Carlo, GL

=<div>odd did right thinkg on EMR after many bad cancer lies before?
<div>
</div><div>chem, cancer, dioxin, john graham</div><div>== just archive of this 1996 aus site (i took out italics]<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><center times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h2><div style="text-align: left;">JUNK SCIENCE AND THE ART OF SPIN-DOCTORING</div><div style="text-align: left;">(Part 3a)</div></h2><h3 style="text-align: left;">by Stewart Fist</h3></center><h2 times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Junkman and the Web of Deceit;
How the Spin-Doctors Cross-Fertilise</h2>If you want to see how carefully crafted such a web of deceit can be, check out <a href="http://www.junkscience.com/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">JunkScience.com</a>, run by a pseudo-science debunker with the name of Steven Milloy. He promotes this site as having "All the Junk that's fit to Debunk", and a lot of the material in these pages are just what it purports to be -- a good, and sometimes humourous attack on bad science and activist crap.Milloy promotes himself as a private crusader. He regularly leads the attack on activist groups involved in questions of public health, environmental destruction and pollution, and he proudly calls himself "The Junkman".He loaths the EPA, the FDA and the Democrats; in particular Al Gore.Milloy gives you some personal details at the site. Here's what he says:<ul times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">Steven J. Milloy is the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.Milloy's work on the Junk Science Home Page has garnered numerous awards, including: being named "One of the 50 Best Web Sites of 1998" by Popular Science; and designation as a "Hot Pick" by Science. The site has also been recommended by the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Times of London, Financial Times, Forbes and MSNBC.Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.In addition to the Junk Science Home Page, Milloy: appears frequently on radio and television; has testified on risk assessment and Superfund before the U.S. Congress; and has lectured before numerous organizations.Milloy's publications include:<ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li>Silencing Science, with co-author Michael Gough (Cato Institute, 1998)</li><li>Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research (Cato Institute, 1995)</li><li>Science-Based Risk Assessment: A Piece of the Superfund Puzzle (National Environmental Policy Institute, 1995)</li></ul>A lobbyist with a law degree is a valuable commodity in corporate America because it invokes lawyer/client-privilege if dubious deals ever get into the courts. The Biostatistics tag just tells you that he can do maths.Before Milloy moved into his present role as "JunkMan", he was employed by a number of professional PR and lobbying companies, including Multinational Business Services which was Phillip Morris's main lobbyist on the environmental tobacco issue in late 1992 (when Milloy worked there). This organisation was run by a Reagan Republican appointee who ran the OSHA for a while, Thorne Auchter. Like many top people from the Reagan administration, Auchter became a major lobbyist in Washington in the 1980s, and went into business on behalf of the tobacco industry, along with his partners Jim Tozzi (in MBS and Federal Focus) and (in HES) Dr George Carlo.Phillip Morris later funded the organisation known as TASSC (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition) through the public-relations/lobby organisation, APCO Associates, and Milloy took over as its director. [See below]. This organisation was funding by tobacco, chemical, energy and other polluting industries in the USA as a way to attack epidemiologists, toxicologists and environmentalists who claimed to have evidential science showing these companies were doing harm. In Milloy's terms, these claims are all junk-science, and he is the arbiter of such labels.Milloy is currently listed as an "adjunct fellow" at the Cato Institute, which leaves the impression that he is an independent, highly educated, science commentator funded by an independent foundation. This boost's his impied claim to be carrying on a personal crusade to clean up the science shonks -- while, in fact, he is a lacky who specialises in a subtle form of lobbying, and runs misinformation campaigns for business.He writes books for the Cato Institute sarcastically attacking the scientific expertise and ethics of any scientist who's results threaten American corporate business interests -- provided they fund him.The Cato Institute is a well-known independent "free-enterprise" think-tank run by members of the Republican Right in Washington DC. [" ....22 years of promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace."]It also runs what it calls the "Cato University", which offers expensive summer courses to those with a "commitment to liberty and an interest in the world of ideas".The Cato Institute also employs the writer-humourist PJ. O'Rourke, and funds him to travel, speak, and to write his very humourous books attacking anything remotely resembling concern for the environment, consumerism, or political liberalism. That's fair enough, I guess; most humourists take a leftish line and their attack on the Republican Right are far more vicious.Behind the scenes the Cato Institute is, itself, funded by many major corporations and industry associations with vested interests, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, Amoco, ARCO, Chase Manhattan Bank, Coca-Cola, CSX Corp., Exxon, Ford Motor Co., Koch Industries, Monsanto Co., National Ammonia Co., Philip Morris, Proctor and Gamble, and Toyota Motor Sales USA.</ul></div> ====<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo">https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo</a>stubGeorge L. Carlo is a Buffalo (NY) born epidemiologist who set up as a science-for-sale entrepreneur in the early days of the Agent-Orange/dioxin problems. At that time he worked both for the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dow_Chemical_Company" title="Dow Chemical Company" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Dow Chemical Company</a> in their "flying circus" of experts who were toured around the USA to tell citizens that there was no need to worry ... dioxins were relatively benign... and also for the Chlorine Chemical Council, a subsidiary of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the descendant of the Manufacturing Chemists Association that attacked <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rachel_Carson" title="Rachel Carson" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Rachel Carson</a> in 1962. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/upw43d00/pdf" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[1]</a>He established a scientific lobbying firm <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Carlo%26_Associates" class="mw-redirect" title="George Carlo & Associates" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">George Carlo & Associates</a> in Washington DC, and hired <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maurice_Le_Vois" class="mw-redirect" title="Maurice Le Vois" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Maurice Le Vois</a> from California as his west-coast research director. Not long after Carlo and Le Vois jointly established <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_and_Environmental_Sciences" class="mw-redirect" title="Health and Environmental Sciences" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Health and Environmental Sciences</a> (HES) which had both east and west-coast operations. Carlo ran HES-East out of Washington DC, and Le Vois HES-West out of San Francisco.They then approached <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Morris" class="mw-redirect" title="Philip Morris" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Philip Morris</a> with an offer to run a scam project in support of the tobacco industry to prove scientists were biased -- this involved both a phone-survey of doctors and some academics:<ol style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">) The idea was that these experts were to be questioned in a heavily-loaded way, guaranteed to show they thought passive smoking was likely to be harmful. According to these tobacco-loaded research protocol, this then establishing that these doctors and academics were "biased" against smoking, and were therefore not acting scientifically and couldn't be trusted to act in society's best interests over questions of tobacco safety.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">) These pre-determine finding were then to be promoted to the general media as evidence of a general medical "bias" against smoking, further proof that scientists were not dispassionate and couldn't be trusted. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qiv78e00/pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[2]</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/alh52d00/pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[3]</a></li></ol>This was, in fact, the precursor to the tobacco industry's later anti-science movement which involved a public attack on "junk-science" (any science not to their liking) and claims about the unreliability of science in general. This eventually encompassed denials about chemical/pesticide harms, and the tobacco, chemical and energy industries' heavy funding of climate denial.The initial 'Bias study' research was eventually done by the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_and_Environmental_Sciences_Group" title="Health and Environmental Sciences Group" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Health and Environmental Sciences Group</a> (HESG), which sounded impressive. In fact it was only a handful of local Carlo staff recruits operating out of a brownstone house owned by Carlo in Washington DC. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zyb19e00/pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[4]</a> Le Vois appears to have split with Carlo and established a new relationship with <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maxwell_Layard" class="mw-redirect" title="Maxwell Layard" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Maxwell Layard</a>
<table width="33%" bgcolor="#EEEEDD" border="1" rules="all" cellpadding="5" align="right" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#CCCCCC"><th>SPLIT ENTRY</th></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carlo_associates_and_organisations" title="Carlo associates and organisations" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Carlo associates and organisations</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Carlo(Doc_Index)" title="George Carlo (Doc Index)" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">George Carlo (Doc Index)</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wireless_Technology_Research" title="Wireless Technology Research" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Wireless Technology Research</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_and_Environmental_Sciences_Group" title="Health and Environmental Sciences Group" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Health and Environmental Sciences Group</a></td></tr></tbody></table><div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"><div class="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;">
</div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo#Auchter.26_Tozzi" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">1Auchter & Tozzi</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo#TASSC_and_Steve_Milloy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">2TASSC and Steve Milloy</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo#Wireless_Technology_Research" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">3Wireless Technology Research</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo#Other_projects" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">4Other projects</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo#BioPro" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">5BioPro</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_L.Carlo#Other_Links" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">5.1Other Links</a></li></ul></li></ul></div><h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.6;">Auchter & Tozzi</h3>Carlo and Ian Munro from the Canadian firm CanTox also became involved in providing a science-scepticism barrier for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) when concerns emerged about the safety of the pulsed-power GSM/D-AMPS digital cellular mobile phones. Carlo took <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thorne_G.Auchter" title="Thorne G. Auchter" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Thorne G. Auchter</a> (ex Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) into his organization as a silent partner (and possibly also <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_J.Tozzi" class="mw-redirect" title="James J. Tozzi" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">James J. Tozzi</a> (ex head of the OIRA at the Reagan White House). These three were close friends and worked closely together as lobbyists and science-corrupters for the cellphone and tobacco industries for many years. One of the astroturfs run by Tozzi and Auchter, the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Regulatory_Policy" title="Institute for Regulatory Policy" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Institute for Regulatory Policy</a>, was supposedly the funder, controller and publisher of the Philip Morris/Carlo bias study.Carlo also acted as a recruiter for the tobacco industry's <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Whitecoats" title="Whitecoats" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Whitecoats</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/imc77a00/pdf" style="background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" background-position="background-position" right="right" center="center" background-size="background-size" initial="initial" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" repeat="repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[5]</a>, and was a key organiser with Tozzi and Auchter in the attempt by the tobacco industry to take control of the standards used in epidemiology by the regulatory agencies (known as GEP -- <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Good_Epidemiology_Practices" title="Good Epidemiology Practices" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Good Epidemiology Practices</a>) <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xra24e00/pdf" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[6]</a>. This was done through a so-called <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=London_Conference&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="London Conference (page does not exist)" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88);">London Conference</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vdy15c00/pdf" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[7]</a> of experts, which was heavily loaded with the tobacco industry's scientific 'friends' to pre-determine the outcome. This pseudo-conference resulted in the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=London_Principles&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="London Principles (page does not exist)" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88);">London Principles</a> which the tobacco industry then touted to politicians as guidelines for the regulation of toxic substances.Carlo appears to have been paid either $15,000 or $25,000 for his involvement in this project, while Tozzi received $70,000. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hpg52c00/pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[8]</a> On top of this, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Focus" title="Federal Focus" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Federal Focus</a>, Inc. a camouflage-corporation run by Tozzi and Auchter (with Carlo involved, if not a silent partner) also received a "Federal Grant In Aid" from Philip Morris for $300,000. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pvq32c00/pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[9]</a>When the EPA was making its assessment that <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Tobacco_Smoke" title="Environmental Tobacco Smoke" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Environmental Tobacco Smoke</a> was a carcinogenic risk to health, Carlo also provided the industry with some credible denial. As an old reliable science-for-sale entrepreneur Carlo wrote a op-ed piece for them and act as an independent spokesman in a planned attack on the EPA's reformed Scientific Advisory Board. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hjn24e00/pdf" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[10]</a><h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.6;">TASSC and Steve Milloy</h3>In 1993 Philip Morris set up a 'junk-science' organisation known as <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition" title="The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition</a> (TASSC) which originally had ex-Governor of New Mexico, Garrey Carruthers as its head spokesman, but he turned out to be ineffective. This was done through APCO & Associates which was a private PR company at that time controlled by the tobacco company.<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J_Milloy" class="mw-redirect" title="Steven J Milloy" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Steven J Milloy</a>, a professional lobbyist (<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=EOP_Group" title="EOP Group" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">EOP Group</a>) had been hired to do the back-room work, but was then brought to the front and proved to be ideal for their purpose. He became the face of 'junk-science' on a global scale (via ion-line forums and Fox News) since the early internet was now able to distribute this 'anti-establishment' message around the world. For a few years Milloy became the popular arbiter of what was "sound science" and what was "junk science" -- and many of his followers were convinced that he was a genuine scientist, pricking the balloons of pomposity among scientists, in areas they didn't understand (mainly health and environmental science).Other industries were brought in to help maintain TASSC's funding, and George Carlo was hired to lead an Advisory Board. Auchter and Tozzi also became involved. The advice they offered, was in how to disparage legitimate scientific findings which were against the economically interests of their funding corporations.<h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.6;">Wireless Technology Research</h3>In 1993 when the public began to become concerned as to whether cellular phones were a health risk, Carlo was selected by the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cellular_Telephone_Industry_Association" title="Cellular Telephone Industry Association" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128);">Cellular Telephone Industry Association</a> (CTIA) on the advice of <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ketchum_Public_Relations&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Ketchum Public Relations (page does not exist)" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88);">Ketchum Public Relations</a>to run a quick-and-dirty Scientific Advisory Board, which, after spending less than $1 million and a few days of meetings, gave cellphones the all-clear. The US Congress considered this a whitewash, and told the CTIA to get real and fund some substantial research into the possible biological impact of cellphones on human health. Initially they did so with a $25 million budget.The concerns were about the first of the digital cellphones which used a highly dubious, extremely electrically interfering, transmission technique called GSM (Groupe Speciale Mobile) in Europe, and D-AMPS (Digital AMPS) in the Americas. These mobile digital phones emitted pulsed power in burst which were eventually shown to be bioactive. When held close to the head, such phones posed a health risk (never proved or disproved).Eventually the cellphone industry in the USA hired George Carlo to create a company called <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wireless_Technology_Research" title="Wireless Technology Research" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Wireless Technology Research</a> (WTR) which was housed in the same brownstone as his HESG. It was to fund research for three years, but managed to spend most of the money on completely useless research. As a result, well into the 3 year time span, the editor of the journal "Microwave News" (Louis Slesin) wrote that "Carlo had spent $17 million without ever getting a test-tube wet." <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408066" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[11]</a>The May/June 2003 issue of Microwave News, reviewed the progress of the WTR:<blockquote style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“George Carlo’s Wireless Technology Research (WTR) had run a confidence game on behalf of the mobile phone companies... Carlo and the industry he represented never wanted to do any actual research... WTR’s $25-million research budget was by far the largest pot of money ever earmarked for RF research. It was squandered. The public is a loser because Carlo brought us no closer to understanding the health risks from cell phone radiation... For close to a decade, its members were denied the chance to do the promised research. Carlo’s strategy was clever and effective. By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved RF community, Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions. There was the added benefit that scientists were discouraged from helping lawyers who were thinking about suing cell phone companies. WTR’s bank account is now empty”</blockquote>Carlo went back to the CTIA and they put a couple more million into the WTR operation, mainly because the media had now turned against them.<h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.6;">Other projects</h3>Carlo's Health and Environmental Science Group operation had grown with input and administration from <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Munro" class="mw-redirect" title="Ian Munro" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Ian Munro</a> who also had his own similar scam operation, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cantox" title="Cantox" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Cantox</a> in Canada, and also <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Martha_Embrey&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Martha Embrey (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88); background: none;">Martha Embrey</a> who was his top assistant at HESG. While Carlo was involved in the WTR operations, Embrey was running a number of smaller operations for other companies and industries. The main one was a <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Breast_Implant_Public_Health_Project" title="Breast Implant Public Health Project" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Breast Implant Public Health Project</a> for Dow Corning to prove that the silicone breast implants were safe, even if they ruptured in the body.There are obviously also a large number of smaller research operations that we don't know about. Carlo had built up a moderate size staff and pseudo-research facilities, so he needed to keep them employed. The Breast Implant paper shows that his reach was even wider: it says:<blockquote style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The Breast Implant Public Health Project provided financial support for this study through a grant from the Dow Corning Corporation. We wish to express our thanks to Liz Adams, Barbara Blasick, Julie Downs, and Susan Houston for their help with the conduct of this research, as well as to anonymous reviewers. The views expressed are those of the authors.
NOTE:
For further information, please address communications to Martha Embrey, MPH, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, 2300 K St, NW, Washington, DC 20037, eohmae@gwumc.edu.</blockquote><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">BioPro</h2>Carlo broke with the Cellular Telephone Industry Association after the money finally ran out (they eventually funded him to the tune of $27.5 million). His demand for further funding fell on deaf ears, and the dispute also led to an acrimonious exchange as a consequence of Carlo's disputed divorce settlement when the CTIA refused to make WTR accounts available to his lawyers. They became implacable enemies.At this late stage Carlo had a Damascian conversion, and overnight he became an enemy of the cellphone industry, charging that the CTIA was responsible for covering up some of the scientific findings uncovered by WTR funding, which he says had showed cellphones were dangerous. He never specified exactly what research funded by WTR and shown these dangers, but he was effective with the media and got his message across.<ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.1%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg" width="%225%22" height="%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle" cx="%222.5%22" cy="%229.5%22" r="%222.5%22" fill="%22%2300528c%22/%3E%0A%3C/svg%3E%0A" color="color" rgb="rgb" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data"><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">He now hitched up for a while with <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Angelos" class="mw-redirect" title="Peter Angelos" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background: none;">Peter Angelos</a> the wealthy product liability lawyer who was keen on suing the mobile phone companies on behalf of clients who had brain cancer -- but that project collapsed because the scientific links could never be convincingly demonstrated.</li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">He wrote a book with science journalist <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Martin_Schram&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Martin Schram (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88); background: none;">Martin Schram</a>, which was noticeable more for what it avoided discussing than what it revealed. (Cellphones: invisible Hazard in the Wireless Age)</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">He joined forces with one of the fake 'bio-shield" companies {BioPro]] to promote a completely useless stick-on device to protect yourself from "harmful cellphone radiations". This arrangement also collapsed acrimoniously. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://bioproisascam.blogspot.com/2008/05/george-carlo-abandons-biopro.html" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[12]</a></li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">He then ran what amounted to a training institution, to teach people how to make money out of cellphone and similar fears. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://www.emf-health.com/dr-george-carlo.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[13]</a></li></ul>He also appears to spend some of his time writing and re-writing puff-pieces about himself for Wikipedia. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Carlo" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[14]</a>Carlo is still active in late 2018. He managed to persuade two journalists who wrote for The Guardian and The Nation, that he was one of the initiators of the change of cellphone radiation standards from the pulse-power GSM/TDMA standard to the much safer, better, and more capacious CDMA ... when, in fact, he was one of the leaders opposing this change. <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[15]</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="https://microwavenews.com/news-center/carlos-50-studies" style="background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" text-decoration-line="text-decoration-line" none="none" color="color" rgb="rgb" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[16]</a><pre style="background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); border: 1px solid rgb(234, 236, 240); padding: 1em; white-space: pre-wrap; line-height: 1.3em;">: [Note: Don't assume from the above that cellphone radiation is likely to harm your health. The concern was simply that the electronics companies did no biomedical testing before putting these early high-power TDMA phones on sale in their millions. There was never any proven science which established harm. (although a couple of top independent researchers were seriously concerned at higher rates of DNA breaks in exposed animals.)
The transmission standards of modern cellular phones bears little resemblance to the pulsed-power GSM/D-AMPS phones; they transmit in a steady 'spread-spectrum' fashion at much lower output powers. ]

</pre><h3 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom: 0px; line-height: 1.6;">Other Links</h3>See good overview <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://web.mac.com/rgrussell/Smirnov/Googling_Dr_Carlo.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(102, 51, 102); background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) right center no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.0%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22" standalone="%22no%22%3F%3E%3Csvg" width="%2212%22" height="%2212%22%3E%3Cpath" fill="%22%23fff%22/%3E%3C/svg%3E" stroke="%22%2306c%22" d="%22M9.995" h5.982v10.5h1.5z="h5.982V10.5H1.5z" e="E" cpath="Cpath" h11v5.39l9.427="H11v5.39L9.427" l-1.31-1.31l5.393="l-1.31-1.31L5.393" l-2.69-2.688="l-2.69-2.688" l4.2="L4.2" z="z" l.022="l.022" l8.2="L8.2" l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z="l2.882-2.88-1.85-1.852z" padding-right="padding-right" px="px" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data">[17]</a>=2018 cell phone testimony?<a href="https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/publiccomm/carlo20180312.pdf">https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/publiccomm/carlo20180312.pdf</a>ends 1995<a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)">https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)</a>George L Carlo was one of the most prolific science corrupter in the American scene, and he worked for any industry that would pay. Initially he built his business working for Dow Chemicals through the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=E_Bruce_Harrison_Company" title="E Bruce Harrison Company" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">E Bruce Harrison Company</a> countering the claims that the dioxin contaminants were producing cancers and child deformities. Later, he was hired through <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ketchum_PR" class="mw-redirect" title="Ketchum PR" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Ketchum PR</a> to run the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wireless_Technology_Research" title="Wireless Technology Research" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Wireless Technology Research</a> program for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA). It had been discovered that the strobe-pulsed output from the first form of digital mobile phone (known as 'D-AMPS' and 'GSM') caused breaks in the DNA in laboratory animal studies. He set up a couple of major corporate-research operations, and In between times Carlo and his partners and staff worked for tobacco and other chemical companies with problems. In later life he moved on to various other scams including promoting and selling 'bio-protection devices' to protect mobile phone users from cellphone radiation.His main company was <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_and_Environmental_Sciences" class="mw-redirect" title="Health and Environmental Sciences" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Health and Environmental Sciences</a> which he later expanded into the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health%26_Environmental_Sciences_Group" class="mw-redirect" title="Health & Environmental Sciences Group" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Health & Environmental Sciences Group</a>) but he had a half-dozen others, usually incorporating the Carlo name - like <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Carlo%26_Associates" class="mw-redirect" title="George Carlo & Associates" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">George Carlo & Associates</a> and The Carlo Group. His closest associates were <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_C_Munro" title="Ian C Munro" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Ian C Munro</a> from CanTox in Canada, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Tozzi" title="James Tozzi" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Jim Tozzi</a> and <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thorne_Auchter" class="mw-redirect" title="Thorne Auchter" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Thorne Auchter</a> who ran <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Focus" title="Federal Focus" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Federal Focus</a>. the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Multinational_Business_Services" title="Multinational Business Services" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Multinational Business Services</a> and the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Regulatory_Policy" title="Institute for Regulatory Policy" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Institute for Regulatory Policy</a> in Washington DC.<table width="33%" bgcolor="#EEEEDD" border="1" rules="all" cellpadding="5" align="right" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#CCCCCC"><th>SPLIT ENTRY</th></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_L_Carlo" class="mw-redirect" title="George L Carlo" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">George L Carlo</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carlo_associates_and_organisations" title="Carlo associates and organisations" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Carlo associates and organisations</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wireless_Technology_Research" title="Wireless Technology Research" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Wireless Technology Research</a></td></tr><tr><td><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_and_Environmental_Sciences_Group" title="Health and Environmental Sciences Group" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Health and Environmental Sciences Group</a></td></tr></tbody></table><div id="toc" class="toc" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table; zoom: 1;"><div class="toctitle" style="direction: ltr; text-align: center;">
</div><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Main_Lobbying_Associates" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1Main Lobbying Associates</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Various_Research_Associates" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2Various Research Associates</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Documents.26_Timeline" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3Documents & Timeline</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#OTA_Agent_Orange_Assessment_Panel" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3.1OTA Agent Orange Assessment Panel</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Health_and_Environmental_Services" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4Health and Environmental Services</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Juggling_dioxins_and_tobacco_smoke" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4.1Juggling dioxins and tobacco smoke</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#A_Study_of_National_Public_Radio" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5A Study of National Public Radio</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Wireless_Technology_Research" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5.1Wireless Technology Research</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-9" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Need_fixing" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6Need fixing</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#Claims_about_the_WTR.27s_budget." style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6.1Claims about the WTR's budget.</a><ul style="list-style-type: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none;"><li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-11" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/George_Carlo(Doc_Index)#ICWCMR" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">6.1.1ICWCMR</a></li></ul></li></ul></li></ul></div><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Main Lobbying Associates</h2><ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.1%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg" width="%225%22" height="%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle" cx="%222.5%22" cy="%229.5%22" r="%222.5%22" fill="%22%2300528c%22/%3E%0A%3C/svg%3E%0A" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data"><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Maurice_E_LeVois" title="Maurice E LeVois" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Maurice E LeVois</a> who ran <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Health_Resources" class="mw-redirect" title="Environmental Health Resources" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Environmental Health Resources</a> in Mill Valley, California</li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_C_Munro" title="Ian C Munro" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Ian C Munro</a> who also ran <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CanTox&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="CanTox (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">CanTox</a> (aka <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Canadian_Centre_for_Toxicology" title="Canadian Centre for Toxicology" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Canadian Centre for Toxicology</a>) in Canada and was his deputy with <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wireless_Technology_Research" title="Wireless Technology Research" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Wireless Technology Research</a> (WTR) for the CTIA.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Thorne_G_Auchter" class="mw-redirect" title="Thorne G Auchter" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Thorne G Auchter</a>, ex Reaganite director of the OSHA.
Auchter, Tozzi and Carlo also ran <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Focus" title="Federal Focus" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Federal Focus</a>, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Multinational_Business_Services" title="Multinational Business Services" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Multinational Business Services</a> (MBS), <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Health_Policy_Institute" title="Health Policy Institute" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Health Policy Institute</a> (HPI), <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Regulatory_Policy" title="Institute for Regulatory Policy" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Institute for Regulatory Policy</a> (IRP), <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Environmental_Endocrine_Effects" title="Center for the Study of Environmental Endocrine Effects" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for the Study of Environmental Endocrine Effects</a>(CSEEE), <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Epidemiological_Studies" title="Center for Epidemiological Studies" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Epidemiological Studies</a> (CES), and <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Regulatory_Effectiveness" title="Center for Regulatory Effectiveness" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">Center for Regulatory Effectiveness</a> (CRE)</li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_J_Tozzi" class="mw-redirect" title="James J Tozzi" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">James J Tozzi</a> ex Reaganite deputy administrator of <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Management%26_Budget" class="mw-redirect" title="Office of Management & Budget" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Office of Management & Budget</a> (OMB) and head of the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Information_and_Regulatory_Affairs" title="Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs</a> (OIRA). He left OIRA to become a consultant with the <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Beveridge%26_Diamond&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Beveridge & Diamond (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Beveridge & Diamond</a> law firm (for chemical industry) Then set up those private operations above with Auchter (and possibly Carlo).</li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_MacRae&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="James MacRae (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">James MacRae</a>, ex Dept.Admin <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Information_and_Regulatory_Affairs" title="Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs</a> (OIRA) and Tozzi/Auchter's <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Regulatory_Effectiveness" title="Center for Regulatory Effectiveness" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Center for Regulatory Effectiveness</a> (CRE)</li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Gough" title="Michael Gough" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Michael Gough</a> and <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_J_Milloy" class="mw-redirect" title="Steven J Milloy" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Steven J Milloy</a> - <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=TASSC" class="mw-redirect" title="TASSC" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">TASSC</a> and junk-science scams</li><li style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em;">HESG Staff: <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kelly_G_Sund" title="Kelly G Sund" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Kelly G Sund</a>, <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rebecca_Steffens&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Rebecca Steffens (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Rebecca Steffens</a> ('Beckie'), <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Baller&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="James Baller (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">James Baller</a> (lawyer)</li></ul><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Various Research Associates</h2><ul style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="%221.1%22" encoding="%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg" width="%225%22" height="%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle" cx="%222.5%22" cy="%229.5%22" r="%222.5%22" fill="%22%2300528c%22/%3E%0A%3C/svg%3E%0A" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" xmlns="%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Professor <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Keith_Solomon&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Keith Solomon (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Keith Solomon</a> -- Keith Solomon of University of Guelf, is probably the same K. Solomon who has worked for and with George in the HES days on a number of occasions -- and also the K. Solomon who featured in an 16 March 1997 article in the Toronto Star supporting the tobacco companies. He is quoted as saying that gun-shot wounds were more of a problem than second-hand smoke.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Professor <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Squire&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Robert Squire (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Robert Squire</a> -- Robert Squire of John Hopkins University, is probably the RA Squire who also worked for HES. Squire has worked with Carlo on a number of dubious projects.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Professor <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Miller&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Anthony Miller (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Anthony Miller</a> -- Anthony Miller of the University of Toronto, is very probably the AB Miller who also worked with Carlo at HES on tobacco problems.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Dr <a href="https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Cole" title="Philip Cole" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">Philip Cole</a> -- There are three Philip Coles in the archives. This one worked for Dow Corning,</li></ul>All above appear to be available to conduct research projects with Carlo when required. There is nothing to necessarily suggest a propensity for scientific distortion other than their close association with Carlo.<h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); font-weight: normal; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); line-height: 1.3;">Documents & Timeline</h2>see cell phone/EMR 2001 carlo gave $419K to john graham (2000 AT&T 300K$ on driving)<a href="https://www.badscience.net/2007/06/dr-george-carlo-responds-to-andrew-goldacre/">https://www.badscience.net/2007/06/dr-george-carlo-responds-to-andrew-goldacre/</a>
D<a href="https://www.badscience.net/2007/06/dr-george-carlo-responds-to-andrew-goldacre/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Dr George Carlo responds to Andrew Goldacre" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 170, 102); text-decoration-line: none;">r George Carlo responds to Andrew Goldacre</a>June 8th, 2007 by Ben Goldacre in <a href="https://www.badscience.net/category/uncategorized/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">bad science</a>, <a href="https://www.badscience.net/category/electrosensitivity/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">electrosensitivity</a>, <a href="https://www.badscience.net/category/hate-mail/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">hate mail</a>, <a href="https://www.badscience.net/category/letters/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">letters</a>, <a href="https://www.badscience.net/category/references/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">references</a>, <a href="https://www.badscience.net/category/stifling-criticism/" rel="category tag" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">stifling criticism</a> | <a href="https://www.badscience.net/2007/06/dr-george-carlo-responds-to-andrew-goldacre/#comments" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">34 Comments »</a><div class="entry" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2em; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(247, 247, 247);">This post is only if you’re not bored of the rather trying electrosensitivity lobby. Here is a letter which has popped up all over the interweb, I assume it is genuinely from <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dr+george+carlo" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Dr Carlo</a>, who is hawked about as a rather eminent figure, and not a fake created in an effort to smear him. <blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 6px 12px; background-color: rgb(235, 234, 221);">The Radiation Blob, Indeed Dr. George L. Carlo Sat, 02 Jun 2007To the Editor of The Guardian:I am appalled by the insensitive, mean-spirited and factually incorrect opinion put forth by Andrew [sic]  Goldacre in The Guardian (Saturday, June 02, 2007). His premise, that patients suffering from symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity are <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=425" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">misinformed hypochondriacs</a>, reeks of the adage: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Those who are saying donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know; and those who know, arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t saying.Ã¢â‚¬Â Goldacre does not know. It is time for those who know to speak up.For the past five years, through our Safe Wireless Initiative project, we have operated the only post-market surveillance database in the world systematically collecting symptom information from thousands of patients suffering from the effects of various forms of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). In addition, we coordinate a network of clinicians who regularly share information about their experiences treating patients with these conditions, another important and unique resource. Thus, we do not rely solely on self-reported information but have corroboration from treating doctors. It is noteworthy that our health concerns registry will open in the UK through a new local Safe Wireless Initiative branch within the month. This is an important public health step because in the UK, there are absolutely no reliable data on the incidence and prevalence of EMR-related conditions. Thus, GoldacreÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s speculations are all the more misinformed, but clarity is forthcoming.In the Safe Wireless Initiative, we have a number of scientific papers in various stages of the peer-review process expected to be published by yearÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s end addressing this emerging medical problem. However, in the interim we continue to share summary information from our registry database in various fora around the world, including a February 2007 presentation at the House of Commons, for the benefit of clinicians and patients alike.Overall, our data show the following:* There are symptom and pathology similarities among patients suffering from electro-hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivities, alcohol-related disease as well as neuro-behavioral and learning disorders. We refer to the symptom constellations as Membrane Sensitivity Syndrome (MSS) and the increase in reports of symptoms consistent with MSS associated by patients with various EMR exposures has dramatically increased over the past 24 months. * It is noteworthy that concurrently in the past 24 months, the penetration of mobile phones has tripled globally, from one billion to three billion. WiFi has reached the highest penetration in history. Satellite radio is not far behind. All of these technologies rely on information-carrying radio waves, the trigger for non-thermal adverse biological responses and the cascade toward MSS. * In a majority of MSS cases, when EMR is removed from the patientÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s environment, their acute symptoms subside. This is an important observation and indeed represents one of the Koch-Henle postulates for causation: If when the exposure is removed, the effect is diminished, there is evidence for cause and effect. * Pathology and experimental findings support a mechanistic underpinning: an environmentally induced genetic change that renders daughter cells to carry membrane sensitivity characteristics with most symptoms directly or indirectly the result of consequent disrupt of intercellular communication. * Therapeutic intervention regimens designed around known EMR mechanisms of harm have positively shown varying degrees of clinical symptom amelioration, another support for the causal hypothesis, but more importantly, a ray of hope for those afflicted and debilitated by these conditions.It is a fact that every serious public health problem man has faced has first been identified through clinical observations, the historically confirmed first line of evidence for preventing epidemic spread of disease. It is a disservice to the public when uninformed speculation serves to lessen the acuity with which important early signs that can save lives are seen and heeded.Dr. George L. Carlo Science and Public Policy Institute 1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW — 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 <a href="http://www.sppionline.org/" class="autohyperlink" title="http://www.sppionline.org" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">www.sppionline.org</a> <a href="http://www.safewireless.org/" class="autohyperlink" title="http://www.safewireless.org" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">www.safewireless.org</a> 202-756-7744</blockquote>I’m afraid I can’t help noticing that his opening sentence is a bit wide of the mark. My name is Ben Goldacre – I do hope the rest of Carlo’s work [coughs] doesn’t reveal a similarly slapdash approach to accuracy – and I don’t think what I wrote on June 2 2007 is “insensitive” or “mean-spirited”, it was a rather short, clear and valid critique of an article in the Independent which itself was rich in scientific claims. You can read the pieces for yourself verbatim right <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=425" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">here</a> (the <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=422" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Independent</a>, <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=425" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">mine</a>, her <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=428" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">later one</a>) and decide for yourself, because they are clearly linked, and anyone can see and discuss them for themselves. There is no room for <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=428" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">obfuscation</a> about who said what here.I’d also hope that if someone was going to say that something from Andrew Goldacre was “factually incorrect” then they might spare the time to point out some incorrect facts in his work.But most drearily of all, Dr Carlo explains that Andrew Goldacre’s “premise” is “that patients suffering from symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity are “misinformed hypochondriacs.” Nothing could possible be further from the truth, and on every single occasion Andrew has written on the subject he has made this very clear indeed (you can see everything I’ve ever written on the subject <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?cat=65" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">here</a>). As I have said every single time I have ever mentioned the phenomenon, these symptoms are very real and deserve our compassion; but there is also a very real question about what causes them, and it is important to discuss this, in order to fully understand it, and to do something useful to prevent and ameliorate real human distress and suffering.These bizarre accusations from Dr Carlo (and others, I’ve got a big old file building up I’m afraid) are clearly designed to close down any discussion or debate on the issue. The discussion of the data from the 37 provocation studies is effectively policed in this fashion: nobody is permitted to discuss what causes the symptoms that these people experience, because if they dare to do so, they will be accused of being insensitive, and of denying the very existence of the symptoms.I would have expected this kind of behaviour from a rabid blogger, or in a private email, or from Rod <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=414#comment-12988" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Read</a> of lobby group “<a href="http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">Electrosensitivity</a>“, but to find it from Dr Carlo, who is always presented as an academic figure with something valuable to say, is – and I mean this very honestly, rather than censoriously – a bit disappointing, because you do hope that there is someone out there who is able to present the case for a given interpretation of the data clearly and accurately.Dr Carlo has a theoretical biological hypothesis about how electromagnetic signals might cause the symptoms that some people report in association with exposure to such signals, and although it’s currently very theoretical, that doesn’t mean it’s not interesting. It would also be very good to see him address the issue of the provocation studies. It may well be that he – or whoever from that lobby who is in a position to address this kind of data and reliably get the facts (or even the names) right – has some valuable criticisms of the methodologies of these studies. That is always useful and interesting.As you might have picked up, I am starting to find popular rhetoric really <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=428" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">interesting</a>, and in that vein I do wonder if what we have seen with the electrosensitivity lobby is a product of their extraordinarily uncritical ride in the UK media. Through this, and their bullying to shut down anybody who dares to even discuss the provocation study data, the ideas and the evidence have not been subjected to the kind of rigorous discussion and debate that would improve and resolve them. In some respects I’m afraid I see Dr Carlo’s letter to Andrew as a product of that process. This failure to engage meaningfully with the critiques of others can only be to everyone’s detriment, and particularly those who suffer with symptoms.Oh, and the fact that he may even be defending and endorsing the blatant quackery I was actually <a href="http://www.badscience.net/?p=425" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153);">criticising</a> hasn’t entered your mind. Don’t go there. It’s too awful even to consider.</div></div><div>=</div><div><div class="r" style="margin: 0px; line-height: 1.57; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><h3 class="LC20lb" style="font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: inline-flex; max-width: 100%; line-height: 1.3;"><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><div class="ellip" style="overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;"></a><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" /><a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQFjAKegQICBAB" style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A ...</a></div></h3>
<div class="TbwUpd" style="display: inline-block; line-height: 1.57; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-top: 1px;"><cite class="iUh30" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 33); font-style: normal; padding-top: 1px; line-height: 1.5;">https://www.thenation.com/.../how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-ph...</cite></div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="GHDvEf ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?ei=S4pcXY2aJI36tAWP1Z-4Bw&q=George+Louis+Carlo+GL+cancer+palermo+EMF+cell+phone&oq=George+Louis+Carlo+GL+cancer+palermo+EMF+cell+phone&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299l3j33i160.6016.12945..13343...0.0..0.224.2698.0j12j3......0....1..gws-wiz.C3J0lbQpDMI&ved=0ahUKEwjN69_p1JLkAhUNPa0KHY_qB3cQ4dUDCAo&uact=5#" id="am-b10" aria-label="Result Options" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQ7B0wCnoECAgQAg" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none 0s ease 0s; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration-line: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; border-width: 5px 4px 0px; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQqR8wCnoECAgQAw" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; white-space: nowrap; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s ease 0s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/%2B%26cd%3D11%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQIDAKegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; color: rgb(84, 84, 84); line-height: 1.57; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/%2B%26cd%3D11%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQIDAKegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Mar 29, 2018 - Things didn't end well between George Carlo and Tom Wheeler; the last time the two ... claiming that his wife's NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. ... according to LouisSlesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. ..... the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 ...</a></div></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/%2B%26cd%3D11%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQIDAKegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">
</a><div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/%2B%26cd%3D11%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQIDAKegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">There is a lot of evidence suggesting that we need to be a lot more careful about these cellphones. The World Health Organization has listed them as a possible carcinogen. And just last week, here in the United States, the National Institutes of Health had a major study, peer-reviewed, about cellphone radiation. And the peer-review scientists, who are independent of government, said that there was, quote, “clear evidence,” unquote, that cellphones can cause cancer.</a><div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/%2B%26cd%3D11%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQIDAKegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></div><div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:SuAqKZGi3LUJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/%2B%26cd%3D11%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwiHj_z91pLkAhVGAqwKHUHXDrYQIDAKegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a><a href="http://www.risingupwithsonali.com/mark-hertsgaard-discusses-his-in-depth-story-for-the-nation-how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-extended-interview/">http://www.risingupwithsonali.com/mark-hertsgaard-discusses-his-in-depth-story-for-the-nation-how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-extended-interview/</a></div><div>
</div><div>MARK HERTSGAARD – The American Cancer Society says on its website that, “Radio frequency waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, it’s not clear how cell phones might be able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported the idea that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.”Indeed the idea that cell phones cause cancer is generally accepted as an assertion of conspiracy theorists. Now, an in-depth investigative report by The Nation magazine has found that since the 1990s cell phone industry representatives have sought to hide the link between certain forms of brain tumors and cell phone use.<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/">https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/</a>, The Nation’s investigative editor at large, author of seven books that have been translated into sixteen languages, including On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency. His most recent books are Bravehearts: Whistle Blowing in the Age of Snowden and Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth. His Nation magazine cover story is called How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation.
<a href="http://www.risingupwithsonali.com/cell-phones-and-cancer-not-just-a-conspiracy-theory/" style="">http://www.risingupwithsonali.com/cell-phones-and-cancer-not-just-a-conspiracy-theory/</a></div><div>=</div><div>the nation</div><div>
</div><div>...Remarkably, cell phones had been allowed onto the US consumer market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer. In January 1993, David Reynard sued the NEC America Company, claiming that his wife’s NEC phone caused her lethal brain tumor. After Reynard appeared on national TV, the story went viral. A congressional subcommittee announced an investigation; investors began dumping their cell-phone stocks; and Wheeler and the CTIA swung into action.</div><div>
</div><div>A week later, Wheeler announced that his industry would pay for a comprehensive research program. Cell phones were already safe, Wheeler told reporters; the new research would simply “re-validate the findings of the existing studies.” </div><div>
</div><div>George Carlo seemed like a good bet to fulfill Wheeler’s mission. He was an epidemiologist who also had a law degree, and he’d conducted studies for other controversial industries. After a study funded by Dow Corning, Carlo had declared that breast implants posed only minimal health risks. With chemical-industry funding, he had concluded that low levels of dioxin, the chemical behind the Agent Orange scandal, were not dangerous. In 1995, Carlo began directing the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), whose eventual budget of $28.5 million made it the best-funded investigation of cell-phone safety to date.</div><div>
</div><div>Outside critics soon came to suspect that Carlo would be the front man for an industry whitewash. They cited his dispute with Henry Lai, a professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington, over a study that Lai had conducted examining whether cell-phone radiation could damage DNA. In 1999, Carlo and the WTR’s general counsel sent a letter to the university’s president urging that Lai be fired for his alleged violation of research protocols. Lai accused the WTR of tampering with his experiment’s results. Both Carlo and Lai deny the other’s accusations.</div><div>
</div><div>Critics also attacked what they regarded as the slow pace of WTR research. The WTR was merely “a confidence game” designed to placate the public but stall real research, according to Louis Slesin, editor of the trade publication Microwave News. “By dangling a huge amount of money in front of the cash-starved [scientific] community,” Slesin argued, “Carlo guaranteed silent obedience. Anyone who dared complain risked being cut off from his millions.” Carlo denies the allegation.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Whatever Carlo’s motives might have been, the documented fact is that he and Wheeler would eventually clash bitterly over the WTR’s findings, which Carlo presented to wireless-industry leaders on February 9, 1999. By that date, the WTR had commissioned more than 50 original studies and reviewed many more. Those studies raised “serious questions” about cell-phone safety, Carlo told a closed-door meeting of the CTIA’s board of directors, whose members included the CEOs or top officials of the industry’s 32 leading companies, including Apple, AT&T, and Motorola.</div><div>
</div><div>Carlo sent letters to each of the industry’s chieftains on October 7, 1999, reiterating that the WTR’s research had found the following: “The risk of rare neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain was more than doubled…in cell phone users”; there was an apparent “correlation between brain tumors occurring on the right side of the head and the use of the phone on the right side of the head”; and “the ability of radiation from a phone’s antenna to cause functional genetic damage [was] definitely positive….”</div><div>
</div><div>Carlo urged the CEOs to do the right thing: give consumers “the information they need to make an informed judgment about how much of this unknown risk they wish to assume,” especially since some in the industry had “repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children.”</div><div>
</div><div>The World Health Organization classifies cell-phone radiation as a “possible” carcinogen.</div><div>
</div><div>The very next day, a livid Tom Wheeler began publicly trashing Carlo to the media. In a letter he shared with the CEOs, Wheeler told Carlo that the CTIA was “certain that you have never provided CTIA with the studies you mention”—an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place. Wheeler charged further that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, casting doubt on their validity.</div><div>
</div><div>Wheeler’s tactics succeeded in dousing the controversy. Although Carlo had in fact repeatedly briefed Wheeler and other senior industry officials on the studies, which had indeed undergone peer review and would soon be published, reporters on the technology beat accepted Wheeler’s discrediting of Carlo and the WTR’s findings. (Wheeler would go on to chair the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the wireless industry. He agreed to an interview for this article but then put all of his remarks off the record, with one exception: his statement that he has always taken scientific guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, which, he said, “has concluded, ‘the weight of scientific evidence had not linked cell phones with any health problems.’”)</div><div>...</div></div><div>
</div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Why, after such acrimony, Carlo was allowed to make one last appearance before the CTIA board is a mystery. Whatever the reason, Carlo flew to New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s annual conference, where he submitted the <a href="http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408066" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">WTR’s final report</a> to the CTIA board. According to Carlo, Wheeler made sure that none of the hundreds of journalists covering the event could get anywhere near him.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">When Carlo arrived, he was met by two seriously muscled men in plain clothes; the larger of the two let drop that he had recently left the Secret Service. The security men steered Carlo into a holding room, where they insisted he remain until his presentation. When summoned, Carlo found roughly 70 of the industry’s top executives waiting for him in silence. Carlo had spoken a mere 10 minutes when Wheeler abruptly stood, extended a hand, and said, “Thank you, George.” The two muscle men then ushered the scientist to a curbside taxi and waited until it pulled away.<aside class="ad-300" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: right; margin: 20px 0px 20px 40px; padding: 0px;" mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div class="ad full-width-mobile inline_ad_300x250_276812" id="inline_ad_300x250_276812" data-google-query-id="CL7V7cb42toCFUsoaQodK4sOrQ" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(240, 240, 240); text-align: center; max-width: none;"><div id="google_ads_iframe/1004953/tn_article_5container" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0pt none; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" /></div></aside><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">In the years to come, the WTR’s cautionary findings would be replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children. But as the taxi carried Carlo to Louis Armstrong International Airport, the scientist wondered whether his relationship with the industry might have turned out differently if cell phones had been safety-tested before being allowed onto the consumer market, before profit took precedence over science. But it was too late: Wheeler and his fellow executives had made it clear, Carlo told The Nation, that “they would do what they had to do to protect their industry, but they were not of a mind to protect consumers or public health.”<p class="drop_c" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin-bottom: 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" margin-right="margin-right" margin-left="margin-left" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" margin-top="margin-top" important="important"><span class="wpsdc-drop-cap" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-family: " knockout="Knockout" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" margin="margin" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" float="float" left="left" line-height="line-height">This article does not argue that cell phones and other wireless technologies are necessarily dangerous; that is a matter for scientists to decide. Rather, the focus here is on the global industry behind cell phones—and the industry’s long campaign to make people believe that cell phones are safe.<aside class="pull-quote-module" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-top: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); border-bottom: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); padding: 25px 0px; margin: 35px 0px; position: relative;" mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div class="pull-quote-blocks" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.43em; word-spacing: 0.3px; text-transform: initial;">As happened earlier with Big Tobacco and Big Oil, the wireless industry’s own scientists privately warned about the risks.</div></aside><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">That campaign has plainly been a success: 95 out of every 100 adult Americans now own a cell phone; globally, three out of four adults have cell-phone access, with sales increasing every year. The wireless industry is now one of the fastest-growing on Earth and one of the biggest, boasting annual sales of $440 billion in 2016.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Carlo’s October 7, 1999, letters to wireless-industry CEOs are the smoking-gun equivalent of <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">the November 12, 1982, memo</a> that M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s manager of environmental-affairs programs, sent to company executives explaining that burning oil, gas, and coal could raise global temperatures by a destabilizing 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. For the tobacco industry, Carlo’s letters are akin to <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=psdw0147" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">the 1969 proposal</a> that a Brown & Williamson executive wrote for countering anti-tobacco advocates. “Doubt is our product,” the memo declared. “It is also the means of establishing a controversy…at the public level.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">This Nation investigation reveals that the wireless industry not only made the same moral choices that the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries did; it also borrowed from the same public-relations playbook those industries pioneered. The playbook’s key insight is that an industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the argument going. That amounts to a win for the industry, because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Again like the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries, the wireless industry has “war gamed” science, as <a href="https://www.rfsafe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/cell-phone-radiation-war-gaming-memo.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">a Motorola internal memo in 1994</a> phrased it. War-gaming science involves playing offense as well as defense: funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies like the World Health Organization; and seeking to discredit scientists whose views depart from the industry’s.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important component of this strategy, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage—as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/39/3/675/631387" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010</a>; and as <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">the US National Toxicology Program did in 2016</a>—industry spokespeople can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree. “[T]he overall balance of the evidence” gives no cause for alarm, asserted Jack Rowley, research and sustainability director for the Groupe Special Mobile Association (GSMA), Europe’s wireless trade association, <a href="https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/press-release/gsma-welcomes-publication-of-interphone-results/" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">speaking to reporters about the WHO’s findings</a>.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, the professor whom Carlo tried to get fired, analyzed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2005, he learned that 56 percent found a biological effect from cell-phone radiation and 44 percent did not; the scientific community apparently was split. But when Lai recategorized the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67 percent of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28 percent of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives</a> that concluded industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find a health effect.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. The Nation has not been able to find a single insurance company willing to sell a product-liability policy that covered cell-phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive chuckled before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9 billion in damages. Some judges have affirmed such lawsuits, including a<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/21/italian-court-rules-mobile-phone-use-caused-brain-tumour" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;"> judge in Italy who refused to allow industry-funded research as evidence</a>.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Even so, the industry’s neutralizing of the safety issue has opened the door to the biggest, most hazardous prize of all: the proposed revolutionary transformation of society dubbed the “Internet of Things.” Lauded as a gigantic engine of economic growth, the Internet of Things will not only connect people through their smartphones and computers but will connect those devices to a customer’s vehicles and home appliances, even their baby’s diapers—all at speeds faster than can currently be achieved.<aside class="pull-quote-module" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-top: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); border-bottom: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); padding: 25px 0px; margin: 35px 0px; position: relative;" mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div class="pull-quote-blocks" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.43em; word-spacing: 0.3px; text-transform: initial;">Billions of cell-phone users have been subjected to a public-health experiment without informed consent.</div></aside><p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">There is a catch, though: The Internet of Things will require augmenting today’s 4G technology with 5G, thus “massively increasing” the general population’s exposure to radiation, according to <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNV0U/view" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">a petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide</a> who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialed scientists in the radiation research field,” according to Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like cell phones, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-market safety testing.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. In truth, the safety of wireless technology has been an unsettled question since the industry’s earliest days. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a massive public-health experiment: Use a cell phone today, find out later if it causes cancer or genetic damage. Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.<p class="drop_c" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin-bottom: 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" margin-right="margin-right" margin-left="margin-left" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" margin-top="margin-top" important="important"><span class="wpsdc-drop-cap" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-family: " knockout="Knockout" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" margin="margin" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" float="float" left="left" line-height="line-height">“<span class="wpsdc-drop-cap" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-family: " knockout="Knockout" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" margin="margin" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" float="float" left="left" line-height="line-height">The absence of absolute proof does not mean the absence of risk,” Annie Sasco, the former director of epidemiology for cancer prevention at France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, told the attendees of the 2012 Childhood Cancer conference. “The younger one starts using cell phones, the higher the risk,” Sasco continued, urging a public-education effort to inform parents, politicians, and the press about children’s exceptional susceptibility.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">For adults and children alike, the process by which wireless radiation may cause cancer remains uncertain, but it is thought to be indirect. Wireless radiation has been <a href="https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941992.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">shown to damage the blood-brain barrier</a>, a vital defense mechanism that shields the brain from carcinogenic chemicals elsewhere in the body (resulting, for example, from secondhand cigarette smoke). Wireless radiation has also been shown to <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1431.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">interfere with DNA replication</a>, a proven progenitor of cancer. In each of these cases, the risks are higher for children: Their skulls, being smaller, absorb more radiation than adults’ skulls do, while children’s longer life span increases their cumulative exposure.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The wireless industry has sought to downplay concerns about cell phones’ safety, and the Federal Communications Commission has followed its example. In 1996, the FCC established cell-phone safety levels based on “specific absorption rate,” or SAR. Phones were required to have a SAR of 1.6 watts or less per kilogram of body weight. In 2013, <a href="https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">the American Academy of Pediatrics advised the FCC</a> that its guidelines “do not account for the unique vulnerability and use patterns specific to pregnant women and children.” Nevertheless, the FCC has declined to update its standards.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The FCC has granted the industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency,” argued journalist Norm Alster in <a href="http://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">a report</a> that Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics published in 2015. The FCC allows cell-phone manufacturers to self-report SAR levels, and does not independently test industry claims or require manufacturers to display the SAR level on a phone’s packaging. “Industry controls the FCC through a soup-to-nuts stranglehold that extends from its well-placed campaign spending in Congress through its control of the FCC’s congressional oversight committees to its persistent agency lobbying,” Alster wrote. He also quoted the CTIA website praising the FCC for “its light regulatory touch.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The revolving-door syndrome that characterizes so many industries and federal agencies reinforces the close relationship between the wireless industry and the FCC. Just as Tom Wheeler went from running the CTIA (1992– 2004) to chairing the FCC (2013–2017), Meredith Atwell Baker went from FCC commissioner (2009–2011) to the presidency of the CTIA (2014 through today). To ensure its access on Capitol Hill, the wireless industry made $26 million in campaign contributions in 2016, <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=B09" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">according to the Center for Responsive Politics</a>, and spent $87 million on lobbying in 2017.<p class="drop_c" style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin-bottom: 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" margin-right="margin-right" margin-left="margin-left" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color" margin-top="margin-top" important="important"><span class="wpsdc-drop-cap" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-family: " knockout="Knockout" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" margin="margin" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" float="float" left="left" line-height="line-height">Neutralizing the safety issue has been an ongoing imperative because the research keeps coming, much of it from outside the United States. But the industry’s European and Asian branches have, like their US counterpart, zealously war-gamed the science, spun the news coverage, and thereby warped the public perception of their products’ safety.<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">The WHO began to study the health effects of electric- and magnetic-field radiation (EMF) in 1996 under the direction of Michael Repacholi, an Australian biophysicist. Although Repacholi claimed on disclosure forms that he was “independent” of corporate influence, in fact Motorola had funded his research: While Repacholi was director of the WHO’s EMF program, Motorola paid $50,000 a year to his former employer, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which then transferred the money to the WHO program. When journalists exposed the payments, Repacholi <a href="http://microwavenews.com/CT.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">denied</a> that there was anything untoward about them because Motorola had not paid him personally. Eventually, Motorola’s payments were bundled with other industry contributions and funneled through the Mobile and Wireless Forum, a trade association that gave the WHO’s program $150,000 annually. In 1999, Repacholi helped engineer a WHO statement that “EMF exposures below the limits recommended in international guidelines do not appear to have any known consequence on health.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; word-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px 0px 20px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; border: 0px; font-family: " mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" outline="outline" padding="padding" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" line-height="line-height" word-spacing="word-spacing" color="color" rgb="rgb" background-color="background-color">Two wireless trade associations contributed $4.7 million to <a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px 0px 2px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(207, 14, 14); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: transparent; line-height: inherit; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 0.2s ease 0s; outline: 0px !important;">the Interphone study</a> launched by the WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research in 2000. That $4.7 million represented 20 percent of the $24 million budget for the Interphone study, which convened 21 scientists from 13 countries to explore possible links between cell phones and two common types of brain tumor: glioma and meningioma. The money was channeled through a “firewall” mechanism intended to prevent corporate influence on the IACR’s findings, but whether such firewalls work is debatable. “Industry sponsors know [which scientists] receive funding; sponsored scientists know who provides funding,” Dariusz Leszczynski, an adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki, has explained.<aside class="pull-quote-module" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-top: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); border-bottom: 2px solid rgb(229, 223, 212); padding: 25px 0px; margin: 35px 0px; position: relative;" mercury="Mercury" display="Display" a="A" b="B" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><div class="pull-quote-blocks" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: inherit; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.43em; word-spacing: 0.3px; text-transform: initial;">The FCC grants the wireless industry’s wishes so often that it qualifies as a “captured agency.”<p style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow-wrap: break-word; margin: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 700; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.43em; word-spacing: 0.3px; text-transform: initial;">...</div></aside></div><div>=
<div>six part study!</div><div>
</div><div>part 1:</div><div>
</div><div><center style=""><h2>George Louis Carlo (Part 1)    </h2></center><center style=""><h3>(Dow Chemicals, Agent Orange & Dioxins (...to 1990))</h3></center><center style=""><h4>— Early years - Carlo's background in nuclear, dioxins and Agent Orange, and the Dow Chemical Co. —  </h4></center>A time line of one of the most successful scientific con-men of the present day.
This is a compilation of material available mainly on the web. It is in 6 parts, mainly because of the wealth of material that is available. Which begs the question ... why has the media allowed him to get away with these rip-offs, lies and science distortions for so long. 
Part 1 is mainly for background — especially to give younger readers some understanding of the Agent Orange and dioxin controversies.<hr style="" /> George Carlo is a science-for-sale entrepreneur who has been involved in many industries and many health-related scams over decades — dioxins, Agent Orange, Immunex, rupturing breast implants, passive smoking ... you name it ... George has been involved! He is best known in more recent years for running the (largely-pseudo) $27 million research program into cellphone health known as Wireless Technology Research (WTR) for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA).In 1999 he had an acrymonious falling out with the CTIA which destroyed his prospects of future hiring by large corporations and industry associations. But this was followed by an overnight Damascian conversion; he began to condemn cellphones as producing harmful microwave radiation. In these ventures he joined forces with Peter Angelos, America's richest plaintiff lawyer, to sue the cellphone companies, and then struck up an association with BioPro to run a very profitable cellphone/EMF protection racket, selling useless products to gullible health fanatics.He split with Peter Angelos, and later he fell out with BioPro, but then discovered a new milieu associating cellphone and Wi-Fi health-scare campaigns with fallacious claims about autism and other similar disabilities, conditions and illnesses. He also began running training courses for people like himself to train them as "natural therapists" and EMF diagnosticians. This is all pure snake-oil salesmanship, using his notoriety as head of the cellphone industry's research project as credentials for his supposed expertise.This is Part 1 of 6 parts on the life and times of George Carlo which will give the reader some understanding as to how science-for-sale entrepreneurs work. It deals with the three great events which changed public perception of workplace and environmental safety, and destroyed general trust in the regulators:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Agent Orange which created extraordinary health problems for Vietnam Vets. (dioxins)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Love Canal — the first of the major toxic waste dump scares.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Three Mile Island — the first US nuclear power accident scare.</li></ul></blockquote>George Carlo claims to have been involved in all three — and not always on the wrong side of the fence. So we have added considerable background material here to explain the development of these public health concerns..  This Part 1 deals with his early years as a genuine epidemiologist, followed by many years supporting Dow Chemicals and promoting propaganda which was disputing the toxicity of dioxins (the dangerous side-product of Agent Orange, waste incineration, and some herbicide manufacture).In parallel with this dioxin lobbying, (after 1989) he was also involved in helped the tobacco industry maintain its profits, especially from the threat of public and workplace smoking bans (Part 2 and 4). As his reputation grew, other industries became his clients because they were having similar problems with ruptured breast implants, childhood immunisation, and dubious AIDS cures,. Carlo and his non-profits and companies were willing to engage in the defense of virtually any health or environmental scare where corporate funding was available. 
<table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>George Louis Carlo</th></tr><tr><td>• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00244.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 1 — Dioxins, Love Canal, Three Mile Island, Agent Orange etc.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00245.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 2 — Tobacco industry, GEP and miscellaneous chemical industry projects. </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00246.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 3 — Cellphone EMF problems: the CTIA and SAG/WTR </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00247.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 4 — Later tobacco and other — immunology, vaccination, breast implants.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00248.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 5 — Later problems with cellphone EMF research and the demise of the WTR.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00249.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 6 — EMF scaremongering and various cellphone 'protection' businesses.</a></td></tr></tbody></table> <table width="100%" bgcolor="#ddddff" cellpadding="6" border="1" style=""><tbody><tr><td><center>PUFF-PIECE</center>From a later Carlo Institute web-site 
    

   <center>Dr. George L. Carlo</center>
    Dr. George Carlo is Chairman of The Carlo Institute. He is a Fellow of the American College of Epidemiology, and is a specialist in assessing and managing risks to public health. His work has included studies addressing risks from the environment and consumer products, as well as the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Carlo serves on the faculty of The George Washington University School of Medicine. 
    While at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, he chaired the research committee of the Department of Family and Community Medicine and designed the acute and chronic clinical work performed by that department. Dr. Carlo has served in diverse scientific advisory capacities, including membership on the US. Congress Office of Technology Assessment Agent Orange Advisory Panel, the chairmanship of Wireless Technology Research, LLC, and director of the Breast Implant Public Health Project, LLC. 
    He regularly participates in government expert panels and workshops. Dr. Carlo has published numerous research articles, commentaries, chapters in books, and health policy papers addressing issues in the health sciences. He has testified before Congress and government regulatory bodies. Dr. Carlo often speaks at seminars and conferences and is frequently consulted for television, radio, and newspaper interviews pertaining to public health issues. He earned Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees from the State University of New York at Buffalo and completed legal training at The George Washington University National Law Center. Dr. Carlo has been listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare, and Who's Who in the World. 
    1711 N Street, NW, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20036-2811 
    Telephone: 202/833-9500, Facsimile: 202/833-2801, Electronic mail: tci@hesgroup.com 
    A non-profit, academic center for scientific understanding and application.</td></tr></tbody></table><hr width="50%" style="" /><h4 style=""><center>Some key documents</center></h4>1953 Aug 24: George Carlo was born in New York, His parents were Sicilians from near Palermo. [This family background closely parallelled that of Michael Repacholi who ran the WHO's EMF program: Repacholi's parents also came from the same region of Sicily.] 
<div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">In the year of his birth, the Hooker Chemical Company, which had owned a disused Love Canal in New York as a place to dump metal barrels containing at least 20,000 tons of chemical waste, sold the tract to the Niagara Falls Board of Education for $1 without warning of dangers from the buried dump; the deed simply disclaimed Hooker's liability for any deaths or injuries that might occur. An elementary school and a housing development were then built on the site. 
    [Source: Laying Waste: The poisoning of America by Toxic Chemicals. Michael Brown] 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1970 The USA stopped using Agent Orange and Agent Blue in Vietnam supposedly "because of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong charged that herbicides were a form of chemical warfare" and that they were causing birth defects among Vietnamese children as well as severe, perhaps irreversible, ecological damage. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1972 /E: Carlo earned his bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees from State University of New York (SUNY) at Buffalo 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1972 A small group of Boston-area scientists became concerned about the failure of two experiments in emergency water-cooling of small nuclear piles. The experiments had found that in some nuclear accidents, steam was generated around the hot fuel rods to the point where emergency cool water could not contain or control the run-away heat. 

    They formed the Union of Concerned Scientists to publicize the problem and demand action. These fears were addressed over the following few years. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1973: Carlo now at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He says that he became a professional assistant football coach for the Buffalo Bulls, at the University. 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1974 The Arkansas Power & Light Co fired up their Nuclear One power plant in Pope County. Small radiation leaks from this power station were to make Carlo's name as an epidemiologist — and one where he worked on the side of public health.<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">In this year, the still birth-rate was 20.3 per 1000 births.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">In 1975 The Pope County still birth-rate rose to 25.4 per 1000</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">In 1976 the rate was 27.5 per 1000</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">In 1977 it hit 26.8 per 1000.</li></ul>
1975 Vietnam veterans, supported by some scientists and politicians, blamed Agent Orange as the cause of their own diseases and of birth defects in their children and demanded medical treatment and monetary compensation. Their efforts received a hugh boost from two television programs. [Source Michael Gough's book "Politicizing Science"] 

1976 Jul 10: The Seveso herbicide factory owned by the Roche Group blew up just outside Milan, Italy, releasing an enormous amount of dioxin. The immediate health consequences in Seveso and neighbouring communities were chloracne, a serious skin condition; the potential for long term consequence were largely ignored. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveso_disaster" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Wikipedia.jpg" align="right" /></a>

    There is still a dispute about the numbers killed or harmed from the released dioxins (partly because of a coverup by both the companies and the State, but also difficulty in tracing problems back to causes.). In 1996 it was found that in Seveso there was a change in the ratios of boy babies and girls in the exposed families. (males to females 26:48 for children born between April 1977 and December 1984) A 2001 study...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">observed no increase in all-cause and all-cancer mortality. However, results support that dioxin is carcinogenic to humans and corroborate the hypotheses of its association with cardiovascular- and endocrine-related effects. In 2009, an update including 5 more years (up to 1996) found the expected increase in "lymphatic and hematopoietic tissue neoplasms" and increased breast cancer.</blockquote>However, the most important factor in the decision that dioxins were dangerous in the long-term came from laboratory tests, carried out by scientists at the Dow Chemical Company. They showed dioxin to be the most potent cause of birth defects ever found in laboratory test animals. [Source Michael Gough's book "Politicizing Science"] 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1976–77: Carlo was a staff epidemiologist on the Medical Sciences Department,University of Arkansas.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">[Puff piece] "While at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (sic), he chaired the research committee of the Department of Family and Community Medicine and designed the acute and chronic clinical work performed by that department."</blockquote>[Source Carlo biog]  [In a March 27 1992 letter to the Wall Street Journal (at time of the Banbury Center scandal) he claimed that his "scientific involvement with dioxins" began in 1972 (certainly a mistake, unless he was refering to his university studies) and that he "designed protocols which were used by the Arkansas Department of Health, about this time, to monitor dioxin-exposed Vietnamese refugees." ]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1977–78: Two epidemiologists with the University of Arkansas, George Carlo and Carol Hogue raised a flag about the local Nuclear One power station, pointing to 'potential problems' with birth defects which were showing up in the still-birth records. According to the Arkansas Gazette, Carlo and Hogue co-wrote a report which they sent to the Arkansas Department of Health warning that:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"a pattern of risk" seemed to have developed in the neighbourhood of the power plant. "The situation should be monitored closely," they said, because "we may be detecting a weak signal." 

    Arkansas Power and Light quickly denied any likelihood that Nuclear One "would have any effect on the health of newborns. We have worked closely with the hospital there," said AP&L vice-president, Charles Kelly, "and every indication we've had in monitoring the health effects is that there is none."</blockquote>Nor was the Carlo/Hogue paper received kindly by local municipal or supported by the local health authorities.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The study, said Director Robert Young of the Arkansas Health Department, was "inconclusive" and offered no evidence that Nuclear One was to blame for the escalating stillbirth rate."</blockquote>[Source: Arkansas Gazette, October 31, 1979]  <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>The emerging problem of Agent Orange</th></tr><tr><td>1977 — 78: The Veterans Administration (VA) initially rejected veterans's claims for treatment and compensation for "Agent Orange diseases", saying that there was no evidence for a linkage between Agent Orange and the diseases for which these claims were made. 

    The Veterans had a problem proving that they had been exposed to Agent Orange/dioxin since no records were apparently kept by the military — and the chemical companies all denied that the substance was dangerous, carcinogenic or mutagenic. Agent Orange was also highly variable in its dioxin concentration which made true exposure to the dioxins impossible. Also, other herbicides such as Agent Blue (which contained arsenic) were also used extensively in Vietnam. 

1977 July: (summer) the US Air Force disposed of 2.22 million gallons of Agent Orange believed to contain 23 kilograms of dioxins by the use of high-temperature incineration at sea aboard the incinerator ship, M/T Vulcanus [in compliance with the EPA permit requirements] There can be little doubt that the Air Force knew it was dealing with dangerous chemicals by this time. 

      [Only revealed at a later International Symposium in Arlington] <a href="http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/findaids/agentorange/text/05005.pdf" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

Although this was a dioxin problem, Agent Orange remained a relatively dormant issue in the media until about 1980. It was Love Canal which created the public concerns.</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">George Carlo is now a Teaching Assistant with the Department of 
Epidemiology at the SUNY in Buffalo</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1977 Sep: — Aug 78: Carlo says he worked during this period as a Teaching Assistant, Roswell Park Graduate Division, State University of New York at Buffalo, Department of Epidemiology. 

    This suggests that he transfered to a new job which allowed him to pursue a higher qualification. His PhD is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Division of Graduate Studies (SUNYAB), Department of Experimental Pathology (Experimental Pathology/Epidemiology) 
[Source: George Carlo's C/V as sent to the Tobacco Institute in 1988.] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Love Canal at Niagra Falls</th></tr><tr><td>1977 Nov: This was an unfinished canal had become an industrial waste site which leaked chemicals whenever it rained. It had been given to the New York Education Department, which had then sold various parts of it as housing estates. 

    After 30 years of indiscriminate dumping and regular reports of seepages and odours, a local reporter began an investigation of possible links between the contamination and resident illnesses. In 1976 toxicology consultants (Calspan Corp. — an ex-Defence-related general lab group associated with Cornell University) reported serious contamination by dioxins, and this fired up local Congressman LaFalce, who turned up at the site with the Environmenal Protection Agency in tow. 

    The EPA tested air in basements, and the New York State Health and Environmental personnel sampled sump pumps and storm sewers. Love Canal citizens organised themselves into three large resident's organisations, and began to lobby for remedial action or relocation. [833 families were eventually relocated] 

    In March 1978 the New York health authorities ordered human testing of blood, and a committee of physicians recommended drastic measures. The Governor declaring a State health emergency, closed the school, etc. Over the next years the EPA and New York health authorities expanded their area of concern to 36 residential blocks, and the Congress became involved in Joint Hearings when chromasomal damage was reported. 

    This landmark case led, in the last days of the Carter Administration (1980), to passage of the Superfund (CERCLA) laws. These laws required polluting industries to jointly pay to clean up their own mess and they also set aside government funds for sites where it was impossible to identify the culprits. However it took five years of lax Reagan-Repubican administration before the ATSDR (the agency charged with enforcing these rules) to be funded.

[Love Canal land was later remediated as a new suburb with a new name] <a href="http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/6527.aspx" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1978 Dr Richard J Kociba a scientist working for Dow Chemicals found overwhelming evidence that 2,3,7,8-TCDD herbicides (which all contained dioxins) were dangerous, and published his report in Applied Pharmacology. Before Love Canal had come to public notice, he had begun a series of three different life-time (2 year) animal studies feeding dioxins to male and female Sprague-Dawley rats. 

    Kociba found high rates of liver cancer in the female mice (but not the males) and he had microscope slides to prove it. This triggered the scientific scare about dioxins (and later, their cousins, the furans) in herbicides — not just in Agent Orange. Public concerns became exaggerated when the media over-reacted; and this was supplemented by the clumsy and frantic attempts by the chemical companies to throw doubt on their own research.

[Dow Chemicals rejected the Kociba findings. They then hired the 'greenwashing' PR firm, E Bruce Harrison, to run a campaign discounting and confusing the findings. They later challenged Kociba's diagnosis of the cancers by mounting their own 'independent' committee of highly-paid consultants who reviewed the Kociba slides and found fewer 'confirmed' cancers — which is why scientists don't like releasing their basic data; it just fuels the fires of organised attack.]. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 221, 221);">
1978 The first lawsuits are filed against Dow Chemicals and Monsanto over their sloppy production of Agent Orange resulting in Vietnam Veteran's dioxin exposures. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1978 Mar: Eckardt C Beck, the local (Love Canal) Regional administrator for the EPA reported:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">I visited the canal area at that time. Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the grounds of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces. 

    And then there were the birth defects. The New York State Health Department is continuing an investigation into a disturbingly high rate of miscarriages, along with five birth-defect cases detected thus far in the area.</blockquote> <hr width="20%" style="" />1978 Aug 1: the New York Times front-page article stated:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y.—Twenty five years after the Hooker Chemical Company stopped using the Love Canal here as an industrial dump, 82 different compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens, have been percolating upward through the soil, their drum containers rotting and leaching their contents into the backyards and basements of 100 homes and a public school built on the banks of the canal.</blockquote><a href="http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/lovecanal/01.html" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> [Steve Milloy, Michael Gough and other corporate dioxin deniers have since tried to make out that the problems here were minor, and that they were wildly exaggerated by the media.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1978 Aug 2: The New York Times story triggered action. The next day Dr Robert Whalen, the New York state Commissioner of Health, visited Love Canal and said:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"The Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill constitutes a public nuisance and an extremely serious threat and danger to the health, safety, and welfare of those using it or exposed to the conditions emanating from it, consisting, among other things, of chemical wastes lying exposed on the surface in numerous places and pervasive, pernicious, and obnoxious chemical vapors and fumes affecting both the ambient air and the homes of certain residents living near such sites."</blockquote>He issued an order to country health officials to close the school and reduce accessibility to one division of the site ["keep people off"], and to begin health studies. On August 7 he expanded the prohibited area and Governor Carey decided to buy the homes of those who wished to relocate. President Carter also approved emergency financial aid.      Dr Whalen also convened a Blue-Ribbon Panel, declared a health emergency and ordered the relocation of women and children living in the most contaminated parts of the estate. President Carter then declared a 'State of Emergency' and provided financial aid. By the end of this year workers on the site were undergoing daily monitoring, and over the next three years lawsuits were filed by New York State Attorney against Hooker Corporation and Occidental Petroleum (settled by consent agreement in 1988 and 1989) and the whole area cleared.      [Multiple Sources]  <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo is now a staff epidemiologist with SUNY's School of Medicine in Buffalo.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1978 Aug 4: — Sep 79: Carlo has given up his job as Teaching Assistant at Roswell Park, SUNY and is now an Epidemiologist at the State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Medicine's. Research Program in Occupational and Environmental Health. 

    [His C/V says that he was also] Clinical Instructor, State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Medicine, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine.
[Source: George Carlo's C/V dated the end of 1988.] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
However one of Carlo's puff pieces says:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Dr Carlo was among the first scientists on the scene at the infamous Love Canal chemical crisis in Niagara Falls, New York in 1978 that led to the Superfund law addressing hazards from abandoned hazardous waste sites.</blockquote> <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="100%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Carlo's denial of Love Canal involvement...</th></tr><tr><td>
    Defending himself against charges that he was a consultant to the land developers at Love Canal (and there is no evidence of this) Carlo later wrote:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"I was one of the first consultants to be approached by Lois Gibbs and the other mothers who were concerned about the risk of miscarriages. We helped them put together the study that was later submitted to the State Health Department about health risks. I helped Congressman John LaFalce with the first writings of the Superfund Act that was intended to prevent financial harm to families living on or near abandoned hazardous waste sites and this a direct consequence of the Love Canal work. 

    My work was used by Congress because it supported the theory that the chemicals such as Mirex or Kepone were related to cancer. "</blockquote>[Google turns up no evidence supporting the claim that Carlo's research information was given to Congress, or of any relationship with Congressman LaFalce. However, it could well be true that the University was approached for help by Lois Gibbs, and therefore that he helped the activists.</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1978 Dec 14: An EPA press release explains the reasons why they were taking action over toxic chemical waste sites following Love Canal.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">EPA would require that hazardous wastes be safely handled and disposed of to protect the public and the environment from possible contamination including safeguards to protect drinking and other underground water supplies, surface water and the air. These wastes include acids, caustics, explosives, and toxic chemicals. 

    "Hazardous wastes will be controlled from point of generation to their ultimate disposal, and dangerous practices that are now resulting in serious threats to health and the environment will not be allowed," ([EPA Adminisrator Douglas] Costle said. 

    "This hazardous waste program is comprehensive" Costle said. "It will control over 35 million tons of waste. Some 270,000 waste-generating facilities, 10,000 transporters, and 30,000 treatment, storage, and disposal sites will be involved." 

    [The] EPA proposed a list of 158 specific wastes it considers hazardous and which would fall under Federal regulation.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yvw97b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yvw97b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
This was the origins of the two main Superfund laws<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">CERLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">SARA (Superfund Amendment and Reauthorisation Act) of 1986.</li></ul>However it took many years of corporate vs. agency battles before anything of significance was passed, and more years before they were activated, and so many of the US science-for-sale entrepreneurs got their start by working on Superfund problems for the chemical companies and producers of hazardous waste.</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Military Knowledge of dioxins.</th></tr><tr><td>In an affidavit filed on May 1, 1980, Lt. Craig Steele (a hygiene officer in Vietnam) stated:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"I had in my possession written guidelines on Agents Orange, Blue, and Hyvar. These guidelines carried the explicit warnings in bold print that the misuse of these chemicals may result in sterility and/or congenital abnormalities in humans."</blockquote>These guidelines were in place from day one.

</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 221, 221);">
1979 Mar 26: The Three Mile Island incident. 
A leak followed by a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania created the most serious nuclear contamination incident in American history, and probably the best-known in the world before the Ukrainian Chernobyl disaster and Fukijama in Japan. Wikipedia says:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The nuclear power industry claims that there were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects from the accident, and a report by Columbia University epidemiologist Maureen Hatch agrees with this finding. Another study by Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were 2 to 10 times higher downwind of TMI than upwind. 

    The Radiation and Public Health Project, an anti-nuclear organization, reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident.</blockquote>[In some of his later puff-pieces Carlo claimed to have worked helping the public affected by this accident at that time.]

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo now lecturing at the University of Arkansas, Medical Sciences.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1979 Sep: — Jun 81: Carlo has transfered from SUNY in Buffalo, back to the University of Arkansas. He was now<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Assistant Professor, Arkansas. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sclences, Little Rock.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Professor in the Division of Biometry</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Interdiscipiinary Toxicology.</li></ul>[Carlo's 1988 C/V] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1979 Oct: The American Department of Health issued a study which had been conducted on the Three Mile Island incident and Carlo claims to have been involved as a consultant.

Much later when challenged about his claimed role in the Three Mile Island incident he wrote:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"The only input I had to the Three Mile Island report was submitting the data from our study showing an increase in infant mortality and stillbirths around the nuclear plant in Russellville, Arkansas. They quoted our data in the report....but they dismissed it as not enough evidence to show a problem."</blockquote><a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/Carlo_Reb.html" target="Tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1979 Oct: This is the delayed publication date for the Carlo/Hogue Nuclear One stillbirth paper. It was only published well after the Three-Mile Island incident.<ul style="">Analysis of Infant Deaths and Stillbirths in Pope County, Arkansas. by Carlo GL and Hogue CJ, Arkansas State Department of Health,</ul> <hr width="20%" style="" />1980: Research biologist Beverly J Paigen, who was a senior staffer doing Cancer Research at Roswell Park while Carlo was there, has produced a series of papers on Love Canal [but she doesn't list Carlo as a contributor or co-author]:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">"Controversy at Love Canal" which was published as a Hastings Center Report, in 1982. 
</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">"Methods for assessing health risks in populations living near hazardous waste sites" 1983 
</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">"Assessing the problem — Love Canal," 1983 
</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Use of small mammals (voles) to assess a hazardous waste site at Love Canal, 1983</li></ul>[It is possible that Carlo may have made some minor contributions to early Roswell Park papers before moving to Arkansas in September 1980. ]</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cla89c00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cla89c00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 221, 221);">
1980: The first Agent-Orange class-action lawsuit is filed in Pennsylvania against Dow Chemicals and Monsanto. This is a product liability suit over their sloppy production of Agent Orange resulting in Vietnam Veteran's dioxin exposures. Critical research evidence produced at this trial included:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">about 100 articles from toxicology journals dating back more than a decade, as well as data about where herbicides had been sprayed, what the effects of dioxin had been on animals and humans, and every accident in factories where herbicides were produced or dioxin was a contaminant of some chemical reaction.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a></blockquote>

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1980: Carlo says he was Principal Investigator this year on "Birth Cohort Infant Mortality and Environmental Insult in Arkansas Counties," study which was being funded by US Environmental Protection Agency, 
[Source: George Carlo's 1988 C/V as sent to the Tobacco Institute] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
[We have found no studies which match the above. There is only the Arkansas Health Department study with no mention of the EPA. However, given the recent publication of his Arkansas Nuclear One paper, this could well be true.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1980: The Superfund Compromise is being floated, This was (initially) a proposal to limit the number of hazardous waste sites that would be cleaned up, but it was amended out of recognition because of public hostility. A Bill extending the Compromise was only passed in Aug 1986 after five years of long and bitter inactivity during (Reagan's First term) See legal outline <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zln28d00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zln28d00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

    Only six dumps were cleaned up during the first five years of Superfund, and it went into limbo after September 30 1985 when its revenue sources dried up, The new compromise became a Bill for Renewal, which would require the Environmental Protection Agency to identify for future action 1,600 of the nation's worst sites by 1988. [The agency's national priority list was about half that size.] 

    The compromise bill also gave citizens living near toxic sites the right to sue polluters to force a cleanup if EPA is not acting against a dump and to require chemical companies to inform communities about emissions of ''acute hazards'' from their plants.]See US News & World Report article from the 1980s. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/smk15b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/smk15b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1980 May: American Journal of Public Health publishes "Cancer incidence and trihalomethane concentrations in a public drinking water system." by G L Carlo, C J Mettlin<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Four thousand two hundred fifty-five cases of esophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, bladder, and pancreatic cancer reported from Erie County, NY between 1973 and 1976 were analyzed in terms of their relationship to type of water source, level of trihalomethane (THM) and various social and economic parameters. Among white males, a significant positive correlation existed between pancreatic cancer incidence rates and THM level. No other significant correlations were observed. This research lends little or no support to the hypothesis that THM levels which meet present standards are related to the incidence of human cancer.</blockquote><a href="http://www.abstractboard.com/author/Carlo+G+L/G-L-Carlo.html" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 187);">
1980 June 6 A Hill & Knowlton Advisory to its clients:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The Justice Department expects to file 100 lawsuits to enforce the cleanup of dangerous hazardous waste disposal sites in 1980. It claims there are from 500 to 600 dumping sites today that could be as much of a threat to public health as Love Canal.</blockquote>Another report says the National Toxicology Program "had isolated about 200 compounds at the site and was testing 70 of them." 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1980 June: /E "Cancer incidence and Trihalomethane concentrations in a Public Drinking Water System", George L. Carlo and Curtis J Mettlin. American Journal of Public health, Vol. 70, No. 5, 1980, PP. 523-524<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">This research lends little or no support to the hypothesis that THM levels which meet present standards are related to the incidence of human cancer.</blockquote>[ Trihalomethanes are chlorinated organic molecules — like chloroform and CFCs which damage the ozone layer. Some are known to be carcinogenic. Carlo seems to have repeated this study in 1984.]  This report lists Carlo at the Division of Biometry, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. It says that... "At the time of the study he was with the Research Program in Occupational and Environmental Health, SUNY at Buffalo, New York.  [It doesn't say who funded the study, but Dow Chemicals and other chemical companies were under attack for releasing these chlorine-based compounds into underground acquifers. ]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1980 Jul: Dr Irwin DJ Bross, Carlo's superior when he was at Buffalo, and the Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute [ie the name applied to 'Epidemiology' at this time] was attacking the role of the chemical companies in trying to downplay the dangers of dioxins. He wrote to the Washington Star:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Even under the best of circumstances it is hard to do competent scientific studies of health hazards at Love Canal or other chemical (or nuclear) dump sites. 

Only a tiny fraction of physicians or scientists have any demonstrated competence in the conduct of such studies and have any record of acting in the public interest in these issues. 

    These researchers soon become the targets of well-orchestrated efforts to discredit them, to disparage their findings and to drive them out of research, this has happened at Love Canal, and it has occurred over and over again in the past 25 years. It is one of the main reasons why so little has been done to protect the public against hazardous chemical, nuclear and medical technologies.</blockquote>Bross also criticised a federal health official who told some women, who had had disastrous pregancies while living at New York's Love Canal, that "the cure was to quit smoking". <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bwn20g00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bwn20g00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <ul style="">[ Irwin Bross was an anti-smoking crusader was also worked with the famous tobacco researcher Dr Ernst Wynder in an attempt to develop a "less harmful cigarette". [They both advocated a switch to filter cigarettes.] Wynder accepted more and more research funds from the tobacco industry over the years, and he would later become an occasional associate of Carlo, but there's no suggestion that the two were associated at this time.]</ul> <hr width="20%" style="" />1980 Aug: The EPA issues a requirement to all makers of the herbicide 2,4-D to prove the safety of their products. This herbcide was less of a dioxin risk than 2.4,5-T, but both were components of Agent Orange and both had contributed to the dioxin contamination. Under pressure from the EPA, the chemical companies jointly set up the Industry Task Force on 2,4-D Research Data (ITF) and entered into an agrement to produce the requested data for the EPA. 

    The 1980 notice required the ITF to conduct oncogenicity (cancer) tests with 2,4-D on both rats and mice (they often react differently). The Task Force eventually submitted the results of completed studies in 1986. By then, the EPA was under a 'more relaxed' administration. 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo has been elevated to faculty member at the University of Arkansas
(but apparently also working as an occasional consultant for Dow Chemicals)</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1980 Sep: — Jun 81 Carlo was a faculty member at the University of Arkansas, Medical Sciences Research Council. 
            [George Carlo's 1988 C/V as sent to the Tobacco Institute] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1980 Sep: /E Carlo's "Epidemiology and Toxic Substances" lecture to the State of Arkansas Toxics Public Information Task Force, Fall 1980. [Source 1988 C/V] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1980 Sep 29: US News & World Report carries an article "Chemical Wastes: A Buried Bomshell." Love Canal had triggered a new look at other toxic waste sites.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Water wells in Toone, Tenn were contaminated by pesticide wastes leading from a pile 30,000 55-gallon drums. Drums were found buried in a Memphis suburb.
</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The Tennessee Valley Authority estimated that 4,000 tons of DDT remained at the bottom of springs upstream of Triana, Alabama, from manufacturing ten years before. Blood samples from residents were 10 times the normal.
</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">A 100 mile stretch of the Arkansas River had been condemned because of dioxin traces. [In Alabama, Carlo had plenty of opportunity to learn about dioxins.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">the Justice Department asked a federal court to force eleven big US chemical corporations, including Dow, Allied and Uniroyal, to clean up two dump sites near Baton Rouge.</li></ul></blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtd09b00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtd09b00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1980 Oct: - June 1981 Carlo says he was a member of the Toxics Public Information Program, Technical Advisory Committee, State of Arkansas. 

    Also he made a presentation on Health Monitoring Around Hazardous Waste Management Facilities. to the Arkansas Federation of Water and Air Users,[Source 1988 C/V] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1980 Nov: Ronald Reagan is President Elect. 

President Carter's "Superfund" clean up legislation [ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)] was enacted during the Reagan transition period. It provided for an initial $1.6 billion Superfund. 

    However the Reagan Administration during 1981 and 1983 tried to load more of these costs back on the industries that had caused the problems in order to balance the Federal Budget. The Administration also delayed the funding of the regulatory agency (ATSDR) which would have Superfund oversight. 

    CERCLA gave EPA primary responsibility for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites, but the Act also authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register (ATSDR) under the Department of Public Health...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">to assess the presence and nature of health hazards to communities living near Superfund sites, to help prevent or reduce harmful exposures, and to expand the knowledge base about the health effects that result from exposure to hazardous substances.</blockquote>However deregulating zealots now controlled all of the political positions in the Reagan White House, and at the main agencies. So nothing happened in real terms until a crisis developed in mid 1983.

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1980 Dec 9: The Wall Street Journal article "Looking at the Way We Die" was one of the first open media attacks on the cigarette industry by a major newspaper. It says:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The overall age-adjusted increase in lung cancer in 1978 was 3.2%, while for white women the increase was a whopping 7.7%. The figures seem to speak for themselves. Insofar as the rate of cancer deaths in this country is rising, the single largest factor is the vast increase in cigaret smoking by white women over the past generation. 

    In comparison, the increase in 1978 death rate from lung cancer for white males was only 1.8%, while the increases were even smaller for non-white males and females. Aside from lung cancer, in 1978 deaths from all other major forms of cancer either declined or remained the same. 

    The public health implications of these official government data would seem unmistakable. The most effective way to combat future increases in cancer deaths would be an all-out campaign against cigarets. The danger to American lives, posed by smoking is far greater than from asbestos, saccharin, the exhaust of chemical factories, the emanations from dumping grounds of chemical waste like the Love Canal, etc.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pcg65b00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pcg65b00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [It wasn't difficult to see which industries provided opportunities for a budding science-for-sale entrepreneur.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1981: (Carlo Primary Investigator), "Cross-Sectional Study of Employees with Potential Workplace Exposure to Ethylene Oxide," Carlo was still on the faculty of the Arkansas University, but now working on the side for Dow Chemical Company,[Source: George Carlo's 1988 C/V as sent to the Tobacco Institute] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1981: The Agent Orange herbicide used in Vietnam became serious news early in the Reagan Administration. Before this time the main concern with dioxins had been from industrial exposures. 

    Agent Orange herbicide was a combination essentially of two other herbicides 2,4,5,-T and 2,4-D, and it was shown to be seriously contaminated with dioxins [due to lack of care during manufacture]. The returned servicemen maintained that they were having residual serious health impacts and higher rates of birth defects in their children. There was also an Agent Blue used in Vietnam which didn't give the same problems (but it did confuse the scientific issue). 

    The Veterans Administration and the Department of Defence generally ridiculed these claimsx... until an OTA Advisory Panel under direction from Congress, a couple of scientific Task Forces, and a dozen or so other formal and informal scientific study groups began to investigate the vets' claims. They all fingered dioxins as the likely culprit — especially when gross deformities among Vietnamese babies began to show up on the front pages. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>ATSDR Superfund legislation</th></tr><tr><td>
    One of Carlo's puff pieces says about this period:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">He was integral in writing the enabling legislation that established theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) within the Department of Health and Human Services, a primary group addressing the effects of environmental contaminants.</blockquote>These ATSDR laws passed in 1980, but were suppressed during most of the first Reagan term between 1981 and 1983 — so nothing much happened at this time. 

    Only in the approach to Reagan's second term — after the Secretary of the Interior James Watt had been fired, and the EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch (Burford) and twenty of her top staff had been forced to resign over non-enforcement scandals — did the Reagan administration take this problem seriously. 

[ As an Assistant Professor in Arkansas, Carlo does not register in the dioxin literature from this period, so his claim to have written the ATSDR legislation is dubious... to say the least]CDC on Toxic Exposure Prevention   <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/Features/PreventExposure/" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" /></a> ATSDR on dioxins   <a href="http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/dioxin/policy/" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1981 Feb: A discussion paper presented at the Toxicology Forum Winter Meeting by Kimmel C, Carlo G, Hogue C and Holson J: Suitability of Animal Models for Predicting Hazards to Human Development. 
[Probably nothing to do with Dow since Carol Hogue is also involved. ] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1981 Apr: Carlo published a paper on "Routine Surveillance of Reproductive Events"which had been presented to the Department of Health (DHES) on behalf of the Dow Chemical Company, 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo is now on the staff of Dow Chemical Company 
but still an Adjunct Professor (Occasional Lecturer) 
University of Arkansas, Medical Sciences..</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1981 June: — June 82: Carlo says he was Adjunct Professor, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. during this year. His C/V shows that he was also the Research Leader In Epidemiology with the US Area Medical Department of Dow Chemical USA from early 1981 thru May 1984:[George Carlo's 1988 C/V as sent to the Tobacco Institute] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1981 Jul: Carlo paper, "An Epidemic of Cancer? The Evidence in Perspective,"presented to the Department of Health on behalf of the Dow Chemical Company, 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(191, 223, 143);">
1981 Aug - end 1988: The Agent Orange problem had blown up with the Vietnam Veterans. The US Air Force, the Veterans Administration and the Military were all stalling and actively colluding with the chemical companies to discount any possibility that the dioxins in Agent Orange were responsible for the Post-Traumatic Syndrome or for the birth defects in Veteran's childrens. 

    Eventually the Vets forced the US Congress to create a research program with 'independent oversight', and Congress turned to the bipartisan Office of Technological Assessment. 

    This panel was generally independent, consisting mainly of academics — but there were also three chemical company representatives, one from each of the main manufacturers — including Dow Chemicals. Carlo claims in his 1988 C/V that he was...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">On the committee of the Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, Agent Orange Advisory Panel.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
</div> At a later time Carlo says that<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">From 1984 thorugh 1992, I sat on the US Congress's Office of Technology Assessment's Agent Orange Advisory Panel. We were responsible for the changes at the Veterans Administration that resulted in compensation being given to Vietnam veterans for chloracne, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Hodgkins disease and leukemia. 

    I worked closely with representatives from the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Vietnam Veterans of America to get that done. I was one of their most vociferous supporters on the panel.</blockquote><a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/Carlo_Reb.html" target="Tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>     The Advisory Panel merely advised the OTA on how epidemiology studies on dioxins should be conducted. This was not an easy matter when there were little or no exposure records.      The OTA Advisory Panel did not conducting studies itself, nor were they evalating results, nor advising veterans, nor advising on the toxicity or mutagenicity of dioxins.      The Agent Orange Study Protocol Review Advisory Panel (report to Congress in both 1981 and 82) listed Carlo as member working for the Health & Environmental Sciences division of Dow Chemicals<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">George L. Carlo, Epidemiology, Health and Environmental Sciences, Dow Chemical USA.</blockquote><a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%E2%80%93ota/disk3/1983/9565/956507.PDF" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>[He was later to use the Health & Environmental Sciences name for his first science-for-sale company] <table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Dioxin friends</th></tr><tr><td>In these Agent Orange panel years he met two other scientists who would later figure strongly in his life:<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Michael LeVois, another epidemiologist working at this time for the Veterans Administration, 
      LeVois briefly became Carlo's employee, then a partner in HES on a Philip Morris project. He then moved to San Francisco and worked for the tobacco industry for the rest of his life in semi-partnership with another science-for-sale entrepreneur, Max Layard.

</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Michael Gough was the dioxin study administrator for the Office of Technical Assessments (OTA) when they examined the complaints of the veterans. 
      Gough later moved on to a career supporting corporations with environmental and health problems through Republican/libertarian think-tanks: the Cato Iinstitute, Competitive Enterprises Institute, TASSC etc.,
      In 1990, he provided Carlo with back-up in a Melbourne (Aust) dioxin water contamination scandal. 
      Gough was also a close associate of Steve Milloy who ran TASSC and the junkscience.com web site for Philip Morris [Carlo was on the TASSC Advisory Board]. Milloy was also involved with the CEI and the Cato Institute and used both as fronts for tobacco projects.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1981 Aug 19: A meeting of the Veterans Administration (VA), Air Force, Office of Technical Assessment staff, and some (presumably independent) research scientists and administrators [Carlo is not mentioned] meet to thrash out the reason for their continuing disputes about the dangers of dioxins and the health problems of the returned Veterans. 

    The spokesman for the VA announced:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">I am pleased to announce that the Research and Development arm of the VA Central Office has recently taken steps to launch a series of studies designed to investigate the possible long-term health effects of exposure to Agent Orange and Agent Blue. 

    Specifically, Research and Development (R&D) is soliciting proposals from VA investigators on the biochemical, toxicological, physiological and/or pharmacological aspects of both herbicides.</blockquote>[It is obvious that they have been in denial... then spent time stumbling around in the dark. They had major problems because of a lack of basic Vietnam exposure information.]<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">"We cannot even complete the design of the overall epidemiological study until we know what we can do in the way of separating the cohorts".[ie identfying exposed and unexposed veterans]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">"We're now in the ninth and final month of a nine-month contract to collect the worldwide literature on all of the fourteen herbicides that were used in Vietnam, to compile an annotated bibliography of the science, the state of knowledge we have about the herbicides, and then to write a narrative report on our best scientific judgement of what this all means."</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">We have collected what data there are on each of the industrial accidents [dioxin spills.. and the report] would have a table, a chart that would track the location of the accident, the year it occurred, the chemicals released, the duration of exposure, the organ systems effected — dermal, liver, whatever was reported —and then the reference articles that talked about that industrial accident,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">They planned and organised the 1st International Symposium on Chlorinate Dioxins in Arlington VA 25-29 October 1981
[However to prevent embarrasment, they pretended that the symposium was mainly about waste management]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The Ranch Hand Study is a 20-year (prospective) epidemiological study of the Air Force personnel (1,200 in total) who flew herbicide orange missions in Vietnam in the years 1962 to 1970.
[Noted: the pilots probably wouldn't or may not have exposure as compared to those who handle the materials [on the ground].</li></ul></blockquote>[Warning: This is a 600 page document]   <a href="http://www.nal.usda.gov/speccoll/findaids/agentorange/text/05751C.pdf" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1981 Sep: Carlo GL and Cook RR: Comments Prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States, regarding "Draft Protocol for Epidemiological Studies of Agent Orange." [Not on web] 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1981 Nov Congress had recently enacted a law which increased public funding forVeterans Administration hospitals. It was now able to provide treatment for "Agent Orange-related diseases". This, and years of vilification about their lack of support for the Vets, appears to have changed the VA's attitude to dioxin research.

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1982 The National Toxicology Program (NTP) published results of a cancer bioassay for 2,3,7,8-TCDD herbicide (the major component of Agent Orange). 

    An increase in liver tumors was observed at 71 ng/kg-day in female rats and in mice. A decrease in cancer rate was observed in animals receiving lower doses. 

[This is a minute dosage in comparison to other toxic chemicals. Also dose-related responses were considered highly significant in toxicology.] 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1982: Published study — Plomer JJ and Carlo GL: The Health Effects of Ozone: An Overview of the Scientific Literature. A Dow CRI Report, 

[CRI probably refers to "Common Representative Intermediates" which act as catalysts to convert volitile chemicals into ozone reactors (in other words, 'secondary effects' chlorinated compounds on ozone depletion). This basic library study was probably done for Dow Chemicals which manufactured the CFCs which were implicated in attacking the ozone layer.]
<hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">With Dow Chemical's 'issues division" — Health and Environmental Sciences. 
also part-time lecturer with his old State University of New York in Buffalo</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1982 Jan: to end 1988 George Carlo's 1988 C/V as sent to the Tobacco Institute says that during this period he was a member of the Adjunct Faculty, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Graduate Division, State University of New York at Buffalo. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1982 Jan: - Feb 1984 Carlo is a member of the Louisiana Chemical Association Cancer Task Force. [Source: Carlo's 1988 C/V as sent to the Tobacco Institute.] 

    With other associates, he prepares a number of papers on Louisiana Cancer rates:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">A Vital Status Registry and General Mortality Survey for the Louisiana Division of Dow Chemical USA: Dow Chemical Company, 1982.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Development of a Morbidity Reporting System and Cancer Registry for the Louisiana Division of Dow Chemical USA. Dow Chemical Company, 1982. (Carlo Primary Investigator)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The Louisiana Cancer Controversy: Some Scientific Perspectives.Louisiana Medical Journal. March 1983.</li></ul></blockquote> <hr width="20%" style="" />1982 Jan: — May 84 He is also a member of the Chemical Manufacturers Association'sEthylene Oxide Industry Council, Epidemiology Committee. 

    The EOIC was established in Sept 1981 and its Epidemiology Committee in 1982 to coordinate the industry evidence before hearings of both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ethylene Oxide was moderately carcinogenic. [Source: 1988 C/V] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1982 May: — Feb 84 In his 1988 C/V Carlo claims to have been a committee member with a number of Chemical Manufacturers Association research and/or lobby groups.<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Air Pollutant Effects Task Group (as Leader),</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ozone Health Effects Work Group (Member),</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Government Research Work Group (Member).</li></ul>[Source 1988 C/V] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
In the same period [until June 1983] George Carlo was also a member of the American Industrial Health Council (AIHC) — Scientific Principles of Causality Subcommitteewhich would have focussed on disproving claims of chemical causality.  The AIHC was the lobby subsidiary of the Chemical Manufacturers Association which had been established by Elizabeth Whelan before she established the architypal astroturf known as the American Council on Science & Health (ACSH) for the food and chemical industry.  <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1982 Dec 3 and 14, Contempt of Congress proceedings against Environmental Protection Agency administrator Anne M. Gorsuch. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, results early the following year in the forced resignation of 20 of the top EPA staff, including John A Todhunter, Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Subtances. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>"Dow Chemical's Flying Circus"</th></tr><tr><td>1983: One later tobacco industry memo [August 1992] to Betsy Annese, (the head of Government and Public Relations at RJ Reynolds Tobacco) shows that Carlo was seen by the propagandists at Dow Chemicals as a valuable employee. 

    This memo is from Matt Swetonic [famous as the front-man for Johns Manville Asbestos,] who was also as an external PR consultant for Dow Chemicals working through E Bruce Harrison (EBH) Co. and Hill & Knowlton. In this later memo he wrote :<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">As we have already discussed, yesterday I met in Washington with George Carlo, head of the Health & Environmental Sciences Group, a DC based health sciences consulting firm. 

    I have known Carlo since 1983, when he was part of my "flying circus" of Dow scientists touring the country talking about the Agent Orange issue. As recently as three or four years ago [ie 1988-89], he had a working relationship with EBH doing joint projects for various chemical industry clients. 

    In short, we know Carlo very well and, as a result, he was quite open and candid in the meeting. 

    The [Carlo - HES] study you sent me from Risk Analysis [journal] was funded through the Institute for Regulatory Policy which, as you know, has been the lead group trying to pressure the White House to release the Executive Order on risk assessment reform.

[This is a 1992 reference to a fake 'Bias study' done by Carlo for Philip Morris, and laundered for media-release by the Tozzi -Auchter think-tank known as Institute for Regulatory Policy (IRP) 

    The IRP had been founded and funded for Philip Morris, and Auchter later became a secret partner in Carlo's HES and WTR operations. ]</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/upw43d00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/upw43d00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
Over the years Matt Swetonic worked for asbestos, pesticide and tobacco companies, mainly through the front of E Bruce Harrison Co.. He established and operated a number of 'grassroots' (astroturf) disinformation organisations (NEDA/TIAQ, Asbestos Information Service, etc). 

    The E Bruce Harrison Company was a specialty anti-environmentalist lobbying front which was originally owned by Harrison and his wife Patricia. It was set up with the support of the Chemical Manufacturers' Association to counter Rachael Carson's book 'The Silent Spring.' 

    EBH was then briefly owned by Ruder-Finn, then by Hill & Knowlton, perhaps by Burson-Marsteller, and later by The Dilenschneider Group Inc. in New York. It appears to have been made available to any large PR group that needed a 'greenwashing' front. 

</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1983: Carlo has published a report "An Assessment of Clinical Laboratory Test Reference Limits". done for the Dow Chemical Company. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1983 Mar: The Journal of the Louisiana State Med Society published The Louisiana cancer controversy: some scientific perspectives. by G L Carlo, M F Currier, K J Flanagan<hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">The scandals of a do-nothing Reagan EPA culminated in the weeks 9-to-25 March 1983 with the resignation of administrator Anne Gorsuch-Burford, John A Todhunter (over dioxins), John Hernandez (over lead), Rita Lavelle (Superfund cleanup), Robert M Perry (General Counsel), and 15 other high-ranking EPA officials; "Taking the axe for the Reagan Administration".</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 221, 221);">
1983 Mar 25: Following the March 25 1983 resignation of the EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch Burford the EPA became paralysed by on-going scandals. 

    The first term of the Reagan Presidency was consumed by public rage at the lack of any reasonable regulatory activity by the Federal Government agencies, mostly because they were stimied by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which was part of the White House's Office of Managment & Budget (OMB). 

    Over this five-to-six year period, a group of about 20 top EPA officials were forced to progressively resign... mostly because they sought to block measures to clean up toxic waste dumps under the Superfund laws, but some through obvious corporate bribery.
<ul>[The OIRA was run by Jim Tozzi who excelled in blocking any meaningful regulatory activity by the main agencies. Tozzi later helped establish the lobby group MBS /Federal Focus Inc, and in the 1990s he joined forces with Thorne Auchter andGeorge Carlo in a number of ventures for Philip Morris and the cellphone industry. Tozzi's staff at the OIRA also left the White House at the end of the Reagan Presidency to set up the EOP Group, which lobbied for the tobacco and chemical industries withSteve Milloy and Bonner Cohen (both associates of Carlo also).]</ul>

1983 April 19: While the 1980 CERCLA Act gave Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) primary responsibility for identifying, investigating, and cleaning up hazardous waste sites, it also authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Register (ATSDR) to assess the presence and nature of health hazards to communities living near Superfund sites, to help prevent or reduce harmful exposures, and to expand the knowledge base about the health effects that result from exposure to hazardous substances. 

    After two years of Reagan Administration stalling, the ATSDR was created as an agency under the Department of Health and Human Services on April 19, 1983 

</div><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Reagan Administration regulatory resignations</th></tr><tr><td><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">James G Watt the Secretary of the Interior (resigned Nov 1983)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Anne Gorsuch Burford the head of the EPA (resigned Mar 1983)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Thorne Auchter the Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), — later both Tozzi and Carlo's partner (resigned Mar 1984)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Jim Tozzi the head of the Reagan White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB/OIRA), — both an Auchter and a Carlo partner — (resigned May 1983)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Rita Lavelle, EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response (ie Superfund). She was jailed in 1984 for perjury during a Congress hearing into corruption in her agency division.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John Todhunter, EPA Administrator and Head of Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (fired in 1983)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Eighteen others were forced to, or chose to, resign.</li></ul>Four young budget examiners working for Tozzi in the OMB.OIRA's environmental branch also chose to leave shortly after (during the Bush Administration). 

The creation of the EOP Group lobbyfirm:
[In White House-speak EOP = Executive Office of the President]

Michael O'Bannon and Ernest Robson initially joined Tozzi's lobby shop (MBS), but they left in 1992. Later they joined with Joseph Hezir, David Gibbons and Assistant Secretary of Energy, Jan Mares, to open the EOP Group — the only lobby firm besides Tozzi's to specialize in lobbying the OMB.
<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Michael O'Bannon - from Dept of Interior and OIRA (joined Tozzi in MBS, then left to manage the EOP Group)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ernest Robins - OIRA (joined Tozzi's MBS and then the EOP Group)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Joseph Hezir - OMB/OIRA (joined EOP Group)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">David Gibbons - OIRA (joined EOP Group)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Jan Mares - Assistant Secretary of Energy, - (brought in later to front the EOP Group)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Jonathon Gledhill - OMB & OIRA (later joined EOP Group)</li></ul>
</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1983 July 15: Environmental Health Letter. The EPA is adding another 100 to 150 Waste Sites to its Cleanup list.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Setting a breakneck pace for itself after a year of two of dawdling, EPA says it now expects by Aug. 1 to designate 100 to 150 new hazardous waste dump sites for priority cleanup. 

    EPA is preparing to set a time limit, most likely two months, for negotiations with industry to determine how cleanup costs will be divided between industry and government, according to William N. Hedeman, Jr., director of the Superfund program.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vbz55b00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vbz55b00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [On leaving the OIRA/OMB, Jim Tozzi had initially joined the legal-lobby firm, Beveridge & Diamond as a "consulting economist". B&D was run by the ex-EPA Administrator William Ruckelhaus and it provided legal counsel services to Dow Chemical. It also lobbied on behalf of the Chemical Manufacturing Association and its American Industrial Health Council (AIHC).. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/utc92f00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/utc92f00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

    Tozzi left B&D in 1986 to set up Multinational Business Services (MBS) and Federal Focus Inc with ex-OSHA director Thorne Auchter.— hosever they obviously maintained an on-going relationship with Beveridge & Diamond. 

    Tozzi was replaced at B&D by William Hedeman the director of the Superfund program who also sat on the OTA Advisory Panel with Carlo. The EPA Watch newsletter at the time said that Hedeman "leaves EPA to join Beveridge & Diamond, [and] Mulitnational Business Services" ] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/drj78b00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/drj78b00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1983 Sep: Carlo presented a lecture on "The Health Effects of Chlorinated Dioxins," to Department of Epidemiology, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1983 Oct: Dow Chemical Company stopped making the main dioxin-containing herbicide 2,3,5-T while contending that<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"the great weight of scientific evidence confirms that 2,4,5-T can be used safely without undue risk to people or the environment."</blockquote>They continued to manufacture other dioxin-containing herbicides. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uot16b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uot16b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1983 Nov: Carlo gives a lecture on "Epidemiological Studies of Chlorinated Dioxins: An Overview" to a Roswell Park Memorial Institute Occupational Epidemiology Symposium. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1983: North Carolina Medical Journal published "The question of a cancer epidemic: a case study of Cherokee County, North Carolina" by G L Carlo, R R Cook, M G Ott 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1984: Publication of a report "Cancer incidence and Trihalomethane concentrations in a Public Drinking Water System", by George L. Carlo. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 74, No. 5, 1984, PP. 479-484 

[This is a repeat of a similar paper done in 1980. Trihalomethanes are chlorinated organic molecules like chloroform and CFCs which damage the ozone layer. Some are known to be carcinogenic. Ironically, this study was used by scaremongering companies flogging water purifiers many years later. ]Miracle Water <a href="http://www.miraculewater.com/Chlorine.htm" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> General <a href="http://electricwords.emfacts.com/junk/dioxin/dioxin.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 221, 221);">
1984: The Pennsylvanian class-action filed against Dow Chemicals and Monsanto over their sloppy production of Agent Orange resulting in Vietnam Veteran's dioxin exposures, was settled for $180 million out of court — leaving many Vietnam Vets stranded. 

    This settlement meant that a totally disabled Veteran would receive a maximum of $12,000 spread over ten years. However he would be prohibited for accessing normal government pensions and services during this time. If he died, his widow would get only a couple of thousand dollars. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo registers George Carlo & Associates, Inc in the tax haven of Deleware.
He is still working for Dow Chemicals.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1984 Jan: — Feb 1988 In the C/V presented to the Tobacco Institute when he began touting for tobacco industry work, Carlo lists:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">EXPERIENCE — January 1984 to Feb 88
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of George Carlo & Associates, Inc.</blockquote> <hr width="20%" style="" />1984 Feb: Along with three other Dow Chemical researchers he had submited an article to the American Journal of Epidemiology on the chemical exposure of workers involved in manufacture. It is published more than a year later as "Mortality among employees engaged in chemical manufacturing and related activities." 

    It only studied men employed before 1969 (before the dioxin problem) and concluded that no problems could be ascribed to "identifiable environmental factors"<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Overall mortality in the study group and in each of eight employment subgroups was less than that of the corresponding United States white male population. Additionally, standardized mortality ratios were not significantly elevated for any of the examined cause-of-death categories.</blockquote><a href="http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/122/2/311.abstract" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1984 Feb 25: The Telegraph newspaper publishes 'Reassuring' Study on Agent Orange Intensifies Dispute." 

The US Air Force had just released their "Operation Ranch-Hand" study into cancers and birth problems with (mainly) air-force pilots who ran spraying missions in Vietnam [Note: not the actual handlers of the chemicals — nor the Vietnamese and Cambodians who lived in the drenched environment, eating sprayed food crops.] The report said that<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"the veterans, who were sometimes doused with the herbicide, are not suffering from major diseases at any unusually high rates but they — and their offspring — have some hard-to-explain health problems that must be watched. 

Dr George Carlo, a scientist at Dow Chemical Co., which manufactured some of the Agent Orange, said the results "should be viewed as reassuring" but said they "underscore the need for further study of the overall Vietnam experience".</blockquote><a href="http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19840225&id=4JorAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pfoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6987,5494311" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>The Airforce's "Ranch-Hand I" study is generally rejected by the scientific community as highly dubious. It was also rejected by Congress.  <table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="8" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>Carlo re-writes history</th></tr><tr><td>In referring to this period of his life, Carlo was later charged by some critics as having...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"defended Dow Corning (sic) over Agent Orange." [The critic's meant Dow Chemicals, not Dow Corning]</blockquote>He replied saying...<a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/Carlo_Reb.html" target="Tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a><blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"Makes no sense. Dow Corning had nothing to do with Agent Orange. But, from 1984 through 1992, I sat on the US Congress's Office of Technology Assessment's Agent Orange Advisory Panel. 

    We were responsible for the changes at the Veterans Administration that resulted in compensation being given to Vietnam Veterans for chloracne, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, Hodgkins disease and leukemia. 

    I worked closely with representatives from the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Vietnam Veterans of America to get that done. I was one of their most vociferous supporters on the panel. Again, your folks have it backward."

[The collective 'we' refers to the panel, not necessarily to individual members. Dow Chemicals was one of the key defendents (along with Monsanto), since their companies made the herbicides (20 million gallons), and it was sloppy manufacturing processes which generated the dioxins. The herbicide companies each had one representive on the Agent Orange panel, and Carlo represented Dow.

Even as late as April 1993, the Department of Veterans Affairs had only compensated 486 Agent Orange victims, although it had received disability claims from 39,419 soldiers who had been exposed to Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam. This is not a record to boast about. ]</blockquote>See Wikipedia on Agent Orange  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo leaves Dow Chemical in May 1984.
George Carlo & Associates, Inc is his first 'research and advisory' firm.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> [There is another Carlo's C/V which says that he started his own science-entrepreneurial advisory service in 1985.]  <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 221, 221);">
<center>Cellular Telephones</center>The mass marketing of analog cellular phones (mainly car-mounted) began at about this time. And since these were specialized consumer products, the Congress passed laws so that the cellphone makers did not need to subject them to pre- or post-market testing for potential health effects. 

    The cellphone industry responded to this exemption by avoiding any health-effects research for a decade, even though [in the words of one later critic] "this was the first time in history that millions of people put small microwave ovens up to the side of their heads for long periods in every day."

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1985: Carlo's later close associate, Ian Munro [his deputy at Wireless Technology Research (WTR) in 1993 and other collaborative operations] became a co-founder of a science-for-sale operation called Cantox in Canada. 

[Carlo and Munro, and their companies Health & Environmental Sciences and Cantox, worked closely together on numerous projects over the years on dioxins, second-hand tobacco smoke, cellular phone radiation and oil company environmental impact statements. ] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1985: Published research paper by Vena JE, Sultz HA, Fiedler RC, Barnes RE and Carlo GL: Mortality of a Municipal Worker Cohort: I.Males. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 7:241-252, 1985.
[This was a study of the dioxin exposures of incinerator workers: various waste products produce dioxins when burned. Carlo is later listed as working as the key scientific lobbyist for the incinerator industry.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Mar: The Annual Report to Congress of the Office of Technical Assessment (OTA) Advisory Panel says it was advising the OTA on the protocols (techniques) that should be used for a proper Agent Orange study. 

    Earlier Veterans Administration (VA) and Air Force studies had been superficial wastes of time, and so the OTA's involvement had been mandated by Congress to provide some independent oversight on future studies. 

    He is one of 14 names on the Agent Orange Study Protocol Review Advisory Paneland now listed as an<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">George L Carlo
Epidemiologist
George Carlo & Associates.</blockquote>rather than as a representative of Dow Chemicals. [Note: The OTA's Health Program at this time was only in the initial stages of evaluating the Agent Orange study protocol and the OTA had a number of other committees providing advice on different aspects of the Agent Orange problem.Carlo's name doesn't turn up on any other OTA report, as far as we can ascertain, however his friend and later associate, Michael Gough is listed as a Senior Associate on the OTA's Special Projects staff.] <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/4100746/8600" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>     Carlo's biog claims that<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"he served for 10 years on the US Congress' Office of Technology Assessment Agent Orange Advisory Panel, providing advice to Vietnam Veteran's suffering from the effects of the dioxin-laced defoliant program.</blockquote><a href="http://www.esmog-responders.com/research-science/from-dr-george-carlo.html" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>[The Panel did not "provide advice to Veterans" in any way, shape or form.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Mar 25: Elizabeth Whelan's American Council on Science & Health (ACSH)has been set up to provide an 'independent lobby for the chemical and process foods industry.

    The ACSH newsletter has run a major story on the possibility that Reye Syndrome might be caused by asprin (salicytate). It admited that the research established some statistical links, especially where the child has influenza or a disease like chicken-pox. But then the article throws cold-water on these findings by spelling out many ways that epidemiological studies can be distorted...without actually saying that these potential defects had acted in these cases. 

    This is a classical piece of public relations double-speak.
[ The Surgeon General had recommended that the drug asprin be avoided for young children — and this recommendation still holds in 2012 

    Whelan and ACSH worked for Chemical and Food companies. For the ACSH to be involved in this defence, the pharmacuetical companies must have been splashing money around.] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/umx21e00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/umx21e00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

[The ACSH report says that the US Public Health Service was planning a major study on asprin-Reye link "during the next flu season", but "The study is not expected for two to four years, with additional time required to analyse the data." This gave the Aspirin producers time to mount their own study. Carlo did one such study.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Apr: - May 86:. Carlo's 1988 C/V says that during this period he was<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Research Associate, 
State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Medicine. 
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine</blockquote>[He must have had a year-long contract with the University in Buffalo. Four months later he was employing another epidemiologist, Maurice LeVois, as his company's Research Director.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1985 July: The American Journal of Industrial Medicine publishes a study of the mortality of municipal employees of the City of Buffalo: Mortality of a municipal worker cohort with Carlo as one of five researchers. He is credited as being from George Carlo & Associates, not from the University. 

[This is too early to have been the SUNY Research Associate work.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Aug: Published studies:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">GL Carlo, GG Bond, MG Ott, S Steinberg (all of Dow Chemicals.) Mortality Experience of Employees Involved in Chemical Manufacturing and Related Activities. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 122, No. 2, August 1985.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">A retrospective cohort mortality study was conducted among men employed for one or more years, between 1940 and 1969, at an operating division of a large chemical company. Vital status follow-up for the cohort of 1,919 men was determined through 1979 and identified 390 deaths. 

    Overall mortality in the study group and in each of eight employment subgroups was less than that of the corresponding United States white male population. Additionally, standardized mortality ratios were not significantly elevated for any of the examined cause-of-death categories.</blockquote></li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Carlo, GL, Miller, MK: Health Surveillance Around Hazardous Waste Sites: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Cancer Mortality. Contract study report, Chemical Manufacturers Association, August 1985.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">A retrospective cohort mortality study was conducted on 11,499 full-time municipal employees of the City of Buffalo, New York, who were employed at least one day between January 1, 1950 and October 1, 1979 and worked a minimum of five years. This paper outlines the method of the study and presents the all cause and cause-specific mortality for the male cohort of 10,128. 

    Statistically significant deficits in mortality are seen for infectious diseases, diseases of the circulatory system, diseases of the respiratory system, and all external causes. Statistically significant increased mortality is seen for both malignant and benign neoplasms. All cause mortality was significantly lower than expected for professional, manager, and clerical workers.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
</li></ul> <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Maruice LeVois joins George Carlo & Associates as its 'Research Director'.
The address was a house at 701 West Park Ave, Falls Church, Virginia.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Aug: Maurice LeVois became Research Director of George Carlo & Associatesfor two years, until August 1987 when they established Health & Environmental Services. 

    LeVois's own background was as a maths teacher who joined the Veterans Administration, Agent Orange Research Office (at the time it was under attack for its inaction). He then briefly worked as a statistician for the Center for Disease Control on Agent Orange study protocols and AIDS, and then for the Red Cross. 

    LeVois, in his own C/V to the tobacco companies, lists himself as:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"Principal Investigator on government and industry epidiemiological research projects [and[ health survey research activities."</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/min34e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/min34e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Sept 18: Meeting notes of the Chemical Manufacturers Association in Washington carries a report from the Health and Safety Committee:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">L. Ramonas will provide committee members a copy of G. Carlo's paper on Health Related Authorities Under CERCLA.
[L Ramonas was a part-time staff member for the CMA] 

    [Later in document] 
Analysis of Health Related Authorities Under CERCLA [The Superfund law] 
    The committee approved $4,200 in research and consulting funds for George Carlo Associates to prepare a analysis of health related authorities under CERCLA with recommendations for follow-up.</blockquote><a href="http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/search/pdfs/cma/19850918_00000801.pdf" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Sep 29: George Carlo is a keynote speaker at a symposium "The Epidemiologist in Court" at a Santa Monica meeting of the American College of Epidemiologiy. The speakers consisted of two epidemiologists (Carlo and Paul Stolley) and a number of lawyers/judges; its focus was on 'tort law' (product liability) - Agent Orange, asbestos, swine-flu vaccine, tampons and pharmacueticals. <a href="http://www.colinsoskolne.com/documents/029.pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Oct 16: Meeting of the CMA's Health and Safety Committee in Washington shows that George Carlo, of George Carlo & Associates was present as a guest. (part-time) It doesn't carry any other information. <a href="http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/search/pdfs/cma/19851016_00000802.pdf" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1985 Nov: Publication of Carlo GL: Health Surveillance As It Applies to the Hazardous Waste Issue: Conceptual Overview and Assessment. A contracted study report for the Chemical Manufacturers Association. 
[Note minor change in title and MK Miller's name no longer on the citation. (see August 1985 above)] 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 187);">
1986 Admiral Elmo Zumwalt (ex Chief of Naval Operations in Vietnam) begins to champion the VA case against Agent Orange exposure after his Vietnam-exposed son died of Hogkins disease & lymphoma. He also had a severly disabled grandson, This public exposure forces the VA and the US Military to begin taking the problem seriously.

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Phantom university position</th></tr><tr><td>1986 One of Carlo's C/V claims that he was an "Adjuct Faculty Member" of the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences in this year.

[We can find no evidence of this. However for many years he was closely associated with Professor Philip Witorsch on the Tobacco Institute's Scientific Witness Team, and Witorsch was with this Medical School.]</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1986: published paper by Carlo GL: Implementation of Intervention Components of Multi-disciplinary Health Surveillance: Selected Disease Specific Models for Estimating Costs. Contracted study report for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1986 Mar 19: The Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA) ran a workshop on"Attributable Risk Determination for Waste Sites" with a presentation by Dr George Carlo of Carlo and Associates.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Attendees focused their attention on applying attributable risk to waste site health assessments. This application is particularly important to industry in light of proposed Superfund legislation that would mandate the conduct of studies to assess risk in areas near waste sites.</blockquote><a href="http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/search/pdfs/cma/19860508_00001587.pdf#xml=http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/search/default.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=1421&Index=C%3a%5cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%5cUserData%5ccma&HitCount=2&hits=1fe9+1fea+&hc=8&req=%22George+Carlo%22" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1986 Apr: /E The Chemical Manufacturers Association's President's address. They are relying on Reagan Administration support.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Superfund conferees have been meeting regularly to try to construct a compromise as the May 31 deadline of the short-term extension fast approaches.

    EPA could begin experiencing another financial crisis for the program since it is not expected that the funding mechanism issue will be resolved before this deadline. Few [Congress] conferees appear interested in approving another short-term extension. [snip] 

Population Attributable Risk Workshop. 
    The Health and Safety Committee's Health Programs Task Group sponsored an "Attributable Risk Determination for Waste Sites" Workshop on March 19, 1986. Attendees focused their attention on applying attributable risk to waste site health assessments. This application is particularly important to industry in light of proposed Superfund legislation that would mandate the conduct of studies to assess risk in areas near waste sites. 

    The workshop included presentations by the following noted epidemiologists:<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Donald Austin, California Department of Health Services;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr George Carlo, Carlo and Associates;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Clark Heath, South Carolina Bureau of Preventive Health Services;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr David Lilienfeld, University of Minnesota.</li></ul></blockquote> <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" />1986 May - end 1988 Carlo claims in his 1988 CV to be concurrently:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Clinical Assistant Professor State University of New York at Buffalo, School of Medicine.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Assistant Professorial Lecturer in Medicine, George Washington University, School of Medicine and Health</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">the principle of George Carlo & Associates</li></ul><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1986 June: Presentation at the Chemical Manufacturers Association Symposium on Measures of Risk: Attributable Risk Under the Health Assessment Framework of Superfund by Carlo GL, LeVois ME, and Doemland ML. 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1986 Aug: The Superfund Compromise was passed in Aug 1986 after five years of long and bitter inactivity during (Reagan's First term) 

    Only six dumps had been cleaned up during the first five years of Superfund, and so the original legislation and budget had gone into limbo after September 30 1985 when its revenue sources dried up, The Bill for Renewal required the Environmental Protection Agency to identify for future action, 1,600 of the nation's worst sites by 1988. [The agency's national priority list was about half that size.] 

    The compromise bill also gave citizens living near toxic sites the right to sue polluters to force a cleanup if EPA is not acting against a dump, and to require chemical companies to inform communities about emissions of ''acute hazards'' from their plants. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1986 Aug 20: CMA Health and Safety Committee meeting report:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">R. Condray convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. 

    The committee approved the minutes of the July 16 meeting and noted that the committee had approved up to $10,000 in outside services funds for George Carlo and Associates to prepare Superfund Conference Committee report language for Section 104(i) of CERCLA. 

[1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act — the Superfund Bill]</blockquote><a href="http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/search/pdfs/cma/19860820_00000812.pdf" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1986 Sep: Maurice LeVois and George Carlo published Expanding the Interface Between Epidemiology and, the Law: A Model for Settlement of Toxic Torts.American Journal of Epidemiology September 1986. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1986 Oct 17: Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for toxic waste dumps. It<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">stressed the importance of permanent remedies and innovative treatment technologies in cleaning up hazardous waste sites;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">required Superfund actions to consider the standards and requirements found in other State and Federal environmental laws and regulations;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">provided new enforcement authorities and settlement tools;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">increased State involvement in every phase of the Superfund program;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">increased the focus on human health problems posed by hazardous waste sites;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">encouraged greater citizen participation in making decisions on how sites should be cleaned up; and</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">increased the size of the trust fund to $8.5 billion.</li></ul>At this time the EPA set the priorities, however it was the ATSDR which ran the Superfund, and it had a "widespread credibility problem." according to many commentators. One of Carlo's C/Vs says he was consulted by a Congressional committee on SARA also.      At a much later (Sep 14 1994) Congressional hearing on the Superfund Reform Act Carlo's lawyer and co-author, James Baller, presented a paper on behalf of Carlo, Kelly Sund and himself. They were opposed to the idea that the Superfund authority might be transfered from the weak ATSDR to the EPA. Baller claims:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Dr Carlo, in fact, was one of the principal draftsmen of the language in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA] of 1986 through which Congress expanded and spelled out ATSDR's responsibilities in detail.
[He doesn't say that Carlo prepared the Chamical Manufacturers Association amendments] 

    The views expressed in these comments are our own and do not necessarily reflect those of all of our clients.</blockquote>He doesn't reveal who those clients are. Baller's testimony was followed by a statement from the Chemical Manufacturers Association objecting to the cost imposition of the clean-ups.      [See Google for downloadable Hearing file] [The EPA's Superfund web site search engine turns up 2,220 documents on SARA, but none carrying the name 'George Carlo' or variations on his name.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1987–90: Michael Gough [a later Carlo associate in dioxins, TASSC and Cato Institute] chaired a Department of Veterans Affairs advisory committee about the possible health effects of herbicides used in Vietnam. [Source his book Politicizing Science] 

[This appears to be distinct from Gough's previous employment with the Office of Technical Assessments (OTA)] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1987: Carlo's list of legal and political papers for this year:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The Health Related Authorities under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986: RI/FS, Settlement and Cost-Recovery Aspects.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Federal Legislation to Compensate Disease Victims: An Evolving Concept.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The Use of Disparate Impact Statistics to Infer Intent in Disparate Treatment Cases: An Analysis of Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Evaluating US. and USSR Strategies for Managing the Risk of Nuclear War: A Comparison Based on an Environmental Risk Management Mode</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Aspirin, Reyes Syndrome and the Warning Label: Too Late or Too Early?</li></ul>[George Carlo's C/V.] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1987 Mar: The Journal of Occupational Medicine published Sources of Bias in Retrospective Cohort Mortality Studies: A Note on Treatment of Subjects Lost to Follow-up. This was an early study of bias in epidemiology studies (see his later work for Philip Morris). The authors were: Vena JE, Sultz HA, Carlo GL, Fiedler RC, and Barnes RE: <a href="http://www.abstractboard.com/author/Carlo+G+L/G-L-Carlo.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1987 Mar: Carlo gave testimony before the House Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Committee on Education and Labor, concerning HR 162, The High Risk Occupational Disease Notification and Prevention Act 
[George Carlo's 1988 C/V] Also see <a href="http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=cbhear&handle=hein.cbhear/cbhearings4332&div=1&id=&page=" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1987 May: /E Carlo begins a contractural relationship with the Chlorine Institute. [Backdated from statement made about May 1993 in his book]<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"Carlo was forced [by the Banbury Conference dioxin fiasco] to end his six-year relationship with the Chlorine Institute.</blockquote> <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">George Carlo and Maurice LeVois establish 
Health & Environmental Sciences Corp. (HES)
</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1987 Aug: This is a restructuring and renaming of George Carlo & Associates LeVois will operate the San Francisco office (HES-West), with Carlo staying in Washington DC (HES-East). [Source LeVois 1988 C/V to the Tobacco Institute] 

    Note, however that another LeVois CV with the Tobacco Institute says that he was with Health & Environmental Services Corporation only until August 1987 when he started his own company, Environmental Health Resources, in San Francisco. This suggests that there never was a true partnership, although they continued to use each other's services. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qxw83b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qxw83b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
[There is a one-year discrepency between Carlo's dates and those of LeVois. And note that the addition of 'Group' to the HES name came later. 

    For a few months, LeVois in San Francisco, and Carlo in Washington, offered joint services on both sides of the continent to Philip Morris.][Source LeVois C/V] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/min34e00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/min34e00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1987 Oct 18: -22 Carol Conroy listed as being with George Carlo & Associates was speaking at the American Public Health Association conference "Health Care: For People or for Profit?" in New Orleans.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Carol Conroy, George Carlo & Associates, Inc., Falls Church, VA. 22046, Jess F. Kraus, UCLA Epidemiology Div". 

SURVIVAL AFTER BRAIN INJURY 
Injuries are the leading cause of death in the United States for people "between one and forty-four years of age; brain injuries compose many of these fatal injuries. This paper examines survival in a cohort of San Diego county, California residents who were brain injured during 1981." 

    The cumulative risk of death over time and predictors of death are used to evaluate survival. The results showed that about half of all who died, died in less than two hours. Severe overall body damage and severe brain injury are the greatest causes of prehospital death. People who survived until hospital admission tended to have brain injury as their underlying cause of death. Age, nature of brain injury and brain injury severity are the most important predictors of in-hospital death. People who survived long enough to be discharged from the hospital have survival comparable to the population they came from. However, more die from trauma-related causes than expected.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xdt52f00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xdt52f00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [Carol A Conroy was later a NIOSH Epidemiologist 

In the 1987-89 period she was with George Carlo & Associates, and appears to have been involved in the prevention of sports injuries.] <a href="http://www27.us.archive.org/stream/baystateyouthspo00mass/baystateyouthspo00mass_djvu.txt" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1987 Nov: Carlo and LeVois release a report [This is probably after LeVois shifted back to San Francisco.] Birth Rates, Cancer Mortality, and Potential for Exposure to Trace Amounts of DBCP Through Groundwater Contamination Study of California. Counties. Contracted study report. CA November, 1987. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1987 Dec: George Carlo's friend and later partner on many ventures, Ian Munro of Cantox, has been paid $24,672 for contract work this year by RJ Reynolds. [$82,549 and $46,143 in following years.] [Cantox also uses the name/term "Health & Environmental Sciences" as a subheading on its letterhead.] 

    Munro is just one of many scientists working for RJ Reynolds at this time advising them (reasonably legitimately) on the development of their Premier (no burning, low-tar, tube-cigarette, nicotine delivery system). 

    This was known under many codenames "Q"... SPA Project...Project Alpha — and it became the short-lived fiasco known as the Premier and then Eclipse cigarette. It was essentially just a nicotine drug delivery system, and it triggered the FDA into action in the agency's later attempt to control tobacco as a drug.See Page 15 <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ebx34d00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ebx34d00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1988: Carlo research paper is published: "Factors Influencing the Recognition of Early Stage Reye's Syndrome Among Physicians in the United States." funded by The Aspirin Foundation of America, [Giving Asprin to children had been found to increase the risk of them developing Reye's Syndrome] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1988: Carlo was awarded his JD from the Law School of George Washington University. [Source University Records} 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1988: Carlo and LeVois jointly wrote a chapter in book on Superfund: ( The Public Health Authorities of Superfund: New Areas of Significant Cost Liability published by EEPC New York 1988 

    Their chapter was entitled: " Insurance Claims for Environmental Damage: Legal and Technical Considerations". 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Jan: Carlo has also joined the Editorial Advisory Board of the insurance industry's new "Environmental Claims Journal" (product liability) which also has members from tobacco law firms (Covington & Burling), chemical and tobacco lobbyists (Beveridge & Diamond), the Chemical Manufacturers Association, various lobbyists and science-for-sale entrepreneurs. <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10406028909383762?journalCode=becj20%20%3Cbr%3E%20%A0%20%A0" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>
    The second issue of the magazine deals with the ATSDR, SARA and the Superfund clean-up and it has an article by Dr George Carlo. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Feb: Joint Carlo-LeVois papers published Mortality Surveillance: at the Mobay Chemical Corporation New Martinsville, West Virginia Facility: Report on a General Mortallity Survey. Contracted study report; 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Feb: - Sep 88. Following his law degree, Carlo appears to have revived George Carlo & Associates as a legal firm with technical expertise. In his CV he states that during this period he was "Technical and Legal Consultant [with] George Carlo & Associates, Inc." 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1988 May: He is mass-producing legal-technical papers for the Washington Legal Foundation.
[The WLF is a corporate-funded product-liability think-tank which (for a fee) provides defense lawyers with information to help them fight law suits protecting the profits of their corporate clients. It is also part of the libertarian network backed by Scaife, Coors and Koch money ]<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Compensating Persons With Diseases Related to Pollution in the United States and Japan:</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">ATSDR and the Health Related Authorities of SARA:</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Prevention as an Alternative in the Delivery of Health Care: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Health Surveillance as a Remedy in Latent Injury Cases: A Convergence of Legal, Equitable, and Scientific Principles.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Medical Surveillance, Superfund and Tort Action [Carlo's C/V]</li></ul><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 June: LeVois and Carlo publication: Diagnostic Suspicion Bias: Reye's Syndrome and Aspirin. Abstract published in American Journal of Epidemiology. Vol.128, No,.,4, pp..939, 1988. 

    The above paper was also presented at the Annual Meeting Society for Epidemiology Research. Vancouver, Canada. and other symposiums, June, 1988. [Carlo C/V] 

    [This is another Carlo paper following the theme of "Bias" and his later "Nocebo" promotion. In effect, it says that the problem is not with the product itself, but in the imagination of the victims, or in the bias of independent medical researcher/diagnosticians.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo begins dealings with the tobacco industry.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
The Safe Smokeless Cigarette:
RJ Reynolds Tobacco and the other major cigarette companies all had R&D programs trying to get around the cancerous properties of minute chemical traces in tobacco smoke, while still selling a product which delivered the addictive substance, nicotine. 

    The most advanced of these was the Reynolds Premier cigarette (later re-released as 'Eclipse'). It was essentially a heated tube which vaporised nicotine, and during the development stages it was known by a number of code names: Project Q, Project Alpha, Project SPA. All documents related to these developments were numbered and stamped SECRET. 

    In the months before the first release of the Premier cigarette, selected and trusted scientists and academics were treated to a conference at Boston's Gradient Corporation, and provided with a monograph 

    Another restricted conference was held in Washington, followed by a San Francisco conference which appears to have been used as a training ground for contracted consultants who were being commissioned to speak up in support of the new product. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 June 13: RJ Reynolds Secret document on the release of Project Alpha lists selected scientists who they plan to brief on this 'smokeless-tube cigarette' (later known as the Premier). The first list includes both known tobacco scientists and some obviously chosen for their professional prominence.<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ian Munro (then the Director of the Canadian Centre of Toxicology, Uni of Guelf) is listed as one of the Key Scientific Consultants doing the briefings in Canada.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">George Carlo was one of the few non-academics invited to the Gradient Seminar (Gradient are a Boston science-for-sale outfit).</li></ul><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jqm64d00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jqm64d00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> Carlo also received a monograph about the coming cigarette release. He is listed under the heading of Gradient Conference Attendee. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/srm64d00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/srm64d00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [The deletions appear to indicate trusted scientist who have already been briefed.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 July: Publication of Cancer mortality of workers involved in chemical manufacturering, Plant Cohort : A Strong. Healthy Worker Effect. Contracted study report. 

    The Dow Chemicals/RJ Reynolds lobbyist Matt Swetonic wrote in an August 1992 memo that [during this 1988-89 period] George Carlo worked for the chemical industries:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">As recently as three or four years ago, he had a working relationship with EBH (E Bruce Harrison Co/Hill & Knowlton) doing joint projects for various chemical industry clients. In short, we know Carlo very well....</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/upw43d00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/upw43d00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 July 21: Carlo was involved in the panel discussion "The Presentation of Epidemiological Evidence" (in the courts). This was at a symposium run by for science-witnesses and experts by District Court Judges Sherman G Finesilver and Carl B Rubin 

    George Carlo made a reported comment at the symposium on the subject of "guilt-by-association and attacks on your credibility":<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"From a professional perspective, testifying as an expert witness is potentially perilous to one's career. Some of those difficulties have to do with whether or not you're being retained as a testifying expert or as an non-testifying expert. The epidemiologist is one of the first lines of keeping spurious cases from getting to the point of having to go to court, particularly when you are retained as a non-testifying expert."</blockquote>[Source now missing]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Aug 10 - 30: RJ Reynolds has now extended its series of secret conferences promoting its 'Project Alpha' ('Premier' cigarette) the tube nicotine delivery system. This document includes lists of attendees — both Politicians and Scientists and is another numbered (ie checkable) RJR Secret Document. 

    They have conference lists for<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Washington DC — for East Coast scientists and academics from Philadelphia, Florida, Texas, etc. This list of 27 academics only has one which registers as an obvious tobacco consultant/grant-taker (Susan Wonnacott)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">New York — for those from New York State, New England, Philaelphia, Canada, etc) This list of 16 academics only has two who work for tobacco companies (Frederick Seitz and Andrew Sivak)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">San Francisco — West Coast. 
      There are 27 on the list from all over the country, and at least half are known consultants to the tobacco industry. This appears to be a special group with many well-known and well-established tobacco consultant scientists and science-for-sale entrepreneurs — including that of George Carlo.who lived in Washington DC at this time.</li></ul><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rrm64d00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rrm64d00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Sep: /E A later puff-piece published widely and reported in Neurodiversity.com says<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"as Chairman of George Carlo & Associates, Carlo conducted research for R.J. Reynolds [Tobacco] on the effects of second-hand smoke".</blockquote>[We are not clear as to which project this refers to... unless he was doing some active research on the Premier cigarette, which was promoted as reducing the level of secondary smoke.] <a href="http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/181/" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Sep: /E Carlo was completing his Juris Doctorate (JD law degree) at George Washington Law School. 

    His C/V also lists him as Chairman, Health & Environmental Sciences Corporation with Maurice LeVois as President. 

[The Luther Rice Society [later in 2005] recognises those who have made gifts of more than $1000 to the George Washington University. It shows that George L. Carlo, JD [Class of 1988]and Patricia Carlo [his wife and business partner] were donors. <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/%E2%80%93presemer/2005_report.pdf" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">George Carlo and Maurice LeVois establish a partnership
Health & Environmental Sciences Ltd.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Dec: George Carlo's C/V was sent to the Tobacco Institute along with one from his partner Maurice LeVois. 

    They are actively touting for work — and not genuine research work, which would only be done by the cigarette companies or through grants from the TIRC. The only reason to approach the Tobacco Institute is to offer services in scientific PR, science corruption and lobbying. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1988 Dec: Environmental Claims Journal Publication of Public Health Claims Under Superfund: New Data and Tools for Estimating Liability and Apportioning Claims. by Carlo GL, LeVois ME and Godfrey LR. 

    They have objections to the 1986 Superfund amendments (SARA), saying<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The expanded authority given the ATSDR creates a new area of significant cost liability associated with remediation at hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities. 

    The breadth and depth of these mandated health-related activities are unprecedented in federal legislation, and it is possible that the direct and indirect cost of managing the real and perceived public health risk will rival the cost of cleanup.</blockquote><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10406028809379100" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1989 Feb: Approximate publication date for a number of joint papers on<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Groundwater in Californian Counties by Carlo GL and LeVois ME, with Doemland ML, Ponomarenko T, and Conroy C:</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Birth Rates and Potential for Exposure to Trace Amounts of DBCP Through Groundwater Contamination:</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Cancer Mortality and Potential for Exposure to Trace Amounts of DBCP Through Groundwater Contamination:</li></ul>[These had been submitted for publication in late 1988 at the time the Carlo and LeVois C/Vs were sent to the Tobacco Institute.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1989 Feb: A major spillage of dioxin chemicals occured in the Melbourne Water Catchment Area (Werribee) in Australia following an accidental release of waste from the NuFarm herbicide plant. This spillage created some consternation in Melbourne when the news leaked out. 

    Dow Chemicals, which owned NuFarm via a New Zealand subsidiary called Fernz, would have been informed. Their technical director and dioxin expert at that time was George Carlo.See latest information on dioxins. <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/dioxin_update.html" target="Tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1989 Apr: One of Carlo's later puff-pieces says that during this year, as Chairman of theCarlo Institute for Public Health Policy, he " recruited and trained academic scientists for tobacco research, and taught courses on 'Media Relations' and 'Effective Management of Research Funds.' <a href="http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/181/" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

[The date he gives for the Carlo Institute appears to be too early — this 'Institute' didn't surface until the early 1990s (he is notoriously careless about dates) and there is no evidence of any such courses run through the Carlo Institute (which didn't actually exist, except as a name). 

    However it could be a reference to the fact that he acted as a covert recruiter of corruptable scientists, and helped train some of them to make media and podium appearances. He did this for Philip Morris and the Tobacco Institute in June 1989 (leading up to the closed McGill University ETS Conference in November 1989)]See Tobacco Institute document on their recruitment program (See Part 2). 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1989 May 17: George Carlo, as the Manager of Health & Environmental Sciences, writes about the Australian dioxin spill, to his client, Nufarm Chemicals 

    Werribee council has submitted a list of requested actions for a clean-up of the Nufarm site. They wanted details of the company's Occupational Health and Safety Programme and expressed concern "with the lack of adequate housekeeping." They also objected to NuFarm's habit of storing drums of chemicals along the boundaries of the property without adequate safety measures. <a href="http://baddevelopers.nfshost.com/Docs/Nufarm.htm#Executive" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

[In June Carlo and his team received soil samples. Their report suggests that Carlo, together with his secretary Kelly Sund, and lawyer James Baller (his co-authors on the report) had visited Australia. However we can not find any evidence that they did at this time. It appears to have been a remote operation using totally unqualified support staff as co-authors. 

    He was obviously very busy at this time with recruitment for the tobacco industry in Washington and Canada.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">George Carlo and Maurice LeVois turn their attention 
to working seriously for the tobacco industry.</center><hr color="red" style="" />     • <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00245.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">See Part 2 — Tobacco industry, GEP and miscellaneous chemical industry projects. </a> <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>George Louis Carlo</th></tr><tr><td>• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00244.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 1 — Dioxins, Love Canal, Three Mile Island, Agent Orange etc.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00245.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 2 — Tobacco industry, GEP and miscellaneous chemical industry projects. </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00246.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 3 — Cellphone EMF problems: the CTIA and SAG/WTR </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00247.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 4 — Later tobacco and other — immunology, vaccination, breast implants.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00248.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 5 — Later problems with cellphone EMF research and the demise of the WTR.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00249.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 6 — EMF scaremongering and various cellphone 'protection' businesses.</a></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div>=
<div>
</div><div><a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00247.html">http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00247.html</a></div><div><center style=""><h2>George Louis Carlo (Part 4)     [ Dr]    </h2></center><center style=""><h3>(See Parts 3 and 5 for all projects linked to cellphones and EMFs.)</h3></center><div class="summary" style="font-weight: bold; text-indent: 3em;">
Part 4 and Part 5 are roughly parallel timelines. However we have separated them to avoid total confusion.
<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Part 5 deals exclusively with the operations of the WTR in cellphone EMF research for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Part 4 (this part) deals with Carlo's continued activities for the tobacco, pharmacuetical and chemical industries.</li></ul></div><hr style="" />If you don't know who George Carlo is, read at least Part 2 of this omnibus time-line first. This section is in the form of a biography of one of the most flexible science-for-sale entrepreneurs of our time.
In the period 1993 to 1995, while supposedly working full-time directing cellphone health research for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) he also continued to assist the tobacco and chemical industries and developed new interests in working for Dow Corning on their Breast Implant rupture problem, and with a Dow Chemicals pharmacuetical subsidiary on Immunex, supposedly a potential cure for AIDS.
It is important to realise that not all of this research work is dubious. The Breast Implant Public Health Project, while funded by Dow Corning and/or Dow Chemicals, appears to have served a useful purpose — although it leaves you wondering why it required Carlo to register a Delaware-registered corporation, and why he used an address at George Washington University. It was actually run by Carlo's staff out of the same offices which conducted the cellphone-health research.
Like many of these health scares, there's a reasnable median position between the outright denials and conspiratorial coalitions and science-corruption of the corporations which are focused on protecting their profits, and the often-shrill, usually-exaggerated doomsday claims of the activists.
Science-for-sale entrepreneurs like George Carlo, Ernest Wynder, Steve Milloy and the dollar-a-word journalists like Michael Fumento tend to occupy this space, and are paid to provide the more subtle spin necessary to generate political opposition to more restrictive regulations. In the process they destroy public trust in general science.
This is a continuation of Part 2, and it runs roughly parallel with the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) project dealt with in Parts 3 and 5.
<table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>George Louis Carlo</th></tr><tr><td>• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00244.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 1 — Dioxins, Love Canal, Three Mile Island, Agent Orange etc.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00245.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 2 — Tobacco industry, GEP and miscellaneous chemical industry projects. </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00246.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 3 — Cellphone EMF problems: the CTIA and SAG/WTR </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00247.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 4 — Later tobacco and other — immunology, vaccination, breast implants.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00248.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 5 — Later problems with cellphone EMF research and the demise of the WTR.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00249.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 6 — EMF scaremongering and various cellphone 'protection' businesses.</a></td></tr></tbody></table> <table width="100%" bgcolor="#ffeeee" cellpadding="6" border="1" style=""><tbody><tr><td><center>DISAMBIGUATION</center>
Be aware of possible confusion between Carlo's Health & Environmental Sciences Group with the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute also located in Washington DC. 
    Also note: 
    There are a number of organisations which used the title "Science & Public Policy Institute" which is currently the main Carlo organization. 
   <ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">SPPI The anti-climate change/global-warming skeptics at SPPI also operate out of Washington DC with 
   <ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">President: Robert Ferguson, of the House Republican Study Committee' the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002. 
   </li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK: — Christopher, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Special Advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister from 1982 to 1986.</li></ul>
   </li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Institute for Science and Public Policy, University of Oklahoma, provides an overview of the nature of the bioterrorism threat in February 2003.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table><hr width="50%" style="" /><h4 style=""><center>Some key documents</center></h4> <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>Reprise (Parts 1 and 2)</th></tr><tr><td><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Carlo ran a project for Philip Morris which produced two pseudo-scientific papers providing support for tobacco-industry claims that the EPA and other regulators used "junk-science" (the 'Bias Report' and the 'Health Scientists Survey')</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Carlo also worked for the tobacco industry as a recruiter and trainer of other scientists willing to give evidence at Congressional hearings, lecture at scientific conferences, and generally act as secret agents for the industry.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Carlo worked with Philip Morris on the promotion of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) and its later extension into Europe [He was on the Science Advisory Board]. TASSC attempted to establish itself as the authority on what was, and was not "sound science". They defined "junk-science" as any science used by opponents to TASSC's corporate funders. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aly03e00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aly03e00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Carlo spent most of his early life working for Dow Chemicals, and was a member of their 'flying circus' (propaganda teams on dioxin 'safety')</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">He also worked for the Chlorine Institute and featured strongly in the infamousBanbury Conference fiasco.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">He also worked for the waste incineration corporations and the Cement Kiln Recycling Association which both had dioxin problems.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Carlo was Dow Chemical's representative on the OTA's Agent Orange panel run by Michael Gough. The US military and veteran's organizations stalled for years over recognising that dioxins had harmed American servicement in Vietnam.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">In 1990 Carlo and two associates published a study exonerating the chemical company Nufarm (a Dow subsidiary) from any possibility of adverse health consequences after the company had dumped dioxin-containing waste into the catchment area of Melbourne's water supply in Australia. See Part 2.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1993 Sept: The Nufarm dioxin spill: The Australian Journal of Public Health publishes Carlo's reply to criticism of his Melbourne Water Supply report. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.1993.tb00153.x/abstract%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbr%3E%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

Noel Turnbull a Hill & Knowlton employee, later attacked Greenpeace for exposing theNufarm spill in a text book on Australian public relations::<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">In the 1980s Greenpeace conducted one of its raids on a western suburban plant owned by Nufarm, an agricultural chemical manufacturer. They accused the plant of being a source of toxic threats to the water supply.
[Note "accused" — by then it had been established beyond doubt.] 

    In this case Melbourne Water, the local water utility, demolished Greenpeace's arguments with an aggressive campaign based on scientific evidence obtained from their own records and from independent experts.
[This refers to both George Carlo and Michael Gough] 

    Admittedly it was one of the few examples where scientific evidence triumphed over pressure group activism, but it was also an example of how determined opponents can be neutralised.</blockquote>[One must remember the source of this text book — Hill & Knowlton worked for pharmacuetical, chemical and tobacco companies. In fact, they appear to have organised Carlo's old OTA friend Michael Gough to come to Australia to calm any residual fears about the Carlo dioxin study credentials following the Nufarm problems. 

    Gough arrived in Melbourne in 1991 and held press-conferences exonerating dioxins from any public health risk. He supported Carlo's original assessment, without mentioning that they were old buddies. Gough was also the US government expert who publicly stated that you could eat a plate-full of dioxin on your breakfast cornflakes without suffering any ill effects.]<a href="http://noelturnbull.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/How-PR-works-but-often-doesnt.pdf" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>  The Hoover Institute, has published Gough's version of the dioxin wars. <a href="http://veteransinfo.tripod.com/aodioxin.pdf" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994: thru 1988: Carlo is still on the selected committee of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Agent Orange Advisory Panel which deals with dioxin contamination of Vietnam war veterans. This was run by Michael Gough who had helped him out in Melbourne over the NuFarm dioxin spill.Claims made in George Carlo's 1988 C/V <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wsm14b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
[Carlo was seen as the representative on this panel for Dow Chemicals.[  <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 /E: Pharma Pacific Management At some time in the 1994-95 period Carlo appeared in the literature as the Technical Director for two associated drug companies nominally based in Sydney, Australia. They also had offices in the USA at Florida and Washington (at his office addresses). 

    These associated companies were Pharma Pacific, which seems to manufacture and distribute immune-suppression drugs and vaccines, and Pharma Pacific Management Pty. Ltd, which is the holding company. They also appear to be involved in government lobbying on behalf of a wider group of vaccine-producing companies in Australia.
[It later emerged that they were secret phramacuetical subsidiaries of Dow Chemicals. 

    When approached by Australian journalist Stewart Fist, Pharma Pacific was keen to offer the services of George Carlo as a keynote speaker at a conference in Australia.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>The emerging evidence about dioxins</th></tr><tr><td>The paper-making and chlorine industries in particular pressured the [EPA] agency to reconsider this risk estimate (in 1989-90). The focus of their argument was on the method used by the agency to estimate the cancer risk. 

    These industries argued that there was a "threshold" of exposure to dioxin, below which there was no risk, and that dioxin was much less dangerous than defined by the EPA. The EPA argued that there was no threshold and that its risk estimate was supported by scientific evidence. 

    As part of its efforts to convince the EPA of its position, the Chlorine Institute (later to become the Chlorine Chemistry Council) in 1990 convened a scientific conference on dioxin [The Banbury Conference]. Shortly afterwards, in 1991 [Bush 1 Administration], EPA Administrator William Reilly announced that the agency would undertake a reassessment of the health effects of dioxin based on findings from this conference. The industries felt confident that the agency would now find that there was a level of exposure to dioxin that does not pose any risks, forcing the agency to recalculate its cancer-risk estimate. 

    Instead, scientists found new evidence that there was no threshold for some of dioxin's effects and that dioxin acted like a hormone, disrupting many systems in the body. These and related findings supported the agency's original risk estimates and provided the scientific basis for the EPA's draft reassessment report, which was released in 1994. In this report, the EPA again concluded that dioxin poses a serious cancer risk and that the average American had a level of dioxin in their body that could cause adverse health effects (USEPA, 1994). 

    This draft prompted dioxin-generating companies to launch an aggressive campaign to stall the release of the report. This attack began with a peer review report led by industry scientists who rejected several chapters in the draft document, forcing the agency to rewrite them and delaying the process of finalizing the report (SAB, 1995). 

    While this draft report was being rewritten, local and state agencies hesitated to take action on dioxin exposure situations, claiming that there was no clear guidance on the risks dioxin posed. This led to a six-year delay during which people continued to be exposed to dioxin while government reevaluated its risk estimates and corporations operated as usual. 

    Finally, in June, 2000, the EPA released a revision of the 1994 reassessment report. Much to the chemical industry's dismay, the EPA found even stronger links between exposure to dioxin and adverse impacts on human health. One of the EPA's key findings was that the risk of getting cancer from dioxin exposure was ten times higher than reported in 1994 (USEPA, 2000). 

    The strengthening of this link between dioxin exposure and cancer threatens the chemical industry's way of doing business. Since June, the industry has intensified its efforts still further to challenge and discredit the scientific findings in the report and to further stall its release. One of its primary goals is to block policies that are aimed at eliminating dioxin and dioxin sources.[Source: Center for Health, Environment and Justice]
See also this dioxin timeline <a href="http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/timeline" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994: The corporate contributions to the 'public relations & research' budget of Chlorine Chemistry Council (CCC) was $12 million, up from $2 million in 1992. 

    The CCC was the latest name change for the Chlorine Institute (CI) , which was a CMA lobbying organisation which had hired Carlo as a consultant and planted him on the Banbury Conference. The organization mainly consisted of synthetic-organic chemical manufacturers and their allies from the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA).

    The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manfacturers Association (SOCMA) was run by Paul E Oreffice, President of Dow Chemicals, and William H Bricker, President of Diamond Shamrock Corp.<a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MuMFYQ8CbEgC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=%22E+Bruce+Harrison%22+dioxin&source=bl&ots=S8N07HfXn2&sig=V01cSgyV_xNx4yFezbXY3uqeTmw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lWxIT6X6FueViAfHxrCSDg&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22E%20Bruce%20Harrison%22%20dioxin&f=false" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Jan: (Winter) Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials, mentions that George Carlo was Chairman of an Advisory Board for an organization called the "Cement Kiln Recycling Association". [See Google listing] 

    One article by Dr Gerson Smoger, the lawyer for a large number of Times Beach dioxin victims, says that...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">George Carlo is a close friend of the chemical industry, was also influential in the "Cement Kiln Recycling Association" [and an advisor on] hazardous waste incineration in cement kilns — and a consultant of the "Chlorine Institute".</blockquote>It also says that Carlo was paid $21,154.85 for his Banbury Conference activites.[in German] <a href="http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amagut04.htm" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" /></a> See latest information on dioxins: <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/dioxin_update.html" target="Tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>EPA dioxin assessment</th></tr><tr><td>1994 Jan:The EPA is preparing to release its reassessment of health risks of dioxin exposure in February, 1994. The draft document confirms that the cancer risks are at least as great as expected and the document will "emphasize serious new concerns regarding non-cancer effects." 

    The reassessment document, which is currently over 1,000 pages, will have an emissions inventory and estimate the magnitude of annual releases. The document will also have a site specific methodology for evaluating the release of dioxin to the environment. 

    According to EPA staff in the External Affairs office, the draft is scheduled to be released in February, then it will go to the SAB for their review. EPA plans to revise the risk assessment and release a final report probably in the Spring of 1995.[SourceEPA Watch]</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Feb: The National Journal (Dec 3 1994) gives the history of the Dioxin Wars.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Dioxin is a by-product of some chlorine manufacturing processes, and companies that make or use chlorine products could face new restrictions if EPA proceeds with the regulations. 

    Even before the report's release, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, a unit of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) that includes such firms as Dow Chemical Co. and Occidental Chemical Co., launched a PR campaign to defuse its expected conclusions. In February, the council hired Ketchum Public Relations, which started rounding up scientists sympathethic to the industry's point of view. 

    "We identified a number of independent scientists and took them on the road" to meet with journalists, academics, political leaders and local health officials,Mark Schannon, an associate director of Ketchum's Washington office, said. 

    The blitz, which started in May and covered at least 30 cities, was designed to undercut the press coverage that the EPA report was expected to receive when it was released in September [Which confirmed that dioxin was a probable human carcinongen]. "Basically what we're trying to do is assure that industry's voice is heard by people who make policy decisions both here and around the country," Schannon said. 

    The CMA is also providing about $200,000 to finance a scientific review panelto provide comments to EPA about the quality of its dioxin reassessment. The panel is co-chaired by John A. Moore, an EPA acting deputy administrator during the Reagan Administration who is now the president of the Institute for Evaluating Health Risks, a Washington think tank.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sed70c00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sed70c00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Mar: /E Carlo's associate, John D Graham of Harvard Center for Risk Assessment was enlisted as a member of the Environmental Protection Agency's first Science Advisory Board on the risk assessment on dioxin.See Graham biography:<a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/grahamrpt.pdf" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seepdf.jpg" align="right" /></a><blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">1994: EPA releases a draft Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds. The draft assessment concludes that these chemicals may be harmful at levels similar to those found in the general public, increasing the risk of cancer and causing potential damage to the immune, nervous and reproductive systems (EPA 1994).</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">1995: EPA's Science Advisory Board completes its third review of EPA's dioxin assessment and agrees with the agency that "the margin of safety (between background exposures and levels of exposure where effects have been observed in test animals) for dioxin-like compounds is smaller than the EPA usually sees for many other compounds" (SAB 1995).</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">1997: The International Agency for Research on Cancer declares dioxin a known human carcinogen (IARC 1997).</li></ul></blockquote><a href="http://www.ewg.org/dioxin/timeline" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Mar 15: GEP: Matt Winokur of Philip Morris International has emailed his European team about the possibility of the tobacco industry floating their own standard for "Good Epidemiological Practices (GEP)". 

    GEP became a Philip Morris project to restrict the scope of environmental and health regulators to use meta-analysis and some other evidence-accumulating statistical techniques. Until this time the design of the GEP standard had been largely controlled through the Chemical Manufacturer's Association (CMA) for their own advantage. Philip Morris saw it as a way of countering the work of the World Health Organisations passive-smoking research program, being conducted by their research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 

    Winokur emailed Tom Borelli asking:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">I need the evaluation:of the CMA's GEP criteria, and any further comments SA/S&T may have, prior to our next IARC task force meeting on March 29. Will you be able to have the consultant's evaluation by then?</blockquote>[IARC = World Health Organisation's international cancer research organisation.
SA = Scientific Affairs, the issues management and lobbying side of the overall cigarette company.
S&T = Science & Technology the monitoring and contact program run by company scientist in the USA and Europe to recruit and misinform.]      Winokur then sends his team the reply he received from Tom Borelli [who was Carlo's contact within the company — and may well have been 'the counsultant' who provided the evaluation.]<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">From: Thomas Borellii 
Subject: GEP review 
I reviewed the criteria. It's not a bad place to start by [but] it lacks teeth and as written it does not have enough meat to help us on ETS. 

    However setting up our own standards is a good project for us and our consultant's program. It would be good offensive strategy for our consultant's to be out there trying to fix epidemiology instead of being critical all the time. 

I will send you a copy of the Carlo survey on epi[demiological] standards as a possible starting point.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xra24e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xra24e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> On the same day Winokur sent his anti-IARC Task Force essentially the same message as a memo, asking for their reactions since he was planning to discuss the "Epidemiological standards" with Covington & Burling [The main tobacco lawyers who later wrote the GEP legislation] 'later this week'. He includes three studies that he sees as relevant to the "junk science/IARC project"<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Julian Peto suggest, in a 1992 IARC journal, that relative risks for "passive smoking" under 1.3 may be "beyond the the limits of reliable epidemiological inference."</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">George Carlo's 1992 study examining research standards and communications strategies related to human health risks.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Douglas Altman's letter to the editor of the BMJ. January 29 1994, in which he concludes that "we need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons."</li></ul>I'd appreciate your comments before our next Task Force meeting on March 29. Thesc studies may be particularly appropriate given the preliminary evaluations of the GEP to the effect they are not specific enough to discredit poor ETS science.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vrw44e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vrw44e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [ccd to WRA = World Regulatory Affairs. A PM standing committeee. 

    Note: In late 1994 they set up the London Conference, and Wynder was asked to recruit Julian Peto to attend without informing him of the tobacco industry involvement.]  <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Carlo's Bias Study and Health Scientists Survey lay the foundations for 
Good Epidemiological Practices (GEP)
and The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition. (TASSC)</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>London Principles, GEP and TASSC</th></tr><tr><td>These were all related projects run essentially by Philip Morris's Task Force, set up to prepare counter-attacks on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the research arm of the World Health Organisation which was known to be preparing a major scientific study on passive smoking.<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The London Principles were a preliminary attempt which sought to restrict the value of regulatory epidemiology. They mounting a major conference, dominated by tobacco industry paid consultants, in London and tried to promote the proceedings as a scientific consensus. The work was done under the cover of Federal Focus Inc,. a non-profit run by Jim Tozzi and Thorne Auchter, both associates and partners of Carlo.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) was a revamp of the Chemical Manufacturers' Association epidemiological standards manual which was taken up and subtly modified even further by the tobacco industry, using London Principles material. 

    The cleverness of GEP lay in setting very high standards as to what could be claimed by the regulators to constitute statistical 'proof' of harm from environmental/health hazards. Philip Morris's lawyers (Covington & Burling) then created boiler-plate legislation and the industry lobbyists attempted to impose GEP standards on various governments — thereby blocking or stalling regulatory action. 

    Such regulatory distortion tactics was primarily designed for Europe, where the "socialist governments" and t"the liberal media" favoured the "precautionary principle" — which promoted the idea of regulation before absolute proof of harm was established. The US EPA, FDA and other agencies often used a variation on this called ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) as a guiding principle when the consequences of inaction were serious. [GEP failed in Europe and America, but was influential in Asia].</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) was successful in the US, mainly through the publicity it gained via its lobbyist Steve Milloy who was celebratd by the Wall Street Journal and Fox TV News and anti-activist zealot. In Europe, the sister organization was run by Roger Bate through theInstitute of Economic Affairs, and it failed miserably. Europeans appear to have greater respect for independent science and academic opinion than the American public.</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Mar 17: GEP: Helmut Reif of Science & Technology (S&T) in Switzerland adds his own comments while circulating the Borelli/Winokur suggestions.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">I think that this covers our opinion aa well, The GEP Is not bad, but too soft. However, it goes into the right direction and could serve ae a piece of "constructive critique" of the existing approaches for our consutants.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ros36b00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ros36b00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [Carlo's old Bias study has begun snowballing into a new standard for epidemiology.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Mar 18: GEP: Helmut Reif has written back to Matt Winokur. He is enthusiastic about GEP.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">In response to your March 15th note on Epidemiology standards, I am most heartened to see the interest you are taking in getting your feet wet. It will be most helpful in the future. 

    On the specific points, let me comment as follows:</blockquote>He then offers useful criticsm of some research papers of:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Richard Peto (Peto was useful here because he was a student and collaborator of Richard Doll and therefore anti-tobacco.)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Douglas Altman paper. (Altman was a critic of statistics and especially meta-analysis as used by the EPA)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">George Carlo's papers<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">I had already seen this paper, and here too, though it appears helpful, a double standard is often applied to tobacco. However, encouragement of this type of thinking can only be helpful in the future, perhaps via the GEP work.</blockquote></li></ul><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ncf46e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ncf46e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <table width="100%" align="center" style=""><tbody><tr><td class="sidebar" align="right" bgcolor="#efffe5" style="font-style: italic; line-height: 18.48px;"><hr width="80%" color="#106610" /><center>This study was done specifically to look at how the public
perceived the relative risks of dioxin, radon and second hand
tobacco smoke. The conclusion was that the public perception
was that all three risks were of comparable concern</center>Carlo 2006 rebuttal<hr width="80%" color="#106610" /></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 March 25: TASSC: APCO memo to PM's Matt Winokur "Thoughts on TASSC Europe" 

    This was also the formal beginning of the Euro-TASSC project — to create a similar operation in Europe to that now being run by Steve Milloy in the USA. APCO wrote:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul>Specifically, wc recommend that a European TASSC be formulated to do the following:<li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Preempt unilateral action against industry.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Associate anti-industry "scientific" studies with broader questions about government research and regulations.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Link the tobacco issue wilh other more "politically correct" products.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Have non-industry messengers provide reasons for legislators, business executives and media to view policies drawn from unreliable scientific studies with extreme caution.</li></ul>Already, there are several opportunities to establish TASSC in Europe. We have had extensive conversations wilh our Grey/GCl network in Europe, which encompasses offices in 33 cities and 19 countries. They also are confident that scientists and businesses can be attracted to the group if it is positioned in a credible manner.</blockquote>The "junk-science" issues they planned to promote were regulatory activites on global warming, nuclear waste disposal, diseases and pests in agricultural products, biotechnology, eco-labeling for EC products, food processing and packaging.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">In each of these issues, there has been considerable discussion as to whether sound science is being used as a basis for these decisions. The diversity of these issues, and their tremendous impact upon business and industry, provides an excellent "tie-in" to the work TASSC is currently undertaking in the United States. 

    TASSC currently has approximately 75 key scientists who arc part of our scientific and academic support team. In a preliminary review of their backgrounds and expertise, we have identified at least 20 to 25 with experience in international work. This involvement often includes affiliations with international groups — a natural entre for TASSC recruitment.

[Don't imagine that all of these 75 were financially corrupted by the tobacco industry. Politically-partisan scientists in the USA are notoriously gullible and easy to con when asked to support such motherhood issues as market-based "sound science" against government-imposed "junk-science."]</blockquote>APCO suggested the following steps: be taken to establish the European version:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Use a TASSC conference in June to attract key European scientists to the idea of starting a similar group in Europe.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Identify signatories of the Heidelberg Appeal who already are TASSC members to explore the possibility of starting a European TASSC</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Put together concept papers about a European TASSC to use with potential business contributors.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Initiate some meetings with possible contributors who might be APCO, Grey, GCI or Burson clients.</li></ul></blockquote><table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>Heidelberg Appeal</th></tr><tr><td>The tobacco and asbestos industries were behind the clever drafting of Heidelberg Appeal by S Fred Singer's SEPP and a Paris-based astroturf run by Michel Salomon. This exploited another sound-science/junk-science dispute current at the time — an appeal by many scientists to governments requesting that they leave asbestos insulation in situ , rather than risk releasing free-floating fibres during removal. 

    The Heidelberg Appeal, written by Salomon, was a vaguely worded 'motherhood' document saying "listen to the scientists" which large numbers of scientists signed without appreciating its PR purpose. It was then used by the Climate Change Coalition at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit as if it were a general appeal by knowledgeable climate scientists opposing 'eco-fanatical' precautionary measures against global warming, which the promoters said was not justified by the science. 

    It was therefore seen as a 'junk-science' project, and used to recruit support from other industries. It was extraordinarily effective. 

    However the Heidelberg Appeal group (SEPP and Salomon) wasn't commissioned to run this "EuroScience" or "Euro-TASSC" operation. Philip Morris funded the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) (via the US Atlas Network) to establish this 'sound science' subsidiary, and it was run by Roger Bate under the name European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF).</td></tr></tbody></table>APCO's thoughts on TASSC Europe: <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/igu36b00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/igu36b00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
 <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 May 31: Hockaday also followed up, advising Matt Winokur at Philip Morris that APCO has just received a copy of Carlo's 'Bias Study/Health Scientists Survey' and could see the potential for using these to promoting the TASSC idea in Europe.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Thank you for sending a copy of the survey on epidemiology. We agree that the results could be a good basis for a European scientist meeting. We will follow-up with Tom Borelli to discuss the survey in more detail. 

    For your information — Dr George Carlo, Chairman of Health and Evironmental Sciences Group, Ltd., who coordinated the survey, is a member of the TASSC Science Advisory Group. Tom [Hockaday] met with Dr Carlo recently, and he has indicated a willingness to play an active note in the coalition.
[Remember that this coalition also involved the Federal Focus Inc operation that produced the "London Principles" and later "GEP" — run by Carlo's friends/partners Thorne Auchter and Jim Tozzi.] 

    We havc provided Chuck Lister [PM's London lawyer with Covington & Burling] a list of the European scientists recommended by TASSC members as potential participants in a European meeting 
[This could have been the proposed "sound-science/junk-science" meeting to create a "Euro-TASSC" or it may have been connected with GEP... or both.].

He has forwarded us information and an initial assessment of the list and will be providing further thoughts on these suggestions. 

    We are working on the proposal for the European scientist meeting and should have a document for your review shortly.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/axy88e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/axy88e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 June 15: TASSC & GEP: Tom Hockaday of APCO writes to Winokur on the Euroscience/Euro-TASSC project:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Enclosed is a preliminary working draft of a list of "Guiding Scientific Principles" for your review. These are the principles we have discussed in the past that have the aim of providing a concrete document to challenge cxamples of unsound science in public policy decisions.</blockquote>Like all good lobbyists, they are writing the out-come document for the proposed conference, before they actually choose who, when, and where the conference will be held. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ayy88e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ayy88e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1994 June 17: The start of a class action suit over breast implant ruptures, filed against the major manufacturer, Dow Corning (which was half-owned by Dow Chemicals). 

    Dow Corning reacted during the following 12 months by filing for Chapter 11, which gave them bankruptcy protection. The lawyers then turned their sights on Dow Chemicals since Dow Corning was no longer functional. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
<center>Tobacco, Lawyers and Public Health</center>
Researchers EK Ong and Stanford Glantz at UCSF have produced good overviews of this Euro-TASSC project and also of GEP. See <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wul55a99" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wul55a99/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="30%" />
The Nufarm dioxin spill: Re Melbourne Water Supply: In June 1994 the Victorian State EPA listed a dioxin clean-up site at Werribee:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Owner/Occupier: Nufarm Limited
Contaminants: Chlorophenols, pesticides, dioxin, phenolic compounds
Comments: Monitoring of soils at the site has shown some contamination by chlorophenol and dioxin. Nufarm is investigating the treatment of contaminated soils on site by means of bioremediation. Trials are underway.</blockquote><a href="http://www.victoriafalls.com.au/vic-falls-news/1994/6/20/soiled-site-list-falls-short-claims/%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbr%3E%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 June 22: Margery Kraus, the nominal head of APCO Associates, has written to a group of PM misinformation executives summarising the recent discussion they've had about the "Euroscience" project [Euro-TASSC, later ESEF] 

    By now, TASSC had managed to sign up a few hundred legitimate scientists simply on the basis of a motherhood proposition that "governments should only regulate on the basis of sound science rather than junk science." 

[The career and vacation possibilities of membership in such an organization should not be discounted. It may also have occurred to some of these scientists that industry-funded, all-paid, skeptical science conferences were usually held in Florida or the Caribbean during winter.]. 

    Both APCO and Burson-Marsteller were competing for PM funding to create this parallel organisation in Europe, and when the battle began to get out of hand, Philip Morris shared the work and rewards. Margey Kraus outlines the new arrangement between the companies.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"><ol type="1"><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">We agreed that we would work together to organize a small (20-30 people) meeting of leading American and European scientists on the issue of sound science and public policy, with special emphasis on GEP. These expert seientisrs would be especially concerned about and knowledgeable about epidemiology. The conference will be in Europe in early fall.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">APCO/Burson would work together to identify both the appropriate organizations to to convene/sponsor the working group and the scientists.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The focus of the meeting will be to review and hopefully endorse sound principles of epidemiology, as well as to identify opportunities to proactively support these principles.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The client will work with the consultants to determine if the sole focus of the first meeting is GEP or whether it should extend to other areas of potential abuse, such as low-level risk, risk analysis and/or more general principles like those identified by the scientists in various US groups, including TASSC.</li></ol></blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mxy88e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mxy88e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [Carlo worked both as an advisor to TASSC and through Federal Focus in the development of the London Principles, which became the basis for GEP]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Aug 14: Charles Lister of the London office of Covington & Burling has written to Philip Morris outlining their work recruiting scientists for a London seminar on Good Epidemiological Practices (GEP). They are winnowing out known anti-smoking scientists. 

    They have also faxed to Philip Morris's GEP-project team, a list of scientists [Category B2] from various European countries who were to be considered as candidates for the London Principles/GEP conference.

[B2 refers to "epidemiologist reasonably balanced on tobacco issues - not from institutions, known to be extremely hostile to tobacco." 
B3 refers to "influential epidemiologists known to have strongly anti-tobacco views". 

Only two on the B2 list are clearly tobacco industry lackeys — and none were included in the final panel of the London Conference. Howeve, oddly, at least one on the B3 list was a known consultant to the industry.] 

    The list has been circulated within the GEP team, along with the proposed Criteria for Epidemiology, and a set of Guidelines, prepared by the lawyers.

[They are following the age-old principle of always writings the conclusions, before you hold the conference!]C&B memo <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/clj87e00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/clj87e00" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" /></a> PM's internal Email <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sjj56e00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a>
List B2 <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dlj87e00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> List B3 <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/elj87e00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> 
Criteria <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tjj56e00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> Covington & Burlin's guidelines doc. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rjj56e00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rjj56e00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Aug 16: /E The EPA was planning to release its determination of the dangers of dioxins in September. Mark Schannon, associate director of Ketchum Public Relations in Washington was recruiting...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">scientists sympathethic to the industry's point of view [on the safety of dioxins]. 

    "We identified a number of independent scientists and took them on the road" to meet with journalists, academics, political leaders and local health officials, Mark Schannon, an associate director of Ketchum's Washington office, said. 

    The blitz, which started in May and covered at least 30 cities, was designed to undercut the press coverage that the EPA report was expected to receive when it was released in September.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sed70c00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sed70c00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [Carlo was a member of Dow Chemicals "flying circus" or science lobbyists, and he worked for Ketchum, so he was probably involved in this also.]  <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>Dioxin knowledge in September 1994</th></tr><tr><td>Behind the Scene — a later history of dioxin article Aug 31 2001.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">In September 1994, the EPA dioxin reassessment final draft was released re-affirming that dioxins can cause cancer. 

    As expected, the industry scientists rejected several chapters in the draft document, forcing the agency to rewrite them, thereby delaying the process of finalizing the report. After a six-year delay, finally, in June 2000, the EPA released a revision of the 1994 reassessment report. And EPA found even stronger links between exposure to dioxin and adverse impacts on human health</blockquote><a href="http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/16780" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Sep 14: James Baller, Carlo's lawyer friend and co-author, provided a statement to a Senate Committee on Finance hearing on the Superfund Reform Act of 1994 (which was an attempt to modify the requirements for clean up of toxic dump-sites). Their joint paper is titled "Abolishing ATSDR'S Role at Superfund Sites would be a Serious Mistake." 

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) had been 'captured' by the chemical industry and come under heavy criticism for inaction, and a number of activist groups were promoting to Congress that control of the Superfund program should revert entirely to the EPA. 

    Baller presented comments which had been prepared by himself, with George Carlo andKelly Sund (Carlo's secretary/general factotum at HES). They were opposed to the EPA taking control of cleanup measures, and especially of the EPA replacing the ADSDR completely.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">We focus our comments on the portion of S.1834 that would transfer to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority that the ATSDR now has to conduct health assessments and related activities at Superfund sites. 

    This action was apparently intended to respond to claims by certain community activists that ATSDR has not been responsive enough to the concerns of communities living near Superfund sites. 

    These comments are based upon the many years of experience that Dr George L. Carlo, Kelly Sund and I have had with public health issues and ATSDR Dr Carlo, in fact, was one of the principal draftsmen of the language in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 through which Congress expanded and spelled out ATSDR's responsibilities in detail. [Carlo's involvement here had been primarily as a contractor to the Chemical Manufacturer's Association.] 

Conclusion:
Our national cannot afford to squander its limited resources on remedies that are unnecessary or protective beyond a reasonable margin of safety. 

[E]ven if ATSDR's reputation with community groups were truly beyond repair, it would be a serious mistake to give EPA exclusive authority over the health assessment process.</blockquote>The presentation contains the normal lobbyist write-off saying:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The views expressed in these comments are our own and do not necessarily reflect those of all of our clients.</blockquote>[This is a slight variation on the standard disclaimer included in for all paid-by-the-word commentary. Note that they appear to have more than one client here.]  The Baller presentation was followed by one from the Chemical Manufacturer's Association  [Carlo's involvement in the wording of the 1986 SARA Act, was probably minimal. It if were more, then this is a bigger scandal than it seems at first still since he was working for the CMA and Dow Chemicals at the time. 

    There is no mention here of Carlo's association with Dow Chemicals, or that he was a consultant to the Chlorine Council and Chemical Manufacturer's Association. Nor is there any mention that Carlo and Baller's long-term collaborated with the Assistant Administrator of the ATSDR, Dr Barry L Johnson, in writing a number of WLF papers on the ATSDR and the Superfund. 

    And note how Kelly Sund's creditials have been elevated (for the purpose of this paper) from secretary to "Associate Director of Research" at Health & Enviornmental Sciences Group Ltd.] <a href="http://www.archive.org/stream/superfundreforma00unit/superfundreforma00unit_djvu.txt" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Sept 19: J Madelaine Nash article in Time magazine: "Keeping Cool About Risk" quotes John Graham of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (a later partner in Carlo's EMF work) as saying<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"Phantom risks and real risks compete not only for our resources but also for our attention... It's a shame when a mother worries about toxic chemicals, and yet her kids are running around unvaccinated and without bicycle helmets."</blockquote>His HCRA operation was funded at this time by a number of organisations who's products had dioxin-contamination problems: Dow Chemical, Chlorine Chemistry Council, CIBA-Geigy, General Electric, DuPont, Georgia- Pacific, Hoescht-Celanese, ICI Americas, Kodak, Monsanto, Olin, BASF, ARCO Chemical Co,, FBC Chemical Corp., 3M <a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/grahamrpt.pdf" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Oct 13: Two groups associated with Carlo have joined forces in a Philip Morris project. 

    Federal Focus (Thorne Auchter/Jim Tozzi) and John D Graham's Harvard Center for Risk Analysis have set up the Lansdown conference The proper role of epidemiology in regulatory risk assessment which was funded secretly by Philip Morris. This is the prelude to the London Conference which the same group ran the following year. It is loaded with the tobacco industry's scientific contractors.

[Goran Pershagen appears to be the lone anti-smoking/non-tobacco lackey participant.]Agenda I <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/msk22c00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> Agenda II <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/osk22c00" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" /></a> List of participants <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gvj03c00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Nov: Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America mid-term election win for Republicans. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Nov 11: The organisation of the London Conference to promote Good Epidemiological Practices (GEP) is now well advanced. Dr Franz Adlkofer, the head of the German Verband (VDC) has been organising in Europe, and they are anxious to persuade Ernst Wynder to recruit Julian Peto (anti-smoking epidemiologist) as a celebrity, without telling him that the tobacco industry is involved. [This report by PM's Helmut Reif is in Germanic English]<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Adlkofer. had made contacts to Prof. Hofmeister, BGA, and asked him to contact Richard Peto, Prof. Moishe Skoll (Skloe ?), Baltimore (editor of Am. J. Epidem.), and Wynder (the latter two obviously being in favor of the project).
[Wynder was helping organise the London Conference.] 

    At no level, the ETS-relevant questions will be involved, only the general question of having some guidelines for low level epidemiology will be discussed.
[They are not to be told this is a tobacco industry operation] 

    The conference should be organized in 5/95. Wynder will contact the mentioned persons [Julian Peto and Skoll] and will ask for NCI funding, as Hofmeister will try to get EU funding. 
[The tobacco industry managed to get a lot of government funding for their projects, by just concealing their own involvement] 

    Adlkofer & Hofmeister will visit Wynder in 1/95 in NY after Hofmeister has made his final decision (principally in favor but some hesitations to come into contact [become involved] with the industry).</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sni56e00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sni56e00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Dec 3: An article in The National Journal "Back Off!" on the arrival of "Contract with America" with its associated Republican-controlled House — and the consequent expansion of the US lobbying industry, records that:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">business lobbyists are fighting back. And the battle may intensify as Republicans take control of Capitol Hill. 

    In September, EPA issued a report confirming that dioxin was a probable human carcinogen and raising worries about other effects of dioxin, including possible reproductive system problems. 

    Even before the report's release, the Chlorine Chemistry Council, a unit of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) that includes such firms as Dow Chemical Co. and Occidental Chemical Co., launched a PR campaign to defuse its expected conclusions. In February, the council hired Ketchum Public Relations, [ which started rounding up scientists sympathethic to the industry's point of view. 

    "We identified a number of independent scientists and took them on the road" to meet with journalists, academics, political leaders and local health officials, Mark Schannon, an associate director of Ketchum's Washington office, said. 

    The blitz, which started in May and covered at least 30 cities, was designed to undercut the press coverage that the EPA report was expected to receive when it was released in September. "Basically what we're trying to do is assure that industry's voice is heard by people who make policy decisions both here and around the country," Schannon said. 

    The CMA is also providing about $200,000 to finance a scientific review panel to provide comments to EPA about the quality of its dioxin reassessment. The panel is co-chaired by John A. Moore, an EPA acting deputy administrator during the Reagan Administration who is now the president of the Institute for Evaluating Health Risks, a Washington think tank. 

    Another group that has been pressing for stricter risk assessment policies is the Coalition for Uniform Risk Evaluation (CURE), which is run by Thorne Auchter, who headed OSHA for a time during the Reagan Administration, and Washington lobbyist Wayne H. Valis of Valis Associates. 

    Members of one coalition include the Edison Electric Institute, FMC Corp. and the Grocery Manufacturers of America Inc.(who lobbied for the tobacco industry)</blockquote>[CURE was a joint operation funded by primarily by tobacco but with support from other industries. It aimed to get the President to sign an Executive Order mandating industry-designate risk-assessment and cost-benefit studies be done before any regulatory rule-making.] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sed70c00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sed70c00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Dec 3: The National Journal reports on the lobbying for regulatory change under Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in the. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1994 Dec 9: Thorne Auchter, as the Director of both Federal Focus and the Institute of Regulatory Policy which claimed to have commissioned Carlo's 'Bias' and 'Health Scientists' studies, writes on Federal Focus Inc letterhead to Philip Morris.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Federal Focus is a non-profit 501(C)(3) organization which performs research and studies dealing in areas of current public policy. 

By this letter, we are requesting an unrestricted grant in support of those activities in the amount of $250,000.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ewj88h00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ewj88h00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [They must have had a computer and word processor, because, except for the date, this account/grant-request is identical to others in the following year.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1995: Carlo's Bias Study originally been promoted jointly with Maurice LeVois before they split their HES company and went their separate way. Maurice LeVois then joined forces with a new Californian partner, Max Layard, who was also a dedicated tobacco industry science-for-sale lobbyist. They jointly published<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Publication bias in the environmental tobacco smoke / coronary heart disease epidemiologic literature.
By LeVois, M.E., and M.W. Layard in Regulatory Toxicol. and Pharmicol. 21, 184-191 (1995).</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sin01d00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sin01d00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Jan: /E EuroTASSC and GEP: The list of possible scientists to be invited to Philip Morris's London Conference [on Epidemiological standards] were passed for checking by both Philip Morris Corporate Affairs (Science & Technology Issues) and the tobacco lawyers, Covington & Burling. 

    The London Panel conference was held a year after the preliminary (testing the waters)Lansdowne Conference, and included many of the same trusted scientists who are listed as the nominal organizers.<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Note: This is a Confidential DRAFT of a Nov. 1999 thesis by Elisha Ong obtained by Philip Morris — not a tobacco industry document. Philip Morris obviously had someone in the office of Stanton Glanz at the University of San Francisco, who leaked this part-edited draft. 
</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Note also that the only obvious 'odd-man-out in the Lansdowne and London conference lists is anti-smoking activist Goran Pershagen, who was probably too well known and respected in Scandinavia to ignore. He also gave both conferences some credibility.]</li></ul>This document deals also with the coded list from Covington & Burling identifying established tobacco-friendly scientists, and a few independent and honest scientists with the required prestige to give the conference a veneer of honesty. The C&B classifications are:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">B1 [Not included in this document]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">B2 are "epidemiologist reasonably balanced on tobacco issues - not from institutions, known to be extremely hostile to tobacco." 
[C&B had also checked on the scientist known close collaborators.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">B3 are "Influential epidemiologists known to have strong anti-tobacco views." 
[Naturally none of this group were selected.]</li></ul>An appendix to this document included the list of UK scientists who would be commissioned to attend the London Conference.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The "London Panel" of experts on Good Epidemiology Practices convened by Federal Focus, Inc.<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John Ashby, Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory, UK
[Ex Imperial Chemical Industries toxicologist; member of Advisory Committee on BELLE (Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures.) run by the CMA.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr George Carlo The Carlo Institute, Health and Environmental -Science Group, Ltd., and Professor, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Samuel M. Cohen University of Nebraska Medical Center; 
[Saccharin research for ILSI and food processing industry; CTR tobacco grants applicant; appears genuine.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John S. Evans, Harvard School of Public Health, 
[Close associate of JD Graham; member/partner the HCRA][Also at Lansdowne]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John D. GrahamCenter for Risk Analysis, Harvard-School of Public Health, (later head of HCRA)
[A science-for-sale grifter for any industry with money. Graham and Carlo were also working together at this time for the CTIA on cellphones.] [Also Lansdowne organizer]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Walter Holland, (retired professor) University of London. 
[Researcher for Imperial, Gallaher and Carreras-Rothmans. Tobacco 'friend' on government panels.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Linda C. Koo, University of Hong Kong, 
[Tobacco industry secret 'WhiteCoat' (Her payments were laundered thru Sara Liao); passive-smoking researcher to counter Hirayama; co-researcher with Ragnar Rylander][Also Lansdowne, organiser]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Genevieve M. Matanoski, Johns Hopkins University/University of Maryland
[Philip Morris consultant; NHANES passive smoke study; Chairperson EPA Science Advisory Board; HCRA's peer-review panel member for EMF/EPRI review; SAB member for the CIAR; co-investigaor on CIAR grants.] [Also at Lansdowne]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">D. Warner North Decision Focus, Inc. California, 
[Consultant/lobbyist to the CMA, Chevron, Uniroyal, and a variety of other industry groups; member of AIHC (CMA);Panelist on EPA Safe Water Proj 65, embroiled in corruption allegations]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dennis J. Paustenbach Chemical Risk Division, McLaren/Hart 
[Another infamous science-for-sale grifter for chemical and tobacco companies; later ran Exponent Inc.] [Also Lansdowne, organiser]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Goran Pershagen Karolinska Institute/Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 
[Anti-tobacco passive smoking researcher; IARC consultant. The tobacco industry had an associate, Dr John Wahren, who fed them information they gleened from Pershagen about IARC studies.] [Also at Lansdowne]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">James J. Schlesselman, University of Pittsburgh 
[Statistical analyst/theorist and a minor guru in statistical theory; critic of 'weak-association' standards/cause-and-effect; CTR grants.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Thomas B Starr, ENVIRON Corp.
[Science-for-sale; participated in McGill ETS Conference; paper/dioxin & tobacco contractor; Chem Ind. Inst of Toxicology (CIIT); HCRA associate of JD Graham.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">James A Swenberg, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 
[Confidential science consultant on DNA for RJ Reynolds; CIIT; CMA.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Mary Jane Teta, University of Massachusetts, Danbury, Connecticut, USA 
[Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Union Carbide; CMA's GEP panel; contract consultant Exponent Inc.; Paustenbach associate.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Erich Wichmann, University of Wuppertal, Oberschleissheim, Germany.
[East German govt.workplace air-quality expert. Tobacco researcher with links to Philip Morris's secretly-owned INBIFO labs; consultant to WHO's IARC.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Gary M Williams, American Health Foundation, 
[Carlo associate in tobacco and EMFs.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ernst L Wynder, American Health Foundation 
[Tobacco researcher/consultant, Carlo associate in tobacco, EMFs, Nocebo.][Also Lansdowne, organiser]</li></ul></blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aqp05c00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aqp05c00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Jan 3: Carlo's Bias Study forms the foundation of an op-ed by Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute (also heavily funded by Philip Morris) "Cancer Risks for Thee, but not for Me." 

    Taylor reproduces the same "EPA is biased against second-hand smoke" opinions of other well-established tobacco scientists, Bruce Ames, Alvan Feinstein and Ragnar Rylander. He also favourably quotes James Le Fanu of London's Sunday Telegraph (another well-known tobacco-friendly journalist) who worked for Rupert Murdoch (who was a director of both Philip Morris and Cato).See Philip Morris's preview draft copy from Taylor <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jjk22c00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> 
The copy actually published<a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/weg06e00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Feb 22-23: AIDS: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) run a two-day meeting of the National Advisory Allergy and Infectious Diseases Council (NAAIDC) in Bethesda which was open to the public. It was to discuss policy about diseases lik Lymes Disease and AIDS, and review grant applications. 

    The minutes list 41 members, 165-odd staff; and 41 observers. Among the observer group labeled "Others:" are three names stand out:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr George Carlo, Pharma Pacific/HES Group</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ms Kelly Sund, Pharma Pacific/HES Group</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ms Hollie Vaughan, Pharma Pacific/HES Group</li></ul><a href="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cohenaids/5571095.0099.001/10?page=root;size=100;view=image" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Mar 13: AIDS: An AEGIS report in the Chicago Tribune (14 March) and USA Today (15 March) "Miracle Cure for AIDS" reveals that Louis Farrakhan [of the Nations of Islam] and George Carlo (working for Pharma Pacific) were slugging it out over who had US rights to sell the anti-AIDS drug Immunex. {Farrakhan had a reputation as a hater of homosexuals!] Carlo says his firm has the tradename and that the drug was not legally available in the US while Farrakhan was associated with a group known as "Abundant Life" which ran some AIDS clinics. 

    Carlo was listed in 1995 as the Technical Director for the two associated Phama drug companies nominally based in Sydney, Australia, but also with offices in Florida, and Washington (at his office addresses). He was acting as a front to cover the ownership of these companies by Dow Chemicals. 

    Pharma Pacific, [sometimes known as 'Pharma Pacifica'] manufactured and distributed immune suppression drugs and vaccines, and Pharma Pacific Management Pty. Ltd, was perhaps the holding company. It also appears to be involved in government lobbying on behalf of a wider group of companies selling vaccines. 

[The later address of Pharma in Australia turned out to be the same as that of NuFarm the maker of RoundUp herbicide. NuFarm was a subsidiary of Fernz, which was itself the New Zealand subsidiary of Dow Chemical.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Mar 14: AIDS: Chicago Tribune story "Aids Hope of Hoax In A Bottle"<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">WASHINGTON — In the past two years, the U.S. government has poured $571,521 into a sparsely furnished clinic in a low-income District of Columbia housing complex, where the Nation of Islam's chief doctor sells a "miracle drug" he claims will cure AIDS. 

    From his Abundant Life Clinic and nearby mosque, Nation minister Dr Abdul Alim Muhammad dispenses a heady brew of racial diatribes, grandiose promises and illegal medications. 

    Alim, as he is called, and his boss, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan , preach that the AIDS virus was created by the very entity that funds the Abundant Life Clinic — the US government. 

    Alim told a 1992 Nation convention in Atlanta that "the present president of the United States, George Bush, played a leading role in developing a policy of genocide against non-white people all over this earth, and we believe that the AIDS virus is a direct consequence of that plotting and planning in secret." 

    But Nation of Islam publications claim that Alim has a "miracle drug" for the deadly virus that has spread disproportionately among America's poor and black, a medicine called Low Dose Oral Interferon Alpha, or interferon, that is derived from naturally occurring human immune system cells. 

    In the midst of Alim's promotional tour, and during the Nation's 1992 convention in Atlanta, Farrakhan announced that he just "three minutes before" won "the exclusive distribution rights of Immunex (a form of interferon) throughout the United States of America." 

    Two days before his announcement, however, the for-profit Per Ankh Inc. had been formed to distribute the drug, District of Columbia corporation records show. 
Government agencies warn against interferon as an AIDS treatment because more than a dozen studies have shown it is not effective. 
[Alim was Farrakhan's national spokesman, the Nation of Islam's Minister of Health and Human Services and head of the Washington mosque. He was a 45-year-old, non-practicing surgeon once known as Maurice Peters Jr. born in York, Pa. 

    Low Dose Interferon was developed by veterinarian Joseph Cummins as a way to bolster cows' immune systems. The rights appear to have been sold to either Carlo himself, or to Pharma Pacific] 

    Alim told mosque members that Per Ankh was "your very own pharmaceutical company," and called it "a subsidiary of the Nation of Islam, Incorporated.<ul>"Listing its phone number at the Abundant Life Clinic, the for-profit company run by Alim and [Louis] Farrakhan's son-in-law advertised its pills in the Final Call newspaper: "Urgent urgent urgent," said a November 1992 ad: Interferon is "available for treatment of... full-blown AIDS."</ul>
    "How could anyone give them rights to distribute the drug? It's illegal to sell it in the United States," said Dr George Carlo, acting technical director of Pharma Pacific Management Ltd., the Australian company that owns the trademark for Immunex. 

    Pharma Pacific never has had any arrangement with the Nation of Islam and wouldn't sell the untested product as an AIDS treatment "even with FDA approval," unless there was proof that it worked, Carlo said. 

    Several samples of bootlegged pills obtained by Carlo contained no interferon, probably because the chemicals had broken down, he said.</blockquote><a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-03-14/news/9503140170_1_interferon-aids-virus-aids-treatment/3%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%3Cbr%3E%20%C2%A0%20%C2%A0" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Mar 15: AIDS: New York Times article Nation of Islam Clinic Markets AIDS 'Cure'<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">A Nation of Islam clinic in Washington, DC, which has received almost $600,000 in federal funds during the past two years, is dispensing an unlicensed "miracle cure" for AIDS, the Chicago Tribune reported on Tuesday. 

    The Abundant Life Clinic is run by Dr Abdul Alim Muhammad, the Nation of Islam's chief doctor, who once accused the federal government of developing HIV to eradicate blacks. Alim describes what he is selling as a form of interferon, which studies have found to be ineffective in fighting AIDS. In Nation of Islam publications, the clinic advertises that Alim has found the cure for HIV. He said, in a 1992 speech, that one of his pills taken daily for six months would cure AIDS. 

    In 1992, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said that his church had acquired the exclusive distribution rights in the United States for Immunex, a brand of interferon. However, Dr George Carlo, acting technical director of Pharma Pacifica Management Ltd. of Australia, which owns the Immunex trademark, said, "How could anyone give them the rights to distribute the drug? It's illegal to sell it in the United States."</blockquote>Related Stories: Chicago Tribune (03/14) USA Today (03/15) <a href="http://www.aegis.com/news/ads/1995/AD950474.html" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Mar 15: AIDS: USA Today also carries the story of the battle between Louis Farrakhan and George Carlo over Immunex under the headline "Miracle Cure for AIDS" 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>Carlo AIDS rebuttal</th></tr><tr><td>In a later widely-circulated e-mail answering his critics, George Carlo explains his involvement with Immunex and Pharma Group, in this way:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"A company called Pharma Pacific asked me to help them with studies of oral interferon as a remedy for AIDS patients. I was their Acting Technical Director for the sole purpose of representing them on a multi-center clinical trial conducted by the National Institutes of Health. 

    I participated in that study at the NIH for two years, then stepped aside. there is nothing in that relationship that is a problem, especially since it was work sponsored by and paid for the National Institutes of Health. The work was done to help save the lives of patients with AIDS. I am not sure why your folks would find that offensive."</blockquote>Note that even at this time, Carlo couldn't bring himself to admit that Pharma Pacific was actually a Dow Chemicals phramaceutical subsidiary.<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The first NIH AIDS interferon trials had been done many years before Carlo became involved — between August 1982 and April 1984 in the San Francisco General Hospital.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The NIH trials involving "Pharma Pacific", says that the project which began in April 1996 under Jones Kumi, of the Mercy Speciality Center in Detroit and closed a year later on June 13 1997. It was using a number of clinics to distribute the Low-Dose Interferon [including those of the Nation of Islam] and it was discontinued because too many of the study subjects dropped out. The report says that:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Pharmaceutical support for the study was provided by Amarillo Biosciences, Inc., Interferon Sciences, Inc., and Pharma Pacific Management, Pty. Ltd.</blockquote></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table><a href="http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/news/369/study-of-low-dose-oral-alpha-interferon-closes" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>The inconvenient truth is that Carlo<ol type="a"><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">was listed as the technical director of Pharma Pacific and of Fernz Corp (NZ) for many years, and clearly acted as their US spokesperson.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The Pharma/Fernz/NuFarm companies are subsidiaries of Dow Chemicals, but the Pharma/Dow connection wasn't revealed.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Pharma used his Washington office and Florida apartment as addresses-of-convenience in the USA.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The only reason for using Carlo's addresses is to hide the involvement of Dow.</li></ol>
 <hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>The EPA's 'Wilful Ignorance' strategy</th></tr><tr><td>1995 Dr Terry Yosie, the former Director of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board through the Reagan do-knothing EPA scandal period [1981-88 ] was also a consultant working for the chemical and oil industries through the 'greenwashing PR firm' E Bruce Harrison. EBH was owned at that time by Ruder Finn. [Yosie was Executive VP at Ruder Finn 1992-99] 

Chemical Week reported on one April 1995 speach he made to chemical industry executives at a conference "The changing Chlorine Marketplace". This was being run for the pesticide and herbicide industry to help them handle the dioxin problem and the regulators. He offered insights, from the viewpoint of an ex-EPA regulator:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"As long as we're not sure, we can't do anything."</blockquote>Only when "sound science" was established did the industry need to take serious remedial action. 
    [Source Dying from Dioxin: by Louis Gibbs (the citizen's organiser at Love Canal] 

[Yosie is now President and CEO of the World Environment Center (WEC); a Board member at the Annapolis Center; Member of the Committee on Improving Risk Assessment at the National Academy of Sciences; and also a consultant with the EPA Science Advisory Board.]</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Apr 19: Chris Coggins at RJ Reynolds Tobacco was circulating "a paper by Carlo on the effects of subjectivity" This is obviously his Bias study. 
[Note that Coggins doesn't need to specify which Carlo — clearly Carlo is now well-known to all his executives and lobbyists.] 

    Coggins was building a junk-science story to be fed to the CBS "60 Minutes" program, and he was relying on evidence produced by George Carlo, [Peter] Huber, [Alvan] Feinstein, [Ernest] Wynder, and [Martha] Perske. attacking the EPA's use of meta-analysis and of exhibiting bias.<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Peter Huber, a lawyer-lobbyist at the Manhattan Institute had invented the term "junk science".</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Alvan Feinstein, statistician from Yale, received millions of dollars from the industry over the years</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Martha Perske ghost-wrote material for Milloy at TASSC, and also worked with Feinstein.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ernest Wynder, by this time he was working with Carlo and the tobacco industry attacking junk-science.</li></ul>It is not clear why this email was given the Subject line "Cato Institute", but perhaps Anna McA [unknown] was one of their lobbyists working for the tobacco industry at that time. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tjx72a00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tjx72a00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 May 12: A Washington Times column by Walter Williams "Highway to health serfdom" complains about the states recovering Medicaid costs from the tobacco industry, and says "America's anti-smoking tyrants have little respect for private property rights...." 

    He carries on in a convoluted way to discuss raised breast-cancer rates among women who have had an abortion. He claims that young women who've had an abortion have 8-times the risk of breast cancer before the age of 45, and he then segues into a statement that:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">George Carlo and his associates did a survey of 1,461 epidemiologists, toxicologists, physicians and general scientists on their thinking about secondhand smoke. Their study, published in the Journal of Risk Analysis, found that 70 percent thought secondhand smoke was a serious health hazard and 85 percent thought government intervention was necessary. 

    What can be made of a scientific community that supports oppressive government regulations to combat secondhand smoke, which has a relative risk ratio of 1.19, and greets with skepticism a report showing an abortion-tnduced breast cancer relative risk of 1.3? 

    The most flattering answer I come up with is that they are dishonest people willing to be prostitutes for an evil agenda.</blockquote>[The pot calling the kettle "black"; the best defence is to attack.] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pgz92b00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pgz92b00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 May 30: GEP: Thorne Auchter, as the Director of the Institute of Regulatory Policy [which was claimed to have commissioned Carlo's "Biased Scientists' study] writes on Federal Focus Inc letterhead to Philip Morris<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Federal Focus is a non-profit 501(C)(3) organization which performs research and studies dealing in areas of current public policy. By this letter, we are requesting an unrestricted grant in support of those activities in the amount of $250,000. 

    Federal Focus is most appreciative of your interest and willingness to consider this commitment.</blockquote><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bek88h00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bek88h00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [These funds would include preparation payments for the London Principles/GEP conference they were organizing for October, following their Lansdowne Conference in October 1994.]  <hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">The London Principles Conference.
The foundation of the Good Epidemiological Practice (GEP) standards.</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Oct: GEP and London Principles: The London Principles Conference. This was an attempt by the tobacco industry to build on work by the chemical industry in setting a ridiculously high standard of 'proof' for epidemiological research used by the regulatory agencies. This conference evolved from the Oct. 1994 Landsown Conference. It aimed to promote the standard called "Good Epidemiological Practices" or GEP, which they were then to force through the European Parliament. 

GEP Guidelines and Criteria had already been drafted by tobacco lawyers Covington & Burling well before the conference took place so the outcome was assured. The rest was a PR exercise to put a veneer of scientific authenticity over their lobbying program. They also used these occasions to reward faithful scientific friends, and enhanse their citation lists:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Expert Panel Members<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John Ashby University of Wales, Swansea, and Zeneca Central Toxicology Laboratory.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr George Carlo, The Carlo Institute and Health and Environmental Science Group, Ltd., and Professor, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA 
[At this time Carlo was also in the midst of the strike in his WTR cellular phone program for the CTIA. He was also promoting Nocebo conferences with Ernest Wynder of the American Health Foundation, and had other projects on the run for Dow Chemicals.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Samuel M. Cohen, Eppley Institute for Cancer Research Omaha.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John S. Evans, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John D. Graham,Harvard School of Public Health, Center of Risk Analysis, 
[Simultaneously running Carlo's Peer Review Board at WTR for the cellphone industry]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Walter W Holland, University of London</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Linda C. Koo, University of Hong Kong
[Long-term tobacco consultant and WhiteCoat]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Genevieve M. Matanoski, Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland, Baltimore,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">D. Warner North, contractor with Decision Focus, Inc. Calif.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dennis J. Paustenbach, McLaren/Hart, California 
[science-for-sale grifter]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Göran Pershagen Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">James J. Schlesselman, University of Pittsburgh,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Thomas B. Starr, ENVIRON, North Carolina 
[consultant-for-hire]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">James A. Swenberg, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Mary Jane Teta, Union Carbide Corp. and University of Massachusetts,
[Chemical Industry consultant]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Erich Wichmann, University of Wuppertal Oberschleissheim, Germany</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Gary M. Williams, American Health Foundation 
[Carlo associate]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Ernst L. Wynder, American Health Foundation.
[Carlo associate]</li></ul></blockquote>London Principles <a href="http://www.fedfocus.org/science/london.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> Expert Panel <a href="http://www.fedfocus.org/science/london-panel.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> [The organization was actually run by Philip Morris, via Jim Tozzi at Federal Focus/Multinational Business Systems. It is not clear how much help came from George Carlo, or whether he was just a participant. He had his hands full with the cellular phone problems. 

    The vast majority of these 'experts' were science-for-sale consultants to the tobacco and chemical industries. 

    Federal Focus later drafted an Executive Order which they wanted President Bush to sign. This would force the regulatory agencies to use these GEP standard.]Executive order  <a href="http://www.fedfocus.org/agri/ExecOrder131XX.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>Mayada Logue, the side-kick to Tom Borelli at Philip Morris's Scientific Affairs division, had been given control of the GEP project.      She appears to have been an unregistered attendee at this conference, because she has left us a day-by-day diary of notes from the meetings. Refering to Carlo's Bias Study which must have been introduced into the discussion (Fri 24th), she writes:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Low Risk Epidemiology
Epidemiology is very useful in its correct context 
Depends on Biological plausibility
George Carlo — Society for Risk Analysis — study on toxicologist / comparison as whether prior knowledge of study influenced their analysis. Other low-lxx risks not easily accepted.</blockquote> See Page 19 <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ubs29c00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ubs29c00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
Despite Philip Morris having spent a fortune with lawyers Covington & Burling, and scientific recruiting company The Weinberg Group, generating lists of credible European scientists who would be asked to attend this conference, they decided in the long run to choose a panel almost exclusively from the USA... clearly a group of scientists they could trust.      As an outside consultant to Philip Morris, George Carlo is listed in the highest category of those to be sent to London. One or two of the US participants may have been genuinely independent (but gullible) scientists, and Goran Pershagen from Sweden was a vocal anti-tobacco activist. However the majority were clearly in the pay of the tobacco industry or the chemical/pharmacuetical industries, and many of them would have known each other from past joint operations on behalf of their corporate clients.      The "London Principles" can still be found at the Federal Focus, Inc. web-site. <a href="http://www.fedfocus.org/science/london.html" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1995 Oct: Breast Implants: Charlotte Mahlum won $14.2 million jury verdict againstDow Chemicals over ruptured breast implants made by their subsidiary Dow Corning. [Later struck down to $4.2 million] 

    This was the first major win against Dow Chemicals (which didn't make or sell breast implants) since its subsidiary Dow Corning had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection following a 1994 class action with 10,000 participants. 

    The action against the parent company became possible because Dow Chemicals had performed toxicology tests on the silicone compounds. Research evidence did not support the case that silicone produced connective tissue disease, however. 
[The high punitive decision was more in the nature of 'pay-back' to Dow for the Chapter 11 filing.] 

    The unexpected success of this action against Dow Chemicals made the industry sit up and take notice, since they had assumed that the bankruptcy filing would have ended any possibility of class actions. Not long after this, Carlo was hired by Dow Chemicals to run theBreast Implant Public Health Project. 

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1995 Nov: /E Late in this year, the Federal Focus group (Auchter, Tozzi and perhaps Carlo) established a subsidiary called the Center for the Study of Environmental Endocrine Effects (CSEEE) [Probably for Dow Chemicals, or for a group of companies from the Chemical Manufacturer's Association] 

    The CSEEE was a non-profit dealing with hormone mimics in water, and health effects of the kind caused by DDT-breakdown products, furans and dioxins and atrazine. 

    The silicone breast implant rupture problem had triggered a fresh interest in the possibility of hormone-mimics/endocrine disrupters causing breast cancer among other problems — and that fed back into fears of auto-immune problems resulting from the silicone in breast implants. It all became very confused. 

    This was not helped by the knowledge that the implants were made by the company which gave the world Agent Orange, and denied the obvious for 40 years. The guff at the web-site said that the CSEEE's...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"... basic mission is to provide the public with objective and unbiased information on the state of scientific knowledge regarding issues of 'endocrine disruption', and to conduct, or sponsor the conduct of scientific research in that area."</blockquote>The original website at endocrine.org/ appears to have ceased functioning in 2003. and it now exists only as a reference page on Federal Focus website. This says:.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The core of CSEEE was an academic science panel made up of two scientists who are prominent in toxicology and pharmacology relating to the human endocrine system (Drs. William J Waddell and John A Thomas), and two in wildlife toxicology (Drs. William H Benson and Keith Solomon). 

    This information was also sent to Philip Morris</blockquote>Philip Morris document <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hsx06c00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> Federal Focus info <a href="http://www.fedfocus.org/science/cseee.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> [Note how the same names keep turning up!<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Solomon was an old associate of Carlo and Munro on dioxins,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Waddell also served on the London Principles review panel for Federal Focus.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">William G Keely was a staff lawyer who had once worked with the US Department of Interior. He ran both the London conference and the CSEEE projects.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Daniel M Byrd, a toxicologist who had been on the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board, now staff</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Joel Rosenblatt had worked for Jim Tozzi when he ran the OIRA division of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan White House.</li></ul> The CSEEE sponsored and arranged a symposium on the science of environmental endocrine effects (both human and ecological) at the annual meeting of the American College of Toxicology held in November 1996 at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.      Five papers reflecting the presentations from the symposium were later published in the January-February 1997 issue of the International Journal of Toxicology by John Thomas, Keith Solomon, William Benson, William Waddell, and Daniel Byrd.Federal Focus <a href="http://www.fedfocus.org/symposia/examples.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> See biogs at page 42 <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lum51c00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" /></a> 

  • Carlo was occupied during most of this year running the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) project for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) — See Part 5, but he still had time for Dow Chemical projects ] 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table class="inside" border="1" rules="rows" width="100%" align="center" bgcolor="#ddeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody valign="top"><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th colspan="2">Carlo's disclaimer email.</th></tr><tr><td>Breast Implant Public Health Project:
"This project was very important work done in cooperation of the Food & Drug Administration and at the request of the Food & Drug Administration head at the time, Dr David Kessler. 

    We identified which types of problems from silicone breast implants warranted different types of corrective intervention — ranging from localized corrective surgery to implant replacement. 

    Dow Corning funded the work, but it was overseen by the FDA. The same model was later used in the WTR where industry money was used to support public health work regarding EMR but with government oversight. 

    The Breast Implant Public Health Project was ended in agreement with the FDA in 1995, when the project was completed to everyone's satisfaction."<a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/Carlo_Reb.html" target="Tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>

[Carlo's date is wrong. This was the company was only registered in November 1996 and it was still operating in 1998.]<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;"></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1996 /E: As Director of the Breast Implant Public Health Project, Carlo co-authored a study on the risks of breast implant rupture sponsored by Dow Corning. Dow Corning which made silicon implants was a joint venture between Dow Chemical and Corning Inc. It was sued in the mid 2000s for personal damages caused by ruptured implants, but the actions were dismissed. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Chemical_Company" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="100%" rules="all" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="10" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>From London Principles to
Good epidemiology Practices (GEP)</th></tr><tr><td>
    Tobacco's control of the London Principle's conference meant that the proceedings were fed to the industry lawyers (Covington & Burling) for legal drafting as possible legislation which tobacco lobbyists later tred to impose on the European and other parliaments. When translated into regulatory legislation they began to be promoted as GEP or Good Epidemiological Practice. It then became a project under Mayada Logue, with a budget of $150,000. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nxq83c00/pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

    There is nothing wrong with these standards from a scientific perspective — provided you believe in always achieving the highest of possible scientific standards. The PR trick was to impose a ridiculously high and rigid standard for the science on the regulatory agencies (EPA, FDA, OSHA and their European equivalents). No longer could they regulate on a 'precautionary principle' when adverse evidence began to accumulate; they must now delay regulation until they had "proof beyond reasonable doubt." And the industry was always able to pay scientists of standing to deny facts and to sew doubt. 

    Government imposition of such slanted scientific principles would have prevented environmental and health agencies from ever effectively regulating any harmful substance until the proof of dangers was universally accepted... an impossible task in view of the ease at which industry bribes both officials and scientific experts.See the CMA's original GEP panel <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//document/view.action?id=1890100007" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" /></a>
</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1996: Elizabeth Whelan's scientific astroturf American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) also got into the Dow Corning silicon breast implant defence business by publishing a paper "Silicon Breast Implants: Why Has the Science Been Ignored?" It was written by the well-known penny-a-word hack journalist Michael Fumento. 

    At the time Dow Corning was fighting the FDA's 1992 semi-ban on cosmetic use of silicone (as distinct from saline) implants. <a href="http://www.acsh.org/docLib/20040402_breast_implants2000.pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1996 Jan 16: Chicago Tribute article "How the Media and Lawyers Stir Up False Illness"by Michael Fumento, journalist, tobacco lobbyist and TASSC associate of Steve Milloy and George Carlo. He also promotes the Nocebo effect and the safety of breast implants.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">A nocebo is a negative placebo. That is, while a placebo pill makes you feel better though unbeknownst to you it's only made of sugar, a nocebo makes you feel bad though physiologically speaking it shouldn't be able to. 

    Nocebos don't get talked about much, which is why the [Wynder's] American Health Foundation (AHF) recently called together a number of experts for a conference on the subject. For nocebos aren't just minor curiosities, but are wreaking havoc in America today.</blockquote>Fumento identifies:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Gulf War Syndrome</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Love Canal dioxin and chemical contamination</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Silicone Breast Implants<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"For 30 years women were satisfied with implants," Emory University gynecology and obstetrics professor Dr Elizabeth Connell [of TASSC] told me. 

    Connell headed the FDA panel that investigated the implants. "Lot of studies at the [FDA] hearings and since then showed a very high level of pleasure and acceptance and gratitude." But then the media and the lawyers got in the act. Newspapers and magazines ran stories with titles like "Ticking Time Bombs," "Toxic Breasts," and "After Implants, Horror Began." 

    Suddenly women with implants were suffering all sorts of strange illnesses and "realizing" that illnesses they already had must be related to their implants. "When you have women being told they have ticking timebombs in their breasts, what are they to think?" said Connell.</blockquote></li></ul>[It doesn't take much of a suspicious mind to guess that this article was funded by Dow Chemicals. It was also promoted at the Overlawyered.com website by Wally Olson who is Peter Huber's ("junk-science") associate at the Manhattan Institute. Fumento and Milloy are both associated with this think-tank also.] <a href="http://www.overlawyered.com/articles/fumento/nocebo.html" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1996 Feb 16: [Source Public Health Weekly article, undated] Carlo writes on behalf of the" Institute for Science and Public Policy Polio Vaccines Advisory Panel" to the American Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP — which advises the US government on immunisation programs. (He owns and controls the ISSP) 

    His letter promotes the continuation of past immunisation practices.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">"The Institute for Science and Public Policy Polio Vaccines Advisory Panel met February 16, 1996, as part of the most comprehensive review to date of the public health impact of changes to the polio vaccine recommendation currently used in America. The independent institute advisory panel, which expects to complete a report for the peer reviewed medical literature within 45 days, is comprised of prominent international scientists, top state health officials, infectious disease and epidemiology experts, and other noted academicians.</blockquote>[Reference web-sites have since disappeared]  1996 Feb 20: In a letter to Dr Jeffrey Davis, chairman of the government's American Committee on Immunisation Practices (ACIP), Dr George Carlo again cautioned...<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">... that the institute's panel "has expressed reservations about an immunisation schedule that involves the addition of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) administered as a separate antigen." 

    He added "there is unanimity among the advisory panel members that the proposed change in the current polio recommendations poses a significant risk to public health by compromising vaccination coverage overall and reducing needed protection against wild polio virus transmission." 

    Wild polio virus is endemic in many parts of the world and remains a worldwide public health threat. In commenting on the scope of the work regarding potential changes in the country's polio vaccine policy, Carlo said "we are involved collectively in an unprecedented and critical public health process. The potential impact of this policy change on global public health commands that all relevant information be thoughtfully considered in the decision making process." 

    The letter and attachments to ACIP are available upon request by telephoning the Institute at 202-833-9500. (Public Health Weekly, undated)</blockquote>     [Reference web-sites have since disappeared]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1996 Mar 23: A Philip Morris technology strategy document (from a brainstorming session) lists numerous ideas for coordinating a wide range of activies of both domestic/international tobacco and food companies under the heading "Potential Areas for PM-wide Synergies" This includes a number of non-technology ideas...<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Special topic leadership and sponsorship, e.g. use of epi data and meta studies, risk assessment, the NOCEBO effect, etc. [The Carlo-Wynder speciality]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Good/bad science. [Another Carlo speciality]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Nutrition and health. [A Wynder speciality]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Monitoring regulatory activity as it could impact our products/packages/ processes and the use of technologies e.g., genetic modification</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Biotechnology strategies</li></ul><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wmr22d00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wmr22d00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> <hr width="20%" style="" />1996 Aug: London Conference and GEP: A pre-publication version of the London Conference document "Principles for Evaluating Epidemiologic Data in Regulatory Risk Assessment." was sent to Philip Morris. 
[This is a printer's page proof, sent requesting final approval]<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The principles and recommendations for both existing and future epidemiologic studies drafted by the conference participants are presented in this report verbatim. Other portions of the report, such as the Executive Summary, the Background section, the Preambles to the principles, the summaries of the discussions regarding the specific principles, and'the appendix describing the Bradford Hill criteria, were drafted or compiled by Federal Focus staff after attendance at the conference and full review of the conference transcripts and conference materials. 

    Federal Focus staff present at the conference were Thorne G. Auchter, William G. Kelly, Jr., Suzon Landeck, and Wayne D. Ploger of Wayne Ploger and Associates. Mr. Kelly had lead responsibility for compiling this report.</blockquote>[Long document of 127 pages ] <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/stj03c00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/stj03c00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>The relationship between GEP and the London Principles.</th></tr><tr><td>The London Principles document says:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The subquestions to this introductory section distinguish between "good epidemiological practices" (GEP) and the principles. 

    None of the principles address GEP explicitly, yet GEP are important in evaluating study quality. GEP has to do with the nuts and bolts of designing and conducting a study, whereas the principles for hazard identification and dose-response have to do with evaluating the study results. For example, GEP encompasses matters such as the elements of a study protocol, procedures for ensuring the confidentiality of information about human subjects, recording and preservation of data, internal review and quality assurance, and formatting of reports. 

    A number of texts and articles address GEP (the Chemical Manufacturers Association publication was given as an example of an attempt to formulate standard GEPs), but the conference did not specifically address GEP. It was noted that there are standard procedures for toxicological studies, but none have been promulgated for GEP, so there is variance among studies. 

    It was commented that it would be desirable for government agencies to adopt GEP guidance.</blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1996 Nov: Breast Implants: By mid 1997 Carlo was listed as the director of the "Breast Implant Public Health Project" (BIPHP), and the organization was being run out of the HES and WTR offices in Washington DC. Dow Corning Corp funded it to the tune of $1.3 million.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The BIPHP is dealing with problems like scar tissue and causes of implant rupture, and the project states that "at this time" it will not address the controversy over the risk of systemic disease.</blockquote>The Press Release also says that they are supervising Dow's grants.  [Note that some references claim the BIPHP's activities were overseen by the FDA. But they weren't.]<table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>DC Wright</th></tr><tr><td>Note that DC Wright which manufactures medical devices (eg hip prostheses) and surgical insturments — and marketed silicone breast implants — is Dow Corning Wright, a joint venture between Dow Chemical and Corning Inc.</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1996 Nov 11-13: Carlo was in Australia at University of Melbourne speaking to the 4th International SciComm (Conference of Science Communicators) meeting on 'Risk Assessment'. 

    He had been offered as a keynote speaker to the conference gratis by Pharma Pacific Management Pty Ltd. Carlo was credited as their Technical Director and they paid his expenses, but said nothing about his (or their) associations with other public-health risks. Pharma promoted vaccines, and their associated company NuFarm was the Oceanic manufacturer of Monsanto Chemical's Roundup herbicide. These were all Dow Chemical subsidiaries. 

    [A month later (Dec 27), The Age newspaper in Melbourne reports "Commonwealth to Tackle Low Immunisation" This is a multimillion dollar immunisation program which was to be launched in January 1997. 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="95%" align="center" bgcolor="#feffe8" cellpadding="5" rules="all" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#dedfc8"><th>Breast Implant Public Health Project (BIPHP)
is registered by Carlo as a Deleware company.</th></tr><tr><td>The Breast Implant Public Health Project, LLC is registered as a private startup company incorporated in Wilmington, Delaware on the 6th November 1996 by "The Corporation Trust Company" <a href="http://businessprofiles.com/details/breast-implant-public-health-project/DE-2680814" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

    It is funded by Dow Corning to do a number of literature and psychological profiling studies of breast implant problems.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The pilot study's goal was to test the feasibility of a data collection form which will be used in a scale-up study analyzing multiple surgeons' records. 

    The goal of this expanded study will be to develop identifying factors for women who are at greater risk for having ruptured implants and, if necessary, target them for screening, surveillance, or intervention.</blockquote>Published as<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">A review of the literature on the etiology of capsular contracture and a pilot study to determine the outcome of capsular contracture interventions.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Factors associated with breast implant rupture: pilot of a retrospective analysis in May 1999]</li></ul>An 2002 article on "Mental Models of Women With Breast Implants: Local Complications" deals with profiling the psychology of women with implants by the BIPHP team led by Martha Embrey. [Martha Embrey who ran BIPHP for George Carlo, was a long-term employee of HES] 

    The article gives details which suggest that this is a project being run by George Washington University — and leaves out any mention of Carlo's Deleware LLC.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The Breast Implant Public Health Project provided financial support for this study through a grant from the Dow Corning Corporation. We wish to express our thanks to Liz Adams, Barbara Blasick, Julie Downs, and Susan Houston for their help with the conduct of this research, as well as to anonymous reviewers. The views expressed are those of the authors. 

    NOTE For further information, please address communications toMartha Embrey, MPH, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services,</blockquote><a href="http://www.myplasticsurgeonusa.com/articles.php?art=74" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

[Martha Embrey is also listed as being a "research associate" at the University. She was one of Carlo's long-term employees at Health & Environmental Sciences Group who was also associated with the university (as also was Carlo himself).</td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1996 Dec 2 - 4: Carlo and Ernest Wynder of the American Health Foundation have convinced Dr Wayne Jonas of the National Institutes of Health to join forces with them in promoting the idea of the 'Nocebo' at a 3-day conference. This is an old idea, but it has been given new currency by the use of a catchy name-variation, based on 'Placebo'. 

Nocebo, is the idea that people make themselves really ill because they believe something is harmful (when it actually isn't). It provides polluters and poisoning companies with a possible alternate 'causal' mechanism to deflect blame away from their products. Note the listed headings for the conference: "Mass Hysteria, Psychosomatic Illness, etc" 

    This has implications for tobacco, chemicals and the cellphones, and for many other industries, The popularisation of a term like 'Nocebo' provides these industries with another line of defence... another way to create doubt about 'cause and effect' relationships between their products and the health problems they may (or may not) cause.See Original Conference on <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/nocebo2.html" target="Tobdocs">Nocebo with NIH</a> 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1997: The Carlo Institute is running a six-session $650 course with topics like "Media Relations" and "Effective Management of Research Funds". <a href="http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/n-d97issue.pdf" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Feb 18: Dr Wayne Jonas of the National Institutes of Health appears to have dropped out of the Carlo-Wynder 'Nocebo' conference. It is now being promoted only as a one-day event for a cost of $295. It is being held at Georgetown University, but without the support of the NCI. 

    Carlo and Wynder have now enlisted disinformation journalist Michael Fumento (also of TASSC), along with Dr Richard Adamson from the National Soft-Drink Association (ex NCI Division of Cancer Epidemiology — also on the AHF Board of Directors) as speakers.See Second Conference on <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/archive/nocebo.html" target="Tobdocs">Nocebo at Georgetown</a> [Other speakers are not believed to be dubious so much as gullible]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1997 March: Steve Milloy took over officially as 'Executive Director' of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). He had previously been hired as the 'behind the scenes contact' who could answer press questions. For a while Garrey Curruthers continued to parade himself as 'President' and 'Founder'. 

    The so-called Management Board listed in the TASSC letterhead was also sometimes called an "Advisory Board" [Not a SAB], and different listings had different names at different times. Carlo's name never appears on the letterhead, but he is listed by APCO (the PR company which ran the operation behind the scenes) as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board. 

    This Advisory Board appears to have consisted of a variable list with at least 7 well-known tobacco industry 'consultants', only a few of which were 'scientists':<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Mickey Edwards, Republican politician</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Michael Gough, OTA scientist/dioxin now with Cato Institute (Milloy's friend)</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">James Steele, ex-Ass. Surgeon General,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Bruce Ames, Berkeley biochemist, libertarian zealot</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Michael Fumento, journalist-for-hire</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">John D Graham, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Lester Lave, Carnegie Mellon economist, HCRA associate,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">M Alice Ottoboni, retired from the Calif Dept of Public Health,</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Frederick Seitz, ex-Rockefeller Uni; professional climate skeptic; Oregon Petition; George C Marshall Institute; SEPP; RJ Reynolds consultant</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Clayton Yeutter, trade representative and Sec of Agriculture; politician for hire.</li></ul>TASSC's Scientific Advisory Board appears to have been a cabal of think-tank operators, industry supporters and professional corporate lobbyists, including:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">George Carlo, of HES</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Hugh Ellsaesser, retired meterologist; Lawrence Livermore nuclear labs; George C Marshall Inst.; "Wise Use" group; climate denier</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Patrick Michaels, Uni of Virginia; SEPP; climate skeptic; fossil fuel consultant</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Alan Moghissi, science-for-sale operator; ILSI; ACSH</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Michael Fox, dubious nuclear scientist; newspaper columnist; ACSH; climate denier</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">S. Fred Singer, SEPP; ICSE; Heidelberg Appeal; chief climate denier</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Michael Sanera, Barry Goldwater Institute; ALEC; Reagan Admin aide; 'Wise Use' coalition founder,</li></ul>This summary records the claim that in 1997 Milloy...<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">launched a full-scale attack on restrictive air-quality standards, with an full-page ad inThe Washington Post signed by 100 physicians and scientists.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">releases an open letter to world leaders signed by 500 physicians and scientists attacking the Kyoto Conference global warming treaty.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">attacked the EPA for its use of guideline standards of epidemiology which are inferior to GEP.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">held a junk-science conference in Phoenix, and a media summit on health scares at the North Carolina State University run by TASSC enthusiast Dr Robert Entman.[Entman was a professor of Journalism. TASSC had previously sponsored his report on The Role of Science in Reporting of Public Health Policy Controversies During 1995.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">ran roundtable meetings for lobbyists and a series of editorial board briefings on silicone breast implants, hosted by Dr Elizabeth Connell. [She also travelled to the UK to lobby the new Labor British Health Minister.]</li></ul><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/any77d00" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/any77d00/pdf" target="tobdoc" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a> [Elizabeth Connell was ex-FDA, and Emory Uni. In 2003 she was also a senior counselor for the tort-reform advocacy group Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) funded by Philip Morris. This was a subsidiary of the ATRA 'tort reform/product liability' coalition also run by APCO.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Mar 16: An article in the Toronto Star by Carlo associate, Professor Keith Solomon of Geulph University is in support of the tobacco companies. He is quoted as saying that gun-shot wounds were more of a problem than second-hand smoke. Solomon is also a consultant to companies in the pesticide industry. <a href="http://www.uoguelph.ca/cntc/educat/peril/making.htm" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1997 June 20: Several State Attorneys General had concluded an agreement with the tobacco industry which required signing off by Congress. However Congress appointed an Advisory Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health to advise it. 

    This committee was chaired by former US Surgeon-General C Everett Koop and former FDA commissioner David Kessler [both fierce opponents of the tobacco industry]. And it issued its final report to Congress in July 1997. 
Guess who provided the staffing for this 'committee'? 

    The clue is in the advice that printed copies can be obtained from The Advisory Committee on Tobacco Policy and Public Health at the old HESG fax number of 202/833-2801 or by email from sppi@hesgroup.com<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759569/pdf/v006p00254.pdf" target="blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC175956 (etc.)</a> [Koop and Kessler would have been entirely ignorant of the fact that an old tobacco scientist was running their committee. It would be intriguing to know how this was engineered. 

    One clue might be that the anti-smoking Republican Jeff Nesbit was given the job of staff director of the committee staff (three from HES). He had been a CTIA public relations operator who acted as a go-between with Carlo and the WTR, and he was once the FDA communications aide for FDA Commissioner Kessler. David Kessler credited Nesbit with convincing the FDA to regulate the tobacco industry in the early 1990s ("A Question of Intent").

    Nesbit is also listed in the report as "President, Science and Public Policy Institute" — so one of George's lobbying operations was also part of the decision-making process, along with a score of genuine anti-smoking and government health groups. 

    Nesbit appears to have retired from SPPI the day after the report was printed and George Carlo became president again. "For more than a decade" (1992 - 2004) Nesbit was supposedly the president of The Shiloh Group —a strategic communications firm that he founded and ran. He also runs Invivodata.Inc which is used in hospitals to collect patient information 

    Add to this is services as an aide for VP Dan Quayle and Elizabeth Dole, and his services as a lobbyist via the Citzens for a Sound Economy (FreedomWorks), and authorship of a dozen novels, and we clearly have a man of many talents.] 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Oct: Epi Monitor reports on a plenary session "The Battered Investigator Syndrome" held recently at the American College of Epidemiology meeting in Boston. 

    In that session, investigators involved with breast implants, gulf war syndrome, electromagnetic fields, and induced abortion and breast cancer discussed the difficulties they faced in working in these controversial areas.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">As epidemiologists and epidemiological research have become increasingly integral to tort litigation, the authors report that epidemiologists have themselves become targets of onerous subpoenas and lawsuits. 
"It's a new ball game," [Rebecca Steffens and George] Carlo told the Epi Monitor."In the past, there were always attacks but they took place within the arena of peer review. What's new is that opponents are now making the epidemiologists personally liable. It is the ultimate intimidation. When a person's professional and personal livelihood are at stake, it impacts them and it's not business as usual. It will cost $200,000 - 300,000 to defend yourself. Some will quit," he said. 

    Other examples cited by Carlo include two lawsuits which he has been involved with at a cost of $700,000 to defend. One cost $100,000 simply to get it dismissed. In his situation, the legal costs were borne by Wireless Technology Research, a group he is affiliated with. 

    However, he knows of another suit in which the epidemiologist was sued personally for the way in which he defined a cohort for his study. In that situation, his employer reportedly refused to pay his defense costs. In another situation, an epidemiologist who had already conducted research was reportedly forced to discontinue doing research on this particular topic because her employer considered the liability too high. 

    According to Carlo, when you get subpoenas it can take months to prepare a deposition. This wastes a lot of time and money and keeps you away from your regular work. Others are defining your priorities. In the legal arena, the trend is to do whatever you need to do to win. In the legal framework, that is fair game, according to Carlo. 

    Besides the professional liability insurance, another safeguard suggested in the paper is the inclusion of indemnification language in research contracts. "Such a clause would ensure that the sponsor of the research is responsible for the costs of litigation, including attorneys' fees and any potential liabilities or judgements," according to the paper. Finally, professional associations should become active in monitoring for adverse trends and in organizing interventions at an early stage. "It cannot be assumed that the field of epidemiology is above the fray —where billions of dollars in claims, legal fees, and awards are involved, all bets are off," conclude the authors.</blockquote><a href="http://www.epimonitor.net/EWW_Article_18.htm" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a> [See Part 5. Carlo and the WTR were being sued for conspiring with the CTIA to hide the dangers of cellphone radiation in the Chicago Debbr Wright vs. Motorola case]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Oct 27: Breast Implants: Jeff Silva article in RJR "Harvard Peer Board Frustrated with WTR: Carlo to study implant risks" Silva comments on the problems of the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) project for the cellphone industry, and how Carlo is looking at other potential sources of income.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Dr George Carlo is quietly ramping up a new industry-backed health program on possible silicone breast implant health risks that is based on the troubled WTR model. 

    The "Breast Implant Public Health Project LLC" is one of several endeavors Carlo and his 30-person crew oversee at Health & Environmental Sciences Group Ltd. here. 

    Just as Carlo teamed with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) in early 1993 when fear of pocket phone-related brain cancer was at fever pitch — and again in the early 1980s, with the Chlorine Institute on the dioxin debate, the embattled WTR chief now has joined forces with Dow Corning Corp, the leading breast implant maker, to delve into one of the hottest women's health issues today. Dow Corning has given Carlo $1.3 million to date. 

    Whether science ultimately declares cell phones, silicone implants and dioxin to be major health problems is another question. But where there is health controversy, Carlo seems to be near.</blockquote><a href="http://www.rcrstage.com/article/19971027/sub/harvard-peer-board-frustrated-with-wtr-carlo-to-study-implant-risks/" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>[The Breast Implant Public Health Project for Dow Corning was run by Martha Embrey, one of Carlo's oldest and longest associates. Martha is also an air pollution, water pollution/dioxin, wireless research and cardiac pacemaker specialist.  <hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Nov: Breast Implant: Microwave News, a journal which keeps its eye on Carlo's various get-rich-quick schemes, pointed out that the Breast Implant Public Health Project (BIPHP] shared the same phone number as Carlo's HES and WTR. The BIPHP received $1.3 million from Dow Corning, but the focus was only implant rupture and scar tissue formation, and largely avoided systematic immune system reactions. Despite Carlo's "reports," Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy and the FDA subsequently banned silicon breast implants for 15 years. 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Dec: Breast Implants: Martha Embrey spoke at the Society of Risk Analysis Annual Meeeting:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Abstract: Local Complications from Silicone Breast Implants. 

    The Breast Implant Public Health Project's goal is to develop and carry out a public health approach to help women identify and remedy localized problems derived from their silicone breast implants. This public health program has been initiated to provide a remedy for known problems and in anticipation that the public, government agencies, scientists, and industry will use the results and findings. 

    The work done under the program is not intended to identify risk, but to find ways to best characterize and mitigate risk that has already been established. The existing scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that women with silicone breast implants are at risk of local complications including rupture and capsular contracture; therefore the research plan simultaneously addresses the questions related to risk characterization and intervention, so that appropriate risk management recommendations are available. The research agenda will be the basis for developing requests for proposals that address specific research issues important to managing any public health or clinical risk from local complications.</blockquote><a href="http://www.riskworld.com/abstract/1997/sraam97/ab7ab342.htm" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>[Most observers believe that the BIPHP project was reasonably legitimate. Martha Embrey now works on the pharmacuetical management of AIDS via the Center for Pharmaceutical Management, Management Sciences for Health, Arlington, VA]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Dec 10: A Society for Risk Assessment paper "Airborne Particulate Matter and Environmental Ozone." by Claudine M Johnson and EE Adams, both from Carlo's Health & Environmental Sciences Group, attacks the EPA over its enforcement of Clean Air Regulations.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">The premise that further lowering of the particulate matter (PM) and ozone standards as proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will accrue a greater protection of public health is not only inconsistent with scientific and medical data, but runs contrary to the tenets of public health protection. 

    While the rationale for the new standard has been put forth by the EPA as enhancement of public health, in reality this rationale is disingenuous. Quite to the contrary, it is likely that a detriment to public health will follow from the misdirecting of resources that could be applied to public health protection and the misinforming of the public about the causes of such problems as asthma attacks and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

    The appropriate regulatory decision tree for protecting the public from the adverse effects of exposure to high levels of particulate matter and ozone involves the standard public health paradigm. While the EPA standard setting procedures lay the groundwork for primary prevention or minimization of exposure, public health protection can only be accomplished with complementary, disease based screening and corrective intervention —in other words, secondary and tertiary prevention. 

    The implementation of these critical protection steps goes beyond the abilities of the EPA, and must include the professional public health and medical communities. With this background work in hand, and documented in a scientifically sound support document, a public forum can be sought whereby this approach to public health protection can be brought forth as the appropriate remedy for the problems that have been highlighted by the EPA regarding PM and ozone.</blockquote><a href="http://www.riskworld.com/abstract/1997/sraam97/ab7ab343.htm" target="blank" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>[There is obviously no mention of who funded this paper, or why. Claudine M Johnston had been a secretary at the NAACP not long before.] [There appears to be some confusion as to who presented this paper, and who did the research. See below.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Dec 10: Susan O'Donnell of HES is presenting a paper at the Annual Meeting of theSociety for Risk Analysis in Washington. It is an attack on an EPA proposal for stricter standards. 

    The HES paper is claimed to be unfunded, however it "was prepared in response to interest from a Washington consultant". It deals with "airborne particulates and ozone." <a href="http://microwavenews.com/news/backissues/n-d97issue.pdf" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" />1997 Dec 20: Steve Milloy at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), is now taking an interest in debunking the science investigating possible links between cellular telephones and health.[along with denial of ETS, global warming, etc.] 

    Carlo is a member of TASSC's Scientific Advisory Board. TASSC is primarly funded at this time by the tobacco industry, but with some support from Exxon and the oil industry, Dow Chemicals and now the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA). <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zof47c00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zof47c00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" /><div style="background: rgb(238, 238, 204);">
1998 Apr 3: The end of the GEP program.

GEP: Well over a year after Carlo had ceased working for them, Philip Morris finally decided to withdraw support for both GEP and the associated ASEAN conference. [which had been assigned to Myron Weinberg's consultancy group] 

Ted Sanders of PM Europe, wrote to Cathy Ellis (PM's principle scientist/lobbyist in Brussels) stating his objections to GEP with its enormously wasteful expenditure. He had been lumbered with trying to make something out of the project, and in the letter he outlines the full history of GEP.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Approximately three years ago, the concept of GEP's was discussed in considerable detail in PM. Corporate Affairs thought it was a wonderful idea, because at first they felt that part of a code for Good Epidemiological Practices would state that any relative risk of less than 2 would be ignored.
[Most passive smoking studies came out with RR figures which were under 2.] 

    This is of course not the case. No epidemiological organization would agree to this, and even Corporate Affairs realizes this now. [snip] 
[Despite constant corporate propaganda, relative risk figures can't be treated in this simplistic way. And every epidemiologist and biostatistician knows this.] 

    John [Rupp of Covington & Burling], with the help of our old friend Myron Weinberg [of WashTech], put together a consortium of companies in France who were interested in the idea of GEPs. This consortium, headed by an epidemiologist at Dow Chemical France, put together an excellent code of Good Epidemiological Practices. The first public presentation of this code will be on April 23 in Graz at an epidemiology meeting which I will be attending. 

    John has also been carrying out considerable lobbying (by himself or through others I don't know) an organization called ADELF which stands for (after translation and rearrangement) the Organization of French Speaking Epidemiologists. It has been John's goal to assure acceptance of the consortium code by ADELF. John has also initiated similar activities in Italy and Germany. Total expenses for this program in 1997 were about $300,000. 

    Aside from the fact that I continue to receive GEP bills from all sorts of places for old work (the latest is from Sweden, and none of them is parflcularly large), I recently received a bill from John himself for work done in the month of May. My understanding from conversations with Richard [Carchman], Matt Winokur, and Paola de Kock was that no further work was to be done on GEP's, and that John was in agreement with that decision. 

    After I received the bill, I spoke to John Rupp himself. His impression was that Denise Keane had authorized him to continue the program, although only with 
    respect to what he was doing in France. In other words, the program would not be expanded to other countries.</blockquote>Ellis replied agreeing with Sanders, and the GEP project was finally closed. It had had a eight year run from the time of George Carlo's original Bias study. <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vwf16c00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vwf16c00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

</div> <hr width="20%" style="" />1998 May 1: Martha Embrey, George Carlo and three surgeons (who only provided access to their files) presented a paper at a plastic surgeon's meeting "Factors Associated with Breast Implant Rupture: Pilot of a Retrospective Analysis" funded by the "Breast Implant Public Health Project" 
[No mention of Dow Corning.] 

    After all these years they had only got to the stage of "testing the feasibility of a data collection form which will be used in a scale-up study analyzing multiple surgeon's records" A total of 92 records had been collected and analyzed to "identify factors for women who are at greater risk for having ruptured implants." <a href="http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=eatw6rajqng0uxqq&size=largest" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>

The same crew had also produced: "A Review of the Literature on the Etiology of Capsular Contracture and a Pilot Study to Determine the Outcome of Capsular Contracture Interventions" <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/5ygbyjbkw8l9wrr3/" target="blank"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/Seearticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>
[One puff piece on the web says that in July 2008: "These studies found silicone breast implants to have possible long term health..." (it didnt say?)] 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="100%" rules="all" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="10" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>Federal Focus's London Principles Revision</th></tr><tr><td>GEP: In July 1998 Federal Focus claims to have set up a one-day, six-man panel in Denver, Colorado to review and redraft the London Principles. The panel consisted of:<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">David Savitz EMF researcher; top epidemiologist;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Christine Friedenreich — also at the Lansdowne Conference.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">William Waddell (who merely teleconferenced into the panel discussion for a short while). He was chairman of the Science Panel for Federal Focus's Center for the Study of Environmental Endocrine Effects.</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">The others are inconsequential.</li></ul>Tozzi makes the claim that "This project was financed solely by Federal Focus, Inc., and was not supported by any grants or specific contributions." ... and if you believe that, you'll also believe in tooth fairies.<a href="http://www.fedfocus.org/finalreport1.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a></td></tr></tbody></table> <hr width="20%" style="" />1998 July 15,: the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing entitled, "The Science of Risk Assessment: Implications for Federal Regulation," to examine the state of risk assessment in the Federal Government and how it might be modified to better protect public health and safety. 

    Legislation before both houses of Congress have proposed to change the way the government evaluates risks and then creates and enforces regulations to protect the environment, and public health and safety based on those risks.Witnesses included:<ul style=""><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Gil Omenn, Chairman, the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management and Executive Vice President of Medical Affairs, University of Michigan; 
[He took over from Thorne Auchter.]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr George Carlo, Chairman, the Science and Public Policy Institute, George Washington University;</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr George Gray, Deputy Director, Center for Risk Analysis, School of Public Health, Harvard University; 
[John D Graham's deputy]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Dr Lois Gold, Director, the Carcinogenic Potency Project, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Center for Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, and Senior Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 
[She is the partner of Bruce Ames]</li></ul><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105hrpt847/html/CRPT-105hrpt847.htm" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>     [These four witnesses appear to have given a joint presentation to the House Subcommittee.See transcript. <a href="http://digitalcorpora.org/corp/nps/files/govdocs1/389/389274.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" /></a> 
<hr width="20%" style="" />1998 July 15: Congress (House) hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,"The Science of Risk Assessment: Implications for Federal Regulation" 

    At this hearing Carlo claimed that the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) — a tax-free non-profit [501(c)3] which Carlo was beginning to use as his primary business organisation — was housed at "George Washington University." Carlos statement says:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other members of the Committee. My name is Dr George Carlo and I am the Chairman of the Science and Public Policy Institute at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. I'd like to put in a plug for George Washington University. While not the University of Michigan or Berkeley, we are a new school of public health and we intend to make our mark as well. 

    I'm an epidemiologist by training and also have some legal training and, over the past 20 years, I've been involved in work ranging from assessing the health impacts of pesticides and cellular phones to the safety of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. And, one of the things that we are now doing at the Institute is researching a comprehensive book that lays out trends in both environmental and public health legislation and the ability of those legislative actions to protect public health.</blockquote>[Clearly the impression was left with the SubCommittee that SPPI was a formal Institute within the University.]  The four Risk Experts were generally opposed to mandated "Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting" (where companies had to tell local citizens whenever toxic chemicals were released into their environment,) and the 'right-to-know'. Carlo told the committee that only 20% of the population was active about such matters — while 80% were unconcerned, unless provoked.<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">[A]nother thing that we've found is that the information threshold for the general public is very low. And in that 80/20 breakdown, that 80 percent of the population [the silent majority], when you present them with a list of chemicals — like in a right-to-know or a toxic release inventory — what you do is you begin to move that 80 percent into the 10 percent [the active advocates for-or-against a chemical/company] on either side. 

    Just by having that [inventory], causes agitation; by having that, causes fear among the population. And I know this is a very difficult area, because it sounds like keeping information from the public, but what we've identified—we don't quite have a solution for it yet—is that by releasing information you create public health anxieties. 

    It's not public health education that this is promoted as. It is agitation among the public, because they don't understand what it means, and that in and of itself becomes a public health problem.</blockquote><a href="http://digitalcorpora.org/corp/nps/files/govdocs1/389/389274.html" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>     Carlo later published his own report, and the write-off credits on this study say:<blockquote class="Q" style="font-style: italic;">Dr George L Carlo is an epidemiologist and chairman of the Washington, DC-based Health & Environmental Sciences Group, ltd (HES Group). HES Group specializes in assessing and managing risks to human health. He has served in many scientific advisory capacities and, from his faculty position at the George Washington University, heads the nonprofit Science and Public Policy Institute. 

    The coauthors are:<ul><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Susan E Hersemann, the Director of the Institute</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Claudine M Valmonte, MA, is a research associate [ex Claudine M Johnson]</li><li style="padding-top: 0.1cm;">Kathleen Kapetanovic, JD MPH is an associate director of Public Policy with HES Group.</li></ul></blockquote><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10406029809383900#preview" target="tobdocs" style=""><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/seeArticle.jpg" align="right" /></a>[Notice... there is no mention of the Wireless Technology Research project.]  <hr width="20%" style="" />1998 Aug: He is listed in this Washington Legal Foundation 'Critical Working Paper" asProfessor George Carlo, Science and Public Policy Institute, George Washington University. [Carlo wrote papers for the WLF himself]Page 15 <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jgt40c00" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/ind.jpg" align="right" /></a><a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jgt40c00/pdf" target="tobdoc"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/pdfer.jpg" align="right" /></a>

<hr width="20%" style="" />1998 Nov: /E Carlo is now concentrating on the Breast Implant Public Health Project for Dow Corning. The WTR is being wound down, and replaced by a public relations organisation called WIN. 
<hr width="20%" style="" /><hr color="red" style="" /><center style="">Science and Public Policy Institute
registered as a Charitable Organisation Dec 1998. This became Carlo's main operation center after his divorce and the collapse of the WTR in Dec 1999,</center><hr color="red" style="" /> <hr width="20%" style="" />1999 Nov 1: Corporate Crime Reporter newsletter announced an interview with George Carlo, President, Health Risk Management Group, Washington, D.C., 
[Note the reappearance of the 'Health Risk Management Group' organisation name. This is the one based at his apartment in Florida.] <a href="http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/interviewsindex.html" target="tobdocs"><img src="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/library/SeeHTML.jpg" align="right" /></a>
<hr width="20%" style="" /><table border="1" width="98%" align="center" bgcolor="#eeeedd" cellpadding="5" style=""><tbody><tr bgcolor="#cccccc"><th>George Louis Carlo</th></tr><tr><td>• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00244.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 1 — Dioxins, Love Canal, Three Mile Island, Agent Orange etc.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00245.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 2 — Tobacco industry, GEP and miscellaneous chemical industry projects. </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00246.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 3 — Cellphone EMF problems: the CTIA and SAG/WTR </a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00247.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 4 — Later tobacco and other — immunology, vaccination, breast implants.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00248.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 5 — Later problems with cellphone EMF research and the demise of the WTR.</a>
• <a href="http://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/00249.html" class="side" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; padding-top: 2px; padding-bottom: 2px;">Part 6 — EMF scaremongering and various cellphone 'protection' businesses.</a></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div></div></div></div></div></div>