About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I am angry. I am very angry. New Zealand is being lied to and I don't like it. I would very much appreciate your advice on how to proceed.

As some background, please check out this great introduction into some basic epidemiological truths: http://www.fumento.com/tenet.html

I read Michael Fumento's book, Science Under Siege, a few months ago and it really opened my eyes. It's a clear indictment of the lies that some environmentalists perpetrate in their efforts to reduce us to agrarian serfs. If I hadn't read his book, I'm not sure I would have noticed the scaremongering, fact-twisting and blatant lies in a recent spate of articles and editorials published by the largest newspaper in this country.

This all started in 2001. See the archive of stories on this page. Start at the bottom and work your way up.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storyarchive.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=general&reportid=1162658

They published about two dozen articles with skewed reporting of facts and sentimental 'The Victim/Doctor/Midwife as Expert on Epidemiology'-type stories. I was outraged beyond words. Most of the articles are textbook cases of bad investigative reporting where the facts are glossed over and we are told in agonizingly sentimental tones of the suffering of a vocal few people who have convinced themselves that their diseases are caused by negligible levels of dioxins in their neighbourhood.

However, all the verifiable statistics prove that the neighbourhood in question has no significant deviation from the average national cancer or birth defect rates. Disturbingly, most of these articles don't mention this fact and if they do, they mention it in a way which is supposed to cast doubt on the veracity of the statistics.

Here are the reports from the epidemiological studies: http://www.moh.govt.nz/dioxins

For some slightly more balanced reporting, search for 'dioxin' on http://www.stuff.co.nz/

Please, what should I do? I am considering writing a letter to the newspaper decrying their lack of journalistic ethics and blatant sensationalism. I am so angry that I want to scream whenever I try to sit down and write something. Even writing this has taken a huge psychological effort. Could you please recommend the best approach to take to achieve a positive result and shine the light of truth on these prevaricating bastards?

Sincere regards
Julian L. Pistorius
(Edited by Julian Pistorius on 9/11, 10:08pm)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:22pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Julian:

"Angry" is good sometimes.

Can I suggest: YES, write to the paper.

Also, send the same message to Libertarianz and I'm sure they can turn it into a press release.

The hardest part about crimes such as these is the feeling that you cannot do anything about it. But you can! Letters ARE read. I send a letter off to my local paper - the Majorca Daily Bulletin :) - every month and after a couple of years doing so, am always running into customers or contacts who will tell me that they read the letter, and yes I was right, and wondering why nobody else agrees with me. There is a large silent minority out there ready to be rallied, or at least persuaded or convinced. Visibility is the key. We must not cede the arguments through silence.

Good on you for posting here. Good luck with your fight!



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:31pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
On that note, now that you got me thinking about my childhood in NZ and environmentalism, I was recently reflecting and remembered learning about "Conservation Day" at school.

I was livid, shocked, mortified when I realised that I had been taught that "the environment" was to be considered an intrinsic good. At the age of 5. And 6. And 7. And 8... at a public school, evil ideas reinforced by "teachers".

Shocked, because I realised that had I never read Ayn Rand, or a letter from the likes of you, Julian, I may still wear that dumb anti-life philosophy of tree-worship that is carried unreservedly by most of the population of the Sheeples Republic of Aotearoa.

We owe it to ourselves to make correct philosophy and arguments heard because we are VERY much swimming against the tide, and without our efforts, that tide will only get stronger.



Post 3

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:51amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
As a further exhibit of the duplicity of many environmentalists, the following article was published in the Toronto Globe and Mail Sept. 19, 1991, by Stephen Strauss in his column, "Mind and Matter,  How some politically compromised scientists soured scientific truth.
Come to my woman's breasts, And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers." — Lady Macbeth."
I have been struggling this week with the strange notion that if Lady Macbeth were here she would be spitting her hate-filled mother's milk at the politically compromised scientists who work for the International Joint Commission that oversees the management of the Great Lakes.

Three weeks ago, a report by the IJC science advisory council caused a near panic among breast feeding mothers. The women who read news accounts suggesting that new evidence showed polychlorinated biphenyls in breast milk were more dangerous than had been previously thought. Specifically, they were told that half the offspring of female rhesus monkeys with PCB levels in their milk (levels that had been thought safe in humans) died within four months after birth. Surviving infants had severe memory problems and movement impairment that was evident even three years later.
 

… The report suggested that the current safety standards for PCBs in breat milk were anywhere from 100 to 1,000 times too high.

 

Scary, scary stuff. But I am here to tell you that much of the science reported within that paper is either wrong or so massively incomplete that it draws erroneous implications from the studies it quotes. And that the authors of the report admit they didn't present the whole truth because they believed terrified nursing mothers would make potent allies in their fight against Great Lakes Pollution. (emphasis mine)

 

…. When John Vallentyne, the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters scientist who heads up the IJC scientific advisory board, was asked if the report hadn't consciously tried to play up the fears of contaminated breast milk to recruit fearful mothers in the fight against lake pollution, he was candid, "In essence you are right," he says. If so, why did the report not mention qualifications about the science? "What you are advocating is what you in the media curse us for: Big words, long sentences, qualifications," he says.


 

It seems that the right politics was more important than the muddy truth for IJC scientists. "IJC is in some ways an advocacy group," says Dr. Hall. And as such he can argue that the ends justify the means. "What if we are totally wrong [about PCB in breast milk] and the environment is cleaned up. What have we lost," he says.(emphasis mine)

 

What can I say? You have lost my trust in you as scientists. You have lost nursing mother's trust that you won't cynically manipulate their fears and feelings. You've lost touch with the truth. And you have made gall out of mother's milk.

 

Shame, shame.

Needless to say, I had a scathing response to this which ended:

 

"Self-regulated professions such as lawyers, engineers and doctors provide a mechanism for punishing unethical behavior; no such device seems to exist to tarnish the reputation of these scoundrels. Perhaps a case could be made for the misuse of public funds but if the law cannot be made to bear on them, all we may be able to do is shower them with the scorn they deserve."

 

Sam





Post 4

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Correction to the above ... I quoted Stephen Strauss correctly when he said:
The report suggested that the current safety standards for PCBs in breat milk were anywhere from 100 to 1,000 times too high.
but he obviously made an error. The safety standards were alleged to be 100 to 1,000 times too low.

Sam

(edited for grammar)

(Edited by Sam Erica on 9/12, 11:02am)




Post 5

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 9:44amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I sympathise with your anger Julian, but I'm afraid it's all of a piece with the entire structure we are living in.  It's exactly what you get when governments fund science. A few years ago,  I met up socially with a biology researcher, who said - in answer to my question - that his field of research was the effect of the Crown of Thorns starfish on the coral reef. (this was at James Cook Uni in Townsville, a noted Marine Biology centre). I said that I understood that Crown of Thorns was now known to be a natural, recurring phenomenon, and of no lasting significance to the coral. He smiled slowly and slyly and said "oh well, I guess I can still "work it" for a couple more years"  Yes, he was that blatant.
Cass




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.