naturalnews.com

What is NaturalNews.com

Natural News is a website presented as a “natural health advocacy” and “independent news” platform. According to its own “About” page, its mission is “to empower consumers with factual information about the synthetic chemicals, heavy metals, hormone disruptors and other chemicals found in foods, medicines, personal care products, children’s toys and other items.” (naturalnews.com)
The site was founded by Mike Adams (also known online as “Health Ranger”). (Wikipedia) It began publishing around 2008 (domain registered 2005). (Wikipedia)
It covers a wide range of topics: health & medicine, nutrition, alternative therapies, politics, “prepping & survival,” science & technology. (naturalnews.com)

Key features and claims

  • Emphasis on “natural” or “alternative” health approaches; suspicion of conventional medicine, pharmaceutical industry, GMOs and chemical additives.

  • Claims of investigative nutrition, “lab tests,” exposure of chemicals in everyday products.

  • The site sells or promotes products (supplements, detox kits, etc) via affiliated stores or its own “Health Ranger Store.” (Wikipedia)

  • The site additionally publishes more political/cultural content (e.g., conspiracy-theory-linked material) beyond pure health/nutrition. (ISD)

Controversies and criticisms

Natural News has been widely criticised by independent fact-checkers, media scholars and scientific commentators. Here are major points:

  1. Pseudoscience and health misinformation

    • The site has published articles discouraging chemotherapy or radiation for cancer, promoting unproven treatments, being anti-vaccination. For example: “the site ‘tends to not only spread irresponsible health information in general (e.g. discouraging chemotherapy or radiation for cancer treatment, antiretrovirals for HIV, and insulin for diabetes), but also has large sections with dubious information on vaccines’.” (Wikipedia)

    • Bloggers and critics have called it a major example of “quackery” in health. (Wikipedia)

    • The site reportedly made claims such as homeopathic treatments for Ebola. (Wikipedia)

  2. Conspiracy theories and disinformation ecosystem

    • It has been classified in academic research and lists of fake-news/disinformation sites: e.g., Wikidata labels it “American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website.” (Wikidata)

    • A 2020 report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) described it as “widely acknowledged to be a prolific source of disinformation relating to both health and politics.” (ISD)

    • The site has been removed or restricted by major platforms at times. For example, Google delisted roughly 140,000 pages in 2017. (Wikipedia)

  3. Commercial-interest conflicts

    • The founder, Mike Adams, has been criticised for promoting products while disclaiming objectivity. Example: the Daily Beast found multiple articles where Adams wrote “independent reviews” of products in which he had business ties. (Wikipedia)

    • Because the business model involves product sales, critics argue that the site’s content can blur lines between editorial, marketing and promotion.

  4. Domain-network expansion to avoid bans

    • When major platforms banned or restricted Natural News content, the site reportedly expanded into dozens or hundreds of related domains (e.g., trump.news, extinction.news, mind.control.news) to republish content and get around restrictions. (Wikipedia)

Why it matters (for you or any reader)

  • If you come across health/nutrition claims or “news” items on Natural News, you should treat them with strong caution. Because the site’s track record shows frequent mixing of advocacy, conspiracy and unverifiable claims.

  • Some content may resonate because of fear, concern about chemicals, distrust of “big pharma,” or desire for alternative solutions. Knowing the site’s orientation helps in assessing reliability.

  • The broader issue is that sites like Natural News contribute to health-misinformation ecosystems: when people rely on unverified claims, it can cause real harm (e.g., refusing vaccines, ignoring proven treatments).

  • From a media-literacy angle: It’s an example of how a site positions itself as “independent” and “consumer-advocate,” while hiding or down-playing financial motivations and high volume of speculative content.

Takeaways

Here are the key things to remember:

  • Natural News is not equivalent to mainstream science-based health journalism.

  • It often publishes articles that contradict established scientific consensus, particularly in health, vaccines, nutrition and environmental science.

  • The site mixes genuine consumer-interest topics (chemicals in foods etc) with sensational or conspiratorial material.

  • You should apply critical thinking: check claims presented there against reputable sources (e.g., peer-reviewed studies, recognized medical organisations).

  • Recognise the possibility of conflict of interest: content may serve promotion of products or ideologically-driven narratives.

  • Taking it seriously as a single source is risky: better to use it as a signal to dig deeper, rather than as definitive health or news guidance.

FAQ

Is Natural News a “fake news” website?

Many fact-checkers and researchers categorize it as a fake-news or misinformation site, especially in regard to health and scientific claims. For example, it’s listed among fake-news domains in Wikipedia’s list. (Wikipedia) So yes — while it publishes genuine articles, the broader classification by independent analysts is that it spreads misinformation.

Can I trust any content on the site?

You can treat any claim on the site with caution. Some content might be well-intentioned (e.g., advocating reduced chemical exposure), but because the site frequently presents unsupported claims or mixes fact with speculation, you should verify independently. Use trusted sources (medical journals, official public-health organisations) to cross-check.

Why do people use it if it’s so controversial?

Several reasons:

  • It appeals to people sceptical of mainstream medicine, mainstream media or big pharmaceutical companies.

  • It uses emotionally resonant themes (chemical toxins, corporate interests, “natural cures”) that draw readers.

  • Alternative-health markets have growth; people may search for “natural” solutions. A site like Natural News sits at that intersection of health advocacy + commerce + ideology.

What are signs that an article from Natural News might be unreliable?

Look for:

  • Claims that go contrary to widely-accepted science without citation of peer-reviewed research.

  • Use of alarmist language: “Big Pharma doesn’t want you to know…”, “You won’t believe…”, “Cure cancer naturally by…”

  • Articles that strongly promote specific products or affiliate links.

  • No clear disclosure of author’s credentials or of conflicts of interest.

  • Lack of transparency on evidence: no links to credible studies or data.

Should I avoid the site entirely?

Not necessarily “avoid entirely,” but treat it with strong caution. If you visit it, do so with a discerning mindset: view it as one of many sources, not a trusted authority. Always cross-verify its claims with independent, reputable sources.

Comments

Post a Comment