If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FOLLOW THE MONEY - Industry shill Elizabeth Whelan claims mercury fears unfounded
FOLLOW THE MONEY - Industry shill Elizabeth Whelan claims mercury fears
unfounded FOLLOW THE MONEY Another misleading web article in the mercury disinformation campaign, from the grand dame of faux public interest front groups. "A Look Back at the Great (Unfounded) Health Scares of 2004" by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, 12/29/04 Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is president of the American Council on Science and Health. Her email address is . See "false claim" #6: Mercury in seafood threatens health. See "false claim" #1: Childhood vaccines cause autism. The sponsoring website, Tech Central Station, is owned by a conglomerate -- DCI Group, L.L.C. On its website TCS states that it is sponsored by Merck and PhRMA, among others: "Tech Central Station is supported by sponsoring corporations that share our faith in technology and free markets. Smart application of technology - combined with pro free market, science-based public policy - has the ability to help us solve many of the world's problems, and so we are grateful to AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm for their support." Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan resume, circa 1986 - from tobacco litigation http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/20447...19&end_page=19 Whelan supporting pharmaceutical companies & attacking former NEJM editor Marcia Angell http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0409080850.asp Whelan asking "Who says PCBs cause cancer?" http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/P...helan-ACSH.htm Whelan defending the use of trans fats in fast food http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=12780 Whelan founds first of the "public interest pretender" front groups http://www.whale.to/m/acsh1.html ________________________ A Look Back at the Great (Unfounded) Health Scares of 2004 By Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan Published 12/29/2004 Perhaps we are a society that relishes bad news. Or maybe by definition bad news is news. Whatever the explanation, 2004 was full of headlines about modern living allegedly making us sick. The top 10 health scares of the last 12 months -- described below -- have some common characteristics: some of these reports overlook the basic toxicological principle that "the dose makes the poison" and assume that if a lot of something is bad then a little is risky too; some rely on a single, often unpublished study that means little out of the context of other literature in the field; and many swallow whole the baseless mantra "if it causes cancer in a lab animal, it must be assumed to pose a human cancer risk." The top 10 unfounded scares for 2004 a 1. Childhood vaccines cause autism. This claim has been around for a while, but it received enormous press exposure this year, with emphasis on the claim that thimerosal, a vaccine preservative, is the culprit. Coverage ranged from blatant scaremongering and dismissal of scientific evidence to fairly unbiased assessments of the data. The bottom line: to date, all the evidence supports the view that there is no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, or between any vaccines and autism. This is the conclusion supported by the body of published peer-reviewed scientific studies. 2. Farmed salmon causes cancer. Last year, the Environmental Working Group launched this scare, releasing a study of seven farmed salmon that they said had measurable levels of PCBs -- industrial chemicals. This year, an article in Science presented data showing that farmed salmon had higher levels of PCBs than wild salmon. But the warnings that found their way into the press were exaggerated fears based on the assumption that because PCBs are animal carcinogens they must pose a human cancer risk even at trace levels. Indeed there is no evidence--even at high levels -- that PCBs cause human cancer. Many synthetic and natural chemicals in food cause cancer in high doses in rodents--and those findings have no direct relevance for human cancer risk. 3. Cell phones cause brain tumors. Another oldie-but-goody made a comeback in 2004 when researchers at an institute in Sweden released a study supporting a link between cell phone use and acoustic neuromas. Even the authors pointed out their study was small and had never been replicated. Further, the study involved analog cell phones, not the digital phones that are the vast majority of those used today. But the story was widely covered nonetheless. The mainstream scientific view is that the health effects of using cell phones are negligible. 4. Nightlights cause leukemia. In September 2004, scientists at a conference in Britain suggested that increased light at night (not nightlights specifically) may contribute to leukemia in children. Media reports understandably caused anxiety in parents of young children. But, while the rise in childhood leukemia justifies legitimate research, there is currently no reason to believe that nightlights pose any danger to children (unless, of course, the bulb is really hot or they eat it). 5. Chemicals in cosmetics pose a heath hazard. In June of 2004, the Environmental Working Group released yet another report accusing a variety of cosmetic manufacturers of using ingredients that increase the risk of pregnancy problems or cancer. Once again, this scare was based on the assumption that things that pose cancer in high doses in rodents must pose a risk of human cancer, a claim that has no basis whatsoever in scientific reality. 6. Mercury in seafood threatens health. Mercury is a toxic metal, and at high levels it can indeed pose a serious threat to human health. But again, media reports overlooked the "dose makes the poison" rule. The government has strict tolerance levels for mercury in fish, and at the levels found in fish, mercury does not pose a health hazard to humans. 7. Cheeseburgers cause heart disease. When former President Bill Clinton announced just before Labor Day that he had been diagnosed with severely blocked coronary arteries and needed bypass surgery, the media had a field day blaming his condition on his diet -- particularly his penchant for fast food burgers and fries. Frequent film footage showing the former President in front of McDonald's and Burger King filled the nightly news. While it is true that lifestyle factors such as smoking, inactivity, and obesity can raise the risk of a heart attack, so can a family history of predisposition toward high "bad" cholesterol, low "good" cholesterol, and high blood pressure. For preventing heart disease, medications that control blood pressure and cholesterol levels are more important than avoiding cheeseburgers or any other specific food. 8. Antibiotics cause breast cancer. A flurry of media coverage followed a February article in the Journal of the American Medical Association finding that prescriptions for antibiotics had been more common among women who had been diagnosed with breast cancer. But as an editorial accompanying the article noted, "this study provides many (or more) questions than answers" -- and did little to further our understanding of the causes of breast cancer. 9. Teflon causes health problems. This health scare was a spin-off of some wrangling between Teflon's manufacturer, DuPont, and the EPA, which wanted more data on the presence (in the environment and in blood) of chemicals used in producing Teflon. It really had nothing to do with scientific evidence of harm to health, as some media announced. There is no convincing scientific evidence that the chemical harms human health, nor that it is present in Teflon itself. 10. Soda causes esophageal cancer. Saving the worst for last, this scare came on the scene when scientists from India reported a correlation between a rise in per capita consumption of soda in the U.S. and the occurrence of esophageal cancer--which media interpreted as a causal connection. Since this "study" did not have any scientific findings about cancer risk--simply showing that both soda consumption and esophageal cancer became more prevalent over the same time period -- it is remarkable that the mainstream media even reported it at all. With a little luck, this round-up of 2004's worst unfounded health scares will encourage you to be more skeptical the next time you read about a new, supposedly dire, health "threat," and let's hope it will cause editors and journalists to more seriously consider whether a story really deserves coverage. * Elizabeth Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H., is president of the American Council on Science and Health. ### |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Yet, the fact remains that mercury fears ARE unfounded. If I am incorrect,
please provide peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Jeff |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:34:40 -0800, "Jeff"
wrote: Yet, the fact remains that mercury fears ARE unfounded. If I am incorrect, please provide peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Jeff Peer reviewers like Quack Barrett is for ACSH???? You are blind, deaf and dumber than rocks ... and thank God ... you never were allowed to have an unrestricted medical license. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:34:40 -0800, "Jeff" wrote: Yet, the fact remains that mercury fears ARE unfounded. If I am incorrect, please provide peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Jeff Peer reviewers like Quack Barrett is for ACSH???? No, peer-reveiwers who are experts in their fields. They examine the papers before they are published and determine if the conclusions are supported by results and if the papers are of high quality. I don't mean to imply that Dr. Barret is or not qualified to be a peer-reviewer. I don't know. Personal attack deleted. Jeff |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Putz the pharma shill http://www.whale.to/m/putz.html
Journal article & peer review http://www.whale.to/w/journals1.html Junk Science http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy2.html wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:08:25 -0800, "Jeff" wrote: "Ilena Rose" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 12:34:40 -0800, "Jeff" wrote: Yet, the fact remains that mercury fears ARE unfounded. If I am incorrect, please provide peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Jeff Peer reviewers like Quack Barrett is for ACSH???? No, peer-reveiwers who are experts in their fields. They examine the papers before they are published and determine if the conclusions are supported by results and if the papers are of high quality. I don't mean to imply that Dr. Barret is or not qualified to be a peer-reviewer. I don't know. Personal attack deleted. Jeff Do they check for accuracy? The reason I ask is because a doctor I know of, announced that he was doing a study using a certain number of people. When the study was published, the number of people was reduced by about 50% which made the results different than they would have been otherwise. Ora |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"john" wrote in message ... Putz the pharma shill http://www.whale.to/m/putz.html John has whined that he does not like ad hominem attacks. H Y P O C R I T E |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"john" wrote in message ... FOLLOW THE MONEY - ... http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/display...tor_jailed.php Doctor charged for a bogus vaccine... and a kid ended up in the hospital with measles. All because of scaremongering by someone who was paid by a lawyer to come up with a specific result: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA40D.htm ... "Though Dr Wakefield received some £55,000 out of legal aid funding secured by Barr, he did not disclose this either to his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in London or to Dr Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet. Dr Wakefield accepts that these allegations are true, but he denies that this funding caused any conflict of interest, a view described by Dr Horton as 'perverse'." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"HCN" wrote in message news:PvYAd.285800$V41.22326@attbi_s52... "john" wrote in message ... FOLLOW THE MONEY - ... http://www.hendontimes.co.uk/display...tor_jailed.php Doctor charged for a bogus vaccine... and a kid ended up in the hospital with measles. From that article: The clinic treated more than 250 children a week, with a turnover of about £17,500 a week at the height of the autism scare in 2002. That is around $35,000 a week. Not chump change. And he only got 9 months and Wakefield is scot free. no justice. All because of scaremongering by someone who was paid by a lawyer to come up with a specific result: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA40D.htm ... "Though Dr Wakefield received some £55,000 out of legal aid funding secured by Barr, he did not disclose this either to his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in London or to Dr Richard Horton, the editor of the Lancet. Dr Wakefield accepts that these allegations are true, but he denies that this funding caused any conflict of interest, a view described by Dr Horton as 'perverse'." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:08:25 -0800, "Jeff" wrote: (...) No, peer-reveiwers who are experts in their fields. They examine the papers before they are published and determine if the conclusions are supported by results and if the papers are of high quality. I don't mean to imply that Dr. Barret is or not qualified to be a peer-reviewer. I don't know. Personal attack deleted. Jeff Do they check for accuracy? The reason I ask is because a doctor I know of, announced that he was doing a study using a certain number of people. When the study was published, the number of people was reduced by about 50% which made the results different than they would have been otherwise. Ora I imagine the study methods only talked about the number of subjects actually included, not the number in the original design. Unfortunately, unless there is a database that shows the initial design, there is no way to check this. Having fewer than the initial number of subjects would make a difference in that a study with fewer subjects won't find certain effects. There may be legitimate reasons why the number of subjects was fewer than the orginal number, like the drug being studied was found to be so good that it was felt that not allowing any to not get the drug is unethical (this happened with AZT in the old AIDS studies) or that the drug is harmful. This should be clearly spelled out in the paper. Jeff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MONEY IS NOT just FOR CHRISTMAS!!!! | Rebecca Richmond | Twins & Triplets | 0 | December 13th 03 09:08 PM |