Re: Re: LA WEELY WRITES OF MY AND KELMAN'S LAWSUIT.

[Guest guest]

Wasn't one of the terms either " junk science " or " sound science "

straight out of the tobacco wars PR machine?

I think I remember one being unveiled in that great movie " Thank You

for Smoking "

(Its worth seeing, its about a PR hack for the tobacco industry during

their glory days- not a real character,

but based on real events- There was really such an organization..

In the 80s, a friend of mine actually worked in NYC in the secret

inner sanctum of

tobacco PR - he was in advertising - for the tobacco spin doctors, and

they had a sign that said that in their private elevator! )

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:46 PM, barb1283 <barb1283@...> wrote:

> Fat fingers, filthy carpet? Trademark red lipstick...cheapens you up

> a bit? This guy is out to cause some pain!!!

>

> However he isn't so smart because he then tells us why:

>

> " The Washington-based Manhattan Institute then paid Kelman to write a

> simpler, lay version of the ACOEM report for the public in 2003. A

> clearly elated U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents many

> businesses and industries sued during the Mold Rush, released a very

> abbreviated version. It stated: " The notion that toxic mold is an

> insidious killer, as so many media reports and trial lawyers would

> claim, is junk science. "

>

> He then complains about Jed Waldman's clearly thoughtful position on

> the issue as too costly, citing 'thousands' in mold abatement cost

> per household affected, but considering the health care costs on the

> other side of the equation, it's a costly savings.

>

> " Jed Waldman, of the California Department of Public Health, says

> that his agency's position is " that indoor mold contamination is

> unhealthy and should be abated, whether or not those links become

> better understood. "

>

> At what cost? The state of California doesn't pay the bill, which can

> easily amount to thousands of dollars by a middle-class family

> on " mold abatement " in a home with normal, nonthreatening molds. "

>

>

>>>

>> Thank you, Sherry. I am blown away.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ginny,

You are correct. Both terms, sound science and junk science are from the

marketing of the tobacco issue. The person actually attributed for the term

junk science is Huber, Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute.

It comes from a book he wrote in 1981 Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science In

The Courtroom

According to sourcewatch, Milloy, who runs the junk science website

got his start as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. For a good brief

overview, go here.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html

It is interesting to see the name of the law firm, Burling and Covington

mentioned in the above. The UCSF tobacco legacy library indicates they did much

work with Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs where Kelman was the overseer for

inhalation studies. Some confidential ones for R J Reynolds. In addition you

can find Lees-Haley's name as being paid thru this law firm to recruit

epidemiologist in California on behalf of .

What they have done over the mold issue is no accident. They knew how to

spin it right from the get go to successfully cast doubt on these illnesses

thru the misapplication of inhalation studies and to market it to the public

and

to the physicians.

Someone should do a book called " Old tobacco scientists, where are they

today? " ...and you wonder why they hate me so much!

Sharon K

In

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

*That is the missing link, the part of this story that pulls it all

together.

*

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 7:41 AM, <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Harbison is one example of tobacco experts who have become mold

experts for the defense.  He has also recently branched out into another

area---meth labs.  He says that police officers can't be sick from their years

of work removing meth labs from homes.  He is quite the spinmaster..  He can

spin anything to keep the ill from getting help!!

Re: [] Re: LA WEELY WRITES OF MY AND KELMAN'S LAWSUIT..

Ginny,

You are correct. Both terms, sound science and junk science are from the

marketing of the tobacco issue. The person actually attributed for the term

junk science is Huber, Senior Fellow Manhattan Institute.

It comes from a book he wrote in 1981 Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science In

The Courtroom

According to sourcewatch, Milloy, who runs the junk science website

got his start as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. For a good brief

overview, go here.

http://www.prwatch. org/prwissues/ 2000Q3/junkman. html

It is interesting to see the name of the law firm, Burling and Covington

mentioned in the above. The UCSF tobacco legacy library indicates they did much

work with Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs where Kelman was the overseer for

inhalation studies. Some confidential ones for R J Reynolds. In addition you

can find Lees-Haley's name as being paid thru this law firm to recruit

epidemiologist in California on behalf of .

What they have done over the mold issue is no accident. They knew how to

spin it right from the get go to successfully cast doubt on these illnesses

thru the misapplication of inhalation studies and to market it to the public and

to the physicians.

Someone should do a book called " Old tobacco scientists, where are they

today? " ...and you wonder why they hate me so much!

Sharon K

In