MILLER 2 h bak

no merri

backup for bad margins

1 24 did something good?! w/ acsh affiliation

made $ on vaccines?

Joseph Ladapo says anti-vaccine crusade was God’s plan. It cost him his peers’ trust

Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Dr. Joseph Ladapo as surgeon general of Florida on Sept. 21, 2021. (Governor's Office photo/TNS)

By Cindy Krischer Goodman | cgoodman@sunsentinel.com | South Florida Sun Sentinel and Caroline Catherman | ccatherman@orlandosentinel.com | Orlando Sentinel

:{May 13, 2023

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo marked the third anniversary of the pandemic in March by heaping praise on his boss, Gov. Ron DeSantis, for putting the “kibosh on vaccine mandates.” He then asserted that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine “has a terrible safety profile.”

“At this point in the pandemic, I’m not sure anyone should be taking them,” he said.

This type of COVID rhetoric had helped the former University of California-Los Angeles associate professor catch the eye of the Florida governor with big political ambitions.

Since his appointment as Surgeon General in September 2021, Ladapo, 44, has made a reputation for himself as a prominent DeSantis ally for his stance against the COVID vaccine, masks, other pandemic containment measures, and gender-affirming care for transgender children.

“He’s one of the folks who has been with me battling Dr. Fauci for many years,” DeSantis said Thursday when introducing Ladapo to a cheering crowd at a news briefing where he signed three new health care bills, including one giving providers a right to deny patient services based on beliefs. The battle reference was to former U.S. Chief Medical Advisor Anthony Fauci, who served under Presidents Trump and Biden during the height of the COVID pandemic.

To examine Ladapo’s transformation from a doctor dedicated to noncontroversial research into an outspoken doubter of mainstream COVID-19 science, the South Florida Sun Sentinel and Orlando Sentinel interviewed 14 medical and research professionals throughout the state, including faculty members at the University of Florida; analyzed hundreds of pages of public records from UCLA, the Florida Department of Health, and UF; and reviewed dozens of op-eds and hundreds of social media posts by Ladapo.

His evolution placed him in a position of power that peers say came at the cost of the respect of many in the academic and medical communities. He now takes home a salary of about a half-million dollars annually, including what he earns from UF where he works as a professor in addition to his income as the state’s surgeon general.

Ladapo’s contract with UF requires him to spend 80% of his time in research and 20% of his time teaching at the school. But records show Ladapo has presented only two guest lectures, and official calendars reveal limited evidence of other work at UF during his 20-month tenure.

Not only is he not fulfilling his stated duties at UF, he’s facing a serious accusation of data manipulation from fellow health academics and researchers, and his colleagues say other professors would have faced termination if they had faced the same complaint. The University of Florida is not currently investigating these claims.

Five faculty members who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation said Ladapo’s UF colleagues are wary of collaborating with him. “They don’t want to work with him,” one said.

Ladapo did not respond to multiple interview requests nor an emailed list of questions from the South Florida Sun Sentinel and Orlando Sentinel.

While his UF peers keep a distance, Florida’s Republican lawmakers sang his praises earlier this month.

Florida Senate confirms Surgeon General Ladapo’s reappointment}:

Ladapo ‘cherry-picking’ studies to back no COVID vaccines for kids, researchers say

Experts express confusion, concern as Surgeon General Ladapo begins new COVID-19 study }:

Ladapo was confirmed for another year as the state’s top public health official on May 4 with a 27-12 Florida Senate vote along party lines.

“Thank you for pulling back the curtain and showing us some of the data that public health officials not only knew existed but refused to give us over these past few years,” Jonathan Martin, a Republican senator representing Fort Myers, told Ladapo in front of other lawmakers.

Sen. Tina Polsky, a cancer survivor who had clashed with Ladapo in 2021 when he refused to wear a mask while meeting with her, accused him of causing harm in his role as Surgeon General, a claim some Florida parents have made, too.

She unsuccessfully implored her fellow lawmakers on the state committee on ethics and elections to remove him as Florida’s surgeon general.

“Since he has been in that position, I don’t feel like he’s done anything to help our health,” said Polsky, a Democrat representing parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties. “The child immunization rate is down. His focus on COVID is very dangerous. I think he is unfit for that position. He is a dangerous leader and he is hurting the health of Floridians.”

Scientists such as Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist and the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health, say the surgeon general has engaged in “professional misconduct that has harmed the citizens of Florida.” Miller believes Ladapo’s role as a UF professor could be his last.

“I think he will have great difficulty being hired by another university after this gig is over,” said Miller....

---

Using USA Today as an outlet

In February 2017, two dozen health, environmental, labor and public interest groups wrote to the editors of USA Today with concerns that the paper regularly publishes science columns authored by ACSH staff, including Campbell, without disclosing ACSH’s funding from multiple corporate interests. ACSH Vice President of Scientific Affairs Alex Berezow, who co-authored Campbell’s 2012 book, remains on the USA Today Board of Contributors buthis biothere does not disclose his leadership staff position at ACSH.

Newsweek and :{USA Today Need Standards for Opinion Writers, by Stacy Malkan, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (2.2.2018)}:
Public Interest Groups to USA Today: Dump Corporate Front Group Science Columns, letter to editors (2.23.2017)
USA Today Fail: Trump Science Article Written By Corporate Front Group, by Stacy Malkan, Alternet (6.1.2016)
The :{American Council on Science and Health is a Corporate Front Group, USRTK fact shee}:

---

ref 1

no lnx pix

FEBRUARY 2, 2018

Newsweek and USA Today Need Standards for Opinion Writers

STACY MALKAN

Newsweek: The Campaign for Organic Foods Is a Deceitful, Expensive Scam

Why are Newsweek and USA Today so willing to let special interests mislead their readers? Clear standards are needed for disclosing conflicts of interest.

Facts don’t matter in commentaries printed by Newsweek, so long as the writer “seems genuine.” That’s the takeaway from a troubling email exchange with Newsweek opinion editor Nicholas Wapshott in response to concerns and questions I raised about a recent commentary attacking the organic industry.

Newsweek: The Campaign for Organic Food Is a Deceitful, Expensive Scam [trump pix?]

This Newsweek article (1/19/18) doesn’t mention that its author has been exposed as putting his name on Monsanto-written articles—but it does spend several paragraphs attacking the reporter who exposed him.

The organic hit piece in Newsweek (1/19/18) carried the byline of Henry I. Miller, who lost his platform at Forbes last year after the New York Times (8/1/17) revealed that Miller had published an article in Forbes under his own name that was actually written by Monsanto.

In his recent Newsweek article, Miller spent several paragraphs attacking Danny Hakim, the New York Times reporter who revealed that ghostwriting scandal; but Miller didn’t disclose to readers either the scandal or his collaborations with Monsanto.

Yet Monsanto’s fingerprints were all over Miller’s Newsweek article, as I reported (US Right to Know, 1/23/18). Miller used pesticide industry sources to make false claims about organic farming, and attacked people who were named on a target list that had been developed by Monsanto and Jay Byrne, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications, who was quoted in Miller’s piece with no mention of the Monsanto affiliation.

None of this appears to bother Newsweek opinion editor Nicholas Wapshott, according to an on-the-record email exchange.

Miller ‘Flatly Denies’ Facts

On January 22, I emailed Wapshott to raise concerns that Newsweek continues to publish Miller’s commentaries without disclosing his relationship with Monsanto, and asked if he was aware that:

1) The New York Times reported in August that Miller had been caught publishing an article ghostwritten by Monsanto under his own name in Forbes, in violation of Forbes’ policy. Forbes ended its relationship with Miller and deleted all his articles from the site.

2) A 2015 internal Monsanto PR plan (recently released by lawyers involved in litigation against Monsanto) lists “Engage Henry Miller” as one of its first action items.

3) A source Miller used in his Newsweek article, Jay Byrne, is a former Monsanto employee (not identified as such). According to emails I reported here, Byrne worked with Monsanto to set up a front group of “independent” academics, secretly funded by industry, who attacked the organic industry as a “marketing scam,” the same theme in Miller’s Newsweek article.

4) Miller has a long history of partnering with—and pitching his PR services to—corporations that need help convincing the public their products aren’t dangerous and don’t need to be regulated.

Wapshott responded, “Hi Stacy, I understand that you and Miller have a long history of dispute on this topic. He flatly denies your assertions. Nicholas”

Henry I. Miller: “He seems genuine.”

I wrote back to ask for clarification.

Hi Nicholas, to clarify:

Miller denies he published a column ghostwritten by Monsanto under his own name in Forbes and that Forbes has since deleted all his articles? (NYT story,Retraction Watch story)

Miller denies the Monsanto’s PR plan to address the IARC cancer rating of glyphosate lists “Engage Henry Miller” on page 2, item 3?

Miller denies that Jay Byrne, the former Monsanto employee not identified as such in his Newsweek article, was involved with setting up Academics Review as a front group? (Byrne has not denied writing theseemails.)

Miller and I have disagreed yes, we were on opposite sides of a political campaign to label GMOs, but the above facts are facts, and provable. Do you think it’s fair to your readers to continue to publish his work without disclosing his ties to Monsanto?

Wapshott responded, “I think so. I have met Miller and he seems genuine. And I find it hard to believe that his flat denial is a lie. We would need a full trial to determine the truth and those resources are, thank goodness, beyond our means.”

Jumbled Mix of Conflict Disclosures

I wrote back to Wapshott once more, pointing out that a trial is not necessary in the Miller case, since the facts have been established by reporting in the New York Times and corroborated by Forbes’ spokesperson Mia Carbonell, who told the Times:

All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.

Does Newsweek have a similar policy to require writers to disclose potential conflicts of interest and use only their own writing?

Newsweek editors have yet to respond to my query about disclosure policies. But the problem of weak, confused or non-existent conflict-of-interest disclosures is widespread in the media.

For a 2015 article in CJR (11/23/15), Paul Thacker asked 18 media organizations that cover science to describe their disclosure standards for both journalists and the sources they use in their stories, and 14 responded.

“The responses present a jumbled mix of policies,” Thacker wrote.

Some draw a bright line—preventing journalists from having financial ties to any outside sources. Others allow some expenses and speaking fees. To complicate matters further, some organizations have written rules, while others consider incidents on a case-by-case basis. Standards advocated by professional societies also seem to differ.

Tamar Haspel (Photo: Gretchen Ertl/Washington Post)

Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel is allowed to take money from agribusiness groups, because she’s not a “reporter.” (Photo: Gretchen Ertl/Washington Post)

Some outlets apply different standards to reporters and columnists, as I learned when I asked why Washington Post food columnist Tamar Haspel can take speaking fees from agrichemical industry groups while writing about that industry as part of her regular column beat (FAIR.org, 10/28/15). Reporters at Washington Post aren’t allowed to do that, but in the case of columnists, the editor decides.

It’s all very murky. And some outlets are clearly crossing a bright line by publishing the views of groups and people who work with corporations to promote pro-industry science views without telling readers about the corporate collaboration.

Henry Miller’s attack on organic food in Newsweek is one example. Another is USA Today’s regular publication of science columns from the American Council on Science and Health, a front group for the tobacco, chemical, fossil fuel, pharmaceutical and other industries seeking to discredit scientific information about the harm of their products.

USA Today Lends Platform to Corporate Front Group

In February 2017, two dozen health, environmental, labor and public interest groups wrote to the editors of USA Today asking the paper to stop publishing science columns by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), or at least provide full disclosures about who funds the group.

Leaked financial documents reveal that ACSH solicits money from corporations to defend and promote their products; for example, ACSH spins science on fracking, e-cigarettes, toxic cosmetics and agrichemical industry products, and solicits funding from those industries in exchange. Recent reporting establishes that ACSH works with Monsanto on messaging campaigns.

“USA Today should not be helping this group promote its false identity as a credible, independent source on science,” the two dozen groups wrote to the editors. “Your readers deserve accurate information about what and whom this group represents, as they reflect on the content of the columns.”

USA Today: Call junk science by its rightful name: Fake news

An ironic headline (USA Today, 7/21/18) for a piece written by a representative of a corporate front group.

Nearly a year later, USA Today is still publishing columns by ACSH staff and still failing to notify its readers about ACSH’s funding from corporations whose agenda they promote.

In an email response dated March 1, 2017, USA Today editorial page editor Bill Sternberg explained:

To the best of our knowledge, all of the columns in question were authored or co-authored by Alex Berezow, a longtime member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Mr. Berezow has written some 25 op-eds for us since 2011, and we consider him to be a credible voice on scientific issues. He holds a PhD in microbiology from the University of Washington, was the founding editor of RealClearScience and has contributed to a number of mainstream outlets.

Berezow is now a senior fellow at ACSH, and his “@USAToday contributor” status appears in his bio on Twitter, where he frequently attacks critics of the pesticide industry, for example in this recent vile tweet featuring a sexually graphic illustration of a nurse giving a patient a coffee enema.

Does USA Today really want to be associated with this type of science communication?

Integrity and Transparency in Science Reporting

News outlets can do better than these examples at Newsweek and USA Today, and they must do better. They can start by refusing to publish columns by corporate front groups and PR surrogates who pose as independent science thinkers.

They can implement clear and strong policies that require all columnists and journalists to disclose potential conflicts of interest for themselves and the sources they cite in their work.

At a time when the public is questioning the legitimacy of the news media, it is more important than ever for all publications to follow the highest standards of journalistic ethics and serve the public with as much truth and transparency as possible.

This article originally appeared on the website of US Right to Know (1/31/18), where Stacy Malkanis co-founder and co-director.

===

pac res BS

no lnx 1 24

COMMENTARY

Are Americans too complacent about a winter surge of COVID infections — and deaths?

To the old saying about the inevitability of death and taxes, we should add another: another health crisis linked to COVID-19. As of the end of October, the CDC’s official tally of U.S. COVID infections was just under 100 million, but with many positive home test results unreported, the real ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. NOVEMBER 15, 2022

COMMENTARY

Human insulin saga: Anomalous, successful 40-year history of the first genetically-modified medicine underscores how regulators can scuttle innovation

October 29th marks the 40th anniversary of one of biotechnology’s most significant milestones — the approval by the FDA of human insulin synthesized in genetically engineered bacteria to treat diabetes.

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. OCTOBER 27, 2022

COMMENTARY

Columnist Has a Nuclear Meltdown

Even for a news outlet whose analyses of cutting-edge technologies are often flawed, a recent New York Times article by columnist Farhad Manjoo was exceptionally misguided. Titled “Nuclear Power Still Doesn’t Make Sense,” it is, in fact, the article that doesn’t make sense. Manjoo does recognize that nuclear power is important now, citing ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. OCTOBER 7, 2022

COMMENTARY

The FDA tasks the Reagan-Udall Foundation with a whitewash review

The Food and Drug Administration has problems in many of the product areas it oversees.

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. SEPTEMBER 17, 2022

CLIMATE CHANGE

Defying Markets to Promote Organics

Advocates of President Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan touted the $1.9 trillion-dollar stimulus bill as a vehicle for various goals—to fund a national vaccination program, stop Covid-19, and reopen schools. Who could be against any of that? Those who questioned the price tag back then would like to direct you to the ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. SEPTEMBER 12, 2022

COMMENTARY

The FDA and Death by Dietary Supplement

The wife of California Republican congressman Tom McClintock, Lori McClintock, died of dehydration due to gastroenteritis caused by “adverse effects of white mulberry leaf ingestion,” according to a just-released coroner’s report. That herb is just one of many dubious and potentially life-threatening herbal remedies and other dietary supplements on the market ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. SEPTEMBER 5, 2022

COMMENTARY

Congress: To prevent addiction, empower physicians and patients to choose non-opioids

Every month, it seems, the United States smashes another unenviable record when it comes to drug addiction and overdose statistics. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the latest data show a jaw-dropping 108,000 overdose deaths in 2021. America’s families and communities are reeling — and the federal government ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. JULY 18, 2022

COMMENTARY

The FDA Is Blocking Game-Changing New Drugs For Kidney Disease

Imagine you’ve been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, told by your physician that if it can’t be managed, you may eventually need a transplant or long-term dialysis. This scary situation is one faced by hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an illness that affects an ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. JULY 1, 2022

AGRICULTURE

India’s GM Crops Regulation Should Be Based on a Gene’s Effects, Not Its Source

India has a long and dubious record of regulating genetically altered crops for agriculture. While the nation began at the same time as many other countries with the same ambitious goals – to deploy new genetic engineering tools to address agricultural vulnerabilities – it has fallen behind. Only one crop, ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. JUNE 15, 2022

AGRICULTURE

Earth Day Has Become Polluted By Political Correctness And Ignorance

The first Earth Day celebration, a nationwide environmental teach-in, held in 1970, was the brainchild of Democratic Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, who was interested in environmental issues. He recruited Rep. Pete McCloskey, a conservation-minded liberal Republican congressman, to serve as his co-chair, and they enlisted Denis Hayes, a young ...

HENRY MILLER, M.S., M.D. APRIL 19, 2022

---

big thunk

A black and white photo of a black and white photo illustrating the potential of CRISPR technology to treat sickle cell disease.

HEALTH

A revolutionary new CRISPR treatment for sickle cell anemia may be imminent

A cure may be on the horizon.

javelin missiles

THE PRESENT

Javelin missiles: Thank DARPA for Ukraine’s success against Russian tanks

Javelin missiles have been an effective force multiplier, the latter-day equivalent of the sling that David used against Goliath.

climate model

THE PRESENT

:{:{En-ROADS: A powerful, interactive climate model for predicting temperature rise}

:}:

Driving Teslas and planting trees are nice, but methane reduction, industrial efficiency, carbon removal, and a moderate carbon tax are the most efficient ways to fight climate change.

nuclear power

THE FUTURE

It’s time for a nuclear renaissance

A report from MIT outlines a six-point plan to usher in a new age of nuclear power.

organ transplantation

HEALTH

High-tech production of organs for transplantation is our future

Organ transplantation is in dire need of biotechnological advances. 3D bioprinting and genetic modification of pigs provide a path forward.

HEALTH

Plant-based vaccines can change the vaccine landscape

Vaccines can be grown in and extracted from the leaves of plants.

THE PRESENT

An “interstate water system” could fix the West’s water woes

We have pipelines for oil and natural gas. Why not water?

---

Henry I. Miller is an American medical researcher and columnist, formerly with the FDA, and from 1994 until 2018 the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank located on the university's campus in California.^[1] He is an Adjunct Fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Career

He was educated at M.I.T. (B.S. in Life Sciences) and the University of California, San Diego (M.Sc. and M.D.) and was a resident and Clinical Fellow in Medicine^[specify] at Harvard's Beth Israel Hospital in Boston. He performed research on gene organization and expression as a Research Fellow in the laboratory of Philip Leder M.D. at the National Institutes of Health.^[2]

Miller was a civil servant for fifteen years at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1979–94). He was the medical reviewer for the first genetically engineered drugs to be evaluated by the FDA and was instrumental^[3] in the rapid licensing of genetically engineered human insulin and human growth hormone. He was the "medical officer in charge of Humulin [human insulin] at the F.D.A." during its New Drug Application review in 1982.^[4] From 1985 to 1989, he was a special assistant to the FDA commissioner and from 1989 to 1993, the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology.^[5]

Since joining the Hoover Institution in 1994, Miller authored books and articles in scholarly journals, newspapers and online. He has been an Adjunct Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.^[6] He also has been a trustee of American Council on Science and Health.^[7]

In 2017 it was reported that an article published (in 2015) on the Forbes website by Miller, under his own name, had been drafted by Monsanto.^[8] As reported by the New York Times, Monsanto asked Miller to write an article rebutting the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer that had classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans. He had indicated willingness “if I could start from a high-quality draft.”^[9] On discovering this, Forbes removed his blog from Forbes.com and ended their relationship with him.^[9]

Positions

Tobacco-related debates

In a 1994 APCO Associates public relations strategy memo to help Phillip Morris organize a global campaign to fight tobacco regulations, Henry Miller was referred to as "a key supporter" and as a potential recruit.^[10]

In 2012, in the context of arguing for harm reduction strategies, Miller wrote that "nicotine ... is not particularly bad for you in the amounts delivered by cigarettes or smokeless products. The vast majority of the health risks from tobacco come from the burning and inhalation of smoke. Quitting tobacco altogether remains the ideal outcome, but switching to lower-risk products would be a boon to the health of smokers."^[11]

Mehmet Oz

In 2015, Miller coordinated a letter from a group of 10 physicians to Columbia University, demanding that Columbia's College of Physicians and Surgeons remove Mehmet Oz as a professor of surgery, alleging that Oz's public commentary on health issues had "misled and endangered" the public, and claiming that Oz showed "disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine... for personal financial gain." Oz defended his work, said that he lacked conflicts of interest, and questioned the motivations of Miller and his other critics, saying that they had "have big ties to big industry." Columbia defended Oz, citing the principle of academic freedom and faculty members' freedom of expression.^[12][13]

Selected publications

Books

Miller, Henry I. To America's Health: A Proposal to Reform the Food and Drug Administration. Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institution Press, 2000. ISBN 9780817999025
Miller, Henry I. Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View. Austin, Tex: R.G. Landes, 1997. ISBN 9781570594083
Miller, Henry I, and Gregory P. Conko. The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution. Westport, Conn: Praeger, 2004. ISBN 0275978796^[14]
Miller, Henry I. Is the Biodiversity Treaty a Bureaucratic Time Bomb? Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, 1994. ISBN 9780817956127

Research articles

Penhoet, E.; Miller, H.I.; Doyle, M.; Blatti, S. (1971). "RNA-dependent RNA polymerase in influenza virions". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 68 (6): 1369–71. doi:10.1073/pnas.68.6.1369. PMC 389191. PMID 5288388. [The first description of this essential flu enzyme.]
Miller, H.I.; Konkel, D.A.; Leder, P. (1978). "An intervening sequence of the mouse beta-major globin gene shares extensive homology only with beta-globin genes". Nature. 275 (5682): 772–774. doi:10.1038/275772a0. PMID 568218. S2CID 4174336.
Miller, H.I.; et al. (1997). "A Model Protocol to Assess the Risk of Agricultural Introductions". Nature Biotechnology. 15 (9): 845–848. doi:10.1038/nbt0997-845. PMID 9306396. S2CID 949181.
Miller, Henry I. Germline Gene Therapy: Don't Let Good Intentions Spawn Bad Policy. Issues in Science & Technology, Spring 2016 (in press).
Rappuoli, Rino; Miller, Henry I.; Falkow, Stanley (2002). "The intangible value of vaccination". Science. 297 (5583): 937–939. doi:10.1126/science.1075173. PMID 12169712. S2CID 167136358.
Green, Melvin H.; Miller, Henry I.; Hendler, Sheldon (1971). "Isolation of a polyoma-nucleoprotein complex from infected mouse-cell cultures". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 68 (5): 1032–1036. Bibcode:1971PNAS...68.1032G. doi:10.1073/pnas.68.5.1032. PMC 389107. PMID 4324998.
Miller, Henry I.; Riggs, Arthur D.; Gill, Gordon N. (1973). "Ribonuclease H (Hybrid) in Escherichia coli IDENTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION". Journal of Biological Chemistry. 248 (7): 2621–2624. doi:10.1016/S0021-9258(19)44152-5](https://doi.org/10.1016%2FS0021-9258%2819%2944152-5). [PMID 4572736.

Articles and Op-Eds

Henry I. Miller, "Genetic Catastrophes: A Tale of Science, Medicine and Suffering" [1] Forbes. Mar. 23, 2016.
John J. Cohrssen and Henry I. Miller, "The U.S. Is Botching the Zika Fight". [2] Wall Street Journal., Mar. 13, 2016.
Henry I. Miller, "What Politicians Should Learn About Vaccination,". [3]. National Review. Sep. 19, 2015.
Henry I. Miller and Drew L. Kershen. "The Colossal Hoax Of Organic Agriculture". Forbes. JUL 29, 2015.

He is a columnist for "Project Syndicate," which translates his articles into as many as 12 languages and submits them to its syndicate of more than 500 newspapers and other publications.^[15]

Miller regularly appears on the nationally syndicated radio programs of John Batchelor and Lars Larson.^[16]

Awards

Henry I. Miller award for Excellence in Public Health Education, from the American Council on Science and Health in 2008.^[17]
One of Scientific American's Worldview 100^[18]

Described as a "vocal proponent of the free market", he was shortlisted in 2006 (in the Society and ethics category) by the editors of "Nature Biotechnology" as one of the people who had made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology during the previous decade.^[19]

References

---

wiki talk edit war

cful has no bio

1 24

primary sources

Hello - I'm a human being, named Cfulbright. Can you tell me the reason for the edits you made to the Henry I. Miller article?

The above message was on my talk page. Since it is about this page I moved it here.Hello Cfulbright - I'm a human being, named Wuerzele. The reason for the edits I made are in the edit summary. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

third-party tag

I am removing the "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject," template, because six of the 11 references are links to independent 2nd and 3rd party articles about the subject. Of the other five are reference links to quotes from articles the subject wrote, and the other two are links to books published by the subject which are mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, You posted while I was writing the following and I didn't notice when I saved. Meters (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the third-party tag on this article twice.

[1] is Miller's writings on the Hoover Institution page.
[2] is a paper Miller coauthored.
[3] is Miller's writing on the Forbes' site. Fair enough, it's a cite to support what he said in that particular article.
[4] is fine (Obama speech).
[[5]](http://www.project-syndicate.org/columnist/henry-i--miller) is Miller's writings on the Project Syndicate site. It seems to be a science blog with reader comments.
[6] is an Amazon link to one of Miller's books.
[7] was Miller's google e-book. The ref is now a dead link.
[8] is Barron's list of it's 25 best books of 2004, listing Miller's book.
[9] is Miller's posts to the Forbes web site.
[10] is fine. It documents Miller's award for Op-Ed writing from 2008.
[11] also is fine, but needs to be dated better in the text. It refers to Miller's prominence during the previous decade, but is from 2006, which is not clear from the Wikipedia article.

There are also two direct links to external urls in the article:

[12] which is the Miller writings on Forbes's site already referenced. This is not directly referencing his statements here and needs to be removed (not converted to a proper ref).
[13] which is the previously referenced link to Miller's writings on the Hoover Institution page. This is straight promotion and needs to be rewritten or removed (not converted to a proper ref).
Until earlier today there was a third direct link, to a non-existent article on one of Miller's books. I have converted this to a wikilink to the correct article name The Frankenfood Myth.

I'm not saying that all of the refs I didn't list as "fine" are a problem, but it appears to me that the third-party tag is well-justified. We really need more 3rd-party sources commenting on Miller's works and prominence. Opinions? Meters (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 00:14, October 27, 2014‎

I'd like some other opinions. There seems to be too much reliance on refs to Miller's blogs/posts/writings and not much 3rd-party analysis. Meters (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meters is wrong in his characterization of some of the 11 references:

Is the Hoover Institution's page about Miller. It is not written by Miller. 5. Is Project Syndicate's page about Miller. It is not written by Miller. 7. Is not a dead link. I fixed it. 8. Is a Barron's article that mentions Miller. It is not written by Miller.

So in combination with #4, #10, and #11, which Meters says are fine, that's six of eleven references that are third party sources talking about the subject of the article.

As for the references that link to Miller's writing, it seems normal to me to provide the source for the subject's statements or opinions. There are four of those. That doesn't seem excessive to me.

Meters - perhaps you can help me fix the two two direct links to external urls. I couldn't figure out what was wrong in the source when I switched to Edit mode. Cfulbright (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, 1. is clearly Miller's writing. All 40 of the topics on the first 4 pages (I didn't bother checking any further) clearly state "by Henry I. Miller". They are articles written by Miller for various sources, but hosted on the Hoover Institution's page.No, 5. is clearly Miller's writing. It's the Project Syndicate's hosting of Miller's comments. Note that the ref follows "His work has been widely published in many languages." but the ref does not support that statement (at least in the 40 articles I looked at). Not only is the ref not independent, but it does not seem to support the claim.7. still doesn't seem to be a 3rd-party source. It was his e-book (that certainly was not an independent source) but it was a dead link and you've changed it to point to the Hoover Institution Press's | sales blurb for his book. Since Miller works for the Hoover Institution, it's not really an independent source, and all the current ref contains is the information that Miller wrote it, a brief excerpt (not independent) and a review by Michael H. Mellon M.D. From what I can find he's an allergist, so I'm not sure how relevant his review is.8. is a perfectly good ref to the fact that Barrons chose Miller's book as one of their top 25 books of 2004, but nothing more. There may be more meat behind the paywall, but we can't see it. Similar to my concerns with 7., I'm not sure how relevant this is since Barrowns is a "mass-market investment publication." To me that's not nearly as compelling a ref as a top book listing from a science publication, or a solid review by one of Miller's peers would be.Note that 4. is a solid ref, but it's not an independent source on Miller. It references what Obama said (more money for Ebola) and it's in the article because Miller had earlier written that there are better places to spend money other than on Ebola.I'm not saying trying to run Miller down at all. I'm simply saying that the article needs more independent third-party sources about Miller and his work. The third pary tag is warranted. Meters (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]There is nothing wrong with the format of the external links. They work, but we don't use inline external links. One appears to have been replaced by a proper ref already, so I just deleted it. The second links to his works. It is already used as a ref in the lead, and the second use ("Links to his articles are at http://www.hoover.org/fellows/henry-i-miller" ) is rather promotional, so I've deleted it also. Meters (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I couldn't tell either why some appeared as links, or why the one didn't. Cfulbright (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Meters, that the third-party tag is well-justified and that the article needs more independent third-party sources about Miller and his work.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele - you've displayed your bias by making edits that just aren't true. For example, you changed the source of the Barron's Top 25 reference to be Henry I. Miller. He didn't write that. Someone at Barron's did. You clearly have an agenda here. Your previous edits suggest you have an anti-GMO bias. Please either provide 3rd party references for your changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 04:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cfulbright my reply is below in a separate section, named Rhetoric questions and accusations in edit summaries by Cfulbright, since the above contributes nothing to the section under which you wrote (Third Party Tag). BTW please use filing etiquette and sign in your responses.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories:

rhetoric questions and accusations in edit summaries by Cfulbright

Cfulbright, I made an honest mistake adding Miller as author to what you call the Barrons article (but is a weirdo commercial authorless searchwebsite pseudosource). Good that you found my mistake. Hey, even better would be to find the ACTUAL Barrons reference, instead of this website ( not that Barrons doesnt have any..)

Now, please stop yelling bias and agenda in EDIT SUMMARIES at someone who's clearly trying to clean up andhas been correcting lousy/lazy incomplete refformats.

However, just reading through your contributions allows anyone to see that you do defend a really poor page, with puffery and stretched out, pompous sounding sentences, plus lousy sourcing, and getting mad at criticism of teh article, which will make anyone awake scratch their head and ask : Why is he doing that?

So why dont you hold your horses and stay cool? BTW: The sentence announcing removing of the 3rd party source label is totally off the (wikipedia) wall, and I will remove it. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had already removed the talking in the article. I would have done it sooner had I noticed it. Meters (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele, I accused you of bias on this article because you've been making what I consider to be petty edits and deletions for months. I think it borders on obsession. But only you know whether that's true or not.

I'm sorry I don't always do the right Wikipedia protocol. I'm not a frequent or experienced Wikipedia editor. I've been learning as I go. I just learned about how to sign my posts on talk pages from Meters the other day. Cfulbright (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor title in wikipedia articles

Re "Wuerzele is making silly edits. Philip Leder is a medical doctor. MD. If you don't want to call him "Dr.", then accept "M.D." after his name."

Look, Cfulbright, we dont use Professor (which Leder is, yes) or Medical Doctor, which Leder is by training, (yes, thanks, I am aware), and such on wikipedia. I have indicated this in my edit summary referring to WP:MOS. you apparently didnt read it.

I will not WP:edit war and thus will not undo your reversion, hoping a third editor will. I'd appreciate if you stop your irrational personal attacks calling my edits silly.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of MD here seems fine per WP:CREDENTIAL. Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees ... may occasionally be used in articles where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify their qualifications" Meters (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]Meters, I am aware of WP:CREDENTIAL. You are right that a one time use of MD to clarify if Philip Leder was an MD is ok. On the whole though, it is completely irrelevant for the article, and as such unnecessary, which was my point. If someone really wanted to know, whether the head of the NIH lab where Miller was at the end of teh 60's was an MD or not, they could click on Leders wikilink. In Infectious Disease research of the 60's the head of the lab was in 90% of cases an MD. enough said...--Wuerzele (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]You cited WP:MOS as the reason for removing the "Dr." before Leder's name. I don't think that MOS link says anything about professional titles. When the other editor changed it to M.D. after his name you started this thread and claimed that Wikipedia does not use M.D. I really don't care if we use M.D., but the editor wants to, and I'm simply pointing out that in this case (not the subject of the article) it is perfectly acceptable, despite what you have said in the edit summary and in this thread. If you want to take the position that the information is irrelevant, we can discuss that, but that that was not the point you made in the edit summary when you removed the "Dr." or when you started this thread after "M.D." was added. If you are going to point someone to a policy, and then give them grief for apparently not reading it, you should probably point them to something that actually supports what you are claiming. Instead, the policy supports the other editor's latest version of the edit. There's no point in making a reader follow a link just to find out if Leder was an M.D., and not every reader would know that "In Infectious Disease research of the 60's the head of the lab was in 90% of cases an MD", and even if they did know that, they still wouldn't know if this was one of the cases where that wasn't true. So, this seems like a lot of hand waving to justify leaving out two letters that policy supports using in this case. Meters (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Miller a "tobacco danger sceptic"?

In connection with the fairly recent court decision (November 6, 2015) in Paris about a defamation case in the Séralini affair, it was claimed that the defendants' only source for the claim that Séralini had been fraudulent was Miller, in a Forbes article, and dismissed Miller as an "American lobbyist" known for having claimed that tobacco is "non-cancerogenic", for "the benefit of the industry" ([14], my translation). Is there some truth in these accusations? Has Miller really disclaimed the correlation between smoking and cancer? If so, has he ever retracted this? JoergenB (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Miller "an American lobbyist"? I can find no reference to him being a lobbyist at all. Being a research at a think tank doesn't make you a lobbyist, which has regulatory definition and requirements. Cfulbright (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]Did Miller say that tobacco is non-carcinogenic, or did he say that nicotine is non-carcinogenic? Cfulbright (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial positions

Hy! I am --Bongilles (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC) I introduced the section "Controversial position" in this article. My source for this section is ^[1]. Henryimillermd deleted most of it claiming that it is "defamatory information gleaned from sources known to be inaccurate, defamatory and even libelous." Below are these different positions. I would like to have the opinion of other users whether or not each of this individual points should be included in some form in the article. Please comment separately for each point in the corresponding subsection below.[reply]

1. Defending the tobacco industry

In a 1994 APCO Associates PR strategy memo to help Phillip Morris organize a global campaign to fight tobacco regulations, Henry Miller was referred to as “a key supporter” of these pro-tobacco industry efforts. Memorandum from Tom Hockaday and Neal Cohen of Apco Associates Inc. to Matt Winokur, “[Thoughts on TASSC Europe.” March 25, 1994. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco. Bates No. 2024233595-2024233602.]

In 2012, Miller wrote that “nicotine … is not particularly bad for you in the amounts delivered by cigarettes or smokeless products.” Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier, “[The Cigarette Smokescreen.” Defining Ideas, March 21, 2012.]

2. Denying climate change

Miller is a member of the “scientific advisory board” of the George C. Marshall Institute,Competitive Enterprise Institute, Henry Miller [bio.] which is famous for its oil and gas industry funded denials of climate change.See, for example, the [profile of the George C. Marshall Institute in DeSmogBlog.]

3. Defending the pesticide industry

Miller defended the use of widely-criticized neonicotinoid pesticides and claimed that “the reality is that honeybee populations are not declining.”Henry I. Miller, “[Why the Buzz About a Bee-pocalypse Is a Honey Trap.” Wall Street Journal, July 22, 2014.]

Miller has repeatedly argued for the re-introduction of DDT, a toxic pesticide banned in the United States since 1972, which has been linked to pre-term birth and fertility impairment in women.Henry I. Miller, “[Re-Booting DDT.” Project Syndicate, May 5, 2010. Henry I. Miller, “Rachel Carson’s Deadly Fantasies.” Forbes, September 5, 2012.]

4. Defending exposure to radiation from nuclear power plants

In 2011, after the Japanese tsunami and radiation leaks at the Fukushima nuclear power plants, Miller argued in Forbes that “those … who were exposed to low levels of radiation could have actually benefitted from it.”Henry I. Miller, “[Can Tiny Amounts Of Poison Actually Be Good For You?” Forbes, December 21, 2011.] At that time, he even penned an article titled “Can radiation be good for you?”Henry I. Miller, “[Can Radiation Be Good For You?” Project Syndicate, April 8, 2011.]

5. Defending the plastics industry

In an article in Forbes, Miller defended the use of the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A (BPA), which is banned in Europe and Canada for use in baby bottles.Henry I. Miller, “[BPA Is A-OK, Says FDA.” Forbes, March 12, 2014.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Bongilles (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 March 2016

Hi Bongilles, welcome. I am replying to your points here- the usual etiquette on WP to respond is to keep it together and not separate.First, I am glad you started to discuss this on the talk page. Clearly, Henryimillermd should respond here and not in an edit summary, and not by reverting a second time.Secondly, I see you outlined Miller's positions by quoting his oped's in the mainstream press and I see no problem there . In fact, Miller should thank you, because you are only listing his work. If you take out what you call your source and everything should be acceptable to him.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thread copied from User_talk:Meters#Henry_I._Miller

I am not Wiki-literate and I have no interest in editing except to end the harassment from others, as manifested in recent (and previous) edits to my entry. You may not like the terminology, but additions such as "Tobacco industry" and "Climate change" are inaccurate, intentionally misleading and defamatory. I cannot tolerate the damage to my reputation that such misrepresentations cause.

See, for example, my discussion of the tobacco industry claims at http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/a-david-and-goliath-parable/, and also in http://www.hoover.org/research/cigarette-smokescreen, where I explain that the primary hazard from smoking is not the nicotine but the inhalation of smoke. I refer to smoking as a "scourge" and observe that, "Tobacco is an inherently, irredeemably dangerous product." Those sentiments are exactly the opposite of what the editors of my entry are trying to convey. I have never received any compensation of any kind, direct or indirect, from the tobacco industry or tobacco companies.

Similarly, with regards to climate change, I do not work on or write about climate change. My connection to the George Marshall Institute ended at least 15 years ago, and in any case had nothing at all to do with climate change. Once again, its mention in my entry is simply harassment and an attempt to defame me.

I have no interest in promoting myself via Wikipedia. I just want an end to the harassment and distractions.

Henryimillermd (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Henry Miller[reply]

:{User:Henryimillermd If the article is about you, as it appears to be, and there are issues with the content, the correct thing in most cases is to discuss the issues on that talk page so that editors without conflicts of interest can make the changes. See WP:BIOSELF. Whether it is about you or not, anything which is a WP:BLP violation should immediately be removed. If there is any disagreement about this the venues to raise the concern is WP:BLPN. The article needs to be balanced and written in a neutral tone. However, some of the material you are removing is well sourced and does not appear to be an issue. The article should not misinterpret anything and if Miller (you?) has changed his position then a balanced article should say so, but you don't get to remove material simply because you don't like it.

Continuing to edit the article while ignoring the attempts to discuss COI and content issues with you on your talk page and on the article's talk page is not helping. That's why I've raised the issue at COIN. I'm asking for a consensus that you are a COI editor with respect to Henry I. Miller.I agree that some of your concerns over the material you removed are valid, but my talk page is not the place to discuss the particulars of your edits. Please take this to the article's talk page where the discussion has already started so other editors will see your concerns and participate in the discussion. Meters (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]Starting with issue 1. The coverage is unbalanced and it needs to be reworked. The exact quote from the memo stating that Miller is a key supporter is that he "might assist in the project".

The quote that nicotine from cigarettes or e-cigs is not particularly dangerous is accurate, but Miller also states in the same source that "Cigarette smoking is one of the major preventable scourges of human health." and "Tobacco is an inherently, irredeemably dangerous product." That's not Miller defending the tobacco industry, He's discussing the usefulness of nicotine delivery systems that are (while still not ideal) healthier than smoking. Meters (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]Item 2 also needs clarification at least, or possibly removal. The sourced bio is from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and states that Miller is an adjunct scholar there, and a member of the scientific advisory board of the George C. Marshall Institute. It seems odd that a group would host an incorrect bio for one of their own, but User:Henryimillermd states "My connection to the George Marshall Institute ended at least 15 years ago." There is an implication that Miller worked on climate change denial, but no sources to support this, and the George Marshall Institute is now defunct.

Meters (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]The George C. Marshall Institute is defunct, and Miller claims that he had no association with the organization since 2002. Cfulbright (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]Yes, and already removed form the article. Meters (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]Item 3 is accurate, but it needs more explanation of how this proposed use would differ from how it was used in the past. Note that the DDT coverage in the current version of this section is already much improved by Henryimillermd; however, the neonicotinide pesticide and bee population crash issue which was removed should be re-evaluated. Meters (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]Item 4 is much improved in the current version. The direct URLs need to be wikified into refs. Meters (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Can Tiny Amounts of Poison Actually Be Good for You?" article limits the possible positive impact only to those "outside the immediate area". It also cites Hormesis, which is an accepted scientific principle. [15] Cfulbright (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]Yes, and also already removed from the article. Meters (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]Item 5 has been removed from the current article. I don't see any reason a balanced version of this (one that explains why he takes this position) cannot be restored. Meters (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]Having looked at each of the items, I have to say that the coverage (and even the original topic titles) does appear to have been unfairly biased. Meters (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]}:

References

"Why You Can't Trust Henry Miller". U.S. Right To Know.

Removed paragraph, saved here - + Bibliography

I turned the writings section into a partial bibliography with proper citations and ISBNs. I also added articles from Google scholar (all of which are highly cited). This paragraph was in the writings section, where it did not belong. I save it here in case someone has an idea for it. (ps I'm not sure that Heartland News is a stellar source for this.) LaMona (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miller said at a forum organized by the George C. Marshall Institute that environmental groups such as Greenpeace use the precautionary principle to oppose development of products that would improve agricultural productivity not because they are dangerous, but because those groups manifest a social vision that is "anti-business, anti-technology, and anti-American."^[1]

References

Duane D. Freese (February 1, 2004). "Science Debunks Precautionary Principle". Heartland News. heartland.org. Retrieved 27 October 2014.

---

ggl 12 24

[### Henry Miller, MS, MD (@henryimiller) / X

X · henryimiller

2.3K+ followers](https://twitter.com/henryimiller?lang=en)

Physician, molecular biologist, ACSH Fellow, formerly founding director FDA Office of Biotechnology. Best friend of a Bedlington terrier.

[### Dr. Henry Miller

American Council on Science and Health

https://www.acsh.org › tags › dr-henry-miller](https://www.acsh.org/tags/dr-henry-miller)

The COVID-19 vaccines have been nothing short of miraculous. Life is returning to normal in many places. But ACSH advisor Dr. Henry Miller argues that we will ...

[### Henry Miller

American Council on Science and Health

https://www.acsh.org › profile › henry-i-miller-ms-md](https://www.acsh.org/profile/henry-i-miller-ms-md)

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health.

[### Henry Miller, MS, MD (@henryimiller) / X

X · henryimiller

2.3K+ followers](https://twitter.com/henryimiller)

Physician, molecular biologist, ACSH Fellow, formerly founding director FDA Office of Biotechnology. Best friend of a Bedlington terrier.

[### Articles by Henry I. Miller M.D.

HenryMillerMD.org

https://henrymillermd.org › articles](https://henrymillermd.org/articles/)

Should you get COVID and flu shots together? American Council on Science & Health, July 20, 2023. UCLA's '3 Wishes Program' Captures the True Meaning of Serving ...

[### Henry I. Miller

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Henry_I._Miller](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I._Miller)

Henry I. Miller is an American medical researcher and columnist, formerly with the FDA, and from 1994 until 2018 the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific ...

[### Dr. Henry Miller - COVID-19 vaccine - YouTube

YouTube · Pacific Research Institute - PRI

70+ views · 2 years ago](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMwlbxAjrNE)

[

32:35](https://www.google.com/search?q=henry+miller+acsh+vaccine&sca_esv=8dc68bcf69834fab&sca_upv=1&source=hp&ei=UZuZZaygOP2Twt0PmNCiiAU&iflsig=AO6bgOgAAAAAZZmpYavjVVBS_Ptijefzy8ZT00KZFhA2&ved=0ahUKEwjsjPvRscmDAxX9ibAFHRioCFEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5&oq=henry+miller+acsh+vaccine&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IhloZW5yeSBtaWxsZXIgYWNzaCB2YWNjaW5lMgUQIRigAUibPVAAWK8vcAB4AJABAJgBlAKgAdIfqgEGMC4yNC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIREC4YgAQYsQMYgwEYxwEY0QPCAgsQABiABBixAxiDAcICDhAuGIAEGLEDGMcBGNEDwgIOEC4YgAQYigUYsQMYgwHCAhEQLhiDARjHARixAxjRAxiABMICBRAuGIAEwgIFEAAYgATCAggQABiABBixA8ICCxAuGIAEGLEDGIMBwgIOEC4YgAQYxwEYrwEYjgXCAggQLhiABBixA8ICCBAuGIAEGNQCwgILEC4YrwEYxwEYgATCAgsQLhiABBjHARivAcICBBAAGAPCAg4QLhivARjHARiABBiOBcICCBAuGNQCGIAEwgIGEAAYFhgewgIMEC4YFhgeGMcBGNEDwgIFECEYnwXCAgcQIRgKGKABwgIFECEYqwI&sclient=gws-wiz#)

This week's guest is Dr. Henry Miller, PRI senior fellow in health care studies. In addition to being a physician, Dr. Miller was a former ...

[### COVID-19 Vaccines Will Not Be Enough. We Also Need ...

medecon.org

https://medecon.org › covid-19-vaccines-will-not-be-...](https://medecon.org/covid-19-vaccines-will-not-be-enough-we-also-need-effective-treatments/)

Jun 10, 2021 — But ACSH advisor Dr. Henry Miller argues that we will still need effective medical treatments for COVID-19. ... However, for several reasons, ...

[### Dr. Henry Miller... - American Council on Science and Health Facebook

https://www.facebook.com › ACSHorg › posts › dr-henr...](https://www.facebook.com/ACSHorg/posts/dr-henry-miller-fears-that-politics-not-science-will-determine-the-timing-of-a-v/4574950039211670/)

Dr. Henry Miller fears that politics, not science, will determine the timing of a vaccine release. He's right to worry ... ACSH.ORG. Molnupiravir Comes Under Fire.

[### Henry Miller

Big Think

https://bigthink.com › people › henrymiller](https://bigthink.com/people/henrymiller/)

Dr. Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger Distinguished Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health.

Search Results

Web results

Coronavirus live blog: Former FDA official Dr. Henry Miller ...

www.foxnews.com › health › coronavirus-live-blog-form...

Apr 1, 2020 - Welcome to Fox News' live question and answer session on the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19, with Dr. Henry Miller, a former official with the ...

The FDA has problems -- Here are the qualities the next ...

www.foxnews.com › opinion › the-fda-has-problems-her...

Mar 10, 2019 - ... innovation in research and development, and the availability and price of new medicines, we must find a ... By Dr. Henry I. Miller | Fox News.

Dr. Henry Miller Answers Viewer Questions as Featured ...

www.pacificresearch.org › read-dr-henry-miller-answer...

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{April 01, 2020 :{Henry Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, M.S., M.D. :{Fox News:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. Read answers from PRI Senior Fellow Dr. :{Henry Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: on :{Foxnews:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.com's “Coronavirus Live Blog.” Dr. :{Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Articles by Henry Miller | Fox News, Newsweek Europe, New ...

muckrack.com › henry-miller-6 › articles

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{Articles by :{Henry Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: on Muck Rack. Find :{Henry Miller's:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: email address, contact information, LinkedIn, Twitter, other social media and more.:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Henry I. Miller | Hoover Institution

www.hoover.org › profiles › henry-i-miller

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{Henry I. Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, MS, MD, was the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public ... in agriculture, models for regulatory reform, and the emergence of new viral diseases. :{Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. ... by Renata H. Mullen, :{Henry I. Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:via :{Fox News:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Dr. Henry Miller Featured in Fox News Story on Coronavirus ...

medecon.org › dr-henry-miller-featured-in-fox-news-st...

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{Feb 26, 2020 - CDC warns on coronavirus in US: Should you start to worry? By Madeline Farber, :{Fox News:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. Federal health officials this week warned that ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Henry I. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Henry_I._Miller

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{Henry I. Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: is an American medical researcher and columnist, formerly with the FDA, and ... As reported by the :{New:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: York Times, Monsanto asked :{Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: to write an article rebutting the findings of the International Agency for Research on ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Missing: fox ‎| Must include:fox

Articles by Henry I. Miller , M.D.

www.henrymillermd.org › articles

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{Articles by :{Henry I. Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: , M.D.. ... Greatness, April 24, 2018. Earth Day Has Embraced Hysteria and Abandoned Science, :{Fox News:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Opinion, April 20, 2018.:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Trump's New Prescription Drug Plan Is Incomplete -- Here Are ...

www.henrymillermd.org › trump-new-prescription-dru...

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{More accelerated approvals and reciprocity between FDA and foreign counterparts could lower drug prices. by :{Henry I. Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and John J. Cohrssen :{Fox News:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ...:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Henry I. Miller | Competitive Enterprise Institute

cei.org › adjunct-scholar › henry-i-miller

:{:(style="border-color:#70757a;;border-style:solid;border-width:5px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:7.5px;margin-top:-3px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

:{:{Henry I. Miller:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, M.D., is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Adjunct Fellow at ... especially pharmaceutical development and the :{new:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: biotechnology.:(style="overflow-wrap:break-word"):}:

Missing: fox ‎| Must include:fox

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-propaganda-newsweek-2528277875.html

Stacy Malkan

"The campaign for organic food is a deceitful, expensive scam," according to a Jan. 19 Newsweek article authored by Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution.

If that name sounds familiar—Henry I. Miller—it may be because the New York Times recently revealed a scandal involving Miller: that he had been caught publishing an article ghostwritten by Monsantounder his own name in Forbes. The article, which largely mirrored a draft provided to him by Monsanto, attacked the scientists of the World Health Organization's cancer panel (IARC) for their decision to listMonsanto's top-selling chemical, glyphosate, as a probable human carcinogen.

Reporting on an email exchange released in litigation with Monsanto over cancer concerns, the Times'Danny Hakim wrote:

"Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, 'I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.'

The article appeared under Mr. Miller's name, and with the assertion that 'opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.' The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article …

Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations."

The opinion wire Project Syndicate followed suit, after first adding a disclaimer to Miller's commentaries noting that they would have been rejected if his collaboration with Monsanto had been known.

Desperate to Disparage Organic

The ghostwriting scandal has hardly slowed Miller down; he has continued to spin promotional content for the agrichemical industry from outlets such as Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal, without disclosing to readers his relationship with Monsanto.

[scary fingerprint nzwk grafic headline]

Yet the corporate collaboration seems clear; Miller's Newsweek hit on organic food has Monsanto's fingerprints in plain sight all over it.

For starters, Miller uses pesticide industry sources to make unsubstantiated (and ludicrous) claims about organic agriculture—for example, that organic farming is "actually more harmful to the environment" than conventional agriculture, or that organic allies spent $2.5 billion in a year campaigning against genetically engineered foods in North America.

The source on the latter inaccurate claim is Jay Byrne, a former director of corporate communications for Monsanto (not identified as such in the Newsweek article), who now directs a PR firm called v-Fluence Interactive.

Email exchanges reveal how Monsanto works with people like Jay Byrne—and with Byrne specifically—to push exactly this type of attack against Monsanto's foes while keeping corporate involvement a secret.

According to emails obtained by my group U.S. Right to Know, Byrne played a key role in helping Monsanto set up a corporate front group called Academics Review that published a report attacking the organic industry as a marketing scam—the exact theme in Miller's Newsweek article.

The concept of the front group—explained in the emails I reported here—was to create a credible-sounding platform from which academics could attack critics of the agrichemical industry, while secretly receiving funds from industry groups, and also claiming to be independent. Wink, wink, ha, ha.

"The key will be keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information," wrote a Monsanto executive involved in the plan.

Jay Byrne discusses plans to set up a corporate front group of academics with Monsanto's help.

Byrne's role, according to the emails, was to serve as a "commercial vehicle" to help obtain corporate funding. Byrne also said he was compiling an "opportunities" list of targets—critics of the agrichemical industry who could be "inoculated" from the academics' platform.

Several people on Byrne's "opportunities" list, or later attacked by Academics Review, were targets in Miller's Newsweek article, too.

Miller's Newsweek piece also tried to discredit the work of New York Times' reporter Danny Hakim, without disclosing that it was Hakim who exposed Miller's Monsanto ghostwriting scandal.

As with other recent attacks on the organic industry, all fingers point back to the agrichemical corporations that will lose the most if consumer demand continues to rise for foods free of GMOs and pesticides.

Monsanto's 'Independent Academic' Ruse

Henry Miller has a long history of partnering with—and pitching his PR services to—corporations that need help convincing the public their products aren't dangerous and don't need to be regulated.

And Monsanto relies heavily on people with scientific credentials or neutral-sounding groups to make those arguments—people who are willing to communicate the company script, while claiming to be independent actors. This fact has been established by reporting in the New York Times, Le Monde, WBEZ, the Progressive and many other outlets in recent years.

A newly released Monsanto document provides more details about how Monsanto's propaganda and lobbying operation works, and the key role Henry Miller plays within it.

This 2015 "preparedness plan"—released by lawyers in the glyphosate cancer lawsuits—lays out Monsanto's PR strategy to "orchestrate outcry" against the IARC cancer scientists for their report on glyphosate. The first external deliverable: "Engage Henry Miller."

The plan goes on to name four tiers of "industry partners"—a dozen trade groups, academic groups and independent-seeming front groups such as the Genetic Literacy Project—that could help "inoculate" against the cancer report and "protect the reputation" of Roundup.

Miller delivered for Monsanto with a March 2015 article in Forbes—the article later revealed as Monsanto's writing—attacking the IARC scientists. The industry partners have been pushing the same arguments through various channels again and again, ever since, to try to discredit the cancer scientists.

Much of this criticism has appeared to the public as a spontaneous uprising of concern, with no mention of Monsanto's role as the composer and conductor of the narrative: a classic corporate PR hoodwink.

As more documents tumble into the public realm—via the Monsanto Papers and public records investigations—the "independent academic" ruse will become harder to maintain for industry PR writers such as Henry I. Miller, and for editors, journalists and policy makers to ignore.

For now, Newsweek is not backing down. Even after reviewing the documents that substantiate the facts in this article, Newsweek opinion editor Nicholas Wapshott wrote in an email, "I understand that you and Miller have a long history of dispute on this topic. He flatly denies your assertions."

Neither Miller nor Wapshott have responded to further questions.

Stacy Malkan is co-director of the consumer watchdog and transparency group, U.S. Right to Know. Disclosure: U.S. Right to Know is funded in part by the Organic Consumers Association which is mentioned in Miller's article and on Byrne's hit list.

Monsanto Ghostwriting / Dropped by Forbes

On August 1, 2017, the New York Times reported:

“Documents show that Henry I. Miller asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations.”

The emails between Miller and Monsanto’s Eric Sachs show how corporations and writers sometimes work together to promote corporate talking points in ways that are not disclosed to editors or the public.

In the emails, Sachs asked Miller to write about the decision by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Miller replied, “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.” Sachs provided what he called a “still quite rough” draft, which he described to Miller as “a good start for your magic.” The draft appeared a few days later, largely unchanged, in this Forbes column that appeared under Miller’s name.

Retraction Watch quoted Mia Carbonell, senior VP of global communications at Forbes, on why Forbes has removed Miller’s work from its site:

“All contributors to Forbes.com sign a contract requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing. When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed all of his posts from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”

Forbes also removed articles co-bylined by Miller and allies including Julie Kelly, Kavin Senapathy and Bruce Chassy – all of whom have claimed independence while writing in defense of pesticides and GMOs.

Project Syndicate has added this editor’s note to the top of articles written by Miller:

Legitimate objections have been raised about the independence and integrity of the commentaries that Henry Miller has written for Project Syndicate and other outlets; in particular that Monsanto, rather than Miller, drafted some of them. Readers should be aware of this potential conflict of interest, which, had it been known at the time Miller’s commentaries were accepted, would have constituted grounds for rejecting them.

Funding and pitching his PR services

The Hoover Institution, where Miller resides as a fellow, has received funding from corporations and industry groups, including Exxon Mobil and the American Chemistry Council, as well as right-wing foundations — Sarah Scaife Foundation, Searle Freedom Trust, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Charles Koch Foundation, Donors Trust – and other leading funders of climate science denial that also push deregulation across the economy.

Miller pitched his corporate PR services in a 1998 “Work Plan Promoting Sound Science in Health, Environmental and Biotechnology Policy.” The document, posted in the UCSF Tobacco Industry Documents Library, describes Miller’s fees for writing articles, $5,000-$15,000, and proposed an expanded “science and risk communication” program to include arranging speeches, improving web presence and publishing a book. (Source: «Monsanto Papers»: la bataille de l’information, by Stéphane Foucart and Stéphane Horel in Le Monde, June 2, 2017.)

...

new:

usrtk

Kelly is a food writer and cooking instructor who emerged in 2015 as a fierce advocate for the agrichemical industry, with articles defending pesticides, arguing against GMO labeling and attacking the organic food industry. Her work has appeared in the National Review, The Hill, Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes.

Kelly has not disclosed her funding sources.

Julie Kelly’s husband, John Kelly Jr., is a lobbyist for the agribusiness giant ADM, among other corporate clients including Blackstone and CVS; and government clients including DuPage County where Julie Kelly formerly worked as a policy consultant to county board chairman Dan Cronin.

Articles Dropped from Forbes

In August 2017, Forbes deleted articles by Julie Kelly that share a byline with Henry I. Miller, a Hoover Institution fellow, following revelations that Monsanto ghostwrote an article attacking the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which Miller published under his own name in Forbes.

The New York Times reported on Aug. 1:

Documents show that Henry I. Miller asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Forbes removed the story from its website on Wednesday and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations.

Retraction Watch further reported: Forbes “has pulled down all of Miller’s articles on its site, because he violated the terms of his contract” which calls for authors “to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing.”

The emails, posted here, show how corporations work with with writers like Miller to promote industry talking points while keeping their collaborations secret. In this case, a Monsanto executive asked Miller to write a column and provided him with a “still quite rough draft” as “a good start for your magic.” The rough draft appeared a few days later, largely unchanged, under Miller’s name in this Forbes column.

Kelly and Miller have co-written at least a dozen articles together, promoting pesticides, arguing for deregulation and attacking the organic industry. Kelly articles removed from the Forbes website include, among others: “Federal Subsidies to Organic Agriculture Should be Plowed Under” (7.12.17), “Will the Trump Administration Usher in an Era of Less Cronyism and Pay-to-Play?” (11.16.16) and “How Organic Agriculture Evolved from Marketing Tool to Evil Empire” (12.2.15).

Inaccuracies

A July 12, 2017 article attacking the organic industry — removed from the web by Forbes because of the co-byline with Henry I. Miller — Kelly and Miller cited anAcademics Reviewreport attacking the organic industry as a reputable, independent source. Documents show Academics Review was set up as a front group with the help of Monsanto and with industry funding to attack the organic industry and critics of GMOs.

A Dec. 2, 2015 article in Forbes co-written by Kelly and Miller falsely claimed that University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta “turned over almost 5,000 emails” in response to pubic records requests, “only oneof which showed any connection with Monsanto.” In fact, the New York Times posted 174 pages of Folta’s emails showing many interactions with Monsanto and Ketchum, the agrichemical industry’s PR firm.

Kelly has claimed, inaccurately, that genetically engineered foods lead to lower pesticide use and create huge advantages for farmers; in fact, GMOs have led to higher overall herbicide use due to herbicide-tolerant GMO crops and farmers have experienced many problems.

Manufacturing Doubt about Climate Science / Pesticide Risk

Julie Kelly’s work includes:

Casting doubt on the science of climate change in the National Review

Attacks on climate activists, for example tweeting to Bill McKibben, “You are a piece of shit.”

[](https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Julie-Kelly-tweet-attack-on-Bill-McKibben-.png)

Calling on Congress to defund the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, in The Hill.

Kelly’s frequent co-author Miller is a member of the “scientific advisory board” of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is famous for its oil and gas industry funded denials of climate change. In articles co-bylined with Miller, Kelly has:

Argued that organic farms are “an affront to the environment.”

Promoted DDT as an effective pesticide that should not have been banned, and argued that “green zealots” and “ignorant ideological activists” could ruin the food supply by pressuring EPA to ban Monsanto’s glyphosate.

Described the Trump Administration as likely to usher in an era of “greater governmental transparency and accountability, and a more level playing field” that could be a huge boon to the GMO industry.

The Hoover Institution, which promotes Kelly’s work, has a mission to “limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.” Its top funder is the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which was identified in a 2013 Drexel University study as among “the largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial” and a foundation that promotes “ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.”

Chemical Industry Allies

USRTK has compiled a series of fact sheets about writers and PR groups the agrichemical industry relies on to manufacture doubt about science that raises concern about risky products and argue against environmental health protections.

– Why You Can’t Trust Henry I. Miller– Why Forbes Deleted Some Kavin Senapathy Articles–The American Council on Science and Health is Corporate Front Group

– Jon Entine of Genetic Literacy Project: The Chemical Industry’s Master Messenger

– Trevor Butterworth / Sense About Science Spins Science for Industry– Does Science Media Centre Push Corporate Views of Science?

Follow the USRTK investigation of Big Food and its front groups: https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/

Food For Thought, Our Investigations American Council on Science and Health, Bill McKibben, climate change science denial, Henry Miller, Hoover Institute, Julie Kelly

hoover artls

How The Administrative State Serves Clients And Hurts Citizens: The Case Of The Non-Organic, Organic Food

by Henry I. Miller, Julie Kellyvia American Greatness

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

The late economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman used to say that only in government, when a program or project fails dismally, the instinctive response is to make it bigger.

Articles

Federal Subsidies To Organic Agriculture Should Be Plowed Under

by Henry I. Miller, Julie Kellyvia Forbes

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

The House Committee on Appropriations is scheduled to meet today [July 12] to consider the full committee markup of the FY2018 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. We hope it will reflect a guiding principle articulated in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial: “if you’re going to propose cutting a program, you might as well try to eliminate it. The political pain is as great and if you succeed the payoff is greater.”

Articles

No, California, Roundup Won't Give You Cancer

by Julie Kelly, Henry I. Millervia Los Angeles Times

Thursday, April 27, 2017

The chemophobes who run California are at it again, siding with environmental activists and pseudoscience rather than evidence and common sense.

Articles

March For Science, Or Against Republican Politicians?

by Henry I. Miller, Julie Kellyvia Forbes

Thursday, April 20, 2017

The April 22 March for Science, focused on Washington, D.C., but accompanied by some 400 complementary events worldwide, promises to be a motley affair. According to one of the young scientist-organizers, it is intended to help inexperienced science advocates develop the skills they need “to make their concerns heard” and to “have an effect on politics,” while maintaining a nonpartisan atmosphere.

Articles

Organic Labeling Program Should Be Plowed Under

by Julie Kelly, Henry I. Millervia San Diego Union-Tribune

Saturday, April 1, 2017

The “skinny” budget proposed by the White House a few weeks ago will undergo significant changes as it wends its way through the maze of congressional committees, but it’s clear that the president and his economic advisers really do want to take a scalpel to programs that are marked by waste, fraud and abuse.

Articles

Will The Trump Administration Usher In An Era Of Less Cronyism And Pay-To-Play?

by Henry I. Miller, Julie Kellyvia Forbes

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

“You know I am your chief lobbyist in the campaign.” –Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta to Gary Hirshberg, chairman of Stonyfield Farm organic yogurt company and foe of biotechnology, in a WikiLeaks email.

Articles

The Phony Case Against Glyphosate

by Julie Kelly, Henry I. Millervia National Review

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Green zealots pressure the EPA to ban valuable weapons against hunger and disease.

Articles

Mark Bittman Eats His Words--And Chokes

by Julie Kelly, Henry I. Miller

Monday, May 16, 2016

What happens when a sanctimonious, know-nothing foodie who has made a career out of peddling false and misleading information about food production technologies and big agribusiness decides to cash in by exploiting his favorite food fads?

Articles

The GMO Circus Comes To Congress And It's Not Fun

by Julie Kelly, Henry I. Millervia Forbes

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Like Nero fiddling while Rome burned, some politicians have a hard time setting priorities.

Articles

Bittman Of The 'Times' Finds The Real World Harder Than He Expected

by Julie Kelly, Henry I. Millervia Forbes

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

What happens when a liberal New York Times activist-food columnist decides to start his own business? Grab your organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, locally-sourced, free-trade popcorn, because this will be good.

https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/22-Internal-Email-Demonstrating-Monsanto-Ghostwriting-Article-Criticizing-IARC-for-Press.pdf

11 pp

...

[this was the rugh draft monsanto provided, not changed?]

This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and is

intended to be received only by persons entitled

to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please

notify the sender immediately. Please delete it and

all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other use of this

e-mail by you is strictly prohibited.

All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring, reading

and archival by Monsanto, including its

subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for checking for

the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware".

Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damage caused

by any such code transmitted by or accompanying

this e-mail or any attachment.

The information contained in this email may be subject to the export control laws

and regulations of the United States, potentially

includinq but not limited to the Export Administration Requlations (EAR) and

sanctions regulations issued by the U.S. Department of

Confidential - Produced Subject to Protective Order MONGL Y02063616

Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC). As a recipient of this

information you are obligated to comply with all

cable U.S. export laws and

Henry I. Miller, M.D.

Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy

& Public Policy

Hoover Institution I Stanford University

Stanford, CAU.S.A.

This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and is

intended to be received only by persons entitled

to receive such information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please

notify the sender irmnediately. Please delete it and

all attachments from any servers, hard drives or any other media. Other use of this

e-mail by you is strictly prohibited.

All e-mails and attachments sent and received are subject to monitoring, reading

and archival by Monsanto, including its

subsidiaries. The recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for checking for

the presence of "Viruses" or other "Malware".

Monsanto, along with its subsidiaries, accepts no liability for any damage caused

by any such code transmitted by or accompanying

this e-mail or any attachment.

The information contained in this email may be subject to the export control laws

and regulations of the United States, potentially

including but not limited to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and

sanctions regulations issued by the U.S. Department of

Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC). As a recipient of this

information you are obligated to comply with all

applicable U.S. export laws and regulations.

Confidential - Produced Subject to Protective Order MONGL Y02063617

Henry I. Miller, M.D.

Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy

& Public Policy

Hoover Institution I Stanford University

Stanford, CAConfidential

Produced Subject to Protective Order MONGL Y02063618

March 17, 2015

March Madness from the United Nations

Henry I. Miller

The NCAA basketball tournament has started and I hope I pick my brackets as well as I

predicted the outcome of this month's meeting of the International Agency for Research

on Cancer (IARC), a component of the UN's World Health Organization. It always pays

to bet against a United Nations agency getting things right, and this conclave was no

exception.

For the first time since 1991, the focus of this IARC review was on pesticides. At this

meeting, five pesticides were evaluated and three of them were classified as "probably

carcinogenic." But the U.S. EPA had previously given each of these three active

ingredients favorable safety classifications regarding carcinogenic potential. Why the

differences?

The obvious reason would be new, game-changing data. But there wasn't any. The

disparity appears to be that IARC bases their conclusion on potential hazard rather than

the actual risk of harm. What does that mean to you and me? Well, we participate in

hazardous activities everyday that have the potential to harm us-we use knives, drive a

car, fly on an airplane or walk down stairs. However, the risk--the probability that we will

actually be harmed-- associated with each of these activities is low.

The same applies to the IARC's analysis of glyphosate. The data (and a selected set of

data, at that) were reviewed to determine whether glyphosate is capable of causing

cancer. As with common chemicals like sugar, salt and water, and foods like nutmeg

and licorice, glyphosate at very high doses is capable of causing harm to humans.

That's what the IARC 2A conclusion-"probably carcinogen to humans" --essentially

means. But one of the seminal tenets of toxicology is that "the dose makes the poison,"

and the reality is that glyphosate is not a human health risk even at levels of exposure

that are more than 100 times higher than the human exposures that occur under

conditions consistent with the product's labeling.

Thus, IARC publishes qualitative assessments that are not quantitative assessments of

risk. That is left to regulatory agencies. So, what have they concluded? Glyphosate is

currently undergoing a routine review of its registration in Europe, which is being

conducted by the German Risk Agency (BfR). This re-registration evaluation has been

going on since 20XX and as of January 2015 the BfR [ HYPERLINK

"http://www.bfr.bund.de/ en/the_bfr _has_final ised_its_draft_report_for _ the_re_ evaluation_ of _glypho

sate-188632. htm I" ] :

• In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance

glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or

mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility,

reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals.

Confidential - Produced Subject to Protective Order MONGL Y02063572

• In epidemiological studies in humans, there was no evidence of

carcinogenicity and there were no effects on fertility, reproduction and

development of neurotoxicity that might be attributed to glyphosate."

Regulatory agencies typically review more data and in much more depth than the IARC.

For glyphosate, there have been X companies (name them) that submitted data from

multiple types of studies which are evaluated by the U.S. EPA, the German BfR and

other global regulatory agencies. They also take into consideration studies like the

United States' Agricultural Health Study (AHS), a prospective study of cancer in

licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses from Iowa and North Carolina. The

study is a collaborative effort involving investigators from National Cancer Institute, the

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the EPA, and the National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health. By studying high-exposure individuals such as

pesticide applicators, carcinogens can be identified.

The bottom line is that the BfR examined all of the information that IARC saw and much

more.

New data are emerging constantly, and there have been new scientific reviews

published recently that would have been unavailable to BfR before they issued their

sanguine opinion. So, could any of these new documents have led IARC to their less

favorable conclusion? Nope, because these reviews further affirmed the safety of

glyphosate and the absence of no linkage between glyphosate and cancer risk.

Consider the conclusion of [ HYPERLINK

"http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408444.2014.1003423"] in the March 2105

issue of Critical Reviews in Toxicology:

"The lack of a plausible mechanism, along with published epidemiology studies,

which fail to demonstrate clear, statistically significant, unbiased and nonconfounded

associations between glyphosate and cancer of any single etiology,

and a compelling weight of evidence, support the conclusion that glyphosate

does not present concern with respect to carcinogenic potential in humans."

And this, from an [ HYPERLINK "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25635915"] in the

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in January 2015:

"There were no statistically significant trends for multiple myeloma risks in

relation to reported cumulative days (or intensity weighted days) of glyphosate

use. The doubling of risk reported previously arose from the use of an

unrepresentative restricted dataset and analyses of the full dataset provides no

convincing evidence in the AHS for a link between multiple myeloma risk and

glyphosate use."

Confidential - Produced Subject to Protective Order MONGL Y02063573

What does IRAC's decision mean to consumers and farmers? Nothing. They should

feel confident that global regulatory agencies will continue to do their risk assessments

with the proper amount of scientific rigor and to make the critical distinction between

hazard and risk.

In June, the IARC will evaluate three more pesticides. My bet is that none of them will

get through unscathed. That's a much surer thing that my predictions about March

Madness.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in

Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He

was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology.

retracted:

Wayback Machine

https://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/11/16/will-the-trump-administration-usher-in-an-era-of-less-cronyism-and-pay-to-play/2/

n Will The Trump Administration Usher In An Era Of Less Cronyism And Pay-To-Play?

NOV 16, 2016 @ 05:00 AM 1,681 The Little Black Book of Billionaire Secrets

Will The Trump Administration Usher In An Era Of Less Cronyism And Pay-To-Play?

Henry I. Miller and Julie Kelly

The WikiLeaks release of hacked emails belonging to Hillary Clinton’s advisers not only offered a peek into the daily machinations of a presidential campaign but also exposed the business-as-usual influence-peddling within the Clinton machine that helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency. Many of these folks had already been selecting offices in the West Wing and are shell-shocked. But few people are likely as disappointed and rendered as irrelevant overnight as Gary Hirshberg, the wealthy founder of Stonyfield Farm, maker of organic yogurt. Hirshberg, who has been monomaniacal in his opposition to modern genetic engineering applied to agriculture, had a back-channel to John Podesta, the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

Gary Hirshberg, chairman and former CEO of Stonyfield Farm, with actresses Gwyneth Paltrow(C) and Blythe Danner(L) (PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Over the last several years, Hirshberg has spent a large chunk of his personal fortune pushing for mandatory, disparaging labels on genetically engineered foods, or so-called “GMOs” (genetically modified organisms), as a Trojan horse–a first step toward eliminating such products entirely, which would make over-priced organic food products (not coincidentally including Stonyfield’s), more competitive in the marketplace.

Recommended by Forbes

Economist Adam Smith Knew A Creep When He Saw One

Don't Believe The Anti-GMO Activists: The Costs Of A 'Genetically Modified'...

The Roots Of The Anti-Genetic Engineering Movement? Follow The Money!

Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep Pockets. And Many Enablers.

MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State

No Saudi Oil Says Trump, Saudi Arabia Fires Back

MOST POPULAR Photos: The World's Highest-Paid Celebrities Under 30

MOST POPULAR Stan Lee Introduces Augmented Reality For His Kids Universe

What’s the connection between Hirshberg and Podesta? Hirshberg and his wife are major Democratic Party donors who have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawmakers and candidates. The Podesta Group, the lobbying firm co-founded by Podesta (which he left in 2003, but which is now owned by his brother, Tony) lobbies for the Organic Trade Association, a group also funded by Hirshberg. The OTA has paid the Podesta Group $1.25 million in fees since 2012 to lobby on behalf of OTA issues including mandatory labels.

Hirshberg heavily lobbied Congress to pass legislation to force food companies to print “genetically engineered” labels on their products, insisting the issue is consumer-driven, but the released emails reveal there’s much more to the story. They not only expose Hirshberg’s hypocrisy but also demonstrate that he will stop at nothing, even exploiting mothers who want to provide the most healthful foods for their kids. While Hirshberg was using moms as useful props, a January 2016 email to campaign chairman Podesta reveals what he really thinks about them: “…this is in fact one of those topics that is on many women’s minds, not because they know anything about GMOs, but because GMOs are symbolic of the bigger narrative of our foods being produced by people who care only about profits and not really about what is best for our families.”

In other words, he tells Podesta, attacks on genetic engineering are just a rallying cry, a stalking horse for “Big Ag,” which cares “only about profits and not really about what is best for our families,” but which has managed to produce the most diverse, cheapest and safest food supply in human history.

Henry I. Miller , CONTRIBUTOR

I debunk junk science and flawed public policy..

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Continued from page 1

TWEET THIS

The safety record of genetically engineered plants and foods derived from them is extraordinary.

Play Video]

WikiLeaks’ emails remind us that the Democratic Party is dominated by, in the words of Victor Davis Hanson, “rich, snobbish, and often ethically bankrupt grandees.” Hirshberg, the prototype, portrays himself as a champion of consumers’ rights, claiming GMO labels are all about transparency, and he mocks any lawmaker or company that objects to labels as wanting to “keep consumers in the dark,” but his real reason for pushing mandatory “genetically modified” labels is to use them to disparage the modern genetic engineering techniques that are unavailable to the organic industry.

In a June 2015 email to Podesta, Hirshberg lays out a number of outright falsehoods to convince Podesta why Clinton should support his cause:

…there is [sic] very clear and compelling USDA and USGS [U.S. Geological Survey] data demonstrating a strong likelihood of serious health and environmental threats due to the skyrocketing increases in herbicides associated with GMO usage. Leading agronomists and public health scientists are extremely concerned that these trends are rapidly increasing. To me, this is the key reason why citizens need the right to know and therefore [to] choose…

Reality is very different from the propaganda on Planet Hirshberg. The herbicide that been used in greater amounts in conjunction with genetically engineered plants is glyphosate,a non-selective, broad-spectrum herbicide that targets an enzyme in plants not found in humans. It binds to soils, which prevents it from leaching into ground water, and when it unbinds, it is degraded by soil microbes. Because of its extremely benign safety profile and value to farmers, it has become the most popular herbicide worldwide. (Herbicides are essential in agriculture; they control the weeds that compete with crop plants and reduce their yield, and they eliminate the need for backbreaking weeding by hand.)

Hirshberg’s claims that government agencies have found “a strong likelihood of serious health and environmental threats” from glyphosate is a complete fabrication. These were the findings of the USGS study, which collected water samples from 51 streams in the Midwest and measured levels of various herbicides: “Glyphosate was detected in 36 percent of the samples,” and “the highest measured concentration of glyphosate was 8.7 micrograms per liter, well below the MCL [Maximum Contaminant Level] (700 micrograms per liter).” In other words, the highest concentration found was only about one percent of the level that could conceivably be harmful.

A broad scientific consensus holds that the modern techniques of genetic engineering are essentially an extension, or refinement, of the methods of genetic modification that have long been used to improve the qualities of the foods we eat. Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables and grains in our diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another–often as a result of seeds being irradiated, or by “wide crosses,” which involve the movement of genes from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature. But because molecular genetic engineering is more precise and predictable, the technology is at least as safe as–and often safer than–the modification of food products in cruder, “conventional” ways.

The safety record of genetically engineered plants and foods derived from them is extraordinary. Even after the cultivation worldwide of more than 5 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 18 million farmers in about three dozen countries) and the consumption of more than 4 trillion servings of food by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed tummy ache.

HealthGrove | Graphiq

The economic, health and environmental benefits are remarkable. Every year, farmers planting genetically engineered varieties spray millions fewer gallons of chemical insecticides and substantially reduce topsoil erosion and CO2 released into the atmosphere.

Ironically, it is those benefits, which have been demonstrated repeatedly, that motivate the relentless opposition to modern agricultural practices—the fear by Hirshberg and others in the organic industry that the current gap between organic and conventional agriculture will become a chasm, as technologies and products that are unavailable to organic farmers become ever more efficient and productive and more attractive to consumers.

Last Friday, a New York Times columnist wrote about the white working class supporters of Donald Trump, “When steel mills fail to return to Youngstown, or when new trade deals produce no more magic than the old ones, these economic exiles will wonder how they got betrayed.” Maybe the steel mills and Carrier air conditioner plants won’t come back, but it’s just possible that we’ll see greater governmental transparency and accountability, and a more level playing field. There has been far too much cronyism and pay-to-play at the taxpayers’ expense. The Solyndra and Siga boondoggles and the access to Secretary Clinton’s State Department bought by contributions to the Clinton Foundation are egregious examples.

Could it be that the Trump administration will usher in an era of less manipulation, mendacity, cynical self-interest and faux-consumer advocacy?

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Follow him on Twitter at @henryimiller.

Julie Kelly is a food writer and National Review Online contributor. Follow her on Twitter at @julie_kelly2.

PAGE 2 / 2

wikiFLAGGED

Henry I. Miller is an American medical researcher and columnist, formerly with the FDA, since 1994 the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, a public policy think tank located on the university's campus in California.^[1] He is an Adjunct Fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

[hide]

Career

Miller was born on July 1, 1947 in South Philadelphia and raised there.

Miller was a civil servant for fifteen years at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1979–94). He was the medical reviewer for the first genetically engineered drugs to be evaluated by the FDA and was instrumental^[third-party ^source ^needed] in the rapid licensing of genetically engineered human insulin and human growth hormone. From 1985 to 1989, he was a special assistant to the FDA commissioner and from 1989 to 1993, the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology.

Since coming to the Hoover Institution in 1994, Miller has authored books and articles in scholarly journals, newspapers and online. He has been an Adjunct Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.^[2] He also has been a director of American Council on Science and Health and a Consulting Professor at Stanford University's Institute for International Studies (now^[when?] the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies).^[citation ^needed]

Letter to Columbia and Response

On April 16, 2015, Miller coordinated a letter from a group of physicians to Columbia University demanding that the College of Physicians and Surgeons remove Mehmet Oz as a professor of surgery. The letter claimed that Oz has "shown disdain for science and for evidence-based medicine... for personal financial gain." Oz denied the claims in a statement made on April 17, 2015, saying "I bring the public information that will help them on their path to be their best selves. We provide multiple points of view, including mine which is offered without conflict of interest. That doesn't sit well with certain agendas which distort the facts..." Columbia came to Oz's defense, saying “Columbia is committed to the principle of academic freedom and to upholding all faculty members’ freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion,” ^[3] However, the physicians' letter elicited widespread criticism of Oz, much of it vitriolic, from a variety of quarters, including John Oliver on TV,^[4] Michael Specter in the New Yorker,^[5] and Oz's faculty colleagues at Columbia.^[6][7]

Selected publications

Monographs include "Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View";^[8] To America's Health: A Model for Reform of the Food and Drug Administration;^[9] and The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution.^[10] whichBarron's chose as one of the 25 Best Books of 2004.^{[11][third-party} ^source ^needed]

He is a frequent contributor to the Forbes.com science and technology section.^[12] He writes frequently about public policy issues surrounding pharmaceutical development, genetic engineering and infectious diseases ^[13] For example, on 10 Sep 2014, Miller posted that there are far higher public health priorities to spend money on than Ebola.^[14] He is a columnist for "Project Syndicate," which translates his articles into as many as 12 languages and submits them to its syndicate of more than 500 newspapers and other publications.^[15]

Miller said at a forum organized by the George C. Marshall Institute that environmental groups such as Greenpeace use the precautionary principle to oppose development of products that would improve agricultural productivity not because they are dangerous, but because those groups manifest a social vision that is “anti-business, anti-technology, and anti-American.”^[16]

Miller regularly appears on the nationally syndicated radio programs of John Batchelor and Lars Larson.^[citation ^needed]

Awards

Miller was the first recipient of an award named for him for Excellence in Public Health Education, from the American Council on Science and Health, a group that opposes junk science, in 2008.^{[17][third-party} ^source ^needed] Described as a "vocal proponent of the free market", he was selected in 2006 by the editors of "Nature Biotechnology" as one of the people who had made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology during the previous decade.^{[18][third-party} ^source ^needed] In June 2015, he was selected by Scientific American Worldview as one of the 100 "visionaries who continue to reshape biotechnology -- and the world." ^[19]

References

:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Henry I. Miller". The Hoover Institution. July 22, 2014.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Henry I. Miller". Competitive Enterprise Institute. n.d. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/a-group-of-doctors-asked-columbia-to-remove-dr-oz-from-its-f#.xox1NrYLE
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TucUMpWWe8A
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/columbia-and-the-problem-of-dr-oz
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/opinion/concerns-about-dr-oz-a-clash-at-columbia.html
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/04/23/dr-oz-show-columbia-doctors-call-for-resignation-column/26179443/
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Henry I Miller (January 24, 1997). *Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View*. Academic Press. ISBN 0124967256.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Henry I Miller (4 August 2000). "To America's Health: A Proposal to Reform the Food and Drug Administration". The Hoover Institution Press.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Henry Miller; Gregory Conko (2004). The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution. Praeger. p. 296.ISBN 0275978796.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Barron's 25 Best Books of 2004". seeking alpha.com. 18 December 2004.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Contributor: Henry I. Miller". Forbes.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/09/10/there-are-many-far-higher-public-health-priorities-for-africa-than-ebola/
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Henry I. Miller". Project Syndicate. n.d.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Duane D. Freese (February 1, 2004). "Science Debunks Precautionary Principle". Heartland News. heartland.org. Retrieved 27 October2014.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Scientists Honor Top Science Op-Ed Writer: Henry I. Miller". American Council on Science and Health. 7 May 2008.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Sabine Louet (1 March 2006). "Who's Who in Biotech" (PDF). Nature Biotechnology 24 (3). doi:10.1038/nbt0306-291.
:{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "the-worldview-100/". June 2015.

Authority control

Categories:

millerhenry915

hackademics, entine poster boy but this guy runnerup?

You'd think just his association with ACSH would be enough to kill his credibility, but it has a long list, and some are seemingly legit? no one has rteally been called out, though some blatant serial offenders like Dunn Ross? WHELAN

ENSTROM

ROBT PROCTOR golden holocausr

high-level officials of the United Nations are not known for their perspicacity, competence, or scientific acumen, but the head of the World Health Organization (WHO), Margaret Chan, is a particular embarrassment. With so much attention focused on the Ebola-virus outbreak in Africa, her exaggerations and petty scolding have made her a high-profile liability. In a speech at a regional conference in Benin last month, she warned that the Ebola outbreak “is the most severe acute public-health emergency seen in modern times” and bashed pharmaceutical companies for not developing Ebola vaccines — products that could not possibly be profitable. “A profit-driven industry does not invest in products for markets that cannot pay,” she said — a truism if there ever was one. “WHO has been trying to make this issue visible for ages. Now people can see for themselves.”

refs

A Big Step Forward towards a DDT-Free World

Countries move toward more sustainable ways to roll back malaria ahead of Millennium Development Goals

4th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNEP-Linked Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Geneva/Nairobi/Washington DC, 6 May 2009 - The United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization, in partnership with the Global Environment Facility, today announced a rejuvenated international effort to combat malaria with an incremental reduction of reliance on the synthetic pesticide DDT.

Ten projects, all part of the global programme "Demonstrating and Scaling-up of sustainable Alternatives to DDT in Vector Management", involving some 40 countries in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Asia are set to test non-chemical methods ranging from eliminating potential mosquito breeding sites and securing homes with mesh screens to deploying mosquito-repellent trees and fish that eat mosquito larvae.

The new projects follow a successful demonstration of alternatives to DDT in Mexico and Central America. Here pesticide-free techniques and management regimes have helped cut cases of malaria by over 60 per cent.

The success of the five year-long pilot indicates that sustainable alternatives to Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT) are emerging as cost effective solutions that may be applicable regionally and globally.

The Integrated Vector Management (IVM) strategy promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO) provides the framework to include these measures in combinations of interventions adapted to differing local circumstances.

Allied to measures such as improved health care, monitoring and education the findings could set the stage for meeting the twin aims of achieving the health-related and environmental Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 while also ridding the world of the persistent organic pollutant DDT.

The initiatives come amid long-standing and growing concern over the use of DDT and evidence that in many countries there is increasing mosquito resistance to the pesticide.

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=585&ArticleID=6148&l=en

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393672/why-un-more-dangerous-ebola-henry-i-miller

featured in prop 37 ads that killed it; stanford made him remove their name, just b/c violated policy, not that they disagreed/cared/

does in fact have md but never practiced/ gmo in FDA (why quit?)

forbes, cited by vitter billion rept:

CoEPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind

Francesca Grifo (Photo credit: Harvard STS Photos) If you needed to hire a person to head the financial integrity division of the Securities and Exchange Commission, how about someone who had held that position in Bernie Madoff’s investment firm? In effect, that’s what EPA has done by choosing Francesca Grifo as its “scientific integrity official.” Grifo previously oversaw the scientific integrity program at the Union of Concerned Scientists – an oxymoron if there ever was one. UCS is well known for exploiting every opportunity to distort science to further its radical, antitechnology agendas. In particular, the organization’s “experts” have been consistent, irresponsible and mendacious critics of genetic engineering and nuclear power, among other technologies; and they have been advocates for the kinds of shifts to “renewable energy” that would send energy costs to consumers and companies into the stratosphere. UCS’ view of genetic engineering applied to agriculture is especially indefensible and hypocritical: “Genetic engineering in agriculture has failed to deliver on many of its promised benefits, and has produced some serious unintended consequences.” The facts argue otherwise. Because of its advantages – higher yields, less spraying of chemical pesticides, and greater food security and an improved bottom line for farmers — genetic engineering has been hugely successful and the most rapidly adopted agricultural technology in history. The major factor preventing the realization of even more of the “promised benefits” is the overregulation and Henry I. Miller Contributor I debunk junk science and flawed public policy..

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epasnewoverseerofscientificintegritytheblindleadingtheblind/print/ 2/5

nuisance lawsuits promoted by UCS and similar groups! UCS’s carping about lackluster progress is reminiscent of the story about the man who kills his parents and then begs the court for mercy because he’s an orphan. Serious unintended consequences of genetic engineering? Please. Even after the cultivation of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 17 million farmers in 28 countries) worldwide and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food that contains genetically engineered ingredients by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed tummy ache or zit. Grifo’s appointment is especially inopportune at an agency in desperate need of an overhaul of its integrity, scientific and otherwise. Its waste, fraud, and abuse in scientific and regulatory programs are legendary. With a research budget in excess of $800 million, EPA has long appeared to be more concerned with public relations than public or environmental health. A scheme was exposed several years that would have diverted EPA “research” funds to pay outside public relations consultants up to $5 million over five years to improve the website of the Office of Research and Development, conduct focus groups on how to polish the office’s image, and produce ghostwritten articles praising the agency “for publication in scholarly journals and magazines.” This payola scheme is similar to the agency’s longstanding practice of buying influence by doling out hundreds of millions of dollars each year to certain favored nonprofit organizations — money that, according to the inspector general and Government Accountability Office, is dispersed with no public notice, competition, or accountability. The GAO investigators documented systematic malfeasance by regulators, including: (1) making grants to grantees who were unable to fulfill the terms of the grants; (2) favoring an exclusive clique of grantees without opening the grants to competition; (3) funding “environmental” grants for activities that lack any apparent environmental benefit; and (4) failing to ensure that grantees performed the objectives identified in the grants. I saw evidence of this while I was an official at the FDA. For some reason I was favored with periodic reports of the research funded by the EPA. The overwhelming majority of it was shoddy, irrelevant, and unpublishable. It is understandable that EPA needs to resort to such chicanery to whitewash its shortcomings. Science is routinely regarded there as a tool to further its antitechnology and antiindustry agendas, even if it means torturing the intent of statutes and affronting common sense. 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epasnewoverseerofscientificintegritytheblindleadingtheblind/print/ 3/5 The EPA is the prototype of agencies that spend more and more to address smaller and smaller risks. In one analysis by the Office of Management and Budget, of the 30 least costeffective regulations throughout the government, the EPA had imposed no fewer than 17. For example, the agency’s restrictions on the disposal of land that contains certain wastes prevent 0.59 cancer cases per year – about three cases every five years – and avoid $20 million in property damage, at an annual cost of $194 to $219 million. In his excellent book Breaking the Vicious Circle, written shortly before he became a U.S. Supreme Court justice, Stephen Breyer cited another, similar example of expensive, noncosteffective regulation by the EPA: a ban on asbestos pipe, shingles, coating, and paper, which the most optimistic estimates suggested would prevent seven or eight premature deaths over 13 years – at a cost of approximately a quarter of a billion dollars. Breyer observed that such a vast expenditure would cause more deaths than it would prevent from the asbestos exposure, simply by reducing the resources available for other public amenities. And perversely, the very act of removing asbestos from existing structures poses greater risk from asbestos than simply leaving it where it is: During removal, longdormant asbestos fibers are spread into the ambient air, where they expose workers and bystanders to heightened risk. When the EPA banned asbestos in 1989, it was already an old product whose risks and benefits were well understood. Nevertheless, political pressures from environmental activists pushed the EPA into making a decision that turned out to increase the risk to individuals and society. Another example of flawed decisionmaking at the EPA is the imposition of overly stringent ambient air standards under the Clean Air Act. Clean air is desirable, of course, but an EPA rule finalized in February 2012 that created new emissions standards for coal and oilfired electric utilities was illconceived. According to an analysis by Diane Katz and James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation, “The benefits are highly questionable, with the vast majority being unrelated to the emissions targeted by the regulation. The costs, however, are certain: an estimated $9.6 billion annually. The regulations will produce a significant loss of electricity generating capacity, which [will] undermine energy reliability and raise energy costs across the entire economy.” Stung repeatedly by such benefitcost calculations, EPA has begun more frequently to manipulate the benefit side by invoking socalled “nonuse benefits” of regulations, such as “the value one places on knowing that an aquatic ecosystem is healthy” or secondary and tertiary ecosystem impacts.” The problem with such supposed benefits is that estimating them is highly prone to wishful thinking. (Read: plucking numbers from the air.) For example, regulators might “calculate” that a significant 8/7/2015 EPA's New Overseer Of 'Scientific Integrity': The Blind Leading The Blind Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2013/12/04/epasnewoverseerofscientificintegritytheblindleadingtheblind/print/ 4/5 improvement in water quality in the Mississippi could be a source of benefit to people throughout the nation, not just those who use the river or who live near it, because the river is nationally symbolic. Perhaps not coincidentally related to Grifo’s appointment, the regulation of products made with modern genetic engineering techniques has been a bête noir of both the Union of Concerned Scientists and EPA. The EPA has long regulated field tests and the commercial use of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). In 2001, the EPA issued final rules for the regulation of genetically engineered plants and concocted a new concept — “plantincorporated protectants,” or PIPs, defined as “pesticidal substances produced and used by living plants.” But the EPA regulatory net captures pestresistant plants only if the “protectant” has been introduced or enhanced by the most precise and predictable techniques of genetic engineering. The registration process is excessively complex and burdensome. The submission required for regulatory review includes copious data on the parental plant, the genetic construction, the behavior of the test plant and so on — requirements that could not be met for any plant modified with older, cruder techniques, which are exempt from the FIFRA rules. EPA then conducts a series of redundant casebycase reviews — before the initial trial; when trials are scaled up or tested on additional sites; and again if even minor changes have been made in the genetic construct. Those reviews are then repeated when the sponsor is ready to cultivate the plants at commercial scale. This approach, which has been condemned repeatedly by the scientific community over many years, has discouraged innovation and provided incentives for the developers of new plant varieties to use inferior but unregulated techniques. Grifo said recently that government scientists are currently working on “safe food” and a “safe environment” using the “best available science,” and that “the most important thing as we move forward is to increase the transparency of the federal government.” She is wrong on both counts. EPA’s science is shoddy, and its scientists and administrators routinely manipulate it to fit their radical policy agendas. Moreover, transparency is less important in government regulation than the content of decisions. Putting it another way, transparency is desirable, but arriving at the right decisions about public health and environmental protection is what is paramount. The EPA has long been intellectually, scientifically and ethically bankrupt. Francesca Grifo will fit right in

hoover:

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Vandana Shiva advocates policies that will inflict widespread poverty, malnutrition, and death on the very people she claims to champion. And she’s no friend of the environment, either.

Politics and the Poor Man's Plate

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia Defining Ideas

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Bureaucrats and activists deny nourishment to the world's needy.

Is Opposition to Genetic Engineering Moral?

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia National Review Online

Monday, November 26, 2012

Europe Versus Scientific Consensus

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia American Magazine (American Enterprise Institute)

Thursday, October 18, 2012

A label we don't need

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia Nature Biotechnology

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

The United Nations agency that sets food standards—the Codex Alimentarius—recently reached an impasse on the labeling of food containing products derived from recombinant DNA technology...

Innovation Arrested By The Law Of Unintended Consequences

by Henry I. Miller, Drew L. Kershenvia Forbes.com Blogs

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Wrong-headed regulation often has unintended consequences. A good example is governments’ approach to “genetically engineered” crops...

Why spurning food biotech has become a liability

by Henry I. Miller, Gregory Conko, Drew L. Kershenvia Nature Biotechnology

Friday, September 1, 2006

In the late 1990s, a singular phenomenon swept the world..

Henry I. Miller is a Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, a conservative public policy think tank in the United States. Wikipedia

Education: University of California, San Diego

Books: The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution, More

People also search for: J. Gordon Edwards, Robert H. Burris, Ellen V. Sigal, Frank Edward Young, J. Scott Turner

Another Obama Cabinet Member Falls Short

agr sec V http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/07/02/policies-retrieved-from-a-bureaucratic-compost-heap-are-likely-to-stink/

sugar http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/06/18/3426/

2x, see links below

Prop 37 GMO Labeling Law Defeated By Corporate Dollars And Deception, Proponents Say

Posted: 11/07/2012 8:42 pm EST Updated: 11/07/2012 9:28 pm EST

Proponents of Proposition 37, the California ballot measure that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods, are attributing Tuesday's narrow defeat to corporate dollars and deception, but are also pledging to persist in a battle that they see as key to the health of Americans.

"I think this election was largely a story of money. We didn't have the funds to compete," Stacy Malkan, media director of Yes on 37, said on a Wednesday press call. "Ultimately, we were not able to get the truth out to voters."

The "No on 37" campaign, funded primarily by agro-chemical giants including Monsanto and DuPont, outspent the "Yes on 37" campaign five-to-one. Prior to the opposition's $46 million push, proponents had held a consistent two-fold lead in the polls. But they lost on Tuesday, with voters rejecting the measure 53.1 to 46.9 percent.

"California voters clearly saw through Prop 37," Dr. Henry I. Miller of the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University, said in a statement on Wednesday. "Food labeling policy should be based on logic and science, not fear. Leading scientific organizations have all agreed that foods containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe and are not materially different from their traditional counterparts."

Malkan highlights Miller's lead role in the opposition's campaign as part of the "lies, deceit and trickery" that, she said, her campaign was unable to publicly correct. The known supporter of oil and tobacco companies and climate change skeptic was misrepresented as a Stanford doctor in a television campaign ad until the university ordered it re-shot. She also pointed to the opposition's distribution of deceptive mailers and its misrepresentation of the positions of scientific organizations and government agencies such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Directly above the official FDA seal, a campaign mailer read that the agency "says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading.'" A FDA spokeswoman later denied that the agency had made "such statements with respect to Prop 37."

As for Miller's point that genetically engineered ingredients are safe, even some proponents of labeling so-called GMOs generally agree.

"A GMO crop, in theory, is not something to be afraid of," said Laura Vandenberg, a biologist at Tufts University and co-author of an editorial published last week in favor of labeling efforts. "The problem is how they are actually used in the real world. It's like talking about guns vs. gun control. Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people."

Most GMO crops in use in the U.S. have been engineered to resist herbicides, which allows growers to spray the chemicals without concern about harming their corn, rice or soy harvest. But as The Huffington Post previously reported, growing resistance among weeds is leading farmers to apply larger quantities of chemicals to achieve the same level of control.

In fact, contrary to biotech industry claims of a reduction in the use of pesticides and herbicides, a recent study estimated that GMO crops have resulted in an additional 404 million pounds of toxic pesticides doused on U.S. fields between 1996 -- when they were first introduced as farm crops -- and 2011. That's about a 7 percent increase.

"This means we're being exposed to a lot more of these chemicals," Vandenberg said. "Some of these chemicals we know very little about in terms of safety. But there are ones we know are endocrine disruptors."

omg;

Anti-GMO activist @Vandanashiva earns $40,000/speech advocating policies hurting poor http://bit.ly/1stltBi @GeneticLiteracy @NONGMOProject

Reply Retweet Favorite More

RETWEETS

Voice of tReasonM. Gutiérrez-CorreaMonsanto Europe

8:49 AM - 17 Jul 2014

9:04 AM - 17 Jul 2014 · Details

" data-mentions="JonEntine vandanashiva GeneticLiteracy NonGMOProject" data-component-context="replies" data-you-follow="false" data-you-block="false" style="position: relative; min-height: 54px; padding: 9px 40px 9px 98px; border-bottom-width: 0px; cursor: pointer;">

Voice of tReason ?@V_of_tReason 4h

@JonEntine @vandanashiva @GeneticLiteracy @NonGMOProject Ironic that she should be such a voice for #firstworldproblems

bitly

Anti-GMO activist Vandana Shiva earns $40,000 per speech advocating policies harming poor

Henry Miller | July 17, 2014 | Forbes

Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist who opposes modern agriculture and modern science — and well, modernity in general — is a popular guest lecturer on American campuses. Last spring, she held the Weissberg Chair in International Studies (2013-2014) at Beloit College and this fall is scheduled to lecture at Arizona State and Wake Forest universities.

Although she gets good press from left-wing and environmental publications, Shiva is widely considered by the scientific community to be unbalanced (in both senses of the word) for advocating unsound, anti-social policies and promulgating disproven theories about agriculture. One hopes her remarks to university students are placed in perspective by someone who knows better.

Shiva claims that the cultivation of genetically engineered, pest-resistant cotton is not only ineffective but has been the cause of hundreds of thousands of farmer suicides in India. But Shiva’s statistics are cherry-picked, largely irrelevant and often wrong, and her argument relies on a fallacy of logic known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc–after the fact, therefore because of the fact. In other words, she confuses correlation with causation, the kind of “logic” that leads one to believe that autism is caused by organic food because of graphs like this one.

Eminent Berkeley agricultural economist David Zilberman sums up India’s experience with genetic engineering this way: “India [has] gained from adopting [genetic engineering applied to] cotton but has lost from not adopting it with other crops. The US, Brazil and Argentina adopted [genetic engineering] in corn and soybean, which led to increases in output and gains from exporting these extra crops. India and the rest of the world have also indirectly enjoyed benefits from the increased global supply of corn because of [genetic engineering].

While this upper-caste Indian gets little right about science, she is clearly adept at extracting money from sponsors on the lecture circuit. According to her speakers’ agency, the Evil Twin Booking Agency (we are not making this up), Shiva’s usual fee for an American university appearance is $40,000 plus a business class round-trip ticket from New Delhi. Thus, we infer that Beloit, Wake Forest and Arizona State have probably paid Dr. Shiva close to $50,000 each for exposing their students to her mendacious, baseless attacks on modern agriculture and science.

Read the full, original article: Wealthy activist Vandana Shiva is a poor advocate for the poor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/07/16/a-wealthy-activist-is-a-poor-advocate-for-the-poor/

no links

Vandana Shiva advocates policies that will inflict widespread poverty, malnutrition, and death on the very people she claims to champion. And she’s no friend of the environment, either.

Henry I. Miller and Drew L. Kershen

Vandana Shiva, the Indian activist who opposes modern agriculture and modern science–and well, modernity in general–is a popular guest lecturer on American campuses. Last spring, she held the Weissberg Chair in International Studies (2013-2014) at Beloit College and this fall is scheduled to lecture at Arizona State and Wake Forest universities. Although she gets good press from left-wing and environmental publications, Shiva is widely considered by the scientific community to be unbalanced (in both senses of the word) for advocating unsound, anti-social policies and promulgating disproven theories about agriculture. One hopes her remarks to university students are placed in perspective by someone who knows better.

English: Golden Rice grain compared to white rice grain in screenhouse of Golden Rice plants. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As science writer Jon Entine and Dr. Cami Ryan of the University of Saskatchewan discussed in a Forbes.com article earlier this year, many of Shiva’s hobby horses have proven to be exceedingly lame. Some prominent examples

– The “Green Revolution.” The new varieties and practices of the Green Revolution introduced in the second half of the 20th century provided greater food security to hundreds of millions of people in developing countries on much of the planet;they made available high-yielding varieties of wheat and also new agronomic and management practices that transformed the ability of Mexico, India, Pakistan, China, and parts of South America to feed their populations. From 1950 to 1992, the world’s grain output rose from 692 million tons produced on 1.70 billion acres of cropland to 1.9 billion tons on 1.73 billion acres of cropland—an extraordinary increase in yield per acre of more than 150 percent.

India is an excellent case in point. In 1963 wheat grew there in sparse, irregular strands, was harvested by hand, and was highly susceptible to rust disease. The maximum yield was 800 lb per acre. By 1968 the wheat grew densely packed, was resistant to rust, and the maximum yield had risen to 6000 lb per acre. Without high-yield agriculture, either millions would have starved or increases in food output would have been realized only through drastic expansion of land under cultivation—with losses of pristine wilderness far greater than all the losses to urban, suburban and commercial expansion.

And yet, from her perch in a parallel universe, Shiva contends that the Green Revolution actually caused hunger. Here, as elsewhere, she employs the propaganda technique known as the Big Lie, a phrase coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 book Mein Kampf. Shiva promulgates lies so “colossal” (as Hitler put it) that it would be inconceivable for someone to “have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Read on.

– Golden Rice. These are genetically engineered varieties that are biofortified, or enriched, by genes that produce beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A. They could be a monumental public health breakthrough, because vitamin A deficiency is epidemic among poor people whose diet is composed largely of rice, which contains no beta-carotene or vitamin A. In developing countries, 200 million-300 million children of preschool age are at risk of vitamin A deficiency, which increases their susceptibility to illnesses including measles and diarrheal diseases. Every year, about half a million children become blind as a result of vitamin A deficiency and 70% of those die within a year.

Inexplicably, Shiva is opposed to it: “By focusing on only one crop, rice, which by itself does not provide all the nutrients, including higher quantities of Vitamin A than Golden Rice, the Golden Rice pushers are in fact worsening the crisis of hunger and malnutrition.” “Promoters of Golden Rice are blind to diversity, and hence are promoters of blindness, both metaphorically and nutritionally,” she adds. Shiva has dismissed Golden Rice as a hoax and a myth–which are the vilest sort of lies, not unlike those of the pernicious charlatans who condemn childhood vaccination to prevent infectious diseases.

As Entine and Ryan wrote: “Shiva’s alternate proposed solution for promoting a ‘diversity of diet’ has not worked for the very poor who cannot afford to buy vegetables or fruits, or cannot devote the land on their subsistence farm to grow more of them.” The hoax is Shiva’s unworkable alternative, not the proven capabilities of genetic engineering.

– Genetically engineered, pest-resistant cotton (Bt-cotton, so-called because it contains a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that kills certain insects). Shiva claims that the cultivation of these seeds is not only ineffective but has been the cause of hundreds of thousands of farmer suicides in India.[note no cite] But Shiva’s statistics are cherry-picked, largely irrelevant and often wrong, and her argument relies on a fallacy of logic known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc–after the fact, therefore because of the fact. In other words, she confuses correlation with causation, the kind of “logic” that leads one to believe that autism is caused by organic food because of graphs like this one.

In an article last year in the journal Nature, agricultural socio-economist Dominic Glover observed, “It is nonsense to attribute farmer suicides solely to Bt cotton,” and moreover, “Although financial hardship is a driving factor in suicide among Indian farmers, there has been essentially no change in the suicide rate for farmers since the introduction of Bt cotton.”

Reinforcing Glover’s observations, a definitive, comprehensive study of Bt-cotton in India published in 2011 concluded: “Bt cotton is accused of being responsible for an increase of farmer suicides in India. . . Available data show no evidence of a ‘resurgence’ of farmer suicides. Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. Nevertheless, in specific districts and years, Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, but its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted.”

In addition, a 2006 study of four of India’s major cotton-producing states found that Bt-cotton gave rise to yield gains of approximately 31% and a 39% decrease in number of insecticide sprays, which led to an 88% increase in profitability, equivalent to about $250 per hectare.

We endorse shopping in the marketplace of ideas, but not when is is polluted by toxic goods. Recall Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. Shiva is a seemingly endless font of bogus, made-up facts–that is to say, lies–and bizarre reasoning.

Even the way Shiva represents herself to the public at large and to potential sponsors for her lectures–variously as a “scientist,” “nuclear physicist,” or “quantum physicist”–is dishonest. She earned her doctorate not in physics, but in philosophy. Ironically, Shiva’s connection with physics illustrates not her expertise in the discipline, but her wrong-headedness. Her dissertation in the philosophy of science (not in physics) at the University of Western Ontario focused on the debate over a central notion in physics known as Bell’s Theorem, which is concerned with “testing whether or not particles connected through quantum entanglement communicate information faster than the speed of light,” and which has been called the “most profound theory in science.” The abstract of Shiva’s dissertation states, in part: “It has been taken for granted that Bell’s [theorem] is based on a locality condition which is physically motivated, and thus his proof therefore falls into a class by itself. We show that both the above claims are mistaken” [emphasis added].

Contrary to Shiva’s conclusion, however, Bell’s theorem has been proven scientifically correct. As Entine [another philos, but BA] and Ryan wrote, “The main thesis of quantum mechanics that she challenged has since been confirmed by experimental physics, meaning that her thesis stands at odds with factual reality.” But factual reality has never been Shiva’s forte.

As for the substance of Shiva’s presentations at universities, we can only imagine. . . After all, she is the author of “In Praise of Cowdung”–a paean to peasant agriculture and an attack on improved seeds and modern fertilizers in Indian agriculture. That essay and her other writings remind us of an old Peanuts cartoon in which the character Lucy van Pelt is about to embark on a writing assignment. “Write about something you know well,” the teacher instructs. Lucy begins typing, “The air hung heavy with stupidity…”

Henry I. Miller, a physician, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He was the founding director of the Office of Biotechnology at the FDA. Drew L. Kershen is the Earl Sneed Centennial Professor of Law (Emeritus), University of Oklahoma College of Law, in Norman, Okla.

Follow the Money: "Big 6" GMO Companies Buy Big Ads

Among the campaign's largest funders are the "Big 6" GMO and pesticide corporations: BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Syngenta, and Monsanto (see the chart below this article). These six corporations dominate the world's seed, pesticide and genetic engineering (GE) industries. Collectively they have contributed more than $20 million to oppose the labeling measure.

According to the Earth Island Journal, spinning the law's exemptions into a major issue makes "a snazzy sound bite, ... no doubt informed by the No campaign's polling and focus group findings that show this is a wedge issue. But it's a strawman argument and fundamentally misleading." The article points out "the holes in the loophole argument" one by one.

Who is Henry Miller?

The ad originally listed campaign spokesperson Miller as "M.D., Stanford" and showed Stanford University buildings in the background. The campaign had to pull that version off the air at the request of Stanford University and re-do it because "the Stanford ID on the screen appeared to violate the university's policy against use of the Stanford name by consultants," according to the Los Angeles Times.

Henry I. Miller (screenshot from "No on 37" ad)

Miller is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus. Prior to joining Hoover, Miller worked for 15 years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including GMOs. Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology, from 1989-1994.

What Miller is most notorious for are his unusual public positions. In 2003, Miller penned an op-ed for the New York Times defending DDT and arguing for its resurrection. This prompted a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) response pointing out the estimated "increase in infant deaths that might result from DDT spraying."

Miller was also a founding member scientist of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a now-defunct, tobacco industry-funded public relations front group run by the APCO Worldwide PR firm that worked to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer.

Perhaps most outrageously, Miller wrote in a 2011 op-ed for Forbes that some of those exposed to radiation after the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant "could have actually benefitted from it."

So it is unsurprising that Miller penned a Forbes op-ed on GMO labeling this week suggesting that it is the supporters of GMO labeling who are engaged in "no-holds-barred advocacy ... to disparage farming methods and promulgate fraudulent health claims about the foods we eat."

SourceWatch

Henry I. Miller is senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank. Prior to joining the Hoover Institution, Miller worked for 15 years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology (from 1989-1994).

Contents

[hide]

1 Miller on Biotechnology

2 Tobacco industry document information

3 Background

4 Affiliations

5 Books

6 Articles and resources

6.1 Related SourceWatch articles

6.2 References

6.3 External articles

7 Articles by Miller

Miller on Biotechnology

With Gregory Conko he wrote in an article for the European Science and Environment Forum website which suggests that concerns about the safety of GM food are only because of "trade protectionism" and "anti-science fearmongering". In his book, The Frankenfood myth: how protest and politics threaten the biotech revolution (co-authored with Conko), Miller explains criticism of biotech as follows:

"Demands were made for governmental protection against unseen, unlikely, and often largely imaginary risks. The products of the new biotechnology often were regarded as though they were mysterious and alien substances transported here from another galaxy, instead of the result of precise and well-understood scientific processes."[1]

In the same book, Miller refers to biotechnology as "the closest thing to a free lunch in the technological firmament."

Miller and Conko argue against the adoption of the precautionary principle (PP), which would insist on safety testing of GM foods before they are released, on the grounds that "this erects an almost insurmountable barrier against new products because nothing can be proved totally safe - at least, not to the standard demanded by anti-technology extremists."

Miller spreads his message through the Heartland Institute, a Chicago based corporate funded think tank.

The 2004 article "Science Debunks Precautionary Principle"[2] quotes Miller as saying: "A large number of people in poor nations have food allergies," (milk, wheat, and nuts) "Biotechnology can remove the allergens ... so people in developing countries can enjoy some of these foods."

Tobacco industry document information

A 1994 memo written by the Apco Associates PR firm (now called Apco Worldwide) for Philip Morris (PM) discusses plans to create a European branch of the PM-backed "junk science" front group The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. The memo states,

Specifically, we recommend that a European TASSC be formulated to do the following:

Preempt unilateral action against industry.

Associate anti-industry "scientific"studies with broader questions about government research and regulations • Link the tobacco issue with other more "politically correct" products.

Have non-industry messengers provide reasons for legislators, business executives and media to view policies drawn from unreliable scientific studies with extreme caution.

The memo specifically cites Henry I. Miller as a "key supporter" who might be willing to assist in the execution of the project:

For example, Dr. Henry I. Miller, Visiting Fellow and Visiting Scholar of the Institute of International Studies of the Hoover Institute of Stanford University, is one example of a key supporter with strong academic and international credentials who might assist us in this project.

[2][Italicized emphasis added.]

An undated TASSC newsletter (called "The Catalyst") contains an article stating that TASSC member-scientist Dr. Henry Miller, ("a visiting scholar from the Hoover Institution)," helped draft the 5 Guiding Principles of TASSC. Listed along with Miller as another TASSC member who helped draft the Guiding Principles is James E. Enstrom, a scientist whose work was cited in The U.S. Government's racketeering case against Big Tobacco as having assisted the tobacco industry in perpetrating fraud and deception upon the American public.

Background

According to a a biographical profile in a 2003 report he co-authored, Miller's research "focuses on the relationship between science and regulation, the often-excessive costs of government regulation, models for regulatory reform, and federal and international oversight of genetically engineered products. As a consultant, he advises defendants' and plaintiffs' counsel and companies on a wide spectrum of regulatory strategies and problems."[3]

According to the profile Miller "is a prominent academic researcher, author and regulatory consultant. He graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with a Bachelor of Science degree in Life Sciences and attended the University of California, San Diego, receiving the M.S. and M.D. degrees. After completing training in internal medicine as a Clinical Fellow in Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Dr. Miller spent several years as a Research Associate at the National Institutes of Health, helping to refine and employing the recombinant DNA ("gene-splicing") techniques that were then emerging".

"Dr. Miller joined the FDA in 1979 and served in a number of posts involved with the new biotechnology. He was the medical reviewer for the early recombinant DNA-derived drugs evaluated by the FDA and was instrumental in the rapid approvals of human insulin and human growth hormone (the marketing approval of the former in five months was an FDA record at the time)," his profile states.

"He served at both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Review (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Review (CBER). Dr. Miller later served as Special Assistant to the FDA Commissioner, with responsibility for biotechnology issues (1984-89); and from 1989-94, he was the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. During his government service, Dr. Miller wrote and lectured frequently on the regulatory requirements for biotechnology products, and participated frequently on various expert and policy panels as a representative of the FDA or the US government. As the FDA's contact person for the Securities and Exchange Commission, he reviewed the accuracy of claims made by companies in their prospectuses about the likelihood and timing of drug approvals," his profile states.

"Dr. Miller's primary contributions have been in four areas: as a federal official, crafting and implementing science-based regulation of the new biotechnology, and explaining these policies to regulated industry, the scientific community, and the public; as a member of international panels and experts' groups, moving consensus toward the scientific view of risk and its regulation; making science and technology and their regulation more widely understood, via articles in newspapers and magazines; and performing research on and analyses of various issues related to science and technology," his profile states.

Affiliations

Miller is:

a director of Consumer Alert BERMAN

a director of American Council on Science and Health

an Adjunct Scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute; and a

scientific advisor to the George C. Marshall Institute

Books

He has written a number of books including:

Policy Controversy in Biotechnology: An Insider's View', R.G. Landes Co. and Academic Press, 1997;

To America's Health: A Proposal to Reform the Food and Drug Administration, Hoover Institution Press, 2000.

The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution, Henry Miller and Gregory Conko, Praeger, 2004.

Articles and resources