Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

GM ignition deaths, derelict regulation, who is ultimately behind it all Pt.1

GM ignition deaths linked to derelict corporate product regulations
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Part 1 of a four part series on who is behind the scenes, controlling U.S. public health and safety regulations standards.

Covering: the Daubert Rules, The Atlantic Legal Foundation, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, the Data Quality Act, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and how corporations have increasingly placed a mostly unawares American public's health and safety at increasing risk over the past 30 years.

While there has been excellent coverage of the surface criminal reckless endangerment engaged by General Motors and the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA), over the refusal to fix, report and address a 57 cent spring problem in the ignition switch of GM cars which likely caused well over a hundred deaths, well beyond that which had been publically admitted to in March of 2014, far deeper problems still exist within the general public health regulatory system itself, and how it determines "risks" to the public's health— which were directly responsible for the present GM product hazards, and how they were handled after their discovery.

These underlining, corporate-friendly, regulatory criteria that exist within all U.S. industries-- and in all the U.S. regulatory agencies that oversee them, like the NHTSA-- haven’t been touched upon by the media or by Congress. And as a result, will only continue to pose ongoing, and equal or worse, adverse impacts on the public's health and safety if they are not changed.

Who is responsible for corporate product regulation criteria in the United States? Start with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.

If you want to get to the source of the regulatory problems in the U.S., which ultimately affect the public’s (and the environment’s) general health and safety, you better understand who is behind setting up the regulatory standards— which in this country are completely biased to help industry profits over protecting the public’s health and safety. And which regard human life as a financial market risk to be minimized to protect corporate profits, regardless of what corporate executives or government regulatory officials say when the cameras are rolling, or through public relations statements given to the media.

And the place you can start is with the “seemingly outwardly respectable” Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRS), which links itself somehow with the Harvard School of Public Health, but which is nothing more than a hugely powerful, corporate-run, risk assessment group that advises, not only every major industry and corporation— from the auto industry to the pharmaceutical, to the chemical, to the oil, to the electric to the telecom industry— but which also sets the corporate biased “regulatory standards” used by the FDA, the EPA, the NTSFA, along with every other U.S. health and safety regulatory agency in the United States.

Accessing the SourceWatch website for the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis , a website that keeps tabs on corporate corruption, and you can see every corporation that donates funds to this organization. And they are among those that have been indicted for some of the worst product injury hazards and environmental polluting over the past decades, and which are constantly sued for putting the public’s health and the environment’s safety at criminal irresponsible risk.

They include corporations from GM to Monsanto to BP to Exxon to DuPont to Merck, and a hundred more, literally.

As described by the Harvard Center for Risk Assessments’ founder, John H. Graham, in a letter to the tobacco giant Phillip Morris, while looking for additional corporate funding in 1991:

“ ‘The Center has been launched primarily with gifts from the following corporations: the Amoco Company, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, British Petroleum, Chevron Corporation, The Coca Cola Company, Dow Chemical Company, Eastman Kodak Company, Exxon Corporation, General Electric Corporation, General Motors, Inland Steel Industries, Merck and Company, Mobil Oil Corporation, the Monsanto Company, Pepsico Incorporated, Rohm and Haas Company, Texaco, Union Carbide Corporation, and Westinghouse Corporation.’ ”

And the HCRS does not just work in a general advising position, but actively lobbies on behalf of its members to continually put pressure on reducing regulatory standards for industry products, such as its long time position to downgrade the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde and chloroform for the Pharmaceutical and Chemical industries— on the basis of allegedly “new biological evidence” that has surfaced.

"New biological evidence" is the corporate-created "catch phrase" which actually stands for biological evidence produced by industry scientists designed to fraudulently show a lack of a hazard, so the industry that produces the product won’t have to spend money on having its products regulated for safety.

A perfectly accepted rational for free market advocates, from Republicans to Democrats, to Wall Street that funds them all. (See also part 2 of this series, and the first section: Daubert scientific reviewer, Steven H. Lamm, and his Atlantic Legal role on other Amicus Briefs filed to protect industry at the expense of the public’s health, and how industry funded scientists create studies to show no hazard used as "defense evidence" in product injury lawsuits to protect corporate clients.)

So how did this corporate funded “regulatory assessment” group get started?

Back in the 1970s and 1980s— before corporations started to change their strategies on how to fight regulations and product injury cases in the courts (and outside the courts)— corporations were losing court cases because accurate scientific evidence was being leveled against them in the courts and juries were correctly awarding plaintiffs large awards.

So typical of the way corporations think and act, they decided to change the playing field to force it to work to their advantage— to win cases so they could continue to produce their hazardous products without bothering to regulate them for safety, so they could keep more of their profits and avoid paying out damages to the public from the unregulated hazards created by their products.

And to do this they had to attack several areas that were working against them (i.e. honestly working to protect the public against corporate fraud, and to protect the public’s health and safety from hazardous impacts of industry products).

1. Corporations had to change the laws, so they could win more in the courts.

2. They had to change the regulation criteria— by focusing not on the totality of the scientific evidence, but focusing on the isolated methodology and statistics within the evidence, that could always be interpreted in a manner best suited to defend industry products— so that there would be less lawsuits to begin with.

3. And they had to character assassinate correct and accurate scientific studies and scientists, whose work accurately showed how dangerous unregulated corporate products— from second hand tobacco smoke, to pharmaceutical drugs, to genetically modified foods, to manmade electromagnetic radiation emitting products— really were in adversely impacting the public’s health.

The Daubert Decision and manipulating the law to bar accurate scientific evidence from corporate product injury lawsuits

The Daubert decision happens to be one of the most important Supreme Court decision of the latter half of the twentieth century, but which virtually no one in the general population— outside of those that have been involved with regulatory issues or who have had to sue U.S. corporations— is aware of. Despite its impact placing the public's lives at increased risk every day since its inception, and despite it being involved in creating the very conditions by which the GM reckless endangerment crimes were allowed to take place, along with thousands of others, reported or unreported.


Daubert refers to a person— a young boy named Daubert— who sued a huge pharmaceutical corporation, Merrell Dow (Richardson-Merrell), in 1989, because he was born with a serious birth defect from his mother having taken the thalidomide-like "morning sickness" drug Bendectin— sold by Merrell Dow— while she was pregnant with him.

Before the Daubert case came to trial, Merrell had already been sued over 1,500 times in similar cases of birth defects caused by Bendectin.

The Daubert boy’s birth defect was that he was born with only two fingers on his right hand and without the lower bone of his right arm (his co-plaintiff in the case, another young boy named Schuller, was born without a left hand with one leg shorter than the other.) Fetal deformities known as Phocomelia— where the entire limb or the distal part of the limb (the end containing the forearm and hand, or leg and foot) fails to develop, usually due to the influence of a embryonic altering drug, or other manmade source abnormally impacting early cell line development.

Birth defects that were extremely prevalent in Bendectin's similar-like drug, the infamous Thalidomide, and which resulted in Thalidomide's removal from the world's market shortly after the discovery of the damages Thalidomide created in the children of the pregnant mothers given the drug to subside normal morning sickness.

Thalidomide was created in the 1950s by a West German pharmaceutical company as a sleep agent, which was then remarketed as a morning sickness drug to increase its sales, by taking advantage of the millions of pregnant women across the world complaining of morning sickness. The nature of a sleep agent is that it depresses general nerve functions— the same effects created by Bendectin, though with less severity than Thalidomide. Which means these kind of drugs can also depress spasmodic nerve signals in the stomach involved in nausea and vomiting.

But they can also depress the normally abundant chemicals, such as histamine and the neurotransmitter molecule acetylcholine, present in the embryonic cells of the growing fetus, and interfere with the incredibly sensitive nerve signaling that occurs between embryonic cells, which is required for their correct differentiation— to form the proper structural developments of the fetus’ skeletal and organ systems. (see also source at end of section, “How a commonly used drugs caused birth defects- Part One” )

Interference which can lead to a wide variety of birth defects, depending upon when the drug was present, and during what skeletal or organ system was developing.

Morning sickness drugs are usually given beginning in the second month of pregnancy. And it is around the 4th to 5th week of fetal development when limb buds are forming, which is why there was such a high prevalence of limb deformities with the use of Thalidomide and Bendectin.

In Thalidomide use, 20% of children of mothers taking the drug during the entire course of their pregnancy developed limb deformities (that is a relative risk of 1.2— which will be relevant later on, in relationship to the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis’ regulation criteria, in Part 2), while 100% (relative risk of 2.0) of children formed limb deformities when their mothers took Thalimide in the first weeks of pregnancy, when the limb buds were developing. (source: see end of section, “The Bendectin Cover-Up” article reference)

Not only are limbs developing at this time (towards the end of the first month of pregnancy), but so are the brain, the heart, and other internal organs. And as a result, corresponding fetal deformities occurred among these organs, too, with the use of Thalidomide and Bendectin. Including, for example: autism, along with far worse physical brain deformities.

Richardson Merrell, the pharmaceutical company that created and sold Bendectin, also bought the rights to distribute Thalidomide in America in 1959. But Thalidomide was never formally sold in American, because luckily a rare FDA researcher with guts and character— FDA pharmacologist. France Oldham Kelsey— red flagged the drug for potential birth defects and stood her ground to refuse to okay it for sale, despite efforts to intimidate her by Richardson Merrell, which wanted to mass release the drug to an unawares U.S. public, despite the increasing evidence surfacing of the horrific limb deformities that it was capable of causing.

Despite never releasing the drug formally, Richardson Merrell still gave out over 2 million free tablets of the drug to over 1,200 U.S. doctors in 1960-1961, in pre-sale trial runs of the drug, who distributed them to roughly 20,000 patients, several hundred of whom were pregnant women, without Richardson Merrell informing them of the potential damages that could be incurred. And to this day, it is unknown how many hundreds of American children suffered various forms of birth defects from being exposed to this drug during their fetal development (in addition to the thousands of children worldwide that suffered birth defects from Thalidomide). (source, end of section)

Thalidomide's relationship to Bendectin was not just in the manner of the action of the drug on the nervous system, but also in the manner of the extensive criminal fraud perpetrated by Richardson-Merrell in its efforts to suppress those hazards in both drugs— in not only the risks to the children of mothers taking them, but also of the damages to the mothers’ themselves, from nerve damage to their own nervous systems.

Among its extensive, documented, criminal activity surrounding these drugs, Richardson- Merrell suppressed its own internal animal and laboratory research, manipulated and downgraded clinical complaints it received from doctors across the country documenting birth defects from Bendectin use, and distorted the findings of its own-generated epidemiological studies on the birth deformities of the drug (population studies): including fraudulently altering data, changing conclusions on data, destroying data, and hiding data from the FDA, which itself was complicit in overlooking the hazards of Bendectin.

A superb coverage of the Bendectin-caused birth defects, and the history behind the drug, can be read in: " The Bendectin Cover-Up," written by Mark Dowie and Carolyn Marshall for Mother Jones magazine, published in November 1980— nine years before the Duabert case came to trial in 1989.

The article is unfortunately not freely available on line, but you can order it at the IRE website, Investigative Reporter & Editors at: Or you can go to a decent library and copy the article from a bound volume of past Mother Jones editions, or read and copy it from microfilm.

Another excellent source that covers the health impacts of Bendectin, including an extremely thorough documentation of the research experiments compiled on the drug— well before the Daubert case went to trial— can be read in Betty Mekdeci’s, Executive Director of Birth Defect Research for Children, two part series: " How a Commonly Used Drug Caused Birth Defects" at: (and particularly Part 2, for Bendectin research studies)

Both sources are written for laypeople, not scientists.

The point of giving the background of Bendectin is that there was an abundance of very sound scientific evidence, including animal studies, clinical reports, and epidemiological research (population studies) by 1989, when the Daubert case was heard, to clearly show that Bendectin had been fully responsible for creating the abnormal birth defects of the Duabert and Schuller boys, and that Richardson-Merrell was flatly responsible for those damages.


But that's not what happened in this seminal court case.

First, the trial judge who heard the initial arguments presented by the plaintiffs, Daubert and Schuller, and the defendant, Merrell Dow (renamed after Dow bought up Richardson-Merrell in 1980), threw out all the evidence against Merrell, and gave a summary judgment in favor of the drug company— not allowing the case to even be heard by a jury.

The trial judge, ignorant in science or medicine, was apparently impressed after reading a written deposition given to him by Merrell Dow’s only scientific defense witness— an “outwardly well respected” epidemiologist, with a long and “impressive list of credentials,” named Dr. Steven H Lamm, who allegedly read all the scientific evidence presented in the case, and then gave his, alleged, “unbiased” opinion that all the evidence linking Bendectin to birth defects was tainted in some form or another, and that the drug could not have possibly created the damages seen before the judge (despite it having been indicted in the same kinds of brith defects over 1500 times prior).

Among the scientific evidence that Lamm apparently did find “sound” and “valuable” in this case was an epidemiological study (a population study) of birth defects from mothers who took Bendectin— produced by Richardson Merrell— that allegedly showed no effect of limb deformities from Bendectin use.

But when this— rife with conflict of interest— study was re-examined by independent scientists, who looked at all the data— data collected from clinicians around the country that showed links to limb deformities with Bendectin use that was not fraudulently downgraded to insignificant by Merrell, or removed from the data sums— found not, no effect, but a highly significant effect, of an 80% increased risk of association to Benectin use. (A relative risk of 1.8— again, important to note when later looking at the risk criteria promoted by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, in Part 2).

The case was appealed to the higher appellate court, where another judge, also illiterate in science or medicine, Judge Alex Kosinski, decided to uphold the lower court’s decision.

Judge Kosinki stated he believed in the corporate-funded "junk science" movement at the time, that demanded “absolute certainty” of cause and effect of an industry toxin, by its exact biological impact on human biology— a virtual impossibility in the understanding of any disease, and not the criteria upon which real, sound science and medicine works. Sound science and medicine determines connections to industry created toxins by reviewing the totality of the evidence: laboratory, animal studies, clinical observations and epidemiological studies (if available).

The “junk science” concept was created by writers like Peter Huber, author of the completely fraudulent joke of a book, Galileo's Revenge, and financed by the ultra-conservative Manhattan Institute in 1989— which painted any scientific theory, or evidence, that in any way indicted the hazards of corporate products— like pharmaceutical drugs, industrial and commercial chemicals, manmade EMR, second hand smoke— as "junk science." A made-up term that meant nothing, except when used as a smear campaign to character assassinate the associated scientists and their completely sound and legitimate research work.

The Daubert case was appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court, which, in making its final decision, was highly influenced by an amicus curiae brief—a written argument supporting the defense or the plaintiff— presented to it by a group of corporate-biased scientists organized by the same free market, pro-corporate legal group that had represented Steven H. Lamm— the Atlantic Legal Foundation. The Supreme Court would subsequently issue its "Daubert Decision" based heavily on the “advise” presented to it by the Atlantic Legal scientists. And that decision would forever change how scientific evidence would be viewed in U.S. courts, and by U.S. regulatory agencies.

The Daubert Rules

Prior to the Daubert decision in 1993, scientific evidence in court cases was judged by two common sense guidelines: that admissible evidence had to be relevant to the case, and that the scientific evidence presented was expected to use scientific methods that were generally accepted among the scientific community.

The express intent of such guidelines was to have the scientific evidence deliberated on by a jury, and after hearing arguments from the defense (industry) and the plaintiffs (the victims) to render a decision based upon the totality of the evidence presented.

Daubert significantly changed this fundamental legal hallmark of the American justice system— of jury deliberations being able to see all the evidence, and to make a decision of guilt or innocence based on all the evidence.

Central to the new “Daubert rules” was that trial judges were now given the responsibility of being “gatekeepers” to decide what scientific evidence was apparently “sound” or “unsound” and presentable to the juries— while ignoring the fact that judges are completely ignorant in the fields of science and medicine, and subsequently, completely ill-equipped to make such determinations.

To allegedly help judges make these scientific determinations, the new Daubert rules issued guidelines to follow, such as placing significant value on “peer reviewed” research, which is, of course, only as valuable as the “peers” reviewing it.

In the United States, virtually all scientific journals get their funding from industry advertising, which in turn pressures journal editors to reject any studies that implicate their products, or their associate’s industry products, as being hazardous to the public’s health. And studies that are produced outside of the United States, or by less well known scientific journals within the United States, are usually dismissed as not qualifying as supposedly “relevant” or “reliable” under these new “Daubert rules.”

The Supreme Court (which of course is made up of Supreme Court Judges equally ignorant in science and medicine as lower court judges) also advised trial judges to place specific attention on esoteric scientific methodology standards, such as testing protocols and statistical analysis— which basically applies particularly to epidemiological studies that depend heavily on often complex statistical analysis to determine the risk of a product damaging a person’s health.

And it is no surprise that industry defendants particularly encourage epidemiological studies (population studies) as being “essential” in product injury cases, because they are the easiest to challenge, and subsequently to throw doubt on their conclusions.

By focusing attention on debating statistical details within the epidemiological studies— which can always be manipulated in analysis by disingenuous parties to undermine the value of the study— attention is drawn away from the totality of the evidence (of accompanying laboratory, animal studies and clinical observations) that may very well point to a strong associated health risk for wrongful injury or death.

The Supreme Court ruling encouraged such a focus— away from examining the totality of the evidence pointing to a crime— by encouraging judges to separately evaluate studies, and elements and methodologies within those studies, to allegedly determine “reliability and relevance,” rather than to consider them within the whole of the scientific evidence presented— as do all legitimate scientists and physicians when they themselves are examining a potential health risk.

Impact of the Daubert Rules

Within ten years of their use in the courts, the Daubert rules of admissible scientific evidence have resulted in an over doubling— an over 100% increase— of summary decisions. Throwing out product injury cases before they are allowed to be seen by juries. With of course over 90% of those summary decisions being made for industry defendants.

The results of which have placed the general population’s health and safety at increased risk from industries, which now know that the Daubert rules have greatly increased their chance of never being held accountable for the damages caused by their weakly regulated hazardous products.

For an excellent look at the Daubert rules and its influence on actual sound science— written for the layperson— see the article,“ ‘Daubert: The Most Influential Supreme Court Ruling You’ve Never Heard Of”, written by The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP): an initiative engaging eminent scholars and scientists to examine scientific evidence and its application in the legal and regulatory arenas.”

And for a more legal perspective, see: “What Has a Decade of Daubert Wrought”

The Atlantic Legal Foundation

On its website, as an apparent sales pitch to pull in corporations seeking legal representation in product injury or pollution cases, Atlantic Legal points out its significant influence in the Daubert decision, and how the Daubert rules will benefit the corporations in their legal battles.

Established in 1976 as a “public interest” law firm that zealously fights for free market enterprise principles, which have as their central tenet to deregulate industry and its products from government oversight (regardless if the products are hazardous or not), Atlantic Legal has been centrally involved in presenting amicus curiae legal briefs— like the one it presented in the Daubert trial— to appellate, higher court, judges to challenge, or sustain, opinions rendered against, or for, its corporate clients in the lower courts.

Atlantic Legal currently uses around 80 scientists with very “outwardly respectable” reputations, which it picks and chooses from to organize amicus curiae briefs— containing around 10 to 15 scientists names per brief— to fight for corporate decisions in product injury lawsuits.

(Atlantic Legal’s amicus brief for Daubert)

The legal foundation also boasts “public service” members, such as Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alexander Haig, Jr., Lawrence Eagleburger, and Edwin Meese, to name just a few.

All of whom (scientists and public service members) can be seen, along with thumbnail bios, at: (Atlantic Legal members)

The scientists in Atlantic Legal’s “stable” are ones that have also testified in numerous trials— many in the area of manmade electromagnetic radiation exposures, from 60Hz power-lines to the hundreds of millions to billions of hertz in the microwave range emanating off of cell phones and other wireless platforms, which Atlantic Legal is particularly interested in controlling from ever getting a foothold to show how accurate and extensive are the adverse health effects caused from these manmade EMR exposures.

For anyone who has any background in the legal battles waged against U.S. citizens seeking justice from being maimed or killed from chronic, low-level exposure from various forms of manmade EMR (electromagnetic radiation) emissions— virtually all the scientists that have testified against the public since the 1980s, and for the electrical, computer, and telecom industries, are associated with Atlantic Legal.

If you are not aware of one of this country’s best investigative journalist, Paul Brodeur— a Pulitzer Prize winning writer who was the first to expose the hazards of asbestos, which forty years later is only now being held accountable to the damages exposed forty years earlier, who was a staff writer for the New Yorker for about 20 years (before publisher Tina Brown turned it into an entertainment magazine)— you should read two excellent books by him on the manmade EMR hazards subject: The Great Power-Line Cover-Up (1993) and Currents of Death (1989).

In these books, you can read of some of the outrageous statements and actions of these Atlantic Legal “highly lauded” scientists, who have actively worked on behalf of the electrical and the computer industries to undermine the public’s health.

And you can also read of the actions and comments of Atlantic Legal scientists, in relationship to the telecom industry, in the archives of Microwave News, published by Louis Slesin out of NYC, whose bi-monthly publication, since 1980, is far and above the most meticulous collection of information on manmade EMR hazards and developments in the world.

Bios of some Atlantic Legal’s Science and Technology members

Eleanor Adair and Robert Adair, husband and wife team. Robert Adair is a physicist, his wife (deceased) had a degree in psychology, with a minor in optical physics. Both worked out of Yale University and with the military on EMR weapons research.

Robert Adair believes that manmade EMR (electromagnetic radiation) is apparently so harmless that the electromagnetic fields of 60Hz power-line frequencies below 100 milligauss (mG) should be completely ignored as a safety concern. (Currents of Death, reference) Which is apparently why countries like Switzerland and Austria and Russia and Italy and France, and others— who actually have safety regulations to protect their citizens and not their corporations— have set safety levels for exposure to 60Hz EMR at 50 to 100 times below this level, at 1 to 2mG— to protect against the increased risk of leukemia, skin cancer, brain cancer, etc., that begin, and increase, at this level of chronic exposure. (Teslas are also used to measure electromagnetic radiation field strengths of 60 Hz EMR (in the extremely low frequency range), and the conversion from milligaus to tesla is: 10 mG (milligauss) = 1 µT (microtesla)

As for Eleanor Adair, after irradiating monkeys with microwaves for the Air Force at Yale research labs for a couple of decades, Adair graduated to irradiating human “volunteers” at the Brooks Air Force Base in Texas, as a prelude to the military unveiling its Active Denial System (ADS) in 2001— a mobile microwave weapons system designed to control crowds by irradiating them with bursts of microwave radiation at 95 Gigahertz (billion hertz), 40 times the frequency of that used in microwave ovens— which causes excruciating pain within a couple of seconds of exposure, but which the Air Force “assures” the public is completely safe to human health. (Eleanor Adair's military research) (military's ADS EMR crowd control system)

Also on the list is Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, and a co-researcher with Eleanor Adair on human impacts of microwave exposure for the U.S. Air Force, who has testified multiple times for the electrical industry in electrical power line lawsuits, and who believes that the U.S. should not bother doing any more research into the health hazards of manmade EMR, because he and his associates are convinced that no damage is being done. Foster has staunchly defended a $5 million Air Force-funded low-level microwave study performed in the early 1980s that showed at least* a 4-fold incidence of immune system related cancers (in the pituitary, thyroid, and adrenal glands) among rats chronically exposed to very low-level, non-thermal (not causing heat damage to tissues), microwave radiation of 2.45 GHz— the same level used in microwave ovens and Wi-Fi signals— as apparently being insignificant. (Relative Risk of 4) (Currents of Death, Chapter 24) (Foster and Adair U.S. Air Force research work) (Microwave News, July/Aug, 1984, U.S. Air Force animal microwave exposure study) (Microwave News, March/April 1997, p.14, U.S. Air Force animal microwave exposure study "update" revealing more cancers)

With the results of the U.S. Air Force animal study being corroborated a year later in a large Polish military epidemiological (population) low-level, non-thermal, microwave exposure study, showing a similar, general, 3-fold increase in immune system related cancers among all military personal, with a 5.5-fold increased risk among 20-29 year olds for immune system related cancers. (Microwave News, March 1985)

*The U.S. Air Force rat study recorded at least a 4-fold incidence of cancers, because the study was fraudulently designed to try and show negative results. Yet in spite of its set up, it still showed a very high risk of cancer. Meaning, the rats were raised in a completely abnormal, germ-free environment— accounting for a significant amount of the $5 million spent— and not a normal environment with normal amounts of bacteria and viruses that animals and humans exist in (and under which conditions animal studies are normally performed).

This contrived, germ-free, environment set up was created to try and “protect” the rats from a significant amount of cancers that form in animals from exposure to virusesbut only if the rats’ immune systems are compromised, which they were in this experiment.

In any chronic, long-term exposure to manmade— and completely abnormal to plant or animal or human biology— electromagnetic radiation, which animal and human immune systems were never designed to identify and neutralize, similar results are predictable— the ineffectual response of the immune system becomes exhausted and depressed, and the risk of cancer development increases*.

If the rats in the Air Force study were raised in a normal environment, the incidence of cancers recorded would have been much higher. And the implications in the general human population is not too difficult to grasp. (Cross Currents, Chapter Eight, “The $5 million Experiment That Went Wrong”, Robert O. Becker, MD,1990)

*Central to an animal or a human body's reaction to an external, low-level stress (a bacterial or viral infection, or a sustained, non-specific reaction to a foreign entity, like manmade EMR) is that the adrenal glands (above the kidneys) are signaled by the pituitary gland (in the brain) to excrete the hormone cortisol, required in the immune system response.

In the Air Force experiment, this is exactly what happened. Cortisol levels increased only in the rats chronically exposed to low-level, microwave EMR. Cortisol levels rose in the early weeks and months of the experiment and then dropped to below normal levels, and remained at abnormal low levels. And this is typical of the reaction of a body— animal or human— to being unable to resolve the cause of a low-level stress (bacteria, virus, or manmade EMR, etc.). In an effort to over-produce cortisol, the adrenal glands exhaust their ability to product cortisol, and an increased risk of tumors develops.

Additionally in the Air Force study, there was a 6-fold incidence of noncancerous adrenal tumors, over and above the cancers found in the adrenal glands of the rats exposed to low-level microwave radiation, with no adrenal tumors, cancerous or noncancerous, forming in the rats not exposed.

And the same principle, of increased risk of tumor development, holds for any other organ that is abnormally over-worked for extended periods of time— like the thyroid, which is also involved in the immune system response, and which resulted in a 3-fold incidence of cancers in the rats exposed to low-level microwave radiation in the Air Force study.

With implications in the human population being seen in the completely abnormal increases of cancerous and noncancerous thyroid tumors occurring over the last few decades (thyroid cancer has tripled since the 1980s and the introduction of computer and cell phone technology)— paralleling the continuing increase in manmade EMR exposure— from direct exposure of the neck (where the thyroid sits, wrapped around the vocal cords) from nearby cell phone and computer and wireless microwave emissions that can penetrate into the thyroid, and from indirect exposure, by the same route of abnormally exciting the immune system, through a low-level stress reaction, as shown in the 1984 Air Force animal study.

And in addition to the connection, and disregarded, forewarning of thyroid cancer and tumors developing in human beings, as predicted in the U.S. Air Force study, depressing normal thyroid activity in pregnant mothers will also increase the risk of autism in their newborns.

For those allegedly still in the dark and confused about the actual, overriding cause of the raging autism epidemic, which has been steadily increasing over the 30 years (paralleling the steady increase of computers and cell phone and wireless technology and their accompanying release of increasing levels of manmade EMR), here's a reality check, steeped in the facts.

Autism is caused in the early development of the fetal brain when embryonic cell are abnormally impacted and subsequently make subtle mistakes in early cell differentiation, which will then go on not to form key nerve cell concentrations in what will become the, eventual, mature brain.

And both anti-depressant and anti-spasmodic (anti-nausea) drugs taken by the pregnant mother, along with chronic nearby exposure to manmade EMR sources that can penetrate the abdomen of the pregnant mother and adversely impact the cells of the growing fetus, can all directly disrupt the critically important and highly sensitive nerve signaling that occurs between fast growing embryonic cells, and which is required to direct correct embryonic cell differentiation into correct anatomical organ development— adversely impacting whatever organ system is developing at the time of exposure to these manmade, and foreign, impacts.

And in addition to the anti-depressant and anti-spasmodic and nearby, incoming, manmade EMR impacts directly disrupting normal embryonic cell development, chronic exposure to manmade EMR far sources (from cell phone towers, smart meter 24 hour microwave emissions, Wi-fi antenna coverage, etc.) will also indirectly add to the increased risk of autism, by lowering circulating thyroid hormone levels in the pregnant mother (as occurred in the chronically exposed rats to very low-level, 2.45GHz, Wi-Fi microwave emissions in the 1980 U.S. Air Force study).

This autism risk occurs because an adequate level of thyroid hormone is critically important in sustaining the correct molecular electric charge distribution across cell membranes ( the “resting potential,” through the Na+/K+ ATPase pumps), which is, in turn, critical for correct nerve signaling to occur between embryonic cells.

A recent study, published in the Annals of Neurology in August of 2013, tracking Dutch mothers and their children, linked low levels of circulating thyroid hormone in the mothers to a 4-fold (RR 4) increased risk of autism developing in their newborns.

(See also the Autism section in "Product safety regulations could cut healthcare costs by $1 TRILLION per year, Pt 1," at: , and the Alzheimer’s section in Part 3 of this series, for the impact of low-level cell phone/wifi microwave exposure in loosening the blood brain barrier and increasing the risk of Alzheimer’s, ALS, and MS.)

Foster is also a student of the late Herman P. Schwann, professor of Electrical Engineering, also at the Department of Biomedical Electrical Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania’s Moore School of Electrical Engineering. Schwann was brought to the U.S. after World War II by the U.S. military under the German Paperclip Project and “determined” the first U.S. safety standard for EMR exposure in the 1950s, which considered only the theoretical thermal hazard to human tissue, which the U.S. military and U.S. industries stand by to this day— despite thousands of research papers, before and since the 1950s, showing the multiple hazards of non-thermal damage, far below the level required to create thermal (heat) damages to molecules and cells. (The Zapping of American, Chapter 2, Brodeur, 1977)

John E. Moulder, publisher of Radiation Research, and frighteningly, a professor of Radiation Oncology— treats cancer with radiation— has also testified multiple times in court cases, denying any adverse effects of manmade EMR on human health.

Eleanor Adair, Kenneth Foster and John Moulder, along with a majority of industry and military representatives— such as from Raytheon (John M. Osepchuck), makers of microwave ovens and the Air Force’s ADS microwave weapons system— have also sat on the highly influential Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) committees that recommend U.S. “safety standards” for manmade radiofrequency/microwave exposure limits to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Eleanor Adair also held the distinction of being a lifetime member of the IEEE, and had continually been at the forefront pushing for radiofrequency/microwave exposure to be increased— such as raising levels, at minimum, three-fold and four-fold for near (cell phone) and far exposures (cell phone towers). While across the world, countries are pushing to have radiofrequency/microwave exposure reduced to protect their citizens. So the American public can rest assured that they are in very “safe” hands in their “regulated” exposure to manmade electromagnetic radiation.

One of the IEEE schemes in 1999 was to try and reclassify the outer ear to be an extremity, like the hands or the feet, so they could increase the microwave radiation emitted by cell phones into the brain. That’s a nice trick, isn’t it?

Robert L. Park, a physicist and lobbyist for the American Physical Society. Like all the physicists that are organized by Atlantic Legal, insists that manmade EMR can do no damage to human molecules and cells, because it does not have enough energy to break bonds, like X-rays and other forms of ionizing radiation— ignoring thousands of research studies since the 1940s completely contradicting his opinions. Park has also worked on manmade EMR weapons projects, including work on laser systems, and Park has been a regular submitter of Op Ed pieces published in the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, on the alleged “stupidity” of those that are concerned of health risks from chronic exposure to manmade EMR frequencies— basically ignoring several thousand published studies by biologists and physicians stating just the opposite.

Park has also published his own “junk science” book, called Voodoo Science, (2000). In it, describing the work of his fellow Atlantic Legal scientist, Eleanor Adair, at Yale’s Pierce Laboratory: “In Adair’s experiments she exposed the monkeys to microwaves, just as you would heat food in a microwave oven, and monitored their physiological response. There was no reason to believe microwaves at the levels used in the experiments harmed the monkeys.”

Clark W. Heath, M.D., one of Atlantic Legal’s scientists, like Lamm, with an extensive, “outwardly respectable,” resume, who also denies any impact of manmade EMR in causing cancer, despite hundreds of studies that show just the opposite. In addition, Heath denies the existence of cancer clusters, or other disease clusters in communities that are inundated with extremely high EMR exposures. And who, disturbingly, has sat on many government boards and has held many influential positions, including being the Vice President for Epidemiolgy and Surveillance Research for the American Cancer Society from 1988 to 1998— whose job it is to identify cancer clusters in communities.

Richard Wilson, a physicist from Harvard, organizes most of the scientific supporting amicus briefs. Wilson is one more physicist that denies that manmade EMR can do any damage to human health. And who, like his fellow scientists at Atlantic Legal, has also testified on multiple occasions and lectured extensively on the alleged safety of manmade EMR exposures.

And of course there is John D. Graham, a statistician, who founded the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis (HCRA) in 1989 and was its president until 2001, until he was tapped to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where he could apply HCRA developed regulatory criteria to control U.S. regulatory agencies at the behest of his corporate benefactors— which continues to this day (See Obama’s ex-head of the OIRA from 2009- 2012, Cass Sunstein, and his connection to the HCRA, in the start of Part 3).

Graham’s area of expertise is in “Automobile Safety.” So it is no surprise that the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA)— which, along with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), who are all on the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis’ Advisory Council— gets its walking papers on automobile safety from Graham and the HCRA, which ultimately gets theirs from the philosophy of Atlantic Legal.

End Part 1.

Part 2 continues with:

Daubert pharmaceutical defense witness Steven H. Lamm’s additional pro-industry written testimonies against protecting the public’s health, U.S. industry’s Unequivocal Proof of damages expectations, corporate controlled Relative Risks placing the public's safety at risk, The Data Quality Act (taking Daubert Rules to federal regulatory agencies), Atlantic Legal' s impact on corporate funded front groups and public relations writers distorting sound science.

Report this ad