Banner
When Salt Is An Endocrine Disruptor, The Term Is Officially Meaningless

A new environmental claim about endocrine disruptors would seem to be an early Christmas gift for...

Rant: Enough Damn Awareness Days Already!

Dear Awareness People:Shut the F......... (1) I'm begging you.I already have more than enough to...

Old Man Balls: Fact Or Fiction?

Disclaimer: If you read this, don't blame me for whatever psychological damage that will inevitably...

European Endocrine Disruptor Study Is Lightweight Of Evidence

So, if you take literally what Patricia Hunt, Ph.D. and colleagues reported in the new...

User picture.
picture for Hank Campbellpicture for Steve Savagepicture for Helen Barrattpicture for Steve Schulerpicture for Gil Rosspicture for Richard Taite
Josh BloomRSS Feed of this column.

Josh Bloom, Ph.D. Director of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Ph.D. at the American Council on Science and Health, New York. He earned a Ph.D. in organic chemistry at the University of Virginia, and... Read More »

Blogroll
According to the FDA, a drug is a substance (other than nutrients) intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or function of the body. Seems clear enough -- that is, until politics and big money get involved. 

Then you get special dispensation. It’s called the dietary supplement industry. And what they get away with is astounding.

Last May a cluster of liver failure was attributed to a supplement called OxyElite Pro, sold by USPLabs of Dallas.

In the mood to off yourself? I sure hope not, but if you are contemplating it, there is no need to use a gun, poison, or pills. Just take a sip of Diet Coke.

Because anyone who takes headlines seriously—a universally bad idea—will be afraid to even look at a bottle of diet soda, let alone drink from one. 

We can equally thank Dr. Ankur Vyas and his group for publishing the quintessential example of garbage science, and an all-too-willing press, obviously looking for juicy headlines. Or can't be bothered to read the study. Or have their own agenda. Probably all three.

As usual, there is a strong correlation between junk studies and misleading headlines. Here are some examples:

"Diet soda associated to women's heart risks" (ABC News)
Life is just packed full of surprises.

You just never know when you'll get stuck in an elevator with the finalists for the new Victoria's Secret Catalog (all of whom just happen to be in estrus). 

You never know when you open your door if Ed McMahon will be standing there with a $1 million check from Publishers Clearing House.  (OK, this one you do know, since he's somewhat dead). Or a paroled member of the Manson Family. Or Paris Hilton with a parakeet on her head. 

So,  just when you think you've already seen the worst possible science paper in the entire history of multicellular life, life pulls the rug out from under you.
I would like to nominate Arvind Mahankali to be the next head of the USDA.   Why? He is obviously very smart, has an outstanding work ethic, and a superb vocabulary. He may have even reached puberty. And if he hasn’t, give it a year or so. Arvind is 13. 

But if you are concerned that he may not yet have what it takes to run an agency with a $24 billion budget and the responsibility of protecting us from unsafe foods, fear not. Last May, Arvind won the 86th National Spelling Bee championship. The word that gave him the championship was knaidel. For fans of irony, a knaidel is a type of Jewish dumpling.   
On face value, if you read Anita Clayton's Huffington Post piece entitled “The FDA, Sexual Dysfunction and Gender Inequality,” you could not come to any conclusion other that the FDA is overtly sexist.

 Wherever he is, Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim a/k/a Paracelsus must be doing the Foxtrot in his grave. Because somehow a bunch of dopes have managed to “correct” something he got absolutely right 600 years ago. You know what it is.

 Unfortunately, the dopes are not so dopey when it comes to spreading their message: Because a chemical is toxic or carcinogenic in high doses (usually in rodent experiments) that it poses a danger to humans at miniscule doses. Therefore we should be scared of any chemical that they tell us is dangerous, regardless of the exposure. And their list is endless.