Monday, September 18, 2017

Neil DeGrasse Tyson publicly endorses core philosophy of Natural News: Follow the evidence; question everything

Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of (See all articles...)

(NaturalNews) As a long-time fan of the sciences, I was thrilled to see the re-launch of the Cosmos series this past week, starring Neil DeGrasse Tyson as the host. I was an enthusiastic fan of the original 1980 Cosmos series starring Carl Sagan, and I grew up steeped in the study of the natural sciences.

Perhaps that's why I was especially delighted to hear Neil DeGrasse Tyson announce -- in the first few minutes of the new Cosmosseries -- "Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything."

That is, of course, the core philosophy of Natural News. It has been the driving force behind this organization's informed skepticism of mercury in vaccines, mercury in dentistry, fluoride in public water and the ecological safety of genetically engineered food crops. It turns out that if you really "follow the evidence wherever it leads," as Tyson rightly encourages us to do, you inevitably come to find that much of what is promoted and propagandized as "scientific" in the modern world is actually based on distorted, corporate-funded anti-science profit agendas rather than genuine science.

Copernicus and Natural News both fight anti-science dogmas

My work here at Natural News is steeped in cutting-edge science. Today, I run an atomic spectroscopy laboratory conducting elemental analysis as part of my food science research. The instrumentation here rivals that of many universities, and I personally conduct all the research myself, operating ICP-MS instrumentation and practicing high-level analytical chemistry.

As Natural News fans already know, I am the first person to have discovered and published findings of the heavy metal tungsten in popular rice protein dietary supplements. I've also conducted popular physics demonstrations in the interests of public education such as this video showing how you can lift Wheaties cereal flakes with ordinary magnets due to the metal fragments (iron oxides) intentionally added to Wheaties cereals under the bizarre explanation that iron shavings "fortify" the cereal with nutrition.

Continuing in these scientific endeavors, I am in the process of authoring numerous scientific papers on breakthrough food science research, and I will soon be publishing truly pioneering information about heavy metals in popular herbal supplements. I'm also the first person to have announced the discovery and formulation of a dietary supplement formula which can selectively bind with radioactive cesium-137 isotopes in the gastrointestinal tract.

During this entire process of conducting scientific investigations into natural products and "superfoods," I have come face to face with many dogmas of the natural products industry, where many people believe bizarre myths about nutrition and detox which simply have no rational basis in fact. Part of my mission as a food science researcher, in fact, is to educate people to think more clearly and rationally about nutrition, superfoods and dietary supplements. Like Tyson, I am an opponent of "fuzzy thinking" and a strong advocate of clear, informed thinking.

But as a rare person who is willing to ask the really big questions -- and follow the evidence wherever it leads, as Tyson says -- I also from time to time run into dogmatic vaccine zealots who are no less anti-scientific than some of the more bizarre "voodoo science" detox supplement proponents.

As such, in much the same way that Galileo fought against the faith-based dogma of the Church and its heliocentric mythology of the universe, today Natural News fights against dangerous dogmas and false "scientific" delusions perpetrated under the distorted label of "science." If you really follow the evidence on mercury in vaccines, for example, there is no scientifically justifiable rationale for injecting pregnant women with mercury at any dose. Yet this action is precisely what is currently -- and aggressively -- demanded by the "scientific" community, in what history will ultimately be forced to admit is a great betrayal of the People by delusional science conducted primarily in the interests of corporate power rather than public health.

Mercury fillings harm children in the name of science

If you follow the evidence on mercury fillings -- deceptively called "silver amalgams" in order to disguise their elemental composition -- you cannot help but conclude that mercury has no place in the mouths of children. Not only do mercury fillings release mercury vapor during and immediately following chewing; they are also made of a vastly inferior material which causes routine fracturing and cracking of teeth, necessitating the frequent restoration of those teeth to the financial benefit of the same dentists who installed the faulty mercury fillings in the first place.

While mercury fillings are terrible for the patient and contribute a huge toxic burden to children, they are amazing revenue generators for dentists who operate on the "drill, fill and bill" philosophy of medicine. If it makes money, it must be good for you.

Click here to listen to my important interview with Dr. Chris Shade, a top mercury detox scientist, who explains the toxicity of mercury in all its chemical and elemental forms.

The ultimate science skeptics

As someone who is rationally skeptical about the bizarre claims of promoters of mercury in vaccines and mercury in dentistry, I am part of a growing group of true science skeptics who embody the real meaning of the term "skepticism."

I am skeptical of the bizarre idea once explained to me by a dentist who said that when mercury is found on the table of elements, it is extremely toxic and deadly to biology, but that once it is installed in the mouth of a child, it is magically and suddenly biologically inert and poses no heath risks whatsoever. This explanation smacks of some sort of irrational "voodoo science" or a self-deluded belief system rather than valid fact.

According to modern dentists, mercury fillings are harmless solely because they wish them to be harmless. Much the same is true for those promoting vaccines. Mercury in vaccines is good for you because they hope that mercury is harmless and has no links to autism. They hope this so much that their defense of their own distortions has become the very sort of dogma that discredits real science. They have become, in effect, the "Church of Scientism" which dismisses all those who question their beliefs and which disregards all evidence contrary to their fundamentalist beliefs.

As such, modern-day "science" has, in many ways, become the very same Church that Galileo fought against in the 1600's. Modern "science" is a dogmatic, unforgiving Church which allows no dissent, no intelligent discourse and no questioning of its core beliefs about vaccines, mercury, fluoride, GMOs or pharmaceuticals. Anyone who dares to stand up like Galileo and state a simple, undeniable truth is immediately and forever branded a heretic on websites like Wikipedia, the modern-day thought police of the 'net and a site which is essentially run by scientific fundamentalists who practice precisely the same sort of ruthless censorship and oppression carried out by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.

My public challenge to Neil DeGrasse Tyson

All this helps explain why I have decided to politely but firmly issue a public challenge to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I am curious to find out whether Tyson is a genuine scientist or a "scientific fundamentalist."

For the record, I like Tyson. I think he's incredibly well educated and a fantastic communicator. In fact, I'm a fan of his interviews on programs like NOVA, and looking back over the years, I've always enjoyed Tyson's ability to explain complex concepts of astrophysics to a mainstream audience. His recent work in Cosmos, although clearly scripted word for word, is nonetheless commendable and I truly honor his dedication to his quest for the expansion of human knowledge.

This is why I am not attacking Tyson but rather challenging him to take a closer look at the issue of mercury in modern medicine. My challenge is thus:

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, will you publicly denounce the use of mercury in medicine and join the growing call for mercury-free medicine?

Click here to learn more about mercury-free medicine at CoMeD.

Importantly, note that such a position does not require any sort of denouncement of the theory of immunization, nor any denouncement of the practice of modern dentistry. It only calls for the elimination of an extremely toxic substance and its replacement with safer substances.

Why mercury-free medicine is the sanity test for modern scientists

Mercury-free medicine, you see, is the "sanity litmus test" for all present-day scientists. There is no debate whatsoever about the toxicity of mercury in mammalian biology. Every form of mercury -- ethyl, methyl, organic, inorganic and elemental -- is toxic to humans, and in truth, even the ethyl mercury used in vaccines is far more toxic than methyl mercury once it passes through cell walls, as is explained by Dr. Chris Shade in our interview, above.

Any scientists who openly endorses the practice of injecting pregnant women and children with mercury at any dose is, of course, a "scientific fundamentalist" and a fraud. Such a position is practically an announcement that the person is a stooge for the vaccine industry and the commercial interests of the American Dental Association, which owns patents on -- and continues to collect royalties from -- the manufacture of mercury fillings which poison tens of millions of Americans.

Genuinely stated, I really want to know whether Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a true man of science or a scientific fundamentalist. As a person who now presents the story of those who stood up to the Church to denounce the heliocentric view of the universe, Tyson occupies a unique position -- with unique responsibilities -- to practice what he preaches. In Cosmos, he encourages us all to "Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything." Yet we must ask: Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson willing to do that himself? Will he follow the trail of evidence of significant harm linked to mercury in vaccines (and mercury in dentistry) and honor the laws of biochemistry and physics by publicly endorsing mercury-free medicine? Or will he sell his soul to the fundamentalist zealots of modern "scientific" medicine who poison children with mercury and attack all those who question the safety of such a toxin?

How will history remember Tyson? As a dogmatic zealot, or a true man of science?

If Tyson dismisses this issue or announces he is in favor of mercury injections of pregnant women and children, then he will of course go down in history as a betrayer of the very scientific principles he claims to espouse. The era of mercury in vaccines and mercury in dentistry is fast coming to a close, and history will look upon all those "scientists" who promoted mercury in much the same way we currently look upon bumbling doctors of the 1800's who encouraged people to inhale mercury vapors or consume mercury salts as "treatments" for disease.

They were quacks, we now know. And it is an undeniable scientific truth that every scientist who today promotes mercury in vaccines and mercury in dentistry is also a quack. I state this undeniable truth with the same confidence and courage that Copernicus once exhibited as he wrote that the Earth orbited the sun and not the other way around. Even if the entire modern "scientific" community attempts to claim that mercury is harmless when injected into pregnant women, they remain wholly wrong despite their numbers, and their distortions contradict physical and biological reality. Just as much as the Church was wrong to imprison early astronomers, modern-day "science" is wrong to promote the injection of pregnant women and children with mercury.

The very nature of the table of elements, in fact, supports my position of mercury-free medicine, meaning I do not even have to be "right" myself because I have the full power of the laws of physics and chemistry to back me up. For some misguided scientist to claim that "mercury is harmless" is no less foolish than a person following "The Secret" to sit in a room and wish for material wealth to magically appear simply because they believe the so-called "Law of Attraction" will bring them whatever material items they choose to focus upon. Both beliefs are purely delusional. One is steeped in "science" and the other in distortions of popularized (but distorted) New Age thinking. Yet they are both false. Mercury is harmful to human biology at almost any dose -- even at just a few micrograms injected into the tissue of a child -- and there is no rational basis from which to argue otherwise.

Those who irrationally argue that mercury is safe are genuinely delusional, regardless of their scientific training or academic credentials. A PhD does not confer magic powers to a vaccine promoter to nullify the biochemical effects of mercury, it turns out. And as much as Richard Dawkins asks whether you "believe in magic" on various philosophical questions, very nearly the entire scientific community really does believe in magic when it comes to mercury in vaccines and dentistry. They believe their magical thinking casts a "spell of nullification" upon all mercury, rendering it inert.

That's why it is time that we, the growing members of the mercury-free medicine movement began to lay down the historical record of which modern-day scientists support mercury-free medicine and which ones wish to destroy their own historical credibility by endorsing mercury injections of pregnant women.

Help Natural News pose this genuine challenge to Neil DeGrasse Tyson

I would ask for your help in posing this question to Tyson by politely asking for an answer on his facebook page:

Note, by the way, that his Facebook page has 970,000 likes, while Natural News has over 1.1 million likes. We are both very popular figures, and we both have enormous followings. There is truth to be found in both our philosophies, and we are both well-meaning people who only seek to help humanity gain understanding and expand our knowledge of the universe. This is why I can admire Tyson as an individual even if he has yet to fully awaken to the scientific truth about mercury in medicine. I will admire him even more once he publicly endorses mercury-free medicine and thereby cements his reputation as a true critical thinker and not a fundamentalist stooge.

You may also help bring attention to this issue by linking to the new Natural News page on Tyson, using the words "Neil DeGrasse Tyson" in your link, while linking to this page on

Finally, please proceed with civility and professionalism in any interactions with Tyson's fans. Please understand that many who promote vaccines are, themselves, damaged by mercury in vaccines and thus their cognitive faculties are not fully intact. As heavy metals poisoning is well known to cause insanity and violent tendencies, we must proceed with compassion, understanding that many of these people are victims of mercury in vaccines and in many ways they cannot help their own violent outbursts. At all times, conduct yourself with professionalism and compassion for those harmed by vaccines. Remember, we are the good guys who are saving humanity from the grave mistakes of science gone awry. As such, we must adhere to core ethics and values which honor life and treat people with dignity, even if they are brain damaged by vaccines.

Why we should polite invite Neil DeGrasse Tyson to join the call for mercury-free medicine in the interests of protecting humanity

Keep in mind that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not a rude person, and he is not the enemy of the mercury-free medicine movement. He is a bright person who simply needs to be awakened to this issue of mercury-free medicine. I am optimistic that he may very well endorse this very position and possibly even thank us for bringing it to his attention.

Even if he does not, I wish him no harm and only hope that his ever-expanding mind will one day be expansive enough to grasp the idea that injecting mercury into human bodies is, in every way, a genuine crime against children and a crime against humanity. History will not treat him kindly if he does not sooner or later denounce mercury as a harmful ingredient in vaccines and dentistry, especially now that this issue has been brought to his attention in such a public manner.

Finally, as a personal note to Tyson, the next time you are in Austin, I would be happy to interview you in person for a polite, in-depth conversation or even a debate on these points.

Do not accept fuzzy thinking about mercury in vaccines

"I'm optimistic. I see no longer people accepting fuzzy thinking in the world. The change is not that people aren't still saying under-informed things. The change is that if you're in power and you say something under-informed, there are people out there with a voice who will take you to task for having done so," -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson, "A Conversation about Communicating Science". (The Science Network) January 20, 2011.

Indeed, Mr. Tyson, we are that voice to which you refer, and we will politely but firmly take you to task if you remain under-informed on this issue of mercury in medicine. While various isotopes of mercury may have indeed been created in the explosions of stars, such elements have no place in the bodies of the very children we both hope will carry humanity to the stars. Indeed, if we hope to protect their brains, their fertility and their futures, we must eliminate toxic mercury from their medicine.

Anything less is a betrayal of humanity and an abandonment of scientific principles.


Three Interesting Women Against Vaccination - Make Sure to View Related Links at the Bottom of the Page

Ben Shapiro Debunks Neil Degrasse Tyson

Ben Shapiro Debunks Neil Degrasse Tyson by debunkerbuster

Scientists Who Are Actually Really Stupid: #1, Neil deGrasse Tyson


Neil deGrasse Tyson made the decision a long time ago to be a sort of media cheerleader for science instead of an actual scientist, and although he isn’t a great communicator, it was the right decision because he was unlikely ever to trouble the Nobel committee. Also, he is stupid and his politics are dumb.

Tyson, whom liberals love because they are racists who can’t believe a black guy could be smart enough to be a scientist and so spontaneously ejaculate and soil themselves every time they see him on TV, hasn’t published anything of note for years. The advantage of being a celebrity scientist is that you don’t actually have to do any science. You’re exempted from the usual “publish or perish” rules.
Even when he was making a go of being a proper academic, Tyson didn’t exactly have the most glittering record. He didn’t get the PhD he was studying for at the University of Texas and had to go elsewhere for his qualification. Obviously, rather than take responsibility for his academic performance, Tyson has blamed racism. In reality, Tyson was playing in bands and appearing on stage instead of completing essays. Typical science PhD students are at any given time either studying, teaching or sleeping.
It’s tough to avoid the conclusion that much of what is frustrating about Neil deGrasse Tyson stems from identity politics and the victimhood ideology peddled by leftist academics and journalists. Despite all his media success, Tyson insists that racism is responsible for his academic failures, alluding to sinister “forces” that keep women and ethnic minorities down.
In 2005, he said: “I know these forces are real and I had to survive them in order to get where I am today. So before we start talking about genetic differences, you gotta come up with a system where there’s equal opportunity.” He of course doesn’t address the fact that the only reason Neil deGrasse Tyson is on television at all, given his intellectual shortcomings, is that he is black.
Perhaps realising how ridiculous he sounds, the world’s most celebrated populariser of science has stopped talking about race in interviews and says he has never given an interview whose primary focus is race since 1993. Which is something, at least.

Social justice-inspired grievance culture has flavoured much of Tyson’s output during his media career. Indeed, some observers say he’s more left-wing propagandist than rigorous thinker these days. His reboot of Cosmos, for instance, was saturated with progressive garbage designed to appeal to liberal-minded students and lefty geeks.
The problem is, every time Tyson plays to this crowd, he has to get his facts wrong to make the argument work. Take his gushing tribute to Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake. None of the details are correct. Bruno wasn’t a scientist: he was a cult leader who dined out on wild conjecture and guesswork.
Elsewhere in Cosmos, Tyson makes other serious errors. I say “errors” but for a man of his ostensible erudition you do have to wonder how these mistakes and bizarre claims keep creeping in. He says Venus is suffering from global warming, for instance. And I think we can live without the televisual trope of space ships making sound in space — unless Tyson is claiming no more astrophysical literacy than an episode of Star Trek.
Because he has given up on the scientific method in favour of progressive politics, Tyson has jettisoned fairness and fact in favour of slipperiness and propaganda: he is caught again and again repeating quotes that he appears to have simply made up, or which at a bare minimum are stripped of essential context or provenance. He shows no interest in correcting the record or addressing these mistakes — we’ll be diplomatic and call them mistakes — which does rather cast doubt on his entire benevolent genius schtick, don’t you think?
His Twitter feed, naturally, is packed to the gills with daft comparisons, meaningless apples-to-oranges number crunching and red meat for his hyper-progressive fan club.
400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II.

400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001
Observers are left to conclude that Tyson is an attention-seeking media troll who courts adoration from bloggers, students and hipsters while picking off low-hanging fruit and mocking people he doesn’t like. But he often does this not with the master troll’s scalpel but the clumsy tin ear of the lumbering buffoon who pisses people off for all the wrong reasons, with cheap, sarcastic bait masquerading as sassy intellect.
On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642
Everyone remembers his infamous Christmas tweet, but what many don’t know is that even this is factually wrong: Newton wasn’t born on Christmas Day, but by today’s calendar some time in January. Oh, and by the way, Neil: Newton was a devout Christian who said the laws of nature were an expression of the divine will of God. Just like a lot of the other guys you look up to whom you conveniently forget to mention were men of faith.
Tyson has a complex relationship with the Almighty. He loves to bait Christians, despite claiming — at least some of the time — to be an agnostic. Incredibly, he believes that Christians have no right to call Scientology crazy. His silly, provocative comparisons between Christianity and Scientology are becoming a regular thing.
Needless to say, the argument against Scientology isn’t — or isn’t only — restricted to its goofy belief system or even that it’s essentially a tax dodge cooked up by a bad sci-fi writer. Rather, Scientology is a litigious, dangerous cult that cuts impressionable people off from their family and friends and brainwashes them into handing over all their money and devoting their lives to its comically absurd strictures.
Tyson pretends he doesn’t understand basic theology when responding to questions about the problem of evil. Here we are on Earth, the perfect habitat for humanity with a million random variables somehow ending up in our favour and the most Tyson can say is: “Every account of a higher power that I’ve seen described, of all religions that I’ve seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the universe wants to kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a philistine with no love of learning except for popularisations and oversimplifications that serve his political purposes. Just look what happens when he’s asked about the study of philosophy: “I don’t have time for that.” Asking too many questions, he says, “can really mess you up.” For someone who so obviously wants to be laureate — and who is said to be lobbying hard for this behind the scenes — his attitude is unprecedented and his mystifyingly proud, deliberate ignorance an affront to science.
For all his pontificating about climate change and the evils of guns, Tyson seems unable to grasp some basic ethical realities: for instance, that science without ethics or philosophy is likely to produce weapons and all manner of stomach-churning experiments in cloning and on babies, stem cells and animals. It’s not like we haven’t seen that happen in history. Tyson actively ridicules those who ask us to consider the moral implications of our actions.
And he does all this with unearned and undeserved vanity and an intergalactic ego. He once even said: “Scientists are smart and doctors are stupid.” Tyson constantly situates himself in the big brain league, but he has done nothing in his life to demonstrate that he belongs there — and a lot to suggest he doesn’t. Not for Neil deGrasse Tyson the lowly, humble, intellectually curious aspect of the modest lab researcher.
And then there are the exaggerated claims. Tyson claims to have been “mentored” by Carl Sagan, for instance. Yet it appears this “mentorship” boils down to little more than a couple of traded letters. If Tyson thinks that qualifies as mentorship, I wonder what he’d call my nocturnal liaisons with other men who share his skin colour. Adoption?
As dumb as Tyson is, his fans are even more preposterously thick, which is probably to be expected given that they’re all liberals. But the extent to which they hoover up and retweet his contradictory and brainless provocations is matched only by the hilarity of the occasional social justice car crash, in which the politics of grievance that Tyson likes to encourage comes back to bite him.
Screen Shot 2015-12-18 at 16.26.52
Does anyone learn anything from Tyson’s pop sci pronouncements? Who knows. But what little they do glean from his persnickety commentary on Star Wars v. Star Trek and his nitpicking about Interstellar and Gravity is called into question when his own shows make the same errors and his grasp of accuracy, sourcing and evenhandedness are shaky, to put it mildly.
There’s a silver lining to Tyson’s outsized notoriety, of course, and it’s that the internet always hurts the ones it loves: outside of reddit, and even within it, Tyson is known primarily as a meme. He has been reduced to a clutch of vacuous funny soundbites and obnoxious reaction images sprayed across image boards.
Tyson has been relegated to a place of widely-known obscurity where little is known about his ill-thought-out opinions and he’s instead celebrated for his facial expressions and attention-seeking media persona. Everyone knows his face, but few know or care to discover anything about the man or the views behind it. If you ask me, that’s a fitting tribute.
Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Twitter and Facebook, or write to him at Android users can download Milo Alert! to be notified about new articles when they are published. 

Monday, August 1, 2016

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says No Animal Feels Pain During Sex, Forgets About Duck Penises

BY CLAIRE LANDSBAUM Pop culture writer.
Tweets @landsbaumshell

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who himself is an expert at debunking flawed theories(sorry, B.o.B.), for once seems to have spoken too soon. Yesterday evening the renowned scientist and coital expert tweeted that if any two members of a species experienced pain during sex, that species probably died out.
Tyson immediately received angry replies from animal scientists pointing out that no, sex is not pleasurable for all animal species. Male cats, for example, have tiny spines on their penises, which is probably a little uncomfortable for the females. And then there are male ducks, which plant their sperm in female ducks by force. And male bedbugs, which literally pierce a female's abdomen to impregnate her, leaving an open wound.
So no, Neil, not all animal sex is pleasurable. Not even all human sex is pleasurable. Consider your tweet debunked.