Anger
at advisers' biotech links
In message #536 I suggested to a possible conflict of interest
in
having a Motorola radiation expert as a radiation/health consultant
on the NH&MRC's expert committee on electromagnetic energy.
The
following article from the UK Observer further explores concerns
over
scientists with industry links dominating expert committees
on
everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent
arrival of
GM crops.
Its no different in Australia. One only needs to look at
the membership
of most of the Australian standards setting committees to
get a list of
whos-who in industry land.
Don
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,997205,00.html
Anger at advisers' biotech links
Dossier reveals Ministers' worries over connections between
science
experts and leading drugs firms
Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend
Sunday July 13, 2003
Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical
health
and environmental issues have close links to biotech and drug
corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents
obtained by
The Observer.
Internal papers from the Department for the Environment,
Farming and
Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent
of the close
connections between big business and scientists hired to give
independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants
for the firms,
own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants
from them.
Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister
Michael
Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply
concerned
that scientists with industry links were dominating committees
on
everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent
arrival of
GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists'
commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice
they gave.
- A key member of the committee advising Ministers on the
safety of GM
products has received research funding from biotech giants
Monsanto and
Syngenta. Professor Phil Mullineaux also works for the John
Innes Centre
- the GM research centre funded by Science Minister Lord Sainsbury;
- More than three-quarters of the members of the committee
which advises
Ministers on food safety have direct links to major food companies
and
drug giants including Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Syngenta.
Its chair,
Professor Ieuan Hughes, has personal interests in Pharmacia
- which in
April was bought by Pfizer to create the biggest drugs company
in the
world - and owns shares in BP Amoco where his daughter works.
- A former deputy chairman of the committee which examines
the safety of
pesticides, Professor Alan Boobis, received research funding
from
GlaxoSmithKline for his department at Imperial College but
never
declared it. Other members of this committee have links to
agrochemical
firms like Aventis, Astra Zeneca and Monsanto. The current
head of the
body, Professor David Coggon, was a close friend of Esso's
chief medical
officer and received a gift from the oil giant.
- The chair of a group examining air quality in Britain,
Professor
Stephen Holgate, is a consultant to drug giant Merck. His
university
department has received grants from Glaxo and Astra Zeneca.
Others work
for biotech and drug giants like Novartis and Schering-Plough.
- Almost three out of four members of the committee advising
Ministers
on the cancer risks of chemicals in food and other consumer
products
either own shares in or work for major biotech and drug corporations;
While the scientists openly declare their interests, Meacher
was so
exasperated by the structure of committees advising him that
he
personally intervened on a number of occasions in an attempt
to get more
environmentally friendly members on them.
Last week it emerged that Whitty was so alarmed about the
industry links
on the committee advising him on the safety of farming chemicals
that he
broke official rules and hired a toxicologist, Dr Vyvyan Howard,
who is
known to be more sensitive to environmental issues.
In one internal Defra document, Meacher scribbled his concerns
in the
margins: 'I do not agree with this. No member of the Advisory
Committee
on Pesticides should have current commercial considerations
because this
fundamentally undermines their integrity and judgement.'
Alongside his comments, a government official admits that
Whitty shares
his concerns and will be writing to the relevant parties to
make his
concerns clear.
Last night Meacher told The Observer: 'These committees are
absolutely
critical. They give definitive advice which Ministers at their
peril
seek to overturn. I constantly argued that nobody with significant
commercial links should be allowed to sit on these bodies.
It is vital
they are truly independent.'
Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It
is now crystal
clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the
heart of
government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made
transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if
their advice
is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or
pharmaceutical industry.'
A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members'
interests.
He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability
of independent
advisory committees across the range of issues the department
deals with
to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'
The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific
advisers, who
denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality
of
their advice.
Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests
he should
declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that
any
scientists of international repute will have some current
or past links
with industry.
'To say we would risk our professional integrity because
we own a few
shares in a company is ridiculous.'
Informant: Don Maisch
Re:
Books and refs on understanding EMF....and the chemical connection
Dorothy, Iris, and all:
Good book refs Iris!!
For background and understanding the natural and artificial
exposure
reasons why EMF/Chem sensitivities exist (usually both together)
take a
look at these additional two books, which I have found as
probably the
best general explanation info which supports and updates Dr.
Becker's
excellent earlier work "The Body Electric"..
Oschman, J.L., "Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis,"
Harcourt
Brace/Churchhill, Edinburgh Livingstone, Spring 2000. NOTE:
THIS BOOK,
AT $40, from Amazon.com IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AS AN EXCELLENT,
EASILY
UNDERSTOOD, OVERVIEW OF NATURAL, KNOWN ENERGY FORCES AND THE
PART THEY
PLAY IN THE MAINTENANCE OF NORMAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING.
Ho, Mae-Wan, "The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics
of Organisms", 2nd
Edition, World Scientific Pub.Co., 1998.
NOTE: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AS AN EXCELLENT OVERVIEW OF NATURAL,
KNOWN
ENERGY FORCES (EMFs, MFs, LIQUID CRYSTALS) AND THE PART THEY
PLAY IN THE
MAINTENANCE OF NORMAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING.....about $20 from
Amazon.com....well worth the buy....a bit more technical than
Oschman's
book, above, but one can skip the formulas.
Some additional refs, general info and available detailed
publications/CD, from my 40 yrs collecting data in this area,
may be
found on my website www.emfinterface.com
Regards to all,
Jim Beal
EMF Interface Consulting
EMFEFFECTS@aol.com
www.emfinterface.com
RE: HAARP - A CHUNK OF THE IONOSPHERE is blown out into space
EGroup and Friends (excerpt)
This was posted by someone on my discussion group and the
entire article
is here below - part of it in a zipped file attached. This
confidential
report goes right along with, and unfortunately supports,
the material
in Scalar Wars
http://www.prahlad.org/pub/bearden/scalar_wars.htm
that I sent the day before yesterday.
Neill
Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/message/31993
Supreme
Court Preemption decision
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-306.pdf
Judge Catherine Blake who is overseeing the RF cell phone
health
lawsuits has asked counsel in the several cell phone headset
cases to
respond taking this new Supreme Court decision into account.
She has yet
to rule whether to remand the cell phone headset cases back
to state
court. Her inclination so far has been to keep those cases
in federal
court and hold that federal regulation of radiofrequency radiation
overrules state product liability arguments.
RCR Wireless News
Supreme
Court ruling may impact health lawsuits
by JEFFREY SILVA
July 14, 2003
WASHINGTON-A Supreme Court ruling has thrown into question
whether brain
cancer and health-related consumer lawsuits currently pending
in federal
court should be sent back to state court, a venue mobile-phone
carriers
and equipment manufacturers have managed to largely avoid
to date.
In health lawsuits, scientific evidence is critical. But
so is
jurisdiction. Industry has put together a string of victories
in court
cases by making persuasive scientific arguments and removing
state
lawsuits to federal court, which has proved legally advantageous
to
lawyers defending wireless firms.
The dynamics of health litigation could drastically change
if the
wireless industry cannot keep the cases in federal court.
The chances of
wireless health lawsuits returning to state courts, however,
appear
relatively small. But such a scenario remains a possibility.
All pending
wireless health lawsuits, except for one in Las Vegas, reside
in one
federal court or another.
At a minimum, the immediate impact of the high court's June
2 ruling in
Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson could be to freeze for
months
proceedings-including consideration of scientific evidence
on medical
causation-in nine brain cancer lawsuits against industry overseen
by
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake in Baltimore.
Blake is poised to rule on pending motions to remand the
nine lawsuits
to various state courts where they were first filed.
Blake solicited comment June 6 on whether to halt further
action in the
nine brain cancer lawsuits until a federal appeals court in
Richmond,
Va., rules on health-related litigation involving issues of
jurisdiction.
Blake's previously strongly held wireless health claims give
rise to a
federal question that does not belong in state court, saying
some
lawsuits "amounted to a disguised attack on the validity
and sufficiency
of federal safety regulations regarding cell phones."
Indeed, in addition to the nine cancer cases in Blake's court,
the
ruling also has implications for five class-action lawsuits
dismissed by
Blake in March and on appeal in federal circuit court in Richmond,
Va.
The class actions on appeal, originally filed in state court,
see
damages on the theory that wireless carriers should have warned
consumers about potential health risks from mobile phones
and supplied
them with headsets to protect against possible radiation injury.
The plaintiffs' opening brief in the headset cases was to
have been
filed today, but the court granted an extension to Aug. 1.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond is also
entertaining
the $800 million lawsuit that began in a Maryland state court
before
being transferred to Blake, who dismissed the suit for lack
of
scientific evidence last fall. Oral argument in the case is
set for September.
Beneficial involves a lawsuit filed in state court against
a national
bank by parties who argued interest rates on loans from the
bank were
excessive and violated the common law usury doctrine. Bank
lawyers had
the lawsuit moved from state court to federal court. A federal
court
rejected a motion to remand the case to state court. But the
11th U.S.
Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the lawsuit was improperly
moved from
state court to federal court.
A Supreme Court majority (7-2) thought otherwise and ruled
"the cause of
action arose only under federal law and could, therefore,
be removed" to
federal court.
Both plaintiffs and industry defendants in wireless health
lawsuits said
the Supreme Court's decision in Beneficial favor them on the
jurisdictional issue.
"The complaints in these actions ... not only conflict
with federal law,
but also intrude directly on a limited field-the technical
aspects of
radio transmission and the regulatory of RF [radio-frequency]
emissions
from licensed radio equipment-governed exclusively and pre-empted
completely by federal law. The complaints thus trigger not
only the
blocking effect of ordinary pre-emption, but also the displacing
effect
that the Beneficial court recognized is the essence of complete
pre-emption," wireless firms stated in a June 20 letter
to Blake.
Industry lawyers told Blake they favor a stay of proceedings
in the nine
brain cancer cases before her until the 4th Circuit rules
on the headset appeal.
Lawyers for Sarah Dahlgren, one of nine plaintiffs in brain
cancer
lawsuits before Blake, have a different take on the Supreme
Court ruling
in Beneficial.
"Unlike the non-existent state usury claims asserted
in Beneficial, the
statue cited by defendants in Dahlgren as the basis for federal
question
jurisdiction (the Federal Communications Act), provides neither
a
prescribed remedy for the damages alleged in the Dahlgren
complaint or
any ordained procedure for obtaining relief. Indeed, far from
implying
complete pre-emption, the FCA contains a savings clause that
expressly
preserves state law causes of action such as those contained
in the
Dahlgren complaint," stated Dahlgren's attorneys. The
lawyers oppose
delaying the case.
In a blistering dissenting opinion penned by Supreme Court
Judge Antonin
Scalia, in which Judge Clarence Thomas joined, Scalia stated:
"The
proper response to the presentation of a nonexistent claim
to a state
court is dismissal, not the `federalize-and-remove' dance
authorized by
today's opinion."
Janet Newton
The EMR Policy Institute, P.O. Box 117, Marshfield VT 05658
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: www.emrpolicy.org
O.T.
themes:
USA
Today: Pentagon Fails to Learn from Gulf War Illnesses
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=883
Fox
News Reporter: Bush's Lies Unraveling
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=885
More
Big Lies Exposed in Bush Speech
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=890
Bush's
Mis-State-Ment Of The Union Fiasco
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=890
Bush's
Lies to Start War: "A Firm Basis for Impeachment"
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=887
Cheney
Under Pressure to Quit Over False War Evidence
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=892
US
faces 'Iraqi guerrilla war'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3072899.stm
Informant: George Paxinos
Please
paste in news letter a few times a week for a few months if
possible
Folks,
Dr. Rebecca Carley is one of the most dedicated, respected,
and upright
women I know. She has been a guest lecturer at international
conferences
on the subject of the dangers of vaccines. She is deserving
of your support.
She is fighting this battle for all of us. In retaliation,
NYS
government has come down as hard on her as they can. Anything
you may be
able to do to help her will be remembered by many.
Ron Loeber
----- Original Message -----
From: Drcarley1@aol.com
To: List Deleted
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: Dr Carley's medical license suspended by Medical
Mafia
Please be advised that as of 7/11/03, my medical license has
been
suspended for a year followed by 4 years probation for "practicing
medicine with a mental illness; said mental illness being
the "delusion"
that there is a conspiracy against me. I have been ordered
to undergo
"psychiatric treatment" for one year. (I will put
as much of the 40 page
decision [which is 90% misinformation such as saying my son
is in foster
care] as I can on my website by the end of the week). They
admit that no
complaints have ever been filed regarding my treatment of
patients. I
have also been ordered to release all of the records on my
patients, [so
they can hunt the children down and catch them up on their
vaccines].
I will now be a wholistic practitioner doing iridology and
counseling
patients on detoxification techniques available over the counter.
However, I will not be able to write prescriptions, order
diagnostic
tests, and most importantly, I will not be able to write medical
exemptions. I am sure that the exemptions I have written will
be deemed
null and void.
20 years ago, when this was done to Dr. Revisci, his PATIENTS
brought an
action against the medical board for depriving them of a unique
treatment
available no where else. His patients won, and his license
was restored.
Although I will be bringing my own artice 78 proceeding in
my case, I am
convinced that the fastest and most likely to succeed strategy
is for
the patients/supporters/potential patients to bring their
own suit.
Jennifer Grinberg (516-798-7642) will be organizing this effort
to restore the
license of the only court qualified expert in VIDS in the
country.
It is time for people to do more than "feel sorry"
for me, it's time for
ACTION! Since the only people I can NOT write exemptions for
are my son
& I, I will not be affected.
However, if nothing is done, when they come to your door
and with that
Smallpox/SARS or whatever vaccine and your exemption is deemed
invalid,
get ready to roll up your sleeve or go to the quarantine camps
as per
the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act (already passed
in NYS).
I have given all I can; the only thing left for them to take
from me is
my mind (with psychiatric drugs). I await the response of
those who I
have served.
In Service to the TRUTH, I Remain, Dr. Rebecca
http://www.drcarley.com/
Informant: John Mecca
|