Scientist Fakes Research, Blames Messenger When Caught [Andy]
— Open Blogger

Despite the awesomeness that is the House GOP's two-page Obamacare repeal bill, the best news in healthcare this week was that the FRAUD stamp was firmly (and hopefully finally) applied to the bogus “Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccine = Autism in a Vial™Â” theory.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 report in the journal Lancet purporting to show a link between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella "was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud," says Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of BMJ, formerly the British Medical Journal, in an editorial published Tuesday. The editorial accompanies the first of three reports by British investigative journalist Brian Deer that document how Wakefield manipulated data in his attempts to prove something that he "knew" before he started his research.

Peer-reviewed "research" supporting a foregone conclusion published in a leading science journal? Research no one else can independently replicate and arrive at the same result? All of this seems awfully familiar.

I have a child who is severely affected by autism, and our blogger-in-arms Eddiebear over at DPUD did the best job of capturing my true sentiments about Wakefield that I've seen.

But this is a larger issue than just autism. It is yet another example of the same anti-progress, anti-technology mindset that applies to manmade global warming, DDT, genetically modified foods and the like. And like the (unintended?) consequences of these other issues, the autism vaccine hoax has had all-too predictable results.

Measles is now endemic in England and Wales. California recently suffered a whooping cough outbreak that sickened 7,800 people and killed 10 babies. As Paul Offit, the chief of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and one of the few who stood up against the autism scare, writes in his new book "Deadly Choices," the victims of this "war on science" are children.

more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 06:45 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 613 words, total size 5 kb.

Psychedelic brain chemistry drug chemist "shocked" to find out his research is being used by bootleg recreational drug labs
— Purple Avenger

Seriously, what sort of rock has this dude been living under for the past 50 years?

A brain scientist who studies the effects of psychedelic drugs on serious illnesses has been left horrified after criminals hijacked his work to make 'legal highs' that caused fatal overdoses.

Dr David Nichols makes chemicals roughly similar to ecstasy and LSD that help explain how parts of the brain function.

But he said he was shocked to discover underground chemists have been poring over his research papers in order to make recreational drugs for sale on the black market.

Worse, some of these illicit but legal drugs have been implicated in the deaths of young people who took them...

Well, one of the rather predictable side effects of publishing research results is that they're out there for the whole world to see. Doh!

Anyone doing any sort of drug research shouldn't be shocked or horrified if their work is clandestinely utilized for the manufacture of recreational drugs. About the only ones safe from such criminal abuses would be someone working on drugs to reduce penis size...but even then there might be a brisk market among pranksters in frat houses or porn stars looking to knock their competition down a peg.

Seriously, abuse or unpredictable consequences of scientific discoveries has been something scientists and engineers have had to live with almost as long as there have been scientists and engineers. Ask Alfred Nobel, he knows.

Whatever caveman came up with the wheel, which was pretty revolutionary and proved damned handy at the time, probably had no idea it would become directly complicit in the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people since the dawn of recorded history.

The law of unintended consequences has always been a stone cold bitch.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 05:59 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Genghis

ONT rarely delves into the base political topics that the “lesser” contributors of the blog attempt to do during the daylight hours, but tonight we’ll bow to the circumstances and dip our balls in salute to a great stateswoman…

A Farewell to Nancy:

A grateful nation thanks you for your public service, Ms. Pelosi.

More glowing tributes and heartwarming moments below the fold... more...

Posted by: Genghis at 06:14 PM | Comments (724)
Post contains 734 words, total size 7 kb.

The Passing of the Gavel
— Ace

If only. more...

Posted by: Ace at 04:44 PM | Comments (135)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Re-Corrected: Silky Pony Currently Alleged To Have Proposed to Old Moccasin With Fake Boobs
— Ace

First I put this up, then I thought it wasn't current and corrected it, but now I think what happened is this: the basic story of "John proposes to Reille" is current, but not available online yet, so people are linking this dated piece reporting the same basic thing and taking that as the current story.

And so yeah, that specific report is old, but apparently the National Enquirer is re-reporting the story. Here's the current cover, according to Politico, which also says the NE reports the marriage may happen over the summer.

John Edwards denies the report and says it's all false. He does that sort of thing.

There won't be a wet eye in the house, as they say.

Posted by: Ace at 01:23 PM | Comments (254)
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

Cage Match: Bush vs. Obama Job Creation
— Geoff

People were asking about the libs' favorite job creation meme this year: Did Obama really create more jobs in 2010 than Bush did in his entire 8 years? Well, yes, but it's a stupid statement. Here's the data (all numbers are in thousands):

	Bush			Obama
	1/31/01	1/31/09	Difference	12/31/09	12/31/10	Difference
Total Jobs	132,469	133,549	1,080	129,588	130,712	1,124
Private Jobs	111,634	110,961	-673	107,107	108,453	1,346

So you can see that the statement is strictly true: Obama did create more private sector jobs and more total jobs in one year than Bush did in 8.

But that doesn't stop this from being an utterly dishonest statement. What they're really saying is that they're going to count both recessions that Bush went through against him, but leave out most of the recession in Obama's term. Here's a fairer comparison, looking at both men's periods of growth:

	Bush			Obama
	7/31/03	12/31/07	Difference	12/31/09	12/31/10	Difference
Total Jobs	129,864	137,951	8,087	129,588	130,712	1,124
Private Jobs	108231	115574	7,253	107,107	108,453	1,346

...or maybe just comparing their first two years (even though the dot.com recession started during Bush's term, while the recent recession was half-over when Obama took over):

	Bush			Obama
	1/31/01	12/31/02	Difference	1/31/09	12/31/10	Difference
Total Jobs	132,469	130,183	-2,281	133,549	130,712	-2,837
Private Jobs	111,634	108,595	-3,039	110,961	108,453	-2,508

Now, I'm not a big fan of Bush's economic policies (except by reference to Obama's), but I think it's pretty clear that the Left's cherry-picking of time periods is ridiculous. Not that comparing two Presidencies with different circumstances isn't ridiculous from the start.

This historical foolery also raised its head during the tax cut brouhaha. Bush's tax cuts, implemented first due to revenue surpluses and then as economic stimulus, are considered to have been irresponsible. But Obama's extension of the tax cuts is considered to be a necessary step in economic recovery. Somehow the pundits have forgotten that Bush had his own recession to deal with, and an enemy actively devoted to the economic downfall of the US.

Selective memory and overtly biased analysis make for an ugly combination.

Posted by: Geoff at 12:54 PM | Comments (80)
Post contains 315 words, total size 4 kb.

Breaking: A Package Bomb "Ignites" In a Government Sorting Facility, In DC This Time; No Injuries Reported Yet
— Ace

Hang on, I'm doing more on this, but this is breaking, so I'm putting it up.

"Lone wolf," supposedly.

As you know, a note was contained with yesterday's Maryland-area packages, which sounds like it either comes from:

1, an angry Muslim,

2, an angry leftist, or

3, an angry anti-government libertarian sort who is not clearly a leftist or a Muslim.

The letter quotes area street signs urging citizens to "Report Suspicious Activity," and finds fault with that:

"Report suspicious activity. Total Bullshit. You have created a self-fulfilling prophecy."

That sounds to me more like a leftist, because that's what they always claim-- the violence that comes from external "Others" is actually caused by our own bad decisions and provocations. They love excusing Muslim violence on those terms. The letter seems to be inspired by the whole Michael Moore/Naomi Klein/"disaster capitalism" conspiracy theory, where somehow our irrational fear becomes (through some magical process) a real, tangible threat, but it's our fault, because we willed it into existence -- or, more precisely, we feared it into existence.

I'm calling leftist. And then I imagine the story will be buried and blamed on "anti-immigration extremists," as happened with the clearly leftist Discovery Channel Building leftist/environmental terrorist case.

"Don't Call It a Bomb:" Shep Smith says government officials are refusing to call it a bomb and are in fact asking the media not to call them that. While this thing is technically a bomb, whether the media wants to call it that or not, it could be intended to scare people rather than kill them. So it could basically be a fireworks device -- sort of dangerous, but unlikely to be lethal.

Posted by: Ace at 11:48 AM | Comments (288)
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Blame Bush: Nancy Pelosi Says Democrats Lost House Because of Bush's Policies
— Ace

Huh? Didn't they get into office running against Bush's policies?

Her theory -- which is Obama's theory for explaining his own failures -- is that Bush simply left the Democrats in too big a hole for them to dig out of. His policies -- not hers, not Obama's -- have us with a persistent 10% unemployment rate and the country wrongly blames her when it should be blaming Bush.

I assume that's her theory. Who knows what the hell she's talking about. She doesn't.

Posted by: Ace at 10:59 AM | Comments (282)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Giuliani Rounding Up Advisors For 2012 Run?
— Ace

Seems a big longshot.

Sources say the tough-talking former mayor "thinks the Republican race will be populated with far-right candidates like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, and there's opportunity for a moderate candidate with a background in national security."

I don't know if Rudy used the word "far-right" or if that's a source interpreting him. It's stuff like that that would absolutely preclude him from having a chance. The Republican Party is a right-side party, period, and this idea that a moderate "savior" is going to come in and win is silly. Rudy can only win if he runs as both right-wing and "moderate." (How? It's a straddle. It often works.) Running as just "the moderate" is running to lose, and branding people on the right of the Republican Party -- which is pretty much the party orthodoxy now -- as "far-right" signals I'm not one of you.

Of course he already made that play when he disastrously announced "I'm pro-choice," rather than saying something like "Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided opinion and should be overturned, and the issue returned to the states where it belongs." (Having that position and being pro-choice policy-wise aren't incompatible; that's pretty much me.)

Rudy's loss was especially notable because for so long he was the clear front-runner. But then he just completely fell apart. Still, is that itself disqualifying? He lost, same as Huckabee or Romney. If their losses aren't disqualifying, why his?

The logic of Rudy's campaign -- that he's a law-and-order get-it-done tough-on-terror ex-mayor of a large city -- isn't really aligned with the times. Unfortunately, Americans aren't taking terrorism seriously anymore, and barely remember 9/11, so Rudy's good performance as the Mayor of 9/11 is of limited cache.

On the other hand, he does have a reputation for taking on the left, and the unions, and so on, and maybe he can get traction if he emphasizes that.

But really, I think the pro-choice thing dooms him. He really should have known better last time. And now, having committed himself to that position, I don't see how he reverses that without a politically immolating flip-flop. His thinking is right that social issues will be less important in 2012 than in, say, 2008 or 2004 or 2000; but "less important" is not unimportant. The abortion thing will still be plenty potent enough to stop his run.

The problem is that even Rudy loyalists think it's a bad idea. "They think this is crazy," a source said. "They realize how long the odds are, but they are standing by."

Some insiders say it's a way for Giuliani to stay relevant. "He's not doing all these morning talk shows because he enjoys the conversation, it is because he wants to stay in the game," one said.

"He has previously said he would not run again, but he wants us to think he will," a different source said. "He's not being talked about among the Republican contenders, and his ego can't take that."

Further "insiders" demean him further by saying he's doing this just because his old business of delivering speeches at $100,000 a pop isn't doing as well these days and he needs a new jolt of relevancy to boost his honoraria. Those sound more like "enemies" than insiders, but I guess that's possible too. No one's a saint.

Many people figure primaries break down like this: There are actually two competing primaries early on, the "rightist" primary and the "moderate" primary. In the early going, one rightist candidate emerges as the favorite representative of that part of the party and one moderate emerges as the favorite from that part, and then, for the rest of the campaign, they duke it out.

That's how it was supposed to shake out in 2008 but it didn't. Somehow John McCain, a favorite of neither side, really, won, simply because the party decided he wasn't clearly disqualified from the Presidency. That is, the entire party seemed to decide that Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson were not acceptable for one reason or the other and McCain emerged, to virtually everyone's disappointment, as the last of the major candidates not so disqualified.

If it works that way in 2012, it's possible that Rudy could win that moderate primary. But I don't see how he wins the nomination, because the party is about 75% rightist and 75% pro-life.

Basically his 2008 bid was aborted and so will be his 2012 bid, unless he has some super-secret magic way to undo his current unnacceptability to the social right.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 AM | Comments (163)
Post contains 774 words, total size 5 kb.

December 2010 Unemployment Report: A Big "Meh"
— Geoff

December's unemployment rate was released this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. U-3 unemployment dropped from 9.8% last month to 9.4% this month. The U-6 number dropped from 17% to 16.7%. Only 103,000 jobs were added, however, which indicates that the drop in unemployment was more due to people leaving the labor force than getting jobs. [This job number is based on a survey of industry, rather than actual payrolls, like ADP's job number (+297K). The truth this month is likely to lie somewhere between those two numbers.]

Here's the updated version of The Chart, always available in t-shirt form (and a variety of other products) from S. Weasel (all proceeds go to support her indolent expat lifestyle):*

It's actually following Geithner's prediction from last Spring pretty closely (the green dots). It's just unfortunate for Geithner that having the Treasury Secretary tell us,"Yup, that's how bad it's going to suck, and I have no plan to fix it," should have earned him a tarring and feathering.

The Good:

• The number of unemployed people dropped by 556K, though a lot of those people left the labor force and may come back.


• The number of those employed part-time for economic reasons dropped a bit over the last couple of months. Previously the U-3 unemployment rate had been artificially suppressed by increasing numbers of part-timers.


• Manufacturing added 10K jobs, rather than losing jobs again


• Government shrank by 10K jobs, but that actually meant that local governments dropped 20K jobs and the federal government added 10K jobs. Thanks, Mr. President!

The Bad:

• The labor participation rate has dropped to its lowest percentage since 1983, falling from 64.5% last month to 64.3% this month. That likely indicates a large pent-up labor supply that is not included in the U-6 unemployment numbers.


• The number of long-term unemployed is at its highest value ever, increasing from 6.33 million to 6.44 million.

Summary. B- report with weak job growth and continued hemorrhaging of the labor force.

*The BLS changed the rates for the past year today as part of its annual tweaking of its seasonal adjustments, but since it only changed 3 of the months by 0.1%, I'm not going back and nudging the old dots into their new spots.

Posted by: Geoff at 06:42 AM | Comments (378)
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.