Baum Hedlund
<div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0708/S00239/fda-henchmen-protect-avandia-profits.htm"...Evelyn Pringle</font></div><div>The FDA's latest campaign to protect the profits of a drug company over the safety of Americans is unprecedented, and the organizers include a gang of current and former FDA officials largely credited with turning the nation's regulatory beagle into a lapdog for Big Pharma under the Bush Administration.</div><div>
</div><div>FDA spokesman Douglas Arbesfeld, apparently the industry's new inside guy, kicked off the campaign by sending an e-mail to journalists which was intended to discredit Dr Steven Nissen and the Cleveland Clinic. Dr Nissen's study appeared online on May 21, 2007, in the New England Journal of Medicine and warned that GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia increased the risk of heart attacks by 43% and death from cardiovascular events by possibly 64%.</div><div>
</div><div>The talking points for the media appear to have been formulated and agreed upon ahead of time between Arbesfeld and others (see below) because more than one story from ostensibly different sources later appeared in the media and on the internet referring to Dr Nissen with such names as "St Steven", "Patron Saint of Drug Safety" and "Saint Steven the Pure."</div><div>
</div><div>In his email to journalists, Mr Arbesfeld pasted portions of an article which appeared on the Heartwire website, containing umpteen critical comments about Dr Nissen and the Avandia study, as well as comments made by an anonymous blogger on the internet who said that business at the Cleveland Clinic is run similar to a Mafia TV series. The full bog states:</div><div>
</div><div>"Wake up pharmaceutical companies, this is a call from Dr. Nissen, if you don't hire the Cleveland Clinic for your big trials then you face the firing squad from Nissen and Company."</div><div>
</div><div>"The Cleveland Clinic was one of the most respected names in medicine, now they are positioning themselves as candidates to take over for a new series on HBO to replace the Soprano's — the Clinico's 'next week who should we wack ......' — Bata bing bata boon. Comment by Brian A - May 22, 2007."</div><div>
</div><div>However, it could just as easily be inferred that Mr Arbesfeld authored the slanderous blog and supplied it to Heartwire with the intention of quoting it later from a “reputable” web site. For its part, Heartwire has since removed what it says are "unsubstantiated remarks about Dr Nissen and the Cleveland Clinic," and states: "In retrospect we regret that we published those sentences, as they do not meet the highest standards of journalistic or scientific integrity or credibility."</div><div>
</div><div>The smear campaign has federal lawmakers up in arms. At a June 6, 2007 hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in response to questions about Mr Arbesfeld sending the e-mail under his official title of FDA spokesman, FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach told the lawmakers, "It was an inappropriate and unfortunate act on the part of an individual which has been addressed through disciplinary procedures."</div><div>
</div><div>Dr Nissen is none too happy about the stunt either. "I'm a pretty tough guy," he told ABC News on May 30, 2007, "but I'll tell you, having this kind of an e-mail that questions my motives, broadcast to the major journalists with whom I work and have established a reputation, is -- it's an outrage."</div><div>
</div><div>As for his part, Mr Arbesfeld told the Boston Globe that the email reflected his own personal views and not the FDA's. Any assertion that the email reflected his own personal views is not quite credible considering that his previous employment was always promoting the views of the industry.</div><div>
</div><div>A few articles in the media mentioned that Mr Arbesfeld worked for Johnson & Johnson, but his employment with public relations firm Manning Selvage & Lee was not noted. On December 16, 1999, the Healthcare Marketing & Communications Council reported that Mr Arbesfeld had joined Manning as Senior Vice President in New York.</div><div>
</div><div>On January 5, 2001, the firm issued a press release to announce the promotion of Mr Arbesfeld and others and referred to Manning as "one of the largest healthcare practices worldwide and has a broad array of clients including Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Hoffmann La-Roche, Kaiser Permanente, Novartis, Pharmacia and Procter & Gamble."</div><div>
</div><div>In reading the press release, Mr Arbesfeld's expertise with using the Internet is apparently a bi-product of his work for Manning. "In this role," it said, "Arbesfeld will help healthcare clients maximize internet-relations in the marketing and communications mix, and will expand the Practice's strategic e-product offerings."</div><div>
</div><div>On August 5, 2002, Arbesfeld identified himself in a Reuters article as representing none other than Glaxo, along with six other drug giants including Bristol-Myers, Aventis, J&J, AstraZeneca, Abbott Labs and Novartis, in a campaign to promote the "Together Rx" prescription drug card program for senior citizens. In 2005, the Reporters Handbook listed him as the contact person for J&J subsidiaries, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical and Ortho Biotech Products.</div><div>
</div><div>Less than a week after Mr Arbesfeld's hatchet job on Dr Nissen, ex-FDA Deputy Commissioner Dr Scott Gottlieb planted an editorial in the May 29, 2007, Wall Street Journal entitled, "Journalist Malpractice," accusing the New England Medical Journal of intentionally publishing the Nissen study to make the FDA look impotent. "The publication was timed," he wrote, "to get ahead of the Food and Drug Administration's more careful evaluation of the same issues."</div><div>
</div><div>"The journal seemed bent on beating the FDA to the punch," Dr Gottlieb claimed.</div><div>
</div><div>"The goal?" he said, "Painting the FDA as impotent, in order to argue for legislation winding through Congress that would increase regulatory hurdles for drug approvals."</div><div>
</div><div>The only problem with the Nissen-NEJM conspiracy theory is that the issue under investigation in Congress right now is why the FDA did not warn the public about Avandia heart risks six months before the Nissen study was ever published.</div><div>
</div><div>In the end, when it comes to "Journalistic Malpractice," the larger question would seem to be how was it that so many industry shills were able to get the major media outlets and medical journals to immediately publish commentaries and editorials attacking the NEJM and the Nissen research with headlines splashing all over the internet.</div><div>
</div><div>In his editorial, Dr Gottlieb notes that there are "questions" whether Avandia is associated with heart risks, but says they are "so far unsupported by more rigorous, randomized studies and extensive review by the FDA and other authorities around the world."</div><div>
</div><div>"When it comes to the issue du jour, drug safety," he wrote, "no description of medical research in a medical journal comes close to the detail level or scrutiny imposed by the FDA on study results before approval."</div><div>
</div><div>Assuming this is true, the problem is that the industry insiders running the FDA refuse to act on the advice of the agency's top scientists with first hand access to the underlying data. In a July 26, 2007 speech on the Senate floor, Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), of the Senate Finance Committee, said that, in the case of Avandia, "Not only did the FDA disregard the concerns and recommendations from the office responsible for post-marketing surveillance, but I have found that it also attempted to suppress scientific dissent."</div><div>
</div><div>In the past two months, he told his fellow senators, "I've had to write to the FDA regarding the suppression of dissent from not one but two FDA officials involved in the review of Avandia."</div><div>
</div><div>The Heartwire website conveniently echoed Dr Gottlieb's sentiments by featuring portions of a May 23, 2007, unsigned editorial from the medical journal The Lancet, which claimed that the verdict on Avandia should await the results of a Glaxo sponsored trial called RECORD, not due out until 2009.</div><div>
</div><div>"Taken together," the editorial said of Dr Nissen's findings, "these results, although based on very small numbers of events, certainly raise a signal of concern and indicate the need for more reliable information about rosiglitazone's safety."</div><div>
</div><div>"But the FDA, physicians, and patients can reasonably await the results of RECORD, a phase 3 trial designed specifically to study cardiovascular outcomes," it said.</div><div>
</div><div>"Until the results of RECORD are in," the Lancet noted, "it would be premature to overinterpret a meta-analysis that the authors and NEJM editorialists all acknowledge contains important weaknesses."</div><div>
</div><div>The problem with waiting two years for the results of the RECORD trial is that FDA scientist Dr David Graham reviewed the results of this study thus far and told an FDA advisory panel that the study design is so flawed that the results should not be considered in any risk benefit analysis of Avandia now, or in 2009.</div><div>
</div><div>In fact, Dr Graham says the RECORD study is so useless that it is probably unethical to allow it to continue because no possible benefit can be achieved by allowing it to go on and that Avandia should be pulled off the market now because thousands of patients are being injured each month by using the drug.</div><div>
</div><div>At the end of his editorial, Dr Gottlieb lists himself as a physician and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, as well as former Deputy Commissioner of the FDA from 2005 to 2007. However, back on August 24, 2005, the Seattle Times provided a much better picture of his background and highlighted the oddity of the FDA hiring him in the first place in light of his solid alliance with the industry. "Only a month ago," the article states, "Dr Scott Gottlieb was a Wall Street insider, promoting hot biotech stocks to investors."</div><div>
</div><div>At the time, the Times noted, "Now Gottlieb holds the No. 2 job at the federal agency that approves new drugs, oversees their safety and affects the fortunes of companies he once touted."</div><div>
</div><div>"Now, as one of three deputy commissioners," the article said, "Gottlieb will help oversee such major policies as the FDA's fast-track approval process for drug and biotech products, a priority for many Wall Street funds and the pharmaceutical industry."</div><div>
</div><div>The Times also noted that a half-dozen current and former FDA officials said they did not know of anyone else from Wall Street ever moving directly into such a high-level job at the agency.</div><div>
</div><div>A couple months later, the November 12, 2005, Boston Globe reported that Dr Gottlieb could not participate in formulating the nation's defense plan against the avian flu due to conflicts of interest. He "was recused from key parts of the planning effort because his past consulting work for Manning Selvage & Lee involved companies whose products would be used to combat a flu pandemic," it said. Yes, the very same Manning Selvage & Lee at which Arbesfeld held the Senior Vice President position. Does anyone smell a rat (or several)?</div><div>
</div><div>The article pointed out that Dr Gottlieb's former clients included Roche, the manufacturer of Tamiflu, and Sanofi-Aventis, the parent company of the nation's sole flu vaccine maker.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the Globe, Manning paid Gottlieb a $12,500 monthly retainer for nine months for projects that included eight companies, and he was also paid $9,000 for private consulting work for VanGen Inc, a firm that won a $878-million contract to supply the US government with 75 million doses of anthrax vaccine.</div><div>
</div><div>Dr Nissen and Dr Gottlieb's disputes are not new. In fact, on August 2, 2006, they participated in a debate on the topic: "Government Science Panels: Fair and Balanced?" sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and reported on by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman in Common Dreams.</div><div>
</div><div>Likewise, lawmakers have mentioned in their communications with the FDA that they found it "troubling" that Mr Arbesfeld might be trying to settle old scores with Dr Nissen because they were on opposite sides regarding the approval of the heart failure drug Natrecor.</div><div>
</div><div>Much to his credit, Dr Nissen openly communicated his objections to the industry's infiltration of the FDA. While sitting right next to Dr Gottlieb, he candidly described the conflicts of interest, which he stated were "evident at the highest levels of the FDA."</div><div>
</div><div>"For years," he said of FDA leadership, "we had an interim FDA Commissioner, Lester Crawford, who shortly after confirmation, abruptly resigns, apparently because he and his wife owned stock in regulated companies."</div><div>
</div><div>"Then the administration appointed Andrew von Eschenbach as interim commissioner creating another conflict," he said. "In his role as director of the National Cancer Institute, von Eschenbach must seek FDA approval for human testing or approval of new cancer drugs, an obvious conflict," he noted.</div><div>
</div><div>"But even worse," Dr Nissen stated, "the administration appointed Scott Gottlieb as deputy commissioner."</div><div>
</div><div>"He came to this job with no regulatory experience, directly from Wall Street, where he served as a biotech analyst and stock promoter," Dr Nissen told the audience.</div><div>
</div><div>Dr Gottlieb's response to Dr Nissen's comments was, in essence, that he would not dignify the comments with a response.</div><div>
</div><div>Firms with which Dr Gottlieb was involved prior to his gig at the FDA, according to the Globe, also include the Inamed Corp, one of two companies that were seeking to return silicone gel implants to the market and on November 17, 2006, the FDA announced that it would lift restrictions on the sale of the implants.</div><div>
</div><div>When Dr Gottlieb left the FDA, he headed right back to greener pastures with the drug giant Novartis. The press release to announce his hiring read: "Bench International Places Eminent Regulatory Advisor Scott Gottlieb, M.D., as Senior Counsel to Novartis."</div><div>
</div><div>"Under an exclusive consulting agreement," the release stated, "Scott Gottlieb, M.D., will provide advisory services to Novartis on matters of global regulatory policy and strategy."</div><div>Two more members of FDA’s alumni, Peter Pitts and Robert Goldberg took another swipe at Dr. Nissen in a June 6, 2007 commentary in the Washington Times, using the same talking points as the anonymous blogger, likewise referring to Dr. Nissen as a “self-appointed and media-anointed Patron Saint of Drug Safety” and “Saint Steven the Pure.”</div><div>
</div><div>For much of the childish commentary, they poke fun at Dr Nissen because he acknowledged in the NEJM that he consults for many drug companies but said he "requires them to donate all honoraria or consulting fees directly to charity so that he receives neither income nor a tax deduction."</div><div>
</div><div>At the end of the commentary, Mr Pitts says he is a former FDA associate commissioner, and both men list their affiliation with the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest; but as usual, that listing really does not give credit where credit is due.</div><div>
</div><div>On its web site, the Center describes itself as "a non-partisan, non-profit educational charity," and Mr Pitts is indeed listed as President, but his bio also says he is the Senior Vice President for Global Health Affairs at none other than Manning, Selvege & Lee.</div><div>
</div><div>The Manning firm apparently fills two important roles. It's a breeding ground for industry moles preparing to enter "public service" and serves as an employment hub for industry shills once they finish their on average 2- to 3-year stint inside the Bush Administration.</div><div>
</div><div>In his CMPI bio, Mr Pitts describes his duties as the FDA's Associate Commissioner from 2002 to 2004 as serving as the agency's "Chief Messaging Officer."</div><div>
</div><div>On June 7, 2007, Mr Pitts had this to say in defense of fellow hit-man Mr Arbesfeld on the Pharmalot web site: "I know Doug Arbesfeld and he is a guy devoted to advancing the public health."</div><div>
</div><div>According to Mr Pitts, in sending the derogatory e-mail about Dr Nissen to journalists, Mr Arbesfeld was just standing up for the FDA and that people should know about the sacrifice he made by accepting a job in government.</div><div>
</div><div>"He is also a guy," Mr Pitts says, "who took a pretty significant pay cut to put in some time in public service."</div><div>
</div><div>Some would no doubt argue that it's difficult to imagine that Mr Arbesfeld will end up in the poor house as a result of serving as the top industry mole inside the FDA.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr Pitts' sidekick, Mr Goldberg, is indeed listed as the vice president of CMPI, but Mr Goldberg's bio also says he used to be Director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Medical Progress and Chairman of its 21st Century FDA Task Force.</div><div>
</div><div>In fact, a review of the CMPI web site turned up a whole nest of ex-moles who served the industry in one capacity or another in the Bush Administration's FDA. For instance, Daniel Troy, the former FDA Chief Counsel, also known as the "Godfather of Preemption," sits on this "charity's" Advisory Board.</div><div>
</div><div>Troy’s bio points out that he "played a principal role in FDA’s generally successful assertion of preemption in selected product liability cases."</div><div>
</div><div>This "assertion of preemption" says that, as long as the FDA has approved a drug and its label, private citizens in state courts cannot sue the drug company for failing to warn about a product's serious health risks, even in cases where it can be shown that the company concealed studies that revealed the risk from the public and the FDA.</div><div>
</div><div>Now that he's switched back to private practice, Mr Troy's CMPI bio says he currently specializes in constitutional and appellate litigation, as well as strategic counseling with "particular focus" on what else - clients regulated by the FDA.</div><div>
</div><div>The Advisory Board also includes, Tomas Philipson, whose bio says he served as the Senior Economic Advisor to the commissioner of FDA during 2003 and 2004 and as the Senior Economic Advisor to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2004 and 2005.</div><div>
</div><div>That would mean that Mr Philipson served Mark McClellan, and they are now apparently joined at the hip because, as part of a program called "Patient-Centric and Prospective Medicine," CMPI says it has created the Patient-Centric Health Forum and that Mr McClellan, "former Medicare administrator and FDA commissioner, will chair the group."</div><div>
</div><div>So, it would appear that anyone looking for the retirement home for industry hit men who served in the Bush Administration's FDA can find it right in the middle of cyberspace on the CMPI web site.</div><div>
</div><div>Persons seeking legal advice regarding Avandia can contact Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Goldman & Menzies Law Firm at: (800) 827-0087; http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/</div><div>http://www.avandia-heart-lawyers.com/.</div><div>
</div><div>*</div><div>Evelyn Pringle</div><div>evelyn-pringle@sbcglobal.net</div><div>
</div><div>(Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and an investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America)</div><div>(This article is part of the Avandia Update series sponsored by the Baum Hedlund law firm)</div><div>
</div><div>=</div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">=</font></div><div><p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 20px;" open="Open" sans="Sans" arial="Arial" helvetica="Helvetica" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman has successfully litigated against some of the largest corporations in the world, including major airlines, rail organizations, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, agrochemical corporations, and even the federal government. Thousands of people have entrusted us to represent their interest in lawsuits against:</font></p><ul style="box-sizing: border-box;" open="Open" sans="Sans" arial="Arial" helvetica="Helvetica" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Ground transportation companies<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span>Allied Waste Industries; Amtrak; CR England; CSX Corporation; Eagle Systems; Food Express, Inc.; Food 4 Less; Ford Motor Co.; GARDA, Inc.; Greyhound; J.B. Hunt; Kimberly-Clark; Lucky’s; Metrolink; Roadway Express; Ryder Truck Rental; Schneider National Trucking; Swift Transportation; Tyson Foods; and Werner Enterprises.</font></li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box;" open="Open" sans="Sans" arial="Arial" helvetica="Helvetica" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Aviation companies<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span>Aerospatiale; Airbus; Alaska Air; American Airlines; Beechcraft; Bell Helicopter Textron; Boeing; Bombardier; Cessna; Continental Airlines; Delta Airlines; Grumman; Heli USA Airways; Hughes Aircraft; JetBlue; McDonnell Douglas; Piper; Robinson Helicopters; Rockwell; Sikorsky; Southwest Airlines; United Airlines; and US Airways.</font></li></ul><ul style="box-sizing: border-box;" open="Open" sans="Sans" arial="Arial" helvetica="Helvetica" sans-serif="sans-serif" font-size="font-size" px="px" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="box-sizing: border-box;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 700;">Defective or Dangerous Product Manufacturers<br style="box-sizing: border-box;" /></span>Alpha Therapeutic; Armour Pharmaceutical Co.; Baxter Healthcare Corporation<b>; Bayer Corporation</b>; Covidien; Cutter Biologicals; Eli Lilly; Forest Labs; GlaxoSmithKline/SmithKline Beecham; Johnson & Johnson; Marion Merrell Dow/Richardson-Merrell; Medtronic, Inc.; <b>Merck; Monsanto </b>Company; Oclassen; Pfizer; Schering-Plough; Sigma Aldrich; Solvay Pharmaceuticals; Stryker Biotech; Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.</font></li></ul></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Jon Entine and Genetic Literacy Project are Monsanto Trolls</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As the founder and executive director of the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP), Jon Entine bills himself as an objective authority on science even though his contribution to the field centers on attacking scientists, journalists, and others at the behest of the corporations that pay him.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Demonstrative of this cozy relationship is a 2015 Monsanto PR plan that identified Genetic Literacy Project as one of its “industry partners.” Monsanto planned to engage GLP and numerous other similarly affiliated “independent” third parties to “protect the reputation” of Roundup and “orchestrate outcry” about the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) conclusions about glyphosate. In 2015, IARC performed an exhaustive scientific review on glyphosate and concluded the chemical is a “probable human carcinogen.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As of today, GLP has posted over 280 articles about IARC. Some of these articles include personal attacks concerning the scientists who served on the IARC Working Group tasked with evaluating glyphosate, calling them “frauds,”“liars,” and “greed-driven.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tax records show that the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI), a chemical industry trade group, paid Ketchum public relations firm more than $11 million from 2013-2016 to run GMO Answers, a website where consumers purportedly get straight answers from “independent experts” about genetically engineered foods.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A CBI / Ketchum document unearthed in the Roundup litigation lists Jon Entine, Bruce Chassy, Kevin Folta and others as“target authors.” Entine was to rebut the review, ‘GMO Myths and Truths’ by Dr. Michael Antoniou, which asserted, “Roundup has never been tested or assessed for long-term safety for regulatory purposes but independent studies show it is highly toxic to animals and humans.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto (now Bayer) was and is a member of CBI and provides funding to GMO Answers. According to the website, the independent experts on GMO Answers “are not paid by GMO Answers to answer questions.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>The notion that “experts” like Entine were not paid for their contributions to GMO Answers runs counter to an internal email from Monsanto’s Eric Sachs</b>. Sachs worked on a plan for Monsanto and other companies to support an “Academic Review” (a similar website where pro-industry academic Bruce Chassy and others could respond to and attack the work of those critical of GMOs). In the email, Sachs wrote: “From my perspective, the problem is one of expert engagement and that could be solved by paying some experts to provide responses…The key will be keeping Monsanto in the background so as not to harm the credibility of the information.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 2014 and 2015, Entine partnered with Chassy and Folta to organize industry-funded conferences at the University of Florida and <b>UC Davis “to train scientists and journalists to frame the debate over GMOs and the toxicity of glyphosate,” as Paul Thacker reported in The Progressive.</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Paul D. Thacker</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">@thackerpd</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">1/6 Emails on behind the scenes maneuvering by #Monsanto consultants and third party groups. First, @KarlHvM of @biofortified emails Agbiochatter complaining about @tomphilpott of @MotherJones and #FOIA https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6382789-Karl-Von-Mogel-Complaining.html</span> …</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">View image on Twitter</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">10</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">3:38 AM <b>- Sep 10, 2019</b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Twitter Ads info and privacy</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">See Paul D. Thacker's other Tweets</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Litigation documents show that Chassy and other pro-industry experts like him aren’t known for pulling any punches in the framing of the GMO / glyphosate debate. To the contrary, his inflammatory language discussing the pro-industry side of the debate is downright abusive.</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">In one document, Chassy likens reporting from a journalist discussing health risks associated with GMOs to “playing Whack-a-mole at the carnival.” He tells Daniel Goldstein, a Monsanto executive, “[w]e’ll be working on this too. Isn’t freedom of speech wonderful?”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In another email, Chassy discusses the Open Letter to Monsanto from Moms Across America, a non-profit organization critical of Monsanto and Roundup. “That’s your enemy,” Chassy says to another academic and Goldstein. “Beat the shit out of them and put them on the defensive and you won’t have this problem.”</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>By Baum Hedlund|</b>September 10th, 2019|Blog, Monsanto Roundup News</font></div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.science20.com/content/baum_hedlund_knows_as_little_about_monsters_as_they_do_science"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.science20.com/content/baum_hedlund_knows_as_little_about_monsters_as_they_do_science</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>
</b></font></div><div><div class="node-title" itemprop="name" style="line-height: 28px; clear: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Baum Hedlund Knows As Little About Monsters As They Do Science</b></font></div><div class="node-title" itemprop="name" style="line-height: 28px; clear: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div id="article-info" class="node-info" style="line-height: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By <a href="https://www.science20.com/profile/hank_campbell" title="View user profile." style="text-decoration-line: none;">Hank Campbell</a> | September 12th 2019 </font></div><div id="node-wrapper" class="node-common" style="line-height: 1.7em; margin-bottom: 0px; width: 650px; border-bottom: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div id="article-content" class="content main-content article" itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0.6em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman PC, which collaborates with organic company trade groups like <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180609195837/https://www.deniersforhire.com/industry-front-groups/us-right-to-know/" target="blank">U.S. Right To Know</a> and hand-puppets they control, such as the so-called "Industry Docs"<b> industry fifth columnists embedded inside U.C. San Francisco,</b> exists to make money. They are lawyers, after all.
And it looks like Genetic Literacy Project, run by best-selling author and fan of science Jon Entine, has them in a financial sweat, <a href="https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/9-19-entine-glp-monsanto-trolls/" target="blank" rel="nofollow">because they have put out a new hit piece on him</a> ... and they aren't even bothering to get <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180609195837/https://www.deniersforhire.com/industry-front-groups/organic-consumers-association/" target="blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> or one of their flunkies - <a href="https://www.deniersforhire.com/bad-journalists/paul-thacker/" target="blank">Paul Thacker</a>, <a href="https://www.deniersforhire.com/bad-journalists/michael-balter/" target="blank">Mike Balter</a>, <a href="https://www.deniersforhire.com/bad-journalists/charles-seife/" target="blank">Charles Seife</a> (insert any discredited former journalist here) - to put their name on it, they have it under their own moniker.
[img]
They're trial lawyers, facts are irrelevant, it's all about emotion.
Maybe they couldn't get one of their deniers for hire to write it, but that's unlikely. Those folks do what they are told. Maybe they wrote it specifically to shore up Denier-In-Chief Paul Thacker - their website is just about the only place he hasn't been retracted at this point - because they lovingly coo his tweet as their prize source.
Their motivations must remain unclear but one thing is evident; the article and artwork is apt because they trade in mythical monsters. Science is the big scary thing they need to convince juries is lurking in the pantry, so the blog post is right in line with their messaging.
And that messaging is to create their own mythology when they lack evidence.
Yet they know even less about mythical monsters than they do science. Though they call Entine a troll the image they use, notes <a href="https://medium.com/@welovegv" target="blank" rel="nofollow">Stephan Neidenbach</a>, is...orcs. And they don't attribute the art to anyone. Odd FOR A LAW FIRM THAT CLAIMS TO PROMOTE TRANSPARENCY. If they can't show they paid <a href="https://stock.adobe.com/103435726?as_campaign=TinEye&as_content=tineye_match&epi1=103435726&tduid=6c32f49babb67a57f62c3d605d29d869&as_channel=affiliate&as_campclass=redirect&as_source=arvato" target="blank">Adobe</a> $300 prior to the article appearing or at least <a href="https://www.istockphoto.com/vector/big-trolls-gm482877679-19592383" target="blank">$33 to iStock</a> (Getty images, are you reading this?), well, what does that say about them? If they rush to purchase a license after reading this article, it says all the public needs to know.
It took a five second search to find this image <a href="http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9781849692908.do" target="blank">going all the way back to 2012</a> yet Baum Hedlund doesn't give any credit for it, not <a href="https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/205941458/denzorr?load_type=author&prev_url=detail" target="_blank">to denzoor</a> or anyone else, when I can find its attribution on dozens of sites. Do they want to deceive the public into believing they are the originators of it? Or are they too important to bother with laws?</font></div><div id="article-content" class="content main-content article" itemprop="articleBody" style="margin: 0.6em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div></div></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">===</font></div></div>