My latest in the Daily Caller.
Author: Steve Milloy
Milloy talks Antarctic ice, net zero, Bill Gates and more with Lisa Boothe and Jason Chaffetz on FOX Business
From the May 5, 2025 edition of The Bottom Line.
Congress Must Repeal All Green New Scam Subsidies
What Exactly Have NIH Grants Got Us?
No Due Process For Illegal Regulations: The Easiest Way to Reverse the EPA’s Endangerment Finding
President Trump has come up with an ingenious way to reverse EPA’s endangerment finding, stop the Green New Scam and overturn the 2007 SCOTUS decision, Massachusetts v. EPA. I explain at Issues & Insights.
Trump’s EPA Is Right To Be Skeptical Of ‘Sun-Blocking’
The Interior Department Must Enforce Trump’s Offshore Wind Ban
Reversing the Endangerment Finding: Burying the Union of Concerned Scientists Case Against It
Marty Makary’s Blind Spot: ‘I believe in climate change’
I thought Dr. Marty Makary was joking when he breezily mentioned in his new book “Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong and What it Means for out Health” that treating early appendicitis with antibiotics could reduce the carbon footprint of patients. But then later in the book he stated, “I believe in climate change” and then he took credit for leading the charge on hospitals reducing their emissions. Talk about having a blind spot.
“Blind Spots” has: (1) some strong chapters — i.e., peanut allergy hysteria, AIDS, the cholesterol myth, hormone replacement therapy, silicone breast implants; (2) a once-in-a-while-foray into some junk science judo epidemiology tips (e.g., too wide confidence intervals and arbitrary statistical groupings); and a (3) general expose of, and contempt for the corruption of medical journals and medical establishment. But I know from other parts of his book, e.g., his nutty comments on climate, glyphosate, fluoride in drinking water and others, and his positions on Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) that he’s only willing to apply scientific thinking selectively. Blind Spots is a worthwhile read. But watch out for Makary’s. By the way, my “Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams” (2001) is much more useful for combatting the scourge of medical junk science.
My pull-quotes from the book. You may appreciate them.
MAHA gets nuttier: RFK Jr. likens sugar to crack
I hate to say this, but MAHA is getting nuttier and nuttier. Below are some quotes/assertions from Judge Jeanine’s interview with the creepy Calley Means, including a clip of RFK Jr.from today in West Virginia. The interview is below. My quick comments in bold.
- Processed foods offend the “moral conscious of America.” I supposed processed foods are a moral issue because there’s no science backing MAHA’s processed foods scare?
- “Sugar is as addictive as crack and its almost as bad for you. It kills you just as surely, just kills you a little slower. It feeds tumors. It’s destroys your body. It destroys your brain.” [RFK Jr.] I guess RFK Jr. would jail the Good Humor man?
- Poor people should be blocked from buying soft drinks with food stamps? The government is going to start telling poor people what to eat? Will Oreos be off limits? Chocolate? Pizza? Chips? Where are the limits of food tyranny?
- – ‘Our food is being weaponized’ [by the food industry]. Processed food is just food. It is safe, nutritious affordable and convenient.
- – “The FDA doesn’t know what’s in our food.” What about all the labeling?
Chef Gruel: A Junk Science Fool
What follows is an X conversation I had this morning with Chef Andrew Gruel. I don’t have all his replies because, well, you have to get to the end of the story.
I was watching Fox & Friends this morning (segment below) when ChefGruel came on to talk about Robert Kennedy Jr. ordering the FDA to get rid of the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) standard for new food additives.
Justice Department court filings reveal EPA’s PM2.5 fraud
In 2012, the American Tradition Institute sued EPA for conducting illegal human experiments involving PM2.5. The Department of Justice filed this memo in response to the ATI’s motion for a temporary restraining order against EPA. Two pages, excerpted below, expose the EPA’s PM2.5 con as follows:
- EPA says epidemiologic studies are the primary evidence against PM2.5.
- EPA admits epidemiologic studies provide only evidence of statistical correlation not causation-in-fact, in this case between inhaling PM2.5 and adverse health effects, including death.
- To determine biological plausibility for the notion that PM2.5 harms health,EPA conducted experiments in which humans were made to inhale extreme levels of PM2.5.
- In its CAPTAIN line of studies, for example, EPA paid 297 human volunteers to inhale extreme levels of PM2.5.
- Despite the extreme exposures, no study subject was harmed by PM2.5 in any way.
- The human experiments did not validate the correlations reported in epidemiological studies.
- The EPA ignored the results of the human experiments and regulations and regulated PM2.5 anyway.
