioned you favorably in my sci/tech columns:

[two column citations, omitted]

Bradley [omitted]

Dear Bradley,

Did anyone tell you you're just a bit bizarre? Go to Hailey's site and then to mine. Same image, no distortion. He IS fat and he made himself fat; it was ham hocks and bacon that did it, not software. Yet he defends the Atkins diet. And you defend him. So where does that leave you? I'll be posting a response to Instapundit tomorrow, but the bottom line is that fat people who endorse Atkins have serious problems and that includes hefty Hailey. As for my "fact-free" statement about bloggers, why don't you come up with some facts to refute them? But do you really believe that with thousands of blogsites and more added each day, more than a few get real traffic? Finally, regarding your loss of respect for me, you just can't imagine how much that breaks my heart. Could your real motivation be that I struck a chord when I mentioned how worthless most bloggers are because nobody reads them? The paper in which you've published your grand total of 14 columns, the *North County Times, is unknown outside of the San Diego region. I'm in no need for an ego boost; what say you? *

I Am Not Worthless! (And I'll Go Tell My Mother if You say Otherwise.)

Mr. Fumento

What I notice most about your rant against bloggers is that you didn't even attempt to answer the questions raised regarding your opinion on SARS. You just did a lot of name calling and whining. Very bad form and makes you look like a bratty child who is angry that someone else tried to play with one of his toys.

You call bloggers typing monkeys, but you run a blog yourself, though you insist on calling it your "site". Considering that, contradictory to your unresearched claims, there are at least 500 bloggers who see far more than the meager 150 or so hits per day that your own blog gets.[sic]

If you can't get but 150 hits per day with all of your name recognition, why bother? Even a schmoe [sic] like me who no one has ever heard of, gets at least half that many every day. You aren't even as good as those you spend such energy and venom to mock, which makes me wonder when those 400 publications you have duped into buying your material will wise up. Once word of your personal inability to draw a readership gets out it shouldn't take long.

You also make yourself look foolish when you first make a point of claiming that bloggers are stupid and worthless, then spending [sic] 400 – 500% of the space you normally spend on entries for your blog, throwing a tantrum about bloggers. Surely something that really is as pointless as blogs and bloggers isn't worth such effort, such anger, such malicious personal attacks. You disprove your own theory by your own actions and energy spent at such length against them.

Regards
[Omitted blogger that neither you nor I have ever heard of]

Dear Typing Monkey:

Sorry I struck a nerve with you, but if what I said about most bloggers fits you – and apparently it does – so be it. Actually, I did discuss SARS in the original message to Rich Hailey that started this all. I pointed out that he was wrong and that time had shown I was right. He pig-headedly (if you'll pardon the expression) refused to concede. This appears right on my "advice and dissent" page just inches from my "rant;" but apparently you're too busy typing out all of the works of Shakespeare to notice.

I have a page on my website for posting occasional short comments. That doesn't make me a blogger, nor does it make my site a blogsite. Go to any number of websites run by organizations and you'll see they also occasionally post a short opinion. Nobody would ever think to call those blogsites, either. And because I rarely post to that page, people rarely go to that page, explaining the relatively low traffic. It has nothing to do with name recognition and everything to do with the fact that a week may go by in which there is nothing new to look at, unlike with bloggers who routinely post throughout the day and hence may draw the same person several times in that period to see if there's anything new. You rail against a straw man. My hits come primarily to my new op-ed postings and, far more important, to the readers of the over 400 newspapers my column goes out to and the many newspaper-run websites that run me. If you want to consider those "blogsites," then I get more traffic than any blogger in the world. Some of these newspaper websites serve metropolitan areas with hundreds of thousands of people and each can be reached by anybody in the world with a computer and modem. But again, they're not really blogsites they're just places where people go to read my material and that of others.

Finally, as far as most bloggers being stupid – well, you kind of set yourself up for that one with your letter. Nevertheless, I never said that. I said most bloggers have a grossly overexaggerated sense of their importance. Basically they're just writing online diaries, as with our friend Silflay who posts baby pictures. I have nothing against diaries, but let's call them exactly what they are.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Gutless Rumbles

I posted the following on the site of yet another attack blogger, called "Gut Rumbles." It's amazing how these guys are so proud that their material is utterly devoid of information, to a point where they admit they're providing absolutely nothing more than gut feelings.

Hey Big Gut, you write, "I won't go through the stats but I GET MORE TRAFFIC THAN FUMENTO DOES FOR AN ENTIRE DAY BY 6:00 IN THE MORNING. Shit. My Site Meter is open. Go check if you want verification. And NO newspapers publish what I write."

Wrong and reeking of arrogance and ignorance. I am not a blogger. My "hits" mean virtually nothing. I have a website with over 400 *published articles. I also have a tiny section for comments too short for publication. All you have is your blogging and bragging. *

How truly bizarre that you boast that no newspaper will publish you. Yet that's where my "hits" come from. My column goes out to 400 papers, many of which go directly online. The hits I get from just the online versions easily swamp you. Then add in the print papers themselves. If just a fraction of the people who read those papers read my column, I probably get more readers hits in a week than you get in a lifetime. And these are people reading a whole column, not some one-paragraph off-the-cuff remark with a link. Finally, how many magazines do you boast of that refuse to publish you? Go to my bio page and you'll see I've been in many of the biggest. And how many books do you have to your name? I have five, thank you.

You demonstrate beautifully the very arrogance and self-importance I have attributed to bloggers such as yourself. The real world knows you are utterly talentless as a writer and it has rejected you, so you retreat to your fantasy blogosphere. Well blab all you want, because nobody outside of your tiny sphere has ever heard of you or ever will. You contribute nothing to society except hot air, which is not something in high demand this summer.

Subject: Gut Rumbles Nuclear Strike

I was saddened by your childish rant at the Gut Rumbles blog a few days ago.

You are a knowledgeable man. I sent many people to your web site during the SARS insanity.

But the letter you wrote exposes other less seemly character traits.

I will continue to use your information, but with a lot less enthusiasm.

[name omitted] blogger

*Well apparently one man's reasoned response is another man's "childish rant." Interesting that you didn't see "Gut Rumbles'" original reference to me as a "pompous ass" as either "childish" or "unseemly." I suspect that what bothered you was the critique of blogging in general. Sorry, but it's far too self-evident to retract. In any case, while you accuse me of "childish rants," here's a comment I pulled off your hero's website directed at somebody else. It rather speaks for itself, and shows the true value of blogging. *

Randi, you scum-sucking asswipe, I NEVER CENSOR ANYONE. I enjoy arguing with people who really want to question my ideas and make a counter-argument. But when people LIKE YOU call my site "pretty boring," I have to wonder what the fuck you're doing here in the first place. Go masturbate. You're probably a lot better at that than you are at writing because you've had a lot more practice at flogging your wanger than you have at putting coherent words on a page. It might do you a world of good to have a woman do it for once in your life. You'll probably have to pay for it, but in YOUR case it'll be worth the money. You'll never get laid otherwise. If my son was ANYTHING like you, I would strangle him in his sleep for the good of the universe. Did you ever have a literate English teacher in school? If so, you never paid attention in class, did you? If you ever had a fucking original idea in your head, it would die of loneliness, because you don't do a lot of original thinking. Pathetic buttwipe. Gut Rumbles Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Stop Shouting!

Dear Mr. Fumento:

Re [sic] your article on bloggers in Advice and Dissent. If you really, really are such a great journalist as you believe, you would not have to shout it to the world as often as you do. The world would know.

Sincerely,
Caasi [omitted]

Dear Caasi:

The world does know; it's the bloggers who don't! But you miss the point. I'm not tooting my own horn; I'm detooting theirs. They believe they have empires; in fact, they have ant farms.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Breast Implant Hate

Another "Reader" Who Can't Read I'm sorry, but you have missed the real problem with silicone implants. It's not about NOW, feminism, or cancer. It's about immune system illnesses which have become associated with these chemical implants. Women have become sick with lumpus [sic], ms [sic], fibromyalgia, etc. These are chronic, incapacitating, incurable immune system illnesses.

Millions in this country and around the world are now ill from exposures to synthetic chemicals in the environment. Silicone implants are in this category.

[omitted] newman

Dear Ms. Newman:

I specifically addressed that issue repeatedly in the column and you specifically repeatedly ignored it. There's no evidence that women with implants have any more of these problems than women without them. You're simply rejecting that which you don't want to believe.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

If you feel you have to insult people who don't agree with your column, pretty soon you won't have any "audience {to} [sic] write for."

Insult you? I merely pointed out the obvious, that you ignored about a third of my entire column. And don't stay up late at night worrying about my audience base. I don't want "readers" who don't take time to read.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Is your "audience" by any chance the crowd of "scientists" who have decided that Gulf War Syndrome is just a figment of the imagination of the thousands who suffer from it?

Be assured that I shall, now, depart, permanently, from your "audience" and your column, which, unfortunately, seems to emanate from your ego. It's interesting, however, that once again you're clearly rejecting scientific consensus in favor of your own prejudices.

1. I certainly hope so, considering there is no such thing as GWS, as I've written in numerous magazine articles and shorter pieces.

2. Sniff. I'll miss you.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Ja! Vee Will Kill All Zee Jews und zen Invent Breast Implants! This is from a phone call left on my voice mail.

I’m really disturbed that you are not following up on the Nazi origin of silicone implants and I don’t appreciate your referring to feminists as moldy because I have the particular implant type that encourages mold growth and I have health problems from it and so basically you’re making money trashing women’s health on behalf of Playboy misogyny. I’m not opposed to the existence of implants because there will always be a need for implants of one kind or another but silicone itself has a Nazi origin and you’re doing a disservice especially because you’re not disclosing the money you’re being paid by Dow to lie. Silicone was invented by Nazi scientist Otto Ambrose who also manufactured Zyklon B gas that was used to kill Jews at Auschwitz. They were also injecting liquid silicone into women’s breasts; this was reported by a journalist that was covering the Nuremberg trials. And Otto Ambrose was later snapped up by Dow. So this is appalling. Silicone has been used as an insecticide so basically Dow apparently looks upon women as bugs, so surely if they had more decency they could have searched around better for better products to use. Silicone has a long history of inducing disease. The so-called studies you cited deliberately excluded women who reported problems and that includes me. Some day you’re going to be very embarrassed that you overlooked the very important issue of this technology being exploited by corporate interests.

Also I believe George W. has investment funds in these properties so basically you’re looking out for corporate profits at the sake of women’s health. I find this disgusting. I hope you call me back.

She’s sick, but not from mold. For the record:

*Breast implants were invented by Americans in the 1960s. It was the Japanese, not the Germans, who pioneered injecting silicone directly into the breasts in the 1950s. Since the epidemiological studies involving implants found a variety of illnesses in women who’d had them, obviously they’d didn’t exclude women with problems. But what they found was that those with implants were no more likely to have any of these illnesses than women without.

Otto Ambrose worked for a major Germany company during the war and was involved in gassing operations, but had nothing to do with inventing Zyklon B. It was developed in the 1920s ironically, by a German Jew named Fritz Haber who was forced into emigration in 1934. As a fumigant, it probably saved many lives by killing lice and preventing typhus. Ambrose was indeed later hired by an American company, but it wasn’t Dow or any other that ever had anything to do with Zyklon B or silicone gel. Ambrose invented nothing, neither gas nor silicone gel.

The moldy implants accusation was publicized by celebrity journalist (read: heavy duty self-promoter) Lisa Collier Cool for *Glamour magazine and concerned not silicone implants but saline ones. Obviously I can’t attest to the President’s investments, but I doubt he owns stock in the AAA Acme Zyklon B Gas Corporation nor has a time-share at Auschwitz. For that matter, neither Dow nor any other implant-related company nor Playboy nor Adolf Hitler paid me to write the column she was complaining about. And finally, no, I did not call her back.*

Animal Rights Hate

From the Pro-Human Vivisection Crowd

With regard to science, you're an ignoramus. I suggest you educate yourself before spouting pro-vivisection propaganda. You're also a moral cretin, since you promote cruelty and injustice toward nonhuman animals. Because you think vivisection is so great, you're the one who should be experimented on.

With contempt,
Joan [omitted]

Dear Joan,

You are SO right! Testing is absolutely necessary, but subjects should be chosen on the basis of low IQ and not species. So please report to the closest vivisection lab tomorrow. And don't bother wearing a lab coat.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

According to tests, my IQ is about 170, which must be about double yours.

I'm supposed to just take your word for that, from somebody who thinks that animal testing is no longer necessary because of computer equipment that exists only in PETA propaganda? Where was the IQ test administered, Area 51 at Roswell?

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Road Rage Hate

Confessions of a Self-Confirmed Road Rager

From [omitted] Haliburton:

Mr. Fumento:

You are usually so right on everything, but what about when you're wrong? Do you ever admit it? Do you publish corrections on the web? Road Rage may be exaggerated in the media, but if you've ever driven in Florida, you'd know that it's very real. It's scary. I know, because I'm sometimes guilty myself.

Road Rage doesn't necessarily cause more accidents and it doesn't mean drivers are always pulling weapons and taking direct violent action. But, what it means is aggressive driving and harassment, especially hand gestures, screaming, and tailgating.

The more cars on the crowded roads, the more difficult it is to travel in the manner a driver expects. This is frustrating. And, more people means more drivers. More people in short periods of time is what we have in Florida. This causes increases in traffic in shorter periods of time – and this increases frustration, e.g., "Six months ago, I could drive to work in 20 minutes, but now it takes an hour."

You're a fool if you don't see this Road Rage. Call it Hate Mail if you will.

[Attached article: “Driver Accused of Pulling Gun in Road Rage Incident.”]

Dear Mr. Halibut:

If I’m wrong, I say I’m wrong. As it happens, you are. My road rage piece for the *Atlantic Monthly was a 3,000-word investigation showing that traffic accidents were decreasing as well as injuries and fatalities. It also showed that despite many claims to the contrary by both a sensationalist media and the federal government, there was absolutely no statistical data to support the idea that road rage was anything more than rage that happened on the road. Thus it’s a definition no more useful than “kitchen rage” or “backyard rage.” I also showed that the definition of road rage had been expanded so widely that it often had nothing to do with rage and indeed sometimes absolutely nothing to do with roads. You have proffered nothing to counter that. You merely pointed out that people get angry and do stupid things while driving. Well, knock me over with a feather, as they say. Then you provide a single example – one – of what must be road rage because that’s what the article calls it. It concerns a state where I formerly lived and that I therefore know is packed with rednecks, to whom “politeness” is a foreign word. I think “redneck rage” might be a more apt term. But for you to make such a weak argument and on the basis thereof call me a fool obviously makes you an obvious perpetrator of “email rage.”*

*Sincerely,
Michael Fumento *
AIDS Hate

---

Curiosity Killed the Crackpot

When you were over at CEI you were asked to debate Bryan Ellison on AIDS. According to one of the organizers, you chickened out. And if memory serves, you even contributed to getting one of his speeches cancelled. Why? And why don't you publicize the fact that you are/were a consultant for NIH? Just curious...JS

Dear JS:

*So refusing to debate an utter crackpot is called "chickening out"? I guess if I'm asked to debate people who claim to be impregnated by aliens; to have had a tracking chip implanted in their butts by the CIA; and who believe that God lives on a comet and you can live with him by taking poison while wearing tennis shoes; that I must accept all of these lest some yahoo like you calls me a chicken? My position on Ellison and Duesberg (who both continue to insist that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, even though it was discovered as having done so 19 years ago) is a matter of written record. For that matter, they now even hate (and have sued) each other. It's crackpot versus crackpot. *

*Memory doesn't serve; I did not contribute to getting any speech of Ellison's cancelled unless it was through the indirect route of the would-be organizer reading something I wrote. Finally, I don't publicize "the fact" that I am/was a consultant for NIH because I aren't/weren't. I did review a software program determining HIV's potential spread for somebody who received a grant from NIH. Other than visiting the NIH library, that's the closest I ever got. But if I had been a consultant to NIH, would that make the CIA-implanted chip up your butt start buzzing? Just curious . . . *

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Hmmm....looks like I struck a nerve (didn't think you had any). Is that the looooonnnnggg way of saying you chickened out? It's funny, you act so tough when you're hidden behind a keyboard, but when it comes to actually facing the music you hide behind impregnated aliens in far away galaxies. It's too bad, Bryan was looking forward to putting a boot in your microchipped ass. Guess you didn't want to spill that piss-bucket you became so adept at carrying for [Dr. Harold] Jaffe [Director of the CDC's National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention] and [Dr. Alexander] Langmuire [sic]. [Langmuir founded the epidemiology section at the CDC and is considered “the father of modern epidemiology.”]

[omitted]
FMR Director of Research
[omitted]

"Former Director of Research"? With no listing of what you’re doing now? Is that the looooonnnnggg way of saying you were fired for incompetence and your obsession with conspiracy theories and that these also prevent you from getting a new job? Why no mention of your *current position? I happen to be a current senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and a current *syndicated medical/science columnist with Scripps Howard and am *currently awaiting publication of my next science book. Eat your heart out little boy!*

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

[He did indeed eat. When I looked him up on the web I saw he’d been bounced from one D.C. job to another, with apparently none lasting more than a year. Here was his response.]

You crack me up! You have built your whole career stripping away other people's titles, only to hide behind your own. You should really see someone about your feelings of inadequacy. But perhaps I can save you some soul searching (not to mention money) –you're a hypocrite! To think of all the people who have been cowed by all your huffing, puffing, and billowing smoke. You forget, Michael...if you lay a yellow brick road, sooner or later someone's going to find out the true character of the man behind the curtain. And odds are, they will discover your true character before even you do ALL HAIL THE SENIOR FELLOW...ALL HAIL THE SYNDICATED COLUMNEST [sic] ...ALL HAIL THE AUTHOR OF BOOKS!!!..."and the words ate into his brain"–RUSH

*Sorry, but I just did a web search on you and while your titles have been stripped away by one employer after another, I had nothing to do with it. In fact, one of your short-lived positions was with my current employer! You can’t possibly send hate mail to everybody who arouses your jealousy and brings out your well-deserved feelings of inferiority. Why did the honors go to me and not the other 99 percent of the world’s population that’s been more successful in life than you have? *

*With all my sympathy,
Michael Fumento *

From Somebody at a Softbrain Company

Do you still really believe what you wrote in "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS?” Or is it that those that make up the current Heterosexual [sic] AIDS explosion don't count?

Carol [omitted]
Sr. Systems Administrator
Network Engineer
[omitted] Software Company

Dear Ms. Sanders:

Excuse me, but exactly which planet have you been living on? Cases in the CDC’s heterosexual transmission category number 6,904 for 2001. That’s down rather sharply from 8585 in 1994. Is that the explosion whereof you speak? Moreover, as I predicted 16 years ago, far from the media’s presentation of AIDS as almost exclusively the problem of middle-class whites, it was blacks and Hispanics who would bear the brunt of the heterosexual portion of the epidemic. Sure enough, for 2001 there were 924 cases in whites, 3599 in blacks, and 915 in Hispanics. Now let’s see if you’re woman enough to admit you were wrong, or if you just have more blather to toss my way.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Send me the links to the sources of your information.

*Fine. *

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1302.htm

[A week passes before I hear from her.]

I think you should be consistent in what you consider "explosion".

My definition was completely consistent. You said that there was an "explosion" of heterosexual AIDS cases. I sent you documentation that heterosexual transmission cases had dropped dramatically. You challenged me to show my sources. I did. Now you're saying that I’m playing word games. It just might do your soul good to utter these three little words: "I was wrong." Perhaps you could even add three more: "I'm sorry."

Yes you are when not providing all the facts when using statistical data. You seem to keep harping on "an apology" when that's not really the issue here. Maybe you have assistants (immature ones) responding for you. If you are so correct data will make it evident. Did you expound on "explosion" in your book? Perhaps you should edit commentary (excerpts) from your book found online to relay exactly, your [sic] intent. As well, it seems you feel you have the monopoly on correct interpretation of statistical data. Additionally, you refer to US incidences only - not a distinction I made in my original email to you.

*I don’t think asking once for a well-deserved apology constitutes “harping,” and if you have tried and failed to malign me it is an issue. Do you have an alternative interpretation for the statistical data? No, or you would have provided it. You have nothing to offer but your prejudices, prejudices which no mass of data can possibly overcome. Please take them to an audience that may be more sympathetic, like the closest kindergarten. *

Atkins Hate

Here’s to Sloth and Gluttony!

Mr. Fumento,

Thanks for keeping me up to date on your treatment of [Atkins hysteria], even though I'm a month behind in reading this. I noticed in "Hopeless Fad," that you mixed up the average starting weight for the six-month published study, listing it first as 215 pounds, then describing it later as 290 pounds when you attempted to minimize the 13-pound average loss. Who does your proofreading?

I'm glad to see that you're beginning to concede that the Atkins Diet may not be harmful. That may be the "most you can say," but it challenges a host of criticism which has only served to impede research and honest evaluation.

This isn't about morality, so put away your high-horse references to gluttony and sloth. Larger, longer trials are underway, and more data will soon arrive to further inform our opinions.

Regards,
[omitted] May

Dear Mr. May:

I mixed up nothing. Who does your proof-thinking?

I'm beginning to concede nothing. Other people warned that the Atkins diet might promote heart disease. I never weighed in on that one way or another. I said that the Atkins diet was (and remains) horribly dangerous because it steals the hope of fat people. It's the most successful diet book in history in terms of sales, but in terms of actually helping people become and stay thin it’s worthless. When people discover this they may conclude that weight loss is impossible – as indeed fat activist groups tell them.

Finally, gluttony and sloth may be a joke to you but the Seven Deadly Sins were promulgated for a reason. They harm the doer and they harm society. Most of what you so blithely dismiss as "morality" falls into this same category, such as taboos on incest that protect against birth defects. With 300,000 Americans dying each year of gluttony and sloth, the descriptor "deadly" is rather appropriate.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Anecdotes Rule!

I encountered your rue [sic] lunacy when reading a blog. Until then, I had never heard of your pompous ass. I wish I hadn't.

I lost 44 pounds on Atkins. Kept it off for a year and counting. Is that "anecdotal" evidence? It fucking happened. Good enough for me. I get the feeling you wouldn't pull your hand off a hot stove until someone showed you a stack of peer-reviewed studies proving it was hot.

– Skep

Dear Skep:

Yes, by definition a single case is what’s called an “anecdote.” When that case is utterly unverifiable and appears to come from someone of limited mental resources it’s called “a highly unreliable anecdote.”

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Generalized Hate

**I Speak Englisch Very Good! **

Dear sir:
I saw (and read) your article in the New York Post. There it was, staring [Do articles “stare”?] right at my face, in bold print no less: Birth defect among Gulf vets are below average. Are below average? How about is below average? I mean, sir, I'm sure you know the relationship between subject and predicate. That area of grammar is (probably) taught somewhere in Junior [sic] High [sic] School [sic]. What happened? Did you sleep through that part of the course? Please forgive me for being so straight forward [sic], but, as a writer, I think it is your duty to show a little more respect for the language and your readers, and to make sure that everything you publish has been thoroughly proof-read.
Thanks for listening.

Yours truly,
Rodrigo [omitted]

Dear Genius:

Thank you for your insulting letter. It is now my turn to inform you that the *New York Post picks its own headlines. If you were just a tad more observant, you would have noticed that all the grammar in the piece itself was correct and would have come to the proper conclusion. Instead, you saw this as your chance to try to justify your existence by correcting the grammar of a nationally syndicated columnist who publishes in one of America’s largest-circulation papers. I think it is my duty to inform you that “Junior High School” is written in lower case and that “straight forward” is normally written as one word, not two. The headline you suggested as a substitute would be as incorrect as the Post’s insofar as “defect” doesn’t agree with “is.” Finally, it is my duty to inform you that you have no business of informing me of my duty.*

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Dear sir:
Maybe you chose the headline and maybe you didn't, you're the only one who knows that. As far as wasting "a whole letter", we're talking about a few lines which took me all of (maybe) three or four minutes to compose. As far as getting a life, sir, I pretty much have one. I am a New York State Official Court Interpreter, which qualifies me as an expert both in English AND Spanish. So, instead of coming down on me the way you did, and calling me a buffoon and a hot-shot, neither of which I am, you should have thanked me for taking my time to comment on your article and instead should have contacted the New York Post and given them hell for their carelessness, if indeed they were the ones guilty of choosing the headline that made your article look bad (prima facie). All I did was point something out to you. As far as you being a nationally syndicated writer, I'm not impressed. It is a very well known fact that the English Language [sic] and (particularly) its grammar are in a period of decadence and a lot of it is due to the way many of you so called [sic] "sindicated [sic] writers" perform your duties. Oh, the arrogance!!!!

Yours truly,
Rodrigo [omitted]

Dear qualified expert buffoon,

“Arrogance” is definitely the word. There is no “maybe” to whether I wrote the headline; anybody who knows how to use the Web (a group I assume that precludes you) can go to my website and see how I titled the piece. And I must say how impressed am I that you speak Spanish, but please don’t pretend you have any real knowledge of English.

So I should have thanked you for taking your precious time to insult me by telling me I slept through junior high school grammar even if you can’t spell it? “Language” is also lower case,” Rodrigo, the expert in two languages. And when using a two-word modifier as in “well-known” and “so-called” the words are hyphenated, Rodrigo, the expert in two languages. Finally, you misspelled “syndicated,” Rodrigo, the expert in two languages. For my part, I learned three languages in addition to my mother tongue. El español fue el más fácil de todos. (Spanish was by far the easiest.) I also learned manners and humility, courses through which you obviously slept.

*Sincerely,
Michael Fumento *

Short and to the Pointless

you sir are a bad person supporting bad science you disgust me

Greg

Dear Greg,

Congratulations on presenting a well-reasoned and informative position. Unfortunately, you’re not worth being disgusted at.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Subject: Idiot

To [sic] dam [sic] stupid to give credit to something that works, and well at that!

[omitted] Larry

Dear Mr. Larry:

Yes, and to dam stupid to have the lest ide of wha you’re talking about.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Stupidity Uber Alles Subject: Asshole

How dare you lie so much? "DDT is harmless, greenhouse effect is harmless, ... but mass media and politics are corrupted infinitesimally." Is it really necessary to oscillate between two extremes so much? Do you fear that your environment would neglect your
pitiful existence if do not go on and play the king’s fool?

What you wrote (or claim to have written) about AIDS may be right, but: Whenever a clever man wants to discredit the truth, he sends an asshole telling it.

Leonard Horowitz is not as bad as you, but similar. I don’t understand which mental system has captured Horowitz, Fuller et al.. Once you have been granted a live, and maybe once again, but you should not give in to somebody’s foolish advice. Because once he got away with it he will try it on someone else. Your brain is yours, if you understand this.

Uli
[Under his name, he provided the URL to his incredibly fatuous German website.]

Uli,

Leonard Horowitz kenne ich überhaupt nichts. Aber ich weiß dass Herr Hitler hatte die Umwelt auch betetet.
Schwein!

[I’ve never heard of Leonard Horowitz. But I know that Herr Hitler also worshipped the environment. Swine!]

Michael Fumento

Subject: Duh!

How can you be so "STUPID"? Please learn how to write!

Jayson [omitted]

Dear Jayson:

Thank you for the constructive criticism. On the other hand, you misspelled your own first name.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Your ASS you stupid jerk. That IS the way it is spelled. Don't bother emailing to this address, because you are blocked.
FIT? HA! LITTLE GAY BOY! AND UGLY TOO!

Personally I think you’re the one suffering some sort of blockage, but whatever.

Now Take My Wife . . . Please! Yuk, yuk, yuk!

Dear Mr. Fumento:

I stumbled upon your site and read some of your articles, and I must say, you are as talented and wise as you are attractive.

Rather than writing, might I suggest you try a different profession more suited to your level of intellectual development...like, say, used car sales?

Erik

Dear Erik:

Used car sales? That is positively the most original insult I’ve ever heard! You are one funny guy! When they release you from the institution and you come home, do you tell your friends, “Wow! I just flew in Bellevue and boy are my arms tired!”

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Oh, and saying I'm in an institution is REAL original! I've NEVER head [sic] that one before. Why didn't you just say, "That's why animals eat their young"...you dimwitted hack?

I apologize most sincerely for the fact that you obviously resent that I'm a somebody and that you're an absolute nobody and you're never going to be anything else. But look at this way: Being the lowest man on society's totem pole makes you unique!

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Patriot Games

You sure do talk alot [sic] about patriotism. Where did you serve your combat time at [sic] Fumento?

[omitted] Sumner

Dear Mr. Sumner:

This is what is known in some circles as “an idiotic question.” First, I virtually never address such issues; it’s just not within the ambit of my normal work. For example I have written nothing about the impending war with Iraq. Second, where is it written that only somebody with combat time is allowed to be patriotic? You seem to be suggesting that only military people can make military decisions; yet the Constitution (which I also support, no doubt to your disdain) expressly declares that the Commander in Chief must be a civilian and it says nothing about whether he should have had “combat time” or have been a vet. Finally, I did put my life on the line for four years in a combat airborne unit and assuming you ever served in the military you know that, bullets whizzing by or not, serving in such units is difficult and dangerous work. It’s hardly my fault that there was no war. So no, I will not shut up on matters concerning patriotism because it would please you. While watching what John Wayne movies did you serve your combat time?

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

Herbicide Hate

Better Living Through Ignorance

To the editor:

The Rocky Mountain News editorial page column of 5/19/03 by Michael Fumento, “Better Living Through Herbicides” presents a 'study' financed by the organization 'CropLife America'. A little research on the web reveals that this organization is a promotional tool of the agrichemical [sic] companies (Agway, Dow, Monsanto, etc.) (See member list). [Omitted.] Yet Fumento never notes this association. Clearly such a study would show nothing but positive results and be biased in favor of the companies since a negative report would hurt business. The innocuous sounding name 'CropLife America' seems to be a means hiding the true companies involved, possibly because the real names in the agrichemical [sic] business have not always had the best public image. This study is not science. Science would be [sic] an independent study by independent scientists. An organization study of itself cannot produce unbiased results. Independent confirmation is a basic scientific principle not addressed here. This column is not responsible newspaper journalism. The financing of the information was not investigated. The fact that neither the columnist, the Rocky Mountain News or [sic] Scripps Howard took the trouble to at least find out more about who is financing CropLife America shows either gross ignorance or bias in favor of agrichemical [sic] corporations, either of which is irresponsible newspaper journalism at its worst. If corporate influence and bias is the operating factor here, then we have gone a long way down the road to losing a free press to the corporations. This column should have been labeled as an advertisement by the agrichemical [sic] companies, not an editorial, and placed appropriately somewhere in the the [sic] newspaper other than the editorial page.

Dear Mr. Slater:

Did it ever occur to you that if I were trying to mislead readers, it would have been a simple matter to omit reference to who funded the study – something the mainstream media routinely do when presenting "studies" that you no doubt take as gospel from green groups like Greenpeace and the Environmental Working Group. I also told you where to find the study itself, allowing you to find flaws in it. Instead, you simply declare "this study is not science" and criticize it entirely on the basis of its sponsors. Can we therefore safely assume you found the study unassailable? You also fail to note, because you no doubt do not know, that NCFPA has also done studies on commission for the Rockefeller Foundation, a left-wing group with no ties to the chemical industry. Would Rockefeller be so keen on using its funds for a research institute known for doing "science on demand"?

Moreover I referenced other studies having nothing to do with NCFPA or CropLife America, including one by the University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, one by USDA, and one by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Curious how, in such a long letter, you forget to mention them.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento