• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cluster Yet? Public Health Officials Few Answers About CJD

flounder

Well-known member
June 22, 2007 at 10:11:29

Is It A Cluster Yet? Public Health Officials Have Few Answers About CJD
Cases

by Martha Rosenberg Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com


Public health officials in Indiana are busy doing what Idaho public health
officials did two years ago: claiming a cluster of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
(CJD) victims is a mere coincidence.

If the four who died of CJD since January in Allen County in northeast
Indiana--five if you count a death in Lynnville in 2005--had the sporadic
version of CJD which strikes one in a million and has no clear cause then
it's bad luck, a tragedy and Something We Need To Study Further.


But if the Indiana patients had variant CJD (vCJD) caused by something in
their environment or lifestyle like the four letter word everyone is
avoiding?

Let's just say this is why "food disparagement laws" were slapped on the
books after Oprah Winfrey "disparaged" hamburgers on her TV show in 1998. To
protect ranches, packers, big food processors and agribusiness interests
from economic collapse if their products are found to sicken and kill.

Ever wonder why the Texas and Alabama ranches that produced mad cows in 2004
and 2006 were allowed to remain anonymous? And keep doing business? The
grocery stores and restaurants in California that SERVED meat from the first
US mad cow from Washington state in 2003? Thank your state law makers.

Still trying to spin the CJD deaths--"'Mad-cow' variant not now a risk; Only
3 vCJD cases in the US were confirmed; all had links to UK beef" says an
article in Fort Wayne's Journal Gazette in June; what are they trying to
say?--is often accomplished at the price of good science.

Because only an autopsy can determine whether CJD was sporadic or variant
and two of the Indiana patients-- three of Idaho's nine--received direct
burials with no autopsy after coroners or morticians declined the bodies.

And even after autopsy, questions can remain as in the 2004 case of
49-year-old California CJD patient Patrick Hicks whose doctor was assured by
the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center (NPDPSC) in
Cleveland that his patient didn't have variant CJD without conducting the
tests specified on its own protocol.

NPDPSC spokespeople said they didn't have frozen brain tissue to conduct the
gold standard Western blot test but they knew their autopsy
contractor--1-800-AUTOPSY (sic)--lacked the ability to provide frozen tissue
when they ordered the work says the UPI.

And even if post mortem tests can find the accumulation of protease
resistant prion proteins (PrPSc) thought to signify vCJD in the
brain--converted into the infectious particles from normal prions (PrPC) in
a morbid game of tag and without a whiff of DNA say scientists--some CJD
experts question whether the diseases are even different.

So public health officials are forced to fall back on begging the question
and assuming that which they are trying to prove. The deceased patients were
too old to have vCJD, they're saying, because vCJD doesn't occur in people
that old.

Feel better?

This is the same kind of reached-the-party-to-which-we-are-speaking science
behind a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease
Control in 2002 about chronic wasting disease--a kind of mad deer
disease--called, "Fatal Degenerative Neurologic Illness in Men Who
Participated in Wild Game Feasts."

In the report, a patient who died of CJD was said to not have the variant
kind because the wild game he ate "did not originate from known CWD-endemic
areas." Anyone hear of the word "yet"?

But Ronele Hicks, Patrick Hicks' widow says he WASN'T too old for vCJD and
had not traveled to the UK or undergone surgical risks either.

"If it's from beef, am I next?" she asks pointing out that she and Patrick
ate the same meals for 22 years.


Martha Rosenberg is staff cartoonist for the Evanston Roundtable.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_martha_r_070622_is_it_a_cluster_yet_3f.htm


COMMENT TO :

Is It A Cluster Yet? Public Health Officials Have Few Answers About CJD
Cases


ATYPICAL CREUTZFELDT JAKOB DISEASE's AND ATYPICAL BSE's - sporadic,
spontaneous, or sourced ?

Date: July 22, 2007


By Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

PART 1

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_martha_r_070622_is_it_a_cluster_yet_3f.htm

PART 2

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/genera_martha_r_070622_is_it_a_cluster_yet_3f.htm


Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 16:22:22 -0500
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Subject: Re: Colorado Surveillance Program for Chronic Wasting Disease
Transmission to Humans (TWO SUSPECT CASES)


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0704&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=1165



TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
flounder-- there is just no way in the world that you can get that many local, state, and federal officials to all co-conspire to have a mass coverup like your insinuating...

I know- I spent 30 years as a coroner and deputy coroner- working with coroners, ME Investigators, medical doctors and medical examiners from all over the country...And there are just too many of them that are like me- that don't follow the beat of any drummer- to have massive coverups thruout the country ....

Conspiracy NO WAY-- missed because of other reasons- possible...As I've stated before in most jurisdictions there is way too little money alloted to posts and death investigation- If the ME or Coroner could get a doctor to sign off on the death without having to do a Post, they many times did-- to save their budget for all the times they needed it to solve or prosecute the criminal cases...Sadly it was happening that the rising costs of the criminal work was taking up all the funding and erroding the disease prevention side of the profession...

Also- when I retired almost 10 years ago- very little was being taught or brought up in training or lectures about CJD or vCJD yet in this country...Not really sure if that has changed or not..
 

flounder

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
flounder-- there is just no way in the world that you can get that many local, state, and federal officials to all co-conspire to have a mass coverup like your insinuating...

I know- I spent 30 years as a coroner and deputy coroner- working with coroners, ME Investigators, medical doctors and medical examiners from all over the country...And there are just too many of them that are like me- that don't follow the beat of any drummer- to have massive coverups thruout the country ....

Conspiracy NO WAY-- missed because of other reasons- possible...As I've stated before in most jurisdictions there is way too little money alloted to posts and death investigation- If the ME or Coroner could get a doctor to sign off on the death without having to do a Post, they many times did-- to save their budget for all the times they needed it to solve or prosecute the criminal cases...Sadly it was happening that the rising costs of the criminal work was taking up all the funding and erroding the disease prevention side of the profession...

Also- when I retired almost 10 years ago- very little was being taught or brought up in training or lectures about CJD or vCJD yet in this country...Not really sure if that has changed or not..



Oldtimer said:
skcatlman said:
Sounds like the chickens are coming home to roost. I just want to see how R-CALF spins this and blames Canada. How many US consumers will want US beef after finding out about this. Oh i forgot this is somehow Canadas fault. :roll: :roll:

R-CALF won't have to spin nothing if vCJD happens-- the US consumer already knows from reading the newspaper reports of the bimonthly positive cows that Canada has BSE-- and the US government has told them that the US has virtually none... :???:


-----------------------------------------------


flounder-- there is just no way in the world that you can get that many local, state, and federal officials to all co-conspire to have a mass coverup like you are insinuating...

SNIP..



i am reminded of a few things deep throat (high ranking official at usda) told me years ago;


==========================================


The most frightening thing I have read all day is the
report of Gambetti's finding of a new strain of
sporadic cjd in young people.........Dear God, what in
the name of all that is holy is that!!!
If the US has different strains of
scrapie.....why????than the UK...then would the same
mechanisms that make different strains of scrapie here
make different strains of BSE...if the patterns are
different in sheep and mice for scrapie.....could not
the BSE be different in the cattle, in the mink, in
the humans.......I really think the slides or tissues
and everything from these young people with the new
strain of sporadic cjd should be put up to be analyzed
by many, many experts in cjd........bse.....scrapie
Scrape the damn slide and put it into
mice.....wait.....chop up the mouse brain and and
spinal cord........put into some more mice.....dammit
amplify the thing and start the damned
research.....This is NOT rocket science...we need to
use what we know and get off our butts and move....the
whining about how long everything takes.....well it
takes a whole lot longer if you whine for a year and
then start the research!!!
Not sure where I read this but it was a recent press
release or something like that:
I thought I would fall out of my chair when I read
about how there was no worry about infectivity from a
histopath slide or tissues because they are preserved
in formic acid, or formalin or formaldehyde.....for
God's sake........ Ask any pathologist in the UK what
the brain tissues in the formalin looks like after a
year.......it is a big fat sponge...the agent
continues to eat the brain ......you can't make slides
anymore because the agent has never stopped........and
the old slides that are stained with Hemolysin and
Eosin......they get holier and holier and degenerate
and continue...what you looked at 6 months ago is not
there........Gambetti better be photographing every
damned thing he is looking at.....

Okay, you need to know. You don't need to pass it on
as nothing will come of it and there is not a damned
thing anyone can do about it. Don't even hint at it
as it will be denied and laughed at..........
USDA is gonna do as little as possible until there is
actually a human case in the USA of the
nvcjd........if you want to move this thing along and
shake the earth....then we gotta get the victims
families to make sure whoever is doing the autopsy is
credible, trustworthy, and a saint with the courage of
Joan of Arc........I am not kidding!!!!
so, unless we get a human death from EXACTLY the same
form with EXACTLY the same histopath lesions as seen
in the UK nvcjd........forget any action........it is
ALL gonna be sporadic!!!

And, if there is a case.......there is gonna be every
effort to link it to international travel,
international food, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. They
will go so far as to find out if a sex partner had
ever traveled to the UK/europe, etc. etc. ....
It is gonna be a long, lonely, dangerous twisted
journey to the truth. They have all the cards, all
the money, and are willing to threaten and carry out
those threats....and this may be their biggest
downfall...

Thanks as always for your help.
(Recently had a very startling revelation from a rather senior person in
government here..........knocked me out of my chair........you must keep
pushing. If I was a power person....I would be demanding that there be a
least a million bovine tested as soon as possible and agressively
seeking this disease. The big players are coming out of the woodwork as
there is money to be made!!!
In short: "FIRE AT WILL"!!! for the very dumb....who's "will"! "Will
be the burden to bare if there is any coverup!"

again it was said years ago and it should
be taken seriously....BSE will NEVER be found in the
US!
As for the BSE conference call...I think you did a
great service to freedom of information and making
some people feign integrity...I find it scary to see
that most of the "experts" are employed by the federal
government or are supported on the "teat" of federal
funds. A scary picture!
I hope there is a confidential panel organized by the
new government to really investigate this thing.

You need to watch your back........but keep picking at
them.......like a buzzard to the bone...you just may
get to the truth!!! (You probably have more support than
you know. Too many people are afraid to show you or let
anyone else know. I have heard a few things myself...
you ask the questions that everyone else is too afraid to ask.)


==========================================


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0612&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=10326

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-5581.html


see full text ;


http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=7498;article=3473;title=CJD%20Voice%20Discussion%20Group


TSS
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
flounder-- because so many DIFFERING folks are involved, is the reason I can't believe in any theory of coverup of vCJD...It would mean 1000"s of different ME's, Coroners, Drs., Labs, Lab technicians--from all over the nation-- few of which use the same labs....

Even if the federal government (which I don't trust) tried to hush things up- there is no way with the number of people that would have to be involved- and in most cases the Feds don't have the authority to do so anyway... In our state, no one had authority to override a coroners decision- except for the fact that the County Attorney and State Attorney General had the right to call for an inquest- whereby the Coroners jury could affirm or override the Coroner and determine manner and cause of death.......Federal government doesn't even have a ME or Coroner system- the reason the County Coroners in most areas handle the deaths occurring on the Indian Reservations (sovereign nations)...

This is also why--Because of the hundreds- probably 1000's involved in the USDA's BSE testing program that I don't believe a coverup could be perpetrated...Some individual cases could be missed- some could be screwed up from improper training and procedures- and maybe their testing wasn't the greatest because of their policy-- but I don't think even as crooked as this administration is that they could cover up cases.....
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
flounder-- because so many DIFFERING folks are involved, is the reason I can't believe in any theory of coverup of vCJD...It would mean 1000"s of different ME's, Coroners, Drs., Labs, Lab technicians--from all over the nation-- few of which use the same labs....

Even if the federal government (which I don't trust) tried to hush things up- there is no way with the number of people that would have to be involved- and in most cases the Feds don't have the authority to do so anyway... In our state, no one had authority to override a coroners decision- except for the fact that the County Attorney and State Attorney General had the right to call for an inquest- whereby the Coroners jury could affirm or override the Coroner and determine manner and cause of death.......Federal government doesn't even have a ME or Coroner system- the reason the County Coroners in most areas handle the deaths occurring on the Indian Reservations (sovereign nations)...

This is also why--Because of the hundreds- probably 1000's involved in the USDA's BSE testing program that I don't believe a coverup could be perpetrated...Some individual cases could be missed- some could be screwed up from improper training and procedures- and maybe their testing wasn't the greatest because of their policy-- but I don't think even as crooked as this administration is that they could cover up cases.....

I agree...good post, OT!
 

flounder

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
flounder-- because so many DIFFERING folks are involved, is the reason I can't believe in any theory of coverup of vCJD...It would mean 1000"s of different ME's, Coroners, Drs., Labs, Lab technicians--from all over the nation-- few of which use the same labs....

Even if the federal government (which I don't trust) tried to hush things up- there is no way with the number of people that would have to be involved- and in most cases the Feds don't have the authority to do so anyway... In our state, no one had authority to override a coroners decision- except for the fact that the County Attorney and State Attorney General had the right to call for an inquest- whereby the Coroners jury could affirm or override the Coroner and determine manner and cause of death.......Federal government doesn't even have a ME or Coroner system- the reason the County Coroners in most areas handle the deaths occurring on the Indian Reservations (sovereign nations)...

This is also why--Because of the hundreds- probably 1000's involved in the USDA's BSE testing program that I don't believe a coverup could be perpetrated...Some individual cases could be missed- some could be screwed up from improper training and procedures- and maybe their testing wasn't the greatest because of their policy-- but I don't think even as crooked as this administration is that they could cover up cases.....



OT, sometimes i really think you believe all the BSe you put out :lol2:


but sadly, the facts speak for themselves ;


SUPPRESSING, ALTERING OR MANIPULATING EMPERICAL DATA UNDERMINING THEIR IDEOLOGICAL POSITIONS: More than 4,000 scientists – including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences – have accused the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals. (Shogren – Los Angeles Times 07.09.04)

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that this administration has:


a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific finding by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety and community well being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence


The report also found that:


there is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.



A report by the House Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff reaches the same conclusion, revealing examples such as the administration:



Changing education performance measures to make “abstinence-only” programs appear effect; deleting information on the efficacy and use of condoms from the Center for Disease Control web site; withholding findings on global warming and other negative impacts on wetlands and preventing any analyses on alterative environmental proposals;




using misleading data to suggest that a functioning missile defense system could be deployed quickly;




including information on the National Cancer Institute’s web site suggesting conflicting evidence on whether abortion leads to breast cancer when the scientific community has determined no such link exists; and




preventing research on agricultural practices having a “negative health [or] environmental consequences.

READ THE REPORT! http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf



Published on Friday, July 9, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times
Researchers Accuse Bush of Manipulating Science
by Elizabeth Shogren

WASHINGTON — More than 4,000 scientists, including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences, accused the Bush administration Thursday of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals.

"Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," the scientists said in a letter.



This administration distorts scientific knowledge on stem cell research, which makes it increasingly difficult to have an honest debate in a field that holds promise for treatment of many serious diseases like Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.

Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics
The administration has frequently been accused of misusing and ignoring science to further its policy aims. The list of signatures collected by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that the issue has become worrisome throughout the scientific community.

Administration officials rejected the criticism Thursday, as they did when the same letter was released in February bearing the names of 62 prominent scientists.

John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the letter and a report released simultaneously by the Union of Concerned Scientists "reach conclusions that are wrong and misleading."

"This administration values and supports science, both as a vital necessity for national security and economic strength and as an indispensable source of guidance for national policy," Marburger said.

The scientists cited examples of colleagues denied seats on advisory panels, allegedly because of their political beliefs.

Dr. Gerald T. Keusch, who left his post as associate director for international research and director of the John E. Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, said the Department of Health and Human Services had rejected 19 of his 26 candidates for the center's board over three years. Among the 19 was a Nobel laureate who, Keusch said he was told, was turned down because his name had appeared in newspaper ads accusing the administration of manipulating science.

His nominations for the board — which advises on which research should receive federal grants — were accepted during the Clinton administration. But once President Bush took office, Keusch said, they "were rejected one after another."

"There are increasing bits of evidence at attempts at control over the business of science," said Keusch, now the assistant provost for global health at Boston University Medical Center.

He said he was motivated to speak out not by "political malice," but a desire to protect the "integrity of science" at the NIH.

Among the Keusch nominees rejected by the HHS was Jane Menken, a population expert at the University of Colorado at Boulder who had served on scientific advisory boards under President Reagan and the first President Bush. "I was being renominated and I was turned down," she said. "No official ever gave me any reason."

Contrary to the Bush administration, Menken supports the availability of legal abortions. She said that given her qualifications and those of two colleagues rejected with her, one a Nobel laureate, "it's very hard not to reach a conclusion that it was based on something different from scientific qualifications."

Department spokesman Bill Pierce said the appointments to many National Institutes of Health panels were made by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, not NIH directors such as Keusch.

"I completely reject the notion" that the administration is manipulating government science to bolster its policy aims, he said. "There's no evidence."

But Janet Rowley, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, said she had seen the misuse of science firsthand.

"This administration distorts scientific knowledge on stem cell research, which makes it increasingly difficult to have an honest debate in a field that holds promise for treatment of many serious diseases like Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes," Rowley said. She added that the administration, which opposes research with most embryonic stem cells, had exaggerated the usefulness of adult stem cells.

Richard Myers, director of the Stanford Human Genome Center, said he was rejected for a seat on the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research after he told an administration official that it was inappropriate to ask him his opinion of Bush, according to the report compiled by the Union of Concerned Scientists. He later received the post after an NIH director interceded on his behalf.

© Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

###


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-science9jul09,1,424737,print.story?coll=la-news-a_section


http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/SITN/2004/0449.htm#S3492


evidence of political interference

The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (SEE CHART...TSS)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, scientists who work for and advise the federal government have seen their work manipulated, suppressed, distorted, while agencies have systematically limited public and policy maker access to critical scientific information. To document this abuse, the Union of Concerned Scientists has created the A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science.


From air pollution to Ground Zero, the A to Z Guide showcases dozens of examples of the misuse of science on issues like childhood lead poisoning, toxic mercury contamination, and endangered species.

View alphabetical list
View by issue area
View timeline
View by agency/department
10,000 Scientists Speak Out
As the list of examples of political interference in science has grown, so has concern from diverse groups of Americans, from ordinary citizens to members of Congress to the nation’s leading newspapers. Particular concern comes from the scientific community, as scientists know first hand that a healthy respect for independent science has been the foundation of American prosperity and contributed greatly to our quality of life.

In 2004, 62 renowned scientists and science advisors signed a scientist statement on scientific integrity, denouncing political interference in science and calling for reform. On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names of more than 10,000 scientists of all backgrounds from all 50 states—including 52 Nobel Laureates—who have since joined their colleagues on this statement.

If you are a scientist, you can add your voice to the statement right now. And all citizens can take action on a critical scientific integrity challenging us today: the EPA’s decision to hastily close its unique network of scientific libraries. Call today and tell the EPA to stop destroying documents, selling off library equipment, and limiting access to its critical scientific collection.

The United States government bears great responsibility for keeping our environment clean and Americans healthy and safe. And while science is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be objective and impartial.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html



statement
Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

————
On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.
————


Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.

President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990



Attention Scientists


We need you to support this statement calling for an end to scientific abuse—now more than ever.

Creating meaningful reform will require the persistent and energetic engagement of the scientific community—in universities, laboratories, government agencies, and companies across the United States.

We need engineers and ecologists, physicists and physicians, psychologists and public health professionals—scientists of all disciplines.

Sign the statement today—click here.

For a sampling of prominent signatories, click here.

To search for your colleagues who are among the 12,000 plus current signers, click here.

Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.
For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.

The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. "Clear Skies" would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.

The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, "How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations."

Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:

Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration's policies or with the views of its political supporters.
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education. To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and regulations that would:


Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern;
Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and
Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels.
To maintain public trust in the credibility of the scientific, engineering and medical professions, and to restore scientific integrity in the formation and implementation of public policy, we call on our colleagues to:

Bring the current situation to public attention;
Request that the government return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and
Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/scientists-signon-statement.html


See a list of prominent signatories


statement
RSI Signatories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Signers of the scientists' statement on scientific integrity include 52 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 195 members of the National Academies. See the entire list of signers, here.

Note: Italicized names are those of the original signers of the statement
National Medal of Science *
Nobel Laureate †
Crafoord Prize #
The National Academies ^

Andreas Acrivos * ^
City College of the City University of New York

Edward Adelberg ^
Yale University

Eric Adelberger ^
University of Washington

Peter Agre † ^
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Richard M. Amasino ^
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Don L. Anderson * # ^
California Institute of Technology

Philip W. Anderson * † ^
Princeton University

Nancy C. Andreasen * ^
University of Iowa College of Medicine

John Avise ^
University of California, Irvine

Francisco J. Ayala * ^
University of California, Irvine

David Baltimore * † ^
California Institute of Technology

Guy Octo Barnett ^
Harvard University

John C. Beck ^
University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine

Michael V.L. Bennett ^
Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Paul Berg * † ^
Stanford University School of Medicine

Robert Bergman ^
University of California, Berkeley

R. Stephen Berry ^
University of Chicago

Rosina Bierbaum
University of Michigan

Pamela Bjorkman ^
California Institute of Technology

Nicolaas Bloembergen * † ^
University of Arizona

Felix Boehm ^
California Institute of Technology

Paul D. Boyer † ^
University of California, Los Angeles

Lewis M. Branscomb ^
Harvard University

Ronald Breslow * ^
Columbia University

Robert H. Burris * ^
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Joost A. Businger ^

John Cairns, Jr. ^
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Hampton Carson ^

David M. Ceperley ^
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Eric Chivian †
Harvard Medical School

Joel E. Cohen ^
The Rockefeller University

Hael D. Collins ^
Carnegie Mellon University

Eugene Commins ^
University of California, Berkeley

Eric Conn ^
University of California, Davis

Robert W. Corell
American Meteorological Society

F. Albert Cotton * ^
Texas A&M University

Ernest Courant ^
Brookhaven National Laboratory

James Cronin * † ^
University of Chicago

James Crow ^
University of Wisconsin

James E. Darnell, Jr. * ^
The Rockefeller University

Margaret Davis ^
University of Minnesota

Mark Davis ^
University of California, Berkeley

Johann Deisenhofer † ^
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

Robert C. DeVries ^
General Electric (Retired)

Theodor O. Diener * ^
University of Maryland

Carl Djerassi * ^
Stanford University

Paul M. Doty ^
Harvard University

Renato Dulbecco † ^
Salk Institute

Paul Ehrlich # ^
Stanford University

Herman Eisen ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Thomas Eisner * ^
Cornell University

S. Walter Englander ^
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

William K. Estes * ^
Indiana University

John B. Fenn † ^
Virginia Commonwealth University

Christopher Field ^
Carnegie Institution of Washington

Gerald D. Fischbach ^
Columbia University Medical School

Edmond Fischer † ^
University of Washington

Val L. Fitch * † ^
Princeton University

Jerry Franklin
University of Washington

Gerhart Friedlander ^
Brookhaven National Laboratory

Jerome Friedman † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mary Gaillard ^
University of California, Berkeley

Richard L. Garwin * ^
International Business Machines Corporation

Murray Gell-Mann † ^
Santa Fe Institute

George Georgiou ^
University of Texas

John H. Gibbons ^
Former Science Advisor to the President

Walter Gilbert † ^
Harvard University

Donald A. Glaser † ^
University of California, Berkeley

Sheldon L. Glashow † ^
Boston University

Peter H. Gleick ^
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

Marvin L. Goldberger ^
California Institute of Technology

Lynn R. Goldman
John Hopkins School of Public Health

Peter Goldreich * ^
Institute for Advanced Study

Roy Gordon ^
Harvard University

Kurt Gottfried
Cornell University

William Greenough ^
University of Illinois

David Grimes
University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Charles Gross ^
Princeton University

William Gross ^
University of New Mexico Engineering School

Keith Gubbins ^
North Carolina State University

Roger Guillemin * † ^
Salk Institute

Robert Hall ^
General Electric (Retired)



Henry C. Harpending ^
University of Utah

Richard Havel ^
University of California, San Francisco

Hans Herren ^
Millenium Institute

Dudley Herschbach * † ^
Harvard University

Joseph Hoffman ^
Yale Medical School, Yale University

Paul F. Hoffman ^
Harvard University

Roald Hoffmann * † ^
Cornell University

John P. Holdren ^
Harvard University

Norman Horowitz ^
California Institute of Technology

H. Robert Horvitz † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

David H. Hubel † ^
Harvard University

John Huchra ^
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

J. David Jackson ^
University of California, Berkeley

Daniel H. Janzen # ^
University of Pennsylvania

Leo P. Kadanoff * ^
University of Chicago

Eric R. Kandel * † ^
Columbia University

Anne Kapuscinski
University of Minnesota

Jack Keller ^
Keller Bliesner Eng. LLC and Utah State Univ.

Kenneth H. Keller ^
University of Minnesota

Wolfgang Ketterle ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Gerald T. Keusch ^
Boston University

Daniel Kleppner ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Walter Kohn * † ^
University of California, Santa Barbara

Arthur Kornberg * † ^
Stanford University School of Medicine

Lawrence Krauss
Case Western Reserve University

Herbert Kroemer † ^
University of California, Santa Barbara

Neal F. Lane
Former Science Advisor to the President

Robert B. Laughlin † ^
Stanford University

Alexander Leaf ^
Harvard Medical School

Leon M. Lederman * † ^
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

David M. Lee † ^
Cornell University

Anthony Leggett † ^
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Sidney Leibovich ^
Cornell University

Simon Levin ^
Princeton University

Gene Likens * ^
Institute of Ecosystem Studies

William Lipscomb † ^
Harvard University

Barbara Liskov ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

George Lorimer ^
University of Maryland


Jane Lubchenco ^
Oregon State University

Michael C. MacCracken
International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences

Thomas F. Malone ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Geoffrey W. Marcy ^
University of California, Berkeley


Lynn Margulis * ^
University of Massachusetts

Paul A. Marks * ^
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Douglas S. Massey ^
Princeton University

James J. McCarthy
Harvard University

Harden M. McConnell * ^
Stanford University

Jerry M. Melillo
Woods Hole Research Center

N. David Mermin ^
Cornell University

Matthew S. Meselson ^
Harvard University

David Michaels
George Washington University

Charles D. Michener ^
University of Kansas

Mario Molina † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

James Morgan ^
California Institute of Technology

Walter H. Munk * ^
University of California, San Diego

Joseph E. Murray † ^
Harvard Medical School

Herbert L. Needleman ^
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine

Louis Nirenberg * # ^
New York University

Marshall Nirenberg * † ^
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Michael Oppenheimer
Princeton University

Gordon Orians ^
University of Washington

Douglas D. Osheroff † ^
Stanford University

Jeremiah P. Ostriker * ^
Princeton University

George E. Palade * † ^
University of California, San Diego

W.K.H. Panofsky * ^
Stanford University

Eugene N. Parker * ^
University of Chicago

Fabian W. Pease ^
Stanford University

David Perkins ^
Stanford University

Martin L. Perl † ^
Stanford University

Thomas D. Petes ^
Duke University

Gregory Petsko ^
Brandeis University

Norman Phillips ^
National Weather Service

Stuart Pimm
Duke University

David Politzer †
California Institute of Technology

Robert V. Pound * ^
Harvard University

Ron Pulliam
University of Georgia

Norman F. Ramsey * † ^
Harvard University

Stuart A. Rice * ^
University of Chicago

Anthony Robbins
Tufts University School of Medicine

John D. Roberts * ^
California Institute of Technology

Wendell L. Roelofs * ^
Cornell University

Allan Rosenfield
Columbia University School of Public Health

John Ross * ^
Stanford University

F. Sherwood Rowland † ^
University of California, Irvine

Janet D. Rowley * ^
University of Chicago Medical Center

Gordon Roy ^
Harvard University

Vera Rubin * ^
Carnegie Institution of Washington

Eli Ruckenstein * ^
State University of New York at Buffalo

Liane Russell ^
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Jerome L. Sackman ^
University of California at Berkeley

Edwin E. Salpeter # ^
Cornell University

Allan Sandage * #
The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington

William Schlesinger ^
Duke University

William F. Schreiber ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

J. Robert Schrieffer * † ^
National High Magnetic Field Laboratory

Richard Schrock † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Dr. Steven A. Schroeder ^
University of California, San Francisco

Albert Schultz ^
University of Michigan

Seymour I. Schwartz ^
University of California

Dana S. Scott ^
Carnegie Mellon University

Andrew Sessler ^
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Roger N. Shepard * ^
Stanford University

Robert Silbey ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Richard Smalley † ^
Rice University

Franklin Stahl ^
University of Oregon

Jack Steinberger * † ^
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)

Joan A. Steitz * ^
Yale University School of Medicine

Felicia Stewart
University of California, San Francisco

Albert James Stunkard ^
University of Pennlsylvania

Henry Taube * † ^
Stanford University

Saul Teukolsky ^
Cornell University

E. Donnall Thomas * † ^
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center

William Thurston ^
Cornell University

George Tilton ^
University of California, Santa Barbara

Kevin Trenberth
National Center for Atmospheric Research

Myron Tribus ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

George Trilling ^
University of California, Berkeley

Daniel Tsui † ^
Princeton University

Harold E. Varmus * † ^
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Gerald J. Wasserburg # ^
California Institute of Technology

Robert A. Weinberg * ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Steven Weinberg * † ^
University of Texas, Austin

Zena Werb ^
University of California

Frank H. Westheimer * ^
Harvard University

Gilbert F. White * ^
University of Colorado

Jennifer Widom ^
Stanford University

Eric Wieschaus † ^
Princeton University

Frank Wilczek † ^
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

E.O. Wilson * # ^
Harvard University

Elizabeth Wing ^
Florida Museum of Natural History

Edward Witten * ^
Institute for Advanced Study

Lincoln Wolfenstein ^
Carnegie Mellon University

George M. Woodwell ^
Woods Hole Research Center

Donald Wuebbles
University of Illinois

Keith Yamamoto ^
University of California, San Francisco

Charles Yanofsky ^*
Stanford University

Herbert F. York
University of California, San Diego

Bruno Zumino ^
University of California, Berkeley


http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/prominent-statement-signatories.html


On December 9, 2006, UCS released the names of more than 10,000 scientists of all backgrounds from all 50 states—including 52 Nobel Laureates—who have since joined their colleagues on this statement.


http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/


Terry S. Singeltary Sr.

Agencies slow in responding to FOIA requests
From: Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:03:09 -0500

http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0707&L=sanet-mg&T=0&P=2679
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Distorting and suppressing science for political goals, I'll agree 100% with...That is exactly what the R-CALF suit is over and what Judge Cebull ruled was happening....That the administrators took the science and made it fit what their political agenda was which they as bureaucrats then wrote policy with... They avoided any science that didn't support their goal...The reason the "rest of the story" needs to be laid out in court and a decision made by an impartial arbiter.......

But that is not a major coverup of facts--which positive BSE or vCJD cases would be-- and that I don't think even GW and Rove could pull off with the number of people involved.....
 

flounder

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
But that is not a major coverup of facts--which positive BSE or vCJD cases would be-- and that I don't think even GW and Rove could pull off with the number of people involved.....


yes they did, and it's called sporadic CJD and the ukbsenvCJD only myth.
they screwed the mad cow surveillance, and testing protocols up so bad that it was almost impossible to find anything. and then the likes of r-calf claiming that USA BSE risk factors are less than Canada, is a hoot. like i said, anybody can bury a mad cow and claim bse/base/tse free. heck, in Texas we just send those highly suspect mad cows that are stumbling and staggering around straight to the render, don't pass go, don't collect $200 dollars and or dont even get tested AT ALL. :roll:


http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01061.html


Oldtimer said:
Distorting and suppressing science for political goals, I'll agree 100% with...That is exactly what the R-CALF suit is over and what Judge Cebull ruled was happening....That the administrators took the science and made it fit what their political agenda was which they as bureaucrats then wrote policy with... They avoided any science that didn't support their goal...The reason the "rest of the story" needs to be laid out in court and a decision made by an impartial arbiter." Never argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.".......


:wink: :lol2: tss
 
Top