Mombu the Medicine Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Medicine Forum > Medicine > Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows (aspirin dementia crisis allergy allergies)
User Name
Password
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links


Reply
 
1 20th August 01:31
ilena
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows (aspirin dementia crisis allergy allergies)


Just as I suspected ... Milloy emblazoned "mad cow " on his Mug
....years ago ... claiming, as he has with silicone breast implants, to
have "debunked" mad cow disease.

The article below from 1999 ...


http://www.junkscience.com/mug.htm

global warming
ddt
silicone breast implants
dioxin
alar
mad cow
second hand smoke
ozone depletion
emf
pcb's
endocrine disruptors

He even has a book, "Silencing Science" where he wants to do just
that.
Silence science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


new internationalist
issue 314 - July 1999

The junkyard dogs
of science
In a special report, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber expose the shady
figures behind
the dirty war that¹s being waged by big business against environmental
regulation.

The junkyard dogs of science

Measured in terms of the death toll, Hurricane Mitch was Central
America's worst natural disaster in 218 years. As the hurricane
squatted
over Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador, it dumped some 40 cubic
kilometers of water - three-quarters of a normal year's rainfall - in
the
space of two days. The result was like a tidal wave on land. Flash
floods
filled rivers with hundreds of times their normal flow. A wall of
water
swept through the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, destroying whole
streets in a matter of minutes. Dams burst. Bridges and highways were
swept away.

It was only natural to wonder if global warming was to blame for the
disaster. 'This was perhaps what is becoming a typical disaster in
today's world of El Niños and global climate change,' observed J Brian
Atwood, head of the US Agency for International Development, which co-
ordinated relief activities. Speaking to CBS News, he called the
hurricane 'a classic greenhouse effect'.

For Patrick J Michaels, people like Atwood are part of the problem.
Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of
Virginia, penned an article titled 'Mitch - That Son of a Gun'. He
attacked Atwood's remarks as 'White House huckstering... If there's
any
possible way to conflate human suffering with global warming, the
Clinton
administration will do so... Rumors persist that Vice President Gore
has
been advised to make global warming a central theme of his
presidential
run in 2000. Threatening hundreds of thousands with imminent drowning
unless they vote for him is a crude but probably effective trick.'

Michaels' commentary was printed in the Washington Times and the
Journal


far apart as the Wisconsin State Journal and the Wyoming
Tribune-Eagle.
'Just how stupid does the Clinton administration think we are?' asked
the
version that appeared in the Tribune-Eagle.

Stupid enough, apparently, that none of these outlets bothered to
check
Michaels' credentials. If they had, they would have found that
Michaels
is part of a small but vocal minority of industry-funded
climatologists
who dispute the mounting evidence which suggests that global warming
is a
consequence of modern industrial activities, such as the burning of
fossil fuels. By his own account, Michaels has received more than
$165,000 in funding from fuel companies, including funding for a non-
peer-reviewed journal he edits called World Climate Change. He has
served
as a paid expert witness for utilities in lawsuits, appears on
television
and radio and testifies before government bodies. At the time
Hurricane
Mitch struck, he was also a 'senior fellow' at the Cato Institute, a
right-wing, industry-funded think-tank that campaigns against
'unnecessary' and 'harmful' environmental regulations.

THIRD PARTY TECHNIQUE

The use of scientists as spokespersons for corporate interests is an
example of a public-relations strategy known within the trade as 'the
third party technique'. Merrill Rose, Executive Vice-President of the
public-relations firm Porter/Novelli, sums it up succinctly: 'Put your
words in someone else's mouth.' Remember the TV commercials with
actors\0
in lab coats pretending to be doctors and claiming that nine out of
ten
of their colleagues prefer a specific brand of aspirin? With
commercials
you are on your guard. But put the message in the mouth of someone
like
Patrick Michaels and you have a 'real scientist' speaking. The
commercial
interests behind the message are much better disguised.

How effective is this strategy? According to a survey commissioned by
Porter/Novelli, 89 per cent of respondents consider 'independent
experts' a 'very or somewhat believable source of information during a
time of corporate crisis'. Sometimes the technique is used to spread
doubt about a product's hazards; sometimes it is used to hype or
exaggerate benefits. Pharmaceutical companies use it to create a
positive
'buzz' around their products.

PR Week magazine describes a campaign by the Ogilvy firm to help its
client, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, hype an allergy medication called
Zyrtec.
Ogilvy cultivated a partnership with a third party, the National
Allergy
Bureau (NAB is supported by a grant from Pfizer) to add credibility to
its aggressive spring allergy campaign. The NAB distributed a press
announcement on the impact El Niño would have. Video and radio news
releases and a community news feature all highlighted the El
Niño-allergy
connection. The NAB hotline (800-9-POLLEN) in the messages helped
drive
consumers to their phones, where they received branded-product
information on request. Media contacts were encouraged to mention
Zyrtec
in allergy stories. The campaign enticed reporters to revisit the
topic
of allergies with a timely angle. Media coverage was estimated at
almost
100 million 'audience impressions'. The El Niño theme produced
numerous
top-tier placements in USA Today, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco
Chronicle and Boston Globe. The video-news release, done by Medialink,
secured TV coverage that included a segment on network-wide Dateline
NBC.

Sometimes companies underwrite entire scientific conferences to hype a
product. In Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America,
Cynthia
Crossen quotes a professor of medicine describing how this works: 'I'm
the advertising guy for the drug. I tell a journal I will give them
$100,000 to have a special issue on that drug. Plus I'll give the
journal
so much per reprint, and I'll order a lot of reprints. I'll select the
editor and all the authors. I phone everyone who has written good
things
about that drug. I say: "I'll fly you and your wife first class to New
Orleans for a symposium. I'll put your paper in the special issue of
the
journal, and you'll have an extra publication for your CV." Then I'll
put
a reprint of that symposium on some doctor's desk and say: "Look at
this
marvelous drug!"'

DISARMING THE CRITIC

In the hotly contested terrain over regulatory and liability law a
coalition of corporate attorneys, lobbyists, PR firms and right-wing
think-tanks have launched a crusade against what they call 'junk
science'. They apply this term liberally to any research - no matter
how
rigorous - justifying regulations to protect the environment and
public
health. 'This term "junk science" is being thrown around all the
time,'
says Lucinda Finley, a law professor who specializes in product
liability
and women's health. 'People are calling scientists who disagree with
them
purveyors of "junk". But what we're really talking about is a very
normal
process of scientific disagreement... Calling someone a junk scientist
is
just a way of shutting them up.'

Many of the organizations involved in this campaign have names that
evoke
images of sober scholarship and environmental concern. Others are
familiar right-wing institutions that flowered during the Reagan
years.
They include the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, the American
Council on Science and Health, the American Land Rights Association,
the
Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Competitive
Enterprise
Institute, Consumer Alert, the Environmental Policy ****ysis Network,
Frontiers of Freedom, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute,
the
Hudson Institute, the National Center for Policy ****ysis, the
National
Center fr Public Policy Research.

Right-wing think-tanks multiply more rapidly than mating gerbils.
'We've
got think-tanks the way other towns have fire stations,' observes
Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach. 'This is a thoughtful town.'

Among the organizations that flack for corporate science, the New
York-
based American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is one of the
oldest
and best known. Founded in 1978, it calls itself 'a science-based,
public-health group that is directed by a board of 300 leading
physicians
and scientists... providing mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific
information to American consumers'. In fact, ACSH funders include many
of
the major players in the chemical, pesticide, pharmaceuticals and food
industries: American Cyanamid, American Meat Institute, Amoco,
Bristol-
Myers Squibb, Burger King, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, DuPont,
Exxon, Ford, Mobil, Monsanto, National Agricultural Chemicals
Association, Nestlé, Pepsi-Cola, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Shell,
Union
Carbide and Uniroyal Chemical.

Although the ACSH styles itself as a 'scientific' organization, it
does
very little independent primary research. Instead, it specializes in
generating media advisories that criticize or praise scientists
depending
on their philosophical position. It has mastered the modern media
sound-
bite, issuing a regular stream of news releases with catchy, quotable
phrases responding to hot-button environmental issues. Its recent
media
forays have helped generate headlines such as:

'A Global Scare: The Environmental Doomsday Machine is in High Gear'
'Irradiation: Only Sure Method to Protect US Food Supply'
'Evidence Lacking that PCB Levels Harm Health'
'The Fuzzy Science Behind New Clean-Air Rules'
'Eat Beef, America'
'At Christmas Dinner, Let Us Be Thankful for Pesticides and Safe Food'

ACSH calls the ban on DDT 'one of the 20 worst unfounded health scares
of
the 20th century'. It ridicules the risks that chemical 'endocrine
disruptors' pose to human health and fertility. Its board chair
characterizes environmentalism as a belief that 'members of endangered
species deserve protection and that, because there are billions of
humans, humanity does not qualify for protection'. He calls for
abolition
of the Endangered Species Act.

THE JUNKMAN

The groups which flack for 'sound science' are sometimes fly-by-night
organizations - called into existence for a particular cause or
legislative lobby campaign. They dry up and blow away once the
campaign
is over. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) lasted
less
than five years. Founded in 1993, TASSC was run out of the Washington
office of APCO Associates, a PR firm that is notorious for creating
front
groups to lobby on behalf of tobacco, insurance, and chemical
interests
seeking to limit liability for dangerous or defective products.

TASSC's executive director from 1997 to 1998 was Steven Milloy, a
Washington policy wonk who has rotated through a variety of anti-
environmental organizations as well as the EOP Group, a prominent
lobby
firm whose clients have included the Petroleum Institute, AT&T, the
Business Roundtable, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical,
Edison
Electric Institute, International Food Additives Council, Monsanto and
the Nuclear Energy Institute. On the internet, Milloy sponsors a 'Junk
Science Home Page' (http://www.junkscience.com), a rabble-rousing melange of
ad
hominem attacks on 'wacko enviros' and 'mindless anti-chemical
hysteria'.
Calling himself 'The Junkman', he dismisses reports of a thinning
ozone
layer as 'nutty'. He has called for repeal of a program by the US
Environmental Protection Agency to screen chemicals that may disrupt
hormone systems. He opposes automobile emissions testing as 'just
another
clever ploy to separate you from your money'. He sells a poster
headlined
'The Earth Is Fine, Save Yourself' which claims to debunk
environmentalism. He calls the directors of the European Union
'incompetent' for a directive on labeling of genetically engineered
products. He defends scientific studies funded by the tobacco industry
and after a researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to
breast cancer, Milloy wrote that she 'must have pictures of journal
editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you
explain her studies seeing the light of day?'

SHUT UP AND EAT

The consequences of allowing industry to dictate what is and is not
'sound science' have become painfully evident in Europe. On 20 March
1996
the British Government ended a decade of denial by admitting publicly
that human beings were dying of a fatal dementia caused by exposure to
cattle afflicted with 'mad-cow disease'. As of April 1999 the
confirmed
human death toll from a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)
stood at 40. Given the slow incubation period of the disease, experts
fear the ultimate number will be much higher. These deaths might have
been averted if British officialdom had not attacked early warnings as
'pure supposition, over-reaction and scare-mongering'.

Even as the death toll mounts, government and industry voices in the
US
repeat the Big Lie about the transmissibility of the disease to
humans.
On 11 May 1997 the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion column by Dr
Scott
C Ratzan, insisting that the mad-cow hubbub 'has all been much ado
about
nothing. Based on available scientific evidence, we can be virtually
certain that mad-cow disease poses no threat to humans... What is
clear
is that people don't get it by eating meat from cows or lamb...
Mad-cow
disease kills only cattle.'

Ratzan, who teaches at a small liberal-arts college that specializes
in
subjects such as acting and public relations, has no background in
research related to mad-cow disease or CJD. His editorial is
ridiculous
in the eyes of the researchers engaged in the study of these diseases.
Nevertheless, his column was duly reproduced on Steve Milloy's junk-
science home page. An accompanying commentary by the Junkman himself
accused the British scientific journal Nature of a 'mad-cow witch
hunt'.

ACSH also seems to regard Ratzan's opinions as authoritative. In
November
1998 it offered an award for 'best high school essay' to a student
who,
relying on Ratzan as a source, argued that 'the media's fear of "mad-
cow" disease has led to a frenzy... crippling the British beef
market.'

Meanwhile, voices which dissent from these deceptions are being
effectively silenced, thanks to laws passed in more than a dozen US
states making it a criminal offense to 'unscientifically disparage
food'.
TV talk-show host Oprah Winfrey became the first target of these laws
in
1998 when Texas cattlemen took her to court in a high-profile lawsuit
that charged her with junking science by hosting a program that
discussed
the dangers of mad-cow disease. After spending more than $2 million in
legal fees, Winfrey won the first round of her court battle, but
appeals
and other expensive legal maneuvers are ongoing. Other US journalists,
chastened by the fear of such legal quagmires, are increasingly
reluctant
to report on other controversial food-safety and environmental issues.

In reality, the junk-science wars are more about propaganda and
censorship than about science. Right-wing groups and their corporate
sponsors have wrapped themselves in the flag of 'sound science' and
are
using their public-relations clout and litigation threats to bully the
news media and dominate debates over critical issues. Until public-
interest organizations and concerned scientists better understand this
and fight back against these all-too-successful tactics, the battle
over
junk science will continue in the media as a very one-sided fight.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber run the US-based Center for Media and
Democracy which publishes the excellent quarterly PR Watch. Subs are
$35.
Their address is 3318 Gregory Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53711
Website:
http://www.prwatch.org They have written two excellent books on the public
relations industry: Toxic Sludge is Good For You ($16.95) and Mad Cow
U.S.A. ($24.95) and are currently working on a new book on junk
science.
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


2 20th August 01:31
wright
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows


I reread the article and Milloy's claim is that if BSE-infected beef
were the cause of vCJD, the pattern of disease in the UK would be
other than it is. If you can refute his argument, please do so.

Simply reprinting an article from 1999 does not prove Milloy is
wrong.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


3 20th August 01:32
ilena
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows


wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)

LOL ... nor does it prove he is "wright" ... Wrighter Than wrong.

It does prove he was years ago hired to defend the meat industry and
be paid to attempt to change the public's perception on Mad Cow ...
just like he was hired to spread propaganda for the silicone industry
.... (as was ACSH and other industry front groups)
  Reply With Quote
4 20th August 01:33
wright
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows (mad cow)


How clever you are, Ilena. You figured it out.

Again, maybe he's wrong and maybe not. Your screaming does not add
anything to the discussion.

Of course, the relevance of mad cow to silicone is zero, but why get
in the way of your ranting?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
  Reply With Quote
5 25th August 20:05
ilena
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows (dementia vegan crisis mad cow strains)


Mad Cow USA: The Nightmare Begins

By John Stauber, AlterNet
December 30, 2003

interesting publications such as the Journal of the American Medical
Association, New Scientist, and Chemical & Engineering News. Yet
although the book was released just before the infamous Texas trial of
Oprah Winfrey and her guest Howard Lyman, for the alleged crime of
"food disparagement," the book was ignored by the mainstream media,
and even most left and alternative publications failed to review it.


Apparently many people who never read it at the time bought the
official government and industry spin that mad cow disease was just
some hysterical European food scare, not a deadly human and animal
disease that could emerge in America. In March, 1996, when the British
government reversed itself after ten years of denial and announced
that young people were dying from the fatal dementia called variant
CJD – mad cow disease in humans – the United States media dutifully
echoed reassurances from government and livestock industry officials
that all necessary precautions had been take long ago to guard against
the disease.


Those who did read "Mad Cow USA" when it was published in November,
1997, however, realized that the United States assurances of safety
were based on public relations and public deception, not science or
adequate regulatory safeguards. We revealed that the United States
Department of Agriculture knew more than a decade ago that to prevent
mad cow disease in America would require a strict ban on "animal
cannibalism," the feeding of rendered slaughterhouse waste from cattle
to cattle as protein and fat supplements, but refused to support the
ban because it would cost the meat industry money.


It was the livestock feed industry that led the effort in the early
1990s to lobby into law the Texas food disparagement act, and when an
uppity Oprah hosted an April 1996, program featuring rancher-turned
vegan activist Howard Lyman, she and her guest became the first people
sued for the crime of sullying the good name of beef. Oprah eventually
won her lawsuit, but it cost her years of legal battling and millions
of dollars. In reality, the public lost, because mainstream media
stopped covering the issue of mad cow disease. As one TV network
producer told me at the time, his orders were to keep his network from
being sued the way Oprah had been.


In the six years since the publication of "Mad Cow USA," Sheldon
Rampton and I have spoken out in media interviews, at conferences of
United States families who had lost relatives to CJD, and we saw our
book published in both South Korea and Japan. Our activism won us some
interesting enemies, such as Richard Berman, a Republican lobbyist who
runs an industry-funded front group that calls itself The Center for
Consumer Freedom. Berman is a darling of the tobacco, booze, biotech
and food industries, and with their funding he issued an online report
depicting us as the ring leaders of a dangerous conspiracy of
vegetarian food terrorists out to destroy the United States food
system. Last week alone he issued two national news releases
attempting to smear us.


Of course, he had an easier time attacking us before the emergence of
mad cow disease in America. I was saddened but not surprised when mad
cow disease was finally discovered in the United States. When the
first North American cow with the disease was found last May in
Canada, I told interviewers that if the disease was in Canada, it
would also be found in the United States and Mexico, since all three
NAFTA nations are one big free trade zone and all three countries feed
their cattle slaughterhouse waste in the form of blood, fat and
rendered meat and bone meal. In fact, in North America calves are
literally weaned on milk formula containing "raw spray dried cattle
blood plasma," even though scientists have known for many years that
blood can transmit mad cow type diseases.


(This is why if you try to donate your blood to the Red Cross, you
will be rejected if you spent significant time in Britain during the
height of its mad cow epidemic. Britain is afraid that humans with mad
cow disease may have contaminated the British blood supply, and they
do not use its own blood plasma since as yet no test can adequately
screen blood for mad cow disease.)


The United States has spent millions of dollars on PR convincing
Americans that mad cow could never happen here, and now the USDA is
engaged in a crisis management plan that has federal and state
officials, livestock industry flacks, scientists and other trusted
experts assuring the public that this is no big deal. Their litany of
falsehoods include statements that a "firewall" feed ban has been in
place in the United States since 1997, that muscle meat is not
infective, that no slaughterhouse waste is fed to cows, that the
United States tests adequate numbers of cattle for mad cow disease,
that quarantines and meat recalls are just an added measure of safety,
that the risks of this mysterious killer are miniscule, that no one in
the United States has ever died of any such disease, and on and on.


The latest spin is to blame the United States mad cow crisis on
Canada. On Saturday, December 27, with no conclusive proof whatsoever,
the United States Department of Agriculture announced that the mad cow
in Washington state had actually entered the United States years ago
from Canada. This set off an understandable howl from the Canadian
government, and by Sunday the United States was forced to back off
somewhat, but clearly the PR ploy is to get Americans thinking that
this is Canada's problem, not ours.


Even if Canada does turn out to be the source of America's first case
of mad cow disease, numerous questions remain: How many other infected
cows have crossed our porous borders and been processed into human and
animal food? Why are United States slaughterhouse regulations so lax
that a visibly sick cow was sent into the human food chain weeks
before tests came back with the mad cow findings? Where did the
infected byproduct feed that this animal ate come from, and how many
thousands of other animals have eaten similar feed?


Since the announcement of United States mad cow disease our phones
have rung off the hook with interview requests. The New York Times
noted that "The 1997 book 'Mad Cow USA', by Sheldon Rampton and John
C. Stauber, made the case that the disease could enter the United
States from Europe in contaminated feed." Articles in the New York
Times also cited other warnings from Consumer Union's Michael Hansen,
and Dr. Stanley Prusiner, the Nobel Prize-winning researcher who this
week called the current United States practice of weaning calves on
cattle blood protein "stupid." All of this would be very vindicating,
except for one problem: the millions of dollars that the government
and industry are spending on PR to pull the wool over the public's
eyes might just succeed in forestalling the necessary steps that now,
at this late date, must still be taken to adequately deal with this
crisis.


The good news is that those steps are rather simple and
understandable. We should ship Ann Veneman and her smartest advisors
to Britain where they can copy the successful feed and testing
regulations that have solved the mad cow problem in Europe. Veneman
and her advisors should institute a complete and total ban on feeding
any slaughterhouse waste to livestock. You may think this is already
the case because that's what industry and government said they did
back in the summer of 1997. But beside the cattle blood being legally
fed back to cattle, billions of pounds of rendered fat, blood meal,
meat and bone meal from pigs and poultry are rendered and fed to
cattle, and cattle are rendered and fed to other food species, a
perfect environment for spreading and amplifying mad cow disease and
even for creating new strains of the disease.


The feed rules that the United States must adopt can be summarized
this way: you might not be a vegetarian, but the animals you eat must
be. The United States must also institute an immediate testing regime
that will test millions of cattle, not the 20,000 tested out of 35
million slaughtered in the past year in the United States. Japan now
tests all cattle before consumption, and disease experts like Dr.
Prusiner recommend this goal for the United States. And of course, no
sick "downer" cows, barely able to move, should be fed to any humans.
These are the type of animals most likely to be infected with mad cow
and other ailments – although mad cows can also seem completely
healthy at the time of slaughter, which is why testing all animals
must be the goal.


Ann Veneman and the Bush administration, unfortunately, currently have
no plans to do the right thing. The United States meat industry still
believes that the millions of dollars in campaign contributions doled
out over the years will continue to forestall the necessary
regulations, and that soothing PR assurances will convince the
consuming public that this is just some vegetarian fear-mongering
conspiracy concocted by the media to sell organic food. Will the
American public buy this bull? It has in the past. Much depends on
journalists and what they are willing to swallow. It looks to me as if
papers such as the Wall Street Journal and New York Times are finally
putting some good investigative reporting teams onto this issue, and
that may undercut and expose PR ruses such as the "blame Canada
campaign."


What I can predict is that the international boycott of United States
beef, rendered byproducts, animals and animal products will continue,
and this will apply a major economic hurt to meat producers big and
small across the country. Will their anger turn against the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Animal Feed Industry Association and
other lobbies that have prevented the United States from doing the
right thing in the past? Or will this become some sort of
nationalistic food culture issue, with confused consumers and family
farmers blaming everyone but the real culprits in industry and
government?


We must continue to advocate for the United States to do the right
thing: Follow the lead of the European Union nations, ban all "animal
cannibalism," and test more or all animals. In the meantime, if you
want safe American beef, search out products that are certified
organic and guaranteed not to be fed slaughterhouse waste such as calf
formula made from cattle blood. An excellent source of information on
the web is the site of the Organic Consumers Association.


Our book, "Mad Cow USA," is temporarily unavailable until a paperback
copy is released later in 2004. However, you can get the book in its
entirety for free through the website of our Center for Media &
Democracy. Simply go to http://www.prwatch.org and click on the cover of "Mad
Cow USA." You'll be taken to http://www.prwatch.org/books/mcusa.pdf where you
can download for free the entire book – and read the warnings that
went unheeded then, and are still being ignored by government
regulators and industry.


~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
  Reply With Quote
6 25th August 20:06
vendicar decarian
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows (mad cow)


Another exceptionally good article from Ilena.

(This is why if you try to donate your blood to the Red Cross, you
will be rejected if you spent significant time in Britain during the
height of its mad cow epidemic. Britain is afraid that humans with mad
cow disease may have contaminated the British blood supply, and they
do not use its own blood plasma since as yet no test can adequately
screen blood for mad cow disease.)

vCJD death linked to blood transfusion

18:08 17 December 03

A British man has died from variant CJD after receiving a blood
transfusion seven years earlier from a donor who also later died
from the disease. The UK secretary of state for health announced the
case in an emergency statement to parliament on Wednesday.

The case may be the first in the world where the human form of BSE -
mad cow disease - has been transmitted via a blood transfusion. But
John Reid told the House of Commons: "This is a possibility not a
proven causal connection."

Both individuals might have acquired the devastating illness
separately by eating BSE-infected meat, he says, but "the
possibility of this being transfusion-related cannot be discounted".
The recipient of the blood transfusion had received the blood in
1996 from a donor with no sign of vCJD. But the donor developed VCJD
symptoms and died in 1999. The recipient became ill six and a half
years after the transfusion and died in autumn 2003.

Fif**** other people in the UK are now known to have received blood
from donors who subsequently developed vCJD, according to the UK
National Blood Service. These individuals are now being contacted
and will be offered advice from expert counsellors.

No test

"There is as yet no blood test for vCJD, or for that matter BSE, let
alone one that could detect the disease years before symptoms
develop," said Reid. "So, there is no way yet of screening blood
donations for the presence of the CJD group of diseases."
However, he noted that the UK Government had put measures in place
from 1997 to try to reduce the risk of person-to-person transmission
of vCJD via blood transfusions. First, blood stocks from donors who
later developed vCJD were destroyed.

In July 1998, a programme to remove the white blood cells from blood
destined for transfusion began. White blood cells were considered to
be a possible source of infection. Finally, from the end of 1999,
all plasma used for blood products has been sourced from the US
rather than the UK.

However, 15 people have received blood from donors who subsequently
developed vCJD. Five of these received the "leuco-depleted" blood -
stripped of its white blood cells. But "many more patients of course
will have received plasma products before plasma was sourced from
the US," cautioned Reid.

Uncertain future

The ultimate extent of the UK epidemic is currently estimated to be
between a few hundred and 7000. So far 143 people had died of the
disease.
"It is premature to conclude the epidemic has peaked" warns Reid,
because the incubation period of vCJD is uncertain.
The link between the recent death of the blood recipient and the
donor was first reported to Reid's office on 9 December, while a
diagnosis of vCJD for the recipient was still being confirmed.
Confirmation came on Friday 12 December and Reid was briefed by the
UK's chief medical officer Liam Donaldson on Monday and Tuesday. The
announcement was made at the "earliest opportunity", says Reid.

Shaoni Bhattacharya
  Reply With Quote
7 26th August 05:17
anth
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows


I think the Americans are going to have a hard time dealing with this.
The UK swiftly dealt with it by culling thousands of cattle and accepting
that the feed was the problem.
From what I've read there is opposition to this in the USA.
Just my 2$
Anth
  Reply With Quote
8 18th September 10:36
ilena
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows (aspirin dementia crisis allergy allergies)


Just as I suspected ... Milloy emblazoned "mad cow " on his Mug
....years ago ... claiming, as he has with silicone breast implants, to
have "debunked" mad cow disease.

The article below from 1999 ...


http://www.junkscience.com/mug.htm

global warming
ddt
silicone breast implants
dioxin
alar
mad cow
second hand smoke
ozone depletion
emf
pcb's
endocrine disruptors

He even has a book, "Silencing Science" where he wants to do just
that.
Silence science.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


new internationalist
issue 314 - July 1999

The junkyard dogs
of science
In a special report, Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber expose the shady
figures behind
the dirty war that¹s being waged by big business against environmental
regulation.

The junkyard dogs of science

Measured in terms of the death toll, Hurricane Mitch was Central
America's worst natural disaster in 218 years. As the hurricane
squatted
over Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador, it dumped some 40 cubic
kilometers of water - three-quarters of a normal year's rainfall - in
the
space of two days. The result was like a tidal wave on land. Flash
floods
filled rivers with hundreds of times their normal flow. A wall of
water
swept through the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, destroying whole
streets in a matter of minutes. Dams burst. Bridges and highways were
swept away.

It was only natural to wonder if global warming was to blame for the
disaster. 'This was perhaps what is becoming a typical disaster in
today's world of El Niños and global climate change,' observed J Brian
Atwood, head of the US Agency for International Development, which co-
ordinated relief activities. Speaking to CBS News, he called the
hurricane 'a classic greenhouse effect'.

For Patrick J Michaels, people like Atwood are part of the problem.
Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of
Virginia, penned an article titled 'Mitch - That Son of a Gun'. He
attacked Atwood's remarks as 'White House huckstering... If there's
any
possible way to conflate human suffering with global warming, the
Clinton
administration will do so... Rumors persist that Vice President Gore
has
been advised to make global warming a central theme of his
presidential
run in 2000. Threatening hundreds of thousands with imminent drowning
unless they vote for him is a crude but probably effective trick.'

Michaels' commentary was printed in the Washington Times and the
Journal


far apart as the Wisconsin State Journal and the Wyoming
Tribune-Eagle.
'Just how stupid does the Clinton administration think we are?' asked
the
version that appeared in the Tribune-Eagle.

Stupid enough, apparently, that none of these outlets bothered to
check
Michaels' credentials. If they had, they would have found that
Michaels
is part of a small but vocal minority of industry-funded
climatologists
who dispute the mounting evidence which suggests that global warming
is a
consequence of modern industrial activities, such as the burning of
fossil fuels. By his own account, Michaels has received more than
$165,000 in funding from fuel companies, including funding for a non-
peer-reviewed journal he edits called World Climate Change. He has
served
as a paid expert witness for utilities in lawsuits, appears on
television
and radio and testifies before government bodies. At the time
Hurricane
Mitch struck, he was also a 'senior fellow' at the Cato Institute, a
right-wing, industry-funded think-tank that campaigns against
'unnecessary' and 'harmful' environmental regulations.

THIRD PARTY TECHNIQUE

The use of scientists as spokespersons for corporate interests is an
example of a public-relations strategy known within the trade as 'the
third party technique'. Merrill Rose, Executive Vice-President of the
public-relations firm Porter/Novelli, sums it up succinctly: 'Put your
words in someone else's mouth.' Remember the TV commercials with
actors\0
in lab coats pretending to be doctors and claiming that nine out of
ten
of their colleagues prefer a specific brand of aspirin? With
commercials
you are on your guard. But put the message in the mouth of someone
like
Patrick Michaels and you have a 'real scientist' speaking. The
commercial
interests behind the message are much better disguised.

How effective is this strategy? According to a survey commissioned by
Porter/Novelli, 89 per cent of respondents consider 'independent
experts' a 'very or somewhat believable source of information during a
time of corporate crisis'. Sometimes the technique is used to spread
doubt about a product's hazards; sometimes it is used to hype or
exaggerate benefits. Pharmaceutical companies use it to create a
positive
'buzz' around their products.

PR Week magazine describes a campaign by the Ogilvy firm to help its
client, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, hype an allergy medication called
Zyrtec.
Ogilvy cultivated a partnership with a third party, the National
Allergy
Bureau (NAB is supported by a grant from Pfizer) to add credibility to
its aggressive spring allergy campaign. The NAB distributed a press
announcement on the impact El Niño would have. Video and radio news
releases and a community news feature all highlighted the El
Niño-allergy
connection. The NAB hotline (800-9-POLLEN) in the messages helped
drive
consumers to their phones, where they received branded-product
information on request. Media contacts were encouraged to mention
Zyrtec
in allergy stories. The campaign enticed reporters to revisit the
topic
of allergies with a timely angle. Media coverage was estimated at
almost
100 million 'audience impressions'. The El Niño theme produced
numerous
top-tier placements in USA Today, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco
Chronicle and Boston Globe. The video-news release, done by Medialink,
secured TV coverage that included a segment on network-wide Dateline
NBC.

Sometimes companies underwrite entire scientific conferences to hype a
product. In Tainted Truth: The Manipulation of Fact in America,
Cynthia
Crossen quotes a professor of medicine describing how this works: 'I'm
the advertising guy for the drug. I tell a journal I will give them
$100,000 to have a special issue on that drug. Plus I'll give the
journal
so much per reprint, and I'll order a lot of reprints. I'll select the
editor and all the authors. I phone everyone who has written good
things
about that drug. I say: "I'll fly you and your wife first class to New
Orleans for a symposium. I'll put your paper in the special issue of
the
journal, and you'll have an extra publication for your CV." Then I'll
put
a reprint of that symposium on some doctor's desk and say: "Look at
this
marvelous drug!"'

DISARMING THE CRITIC

In the hotly contested terrain over regulatory and liability law a
coalition of corporate attorneys, lobbyists, PR firms and right-wing
think-tanks have launched a crusade against what they call 'junk
science'. They apply this term liberally to any research - no matter
how
rigorous - justifying regulations to protect the environment and
public
health. 'This term "junk science" is being thrown around all the
time,'
says Lucinda Finley, a law professor who specializes in product
liability
and women's health. 'People are calling scientists who disagree with
them
purveyors of "junk". But what we're really talking about is a very
normal
process of scientific disagreement... Calling someone a junk scientist
is
just a way of shutting them up.'

Many of the organizations involved in this campaign have names that
evoke
images of sober scholarship and environmental concern. Others are
familiar right-wing institutions that flowered during the Reagan
years.
They include the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, the American
Council on Science and Health, the American Land Rights Association,
the
Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Competitive
Enterprise
Institute, Consumer Alert, the Environmental Policy ****ysis Network,
Frontiers of Freedom, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institute,
the
Hudson Institute, the National Center for Policy ****ysis, the
National
Center fr Public Policy Research.

Right-wing think-tanks multiply more rapidly than mating gerbils.
'We've
got think-tanks the way other towns have fire stations,' observes
Washington Post columnist Joel Achenbach. 'This is a thoughtful town.'

Among the organizations that flack for corporate science, the New
York-
based American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is one of the
oldest
and best known. Founded in 1978, it calls itself 'a science-based,
public-health group that is directed by a board of 300 leading
physicians
and scientists... providing mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific
information to American consumers'. In fact, ACSH funders include many
of
the major players in the chemical, pesticide, pharmaceuticals and food
industries: American Cyanamid, American Meat Institute, Amoco,
Bristol-
Myers Squibb, Burger King, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, DuPont,
Exxon, Ford, Mobil, Monsanto, National Agricultural Chemicals
Association, Nestlé, Pepsi-Cola, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Shell,
Union
Carbide and Uniroyal Chemical.

Although the ACSH styles itself as a 'scientific' organization, it
does
very little independent primary research. Instead, it specializes in
generating media advisories that criticize or praise scientists
depending
on their philosophical position. It has mastered the modern media
sound-
bite, issuing a regular stream of news releases with catchy, quotable
phrases responding to hot-button environmental issues. Its recent
media
forays have helped generate headlines such as:

'A Global Scare: The Environmental Doomsday Machine is in High Gear'
'Irradiation: Only Sure Method to Protect US Food Supply'
'Evidence Lacking that PCB Levels Harm Health'
'The Fuzzy Science Behind New Clean-Air Rules'
'Eat Beef, America'
'At Christmas Dinner, Let Us Be Thankful for Pesticides and Safe Food'

ACSH calls the ban on DDT 'one of the 20 worst unfounded health scares
of
the 20th century'. It ridicules the risks that chemical 'endocrine
disruptors' pose to human health and fertility. Its board chair
characterizes environmentalism as a belief that 'members of endangered
species deserve protection and that, because there are billions of
humans, humanity does not qualify for protection'. He calls for
abolition
of the Endangered Species Act.

THE JUNKMAN

The groups which flack for 'sound science' are sometimes fly-by-night
organizations - called into existence for a particular cause or
legislative lobby campaign. They dry up and blow away once the
campaign
is over. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) lasted
less
than five years. Founded in 1993, TASSC was run out of the Washington
office of APCO Associates, a PR firm that is notorious for creating
front
groups to lobby on behalf of tobacco, insurance, and chemical
interests
seeking to limit liability for dangerous or defective products.

TASSC's executive director from 1997 to 1998 was Steven Milloy, a
Washington policy wonk who has rotated through a variety of anti-
environmental organizations as well as the EOP Group, a prominent
lobby
firm whose clients have included the Petroleum Institute, AT&T, the
Business Roundtable, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical,
Edison
Electric Institute, International Food Additives Council, Monsanto and
the Nuclear Energy Institute. On the internet, Milloy sponsors a 'Junk
Science Home Page' (http://www.junkscience.com), a rabble-rousing melange of
ad
hominem attacks on 'wacko enviros' and 'mindless anti-chemical
hysteria'.
Calling himself 'The Junkman', he dismisses reports of a thinning
ozone
layer as 'nutty'. He has called for repeal of a program by the US
Environmental Protection Agency to screen chemicals that may disrupt
hormone systems. He opposes automobile emissions testing as 'just
another
clever ploy to separate you from your money'. He sells a poster
headlined
'The Earth Is Fine, Save Yourself' which claims to debunk
environmentalism. He calls the directors of the European Union
'incompetent' for a directive on labeling of genetically engineered
products. He defends scientific studies funded by the tobacco industry
and after a researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to
breast cancer, Milloy wrote that she 'must have pictures of journal
editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you
explain her studies seeing the light of day?'

SHUT UP AND EAT

The consequences of allowing industry to dictate what is and is not
'sound science' have become painfully evident in Europe. On 20 March
1996
the British Government ended a decade of denial by admitting publicly
that human beings were dying of a fatal dementia caused by exposure to
cattle afflicted with 'mad-cow disease'. As of April 1999 the
confirmed
human death toll from a new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD)
stood at 40. Given the slow incubation period of the disease, experts
fear the ultimate number will be much higher. These deaths might have
been averted if British officialdom had not attacked early warnings as
'pure supposition, over-reaction and scare-mongering'.

Even as the death toll mounts, government and industry voices in the
US
repeat the Big Lie about the transmissibility of the disease to
humans.
On 11 May 1997 the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion column by Dr
Scott
C Ratzan, insisting that the mad-cow hubbub 'has all been much ado
about
nothing. Based on available scientific evidence, we can be virtually
certain that mad-cow disease poses no threat to humans... What is
clear
is that people don't get it by eating meat from cows or lamb...
Mad-cow
disease kills only cattle.'

Ratzan, who teaches at a small liberal-arts college that specializes
in
subjects such as acting and public relations, has no background in
research related to mad-cow disease or CJD. His editorial is
ridiculous
in the eyes of the researchers engaged in the study of these diseases.
Nevertheless, his column was duly reproduced on Steve Milloy's junk-
science home page. An accompanying commentary by the Junkman himself
accused the British scientific journal Nature of a 'mad-cow witch
hunt'.

ACSH also seems to regard Ratzan's opinions as authoritative. In
November
1998 it offered an award for 'best high school essay' to a student
who,
relying on Ratzan as a source, argued that 'the media's fear of "mad-
cow" disease has led to a frenzy... crippling the British beef
market.'

Meanwhile, voices which dissent from these deceptions are being
effectively silenced, thanks to laws passed in more than a dozen US
states making it a criminal offense to 'unscientifically disparage
food'.
TV talk-show host Oprah Winfrey became the first target of these laws
in
1998 when Texas cattlemen took her to court in a high-profile lawsuit
that charged her with junking science by hosting a program that
discussed
the dangers of mad-cow disease. After spending more than $2 million in
legal fees, Winfrey won the first round of her court battle, but
appeals
and other expensive legal maneuvers are ongoing. Other US journalists,
chastened by the fear of such legal quagmires, are increasingly
reluctant
to report on other controversial food-safety and environmental issues.

In reality, the junk-science wars are more about propaganda and
censorship than about science. Right-wing groups and their corporate
sponsors have wrapped themselves in the flag of 'sound science' and
are
using their public-relations clout and litigation threats to bully the
news media and dominate debates over critical issues. Until public-
interest organizations and concerned scientists better understand this
and fight back against these all-too-successful tactics, the battle
over
junk science will continue in the media as a very one-sided fight.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber run the US-based Center for Media and
Democracy which publishes the excellent quarterly PR Watch. Subs are
$35.
Their address is 3318 Gregory Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53711
Website:
http://www.prwatch.org They have written two excellent books on the public
relations industry: Toxic Sludge is Good For You ($16.95) and Mad Cow
U.S.A. ($24.95) and are currently working on a new book on junk
science.
  Reply With Quote
9 18th September 10:36
wright
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows


I reread the article and Milloy's claim is that if BSE-infected beef
were the cause of vCJD, the pattern of disease in the UK would be
other than it is. If you can refute his argument, please do so.

Simply reprinting an article from 1999 does not prove Milloy is
wrong.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
  Reply With Quote
10 20th September 19:13
ilena
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Mad Cow, Mad Milloy ... and his Mad Mug ... Junk Science & Mad Cows


wright@clam.prodigy.net (David Wright)

LOL ... nor does it prove he is "wright" ... Wrighter Than wrong.

It does prove he was years ago hired to defend the meat industry and
be paid to attempt to change the public's perception on Mad Cow ...
just like he was hired to spread propaganda for the silicone industry
.... (as was ACSH and other industry front groups)
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




Copyright © 2006 SmartyDevil.com - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -
666