Michael Fumento is a Worm

He’s tangling with Acidman now. Dig this mouth:

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

Mikey is a worm. Really. It bothers him that bloggers get attention. In America, you are defined by what you do. In other countries, when you meet someone, you ask, “How is your family?” What do we ask in America? “What do you do for a living?” That is what defines us.

Mikey is a man who sees that his days are numbered. He comes from a land where you pontificate to the masses, and they adore you, and say, “please sir, may I have another?” That isn’t how the world is going to continue to be. Sure, mass media is going to be around for a while. Newspapers didn’t kill books. Radio didn’t kill the newspaper. Television didn’t kill radio. But every one of those has sure as hell changed the face of society. And each one certainly marginalized that which preceded it.

Mike writes about health. There is a large percentage of the population that doesn’t need him to write in papers and books about health anymore. They have WebMD. They have Google. They have sites tailored to nearly any health concern. And that is what really chaps Mikey.

Sure, he will still have readers. People still get thier news from radio, no matter how big TV gets. But it isn’t important. Fumento is becoming unimportant. He measures his life by how much people need him — look at his own words:

My column goes out to 400 papers, many of which go directly online. The hits I get from just the online versions easily swamp you. Then add in the print papers themselves. If just a fraction of the people who read those papers read my column, I probably get more hits in a week than you get in a lifetime. And these are people reading a whole column, not some one-paragraph off-the-cuff remark with a link. Finally, how many magazines do you boast of that refuse to publish you. Go to my bio page and you’ll see I’ve been in many of the biggest. And how many books do you have to your name. I have five, thank you.

That’s how Mikey keeps score. A couple of years ago, people would have said, “wow, you wield great power — ravage me, you big hunk of man!” Now, they say, “Yeah, you get a bunch of hits. So does a guy with a bionic dick. Hey! Wait a second! You aren’t that guy that drinks puppy-shakes, are you?” That is his fear.

He was already a small part. No one buys papers for the health collumn. People read the health column because it is either that, or they can wretch over having accidently read Cathy again. (No link for that one. You can thank my via Paypal.) He knows that he can’t really claim those papers. He isn’t the one selling papers. He is just filling column inches.

Just like me. Just like Acidman. Just like the Fat Guy. And deep down inside, he thinks that there is something very, very wrong with that.


  1. What do you think of a blogger (i.e., 99 percent of the time somebody who can’t find a publisher) who does nothing but pump out words and yet can make no better a critique of a writer (i.e., somebody who is published) than to address the writer in the diminutive, “Mikey” instead of “Michael” or “Mike” or more properly, “Fumento.” Rather infantile, huh? And the “Mikey” who is being passed over by time, who is on the verge of going the way of the dinosaur, he didn’t have a syndicated column last year; now he does. He had four published science/health books last year; now he has five. And all you have is a pitiful blog site that as more and more bloggers come on line, fewer and fewer people will go to. Just remember that each time a single newspaper such as the New York Post or Chicago Sun-Times publishes me, I get more “hits” in a day than you’ll get in a lifetime.

    All the best,

  2. Sadly, this is true, Michael. Because you are what we REAL journalists call a “professional liar’. It is really sad that you are making a living spreading propaganda and misinformation to support biotech, beef, chemical and other industries in your attempt to cover up the harm they are doing to the public health.

    The fact that any publication prints your trash is merely proof that you can fool a lot of people a lot of the time.

    Moreover, the fact that you have a need to respond to e-mails with personal insults and childish name-calling, is the most sad thing of all.

    Luckily, there are a few of us who see through your lies.

  3. Claire CdeBaca says:

    I was searching for Michael Fumento’s website when I found this site. How truly pathetic that Mr. Fumento feels the need to respond to EVERY challenge! Does he have something to prove? His interview on Global’s Sunday Morning program with Mr. Scully was truly appalling. It was also the impetus which spurred my search for him.

    I have a master’s degree in Environmental Science and have worked in toxicology labs analyzing the effects of pesticides and herbicides on wildlife for the USEPA and CibaGigy; water quality projects; endangered species studies in the Pacific Northwest; nuclear waste dump siting; and, have analyzed USFDA pesticide residue data for Co-op markets.

    Mr. Fumento’s insinuations that European consumers will be “left behind” in new ag practices and methods “if Europe wants to remain backwards in food production”, and that “activists don’t care that millions of people are dying around the world from starvation” are ludicrous. I believe that European consumers (and all consumers for that matter) have the right to real food grown in time honored ways.

    Mr. Fumento is spouting the same mentality that Nestle’s used to convince thousands of poor mothers in the Sahel of Africa to stop breast feeding and use Nestle’s formula instead. Children starved to death in the 1960s because these mothers couldn’t afford the formula and, because they were no longer producing milk, diluted the formula in order to make it stretch. So, now biotech is to be the “savior” of the starving masses in Africa and Asia!

    I’d like to give Mr. Fumento a few “hits” upside of his head to “knock” some good oldtime sense into it. If poor farmers cannot legally keep seed stock from biotech grains, how can they be expected to purchase new seed EVERY YEAR and still feed their families? Or will the world be better off fining and/or jailing all the farmers who will have to resort to stealing the seed? Biotech is not harmless. Just ask the surviving family members of the hundreds of Spaniards who died and the thousands who became ill in the 1980s by consuming the first GE’d canola oil!

    BTW, it is tremendously fortunate for the human race that the so-called “terminator gene” wasn’t successful. The male plants were supposed to produce a hormone (similar to human hormones) that would render the plant sterile. It is evident from court cases that GE’d grains have cross-pollinated non-GE’d grains and are, therefore, not sterile. Otherwise, there might have been the danger of sterilizing EVERY male animal who consumed the grain.

    “Much ado about nothing”, Mr. Fumento? How’s your sperm count? Or don’t you eat GE’d foods?

    There’s no wool over my eyes after two years of reading numerous biotech reports, pro and con. Keep your biotech! I’ve gone organic to guarantee that my family is not a guinea pig for your industry and eats real food that doesn’t cause mutations. Claire

  4. Phelps says:

    Okay, you need to get your story straight, nutty. First you rant that farmers are going to have to keep coming back to buy GE seed because it is sterile, and then you argue that GE grain is bad because it isn’t sterile? Pick an argument.

    The GE argument is pretty easy to me. Rich people want to keep GE out, because someone else is going to make money on it and because they buy Greenpeace FUD. Poor people want GE food because they like to eat (as opposed to starving.)