Continues from Part 1… http://yeahstub.com/article/gm-ignition-deaths-derelict-regulation-who-is-ultimately-behind-it-all-pt-1
Includes: Atlantic Legal (Daubert rules) scientific reviewers’ pattern of fraud to support industry over sound science, unequivocal proof expectations and relative risk corporate criteria to block sound science, the Data Quality Act (Daubert rules applied to federal regulatory agencies), Atlantic Legal and the tobacco industry’s front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) to smear sound science as “junk science”
Daubert scientific reviewer, Steven H.Lamm, and his Atlantic Legal role on other Amicus Briefs filed to protect industry at the expense of the public’s health
In 1996, seven years after his written deposition review of published material on Bendectin and limb deformities, and now in a published review of another batch of existing research literature, Dr. Steven H. Lamm concluded that benzene— one of the world’s most recognized carcinogens, and a component of hundreds of industry products, including diesel fuel— was allegedly not a factor in causing a type of leukemia known as multiple myeloma. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.276.9782
This despite other researchers, not working for the interests of industry, coming to the exact opposite conclusion— such as Peter Infante, professor of Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington School of Public Health, who found an over 100% increased risk (relative risk of 2.13) of benzene exposure and multiple myeloma. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1371.081/abstract
Leukemia is a cancer of blood cells, which are composed of both white and red blood cells. And both white and red blood cells are derived from the red bone marrow in human bones. And both are derived from the very same stem cells within the bone marrow (pluripotent cells— being able to develop in multiple directions), which divide and differentiate several times within the bone marrow to make several kinds of white blood cells (immune system cells) and red blood cells that deliver oxygen to the body’s cells.
The point being that multiple myeloma develops from a type of white blood cell called a plasma cell, which is just a few cell divisions separated from all other white blood cells, and red blood cells— all of which are adversely affected by benzene, or benzene metabolites (created after benzene is broken down in the liver). And when exposed to this well-known carcinogen, lead to DNA mutations (abnormal chromosome changes) and potentially to cancers. So to try and separate out one kind of white blood cell cancer as being immune to the adverse impacts of benzene, that impacts all others, is highly disingenuous. http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/8354177/The_toxicology_of_benzene
How benzene adversely impacts white and red blood cells also happens to be one of the ways chemotherapy drugs act— which are also highly carcinogenic— and which subsequently cause leukemias, lymphomas and aplastic anemia (the killing off of red blood cells), among other cancers. When injected into the circulation, the chemotherapy drugs (or their metabolites), like benzene, also end up in the red bone marrow (which has very rich blood supply) and there, can adversely affect the extremely vulnerable and exposed DNA of the fast developing white and red blood cells.
Lamm’s focus on co-authoring a research paper on multiple myeloma, as allegedly not being impacted by benzene, could not be more transparent. Multiple myeloma, which was once only seen in the advanced elderly, has been one of the fastest growing blood cancers since the 1950s, as a direct result of the public’s increased exposure to multiple manmade toxins (such as benzene) produced by a variety of U.S. industries. http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/nci/manipulates.htm
If industries that use benzene in their products can get a paper published to say that benzene is not implicated in multiple myeloma (regardless of other papers that say the opposite) then they can fight any claims in court that come up that claim chronic benzene exposure was responsible for a plaintiff’s multiple myeloma.
Which is exactly what happened in 2002, when Steven H. Lamm and 13 other Atlantic Legal associated scientists, including Clark W. Health and Richard Wilson, signed their names to another amicus brief— Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Navarro— to contest a jury decision that found for a woman who had worked in a railroad yard, filled with petroleum, diesel fuel exhausts from locomotives (one of the highest concentrations of airborne benzene), and had contracted multiple myeloma.
http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/0819/pagea2.pdf (Laredo Times article)
http://www.atlanticlegal.org/php/uploads/4062.pdf (amicus brief)
Unlike the Daubert case, in this case the jury was allowed to hear the evidence of the woman’s expert witnesses and found damages against Missouri Pacific Railroad. But the decision was reverse in the higher court on appeal— not because of the impact of benzene and a hundred other toxic chemicals the woman (who died during the trial) was exposed to by working in an office within the railroad yard for 20 years, but because Atlantic Legal scientists challenged the methodology of the woman’s expert witnesses— and were only able to reverse the decision due to the new, corporate-friendly rules laid down by the Daubert decision in 1993, for “allowed” scientific evidence in court cases.
Lamm, who was central to the distortion of scientific evidence in the Daubert case, would sign his name to two more Atlantic Legal amicus briefs— showing a clear pattern of disingenuousness and industry-bias that had nothing to do with offering up scientific opinions to protect the public’s health and safety, but everything to do with protecting the profits and legal costs of industry.
And while Lamm and other Atlantic organized scientists may be smart and talented in their given fields, their ethics are repugnant. And ethics play a huge role in determining sound science— not corporate-interpreted science— to identify real industry product hazards posed to the public’s health, which then require responsible— non-corporate-corrupted— regulations to protect the public from such hazards.
In 2003, a year after the Missouri Pacific Railroad case, Lamm joined 14 other Atlantic Legal scientists, including Robert Adair, Patricia Buffler and Richard Wilson, in contesting the claims of victims suffering from radiation and extremely toxic chemical exposure in O’Connor, et al, and Crilley, et al. v Boeing and Rockwell. http://www.atlanticlegal.org/php/uploads/4064.pdf
This was series of cases known as the Rocketdyne cases, referring to Boeing’s Rocketdyne plant at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley, outside of Los Angeles. Here, Boeing, contracted by the Air Force and the U.S. Department of Energy, developed rocket systems and recycled nuclear power fuel sources from 1940 until 1989.
In 1959, a small nuclear facility on the property experienced a partial meltdown, which Boeing suppressed at the time, and which was only revealed thirty years later, in 1989, by outside sources. It is estimated that the meltdown and release of radiation particles was between, at minimum, 15 to 100 times more extensive than General Electric’s Three Mile Island nuclear facility’s meltdown in 1979. http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=06-P13-00003&segmentID=1
In addition to the radiation emissions, major amounts of highly toxic chemicals had been burned in open containers and dumped on the Rocketdyne property and had leached into the underlying ground water reserves serving the surrounding communities, polluting air and water sources. As a result of these conditions, hundreds of nearby residents, along with workers on the base, contracted cancer and other debilitating disease conditions.
Lamm and his fellow Atlantic Legal scientist— including the late Patricia Buffler, once Dean of the University of California, Berkey’s School of Public health, from 1991 to 1998, while concurrently being paid as a director, since 1994, for the $3 billion pesticide and herbicide chemical corporation, FMC, and being quoted as stating that no conflict of interests had resulted from her being paid by corporations in environmental lawsuits, despite finding in their favor each time— contested the cancer claims of thirty residents.
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=567240&ticker=FMC&previousCapId=28606&previousTitle=FMC%20Corp. (Buffler and FMC)
http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2005/06/industry-funded-scientific-research.html (Buffler and corporate apology statements)
Not because they apparently contracted cancer from the obvious cancer causing agents released from the Rockedyne facility, but because they allegedly missed a statute of limitations deadline for filing their complaints. Luckily, Atlantic Legal’s amicus brief leading to the reversal of the cancer victims’ claims was later reversed by another appeal. But the amicus brief filed by the Atlantic Legal scientists showed their true intent— to protect the industries involved, at the expense of the victims in the case.
Patricia Buffler was also one of several scientists working openly, or silently, with industry and corporate motives to promote the theory that leukemia is allegedly not caused by low-level radiation exposure, or chronic exposure to manmade EMR sources from power-line to cell phones and wireless products or platforms, or from exposure to a host of toxic industrial or commercial chemicals, such as benzene, or from a wide range of pharmaceutical drugs, but apparently the result of a “phantom” virus, that has yet to be identified. (See also National Cancer Institute’s virus animal/hybrid experiments at end of Unequivocal Proof expectations section.)
The implication of such a baseless theory, of a virus allegedly causing leukemia, is quite obvious. Blame the cause on a mysterious virus so you can protect the hazardous industry products actually responsible for causing the out-of-control rise of multiple forms of leukemia in the population today, and save the industries involved tens of $millions or more in legal fees from wrongful injury or death claims.
A year after filing an amicus brief in the Rockedyne cases, Lamm and 10 other Atlantic Legal scientists, including Robert Adair, Clark Heath and Richard Wilson, filed another amicus brief in the Aguilar, et al. v ExxonMobile Corp., et al., “Lockheed Litigation Cases.” http://www.atlanticlegal.org/php/uploads/4068.pdf
This time, around 250 workers were poisoned in various degrees from toxic chemicals, supplied to Lockheed Aeronautics from several major fuel and chemical companies, used for the construction of the Air Force’s F117 “stealth fighters, commissioned in the 1960s, with the work carried on into the 1980s.
In one of a series of multiple trials in this decades-long case, dozens of workers were awarded a huge, $760 million in damages— in part, stemming from over 400 charges of misconduct leveled against Lockheed from the U.S. Department of Labor. The damages were appealed, and reduced, and because of procedural arguments, some of the cases were remanded for retrial, which is where the Atlantic Legal scientist found an opening to push forth their amicus brief. And because of existing Daubert rules constricting the admissibility of scientific evidence, their amicus brief was able to convince the California Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court ruling which dismissed expert scientific testimony for one of these groups of plaintiffs, and granted a summary decision for Lockheed. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216591.600-secrecy-hides-the-hazards-of-working-in-the-aerospace-industry.html
Unequivocal Proof expectations
Atlantic Legal scientists continue to push for two scientific criteria to be met in court cases that are virtually impossible to meet— as a way of dismissing otherwise sound, and accurate, scientific evidence against their corporate clients.
The first, that there must allegedly be an unequivocal, proven, biological mechanism, by which the industry product caused the damage in the body. This is virtually impossible to prove, unequivocally, since scientists and doctors— despite what they may publically say— still know very little of how problems work in absolute clearly defined detail at the molecular and cellular levels, where the initiation of health problems begin— such as the creation of diseases or fetal abnormalities.
In real, sound science— practiced by conscientious physicians and scientists not in the pay of corporate funding— cause and effect is determined by a totality of laboratory, animal studies, clinical observations and epidemiological studies (when available), which, together, point to a “plausible” biological mechanism. And if these various scientific pieces of evidence all point to the same cause and effect, common sense, and ethical sense, dictates and demands regulatory actions to be taken to protect the public from the hazardous product being investigated, regardless if an exact biological mechanism has been determined. Not hiding behind irresponsible expectations to avoid responsible action.
But at least in one regard on the issue of irresponsible expectations of unequivocal biological mechanisms, Atlantic Legal has the blessings of the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute, which are both joined at the hip in their views and actions regarding cancer.
In 1982, the American Cancer Society (ACS) adopted a highly restrictive “cancer identification policy” that insisted upon unequivocal evidence of cancer causing agents, before taking any position on the hazards that might be posed to the public’s health.
And one of those policies was to trivialize or reject animal cancer research results as an alleged indicator of similar actions expected to occur in humans http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm — despite over 90% genetic similarity existing between humans and animals, and with both having virtually identical regulatory feedback systems, and despite a history of reliability of animal research to accurately predict similar risks likely to occur among humans.
(Ignored animal studies with Bendectin use showed virtually identical limb deformities that would later surface among thousands of children whose mothers took the drug while being pregnant, but who were not told of such studies and risks, because animal study results were suppressed by Richardson Merrell, the makers of the drug.)
The American Cancer Society also believes that it is apparently a “myth” that electronic devices, like cell phones, can cause cancer in people who use them. (Broadcasting this theory on the Discovery Channel). While the ACS’ director of medical content, Dr. Ted Cansler, advises the public that microwave radiation supposedly cannot cause changes in DNA— despite a volume of scientific evidence that proves just the opposite. (Microwave News, May/June 2003, p.3) http://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/backissues/m-j03issue.pdf
So if you ever get a brain tumor from cell phone use— or thyroid cancer, or breast cancer, or pancreatic cancer, etc. from cell phone or by chronic exposure to another wireless platform or product emitting completely foreign to human biology, and hazardous, levels of manmade microwave radiation— and you try and sue one of the cell phone or wireless providers, you will not only face Daubert handicaps, but those testifying against you may very well be scientists working for the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute. As Dr. Eugene Calle, Director of Analytical Epidemiology, for the American Cancer Society, did in 2003, in a widely publicized brain cancer trial of a 42 year-old Baltimore neurologist, named Dr. Christopher Newman, who blamed cell phone use for his malignant brain tumor. And due to industry testimony and the Daubert rules of “acceptable scientific evidence,” lost the case. And shortly after, his life. (Microwave News March/April 2002) http://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/backissues/m-a02issue.pdf
For those who actually want to see who and what the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute are really all about, they should read some articles written by two scientists who have been exposing their fraudulent activities for years, and holding impeccable backgrounds:
Dr. Samuel S. Epstein from the University of the Illinois School of Public Health, author of The Politics of Cancer, and science writer and researcher Ralph W. Moss. PhD, and author of The Cancer Industry. And a good place to start would be with the article, “American Cancer Society: the World’s Wealthiest ‘Nonprofit’ Institution,” by Samuel S. Epstein, MD, http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm
And: “U. S. National Cancer Institute Manipulates Cancer Statistics” http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/nci/manipulates.htm
And a very worthwhile organization to check out would be the Cancer Prevention Coalition at the University of Illinois at the Chicago School of Public Health. http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/tikkun_2000.htm
Not only has the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which directs the nation’s cancer research and prevention protocol, done virtually nothing to prevent cancer— by not exposing the industry products that cause it (other than tobacco smoke)— and which has spent virtually its entire multi-billion dollar yearly budget on promoting chemotherapy, radiation and surgery treatments that can cause and/or spread cancers, while concurrently using the same “junk science” smear techniques employed by Atlantic Legal scientists and U.S. corporations to suppress “unconventional” scientific and medical attempts to cure cancer by accessing the body’s own immune system (without manipulating it with genetic modified drugs), and thereby not inducing more cancers in the body, the NCI has been actively involved in creating (through genetic engineering) completely abnormal animal-human hybrid virus-causing cancers.
Through the NCI’s Special Cancer Virus Program, set up from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, NCI scientists, collaborating with U.S. biological warfare researchers at Fort Detrick in Maryland, created completely abnormal hybrid cross species viral causing cancers (never before seen in nature), in an “attempt to study” cancers. With that research clearly showing that human cancers are not caused by viruses— except by those having been genetically modified in labs. http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell3.html
(See also the fraud behind the “human papilloma virus” vaccine at: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_vacunas01.htm )
And the extremely hazardous, animal-based viruses the NCI and the military’s biological warfare researchers did abnormally adapted to infect human cells included retroviruses originating in primates, which very likely resulted in the creation of the HIV retrovirus causing AIDS, which was only detected in the human population a few years after the this research project “shut down.” While the full extent of the hazards to the society’s health from the genetically modified viruses of this research, which could never be completely contained in the labs in which they were created, has been suppressed for the past 40 years. http://www.whale.to/v/cantwell3.html
The other “demand” made by industry groups like Atlantic Legal, for allegedly “sound scientific results,” is that the relative risk must be at least over 2.0, or over an outrageous 100% increased risk of occurrence— as part of what they call “good epidemiological practices.”
Relative risks are risk factors determined from statistical analysis, and as their name implies, they describe the risk of contracting a disease, or birth abnormality, or being injured from the use or exposure to an industry product, in comparison to an individual not exposed to such industry products.
A relative risk (RR) of 1.0 means that there is 0% increased risk of being hurt by exposure to a the product in question. A relative risk of 1.1 means there is a 10% increased risk. An RR of 1.2 means there is 20% increased risk, and so on.
Most conscientious physicians and scientists register concern if the relative risk of injury from a product is over 10% to 15% to, at most, 20%. For example the relative risk of getting cancer from secondhand smoke, (or environmental smoke), is between 1 and 2. Also remember the actual relative risk— not the company’s fraudulently downplayed relative risk— of the Richardson-Merrell performed epidemiological study linking limb deformities among children whose mothers took the drug Bendectin while pregnant, was 1.8, or 80% — a very high increased risk.
Here’s another way to look at relative risks. If someone placed two glasses of water in front of you and told you one of them had a drug dissolved in it that would reduce your blood cholesterol levels, but the chance of getting liver cancer from drinking it was 50% over drinking the other glass of water (RR of 1.5), would you drink it? If you would, you might want to see a psychiatrist.
Meanwhile, groups like Atlantic legal and other industry organizations are continually pushing for even higher relative risk criteria to protect corporations from being sued for pushing their hazardous industry products into the market, or for avoiding regulatory costs to make their products safe.
In 1999, the corporate created “think tank,” The Annapolis Center, founded by the National Association of Manufacturers (which is also on the Executive Council of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis), and with a heavy concentration of military representatives, published a widely dispersed “public service” publication: “The Role of Epidemiology in Decision-Making” http://www.accp1.org/pdf/EpidemiologyInDecision.pdf , designed as a “primer” for non-scientists to allegedly better understand “soundly applied” epidemiology standards.
Under the heading, Cautions For Users of Epidemiological Research, and under the subheading, Consistently Strong Association, the primer states: “In judging relative risk, the single most important factor is a consistently observed, strong association between risk factor and disease (relative risk exceeding 3.0).”
A relative risk of 3.0 is an absurdly and criminally irresponsibly high 3-fold risk— or a 200% increased risk to wait to occur, before taking action to protect the public’s health against a hazardous industry product.
On the Board of Directors of The Annapolis Center is George T. Wolff, Ph.D., Principal Scientist with General Motors’ Public Policy Center.
And while Mr. Wolff’s area of expertise is air pollution, it would be interesting to know what level of relative risk GM was willing to wait for, until enough drivers had died from its faulty ignition switch problems, to consider the problem a “strong enough risk association,” before it was willing to initiate action, on its own, to protect other drivers of its cars from the same risk. And you could ask the same question of the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Association).
While back in the late 1960s and early1970s, the Ford Motor Company baulked at paying for an $11 repair to fix its Ford Pinto gas tank hazards (which could explode in rear end collisions). Today, allowing for inflation, that would be about $57— or 100 times more than the 57 cent spring replacement part that GM recently baulked at replacing to avoid the risk of ignition failures and resulting death hazards. “Pinto Madness,” (Mark Dowie, Mother Jones, Sept/Oct 1977) http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness?page=1
So you could make the argument that in 40 years, corporations have devalued human life by a factor of 100-fold, or 9,000%, or a relative risk of 100.
The Data Quality Act— taking “Daubert Rules” to federal regulatory agencies
In the early 1990s, about the same time Daubert was making its way through the courts, the tobacco giant, Phillip Morris, was looking for ways to manipulate and thwart risk assessment criteria and data being assembled to hold the tobacco industry responsible for the health hazards accompanying secondhand smoke (Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)).
In addition to setting up industry front groups like Federal Focus, and dozens others like it, to help stall regulation efforts on secondhand smoke, and to fund already established industry groups, like the newly formed Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Philip Morris accessed one of the most notorious anti-regulators of the last several decades, Jim Tozzi.
Tozzi, who has degrees in economics and business, and zero background in biology, the health sciences, or medicine, has been working as an anti-regulator of health and science issues in and around the federal government since the 1960s, reaching the level of top administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during the Reagan Administration— a position that allowed him to “regulate” the regulatory decisions of federal regulatory agencies like the EPA and the FDA, covering virtually all regulations dealing with the public’s health and safety.
While Tozzi was head of the OIRA— and ultimately responsible for the regulatory actions of all public health regulatory agencies that the office oversaw— information arose about the risk of giving aspirin to children with the flu who would be at increased risk for developing Reye’s syndrome— a potentially fatal condition affecting the liver, among other organs.
Proposed public health regulations— which included placing a warning insert in aspirin bottles, to warn the public about the risk— were stalled by Tozzi’s OIRA. And as a result, roughly 200 children died from contracting Reye’s syndrome from just this predicted risk. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/James_Tozzi
While after the warning was inserted in aspirin bottles, the use of aspirin declined, and children contracting Reyes’ syndrome dramatically decreased. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2680560
Tozzi has denied any responsibility in this one, of many cases he has been connected to. And allegedly defends his innocence in the complicity of this crime against innocent children by pointing to the public record, which does not list his involvement. But his own words belie his denial of responsibility.
Early on in his career, Tozzi developed a reputation (for which he is very proud) of sneaking in anti-regulatory legislation to derail the regulatory process, and has been quoted by The Washington Post in preening of his past exploits: “I don’t want to leave fingerprints.” http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.mooney.html
After leaving the federal government, Tozzi set up an industry lobbying group, Multinational Business Services (MBS) in 1992 with Steven Milloy— a public relations writer with a longtime association with the Monsanto Company and genetic modification of foods— who would go on to head the industry funded “Junk Science” website to character assassinate any scientific study, or scientist, or doctor, or writer who “dared” to promote actually sound science that in any way criticized the hazardous products of his corporate financial backers.
MBS, which was heavily funded by Philip Morris, was instrumental in stalling regulatory efforts on secondhand smoke, designed to protect the public from contracting cancers and other smoke- related health hazards.
And Tozzi, who took great pride in his direct involvement in stalling Environmental Tobacco Smoke regulations on behalf of the tobacco industry, apparently does not quite understand that his “involvement” in blocking regulations— to allow the tobacco industry to make several more $billions in profit off the sale of unregulated tobacco products— also resulted in thousands of American unnecessarily contracting cancers.
But in the United States, being culpable, or complicit, directly or indirectly, in the deaths of hundreds to thousands of individuals is not considered a crime, if those crimes are committed under the cloak of protection of free enterprise agendas— “without leaving fingerprints.” Because then, the victims are not really victims, but economic “market risks,” cleared for sacrifice for the apparently “larger, and far more important purpose” of securing high-end corporate profits.
Tozzi has spent his entire adult life working to stop responsible public safety regulations, while hiding behind the justification of his actions that he is just an innocent “market-based conservative.” Just as the Atlantic Legal Foundation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—a close affiliate of Atlantic Legal and Jim Tozzi, which represents more than three million companies, and is the nation’s most powerful business lobby, and has sued the federal government hundreds of times to stop public safety regulations that cut into corporate profits— also consider themselves to be equally “innocent” groups only promoting free market enterprise.
And their “interpretations” of free market enterprise just happens to “require” the deregulation of hazardous industry products, to secure unlimited profits for corporations and Wall Street investors. Which just happens to accomplish this task off the backs and the health of the American public.
Such is the man (Tozzi) who architected the Data Quality Act— a piece of legislation that allows industries and corporations to question and challenge the “quality of the data” of sound science produced by the nation’s regulatory agencies, through the same “Daubert Rules” used by the courts.
A piece of legislation that was designed to stall, derail, or stop public health safety regulations of hazardous industry products at the federal regulatory agency level— by imposing threats of lawsuits, or by following through with lawsuits backed by industry groups like Atlantic Legal and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3733-2004Aug15.html
“Passed” in 2001— 8 years after the Daubert Decision, and as a direct result of it— the Data Quality Act was never voted on by Congress because it was slipped in as a “stealth rider” by Tozzi in a thousand page Treasury budget bill. And the fact that the U.S. democratic system allows the passage of legislation by this blatantly corrupted method speaks volumes about a system that presents itself around the world as an alleged “open and transparent” form of government to apparently be modeled after, to achieve the coveted principle of “justice for all.”
Atlantic Legal and the industry front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
In addition to funneling tobacco money into Jim Tozzi and Steven Malloy’s industry lobbying group, Multinational Business Services, Philip Morris, also set up Steve Malloy as executive director of one of industry’s most notorious public relations front groups: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which would later spin off Steve Milloy’s “Junk Science” website. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/JunkScience.com
And while TASSC (now-defunct) was created to help derail public health regulations on secondhand tobacco smoke, by promoting Duabert “sound science” rules, along with “good epidemiological practices” requiring at least a two-fold relative risk of injury before initiating any regulatory action, it was also used to help other industries facing similar regulatory “problems” with their hazardous products, which is where Atlantic Legal came in.
Sitting on the board of TASSC, alongside Steve Malloy, were five scientists or “public service” reps from the Atlantic Legal Foundation. http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/tassc.htm
So at the same time Atlantic Legal— through its sponsored scientists— was co-running this blatantly, pro-corporate public relations group, and explicitly trying to deny that secondhand tobacco smoke caused lung cancer, it was petitioning the Supreme Court on the Daubert decision, with a group of like-minded scientists that were passing themselves off as “allegedly unbiased” to the Supreme Court, and allegedly seeking only to achieve better scientific research criteria used in product injury court cases.
The Atlantic Legal scientists that served on TASSC’s board were: University of California at Berkeley biochemist and biologist, Bruce Ames; Brown University biologist, Michael Gough— additionally a scientific advisor to the industry front groups: Citizens for the Integrity of Science, the Corporate Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, which published a co-written book by Gough and Steven Milloy, “Silencing Science”; U.S. Trade Rep from 1985-1988 and Secretary of Agriculture from 1989 to 1991 and Cato Institute “fellow,” Clayton Yeutter; the ubiquitous John D. Graham, founder and Director of the Center for Risk Analysis at Harvard University’s School of Public Health.
And last, but certainly not least, the “highly decorated” physicist, and ex-chairman of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, Frederick Seitz. That’s right, the ex-chairman of the world-renowned Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, denying that secondhand cigarette smoke caused lung cancer. http://www.atlanticlegal.org/amici.html
Fredrick Seitz also just happened to be one of the 18 scientists who signed their names to the amicus brief petitioned to the Supreme Court in the 1993, through the Atlantic Legal Foundation, to argue for “sound science” Daubert Rules, http://atlanticlegal.org/php/uploads/4047.pdf , and from which the Supreme Court cited and quoted in their majority opinion. http://atlanticlegal.org/case.php?cid=1051
Mopping up with corporate front group funded public relations writers
Another high profile public relations writer joining Steve Milloy in railing against actual sound science, and a like-minded supporter of Monsanto and the high-tech/bio-tech industries in general, is Michael Fumento. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Fumento
Fumento, a lawyer by training— without any background in the sciences— also somehow became a “science advisor” to Atlantic Legal, as well as a lecturer on science and health issues around the world, which is a pretty slick trick to pull off. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lvr08d00/pdf
About on par with Atlantic Legal’s, military-financed, Eleanor Adair and her crew at the IEEE, overseeing microwave radiation public exposure safety levels, trying to reclassify the outer ear as not connected to the inner ear, so that they could more than triple the exposure level of microwave radiation emitted into the brain from cell phones (and save the telecom industry money from not having to create “nuisance” regulatory features on cell phones to reduce microwave radiation emissions). http://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/backissues/n-d99issue.pdf
Meanwhile, Fumento and Milloy and biologist Michael Gough from Atlantic Legal, along with other industry front PR writers, such as Elizabeth Whelan for the industry front group, the American Council on Science and Health, and John Carlisle and Henry Miller (not to be confused with the writer with talent), Alex Avery, and Grayden Ferrer, ex-director of Executive Communications for the Monsanto Corporation, have collaborated on multiple books, published by industry front groups like the Cato Institute and the Hudson Institute, promoting genetic modified foods and drugs and the biotech industry in general, while painting organic farming and those opposed to manmade chemicals and genetic modified foods and drugs, and manmade electromagnetic radiation emitting products, as allegedly representing “unsound science.” http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=85
End Part 2
Obama’s endorsement of Bill Clinton’s track record of a series of deregulation policies passed the 1990s that have vastly increased the release of hazardous products into the market and the environment, from: the pharmaceutical, the genetic modified food and biotech, and the telecom and computer industries. Including deregulated high-tech and manmade EMR impacts on neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s, ALS and MS, and on increasing global warming trends. http://yeahstub.com/article/gm-ignition-deaths-derelict-regulation-who-is-ultimately-behind-it-all-pt-3