Michael Fumento

**The Tinker Bell Syndrome **

Mr. Fumento:

I have just finished reading a web site* [He means the website set up by Big Sugar to smear its competitor, Splenda.]* titled: www.thetruthaboutsplenda.com.

I sent an e-mail to you in February and you responded that Dr. Mercola was a quack. Now I have just read a book by Kevin Trudean* [sic] *titled Natural Cures. This book is the #1 best-seller at the Barnes & Noble store in Brooklyn. *[Brooklyn only has one Barnes & Noble?] *I suspect that you will be quick to label Mr. Trudeau as a quack. *[You betcha!] *

I no longer believe you nor do I believe what you write. [The latter would seem to logically follow the former.] *On page 204 of the book by Trudeau he mentions SPLENDA and describes it as a product that can give a person migraines, depression, fipromyagia *[sic] and allergies--and make you fat.

Do I believe your articles praising SPLENDA? I do not. If customers at Barnes & Noble are buying this book in record numbers, are you going to call all of those people deluded?

At least I can count on one fact: I will never again read anything which you write. *[Let�s see about that!] *

Harold Theisen

*Dear Mr. Theisen: *

• Say it isn�t so! You�ve abandoned me! Oh well, suit yourself. I can�t argue that Mr. Trudeau isn�t a bonafide medical scholar. After all, he did appear on Tammy Faye Baker�s show and Howard Stern called him �a great thinker.� Who am I to contradict such great scientific and medical minds? On the other hand, the New York Consumer Protection Board on its website provides a handy list of �Products sold or promoted by Kevin Trudeau that have led to fraud charges.� They include: *
• Biotape � Fraud charges settled in 2004 *
• Coral Calcium Supreme � Fraud charges settled in 2004. (Later Trudeau was found to be in contempt of court for violating that preliminary injunction when he mailed and televised more ads for coral calcium.) *
• SNORenz � Fraud charges settled in 2001 *
• Fat Trapper Plus � Fraud charges filed in 2000; civil contempt charges filed in 2002 *
• Exercise in a Bottle � Fraud charges filed in 2000; civil contempt charges filed in 2002 *
• Kevin Trudeau�s Mega Memory System � Fraud charges settled in 1998*
• Trudeau�s book jacket carries an endorsement from a former FDA commissioner, which sounds impressive until you find out he died in 2001 while the book was published in 2005. Oops. *
• But what does any of this count when �customers at Barnes & Noble are buying this book in record numbers� (although that�s not exactly substantiated by your earlier statement that it was the best-selling book at a single store)? And never mind that I don�t even have to crack open Trudeau�s bound toilet paper to know that there�s not a single scientific study to back up any of his allegations against Splenda. All that matters, Harold, is that you believe in him. You know, like believing in Tinker Bell. Now show you truly believe by clapping your hands.*

*Sincerely,
Michael Fumento *

*[After this he sent two more e-mails, both entitled �Final Reply.� To the second I responded that if he wished to eschew Splenda (and these quacks make the same claim about NutraSweet) then: �Enjoy your fattening tooth-rotting high fructose corn syrup-flavored sodas! After all, excess calories and tooth decay are good for us say Trudeau and Mercola!�] *

Michael:

What a stupid reply! You have never read Dr. Mercola or Trudeau or you would know that both of these men say that one of the worst foods you can eat is any food laced with corn syrup-or drink corn-syrup flavored sodas. You call yourself a science writer? The science of B.S.

*Actually, I have read their idiocy. But since I've never read Mein Kampf I guess I can't pass judgment on Adolf Hitler. *

** Illness Causes Chromium-6 **

Dear Mr. Fumento:

I find your article on Ms. Brockovich quite interesting; however, I find it hard to believe that the ailments suffered by 600 people could be manufactured or even misleading as your article attempts to portray. Perhaps chromium 6 wasn�t the cause of these people�s health problems, however one must question your arguments when they are based on statistical methods that do not undertake the accounts of the entire population. What I mean by this is that although it is true that many children are born with genetic malformations and respective problems this should not be taken as a cause to eliminate the ailments of 600 people, which* [sic] not only share the same symptoms but also happen to come from the same place. According to the scientific method these people's [sic] symtoms [sic] should be taken as a cause of chromium 6, don't you think?Thankyou *[sic] for your consideration. *[I haven�t heard that one before; that illness causes chromium-6.] *

Sincerely,
*[omitted] *Kobek

*Dear Ms. Kobek: *

• I do believe you have scientific methodology quite backwards. To go forward, first you have to ask what is the expected rate of illness among Hinkley residents? Brockovich�s people claimed an excess of cancer but proffered no evidence. The State of California specifically looked for an excess and found none. Brockovich�s people claimed an excess of illness in general. Again, they proffered no evidence. We know from the current Beverly Hills High School case that Brockovich personally just pulls numbers out of a hat. In Beverly Hills, though, she got caught. *
• Even if there were an excess of illness or of cancers overall, it doesn�t necessarily prove anything since all towns can�t be average. Some will be above; others below. What�s next needed is a clusters of illness or similarities of illness. There were none in Hinkley. There were various unrelated forms of cancer, heart disease to be sure, and numerous extremely minor illnesses. A favorite in the film was �nosebleeds.� Well, there you go: If anybody in a town has had a nosebleed it�s time to call in the litigators. *
• We see already that there was no cause for alarm in Hinkley; Brockovich�s firm merely rounded up a bunch of sick people and turned them into plaintiffs. The one unifying factor � which you readily accept � is the toxicity of chromium-6. Problem is, as I showed in the very piece you�re responding to, scientists (including EPA) recognize no toxicity from chromium-6 other than lung cancer when inhaled. These were not minor inhalations, incidentally, but those of welders who were exposed to aerosolized chromium-6 every day for years on end. No scientific evidence links chromium-6 to even ONE illness in Hinkley, much less 600.*

*Sincerely,
Michael Fumento *

**It�s a Man�s Prerogative to Change his Mind, but . . . **

Dear Sir,

Do you still believe what you wrote of Ms. Brockovich?

I appreciate any response.

Thank you.

Vicki Miller

*Dear Ms. Miller: *

• Insofar as my last (much-deserved) thrashing of Ms. Brockovich appeared two days ago, I don�t think much has happened in the meantime to change my opinion. *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

**Raging Bull **

Visited your page headlined FACTUAL-POWERFUL-ORIGINAL-ICONOCLASTIC. You certainly are full of yourself as well as being full of bull. If Chromium* [sic] VI isn't toxic when ingester [sic], why has OSHA established maximum allowable concentrations in water? How do you have any credibility when the studies you cite were funded by PG & E? Dermal exposure has been documented to cause ulcers and other effects. The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry gives information about gastric symptoms from ingestion of hexovalent *[sic] chromium including ulcers and gastritis. As a healthcare worker, I can't claim to be particularly enamoured [Sic, she�s not British] *of lawyers. Ambulance chasers give the entire profession a bad name, but if it weren't for lawyers the little guys would continue to be run over by profit hungry billion dollar industries who couldn't give a rat's ass about anything but their stock values. I bet it's safe to say that none of the bigwigs at PG & E were ever exposed to airborn [sic] or waterborn *[Sic, unless in both cases she means �born in�] chromium. Their swimming pools at their big houses in the California hills were filled with clean purified water that came far from any of the polluting plants they operrated* [sic]*. They made sure their kids were safe, but didn't care about the kids of the peons who were expendable. What about your incorrect assertion that the wells in Hinkley never had a concentration of chromium VI higher than 0.58 when the company's own records document MUCH higher concentrations? It is a matter of public record. Makes me wonder who's payroll you are on. Iconoclastic my ass.

*[omitted] *Winchester
Springfield Missouri

*Dear Ms. Winchester: *

OSHA is required by law to set maximum allowable concentrations for ingestion for any substance to which workers may be exposed by any route. Since chromium-6 is considered a human carcinogen when inhaled by welders, OSHA had to set a water standard. I am unaware of citing any study paid for by PG&E. Usually I cite the EPA website page on chromium-6, the one that says �"No data were located in the available literature that suggested that chromium-6 is carcinogenic by the oral route of exposure." As the expression goes, �What part of �no� don�t you understand?� I am unaware that PG&E supports the EPA website but perhaps you can elucidate me.

• Apparently you are dumb enough to think I�m too dumb to go to the website of the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry and look up chromium-6. It does indeed mention the symptoms you give from ingestion of chromium-6 but in very same sentence states, �small amounts of chromium-6 that you swallow will not hurt you.� The very next sentence declares: �The levels of chromium-6 that caused these effects were far greater than those that you might be exposed to in food or water.� Note, it doesn�t specify any levels in water; it says that water with chromium-6 is safe. Period. That�s why ultimately it doesn�t matter what the amount was in Hinckley�s water.*

• Nevertheless, you state that it�s �a matter of public record� that the water in Hinckley had �MUCH higher concentrations� than what I wrote, �0.58.� It�s telling that you don�t know there�s no such thing as a concentration of �0.58;� it�s got to be 0.58 of something. In this case, it�s 0.58 parts per million. And pray, where are those �public records� kept? You haven�t got a clue about any of this; you�re just parroting Brockovich�s response to my original article critical of her. Is that what strikes you as an impartial source? Moreover, as I pointed out in my rebuttal to that response, �According to the California Regional Quality Control Board, the highest measurements in Hinckley's water were indeed 0.58, and even in the film Julia Roberts uses the 0.58 figure.�*

  Finally, one of the few true parts of the film was that PG&E was actually supplying the entire town with bottled water � yes, even for the swimming pools. I know you sleep with the DVD under your pillow at night; how could you have missed that?

• No comments as to my ass, but yours appears to fit squarely atop your shoulders.*
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

First of all, I am not a Julia Roberts fan, and I don't "sleep with the DVD under my pillow". I don't even own the video. Not sure I even made it through the entire movie. I don't appreciate you referring to me as dumb, but since you brought it up, I thought you were smart enough to assume that as an educated professional I assumed it was unneccessary* [sic]* to specify parts per million. Gee, I even know that it's measured in microns. If chromium VI is not harmful if ingested, why would they need to provide a town with bottled water? What does inhaling have to do with drinking? Why would OSHA have to set standards for water if the only danger is inhaling? As to asses, just because you have one doesn't mean you have to be one.

*Gee, then instead of saving yourself just the words "parts per million" why didn't you simply refer repeatedly to "chromium" and save all those "sixes?" PG&E provided the town with bottled water because they were afraid that ambulance chasers would come along and sue them, claiming that the well water caused every illness in the population from nose bleeds to cancer. Wonder whatever gave them that silly idea? Inhaling has nothing to do with drinking; that's just the point. Chromium-6 is carcinogenic only through inhalation, not ingestion. Finally, I explicitly explained why OSHA had to set a drinking standard and you explicitly ignored it or couldn't comprehend it. Whose fault is that, lady? By the way, I�m still waiting for your answer on where I can find those �public records� and which studies I cited that were paid for by PG&E. *

• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

  *[Alas, I wait still.] *

** You Dirty, Filthy, Non-Liar! **

Dear Michael. *[sic] *

Please tell me what good came out of your column this morning. All you did was take away any hope women had of recovery. Did you give them an alternative to Herceptin?

Will it help them to know they may die? You certainly didn't do anything for their quality of life. All you did was try and be the big shot on the block with news that kills the hope of dying women. You are a grand stander---no one cares that you disclosed information that may or may bit be true. Right now you don't have anything better to offer. Obviously you have never been faced with a life threatening* [sic]* disease yourself, or you would know that hope is sometimes all anyone has. I'm sick for anyone reading your column today. I happen to have a good friend on that new medicine and it has given her hope. Thanks for nothing.

Sandy
Leominster, Massachusetts

*Dear Sandy: *

*Don�t you find yourself in a bit of an awkward position accusing somebody of not lying to you? How often do you accuse your husband and children of that? Do you vote for candidates you think lie the most often? As I made clear, it was only a matter of time before people caught on that this horribly expensive drug they�re taking is in no ways a cure. One way or another, these women�s hopes will be dashed. But more than that, as I quoted the Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action in San Francisco: �Now the public is going to think the breast cancer problem is solved.� If breast cancer already is cured, where�s the impetus for research to find a real cure? There is none. What I have to offer is continued research, not congratulating ourselves on something nobody�s done. But if you wish, tell your friend to wear a crystal around her neck and that will cure her cancer. It�s a complete and total lie, of course; but what counts is making you feel good at this very moment, right? *

*Sincerely,
Michael Fumento *

**Non-Liar, Non-Liar; Pants on Fire! **

Dear Mr [sic] Femento [sic],

I want to just write this letter to you to say thanks for predicating* [sic] My *[sic] life's end I [sic] just passed my five year mark and I had all the treatments from standard [sic] 24 rounds chemo which was Adrian mycian [sic, Adriamycin] *and cy toxin *[sic, cytoxin] 8 weeks raditation [sic], plus 52 weeks herception* [sic]*.

you *[sic] *claim to know it all are you a doctor >>> so should I tell my 3 children ages 17 13 and 10 that I might be dead soon. I think you just got me so upset that means I should have no long term goals.

I am hoping this was the drug that just extends your life to at lease* [sic]* a few more years, which I was told by my doctor this was a good sign not a cure . I think you should say sorry to many family's [sic] *whom *[sic] had read this. Yes I had 3 friends die from this type of cancer but they didn't have herception [sic] I did.

I can count others that are still alive .

so [sic] *I will just say thanks but I intend to live a long time... thanks to all types of recommendations I took and went though and glad to be alive I think of others that didn't make it and pray others will, As for the people who died before these study's *[sic] *existed, I feel sorry from them it's just how medicine works when they find med's *[sic] and so on. I lost my mother 35 yrs* [sic]* ago to a cancer which knows [sic] goes into remission and stays so please spare me the I'm sorry routine.

Mrs [sic] [omitted] Calabro
Oct 20, 2000 to Present [sic] *which is 5 years cancer free [sic]*

*Dear Mrs. Calabro: *

• You seem to be confused in many areas. First, I am a science and health writer and not a politician. Politicians are the people you pay to lie to you. My job is to find interesting subjects and relay them to my readers so that they can understand them without having a formal science or medical degree. Judging from most of my mail on this subject I succeeded; but you think I failed you by telling you the truth. Yet what I wrote doesn�t even necessarily contradict what you already believed. I said claims that Herceptin is a breast cancer cure are false. Since then, my position has been supported by an editorial in Britain�s most prominent medical journal The Lancet. I did not write that Herceptin was worthless; indeed, I said that for the minority of women whom it can help (which includes you, since you overproduce the HER protein) it does appear to have benefit. It simply doesn�t have as great a benefit as the media would have had us believe. *
• That said, if the evidence indicated that Herceptin was useless I would also have told you that. Go back to the part of my response explaining the difference between my occupation and that of a politician�s. It appears quite possible that in your case the drug has been helpful (though it�s always impossible to say on a case-by-case basis) and may continue to be so. But as I also explained in my column, the five-year cut-off defining �survival� is completely arbitrary, noting that my friend �survived� her cancer for seven years and then died of it. She was not cured and since you have metastasized breast cancer then neither are you, despite making it past that vaunted mark. Yes, you and your children do need to know that. But you also need to know you may live to be 100 while I could be run over by a bus tomorrow. So I offer you no sympathy, merely my best wishes for a long, happy, and productive life. *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

Michael -

Exactly how do degrees in law and political science qualify you to write about scientific issues?

Just asking.

Your truly,
Lenny Schrieber

*Lenny � *

• Exactly why do you feel compelled to attack a highly-detailed and highly annotated (on my website) article on the basis of the degrees I earned over two decades ago, without making the least substantive argument? And what if I told you that both degrees combined took six years to earn, whereas I first began writing not just on health issues but on epidemics and pandemics 18 years ago? I guess, properly speaking, you�d feel pretty foolish, huh? *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

Michael -

No, my friend, I don't feel foolish and I am dismayed that you don't either.

I fail to see how your reply answers my question at all.

As for your article about the bird flu, its thrust seems to be: we really do not know what the precise risk is, and besides nothing serious seems to be happening right now, so why get worried about it?

I suppose you are trying to counteract the "hysteria" floating around, but instead you are simply encouraging compacency [sic]. Way to go.

Yours,
Lenny

*Dear Lenny, *

• In other words if somebody studied auto mechanics for six years and somebody else actually worked as an auto mechanic for 18 years, and your car was broken, you wouldn�t hesitate to take your car to the guy with the degree. Smart move. Of course, you will also fail to see how that answers your question as well but somehow I don�t think that�s my responsibility. *
• I�m not going to restate the vast amount of scientific material in my avian flu article just for Lenny Schrieber, especially when there�s no evidence he read it the first time around. But saying we do not know the precise risk is not the same as saying we are clueless. The minimum and probable risk is no fatalities while the maximum is well below what we�re being told. That strikes me as rather substantive. *
• As to that �right now,� I also noted that this strain of avian flu has been in birds that have interacted with humans for at least 46 years. If you�re 1,000 years old, and maybe you are Lenny, then perhaps 46 years constitutes �right now.� But for most of us it�s a pretty long time for nothing to have happened and indicates that if it hasn�t happened in that period it�s probably not going to happen in the next 46 minutes. *
• Finally, regarding encouraging complacency, I also encouraged complacency regarding Laurie Garrett�s claim that Ebola � an incredibly difficult virus to spread � could become pandemic. I induced complacency while the rest of the media claimed AIDS had already �exploded� into the middle-class heterosexual populations. I�m quite proud of the complacency I�ve spread over the years on any number of diseases, including many that don�t even exist. I find intriguing your theory that every hysteria must be taken seriously regardless of the costs � costs which including inducing complacency in people who remember the last ten times health officials and the media fed them B.S. I find it incredibly stupid to boot. *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

** The Sox and the Yankees **

Mike,

You have been quick to cite Harold Sox of the IOM to refute any "liberal" committee conclusions on Gulf War illnesses.

What will you do if the IOM changes its mind?

Will you still blindly pass their conclusions through as "truth", or will you then become a "critical analyst" of the IOM.

Be brave, let me know,
Jim Moss

*I have written 29 pieces on so-called "Gulf War Syndrome" since 1993, one approximately 12,000 words long. From that bevy of material, Dr. Sox is mentioned in only two pieces (both in 2004) for a total of three paragraphs. The person of average � or even somewhat less than average intelligence � might therefore deduce from this that Dr. Sox and his beliefs and conclusions are not intrinsic to my arguments. Obviously this does not apply to you. *

• As to your �what-if,� I haven�t played fake hypotheticals since I was a school kid. Gee, what if Godzilla decided to leave Tokyo alone and ate all of New York City? Would I still be a Yankees fan? *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

** Fillet of Sohl **

Ah, the danger of letting anybody with a keyboard post on the internet...

Read your ridiculous article:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/080305D.html

I really love your line at the end: �The case against ESCs is scientific�.

Hmmm...let's consider that BOTH the National Institutes of Health and the National Academy of Sciences have expressed the view that embryonic stem cells offer greater potential to treat and cure a variety of diseases than do adult stem cells. I guess in your mind, the findings of the NIH and NAS don't hold any scientific merit?

Have there been any cures yet? Well gee, considering that the U. of Wisconsin paper on finding and isolating stem cells ONLY CAME OUT IN NOVEMBER 1998, is that any wonder?

Dr. William Gilbert was the first to refer to (and name) the term "electric" around 1600, yet no meaningful uses came for 200 years after that. I guess that means that we really should have given up 7 years after the "discovery", in 1607?

Your article is so full of holes it's impossible to plug them all. Journalists are objective. Journalists research the facts. You do neither.

REAL science is under attack in this nation. You're just one of the thousands of quacks out there who spread the lies to the uneducated masses who buy it hook, line, and sinker.

The internet, and the state of Kansas...two places where true science seems to have no place.

Terry Sohl

*Dear Terry: *

• You may have a Sohl, but you have little in terms of a brain. In the very piece you insult, I wrote: �three years ago scientists began changing ASCs into **all **three types of cells the body produces.� Let me translate the word �all� for you Terry. It means �all.� As I also explained, the only theoretical advantage embryonic stem cells ever had was the belief (unproved) that they could become every type of cell whereas adult stem cells could not. With that removed, embryonic stem cells have no advantages left. *
• Now if you click on that hyperlink above you�ll find it refers to a study that appeared in 2002. The NIH and the NAS reports to which you refer both appeared in 2001. Therefore, unless they had access to a time travel machine, it�s safe to say the authors of both reports didn�t know about this flexibility of adult stem cells and therefore could not have factored it in. However, you were in position to know about it from my piece and you simply left it out because it didn�t serve your purpose. *
• You argue that adult stem cells have a temporal advantage in that �the U. of Wisconsin paper on finding and isolating stem cells ONLY CAME OUT IN NOVEMBER 1998� without explaining why, presumably because you don�t know why and are simply parroting something you read somewhere. So I�ll provide the argument for you. First, insert �embryonic� before the word stem. Now, the argument is that research with embryonic stem cells really only goes back to 1998 and therefore adult stem cells have had a huge head start. In fact, as Ann Parson details in her book the Proteus Effect, which I reviewed, the discoveries of both types of stem cells date back to the 1950s. That doesn�t translated into seven years, Sohl Man. But whereas the adult variety were put to use almost immediately in saving lives, it took until 1998 to even get an embryonic cell line going. Why? Because ESCs were so terribly difficult to work with and continue to be so. They do nasty things like cause rejection in animal recipients and if they�re not rejected they cause cancer, which is why there have been no human recipients. *
• Who here, then, seems to be rather lacking in education? *

• Terry Sohl�s head: A place where science has been tarred and feathered and driven out on a rail. *

  *Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

Pull your head out of your ass, buddy. Well, you're a lawyer, so I guess that means your head is perpetually up your ass.

Embryonic stem cells were only first isolated in 1998. It's a FACT that no research could be performed on embryonic stem cells until the 1998 work by the U. of Wisconsin. But yet [sic] ignorant right-wing jackasses like yourself* [sic] *continue to spout "no cures have been developed from embryonic stem cells".

7 years. No cure yet? Damn, they must be worthless!!!

I hope you're a better lawyer than you are a writer, because you're the most ignorant biased jackass of a journalist I've ever come across.

Move to Kansas, where science doesn't mean much. I think somebody with a complete lack of understanding of science such as yourself *[sic] *would fit right in. Then you can start writing about how cavemen rode around on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago, when the earth was first created.

That's about the level of scientific expertise you should stick to.

*Dear Sohless Creature: *

• You could read chapter two of The Proteus Effect about the discovery of embryonic stem cells in the 1950s. It�s fascinating stuff. But you�d rather say that my head is up my ass, repeatedly restate a falsehood that would be repudiated by reading that chapter or doing a bit of outside research, call me an ignorant right wing jackass, swear a bit more, call me a jackass again, and attack the State of Kansas again. Thank you for such a nice illustration of what support for embryonic stem cell research is all about and who is on the side of science and who bases their belief on faith. *

• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

  **Alas, There�s No Stem Cell Treatment on the Horizon for Idiocy and Mental Illness **

  These e-mails came from the rather ignorant and unstable fellow we heard from in Hate Mail 33 who carries the title of editor in chief for an obscure journal called *Stem Cells and Development. I myself have written for several publications where the editor-in-chief has little or nothing to do with the journal other than appearing on the masthead and that would seem to be the case here. I offer as evidence that the guy doesn�t even think embryonic stem cells have any value. It would be like editing The Journal of Cold Fusion is you think cold fusion is physically impossible. The first two e-mails arrived on a single day and went unanswered for five months before the third arrived. So we�re talking dumb, prejudiced, hateful, and obsessive all in one nasty little ball. *

You really are a freakin' idiot.

I came upon this "hate mail site". There is no need for hate, asshole. I think there is enough hate in this world without purveyors of false hope like you stirring the pot. Oh that's right. You have freedom of speech. So use it to get everyone all hateful. That's a great use of time Mike. What a guy.

When you see a cure, let me know. Of the 5 billion or so clinical trials* [It now stands at 900] *you cited a few months ago, did any work?

Oh they did?

Then I guess we don't have to worry about diabetes, or heart disease, or cancer , or what exactly has been cured Michael? Cause I haven't seen cure 1.

Excuse my spelling; I have copy editors. You need a brain editor.

denis english

*[2nd e-mail.] *

OK Mikey:

I keep reading and reading and I still see no cures from adult or for that matter embryonic stem cells.

You said that they were on the horizon. The horizon of what planet?

Den

Well mick* [sic], or was it mike [sic]* or muff* [sic]* or, oh who knows; and who cares. How's the Hudson Institute doing. It's been quite some time and I thought I'de *[sic] *write to confirm how accurate your predictions were.

Let me think. Oh yes.

Back then you were emphaszing* [sic]* my inability to spell to bolstrer [Sic, what inability?] *your attempt to discredit me as you demonstrated the wonders of adult stem cells and the value of attacking another pip- squeak *[sic] country. *[He�s referring to my defending the war in Iraq.] *And you were telling me about all these clinical trials that were on the verge of curing every disease known with non-embryonic stem cells.

Why? I don't know. I wrote in an editorial that the dreams of adult stem cells have not been realized. I never endorsed embryonic stem cells, but since you ass holes* [One word or two? Be consistent.] must use the misconception that adult stem cells can do everything that embryonic stem cells do as your only rationale for your unethical stance against ES research, you as well as the entire anti-abortion community reacted with a vengance *[sic] *and said, ""Just wait Denis"...." Clinical trials are in progress and they are on to something. Ask Irv Weismann. [Sic, it�s �Irv Weissman.�] He agrees that Cathy is on to something. Just wait. You'll see." [He�s referring to Catherine Verfaillie, the first researcher to apparently discover adult stem cells that could be differentiated into all three germ layers and hence theoretically into every type of cell in the body. Irving Weissman is actually a vociferous critic of anything to do with adult stem cells, but felt obliged to concede that Verfaillie might be onto something.] *

Well Mike, I'm still waiting. And I dont* [sic]* see any cures. None, Not [sic] *one. Nada, *[sic] *nil, negativo *[sic].

But you were right about Iraq. This was a great idea. Now what? How about $3.00 / gasoline and a country infuriated. *[He wrote this in the aftermath of Katrina, blaming high gas prices on the Iraq war.] *

Bush--- Bush---- he's Mike's man. If he don't pay him, no one can. Or would.

Keep your spell checker on high gear ass fuck. [Clearly �assfuck� should be one word; though most spell checkers would probably miss it.] It's all you can do right.

Denny

Denis English, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief
Stem Cells and Development

*Dear denis, Den, Denny, Denis English, Ph.D, etc.: *

• �There is no need for hate, asshole.� Interesting way of putting things. *
• The great majority of clinical trials never result in treatments, and fewer still in outright cures. Moreover, even if a drug makes it through all three phases and receives FDA approval it usually takes about five years. It�s probably about the same timeline for biologics, such as stem cell therapies. So to expect miracles in a few months is really rather much. That said, you specifically mentioned cures for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Marrow stem cells have been curing cancer since the 1950s and today curing cancer remains the primary use of adult stem cells (ASCs). Currently they can cure or treat approximately 70 different cancers. That you are ignorant of them says nothing about the science, but much about you. *
• I recently wrote of how Harvard�s Denise Faustman has cured Type-1 diabetes in rodents using a technique involving stem cells but that she can�t get funds for a human study because all the money is being funneled away for ESC research or incredibly expensive and dangerous pancreatic transplants. That�s not the fault of Faustman or ASCs. *
• I have also written about the use of marrow stem cells to rebuild both heart muscle and heart blood vessels in humans. These experiments have been successful in studies all over the world. Brazil, in cooperation with the U.S., has begun stem cell experiments on 1,200 people for four different heart problems. All of these heart studies have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals that can be found on Medline. Have somebody look them up for you. *
• Although you didn�t mention them, another study showed ASCs repairing human livers (heretofore thought impossible) and in yet another researchers reported repairing the spine of a long-paralyzed Korean woman so that she can now get around with a walker.*

*A study last May in the *New England Journal of Medicine *(perhaps you�ve heard of it) described transplanting umbilical cord stem cells into infants with Krabbe's disease, a vicious illness causing progressive neurological deterioration and death in early childhood. �Infants who underwent transplantation before the development of symptoms showed progressive central myelination and continued gains in developmental skills, and most had age-appropriate cognitive function and receptive language skills,� the researchers reported. *

*This is just a tidbit of what�s happening in the exciting world of adult stem cells. These are the cures and treatments you refer to as �None, Not one. Nada, nil, negativo.� But you wouldn�t know about them and won�t know about them until you learn to read. As for ESC clinical trials, well, keeping track of them is as easy as ever insofar as there are still none. *

*There was also a recent highly interesting article that confirmed and provided further information to earlier studies showing �significant improvements in the behavioral defects of rats that received human umbilical cord blood cells 24 hours after a middle cerebral arterial occlusion [stroke].� You may have heard of the publication in which it appeared even if is little known in the real world. It�s called Stem Cells and Development. *

• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

**Pride and Pomposity **

*[I first heard from this nutcase back in Hate Mail XXIV. I noted then that "SHAD� stands for "Shipboard Hazard and Defense." It lasted from 1962 to 1973 with the vital purpose of trying to learn how to protect our military from bio-chemical attacks, a threat we now know is all too real. According to the VA, "Simulants replaced actual chemical and biological warfare agents in most of these tests . . . but some plans involved the use of actual chemical and biological warfare agents. However, so far we have found no evidence to indicate that participation in Project SHAD caused harmful health effects at the time." Nor since then.] *

Subject: I'm hoping you've had sufficient time to pull your head out of your ass.....

Most likely NOT, but there's 10,000 OTHER guys you can hate in my place:

*[Here he makes reference to a House bill that would hand money over to SHAD veterans for no other reason than that Congress knows it looks good to hand money to vets, even non-combat ones.] *

Your lowbrow, sniggering attacks on me and all the rest of the Project SHAD/112 Veterans* [sic]* is [sic] reprehensible at BEST.

I hope you've got the GUTS to show up in your D.C. office....then, you can jeer at me IN PERSON.

I've had FIVE heart operations since 2002, so you should be able to round up a few secretaries to "save" you.

What a pompous ASSHOLE you really are.

J.B. Stone

*Dear J.B.: *

• Still stoned, I see. I want to make it clear that I�ve never written about Project SHAD except in response to you, therefore my lowbrow sniggering attacks are aimed entirely at you personally and should not be extrapolated to others. I do regularly show up in my D.C. office and would be happy to jeer at you IN PERSON. Finally, I�m about to undergo my third major abdominal surgery in the last seven months beginning with the first I had at the military hospital in Baghdad. The difference between you and me is that I accept that bad things can happen to good people or, as is the case with you, to bad people. I don�t go around concocting conspiracy theories and looking for people to blame. *
• Now tell me, J.B., what kind of an **ASSHOLE **are you? *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

I accept that bad things can happen to good people or, as is the case with you, to bad people *[sic] *

AS I said, what an ASSHOLE...!!!

I hate to point THIS out, shithead, but I have probably done MORE to advance the cause of the Project SHAD/112 folks than you EVER could.

�The difference between you and me is that I accept that bad things can happen to good people or, as is the case with you, to bad people. I don�t go around concocting conspiracy theories and looking for people to blame.�

No, the DIFFERENCE is that you think YOUR shit doesn't stink....wrong AGAIN, bucko.

It's OBVIOUS that you would do ANYTHING to trample over other Veterans [sic] to get your fame and fortune quotient increased.

You'll get YOURS... ;-)

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." Dante, The Inferno

Oh, and by ALL means, don't ever write an article about Project 112/SHAD with your shit eating attitude [sic]. I can ALREADY feel the urge to projectile vomit. *[This is something of a military victim clich�. �Projectile� simply means �forceful,� which includes most vomiting. But to alleged sufferers of military disorders like Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome it takes on a mystical meaning.] *

Yeah, you're a real "tough guy"....but, have you ever spent the afternoon looking for your teeth...???

*Dear J.B.: *

• I daresay you wouldn�t have to spend the afternoon looking for your teeth if you brushed and flossed more often than on your birthday. If you�ve �advanced� the �cause� of participants of SHAD, then your cause is must be to scare the hell out of people whose only �wrong-doing� was to serve their country. But somehow I suspect few of them take you any more seriously than I do. When your basic argument comprises labeling those with whom you disagree �assholes,� it means that your basic argument is wanting. Regarding another aspect of your fecal fixation, I don�t believe I�ve ever commented on the odor of my excrement. But having been called upon now to do so, I will opine that even deposited on a sidewalk on a sweltering summer day it would be as a flower compared to your professed opinions. *
• I remind you yet again that I�ve never written on SHAD for publication, therefore it could hardly increase my fame and fortune. Indeed, it is you who are seeking direct monetary profit for having allegedly participated in the experiment and allegedly having become ill from it. Apparently having seen my writings on other veterans scams like agent orange and Gulf War Syndrome and knowing that I�m a vet myself, you�re afraid I�ll debunk efforts to throw money at SHAD veterans as well. And you know, J.B., just maybe I will. *

*Be afraid. Be very afraid. *

• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento*

  From the Peanut Galley

Michael,

On your blog, why can't you disagree with people without ad homenim [sic] attacks -- calling them names, etc.?

~Hayden Reese

*Dear Reese, *

• Why are you named after a peanut butter cup? *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

• [Actually, I reserve my hate mail pages for name calling and as I suspected there is no Hayden Reese. The message bounced back.] *

  **Subject: HBO�s Anit-white [sic] Fairy Tales **

  *[Actual title: �HBO�s Anti-Whitewashed Fairy Tales.�] *

Dear Michael,

Just now, I came across your article on the web about the Anti-white washing of HBO's fairty [sic] tales. I agree with you that its [sic] *extrememly *[sic] irritating, if not outright wrong, to give stories as influential as Grimm�s Fairy Tales an ethnic makeover. It�s unnecessary and, if you ask me, clear evidence of a broader, thinly veiled* [sic]* social agenda. Its *[sic] *like that movie, a few years back, where an actor from France was cast in the role of Christ, who was clearly not French, and an actress from Italy was cast as the Mother of Christ, who was clearly not Italian. Since you�re not a hypocrite, I'm sure you wrote Mel Gibson an equally snide letter *[Actually, I wrote a column about HBO�s antics; not a letter] *condemning his inaccuracy.

Sincerly* [sic],
Shayla *[omitted]
rave_n_black@[omitted]

*Dear Shayla, *

• You are SO right! That�s why I�m putting together a production company to make an epic film about the civil rights movement in which Martin Luther King Jr. will be played by singer Elton John, Rosa Parks will be played by Brad Pitt, Sheriff Bull Connor will be played by Denzel Washington, and Connor�s German shepherds will be played by freshly-coifed cute little French poodles. The Ku Klux Klanners, naturally, will be played by gay cowboys who eschew condoms. *

• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

  **A Conspiracy to Commit Conspiracy Theories **

Mr. Fumento,

While doing some 9-11 research, I read your piece about the uses of DNA, etc. and I was wondering if you have any references to positive IDs made on people who were on any of the 9-11 planes. Also if you have any links to interviews with any of the gate personnel who saw people actually getting on those flights [150 words omitted].

Alan *[omitted] *

*[And this is what I get for giving a polite reply instead of hitting �delete.�] *

• I never looked into any of this. Sorry. *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

Well, perhaps you should. Here's a little introduction [and here�s a little omission of 989 words claiming 9-11 was a conspiracy tied to about a dozen other conspiracies going back to WWII.]

So, Mike, have you looked into any of THIS?

*Dear Alan, *

• I am now sorry I said I�m sorry. You�re a fruitcake. *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *

** Subject: Egg on your Face **

Stastistics* [sic] always have to get higher (which translates into more illness, deaths, lawsuits) before changes, recalls, bans, and warnings are issued. Look how long it took for tobacco products to have warnings on them! There was a time when asbestos and dursban *[Dursban, an insecticide] were considered safe. Now those are banned. But it takes YEARS because of people like you who prefer profits over healthy lives. Shame on you!

*[Beneath she provided five hyperlinks, some of which were about chemicals generally but a couple of which made it clear she�s from the MCS menagerie.] *

gail

*Dear Gail, *

• Asbestos is only partially banned; Dursban is not banned at all � although admittedly I can see how someone of your intellect might think so from the second syllable. None of the links you provided � including the one that drew from the trusty Environmental Working Group � provides the least evidence that there are more deaths, illnesses, or lawsuits from alleged sensitivity to chemicals. I suggest you read articles before telling others to. I do find quite compelling your theory that anything suggested as being harmful will ultimately prove to be so given enough time and therefore should immediately be banned. Were that the case, none of us would be using microwave ovens since there was a health scare over them when they started becoming popular in 1967. Likewise, the brain cancer-cell phone scare of 1993 would hardly have led to most Americans owning such devices today. It was even thought a century ago that if cars went much faster people would be squished in their seats. *
• But say, are you from Denver? You seem to have an omelet where your eyes, nose, and mouth should be. *
• Sincerely,
  Michael Fumento *