Rating: 
Summary: Concerns about Mr. Milloy's credibility
Review: I am a self-proclaimed skeptic. In short, what being a skeptic means to me is that I strive for objectivity in my views through the guiding philosophy of the scientific method. I should hope that Mr. Milloy would admire such convictions. However, in a recent article entitled "Suburbs Don't Pose Health Risks" (...)it was unclear to me how he was validating his claims. The only supporting 'evidence' he had was that the recent study by the RAND corporation was able to establish a correlational relationship between suburbia and a myriad of health risks, not a causal one. Taking this criticism and concluding that "Suburbs Don't Pose Health Risks," as Mr. Milloy did, appears to me to be wholly without merit. While he rightly contends that the methodology of the study was fundamentally unable to establish a clear causal relationship, he has absolutely no case for stating that there is no causal relationship between the two without conducting the type of experimental study that he criticizes the RAND study for not having. Either Mr. Milloy has made a serious logical error, or he has some external motivations to discredit the study.
I have emailed Mr. MIlloy 4 times over the past week and have received no response to my questions about his claims, which suggests to me that he is not willing to acknowledge criticism. This is possibly the worst trait a scientist can have; and as such I am inclined to cast serious doubt on his scientific credibility. I gave this book a neutral rating because I haven't read it, nor will I read it until Mr. Milloy allows himself to be open to criticism. I eagerly await his response and suggest to other potential buyers that they be cautious in their acceptance of his conclusions (at least until I hear back from him).
Rating: 
Summary: Junk Science debunked - To Quote LBJ:
Review: "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!
Rating: 
Summary: Beware
Review: Beware, Milloy promotes an extreme right wing agenda. Recently he publically stated that the media has overstated and over reacted to the dangers of Vioxx and that FDA holds no culpability!
Rating: 
Summary: Solid, succinct, a few flaws
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Good information - used it already
Review: I purchased this book after spending much time on Mr. Milloy's web site, www.junkscience.com, and found it to be an excellent primer on the way information is manipulated to serve various purposes.
The book is well-written, and an easy read, with an eye toward the scientific novice. But the book focuses not so much on science, but on statistics, which are often used as a surrogate for science. Indeed, Mr. Milloy never claims to be a scientist; his biography notes that he has a degree in statistics, making him well-qualified to criticize the misuse of such numbers.
I recently had the opportunity to use the information gleaned from "Junk Science Judo." A local group used a study as evidence that cranberry bogs present a cancer risk, i.e., the hypothesis of the study was that living near cranberry bogs exposed local residents to enough pesticides to cause cancer. While the authors did find a correlation between living near cranberry bogs and a particular kind of brain cancer, it was only a correlation.
This was an ecologic epidemiological study (the worst kind according to Mr. Milloy). The authors never established that the study subjects were exposured to the pesticides used on cranberry bogs; blood or urine samples were never obtained, but a formula was used to estimate exposure levels.
There were other problems; the sample size was too small (only a dozen individuals had brain cancer) to be of value; cancer rates were no higher for those individuals who had known exposures to pesticides (such as pest control or agricultural workers) than for the control group; pesticide use on the cranberry bogs could only be guessed at - the authors did not know what pesticides were used, when they were used or in what quantities.
In short, the study raised more questions than answers. But when I critizied the study and the use of it, the only thing anyone could say was, "Pesticides are toxic." Well, duh. But as Mr. Milloy notes, the dose makes the poison.
Ironically, most of the bad reviews of this book make an issue out of motivation, and appear to be criticizing Mr. Milloy personally, instead of the book and its contents.
Scientists can be activists, and when they are they often hide behind their scientific training, claiming to be impartial even as they advocate a certain point of view (believe me, I've encountered them). And just because a corporation pays for a study does not mean that that study is any less relevant than one paid for by an environmental organization. I've gone so far as to research some of the examples Mr. Milloy uses (such as the Love Canal) and found them to be true.
My point - and that of Mr. Milloy's book - is to look at the claims made with a critical eye; examine the science behind them. In "Junk Science Judo," Mr. Milloy provides us with the information needed to determine if the claims made are true, exaggerated, or completely out of the ballpark. This book is not a collection of blind rants, but a close examination of how public health claims are made and justified (rightly or wrongly).
Get the book, but keep an open mind, because there is no doubt that it will challenge some of your basic assumptions. If you're a natural skeptic, it will give you a foundation upon which to base your skepticism. If you're not a skeptic, it will open your eyes.
Rating:
Summary: Know the facts on Stephen Milloy
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Junk Book :))
Review: If you are a big fan of industry PR campaigns, then this book is for you! However, if you are a critical thinker that is interested in evidence and facts, this book is Junk. Interesting note: The author is affiliated with organizations that are funded by major industries such as 3M, Chevron, Dow Chemical, etc. He is most likely writing what they are paying him to write (e.g. their point of view).
Rating:
Summary: A good start but comes up short...
Review: It is true. Figures don't lie but liars can figure. Much, if not all of the problems we face today, and the scares and scams are the result of either the misuses of science data and people or the forced ignoring of scientific truths. Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams by Steven J. Milloy, is a good start but falls short of all the facts, and most of all, how to turn the tide toward truth. If you are concerned about this subject, read the book but spend the least to acquire it, i.e., buy it as a gift, then read it before giving it away. At least you will get double duty out of money spent. If you are really concerned about this subject, do your research well beyond the books meager coverage, then get involved at the local and state political levels. Keep in mind, if you choose to take such a path that you will come head-on with environmental terrorists such as the lawyers of the Sierra Club, Green Peace, and the likes of others who have perverted the path. The path is a good one, but it is now greatly abused by such groups. Again, the book Junk Science is a 'light' start on the subject-an eye opener if you will-that falls short on how to personally make a difference.
Rating:
Summary: This book is perfect!!!!!!!!
Review: My family thinks that this is the best toilet paper available.
Rating:
Summary: Another Triumph in the Civil War Against Science
Review: Steven Milloy is a journalist, and pundit whose principled stand on behalf of scientific logic benefits all of us. He stands side by side with Stephen Jay Gould and Michael Schermer in debunking the outrageous claims of pseudo science. Milloy attempts to provide a framework to evaluate the nonsensical claims made by individuals and organizations with agendas which are independent of the facts. It is this framework he calls "junk science judo." Actually what he provides us is the kind of suspicious phraseology and statistical trickery often employed by scammers. In most cases it would take a thorough review of the claimants' research techniques and statistical interpretation to spot the scam. We come away suspicious of almost any claim. All in all, though, Milloy is readable and he is right. Don't miss his column, "Junk Science," on the Opinion page of FoxNews.com.
|
