Whitewashing Toxic Chemicals

This book will shock anyone who still believes that 'science' and 'integrity' are soulmates.

By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK

May 12, 2008 Issue

« Return to Article

Discuss

Posted By: blaze @ 05/11/2008 3:08:46 PM

Comment: I have been deathly ill since the mid-90's, hopping from doctor to doctor. I eventually learned this article's cruel lesson the first time when I was diagnosed with chronic Lyme Disease, a disease that is not yet recognized in this country.

I have to drive over 2 hours each way to obtain antibiotics from one of the few doctors willing to treat this disease, because most doctors don't believe in chronic Lyme or are too fearful to defy the guidelines in place at the present time, not to mention that my insurance might begin to deny me antibiotic coverage eventually, simply because Lyme Disease is not yet a recognized illness in this country.

I was horrified by this lesson the first time around - the influence that industry has on what is or is not determined to be healthy for me - but then it got even worse...

I eventually realized that my Lyme symptoms would increase upon ANY exposure to electromagnetic or microwave fields, and this led me to the discovery of electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an emerging illness in the US and other parts of the world.

If I drive past a cell phone tower or airport, drive under some power lines or through an area wrought with wi-fi, stand next to someone using a cell phone, use my cordless phone or computer, my symptoms increase exponentially.

I eventually researched the biological effects of chronic exposure to electromagnetic and microwave fields and quickly learned that this exposure does indeed have biological effects, that each and every one of us is swimming in a sea of radiation, yet nothing - as in NOTHING - is being done about these dangers.

Cell phones are still being promoted as must-haves for anyone with an ear to stay connected, and even to our children.

Anyone reading this post, please google the Bioinitiative Report. The advent of wireless technology is the LARGEST biological experiment we have ever engaged in, and I am truly frightened by what is to come. It makes my Lyme dilemma look like cookies and cream.

If I thought Lyme Disease was unrecognized and

I eventually
Posted By: netpog @ 05/09/2008 12:48:35 AM

Comment: An excellent summary. And one I found very familiar.

One currently-active example of the techniques described in this review: The science of Lyme Disease has been aggressively clouded and suppressed by the IDSA (Infection Disease Society of America), in favor of the viewpoints most compatible with the vaccine manufacturers and the insurance companies. This distortion, and the financial involvement of Glaxo, Cigna, and others in the IDSA's guideline process, led to an unprecedented antitrust investigation (of a medical society!) by Connecticut's A.G. Blumenthal, who found financial conflicts of interest, suppression of contradictory information, and misleading citations of "corroborative" work that was in fact written by the same -- biased and financially-interested -- authors.

The recent settlement calls for a new, dis-interested panel to release new treatment guidelines. Meanwhile, the treatment methods used by the majority of physicians (multiple months of antibiotics) are deprecated as a "minority" position by the IDSA, and by lawmakers loyal to the IDSA/Big-Pharm position, such as NJ's Rep Pallone. And the bulk of the medical surveys and microbiological evidence is ignored. And patients suffer.
Posted By: larry1kanobe @ 05/08/2008 10:22:21 PM

Comment: I find this review right on. I have a nuerologtical problem but no disease. It did not occur from drugs (perscription) or any other known cause except from food and everyday living. I am an ex-product development engineer and kknow for a fact that chemicals are dumped all the time by corporations that portray a sqeaky-clean image of being environmental. Our drinking water is toxic and dangerous. Science is bought as well as anything else necessary for big corporate chemical or pharma to make millions.

Wake up America and realize we no longer live in Disneyworld.
Posted By: RJ Bates @ 05/07/2008 5:11:14 PM

Comment: I find this book review troubling for two reasons, and offer a different perspective on the science-industry relationship. First, The book title "Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" suggest something much different than what the reviewer immediately follows with, that "it will shock anyone who still believes that "science" and "integrity" are soulmates". Now, I have not had a chance to read the book, but knowing that science is the pursuit of knowledge using empirical evidence and the scientific method, it seems to me that the author's title suggests manipulation of science to suit an end other than knowledge, while the reviewer presents the book as one questioning the integrity of science as a whole. This suggests a disparity between the title of the book and its contents and/or that the person reviewing the book walked away with a different message. In either case, it does not lend credence to either the author or the reviewer. What I really found ironic was that an example of the corruption of a (at its heart) pure process, the author cites an example where a hired scientist manipulates the data to reflect the results of a sub-population while deriving a conclusion on the population as a whole. This is a well known error in statistics and epidemiology. The author follows by providing an example of an example of a scientist who was "bought", and how he used his influence to get the faulty explanation in a peer-reviewed journal. This is far from the norm in the discipline, and seems to me that by using a specific example and then generalizing about "science" the author and reviewer perform the same error they initially criticized earlier.

The process and practices of science are pure as a concept. But, like all things in this world, they are still corruptible and manipulated. It should be obvious to most that the use of "science" by "scientist" is a label that conveys a trusted system, one of integrity. Business interests, legal council, and politicians love to use these concepts because it lends credence to their position in the public eye. What is important to realize that even the best of things in this world are used incorrectly and that consumers should be aware of it. Science can be used for the wrong reasons, but the process are pure. The ironic part in all of this is that the only way to really expose the manipulation is through legitimate research, using the scientific method. Simply claiming that "science" and "integrity" can no longer be soulmates because it is used maliciously undermines confidence in the public that it is the single best way to solve the very problems these industries are trying to circumvent.
Posted By: RJ Bates @ 05/07/2008 5:11:11 PM

Comment: I find this book review troubling for two reasons, and offer a different perspective on the science-industry relationship. First, The book title "Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" suggest something much different than what the reviewer immediately follows with, that "it will shock anyone who still believes that "science" and "integrity" are soulmates". Now, I have not had a chance to read the book, but knowing that science is the pursuit of knowledge using empirical evidence and the scientific method, it seems to me that the author's title suggests manipulation of science to suit an end other than knowledge, while the reviewer presents the book as one questioning the integrity of science as a whole. This suggests a disparity between the title of the book and its contents and/or that the person reviewing the book walked away with a different message. In either case, it does not lend credence to either the author or the reviewer. What I really found ironic was that an example of the corruption of a (at its heart) pure process, the author cites an example where a hired scientist manipulates the data to reflect the results of a sub-population while deriving a conclusion on the population as a whole. This is a well known error in statistics and epidemiology. The author follows by providing an example of an example of a scientist who was "bought", and how he used his influence to get the faulty explanation in a peer-reviewed journal. This is far from the norm in the discipline, and seems to me that by using a specific example and then generalizing about "science" the author and reviewer perform the same error they initially criticized earlier.

The process and practices of science are pure as a concept. But, like all things in this world, they are still corruptible and manipulated. It should be obvious to most that the use of "science" by "scientist" is a label that conveys a trusted system, one of integrity. Business interests, legal council, and politicians love to use these concepts because it lends credence to their position in the public eye. What is important to realize that even the best of things in this world are used incorrectly and that consumers should be aware of it. Science can be used for the wrong reasons, but the process are pure. The ironic part in all of this is that the only way to really expose the manipulation is through legitimate research, using the scientific method. Simply claiming that "science" and "integrity" can no longer be soulmates because it is used maliciously undermines confidence in the public that it is the single best way to solve the very problems these industries are trying to circumvent.
Posted By: RJ Bates @ 05/07/2008 5:09:20 PM

Comment: I find this book review troubling for two reasons, and offer a different perspective on the science-industry relationship. First, The book title "Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" suggest something much different than what the reviewer immediately follows with, that "it will shock anyone who still believes that "science" and "integrity" are soulmates". Now, I have not had a chance to read the book, but knowing that science is the pursuit of knowledge using empirical evidence and the scientific method, it seems to me that the author's title suggests manipulation of science to suit an end other than knowledge, while the reviewer presents the book as one questioning the integrity of science as a whole. This suggests a disparity between the title of the book and its contents and/or that the person reviewing the book walked away with a different message. In either case, it does not lend credence to either the author or the reviewer. What I really found ironic was that an example of the corruption of a (at its heart) pure process, the author cites an example where a hired scientist manipulates the data to reflect the results of a sub-population while deriving a conclusion on the population as a whole. This is a well known error in statistics and epidemiology. The author follows by providing an example of an example of a scientist who was "bought", and how he used his influence to get the faulty explanation in a peer-reviewed journal. This is far from the norm in the discipline, and seems to me that by using a specific example and then generalizing about "science" the author and reviewer perform the same error they initially criticized earlier.

The process and practices of science are pure as a concept. But, like all things in this world, they are still corruptible and manipulated. It should be obvious to most that the use of "science" by "scientist" is a label that conveys a trusted system, one of integrity. Business interests, legal council, and politicians love to use these concepts because it lends credence to their position in the public eye. What is important to realize that even the best of things in this world are used incorrectly and that consumers should be aware of it. Science can be used for the wrong reasons, but the process are pure. The ironic part in all of this is that the only way to really expose the manipulation is through legitimate research, using the scientific method. Simply claiming that "science" and "integrity" can no longer be soulmates because it is used maliciously undermines confidence in the public that it is the single best way to solve the very problems these industries are trying to circumvent.
Posted By: aquarius256 @ 05/07/2008 11:25:36 AM

Comment: As a holistic physician, I am thrilled to see this come to light. For a scathing review fo the politics behind environmental issues and health, I strongly recomend "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" by Devra Davis, Ph.D., the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the Univ. Of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. She worked on environmental health in the Carter Adminisrtation.
Posted By: aquarius256 @ 05/07/2008 11:20:08 AM

Comment: As a holistic physician, I am thrilled to see this issue exposed. Recall Mark Twain's famous line about "lies, damned lies,and statistics." For a scathing review of the politics behind all of this, I strongly urge readers to check out "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" by Devra Davis, Ph. D. She is the director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and worked on environmental issues in the Carter Administration.
Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 05/05/2008 11:00:49 AM

Comment: Obviously Burbank is correct that scientific manipulation boils down to money. It will continue as long as it's profitable for the corporations. Corporations have no conscience. They are influenced only by numbers on a balance sheet. We hear of hundreds of lawsuits where corporation X has to pay 10, 20 or even 100 million in damages due to death and injury caused by their products. Why then do these corporations continue to avoid acknowledging what real science tells them their products are doing to innocent people? Because the multi-million dollar penalties are small in comparison to their profits. It's simply considered a cost of doing business, no different from paying for insurance, utilities or employee's wages. A thousand people died? Oh well. Bill me.

If these unscrupulous corporations are hit so hard that it no longer becomes profitable to sell harmful products, they will begin to employ science in a search for truth instead of a search for excuses. Either way, they are ultimately searching for dollars. America simply needs to make truth more profitable than lies by penalizing the liars until they're bankrupt.
Posted By: burbank @ 05/04/2008 6:15:48 AM

Comment: In essence the manipulation of scientific data boils down to money. How will adverse publicity effect my profit margin and stock value. You can mitigate by litigate. Just get a good PR firm and you can skew any data to say whatever you want to assuage public angst about the negative effects of a particular product. And I thought the Chinese were the only ones we had to worry about.
Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 05/03/2008 11:10:45 PM

Comment: Excellent article. I wonder if this manufacturing/manipulation-of-data occurs across other industries too, not only the cigarette manufacturers, the chemical companies, the oil companies, etc. I wonder if it isnt' the "oldest trick in the book" learned from politicians to be used cleverly in political propaganda to push certain agendas deemed more "favorable" for powers-that-be... Definitely food for thought!