E!! » Fleecing the Taxpayers

Of Phthalates and Anogenital Distances and Feminized Boys, or the Junk Science of Dr. Shanna Swan

E!! — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:35:55 +0000

One of my pet peeves is the funding of questionable “scientific” studies by federal agencies like the EPA. Another is the presentation of “junk science” in our court rooms by very well-compensated “expert” academics. A third is modern science’s obsession with gender issues, to the point of absurdity. So naturally this headline by Curtis Porter at the American Council on Science & Health (ACSH) caught my eye:

Dr. Swan to Infant Boys: Stop Being So Girly

First, an excerpt from Porter’s piece:

So, WebMD relays the results of a new study by Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester Medical Center published in the International Journal of Andrology: “Mothers exposed to high levels of chemicals known as phthalates during pregnancy may have boys who are less likely to play with trucks and other male-typical toys or to play fight.”

If this sounds absurdly unscientific to you, it’s because it is. “Dr. Swan clearly started with her desired result and worked backwards to find some pseudo-scientific factors to justify it,” says ACSH’s Dr. Gilbert Ross.

“Shanna Swan has made a career out of studying phthalates and trying to find reproductive effects from them,” says ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who has crossed swords with Dr. Swan on the subject before.

“A few years ago she conducted a study that alleged there was a ‘feminizing’ effect on baby boys from phthalate exposure based on a metric she made up called ‘anogenital distance,’” explains Dr. Ross. “That study has since become part of the lore of anti-science groups who dislike phthalates. This latest study is equally horrendous. I could go through the article and say all the ways it is completely nonsensical, and we’d be here all morning, but I will mention that she reverts to her preferred strategy of using parameters that she admits she made up on the spot when she’s watching these baby boys playing with toys.”

“This is junk science at its worst,” adds Dr. Whelan. “And I’d just like to point out that Shanna Swan recently got a $5 million dollar grant from the EPA to continue with this terrible research.”

Question 1: It costs $5 million to screen boys and watch them play with trucks?

Question 2: What is “anogenital distance” and why is it alleged to be a “feminizing” factor?

Question 3: Who is Dr. Shanna Swan? ACSH, a well-respected organization, seems to disagree with a lot of her work.

A Google search on “Swan” and “expert” and “testimony” returned this article from Forbes. It answers two of my three questions. (“Anogenital distance” is the distance between the anus and the genitals. More on this in a bit.)

From the Forbes piece:

Once upon a time–this week, actually–mothers all over the world woke up and wondered whether their little boys were increasingly behaving like little girls. The cause for this sudden concern: a new study claiming chemicals in everyday plastics might be feminizing their brains.

Was this a feminist plot to end patriarchy and violence? A cunning plan by doll manufacturers in a hitherto-hidden war with toy-truck makers? A long-term strategy to improve the growth potential of grooming products for men? No, it was just another study that the media rushed into publication without any pause to examine how it was assembled.

However, what the reports failed to mention was the weak statistical data the authors of the study employed to reach this conclusion.

As the author of Forbes piece goes on to say, we live in a “virtual junkyard of information, a growing, steaming pile of statistical garbage and toxic nonsense that won’t decay and disappear.” False findings in modern “scientific” research are common, and researching the accuracy of research is now a field of scientific study. On top of that, the media’s eagerness to quote Swan and other so-called “experts” births, as the Forbes piece also points out, that mythical beast known as “a growing number of scientists.”

The author of the Forbes piece goes on to cite a number of court cases, including one that made it to the Supreme Court, in which Dr. Swan’s studies and testimony were so poorly regarded that they were ruled inadmissible.

So, now, the “anogenital” thing (again quoting from the Forbes piece):

Take the chemicals in vinyl and cosmetics that are supposedly feminizing baby boys. Though phthalates have been a target of environmental activist groups for years, they only rose to recent prominence thanks to one highly-publicized 2005 study by Shanna Swan.

Swan claimed that levels of certain phthalate metabolites in pregnant women correlated with a lower anogenital index (AGI) in their male children. AGI is a measurement of the distance from the anus to the base of the penis, divided by the weight at the time of measurement.

There wasn’t a consensus as to what a normal range for AGI was in baby boys or whether it is significant, but there was evidence that a shorter AGI correlated with a slower rate of testicular descent in animals. When a National Institutes of Health (NIH) expert panel later evaluated her study, it didn’t find her evidence wholly convincing. All the babies in the study had normal genitalia with no sign of defects.

But Swan wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle claiming that “In-utero exposures to phthalates can lead to birth defects and genital malformations … in baby boys.” Such a claim disregarded her own study and would never have passed peer review. Environmental activists and journalists then seized on her public comments as proof the public was at risk. Phthalates and Shanna Swan suddenly became the poster boy and girl for deformed penises.

Dr. Swan later mined through new data she compiled. On the basis of finding two correlations that reached statistical significance, she announced to the world that some phthalates could change male behavior and feminize little boys.

Two?

Two correlations are a long way away from evidence of causation, friends. On that basis, Swan feels justified striking fear in the hearts of mothers regarding the health and/or masculinity of their boys? And Dr. Swan is supposed to be a well-respected expert in her field? It seems, as the Forbes piece said, that:

The logic of her approach to evaluating risk was so precautionary that virtually nothing could provide sufficient proof of safety while pretty much anything could provide sufficient proof of danger.

Right. And it is the potential danger of non-scientific “approaches” like Swan’s – including fabricating metrics like “anogenital distance,” over-valuing minor correlations, and placing unsubstantiated, theoretical op-eds in major newspapers – that fairness can be thwarted in our justice courts as well as in the court of public opinion.

It should be noted that such “methods” and “research” can also lead to unnecessary and costly EPA regulations that don’t make us one bit safer. Dr. Swan sure seems to be playing fast and loose with our tax dollars, which is the real source of the $5M in funding for her “research.”

Political & Jobs Math in Pennies

E!! — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:00:29 +0000

Clever. And sobering.

Is Health Care a “Right”?

E!! — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:00:47 +0000

Nearly every argument in favor of universal (socialized) health care includes the premis that it is a “right.” But according to the U.S. Constiution, this is not so. Geoff Lawrence over at NPRI explains why by giving us a brief lesson (via the writings of John Locke) about how the Constitution does not in fact support “positive rights.” If you wish to effectively debate someone on health care reform (or any other entitlement program), you must understand this fundamental concept. I recommend that you read Geoff’s whole post, but here’s the opener to give you a taste:

In the ongoing debate over health care reform, I continue to hear pundits on the left claim that health care is a right. Yet, this notion that government exists to guarantee “positive rights” such as free health care completely misunderstands the development of constitutional government.

The entire notion of constitutional government can be traced to John Locke’s Second Treatise. Here it is explained that all men are endowed with a set of natural rights which include: life, liberty and property. In order to protect those rights, civilized individuals agree to a “social contract” in order to form a government whose primary purpose is to protect the rights of individuals. This is done by empowering government to restrain the actions of others (such as theft, physical violence, etc.) that might directly infringe on your own natural rights. Hence the expression “Your rights end where someone else’s begin.”

The primary problem with the concept of “positive rights” is that the purpose of government changes from protecting the natural rights of individuals to actively infringing upon those rights. Any requirement for government to provide individuals with a certain amount of goods means that those goods must first be confiscated from society – which is a limit on the natural right to control property.

Just so.

For a wonderful treatise on why the government should not be in the business of deciding whether or how much to take from us in order to give to select others, read this story that was told on the House floor by Davy Crockett when he was serving as a U.S. Representative from Tennessee. It concerned two votes on spending bills and the temptation of Congress to distribute money that was not their own for “charitable” purposes.

Our federal and state legislatures, as well as the Oval Office, have too long been staffed by too many people who do not understand nor support our rights and protections as they ought to exist according to our Constitution. Through the increasing willingness of we, the citizenry, to allow government to do what we, as individuals, ought to be doing – helping and giving to the poor and needy as we are able and as we feel called to do – we have permitted our great Republic to become a tax-laden “social democracy” that reduces rather than protects our prosperity and freedom.

On May 23, 1857, in a letter to an American friend, Lord Thomas MacCauley wrote: “A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority (who vote) will vote for those candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Are we there yet? Not quite, but I fear we are getting dangerously close. Educate yourselves, good people, and let us find ways to speak out and persuade others before this great Republic devolves into a pitiful excuse for the nation it once was.

Boehner Reads Covertly Submitted Energy Amendment Aloud on House Floor

E!! — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:29:53 +0000

A little Hill bird just emailed me to hurry up and flip on CSPAN. Which I can’t do from my present location. But if I could, I am told I would see/hear House Republican Leader John Boehner reading aloud. The text?

A 300-page amendment to the Waxman-Markey energy bill that was dropped in at 3 a.m. this morning. So…here we have Democrats trying to rush through what amounts to the largest tax in American history (Cap and Trade!) AND then slip in giant last minute amendments in the middle of the night.

Really, I’m surprised they didn’t think to slip a mickey in all the GOP drinks to make sure everyone slept through the financial rape of the American taxpayer.

Keep it classy, guys!

Update: If you want to call your congressman and urge him/her to vote against the “Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislation, H.R. 2454,” you can go here to get his/her phone number. If you live in my district, which many of E!!’s Nevada readers do, your rep is Rep. Shelley Berkley. Her office number in D.C. is (202)225-5965.

Update 2: If you don’t know why you should be against Cap and Trade, read this fact sheet by the Heritage Foundation.

Update 3: Read what newspapers around the country have said about it (page has pithy quotes from major publications).

Update 4: Um, it passed. By 8 votes. As my friend Doug Busselman said on his blog: “The forces of greater government control and those who favor destroying what’s left of our economy have won — 219-212. Thank goodness we have Senator Harry Reid to protect us — oh, nevermind!”

Update 5: The eight House Republicans who voted for the bill are:

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

Additionally, the following two Republicans ABSTAINED from the vote.

Jeff Flake R (AZ)
John Sullivan R (OK)

Update 6: Campaign for Liberty has a list of all the Democrats who voted against.

Brian Reidl: PAYGO Has Never Been Enforced

E!! — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:44:07 +0000

You’ve probably heard the social drinker’s jovial party line, “I don’t drink any more. (dramatic pause) Don’t drink any less, either…”

Yuk-yuk.

Today’s Morning Bell says this joke pretty much sums up Obama’s proposal for pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation which comes equipped with an exception for entitemlement spending. Their quoted quip:

Commenting on President Obama’s exemption for entitlement spending in his PAYGO legislation, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget President Maya MacGuineas said: “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.”

Here’s a clip from the piece:

In theory, PAYGO sounds like common sense: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. In reality, PAYGO is nothing more than a political gimmick that only enables higher spending and exploding deficits. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:

1) PAYGO has never been enforced

During the 1991-2002 round of statutory PAYGO, Congress and the President still added more than $700 billion to the budget deficit and simply cancelled every single sequestration that would have enforced PAYGO.
Since the 2007 creation of the PAYGO rule, Congress has waived it numerous times in order to add $600 billion to the deficit. In fact, the entire “stimulus” bill violated PAYGO; Congress simply ignored the rule.

2) PAYGO’s design is flawed

PAYGO exempts all discretionary spending, and would also allow all current entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to continue growing on autopilot. It affects only new entitlements or tax cuts that may be created in the future.
Even if PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would still grow 6 percent annually, and discretionary spending could grow without limit.

Already this year Obama expanded Medicaid liabilities by $200 billion over 10 years, and he is now pushing a public health insurance option that would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period. How does Obama plan to pay for all this new spending under his new PAYGO legislation? He doesn’t.

Obama is banking on trillions in exemptions to PAYGO over the next decade, including the one for his health care reform plan which will have to run big deficits if they get it passed. PAYGO is a farce, sham, mockery, etc. As is politics in this country.

Pass the vodka, please.

Obama Proposes Sending Billions to the IMF for European Bank Bailouts

E!! — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:41:09 +0000

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks.

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill. Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

Tomorrow, Tomorrow, I’ll Blog Ya’, Tomorrow…

E!! — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 05:33:17 +0000

Yeah, I know what I said, but tomorrow ran a bit long. And right now it’s late and I’m really too tired to wax blogetic. But I’ll give you a few interesting items to read:

– Gun Owners of Nevada SB-52 alert here. Raggio and Gansert’s contact numbers are conveniently provided.

– A moderate Democrat displeased with the leftward lurch of the Obama White House writes to the Las Vegas Sun here.

– On Friday, Carson City protestors protested about the state budget here. The state Assembly overrode the governor’s veto so we now have a $6.9m budget and a $781 million tax increase to fund it. (Gov. Gibbons’ proposed $6.2 billion budget, which legislators rejected, included a $220 million voter-approved room tax increase.) Me, I reject BOTH budgets as more than was needed – and more than Nevada can afford.

– If the facts are as represented, it seems a mistrial and re-trial for an Army Ranger would be in order here. Personally, I don’t care if he shot the Al Quada operative while he was just sitting on the rock. Why are we politely escorting known terrorists around anyway…?

– A seemingly worthy non-partisan breast cancer initiative petition is here. It urges Congress to pass legislation to end the practice of so-called “drive-through” mastectomies in which women are forced out of the hospital only hours after invasive breast cancer surgery. Hours...?

What A Difference 100 Days Makes

E!! — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:28:14 +0000

If you can stomach it, Americans for Tax Reform has a recap of all the major fiscal and tax-related events since Inauguration Day.

Title: Obama’s First 100 Days: Higher Spending. More Debt. New Taxes. Broken Promises.

Yep, that about sums it up.

Just a snippet:

Day 1 — January 20: In his Inaugural address, President Obama makes a noteworthy commitment to the American taxpayer:

“And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

Or two:

Day 41 — March 1: The Obama administration foreshadows another broken promise when Peter Orszag, appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, claims the 8,000 earmarks in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 are “last year’s business. We just need to move on.” The statement by Orszag in not consistent with Obama’s campaign promise made in the first presidential debate:

“And, absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” (Sept. 26, 2008. First Presidential Debate, Oxford, Miss.)

RTWT.

The Death Tax

E!! — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:10:10 +0000

To read this NYT piece on the estate tax, you’d think its biggest problems are that conservative spin-meisters dubbed it “the death tax” as it came out of the gate – and that they “portray [it] as the Internal Revenue Service reaching beyond on the grave.” (How dare they tell the truth like that?!) The article’s obviously biased author, Carl Hulse, argues: “Studies show that the tax hits merely a sliver of wealthy American families.” Well, ok then. As long as we are only raking a few people over the proverbial coals, why should we get excited?

Because the tax is unfair and ought to be illegal. It amounts to double-taxation since those who have accumulated wealth have already paid taxes on their income throughout their lifetime. The sums of money are not the issue. Whether you are worth $10 million or $1 million or a nickel ninety-eight, you should not have to stop off for a last visit to the tax man on your way to the grave.

Harry Reid doesn’t think so, though. Evidenced by the bulging of his veins during a recent Senate floor debate. The issue? A proposed amendment to permanently cut the death tax rate to 35% and to exempt estates worth less than $10 million per couple and $5 million for a single taxpayer. (Obama and his minions want a 45% rate with a $7 million exemption.)

Every Republican voted for the lower rate, as did 10 Democrats. But according to this piece in the WSG, Harry Reid called the amendment by Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AK) “outrageous,” a “stunning act of hypocrisy,” and a tax cut for those “at the very top of the food chain.” And then (quote and comment from the WSJ):

“We can only turn the page from recession to recovery if we watch every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in their budget.” We’d say Mr. Reid was being deliberately ironic, but Harry doesn’t do irony. He’s an outrage man. And speaking of which, he was at that very moment working to pass a 2010 budget outline that includes record spending and trillions of dollars in new debt.

Yeah, we all know Reid is on board with unprecendented federal spending and national debt.

But let me get this other part straight. Harry Reid equates your family income and budget with the federal government’s. This might seem like a reasonable comparison at first glance, but it’s faulty to the core. Your household income is likely fixed at its current rate. You have to (or should) limit your spending to what you take in. You cannot demand more income from your employer. And you probably aren’t borrowing large sums of money in order to “invest” in questionable and unproven endeavors.

The federal government’s revenue stream, on the other hand, is not fixed. Legislators can increase the government’s revenue anytime by voting to create or raise taxes. They don’t play by the same rules and live within the same limits we do; they make the rules and set the limits (or lack thereof). They can – and do – vote to spend whatever they wish, for whichever “stimulus” effort they want. Evidenced by the current budget and tax talk on The Hill. In short, there is no valid comparison. Harry Reid and friends know this, or should.

But back to the death tax. Bottom line: there shouldn’t be one. At all.

And the bottom line on Harry Reid and all those who support fleecing “a small sliver” of America’s wealthy as they draw their last breath? To quote that king of outrage himself, they are engaged in “a stunning act of hypocrisy.”

Hat tip for the WSJ/Reid portion: Veronique de Rugy @ The Corner

UPDATE: A reader emails, and another comments, on something I think a lot of people don’t realize: the estate tax applies to the recipient of the inheritance no matter the size of the gift. So, if a benefactor who exceeds the exempted limit leaves you, say, $100,000 in his will, it is you who will owe the IRS $35,000.

So much for only a small “sliver” of Americans being subject to this tax. The very wealthy often make numerous bequests of varying sizes to relatives and other people who are not particularly wealthy (otherwise the bequest wouldn’t mean much), and all these recipients, however poor, are subject to the 35% tax rate. Imagine a single mother living at or near poverty level who pays no (or next-to-no) income tax. She receives $50,000 from a rich auntie and must then write the IRS a check for $17,500. To her, that sum could mean a down payment on a small house, or cash payment for a decent new car, or a good start on a college education for her child…but instead, it will go to the federal government, to redistribute as it sees fit.

Does this seem just to to anyone? A suspicious mind might wonder if there is a deliberate intent to make sure the money doesn’t go to the descendants and/or friends of productive and successful people.

And Obama wants to raise the tax rate to 45%.

Dear Gov. Mark Sanford, Please Move to Nevada

E!! — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:27:57 +0000

From Chuck’s Muth’s News & Views:

Now here’s the sort of talk we like to hear from a Republican governor…

“Common sense dictates that when you’re in a hole it’s vital you stop digging. Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that (our state) will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries — or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?

“Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years — again, with money we don’t have? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in (our) state financial history.”

Unfortunately, that’s not Nevada’s tax-hiking Republican governor talking. It’s a true conservative Republican governor talking: South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Wish there were more like him. Wish he was our governor.