I could make a living doing this. It’s so easy. Vani Hari says something, I (or anyone) say why it’s wrong, she has a hissy fit and says more wrong things, and the cycle continues forever. Perpetual motion machines are real, they just exist solely in battles of wits. Sadly, one of the belligerents in this particular scuffle is unarmed.
By now everyone is probably well aware of the recent public execution of the Food Babe Way that Yvette d’Entremont, the Science Babe, published over at Gawker. I’m not going to waste any time going over it because that would be pointless. I’m sure a lot of you have seen Ms. Hari trying to defend herself against Yvette’s total evisceration of her nonsense, too. I say she tried. That’s not exactly correct. In fact, she didn’t try at all. No, that’s not her modus operandi; she has to attack the messenger. Mudslinging is the only weapon in the arsenals of those who fear facts.
In one of the saddest attempts I’ve ever seen at trying to discredit someone, Vani posted an anonymous email that made several allegations against Yvette. What those were is irrelevant for now but very pertinent to the point I want to make – Vani Hari is damned, dirty hypocrite.
Shocker, right? I could hardly believe it myself, but because she loves us, Vani wants to provide me and you and everyone we know with everything we need to demonstrate her complete lack of self-awareness and ethics. From selling products that contain “toxic” ingredients to banning all dissent while claiming to welcome debate, maybe she’s not the champion for better health she claims to be. Surely a real activist would defend herself against naysayers in very public ways regardless of the costs. (Funnily enough, the first page of her book compares her to Linus Pauling and Martin Luther King, Jr. I’m not making this up.)
So how is it hypocritical of Vani to post an anonymous email filled with unsubstantiated claims against the Science Babe?
Well, you see, back in January the Genetic Literacy Project posted a scoop from someone claiming to be a former employee of Vani’s. The gist was that Vani knows she’s full of shit, but she’s more interested in the money than actually providing sound advice. I’ve always maintained that Vani is too ignorant to know how full of shit she really is and too arrogant to recognize when she’s wrong.
Vani was obviously a little miffed by that. Honestly, who could blame her? If some random commenter on the Internet said that about me, true or not, I’d be pissed. It’s the natural reaction.
“This is defamatory,” she says. “Please remove it immediately,” she demands. But Jon Entine was only asking questions by posting this, Vani. Is he not allowed to investigate claims as you do? Is JAQing off only for Vani and tinfoil brigade?
In her response to Yvette’s article, Vani didn’t even bother with the just asking questions routine. She made several defamatory claims including that Yvette was fired for her activities as Science Babe and she’s a not a scientist (chemists are scientists dumb-dumb). This doesn’t even broach the multiple claims that Yvette, me, and every other skeptic being paid to disagree with Foo Boo. (She had the balls to call me a sexist once. ME!) That’s defamatory in itself, but I’m a nobody, so it doesn’t matter to me one whit what someone thinks about my motivations. If they can’t be bothered to think about what I’m actually saying, fuck ’em. I don’t need or want their attention anyway.
But back to the Hypocritical Babe. She demands that defamatory comments be removed from another website (not once, but at least twice) then dedicates an entire blog post to defaming one of my
co-conspirators friends with only an anonymous email full of unverified claims. (But trust Vani and the emailer, they can totally be verified.) This is all done with a straight face and not a single one of her fawning minions seems to notice how nasty and vicious Rude Babe is whenever faced with a critic who actually knows what the fuck he or she is talking about.
It’s never about the message with Food Babe. As far as I can tell, it’s all about the image.