HELP How come Natural News is not credible? So what is wrong with Natural News?

TammyinWI

1st Amendment Right and Pertinent
[I copied two posts from another thread to explain why Natural News is not a reliable website. People ask this regularly, so here’s a definitive response - Dennis]


I have asked a handful of times, here and there, how come Natural News is not credible and to provide examples, and no one does. So what is wrong with Natural News? What did they report incorrectly?

So here we go, all of the other sources, including Sloan Kettering are ignored, because of one supposed "bad source."

I have never read anything wonky or wrong at Natural News. They are revealers of truth.[/B]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kris Gandillon

The Other Curmudgeon
_______________
I have asked a handful of times, here and there, how come Natural News is not credible and to provide examples, and no one does. So what is wrong with Natural News? What did they report incorrectly?

So here we go, all of the other sources, including Sloan Kettering are ignored, because of one supposed "bad source."

I have never read anything wonky or wrong at Natural News. They are revealers of truth.
Mike Adams owns and writes for Natural News and well over 100 other “related” web sites that all reference the same stories so it LOOKS LIKE multiple sites have picked up the story and run with it.

I contracted to a similar company back in 2014-2015 to build data centers for them. Their main business was this kind of thing on steroids....all for the eyeballs generating ad revenue. They had over 800 domains with at least 250 of them active while I was there.

Dead giveaway that you may be dealing with such a web site that cares more about attracting eyeballs for ad revenue than truthful articles is when you see a lot of the same, often "out there", advertisements for questionable products and services as you scroll down thru the website. They get paid for you just SEEING the ad (called an "impression") whether you click on it or not (they get paid more if you do click on it...that's called a click-thru). If you actually buy any of their products, woohoo even more money!

A prime way they grab you is to take a current event and embellish it a bit to make it more intriguing...they make up crap out of whole cloth in an effort to suck you in and then hope you share it on social media (or places like TB2K) with the link back to their story so they increase the eyeball count seeing their ads.

Oh, the things I could share about this "industry".

This is what he did in this specific case. The Sloan Kettering article is from 2018, well before Covid or the vaccines. While it mentions mRNA it was Mike Adams who took the liberty to make the connection with the vaccines and created his own version of the truth i.e. created the intrigue that would generate "discussion" and draw eyeballs to his web sites generating ad revenue. Sloan Kettering has not published anything making this connection.

The 250 click-bait web sites I mentioned were related to the company I was building data centers for in 2014-2015. They were doing the same thing that Mike Adams does to generate ad revenue across their many cross-linked web sites...intentionally embellishing real stories and events to gain interested viewer traffic to pump ad revenue. The company was making millions of dollars a month in profits and it was their ONLY income stream. Other than the cost of the data centers and the people to embellish the articles, their primary expense was buying Google ad words to drive traffic to these sites on a targeted basis. They made 2-3 Google ad words buys each day spending 10s of thousands of dollars each time.

As long as the ad revenue generated exceeded the Google ad word expense they made a nice gross profit which they gave to the employees in the form of 30% to 60% bonuses. Many of the employees salaries were already north of $100K BEFORE the bonuses.

This is a whole subculture on the web. MANY companies do this to accomplish nothing more than generating ad revenue. They couldn't care less about the truthfulness of what they write as long as it trended and drew in those eyeballs.

Discernment is key.

NaturalNews.com and vaccines.news, the referenced links in the article in the OP, are both owned by Mike Adams.

Take a look at:

Rand Paul News | Rand Paul News & Updates
Gorsuch News | Gorsuch News – Gorsuch Information
Vote Fraud News | Vote Fraud News – Vote Fraud Information

Notice the identical format? These are also Mike Adams web sites.

Another common format:

Trump News | Trump News
White House News | White House News

Also Mike Adams sites. Notice they are all linked in the top banner of each site.

Here is a link that details Mike Adams-owned domains which is as of 2015, six years ago but has been updated a bit along the way. He has many more domains today. Some of the ones below are now dormant 6 years later. He posts the same article on multiple of these web sites and then cross-references them to make it look like different web sites have picked up the story.

 

TammyinWI

1st Amendment Right and Pertinent
Well, I got this article in my inbox from the folks at the Truth about cancer, and I see this potential truth as another dot.

Everything in this thread is valuable, though. Thank you for the explanation above, Mr. Gandillon!
 

subnet

Boot
Using the sources NN used in the last article you posted, prove him correct, cite them/quote them, no paraphrasing.
 

Kris Gandillon

The Other Curmudgeon
_______________
And from the other thread since Tammy mentioned Sloan Kettering above:

The link to Sloan Kettering was to an article from 2018 before Covid and before the vaccines.


Natural News embellished their article to come to conclusions and assumptions that Sloan Kettering never made.

Assuming you trust Sloan Kettering...then there is this from 6 days ago...note myth number 1.

www.mskcc.org


Fact Check: 7 Persistent Myths about COVID-19 Vaccines

Despite concerns that you may have, the COVID-19 vaccines that have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials.
 
Last edited:

TammyinWI

1st Amendment Right and Pertinent
Ok Dennis, thank you.

Again, the original thread came into my inbox from the good folks at the Truth about Cancer. If the overlord world system elites wanted to do what the article posits, and play GOD, the technology is there. So is the ability to deceive. They are using their God-given smarts for evil, because they have cold, callous hearts and no conscience, and are under strong delusion.

Even if this were not true, there is no way that I would get that vax. I have read and heard enough. Over my dead body. My body, my choice.

Yes, I did see NN mentioned. NN has NEVER steered me wrong, never, in many years. I have relied on it for trusted info for quite a while. That is how I see it. jm2cw.

Adams could have 1,999 web sites, and I couldn't care less.

I have a very jaded eye in these times with the agenda that we are having imposed on us. The truths are being censored, lies have been put up to come up first in search engine results, and COVID was planned, the have a HUGE agenda.

I look at it as foresight if info was released about this ahead of time, if the vaxes were indeed formulated to make a person's body not fight off cancer, but to let it thrive in persons.

It was probably very similar to the Nuremberg trials, some of this prep for this NWO/great reset.

Yeah, the FDA is on our side. SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRE.

In connecting dots for a long, long time, and after watching this, this is all very disturbing what they are doing:

Former UN staff member Claire Edwards: "'The CV-19 Genocide of 2020' about 21 minutes


She was commissioned to make announcements.
 

BassMan

Veteran Member
But you can quote CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.. All known to be fake news outlets.
What am I missing here?
It is my experience that all “news” contain a mix of true “facts” and untrue “facts”. It seems like even the best articles will have some errors. It also seems like even the worst articles have some truth.
 

TammyinWI

1st Amendment Right and Pertinent
What times we are in...the words from a pop song come to mind...LOL..."Lord...I am SO tired, how long can this go on?"
 

bev

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Pretty sure The Truth About Cancer has Mike Adams from Natural News in a starring role.

There was a series of videos with the same name several years ago. Links were posted here. It featured many “alternative “ medicine types.
 

Daytonabill0001

Wheat or Tare, which are you?
It is my experience that all “news” contain a mix of true “facts” and untrue “facts”. It seems like even the best articles will have some errors. It also seems like even the worst articles have some truth.
Now THAT reminds me of how Satan changed Eve's understanding of God's only command, "Don't eat the fruit from THAT tree".

Come on guys, you all know I'm paraphrasing here. Some of the mods here are still leary of me posting scripture references here...
 

Border Collie Dad

Veteran Member
Pretty sure The Truth About Cancer has Mike Adams from Natural News in a starring role.

There was a series of videos with the same name several years ago. Links were posted here. It featured many “alternative “ medicine types.
Mike is, usually, a featured speaker on the Truth About Cancer various docuseries.
I don't pay as much attention to him as I do many of the others.
But, I trust the promoters of TTAC, Ty and Charlene Bollinger
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kris Gandillon

The Other Curmudgeon
_______________
It is my experience that all “news” contain a mix of true “facts” and untrue “facts”. It seems like even the best articles will have some errors. It also seems like even the worst articles have some truth.
Accidental errors are one thing, intentional embellishment, intentional stretching of the truth, intentional lying to make the story more intriguing, controversial, etc. is a whole different matter.

They had roughly 40 employees at the company I built the data centers for. About 20 of the age 20 somethings wrote the articles for the web sites. They would pick current trending topics and read the current day's news and related articles and then fabricate their version of the story with enough embellishment to hopefully draw attention and make the article trend.

They competed each day to see who could write the article(s) that would generate the most profit which was the difference between the cost of the Google Adwords and the revenue generated from the advertisement impressions and click-thrus.

There is an art to creating the embellished articles that walk the fine line between maintaining believability and crossing the line over into recognizable BS. And they were rewarded handsomely when they pulled it off.

They had big screen monitors mounted on the walls around the office showing hits on the articles and web sites as well as realtime costs for Google Adwords and advertisement revenues plus daily, weekly and monthly graphs showing profits.

The entire goal was how much money could they generate. They proved daily that "There's a sucker born every minute". Actually millions of them based on the hit rates on their embellished articles.
 

BassMan

Veteran Member
Accidental errors are one thing, intentional embellishment, intentional stretching of the truth, intentional lying to make the story more intriguing, controversial, etc. is a whole different matter.

They had roughly 40 employees at the company I built the data centers for. About 20 of the age 20 somethings wrote the articles for the web sites. They would pick current trending topics and read the current day's news and related articles and then fabricate their version of the story with enough embellishment to hopefully draw attention and make the article trend.

They competed each day to see who could write the article(s) that would generate the most profit which was the difference between the cost of the Google Adwords and the revenue generated from the advertisement impressions and click-thrus.

There is an art to creating the embellished articles that walk the fine line between maintaining believability and crossing the line over into recognizable BS. And they were rewarded handsomely when they pulled it off.

They had big screen monitors mounted on the walls around the office showing hits on the articles and web sites as well as realtime costs for Google Adwords and advertisement revenues plus daily, weekly and monthly graphs showing profits.

The entire goal was how much money could they generate. They proved daily that "There's a sucker born every minute". Actually millions of them based on the hit rates on their embellished articles.
I must concede to your first-hand knowledge. It is just that I see so much intentional embellishment, intentional stretching of the truth and intentional lying in the mass media, on things such as immigration, race, finance, etc.
 

Catnip

Veteran Member
[I copied two posts from another thread to explain why Natural News is not a reliable website. People ask this regularly, so here’s a definitive response - Dennis]


I have asked a handful of times, here and there, how come Natural News is not credible and to provide examples, and no one does. So what is wrong with Natural News? What did they report incorrectly?

So here we go, all of the other sources, including Sloan Kettering are ignored, because of one supposed "bad source."

I have never read anything wonky or wrong at Natural News. They are revealers of truth.[/B]
Truth is not allowed by the leftists. It wrecks their game plan.
 

Border Collie Dad

Veteran Member
This sets off my BS meter big time. Those of you who align themselves with such as this have probably not been hurt by such info, so no harm done. I put them up with factcheck.org and the others trying to tell me what they want me to believe for their own reasons.
It appears you know nothing about the information provided by the Truth About Cancer folks.

Maybe because the cut, burn and poison methods used by "traditional" medicine work so well in the 50 year old war on cancer?
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
But you can quote CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.. All known to be fake news outlets.
What am I missing here?
Okay, let’s play. Suppose you started up your own news forum. What sources would you allow, and which ones would you ban?
 

Satanta

Stone Cold Crazy
_______________
We did it just to Piss some people off.

We sat down and hashed out all the different News and Websites then looked at some and said "You know, bet if we ban THIS one for Giggles it will really upset certain Members!"

I would see NN on Fb, read their stuff and it looked really interesting. Then, as I kept reading, say a Story about a woman giving birth to a highly intelligent Baby and they'd refference a story about a woman giving birth to Bigfoots baby and it all fell apart from there.
 

Weps

Veteran Member
As has been said, it doesn't matter if you look to a source like Natural News or CNN for information...it's about discernment.

All the domains Kris linked in his first post show the registrant as being "Domain by Proxy", which is a Go Daddy service subsidiary designed to provide anonymity for the true registrant to hide behind. That in and of itself would make me extremely dubious of the validity of the material provided on this links, even without Kris' testimony and my prior knowledge of this kind of model.

Rather than embellishment for purposes of propaganda and virtue notoriety (as the Left does), it's purely for revenue generation, similar to YT channels that provide similar commentary on current events, but embellish or stretch the truth to draw viewers in for the ad revenue.

While it may seem such an enterprise may be "no harm, no foul" because it hasn't caused personal mistrust or doubt, doesn't mean it hasn't for others. Nor does it mean that said false, altered or embellished information isn't being otherwise used nefariously or maliciously elsewhere.

We're in a new era of information warfare, have been since 2015,but this kind of warfare is old hat to the Soviets and Chinese whom prefected it; Yuri Bezmenov having tried to warn us.

Now, a word about discernment. I'd heard of Bezmenov years ago, watched part of his interview with G. Edward Griffin and was dubious of Yuri's direct claims of intimate knowledge concerning Soviet propaganda because of that interview with Griffin, because while Griffin had some legitimate writings, he also peddled much in the way of conspiracy. However, my distrust concerning Yuri was put to rest while pursuing declassified CIA archives and white papers, in among the files was a folder on Yuri Bezmenov and his debriefing after defection via Canada, also included where various white papers that utilized Bezmenov's detailed account of Soviet counterintelligence and propaganda models.
What's Bezmenov have to do with discernment? I've read on Soviet propaganda, especially under Stalin, primarily because the posters of the era are fascinating, but Yuri provides minute detail about a larger subject matter that connected lots of dots, but that is easily enought done by someone with a bit of cunning and a desire to makes money and provide themselves a level of fame and his legitimately for me was questionable until it was confirmed.

It's up to each of us to determine what we trust and how much we trust it. Most misinformation or embellishment isn't going to directly or immediately effect us on a the micro, personal level as it's macro-level events, but if information is used to determine action or potential action...you want to make darn sure it's legitimate actionable intel by verifying the sources.

The old Reagan mantra, "trust, but verify".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Seeker22

Veteran Member
The guy that invented junk mail advertising was one of the (((Tribe))). He had a quote from his biography I'll always remember:
"There is no junk mail; only junk people."
This attitude just migrated to the interwebz.
 
Last edited:

blackjeep

The end times are here.
Okay, let’s play. Suppose you started up your own news forum. What sources would you allow, and which ones would you ban?
Times have changed since the rules were written up. The MSM was more credible at the time, but now, that's obviously not the case. The MSM is surely a source for outright lies, propaganda and disinformation. At this point, I would allow all news outlets to be used, since bad info emanates from almost all sources. IMO, people have enough intelligence to make up their own minds about the veracity of the content.

Just my .02 worth.
 

packyderms_wife

Neither here nor there.
They had roughly 40 employees at the company I built the data centers for. About 20 of the age 20 somethings wrote the articles for the web sites. They would pick current trending topics and read the current day's news and related articles and then fabricate their version of the story with enough embellishment to hopefully draw attention and make the article trend.
The demoncrats must have hired these folks to write stories about Trump.
 
The guy that invented junk mail advertising was one of the (((Tribe))). He had a quote from his biography I'll always remember:

"There is no junk mail; only junk people."

This attitude just migrated to the interwebz.
. . . which is really just another way of saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." (attributed to circus showman P.T. Barnum - circa ~1870s)


intothegoodnight
 

Kris Gandillon

The Other Curmudgeon
_______________
It's amazing how many times over the years that many here have been taken in by the hoax sites, sometimes when they even have "Satire" or "fake news" in the masthead. That evidence alone disproves blackjeep's comment that "people have enough intelligence to make up their own minds about the veracity of the content."
 
At times I consider the following sources to be “news”
Has or had an actual printed edition.
Has an over the air broadcast presence.
Has a cable or satellite presence.
All these require massive money, lending a certain authority to their reporting.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t make them truthful or accurate.
 

Dennis Olson

Chief Curmudgeon
_______________
Hoax? No. But certainly a sensationalist site. Much embellishment.

Since evidently you have a discernment problem, go back to the “proscribed” thread and read the op.

NOTE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF SITES.

Where does Infowars fall in those categories?
 

BassMan

Veteran Member
I wonder if some sites might be "volatile", and if posted here, there might potentially be legal concerns?

Perhaps some sites are overzealous re: copyright? Perhaps some sites could be so "hateful" that alphabets take notice?

In any case, I think the boss and admins have kept things here from getting "out of hand". If anything can be posted here, this site would effectively become unmoderated.

Kind-of a free-for-all?
View: https://youtu.be/nywLVPvvuAg

View: https://youtu.be/bTrnz5GoHOI
 

blackjeep

The end times are here.
We already allow all sources except known hoax sites.

Are you suggesting we allow hoax sites too?
It's amazing how many times over the years that many here have been taken in by the hoax sites, sometimes when they even have "Satire" or "fake news" in the masthead. That evidence alone disproves blackjeep's comment that "people have enough intelligence to make up their own minds about the veracity of the content."
All the MSM outlets are essentially hoax sites. "Russia, Russia, Russia!" "Two weeks to flatten the curve." "Antifa is only a concept." "Trump incited a riot!" "No credible evidence of fraud in the election." "Systemic Racism!" "Wear two masks."

On second thought, maybe we need a Ministry of Truth to shield and protect the unwashed masses here on TB from unapproved news. We need this because there are some people that can't discern satire, so let's arrange things for everyone, based on the lowest common denominator. Yes, protect members from their own stupidity!

But, what do we do with CNN etc. that are no better than a satire site. Darn, how do we reconcile this conundrum? Oh, I know! We'll just proclaim that some disinfo sites are better than others!

Problem solved! I'm so happy! :lkick:

I'm not trying to be an a$$hole, but it's clear that there is a paradox.
I defer to the wisdom of the administration.
 
Top