Alarmist caused problems with climate, environment, toxicology, and energy
John D Dunn
October 26, 2025
I am grateful to know that good people are working on this effort to push out the insanity.
The pattern here has infected public health science matters in so many ways, driven by the precautionary principle and the use of variants of linear no-threashold toxicology.
You may think it a stretch, but the exaggeration of CO2 and greenhouse gas danger is very much like small association toxicology research that results in scare claims.
The list is long, and Kennedy is making it longer by adopting the junk toxicology claims of the fraudsters, ignoring the more obvious problems of exploding levels of obesity, which bring on many medical problems. The result is a burgeoning effort to claim cancer and health problems from all sorts of things in the environment.
The notorious World Health Organization and its cancer research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, have been busy doing junk epidemiological studies, data dredging, and torturing on uncontrolled population studies, but also doing high-dose exposure cross-species experiments. The goal is the assertion that the world is just a big carcinogen, studies looking for carcinogens and, of course, finding them using data dredged small associations as proof of causation and buffing their studies up with hacker claims of statistical significance. The work has resulted in European and domestically long list of carcinogens--and with the Kennedy arrival as HHS Sec, a lot of anxious talk and hyperventilation based on junk science toxicology/oncology/chronic disease scares.
There are many in this group of climate scientists who know about junk science described below which makes trace gases the evil, conveniently human-generated gases that must be regulated to save the planet.
Unfortunately there are good skeptics on the junk science of the climate scare who are all in on the toxicological research scares and the use of linear no threshold and other fraudulent toxicological methods. For example, small associations do not prove causation.
Think about my warning and consider the concept of the Gell Mann Amnesia (Murray Gell-Mann was a Nobel laureate in physics). Amnesia is a failure to remember an unreliable source on one matter, maybe an unreliable source on another. What Gell-Mann observed is that scientists or experts identify junk science from a source that pertains to the area of expertise they have, and then they turn around and accept junk science from the same source in an area they aren't experts in.
I have met too many experts who criticize climate claims but believe the toxicology and oncology claims coming from the same sources. Good science is built on a search for the truth; the fallacies most common and harmful are reference to authority or consensus, combined with tunnel vision and confirmation bias. Groupthink is not consistent with the method of good science.
My best example is climate scientists who recognize junk science scares from the IPCC and its whores, but are suckers for junk toxicology and oncology claims put out by fraudster scientists in matters of air and water pollution scaremongering and food supply toxicology claims.
It's always driven by claims that regulations must be established to save the planet and the human race. In fact, these ambitious tyrants are using fear to get control and power.
-John Dale Dunn, MD, JD Brownwood, Texas