CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Media fomenting-_hysteria

Published on August 6th, 2009 | by Susan Kraemer

38

False-Flag Wind NIMBY Catapaults Propaganda



Four British newspapers are quoting a self-published author who claims supposed wind turbine health problems in a piece that could be pretty much summed up as:

Wind Turbines Give You Spots!

The Independent, The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Belfast Telegraph are printing the same piece (unverified by any third parties) by a New York pediatrician who has set herself up as an “expert” on wind with her own vanity press. Nina Pierpont thinks “Wind Turbine Syndrome” can cause abnormal heart beats, sleep disturbance, headaches, tinnitus, nausea, visual blurring, panic attacks migraines, sleep deprivation, and general irritability.

And it is fine that a pediatrician, like anyone else, has an opinion, but that doesn’t make this science. Pierpont is claiming that her book is peer-reviewed (by other pediatricians, I assume?) which is not true. Other pediatricians (who are doctors for children) have not “peer-reviewed” her work.

More relevantly; acousticians (who actually do study the aural efffects of things like wind turbines) have not “peer-reviewed” her work.

How could they? Can a mathematician or a weatherman “peer” review a climate scientist’s work? Of course not. They are not peers. Same thing with acousticians versus childrens doctors.

A “peer”, by definition, works in the same field of study.

As Grist notes, this is clearly a vanity press self publishing effort:

Her “publisher” has a four-person editorial board consisting of herself, her husband Calvin Luther Martin, and two other members. Pierpont’s husband is also the book’s editor. Her book can only be ordered from her website. The “publisher” website is a page on Pierpont’s own site.

Valid peer-review is, by nature, independent. While authors are encouraged (and sometimes required) to suggest possible peer reviewers, the final selection of reviewers in valid refereeing is never made by people closely related to the author, or hired by the author. Pierpont being on the editorial board of a company that she claims oversaw a peer review process is itself a scandal.

Dr. Pierpont told the newspapers that there was “no doubt” about the existence of Wind Turbine Syndrome, based on her interviews with just 38 people in 10 families living near wind turbines ranging in size from 1.5MW to 3MW, and that was good enough for the newspapers. Local councils are increasingly refusing permission to build wind farms.

The British Wind Energy Association points out that her study was based on an unscientific sample (too few people and not a verified study) and that it runs counter to wide ranging research finding that wind turbines do not pose health risks

Germany and Denmark have far more deployed wind energy than Britain. “In Germany, they have deployed 15,000 turbines in the past 20 years, and yet there has been no detectable increase in any of these health symptoms identified as being caused by turbines,” says the BWEA. The Borough of Westminster had 300,000 complaints about noise last year – but only 4 about wind farms.

If the pediatrician’s background wasn’t enough to tip off mainstream journalists; a cursory glance at the website would have revealed this poorly concealed deception regarding peer review.

But in an age where fossil-fuel lobbyists use identity theft to falsify the views of legitimate constituencies, and a government conceals the science on climate change, and science itself must take a backseat to the opinions of the rabble, hey; who’s checking? We don’t need no stinking Fourth Estate.

Via Grist

Early Mass Hysteria by Goya

Print Friendly

Tags: , , ,


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.



  • Rucio

    1. From what I’ve read, these families did not “hate” wind turbines. They were assured by the companies that there would be no problem with noise.

    2. Denmark’s turbines are mostly small compared to modern machines, and they are not close to homes. Danish law recognizes that property values are effected by nearby turbines. Germany has clear noise regulations that require the turbines to be a substantial distance from homes: in quiet regions, it is 1-1.5 km minimum. One German consultant to developers, Retexo-RISP, said several years ago that wind turbines should not be closer than 2 km from homes.

    3. Again, “these people” did not expect and were not looking for ill effects from the turbines. Many of them have been forced to abandon their homes.

    P.S. Pierpont’s book is now printed and available at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com

  • Rucio

    1. From what I’ve read, these families did not “hate” wind turbines. They were assured by the companies that there would be no problem with noise.

    2. Denmark’s turbines are mostly small compared to modern machines, and they are not close to homes. Danish law recognizes that property values are effected by nearby turbines. Germany has clear noise regulations that require the turbines to be a substantial distance from homes: in quiet regions, it is 1-1.5 km minimum. One German consultant to developers, Retexo-RISP, said several years ago that wind turbines should not be closer than 2 km from homes.

    3. Again, “these people” did not expect and were not looking for ill effects from the turbines. Many of them have been forced to abandon their homes.

    P.S. Pierpont’s book is now printed and available at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com

  • Dan

    38 people form 10 families is not sufficient to study anything. Find ten families who hate wind turbines and blame ever health problem they have on the wind turbine. Most of Denmark is powered by wind energy and Germany has built 15,000 turbine in the last 20 years yet this Wind Turbine Syndrome does not seem to exist over there. There are likely two reasons for this fact 1st more credible scientific research is done and 2nd wind turbines are more accepted over there than they are over here which means fewer people give people like Nina Pierpont an attention and second people don’t blame every problem they have on wind turbines.

    There is also the possibility that because these people have gotten it in their head that turbines are bad that they stress themselves out and think they are hearing the sounds that no normal person would here. In other words if they didn’t know the turbine was there they wouldn’t hear it. If someone wanted to do a real test they would record the sounds made by a turbine, then replay the recording of the sounds to a residential area that was not aware of it (at the same setback that said turbine would be at) and I doubt there would be very many complaints if any let alone terrible earth shattering health problems.

  • Dan

    38 people form 10 families is not sufficient to study anything. Find ten families who hate wind turbines and blame ever health problem they have on the wind turbine. Most of Denmark is powered by wind energy and Germany has built 15,000 turbine in the last 20 years yet this Wind Turbine Syndrome does not seem to exist over there. There are likely two reasons for this fact 1st more credible scientific research is done and 2nd wind turbines are more accepted over there than they are over here which means fewer people give people like Nina Pierpont an attention and second people don’t blame every problem they have on wind turbines.

    There is also the possibility that because these people have gotten it in their head that turbines are bad that they stress themselves out and think they are hearing the sounds that no normal person would here. In other words if they didn’t know the turbine was there they wouldn’t hear it. If someone wanted to do a real test they would record the sounds made by a turbine, then replay the recording of the sounds to a residential area that was not aware of it (at the same setback that said turbine would be at) and I doubt there would be very many complaints if any let alone terrible earth shattering health problems.

  • Knowlton Hunter

    I checked out the article referring to the 1.2 Mile separation suggested and this seems to be a number pulled out of the air and then referenced by the author of the article. Most scientific studies call from 250 to 600M – mostly for safety from ice which might be flung up to 100M but also to reduce possible noise issues from the “swish” of blades which can reach levels from 500 to 1000 HZ. Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise from upwind wind turbines has been demonstrated to be well below the threshold where they impact on us humans.

  • Knowlton Hunter

    I checked out the article referring to the 1.2 Mile separation suggested and this seems to be a number pulled out of the air and then referenced by the author of the article. Most scientific studies call from 250 to 600M – mostly for safety from ice which might be flung up to 100M but also to reduce possible noise issues from the “swish” of blades which can reach levels from 500 to 1000 HZ. Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise from upwind wind turbines has been demonstrated to be well below the threshold where they impact on us humans.

  • Rucio

    A sensible statement from last year: “A buffer zone between turbines and residents will probably help prevent most reasonable complaints within a community.”

    That was at http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/18/wind-turbines-and-health/

    As noted there, “Two kilometers (1.2 miles) is often cited as an ideal minimum distance for everyone’s comfort.”

    Which is exactly what Pierpont suggests.

  • Rucio

    A sensible statement from last year: “A buffer zone between turbines and residents will probably help prevent most reasonable complaints within a community.”

    That was at http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/18/wind-turbines-and-health/

    As noted there, “Two kilometers (1.2 miles) is often cited as an ideal minimum distance for everyone’s comfort.”

    Which is exactly what Pierpont suggests.

  • Rucio

    And yet many many people complain of ill health effects from nearby wind turbines. When they leave the area, their symptoms are relieved. When they return, so do the symptoms.

    The owner of the Melancthon facility in Ontario has bought 6 properties of people suffering ill health from the turbines. The purchase agreements included gag orders against publicizing them. (Most leases and even neighbor “forbearance” contracts include gag orders against revealing problems.) Any “self-indulging narcissism” appears to be on the part of the industry and its defenders, not its victims.

  • Rucio

    And yet many many people complain of ill health effects from nearby wind turbines. When they leave the area, their symptoms are relieved. When they return, so do the symptoms.

    The owner of the Melancthon facility in Ontario has bought 6 properties of people suffering ill health from the turbines. The purchase agreements included gag orders against publicizing them. (Most leases and even neighbor “forbearance” contracts include gag orders against revealing problems.) Any “self-indulging narcissism” appears to be on the part of the industry and its defenders, not its victims.

  • http://www.awea.org Big P

    Read these articles to dismiss any doubt that Dr. Pierpont is a self-indulging narcissist.

    Wind Power Noise Effects Studies

    Leventhal, G. (2006). Infrasound from Wind Turbines ? Fact, Fiction or Deception. Canadian Acoustics 24(2).

    Summary: Discussion of infrasound and what it really is and how the media and those who don?t understand it talk about it. Infrasound generally occurs at levels higher than the levels produced by wind towers.

    American Wind Energy Association. (2008). Facts about Wind Energy and Noise. Available at http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Utility_Scale_Wind_Energy_Sound.pdf

    Summary: Lists many of the concerns related to commercial scale wind power and defends against those claims.

    The British Wind Energy Association. (2000). Noise from Wind Turbines: The Facts. Available at http://www.bwea.com/pdf/noise.pdf

    Summary: Explanation of where the noise from wind turbines comes from and a comparison to other noise levels.

    Warburton, A. M. (2004). Examining Utility Scale Wind Energy Development in Nova Scotia: A Planning Perspective. Dalhousie University. Halifax, Nova Scotia

    Summary: A review of many of the health concerns related to wind farms. Full of great sources and other references.

    Howe, B. (2006). Wind Turbines and Infrasound. Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited. Mississauga, ON. Available at http://www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/CanWEA_Infrasound_Study_Final.pdf

    Summary: A discussion of infrasound, what it is, levels produced by wind turbines, levels required to pose health threats to humans.

    Jakobsen J. 2005. Infrasound Emission from Wind Turbines. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control. 24(3): 145-155. http://www.hayswind.com/info/low%20frequency%20noise%20-%20jakobsen.pdf

    Summary: A survey of all known published material on infrasound generation from wind turbines. Newer upwind rotor generation produces infrasound at levels too low to be perceived or harmful.

    The Acoustical Society of America has many published articles about wind turbine noise on its website.

    In February 2008, Chatham-Kent Municipal Council received a package of documents titled Wind Energy and Human Health Research Brief Volume 1, 2, and 3.79,80,81 The volumes consist of numerous entries from curriculum vitas to newspaper articles. Nina Pierpont, writes several of the articles. The literature search utilized by Chatham-Kent Public Health for the Chatham-Kent report, revealed no articles or research papers by Nina Pierpont published in scientific or peer reviewed journals. Several of the studies Dr. Pierpont has conducted are case studies, meaning they are a documentation of an individual?s account of a situation or experience. One cannot discount the information, yet it is prudent that generalizations from such limited data are avoided. Several of the articles, all of Volume 3, have nothing to do with wind power or the health effects of wind farms and the intent of these articles remains unclear.

    MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

    HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT

    INFORMATION REPORT

    Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) Summary-Low Frequency Noise Report

    First International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives for Control

    Berlin 17th and 18th October 2005

    How the “mythology” of infrasound and low frequency

    noise related to wind turbines might have developed

    Geoff Leventhall

    Noise Consultant 150 Craddocks Avenue

    Ashtead Surrey KT21 1NL UK

    geoff@activenoise.co.uk

  • http://www.awea.org Big P

    Read these articles to dismiss any doubt that Dr. Pierpont is a self-indulging narcissist.

    Wind Power Noise Effects Studies

    Leventhal, G. (2006). Infrasound from Wind Turbines ? Fact, Fiction or Deception. Canadian Acoustics 24(2).

    Summary: Discussion of infrasound and what it really is and how the media and those who don?t understand it talk about it. Infrasound generally occurs at levels higher than the levels produced by wind towers.

    American Wind Energy Association. (2008). Facts about Wind Energy and Noise. Available at http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Utility_Scale_Wind_Energy_Sound.pdf

    Summary: Lists many of the concerns related to commercial scale wind power and defends against those claims.

    The British Wind Energy Association. (2000). Noise from Wind Turbines: The Facts. Available at http://www.bwea.com/pdf/noise.pdf

    Summary: Explanation of where the noise from wind turbines comes from and a comparison to other noise levels.

    Warburton, A. M. (2004). Examining Utility Scale Wind Energy Development in Nova Scotia: A Planning Perspective. Dalhousie University. Halifax, Nova Scotia

    Summary: A review of many of the health concerns related to wind farms. Full of great sources and other references.

    Howe, B. (2006). Wind Turbines and Infrasound. Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited. Mississauga, ON. Available at http://www.canwea.ca/images/uploads/File/CanWEA_Infrasound_Study_Final.pdf

    Summary: A discussion of infrasound, what it is, levels produced by wind turbines, levels required to pose health threats to humans.

    Jakobsen J. 2005. Infrasound Emission from Wind Turbines. Journal of Low Frequency Noise, Vibration and Active Control. 24(3): 145-155. http://www.hayswind.com/info/low%20frequency%20noise%20-%20jakobsen.pdf

    Summary: A survey of all known published material on infrasound generation from wind turbines. Newer upwind rotor generation produces infrasound at levels too low to be perceived or harmful.

    The Acoustical Society of America has many published articles about wind turbine noise on its website.

    In February 2008, Chatham-Kent Municipal Council received a package of documents titled Wind Energy and Human Health Research Brief Volume 1, 2, and 3.79,80,81 The volumes consist of numerous entries from curriculum vitas to newspaper articles. Nina Pierpont, writes several of the articles. The literature search utilized by Chatham-Kent Public Health for the Chatham-Kent report, revealed no articles or research papers by Nina Pierpont published in scientific or peer reviewed journals. Several of the studies Dr. Pierpont has conducted are case studies, meaning they are a documentation of an individual?s account of a situation or experience. One cannot discount the information, yet it is prudent that generalizations from such limited data are avoided. Several of the articles, all of Volume 3, have nothing to do with wind power or the health effects of wind farms and the intent of these articles remains unclear.

    MUNICIPALITY OF CHATHAM-KENT

    HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT

    INFORMATION REPORT

    Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) Summary-Low Frequency Noise Report

    First International Meeting on Wind Turbine Noise: Perspectives for Control

    Berlin 17th and 18th October 2005

    How the “mythology” of infrasound and low frequency

    noise related to wind turbines might have developed

    Geoff Leventhall

    Noise Consultant 150 Craddocks Avenue

    Ashtead Surrey KT21 1NL UK

    geoff@activenoise.co.uk

  • Rucio

    I would think that a pediatrician would be more qualified to study health effects than an acoustician.

    It also seems to me that her unfortunate claim of peer review (she should have called them notes of support or something) is a red herring for dismissing the whole study, which is even more unfortunate, and ultimately counterproductive.

    Likewise, countering her and others’ arguments with statements by the British Wind Energy Association — an industry trade group — is a fine example itself of self-aggrandizing circular referencing.

  • Rucio

    I would think that a pediatrician would be more qualified to study health effects than an acoustician.

    It also seems to me that her unfortunate claim of peer review (she should have called them notes of support or something) is a red herring for dismissing the whole study, which is even more unfortunate, and ultimately counterproductive.

    Likewise, countering her and others’ arguments with statements by the British Wind Energy Association — an industry trade group — is a fine example itself of self-aggrandizing circular referencing.

  • Rucio

    I obviously meant skepticism about her claim of peer review.

  • Rucio

    I obviously meant skepticism about her claim of peer review.

  • Ron

    Addendum to my last post

    We have a local project that has been in the works for almost 4 years! The opposition is led by an attorney who quotes this woman’s word as ‘proof’ that wind farms are harmful. He makes other outrageous statements that the locals take as true because he is an attorney and of course they would never lie, right? He’s made claims of lawsuits that were really just lists of opponents, he mis-represents EIA info about wind energy. Each time I try to tell people about his Bizzaro world logic, he comes up with something new. He has repeatedly said government studies say wind will NEVER provide more than 1% of our energy. In reality, DOE calims we can be over 10% in 10 years and possibly up to 20% of our energy can come from wind and solar alone in just a few years. I hate to see ignorance win.

  • Ron

    Addendum to my last post

    We have a local project that has been in the works for almost 4 years! The opposition is led by an attorney who quotes this woman’s word as ‘proof’ that wind farms are harmful. He makes other outrageous statements that the locals take as true because he is an attorney and of course they would never lie, right? He’s made claims of lawsuits that were really just lists of opponents, he mis-represents EIA info about wind energy. Each time I try to tell people about his Bizzaro world logic, he comes up with something new. He has repeatedly said government studies say wind will NEVER provide more than 1% of our energy. In reality, DOE calims we can be over 10% in 10 years and possibly up to 20% of our energy can come from wind and solar alone in just a few years. I hate to see ignorance win.

  • Ron

    to rucio

    this is not skepticism about peer review. What I’m saying is this woman is making unfounded claims that others are taking as scientific fact. Peer review is an established scientific process which she glibly dismisses and tries to redefine to suit her needs. the wind industry is scrutinized to a much higher degree than most others- by universtity labs, DOE, Electricity providers, AND it takes years of wind and wildlife studies just to get the final OK to build. She is a pediatrician NOT a valid authority, but others in the NIMBY world think she is.

  • Ron

    to rucio

    this is not skepticism about peer review. What I’m saying is this woman is making unfounded claims that others are taking as scientific fact. Peer review is an established scientific process which she glibly dismisses and tries to redefine to suit her needs. the wind industry is scrutinized to a much higher degree than most others- by universtity labs, DOE, Electricity providers, AND it takes years of wind and wildlife studies just to get the final OK to build. She is a pediatrician NOT a valid authority, but others in the NIMBY world think she is.

  • Rucio

    If only this level of skepticism about peer review and circular referencing were applied to wind industry claims as well.

  • Rucio

    If only this level of skepticism about peer review and circular referencing were applied to wind industry claims as well.

  • http://www.awea.org/blog chris madison

    Great piece. I am still wondering if there actually is such a book. Has anyone read it?

  • http://www.awea.org/blog chris madison

    Great piece. I am still wondering if there actually is such a book. Has anyone read it?

  • Ron DeMattio

    I went to her site and had a hard time slogging through the weird logic. She tries to redefine ‘peer review’saying it’s what is done when you write a book and someone cheks to see if it’s ready-so I guess her husband is her peer. As I understand it, peer review is part of the scientific process, where others in your field check to see if your ideas, conclusions, experiments are reproducible or even valid. I guess to her, peer review means it’s been spell-checked! Also, she has ‘reviews’ by doctor friends who tout her scholarship or say she’s written an important book. What a mess!

  • Ron DeMattio

    I went to her site and had a hard time slogging through the weird logic. She tries to redefine ‘peer review’saying it’s what is done when you write a book and someone cheks to see if it’s ready-so I guess her husband is her peer. As I understand it, peer review is part of the scientific process, where others in your field check to see if your ideas, conclusions, experiments are reproducible or even valid. I guess to her, peer review means it’s been spell-checked! Also, she has ‘reviews’ by doctor friends who tout her scholarship or say she’s written an important book. What a mess!

  • ali

    i wouldn’t be surprised if she was sponsored by some oil company. maybe she is trying to create hype so that people will go to her site and she can make money on advertisements. otherwise, she is just stupid.

  • ali

    i wouldn’t be surprised if she was sponsored by some oil company. maybe she is trying to create hype so that people will go to her site and she can make money on advertisements. otherwise, she is just stupid.

  • baselineshift

    Heh. That’s it!

  • baselineshift

    Heh. That’s it!

  • russ

    Finally figured it out!

    She is confusing herself with a wind turbine. I am sure she personally could cause any or all of the ailments listed just by talking.

  • russ

    Finally figured it out!

    She is confusing herself with a wind turbine. I am sure she personally could cause any or all of the ailments listed just by talking.

  • Susan Kraemer

    How frustrating! But as for:

    “She should be given as much credence as the people who sell foot pads that suck ‘toxins’ out of your body.”

    I hope not! Was across from them at a green home show once (don’t ask…) and they had far and away the most popular booth!

  • Susan Kraemer

    How frustrating! But as for:

    “She should be given as much credence as the people who sell foot pads that suck ‘toxins’ out of your body.”

    I hope not! Was across from them at a green home show once (don’t ask…) and they had far and away the most popular booth!

  • Ron DeMattio

    I have been following this woman’s nonsense for three years now. I live in Allegany NY, and locals keep referring to her as a wind energy expert or ‘scientist’. Basically, she invented the ‘syndrome’ first, then just keeps repeating it’s existence as if that makes it true. She has testified at hearings, written articles, been interviewed by the press and referred to on NIMBY blogs as ‘a world renowned scientist, or ‘scientists’. She has referred to a report that backs her up and when I checked it out, it was something she wrote on her site! The ‘report’ made such scientific claims as (paraphrasing) wind turbines don’t work because wind has no mass’ ! and ‘no one complains about living next to a nuclear plant’…She has also used the names of real acoustic researchers besides her fake allies in the EU ( who quote her as the expert…circular referrencing)to bolster her claims,who have asked her to stop. She should be given as much credence as the people who sell foot pads that suck ‘toxins’ out of your body. She is a sham, a self aggrandizing fool and unfortunately, there are people who will quote her without doing any research themselves. I could go on with more instances of this nonsense. Using her as an expert is like getting your heart operation from the cleaning lady. People like her stand in the way of real progress only in that others give her power. If a homeless person told you he had the secret of cold fusion, you would probably ignore him. Ignore her, do the math, do the homework and debunk her whenever you can.

  • Ron DeMattio

    I have been following this woman’s nonsense for three years now. I live in Allegany NY, and locals keep referring to her as a wind energy expert or ‘scientist’. Basically, she invented the ‘syndrome’ first, then just keeps repeating it’s existence as if that makes it true. She has testified at hearings, written articles, been interviewed by the press and referred to on NIMBY blogs as ‘a world renowned scientist, or ‘scientists’. She has referred to a report that backs her up and when I checked it out, it was something she wrote on her site! The ‘report’ made such scientific claims as (paraphrasing) wind turbines don’t work because wind has no mass’ ! and ‘no one complains about living next to a nuclear plant’…She has also used the names of real acoustic researchers besides her fake allies in the EU ( who quote her as the expert…circular referrencing)to bolster her claims,who have asked her to stop. She should be given as much credence as the people who sell foot pads that suck ‘toxins’ out of your body. She is a sham, a self aggrandizing fool and unfortunately, there are people who will quote her without doing any research themselves. I could go on with more instances of this nonsense. Using her as an expert is like getting your heart operation from the cleaning lady. People like her stand in the way of real progress only in that others give her power. If a homeless person told you he had the secret of cold fusion, you would probably ignore him. Ignore her, do the math, do the homework and debunk her whenever you can.

  • russ

    Looks like she wants to be the expert in the new stupid syndrome of the week!

    There are very many ‘good’, peer reviewed studies that turn out to be wrong after further work. Pierpoint jumped the gun and started off being lousy.

    I can remember the news flashes over the past 50 years where something was found to be bad for you only to hear years later that maybe it is not so bad after all or even that it is now considered good.

    Good of you to point out this garbage Susan!

  • russ

    Looks like she wants to be the expert in the new stupid syndrome of the week!

    There are very many ‘good’, peer reviewed studies that turn out to be wrong after further work. Pierpoint jumped the gun and started off being lousy.

    I can remember the news flashes over the past 50 years where something was found to be bad for you only to hear years later that maybe it is not so bad after all or even that it is now considered good.

    Good of you to point out this garbage Susan!

Back to Top ↑