Changes

<b>1989 Sep</b> Carlo and LeVois began using the expanded name [[Health and Environmental Sciences Group]] (HESG)- but LeVois appears to leave almost immediately. <b>1989 Oct 6</b> The Newman Partners (Science PR for Philip Morris) have had a meeting with Philip Morris's top science dissemblers. They are launching a three-part 'Science Communications' project.# To anticipate, then plan strategies for the EPA's ETS Risk Assessment (due shortly) Their primary contact is LeVois. Their goal is to show cumulative bias by the EPA over the long term - cost $25,000# Conduct the XYZ substances survey. This is the 'Bias Study' run by Carlo and his staff (see below) - cost is $60,000# Develop and implement usability strategies to show that these studies are examples of "poor science" resulting in "Media scare stories". Support for airline smoking is important. Part B of this is also to attack the epidemiological use of meta-analysis (the statistical combination of smaller studies to strengthen conclusions). They say: "at a minimum, raise doubt of the validity of the procedure and the conclusions drawn from its use." He then adds a couple of pages of other papers to exploit (Including those of the life-time lobbyist [[Carl C Seltzer]]) and a hint at the project run by [[Steven J Milloy]], [[The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition]] (TASSC). The total start-up costs for this program are $87,200, with a $163,750 per month on-going charge. [http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/njhh0089]

<b>1989 Oct 17</B> The Carlo-LeVois proposal to Philip Morris is has been handed to [[Larry Newman]] who runs a research front called The the [[Newman Partnership ]] with his brother [[Fred Newman]], a an in-house lawyer with Philip Morris. They hold a meeting with Carlo and his associate [[Patricia Doesberg]] (with a conference call to Borelli) in Washington DC.

<b>1989 Oct 26-31</b> The Newman Partnership also reports to Philip Morris's top scientists, [[Tom Borelli]], [[Nelson Beane]] and [[Tom Osdene]] on a Risk Society meeting in San Francisco. They are tracking the development of the [[EPA ETS Risk Assessment]] studies. In particular one by [[Kenneth G Brown]] and [[Douglass Crawford-Brown]] of Chapel Hill NC interested them because it was looking at the possibility that lung-cancer arose from radon. It was said to show that tobacco smoke in the air actually reduced the risk of radon as a carcinogen. This study was still incomplete. However there are long recordings of their conversations with the two scientists, especially some expressions of doubt. They also identify [[Dennis J Paustenbach]] and [[Adam Finkel]] as potentially useful.[http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/tpbb0126] <hr><b>1989 Nov 20</b> A formal approach is made -- BUT NOT TO PHILIP MORRIS, but to their newly selected public relations firm Newman Partnership Lrd. [ http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/krq32c00/pdf]. The aim is to show that anti-smoking scientists are biasedand Philip Morris is keen to get this research.  The DRAFT proposal for <center>"Studies of Scientific Standards, opinion and Bias:<br>Environmental Health Risk and Environmental Tobacco Smoke</center> is made to '''The Newman Partnership, Ltd. Columbia, South Carolina [https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/hjyc0114] This is proposed as a multi-part very complex series of studies on a variety of substances, selected to hide the cigarette company interest. The budget requested is $90,000 for the actual research. [http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/hjyc0114]

Philip Morris is keen Carlo has include a list of potential subcontracts to get this researchprovide peer-review and data collection services. The DRAFT proposal His choices demonstrate that he already had good knowledge of scientists who regularly worked for <center>"Studies of Scientific Standards, opinion and Bias:<br>Environmental Health Risk and Environmental Tobacco Smoke</center> is made the tobacco industry. He also suggests which should be used to 'peer review''The Newman Partnership, Ltd. Columbiathe final study:* [[Maurice E LeVois]] (ex partner)* [[Alan J Gross]] (biostatistics) - life-long tobacco lackey, Medical Uni of South Carolina* [[Ralph I Horowitz]] (Yale Uni) for peer review.(associate of wel-known [https[Alvan R Feinstein]] and [[Walter O Spitzer]])[http://wwwlegacy.industrydocumentslibrarylibrary.ucsf.edu/tobaccotid/docslaw88e00/hjyc0114pdf]* [[John L Wilson]] (ACS) for peer review (Probably a clean-skin, but he had taken CTR money when Dean at Stanford Uni)* [[Frank M LaDuca]] (International Technidyne) for peer review. [Also Cardiologist, Philadelphia Heart Institute}.??* [[Joseph Wu]], (New York Medical College) for peer review. Long-term tobacco scientist, who worked with [[Lawrence M Wexler]] (below) and Alan Gross (above)* Larry Wexler (epidemiology - New York Medical College) tobacco 'consultant' who worked with Joseph Wu and Alan Gross. They all provided 'witness services' and had a private company [[Epidemiology Consulting Group-NYC]]* [[William J Butler]], (Failure Analysis Associates) - Statistics -- Long-term tobacco industry witness and helper.* [[Steven W Frantz] ] (Bushy Run Research Lab) - Toxicology --The lab was working for RJ Reynolds in mouse testing for toxic chemicals at the time. <font color=green> : A Newman Partnership was a front company run by [[Fred Newman]] and his brother Larry. Fred Newman was the main in-house lawyer for Philip Morris. It The paper was actually later published with a credit for saying that the funding to came from the [[Institute for Regulatory Policy]] (IRP) which was run by Carlo's associates [[Jim Tozzi]] and [[Thorne Auchter]].[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zyb19e00/pdf]</font>

* Ms [[Elizabeth Sheffey]]<br>By the time this was sent for publication [[Maurice LeVois]] has split with Carlo, and three of his 'researchers' -- Patricia Doesberg, Brett Duch and Beth Sheffey -- had dropped out and [[Kelly G Sund]] and [[Maureen R Jablinske]] were given the credit. In this so-called '''Draft Protocol''', Carlo and LeVois don't only offer to conduct the research, they will also pre-plan the response and organise how to exploit the propaganda that will be generated.  In effect, <u>while supposedly acting as a disinterested scientist examining scientific ethics, they are performing the functions of a PR lobbyist and deliberately planning to manipulate a scientific outcome.</u> The procedure was explained later in a Philip Morris document:<blockquote>In half of the cases, the three potential problems were identified by name. For the other half, the potential problems were simply identified by letter (X, Y, and Z). The types of scientists surveyed included epidemiologists, toxicologists, doctors, and "basic scientists." A total of 2,478 questionnaires were sent out, and 1,461 (58.9%) were returned. Seventy per-cent of those polled agreed that ETS was a "serious environmental health hazard" when it was identified by name, compared to 33% when it was simply designated by the letter X.[https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/rryl0154]</blockquote> Part II of his plan is to "developing persuasive messages". On Page 2 (top), he specifies that this is a strategic question for PM -- not a scientific question. (But they will do it anyway, for money.) In the meeting report the tasks assigned to Newman Partners Ltd. and Tom Osdene's staff at Philip Morris were to create a mailing list of authors and scientists involved in the EPA Risk Assessment Study. They are also to:<blockquote><i>3. Engage '''unimpeachable academic peer review panels''' for G Carlo's (study -- and check...): a. Content of protocols for studies: b. Focus group research: c. Methodological protocols: d. Quantitative opinion studies. [Also their...] Deadline for Completion of Studies: '''Prior to the Release Date of the [[EPA ETS Risk Assessment]] Report.'''</i></blockquote>  ==To Here== 

This tobacco-industry inspured inspired "GEP" standard became known as the "London Principles" after the predicatble loaded industry conference. You can find these London Principles at the [[Federal Focus]] web-site still. Government imposition of such principles would have prevented the EPA, FDA, OSHA and any other environmental/health regulator from ever issuing regulations until proof of danger was accepted by ever scientist in the industry and every paid industry consultant scientist. An impossible task. <font color=green>: The study was to have been published in'' Environmental Environment International'' in June 1992 -- and it was typeset and the pages were fully formatted by Pergamon Press for it to appear in the magazine. [http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/ghjp0117]. However the title was later changed and it appeared instead in the Journal ''Risk Analysis'' only a few weeks later.<font color=green>: Someone obviously ejected from the first magazine at the last moment, and it was handed over (already typeset) to another magazine.: See how this bias study was used in later reports to attack epidemiology: (June 1995 ) There must be 30 copies of this study in the tobacco documents, so every tobacco company had one it its files. [http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/rryl0154]</font>

<b>1989:</b> Carlo received two Philip Morris payments ($70,000 + $60,000) for his 'Bias Study" paper proving that epidemiologists and anti-tobacco scientists are all biased, and are producing distorted results. Two long-term HESG staffers, [[Kelly Sund]] and [[Rebecca Steffens]], now have their name on the paper as co-researcher -- Kelly Sund on the draft, and Rebecca Steffens on the final. Kelly Sund became a faithful employee although lacking any biomedical qualifications. She had her name listed in this year also as co-author on a dioxin-spill study on the Melbourne (Australia) water supply. [[Maurice LeVois]] also managed to get a check for $25,000 from Philip Morris at the same time, and he later began to work more with another dubious scientist called [[Max Layard]] in California. The Carlo/LeVois HESG operation had split, or changed nature at this time. The tobacco documents also mention a Canadian, Dr [[Ian Munro]], who later worked with Carlo firefighting dioxin concerns. <font color=green> Munro became Carlo's deputy Director in the cellphone industry's [[Wireless Technology Research]] (WTR) project. Later Carlo and Munro formalised a partnership in preparing environmental impact statements in Canada. Munro also runs an organisation called [[CanTox]], which is the Canadian equivalent (or maybe an "arm") of Carlo's HES group.</font> George Carlo Still the 'dioxin specialist' travelled to Australia with one staffer (Kelly Sund) and accompanied by his "personal lawyer " friend ([[James Baller]]) to conduct an 'independent audit' of the Melbourne water supply following . This followed a dioxin spill from a Nufarm factory sited in the Melbourne water catchment area. It is not at all clear what role Baller played, but his name is on the main report as if he was a biomedical specialist.

<b>1992 Mar 13</b> The '''Philip Morris/Newman Partnership "Bias study" ''' is completed and sent to the tame a Pergaman Press journal ''Environment International'' as '''"The Health Scientist Survey: Identifying Consensus on Assessing Human Health Risk"'''. It was accepted a week later, and due to be published in the JulJuly/Aug edition. [http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/ghjp0117]

<b>1992 April 10</b> as It now carried the title '''"The Interplay of Science, Values, and Experiences Among Scientists Asked to Evaluate the Hazards of Dioxins, Radon and Environmental Tobacco Smoke"''' and it was published in the ''Risk Analysis'' journal.[https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/lqlb0123]

<brb>1992 Apr 10</B The tobacco industry law firm [[Shook Hardy & Bacon]] published in their newsletter, a double entry (also in Appendix A) on the study. This was a favourable criticism of the study in relation to its treatment of ETS under the heading: "Risk Assessment" - which was published the same day (April 10) as it appeared in the journal ''Risk Analysis.'' [Extraordinay efficiency perhaps !] [http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/htnn0042]<hr><b>1992 May:</b> Carlo and Ian Munro joined forces to convene a task-force which published produced a report, claiming on dioxins. This claims to be a definitive statment on the dangers of dioxin as home-use herbicides. They conclude that there aren't many. Who would have guessed?

<b>1992 Aug 21</b> [[Matthew Swetonic|Matt Swetonic]], who runs the [[Total Indoor Environmental Quality]] (TIEQ) Coalition and its associated [[National Environmental Development Association]] (NEDA) from the same offices as the [[E Bruce Harrison Company]] (EBH) has written to [[Betsy Annese]], his main contact at RJ Reynolds Tobacco about a meeting with the notorious scientific lobbyist [[George L Carlo]]. <blockquote><I>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, he had a working relationship with EBH doing 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.

: [Polluting industries were all lobbying to try to get 'risk analysis' legislated as an essential component of all environmental and health regulation. They controlled most of the consultants and academics who did risk assessment (they funded chairs at universities). [[Thorne Auchter]] who ran IRP, was a hidden partner in Carlo's HESG. They had produced papers promoting the value of risk-assessment (which depends on judgements rather than science)] {Slightly paraphrased to clarify]</font>: <blockquote><i>According to Carlo, EPA was so concerned about the implications of the (IRP/Auchter/Carlo) study that he was called to a meeting at the agency to explain "what the hell I was up to." <br>Carlo is unwilling to speak out directly in support of ETS, his "handlers" <font color=green>(probably Dow Chemical at this time)</font> at as the "primary funding organization" did little to publicize it when it was published in March. <br>: Carlo was personally involved in a number of meetings at the White House on the Executive Order and he . He believes, as does Ward Hubbell (Ex.Dir of TIEQ/NEDA) that it was these were because it would have been be perceived as to be a cave-in to industry at the expense of the public healthif they didn't proceed.  : According to Carlo, [[C Boyden Gray|Boyden Gray]] "screamed" (his word not mine) at them at one meeting that they had blown the whole thing by the heavy-handed corporate lobbying tactics and that he couldn't afford to hand the Democrats one more issue to beat President Bush over he head with in an election year.</i></blockquote> <font color=green>: [Ward Hubbell at that time had left the White House to work for TIEQ. <br>: [[C Boyden Gray]] was President HW Bush's ''Counsel to the President" during his second term. He had been "Counsel to the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief'' during the Reagan Administration. : Gray was also heir to a large part of the RJ Reynolds fortune, and he founded and he later ran the think-tanks [[Citizens for a Sound Economy]] and [[Citizens for a Sensible Environment]], both of which worked for the tobacco industry.</font> <br>  Carlo was promoting the idea that the tobacco industry should fund a new attempt at forcing risk-assessment on the EPA and other regulatory agencies by running a highly publicized series of reform symposiums symposia to generate community support.<blockquote><I>He feels Harrison (EBH) has plenty of environmental umbrella groups through which the effort could be funded, and indeed suggests NEDA as a potential sponsor. Ward agrees and sees the new NEDA/RAP (Risk Assessment Project) as the proper vehicle.<br>I can't say whether or not the project is doable however, I think it has sufficient merit to carry the conversation forward.  Think this thing over and let me know if there is anything you want me to do.</i>[http://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/fscy0089]</blockquote>

<b>1993 Dec:</b> In order to demonstrate how independent and arm's length all this research was, the new Wireless Technology Research (WTR) under Carlo announces that research pertaining to cellular telephones would be coordinated through the [[Harvard Center for Risk Analysis]] -([[John D Graham]]'s operation called the HCRA at (but not 'of') the University).

The HCRA had originally been part started under the auspices of the Harvard School of Public Health. It now appears almost certain that the '''Harvard Center for Risk Analysis''' was essentially a private operation owned and run by Dr [[John D Graham]] and a number of his associates. They paid Harvard University an annual fee for the right to use the Harvard name, and they accepted money from the tobacco companies (even though this was forbidden by Harvard University bylaws). They bypassed this restriction by the simple expedient of having the money paid from a '''Kraft account, ''' since Philip Morris owns Kraft.

You'll find the Harvard group and <table width="100%" bgcolor="eeeedd" border=1 rules=all cellpadding=5 align=right><tr bgcolor="cccccc"><th>JOHN D GRAHAM AND THE HCRA </th></tr><tr><td> [[John D Graham himself, prominentaly featured in the Phillip Morris document archives. He was also on [[Steve Milloy]]later became President George W Bush's [[TASSC]] Advisory Board along with George Carlodirector of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and he was involved from which gives him oversight on the beginning spending of the tobaccomajor environmental and health regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc). Like Carlo, Graham has spent his life as another science-for-funded Risk Assessment project called the 'Landsdown Panel' which sale entrepreneur, but his line was the foundation quasi-science of the '''[[London PrinciplesRisk Analysis]]]'''which attracts generous funding from industry because it can be manipulated to produce whatever outcome the client requests. Graham became spent a favourite anti-science activist for lot of time cosying up to the Republicanstobacco, food and chemical industries looking for work and they exploited his value to big business in a range of waysgrant-funding.

You'll find the Harvard group and John D Graham himself, prominentaly featured in the Phillip Morris document archives. He was also on [[Steve Milloy]]'s [[TASSC]] Advisory Board along with George Carlo, and he was involved from the beginning of the tobacco-funded Risk Assessment project called the 'Landsdown Panel' which was the foundation of the '''[[London Principles]]]'''. Graham became a favourite anti-science activist for the Republicans, and they exploited his value to big business in a range of ways. </td></tr></table> When the CTIA announced that the Harvard Risk Group would audit the science conducted by WTR, they didn't spell out what was meant by the term 'independent'. It turned out that Carlo's [[Health & Environmental Sciences Group]] Ltd. (supposedly a small company owned by Carlo himself) is the sole small company listed among a few very big and wealthy foundations and government departments in the Harvard Center's list of donors. [It was said that it required a donation of $26,000 to be listed.] Here is the Center's list:<table width="100%" cellpadding=5 border=1 rules=all bgcolor="eeeedd" ><tr><th colspan=3>Restricted grants for project support have been provided by the:</th><tr>

 &nbsp; There is only one other explanation for the above. Dr Carlo must be have been a very rich wealthy and very generous man to afford this sort of donation. Either that, or the HESG has been acting as a front for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association in laundering funds.