12/16/2007
typical tactics of a leftist
I have now been threatened with a lawsuit in my comments section by the man in the bathtub. But in addition to legal threats, he doesn’t disappoint-he is being true and faithful to his authoritarian ideology and environmental religion; as the blind defender of the faith, he demands that I print a retraction, while calling me ‘dishonorable’.
Just because you say it, doesn’t mean it’s true. Let’s go back to the scientific theory that’s practiced today:
There’s nothing ‘dishonorable’ about following the scientific method, which is what I’m attempting to do here. He’s following the way leftist environmental scientists in Bali do it, including censoring those that disagree, 1 who follow the ‘actual’ method.
It would appear that now I find myself in a pissing match.
The man in the the bathtub objects took two things of all the things that I mentioned on this post about DDT. Putting the focus on these details detracts from Edwards eating DDT and his heavy exposure to it in Italy in 1944, in addition to experiments on birds that produced thin eggshells because of reduced calcium in the diet, and the Audubon bird counts which demonstrated no correlation between DDT and reduced bird populations, among numerous other important points.
This is a classic sleight of hand move which would provide entertainment for guests at a dinner party, but excuse me for not being amused.
The fellow at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub focuses on two things. One, that the National Academy of Science didn’t say:
In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria that would have otherwise have been inevitable.
And the other, protesting my putting into print Dr. Charles Wurster’s infamous quote:
“People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”
Let’s take the first claim, and do some comparisons with google-able numbers from organizations that ’should’ know.
This table from the Center for Disease Control guesstimates the historical numbers, claiming 3 million deaths in a year worldwide, but after DDT’s introduction, the numbers plummet. Taking the worst case scenario of 3 million a year, that’s only 60 million instead of 500 million. I can’t ascertain the source of these figures or figures that would allow me to construct my own graph, which in itself is somewhat interesting. Are these conservative estimates?
Yet, here, the estimates of children’s deaths in the period 2002-2003 from malaria seem considerably less:
In the three-year period, according to the World Health Organization, 2,559,000 children died from malaria (if my math is correct). If you took that number for one year, 853,000, and multiplied it by 20 years, you’d get 17,060,000, nowhere near the 500 million figure in the National Academy of Sciences quotation that he disputes, but this doesn’t include adults. And this is only the figures of children who’ve died. Of course the numbers do not stay linear, there is a curve, as implied by the table previous with the peculiar low figures. But since DDT’s banning there’s been a resurgence of malaria outbreaks and deaths…so is it possible that the 500 million figure was accurate?
According to the American Council of Science and Health, 300-500 million cases of malaria are reported each year. 2
That’s reported cases, not dead, if I understand it correctly. It’s reasonable to conclude that someone’s numbers are off, but whose?
I don’t see that there’s a problem with the math, or that the claim is even necessarily far-fetched. I suppose it depends on what organizations you throw your blind faith behind. I have a problem with all government agencies whose interest is to pump more government money into their budgets. When they were using DDT, it is conceivable that 500 million lives were saved during the 1950-1970 period, which we’ll see in a little bit.
But when you look at the second chart of children dying from malaria, the 500 million figure seems unlikely; it’s appears it’s probably closer to 60 million.
But that could just be appearance.
A drop of birth rates but a raise in malaria outbreaks and deaths in children? This doesn’t make sense. You’d think the numbers for the three-year period of 2000-2003 would be less any three-year perod within the decades between 1950 and 1970, yet the math and the charts don’t bear that out.
I’m sure there’s an explanation, but I’m challenged to find it.
Unfortunately, we’re talking about the history of a chemical that goes back to 1944 during WWII….some 56 years ago or so; before the internet. Yet, we still have a window as to what those numbers looked like because the American Council of Science and health cites these numbers:
Europe and North America have not harbored malarial mosquitoes since the 1940s. In one of the most miraculous public health developments in history, Greece saw malaria cases drop from 1-2 million cases a year to close to zero, also thanks to DDT. Meanwhile, in India, malaria deaths went from nearly a million in 1945 to only a few thousand in 1960. In what is now Sri Lanka, malaria cases went from 2,800,000 in 1948, before the introduction of DDT, down to 17 in 1964 — then, tragically, back up to 2,500,000 by 1969, five years after DDT use was discontinued there.
Yet sometimes we’re calling out reported cases, in others we’re talking deaths in the same paragraph, so it’s still unclear.
The numbers from that era would not logically correspond to the numbers from today. Here are the numbers from today reported on Malaria site:
Malaria has been known to mankind since millennia and probably human malaria evolved with the mankind. Today malaria affects more than 2400 million people, over 40% of the world’s population, in more than 100 countries in the tropics. Every year 300 million to 500 million people suffer from this disease and about 1.5 million to 3 million people die of malaria every year (85% of these occur in Africa), accounting for about 4-5% of all fatalities in the world. Malaria ranks third among the major infectious diseases in causing deaths. It is re-emerging as the # 1 Infectious Killer and it is the Number 1 Priority Tropical Disease of the World Health Organization.
Deaths account for about 5% of the people who contract the disease, but doesn’t account for diseases like yellow fever, dengue and others that are also insect-borne. The other point is, perhaps that 500 million was talking about lives saved, and not necessarily all due to malaria.
The Center for Disease Control’s figures show a sharp decline from a little over 3 million deaths on their graph in around 1935 before DDT, to about .4 million in 1970, then up to around 1 million or so again in 2000. Where do they get the 1.5-3 million death figure for modern times? Those figures don’t correspond or jibe, either.
Who’s lying? Where do they get their figures? Is there a definitive answer? If you look to the man in the bathtub there is, but I’m trying to think this through and not accept what’s being said by the alarmists on blind faith.
Conservative estimates are DDT had saved 100 million lives. 3
But wait: here’s another one-Malaria Map paints Stark Picture - Nature News 4
The number of malaria cases worldwide may be close to double that previously estimated, according to a new tally of the killer disease.
The study, which is one of the most comprehensive efforts to map the prevalence of malaria, shows that over half a billion people could have the disease.
That would mean 25 million in a year could die from it at .05 of 1/2 billion. 25 million a year x 20 years is 500 million. There’s your 500 million figure that bathtub boy claims is wrong.
So do we know positively what the numbers are? They could even be more devastating than the dismal picture already painted here. Perhaps he and/or the groups that post them want(s) to minimize the human toll that banning DDT has taken on third world poor people? It’s hard to tell the motivations of a moonbat.
Google the phrase and you’ll find numerous other blogs and articles using that same quote and citation from numerous articles as I’ve pointed out here….so I don’t owe anyone an apology, or a retraction.
This is a typical ploy of a leftist; a bullboy tactice. When they don’t like what you’re saying, do some semantic hairsplitting in order to find a detail to sue someone over to shut them up.
In the peer-reviewed scientific research cited in the report, DDT: A case study in scientific fraud, 5 Edwards’ quote is a little bit longer and more complete than what I quoted:
In 1970 the National Academy of Sciences stated: “To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million human deaths due to malaria that would have otherwise have been inevitable.”
A 1996 statement from the National Academy of Sciences is reportedly this: 6
“MALARIA which had been eliminated or effectively suppressed in many parts of the world, is undergoing a resurgence. It is a public health problem today in more than 90 countries inhabited by some 2,400 million people — 40 percent of the world’s population. Malaria is estimated to cause up to 500 million clinical cases and 2.7 million deaths each year. Every 30 seconds, a child somewhere dies of malaria. The global effects of the disease threaten public health and productivity on a broad scale and impede the progress of many countries toward democracy and prosperity.”
Now we’re back to an odd number that doesn’t jibe with the charts again. We could debate these numbers for a long time. But let’s move on.
Now onto the allegation that Wurster didn’t make the remarks about there being too many people.
Supposedly we’re supposed to accept Dr. Wurster’s denials as proof that he didn’t make the remarks. This reminds me of John Kerry’s infamous “Christmas in Cambodia” 7 and running guns for the Khmer Rouge. 8
This is the picture that emerges from the House Hearings on the Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971 (Serial No 92-A). 9 John Rarick is questioning Edward Lee Rogers, then chief council for the Environmental Defense Fund. Rogers was there to present an affidavit from Charles Wurster. (Wurster was identified as a volunteer scientist, not the chief scientist.) Here is part of the exchange (pages 266-267)
Mr. Rarick. Well, this would be then the same Dr. Wurster whom Mr. Yannacone, in a speech on May 20, 1970, at the Public Relations Luncheon Group of the Union League Club in New York, described at a press conference as having said this:
A reporter asked the same Dr. Wurster whether or not the use of DDT wouldn’t encourage further use of very toxic materials, including nerve gas derivatives, and he said, “probably.”
The Reporter then asked him if these organo phosphates did not have a long record of killing people. And Dr. Wurster said “so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any.”
Is this the same Dr. Wurster that you are later to give us an affidavit from?
Mr. Rogers. I would say probably not. In fact, I would say very emphatically that I would doubt very much that it is the same Dr. Wurster. I think that perhaps it is a figment of someone’s imagination somewhere.
Mr. Rarick. Do you know John Yannacone?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I do know Mr. Yannacone.
Mr. Rarick. He is one of the founders?
Mr. Rogers. He is no longer with the Environmental Defense Fund, for very good reasons.
Mr. Rarick. Would this be the same Dr. Wurster who said when asked the question, “Doctor, how do you square this killing of people with the mere loss of some birds?” And this very eminent, well-meaning scientist said:
It doesn’t really make a lot of difference because the organo phosphate acts locally and only kill (sic) farm workers and most of them are Mexicans and Negroes.
Would this be the same Dr. Wurster whose affidavit you promise to later supply us?
Mr. Rogers. I think this is a very serious matter, that you are bringing up here, and I do not know what the rules of the committee are, but we are allowing to be read into the record what is notorious hearsay, without the advantage of rebuttal or examination of the people who reportedly made these statements. If there is any procedure for expurging this in the record, I would ask that it be done.
The committee never questioned Yannacone. Instead of removing the comments from the record, they put a copy of the speech into their files. They did allow Wurster to submit a letter that was included in the transcripts (page 268):
I wish to deny all of the statements of Mr, Yannacone. His remarks about me, attributed to me, and about other trustees of EDF are purely fantasy and bear no resemblance to the truth. It was in part because Mr. Yannacone lost touch with reality that he was dismissed by EDF, and his remarks of May 1970 indicate that his inability to separate fact from fiction has accelerated.
I respectfully request that my denial of any truth to Mr. Yannacone’s remarks be made part of the record of these hearings.
None of the authors who have quoted Wurster’s alleged comments have indicated that he denied making the remarks.
But is a denial proof that he didn’t make them?
To my way of thinking, the EDF was caught with its pants down after Wurster’s remarks, Wurster was embarrassed by them and backpedaled. This type of thing is not unheard of, recalling “Christmas in Cambodia”, “I love my chinese assault rifle”, ‘my lucky cap’, and running guns for the Khmer Rouge….
In Remembering Silent Spring and Its Consequences, Professor J. Gordon Edwards quoted from a speech by Victor Yanconne, founder of the Environmental Defense Fund. In that talk, Mr. Yanconne related a story told to him by a reporter who had asked Dr. Charles Wurster, one of the major opponents of DDT, whether a ban on DDT wouldn’t actually result in far greater use of more toxic pesticides. Dr. Wurster is reported to have replied, “So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any.” 10 11
Paul K. Driessen at Heartland also quoted the same:
Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked if he thought a ban on DDT might result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied, “Probably–so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”
His views are hardly atypical. According to Earthbound, a collection of essays 12 on so-called environmental ethics, “Massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is our species’ duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 percent of our numbers.”
Former National Park Service research biologist David Graber famously remarked, “We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.”
“If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS,” reads a 1989 Earth First! newsletter. “It has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crisis.”
In Ben Johnson’s ‘57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving’ 13it’s pointed out that the EDF has greatly moderated its public stance since Dr. Wurster’s statement. I think it’s footnote #94. 14 And points out that “Physicians for Social Responsibility” also endorses the DDT ban.
With forty years of hindsight, celebrating Rachel Carson’s misguided book seems the height of reactionary pig-headedness, a monument to never having to say your sorry. Its unproven scientific assertions led to the deaths of tens of millions. But then admitting as much might take away some of the self-righteous confidence of the Green cause. Hence Green radicals like Teresa Heinz Kerry have vested interest in pretending this history never happened.
The actual proponents of the DDT ban foresaw its consequences and, in a bizarre testament to their anti-human impulses, welcomed them. Dr. Charles Wurster, whose temporary request for a spraying ban in Long Island led to the EPA’s 1972 decision at the international level, was asked if this cessation might kill him. He replied, “Probably – so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any.”[13] Wurster was chief scientist of the Environmental Defense Fund,[14] one the top grant recipients from the Heinz Endowments; Teresa Heinz Kerry personally sits on the Fund’s board.
The people who are denying Wurster’s quote are also denying that DDT was ever banned. 15 16
So…because this is cited in more than one place, even in published booklets and books about the green environmentalist movement…I’m sorry, but I can’t retract, but I will provide additional notation.
I don’t understand what the objection is to pointing this out, anyway.
Now I’ve pointed out quite a list of defendants for the man in the bathtub to pursue in court or legal proceedings, so I hope he keeps me informed as to their progress. His including me along with people I hold in high esteem such as Dr. Edwards, Dr. Stan Monteith, M.D., Paul Driessen, Ben Johnson and David Horowitz, is an honor.
Trackposted to Stop the ACLU, Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, sTIX bLOG, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Chuck Adkins, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate’s Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, nuke’s, Wake Up America, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, CORSARI D’ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, The Yankee Sailor, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
- Swiss, Tom (December 4, 2007) U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference Heartland Institute[back]
- Seavey, T. (June 1, 2002) THE DDT BAN TURNS 30 — Millions Dead of Malaria Because of Ban, More Deaths Likely American Council of Science And Health
This report is based on:
When Politics Kills: Malaria and the DDT Story by Richard Tren and Roger Bate, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Toxic Terror by Elizabeth Whelan, Prometheus Books
And the work of Thomas DeGregori (American Council on Science and Health) and Amir Attaran (Center for International Development, Harvard).[back]
- Press Release (June 10, 2002) Thirtieth Anniversary of Misguided Ban on DDT — Without This Pesticide, Millions Die of Malaria, Says Health Group; Senate To Extend Ban American Council on Science and Health[back]
- Pearson, H. (March 8, 2005) Malaria Map Paints Stark Picture Nature News[back]
- Edwards, J. Gordon, Ph.D. DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol 9 Number 3, Fall 2004[back]
- 1. The Scale: Why Malaria Matters Malaria Foundation International[back]
- Muravchik, J. (August 24, 2004) Kerry’s Cambodia Whopper, Washington Post.[back]
- Why were John Kerry and the CIA running guns to Communists in Cambodia in 1968? Dinocrat[back]
- “Unquote”-Infopollution.com. This site details inaccurate quotes made by conservatives, detailing them as Media Matters would: as lies and ‘hearsay’.[back]
- Remembering Silent Spring and Its Consequences, J. Gordon Edwards, a monograph, p. 7, available from Radio Liberty [back]
- Reported by Chairman John Rarick: House Hearings on the Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971, pp. 266-267, in Serial No 92-A, quoted in a treatise by Dr. J. Gordon Edwards. A taped interview with Dr. Edwards is available from Radio Liberty, as is his treatise: see also Environmental Overkill, Dixy Lee Ray, Regnery, p. 77.[back]
- Earthbound: New Introductory Essays in Environmental Ethics by Tom Regan Author(s) of Review: Leslie Pickering Francis Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), p. 129 doi:10.2307/3323877[back]
- Johnson, B. (September 17, 2004) 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving Ch. 5 Shades of Green DDT The Green Genocide Frontpage Magazine (also in booklet form)[back]
- Johnson, B. (September 17, 2004) 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry’s Charitable Giving, Ch. 5 Shades of Green DDT: The Green Genocide Endnotes Frontpage Magazine[back]
- DDT Ban Takes Effect [EPA press release - December 31, 1972] EPA.gov[back]
- RWDB (April 19, 2007) Word of the Week Wurster was accused of saying this by EDF co-founder Victor Yannacone, and the accusation was reported at a Congressional hearing. Wurster denied making the statement, but Yannacone — a prominent environmental attorney — has never taken back his accusation against Wurster. RWDB-J.F. Beck[back]
Blog @ MoreWhat.com linked with MoreWhat Matters: Today’s Blog List
December 16th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Here’s what a threat of a lawsuit looks like (THIS IS A SAMPLE):
So, now tell us, Cao — who sent you such a letter?
You’re not making false accusations against me again, are you?
December 16th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
No, I object to almost everything in that post. It’s wildly inaccurate as to the facts.
I merely commented on two of the more egregios things you did, including the libel.
You really don’t have a clue what you’re doing, do you. Do you know what malaria is, or where you might find any information on DDT? You’ve obviously not read Rachel Carson’s book. You refuse to read any article I cite. You jump to unwarranted conclusions and make false accusations.
Are you a Turing program designed to provide maximum irritation, in reality?
December 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
You’re not citing the wild inaccuracies, but then I have a hard time reading what you’re saying when you’re flinging around these incessant insults to everyone that disagrees with you. If you could refrain from doing that, perhaps I would approach this in a different way.
Like Edwards whines. Really? I think it’s you that whines. And I think it’s you that can’t discern fact from fiction, lol….all I’m trying to do is follow the scientific method and parse through this stuff.
I’m sorry if you’re so irritated by the fact that I don’t accept Rachel Carson as the GODDESS of environmentalism, but I don’t believe in that horse hockey anyway.
I’ve proven what I’ve proven, and if you refuse to accept it, I can’t help you there.
I don’t owe anyone an apology…and as I said before, you come here using my blog and link to yourself constantly like it’s a soapbox for your views. It isn’t. This blog is for MY views.
So run along back to your bathtub.
By the way, I don’t think linking to yourself qualifies as citing facts.
December 16th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I’m not going to rehash what you already said here.
Accusing me of slander, …saying that Wurster would sue me for what I’ve put in print here…putting on your lawyer hat, etc.
Of course I wouldn’t accuse you falsely of something the way you do with other people. I’m not like you.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Mr. Darrell, I read your post, and you “implied Cao would be subject to a liable suit” since you had “given her the facts” and funny thing, I don’t recall you citing anything to prove your facts in fact negated hers. I find your behavior quite perplexing. I did see the “veiled threat” in what you posted though, so the above post just tells me you are behaving in the method I’ve seen other liberals use… if you can’t carry the debate citing documented evidence and facts, it’s time to use attacks.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Call the Audubon Society for yourself, but their counts do show a correlation between DDT and reduced populations of raptors. Some birds — perhaps prey of raptors — may have increased in the time DDT was used.
But birds that ate insects and worms exposed to DDT, birds that were in the trees treated with DDT, and raptors who ate food at the end of the food chain where DDT was sprayed, all showed reduced numbers.
Specifically, eagles, falcons and osprey.
Check out Edwards’ citations to the bird counts. The material he claims is there, is not. He refers to bird counts, but the counts themselves show nothing like Edwards claims. The counts are not aggregated. The 1960s era material he cites from Audubon Society sources say the opposite of what Edwards claims — Audubon says the eagles were reduced in numbers.
But don’t take my word for it — go look for yourself. See if you can back up what Edwards said. Since you don’t like Lyndon Larouche — at least, that’s what you said earlier — you shouldn’t take what the Larouchies say at face value.
December 16th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I’m really puzzled by that. What in the world are you talking about? Do you regard citations and sources as insults? I’m confused: You ask for information and citations. I give them to you, you claim I’ve insulted you.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:12 am
That’s not a peer-reviewed paper at all. It’s a political screed. Had it been peer-reviewed, that number would almost certainly have been caught.
In fact, neither is the NAS publication peer-reviewed. It was a compilation of contributions from a number of people, edited at NAS.
You fail to note that the National Academy of Science said in that report that DDT is dangerous and that the ban was fully justified. NAS noted the value of DDT, and said that because it was so dangerous, its ban was justified. NAS called for more research to find replacements for DDT and safer means of application.
I have given you links to this document directly, and to the longer post where I explain the mathematical or editing error.
So there are two frauds Edwards has pulled on you here: First, to claim 500 million deaths, and second, to claim that he said this in a peer-reviewed paper, to lend his screed more authority than it deserves.
Peer-review journals rejected the paper, as I understand it — it offers no new research, it offers no new analysis, its citations are inaccurate, and it’s pure politics.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:22 am
No, you’re supposed to verify your version of the events. In my attempt to verify that Wurster said that, I discovered he did not say it. What I discovered was that Congressional testimony, which is not a story in a newspaper by a reputable reporter, nor is it a transcript in which Wurster makes such a statement. In that transcript is a warning that the alleged statement is inaccurate. There is no corroboration for the statement anywhere outside the odd political bunch that hates environmentalists. Elizabeth Whelan repeats the quote; members of her organization repeat the quote. Reputable people and people of honor do not repeat the quote.
It’s your choice. I’m not asking you to accept anything, but I am asking you to stop make scurrilous claims that you can’t verify. If you think this quote is accurate, provide your backup. It does not appear before that Congressional hearing, so that is the best source we have — and it warns that the quote is wrong.
On the other hand, you’re asking us to accept that the quote is valid despite all the warnings that it is an invented piece of inaccurate slander. I’m not sure how you see your failure to provide corroboration as my “asking you to accept.”
In this entire discussion you assume that every piece of excrement you dig up from neo-Nazis, paid corporate shills, political wackoes and people with a grudge, is golden. None of your sources would survive your own scrutiny, were you to fail to accept it so gullibly.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:15 am
Carson’s is a political screed. Edwards information in the paper, “DDT: A Case Study of Scientific Fraud” according to the BioNuclear Bunny, is peer-reviewed. If you don’t like it, take it up with that individual who says the information is “published, peer-reviewed scientific research cited in the report.”
December 17th, 2007 at 7:19 am
(quote) “In this entire discussion you assume that every piece of excrement you dig up from neo-Nazis, paid corporate shills, political wackoes and people with a grudge, is golden. None of your sources would survive your own scrutiny, were you to fail to accept it so gullibly.” (unquote)
This is starting to look like “internet stalking and abuse”. Your insults to Cao does not “win the argument”. I say argument, because you seem to be lacking in civilized debating skills. Let’s see, you are calling reputable researchers and scientists “neo-Nazis, paid corporate shills, political wackoes and people with a grudge” and STILL you offer nothing to support your “labeling them so” or disproving their evidence. Your behavior on someone elses blog is nothing more than that of a malicious stalker! Of course moonbats always get into name calling and abusive tactics when they don’t have facts to back their claims. I’ve seen it many times now.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Generally “peer-reviewed” means that other scientists in the discipline have reviewed it, checked for errors, and had discussions with the author about any problems. Here is a quick rundown that is relatively accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Bionuclear Bunny is not a peer-reviewer. Lyndon Larouche’s Executive Intelligence Review is a political magazine, not peer reviewed in any sense. As I understand it, that was where it was published.
Tell Bionuclear Bunny to get with the program.
But of course, if you bothered to check (and it’s clear you have not) every one of the people who cite that alleged quote from Wurster, or from the misspelled “Wursta,” has got the information from Elizabeth Whelan or from another person who did not check the quote.
I gave you the source of the story. As you can see, not even the Congressman claimed it was accurate. When told it was hearsay, they dropped it the issue. Be ye as wise as a Congressman.
But I also challenged you to corroborate it. You have found several others who repeated the libel, but no one who can corroborate that it was ever said. Whelan’s story was that it was said to a reporter.
Really? What was the reporter’s name? Where was it reported?
If you bother to check — and I have doubts that you ever bother to check something that runs counter to your biases or denials (please prove me wrong!) — you’ll find that the quote cannot be corroborated.
IF you have the grace and good will of a Christian, you might call EDF and ask them. Or call Dr. Wurster and ask him.
Grace? Good will? Fact checking? News to you, I know.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
In an “abstract”, okay? Published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, preparef for publication by Jane M. Orient, M.D. after Edwards’ death. Have you ever been published in such a publication?
LOL
An “abstract” which cites scientific peer-reviewed papers, as the bunny pointed out. I’ll update to make sure I have the verbiage exactly right…
You’re sucking up way too much of my time, but this is a worthy subject.
You’re the epitome of Envirowackos and their ******* Goddess.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Let’s be sure we’re talking about the same article. Your claim is that Gordon Edwards screed against Carson was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons?
And you further argue that publication in a journal of frequently quack medicine should count?
I’m not sure which scares me more, that you defend Lyndon Larouche’s stuff, or that you think JPandS is a real peer-review journal.
You know, if I want parody and dark humor, I can watch “My Name is Earl” on NBC.
I had taken you for someone seriously concerned about issues. Was I wrong?
December 17th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Carson’s quoting Dr. Schweitzer, who said “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.” He wasn’t talking about DDT; what he said in his autobiography was “How much labor and waste of time these wicked insects do cause, but a ray of hope, in the use of DDT, is now held out to us.”
Carson said “like the robin, another American bird [the Bald Eagle] seems to be on the verge of extinction.” Roger Tory Peterson, wrote that the robin was “the most abundant bird in North America” in that same year.
And what would Carson know about birds, anyway? She was a marine biologist.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
And the myth of the brown pelicans is evident, too…the fact that they suffered from the Santa Barbara oil spill surrounding their nesting island, but environmentalists blamed their reduced numbers instead on DDT.
And by the way, my posts are always copiously documented and quite of few of them have footnotes, while you run around calling people nazis and other names.
Of course, another thing that affected the numbers of pelican eggs was the California Fish and Game collecting hundreds of pelican eggs during the next two summers - and collecting 74% of all pelicans eggs for analysis obviously had something to do also with the brown pelican’s reduced numbers.
Wildavsky, A. “But is it True? A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues.” Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press; 1995.
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Research in the Life Sciences of the Committee on Science and Public Policy. The Life Sciences. Washington, D.C.; 1970:432.
Carson R. Silent Spring. Boston Mass.: Houghton Mifflin: 1962: frontispiece.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Jacques Cousteau’s famous quotation about world population isn’t that different from anyone else that’s been cited here on other posts:
“World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminated 350,000 people per day.”
December 17th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Actually, bathtub boy, you’re wrong about a lot of things.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
It has always been a tactic of the moonbat left to engage conservatives in endless debate in order to to wear us out. I figured this out some time ago and refuse to participate. If someone has a point, I’ll discuss it. But there is a real limit to how much time I’m willing to put into an argument with someone who just wants to pick a fight. When that limit is reached I simply ignore them. That generally leads to claim of victory from the moonbat because I won’t continue “the discussion” since I clearly have nothing to add. I ignore that too and just go on doing what I was doing. Their claims of victory are meaningless and they know it.
I suggest you take the same approach with this moron! He is wasting your time and energy and that is his goal.
December 17th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I would just stop feeding the troll and let him rant and rave all he wants and not answer his diatribes. As for the lawsuit, where is he going to go and file this lawsuit. What harm have you done in citing to things he doesn’t agree with. What Standing does he have with the court to bring this lawsuit??? How was he harmed personally??? You can’t just make a lawsuit about something you don’t like or we could sue the newspapars everyday because of all their libelous stuff that they write and their propaganda for the enemy. Just let him alone and he will eventually go away. I really do not see any kind of court that would take this case on merit.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
[…] Cao’s Blog Says: December 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm typical tactics of a leftist… […]
December 18th, 2007 at 6:27 am
If Wurster had a leg to stand on, he would have gone after Victor Yannacone.
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is produced by quacks? It’s an open access journal, a member of the Directory of Open Access Journals; formerly the Medical Sentinel. JPandS is the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. I guess he’s saying the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is comprised of a bunch of quacks, too. :sigh:
Sounds actually pretty noble to me, but then true to his socialists tendencies, he’s maligning an organization that doesn’t go for socialized medicine.
So it seems to me that bathtub boy just posits rather illiterate and far-fetched notions. What does bathtub boy know about quacks? The facts cited in Edwards’ abstract on DDT are scientific and peer-reviewed.
This bathtub guy is funny; he lies, he calls names, he makes things up.
At one point, he said Edwards’ cause of death at the age of 84 from a heart attack was from his exposure from DDT. As though he has a crystal ball!
His blind faith in the gods of global warming is unbelievable.
Thanks for your comments and advice, guys…
December 18th, 2007 at 10:43 am
There is discussion of mental unbalance. You read the document.
So, I take it you recommend going after the mentally ill for sins they didn’t commit? For all you know, Yannacone retracted. You’ve not bothered to investigate.
It is your behavior that is the issuehere, Cao. You know those charges are false. You’ve been scrambling to find corroboration, and there is none. It’s a crazy charge. Now you’re trying to blame your posting on a man who was ill 30 years ago.
Great accountability, Cao. Way to stand up for truth.
December 18th, 2007 at 10:57 am
JPandS is opposed to “socialized” medicine? Whoopie. So is the AMA. AMA doesn’t print pseudo-science stories denying HIV exists like JPandS does.
Your claim is that the article by Edwards was peer reviewed. If you check the PubMed lists, you’ll find that JPandS is not catalogued there, because it’s not considered accurate or peer reviewed. I doubt you’ll find it in any reputable index (if you do, holler — I’d like to search the archives myself).
In short, you’re quoting a tinfoil hat journal publishing the tinfoil hat arguments of the loser in a great public debate. Why you grant the article any credence, I don’t know.
Edwards’ article has the tell-tale sign of bogusness — note that it lists the citation for the Sweeney hearings as “40 CFR.” I already gave you the links to indicate that is a bogus citation. In fact, I gave you the actual links to the actual hearing decision. (Did you check it out yet? Why not?)
The JPandS article also cites the erroneous quote from the NAS publication, which I’ve given you links to.
I want to ask you about this particular form of dishonesty. Even with that inaccurate calculation, the book Edwards cites goes on to call for a ban on DDT, and it says that because DDT has been so useful, we need to find substitutes for it, but we need to learn the lessons of DDT, which include checking with the ecologists and scientists who study the life downstream of the application of the pesticide, to be sure not to repeat the mistakes of DDT again.
Edwards doesn’t tell us that the NAS publication he quotes condemns DDT and sides with Rachel Carson.
(See “Fisking JunkScience’s campaign for DDT: Point #6″ here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/fisking-junk-sciences-campaign-against-ddt-point-6/ )
Don’t you find that behavior by Edwards dishonest?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Unfortunately Cao, I myself have run into this mentality more often than I would care to remember.
The problem with convincing Darrel of the many lives that have been saved is that its impossible to prove a negative.
The best example I can come with would be the moonbats rejection to our counter terrorism efforts such as tapping into overseas communications and information gained through coerced interrogations.
The moonbats will say there’s no way to prove these methods work. When lives are saved there’s no way to prove the efforts worked. But when people die its easy to say “see I told you so”.
Same thing with these nuts that wont let their kids be inoculated with the flu vaccine. If the whole world was inoculated and no one got sick the moonbats would claim it was just a lucky year and had nothing to do with the vaccine, they would make some stupid **** up , you can bet on it.
I had a debate with some defeatist mentalities similar to Darrels on the subject of interrogating detainees and combatants. The subject was the ticking time bomb scenario. The approach from the moonbats was that even though the detainee gave up valuable info that enabled us to thwart an attack, there is no proof that the attack was actually life threatening.
The same thing with Saddam. The moonbats are convinced that had we left him unchecked, everything would of been just fine. There’s no proof that anything America did helped.
You’re absolutely on the money by telling Darrel that he needs to obtain some common sense.
But you are wasting your time.
I myself have looked into this.
To date, the worldwide ban on DDT has caused over 3 million malaria-related deaths. This ban initially came about because Rachel Carson—Al Gore’s environmental guru—wrote a piece of propaganda called Silent Spring. The really sickening part of the story is this: the scientific case against DDT is, was, and always has been completely nonexistent. Over half a century has passed since the malaria-spraying campaigns first began, and since that time, millions upon millions of people have been exposed to large concentrations of DDT. And yet, according to every single scientific report on the subject, including that of renowned international health scholar Amir Attaran,
In a 1956 study, volunteers ate raw DDT every day for two-plus years and showed absolutely no ill effects, then or now.
says physicist Keith Lockitch,
The following quote also comes from Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring: “The town is almost devoid of robins and starlings; chickadees have not been [present] for two years, and this year the cardinals are gone, too. . . . ‘Will they ever come back?’ [the children] ask, and I do not have the answer.”
Apart from being embarrassingly overwritten, this is just pure fiction. The Audubon Society, though sympathetic to Carson’s claims, has stated publicly that no extinctions or significant loss to bird populations came about through the use of DDT.
It should be noted furthermore that the seven listed as “declining” declined only slightly and not through any demonstrable link with DDT.
On the other hand, a malaria-fighter named Fred Soper, who supports the use of DDT, describes malaria in Egypt, circa 1943, this way:
It is the environmentalists who have routinely protested hydroelectric dams, no matter the consequences, forget the fact that hydroelectric dams provide clean electrical energy and clean water. It is also environmentalists who have repeatedly campaigned against genetically modified agriculture, even though this agriculture is remarkably resistant to drought and disease. And so it seems only fitting that it was also environmentalists who banned DDT, thereby creating a malaria resurgence which, in the form of millions of Third World residents, is killing and killing up to this very day.
In the words of Earth First! founder Dave Foreman:
That is a tiny taste of the humanity of environmentalism at work for you in the real world.
Here’s more:
Quoting Robert W. Tracinski, former editor of The Intellectual Activist:
In closing I have a link that Darrel may want to take a look at if he truly believes that man is a scourge to mankind. http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
If he truly cares, he will take their advice.
And as a bonus he will not have to worry about that ridiculously frivolous attempt of threatening you with litigation.
ROTFLMAO
December 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
There you go again, using your blog as a citation.
Wise up and realize I don’t recognize you as an expert on anything except-you’re a prime example of blind moonbattery.
Thanks, Mickey2, that was valuable information.
December 18th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Rush often says that Liberals get very hilarious the minute they are out of power. This is just another great example of a socialist squirrel running around rabid!
~Teddy Bear
December 18th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Right you are, Teddy Bear. One of the many things that cracks me up is his talking about Rachel Carson like she’s some kind of end-all expert on DDT when she was a marine biologist.
In her book, she talked about a lot of things outside her field of expertise.
Like genetics, for example. She misuses the word “mutagen”, mis-cites or misinterprets the writings of medical authorities; talks about cancer in ways that are highly speculative or have been discarded, describes carcinogenic chemicals that are unlikely to be genuine cancer-causing agents, and describes chemicals in general as “the sinister and little-recognize partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world-the very nature of its life” - Carson, 1962, p. 16
It’s already noted that she misquoted Albert Schweitzer on DDT…she also claims in her book that DDT was a part of the war machine and was developed as a chemical of death. DDT was not developed as a weapon against people and its effects on people have never been proven, including the cancer claim.
Carson was a naturalist and a skilled library researcher, but she wasn’t a practicing research scientist–at least as far as the modern definition.
It is research scientists that Edwards cites in his abstract, and unfortunately for the man in the bathtub, these are the authorities I continue to rely upon.
But I go one step further: I like to point out the radical Marxist view of the socioeconomic aspects of the environmental crisis such as those produced in “The Suicidal Civilization”, 1971, by L. Joesik, who was then an agricultural economist and lecturer at the Academy of Marxism-Leninism in Budapest.
The more I look into Carson’s history - her dependence on government for her job and security, no apparent man in her life, her questionable sexuality - the book detailing some of the letters that were not destroyed; “Always, Rachel: The Letters of Rachel Carson and Dorothy Freeman, 1952–1964: An Intimate Portrait of a Remarkable Friendship,” the more I realize that her ideology fits within the confines of those “women’s studies” departments in universities todaym or the female officers in the military who want to advance. They lie to further their agenda, just like Martha McSally and others.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
There is not a respectable researcher among that bunch, with the possible exception of Edwards before he went around the bend on Carson.
One of the key problems is that you have no evidence to offer that doesn’t come from the political crazies (Lyndon Larouche’s bunch), Gordon Edwards’ rants, or Steven Milloy’s corporate-paid republications of Edwards’ Larouche-published rants.
I mean, really - you can see through that, too, can’t you?
December 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
That’s really despicable, Cao. Shame on you.
::shaking dust off the sandals::
December 20th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Take a long toke on that bong. It’ll make the dust on your sandals less irritating.
No matter what the weather, around leftists it’s best to wear waist-high boots for all the BS they throw around.
Who wears sandals in winter?
LOL
somebody who’s not that bright, I think…even in Fort Worth, Texas, the temperature is only 54 degrees.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Hey moonbat Ed. Why don’t you please find another way to entertain yourself, because you are offending me. Do you know what happens to people who offend other people around here anymore? You just may have a lawsuit from me, if you were man enough to give up your real name and address.
I’d be careful if I were you, for I am very familiar with the scientific method and the DDT hoax. Yes, it is a hoax. We do not have the right to get rid of malaria in the USA and then tell the world they cannot use the same product to save lives where they live. Are you recommending after-birth abortions now? Do you have a soul?
May 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Wurster’s “quote” about “too many people” was a statement made by Yannacone to an audience in New York. Eventually, the quote became part of a libel suit and Yannacone was deposed. The court said his testimony was vague and his memory bad.
Yannacone’s remarks came a few months after the Environmental Defense Fund received significant support from the Ford Foundation. However, Ford Foundation wanted EDF to have a new lead attorney with academic achievements. Yannacone had a very undistinguished academic record and was never more than an unpaid volunteer.
Yannacone was told of the decision to hire an attorney with an Ivy League background and he had to leave after a heated argument with many of the founders. He was angry and blamed the “elitists” who did not respect people who had not gone to prestigious institutions.
The remarks he made later were an exaggeration and an effort to get back at the group that failed to back him.
Yannacone would later use the press to heap invective upon the group that replaced him in the Agent Orange class action after he petitioned the court to release him when he no longer had the ability to continue funding the action.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Whether or not Wurster said too many people is not the point. Desowitz stated this in 1992:
It’s entirely believable that Wurster would have made that statement. I think obfuscating the issue with nit-picking like that doesn’t serve any purpose at all.
Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome: In an essay in a book called The Discipline of Curiosity, King wrote that DDT’s main problem was that it worked too well at saving Third World lives. “In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem.”
Jeff Hoffman, poster on popular environmental news site Grist.org: Arguing against efforts to resume DDT use to combat malaria in Africa, Hoffman explained, “Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria.”
The population explosion is something that leftists have always been worried about; and just like Che Guevara who said the advancement of communism is worth millions of lives, so the environmentalists believed that stopping malaria control by discontinuing DDT use in third world countries would “help”. Interestingly enough, their hysterical predictions about the world’s population never came to fruition; just like the other apocalyptic predictions they’ve made in the past.
Eco Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health -John Berlau
Regardless as to whether or not Wurster said it, Environmentalists are famous for propping the overpopulation myth as another reason why DDT should not be used in third world countries….in addition to protecting bird populations that aren’t even threatened (Carson claimed the American robin and several other prolific breeding species were threatened; wrong!)
May 13th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
I agree with you on the issue of DDT. I became interested in the history of the issue and the Wurster “quote” stood out on its own and seemed to have a strange, out of place , quality to it.
Yannacone has had a history of much fiery rhetoric but little else. Yannacone was telling tales to a New York City audience about a person who might be considered to have had a lawyer/client priviledge with Yannacone. Lawyers do not tell stories about private conversations with their associates.
No one else at EDF supported Yannacone’s story. The reason that he never retracted the story may be due to the fact that he could have been disciplined as an attorney for putting out a false story about an organization that he claimed he was the lead attorney for in litigation. The reason the Wurster never went after him may be that Yannacone had become a marginalized eccentric. (He later represented Linda Lovelace in an unsuccessful lawsuit and was mentioned in her autobiography.)
Actually, I think the whole thing shows the shallow scientific basis for the eco movement and the nature of the political opportunists who flocked to it.