Shots Across The Bow

I think his response is enough to show what an ass he is without you even bothering to fisk him.
Sr. Fellow!!?? very professional response. Maybe you should forward his little rant to the NY Post so they could find out what a wonderful professional writer he is...

Nice job rich! You may be an absolute nobody, but he feels the need to justify himself to you.

Well, I just sent a note to Mr. Fumento, telling him that I'm one of your "two readers," and inviting him to confirm or deny that the email actually came from him. (Please o please deny it -- keep diggin, keep diggin.)
On his website, he says he would never, ever say anything rude in e-mail, because he's so prominent that it would be all over the Internet and embarrass him.
This guy's livelihood depends on his ability to accurately forecast events. I think we need to fulfill his prophecy -- for his sake.

Hi Laura,

Thanks for the thought, but I just rambled through Michael's hate mail myself, and it's obvious he uses sarcasm and personal attacks as his primary defense when his mistakes, distortions, and outright lies are exposed. I can't tell whether the disclaimer you mention is supposed to be humor, or results from his own delusions. Does he honestly believe his responses are not nasty or insulting? Considering that he links to a suck.com piece which praises him for being nasty and insulting, I think that possibility is out of the question.

As for me, the facts on the Atkins Plan are clear; it does work, and it is safe. It may not be better than the AHA plan, but it certainly is no worse, and for me it's a much easier plan to live with. If Fumento wants to continue the debate by answering the challenges I put to him, great. If all he wants to do is trade insults, that's not a game that interests me. Let him enjoy his "triumph" over a "nobody." It costs me nothing.

Let me know how he answers you. It could be fun!

Take care

Michael who? Never heard of him, Rich. What a jerk!

Well, see that, you're just a bigger person than I am. Despite Atkins (heh). The oh-so-famous celebrity bigshot has not yet deigned to favor me with a response -- I'll let you know if he does.

I went to his site to see what he is about and wasn't impressed at all. I was also disheartened to find out that he isn't comfortable enough for people to make dirrect comments to him. Maybe it is because he just doesn't want it that way or maybe he is just afraid of what people actually may say. He seems to have a very large ego but has a fear to what people say of him. If he is so great then why can't he handle comments directed to him...

Two Words:

Pompous Ass

Well, I just got here from a link by Steven Den Beste (who must be your 2nd reader), so I'd say your readership, for this post at least, has just increased by several factors.

I'd say Mr. Fumiento will soon be regretting his comments.

Yet again another writer providing ample evidence to justify why I don't read printed news much. Atleast with blogs you know the guy's bent and with good ones you can read alternative views and sources.

Unfortunately, you're not the first blogger to get the full Fumento. Charles Murtaugh pushed his buttons back last fall (see the Sept. 27th posting here) and received another insulting reply. It's not as crazed as your specimen, but it also seemed to come out of nowhere.

Not sure what it is with the guy. He writes well, and even when he misfires, he's worth the time. But there's clearly something shorted out in the wiring of his personality. My site deals with medical/pharma issues all the time, but I'm steering clear of Fumento. Who needs the aggravation?

Perhaps the Fellow feels guilty about doing sloppy research or something. Otherwise, why would he take the time out of his busy schedule to comment. (Maybe he isnt all that busy after all.)

There is a huge difference between a circulation of three million readers and the amount of people who read a single article. All the ad homs, if Mr. Fumento ever makes it rich, you should sue him for defimation. Of course, since you published his comments, watch him sue you for using his words to defame himself.

Hate to burst your bubble but as someone living in Toronto, SARS was largely a non-event. The general public wasn't at risk and at no time did I feel that I was in any danger. And saying Canada is rather broad. It was just a couple of hotspots. Geez.

It just goes to show that the "elite" know how much of a fake they often are.

Wow man you must've got him really mad. He sounds like an angry 16 year old girl.

http://www.fumento.com/img4/mikefumento.jpg

Fat face?!? Who is Fumento to talk? He looks like a zombie.

Somebody once had a whole site filled with nasty, snarky Fumento quotes. I can no longer find it. The guy's been spinning out of control for some time.

Wow. I used to have quite a bit of respect for Fumento's work, based on the numerous articles of his that I've read in Reason. But after reading his e-mail to you, my respect for him just dropped to zero. He actually accuses you of being arrogant?

Incidentally, the correct term for discussing interest rates is "principal," not "principle." And a lower rate is only better if you're the borrower. If you're the lender or investor, you want the highest rate of return you can get, right?

P.S. I also came here via Steven Den Beste's site. So will a lot of other people, I expect.

How *DARE* you publish his private coorespondence to you and reveal him to be a petulant jackass!

Don't you know that such things Simply Aren't Done?

I mean, it's acceptable to publish portions of coorespondence that flatter the writer, but Sir, you have gone too far! It might harm the vital reputation of a Very Important Person, upon whom millions and millions of readers depend. I mean, what's next? Soon people will start seeing columnists as intellectual frauds, and then where will it end? Paul Krugman might end up losing his job!

Also came here from Steven Den Beste's site.

Appears "our betters" in the "real media" are compelled to "teach us manners" in case we get "too uppity".

Amusing - I'd have to agree with his essential points, but where did this come from? What a strange and vicious message to send!

It's especially interesting to see him flip this way when discussing epidemics, since his major work was "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS." I think perhaps he's been sensitized by that discussion, and maybe he had trouble with the idea that once he agreed that a "quarantine" was acceptable for containing SARS, he may logically be compelled to agree that a a quarantine was acceptable for containing AIDS.

Yet another visitor via U.S.S. Clueless. All I can say is, what an ass. From what I can tell though it wouldn't matter to him if you had 2 readers or 2,000,000. He'd still be just as rude.

Also stopping by from the Clueless. Sorry but you really should show Mr Fumento more respect. I mean, he writes for the NY Post! If that's not a first-tier scholarly journal, I don't know what is.

Also here from Clueless.

At least he left out the "nanny-nanny boo-boo"...

I'm still trying to find out which of these two clowns is more insufferable than the other.

But what if the disease with the 100 percent mortality rate struck one human a year while that with the 1 percent rate struck a billion per year? Your uneducated little mind just can't grasp that, can it?

What I can grasp is that in his example you'd have to have a infected population of 100 billion. Perhaps a source of concern for your average planetary empire.

referred here by SDB. That was one ludacris email. It is hard to imagine that a professional writer who draws "millions of readers a day" would be such a tool. (no better word to describe him).

I am appalled. "Fat face"?

A tasty link on Fumento:

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/dimtext/reviews/fumento_review.html

I'd like to see him go at it with Ray Audette.

Also from den Beste. It seems to me that Internet blogging is essentially the new wave of journalism. The cost and access bar has been dramatically lowered and the competition of ideas is in full flow and will only expand. Mr. Fumento is harboring the illusion that he is important because of the distribution of old media. On the contrary, you are more important because you are read by the early adopters of this new form of journalistic information delivery. We early adopters are more influential in the long run than the myriad readers of old media. Just watch the evolution of ideas that will follow from the blogs - the place that truth and reason win out. By the way, I am clipping the last paragraph to use in a blog of my own that I hope to start - unless you object. "A diss from Fumento - priceless - everything else is masterthingcard.

I'm also here from Clueless. The first thought I had was Pompous Asshat - John pretty much beat me to it.

But what if the disease with the 100 percent mortality rate struck one human a year while that with the 1 percent rate struck a billion per year? Your uneducated little mind just can't grasp that, can it?

What I can grasp is that in his example you'd have to have a infected population of 100 billion. Perhaps a source of concern for your average planetary empire.

Actually, I think he means the infection rate of the disease versus the mortality rate. If the 1% infects 1B a year, then that is 10 million dead a year. Where as if the 100% infects 1 a year, that is only 1 dead a year.

Regarldless of infection rate, if you have to choose between being infected by a 1% mortality rate and a 100% mortality rate, the choide should be obvious.

Here's the summary of the review of Fumento's book to which Ewin linked:

The Fat of the Land is just another exploitive book by man who lost a few pounds and now feels like he's the one who beat the odds. In most areas he is embarrassingly wrong. His slurs and insults and his lame attempts at humor at the expense of fat people are disgraceful. The fact that the press, including USA Weekend, gave this Don Rickles wannabe so much coverage (while pretty much glossing over the diet drug tragedy) is a sad testimony of the mainstream media's priorities.

That's the nicest part of the whole review. Judging from his juvenile email above, I'd say that Fumento suffers from a serious character flaw. It's hard to take someone like that seriously.

So what's an educated guy doing with two mis-aligned begging bowls on his site? The Hudson Institute doesn't pay it's fellows all that well I suppose.

And you might want to ask him what he's doing as a medical columnist without being a doctor. Blew the MCAT did we?

Well, well, a guy no one knows who thinks he's a hot shot because he has a by-line no one reads, until he steps in shit. Like Jayson Blair.

What an idiot. How many of his readers are 'chunky-monkey's?' How many are svelt thin models? Your guess is as good as mine.

But a mad journalist is a sight to behold.

I'm not even one of your regular readers, but came here from SDB's site and was so incensed at Fumento's screed that I emailed him the following:

"If this truly your writing, then for shame, sir. I'm not a party to the argument you're having with this guy, nor do I care to be; but such poor behavior on your part certainly guarantees that I will not become one of the three million anytime soon--and I may become part of the two. Arrogance? Calling the guy fat--despite your own website photo, yet? Honestly, sir.

Sincerely,
Fred Herman--
just some guy with no column and no blog, and no odd need to wave either around for my ego."

Here from USS Clueless. I say look on the bright side: had you only ONE reader instead of two, Fumento REALLY would've lit into you.

I shudder to think about how cruelly he might mistreat a correspondent whom no one reads at all.

Another from the SDBlanche.

More proof that tone matters... most of the people here seem to dislike Fumento's position more because of his condesation than his factual errors.

Mayhap I should reconsider my tone when talking to people...

... naah, too much fun to be abusive :)

Toronto was an interesting example of quarantine too.

At first nothing was done. Cases started appearing left and right from one initial patient, who died.

Quarantine.

Cases stop spreading increasing.

The quaratine was limited and did not affect even 1% of the people.

Fred

Cluessless as well. I sent Mr. (used very lossely) Fumento and got a reply.

Well, he's certainly as good a person as you. Not that I would like that comparison.

And did I say three million? That's from just one of the 400 newspapers. And it's a bit over three million, more on Sundays.

His level of arrogance is simply astounding. I really feel sorry for him. He has to live in his world with so much hate.

Great work Matt! Tipping back a cold one in your honor.

Thanks most kindly for flushing that Jackass out and bringing him to everyone's attention. (I damnsure never heard of him!) I sent him a quick (non abusive) e-mail in the hopes of adding to a flood of others. I essentially said..

"Ignore the Blogsphere at your own peril, that's likely to be where your replacement will come from."
shotsacrossthebow.com Reader #2

Yikes! "Rich" sorry!

I haven't read any of the studies. But two doctors have told me things which summarize to 1) Atkins really only works insofar as it's a low-calorie diet in disguise 2) Ordinary low-carb diets show better long-term results than any other known diets 3) Atkins has a relatively high dropout rate 4) The high-protein intake associated with Atkins leads to other problems. Myself, all I know is that total calorie reduction makes physics sense.

hehe what an ass...

"The readers...they're...they're talking back! Nooooo!"

Just so we're all clear here. The rate at which a disease infects a population is the morbidity rate. Size your morbidity and mortality rates for differing diseases to the same factor (1 in 10^6, etc), multiply the numerators, and voila. The disease with the larger product of the numerators is the "worse" disease.

Fumento has written a book with predictions that turned out to be true: ie, one on the myth of heterosexual aids. However, I agree with the people who suggest that he has serious emotional problems - that series of insults are away over the horizon of acceptable discourse. Also, his spelling needs brushing up. Definitely.

"Fumento" must be Italian for "small penis".

And does anyone else suspect that M.F. might just be a failed Atkins "porker" himself?

Such bitterness from so important a person! Though his fame, journalistic acumen, and overall talent seem essentially self-proclaimed, one would still expect a little less of a shrill, compensatory tone from a by-God "HUDSON Institute"-er!

Is the Hudson Institute one of the better vo-techs, by the way? ;)

I think you’re being a little unfair. You post here Fumento’s last letter, but Fumento appears to have most, if not all, of the email exchange. You’ll find it here: http://www.fumento.com/hatemail/hatemail15.html

Your first email concludes with this paragraph:

“I looked into your qualifications as shown on the website to the Hudson Institute. Strangely it seems that you have no academic background in health science or in any other area of science. Maybe that explains in part how you can be mistaken in an area where you do not have any special expertise. You should leave this sort of writing to those who are qualified to comment on the disease.”

Not really an auspicious way to start a pen-pal relationship, no? The email exchange got progressively bitter, apparently ending with the missive on you posted above. Were one to look solely at that item, one might conclude that you were gratuitously insulted. Looking at what appears to be the whole exchange on Fumento’s site, it looks like you may have gotten what you deserved.

Interestingly, got this reply from Mr. Fumento--

"Do you not consider it relevent that a promoter of a diet is fat himself? However few readers he has, Hailey is horribly misleading them. Maybe that doesn't bother you, but it's my job to point such things out. My body fat percentage is 13.0, achieved through astutely ignoring everything Atkins and his apostles have advised.

Michael Fumento
www.fumento.com
Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
Medical/Science Columnist, Scripps-Howard Syndicate
Join the Fumento Discussion at:
http://lists.cryptohill.net/mailman/subscribe/fumento-discuss "

Emailed him back:
"Think you're missing the point here, sir--which has more to do with basic courtesy than it does with weight."

Also here via SDB. As a board-certified, practicing physician with a Master's in psych, I had a nearly visceral reaction to Fumento's website: This man is vile and instantly dislikable. (Clinical pearl: When you meet someone in person and you instantly dislike them, think Axis II diagnosis.) His presentation is neither scholarly nor witty nor persuasive. His assertions may have merit - I simply can't bring myself to read them without feeling contempt for the author and his absence of character.

His qualifications and many of his arguments seem to rely on his being a published ambulance chaser who lost some weight.

So?

After reading Fooydoedoe's little screed, I couldn't go to bed until I said how I feel here.

It sounds to me, a USS Clueless daily reader, that Mr. Fumento (or Mr. Fomento, as his Mr. Hyde-like demeanor should be called) simply needs to embrace the healing power of Jesus in his life.

With the warmth and acceptance of Christ, he won't feel the need to lash out so aggressively at other people. He might seem like a demagogue, but he's probably just alone and afraid of being accepted for who he really is. Once he sees that his life and work can be productive by using his love for Christ Jesus to do good works, he'll become much mellower and more accepting of honest criticism.

WE'RE PRAYING FOR YOU, MR. FUMENTO!

Also via SDB. As formerly practicing engineer, a currently practicing surgeon and someone who has been trying to define optimum diet for years, I must say this guy reminds me of myself many years ago when I was in my engineer phase. I believed all it took to understand a medical issue was to read a few textbooks and articles and suddenly I was the worlds expert. Its amazing how 8 years of clinical training plus years of actually taking care of patients actually changes your perspective on what works. My point is: Fumento appears to have neither the training nor the experience in the health sciences be qualified as anything more than a meta-analyzing blowhard. Now if he had his own weight loss clinic with a 90% 20 year success rate, that would be a different story (and he wouldn't be writing this crap). As far as his body fat being 13%, anecdotal evidence means nothing. And speaking of fat faces, somebody should challenge Fumeto to a public body fat measurement. Something tells me this lawyer might be fudging the data a little.

He is rude and crude and the global stats would have MORE chinese simply because like duh, didn't the disease first get noticed there?

Second: heterosexual AIDS is no myth. Ask the Germans about their tainted blood supply in a country where prostitution is legal and the government was supposed to test the blood supply.

He is an insecure researcher who needs to be catered to...his ego must be stroked. After all, he has to justify his existence, does he not? He is never so tall as when he is standing on the pile of bodies he had to sacrifice in order to get there. What a jerk.

Also via SDB.

Regarding Fumento - uhh, can you say "Bi-Polar"?

I think someone has been skipping his meds.

Sent this to FumingMan, let's see if there's a response....

I guess my question is; why? If you're so important, and he's so unimportant, what was your motivation for the hydrophobic rant?

Just curious....

Has anyone actually heard of Fumento before he became publicized here and by SDB's link here? My guess is no...he looks to be an obscure writer using the blogging community to generate a few more hits for his website, no doubt.

Also here from USS Clueless.

He who has to resort to insults loses. The argument is not over Mr. Fumento's qualifications--it surrounds his professionalism. Of which he apparently has none.

How pathetic.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a major information organization picks this up the way it is spreading.

Reminds me of the whole Bernard Schiffman fiasco.
http://www.petemoss.com/spamflames/ShifmanIsAMoronSpammer.html

It's just nice to see people like this finally get their just desserts.

I sent him a polite message as well:

"I find this entire passage, if authentic, more than a little disturbing. No one ever said that science was dispassionate or disinterested, but it could at least be civil. And more humble.

For the sake of your readership, you might wish to address this."

Reply?

"Your mail is blocked."

See? Brevity really IS wit.

I wrote this email to him:

Mr. Fumento,

You are a creep with an obvious inferiority complex about your intelligence. Truly intelligent people who are comfortable with their intelligence do not feel the need to whip out their c.v. to win an argument. But, according to Bob Hailey, that is just what you did. In one email you wrote:

“But the nice thing about all this is that you are an absolute nobody who can publish nowhere outside of his own blog site that I never would have heard of had my name not come up. I am a weekly syndicated health and science columnist who is read each week by literally millions of people. One of my SARS pieces was in the New York Post, with over three million readers alone. Do you get three million hits in one day?”

First, do you really think 3 million readers actually read your article?

Then you add this little gem:

“I've been writing on epidemiology for 16 years. If you lock horns with me, you're going to be wrong.”

So if you write on a subject for 16 years you become incapable of errors? An arrogant assertion, if that is your claim. Or perhaps you merely feel that there is no way a lay person could prove you wrong. Well, gee sorry that one of us poor plebes dared to challenge you on anything, your highness.

The more you throw around your credentials, the more you belittle others for their lack of education, call them dumb or hide behind the fact that the New York Post published you, the more I have to think that all of those successes were not the by-products of a love of learning, but instead were the goals of your education itself. In other words, being published in places where lots of people are likely to see your work, that your education, etc. were all about filling some kind of void in your personality.

Why else react with such viciousness when attacked? Because this is not merely an academic discussion to you, but a validation of something you believe to be lacking in yourself. And when your logic is attacked, it is tantamount to attacking that hole deep in your soul.

And, point in fact, you didn’t really refute his point. You wrote the following:

“[Quoting him:] ‘By your numbers, SARS had an overall mortality rate of approxinmately (sic) 9%. Since other respiratory ailments generally run at less than 1% (sic), even in the elderly, that one factor alone warrants considerable concern.’ Wrong, oh captain of the SS Minnow. Mortality for flu runs at about three percent and is much higher in the elderly. Moreover, as I tried to explain to him, without cracking the thick steel armor that surrounds his skull, ‘A higher mortality rate is as meaningless without additional information as a higher interest rate on your principle without knowing what that principle is. By your reasoning, any disease with a mortality rate of 100 percent is obviously much more serious than one with a one percent mortality rate. It's not even comparable. But what if the disease with the 100 percent mortality rate struck one human a year while that with the 1 percent rate struck a billion per year?’”

So let’s break this down. He says: “SARS had an overall mortality rate of [approximately] 9%.” You don’t refute that.

He says: “other respiratory ailments generally run at less than 1% (sic), even in the elderly” You don’t actually refute that either, except to say that “Mortality for flu runs at about three percent[.]” But is the Flu “other ailments generally?” No. It is one other ailment. To disprove a statement about ailments in general, you have to talk about at least a majority of the ailments.

Then you say: “A higher mortality rate is as meaningless without additional information as a higher interest rate on your principle without knowing what that principle is. By your reasoning, any disease with a mortality rate of 100 percent is obviously much more serious than one with a one percent mortality rate. It's not even comparable. But what if the disease with the 100 percent mortality rate struck one human a year while that with the 1 percent rate struck a billion per year?”

Now all that is logically true, to a degree, but there is a problem with your logic. While a 100% mortality rate is of less concern if it is only confined to one person a year, what if it starts by infecting one person a year and then infects 100 people the next year, and then 10,000 the next? Having a 9% mortality rate (by your numbers, 3 times that of the flu), is a concern when it is a GROWING disease and it is not certain when it will stop. And while I will concede there was also too much panic, at the same time I would rather have us err on the side of panic, and make sure that disease is stopped in its tracks. As the old adage goes: better safe than sorry.

Also he made the valid point that comparing China to the rest of the world was not comparing apples to apples. He (apparently) pointed out that there was a drastic quarantine in place slowing the disease down. You dismiss that argument as follows:

“You cannot provide any evidence that quarantines played a major role. It is mere speculation on your part.”

But logically, you cannot provide any evidence that quarantines did NOT play a major role, either. That is equally speculation on your part. The effect of quarantines is clearly an X factor of unknown effect, making it extremely inappropriate to claim that the only differences between the Chinese cases and the rest of the world is hygiene and the like.

But whether you are right or wrong is beside the point. The point is that you were being a grade-A jerk in the emails I saw. Let me quote a few passages:

“As to Atkins, if it works so well why is it you have such a fat face?” Like as if anecdotal evidence is any good, anyway.

“I've found that those who defend Atkins with a religious fervor as you do, and ignore all studies, as you do, are nonetheless little porkers.” Same objection.

“You [Hailey] are a nobody and everybody knows it but R. Hailey.” Real classy.

“Have a happy useless life.” Life is useful if and only if you are published? See what I mean about this stuff validating your miserable existance?

“Wrong, oh captain of the SS Minnow.” Cheap.

“I tried to explain to him, without cracking the thick steel armor that surrounds his skull.” Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Nice.

“Let me give you Mike's hierarchy of stupidity, which amounts to four levels. At the top are those who are smart and know it; then there are those who are smart but don't know it; then those who are dumb but at least they don't know it; and finally there are those who are idiots but think they're smart. You clearly occupy the fourth tier.” Of course, intelligence is purely binary. There are not, for instance, people who are somewhat smarter than average and burn with jealousy at those who are geniuses, right? [Irony intended.]

Finally, I love this galling comment you made after thumping your chest about how brilliant you are:

“This is not to brag about me” it isn’t? “but to say that you are a pissant and your arrogance and ignorance is made clear in your aforementioned comments.”

Now first, I assume you know the definition of the word “pissant,” right? Assuming you do, it is another example of you saying, “How dare you mere insect question me the supreme debunker!” And his ignorance, well, you didn’t really establish that yet. Finally his arrogance? For what? For intellectually challenging you? Yes, how dare this pissant plebe challenge the great lawyer and writer of articles, Michael Fumento! Don’t you know that he is a god and you are a bug?

Really, do you have any idea what a jerk you sound like when you say all that? Try this. Show your email exchange to your wife and see what she thinks of it. See what she thinks of your insults.

One last comment:

“Moreover, you were so steeped in stupidity that you thought it overrode my right to free expression to the extent you directly wrote to my boss and demanded that he force me to stop writing about SARS. So you're not only a pinhead; you're a tyrant.”

So let me get this straight. A person questions the accuracy of a journalist, and asks that his boss stop him from writing about a subject because of that perceived inaccuracy and that is censorship? I suppose then the New York Times viciously censored Jayson Blair, too. Now if you are right on SARS and Atkins, then, of course your boss should not be taking issue with you. But you have no right to false speech, and he did nothing wrong to challenge the truthfulness of your speech--at least as far as I can see from the record before me.

Further, your right to free expression only extends to the government; that is, the government cannot abridge your freedom of expression. You are a lawyer and therefore you should know that, if you don’t know that already. Like I have repeatedly said when addressing my liberal friends on those anti-war speakers who were booed off the stage at different graduation ceremonies: freedom of speech is not the right to a megaphone. These different magazines provide you with a megaphone and they have the constitutional right to deprive you of that megaphone anytime they want.

Finally, a word from a Virginia lawyer to a lawyer who at least lives in Virginia. You better hope to God that you don’t practice in Virginia, because if you do, and our friendly Hailey ever gets it into his head to complain about your ugliness, the Virginia Bar might have something to say about your unprofessional conduct toward him.

Whoever wins the intellectual contest, you at the very least owe him an apology for the vicious ad hominems.

Sincerely,

A Virginia Lawyer

His only response was an email saying my email was now blocked. Mmm, seems he is running away from a fight. Maybe because I nailed him to the wall too successfully?

Coward!

I think I will post it on my site, too.

1) Obligatory I-came-here-from-SBD

2) Tom asks "Has anyone actually heard of Fumento before he became publicized here and by SDB's link here?" In my case, "yes." I have read a lot of his work over the years in Reason (http://reason.com/) I would have to say the major theme of his writing has been that some health-related belief widerly held by many people is wrong. The classic example I remember is his story on Gulf War Syndrome (http://reason.com/9703/fe.fumento.shtml). The basic idea is that 1) Soldier is healthy; 2) then Soldier was in Gulf war; 3) then Soldier became sick; 4) Soldier thus believes that sickness was caused by Gulf War. The problem with this is that statistically a lot of the same group of soldiers would have gotten sick without the first Gulf War. This is compounded by the alleged fact that people hearing about a sickness can be psychosomatically driven to experience the same symptoms (especially the symptoms alleged for Gulf War Syndrome), creating a positive feedback loop. I interpreted this whole story as in Reason because of "step 5, lobby government to give all soldiers who were in the Gulf War who get sick special compensation."

3) I attribute a fair amount of Fumento's bile as damage from years of people communicating with him who start from the assumption that Fumento is stupid/deluded/mendacious/corrupt/evil/some-combination. For Rich this interaction started afresh, but Fumento has seen a lot of the same sort of initial approaches that look like Rich's, but are really just people trying to get their foot in the door to rant and rave and shout Fumento down. He now probably has difficulty distinguising between the contacts of genuinely curious/challenging people, and those who start with an ax to grind into his skull.

Sorry, Atkins is not a healthy diet for any prolonged period of time (beyond 2 months).

Also from the USS Clueless. Whatever about having 2 readers before, you surely have more now.

Fumento does himself a disservice here, but it's useful and important that contrarian views get aired.

Is it important or interesting that dieters themselves approve of the Atkins diet? That's for the reader to decide.

Is it useful to blatantly insult in correspondence? No, not at all, sadly.

Funny. He's bragging about his readership...

Stephen den Beste (who's fault this avalanche is) has been published in the WSJ. Rather larger readership than the NY Post, I think...

another "clueless" reader...

I just emailed the Hudson Institute. I haven't read the full email war that the Kid points to, above, but I don't think there's any - *any* - excuse to write bile like this. (o.t. it seems to be a commonality to fitness writers. The fitness columnist for the Philly Inquirer regularly flings insults like this IN HIS COLUMN!)

If this guy wants to spew acid, that's his business. However, when he tags the Institute in his sig line, it becomes their business. I've informed them that the only way I'll ever think of them now is in reference to this creep. Hopefully, as they seem to be people very much in search of funds, they'll maybe castigate him some.

One can hope.

In the words of Bugs Bunny, What a Maroon.

"A Different Tom" probably has it best. Fumento has been in massive flame wars with loons for many years. Few people have the ability to read each email exchange afresh after that.

Two articles in a recent number of the journal Science -- oh, about 3 weeks ago -- using statistical and mathematical analysis, concluded that the quarantine was important. I'd give you the references but I don't have them with me.

Check it out here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/300/5627/1966

The other one should be nearby.

You should go here and read it all:

http://www.fumento.com/hatemail/hatemail15.html

Mr. Fumento is clever and not afraid to argue.

Matt

I'm here as a result of a link on RWN.

Who is Michael Fumento? The mere fact that someone would ask this question is enough to deflate his ego a little. In my state he is unknown. So who is the "nobody"?

If Fumento wants to brag about his 13% body fat, then let him compare himself to me. While in the military, my bodyfat was rated at 5%. It is a wee bit higher now, but it is still lower than Fumento's.

> I am a weekly syndicated health and science
columnist who is read each week by literally millions of people.

Based on what? The circulation of the publication that carries his articles? The above multiplied by the "pass-on" rate?

Even the publisher's mother doesn't read every article. (The editor's mother might.)

LOL!!! This is too rich...

This is pretty mild stuff compared to what Fumento is capable of. He writes in his fat book about seeking counseling for his anger, but I don't think it has worked. When I wrote to him criticizing his support for psychiatric labeling of people whose apparent illnesses he thinks are really "mental illnesses," I got back this response:

Dear Nicholas, (sic)
So let me get this straight, several psychiatrists have now diagnosed you as insane, so now you're on the warpath against the profession and anybody who cites the works of psychiatrists? Sounds a bit nutty to me, Nick.

Sincerely,
Michael Fumento

He didn't find me so nutty when he used a speech of mine as a minor source in one of his early books. But Fumento is ga-ga for psychiatry, and is happy to latch onto a "mental health" explanation when nothing else is available.

He also seems obsessed with the mental status of himself and others. Fumento --without evidence -- claimed that Reason magazine published a long response to a Fumento piece. When the Reason magazine editor responded that Fumento was acting "bizarre," Fumento said that the editor was accusing him of being "mentally ill." (http://rishawnbiddle.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_rishawnbiddle_archive.html#90245232)

Fumento's obsession with "mental illness" shows up here and there in his articles, where he is known to refer to people he disapproves of by the archaic insult, "fruit cake," by which he means crazy.

My take on Fumento is that a) he is a very angry and unhappy fellow; b) psychiatry is his revealed religion, c) he is fiercly intolerant of disagreement, and 4) his opinions don't mean much except that they get regular exposure in publications througout the political spectrum. Magazines like Reason should know better than to publish his tirades.

Sorry, but I clipped my prior message in editing. It should have read thusly: Fumento --without evidence -- claimed that Reason magazine published a long response by Gary Taubes to a Fumento piece [about a Taubes article because Taubes threatened legal action if they didn't run it].

Or, if I had written it better, it might have read, "Fumento wrote a piece for Reason magazine criticizing an article by Gary Taubes on low fat diets. When Reason ran a lengthy response by Taubes, Fumento claimed, without offering proof, that Reason did so because Taubes threatened to sue if they did not."

Perhaps that is clearer.