Milloy sets off greens; Responds to PolitiFact inquiry on wildfire smoke

My appearance on Laura Ingraham’s show Wednesday amid the apocalyptic air in New York City has set of the greens, including: Salon, The Independent (UK), Newsweek, The Telegraph (UK), Rolling Stone, The New Republic, MSNBC, USA Today, Mediaite, Media Matters, the Washington Post and more. Only PolitiFact had the decency to ask me questions me. And so here’s is my response to Politifact. We’ll see what it writes.

Hi Lauren,

Here’s your question:

Here’s my response, in 11 parts:

1. My most recent summary of PM2.5 is here: PM2.5 Mass Killer or Mass Fraud?
2. I have a video presentation here: EPA and PM2.5: No Bodies, No Science, Just Fraud.
3. My book on the PM2.5 hoax is “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA.” The book tells the PM2.5 story through mid-2016. Note that the book is endorsed by former EPA Clean Air Advisory Committee chairman, George Wolff.
4. In 2019, the EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee trashed EPA’s claimed science behind PM2.5 scare, as highlighted below:

   

5. The chart below is an example of EPA-conducted clinical research on PM2.5. In the human clinical experiment called (“Smokey”), humans were exposed to wood smoke PM2.5 at levels comparable to New York City this week. Very high exposures. No health effects. Unpublished data obtained thru FOIA. EPA has conducted a number of similar experiments on people with PM2.5. The results are presented in this spread sheet. They also don’t show harm from PM2.5.

   

6. In one of the largest and definitely the best-conducted epidemiology studies of PM2.5, no association was observed between PM2.5 and all the deaths in California between the years 2000-2012.

   

7. EPA admitted in federal court with me in 2012 that its epidemiology was insufficient to connect PM2.5 with health effects. Because of this fact, EPA undertook human experiments (such as the above mentioned, Smokey). All of those experiments failed to connect PM2.5 with harm.

   

8. As EPA admitted in the litigation, no EPA study subject was harmed by exposure to PM2.5.

   

9. Former UCLA epidemiologist James Enstrom re-analyzed one of the original studies that launched EPA’s PM2.5 hoax. Enstrom’s re-analysis found no associated between PM2.5 and death. The authors of the original study could find no errors in Enstrom’s re-analysis.

   

10. EPA has also tested PM2.5 (via diesel exhaust) on children (probably minorities) as young as 10 years. No harm observed.
11. New York City has about 870,000 asthmatics. Only 300 or so (0.03%) reportedly went to NYC emergency rooms. Given the absence of clinical evidence that PM2.5 exposures trigger asthma, it’s very likely that media coverage-caused anxiety was a problem.

Let me know if you have questions.

Have a nice day.

Steve Milloy