Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Profile

Please read the DISCLAIMERS.

markhoofnagle.jpg Mark Hoofnagle has a MD and PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia, and is now a general surgery resident. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.

Chris Hoofnagle Chris Hoofnagle teaches privacy and computer crime law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. A former Washington lawyer, Chris wrote the The Denialists' Deck of Cards based upon his experiences working on consumer protection.

PalMD.jpg PalMD is a practicing internist in the Midwestern United States. Aside from the great joy he finds in his family and his work, he likes communicating some of that joy to others. He has a special interest in the ways patients---and we are all patients at one time or another---are deceived by charlatans. He aims to change the world, one reader at a time. Previous writings can still be found here.

Please read the DISCLAIMERS.


HONcode Certified

This blog is hosted by SEED Media Group; ad space on the top and right side belongs to them. The rest of the content is HONcode certified.

This website is accredited by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.

Search

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Blog carnivals

  • asclepius_phixr%282%29.jpg
  • BadgeMed.jpg

    Other

    « Old Timey Conspiracy Theories | Main | Suck it DI »

    Who are the denialists? (Part II)

    Category: DenialismFamliy "values" organizationsWho are the denialists?
    Posted on: May 17, 2007 8:30 AM, by MarkH

    What kind of family value is lying? That's the foremost question in my mind when I consider the family values organizations that use false research, lies and denialism to justify their agenda of disparaging contraception, sex education, homosexuality, and exaggerating the dangers of abortion.

    In light of Falwell's death, I thought it would be appropriate to advance the discussion of the use of denialist techniques to reinforce bigotry and an anti-feminist agenda in the name of family values.

    I think a good starting point for the discussion of what a family values denialist looks like is Paul Cameron and his organization the Family Research Institute which has stooped as low as using memoirs of Nazi Rudolf Hoss to justify their theory of gay "recruitment". Paul Cameron can only be described as a disgraced psychologist, the American Psychological Association has even taken the trouble to cancel his membership for violations of their code of ethics and the American Sociological Association followed suit. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently detailed his psuedoscientific crusade against gays. Cameron is a quack, who lies, cheats and misrepresents the science of others to try to prove that homosexuals have higher fatality rates and are more likely to abuse children in an attempt to scientifically justify homophobia. One of his only redeeming values is that he has no idea when he's being made fun of, so every time the Daily Show needs to make someone look like an ass on gay issues they just call him up and he willingly embarrasses himself on national television. Here at scienceblogs, Ed Brayton has chronicled several instances of Cameron's bigotry masquerading as science. Off the scienceblogs, the best resource is by far Box Turtle Bulletin which provides this list of people who promote Cameron's bogus research and lies. Not surprisingly, those that use Cameron's obviously bogus research are other denialist "family" organizations.

    Take for example the The American Family Association's repeated use of Cameron's debunked research suggesting that homosexuals are child-molesting gay recruiters. Besides promoting anti-evolution denialism, and homophobia (too many instances to catalog), they also promote the debunked breast cancer/abortion link, fake breast cancer organizations (can you even believe it?), and other cranks who promote the abortion/cancer link. Quite simply, every single page you find on their website promotes lies about sexuality, contraception, abortion, stem cells, and women's health. It's simply stunning, that people who supposedly promote families are so willing to lie and deceive to acheive their goals.

    But wait, there's more.

    No discussion of fake family organizations would be incomplete without a discussion of The Family Research Council, James Dobson's "family" lobbying organization who recently misrepresented the science on emergency contraception as part of their continuing campaign against reproductive choices from abortion to contraception and promotion of abstinence education despite proof it doesn't work. I'm sad to say that Charmaigne Yoest, their director of communications, has a position at my very own university.

    In this category I also include the fake feminist organizations such as the Independent Women's Forum and Concerned Women for America, who also routinely lie about sexuality, contraception, sex ed, etc., to advance a religious/political agenda under a pretense of representing women or feminism.

    Summary:
    Family Research Institute - Paul Cameron's denialist organization.
    The American Family Association - A clearinghouse for lies about anything south of the belt buckle.
    The Family Research Council - the most mainstream organization for liars about sexuality, sex education, contraception, etc.
    Independent Women's Forum
    Concerned Women for America

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook

    Comments

    1

    In addition to agreeing completely, I also appreciate your hard work in bringing together all this information about Cameron and other denialists/quacks. One of the biggest problems I have in arguing that Cameron and his ilk are, at best, hypocrites and also potentially dangerous is coming up with solid evidence. Obviously for some people no evidence will ever be enough, but for a few the facts about Cameron might be enough to change their minds.

    Posted by: Christopher Waldrop | May 17, 2007 11:35 AM

    2

    Christopher, check out the boxturtle bulletin link too. Jim Burroway has done the most thorough job tracking Cameron and his deception.

    Posted by: MarkH | May 17, 2007 12:19 PM

    3

    If we're going to talk about family values, throw former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed in there too. What he and Abramov tried to do to the Indian Tribes and to the African American churches is one hell of a family value.

    Posted by: BigDumbChimp | May 17, 2007 2:41 PM

    4

    Reed is on the outs, and Abramoff didn't help him any. If he rears his head again we'll jump on it, but these are the organizations that, amazingly, reporters consult to get "balance" on issues of sexuality, contraception etc.

    Posted by: MarkH | May 17, 2007 3:02 PM

    5

    I guess comments are being eaten?

    Posted by: Rev, Bigdumbchimp | May 18, 2007 12:47 AM

    6

    The APA decided to 'expell' him a full year after they had already accepted his resignation...

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/Default.aspx?tabid=85

    Posted by: Phillips | May 25, 2007 6:15 PM

    8

    but they had already accepted his resignation, nice try.

    http://familyresearchinst.org/APA_Rebuttal-small.jpg - See president's letter complete with signature.

    Posted by: Phillips | May 26, 2007 6:38 PM

    9

    this one might be somewhat more readable:

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/APA_Resignation-letter.html

    Posted by: Phillips | May 26, 2007 6:43 PM

    10

    Hmm. Sounds like the receipt of a letter, not the accepting of a resignation.

    Besides, why did he choose to resign from his professional organization if not to avoid criticism from peer review of his research which has been shown again and again to be falsified silly BS? It's just junk. No one takes it seriously. He's a crank and denialist.

    Posted by: MarkH | May 27, 2007 1:54 AM

    11

    He also published this editorial, per request of the APA president, explaining his decision in the APA journal:

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/APA_Monitor-letter.html

    I'm guessing that set them off somewhat...

    Posted by: Phillips | May 27, 2007 3:40 PM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.