Customer Reviews

Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense against Health Scares and Scams

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Steven Milloy's "Junk Science Judo", the complement to Milloy's website, junkscience.com, is an easy-to-read, common sense tutorial illuminating and debunking the steady stream of health scares and scams spewing from activists, lobbyists, industry, and government on a daily basis. Aided by television and print media interested more in attracting audiences than in reporting fact, Milloy exposes the less-than-pure motives behind the so-called science, offering a layman's explanation of the tools, techniques, and statistical analysis to determine fact from fraud, and to draw logical conclusions independent of the hype. While some of the chapters discussing the actual statistical technique may run a bit dry, for the most part this is a quick and entertaining read. In addition to taking on controversial topics like DDT, PCBs, and dioxin, Milloy debunks popular environmental mega myths including Agent Orange, Love Canal, Cancer Clusters, Three Mile Island, and others. While you may have always believed the "science" behind much today's highly publicized health risks suspect, "Junk Science Judo" will arm you with the facts behind the politics, and some common sense to counter the hysteria.

I used this book as a supplement to my statistics and QA courses. The book is pretty well written and points out some great examples of the misuse of statistics.

I used this book as a supplement to my statistics and QA courses. The book is pretty well written and points out some great examples of the misuse of statistics.

Let me begin by saying that if this book does nothing more than cause you to think for yourself and investigate the issues discussed in it, then your purchase will have been well worth it.

Human beings have deeply held belief that we are the center of the universe. This metaphysical belief is demonstrated quite well, but not only, when it comes to the environment. People given over to this view will always see humans as "the problem." And to a degree, that is true at certain times and in more limited circumstances. But, in a more important, unintended way, they are right: humans are the problem, especially their hubris in seeing humans as "the problem."

The power (plate tectonics, vulcanism, etc.) and complexity (climatology, etc.) of the earth is beyond the full understaning of humans. Why some people seem to need to deny this has nothign to do with science, it is a matter of religion. And this is a book about science, debunking, in its way, "religiously" held beliefs about the natural world.

This book provides the reader with numerous opportunities to think things through, to reason scientifically with one's brain, rather than feeling with one's heart or "gut." If you believe something, but can't back it up with facts and logical arguments, then you won't enjoy this book.

Many people are intimidatd by science. And some of the most intimidated people incongruently seek, at the same time, to misuse and malign science. This book, on a wide variety of topics, requires one to drop this facade of pseudoscience for a more open and questioning outlook.

"There are lies, there are dam*ed lies, and then there are statistics". Or should I say, badly skewed and extremely bad assumptions made not on statistical analysis but emotional agendas.

Perhaps the Swedish commenter above was but one of the "so called researchers" that was proven hysterical in this often hilariously revealing book.

The greenhousers, the cancer commentators, and the news media that jumps on any outlandish story to fill in for a slow news day will HATE this book.

For the rest of us Joe-Schmoe-Give-It-To-Me-Straight-Folks, we'll LOVE it!

I'm sure we've all learned through the media that EVERYTHING causes cancer, and we're all a bunch of selfish people who's own flatulence causes the earth to grow warmer and our earth to perish, and none of us on this planet seem to appreciate the fact that no one can think for themselves - that is - not without the media spoon feeding us junk science. It's a shame there aren't more people as skeptical and practical as this guy. More starving nations would be fed. More sick people cured instead of being injured by bad science or worse...lies. More hysteria avoided. Wow, wouldn't the family get togethers be alot better when everyone finally figures out that cholesterol actually is responsible for the building blocks of your brain instead of ...drum roll please... HEART DISEASE!

Go you Junk Science Debunker!

First, I'm a card-carrying skeptic. In fact, I worked for various "political" organizations for years. I grew tired of their self-serving, sanctimonious--and largely dubious--charges. Environmental groups were often the worst: "The world will turn into a cesspool tomorrow unlesss you contribute to us."

Then a friend of mine, an arch-conservative, e-mailed me the web page on which I found this book. It's from the TV network for whose "news" the author of this tract contributes. Being a skeptic I still took a close look.

That the author is with CATO is a sign, but not a condemnation. (Indeed, I've positively reviewed a book by another CATO associate here in Amazon.com!) I too am somewhat of a libertarian, in a "liberal" sort of way. That is, I think governments should not interfere with SOME things, though, agencies like the FDA, even maybe ATF, can be invaluable and NECESSARY resources.

But the TV network to which I referred--suffice it to say I won't let that network's "news" on the television in my house--combined with CATO, that's a lethal combination.

There are scores of useful and reasonably objective books which are skeptical of alarmism out there. This is not one. This is just a propoganda rag for the corporations who think they should be able to do their own thing--while manipulating the public to accept possibly dangerous products and practices. (See "Trust Us, We're Experts" suggested by another reviewer, and "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" by the same authors.)
And don't get wooed by the "junk science" in the title. The author is an advocate of another junk science, the one catering to his ideology.

Next time you hear someone say, "Well, researchers linked that to cancer." You will be able to say, "When you say 'link', do you mean causation or correlation?" If you are truly sick of people scaring you with heatlh and enviromental issues, than you need this book. This book will help you ask the right questions about hysteria driven stories. You can even upset your local journalist and prove them WRONG! This book makes an excellent gift for the worry-wart in your family who keeps screaming "it causes cancer!"

BOOK REVIEW

Junk Science Judo. Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams by Steven J. Milloy, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 2001, ix-xii + 218 pp.

A superb manual for understanding health claims and detecting fraud, "Junk Science Judo" is written in a punchy, easy-to-read style that allows the mathematically challenged, like myself, to interpret the usual bell-curve statistics that are used for environmental health threats and diet threats. One may also use this approach to judge the benefits of prescription drugs or alternative treatments. He shows how to look for p values of 0.05 or less, and he shows how to use the 95% confidence intervals (CI) to see whether the low or high limit crosses the reference value of 1.00. If it does, Milloy suggests disregarding any result that is claimed.

In epidemiological or ecologic studies, Milloy suggests discarding those results in which the relative risk (RR) is between 0.5 and 2.00, whichever applies. Milloy goes far beyond the usual cautions that an association is not necessarily a cause. He is contemptuous of, but not totally dismissive of epidemiology. For Milloy, the descending pecking order of research on health hazards is: clinical trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and ecologic studies. He describes publication bias, confounding, and "tainted experts". He reminds us that mice are not little people, and that there is a safe dose of everything.

Milloy encourages intelligent contact with the sources of health advice to support or refute the recommendations, and he recommends a number of sources of supposedly reliable health information. His criticism of medical journals, which includes the defects of peer-review, is the most detailed I have seen in print, and very well-taken, in my opinion. He skewers broadcast media on their emphasis on ratings rather than accuracy or balance. He deplores the motivation of many activists. Many specific examples are given, from Alar to radiation.

This book is extremely valuable for helping anyone who is not a medical or epidemiological specialist to judge the value of health or health-threat claims.

Now the bad news. Milloy does not question the use 1-tailed statistics, or the failure of many relationships to follow a bell-curve (Kauffman, 2001). Milloy failed to warn of the common deception of reporting an effect of something on a certain health condition without the inclusion of total death rates. Milloy's fine example of prostate cancer "non-prevention" by eating foods high in selenium (p164) may mislead people into ignoring the benefits of selenium supplementation, which has been shown in a clinical trial to lower the RR of all cancers to 0.83 (95% CI 0.47-0.85), and is most effective against lung, prostate, and colorectal cancers (Clark et al., 1996). Milloy downplays the dangers of trans fats (Oomen et al., 2001), but his own example shows that the highest two quintiles of consumption are not healthful (p165). Milloy made the mistake of writing that the absence of a biological explanation for the claimed effects of electric and magnetic fields means that they have no effects (p76); readers of JSE know that such judgments based on lack of knowledge are faulty. ....
Joel M. Kauffman
...

References

Clark, L. C. et al. (17), (1996). Effects of Selenium Supplementation for Cancer Prevention in Patients with Carcinoma of the Skin. A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of the American Medical Society, 276, 1957-1963.

Kauffman, J. M. (2001). Article of Interest. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 15(4), 575-576.

Oomen, C. M., Ocké, M. C., Feskens, E. J. M., van Erp-Baart, M.-A. J., Kok, F. J., & Kromhout, D. (2001). Association between trans fatty acid intake and 10-year risk of coronary heart disease in the Zutphen Elderly Study: a prospective population-based study. The Lancet, 357, 746-751.

If you're tired of being frightened and victimized by the never ending procession of doom-and-gloom prognostications, this book is for you. It lucidly explains how statistics and "scientific" studies are routinely manipulated by groups with their own agendas who are willingly assisted by the media who are all too happy to be given a shocking headline for public consumption. After reading this book, you will never react to alarmist news reports in the same way.

This book does a very good job of explaining, in easy to understand terms, how to tell good science from bad, how to identify the different types of studies and methods, what to keep an eye out for, and how to differentiate between anecdotes, statistics, and science.

I find it quite ironic that the only negative reviews here are of the ad hominem variety of which the author warns us to be wary.