4,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
'''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 [[E Bruce Harrison Company]], then he was hired through [[Ketchum PR]] to run the Wireless Technology Research program for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) when it was found that the strobe-pulsed output from the first digital mobile phones (D-AMPS and GSM) caused breaks in the DNA in test animals. He then In between times he worked for tobacco, and later in life he moved on to various other scamsincluding 'bio-protection devices' to protect users from cellphone radiation.
His main company was [[Health and Environmental Sciences]] (which he expanded into "Group") but he had a half-dozen others usually with incorporating the Carlo name. His close closest associates were [[Ian C Munro]] from CanTox in Canada, [[James Tozzi|Jim Tozzi]] and [[Thorne Auchter]] who ran [[Federal Focus]]. the [[Multinational Business Service]] and the [[Institute for Regulatory Policy]] in Washington DC.
<table width="33%" bgcolor="eeeedd" border=1 rules=all cellpadding=5 align=right>
</table>
==Main Lobbying Associates==
• [[Maurice E LeVois]] who ran [[Environmental Health Resources]] in Mill Valley, California
* [[Ian C Munro]] who also ran [[CanTox]] (aka [[Canadian Centre for Toxicology]]) in Canada and was his deputy with [[Wireless Technology Research]] (WTR) for the CTIA.
* [[Thorne G Auchter]], ex Reaganite director of the OSHA.<br>Auchter, Tozzi and Carlo also ran [[Federal Focus]], [[Multinational Business Services]] (MBS), [[Health Policy Institute]] (HPI), [[Institute for Regulatory Policy]] (IRP), [[Center for the Study of Environmental Endocrine Effects]] (CSEEE), [[Center for Epidemiological Studies]] (CES), and [[Center for Regulatory Effectiveness]] (CRE)
* [[James J Tozzi]] ex Reaganite deputy administrator of [[Office of Management & Budget]] (OMB) and head of the [[Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs]] (OIRA). He left OIRA to become a consultant with the [[Beveridge & Diamond]] law firm (for chemical industry) Then set up those private operations above with Auchter (and possibly Carlo).
* [[James MacRae]], ex Dept.Admin [[Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs]] (OIRA) and Tozzi/Auchter's [[Center for Regulatory Effectiveness]] (CRE)
* [[Michael Gough]] and [[Steven J Milloy]] - [[TASSC]] and junk-science scams
* HESG Staff: Kelly G Sund, Rebecca Steffens ('Beckie'), James Baller (lawyer)
==Various Research Associates==
* Professor [[Keith Solomon]]<br> 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.
<hr>
<b>1972:</b> Dr Carlo's "scientific involvement with dioxins" begins. He reveals in a letter to the Wall Street Journal (March 27 1992) that his focus at this time was on risk management rather than basic research. He also said that he designed protocols which were used by the Arkansas Department of Health about this time, to monitor dioxin-exposed Vietnamese refugees.
<hr>
<b>1974 Jul 30</b> '''Times Beach''' dioxin scare. The Centers for Disease Control finally discovered that trichlorophenol (which had a by-product, dioxin) was the highly dangerous contaminate which were causing human problems at the Times Beach township, near St Louis, Missouri. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri] Little was done about it until 1982.
<hr>
<b>1974-1977</b> Arkansas Power and Light had their Nuclear One power plant in Pope County. And, in 1974, when it opened, the county had a still-birth rate of 20.3 per 1000, the following year it rose to 25.4, then to 27.5, and then in 1977 it hit a figure of 26.8 per thousand. "The combined rate in control counties farther from the site had, by contrast, dropped sharply."
<hr>
<b>1979:</b> <u>[[Love Canal]]:</u> This is a toxic land-fill incident that made world headlines. A developer had built a new suburb on reclaimed land, and a number of families with young children had shifted into the suburb and been living there for some time. It was then discovered that the land-fill was loaded with the dioxins. The suburb was evacuated and the homes torn down. According to his own report22, Carlo was consulted by the New York State Department 000 barrels of Health over this incident. Presumably, by then, he was seen as a dioxin expert -- but it is not clear which side was employing him at this timeladen toxic waste.<hr><b>1980 [https:</b> <u>[[Superfund]]:</u> A special government financed fund of $1en.6 billion is established for general site clean-ups around the United States after Love Canalwikipedia. However, org/wiki/Love_Canal] The health problems (birth defects and physical anomalies) was uncovered by the government was trying diligent work (from 1976 to load a proportion 1978) of these costs back on three local reporters working for the industries that had caused the problems -- so the fund ''Niagara Gazette'' and public concern was strongly opposed raised by industrya local activist, Lois Gibbs. Her efforts were largely ignored until 1980.
The correct name of the Superfund is [[CERCLA]] suburb (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act800 families) was evacuated and the homes torn down with the government reimbursing them for their loss. According to his own report, Carlo claims to have been was consulted on by the design New York State Department of the Superfund proposal Health over this incident. Presumably, by then, he was seen as a congressional committeedioxin expert -- but it is not clear which side was employing him at this time.
===Three Mile Island===
<hr>
<b>1979 Oct:</b> The American Department of Health issued a quick study which had been conducted on the Three Mile Island incident only 6 months after the event and Carlo claims to have been involved as a consultant.<blockquote><I>"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."<br>[Carlo]...served in diverse scientific advisory capacities, including membership on the US. Congress Office of Technology Assessment Agent Orange Advisory Panel. (Carlo biog)</i></blockquote>
<hr>
<b>1980:</b> <u>[[Superfund]]:</u> A special government financed fund of $1.6 billion (initially) is established for general site clean-ups around the United States after Love Canal by creating a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries. However, the government was trying to load a proportion of these costs back on the States and on the industries that had caused the problems -- so the fund was strongly opposed by industry.
The correct name of the Superfund is [[CERCLA]] (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) and Carlo claims to have been consulted on the design of the Superfund proposal by a congressional committee.
<hr>
<b>1981:</b> The [[Agent Orange]] herbicide used by the military in Vietnam had serious dioxin contamination problem. Dioxins were both toxic and caused mutagens, and they were accidentally when some manufacturing processes were not strictly supervised.
He met two scientific consultants who would later figure strongly in his life: Dr [[Maurice LeVois]], another epidemiologist working at this time for the Veterans, and Dr [[Michael Gough]] who was the dioxin representative for the government in the OTA. LeVois became a partner in HES, while Gough moved on to a life in think-tanks, firstly [[Resources for the Future]] and later the [[Cato Institute]]. They became a mutual supporting clique, and this provided Carlo with back-up when needed.<font color=green>
: [All three later joined forces to support [[Steven J Milloy]] in the [[TASSC]] junk-science scam for Philip Morris]</font> <b>1982</b>The Environmental Defense Fund published a leaked letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which listed 14 confirmed, and 41 possible dioxin-contaminated sites in Missouri, and also attacked the EPA's attempts to lower the dioxin cleanup protocol standards. [[Anne Burford Gorsuch]] was the EPA director and [[Rita Lavelle]] was assistant administrator. Times Beach was highly contaminated an excavation of 800 families was ordered on December 4th. The CDC publicly recommended that the settlement must not be reinhabited.
<table style="width=100%" bgcolor="ddeedd" border=1 rules=all cellpadding=5><tr><td>
<B>1987: </B>Dr Richard Stevens, writing in the ''American Journal of Epidemiology'', suggests that increased rates of breast cancer might possibly be associated with radio frequency EMFs. </font> </td></tr></table>
<b>1983</b> The American Medical Association attack the news media for creating a scare at Times Beach, claiming that there was no scientific evidence that dioxins were so harmful. Dr Vernon Houk the director of CDC's Center for Environmental Health, later came to the same conclusion, but only years after having recommended the permanent relocation. {However it was 2012 before new tests confirmed the dioxins had degraded to safe levels]
<hr>
<b>1986:</b> The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorisation Act (SARA) increases the Superfund to $8.5 billion, and made private cleanups compulsory. Carlo says he was consulted by a congressional committee here also.
: [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)]</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 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 believes, as does Ward Hubbell (Ex.Dir of TIEQ/NEDA) that it was because it would have been perceived as a cave-in to industry at the expense of the public health. 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 fund a new attempt at forcing risk-assessment on the EPA and other regulatory agencies by running a highly publicized series of reform symposiums 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>
<hr>
<b>1992 Sep 25:</b> ''The Times'' reported (above) that Dr. Vernon Houk the head of the US Public Health Service, had since been criticised by Congress, the National Academy of Science, and others over the Times Beach, Missouri evacuation. He was the "unnamed federal official" who had ordered the dioxin-related evacuation of Times Beach, Mo., {it has been officially a ghost town since 1985] However Houk later promoted the Dow company-line that the evacuation was unnecessary. [See Wikipedia explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri]
[Houk] admitted copying documents verbatim from Dow Chemical in his proposal relaxed standards for dioxin. Shortly before this a number of top EPA officials had also been forced to resign (seven in all). One of these officials, John Hernandez, had also been taking his written regulatory material straight from Dow Chemicals. (See also John Todhunter)
<hr>
<b>1993 June</b> Publication of '''Assessment of dioxin-related health risk for the Melbourne metropolitan area''' in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.1993.tb00126.x/abstract]
<table width="100%" cellpadding=5 border=1 rules=all><tr><td>
'''Cellphone Industry problems'''<br>
<b>1993 Jan 21:</b> The story broke about Florida a woman who had died from a brain tumour; the claim was that the tumour (allegedly) had been promoted by her use of a NEC cell phone. Her husband, David Reynard, was suing two cellular phone companies and the shop which sold the phone. He created a sensation when he appeared live on the Larry King Show and the public learned that no real health research had ever been conducted by the cellphone companies. Share prices in the Cellular phone companies tumbled on Wall Street.</td></tr></table>
<b>1993 Feb 1: </b>The Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) president, Tom Wheeler, announced that a special "blue-ribbon" panel would be formed, staffed by representatives from industry and government, to oversee a newly invigorated research project. The industry rejected any plan which had an FDA oversight on the work, and said it would fund the research itself -- but at arm's length. It then bought in [[John D Graham]] from the Harvard University [[Center for Risk Analysis]] to provide peer-review.
<hr>
<b>1993 Feb:</b> The Florida lawsuit begins, with David Reynard suing the cellular telephone companies (NEC and GTE) over his wife's fatal brain tumour. <blockquote><I>In early 1993, the hypothesis that radiation from cellular telephones might be causally related to brain cancer in users was first advanced in a Florida lawsuit. Officials from industry and government agreed on the need for additional research. (Carlo speech 1995)
In February 1993, the United States wireless telecommunications industry made a public commitment to support independent scientific research into the safety of portable cellular telephones and other aspects of wireless communications technology. (Carlo overview report 1995)</i></blockquote>
<hr>
<b>1993 April:</b> The establishment of the cellphone industry's Scientific Advisory Group, the precursor to [[Wireless Technology Research]]. Dr. [[George Carlo]] is contracted the run the organisation.
If you are wondering why he was chosen, you need look no further than Burson-Marsteller -- the PR advisors to both the tobacco industry and the cellphone industry. Carlo is one of their favourite contract researchers.
<hr>
<b>1993 April:</b> The first Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) meets under Dr Carlo. Carlo has also recruited a number of his friends from the [[Society of Risk Assessors]] and the Harvard University Risk Assessment group. These two organisations are almost synonymous at this time, and the Harvard Risk group under Dr [[John Graham]] also worked for and with Philip Morris.
This SAG organisation was specifically charged only with "cellular telephone research" and it did not (as stated later) including health research into "other aspects of wireless communications technology". At this time SAG did nothing other than glance quickly over a few research reports. However, George Carlo later (30 April 97) claimed that this was the beginning of the WTR 'research program' (implying actual research funding). He said: <blockquote><I>
"WTR has been exploring the concept of cancer promotion since the beginning of our research program in April 1993. As part of our step by step approach to evaluating the risk of human cancer among wireless phone users, our Expert Panel on Tumor Promotion has completed a comprehensive review of the available scientific information regarding RF and promotion.
These leaders in the field of promotion have advised us that the weight of existing science does not support the hypothesis that RF is a tumor promoter." </i></blockquote>[It was also reported in this way in a 1995 Carlo overview:<blockquote><i>The Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) on Cellular Telephone Research was subsequently established with criteria and procedures guaranteeing non-interference by the industry to assess the public health impact of wireless technology and to recommend corrective interventions when necessary. The SAG began developing its research program by looking at existing research and identifying data gaps.</I></blockquote>And also:<blockquote><i>The Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) on Cellular Telephone Research was established in April to review the literature, develop an overall research plan and then implement the program of research in independent laboratories. The SAG was supported by a $25 million commitment from the cellular industry. (Carlo speech 1995.)</i></blockquote>
The actual support was only $2 million at this time as Carlo admits in his 1995 overview report. The $25 million came later -- and then only after pressure from Congress.
The 1994 budget included more than $2 million for fundamental risk evaluation research in the areas of dosimetry, toxicology, epidemiology, and electromagnetic interference. The Foundation seems to have disappeared into the mire. .
<hr>
<b>1993:</b> At about this time the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA0 also got the urge to demonstrate how socially responsible it was by establishing an entirely altruistic <u>CTIA Foundation</u> to bring joy and light into the world. Here's what they said at the time:
<blockquote><I>The mission of the '''CTIA Foundation''' is to meet the challenges of the 21st century in areas that are crucial to American society; education, health care, and job creation/productivity, using innovative, groundbreaking applications of wireless technology.
Founded in 1993 on the 10th anniversary of the inauguration of wireless phone service, the CTIA Foundation For Wireless Telecommunications seeks out worthy projects that utilise wireless telecommunications technology for the benefit of their communities. As part of this effort, CTIA member companies make a fair share annual contribution to fund the work of the Foundation.
Through its hands-on support of worthy projects, the CTIA Foundation is showing the nation how wireless telecommunications can help solve society's greatest problems and improve the quality of life for the American people.</i></blockquote>
<hr>
<b>1993 July:</b> The FDA admonished the president of the CTIA for making statements to reporters that displayed "an unwarranted confidence that these products [cellphones] will be found to be safe,".
They concluded by saying that the public might ''"wonder how impartial the research can be when its stated goal is a determination to reassure customers, and when the research sponsors predict in advance that [they] expect the new research to reach the same conclusions ... that cellular phones are safe."''
<hr>
<b>1995 Dec:</b> The '''Harvard Center for Risk Analysis''' (run by John Graham) lists the following companies as providing grants (as distinct from the main funders of projects -- a list which included Carlo's own Health and Environmental Services Group):
3M, Aetna Life & Casualty Company, Alcoa Foundation, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, American Crop Protection Association, American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Corporation, ARCO Chemical Company, ASARCO Inc., Ashland Inc., Astra AB, Atlantic Richfield Corporation, BASF, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, BP America Inc., Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chevron Research & Technology Company, CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, Cytec Industries, Dow Chemical Company, DowElanco, Eastman Chemical Company, Eastman Kodak Company, Edison Electric Institute, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Electric Power Research Institute, Exxon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Frito-Lay, General Electric Fund, General Motors Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Hoechst Marion Roussel, ICI Americas Inc., Inland Steel Industries, International Paper, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Kraft General Foods, Mead, Merck & Company, Mobil Oil Corporation, Monsanto Company, New England Power Service, Olin Corporation, Oxygenated Fuels Association, PepsiCo Inc., Pfizer, Procter & Gamble Company, Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Rohm and Haas Company, Shell Oil Company Foundation, Texaco Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Unocal, USX Corporation, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and WMX Technologies, Inc. .
<hr>
<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]] -(the HCRA at the University).
The HCRA had originally been part 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.
[[John D Graham]] later became President George W Bush's director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which gives him oversight on the spending of the major environmental and health regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc). Graham has spent his life, like Carlo, as another science entrepreneur, but his line was the quasi-science of [[Risk Analysis]] (which attracts generous funding from industry because it can be manipulated to produce whatever outcome the client requests). Graham spent a lot of time cosying up to the tobacco, food and chemical industries looking for work and funds.
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.
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 '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><tr><th colwidth=3>
Restricted grants for project support have been provided by the:</th><tr><tr><td>
<tr><td>Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,</td><td>American Industrial Health Council,</td><td>Andrew Mellon Foundation,</td></tr>
<tr><td>Bradley Foundation,</td><td>Brookings Institution,</td><td>Congressional Research Service,</td></tr>
<tr><td>'''Health and Environmental Sciences Group,'''</td><td>National Institute of Justice,</td><td>National Science Foundation,</td></tr>
<tr><td>Trustees of Health and Hospitals; Boston,</td><td>US. Department of Energy,</td><td>US. Depart. of Health and Human Services,</td></tr>
<tr><td>US. Environmental Protection Agency</td><td>US. Department of Transportation.</td><td></td></tr></table>
Dr Carlo must be a very rich 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.
What did the CTIA have to hide.? The donations listed above are quite separate from the payment for services which appears (presumably) on the WTR books for auditing services rendered. How can an organisation claim to be independent and arms-length when it is being funded surreptitiously by the organisation it is supposed to audit? In fact, John Graham, who runs the Harvard Risk Assessment Group also appears prominently in the Philip Morris documents, both seeking donations and working from the tobacco company.
<hr>
<b>1994 early</b> Dr [[Soma Sarkar]] of New Delhi, publishes a paper suggesting that EMF can cause breaks in DNA strands.
<hr>
<b>1994 mid:</b> Word leaks out that Professor Henry Lai and Dr Narendra Singh, from the University of Washington in Seattle, have found single and double-strand DNA breaks in the cells of live rats exposed to only two hours of low-power microwaves at 2.45GHz - the same band as the mobile phones. This is obviously going to be the story of the year.
<hr>
<b>1994 Feb 11:</b> The Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) officially becomes known as the "SAG on WT". In a later reported speech Carlo says:<blockquote><I>In 1994, the SAG changed its name to the Scientific Advisory Group on Wireless Technology as a reflection of its expanding research role in the areas of telecommunications technology and electromagnetic interference.(Carlo speech 1995).</i></blockquote>
Actually, this name-change appears to be an attempt to downplay the role of cellular phones, by widening the coverage of the investigations to encompass all radio-emitting devices -- two-way radios, cordless phones, radar, etc. However the funding and the industry focus remained the same.
The Wall Street Journal about this time lists Dr George Carlo as an "Epidemiologist at Georgetown University" when announcing his involvement in cellphone research." Yet The Wall Street Journal must have, in its own files, records of Carlo's antics during the dioxin debate.
<hr>
'''The GAO report.'''
<b>1994 Nov:</b> The US General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report concluding that existing research into the safety of cellular phones is inadequate. They do not believe cell phones should be taken off the market, but they say that further research should be done as a matter of urgency to determine whether they pose a health hazard. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was also closely monitoring the progress of the SAG group.
An Indian doctor, Soma Sakar, had found similar problems in the DNA of cells, using a quite different analysis technique. .
The Lai-Singh evidence of DNA breaks
About this time the story break of research conducted by Dr Henry Lai and Narendarah Singh at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Using a special research technique called 'comet assays' (Singh is the world authority on the technique) these two independent scientists had show an increase in damage to the DNA in rat brains after only brief exposures to microwave radiation at frequencies just above those used by cellphones..
Dec 13. 1994: A Motorola memo to the industry's PR company Burson-Marsteller (from Norm Sandler to Michael Kehs) shows how close the relationship was between the industry giants, and the SAG team.
Sadler said in the memo that Motorola was prepared to tell the media that, until the work was replicated and interpreted "any conclusions about the significance of this study are pure speculation". They also note that even if the DNA breaks are found, there is not evidence of increased cancer rates, anyway.
The Media Strategy, as listed in the memo, is that it:
"is not in the interest of Motorola to be out in front on this issue because the implications of this research -- if any -- are industry wide. Therefore, we suggest that the SAG be the primary media contact followed by the CTIA. It is critically important that third-party genetic experts, including respected authorities with no specific background in R/F, be identified to speak on the following issues:"
This is quite obviously seen a cooperative effort between the cellphone companies and WTR/SAG ... so what has happened to the claimed independence and the arms-length relationship?
In the memo they plan tactics to dilute the effect of the report on DNA breaks. This comes from the leaked memo:
"I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming SAG and CTIA have done their homework.
"SAG will be prepared to release the Munro-Carlo memos, which touch on key points made in this material."
This shows that they fully expected the so-called 'independent' scientists [Carlo as director of the SAG and Ian Munro as his deputy], to be ready and willing to help them denigrate the legitimate reseach of a number of top independent molecular biologists and researchers in the USA and India, merely because they had produced some alarming results.
In the memo, Sadler [from Motorola] is quoted as being:
"...adamant that we have a forceful one- or two-sentence portion of our standby statement that puts a damper on speculation arising from this research, as best we can."
He goes on to say that: [Motorola]"was insistent as ever about the prominent inclusion" [of a phrase pointing out the Lai-Singh research was conducted at frequencies higher than the 800MHz band where cellular communications operates].
In the memo he also discusses the fact that Motorola would claim in public that the Lai-Singh findings and other similar research by Dr Soma Sarkar, of the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences in New Delhi (India) were of "questionable relevance."
You'd have to be a Prozac-doped moron to believe that!
There is no suggestion that Carlo or the WTR be kept at arms-length here; they are to be used a spokesmen for the industry, and say what the industry wants them to say. The memo defines the main problems to be overcome as:
"Problems with the Lai-Singh and Sarkar studies."
"The health implications of DNA single-strand breaks."
"We do not believe that Motorola would put any one on camera", Sadler says. Obviously they do not want to be in the front line themselves; they'd prefer to work secretly.
"We must limit our corporate visibility and defer complex scientific issues to credible, qualified scientific experts. We have developed a list of independent experts in this field and are in the process of recruiting individuals willing and able to reassure the public on these matters. "(Norm Sandler to Michael Kehs).
This is the tobacco industry all over again.
Dec.1994 Towards the end of 1994 Carlo wrote the introduction to the CTIA's Health and Safety Media Manual, saying:
a concerted industry response succeeded in blunting unsubstantiated allegations about a link to brain cancer in early 1993.
His role is obviously seen by himself and the CTIA as primarily one of public relations, not science.
January 20 1995: David Rosenbaum (New York Times) reports on the close relationship that has developed between the Harvard Centre for Risk Analysis (part of the Harvard University School of Public Health) and the SAG group:
The CTIA had assembled a SAG through the Harvard University School of Public Health. It was chaired by George Carlo.(listed as Mobile Office Magazine Edition)
January 25 1995: Carlo announced to the public that the name "Scientific Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Research" is now changed to "SAG on Wireless Technology" and that it is now conducting a wider program of research into all aspects of radio-frequency exposures:
.... because the scope of the SAG's scientific research effort has expanded dramatically in the past year, and now involves an evolution to all wireless communications.
.
The Wireless Technology Research group actually gets underway.
Feb 18 1995:The WTR advertises for grant proposals. These are to be presented before June 15, 1995.
Mid 1995: Dr. Carlo, Health & Environmental Sciences Group, WTR and the CTIA figure in a civil claim before a Chicago court (Cook County). The plaintiff, Debbra Wright was suffering from recurrent brain tumours.
She had worked for many years in the cell phone industry and had attended a San Diego workshop and training program run by Carlo, the main purpose of which had been to provide advice to cellphone industry employees as to how they should to avoid answering direct media questions about cellphone health research, and how to discount any questions about cellphone safety.
She and was furious at the line Carlo and his associates were using in their training program, and charged them with systematic orchestration of a cover-up of health risks. So she charged them, along with the CTIA, as part of a conspiracy.
The implications of Debrra Wright's personal conspiracy charge against Carlo were very significant, since he now saw that he was vulnerable. This was the way that the attorneys-general had broken the back of the tobacco industry, by charging the lawyers, scientists and the industry itself with conspiracy to conceal evidence of health harm.
It now appeared to those scientists and science-entrepreneurs involved in the WTR that they could be held legally responsible for their actions, or for concealing evidence of health risks (despite their confidential contracts).
The Debbra Wright case against Carlo is dismissed.
[Jumping ahead] Jan 1 1996: Newsnet report on the beginning of the Debbra Wright case in Chicago. She had charged him and the HESG group with (concealing and distorting evidence) . The Judge said their case had merit.
96 Circuit Court, Chicago, dismissed Health & Environmental Sciences Group (HES) and Dr. George Carlo as defendants in lawsuit brought by Debbra Wright, who charged cellular telephone caused brain cancer and who accused industry of conspiracy to conceal evidence. Judge Paddy McNamara said the Wright case, originally filed against Motorola, included substantial evidence, but nothing linking HES to conspiracy.
He's expected to issue written opinion this month and rule in March on similar charges Wright filed against Wireless Technology Research (WTR), which also is headed by Carlo and set up by industry to study health effects of cellular phones. WTR said all allegations should be dismissed because "they are based on the same key factual issues the judge has now resolved...
WTR believes that lawsuits such as the Wright case are wasteful attacks on the scientific community, that they slow completion of the research necessary to answer the public's questions about the health effects of all wireless technology and that these tactics could themselves pose threats to public health if they delay implementation of any interventions that may prove necessary.
The Wright case gives Carlo a fright. He says to another scientist "I almost lost my house, my car, and my boat." [He jointly owns, probably with Thorne Auchter, a very large deep-sea sports fishing boat moared in Florida.]
At the 'insistence' of the GAO [for 'arms length' confidence] They established "escrow funding" ... whatever that actually means in this context. .
Wireless Technology Research
At the beginning of 1995, the SAG evolved into a legally constituted entity, the Wireless Technology Research, LLC., at the recommendation of the US. General Accounting Office.(Carlo speech 1995)
This appears to be the formation of the Wireless Technology Research LLC. organisation, which is a limited liability company rather than a trade organisation. The GAO recommendation, quoted below, was for arms-length funding arrangements, not for limited liability.
We are told that Dr. George Carlo oversees epidemiology and human studies, Dr. Ian Munro oversees experimental toxicology, and Dr. Arthur W. Guy oversees bioelectromagnetics and dosimetry. In fact, Guy was only paid by the hour to appear at a few conferences.
(AW) Bill Guy is an electrical engineer who had made a reputation in the early days of R/F research by conducting a $5 million study for the US Air Force. This was a token employment of a retired gentleman who provided the group with some credibility.
Dr Ian Munro is an old friend and associate of Carlo's from the dioxin days, and he runs Cantox in Canada, which appears to be a norther version of Carlo's Health and Environmental Services Group. Later he and Carlo both worked for Philip Morris, and more recently they work together on preparing Environmental Impact Statements for oil companies.
This is how the Carlo promoted his new organisation in a 1995 speech:
"Although SAG scientists had always been promised -- and always received -- complete independence from the industry, the GAO suggested that an escrow arrangement would further enhance the independence--and therefore the credibility -- of the research program.
"The program itself is based on a public health paradigm--as opposed to more traditional regulatory models--and combines a complete program of surveillance to detect possible public health impact with a comprehensive and integrated program of research, safety evaluation and risk management.
"Four operating questions define the scope of the program:
Is there a public health problem posed by wireless communication technology?
If yes, what are the characteristics of that public health problem?
What are the appropriate corrective interventions to mitigate any identified public health risk from wireless technology?
What is the appropriate implementation strategy for those interventions?
The program is unique in that the combination of surveillance and focused research affords a rapid trigger for intervention, while the integral inclusion of risk management assures that any necessary interventions will be both appropriate and timely.
"Each of these factors are essential to satisfy the requirements of public health protection, and together facilitate actions where prevention replaces intervention. In addition, the program represents a fresh approach to public-private partnerships, conserving taxpayer dollars and employing available research funds efficiently. "
Claims about the WTR's budget. .
At this time Carlo makes extravagant claims that the budget is about $10m, which is about twice the actual figure ($25 m over 5 years) or $5 million a year. In fact it turned out to be less than $4 m ($27 m over 7 years).
The 1995 Wireless Technology Research budget nears $10 million.
All studies conducted pursuant to the research agenda will be subjected to rigorous, scientific peer review, both by the SAG and through the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. In addition, investigators funded through the program will be required to submit their work for publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. (Carlo overview report 1995.)
At this time he also presents a paper to the Society for Risk Analysis's 1995 Annual Meeting, which outlines how the WTR is conducting Risk Management. Thus proving, once again, that he is better at dealing with fiction than with fact.
Fake organisations, loaded conferences.
The WTR starts using the old tobacco industry tactics of floating fake science symposiums, and loading them with its own tame scientists. .
ICWCMR
Sep 29, 1995: About this time the International Committee on Wireless Communications Health Research (ICWCMR) was formed. Carlo is listed as chairman, and the WTR also funds their conference program and provides keynote speakers. Don't confuse this with the IRCNIP. See ICWCMR
Nov 13-15 1995: The ICWCMR conference was held in "La Sapiencia" in Rome this week with Carlo as the chairman and spokesman. Carlo later summed up the conclusions of the conference to the press -- and I'm sure you'll be surprise to find that the conference agreed that there was no health risk. In fact, this organisation was nothing more than a front for the WTR. Some of the documents admit openly that "WTR has been instrumental in forming the ICW." There was no such organisation.
Gert Friedrich of the FGF is listed as member also, and his organisation appears to be a German version of the WTR, which is also funded and controlled by the industry. Carlo was key speaker and chairman of the ICWCMR conference, and the conference appears to have been totally funded by the WTR. Presumably they also selected the speakers.
The CTIA's press report promoted this event:
In October 1995, an international symposium on the health effects associated with wireless phones was held in Rome, Italy. Researchers from throughout the world met to review existing research on this subject. The researchers reported that they were unable to identify any health risks associated with wireless phone use.
Scientists strike. .
<table width="100%" cellpadding=5 border=1 rules=all><tr><td>
'''Scientists Strike'''<br>
At about this time many of the scientists that the WTR had on contract also become aware that scientists involved in 'scientific research' for the Tobacco Institute and for the tobacco companies, had been charged with conspiracy, along with the companies. This was an entirely new concern which shonky scientists had never faced before.
So the WTR scientists all go on strike and refuse to budge until the CTIA indemnifies them against any possible legal action. The CTIA refuses, and there is a stalemate for nearly a year. Fortunately George has other research for other industries to keep his people occupied.
The problem comes about because the legal protection afforded by having a lawyer theoretically in charge of all research and funding (to provide protection from discovery, through privilege), had disappeared overnight. The tobacco industry had exploited this 'lawyer-client priviledge', but had found themselves along with the scientists being charged for conspiracy, also. Carlo's J.D. qualification was no longer protection against legal discovery in a court case, if conspiracy to conceal could be shown.
This protection of the lawyer-client relationship disappeared when the State Attorneys-General wsued the cigarette companies, and included the tobacco lawyers, the public relations organisations and staff and the scientists, in their charge of conspiracy to conceal evidence about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Suddenly, any pseudo or distorted science came under threat if it had the potential to harm customers, and this was a real problem for science-for-sale practitioners.
The CTIA made things worse by refusing to pay for this insurance, nor would it pay Carlo's personal legal fees in defending himself in the Wright case in Chicago. So for nearly a year all WTR-funded research work (what little there was) ceased. </td></tr></table>
