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 starts with a walk down Chinese drywall memory lane, but ends up at a very current case. An unfortunate Florida homeowner—and we are certain that there are many more like him—got caught up in the state's nonsensical criteria for tainted and corrosive drywall.
In defense of the Sunshine State, it simply went along with the absurd recommendations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and ASTM. CPSC chose orthorhombic sulfur (S8) as its qualifying standard, despite plenty of contrary data--and this was data that CPSC paid for, and represented superb analytical work. Another epic fail from CPSC, and from the once-respected ASTM.
This HND piece once again covers the topic of e-cigarettes, and this time spotlights an upcoming feature entitled A Billion Lives. Regular readers of my columns will already be familiar with the sad truth of officialdom being dead set against e-cigs, for completely selfish reasons--that have nothing to do with public health.
Helmer Aaron Biebert has created a compelling work that is sure to spread the message beyond the e-cig community.
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 discusses how an essential chemical can be maligned, for no reason other than to raise funds, or mindlessly increase regulatory power. Sadly, chemophobia is big business.
We start off with Bela Lugosi, who—believe it or not—has a role in this drama, and take it out to the present with EPA trying to gum up rigorous standards, already accepted by industry. Of course, there are a few interesting stops in between.
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 article takes up from the previous week's autism piece. It is an easy segue to the awful world of junk science. Sadly, desperate parents of autistic kids have embraced every manner of voodoo, in search of a cure.
Of course, this plays into the goals of the lunatic anti-vaxers, as well as the fear entrepreneur chemophobes. We name names, including a few you may never have heard of. Also included are some thoughts from Kary Mullis.
Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner, has turned out to be an active policy advocate among the city’s department heads, the outspoken architect of some of the Bloomberg administration’s more controversial policies.
Although Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is more closely associated with a law that bans smoking citywide, the legislation was actually developed by Dr. Frieden, who was also given responsibility for helping to push it through the City Council.
Even Mayor Bloomberg’s partnership with Snapple to sell juice in vending machines in schools has not gone without his notice.
"I would have preferred water,” he admitted, although he added that he liked the money that the agreement will raise.
He is almost certainly the only city agency head who keeps a bowl of condoms in the reception area of his office.
In 2009, Frieden took to the pages of the New England Journal of Medicine to sell the need for a soda tax. “It is difficult to imagine producing behavior change of this magnitude through education alone, even if government devoted massive resources to the task,” Frieden wrote. “Only heftier taxes will significantly reduce consumption.”
In 2010, after Obama tapped Frieden to head up the Centers for Disease Control, Bloomberg announced his support for a soda tax. “The soda tax is a fix that just makes sense,” he said in a March 2010 radio address. “It would save lives. It would cut rising health care costs. And it would keep thousands of teachers and nurses where they belong: in the classrooms and clinics.” Three years earlier, Bloomberg said he was opposed to a soda tax.
The current issue of Lancet Neurology has a “sky is falling” alarm about the alleged ever-rising threat of environmental chemicals for our children’s neurological development. The authors are well-versed in this subject: not toxicology or neurology, no, we mean they are experts in the subject of trying to scare parents and the media about remote or hypothetical chemical threats. In this case, they wave the skull-and-crossbones banner of a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.” If they hoped to garner media attention — and they surely did — they succeeded beyond expectations: fright is in the air.
The authors — Drs. Philip Landrigan of Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York and Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health — are long-time “toxic terrorists,” whose careers have been devoted to finding (or at least seeking) chemical toxins in the environment. Here, writing in Lancet Neurology, they have assessed the environment for the presence of certain chemicals they believe to have toxic effects on the developing nervous systems of fetuses, infants, toddlers and children. They have also taken note of the increasing frequency of diagnosing certain conditions related to brain function among our nation’s youngest demographic, and have perceived an increase in both the number of “chemicals of concern” (to them) and the number of young people diagnosed with ADHD or autism-spectrum disorders. Since their tabulation finds increases in both parameters, they have concluded a likely cause-and-effect relationship. Their proposed solution to this problem: tightened chemical regulation, and a national (or, better, international) “clearinghouse” to assess all known chemicals for neurotoxicity, discover unknown chemicals lurking with the same threat, and test anything entering the marketplace before deeming it safe (or at least safe enough).
“How such a baseless assault on ‘chemicals’ can find its way into the pages of an esteemed peer-reviewed journal such as The Lancet — Oh excuse me, I can’t stifle my laughter any more,” said ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross, “Wasn’t it this same ‘esteemed’ journal that published Wakefield’s fraudulent opus on autism and vaccines? The whacko editor, Horton, has still never assumed any responsibility for the devastation and deaths that decision caused. Now, there’s this piece of…junk does it too much honor.
“I give the authors credit, so to speak, for having passed some science or math course at one time, so they should (you’d think) know better than to toss some known environmental and actual chemical toxins in a mix with their own made-up variety and call it a ‘study.’ Sure, lead is an ongoing problem, although of markedly diminished impact compared to Landrigan’s classic reviews dating from 30 years ago. And sure, methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin: so what? The authors make no mention of dose-response, as though the mere presence of a chemical is enough to tag it as a cause of some disorder. Then they feel that just mentioning other alleged ‘toxins’ make them guilty by association (DDT? Really?).
“They also fall for the ages-old fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc: if some outcome follows some environmental change, the latter must have caused the former, as if opening an umbrella causes it to rain. Other ‘experts’ may have found a similar increase in neurological ailments based on the skyrocketing consumption of organic food, with as much relevance to public health as this nonsense: check out this tongue in cheek graph which shows a correlation between organic food consumption and autism.
This piece in essence is simply a call for the precautionary principle: if there is ‘concern’ about a chemical — or substance, or behavior — then ban or restrict it until/unless it can be proven ‘safe.’ But when applied to the tens of thousands of chemicals in our environment, our commerce, and our consumer products, if applied as these authors demand, it would require a complete abandonment of our way of life, period. They don’t seem to care, or even take notice. But why should they: they got what they wanted, publicity and scare-mongering adherents.”
Original here. BTW--"Toxic terrorists" is one term, but I prefer "Science welfare frauds."
Today, in the DC metro area, we will experience a nearly unprecedented 42 degree F temperature drop. This is explained by an large Arctic front moving in.
OK, but here's my question: If the atmosphere has a supposed "greenhouse" effect, how is this possible in 24 hours?
Yes, yes, I know. Weather is not climate. Except, the Arctic front (weather) is clearly operating contrary to your ridiculous greenhouse concept. And, either your greenhouse theory applies, or it doesn't. [In the simplest debunking, no matter how well-insulated your coffee cup might be, it does not cause the coffee to become warmer than it orignally was.]
How can climate be anything BUT the totality of weather?
Please explain. (And don't bother with a begging the question answer such as "The temperature drop would be much greater without the Greenhouse effect.")