TheAgitator.com
Smoke and Mirrors
Tuesday, October 28th, 2003Thanks to reader, “The Holmes,” for pointing out that Cato’s own Steven Milloy recently cast some serious doubt over the “Miracle of Helena” claims of smoking-ban defenders.
The Miracle is an alleged plunge in heart attack rates over the 6 month period Helena’s smoking ban was in effect. No actual “study” has been released. All anyone has seen is a Power Point presentation which damns itself when on frame 2 it recognizes its support from, you guessed it, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Indeed the very day Milloy’s Fox News piece ran, I spoke to Angela at smokefreedc.org, who brought up the Miracle of Helena as a beacon of hope in her crusade–the same study Milloy rather convincingly dismisses–in the manner for which he is well known–as “junk science.”
Maybe I should send her the link…
I agreed with Milloy on his assessment of the “Miracle”, but I must say that I disagree with him as often as I agree.
Milloy is a spinner, just like any other activist. He is funded by Monsanto and other chemical interests, so he is certainly not free from bias.
As a scientist, I caution people against taking Milloy’s word for everything, and encourage them to seek out the primary sources when they can. Laypeople don’t have the knowledge (or the wherewithal) to understand science as well as is necessary to distinguish between good science and “junk” science.
It’s a shame that their only source is a guy who is clearly biased – not that he admits his affiliations, other than that with the Cato Institute.
He bashes enough bad science – certainly a good thing to do – but I’ve also seen him bash perfectly legitimate science if it suits his aim. This is what truly disappoints me, and worries me.
Ignorance about science and medicine in this country is already abysmal. It would be nice if one of the few sources for laypeople were actually an unbiased one.
Bronwyn, bit of a spinner yourself, professor. Interesting OPINION, however.
Seriously Bronwyn, how about citing a specific example of where you believe Milloy is/was in error. Otherwise this seems like you taking unsupported pot-shots (cheap-shots). Why exactly should I take your word as more divinely inerrant than Milloyâ??s?
We can ask Bill O’Reilly to come check all our pockets for spin.
The popular media does a very bad job of communicating science to the public. I commend anyone who seeks to take science to the Average Joe in a responsible, unbiased fashion – Milloy just isn’t the guy for it, considering his backing. Neither is the Truth.com group. Bias cuts both ways, and I think I was clear on that.
We bash all sorts of folks for promoting their studies and ideas when we find they are basically being paid to show a certain result or trend. Milloy should not be immune to this scrutiny.
Interesting opinion, eh? Well, if I’m terribly wrong, feel free to attack away. That’s what we do around here, isn’t it? Trolltrolltroll. . .
Wish me luck at the doctor’s office, at least. Thanks.
Fine, Serpent. :-) When I get back from my appt., I’ll pull up some sources from a couple of specific examples. Let’s hope the Milloy archives at FNC are extensive.
And can we cut it with the insults and nasty sarcasm? “Divinely inerrant?” Please.
NEW HEADLINE: “HEART ATTACKS INCREASED EVERY MONTH SINCE SMOKING BAN PASSED! NEWS AT 11:00!”
That PowerPoint is classic. They including not just Helena residents, but also visitors who spent one night or ate one meal in the city.
If you look at the lame graph on page 11, you will see that heart attacks (while apparently lower than the average) actually INCREASED since the ordinance was first passed!! The line is pretty clear. Charts and statistics can be designed to say whatever they want to say..
Bronwyn,
You seem to be implying that Milloyâ??s opinions should carry less weight because they are HIS opinions. Everyoneâ??s opinions carry a bias. That is rather self-evident. My problem is that the standard liberal tactic seems to be â?? Attack the messenger instead of the logical consistency of the messengerâ??s statements (or opinions). As someone professing to be a Scientist I would think you would know better.
Either you can present a logically consistent argument on why Milloy is in error (an argument that we can empirically observe), or you are simply assuming I will accept your assertion on blind faith.
Good luck at the doctorâ??s office (sincerely).
Here’s one of the latest, in which the battle over terminology and financing grows a little mucky. . . [a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101072,00.html"]Hit-and-Run Pesticide News[/a]
1) The term “contamination” was legitimate. If I have a culture of my Favorite Bacterium, and in that culture are 1 or 2 fungal spores – or a few cells of another bacterium, then my culture is contaminated. The same goes for the presence of pesticides on fruits and vegetables. If it’s there, it’s contaminated. I would suggest the problem in this case was with the Times reporting of the study, not the study itself.
2) Stonyfield Farm’s labels are accurate. (We’d have to go back to look for the earlier column that focused on the SF label, but he mentions it here too.) SF’s products are “better” in the sense that the fruits and dairy cattle are raised without the addition of antibiotics (used for growth, not to treat an actual illness), hormones, pesticides etc.
Why do I say “better”? We’ll talk antibiotic use. Antibiotic use outside of specific treatment for infection gives rise to resistant populations – in the environment and in clinical/veterinary settings. Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus and the constant findings of resistance to penicillans are two examples. It’s called selective pressure. SF does not suggest that these substances are in the yogurt. The “better” part (which term SF also does not use) is in the better-in-the-long-run sense. Some consumers will understand this, others won’t. SF is not making any untrue claims, however.
These are issues with Milloy’s expression of disparaging terms – in using this language and these tactics, he winds up just as guilty as people like Marian Burros. He’s misleading by assumption and omission. These are opinions of his (and his sponsors :)), and that is certainly fine. I only worry about the people who are unable to differentiate.
Also see [a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69497,00.html"]this column[/a] and then (or first) read the primary literature. Keep in mind that when Hayes first found out about the atrazine-frog hermaphroditism link, he was working for Dow, trying to show that the chemical was safe. The work presented in PNAS was funded by the NSF and a Univ. faculty award.
Environ Health Perspect 2003 Apr; 111(4): 568-75
Nature 2002 (419);895-896
PNAS USA 2002 Apr 16;99(8):5476-80.
I have been to two Hayes talks in which the PNAS data were presented to my department. The data stood up to the scrutiny of our evo-devo program faculty. We can discuss details once those who care are familiar with the work – for now, it wouldn’t make sense to go point by point.
Some notes – dose-dependency is not a law of toxicology, and it is not always applicable.
To obtain 0.1 ppb of anything is not that difficult. Dilutions are the way to get there.
And. . . as it was presented to my department, atrazine effects could be exacerbated by herbicide mixtures. We’re not only talking about the effects caused by the initial application, necessarily, but the effects of lower levels found in run-off and water supplies downstream of areas where the chemicals have been applied. For example, the Milloys point that the Wyoming site hadn’t been treated is irrelevant – the samples were taken in a region downstream from known application points. The chemicals don’t stay where they are applied, and this is part of the problem.
Anyway, all of this is way OT and my bench is calling me. Chew on the papers, if you’d like and we can get into meatier chat here or in another forum (just tell me where) later.
(Thanks for the well-wishes. It appears I’m finally on the mend!)
Bronwyn said: [1) The term "contamination" was legitimate. If I have a culture of my Favorite Bacterium, and in that culture are 1 or 2 fungal spores - or a few cells of another bacterium, then my culture is contaminated. The same goes for the presence of pesticides on fruits and vegetables. If it's there, it's contaminated. I would suggest the problem in this case was with the Times reporting of the study, not the study itself.]
Serpent: I think you have to remember that Milloy (and supposedly the Times) is writing for the average layman â?? not for a scientist working in the laboratory. I think Milloy makes this very clear:
Milloy: [But what constitutes â??pesticide contamination?â? Is it a cause for concern?
â?¦ you certainly wonâ??t get any answers from the Timesâ?? story.
No unsafe levels of pesticide residues were detected on the fruits and vegetables.
Using todayâ??s sophisticated and sensitive laboratory equipment, itâ??s possible to measure the minutest levels of pesticide residues. But such low levels arenâ??t dangerous and are, in fact, typically far below pesticide residue levels permitted on fruits and vegetables by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Times egregiously misled readers by parroting without explanation the EWGâ??s loaded term, â??pesticide contamination.â? Of course, had the Times made an effort to defuse â??pesticide contamination,â? readers might have wondered why the article was published in the first place.]
Bronwyn: [2) Stonyfield Farm's labels are accurate. (We'd have to go back to look for the earlier column that focused on the SF label, but he mentions it here too.) SF's products are "better" in the sense that the fruits and dairy cattle are raised without the addition of antibiotics (used for growth, not to treat an actual illness), hormones, pesticides etc.
Why do I say "better"? We'll talk antibiotic use. Antibiotic use outside of specific treatment for infection gives rise to resistant populations - in the environment and in clinical/veterinary settings. Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus and the constant findings of resistance to penicillans are two examples. It's called selective pressure. SF does not suggest that these substances are in the yogurt. The "better" part (which term SF also does not use) is in the better-in-the-long-run sense. Some consumers will understand this, others won't. SF is not making any untrue claims, however.]
Serpent: Okay, I am familiar with the problems of antibiotic resistant so on this point I am inclined to agree with you, although I must confess that I am not an expert on the specifics of bovine antibiotics/hormone treatments. Iâ??m not sure how Milloy would address that issue. I think he was merely trying to draw attention to the issue of â??scare-tacticsâ? used by the Times and the potential hidden bias of the report.
Milloy: [EWG is not the only interested party that drew from the Times a â??Get out of any journalistic scrutiny freeâ? card.
The EWG report (the one used by the Times) was financed by Stonyfield Farm, the largest organic yogurt manufacturer and hardly a disinterested party. Stonyfield markets its products by scaring consumers with labels claiming, â??No yucky stuff â?¦ standards prohibit the use of pesticides, antibiotics and hormonesâ? and â??yogurts made without the use of antibiotics, hormones and toxic pesticides.â?
Such labels create the false and misleading impression with consumers that Stonyfieldâ??s dairy products are somehow better and safer than conventional dairy products. Stonyfield misleadingly implies that other dairy products have had pesticides, antibiotics or hormones added.]
Serpent: In other words, he is implying that many readers of the Times may have been lead to believe that the story was the result of completely impartial journalism, without realizing that much of the source material was produced by a private company with a vested self-interest.
Bronwyn: [These are issues with Milloy's expression of disparaging terms - in using this language and these tactics, he winds up just as guilty as people like Marian Burros. He's misleading by assumption and omission. These are opinions of his (and his sponsors :)), and that is certainly fine. I only worry about the people who are unable to differentiate.]
Serpent: I am more concerned about people who only ever get to hear One Side of the story (half the facts). With the exception of people like Milloy and John Stossel it seems you hardly hear anything but the liberal version of these issues in the popular media. I am more of a â??Fair and Balancedâ? kind of guy, but then again I donâ??t have a â??superiorâ? worldview that endows me with the advantage of already knowing what is correct before knowing all of the facts. ;)
Hahaha – Right. My whole point was to pick on the Times, not the study. Milloy picked on both. Yeah, I can’t stand the popular media – CNN, FNC and MSNBC and all the networks – none of them know what they’re talking about when it comes to science.
Or worse, they muck it all up when they try to distill the science so that it (a) makes a modicum of sense to Joe Public and (b) portrays the Big Story they want to tell. Even when purportedly sharing “both sides”, they all manage to slant their stories one way or another.
The facts are lost no matter what.
People are told the most recent politically motivated or sensationalist science story and miss the important science that actually affects their lives, environment and economy every single day. So when someone picks on second-hand science reporting (or on the science itself) because of political motivation instead of going straight to the source and presenting the science, yes I get a little peeved. His column is Junk Science, after all – so we can presume that his goal is not to present science but to get political and bash science with which he disagrees. Do you see what I mean here? His is a negative motivation, rather than a positive one.
I think Milloy would have better served his readers if he told them about pesticides, how much foreign oil we use in their production. . . this is ultimately why I prefer to see alternatives to chemical use in farming. He could discuss antibiotic overuse and its impact on agriculture, the environment and public health (and ultimately again, the economy).
Did you know, for instance, that most of our food production is in corn to feed our cattle? Did you know that the current methods keep us more tightly tied to foreign oil than any Hummer or Suburban? Maybe you do, but I guarantee that we would be in a tiny minority in our knowledge.
There is indeed a gap. I just don’t think anybody is filling it, not even Milloy. The fact that he receives funding from Monsanto and other chemical interests and fails to disclose this in his editorials makes him just as guilty of bias as any reporter who’s paid to toe his liberal editor’s party line. The bias may be unavoidable, I don’t know. I just think it’s a shame.
And just so you know, I’m a microbiologist working with an agriculturally-relevant organism. In my work, I’ve found some things that may mean I will have Monsanto or some other agritech knocking on my door :-) I don’t hate these companies, I’m not bashing their scientists. The tragedy is in how the companies (and our government) refuse to focus on alternatives – to allow their researchers to search for alternatives – that would free us from both danger (real danger) and continued reliance on foreign oil (read: danger!).
Politics shouldn’t interfere with science, but it often does when the science becomes profit-driven and politically motivated.
And don’t you think your worldview is superior? “Hello, Pot – this is Kettle. You’re black!” :-D
Hahaha – Right. My whole point was to pick on the Times, not the study. Milloy picked on both. Yeah, I can’t stand the popular media – CNN, FNC and MSNBC and all the networks – none of them know what they’re talking about when it comes to science.
Or worse, they muck it all up when they try to distill the science so that it (a) makes a modicum of sense to Joe Public and (b) portrays the Big Story they want to tell. Even when purportedly sharing “both sides”, they all manage to slant their stories one way or another.
The facts are lost no matter what.
People are told the most recent politically motivated or sensationalist science story and miss the important science that actually affects their lives, environment and economy every single day. So when someone picks on second-hand science reporting (or on the science itself) because of political motivation instead of going straight to the source and presenting the science, yes I get a little peeved. His column is Junk Science, after all – so we can presume that his goal is not to present science but to get political and bash science with which he disagrees. Do you see what I mean here? His is a negative motivation, rather than a positive one.
I think Milloy would have better served his readers if he told them about pesticides, how much foreign oil we use in their production. . . this is ultimately why I prefer to see alternatives to chemical use in farming. He could discuss antibiotic overuse and its impact on agriculture, the environment and public health (and ultimately again, the economy).
Did you know, for instance, that most of our food production is in corn to feed our cattle? Did you know that the current methods keep us more tightly tied to foreign oil than any Hummer or Suburban? Maybe you do, but I guarantee that we would be in a tiny minority in our knowledge.
There is indeed a gap. I just don’t think anybody is filling it, not even Milloy. The fact that he receives funding from Monsanto and other chemical interests and fails to disclose this in his editorials makes him just as guilty of bias as any reporter who’s paid to toe his liberal editor’s party line. The bias may be unavoidable, I don’t know. I just think it’s a shame.
And just so you know, I’m a microbiologist working with an agriculturally-relevant organism. In my work, I’ve found some things that may mean I will have Monsanto or some other agritech knocking on my door :-) I don’t hate these companies, I’m not bashing their scientists. The tragedy is in how the companies (and our government) refuse to focus on alternatives – to allow their researchers to search for alternatives – that would free us from both danger (real danger) and continued reliance on foreign oil (read: danger!).
Politics shouldn’t interfere with science, but it often does when the science becomes profit-driven and politically motivated.
And don’t you think your worldview is superior? “Hello, Pot – this is Kettle. You’re black!” :-D
Hey Bronwyn,
I am going to respond to your post, but I am running out of time for today, but I did want to comment on your last point.
For the sake of argument I am going to assume your premises when we chat. Those premises being:
- Atheists/Secularists are always more informed/more scientific/more logical than backwards thinking theists/deists.
- You (Bronwyn) are a Secularist/Atheist.
- I (the Serpent) am a Deist.
– Ergo You are more informed, logical, and scientific than my backwards thinking illogical self.
Thatâ??s why I am here. I am seeking â??enlightenmentâ?. Please indulge me Darling.
I apologize if you have perceived me as rude. The fault is entirely mine. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that at first I mistook you for one of my Uncle Sethâ??s flunkies (minions)? Furthermore I apologize for my Sarcasm as times. The Laws of Physics destined me to be a subtle creature, and often that subtly is perceived as sarcasm (of course in all honesty it could also be the result of an over-developed/over-evolved ego?).
Bronwyn: [CNN, FNC and MSNBC and all the networks - none of them know what they're talking about when it comes to science.]
Do you mean Science or Scientism?
Bronwyn: [His (Milloyâ??s) column is Junk Science, after all - so we can presume that his goal is not to present science but to get political and bash science with which he disagrees. Do you see what I mean here? His is a negative motivation, rather than a positive one.]
Ohhh, I definitely comprehend the difference between a positive motivation and a negative motivation. But let me ask you this, suppose we replace the term â??Junk Scienceâ? with the term â??Pseudo-Scienceâ? and then we replace Environmentalist, and Conservationists with Psychics, and Mediums, and Dowsers, and fortune tellers, and other assorted homeopathic remedies, snake oil salesmen, etc. etc.
Would you consider debunking â??Pseudo-scienceâ? as having a goal not to present science but to get political and bash science with which you disagree? Do you see what I mean here? Is debunking pseudo-science a negative motivation, or a positive one?
Bronwyn: [I think Milloy would have better served his readers if he told them about pesticides, how much foreign oil we use in their production. . . this is ultimately why I prefer to see alternatives to chemical use in farming. He could discuss antibiotic overuse and its impact on agriculture, the environment and public health (and ultimately again, the economy).]
If you are suggesting that chemical pesticides, and fertilizers (as well as antibiotics) and the fuel required to obtain them are an uneconomical method of doing this kind of business? If that is truly the case then why not let market forces (i.e. the producers of these goods and the individual consumers) make these determinations?
From reading Milloyâ??s comments over the last few years it certainly seems that he understands the free market. I would suspect that (government regulation aside) farmers (like all individuals) will follow the path of least resistance and attempt to provide their customers with the highest quality of goods at the lowest possible price.
Bronwyn: [Did you know, for instance, that most of our food production is in corn to feed our cattle?]
We are largely a nation of carnivores (or more aptly omnivores). The more cattle we eat the more cattle we need to raise, and the more cattle we need to raise the more corn we need to feed those cattle. Are you suggesting we force people to become vegetarians against their wishes?
Bronwyn: [Did you know that the current methods keep us more tightly tied to foreign oil than any Hummer or Suburban?]
Speaking of Hummers and Suburbans â?¦ you do realize that the reason we see so many trucks and SUVs on the road today is because of the fuel efficiency standards imposed by the government back in the 70â??s and 80â??s. Originally market forces decided fuel efficiency, but once the government got involved and decided that we should all be driving smaller (less safe) more fuel efficient cars they essentially forced people into light trucks. Taller or larger individuals, or people with large families have a lot of trouble compacting themselves into subcompact cars. But then again, I donâ??t care if a tiny midget woman wants to drive the worlds largest stretch limousine everywhere she goes; just so long as she doesnâ??t expect me to pay for her gas or her insurance.
Bronwyn: [The fact that he (Milloy) receives funding from Monsanto and other chemical interests and fails to disclose this in his editorials makes him just as guilty of bias as any reporter who's paid to toe his liberal editor's party line.]
Are you saying that Monsanto and â??other chemical interestâ? pay Milloy to write these columns for Fox News? Is Fox News aware of this?
I was under the impression that Fox News paid Milloy for writing these columns. Radley Balko also writes for Fox News, and I am sure they pay him a fee for his articles. I wonder who else is paying Mr. Balko to write his columns for Fox News?
Bronwyn: [In my work, I've found some things that may mean I will have Monsanto or some other agritech knocking on my door :-) I don't hate these companies, I'm not bashing their scientists. The tragedy is in how the companies (and our government) refuse to focus on alternatives - to allow their researchers to search for alternatives - that would free us from both danger (real danger) and continued reliance on foreign oil]
Ms. Bronwyn, I once again apologize if I have offended you with my â??styleâ?. Even I realize that I can be an annoying little bastard at times, but perhaps there is an underlying method (pattern) to my madness?
If I were an owner or manager at Monsanto or one of these other companies and you came to me with a way that I could increase my productivity (profits) or improve the quality of my product without increasing cost (same as profits) then I would be foolish not to take advantage of your services and your expertise. But as an owner or manager of such a company I have no doubt that I would also be bombarded by hoardes of wishful thinkers with unproven theories and grand schemes of how I could make the world a better place and increase my profits simultaneously if only I have Faith and Hope and Trust in new ideas against my better judgment and years of experience.
If you want to convince someone that there is a better way of doing things, you have to actually convince them that there is a better way of doing things. You cannot force people to change their minds and abandon their time-tested methods and experiences by decree.
Bronwyn, you brought up the spinning, then started frothing ‘troll’ out of your face. Good luck at the Dr. BTW. Seems unscientific to implore fate to correct your medical condition, you being a scientist. Milloy has a website you’re apparently unfamiliar with, junksciencedotcom, which will supply you with plenty of facts to challenge, if you’re so inclined. Remember, science is 80% theory.
I came back just to check on this after being at a conference for a week.
I am familiar with junksciencedotcom. Thanks. As for wishing me luck, scientists talk about luck all the time. I know it’s silly, but hey – I also say “Thank goodness” when something goes well. It’s part of the meme phenomenon, I suppose. As for “frothing troll”, I was not and did not troll. Go to farkdotcom – you’ll see real trolling there.
As for Serp, you again put words and inferences where they did not belong. Read what I WROTE, add nothing to it, and you’ll get my meaning. You know what they say about people who assume, don’t you? In light of all the presuppositions you made, it’s pointless to argue or debate with you because you refuse to take what I say at face value, without assumptions.
Yes, when it comes to genetics, molecular biology, ecology, molecular evolution, physics and calculus, I and my colleagues DO know more than the average joe. When it comes to matters of law or auto mechanics, for instance, I’m not more knowledgeable than the average joe. I never said I was entirely superior, and it’s obnoxious that you keep insisting that I think I am.
I’ll talk to you when you stop trolling.
You are invited to take a look at the sites in the field of blackjack blackjack http://www.westvalleyhigh.us/blackjack.html http://www.westvalleyhigh.us/blackjack.html …
You may find it interesting to take a look at some relevant information on win … Thanks!!!
You may find it interesting to check some relevant information on pill .