(VIDEO) Banned by Food Babe: The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

Posted on by

“Thanks for calling out the troll. I’ll make sure to get him”
–Vani Hari, when asked why she’s selling products containing the dyes Yellow 5 and Blue 1

 

I, Mark Alsip, am the troll referred to in Vani Hari’s quote (above). We had an interesting encounter yesterday on Periscope.  After being encouraged to ask questions, I very politely and respectfully queried Hari on three products she’s selling. I wanted to know why certain of her wares contain nearly a dozen different chemicals she’s specifically called out as “toxic”.

If you’re already aware of Vani’s tactics, you probably won’t be surprised I was banned instantly.  However, for those in the Food Babe Army (or the media) who don’t believe that Hari censors all dissenting comment and immediately bans those who point out her gaffes, presented below are video, screen captures, links to Food Babe’s product labels (with ingredient lists), and more, to back up the claims I made on Periscope.

Food Babe, who encourages followers to “read the ingredients” and mercilessly hound companies such as Subway and Kellogg’s via social media and petitions, does not apply the same standards to herself. She says “the sky is falling” and then tries to sell you a piece of the same sky. And, as demonstrated here, she’s apparently terrified of an honest discussion of the products she offers via her web site.

 

Three Products, Three Points
I politely called out Vani on three points, listed below and illustrated in the screen captures that follow. Follow the hyperlinks for product labels and information on the items sold by Food Babe:

Three Screen Captures

image

In an article warning us to avoid aluminum-based deodorants, Vani sells Naturally Fresh deodorant, which contains aluminum. Food Babe falsely links aluminum to Alzheimer’s. (click/enlarge)

image

Vani’s Tarte Lip Stains contain Yellow #5 and Blue #1, which she claims to be toxic in numerous articles. Her product also contains 3 “endocrine disruptors” she’s warned about, saccharine (she links to cancer), and aluminum. (click/enlarge)

image

Vani disparages salad dressings containing canola oil because of “poisonous” erucic acid from rapeseed. However, she sells two salad dressings that contain erucic acid. (click/enlarge)

 

The Video
Here’s a glimpse at what happens when you ask Food Babe honest questions (running time 1:07):
Update: On September 24 Vani Hari tried to silence my criticism by filing a harassing copyright infringement claim on YouTube. She’s apparently unfamiliar with fair use law. While I remind her, you can launch the video in a new window by clicking the image below. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Temporary Video Location (if YouTube non-functional)

YouTube Video (in litigation)

Image Credits
All Periscope video and screen captures are used in strict compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of United States copyright law (commonly known as “fair use law”). This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, parody, and increase public health knowledge.

References
Food Babe Slams Kraft Over Three Dyes But Sells Same
https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/food-babe-slams-kraft-over-three-dyes-but-sells-same/

Food Babe Pushing “Dangerous” Items: Naturally Fresh Deodorant
https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/food-babe-pushing-dangerous-items-naturally-fresh-deodorant/

Food Babe Selling Erucic Acid (Salad Dressing Article)
https://badscidebunked.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/food-babe-selling-erucic-acid-gasp/

78 thoughts on “(VIDEO) Banned by Food Babe: The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks”

  3. I find it so depressing that people are allowed to get away with such outright lying nowadays. Same in politics.

    Thank you, Mark, for taking the time to stand up for science even in the face of such dissonance and dishonesty by the Fraud Babe. It can’t be easy, but we are grateful that you do it, and hopefully it will make a difference with at least a few people.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply ↓

      • Happy to answer. You link to an abstract written four years ago that does not support the conclusion you imply. It suggests more studies are needed; it does not say aluminum causes Alzheimer’s. Why don’t you quote all of the follow-up research that debunks the single abstract you’ve cherry picked?

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply ↓

      • It’s not cherry-picked. I found ion Google Scholar searching on “aluminum Alzheimer’s” and from the initial results. It’s a review article. Hari claims a “link” not that aluminum causes Alzheimer’s. And, the abstract does indeed report a link in a secondary review article in a peer-reviewed medical journal on the very subject of Alzheimer’s disease, so i would say it’s pretty solid. I think i’ve rouched every one of your points.

        Like

        Reply ↓

        • Hari reports a “link” and turns around and sells you a deodorant with aluminum in the very same article.

          She says it’s her favorite deodorant.

          The ingredients are on the label.

          The hyperlink in her article has her Amazon affiliate ID encoded. She earns money when you buy it.

          This is the case with nearly two dozen products she sells. You don’t want to address this?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply ↓

      • While there may be some association between aluminum in dialysis solutions and dementia, there is zero evidence that everyday sources of aluminum, such as in deodorant, have any effect on dementia risk. To ignore that distinction and state that a link exists between deodorant aluminum and dementia risk is ignorant at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.
        I wonder, Sagerad, if you have ever googled the studies on how overconfident people are about their medical knowledge after using Google?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply ↓

    • Thanks for the alert, greig. I’ve filed a counter-claim and YouTube has it back up. Plus, I’ve hosted it on my own from an alternate location just to be safe. U.S. copyright law doesn’t work that way; Vani just doesn’t realize it yet.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

  8. Mark, you claim that there is no connection between aluminum and Alzheimer’s in this blog post. However, this 2011 review article in Journal of Alzheimer’s Studies says otherwise.

    Who is right? A review article in a medical journal specializing on Alzheimer’s, or you, a computer engineer turned online personality with a niche in attacking health advocates?

    Is this the kind of online lying in blogs that you’re referring to? Please do answer.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21157018

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • // However, this 2011 review article in Journal of Alzheimer’s Studies says otherwise. //

      The article you link says no such thing, sagerad. Unless you quote mine it. Which, apparently, you have. All you provided was an abstract, which, in summary, suggests more studies should be done. It was written four years ago, doesn’t come to the conclusion you imply, and more studies HAVE been done since then. And they don’t support your claim.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply ↓

      • Mark, the article i link to says in the final line of the abstract (not quote mining at all wouldn’t you admit?) “The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD.”

        How is that supporting what you just said?

        Like

        Reply ↓

        • Your quote mine is in the comment I’m replying to, sagerad. You’re only picking out two sentences that agree with the conclusion you’ve already arrived at.

          Why don’t you copy and paste the rest of the abstract here in a comment, so we can discuss the ENTIRE thing?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply ↓

      • to sagerad below: You are missing the point so much that it hurts to even attempt to enlighten you, however, one shall try. 1. The whole contextual point of this is Mark clearly providing evidence that even though Food Babe is stating that aluminum causes Alzheimer’s, she continues to endorse a product using this chemical and boasts about it being her favorite. Hypocrite. Liar. Deceiver. Ignorant. Attention-whore. Etc. Etc.
        2. There is no number 2. Everything you need to know about the actual POINT that is being made is stated in number 1.

        Health advocate??? HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!! Oh that’s funny.

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-any-proof-that-a/

        Like

        Reply ↓

    • Mia, she didn’t say aluminum cause Alzheimer’s but is linked to it. I challenge you to quote her full statement on that from the original post by her.

      Secondly, she made a mistake in recommending a deoderant with alum in it. She made a *mistake* as people sometimes do. But the nasty thing here is that people like Mark latch onto that, mine for mistakes of this kind among thousands of things Hari has written, and then attack her in this way. That’s a conscious morally bad action.

      It’s fine to correct someone. It’s another thing entirely to do this.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Wait, she made a “mistake”? I can find over two dozen products she sells that contain “mistakes”. She says she personally uses these products and her raison d’etre is label reading. “Mistake”? Come now sagerad, let’s have an honest discussion.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply ↓

      • c’mon son, she banned everybody who found her “mistakes”! but what is an intentional mistake?… did you watch the video? she cant handle the truth and that’s enough evidence my friend

        Like

        Reply ↓

      • Sure, an honest discussion. In the case of sunscreens, for instance, she warns about many chemicals that may be linked to bad effects, and you have chosen one of them (aluminum) to focus on because you’ve found that there is alum in one of the sunscreens that she recommends, and that does contain aluminum (her mistake). What she actually wrote is (verbatim) “”I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s.” And the science does support that there is a link between aluminum and Alzheimer’s. How strong a link and exactly what kind is complex and is the subject of the review article i cited recently.

        But what you wrote in this piece here is “she falsely links aluminum-based deodorants to Alzheimer’s”…. and how is that “falsely”? In Hari’s quote that i just provided, she said there’s a link, and that this link is hotly debated, some studies finding a low risk factor and some finding other results. I could probably spend month researching this and come out with a great and nuanced, well-researched essay that you would probably not read, but the point here is that her claim seems fairly sound to me, and not “false” as you represent it. So, being a little bit skeptical myself, i took the time to fact-check ‘*one* of your claims and i found it to be lacking in truth value every bit as much as claims of Hari’s about which you say the same thing.

        And she has made mistakes, clearly…. and yet you think that cherry-picking about 10 examples of chemicals that she’s warned about and that are in some product she’s recommending, shows that her whole project is bogus? How many people never, ever make a mistake? She’s written about hundreds if not thousands of chemicals and products, and you find about 10 that show a combination where she’s recommended against a chemical but recommended another product containing it. And, you don’t distinguish between topical products versus ingestion, either. That seems like a glaring omission in your logic. For example, a coloring may be in a product that is applied topically and the toxicology would be very different than if it’s ingested (typically the case in what she’s warning about).

        Details make the difference.

        I’m a skeptic.

        You do not own skepticism, and it doesn’t confer a halo upon you to claim it. It becomes an ideology by which you may not admit your own mistakes.

        Like

        Reply ↓

        • Aluminum in sunscreens? Say what?

          I think you mean vitamin A. Vani claims putting vitamin A on your skin and going into the sun puts you at risk of skin cancer. After warning you to avoid certain products, she then SELLS you skin care products with vitamin A.

          Your turn

          Like

          Reply ↓

      • It’s not a study, but a review article, which is when a person or group who are expert in the field do an assessment of the literature and the state of current knowledge to date and summarize the results, which is a big part of how science works, beyond primary research papers. I am certainly not qualified to do such assessment myself. It would take me one month minimum to get up to speed to do such a thing. I also doubt you’re qualified. Therefore, i am more willing to trust the final conclusion of the paper which reads:

        ““The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD.”

        And in this light, i think it’s entirely reasonable for Hari to recommend using deoderants with no aluminum. That said, she certainly did make a mistake, and one of her recommendations does contain alum, and alum of course contains aluminum atoms. So she made a mistake, but cautioning about aluminum exposure doesn’t seem to be mistaken. It seems wise in fact. She never states that aluminum *causes* Alzheimer’s but rather says that there is research that suggests a link. Seems to be very true.

        Like

        Reply ↓

      • I think it is excellent you wish to be critical and skeptical of the medical literature out there. Because this is absolutely the kind of mindset that should be applied. However, it goes beyond the words that were written in the study. It goes beyond single articles. You should also be skeptical of where research studies are published. There are, sadly, some journals you can pay to get your studies into — not the prominent ones of course! but there are some legit-sounding journals with names that sound similar to the official journals, that are not. You also have to look at the actual full text — and not just abstracts — and evaluate if the conclusion that is reached in the text by the authors is actually supported by the data they provided. Did they use the right statistics? Because you can also use any number of statistics packages to inflate or deflate a result. You have to look to see if the study was actually designed to answer that question. It is possible to have a study designed improperly (though not necessarily intentionally so), make it past peer review, and then you’re sitting there reading an article in a prominent medical journal going “hmm… something doesn’t add up.” All this and more. 🙂

        As you had mentioned, people do make mistakes. Do not construe my words as “Big Medicine and Big Science are out to deceive us”. But when trying to establish whether someone can be trusted or not, I think it is important to look at their patterns of behavior. When you claim that you want to spread health and wellness and good information, the fact that you silence any criticism by banhammer rather than welcoming discussion is strong evidence that points towards you being a liar. When you claim you just want to share products that you’ve thoroughly vetted by reading the ingredients labels (especially suggested by her cartoon with a magnifying glass) and enjoy using yourself — but the ingredient list contains things you’ve made a huge deal of being toxic — AND you make money off the sales, then you are a charlatan.

        When a person’s entire career is based off of warning people about the dangers of Big Pharma, but here, take this supplement instead — that you can purchase oh-so-conveniently from me at $129.99… one should indeed question the motives of this person.

        Like

        Reply ↓

        • Thanks so much for the wonderful comment. It’s hard to know which of the excellent points to call out and highlight, but if you don’t mind, I’d like to reinforce your skepticism of an avid label reader making a “mistake”:

          I wrote about the aluminum in her deodorant in a Skeptical Inqirer article in May. The story was picked up and spread across the web, and rumored to have caused an edit war with her followers when it popped up in her Wikipedia entry, where it still lives. I’ve pointed it out repeatedly on Twitter and Periscope and been banned because of it. These are not the actions, IMHO, of someone making a mistake.

          If you make your living as an activist who investigates ingredients, and someone points out you’re selling something you yourself is dangerous, you don’t ban them and keep selling.

          Mistake? Sorry. No.

          Like

          Reply ↓

      • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098935

        Brief Report: Meta-analysis of Antacid Use and Alzheimer’s Disease: Implications for the Aluminum Hypothesis.
        Virk SA1, Eslick GD.

        Abstract
        BACKGROUND:
        Exposure to aluminum remains a controversial risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. Antacids are aluminum-rich medications that are widely used in substantial amounts, but their association with Alzheimer’s disease has not been systematically quantified.
        METHODS:
        We conducted electronic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to January 2015 for case-control and cohort studies published in any language. Summary risk estimates were derived using random-effects models.
        RESULTS:
        Seven case-control studies (n = 5,468; 829 Alzheimer’s disease cases) and two cohort studies (n = 842; 110 Alzheimer’s disease cases) met the criteria for inclusion. Study quality was limited by imprecise characterization of the timing and duration of antacid use. Regular antacid use was not associated with Alzheimer’s disease in either case-control (odds ratio = 1.0; 95% confidence interval = 0.8, 1.2) or cohort studies (relative risk = 0.8; 95% confidence interval = 0.4, 1.8). Sensitivity analysis including studies specifically examining aluminum-containing antacids did not reveal an association.
        CONCLUSIONS:
        Although the findings of this meta-analysis do not support an association between aluminum intake and Alzheimer’s disease, prospective studies with longer follow-up and more precise characterization of exposure are required to definitively exclude an etiologic role for aluminum.

        Like

        Reply ↓

    • The text of the abstract about which you are pestering me, although i provided the link and you could have found it just as easily. And this doesn’t make any difference to my point. The final sentence makes the reviewer’s point very clear.

      The brain is a highly compartmentalized organ exceptionally susceptible to accumulation of metabolic errors. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease of the elderly and is characterized by regional specificity of neural aberrations associated with higher cognitive functions. Aluminum (Al) is the most abundant neurotoxic metal on earth, widely bioavailable to humans and repeatedly shown to accumulate in AD-susceptible neuronal foci. In spite of this, the role of Al in AD has been heavily disputed based on the following claims: 1) bioavailable Al cannot enter the brain in sufficient amounts to cause damage, 2) excess Al is efficiently excreted from the body, and 3) Al accumulation in neurons is a consequence rather than a cause of neuronal loss. Research, however, reveals that: 1) very small amounts of Al are needed to produce neurotoxicity and this criterion is satisfied through dietary Al intake, 2) Al sequesters different transport mechanisms to actively traverse brain barriers, 3) incremental acquisition of small amounts of Al over a lifetime favors its selective accumulation in brain tissues, and 4) since 1911, experimental evidence has repeatedly demonstrated that chronic Al intoxication reproduces neuropathological hallmarks of AD. Misconceptions about Al bioavailability may have misled scientists regarding the significance of Al in the pathogenesis of AD. The hypothesis that Al significantly contributes to AD is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed. Immediate steps should be taken to lessen human exposure to Al, which may be the single most aggravating and avoidable factor related to AD.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • I asked you to paste the abstract so that anyone stumbling across our discussion could view the entire text, not just the sentences you pulled out to support your viewpoint.

        Now that we have the full abstract here in front of us, can we agree that it (1) says that the role of aluminum is a hypothesis, (2) that it’s heavily disputed, (3) the study is just one study and is 4 years old, and (4) implies more research is needed?

        And in case you don’t agree with (4), would you concede that more research has been done and that there is a scientific consensus?

        Like

        Reply ↓

      • J Alzheimers Dis. 2015 Aug 3;47(3):629-638.
        Aluminum Levels in Brain, Serum, and Cerebrospinal Fluid are Higher in Alzheimer’s Disease Cases than in Controls: A Series of Meta-Analyses.
        Virk SA, Eslick GD.
        Abstract
        BACKGROUND:

        Aluminum is the most studied environmental agent linked with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, it remains unclear whether levels are significantly elevated in AD sufferers.
        OBJECTIVE:

        To systematically assess levels of aluminum in brain, serum, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of AD cases and controls.
        METHODS:

        Electronic searches of Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were conducted up to June 2015. Studies reporting brain, serum, or CSF aluminum levels in individuals with AD and non-demented controls were included. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models and the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
        RESULTS:

        Overall, 34 studies involving 1,208 participants and 613 AD cases met the criteria for inclusion. Aluminum was measured in brain tissue in 20 studies (n = 386), serum in 12 studies (n = 698), and CSF in 4 studies (n = 124). Compared to control subjects, AD sufferers had significantly higher levels of brain (SMD 0.88; 95% CI, 0.25-1.51), serum (SMD 0.28; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54), and CSF (SMD 0.48; 95% CI, 0.03-0.93) aluminum. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies without age-matched controls did not impact upon these results.
        CONCLUSIONS:

        The findings of the present meta-analyses demonstrate that aluminum levels are significantly elevated in brain, serum, and CSF of patients with AD. These findings suggest that elevated aluminum levels, particularly in serum, may serve as an early marker of AD and/or play a role in the development of the disease. These results substantially clarify the existing evidence examining the link between chronic aluminum exposure and the development of AD.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply ↓

      • From the conclusion of the paper summary posted by Jimmy:

        “The findings of the present meta-analyses demonstrate that aluminum levels are significantly elevated in brain, serum, and CSF of patients with AD. These findings suggest that elevated aluminum levels, particularly in serum, may serve as an early marker of AD and/or play a role in the development of the disease.”

        Like

        Reply ↓

      • (sorry I posted my previous post on the wrong part of this conversation)

        Funny that you miss out the implications of the hypothesis, almost as if it doesn’t support your point…

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098935

        Brief Report: Meta-analysis of Antacid Use and Alzheimer’s Disease: Implications for the Aluminum Hypothesis.
        Virk SA1, Eslick GD.

        Abstract
        BACKGROUND:
        Exposure to aluminum remains a controversial risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease. Antacids are aluminum-rich medications that are widely used in substantial amounts, but their association with Alzheimer’s disease has not been systematically quantified.
        METHODS:
        We conducted electronic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to January 2015 for case-control and cohort studies published in any language. Summary risk estimates were derived using random-effects models.
        RESULTS:
        Seven case-control studies (n = 5,468; 829 Alzheimer’s disease cases) and two cohort studies (n = 842; 110 Alzheimer’s disease cases) met the criteria for inclusion. Study quality was limited by imprecise characterization of the timing and duration of antacid use. Regular antacid use was not associated with Alzheimer’s disease in either case-control (odds ratio = 1.0; 95% confidence interval = 0.8, 1.2) or cohort studies (relative risk = 0.8; 95% confidence interval = 0.4, 1.8). Sensitivity analysis including studies specifically examining aluminum-containing antacids did not reveal an association.
        CONCLUSIONS:
        Although the findings of this meta-analysis do not support an association between aluminum intake and Alzheimer’s disease, prospective studies with longer follow-up and more precise characterization of exposure are required to definitively exclude an etiologic role for aluminum.

        Like

        Reply ↓

      • I have to ask, why the hell would a study about antacids make her believe that we should avoid deodorant with aluminum? I feel certain that their chemical composition has to be different. I know the absorption rate is certainly different from ingesting vs topical.

        Like

        Reply ↓

        • Her article “be a drug store beauty dropout” might offer some clues into her twisted thinking. Her reasoning is something along the lines of “if it’s bad to ingest, I don’t want it on my skin because it could be absorbed.”

          This is where she really blew it on the BHT issue. She was deriding Kellogg’s for using it. I pointed out it was in a body scrub she’d been selling for almost three years. Her defenders said “but you don’t eat the body scrub”.

          In her beauty school dropout piece, she specifically mentions BHT as a chemical you shouldn’t put on your skin because it could be absorbed!

          Like

          Reply ↓

    • If you want to pick a journal article that presents up-to-date consensus among experts. Please use a current one or I can share the one that I have found. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428475/pdf/CAR-12-116.pdf. I used the same search words and came up with this but yet you chose a four year old article? Who is being a skeptic? It would be helpful to note that even review articles can be up for debate on whether the conclusion is appropriate given that authors can potentially cherry pick their articles for review to support their conclusions. With that said, it would make sense to talk to someone who is an expert in the field to help decipher the information presented as they can most likely identify inconsistencies.

      Like

      Reply ↓

    • A few questions on your ‘definitive’ causal relationship between aluminum and alzheimer’s. First, few of the studies I found in a quick search isolate aluminum as a culprit. Instead they include iron, copper and zinc as well (http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/16308486 just one abstract). Why would you, or Food Babe, then, choose to isolate aluminum? Second, The Alzheimer’s Association webpage itself debunks everyday aluminum exposure as a cause. (http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp)
      I’m not a doctor or a scientist. I do know how to read and how to reference and back-check. You should do the same.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  9. Your alternative isn’t helpful as it isn’t using standard HTML5 video, you know what every browser has. Instead you opted for Apple specific solutions, can you just throw a link to html5 webm video or a direct download link?

    Like

    Reply ↓

  10. Just FYI, apparently a plugin is required to view the video you’re hosting here. I’m using Firefox and getting the message “A plugin is needed to display this content” which prevents me from viewing.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Thank you for letting me know Greg. I apologize for the problem. The copyright takedown came suddenly and I chose a QuickTime conversion, assuming it was readily available. I’ll work on getting an alternative available as soon as possible. I’m sorry for the inconvenience. I had to deal with this in a rush 😦

      Like

      Reply ↓

  11. really great work mark !!! she should be banned from the net …. her mouth should be closed for ever and her brain already is “out of order”…..

    Like

    Reply ↓

      • You do realize, don’t you, that you are the perfect example of what this blog post is about? You raised a dissenting opinion. You were engaged. You were allowed to respond and present counterpoints. Even if everyone else disagreed with you, and some got snippy, others responded with intelligent discussion and discourse.

        FB would have banned your ass and deleted every trace that you ever commented. His post isn’t about whether the aluminum hypothesis is right or wrong. His post is about FB capitalizing on fear and banning any dissent, then claiming victimhood.
        Her marketing team is excellent, however. Protect the echo chamber at all costs.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply ↓

        • Nick J, i am late to this article, but following along with the exchanges with Sagerad, and had the same thoughts. You beat me to it, but well said.

          Like

          Reply ↓

  13. I was banned from her facebook page for pointing out that the Pumpkin Spice Latte, she was bashing, not only isn’t a PUMPKIN Latte and therefore does not require any pumpkin to meet truth in advertising standards, but also that if removing caramel coloring because it was a class 2B carcinogen, then to be consistant they also need to remove another class 2B carcinogen….. coffee. There is a lovely facebook group called “Banned from Food Babe”. On her webpage she has employees who watch the comments and delete over half of them. They leave just one or two, angry ones so it looks like she is being fair but that the only people that disagree with her are angry and irrational. I have considered taking screen prints for a day or so then recreating her posts with ALL of the comments intact…..

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Many people have been banned for that (or less) Audrey. Thanks for pointing out Banned By Food Babe. I’ve been a proud member for a long time, and can’t recommend the group highly enough for anyone who’d like to know how Food Babe really operates. Many of us were “pre-banned”, apparently by the paid assistants you mentioned, just because we’re (apparently) members of science groups.

      This is all what motivated me to capture and post the details of the Periscope video banning. I wanted a live example of how she tries to shut people down for making polite, factual statements. She does indeed sell nearly two dozen products that have the same ingredients she says are dangerous.

      And yes, like you said: it’s pumpkin SPICE damn it! There’s not SUPPOSED to be pumpkin in it! 🙂

      Like

      Reply ↓

        • “Big surprise this is bullshit!” was Vani Hari’s response to Mark’s tweet asking why she is going after Kellog’s for BHT in their packaging while selling a product containing the same BHT. I was banned for replying to that “big surprise” post demanding a real response.

          She does the same thing with the dyes in her makeup, aluminum in the deodorant she sells, etc. Just look at the sugar content of those Suja “detox” drinks she sells. Yes, the same “toxic dose” of sugar as a Starbucks pumpkin drink. None of this sends up red flags? Shouldn’t this at least prompt you to ask her about these discrepancies? She won’t respond positively. She won’t thank you for spotting a mistake or oversight. Vani will ban you and call you a troll and a shill. Go ahead. Ask her politely. Her actions reveal her true motivation. It’s not honesty, health, nor transparency. It’s cold hard cash.

          Like

          Reply ↓

  14. Thank you for your work. Food Babe is the worst sort of person. Hype up the fears of people unable or unwilling to understand the science behind certain products and then profit from that ignorance. To put an evil cherry on top she is also a hypocrite that sells those people the very terrifying ‘toxinz’ that she rants about. What a horrible person.

    Like

    Reply ↓

  16. The problem with food babe is not the mistakes she makes, or being right or wrong about any particular thing. What’s wrong with her is the same thing that’s wrong with organized religion: self-interest.
    Its a formula. Find an enemy, prey on people’s fears, set yourself up as a savior.

    The problem is not the message, it’s the method.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks for the heads-up Roger. Now that I’ve (apparently) won the copyright battle, I really need to update the page and take the temporary video link down. I had been holding it in reserve in case there was trouble. Apparently IE is having issues with some of the page markup. Honestly, I had to put this together in a hurry when she filed the DMCA takedown. Sorry for the inconvenience, I’ll see if I can figure out what’s going on 😦

      Like

      Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Prissi Cancel reply