Is NaturalNews a reliable source?

Is FOXCNNABCSCBSMSNBC a reliable source?

Yes definately.

Natual News only posts articles with "decent" scientific support. None of this mainstream crap.

Used to love NN but I find it too sensationalist, just like Dr. Mercola. Sigh....

Natural News is definitely pissing off some people. Sucks when people publish all the facts about our food and medicine..

If you watched CNN and Fox then Natural News is WAY more reliable and accurate, thats a fact.

I agree on Dr. Mercola. I feel he's totally sold out and don't follow him anymore. :o\


Now back to topic...

If you support NN - then back it up. Let's get some fact checking going. Links, sources, proof. Just saying they're reliable isn't enough.

The more I'm looking the more I'm finding AGAINST them.

Example: [link to confutata.com]

Last Edited by Copernica the Proud American on 04/04/2012 11:51 AM

No, they are not a reliable source.

Yes, they are very reliable. I believe occasionally they might present something before it is ripe and obviously they have a slant. But they are very pro freedom and pro getting the right information out.

I also know personally, several individuals personally connected to Mike Adams, the owner - and I can tell you w/certainty that NN is doing us a HUGE service and has freedom and liberty in mind.

I would not compare NN to MErcola. Mercola uses facts to push his own products. NN DOES NOT. NN publishes research w/out underlying motivation.

Also, Natural News is making such a profound on the health and food industries - that Monsanto has bloggers hired specifically to discredit Natural News. It's very transparent that these industries are getting very frustrated with the truth getting out. THis is why you will see shills her ein GLP bashing them...

Don't be fooled!

Words...words....words....

Not working for me here. Proof is what I'm looking for.


Like this article (which I think I got from a GLP thread that started me on this question):

[link to www.naturalnews.com]

The article 100% misrepresents the Reuters article that they source.

(Sidenote: Surprisingly, the Reuters article was actually well written and stuck to facts. Which I think makes this whole scenario ironic)

At the bottom of the article they have 3 sources. The Reuters article...and TWO of their own articles. o.O They don't even reference the sources Reuters provides ( [link to cid.oxfordjournals.org]

So...strike 1 against NaturalNews for sensationalism and bad journalism. (or is that 2 strikes?)

Last Edited by Copernica the Proud American on 04/04/2012 12:47 PM

As long as there is a reliable medical/study source, it's all good, isn't it?

That would be 1 strike, because sensationalism sells whereas bad journalism does not.

Are any news agencies "reliable" anymore?

It seems the prudent thing is to question every source and judge the truth for yourself.

Any time someone is "selling" something, you have to question the source, but pearls of knowledge and wisdom may be found, and sorted out for keeping.

MSM has their own agendas, as do the medical researchers--always follow the money trail.

Any link is just that, it is where a person found some information and it allows the reader to check it out for him/herself.

It is important to question the "truth" of anything and take it all in with a grain of salt.

Buyer beware---there is always an agenda--some have the agenda of helping people, but even with that agenda, people are human and flawed and make mistakes.

I don't think you can discount NN 100%, just use discernment.

100%? Nope. But a critical eye and logical mind can be a big help in figuring out what's accurate and what isn't. Taking the time to follow the sources is also a crucial part of the game.


Using the example above - NN proclaimed the vaccines didn't work and actually CAUSED the disease....and went on an unsubstantiated rant of disinfo. The original Oxford study was that the vaccines do not seem to be lasting as long as they thought they would. (In this case, the 8-12 year olds were catching pertussis. Indicating that the time between booster shots is likely too long. So the schedule needs to be re-evaluated. In short - the "failure" is actually the proof that vaccines are working...and not what NN says.)

People not reading the Reuter's article fully and that don't follow the link to the Oxford article - are being led down a very dangerous path by the NN article.


This happens ALL the time. People just buy into the bullet points and agenda and don't go to the source. Then go around spreading the bad information.

If this is how NN is writing all their articles. Then it makes them a non-credible source of information.

AP and Reuter's have a history of bad journalists as well - and when they print something wrong....it spreads EVERYWHERE since they ARE the newswires. But on occasion, you'll find a really well written story by a real journalist. They also list sources, to help aid in the decision making process. When you get an article with no sources, or shady sources - stop reading and discard it without further ado.

And always follow the sources. IF they mention a name, Google it. A law, bill, etc. - look them up. It's amazing how many times you'll find yourself led in a circle. Also, watch for the one's that are showing up everywhere you turn - then when you source them....they all go back to the one and same badly written non-verifiable source. Those are the scariest.

Hi all,

Ive been following NN's work for around a year now and even though I think they speak some truth, I received something this morning which makes me seriously question them:

[link to tv.naturalnews.com]

Short video but is this really for real?? Surely if this was a genuine fake (oh I love those oxymorons) news item then they wouldnt have let themselves be filmed at the end??

How do we find out if this news item is real??

Last Edited by Krista34 on 09/06/2012 06:31 AM

No, it is not reliable. IT is a fucking marketing tool for scammers to get money from sheep. Fucking grow up.

Lol - feck orf yerself you trolling idiot. Hilarious that I thought this was a forum for grown up chat and what do I get....a moron on steroids...

I too began questioning some posts I saw on Facebook. It only took two articles written by the owner Mike Adams to figure out that nothing on the site can be trusted. Take these two:

1. Chinese companies mass producing fake rice out of plastic
[link to www.naturalnews.com]
I tracked the story back to it's real source and found that it wasn't fake rice, but rather bad "fake" rice seed (nothing plastic at all). Farmers bought it and couldn't get it to grow. Any idea how expensive it would have been to make fake rice out of plastic that was good enough to fool people?

2. - The Angelia Jolie BRCA gene thing. You'll notice that the original article has been taken down. (Probably because I commented with facts that he had it all wrong). He said that the BRCA gene was bad, and that you could stop it from being expressed if you ate certain foods. Functioning BRCA genes actually protect AGAINST cancer - they are tumor-suppressing genes. He didn't even know what the genes did! Even in his updated article he doesn't know his genetics and got info wrong!

[link to www.naturalnews.com]

Luckily someone copied and pasted part of the original article: [link to www.evilyoshida.com]

I have been read Natural News for couple years and lately it's more about trying to get reactions than about facts.

I found this website that his bias against Mike Adams but has a lot of facts about how he got to where he is today.

I will still read articles there but not without checking the facts so you can say I don't trust what is written on Natural News.

[link to healthwyze.org]