20th August 01:31
Junk Science in the News ... more propaganda disguised as "news" (cough smallpox down whooping cough choking)
NOTE: Huber is one who spread the use of the upside down and backwards
term, "junk science" ... here, he makes medical conclusions ... not as
a scientist, but as a spreader of corporate funded junk science. Like
Milloy, he has spread propaganda about the alleged "safety" of breast
implants for years.
EXCERPT: What we need, after decades of paranoia-inducing
miseducation about environmental hazards, is to bury the frivolous
science of Love C****, TMI, silicone implants and vaccine litigation,
then to return to our senses and prepare to deal rationally and calmly
with the serious "environmental" hazards that most certainly lie
Panic and Terrorism
Peter Huber, 03.31.03, 12:00 AM ET
Mace or pepper spray used by security guards apparently sparked a
deadly stampede in a Chicago nightclub in February. Convinced that
they were "literally choking to death," as one woman described it,
party-goers trampled 21 people to death in a wild scramble for the
exit. Days later the crowd at a Rhode Island club apparently saw
little to worry about in a rock band's pyrotechnic display, even in
the first few moments after the fireworks ignited foam tiles in a
suspended ceiling. Ninety-eight people died.
America got a good look at pyrotechnic terrorism in Oklahoma City in
April 1995, and another in September 2001. Sooner or later we'll see
chemical, radiological and biological attacks, too. The technologies
needed to produce the raw materials are readily available, and
geopolitical reality makes their eventual use against us inevitable.
We need to do all we can to prove that prediction wrong. And we need
to methodically prepare for a rational response when it's proved
So far as chemical attacks go, the government's most urgent task is to
teach people to forget most of what they've learned in several decades
of environmental scaremongering. Chemicals are much less dangerous
than junk-science agitators have been telling us. Acute effects are
felt only when concentrations are high. Dilution and dispersal are
near-perfect remedies. And long-term effects are far less grave than
the greens have been telling us.
What Tom Ridge ought to be explaining--systematically and
persistently--is that a chemical attack, when it comes, will in all
likelihood require the short-term evacuation of a building or maybe a
neighborhood, not the long-term evacuation of a city. We didn't have
to evacuate Love C**** in 1978, or Times Beach in 1982. The peril
today lies more in the panicky stampede an attack may precipitate than
in the chemistry itself. The economic impact, too, will be more a
consequence of mindless fear than of chemically caused death and
Much the same is true of radiation. The most likely radiological
attack of any consequence won't involve a jet flying into a civilian
power plant. It will involve the use of conventional explosives or
incendiaries to disperse a pea-size piece of cesium or something much
like it. The big, centralized depositories of nuclear materials within
the U.S. are well fortified and protected; the thousands of dispersed
medical and industrial sources in this country, and the military and
civilian sources abroad, are far more worrisome. Here again, however,
the biggest short-term threat to safety isn't radiation, it's panic,
and then lingering fear, which could force the long-term abandonment
of, say, lower Manhattan or Washington, D.C. We ought to be teaching
people that nobody, in fact, died at Three Mile Island; that because
of its altitude, Denver is a high-radiation city but still a great
place to live; and that almost everything ordinary people think they
know about the insidious horrors of low-level radiation isn't true.
The biologicals ought to be the biggest worry, yet they seem to be
taken the least seriously. Most Americans are too young to remember
smallpox, whooping cough and polio. The memories aren't there because
vaccines all but eradicated these dreadful diseases--many of us are
now at the age when we can remember our sensible parents rejoicing
that they could take us, in the 1950s, to the centers that were
distributing the early polio vaccines. To its enduring shame, our
trial bar has spent recent decades attacking the manufacturers of
vaccines and spreading dangerous falsehoods about the perils of being
vaccinated. As a direct result we now lack the medical-industrial
infrastructure to mass-manufacture the vaccines we need, and we lack
as well corporations willing to invest the necessary capital and the
national will to get ourselves and our children to the vaccine
clinics. Our parents would be ashamed of us.
The point has been made time and again: Too much fear can be as
hazardous and costly as too little; sometimes what is most required is
the courage and the wisdom to do less, not more. The risks of
chemical, radiological and biological attack are all deadly serious.
With that said, we don't need more duct tape. What we need, after
decades of paranoia-inducing miseducation about environmental hazards,
is to bury the frivolous science of Love C****, TMI, silicone implants
and vaccine litigation, then to return to our senses and prepare to
deal rationally and calmly with the serious "environmental" hazards
that most certainly lie ahead.
Peter Huber, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, is the author of
Hard Green: Saving the Environment From the Environmentalists and the
Digital Power Report. Find past columns at http://www.forbes.com/huber.
20th August 01:33
Junk Science in the News ... more propaganda disguised as "news"
He is talking about scare-mongering.
LOL ... sure he is ... that's why the Silicone/chemical and
Pharmaceutical Cartels pay millions and millions and millions every
year to junkscience.com and ACSH ... and other phoney front groups ...
they don't want people to be "scared" ... LOL LOL LOL
Hope you told that to Santa Claus when he flew thru the sky and
dropped into your chimney Christmas eve ...
25th August 20:03
Junk Science in the News ... more propaganda disguised as "news" (testicular down cancer breast cancer chemotherapy)
email@example.com (Mplnt) defending Peter Huber ... claimed:
"He is talking about scare-mongering."
Just found this old Junk Journalism by Huber who failed silicone
pusher O'leary is defending ... he was using the same old argument 10
years ago ... that a woman has no reason to believe the products she
is choosing from are safe.
A breast implant, safe or dangerous, intact or ruptured, in the first,
second or third trimester after insertion, is still just a bag of
The entire debate has revolved around a vision of vain, foolish,
helpless women -- women at the mercy of manipulative doctors and
conspiring chemical companies, women more like children than adults,
women incapable of making intelligent, individual choices for
themselves. Given all the recent publicity, no one can even plausibly
claim that a woman who now opts in favor of a silicone implant has not
been fully informed of the risks. If anything, she has been
overinformed. The choice should now be hers.
A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE
by Peter Huber
Forbes, February 17, 1992 at Pg. 138
Copyright 1992 by Peter Huber. Electronic copies of this do***ent may
be distributed freely, provided that this notice accompanies all
The remarkable thing about the silicone breast implant flap is not
who's screaming, but who isn't.
Whose voice is missing from this latest junk-science fracas? Look at
it this way. A woman is seated in the privacy of her doctor's office.
She's discussing a matter of intensely personal interest. It affects
both her mental and her physical well-being. Some women even believe
it affects their chance to snare mates and bear children. Pretty
personal stuff, I'd say. And the Food & Drug Administration want to
So where are the pro-choicers to protest the FDA's intrusion? Where's
the American Civil Liberties Union? Where are the ACT-UPers, who've
been denouncing the FDA logjam on AIDS drugs? There's a principle at
stake here, but the people with the greatest need to affirm it aren't
The smartest thing the right-to-life forces could do right now would
be to seize on the pro-choice groups' silence. Find an appropriate
front, challenge the FDA's ban on silicone breast implants all the way
to the Supreme Court -- and aim to lose every step of the way. Forget
privacy -- a ban on implants is in the public interest. And
incidentally, if the state can regulate whether or not a woman can put
a bag of silicone into her chest, it obviously can also regulate
whether she can put an aspirator into her uterus or a contraceptive
pill into her mouth.
But as sometimes happens when Big Brother decides to protect little
sister, without the aspirator you may get the coat hanger. There are
170,000 new cases of breast cancer every year. The possibility of
breast reconstruction helps some women screw up their courage to get
regular screenings and, if they feel it is necessary, undergo
reconstructive surgery. The available alternatives -- saline implants
or a woman's own tissue -- are either much more expensive or
unsuitable for some women or some types of repair.
Some 30,000 women a year are seeking some kind of reconstruction after
surgery. Now, thanks to Washington's fringe-science vigilantes, many
women believe that the only safe end of breast cancer is irreparable
mutilation. Do you suppose that 1 in 100 breast cancer victims will
find that prospect too dismal to bear, and so wait an extra six months
before having that lump checked out? Or might it be 1 in 10 -- 17,000
women a year, perhaps? I don't know; no one does. But it's a pretty
safe bet that some real women are going to die because of the choice
they just lost to hand-wringing at the FDA.
A whole lot more women, in fact, than are ever likely to be killed by
silicone itself. The FDA knows this. Norplant, the new contraceptive
that the FDA recently approved with much fanfare, is delivered from a
silicone implant. Silicone is used to lubricate syringes: A diabetic
can inject a breast's worth of silicone during her lifetime. Silicone
is used in intravenous tubing and in shunts for delivering
chemotherapy. Some 30,000 American men have silicone-based testicular
implants. Science can never prove negative propositions absolutely.
But if silicone presents any serious chemical hazards to the human
body, they should already be apparent. The fact is, they aren't. We
are dealing here not with science but with Washington's policy pundits
and publicists, who prosper by making mountains out of molehills.
All of this should be largely beside the point, of course. Even if
silicone presents real dangers, it obviously also offers some real
benefits, unless we are to believe that every woman who ever sought a
breast implant was a fool or a dupe. That's pretty much what we're
being told, however. The entire debate has revolved around a vision of
vain, foolish, helpless women -- women at the mercy of manipulative
doctors and conspiring chemical companies, women more like children
than adults, women incapable of making intelligent, individual choices
for themselves. Given all the recent publicity, no one can even
plausibly claim that a woman who now opts in favor of a silicone
implant has not been fully informed of the risks. If anything, she has
been overinformed. The choice should now be hers.
Feminists have been making a lot of bad tactical calls recently, but
the position they have taken on breast implants is their worst yet.
When it came down to defending the individual woman's right to choose,
or denouncing adolescent male conceptions of female beauty, many
feminists preferred to denounce. With or without silicone on the
market, some men will always be adolescents, and some women will
always cater to their tastes. But when you compromise on the principle
of personal autonomy -- of freedom of individual choice -- you are
soon left with all compromise and no principle.
If the pro-choicers can't win this one -- don't even care to win it,
in fact -- they can't win anything. A breast implant, safe or
dangerous, intact or ruptured, in the first, second or third trimester
after insertion, is still just a bag of plastic. When a woman stands
in her doctor's office discussing a breast implant, there's only one
body and one life involved: her own. And who gets to say how that body
and life should be managed? David Kessler of the FDA, that's who.