JUNK SCIENCE? - How Can You Tell?

[redstar2000]

We live in a "scientific age"--it's pretty close to an "article of faith" that this statement is true.

Well, yes and no. Yes, we have a lot more real knowledge about the material world, knowledge that is both verifiable and useful. And the total of that real knowledge grows with every passing year.

At the same time, we also "know" a lot of things that are either not true, not verified, not useful, or just plain horseshit...and yet nevertheless seek to cloak themselves in the garb of real "science". And that total also grows with every passing year.

And how is someone who is not a scientist supposed to tell the difference?

A lot of people (most people?) don't even try. They'll believe any jackass dressed in a white lab coat, wearing horn-rim glasses, carrying a clipboard...who says, for example, that "a new scientific breakthrough" has created a product that "melts away fat".

This is the image of "scientist" as "high priest". It's not required that you understand, it's only required that you obey...or buy now as the case may be.

The "age of science" is also, of course, the "age of numbers". Anything with a number attached is "more real, more scientific" than anything without a number. If you suggest that a small proportion of the population may be vulnerable to certain modern building products, you've said nothing. But if you claim that "50,000,000 Americans are at risk from poisoned buildings", you can go ahead and make your appointment to be on "Good Morning America"...you're in business.

It's not necessary that the number be accurate. Go ahead and make one up; only a few real scientists are ever likely to check up on you...and their refutations, appearing in professional journals, will probably get little media coverage. A "danger" disproven is not really "news"; a new "danger" is the lead item on tonight's news.

People who are not slaves to the dummyvision and actually try to use their brains are better off...but not by much. If some respected "scientist" with impressive credentials makes a "prediction", what tools can the non-expert bring to bear on the matter? How do we actually tell if this person really knows what they're talking about or if they're blowing smoke out of their ass?

This is not a problem for most of us with regard to the "hard sciences"...a dispute among particle physicists or cosmologists usually does not have that much of a real-world effect on us (though it can...recall the "cold fusion" scam and the resources that were wasted--and almost wasted--on "developing" it).

In medicine and engineering, just to name two fields, things get a lot touchier...bad medical advice and engineering errors can have immediate and disasterous consequences, as well as long-range negative effects.

In the "social sciences", of course, all bets are off. Not only is the methodology unusually weak but people have direct career incentives to lie their asses off...and while other "social scientists" may well dispute the more dubious "findings", there's no "court of final appeal"...except, perhaps, the mainstream capitalist media, which has its own profit-making agenda.

The phrase "junk science" has been coined to describe "findings" which are garbage...or, at least, completely unsupported by the "evidence" provided. The phrase will probably grow in usage...as junk science itself appears to be a "growth industry".

I can tell you what I do...but with the warning that my "junk science" filter is far from perfect; I'm sure there are things that I think are "scientifically true" that are, in fact, garbage.

1. I've noticed that real scientists make a point of the uncertainties in their data and conclusions; junk scientists will just yell real loud that "the sky is falling".

2. I am hyper-suspicious of any "finding" that "supports" official government policies on anything. There's just too much incentive for social scientists to "fudge the numbers" or just plain lie...that next federal research grant is too tempting.

3. Corporate research in biology and medicine should likewise be regarded with suspicion...for obvious reasons. Fear of class action lawsuits is probably all that restrains them.

4. Any finding that contains a number preceeded by the word "estimate" should be disregarded; unless you are aware of all the factors and assumptions that went into the "estimate", you have no idea whether the number has any meaning at all...or not.

5. Beware of ratios and percentages; unless you know the real numbers and how they were accumulated, ratios and percentages can be wildly misleading. If my net worth is one cent and I find a penny on the sidewalk, I've doubled my "personal fortune", an increase of 100%!

6. And remember that all scientists are humans, situated in a class society with all the stresses and strains thereof. They are not "priests" dispensing "divine wisdom" before which we mere mortals must humbly abase ourselves. To degrade science to the level of just another religion is to attack its core value: the use of human reason to investigate the real world.

The combination of reason and evidence is the most powerful tool we humans have ever invented; its misuse is perhaps one of the most odious crimes of class society.

:cool:

[Rastafari]

Probably your greatest post of all time, which makes it pretty high-up on the best Che-Lives.com has ever seen.

As a 2nd year Bio major, I can agree with about everything you just put out. I was just reading Newsweek and noticed that it has become little but a celebrity guide and gossip column. But, then again, thats what people buy.

Hitler's propaganda had data more that was outrageous and overblown, but was many times harder to refute than smaller and more precise numbers. Apparently, modern "Information Wizards", be they Drug companies, Advertising firms, or Dictators of Fascist Nations, have latched onto these same techniques to make money from people's fear.


Good Post, redstar2000, you have proven, once again, your integrity and insightful long-windedness :)

[redstar2000]

...insightful long-windedness. Me? :biggrin:

:cool:

[Reuben]

truly brillian post redstar.

Insightful indeeed

[truthaddict11]

Redstar, have you read Culture of Fear? The author explains much of the junk science and misrepresented "facts" on things that many americans are afraid of such as airplane flights, killer teens and black men. He explains how these scientists and "experts" do give outlandish numbers and how the media eats it up.
great post btw

[antieverything]

...sounds alot like what the Soviet government did...and what Reagan's financial gurus did.

[redstar2000]

By coincidence, I just finished reading Barry Glassner's The Culture of Fear a week or so ago...some of what he said may have inspired my "rant".

I recommend Glassner's book...provided you read it as an "introduction" and not a definitive account. He hints here and there at a "class analysis" of the fear-mongers but doesn't really extend his critique past the obvious media targets.

It's a good start...but much more needs to be said about this stuff--both junk science and the culture of fear and how they reinforce each other...and who benefits.

:cool:

[Ben Sir Amos]

I agree with your general point, and "who benefits?" is a pretty good standard by which to judge knowledge - but you don't seem to use this standard in your first post. You seem to imply that one form of knowledge is superior to another without asking "who benefits?". Knocking 'social science' is just boosting the status of the discourse of the 'natural sciences' and the natural sciences are just as bad as any other forms of knowledge. Natural science is just a social practice - like religion - and natural scientists are just as bad as most other people with professional reputations to maintain against all comers, jealousy, petty rivalries, the scrambling about for research grants, the search for status and respect from your peers and all the rest.

Here's my standard. Does this bit of knowledge contribute to maintaining the status quo? If it does, there's a good chance it is bollocks whether it is junk science, medical science, engineering, or social science.

[Moskitto]

you can get science, which starts with some guy hipothesising something, it gets published on the internet and within a few weeks it's "gospel truth" attributed to a reputable organisation, this is common in weight training.

Annother example is the Stone stroke where Sharron Stone had a mild stroke walking to her local newagents and a newspaper columist wrote she was running and hypothosised that marathon running actually causes strokes just to fill a column, within a few days someone had attributed the "research" to a non-existant Californian Medical Institute and the freud was only uncovered when the BMA investigated the source of the theory.

[Rastafari]

Apparently the cappies can't disagree, as I have yet to see any posts thereof

[redstar2000]

Knocking 'social science' is just boosting the status of the discourse of the 'natural sciences' and the natural sciences are just as bad as any other forms of knowledge. Natural science is just a social practice - like religion - and natural scientists are just as bad as most other people with professional reputations to maintain against all comers, jealousy, petty rivalries, the scrambling about for research grants, the search for status and respect from your peers and all the rest.

Well, yes but.

When we interact with the real world, it responds as if most of what the "hard sciences" say is "true".

"Junk science"--particularly within the "social sciences"--don't meet this criterion.

Otherwise, I agree, the "hard sciences" are likewise situated in class society and subject to the same pressures as the "soft sciences". The difference is that it's harder to fake it in the "hard sciences"...maybe that's why they call them "hard".

:cool:

[sc4r]

Redstar... Junk science.......

And this shows what exactly ?

That bad numbers or bad methodology leads to bad conclusions.

That lies are a bad thing and that people tell them for selfish reasons and that the media loves sensationalism.

The problem is that it is all well and good to say that one should check for oneself, But how exactly would you think this could be done ? You are surely not seriously proposing that no-one should believe research unless they carry it out themselves !

The reality is that we do have to take results on faith. If we are sensible we give far more credence to sources which have shown in the past that they dont make spurious claims and to those which contain descriptions of the methodology which we can follow if we like.

Yes there is a problem all right. But the problem is that quite simply most of us do not have access to anyreputable sources. We would not know one one if it bit us on the nose. This being so the only answer is to use best judgement and do as any good scientist should do anyway and treat all conclusions no matter how well justified as merely tentative.

[redstar2000]

The reality is that we do have to take results on faith.

As you choose. I urged an attitude of greater scepticism and suggested some things that ought to activitate your "bullshit" alarm.

But you can always ignore it and go back to sleep.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:54 am on July 13, 2003
The reality is that we do have to take results on faith.

As you choose. I urged an attitude of greater scepticism and suggested some things that ought to activitate your "bullshit" alarm.

But you can always ignore it and go back to sleep.

:cool:

or instead of believing a reputable, established, national sports organization over some doctor in the US who appears to want to rebel against the established ideas he calls "gym knowledge", you could decide to conduct your own research to avoid the dreaded "faith" which causes every problem in the world, including back problems, you could test thousands of people, different heights, different builds, different proportions, male and female squatting in all 3 vertical positions, both feet positions, bar heights, narrow stance, wide stance, inward feet, forward feet, outward feet. just to test which version of squats is the healthiest for you, of course, you'll give thousands of people permanant knee injuries all so you can avoid injury.

It's incredibly selfish disabling thousands of people like that, but it's far better conducting your own research in all situations than listening to anyone elses, so Redstar, I nominate you to do deep squats, wide stance, high bar, feet inward and raised.

(Edited by Moskitto at 7:05 pm on July 13, 2003)

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 2:54 am on July 13, 2003
The reality is that we do have to take results on faith.

As you choose. I urged an attitude of greater scepticism and suggested some things that ought to activitate your "bullshit" alarm.

But you can always ignore it and go back to sleep.

:cool:


And was the sentence you quoted the Gist of what I said ? or was it just a bit which taken in isolation you felt you could launch a bit of ridicule at ?

Personally I feel that your bullshit alarm is so bloody obvious that it hardly needs saying, and that the bits about scepticism are completely impractical.

Get hold of the idea that nicey nicey ideas which have no semblance of practicality are both easy to express and completely useless.

[redstar2000]

...so Redstar, I nominate you to do deep squats, wide stance, high bar, feet inward and raised.

I simply cannot imagine why any rational person would wish to squat unless they needed to take a dump in the absence of a toilet. I don't know about you, Moskitto, but I never had to practice in order to accomplish that task.

Get hold of the idea that nicey nicey ideas which have no semblance of practicality are both easy to express and completely useless.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by a "nicey nicey idea"--perhaps this is a British colloquialism?

In any event, if you find my suggestions "completely useless", why not simply ignore them? That's what I do with all of yours.

:cool:

[canikickit]

Scar, what is the point in your attempts to undermine redstar personally? I have never seen redstar's motives to be anything other than education. He may very well be arrogant, but what exactly makes you feel he is insincire?


you could decide to conduct your own research to avoid the dreaded "faith" which causes every problem in the world, including back problems, you could test thousands of people, different heights, different builds, different proportions, male and female squatting in all 3 vertical positions, both feet positions, bar heights, narrow stance, wide stance, inward feet, forward feet, outward feet. just to test which version of squats is the healthiest for you, of course, you'll give thousands of people permanant knee injuries all so you can avoid injury.

Should such a hypothetical situation ever arise, I assure you I will have some vague recollection of your advice.

[sc4r]

as an example do you honestly believe that he cannot begin to get the gist of what a 'nicey nicey idea' might mean ? or that he is so dense he could not see that I had added quite a bit to modify the bare statement 'taken on faith'.

'nicey nicey' means a notion which says that everything would be completely lovely if only....

It implies impracticality and completely over the top idealism usually coupled with an utter refusal to consider what are always the hard questions - the ones that do attempt to reconcile the multiple complexities of human nature and existing situations.

To say 'I'd like to be at XYZ we must educate people' is about as useful as santa at easter time. Its dead easy to express any number of XYZ's, not all that hard to get a few people to agree that it would be nice; but a whole lot harder to say exactly how you propose to to there from here. Especially when a huge number of people dont even agree that XYZ is where they want to go and will be busy peruading others not to go there either.

Bottom line look through this thread, honestly, and tell me that I actually said anything which attacked redstar himself rather than his argument before he quipped that I should go back to sleep. Tell me even now that there is any significant insult of Redstar as a person except in direct response to your question.

I'm not especially inclined at the moment to be particularly sensitive to his feelings if I do attack his arguments it's true; but it is his arguments I'm attacking not him. Thats because I believe his arguments to be weak and badly constructed but well enough phrased that they might have the unfortunate effect of causing some people to buy into his particular brand of passive idealism.




(Edited by sc4r at 3:19 am on July 14, 2003)

[redstar2000]

...That's because I believe his arguments to be weak and badly constructed but well enough phrased that they might have the unfortunate effect of causing some people to buy into his particular brand of passive idealism.

"Passive idealism"...I guess we're talking serious problems here. The reason I say "guess" is because, until you are specific in your disagreements, who is supposed to know what the hell you're ranting about?

The only thing I know about your politics is that you think Marx sucked.

What else do you bring to the table? Aside, that is, from little personal zingers that you're so fond of.

You want to offer a serious critique of my views on any of the hundreds of topics that I've posted on here, what's stopping you?

If you think my "version" of Marxism is especially odious, go ahead and write that up. The Theory Forum awaits your "wisdom", as do we all.

Or continue your present course of random sniping, as you prefer. Time permitting, I will always reply in the same spirit.

Then again, you could try getting a life.

:cool:

[Liberty Lover]

Then again, you could try getting a life.

This comming from a fifty year old who spends countless hours spewing shit out to teenagers on internet forums.

[sc4r]

Redstar

Dont be such a wanker. I reply to such posts of yours as I choose to. I post such views of my own as I choose. And I would say that undermining your notion of personally verifying things, was indeed a substantive comment (just as several other criticicms of your ideas have addressed substance. I doubt that you have ever seen ME pick up on an isolated phrase and attack that in lieu of addressing the gist of what someone was saying, unless the phrase itself was absolutely pivotal to the entire argument.

It means less than nothing that you yourself feel my views to be nothing. And its more than a little bizarre to hear you tell me that if I think your views are worthless I should shut; while you are telling me my views are worthless (and fairly obviously not doing any shutting up yourself at the time).

It shows quite remarkable pettiness to declare that I dont believe in Marx. You know full well that the entire extent that this is true is that I think circumstances have altered and some of Marx's predictions have been overtaken by events. That as a consequence the inevitability of socialism is not remotely 100% if we do nothing to actively promote it. Even Marx himself never actually said that it would not need promoting and (maybe you missed these bits) was fairly active in promoting it himself.

I could just as acurately (rather more accurately I think myself) say that you dont believe in Marx because you dont believe in going through a socialist transition. I would not do this because all it is is a personal snipe.

Keep up the personal attacks, nitpicking, and ongoing misrepresentations buddy. Thats the sort of thing you are good at; along with blowing your own trumpet.


(Edited by sc4r at 10:34 am on July 14, 2003)


(Edited by sc4r at 1:20 pm on July 14, 2003)

[HankMorgan]

My favorite bit of junk science is global warming is caused by humans.

[Moskitto]

...so Redstar, I nominate you to do deep squats, wide stance, high bar, feet inward and raised.

I simply cannot imagine why any rational person would wish to squat unless they needed to take a dump in the absence of a toilet. I don't know about you, Moskitto, but I never had to practice in order to accomplish that task.

regretably, you don't know what i'm talking about, squating is a weight training exercise and powerlifting event. if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

p.s. don't start just yet though, find a friend who's qualified to teach you, otherwise you will hurt yourself.

(Edited by Moskitto at 12:15 pm on July 14, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 10:55 pm on July 13, 2003

Then again, you could try getting a life.

This comming from a fifty year old who spends countless hours spewing shit out to teenagers on internet forums.


This coming from a semi-literate pro-capitalist moron who hangs out at message boards where he is (rightfully) held in near-universal contempt.

...if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

Guess I'll take a taxi.

Keep up the personal attacks, nitpicking, and ongoing misrepresentations buddy. Thats the sort of thing you are good at; along with blowing your own trumpet.

<yawns>

:cool:

[Moskitto]

...if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

Guess I'll take a taxi.

you could take a taxi, although you will be funding the government who will be fighting you as they will most likely tax the taxi you are using, the chances of finding a taxi to get you away from the area within the next half an hour are also going to be pretty slim.

Also you will loose out on the benefits of

Improved Strength
Improved Flexibility
Improved Endurance
Improved Aerobic Fitness
Controled body weight
Improved Shape and Posture
Reduced Bodyfat
Improved co-ordination
Improved mental well being

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Moskitto on 3:27 pm on July 14, 2003

...if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

Guess I'll take a taxi.

you could take a taxi, although you will be funding the government who will be fighting you as they will most likely tax the taxi you are using, the chances of finding a taxi to get you away from the area within the next half an hour are also going to be pretty slim.

Also you will loose out on the benefits of

Improved Strength
Improved Flexibility
Improved Endurance
Improved Aerobic Fitness
Controled body weight
Improved Shape and Posture
Reduced Bodyfat
Improved co-ordination
Improved mental well being

I have not done any exercise in like a whole year... yet I am getting skinnier...

How do you explain that, science boy??

[Moskitto]

Quote: from AK47 on 4:04 pm on July 14, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 3:27 pm on July 14, 2003

...if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

Guess I'll take a taxi.

you could take a taxi, although you will be funding the government who will be fighting you as they will most likely tax the taxi you are using, the chances of finding a taxi to get you away from the area within the next half an hour are also going to be pretty slim.

Also you will loose out on the benefits of

Improved Strength
Improved Flexibility
Improved Endurance
Improved Aerobic Fitness
Controled body weight
Improved Shape and Posture
Reduced Bodyfat
Improved co-ordination
Improved mental well being

I have not done any exercise in like a whole year... yet I am getting skinnier...

How do you explain that, science boy??

You do stuff like the things you do with gliding and you walk a few miles to and from school everyday, so you are getting quite a bit of exercise, more than most people are infact, you also don't tend to binge on burgers and crisps and being young you are growing anyway which takes up energy and keeps you thin. Most other people are not like this.

skinner doesn't mean fitter or less bodyfat. It only means more height than wideness.

[dopediana]

Quote: from Moskitto on 3:27 pm on July 14, 2003

...if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

Guess I'll take a taxi.

you could take a taxi, although you will be funding the government who will be fighting you as they will most likely tax the taxi you are using, the chances of finding a taxi to get you away from the area within the next half an hour are also going to be pretty slim.

Also you will loose out on the benefits of

Improved Strength
Improved Flexibility
Improved Endurance
Improved Aerobic Fitness
Controled body weight
Improved Shape and Posture
Reduced Bodyfat
Improved co-ordination
Improved mental well being


beautiful.

this, my friends, is not junk science......

[dopediana]

and by the way, i think redstar knows exactly what he's talking about when he speaks of this whole junk science thing.

you have no fucking idea how many people i know have tried those shitty diet pills. scams, scams, scams....

and i'd take the bus.

[Moskitto]

diets don't work anyway, everybody responds differently to what you do to it, some people can run 500 miles non-stop, some people can blast out a 9.87 100m, weightwatchers will work for some people, but some people need to eat only bread, some people need 3 hours of training 6 days a week to stop getting fat, some people can sit infront of a tv all day and be underweight.

this is the beauty of resistance training, it isn't a "get strong in 2 weeks with this stuff we made out of some poor thing's testicles," it's a "get as strong as you want, as fast as you want, in your own way" idea. It's a jacket which fits the user, not a tunnel the user has to crawl through.

And what the hell do diet pills have to do with resistance training? they're a completely different class of product.

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:01 pm on July 14, 2003)

[Moskitto]

...if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

Guess I'll take a taxi.

And AK and I are the one's disagreeing with Redstar on principle? are we the unqualified, non-exercised people disagreeing with the qualified weight training teacher...

edit: are we also the ones suggesting fighting a revolutionarry war, using taxis?

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:44 pm on July 14, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:38 pm on July 14, 2003

...if you want to win a revolutionarry war, you better start squatting, cos there is absolutely no way you can run faster than an SAS team while carrying 40kg of equipment unless you can squat well.

Guess I'll take a taxi.

And AK and I are the one's disagreeing with Redstar on principle? are we the unqualified, non-exercised people disagreeing with the qualified weight training teacher...

To be honist I dont really care, if he wants to believe stupid stuff thats his problem not mine.

[sc4r]

But he does cause a problem. If he were just an uneducated simpleton spouting nonsense that would be one thing. He is not; he is well educated in Marxist principles and expresses himself well, for example the essay on Marxist tools is really rather good except for what passes for its action call (although as usual the style is too self congratulatory for my taste; I really dont take to people who start essays with phrases like 'My knowlege of Marxism is such that I think of it in terms of open and closed questions' or whatever).

The problem is that he tends (as here) to tack on his own very impractical and intellectual ideas which look superficially good but which have no practical resolution whatsoever. He also tends to advocate a very passive approach to Socialism. Essentially he seems to say 'Do nothing except spread the word; nothing else is needed or wanted'. And he will get many to believe this, essentially robbing the socialist movement of energy and purpose.

This could not be more wrong. If we are going to wait until even all politics students understand marxist tools, let alone until every worker does, we may as well reserve a losers table at the restaurant at the end of the universe. It is never going to happen.

[dopediana]

moskitto, diet pills are concerning JUNK SCIENCE. not a good way to get fit.......

and you're taking this far too seriously. the weight loss/fitness issue. if i ever need a personal trainer, i'll send you a pm.

[Liberty Lover]

Redstar,
semi-literate

I apologize if my literary skills do not meet your expectations Redstar. But considering I'm about thirty-three years younger than you are, I really don't think comparisons should be made between us in that regard.

pro-capitalist

Shit! I'm a 'pro-capitalist'! How long did it take your fertile brain to figure that out?

Moron

You've really gone beyond yourself with this one mate. Moron! Brilliant stuff. Such vernacular is a true reflection of both your exceptional intellect and superb literary skills.

hangs out at message boards where he is (rightfully) held in near-universal contempt

It's called debating, comrade. You should give it a go one-day.

[redstar2000]

Here is a link on junk science...

http://www.junkscience.com/

:cool:

[Moskitto]

unfortunately Redstar, you're website is yet annother one of your "Smoking is healthy" websites, as it has been allready established that your position on this matter is completely incorrect, then I suggest you just leave this topic where it is.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:59 pm on July 17, 2003
Here is a link on junk science...

http://www.junkscience.com/

:cool:


RS2000 do correct me if i am wrong but you once said that all science was conducted by capitalistic tools of the state. And that these scientists prodused only what the government told them to produse. Yet here you are above posting a source who's major contributer of information/articals which state there case is Fox news. Fox news are widley known to be as right wing as they come. This confuses me geatly, you claim one thing and then post information from a site like that. Hardly reliable are you.

Also a site which denys not only the causes of global warming but its very existance. Even though there is proof that it is actually happening. The contention is that who is causing it, man or nature.

For gods sake RS2K surley you can do better than that crap.

View how RS2K attempts to argue with scientific fact (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=17&topic=2132&start=0). Its quite amuzing...

[redstar2000]

More interesting links...

http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-chapter1.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-chapter5.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-chapter9.html

A nice account of the "Public Health" racket.

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Redstar2000 ou have often critisized the anti-smoking campain and called it government led capitalistic bias. Well I call you out on this one, after making such a claim I decided to check out some of your sources, specifically: -

http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-chapter1.html

The author is one Steven J. Milloy, lets look at him: -

Steven J. Milloy

Steven Milloy is the founder and publisher of junkscience.com. Junkscience.com is a capitalistic website designed to place science into disripute if it merans that corporations profits and practices are called into question by this science. Junkscience attacks globalwarming theory, Acid rain fact, smoking's health risk, world heath statictics (defending corporations and there treatment of those imployed by them as cheep labour) BSE & Varient CJD links, affects of Fastfood, effects of Canser, the aims of the Kyoto agreement, etc etc. As you can see it defends the capitalist interests and the Bush administartion.

As for the Man himself, Steven Milloy is a columnist for FoxNews.com. Fox news as well all know is a very bias rightwing source which defends the Bush administaration at all times and cercumstaces. His right wing defence of corporations is widly displayed in his site. Below is an iteresting site about the man: -

http://www.electric-words.com/junk/milloy/milloy.html

My favourate part of the artical is below: -

Before Milloy moved into his present role as "JunkMan", he was employed by a number of professional PR and lobbying companies, including Multinational Business Services which was Phillip Morris's main lobbyist on the environmental tobacco issue in late 1992 (when Milloy worked there). This organisation was run by a Reagan Republican appointee who ran the OSHA for a while, Thorne Auchter. Like many top people from the Reagan administration, Auchter became a major lobbyist in Washington in the 1980s, and went into business on behalf of the tobacco industry, along with his partners Jim Tozzi (in MBE and Federal Focus) and (in HES) Dr George Carlo.

Another interesting fact about the "junkman" is that he is a lawyer by tade, lawyers are hardly the most trustworthy of sources, rather they are the embodyment of all that is capitalisatic, another good quote from that excelent site: -

"A lobbyist with a law degree is a valuable commodity in corporate America because it invokes lawyer/client-privilege if dubious deals ever get into the courts. The Biostatistics tag just tells you that he can do maths. "

Sorry redstar but no leftist would ever post an artical by such a person. So either you are not a leftist or you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda to make a point which is obviously incorrect. You have completely discredited your self by posting such an artical.

(Edited by AK47 at 9:31 am on July 18, 2003)

[Moskitto]

My favourate part of the artical is below: -

Before Milloy moved into his present role as "JunkMan", he was employed by a number of professional PR and lobbying companies, including Multinational Business Services which was Phillip Morris's main lobbyist on the environmental tobacco issue in late 1992 (when Milloy worked there). This organisation was run by a Reagan Republican appointee who ran the OSHA for a while, Thorne Auchter. Like many top people from the Reagan administration, Auchter became a major lobbyist in Washington in the 1980s, and went into business on behalf of the tobacco industry, along with his partners Jim Tozzi (in MBE and Federal Focus) and (in HES) Dr George Carlo.

Another interesting fact about the "junkman" is that he is a lawyer by tade, lawyers are hardly the most trustworthy of sources, rather they are the embodyment of all that is capitalisatic, another good quote from that excelent site: -

"A lobbyist with a law degree is a valuable commodity in corporate America because it invokes lawyer/client-privilege if dubious deals ever get into the courts. The Biostatistics tag just tells you that he can do maths. "

Sorry redstar but no leftist would ever post an artical by such a person. So either you are not a leftist or you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda to make a point which is obviously incorrect. You have completely discredited your self by posting such an artical.

Ha Ha, someone has to resort to using articles by someone funded by the tobacco industry and the US government to prove his point. LOL.

Redstar "Right-Wing US Government/Corporate Propaganda Mouthpiece" 2000

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:42 am on July 18, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:39 am on July 18, 2003

My favourate part of the artical is below: -

Before Milloy moved into his present role as "JunkMan", he was employed by a number of professional PR and lobbying companies, including Multinational Business Services which was Phillip Morris's main lobbyist on the environmental tobacco issue in late 1992 (when Milloy worked there). This organisation was run by a Reagan Republican appointee who ran the OSHA for a while, Thorne Auchter. Like many top people from the Reagan administration, Auchter became a major lobbyist in Washington in the 1980s, and went into business on behalf of the tobacco industry, along with his partners Jim Tozzi (in MBE and Federal Focus) and (in HES) Dr George Carlo.

Another interesting fact about the "junkman" is that he is a lawyer by tade, lawyers are hardly the most trustworthy of sources, rather they are the embodyment of all that is capitalisatic, another good quote from that excelent site: -

"A lobbyist with a law degree is a valuable commodity in corporate America because it invokes lawyer/client-privilege if dubious deals ever get into the courts. The Biostatistics tag just tells you that he can do maths. "

Sorry redstar but no leftist would ever post an artical by such a person. So either you are not a leftist or you are simply resorting to right wing propaganda to make a point which is obviously incorrect. You have completely discredited your self by posting such an artical.

Ha Ha, someone has to resort to using articles by someone funded by the tobacco industry and the US government to prove his point. LOL.

Redstar "Right-Wing US Government/Corporate Propaganda Mouthpiece" 2000

(Edited by Moskitto at 9:42 am on July 18, 2003)


Ohh no Moskitto dont say such stuff, he may misinterprit what you are saying and try and gey you banned again... :cool:

[redstar2000]

Why don't you try criticizing the actual arguments raised in the links instead of dwelling on this poor sod's association with Fox News and some public relations outfit (you don't actually even know if he worked on tobacco company accounts or not).

As to my use of that source, I quote the BBC News (very much a capitalist source) all the time...particularly with regard to your "splendid little war" and its ugly aftermath. Does that make me "pro-capitalist"?

Only in "minds" like yours.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

After reading this heap of bullshit from your favourite site

There were no geographic areas in the U.K. with significantly higher incidence of people with nvCJD and there were no cases of nvCJD among “high risk” groups such as farmers, slaughterhouse workers or butchers. - Mad Cow Disease — Where's the Beef?

I have come to the conclusion that if you are willing to belice this website you are extremely Stupid

There have been 3 major clusters of nvCJD cases in the UK, 2 villages in Yorkshire and Leicestershire are victims of clusters of cases as well as the Ashford valley in Kent. The fact this website denies these basic facts is DISGUSTING to the families of the victims. There have also been countless nvCJD victims amoung Butchers, Slaughterhouse Workers and Farmers, this is annother disgusting allegation that has been made by this website.

I suggest that you contact your US government friend and request he makes a public statement apologising for the offense he has caused to the families of CJD victims. and STOP BELIEVING THIS SHITHOLE FOR A WEBSITE

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:33 am on July 18, 2003
Why don't you try criticizing the actual arguments raised in the links instead of dwelling on this poor sod's association with Fox News and some public relations outfit (you don't actually even know if he worked on tobacco company accounts or not).

As to my use of that source, I quote the BBC News (very much a capitalist source) all the time...particularly with regard to your "splendid little war" and its ugly aftermath. Does that make me "pro-capitalist"?

Only in "minds" like yours.

:cool:

It hardly takes a genius to argue most of the articals of your "site" more like a case-study for crap on the internet. For example there must be over 10 articals alone on Global warming. In one of them the fool actually states that it would be better if Global warming took place!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54676,00.html

If we could choose between a warmer or cooler global climate, we'd choose warmer because it's more conducive to life; consider those who starved in famines during Europe's Little Ice Age, circa 1450-1850.



What rubbish is that, lets look at the detrimental affects. Increased climatic hazards, loss of land, for example the Palistinian problem will no longer be a problem as Isreal an palistein will no-longer exist, the sea's currents will change, this will mean that the Gulf stream for example will no-longer exist, the warm air from the tropics will be removed, all tropical and sub-saharan temperate area's (most of southern Africa) and mediteranian areas will become desert. Changing temperatures will mean that the high yeild crops necessary for population sustainability will be removed...

I could pick apart his articals for months and still have lots to do, so please take the above as an example of all his work's low quality.

Also the fact that he is a corporate mouth piece who is paid to protect the "bourgois" interests

[Moskitto]

Why don't you try criticizing the actual arguments raised in the links instead of dwelling on this poor sod's association with Fox News and some public relations outfit (you don't actually even know if he worked on tobacco company accounts or not).

fact is, his own autobiography (as with your previous source) admits he's been funded by the tobacco industry to promote tobacco use by attempting to "refute" all know biomedical science. It's on the same level as using an article by a bishop to prove god exists. fact is there both being paid to argue a case, as a rational person you wouldn't believe the second source so why would you believe the first source unless you're irrational?

Annother thing this guy does is completely disregard the reasons for agricultural practices, in his article "McJunk Science: Over Five Billion Fooled"

The activists claim 70 percent of antibiotics used in the U.S. are added to animal feed to promote animal growth and development. They allege such use of antibiotics causes bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics, making it more difficult to treat infections in humans.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90527,00.html

Fact is, according to Dr Glenn Morris in the book "The Killers Within" (ISBN 0-7515-3481-1) antibiotics are added to agricultural feed to Cause antibiotic resistance by using sub-therapeutic doses, this causes healthy bacteria to become immune to the antibiotics which help the animal's growth.

You see, you don't have to be a genius to see what's wrong with this in theory and practice. But since you like to argue against rationality, we will consider our sources, your source is a newspaper columnist and attorney employed by the US government to promote government and corporate policy on a pseudo-scientific basis, mine is a PhD in Medicine.

AK47 is right, i know 12 year olds who could tear this site to pieces and still have work to do.

(Edited by Moskitto at 7:22 pm on July 18, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Hmm how strage RS2000 and his site are proved to be wrong, and suddenly he stops posting in this thread... well at least he knows when to cut his losses I suppose.

[redstar2000]

What rubbish is that, lets look at the detrimental affects. Increased climatic hazards, loss of land, for example the Palistinian problem will no longer be a problem as Isreal an palistein will no-longer exist, the sea's currents will change, this will mean that the Gulf stream for example will no-longer exist, the warm air from the tropics will be removed, all tropical and sub-saharan temperate area's (most of southern Africa) and mediteranian areas will become desert. Changing temperatures will mean that the high yeild crops necessary for population sustainability will be removed...

Moronic drivel.

:cool:

[apathy maybe]

On science in general, most people can not say that it is true or not.
Take a random sample of say 10,000 people from around the world and ask them to vertify that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Then ask them to show that these are made up of quarks.

We take things like this at face value and we don't question them because we can't.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:28 am on July 22, 2003
What rubbish is that, lets look at the detrimental affects. Increased climatic hazards, loss of land, for example the Palistinian problem will no longer be a problem as Isreal an palistein will no-longer exist, the sea's currents will change, this will mean that the Gulf stream for example will no-longer exist, the warm air from the tropics will be removed, all tropical and sub-saharan temperate area's (most of southern Africa) and mediteranian areas will become desert. Changing temperatures will mean that the high yeild crops necessary for population sustainability will be removed...

Moronic drivel.

:cool:


And do you care to refute any of that with any scientific fact, instead of just writing a two word post? I can see that there has been a great leap in constructive argument in your case RS2000.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from apathy maybe on 1:49 am on July 22, 2003
On science in general, most people can not say that it is true or not.
Take a random sample of say 10,000 people from around the world and ask them to vertify that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Then ask them to show that these are made up of quarks.

We take things like this at face value and we don't question them because we can't.


There's a difference between not being able to prove the structure of atoms and this website,

everyone knows you can't actually see atoms because there is nothing small enough to give a sufficient resolving power.

However this website tries to deny things which have been documented for nearly 100 years to be linked by using very dodgy reasoning.

With the antibiotic resistance bacteria issue it tries to deny what the officially acknowledged reason, by doctors and governments, for using sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics and tries to deride those who point this out as "left wing green activists."

With the CJD issue it is even more blatant, it claims there have been no cases of CJD amoung "high risk groups" or "clusters" in the UK to try to support it's point that BSE is vegetarian propaganda, however in 1999 the Independant ran a report listing victims of CJD, of the 30 listed, 8 were butchers or slaughterhouse workers. What this amounts to is small scale Holocaust Denial, Likewise the denial of CJD clusters denies the very existance of the clusters in Queniborough, Ashford and Armthorpe, this also amounts to small scale Holocaust Denial.

Why anyone who considers themselves left wing is looking at this site i don't know, considering the contributers work for the US government and fox news, deride generally accepted science as "left wing propaganda" and deny what is clearly a fact (eg. CJD clusters) in a desperate attempt to prove their point.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from apathy maybe on 1:49 am on July 22, 2003
On science in general, most people can not say that it is true or not.
Take a random sample of say 10,000 people from around the world and ask them to vertify that atoms are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. Then ask them to show that these are made up of quarks.

We take things like this at face value and we don't question them because we can't.


Yes that is a point, however I cannot prove graverty exists, but I know it does, the same goes for most other scientific theory... However if I start floating around I will accept that RS2000 is completely correct! :cool:

[Moskitto]

I like the way this site defends McDonalds as well.