Hoax exposed: “The Great Global Warming Swindle’s” swindle

July 14, 2009

Nicely done, too, I think; this is one more alarm bell to tell us why there will be no Nobel Peace Prize for global warming deniers.

From the same guy who so brilliantly brings us the Global Warming Crock of the Week:

Tip of the old scrub brush to Tim Lambert at Deltoid.

23 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, Cost of Green, denialism, Environmental protection, Global warming, Hoaxes, Junk science, Science, Voodoo science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Bated breath, bated brains, bated sense and DDT

July 11, 2009

At the root of all the false tales about Rachel Carson and DDT there are a handful of sources, all of them with an axe to grind.  In any discussion where someone tries to make a claim that DDT is good but misunderstood, or that Rachel Carson was evil tantamount to Pol Pot, Mao ze Dong and Lex Luther combined, the sources will turn out to be Gordon Edwards, Steven Milloy parroting Gordon Edwards, Elizabeth Whelan, Roger Bate, or Richard Tren.

Oh, there’s that Driessen guy, but he just quotes these other guys, appearing not to bother to check the accuracy of their statements.

Roger Bate in his high-salaried position as a propagandist for AEI.

Roger Bate in his well-paid position as a propagandist for AEI.

Not one of these sources is an expert on DDT or its class of chemicals.  None of them is an entomologist, other than Gordon Edwards, whose productive work in entomology ended well before he fell in with Lyndon LaRouche and other America-hating groups.

It’s a tight-knit bunch, largely out of the sight of reporters and fact-checkers — and definitely out of the sight of scientists who work in either malaria reduction, wildlife management, or toxics control

If you care about science, about the War on Science (you out there, Mooney?), if you care about health care in Africa, Africa, Asia or generally about fighting malaria and saving kids’ lives; if you have any dog in the wise management of natural resources and especially wildlife; if you care about environmental protection, and wise government policies that will protect your children’s and grandchildren’s health and heritage, you need to read this article on Roger Bate. [Article archived here, now; or here.]

Now operating out of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Bate’s signature coup to date has been to spread the myth that environmentalists, by preventing the use of the pesticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane) to kill mosquitoes in developing countries, have heartlessly caused millions of malaria deaths worldwide. It needs to be said at the outset that this argument is untrue. While some groups have pressed hard to find alternatives, there is little evidence that a concerted effort to abolish anti-malaria DDT spraying ever occurred. Of the few environmental organizations that even pay attention to pesticide use overseas, the ones with any clout all support a clause in the Stockholm Convention that allows DDT use for public health reasons.

The fact that this knowledge has not stopped Roger Bate is not surprising. The wider the untrue story spreads, the worse environmentalists look, and that’s always been his bottom line. For all his personal likeability, he is a man on a mission, and because he doesn’t let anything slow down the pace and scope of his argument, he is very good at what he does.

The story is titled “Bate and Switch: How a free-market magician manipulated two decades of environmental science.”

Adam Sarvana wrote the story for the Public Education Center (PEC), a non-profit center with an investigative journalism experiment based in Washington, D.C.  (Note to newspapers:  You can probably get rights to print this story.)

Quick!  Warn the others:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Read the rest of this entry »

5 Comments | Accuracy, Africa, DDT, Health care, Hoaxes, Malaria, Public health, Science, War on Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Is the FBI in on the Nigerian Scam, now?

July 7, 2009

Oh, don’t you love it?

Now they’re getting the scams pre-cleared by the FBI!

I just love being referred to as “undisclosed recipient.”

I especially enjoyed the use of the FBI’s seal and Robert Mueller’s signature, as if the director of the FBI personally certifies lottery winners for private organizations, or any organization.  All spellings and punctuations just so:

Official FBI Information for You

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:05 PM
From:
“Federal Bureu Of Investigation” <SamlottoFBI@fbi.gov>

To:
undisclosed-recipients
Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division.
Federal Bureau Of Investigation.
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20535
ATTN: BENEFICIARY

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigation with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you legally won the sum of $800,000.00 USD. from a Lottery Company outside the United States of America. During our investigation we discovered that your e-mail won the money from an Online Balloting System and we have authorized this winning to be paid to you via a Certified Cashier’s Check.


Normally, it will take up to 10 business days for an International Check to be cashed by your local banks. We have successfully notified this company on your behalf that funds are to be drawn from a registered bank within the United States Of America so as to enable you cash the check instantly without any delay, henceforth the stated amount of $800,000.00 USD. has been deposited with Bank Of America.

We have completed this investigation and you are hereby approved to receive the winning prize as we have verified the entire transaction to be Safe and 100% risk free, due to the fact that the funds have been deposited at Bank Of America you will be required to settle the following bills directly to the Lottery Agent in-charge of this transaction whom is located in Lagos, Nigeria. According to our discoveries, you were required to pay for the following –

(1) Deposit Fee’s ( Fee’s paid by the company for the deposit into an American Bank which is – Bank Of America )
(2) Cashier’s Check Conversion Fee ( Fee for converting the Wire Transfer payment into a Certified Cashier’s Check )

The total amount for everything is $200.00 (Two Hundred-US Dollars). We have tried our possible best to indicate that this $200.00 should be deducted from your winning prize but we found out that the funds have already been deposited at Bank Of America and cannot be accessed by anyone apart from you, the winner; therefore you will be required to pay the required fee’s to the Agent in-charge of this transaction via Western Union Money Transfer Or Money Gram.

In order to proceed with this transaction, you will be required to contact the agent in-charge ( SAMUEL OLIVER ) via e-mail. Kindly look below to find appropriate contact information:

CONTACT AGENT NAME: SAMUEL OLIVER
E-MAIL ADDRESS: sammufbilotto911@sify.com
You will be required to e-mail him with the following information:
FULL NAME:
ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP CODE:
DIRECT CONTACT NUMBER:

You will also be required to request Western Union details on how to send the required $200.00 in order to immediately ship your prize of $800,000.00 USD via Certified Cashier’s Check drawn from Bank Of America, also include the following transaction code in order for him to immediately identify this transaction : EA2948-910.

This letter will serve as proof that the Federal Bureau Of Investigation is authorizing you to pay the required $200.00 ONLY to Mr. Samuel Oliver  via information in which he shall send to you, if you do not receive your winning prize of $800,000.00 we shall be held responsible for the loss and this shall invite a penalty of $3,000 which will be made PAYABLE ONLY to you (The Winner).

Please find below an authorized signature which has been signed by the FBI Director- Robert Mueller, also below is the FBI NSB (National Security

FBI Director
Robert Mueller.

NSB Seal

Authorized Signature

NSB SEAL ABOVE
NOTE: In order to ensure your check gets delivered to you ASAP, you are advised to immediately contact Mr. Samuel Oliver via contact information provided above and make the required payment of $200.00 to information in which he shall provide to you.

Sam, I won’t be responding.  The FBI doesn’t offer the service of verifying lottery winners, especially for people who didn’t enter the lottery.

And of course, it’s already been done — this is the same scam I got last February, just presented with a couple of graphics to try to make it look more official.  At least they lost the name of their contact, “Peter Water.”

Sure, it’s wire fraud.  Is there any way to get any authority to prosecute?

6 Comments | Hoaxes, Humor, Internet | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

#1 hoax site on the web

July 5, 2009

This may be the #1 hoax site on the web:  Martinlutherking.org. Certainly it is a site dangerous for children, because it cleverly purports to be an accurate history site, while selling voodoo history and racism.

A racist group bought the domain name (note the “.org” suffix), and they’ve managed to keep it.  The site features a drawing of Martin Luther King, Jr., on the first page.  The racist elements are subtle enough that unwary students and teachers may not recognize it for the hoax site it is.

It is both racist and hoax:  Note the link to a racist argument on “Why the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday should be repealed;”  note the link to a hoax page, “Black invention myths.”

Students, nothing on that site should be trusted. Teachers, warn students away from the site.  You may want to use that site as a model of what a bad site looks like, and the importance of weighing the credibility of any site found on the web.

Why do I even mention the racist, hoax site? Because it comes upi #3 on Google searches for “Martin Luther King.”  Clearly a lot of people are being hoodwinked into going to that site.  I’ve seen papers by high school students citing the site, with teachers unaware of the site’s ignoble provenance.

Update: The site is owned by Stormfront, a white supremicist organization.

Here are a few good sites on the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; you can help things by clicking on each one of these sites, and by copying this list with links and posting it on your blog:

More resources:

15 Comments | Accuracy, Bogus history, Civil Rights, History, History audio sources, History Methods and Tools, Hoaxes, Libraries, Martin Luther King, Racism, Voodoo history | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Bathtub reading on a warm June Sunday

June 7, 2009

I thought everybody does serious reading in the bathtub, no?

The Boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona; the Pima Air & Space Museum now offers bus tours of the 309th Maintenance and Regeneration Groups collection of scrapped and very historic airplanes

The Boneyard at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona; the Pima Air & Space Museum now offers bus tours of the 309th Maintenance and Regeneration Group's collection of scrapped and very historic airplanes

Can’t soak all day.

6 Comments | Airplanes, Archaeology, Fossils, Geography - Physical, geology, History, History museums, Hoaxes, Journalism, Museums, Politics, Religion, Religious Freedom, Research, Science, Social Studies | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Is Texas the state most vulnerable to global climate change?

June 6, 2009

John Mashey occasionally graces these pages with his comments — a cool, reasoned head on hot issues like global warming/global climate change, despite his history in computers or maybe because of it (which would put the lie to the idea that computer programming explains why so many computer programmers are wacky intelligent design advocates).

Mashey offered a comment over at RealClimate on a post about hoaxer and science parodist Christopher Monckton — a comment you ought to read if  you think about Texas ever, and especially if you like the place.  It’s comment #413 on that Gigantor blog.

Monckton wrote a letter to the New York Times and attached to it a graph.  The graph, it turns out, probably would need to be classified in the fiction section of a library or book store, were it a book.  Much discussion occurs, absent any appearance by Monckton himself who does not defend his graphs by pointing to sources that might back what his graphs say, usually.

In short, the post and the extensive comments shed light on the problems of veracity which plague so many who deny either that warming is occurring, or that air pollution from humans might have anything to do with it, or that humans might actually be able to do anything to mitigate the changes or the damage, or that humans ought to act on the topic at all.

So I’ve stolen Mashey’s comment lock, stock and barrel, to give it a little more needed highlight.

If you follow environmental issues much, you probably know Count Christopher Monckton as a man full of braggadocio and bad information on climate.  He is known to have worked hard to hoodwink the U.S. Congress with his claims of expertise and policy legitimacy, claiming to be a member of the House of Lords though he is not (some climate change deniers in Congress appear to have fallen for the tale).  He pops up at denialist conferences, accuses scientists of peddling false information, and he is a shameless self-promoter.

After much discussion, Mashey turned his attention to claims that Texans don’t know better than Monckton, and other things; Mashey notes that denialists cite Monckton’s performance at a conservative political show in Texas, instead having paid attention to real climate scientists who were meeting just up the road, for free:

AGW’s impact depends on where you live
OR
Texas is Not Scotland, even when a Scottish peer visits

1) SCOTLAND
Viscount Monckton lives in the highlands of Scotland (Carie, Rannoch, 57degN, about the same as Juneau, AK, but warmer from Gulf Stream.)

a) SEA LEVEL, STORMS
Most of Scotland (esp the highlands) is well above sea level, and in any case, from Post-Glacial Rebound, it’s going up. [Not true of Southern England.]

b) PRECIPITATION
Scotland gets lots of regular precipitation. From that, he likely gets ~1690mm or more rainfall/year, noticeably more than Seattle or Vancouver.

Scotland has complex, variable weather systems, with more rain in West than in East, but has frequent precipitation all year.

c) TEMPERATURE
Scotland’s climate would likely be better with substantial warming. See UK Met Office on Scotland, which one might compare with NASA GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change. Scotland average maximum temperatures are 18-19C in the summer, i.e., in most places it might occasionally get up to 70F, although of course it varies by geography. +3C is no big deal. The record maximum was 32.9C (91F), set in 2003. Maybe there is yet a good future for air-conditioning/cooling vendors.

If one does a simple linear regression on both sets of annual data, one finds that SLOPE(Scotland) = .0071C/year, SLOPE(world) = .0057C/year, i.e., Scotland is warming slightly faster than the world as a whole.

d) AGRICULTURE
The combination of b) and c) is, most likely *good* for agriculture in Scotland. There is plenty of rain, and higher temperatures mean less snow and a longer growing season. Great!

In addition, the British geoscientist/vineyard archaeologist Richard Selley thinks that while it may be too hot for good vineyards in Southern England by 2080, it will be fine for some areas of Scotland.
Future Loch Ness Vineyard: great!

e) OIL+GAS, ENERGY
Fossil fuel production (North Sea oil&gas) is very important to the Scotland economy. Wikipedia claims oil-related employment is 100,000 (out of total population of about 5M).

Scotland has not always been ecstatic to be part of the UK.

2) TEXAS
The Viscount Monckton spoke for Young Conservatives of Texas, April 28 @ Texas A&M, which of course has a credible Atmospheric Sciences Department. Of course, many of them were unable to hear the Viscount because they were in Austin at CLIMATE CHANGE Impacts on TEXAS WATER, whose proceedings are online. See especially Gerald North on Global Warming and TX Water.

Monckton delivered his message: “no worries, no problems” which might well fit Scotland just fine, at least through his normal life expectancy.

The message was delivered to Texans typically in their 20s, many of whom would expect to see 2060 or 2070, and whose future children, and certainly grandchildren, might well see 2100.

Texas is rather different from Scotland, although with one similarity (oil+gas).

a) SEA LEVEL, STORMS

Texas has a long, low coastline in major hurricane territory.
Brownsville, TX to Port Arthur is a 450-mile drive, with coastal towns like Corpus Christi, Galveston, and Port Arthur listed at 7 feet elevations. The center of Houston is higher, but some the TX coast has subsidence issues, not PGR helping it rise. The Houston Ship Canal and massive amounts of infrastructure are very near sea level. More people live in the Houston metropolitan area + rest of the TX coast than in all of Scotland.

Of course, while North Sea storms can be serious, they are not hurricanes. IF it turns out that the intensity distribution of hurricanes shifts higher, it’s not good, since in the short term (but likely not the long term), storm surge is worse than sea level rise.

Hurricane Rita (2005) and Hurricane Ike (2008) both did serious damage, but in some sense, both “missed” Houston. (Rita turned North, and hit as a Category 3; Ike was down to Category 2 before hitting Galveston).

Scotland: no problem
TX: problems already

b) RAINFALL
Texas is very complex meteorologically, and of course, it’s big, but as seen in the conference mentioned above (start with North’s presentation), one might say:

– The Western and Southern parts may well share in the Hadley-Expansion-induced loss of rain, i.e., longer and stronger droughts, in common with NM, AZ, and Southern CA. Many towns are dependent on water in rivers that come from the center of the state, like the Brazos.

– The NorthEast part will likely get more rain. [North’s comment about I35 versus I45 indicates uncertainty in the models.]

– Rain is likely to be more intense when it happens, but droughts will be more difficult.

Extreme weather in TX already causes high insurance costs, here, or here.

Scotland: no problem
Texas: problems.

c) TEMPERATURE

Texas A&M is ~31degN, rather nearer the Equator than 57degN.
Wikipedia has a temperature chart. It is rather warmer in TX, but is also more given to extremes.

Scotland: +3C would be dandy,
Texas: +3C not so dandy.

d) AGRICULTURE
Between b) and c), less water in dry places, more water in wet places, more variations in water, and higher temperatures (hence worse evaporation/precipitation difference) are not good news for TX agriculture, or so says Bruce McCarl, Professor of Agricultural Economics at TAMU.

For audiences unfamiliar with Texas A&M, the “A” originally stood for Agriculture, and people are called Aggies. One might assume that agricultural research is valued.
Politically, “Aggie-land” would not be considered a hotspot of hyper-liberal folks prone to becoming climate “alarmists”.

Scotland: warmer, great! Wine!
Texas: serious stress.

d) OIL+GAS, ENERGY
Here, there is more similarity: fossil fuels are economically important.

On the other hand, Scotland was settled long before the use of petroleum, and while places like the highlands are very sparse, cities like Edinburgh and Glasgow are relatively dense, and many villages are quite walkable. Warmer temperatures mean *lower* heating costs.

Texas has naturally developed in a very different style, and with forthcoming Peak Oil, this may be relevant. In 2006, according to EIA, Texas was #1 in energy consumption, 5th per-capita (after AK, WY, LA, ND) and uses 2X/capita of states like NY or CA. Some of that is inherent in different climate and industry.

Sprawling development in a state with water problems, subject to dangerous weather extremes, and already seriously-dependent on air-conditioning, may end being expensive for the residents.

Scotland: makes money from fossil energy, but it was mostly built without it. Warmer temperatures reduce energy use.
Texas: already uses ~2.5-3X higher energy/capita, compared to Scotland. Warmer temperatures likely raise energy use.

3. SUMMARY

Gerald North’s talk ended by asking:
“Is Texas the most vulnerable state?”

That sounds like an expert on trains, hearing one coming in the distance, standing on the tracks amidst a bunch of kids, trying to get them off the tracks before there’s blood everywhere.

On the other side, someone safely away from tracks keeps telling the kids that experts are wrong, there is no danger, so they can play there as long as they like.

You will be well informed if you also read Mashey’s comments at #120 and #132.

13 Comments | Accuracy, Climate change, denialism, Economics, Environmental protection, Geography - Economic, Geography - Physical, Global warming, Government, Hoaxes, Politics, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Research, Science, Texas, Texas history | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Insanity at Texas state school board – economics, geography and history

May 27, 2009

Tim Ritz cartoon, for Americans United

Tim Ritz cartoon, for Americans United

Texas Freedom Network’s Insider blog reports that embattled chairman Don McLeroy is working to create a panel of experts to review studies curricula.  The experts he has proposed so far are all well-known cranks in academia, people who bring their axes to grind on the minds of innocent children.

This panel is a bold insult to Texas’s community of economists, historians, and other practitioners of fields of social studies, not to mention educators.  A more qualified panel of experts could be assembled in the coffee break rooms of the history departments at most of Texas’s lesser known state colleges and universities.

Why does Don McLeroy hate Texas so?

I’ve been buried in teaching, grading, planning and the other affairs of the life of a teacher, and had not paid much attention to the movement on this issue (“movement” because I cannot call it “progress”).  My students passed the state tests by comfortable margins, more than 90% of them; this news from SBOE makes me despair even  in the face of the news that our achievements are substantial in all categories.

The panel lacks knowledge and experience in economics, geography and history.  The panel is grotesquely unbalanced — at least two of the panel members remind me of Ezra Taft Benson, who was Secretary of Agriculture for Dwight Eisenhower.  When he resigned from that post, he complained that Eisenhower was too cozy with communism.  Barton and Quist lean well to the right  of Ezra Taft Benson.  Quist has complained of socialist and Marxist leanings of Reagan administration education policy and policy makers.

Samuel Morse sent the first telegraphic message on May 24, 1844:  “What hath God wrought?”

Sitting here on the morning of May 27, 2009, I wonder what rot hath Don.

Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, Bogus history, Curricula, Economics, Education, Education assessment, Education quality, Geography - Economic, Geography - Physical, Geography - Political, History, Hoaxes, Politics, Social Studies, State school boards, TAKS, TEKS, Texas, Texas Freedom Network, Voodoo history, War on Education, War on the Constitution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Crazies drop into the Bathtub, but not like this

May 5, 2009

Seriously.  Ed Brayton gets some serious crazy folk.  I won’t mention their names, but even GB and NS aren’t quite that crazy.  I hope.

Obama as a Marxist Muslim?  Wow.

2 Comments | Barack Obama, Hoaxes, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Weblogs | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Alma conference on DDT and human health calls for DDT phase out (Pine River statement)

May 5, 2009

Wheels of science grind carefully, accurately, and consequently, slowly.

The report from last year’s Alma College conference on DDT and human health has been published in .pdf form at Environmental Health Perspectives:  “The Pine River Statement:  Human Health Consequences of DDT Use.”

Carefully?  Check out the pages of references to contemporary studies of human health effects.  Each one of the studies cited is denied by the more wild advocates of DDT use, and each of those studies refutes major parts of the case against DDT restrictions.

Warning sign near the old Velsicol plant where DDT was produced, on the Pine River, Michigan. The 1972 ban on DDT use in the U.S. was prompted by damage to wildlife and domestic animals; a 2009 conference noted that human health effects of DDT are also still of great concern, and perhaps cause alone for continuing the ban on DDT.
Warning sign near the old Velsicol plant where DDT was produced, on the Pine River, Michigan. The 1972 ban on DDT use in the U.S. was prompted by damage to wildlife and domestic animals; a 2009 conference noted that human health effects of DDT are also still of great concern, and perhaps cause alone for continuing the ban on DDT.

Warning sign near the old Velsicol plant where DDT was produced, on the Pine River, Michigan. The 1972 ban on DDT use in the U.S. was prompted by damage to wildlife and domestic animals; a 2009 conference noted that human health effects of DDT are also still of great concern, and perhaps cause alone for continuing the ban on DDT.

Accurately?  Notice how the conference marks those areas where we do not have good research, such as in the long-term health effects to people who live in the houses that are sprayed with DDT for indoor residual spraying (IRS).  While the conference report cites studies showing elevated DDT levels in the milk of women who live in those homes, they draw no unwarranted conclusions.  Alas, that leaves the field free for Paul Driessen to rush in and claim there are no ill effects — but read the paper for yourself, and you’ll see that’s far from what the research shows.  The paper exposes Steven Milloy’s claims to be almost pure, unadulterated junk science.

Slowly?  Well, it’s been more than a year.

The paper makes one powerful statement that is only implicit:  The claims that DDT is safe, and that use of the stuff should be increased, are wildly inflated.

The paper’s abstract:

Objectives: Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) was used worldwide until the 1970s, when concerns about its toxic effects, its environmental persistence, and its concentration in the food supply led to usage restrictions and prohibitions. In 2001, more than 100 countries signed the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), committing to eliminate the use of 12 POPs of greatest concern. DDT use was however allowed for disease vector control. In 2006, the World Health Organization and the U.S. Agency for International Development endorsed indoor DDT spraying to control malaria. To better inform current policy, we reviewed epidemiologic studies published in the last five years which investigated the human health consequences of DDT and/or DDE exposure.

Data Sources and Extraction: We conducted a PubMed search in October 2008 and retrieved 494 studies.

Data Synthesis: Use restrictions have been successful in lowering human exposure to DDT, however, blood concentration of DDT and DDE are high in countries where DDT is currently being used or was more recently restricted. The recent literature shows a growing body of evidence that exposure to DDT and its breakdown product DDE may be associated with adverse health outcomes such as breast cancer, diabetes, decreased semen quality, spontaneous abortion, and impaired neurodevelopment in children.

Conclusions: Although we provide evidence to suggest that DDT and DDE may pose a risk to human health, we also highlight the lack of knowledge about human exposure and health effects in communities where DDT is currently being sprayed for malaria control. We recommend research to address this gap and to develop safe and effective alternatives to DDT.

Rachel Carson was right.

Tell other people about this conference report.  This is real science, and it deserves to be spread far and wide.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Ed Lorenz at Alma College, both for providing the news, and for his work to organize the original conference.

Other information:

6 Comments | DDT, Disease, Environmental justice, Environmental protection, Health care, Hoaxes, Junk science, Malaria, Rachel Carson, Research, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Making a false case against Gardasil

May 2, 2009

Especially after working for so many years alongside the big drug companies working health legislation in the Senate, and after later policy work for private companies that made the point again that Big Pharma doesn’t always act scrupulously (remember Oraflex?), I’m no particular fan of the big companies.

But I am a big fan of getting the facts before making claims against them.  I also stand in awe of the accomplishments of medicine, including Big Pharma, in so many areas.  My oldest brother had polio as a kid, and it haunted him to his death.  Polio vaccine was a great advance.  I survived a bout of scarlet fever as an infant, but as a result I am particularly vulnerable to certain infections now; I stand in awe of a $10 prescription that literally saves my life.

Get the facts.  We’re talking saving lives here — be sure you’re accurate.

There is a nasty campaign against modern medicine claiming that vaccines and other injectable preventives do not work, or do much greater harm than is revealed.

One victim of this unholy smear campaign is the Merck Drug company, and its anti-cancer vaccine Gardasil.  This vaccine has been the topic of much controversy here in Texas.  I’ve written about it before.

So I was shocked once again browsing Neil Simpson’s blog (looking for a post that disappeared, it now seems), to discover this statement of concern from Mr. Simpson:

Gardasil Moms: If one of those 32 dead girls or women was your daughter. . . – I wouldn’t rush out and get the vaccine for your girls just yet.

32 dead girls from the vaccine?  Mr. Simpson fails to tell the whole story.  Here’s what CDC actually said:

As of December 31, 2008, there have been 32 U.S. reports of death among females who have received the vaccine. There was no common pattern to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine. [emphasis added]

This isn’t the first time opponents of Gardasil have failed to report accurately the deaths accounted for in the trials and use of the drug.  In previous outings, critics of the drug have done such bizarre things as counting deaths of people who never took the drug, as deaths perhaps caused by the drug.

For example, from the numbers available when I wrote about this in May 2007:

  • Of the 17 deaths reported in the clinical trials,  7 of them came from the placebo group.  That’s right:  Only 59% of the reported deaths were in the group that got Gardasil.  41% of the reported deaths came from people who had received no Gardasil vaccine.
  • 7 of the deaths were from auto accidents, 4 in the Gardasil group, 3 in the placebo group.
  • Most of the deaths were from causes generally thought to be unrelated to to Gardasil, including suicide and cancer.

Don’t you think that, in blaming deaths on a dosage of a vaccine, one should not count deaths to people who did not get the vaccine? So, can we trust numbers from a slander campaign that keeps repeating falsehoods for two years, though the data are freely available?

If you check the Gardasil site now, you’ll find more deaths have been added.  Merck follows up reports of problems, and they update the information when they can, as required by law.

There are now 24 deaths reported in Merck’s literature, 16 in the Gardasil group, and 9 in the control group; the Gardasil deaths have risen to 64% of total deaths; some new causes are added in.  But there is no glaring indictment of Gardasil, and it still seems to me to be rather unethical to claim, as Simpson’s source does, that deaths by auto accident can be attributable to Gardasil, especially when an almost equal number of auto accident deaths occurred in the control group.

Here is what the CDC says, unedited:

Reports to VAERS Following HPV Vaccination

As of December 31, 2008, more than 23 million doses of Gardasil were distributed in the United States.

As of December 31, 2008, there were 11,916 VAERS reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination in the United States. Of these reports, 94% were reports of events considered to be non-serious, and 6% were reports of events considered to be serious.

Based on all of the information we have today, CDC continues to recommend Gardasil vaccination for the prevention of 4 types of HPV. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of Gardasil.  Any problems detected with this vaccine will be reported to health officials, healthcare providers, and the public, and needed action will be taken to ensure the public’s health and safety.

23 million doses of the vaccine, high efficacy in preventing cancer and genital warts, only 6% serious events reported, no deaths that doctors can connect to the vaccine.

In the time Simpson writes about, several thousand women died of cervical cancer; he’s posing 32 deaths unrelated to the vaccine and saying it’s dangerous, when the facts show exactly the opposite.  Is that ethical?

It’s creationism syndrome:  Religionists decide on their conclusions, sometimes supported by scripture, but sometimes also supported by misreadings of scripture; then they set off in search of evidence to support their pre-conceived conclusion, and they step over real data and alter evidence to make sure their pre-conceived conclusions get the support.

In other words, they use doctored data.  Neil Simpson’s sources are using doctored data again.  Shame on them.  I’m sure he’ll correct it in his blog.

______________

Update, May 3: Simpson has not corrected his blog yet.  As an indicator of the issues at stake, you may want to look at CDC figures on cervical cancers, many of which are prevented completely by Gardasil.  Actually trends on the disease are encouraging:

Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States. However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. This decline largely is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical precancer before it turns into cancer.1

According to the U.S. Cancer Statistics: 2005 Incidence and Mortality Web site, 11,999 women in the U.S. were told that they had cervical cancer in 2005,* and 3,924 women died from the disease.2 It is estimated that more than $2 billion† is spent on the treatment of cervical cancer per year in the U.S.3

Cervical cancer strikes disproportionately at minority women:

Even though these trends suggest that cervical cancer incidence and mortality continue to decrease significantly overall, and for women in some racial and ethnic populations, the rates are considerably higher among Hispanic and African-American women. Find more information about cervical cancer rates by race and ethnicity.

More information:

68 Comments | Accuracy, Health care, Hoaxes, Public health, Reason, Religion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

World Malaria Day brings out the DDT-poisoned claims – Beware the ill-informed cynics.

April 26, 2009

World Malaria Day is April 25, every year.  It’s not a big deal in the U.S. (but there were several activities this year).  One thing you can count on, however, is the unthinking, often irrational reaction of dozens of columnists and bloggers* who like to think all scientists and health care professionals are idiots, and that government policy makers never consider the lives of their constituents when environmental issues arise.

Here’s a good example:  At a blog named Penraker, in a post cynically titled “Beware the ‘compassionate’ people,” the author suggests that churches around the world are foolish for sending bednets to Africa to combat malaria, since, the blogger claims, DDT would be quicker, more effective, cheaper, and perfectly safe.

So  much error, so little time, and even less patience with people who don’t bother to get informed about an issue before popping off on it.

Penraker wrote:

Today the loopy “On Faith” pages of the Washington Post reminds us to be compassionate about malaria in Africa.

It urges the churches of the world to come together and join a campaign that would spread the use of mosquito nets in Africa so that the incidence of malaria can be gradually reduced.

Nets are a great idea.  They work to reduce malaria by 50% to 85%.  Nets are a simple solution, part of a series of actions that could help eliminate malaria as a major scourge of the world.  The Nothing But Nets Campaign has the endorsement of several major religious sects and the National Basketball Association.  It offers hope.

Churches uniting to save lives — what could be more spiritual?

Currently 750 children die EVERY DAY in Nigeria. So the great hearts on the left want to organize another conference. The conference will demonstrate their compassion for this needless death, and it will urge that mosquito nets be distributed more widely in Africa.

There is only one problem. Nowhere in the article do they mention DDT. DDT is far and away the most effective way to get rid of malaria.

Why should the article “mention” DDT?  DDT is a deadly poison, an environmental wildcard that once upon a time was thought to offer hope of severely reducing malaria, if it could be applied in enough places quickly enough, before mosquitoes developed resistance to it.  The campaign, coordinated by the World Health Organization, failed.  Agricultural and business interests also latched onto DDT, but they over-used it in sometimes trivial applications.  Mosquitoes quickly developed new genes that made them resistant and immune to DDT.

DDT can once again play a limited role in fighting malaria.  It can be used in extremely limited amounts, to spray the inside walls of homes, to kill mosquitoes that still land on the walls of a hut after feeding on a human.  But DDT is not appropriate for all such applications, and it is nearly useless in some applications, especially where the species involved is completely immune to DDT.

DDT was discovered to be deadly.  First European nations banned its use, and then the U.S. banned it.  Continued use after those bans increased the difficulties — manufacturing continued in the U.S. resulted in many nasty Superfund clean-up sites costing American taxpayers billions of dollars when manufacturers declared bankruptcy rather than clean up their plant sites.  The National Academy of Sciences studied DDT, and in 1980 pronounced it one of the most beneficial chemicals ever discovered — but also one of the most dangerous.  NAS said DDT had to be phased out, because the dangers more than offset its benefits.

The cessation of use of DDT, to protect wildlife and entire ecosystems, proved wise.  In 2007 the bald eagle was removed from the list of endangered species, a recovery made possible only with a ban on DDT.  DDT weakens chicks, especially of top predators, and damages eggs to make them unviable.  Decreasing amounts of DDT in the tissues of birds meant recovery of the eagle, the brown pelican, the peregrine falcon, and osprey.

Though it was not banned for ill effects on human health, research since 1972 strengthened the case that DDT is a human carcinogen (every cancer-fighting agency on Earth lists it as a “probable human carcinogen”).  DDT and its daughter products have since been discovered to act as endocrine disruptors, doing serious damage to the sexual organs of birds, fish, lizards and mammals.  Oddly, it’s also been discovered to be poisonous to some plants.

After DDT use against malarial mosquitoes was reduced, malaria stayed low for a while.  Unfortunately, the malaria parasites developed resistance to the pharmaceuticals used to treat humans.  Malaria came roaring back — DDT, an insecticide, was of no use to fight the blood parasite.  Newer, arteminisin-based pharmaceuticals offer hope of reducing the human toll

Still, with some improvements in delivery of pharmaceuticals, improvements in diagnosis, and improvements in education of affected populations about how they can reduce exposure and prevent mosquito breeding, world wide malaria deaths have been kept below 3 million annually.  Recent programs, helped by munificent organizing from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and from other charities, have reduced malaria considerably.  With no magic drug on the horizon, with no magic vector control, efforts have been redoubled to use the time-tested methods for beating the disease — reducing exposure to mosquitoes, improving health care, stopping mosquito breeding.  These methods, which ridded the U.S. of the disease very much prior to the discovery of DDT’s insecticidal properties, appear the best bets to beat malaria.

Once South Africa started using it, the death rate went way down.

South Africa used DDT constantly from 1946 through about 1996.  Other efforts to control mosquitoes worked until changing climate and political turmoil in nations adjoining South Africa produced malaria and mosquitoes that crossed borders.  South Africa turned to DDT as an emergency  measure; but the other, non-pesticide spraying methods, are credited with helping South Africa reduce malaria.

It turns out that DDT is much less harmful than we had been led to believe by scare reports early on. People at the Monsanto plant in California worked around the stuff for years with no discernible effects.

That’s not quite accurate.  Whether DDT seriously crippled workers is still in litigation, a quarter of a century after DDT stopped being manufactured in the U.S. Residual and permanent health damage keep showing up in studies done on workers in DDT production facilities, and on their children.  The Montrose plant in California is a Superfund site, as is the entire bay it contaminated.  In fact, three different bays in California are listed as cleanup sites (was there a Monsanto DDT plant in California?  Which one?).

To say there were “no discernible effects” simply is unsupportable from research or litigation on the matters.  Such a claim is completely misleading and inaccurate.

No matter. The compassionate ones don’t dare to mention it. They are ready to let 750 kids die every day, in Nigeria alone. That’s 273,000 a year.

273,000 kids a year are dying in Nigeria alone. Think about it.

Rachel Carson warned us that would happen if we didn’t control DDT use to keep it viable to fight malaria.  I’ve been thinking about it for more than 40 years.  The “compassionate” ones you try to ridicule have been fighting malaria in Africa for that entire time.  You just woke up — when are you going to do something to stop a kid from dying?  By the way, slamming environmentalists doesn’t save any kid.

The CDC says:

The World Health Organization estimates that each year 300-500 million cases of malaria occur and more than 1 million people die of malaria, especially in developing countries. Most deaths occur in young children. For example, in Africa, a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds. Because malaria causes so much illness and death, the disease is a great drain on many national economies. Since many countries with malaria are already among the poorer nations, the disease maintains a vicious cycle of disease and poverty.

Still the compassionate ones call for the use of bed netting to keep the kids from getting bit. There is only one obvious problem – kids aren’t in bed all day. Mosquitoes can bite them all day long, and the nets have no effect. So, they are proposing a massively stupid remedy.

First point on that section:  Did you bother to read the CDC document?  Nowhere do they call for DDT to be used.  Quite the contrary, they note that it doesn’t work anymore:

Wasn’t malaria eradicated years ago?

No, not in all parts of the world. Malaria has been eradicated from many developed countries with temperate climates. However, the disease remains a major health problem in many developing countries, in tropical and subtropical parts of the world.

An eradication campaign was started in the 1950s, but it failed globally because of problems including the resistance of mosquitoes to insecticides used to kill them, the resistance of malaria parasites to drugs used to treat them, and administrative issues. In addition, the eradication campaign never involved most of Africa, where malaria is the most common.

So, where do you get the gall to claim CDC support for your inaccurate diatribe?  CDC’s documents do not support your outrageous and inaccurate claims for DDT at all.

Second point, mosquitoes don’t bite all day long, and bednets have proven remarkably effective at stopping malaria.  Mosquitoes — at least the vectors that carry malaria — bite in the evening and night, mostly.  Protecting kids while they sleep is among the best ways to prevent malaria.

It appears to me that this blogger has not bothered to learn much about malaria before deciding he knows better than the experts, how to fight it.

Their outrageous and horribly unscientific “religious beliefs” are a firm block to their humanity. No, they just don’t care. No DDT can be used.

Every “ban” on DDT included a clause allowing use against malaria.  In the U.S. we allowed manufacture of DDT for export after the ban on use in the U.S. (and the ban on use in the U.S. had exceptions).  DDT was never banned for use in any African nation I can find.  DDT is manufactured, today, in India and China.  DDT can be used, even under the POPs treaty.  This blogger, Penraker,  just doesn’t have the facts.

You get the impression that their compassion is not about solving the problem. Their compassion seems to be about themselves – about proving they are good people by having compassion, rather than eradicating the problem. In fact, it looks like they have a desire to have the malaria epidemic continue, so they can organize little conferences and wring their hands, put together action plans, and call on somebody else to do something about the problem.

Actually, I get the idea that this blogger wants to whine and pose, and isn’t really concerned about kids with malaria.  He’s getting way too many facts dead wrong.

Nick Kristof of the New York Times, God bless him, is one of the few liberals to react reasonably to reality:

Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning.

One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world’s poor – by opposing the use of DDT.

“It’s a colossal tragedy,” says Donald Roberts, a professor of tropical public health at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. “And it’s embroiled in environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies.”

In the 1950’s, 60’s and early 70’s, DDT was used to reduce malaria around the world, even eliminating it in places like Taiwan. But then the growing recognition of the harm DDT can cause in the environment – threatening the extinction of the bald eagle, for example – led DDT to be banned in the West and stigmatized worldwide. Ever since, malaria has been on the rise.

…But most Western aid agencies will not pay for anti-malarial programs that use DDT, and that pretty much ensures that DDT won’t be used. Instead, the U.N. and Western donors encourage use of insecticide-treated bed nets and medicine to cure malaria

Yeah, go read that Kristof article.  He’s a bit off about DDT — but notice especially the date.  It’s the Bush administration he’s complaining about. I thought Penraker was complaining about environmentalists and silly “compassionate” types — but he’s complaining about Bush?  What else isn’t he telling us, or doesn’t he know?

But isn’t it dangerous?

But overall, one of the best ways to protect people is to spray the inside of a hut, about once a year, with DDT. This uses tiny amounts of DDT – 450,000 people can be protected with the same amount that was applied in the 1960’s to a single 1,000-acre American cotton farm.

Is it safe? DDT was sprayed in America in the 1950’s as children played in the spray, and up to 80,000 tons a year were sprayed on American crops. There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria.

Indoor Residual Spraying (IRS) is endorsed even by Environmental Defense, the group that first sued to stop broadcast DDT spraying in the U.S.  It’s not environmentalists who oppose the practice, but businessmen, tobacco farmers and cotton farmers in Africa.  Who is Penraker to substitute his judgment for the judgment of Africans, the people on the ground, the people who suffer from malaria?

Alas, IRS, done right, is expensive.  A treatment with DDT is required twice a year, at about $12 an application when costs of the analysis of the mosquitoes and other circumstances are figured in.  That’s $24/year.  DDT spraying is more than 50% effective in preventing the disease.

Bednets cost $10, last five years at least, and are about 85% effective at preventing the disease.

Maybe Africans just want the cheaper, more effective methods used.  Doesn’t that make sense?

The piece in the Washington Post’s On Faith section is called “Religion from the Heart”

How ironic.

All the Washington Post and the New York Times would have to do is highlight that the use of DDT could save a million lives – most of them children, and they would be saved within a year.

That’s all they would have to do. Keep the spotlight on it, and save a million lives. Instead, they expunge the very idea from their pages, (witness this from the heart stuff)

I will never understand people who are willing to let millions of people die for the sake of their ideology.

And I will never understand people who get in a dudgeon, blaming people who are blameless, or worse, blaming people who are actually trying to fix a problem, all while being blissfully misinformed about the problem they complain about.

Yes, millions of lives could be saved — but not with DDT.  DDT won’t work as a magic potion, and it’s a nasty poison.  Why would anyone urge Africans to waste money, and lives, instead of actually fighting malaria?  Penraker fell victim to the hoaxers who want you to believe Rachel Carson was not accurate (her book was found accurate by specially-appointed panels of scientists), that DDT is a panacea against malaria (it’s not), that environmentalists are stupid  and mean (while they’ve been fighting against malaria for more than 40 years), and that everything you’ve heard from science is wrong.

Malaria gets a lot of deserved attention from people serious about beating the disease, for millions of good reasons.  Those who are serious about beating malaria don’t whine about DDT.

*  And then he brags about his intolerance for the facts.  Whom God destroys, He first makes mad.

_____________

Update: Blue Marble isn’t as offensive and obstreperous as others, but equally in error.  How can people be so easily misled from the facts of the matter?

63 Comments | Accuracy, Africa, DDT, Environmental protection, Health care, History, Hoaxes, Rampant stupidity, Reason, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Complaint against the blogger

April 25, 2009

Oregon Live!.com has a .pdf of the complaint against the blogger who carried his paranoia about Obama’s eligibility too far.

The complaint details some of the tragedy the blogger’s life has become but, no surprise, offers nothing to suggest that Obama is ineligible, nor that bloggers who claim Obama isn’t eligible for the presidency have any better evidence than the guy arrested for threatening federal agents.

Here’s the indictment.

Moral to the story?  Dial down your rage, and stick to the facts.  This guy isn’t exactly engaged in mainstream politics, nor anything mainstream. (Looks to me as if he’s claiming some connection to Vietnam, though he would have been about 9 when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam.  Weird.)

Other stuff:

1 Comment | Hoaxes, President Obama, Weblogs | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

I dunno. Is this story humorous? True?

April 24, 2009

Collected April 2009:

A United States Marine was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One day on campus a local radio station did a live broadcast from the quad of the college, with their right-wing, flag-waving, self-proclaimed patriot “on a mission for God and Country” loud-mouthed cigar-smoking host.

The Marine watched, stunned, as the radio host goaded the college crowd by saying, “Is God real?  Of course He is.  And He favors our glorious war in Iraq, and He favors waterboarding every ‘towel-head’ we can catch — the more the better.  Do I think that’s unChristian?  No — and here’s my offer:  God, if you disagree and think we shouldn’t be waterboarding everyone who might bear ill-will to the U.S. of A., you can come down here, knock me off this platform and shut off my microphone in the next ten minutes.”

The crowd fell silent. You could hear the pigeons on the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest cooing, but even they got quieter.

Five minutes went by, the station cut to a series of ads, and then the radio host proclaimed, ‘”Here I am God. I’m still waiting.  Do you think we should take it easy on our enemies, or torture them because they deserve it?” It got down to the last couple of minutes when the Marine strode out of the crowd, walked up to the radio host, and cold-cocked him, knocking him off the platform.  Then the marine found the switch on the microphone and turned it off.  Even the radio station’s engineer was too stunned to do anything.  The radio guy was out cold.

The Marine went back into the crowd and sat down on the grass, silently. The other students were shocked, stunned, and sat there looking on in silence. No one even called campus police.  Eventually the radio station called the engineer on his cell phone and everyone heard the engineer describe what had just happened.  “No, he’s out cold.”  But the radio announcer was stirring.

The talk jock eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the Marine and asked, “What the h— is the wrong with you, you f——up m———-ing dope smoker? Why did you do that?”

The Marine calmly replied, “God was too busy today protecting American soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like an idiot.   So, God sent me.  If we waterboard their guys, our soldiers will have worse stuff done to them.  That punch was from every Marine and soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan who wants to come home to his wife and children.”

Is this a true story?  Is it funny?  Is it tragic?  What is it?

Tip of the old scrub brush to Pharyngula.  P.Z. made me do it.

6 Comments | History, Hoaxes, Humor, Religion, Religious Freedom | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Anti-Obama blogger indicted for threatening Secret Service agent

April 19, 2009

You think some of those who deny Obama’s eligibility sound a little crazy?

Seems to be an accurate perception.  From The Oregonian (via OregonLive.com):

A Springfield blogger is accused of threatening the life, limbs and lower alimentary canal of a Secret Service agent.

James T. Cuneo, 43, was indicted Thursday on charges of making a series of threats against Special Agent Ronald Brown in the course of his official duties.

This was strange turnabout for Brown, whose job in the agency’s Presidential Protection Division is mainly to thwart threats against the commander in chief. For the first time in his 15-year career, Brown wrote in federal court papers, someone was repeatedly harassing him.

There’s a difference between a dog on a bone and a psychotic; some of the Obama denialists appear to have blurred the difference.  Cuneo’s complaint appears to revolve around the same issue that set off Texas Darlin’ and a few dozen others.  Cuneo escalated the thing; let’s hope no others do the same.

On Oct. 16, Brown and Springfield police detectives dropped in on Cuneo to chat about threats he had allegedly made about Google executives on his Internet blog: walkndude.wordpress.com. (WordPress has taken the site offline for violation of its terms of service.)

“Cuneo was extremely belligerent, refused to answer questions and became increasingly threatening,” Brown wrote in an arrest affidavit. “We left the driveway of Cuneo’s residence without further incident.”

Cuneo then began to phone the Secret Service office in Portland, threatening Brown and others, the government alleges. “Cuneo,” Brown wrote, “seems to think that we are aiding and abetting the ‘illegal U.S. President’ and that he and others need to arrest us for not doing our job.”

Brown says Cuneo phoned him in January and, with a colorful series of expletives, threatened him with physical harm, including execution by hanging, electric chair or firing squad. Those threats — and Cuneo’s history of violence — concerned federal officials, according to Brown’s affidavit.

Time to get back to real issues.  2010 is around the corner, 2012 is not much farther.

And, by the way, a federal judge in the District of Columbia issued an order dismissing one of the many nuisance suits filed by the denialists (styled Hollister v. Soetoro) , stating clearly that the suits are nuisances and asking for a showing of why sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should not be applied.  In short, the judge has ruled that the case against Obama’s eligibility is so rank and utterly without substance that any lawyer of average intelligence and sound mind should know better than to trouble a court with it.  I think this is from the court’s order:

Because it appears that the complaint in this case may have been presented for an improper purpose such as to harass; and that the interpleader claims and other legal contentions of the plaintiff are not warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for extending, modifying or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the accompanying order of dismissal requires Mr. Hemenway [the attorney of record] to show cause why he has not violated Rules 11 (b) (1) and 11 (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and why he should not be required to pay reasonable attorneys fees and other expenses to counsel for the defendants.

Crazier fringes of the anti-Obama guild claim that a letter from Obama’s attorneys asking that the suit be dropped is “threatening.”  It’s not threatening to tell the schoolyard bully to straighten up.  How much ozone have these people depleted?

Update: Yes to Democracy also carries news on the March 24 action by Judge Robertson.  When do the denialists finally wake up, smell the coffee, smell the stale beer cans, pinch themselves, take a shower and get on with life?  So, to sum up:  A judge in Washington, D.C., has dismissed the suit and called the bluff of the plaintiffs and stealth plaintiffs; Huffington Post revealed the financial stake of WorldNet Daily in continuing to finance the suits, and in pushing the suits improperly; and a federal prosecutor won an indictment of a blogger who started rumbling about taking violent action in favor of the Birthers, and who failed to heed warnings to tone down his vitriol.  Have the birthers figured it out yet?

Tip of the old scrub brush to Micah.

Resources:

128 Comments | Accuracy, Citizenship, Hoaxes, Jurisprudence, Law, Natural Born, Politics, President Obama, Presidential Eligibility, Presidents, Rampant stupidity, Reason | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Love this scam: “Don’t bother contacting the FBI about our illegal activities — we already have”

February 16, 2009

Ya gotta give them scammers points for creativity and sense of humor, no?

My spam filter picked this up, but it’s just too good not to share, exactly as displayed here:

Attn: Beneficiary..
Friday, February 13, 2009 6:40 PM
From:
“Mueller” <usafbiw@usafbioffice.digitalartsindia.com>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
undisclosed-recipients
Anti-Terrorist and Monitory Crimes Division.
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
J. Edgar. Hoover Building, Washington D.C.

Attn: Beneficiary,

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof. Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Danail Smith, none officials of Oceanic Bank, none
officials of Zenith Bank and some impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau Of Investigation agents. During our investigation, it came to our notice that the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not
fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect of your Contract/Inheritance Payment.

Therefore, we have contacted the Federal Ministry of Finance on your behalf, and they have brought a solution to your problem by coordinating your payment in the total amount of $800.000.00 USD which will be deposited into an ATM CARD
which you will use to withdraw funds anywhere of the world. You now have the lawful right to claim your funds which have been deposited into the ATM CARD.

Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been involved in this Transaction, you are now to be rest assured that this transaction is legitimate and completely risk-free as it is our duty to protect and Serve citizens of the United States of America.

All you have to do is immediately contact the ATM CARD CENTER via E-mail for instructions on how to procure your Approval Slip which contains details on how to receive and activate your ATM CARD for immediate use to withdraw funds being paid to you. We have confirmed that the amount required to procure the Approval Slip will cost you a total of $200 USD which will be paid directly to the ATM CARD CENTER agent via Western Union Money Transfer /Money Gram Money Transfer.
Below, you shall find contact details of the Agent whom will process your transaction from Federal Ministry of Finance:

CONTACT INFORMATION
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FINANCE.
ATM CARD CENTER
NAME: DR. PETER WATER
OFFICE LINE:  +2348061325890
EMAIL: water_fmfng@live.com

Immediately you contact Dr. Peter Water of the ATM Card Center with the following information:

Full Name:
Address:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Direct Phone Number:
Current Occupation:
Annual Income:

Once you have sent the required information to Dr. Peter Water he will contact you with instructions on how to make the payment of $200 USD for the Approval Slip after which he will proceed towards delivery of the ATM CARD without any further delay. You have hereby been authorized guaranteed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to commence towards completing this transaction, as there shall be NO delay once payment for the Approval Slip has been made to the authorized agent.

Once you have completed payment of $200 to the agent in charge of this transaction, immediately contact us back for more investigation for conformation of your ATM card.

Federal Bureau Investigation
Robert S. Mueller III Director, FBI
Contact us at: fbiwroberts4@live.com

Don’t you love it? “Dr. Peter Water.”  “fbiwroberts”  (probably formerly the Dread Pirate Roberts), at an e-mail address “live.com.”  How many punctuation errors, spelling errors, grammar errors?

Maybe these guys could be persuaded to take the next step, too:  Lock themselves up, and throw away the key.

If no one gets suckered in with these hoaxes, why do they continue?  And since it seems someone is getting suckered in, who?

(Yeah, I stripped out a lot of code; these guys are really smarmy.  I’ve left the e-mails as they were in the note.  If you wish to contact these guys, go ahead.)

And check out this post at Tangled Up In Blue Guy — he’s got a bunch of ’em.

7 Comments | History, Hoaxes, Scams | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »