Skip to main content

Another Vani Hari FOIA Request

First, some rules.  Please do not retaliate or harass her.  Respect her privacy for one reason-- I can tell you personally how horrible it is to have someone not respect mine. I do not want her to feel the way I do, because of her.  There's some Sunday irony. Thanks.

On Friday afternoon most folks watch that clock as the minute hand clicks toward five o'clock.  Last Friday, I got the email that my university had filled another public records request, again from the Food Babe, Vani Hari, and spent the next few hours going through what they plan to send to her. 

Why is she going after me?  Did I say something wrong?  Is something in my publication record not panning out and she suspects undue influence? 

No.  This is a personal, malicious, expensive attack for one reason-- It is because I corrected her.  I stood up when she visited my campus and lied to the students I am responsible to teach. 

The most recent request includes names of friends like Kavin, Vance, Yvette and Joe. Mark and Mark wrote the book with Kavin and I've never even had an email with either one, I don't think.  The top two names-- no idea. 

I hate like hell giving her any more attention, but this needs to be part of the narrative.  She wants personal emails, my personal conversations with friends.  This is just sick.  It is none of her business. It is the law, so I will will be in full compliance. 

If we did something wrong-- fine.  But this is a vanity request because people criticized her.  She knows that I don't separate personal and business email, I don't have the time or desire to do that. I never will. 

My university job is a researcher, teacher and department chair and my email used for business in those capacities is certainly hers to search.  Go for it.  That's the law and I'm glad to abide by it. 

But to request private emails between friends?  For no reason other than Yvette and Kavin have criticized her, and she's gone after Vance before too.  

She wants to know what we say about her, our secret plans.  Guess what?  Nobody really cares.  You'll see us talk about other things, maybe a joke, maybe someone coming to town. BFD. 

It is FOIA not being used for its intent-- to solve a crime or investigate wrongdoing.  It is taxpayer funded witch hunts to see if anyone said anything bad about Vani.  Damn egomaniac. 

People are sick of it and in social media many started posting her personal information.  I asked them to stop.  I even blacked out her email address in the above graphic.  Unlike her, I respect the privacy of others. 

The way to stop her is to tell the story of her attacks on public scientists far and wide.  Destroy her brand by showing that she is the bully, that she does not have science on her side and need to harm those that do. 


She is a horrible, wretched, self-absorbed woman.  I always gave her the benefit of the doubt.  However, she's wasted enough of my time and university resources, caused me massive anxiety and hassle.  Please share this story.  

Please share this story. 

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific American Destroys Public Trust in Science

This is a sad epitaph, parting words to an old friend that is now gone, leaving in a puff of bitter betrayal. 
When I was a kid it was common for my mom to buy me a magazine if I was sick and home from school.  I didn't want MAD Magazine or comic books.  I preferred Scientific American
The once stalwart publication held a unique spot at the science-public interface, bringing us interesting and diverse stories of scientific interest, long before the internet made such content instantly accessible.  It was our trusted pipeline to the new edges of scientific discovery, from the mantle of the earth to the reaches of space, and every critter in between.
But like so much of our trusted traditional science media, Scientific American has traded its credibility for the glitz of post-truth non-scientific beliefs and the profits of clickbait.The problem is that when a trusted source publishes false information (or worse, when it hijacked by activists) it destroys trust in science, trust in s…

Chipotle's Ag-vertising to Fix their Anti-Ag Image

After years of anti-farmer rhetoric, disgusting anti-agriculture videos, and trashing farmer seed choice, Chipotle now seems to have found a love for the American farmer that is as warm and inviting as the gooey core of a steak burrito.  Their new "Cultivate the Future of Farming" campaign raises awareness of the hardship being experienced in agriculture, and then offers their thoughts and some seed grants in order to reverse it. 

But are they solving a problem that they were instrumental in creating? 

The crisis in agriculture is real, with farmers suffering from low prices, astronomical costs, and strangling regulation.  Farmer suicides are a barometer of the crisis.  Farms, from commodity crops to dairies, are going out of business daily. It is good to see a company raising awareness. 


From Chipotle's website- The "challenge is real" and "It's a hard living"-- and companies like Chipotle were central in creating those problems. 

However, Chipotle&#…

Mangling Reality and Targeting Scientists

Welcome to 2019, and one thing that remains constant is that scientists engaging the public will continue to be targeted for harassment and attempted reputation harm.  

The good news is that it is not working as well as it used to.  People are disgusted by their tactics, and only a handful of true-believers acknowledge their sites as credible. 

But for those on the fence I thought it might be nice to post how a website like SourceWatch uses a Wikipedia-mimic interface to spread false and/or misleading information about public scientists. 

Don't get me wrong, this is not crying victim.  I'm actually is screaming empowerment.  I spent the time to correct the record, something anyone can check.  Please look into their allegations and mine, and see who has it right. 

This is published by the Center for Media and Democracy.  Sadly, such pages actually threaten democracy by providing a forum for false information that makes evidence-based decisions in policy issues more challenging.  It…