American Council on Science and Health The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health. ACSH is one of the few fearless voices of reason on these matters.
Christopher Whalen One guy who really understands the financial crisis. Brilliant insights. Links to his other sites.
The Coach's Team Coach Kevin Collins has an impressive resume, and uses all of his talents to demolish the Left. Site includes some guest columnists, as well.
Discussions In Infection Control This blog, designed and written exclusively by Lawrence F Muscarella, PhD, gives you the most comprehensive discussion of healthcare-associated (hospital) infections (or, “HAIs”), infection control, and both instrument and endoscope reprocessing in the world.
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Provides much-needed balance to the increasingly strident health care lobby that seems intent on scaring everyone about almost everything.
Formaldehyde Facts Your antidote to formaldehyde phobia in the media, from ACC's formaldehyde panel.
Health Care Renewal Expert analysis of what's wrong with American health care. Advocating for accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty, and ethics in leadership and governance of health care.
Health News Digest One of the best and biggest health sites on the web. New content on a daily basis, geared to the professional and informed lay audience.
Interscan Corporation The independent pros in gas detection, known for taking on the tough applications. Site has much technical material, way beyond mere product touts.
Jewish World Review One of the original news/opinion aggregate sites. Founder/Editor-in-Chief/Publisher Binyamin L. Jolkovsky calls it "The intersection of faith, culture and politics." Loaded with content tending toward politically conservative. An oasis for energetic Judaism.
JunkScience.com Steven Milloy and company do a great job in exposing junk science, which he defines as: Faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas. Lots of good content.
Loren Feldman Feldman does videos, marketing, commentary and...puppets. He also understands tech and art.
Overlawyered Chronicling the high cost of our legal system. Water Olson and company explore an American legal system that too often turns litigation into a weapon against guilty and innocent alike, erodes individual responsibility, rewards sharp practice, enriches its participants at the public’s expense, and resists even modest efforts at reform and accountability.
Paradigms and Demographics Ohio-based "bug guy" Rich Kozlovich dishes on junk science, junk politics, and many other matters. Rich is also on the prowl 24/7 for supplemental content written by Others. And he still has time to kill pests!
Quiet Music Nick Francis is a superb music programmer. Of course, it helps that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of music. Stream, subscribe, enjoy.
Selwyn Duke Hard-hitting and well-written conservative commentary, from a modern day renaissance man. The Duke is not afraid to ruffle some feathers, or invoke his Catholic faith, either.
SenSoft International Expert assistance on GSA, VA, DOD, and other federal contracts. Yes, there really can be great customer service in such an esoteric space.
The Excel Addict Most of us use Excel. Some of us use it a lot, and are constantly looking for easier ways to do things. Francis Hayes--the Excel Addict--offers plenty of free tips, a regular newsletter, and an inexpensive book to download.
The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics Everything you know about cholesterol causing heart disease is wrong, and this website is run by eminent doctors who are trying to set the record straight. But, with billions of dollars in drug sales at stake, it won't be easy.
The Nutrition Experts The name says it all. Jo-Ann Heslin and Karen Nolan have sold millions of books, and have re-launched their information-packed website. What's more, they encourage website visitors to submit questions.
Weasel Zippers Conservative commentary from all over the Web. Updated constantly.
Zero Hedge Works to...
Widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public; provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint; liberate oppressed knowledge
This HND piece goes after the absurd—but widely publicized—IARC findings regarding red and processed meat products. Bear in mind that of the 985 substances IARC has tested for carcinogenicity, only one has been put into its Group 4 (Probably not carcinogenic to humans).
Note also that in epidemiological terms, relative risks of 1.18 and 1.17—as are indicated with processed meat products and red meat, respectively—are statistically insignificant, and one wonders why the "experts" at IARC ignored this. Indeed, as a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.
Compounding this epic journey into junk science, IARC does almost nothing to change the public perception of its ratings. Its classification system does not assess the carcinogenic risk of the given agent, but rather, its rating of the quality of supporting evidence.
Thus, included in the dreaded Group 1 (Carcinogenic to humans) are alcoholic beverages, asbestos, benzene, diesel exhaust, mustard gas, tobacco products, and now...processed meat. However, this does not mean that processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco products or asbestos, even if that's what any number of bogus authorities and fear entrepreneurs are now claiming.
The irony here is that IARC has recently been mocked by real scientists for its nonsensical work on formaldehyde. Among other things, it based its cancer assessment on an unpublished and ridiculously flawed and inconsistent study from China. At least, formaldehyde is a chemical with known dangerous properties. But red meat?
This HND piece exposes the rather obvious, and strangely unreported fact that Planned Parenthood, by its own admission, is violating at least one federal law in this lovely matter of selling baby parts. Heck, there is little doubt they are violating two, in that the "donations" are clearly intended to gain profit.
As we describe in this and the follow-up piece, there are precious few legitimate uses for human fetal tissue, and certainly nowhere near enough to justify the scale of the ghoulish harvest, exposed by the recent Center for Medical Progress videos.
Imagine that. People running an abortion mill doing despicable things. Read the complete article.
How often do you hear someone say that to fix our country, we "need to get back to the Constitution?" Sorry, but this is a non-starter...
1. I reject the notion that "all" the country need do is to get back to the Constitution. Upon a moment's reflection, it should be clear that this is no solution at all.
The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Covers a whole lot, doesn't it?
Article I, Section 8 contains 18 clauses, and here is the 18th: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." In other words, they can do anything they want.
Amendment XIV, Section 1 provides:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." All by itself, this little gem has given us Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage).
Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the absurd notion of judicial review, thereby forever ruining the balance of powers, and making the Supreme Court the super-branch. No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson himself was dismayed at this state of affairs.
Given the four precepts described above, coupled with the reality that virtually every court decision expands, rather than limits federal power, no rational argument can be advanced that the Constitution is our saving grace.
2. Perhaps "getting back to the Constitution" is a shorthand for the wish that we get back to some earlier Spirit of the Founders, or Spirit of America. That would be a marvelous idea, but it may be difficult to achieve in the 21st century.
Instead of a Christian country in which only property owners (aka stakeholders) could vote, we now have a "diverse" land in which a heroin addict on welfare, who has to be propped up at the polling place, has the same vote as a productive citizen.
3. As to the military and its legitimate use, getting back to the Constitution will probably not help much. True, Article I Section 8, Clause 11 provides that Congress has the power: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
However, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 provides that: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States."
Thus, the last time war was formally declared by Congress was on December 8, 1941. Of course, any number of bellicose acts subsequent to that date can be counted up. Arguably, there were plenty of them (non-declared) in the build-up to World War II, as well.
4. Kinda makes you wonder how many of the "patriots" endlessly talking about getting back to the Constitution have even read it
How easy it is for hordes of RINOs and others to pile on Donald Trump for his statements disparaging John McCain. Perhaps, we should take a harder look at some of the precepts in play here...
Full disclosure: Since any criticism of the military inevitably invites personal attacks, let me state my own record: While an undergraduate, I had a 2-S student deferment, after which, I was classified 1-A for several years, although this classification became moot after the Vietnam War ended. I was simply never drafted. Had I been drafted, I would have served. Upon learning a great deal about the Vietnam War years later, I concluded that it was a total disaster, producing nothing more than dead and wounded Americans.
Trump questions why a POW should automatically be considered a war hero, and like it or not, his point is well taken. Indeed, during World War II, POWs were regarded as only slightly better than traitors. How did this change?
I submit that the Vietnam War was such an unmitigated catastrophe, that our "leaders" needed to search for any positive story they could possibly come up with. Thus, McCain, a POW, became a hero. As an aside, does this mean that John Kerry and Ron Kovic, both famous protesters of the war--and veterans--were also heroes?
If POWs are heroes, then why did our government, including St. Ronnie himself, eventually give up on finding POWs/MIAs despite credible evidence that there were still hundreds unaccounted for? There are many references extant, including this one that implicates McCain himself in the cover-up.
As to McCain, there are legions who question his heroic status, and references abound implicating him in all sorts of wrongdoing while he was a POW—and before.
This HND piece looks into the nebulous and contradictory nature of sustainability, going all the way back to the introduction of the term in 1987, by the UN. Of course, in those days, when it was called "sustainable development," it was primarily concerned with reducing the gap in standard of living between rich and poor countries.
Indeed, it must shock today's Greens that back then, it was stipulated that increased energy production will be needed to improve the plight of the poor.
Alas, given the apocalyptic nature of the Green movement, it was inevitable that a "sustainability is not sustainable" faction would emerge, and we discuss two very different proponents of that faction. In the process, we examine the incredible junk science behind this movement.
This HND piece takes a dim view of Federal Trade Commission's favorite new target: hospital mergers. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, antitrust action almost never benefits the consumer. Rather, it is a foolish and overblown regulatory overreach, if not textbook fascism.
It is no secret that hospitals are under extreme financial pressures, from both the insurance industry and the government. Simply put, revenues are down, and strategic mergers are one of the best ways for these institutions to stay viable—and serve their communities.
Yet, the FTC doggedly pursues its simplistic numbers game, with a playbook unchanged from the days of John D. Rockefeller, or even A&P, which was sued for having food prices that were too LOW. It is way past time for the FTC to understand the markets it regulates, and to finally do the right thing.
This HND piece is a follow-up to the previous week's entry. Here, we start out with more e-cig nonsense, courtesy of the inaptly named California Department of Public Health.
Alas, the attack on e-cigs is by no means the extent of the bad medicine being promulgated by officialdom every single day. What about the Establishment's ghoulish adherence to the ruinous low fat/high carb diet, which beyond any doubt is the cause of the current epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes? Add to that the truly deranged insistence on a low sodium diet, despite hundreds of studies proving its ill effects.
And, of course, there's the long-discredited (but still aggressively promoted) cholesterol theory of coronary heart disease, and the questionable value of statin drugs.
Perhaps, the bald-faced official lies about e-cigs—so easily disproved—will be the tipping point in the public's war against evil public health policies.