Free Vitamin D with Purchase of $30+, Learn More Here >>

Home / Blog


Mike Adams Banned From Facebook. Victory…? Or Defeat?

Contributor Bio

Alex Tarnava is the CEO of Drink HRW, and the primary inventor of the open-cup hydrogen tablets. Alex runs the clinical outreach program for our company, working with over a dozen universities coordinating research. Alex has also published research of his own. You can find it on his ResearchGate. Additionally, he has been interviewed for many prominent publications, such as Entrepreneur and Forbes, and on many popular Podcasts. You can find all of his interviews and articles on his media page.

Mike Adams Banned From Facebook. Victory…? Or Defeat?

Industries Biggest Conman Yet Again Made Martyr

As many of you may know, on Sunday June 10th, Facebook moved to ban Natural News, run by Mike Adams, from its platform.i This follows previous Natural News bans for serious violations of terms of use culminating in being removed from Googleii and YouTubeiii- although for these two, Natural News was eventually reinstatediv.

Mike Adams responded as expected, rallying his followers into believing that the move was part of a conspiracy to silence him, referring to the action as “online ethnic cleansing”. He actually went as far as to call on Trump to use military action against Facebook.v So what was Facebook’s reasoning? One can assume it is in line with what they stated following the ban of Alex Jones and his site Info Wars as well as a few others in May:

We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," a Facebook spokesperson said of the bans in May. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.”

Does Adams and Natural News fit the bill, regarding promoting violence and hate? Without a doubt. Adams has previously called on citizens to murder biotech scientists, his exact phrasing:

“…it is the moral right — and even the obligation — of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity.”

This is far from the only example and a detailed article on the crimes of Mike Adams would exceed the length of a book. As I discussed in my 100 voices article and through my series on health experts, it is imperative to gather enough evidence that an “influencer” is a con-artist so as to remove all reasonable doubt. We have staff working away compiling data on suspected con-artists and building cases against them. None of those we suspect will ever be graced with the privilege of carrying our hydrogen tablets. We did not bother having anyone assigned to Mike Adams, as after a decade of following him, his motivations are so transparent, I did not believe it necessary.

The Dangers of this Action

Facebook is under no legal obligation to give anyone a platform. If they view a business, influencer or individual as dangerous and potentially hazardous to their bottom line, they maintain the right to remove that entity. They did not do this for any moral crusade, this was a strategic business decision. It was not politically motivated censorship, but self-preservation. Facebook is not some protector of truth and integrity, they’re acting to remove a potential threat.

This is one key reason I do not view it as a “win”. What I mean by this is while I fully consider Mike Adams to be an enemy of truth and harmful to humanity, I do not want to see him “lose” in this way. That is because this action may be a “win” for him, not a loss. No one outside of Facebook’s upper management currently knows to what extent they view a community as a threat to their platform. This uncertainty is making other communities, ones that may be controversial or against the consensus but not outright knowing conmen, fear they’re next.

This plays right into the hand of Mike Adams, who can use this uncertainty and concern to drive the roots of his fear-driven conspiracy campaigns into those susceptible to believe them. Every time an action like this is taken against someone like Adams it unifies his followers more. This can be accepted, but what cannot, is what it does to other communities that share fewer extreme views. If they are targeted, Adams “truth” becomes their new truth. Even if they are not targeted, the mere fear of being targeted works to give Adams hysterical shouts validity. Actions like this should not be heralded by skeptics.

If Natural News and Mike Adams are a dangerous fire spreading through a neighborhood, Facebook’s move was akin to taking a plow and driving their garage, engulfed in flames, and dumping it onto their unaffected neighbors’ property. Skeptics celebrating and calling for other communities to “be removed next” is the equivalent to firefighters throwing Molotov cocktails at the flame and yelling at it to “go away”. It may make them “feel good” and help them get their anger out, but it is only incendiary.

No Defense of Adams

I cannot find the words to sufficiently describe how strongly I feel against Adams. I will preface as saying that despite my love of martial arts and the exhilaration I feel sparring, I possess such low amounts of sadistic tendencies, I have a difficult time “hard sparring”. My reactions to landing clean shots were virtually always to stop and ask my training partner if they were OK. As I realized this, I quickly changed my mind from ever wanting to take an actual “fight” myself, as I recognized that despite loving martial arts, experiencing an almost euphoric rush from sparring, I had no desire to hurt an opponent.

Despite this, I’ve literally had dreams, both sleeping and daydreaming, of unleashing hell on Mike Adams. I don’t even personally know him. Of course, this was years ago and all hypothetical. Since my level of anger towards him rose to this level, I have actively tried to avoid reading his website, except sporadically gleaning through his front-page articles to keep myself abreast in his evolving con. On one occasion, I actively made an excuse to not go and support a customer at a show as I saw he was a speaker. While I do not believe I would have escalated anything physically, I certainly would have had a hard time not approaching him and calling him out for being a fraud. An angered unhinged verbal assault could have done much to sacrifice the reputation I was gaining from mutual connections. I’d much prefer to dissect his villainy in careful thought and subsequent writing, removing as much risk of red-blooded emotion from the equation.

I remember one of my reps mentioning that they were going to speak to Adams about carrying the hydrogen tablets. I am unsure how far along the talks were, whether they had even begun. What I do know is Adams was already into hydrogen water and hadn’t yet endorsed a technology or brand. I remarked I would rather remove my eyeballs with a spoon than allow Mike Adams to promote my product. I was serious. I was on the verge of bankruptcy, having spent every red cent to my name getting the business going with very few partners. The regulatory framework had not yet been built, I had several more established competitors and had not even begun my clinical outreach program. Adams had and still has a massive following. Despite all of this, there was absolutely no way I would consider selling to him.

Adams ended up endorsing a company selling hydrogen water that I originally assessed as one I was not willing to sell to or work with. To me this was not surprising, as their behaviours, intent, and actions are quite similar to Adams. While they seem to have fizzled into obscurity, the company in question left a warzone of individuals claiming to be ripped off by them and misinformation on both illegal and magical claims they made to distributors and consumers alike. I used to frequently need to rebut this, which was the bane of my existence in the early days. In fact, this company’s influence in many crowds and my suspicions were led by a knowing con-artist was one of the key motivators in my decision to private label the hydrogen tablets and to actively converse within the entire community.

My Takeaway

Despite my disdain for Adams, I do not want to have him “lose” like this even if it ends up being a loss, which I doubt it will. We cannot win our battles by removing someone’s voice, we must change the tone of discussion to win over those on the fence and even more so, win over those leaning to Adams and his ilk’s side. By communicating through attacks, ridicule, and promoting enforcements, the skeptical community is driving many further away, while sowing the seeds to create newer and different versions of conmen. Several influencers I consider friends are currently worried if they are next. These are people I have described with good intentions and are open to listen. We can build bridges and open respectful dialect or we can call for them to be silenced and drive them towards Adams and the other conmen. I know which path I am choosing.

As for how Mike Adams can turn himself into a martyr and at least in part, convince intelligent, highly educated individuals of his narrative? Stay tuned for my piece on “why conmen are so dangerous”.







  • Ian Blair Hamilton

    Your statement:

    < We cannot win our battles by removing someone’s voice, we must change the tone of discussion to win over those on the fence and even more so, win over those leaning to Adams and his ilk’s side. By communicating through attacks, ridicule, and promoting enforcements, the skeptical community is driving many further away, while sowing the seeds to create newer and different versions of conmen.>

    .. is a worthy summation of the right approach to an old problem. The difficulty I have with fully agreeing with it is that we are no longer in an era where the old adage for evil to prosper, good men need do nothing applies.

    It worth looking at the idea that the time where we can convince someone who has shown their lack of discrimination and need for simple answers (an Adams/Trump follower).. may be over. The Facebook effect is so much deeper than simple communication. The silo effect whereby a FB user is fed information of like value was, I would assume, meant to be helpful to the member in alerting them to things or occasions that FB has algorithmically discerned they show interest. Unfortunately when a company is owned, run and directed by someone so obviously Aspergers, one can not expect the company to understand the nuances of the human psyche. Things are seen in very black and white terms, and the psychology of what would appear to be a simple software change is ignored.

    Hence the silo effect. A (for instance) neo-nazi, or an Intifada, or a simple good old boy from Arkansaw is fed what he wants to hear, thus automatically (without human intervention) enhancing and strengthening what he believes. If he believes in deep state, he gets fed deep state. If she believes in #metoo, she gets fed #metoo.

    Zuckerberg’s Aspergers, therefore becomes the norm for the billions of FB users. And it automatically (again, without human intervention) creates the deep divisions already showing in American (and others) society. It does even more. It gives permission through repetition for some simply execrable ideas. (Flat earthers!)

    So although I agree with your sentiment, I fear the cat is out of the bag, the wolf is a-prowl. The elephant is already in the room. I would suggest that although we must try, it has changed from hard but possible to so close to impossible that a hydrogen molecule couldn’t get between those two words.

    Do I have an alternative solution? No I don’t! And I reluctantly agree that the hard road is ahead of us. If we cannot speak the language that has been entrained in these folk by dams and FB and more, they simply see us as the enemy. I regard myself as reasonably skilled in non-violent communication but this issue raises my hackles not just because of my perception of the intransigence of these people, but also because it brings up the old conditioning I have buried, the issues, the ideas, the automatic responses that still reside in me.

    Adams is an unholy catalyst. He arouses my anger, my own biases and prejudices. And I think the best i can come up with is to work on them.. and then perhaps.. just perhaps.. I will be able to talk to one of Adam’s flock of programmed intransigent diehards.

    (Aha! There you go. I just exposed my prejudices!)

  • Jay Pasquarille
    guys I love you for telling the truth and I don’t give a rat’s ass about Facebook Facebook to me it’s nothing but a warmonger trying to control people and don’t realize that there is a law about the First Amendment a freedom of speech but they wanted morges and tell us to shut up that’s not going to work because Facebook to me can shut their f****** piehole up and go by the laws of the Constitution they are stupid retards that think they they are above the wall or above our constitution I don’t think so

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published