Re: Rent a Researcher

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/28/2005 10:54:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,

homerose@... writes:

http://www.slate.com/id/2133061

And here is how all this deceit relates to mold victims. Dr. Saxon of UCLA

and co-author of the ACOEM Mold Statement, receives approximately $70,000

when he testifies against mold victims in court. This money goes directly to

the Regents of the University of California. I call this insurance industry

money going directly into the coffers of research hospitals " Do Not Research

Grants "

It's like shooting fish in a barrel to find all the glaring Conflicts of

Interests that are leaving thousands ill from mold exposure.

Study Tied Pollutant to Cancer; Then Consultants Got hold of It

This is regarding the December 23, 2005 Wall Street Journal

article " Study Tied Pollutant to Cancer; Then Consultants

Got hold of It "

Can you guess who is advising on this issue? It is the same boys that are

driving the mold issue!!

Once again, the ACOEM, the ACSH has help greed

cloaked in fictional science to be paraded as the

truth in courtrooms and to the public.

____________________________________

Fri Dec 23 09:15:59 2005 Pacific Time

Chrome-Plated Fraud: How PG & E's Scientists-for-Hire

Reversed Findings of a Cancer Study

OAKLAND, Calif., Dec. 23 (AScribe Newswire) -- A

consulting firm hired by Pacific Gas & Electric Co.(PG & E)

to fight the " Brockovich " lawsuit distorted data from

a Chinese study to plant an article in a scientific

journal reversing the study's original conclusion that

linked an industrial chemical to cancer, according to

documents obtained by Environmental Working Group (EWG).

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the San

Francisco-based consultants, ChemRisk, " conceived, drafted,

edited and submitted to medical journals "

a " clarification " of the Chinese study, according to

documents filed in another chromium lawsuit against PG & E.

They did so despite a letter of objection from the Chinese

scientist who led the original study, calling their

reversal of his findings an " inappropriate inference. "

Through the state Public Records Act, EWG has obtained

many of the documents cited by the Journal. They are

available at http://www.ewg.org .

In the Brockovich case, residents of Hinkley, Calif., sued

PG & E for dumping chromium-6 in their drinking water. In

1997, PG & E paid $333 million to settle the case, but

another lawsuit against the company over chromium

pollution is set for trial next month.

The fraudulent article has influenced chromium regulations

by state and federal agencies, including the Environmental

Protection Agency. ChemRisk,perpetrator of the deception,

continues to work for corporate and government clients

including the Department of Energy and the Centers for

Disease Control.

The article was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine.(Which is the

publication of the ACOEM, that also published the " peer

reviewed mold statement)

EWG has written the journal's editors urging them to set

the record straight and bar the scientists who were

involved from its pages. " The scientific community must be

notified that a paper circulating in the published

literature is fraudulent, the paper must be retracted, and

those responsible for the incident must be appropriately

disciplined, " EWG Senior Vice President Wiles wrote

to the journal.

EWG has also written the Centers for Disease Control,

which recently renewed ChemRisk's multi-million dollar

contract for a key project at the Los Alamos National

Laboratory, urging the agency to take prompt action

against the company.

" ChemRisk's current contract must be cancelled and the

firm barred from seeking future contracts from the CDC or

other government agencies, " wrote Wiles.

The documents obtained by EWG show that ChemRisk employees -

with the knowledge of PG & E's attorneys - hired one of the

original study's authors as a " consultant, " and conducted a

new analysis of his data that deliberately ignored

evidence of an association between stomach cancer and

chromium-6 in drinking water.

They then wrote and submitted the article for publication without disclosing

that they

worked for ChemRisk or that PG & E had paid for the new " study. " Nowhere in

the published article are the names of the ChemRisk employees who worked on it,

or any indication that it was part of PG & E's legal defense strategy.

The founder and president of ChemRisk is Dennis

Paustenbach, who has made a career of consulting for big

polluters including PG & E, Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical. In

2002, his appointment to a federal committee on the health

effects of chemicals was blasted by independent scientists

as part of a Bush Administration pattern of packing

environmental panels with industry-friendly experts.

Letter to official publication of the ACOEM

http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/chromium/pdf/ltr_joem.pdf

Letter to CDC

http://www.ewg.org/reports_content/chromium/pdf/ltr_cdc.pdf_

The American Council on Science and Health's involvement:

From the Website of the ACSH - who " never met a carcinogen

their clients were responsible for " and regarding

biomonitoring for carcinogens:

" This report is based on the journal paper by Dennis

Paustenbach, PhD, DABT and Galbraith, MD, which was

reviewed by the following people, to whom ACSH is grateful:

(Just referencing one of the reviewers for the ACSH)

E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D.

International Center for Toxicology and Medicine "

_http://disabilitylaw.ca/Dateline%20State%20Farm.pdf_

(http://disabilitylaw.ca/Dateline%20State%20Farm.pdf)

More on groundwater contamination w/GlobalTox involvement:

" We are also concerned that S.J. Goldberg, one of the

authors of the publications alleging that TCE is a

selective cardiac teratogen, has been a plaintiff expert in

TCE lawsuits and failed to reveal that fact in his

publications. "

B.D.H. has had no consulting relationships involving TCE.

B.J.K. has provided testimony as a defense expert in TCE

litigation pertaining to congenital malformations. R.L.B.

has provided testimony as a defense expert in TCE

litigation pertaining to congenital malformations of the

heart. (I am pretty sure Kelman's client they are referring to is

!)

D. Hardin

GlobalTox, Inc.

Hilton Head, South Carolina

Bruce J. Kelman

GlobalTox, Inc.

Redmond, Washington

Hardin is the Retired Assistant Surgeon General for NIOSH. He, Kelman

and Saxon authored the ACOEM Mold Statement saying it is not plausible that

people could be made ill from mycotoxins in homes, schools or offices. This

finding is founded on ONE rat study.

ACOEM member emails regarding the drafting of the ACOEM

Mold Statement,which also was published as " peer reviewed

research " in the JOEM:

Email. Dr. Harbut, dated November 4, 2002

Harbut is asking, " Do you know if the authors have any

potential Conflict of Interest, such as having been

retained as expert witnesses by any attorneys? "

Email, Hardin, dated November 5, 2002: Stating, " My

reaction to this request is to say that he who demands to

see a Conflict of Interest statement should offer his

first. "

Email, Bernack, PRESIDENT of the ACOEM dated November 8,

2002, stating, " Because of that interest,this evidence-

based paper underwent strenuous and extensive peer-review,

and a " Conflict of Interest " statement was obtained from

the authors of the paper. "

Email, Dr.Harbut, dated January 29, 2003 and stating, " …many

of us on the list were anticipating the conflict of

interest statements from JOEM in regard to the authors of

the “Mold Statement†adopted by the ACOEM. It seems they

got lost in the mail. The question arises if this just an

oversight, or if such a disclosure of conflicts is

purposeful, as many of us who are members of the ACOEM who

actually see patients with mold exposure were excluded

from the discussion. "

We are not aware of any “Conflict of Interest†statement

ever being obtained from the authors of the ACOEM Mold

Statement. However if there were one, it would have to

disclose that although these gentlemen have generated much

income from courtroom testimony, NOT ONCE have any of them

ever testified on behalf of one who have been made ill from

indoor mold exposure.

[Guest guest]

Aubrey Blumsohn is my brother-in-law.

My husband found the following on Slate:

]New article on P & G fiasco. Make sure you click the links.

> http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/

The links include transcripts and audio of acutal conversations Aubrey had with

P & G.

Saralee Rosen

homerose@...

Rent-a-Researcher

Did a British university sell out to Procter & Gamble?

By Washburn

Posted Thursday, Dec. 22, 2005, at 2:38 PM ET

Earlier this month, Sheffield University in Britain offered $252,000 to one

of its senior medical professors, Aubrey Blumsohn. According to a _copy of a

proposed settlement_ (http://www.fraudinscience.org/PG/gag.doc) released by

Blumsohn, the university promised to pay him if he would agree to leave his

post and not make " any detrimental or derogatory statements " about Sheffield

or

its employees. For several years, Blumsohn had been complaining of scientific

misconduct. His concerns primarily revolved around a $250,000 research

contract between Sheffield and the Ohio-based Procter & Gamble

Pharmaceuticals.

Blumsohn claimed that the company had denied him access to key data and then

tried to ghostwrite his analysis of it. He further alleged that P & G had

engaged

in such practices before.