Subject: In 2001 Myrl Jeffcoat (Merck shill) nuked info on theTobacco Money Beginnings of her now buddy, Steve Milloy ... resurrected here
Author: Ilena RoseDate: 19 Sep
Myrl is begging for attention ... so I will be happy to expose
attempts to censor important information against her now partners in
propaganda. I see she is also using the Quackwatch propaganda tactics
of attempting to censor the facts by changing the subject line ...
won't work. Removing negative evidence is one of the main jobs junk
science shills like her works ... she removed the factual Steve Milloy
expose ... which I resurrected below. Now she is working with him
diligently as he attempts to harm SKAPP ... the junk science nemesis.
www.DefendingScience.com
Health Lover, Ilena Rosenthal
http://ilenarose.blogspot.com
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Myrl.html
Shill for junkscience.com & Quackwatch.com & Merck
The junk science / quackwatch / snake-oil / acsh / industry propaganda
teams on the internet, have been using Myrl Jeffcoat for years. She
proved herself to be brash and mouthy ... and for a short time, had a
great expose on Junk Journalist and corporate lobbyist / promoter
Steve Milloy on her website.
She yanked it down ... and replaced her hours of helping implanted
women with years of:
attacking me and the Humantics Foundation
promoting the quackery of Stephen Barrett and his many lawsuits
against actiivists and scientists
became an 'insider' poster for junk science in the breast implant
world.
In 2004, Coleah Peney Ayers became her soul mate and together they
have worked since then on all of the above, while joined at their Hips
(to use Jeffcoat's expression) with Patrick O'leary and Steve Milloy.
Here is what she nuked ... and I resurrected.
`
http://web.archive.org/web/20010211082334/http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm
LOL ... Misinformation Myrl is again talking out of both sides of her
mouth ... whenever she is caught in her lies ... she tap dances and
blames me for all her ills ...
the other day proving yet again that she has no differentiation
between her delusions and hallucinations and reality, she repeated her
mentor's mantra that she was sorry to have "ruined my life." Wishful
thinking ... all that work for years by so many fools and I'm still
here and she is still lying about me.
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/myrl.html
Before Myrl made me (and others the Quackwatch Losers were suing) her
targets ... the silicone manufacturers and their PR team, Steve Milloy
one of the prime players were her focus.
She found out, apparently, that there is no money to tell the truth
about breast implants and junk science and naughty plaintiffs lawyers
... but lots to advertise for Merck & Walmart etc.
She denies she has ever taken in even one penny for her years of
harassing, stalking, threatening me, making ugly webpages about me,
etc. .. but she also said her name was "Will Ketcher" when in fact,
its Myrl Carlene Jeffcoat.
Here's what she (to use her fanciful words) ripped and torn down off
the internet and has been doing the silicone shuffle about since then.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010211082334/http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm
October 29, 2000
UP TO THE MINUTE STOCK QUOTES FOR ALL OF "OUR" MANUFACTURERS
See 'em all, by clicking here
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The following excerpts are all from collected material on TASSC. Thank
you Merry for sending these our way. The reason for my sending this
material out now, is to remind you it is close to election day, and to
choose wisely those that will lead the country, and possibly follow
agendas that are in our best interests.
None of the following material has been sorted or organized in any
particular way. I just put it out, to give samplings of what TASSC is
all about. Obviously geared to promoting "information" as
manufacturers and the corporate giants wishes for the public to
believe. Likely responsible for the coining of the term, "Junk
Science" which has become a corporate "buzz" word to bend or warp
facts, to meet the needs of corporations to shirk responsibility when
it comes to human harm. . . Myrl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TASSC
Mickey Edwards (Chairman)
Harvard University
Kennedy School of Government Dr. James Steele
Prof. Emeritus, School of Public Health
University of Texas
Dr. Bruce Ames
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
University of California Dr. Michael Gough
Director, Science and Risk Studies
Cato Institute
Honorable Clayton Yeutter
Hogan & Hartson Dr. Alice Ottoboni
California Department of Public Health (Retired)
Dr. John D. Graham
Director
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Dr. Frederick Seitz
President Emeritus
The Rockefeller University
-----
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) is a not-for-profit
organization advocating the use of sound science in public policy
decision making. Its membership includes scientists, academicians,
former public officials and representatives from business and
industry.
TASSC members believe science that is used to guide public policy
decisions should be based on sound principles ? not on emotions or
beliefs considered by some as politically acceptable. Too often,
public policy decisions that are based on inadequate science impose
enormous economic costs and other hardships on consumers, businesses
and government. Furthermore, these decisions may fail to protect the
public's health and safety.
TASSC's Role Is To:
Design a set of principles to help guide the application and use of
good science in public policy.
Inform public officials, the media and the general public about the
consequences of inappropriate science through focusing attention on
current examples of unsound government research used to guide policy
decisions.
Establish an educational outreach program to communicate the
importance of applying sound scientific standards to public policy
decisions and the costs to society resulting from science that is
manipulated to achieve political objectives.
Anticipate when science should be used to help support public policy
decisions and offer resources to ensure that sound scientific
principles are applied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOUND SCIENCE COALITION
THREE YEARS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT
A Solid Foundation of Knowledge, Experience
To assure the organization operates on the basis of a firm grounding
in common sense and reason, TASSC established an Advisory Board
including eight noted opinion leaders from the scientific, academic
and policy-making communities. The Board is chaired by former Oklahoma
Congressman Mickey Edwards. Board members include: Dr. Bernadine
Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, and now
Dean of The Ohio State University Medical School; Dr. Bruce Ames,
professor at the University of California at Berkeley; Dr. John
Graham, director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis; Dr.
Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences;
Michael Fumento, author of Science Under Siege; Dr. Lester Lave,
professor of economics, Carnegie Mellon University; Dr. Alice
Ottoboni, retired toxicologist; and the Honorable Clayton Yeutter,
former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
Highlighting Responsible, Constructive Uses of Scientific Data
As part of an ongoing effort to call attention to the use of sound
scientific data in the public policy arena, TASSC conducted a
conference in Columbus, Ohio, highlighting the city's innovative
program to respond to and manage regional environmental challenges.
More than 100 participants attended the event, Cooperation -- Not
Confrontation, which focused on Columbus' successful effort to engage
community stakeholders in the local policy making process. The
speakers included national, state and local policy makers and TASSC
Advisory Board members Dr. Fred Seitz and Dr. Bernadine Healy.
Setting the Record Straight on Silicone Breast Implant Issues
TASSC conducted a roundtable meeting on the use of junk science by
lawyers to meet one of our most important aims -- demonstrating the
negative impact the use of junk science can have on important public
policy debates. The round table meeting focused on the use of junk
science by lawyers pressing silicone breast implant litigation. The
coalition brought together 10 experts -- rheumatologists,
immunologists and epidemiologists, among others -- to examine how
TASSC can best educate the public and the media about the lack of
sound science linking silicone breast implants to disease. Following
the round table meeting, TASSC initiated an ambitious media outreach
effort on this issue.
Combating Unfounded Scares
It is often difficult for the public and the news media to get at the
scientific facts. To help, TASSC brought together 10 scientists to
produce a fact sheet, What Scientists Are Saying, in reference to the
book Our Stolen Future. TASSC was concerned that news media coverage
of the book would prompt an unnecessary public health scare. The
statements provided by toxicologists, endocrinologists and others
attracted significant media interest.
Facts, Not Fear
TASSC launched a national Facts, Not Fear campaign to highlight the
worst examples of health-related distortions and distractions each
year, and to award kudos for the best news coverage of sound science.
TASSC also commissioned a study on how the news media cover scientific
issues and granted the following awards: "Media Manipulation Award" to
the Center for Science in the Public Interest Deli Study; "Vindication
of Science Award" to Silicone Breast Implants; "Fabricated Health
Crisis Award" to Norplant; "Potential Exaggerated Scare of 1996 Award"
to Electromagnetic Fields; and "Sound Science in Journalism Award" to
New York Times Reporter Gina Kolata.
Concerns of the Scientific Community
In recent years, scientists have become increasingly concerned about
the manipulation of scientific data in public policy debates. To
highlight the concerns, TASSC commissioned a poll in 1994 of
non-member scientists and medical doctors. According to the results,
62 percent believed public confidence in scientific research has
decreased in the last 10 years, and 83 percent agreed policy makers
use science to achieve their personal policy goals on controversial
issues.
TASSC Speaks Out
As part of the effort to inform the public and the news media, TASSC
scientists and members have written a series of opinion articles that
have been published in newspapers around the country. Each participant
wrote about the risk assessment portion of the regulatory reform
debate that was taking place on Capitol Hill.
Focus on the News Media
During the most critical phase of the debate over regulatory reform,
TASSC commissioned Dr. Robert Entman, professor of communication at
North Carolina State University to look at the way the media was
covering this issue. According to the final report, there was a
three-to-one imbalance in negative assertions about reform. The media
coverage of the Congressional debate over regulatory reform slanted
clearly against the regulatory revisions. Study results were mentioned
by then-Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole during deliberations of
regulatory reform legislation.
Joining Policy Debates
In June 1994, TASSC called on the Environmental Protection Agency not
to mandate the use of ethanol in reformulated gasoline because the
scientific data do not support such a decision. Joining TASSC Chairman
Garrey Carruthers at a Washington, D.C., news conference was Dr.
Donald Stedman of the University of Denver who agreed that the
scientific evidence does not exist for the EPA to base its mandate for
ethanol on the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Ultimately, the U.S.
Court of Appeals rejected the EPA ruling.
Challenging Junk Science and Special Interest Groups
CSPI -- Food Police Scares
TASSC responded to a report released by the Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI) which said that butter, sausage and eggs are
high in fat. TASSC issued a statement, including a comment by TASSC
scientist Dr. Michael Pariza, director of the Food Research Institute
at the University of Wisconsin, that "at a time when responsible
nutritionists are working to educate the public about the complexities
and importance of balance in our diets, CSPI is trying to make
everything look simplistic and one-sided."
Environmental Working Group -- Pesticide Study
In the summer of 1995, the Environmental Working Group released
studies on the amount of pesticides in baby foods and issued a warning
against drinking tap water. Both demonstrated that organization's
priority to seek publicity, rather than be concerned about the
soundness of their findings, according to TASSC and Dr. Bruce Ames,
professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and director of the
National Institute of Environmental Health Science Center at the
University of California at Berkeley; and Dr. Roy Spalding, director
of the Water Science Laboratory, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Nader's Dirty Dozen
Ralph Nader and the Cancer Prevention Coalition published a book to
coincide with the release of his "Dirty Dozen" list of household
products that contain carcinogenic and other toxic ingredients. TASSC
Chairman Dr. Garrey Carruthers, along with Dr. Bruce Ames, and Dr.
Michael Kamrin, professor at the Institute of Environmental Toxicology
at Michigan State University, noted that the public learned nothing
about preventing cancer and that Nader and his allies hold press
conferences such as these regularly to ride the popularity of many
brand names so they can garner some publicity at the expense of
offering views based on sound science to the public.
Supporting Sound Science
Bovine Somatotropin
Pressure on consumers to boycott dairy products made with
bio-engineered growth hormones is a disservice to the institution of
sound science. That was the message from TASSC Chairman Garrey
Carruthers and three scientists when TASSC spoke out on the BST issue
in early 1994. Joining Dr. Carruthers were Dr. Manfred Kroger,
professor of food science at Penn State University; Dr. Margaret
Maxey, professor of bioethics at the University of Texas at Austin;
and Floy Lilley, charter member of the Advisory Council of the
National Education Forum on Food Safety Issues.
Flavr Savr Tomato
TASSC praised the decision by the Food and Drug Administration and
Calgene to assure that a genetically engineered tomato is safe for
consumers. This was an instance where a corporation went above and
beyond the regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety of its product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 457-8586
Media Reports Slanted Against Regulatory Reform Efforts, Study Shows
(Washington, DC -- July 7, 1995) Media coverage of the Congressional
debate over environmental regulatory reform slants "clearly against
the regulatory revisions," according to a study released today by The
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
"While some outlets refer in favorable terms to the general idea of
reform, most devote far greater space and time to denouncing the
specific legislation calling for rigorous application of risk and cost
benefit analysis," according to the study, conducted by Dr. Robert M.
Entman, Professor of Communication, North Carolina State University
and Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, University of North Carolina
(Chapel Hill).
"This study demonstrates once again that the media, whether it is
consciously aware of it or not, is portraying important, scientific
issues in the same 'who's up, who's down' play by play style of
reporting that they use in describing political campaigns or football
games. While all stories deserve more balanced treatment, stories
involving science cry for more fair reporting," said Dr. Garrey
Carruthers, Chairman of TASSC, a national organization of scientists,
researchers, academicians and others.
The most striking finding in Dr. Entman's study is the "negative
imbalance in covering the proposed reform legislation." Dr. Entman
said that there was a three-to-one negative imbalance in news stories
about reform. Fully 74 percent of paragraphs that evaluated the
reforms were critical. On editorial pages, criticism reached 87
percent, a seven-to-one negative ratio. Among his other findings:
70 percent of the stories on the commercial television networks
criticized reform.
Weekly magazines surveyed also were 70 percent critical.
Certain key words function to reinforce negative impressions. For
example, the word "lobby" or related words show up 10 times as often
when referring to those supporting reform as those opposing it, even
though both sides are lobbying the Congress.
Headlines, which frame the audience's emotional response to the
content of the story, were often emotional or slanted opposed to the
reform ideas. For example, Time magazine's "Congressional Chain Saw
Massacre" or Newsday's "GOP Frenzy Is Gutting Safety Rules."
Visual images portrayed supporters of reform as enemies of the
environment. For example, scenes of industrial plants with numerous
pipes and tanks; smokestacks spewing smoke; a large bulldozer. Viewers
were repeatedly exposed to "archetypal images of pollution and
danger," the report states, images likely to "stir negative emotions
toward reform."
While analysis of the "why" of this media slant was beyond the scope
of Dr. Entman's study, the report says, "reasons go beyond the
standard interpretation of liberal bias. They include the media's
tendency to oversimplify; journalists' lack of training in policy
analysis; and the commercial incentives that news organizations
interpret as requiring appeals to emotion over cognition."
Dr. Carruthers said TASSC commissioned the study because "we want to
offer information on how scientific issues are communicated to the
public as another means of ensuring that only sound science is used in
making public policy decisions."
"Too often, legislation or regulations are the result of political
decisions, where the science does not back up the action. One way to
better understand this phenomena is to understand how the media
portray scientific issues. TASSC is committed to pointing out not only
when unsound science is used to make a decision, but also to point out
the media's important role in the public's understanding of science
and research," Carruthers said.
To conduct his study, Dr. Entman examined 29 major newspapers across
the country,
Time, Newsweek and the three broadcast network evening news programs.
Stories reviewed included those published or broadcast between
November 1, 1994 and May 11, 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News Flash!!!
HEALTH SCARE ALERT: Consequences of Irresponsible Coverage Could be
Dire
WASHINGTON, D.C. (February 26, 1998) ? The Advancement of Sound
Science Coalition (TASSC) strongly urges the media to use caution and
provide balance in coverage of the latest study on calcium channel
blockers. The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD)
Trial was slated to appear in next week's New England Journal of
Medicine, but was released today by the Journal after ABC News broke
the embargo.
PUBLIC POLICY GROUP SAYS BUREAUCRACY PUTS PUBLIC HEALTH AT RISK
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? Recently announced government plans to dramatically
increase the funding for the National Institutes of Health hold
promise only if those funds are directed toward research on our most
pressing health needs. Congress should initiate a complete review of
the existing health research budget before new funds are committed.
MEDICAL JOURNAL EDITORS COURAGEOUS IN CONTROVERSIAL OBESITY EDITORIAL
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? As a result of their scientifically sound, but
controversial editorial saying that too much emphasis is placed on
obesity as a public health problem, New England Journal of Medicine
editors Jerome Kassirer and Marcia Angell have come under heavy
criticism by some in the public health community.
HONG KONG FLU SCARE SHOWS PUBLIC HEALTH PRIORITIES MISPLACED
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? In a typical year, influenza is a public health
problem of about the same magnitude as AIDS. During epidemic years,
influenza can be a much greater problem. Yet funding for AIDS research
is about 25 times greater than funding for influenza research.
500 PHYSICIANS, SCIENTISTS OPPOSE CLIMATE TREATY
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
and the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) announced on
December 3, 1997 that more than 500 physicians and scientists have
signed an open letter to world leaders opposing the climate change
treaty now being negotiated in Kyoto, Japan.
STUDY FINDS MEDICAL REPORTING ERRORS
CHICAGO, IL ? "A just released study ? "The Media and Public Health
Scares" ? has found that media coverage of recent public health
stories often fails to include important and necessary facts in order
for readers to make informed decisions," said Garrey Carruthers,
chairman of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 467-8586
Dangerous Medicine: How Science is Used and Abused
Orlando, Florida - November 11, 1997 - Junk science can kill. That was
the message today at a news conference held by The Advancement of
Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) during the annual meeting of the
American Heart Association (AHA). "Health and medical news that is
based on inadequate or incomplete science can have a devastating
effect on public health and safety," said TASSC Executive Director
Steve Milloy.
"A tragic example comes from Omaha, Nebraska where a 78-year old man
suffered a heart attack when he abruptly stopped taking his prescribed
hypertension medication after hearing frightening news reports about a
study showing that his blood pressure drugs may be causing more harm
than good," said Milloy. The patient's physician, Dr. Richard Collins,
joined Steve Milloy at the news conference saying that there was a
direct cause and effect relationship between his patient's heart
attack and the fact that he had gone off his medication.
The patient was reacting to a study that was released two years ago at
this very meeting of the AHA about calcium channel blockers. "While
meetings like this can provide valuable information on medical issues,
they also tend to be fertile ground for public health scares:
Scientists are eager to generate interest in their studies and the
media is eager to generate health news. The Omaha incident is a vivid
example of how dangerous this dynamic can be," Milloy warned.
Since the initial anti-CCB study emerged at the 1995 AHA meeting, junk
science has surrounded the CCB issue. According to Dr. Brant Mittler,
a practicing cardiologist from San Antonio, Texas, CCB critics "have
released a series of inconclusive studies linking the drugs, which are
widely used for the treatment of hypertension, to everything from
cancer and gastrointestinal bleeding to Parkinson's disease and
suicide."
"These claims are based on weak epidemiologic research; one study
looked at a group of CCB users totaling literally a handful.
Nonetheless, they receive media attention, unnecessarily stoking the
fears of the millions of patients who take them. Meanwhile, good
scientific studies like Systolic Hypertension in Europe (SYST-EUR), a
long-term, placebo-controlled, clinical trial that was presented
August 27 at the European Society of Cardiology meeting has
essentially vindicated CCBs. This type of study is the gold standard
of scientific research, and yet there has been virtually no media
coverage of the SYST-EUR results," said Mittler.
To help prevent unnecessary health scares, Milloy suggested that the
media use a scrutinizing eye when covering health and medical news. He
offered four questions reporters should ask when determining whether a
study constitutes good science:
What is the relative risk? Be leery of an epidemiologic study where
the relative risk is less than 2 (an increase in risk of 100 percent).
Are the results statistically significant? Is the sample of the
affected population large enough to produce meaningful results.
Are there other explanations for the study results? Studies must
adequately rule out other possible explanations for the increase in
risk.
What is the larger picture? A single study is rarely conclusive.
Reporters should wait for additional research before generating scary
headlines.
TASSC is a Washington, D.C.-based, not-for-profit advocacy group with
more than 900 members, including 375 scientists, academicians and
former policymakers. TASSC receives funding from individuals, small
businesses, foundations and corporations. TASSC's goal is to expose
the misuse and misrepresentation of scientific information by focusing
on specific examples of junk science. The coalition has engaged in the
public debates over a broad range of health, medical and science
issues and acting as a facilitator between the scientific community
and the media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: danimal@ewg.org (Dan Barry) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 22:14:40
-0500 Subject: ALERT: Global Warming "Sweepstakes" ALERT In what it
claims to be a first of its kind, The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (TASSC) is hosting a "Global Warming Sweepstakes" through
its web page on the internet. CLEAR staff have compiled several items
regarding this gimmick, including the TASSC news release, the text
from the "sweepstakes" page on the TASSC web site, and a fact sheet on
TASSC. Try your luck! You may be the lucky winner.... ******* TASSC
Press Release ******* Headline: TASSC Sponsors Global Warming
Sweepstakes Wire Service: PR (PR Newswire) Date: Wed, Nov 12, 1997
TASSC Sponsors Global Warming Sweepstakes WASHINGTON, Nov. 12
/PRNewswire/ -- The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
announced today the Global Warming Sweepstakes. The winner will
receive One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) in cash. The purpose of the
contest is to encourage public participation in the debate over
whether President Clinton should sign a treaty on global warming this
December in Kyoto, Japan. To enter the Global Warming Sweepstakes, a
contestant must visit the Junk Science Home Page
(http://www.junkscience.com) and, according to contest rules, send an
e-mail to President Clinton expressing an opinion whether the U.S.
should sign a treaty limiting emissions of so-called "greenhouse
gases." To be eligible for the Sweepstakes, opinions must be either
'for' or 'against' the treaty. It does not matter which position is
expressed; only that an opinion is transmitted. All U.S. residents are
eligible. The contest is void where prohibited. For those who have
questions about the global warming issue, information is provided at
the Junk Science Home Page. At the conclusion of the Kyoto meeting,
the contest will close. The winner of the One Thousand Dollars will
then be picked at random from all those who submitted eligible
opinions to President Clinton. The winner will receive a check from
TASSC. Asked about the contest, TASSC executive director Steven Milloy
said, "This contest was made possible by the Internet and is the first
of its kind. We hope to stimulate public education about the global
warming treaty and public participation in the national and
international debates." TASSC is a not-for-profit organization of
scientists, former public policy officials and other individuals,
foundations and businesses interested in the use of sound science in
public policy. TASSC is located at 1155 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036, and on the World Wide Web at
http://www.tassc.org. SOURCE The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition CONTACT: Steven Milloy of TASSC, 202-467-8586 or
milloy@cais.com/ ******* Sweepstakes Web Page Text ******* A recent
addition to the Junk Science Home Page concerning global warming and
the upcoming Kyoto meeting announces TASSC's "Global Warming
Sweepstakes" (www.junkscience.com/contest.html). The copy reads as
follows: Citizenship Pays! Win One Thousand Dollars Cash ($1,000.00)
To enter, simply click here to send an e-mail to President Clinton
expressing your opinion about whether he should sign a global warming
treaty in Kyoto, Japan, this December. At the conclusion of the Kyoto
meeting, each person who e-mailed an opinion to the White House
according to contest rules, will be entered into a random drawing for
One Thousand Dollars -- $1,000.00 -- in cash. The Junkman will draw
the winner who will be notified immediately by e-mail. The Prize will
be awarded by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). It
does not matter whether you are 'for' or 'against' the treaty, you
enter the contest simply by expressing your opinion in an e-mail to
President Clinton. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to form an
opinion on the global warming treaty. If you need information on
global warming and the treaty click here. So there are no excuses for
not participating. If you can read and think, you can have your own
opinion. As an example, here's the Junkman's e- mail to President
Clinton. === Dear Mr. President: I urge you NOT to sign a global
warming treaty this December in Kyoto, Japan. Available science does
not show that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are affecting
global climate. A treaty that would require reductions in manmade
greenhouse gas emissions would cause energy prices to rise and would
be, in effect, an energy tax. A new energy tax would harm the U.S.
economy. And since the well-being of our public health and environment
depend on a prosperous economy, the global warming treaty would be
counter-productive and cause unnecessary harm across our standard of
living. Mr. President, just say "No" in Kyoto! Sincerely, Steven J.
Milloy, Washington, D.C. === Your e-mail does not need to be so
detailed. All you really need is a sentence expressing your opinion!
So click here to send your own e-mail to the President now and enter
the Global Warming Sweepstakes drawing for One Thousand Dollars in
cash! KEEP IN MIND THAT: if the President signs a global warming
treaty, you'll need the cash to pay the new energy tax; otherwise,
you'll have One Thousand Dollars to spend however you want! Material
presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author. *******
TASSC Facts (from CLEAR) ******* The Advancement of Sound Science
Coalition (TASSC) -- Run out of the Washington, DC, offices of the
public relations firm APCO and Associates, this "sound science"
coalition is supported by hundreds of corporations, including 3M,
Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Occidental
Petroleum, Philip Morris, Proctor & Gamble and W.R. Grace. Its
objective is to act as a speakers bureau to deliver the corporate
message that environmental public policy is not currently based on
"sound science," and to counter excessive regulations that are based
on what it considers "junk" science. _O'Dywer's PR Services_ reports
that TASSC is "leading the charge against what it views as the unholy
alliance between environmentalists and the media" (Feb. 1996). TASSC
claims to have 250 to 300 scientists as active members (_Tulsa World_,
April 25, 1996). TASSC was created in 1993 to promote "sound science"
in policy decision making. TASSC is chaired by former New Mexico
governor Garrey Caruthers, and claims a membership of over 400
corporations. In addition to many corporate representatives, TASSC's
extensive advisory board contains well known "science skeptics" S.
Fred Singer, Bruce Ames, Hugh Ellsaesser, Dr. Patrick Michaels,
Michael Sanera, and Hugn Ellsaesser. Former APCO and Associates Vice
President Thomas Hockaday, the original spokesman for TASSC, is now
employed by Direct Impact, a firm that specializes in manufacturing
astroturf opposition to regulations through the use of sophisticated
telemarketing campaigns. Direct Impact's client list includes the
American Petroleum Institute, a member of the Executive Committee of
the Air Quality Standards Coalition (the lead organization fighting
the EPA's stringent air pollution standards earlier this year), and a
supporter of several anti-global warming treaty organizations,
including the Global Climate Information Project, the Alliance for a
Responsible Atmospheric Policy, the Global Climate Coalition and the
Coalition for Vehicle Choice. Direct Impact recently announced a
merger with Burson- Marsteller, the p.r. firm that houses the
Foundation for Clean Air Progress, another anti-environmental
corporate front group. Steven Milloy, recently hired as executive
director of TASSC, is a self styled "junk science" critic who
previously launched the Junk Science Page through the Environmental
Policy Analysis Network (EPAN), a group he started in 1996. Milloy is
also a lobbyist for the EOP Group, a DC-based lobbying firm that
represents the American Crop Protection Association, the Chlorine
Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute, among others. Under
Milloy's personal listing of groups he represents through the EOP
Group in 1996 were Fort Howard Corp., the International Food Additives
Association, and Monsanto. According to the most recent edition of
_Washington Representatives_, Milloy's client list has grown to
include the National Mining Association, among others. ===end fact
sheet=== For more information on the anti-environmental lobby and any
of the organizations, corporations and individuals discussed above,
contact CLEAR at clear@ewg.org, or visit our web pages at www.ewg.org.
============================================================= Daniel
Barry, Director CLEAR Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and
Research 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20009
tel. 202-667-6982 = fax 202-232-2592 = e-mail: clear@ewg.org
============================================================= CLEAR
provides environmental advocates and concerned citizens with
information to understand and counter misinformation about
environmental policy and science and the impacts of environmental law
on the economy and private property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Laurie Safran
1-800-369-6608
TASSC Attacks Hysteria Surrounding Baby Food
(Washington, DC -- July 26, 1995) A report issued today by the
Environmental Working Group unnecessarily scares the public and
parents of infants and toddlers by proclaiming that there are
pesticides in more than half the name-brand baby foods that were
tested, while at the same time stating that "baby foods are the safest
foods you can find."
"While it is true that store bought jars of baby food do contain
pesticides, research has shown that these are naturally occuring and
appear at levels that pose no health threat to infants," according to
Dr. Bruce Ames, Director of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley, and a
science advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
After the press conference, Dr. Garrey Carruthers, Chairman of TASSC
said, "it is appalling that this public interest group would take such
a cynical attitude about the health and safety of our most vulnerable
citizens by holding a news conference, which was not open to the
public, to fan the fears of parents in America."
TASSC is a nationial, broad-based, non-profit watchdog group of
scientists and representatives from universities, independent
organizations and industry, which advocates the use of sound science
in the public policy arena. It is committed to monitoring all public
policy related science to ensure that a sound science and valid
peer-review process are used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PESTICIDES IN BABY FOOD PRESS CONFERENCE - Environmental Working Group
July 26, 1995
Introductions by Mark Childress of the Environmental Working Group
Richard Wiles, Vice President, Research EWG
Study in 3 cities of 8 kinds of baby food tested for pesticides; found
16 pesticides in those products that are classified as probable human
carcinogens.
A full assessment is needed of a child's surroundings (food, water,
home). A lesson was learned from the Lead example that sensitivities
vary between adults and children.
Dr. Ralph Rigert, University of South Carolina, past Chairman of the
Environmental Health Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics
Principles of Pediatrics -
Do no harm - don't expose a child until it is safe - however in the
US, we continue to expose children before we have enough knowledge of
the risks to kids.
Pediatricians expect risk assessment and accountability by the
government. They want to be able to say with no qualifications that
parents should not be concerned about hazards of pesticides in fruits
and vegetables.
Senator Edward Kennedy
Concerns about pesticides and children were first expressed in the NAS
study in 1987, and then again in 1993. Americans assume food in
grocery stores are safe. No one has ever said to him that our baby
food is too safe. The nation should beware of chemicals, carcinogens
in baby food supply and cautious in ensuring that it will be safe in
the future.
The Dole Regulatory Reform Bill: instead of saying food is safe, it is
saying it may not be very safe, or it may not be too safe.
The recommendations in the Dole Bill are in the food industry's
interest, and the legislation would pose health and safety risks to
our foods. We should work with the NAS, FDA and hold hearings to make
sure we're going to have the safest food possible.
If there is a role for the federal government, it is to bring in the
best in science and research to determine safety.
We should strengthen the protections that are in place - not like the
regulatory provision in the Dole Bill.
Carolyn Brickey, Executive Director, National Campaign for Pesticide
Policy Reform, and former staff member of the Agriculture Committee
EWG did a poll -
3 of 4 American say there should not be pesticides in food
4 of 5 say pesticides should be eliminated
Farmers can and should eliminate pesticides. Congress should prod the
food industry to push for alternatives.
VIDEO - Dr. Philip Landrigan - author of the 1993 NAS study, Chairman
of the Department of Community Medicine, Mt. Sinai Hospital, NY
There is no single residue at significantly high levels from consuming
these foods.
However, they do contain compounds known to cause cancer, and
suspected of causing cancer and are known toxics to the nervous
system.
The 1988-1993 report concluded:
Kids in the US are repeatedly exposed to pesticides
Kids are more heavily exposed because they eat more foods and
different foods
Kids are more vulnerable - they are growing and developing and less
able to break down and excrete chemicals from pesticides
Recommendation: laws be strengthened.
Reason for the Release Now: to urge the American people to take steps
to prevent Congress from weakening the preventive steps that have been
taken for children's diets; parents should contact baby food companies
and urge that they use little or no pesticides in their foods; contact
Senators and Congressmen and urge them to take steps to protect the
American kids/the future of our country/the true values of the
American family. (Kennedy)
Q/A: What is the message to the parents: (Rigert) Continue to feed
children a broad range of foods, do not make your own foods - it may
be more hazardous; continue to feed them lots of fruits and
vegetables. We could help parents improve the quality of the foods by
having stronger regulations. BABY FOODS ARE THE SAFEST FOODS YOU CAN
FIND.
(Wiles) Parents should call baby food manufacturers.
How will regulatory reform affect food standards: (Kennedy) It used to
read "negligible or insignificant foreseeable risk." It now reads -
"reasonable certainty of no harm.".
The current supply is safe, sound policy says to have hearings and the
ability to make changes and adjustments.
Apple juice - kids consume 21x the amount of adults x 10x the amount
of carcinogens
Bananas - kids consume 7x the amount of adults x 10x the amount of
carcinogens
How do they respond to the Beechnut spokesperson: The standards for
pesticides are flawed, it is set for adults, on based on adult
consumption - even though the companies say they fall way below the
standards.
Food companies have never been required, as they do w/drugs, to show
that these pesticides are shown to be safe for kids. All of the
standard setting looks at 1 pesticide at a time - not the additive
effects of numerous pesticides.
Kennedy - it is wrong not to take steps for additional kinds of
protections.
Wiles - "We're just guessing about claims of safety w/the 10x figure."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 457-8586
(Note to Media Outlets: TASSC Advisory Members, Dr. Manfred Kroger,
Dr. Margaret Maxey and Floy Lilley are available for one-on-one
interviews, or as expert spokespersons on the issue of bovine growth
hormones, as is TASSC Chairman Garrey Carruthers. Biographies on each
are available. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition is a
national, broad-based, non-profit organization concerned with the
manipulation of science to meet preconceived agendas. TASSC believes
sound science has been used by the government to reach its conclusions
on bovine growth hormones and that the Pure Food Campaign is
misleading the public by ignoring the results of sound science.)
Pure Food Campaign Viewed as Disservice to Sound Science
TASSC Attacks Critics of Bovine Somatotropin (BST)
(Washington, DC -- February 9, 1994) Pressure on consumers to boycott
dairy products made with new bio-engineered growth hormones is a
disservice to the institution of sound science, according to leaders
of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
"Boycotting BST might make activists feel better about themselves,"
said TASSC Chairman Garrey Carruthers, former Governor of New Mexico
and a former professor of agricultural economics. "But turning their
backs to the product and pouring perfectly good milk down the drain
helps no one. America is the world leader in biotechnology because of
our strong belief in valid, peer-reviewed scientific methodology. We
know that biotechnology can produce healthier products and help cure
dreaded diseases. We can't afford to turn away from these remarkable
advancements, which are backed by sound science."
BST is a protein hormone composed of amino acids, similar to the
hormone insulin. Use of BST is expected to significantly boost milk
production in dairy cows. After ten years of review, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (F.D.A.) has approved the use of genetically
engineered hormones that increase the productivity of dairy cows. In
addition to the F.D.A., the National Institutes of Health and the
American Medical Association have found the product to be safe for
people and for cows.
According to The New York Times (February 4, 1994), the F.D.A. has
said that milk produced with BST is indistinguishable from milk that
is not. A report issued last month by representatives from the White
House and seven federal agencies, whose goal was to determine the
drugs' impact on U.S. consumers, the dairy industry and the economy,
found that "there is no evidence that BST poses a health threat to
humans or animals."
"BST is absolutely safe," said Dr. Manfred Kroger, professor of food
science at Penn State University; he has a Ph.D. in dairy science.
"Hypothetically, if we followed Mr. Rifkin's logic on this issue, we
would still be riding in horse and buggies."
According to The New York Times (February 4, 1994), the Pure Food
Campaign has "18 full-time workers and was spending roughly $100,000
per month." Mr. Rifkin has vowed to stop agriculture biotechnology by
first halting the use of BST.
"By pouring perfectly good milk down the drain, the Pure Food Campaign
is being wasteful and is ignoring the results of sound science," said
Dr. Margaret Maxey, a professor of bioethics with the University of
Texas at Austin. "The government has studied this and has thorough
data from a ten year period. Where are Mr. Rifkin's figures? The
simple truth is that science does not support his claims."
Critics of BST claim that use of the product may lead to increased use
of antibiotics to treat symptoms in dairy cows. Yet government
standards for the use of these antibiotics, which were not criticized
by activist groups prior to the introduction of BST, remain as
stringent now as they were before the introduction of BST.
Genetic engineering is being tested for possible applications to help
cure children of cystic fibrosis, to create living skin for burn
victims and to cure diseases such as HIV and cancer. Agricultural
applications are similarly promising. Genetic engineering may increase
a plant's pest resistance, the shelf life of products and fight plant
diseases. Bio-engineered tomatoes, for example, can be left to ripen
red on the vine, instead of the current system that picks tomatoes
green and gasses them before reaching consumers.
"If we follow Mr. Rifkin's lead on BST, we're ignoring the first major
biotechnology advancements for world agriculture," said Floy Lilley, a
charter member of the Advisory Council of the National Education Forum
on Food Safety Issues and guest lecturer at the University of Texas at
Austin. "Opposition to BST is a case of fantasy over fact. We can not
afford to let fear mongers sidestep the evidence of sound science."
"This is a prime example of a special interest group using its own
political agenda to drive policy. It has nothing to do with the valid
information that sound science has provided," said TASSC's Chairman
Carruthers.
TASSC is a grassroots-based, not-for-profit watchdog group of
scientists and representatives from universities, independent
organizations and industry, which advocates the use of sound science
in the public policy arena. It is committed to monitoring all public
policy related science to ensure that a sound science and valid
peer-review process are used.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDIA ADVISORY CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(800) 369-6608
Calcium Channel Blocker Study Inconclusive
The study published in today's issue of Cancer: "Use of Calcium
Channel Blockers and Breast Carcinoma Risk in Postmenopausal Women" is
a limited epidemiologic study that has yet to be confirmed by further
scientific research.
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) strongly encourages
reporters covering this story to seek input on the study and the
broader calcium channel blocker debate from credible scientists and
physicians.
Please contact TASSC if you would like names and contact information
for cardiologists and other experts on calcium channel blockers and
sound science.
TASSC is a Washington, D.C.-based, not-for-profit group supporting the
use of sound science in public policy. TASSC has more than 900
members, including 375 scientists, academicians and former
policymakers. TASSC receives funding from individuals, small
businesses, foundations and corporations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUDY FINDS MEDICAL REPORTING ERRORS
CHICAGO, IL ? "A just released study ? "The Media and Public Health
Scares" ? has found that media coverage of recent public health
stories often fails to include important and necessary facts in order
for readers to make informed decisions," said Garrey Carruthers,
chairman of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC).
Written by Dr. Robert Entman, Chairman of the Department of
Communication at North Carolina State University, the study examined
media coverage of the silicone breast implant and heart drug calcium
channel blocker public health stories. According to Entman, "With both
these products, the reporting tended to play up any claim of risk and
play down any reassurance of safety, despite the fact that the
majority of medical and scientific studies supported safety."
Entman's study found, for example, that of eight critical facts
related to the calcium channel blocker story, the average news report
only included 2.9. Other key findings include:
For calcium channel blockers, the coverage was actually more accurate
in 1995 but deteriorated in 1996, often because reports did not repeat
initial warning or caveats;
Headlines were a significant problem. Some headlines read, "Blood
Pressure Drug is a Heart Attack Risk," going far beyond any study
findings;
Coverage of the silicone breast implant controversy has improved since
the early 1990's, but significant factual omissions remain; and
Nearly 80% of silicone breast implant stories emphasize unfounded
allegations which have been disproved by scientific and medical
research.
"Imagine seeing a headline, 'Blood Pressure Drug Safe.' To many
editors that wouldn't seem to be news," said Entman. "Bias toward the
negative seems built into the way medical reporting happens."
Joining Carruthers and Entman in releasing the TASSC commissioned
study were cardiologist Dr. Brant Mittler, and neuropathologist and
television commentator Dr. Peter Ostrow.
In addressing the scientific side of the calcium channel blocker
controversy, Dr. Mittler noted that many patients were unnecessarily
scared and said, "As more and more studies come out, especially the
recent clinical trial SYST-EUR, the medical community gains more
confidence that initial reports were anomalies; however, the media
rarely reports the positive findings."
Mittler also cautioned that it is not just reporters who need to be
careful, but researchers too. He said, "Researchers today are driven
by competitive pressures to try and make news with their studies,
which means they may release preliminary findings to the mainstream
media before the study is ever peer-reviewed. In my opinion that is
irresponsible. When the calcium channel blocker scare hit, literally
thousands of patients reacted in ways which could have easily harmed
their health even killed them ? that is the seriousness of the issue."
Dr. Ostrow, speaking of the breast implant controversy, also warned
that sometimes less than credible studies find their way into the
press by being presented at medical conventions where papers are
accepted without first being reviewed by other scientists. "Its a
disservice to the public. The press attends these conferences, so a
researcher who does shoddy work on a controversial topic may obtain
media exposure that gives his claim the appearance of legitimacy. The
report will never be published in a reputable medical journal, but the
public hears about it and believes it, so the damage has already been
done."
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition is a national,
not-for-profit coalition of scientists and representatives from
universities, independent organizations, industry and the public
sector which advocates the use of sound science in public policy
making.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Garrey Carruthers
Governor of New Mexico, 1987-1990
Government Experience
Governor New Mexico, 1987-90
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, 1981-84
Acting Director, New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute,
1976-78
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture, 1974-75
White House Fellow, 1974-75
Education
B.A. in Agriculture, New Mexico State University, 1964
M.S. in Agriculture Economics, New Mexico University, 1965
Ph.D. in Economics, Iowa State University, 1968
Academic/Teaching Experience
Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Agricultural
Business, New Mexico State University, 1979-81 and 1984-87.
Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and
Agricultural Business, New Mexico State University, 1968-74 and
1978-79
National, State and Community Service
Named one of the Top Ten Governors for Education in the United States
by Fortune Magazine in their special education issue. Spring 1990.
Distinguished Alumnus Award, Iowa State University. June 9, 1990.
Chairman, Education Commission of the State (ECS), July 1989 to July
1990. National education advocacy and policy associates.
Chairman, ECS Minority Task Force, July 1989 to Present. Restarted
Border Governor's Association 1987. Association had been inactive
since 1984 and includes four governors from the United States and six
from Mexico.
Served on many committees while Governor, and served as leading
Governor on health and education committees.
Selected Publication and Papers
Carruthers, Garrey E. and Maki, Wilbur, "A Decision Oriented Resource
Management Model, "Regional Science Perspectives, a journal of the
Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, July 1970.
Carruthers, Garrey E., and Urquhart, N. Scott, "Some Methodological
Considerations for Rural Community Services Research, "Proceedings,
National Workshop on Community Services, presented to the National
Workshop on Problems of Research on Delivery of Community Services,
Lincoln, Nebraska, December 13-16, 1971.
Carruthers, Garrey E., Mitchell, Keith, and Williams, Thomas, An
Interindustry Model of the Economy of North-Central New Mexico, New
Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 237, July 1972,
48 pp.
Erickson, Eugene C., Carruthers, Garrey E., and Oberle, Wayne,
"Delivery of Community Services to Rural Areas," Proceedings, Workshop
on Current Rural Development Research, sponsored by Northeast Center
for Rural Development, July 1971.
Mertes, James, Carruthers, Garrey, E., and Renner, Kathryn, Regional
Environmental Management in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico -
Resource Problems and Resource Opportunities - An Interdisciplinary
Study, preliminary draft presented to Eisenhower Consortium.
Carruthers, Garrey E., An Assessment of Section 208 Planning:
Procedures, Problems and Possibilities, New Mexico State University,
Cooperative Extension Service, Circular 400 N-7, July 1978.
Carruthers, Garrey E., "Planning to Control Non-point Water Pollution:
An Agricultural Management Dilemma." New Mexico State University
Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Article 689, published in
Journal of the American Society of Farm Managers and Appraisers, 1979.
Personal
Born August 29, 1939. Married, with 3 children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Steve Milloy
(202) 457-8586
Silicone Breast Implants Not a Significant Risk Factor
Danish Study Examined Association Between Implants and Connective
Tissue Disease
Washington, D.C. -- July 18, 1997 -- A new long-term study of more
than 2,500 Danish women with breast implants published in the July
issue of the Annals of Plastic Surgery adds to the growing body of
epidemiological evidence that implants are not a cause of
connective-tissue disease in women.
Equally as important, the study indicates that breast surgery of any
kind may contribute to an increase in symptoms that some doctors
allied with the plaintiffs' bar claim are unique to women with breast
implants. This study indicates that they are not unique to implanted
women.
"This study should be reassuring to women with silicone breast
implants who have been needlessly alarmed by the controversy
surrounding this issue," said Garrey Carruthers, Chairman of TASSC.
The study, which was conducted by the Danish Cancer Society, included
four separate groups of women -- 1,135 who received breast implants
for cosmetic purposes, 1,435 who received implants for breast
reconstruction -- and two non-implanted control groups totaling 11,023
women who had either breast reduction or breast cancer surgery.
The study found no statistically "significant excess of definite
connective-tissue disease" in any of the four groups, either for any
of five individual connective-tissue disease such as rheumatoid
arthritis, scleroderma or lupus, nor for all the five diseases
combined. Seventy percent (7 out of 10) of the implanted women and 64
percent (16 out of 25) of the non-implanted women with connective
tissue disease had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, the most
common connective tissue disease affecting women.
Because the study only included women who received implants between
1977 and 1992, before the controversy over breast implants reached
epidemic proportions, and also because diagnoses were obtained through
the national Dutch Central Hospital Discharge register, the study
authors conclude that the "possibility of reporting bias due to the
publicity surround breast implants is unlikely in our register-based
study in Denmark."
The results of this study are consistent with more than a dozen
epidemiological studies on breast implants that have been conducted in
recent years by such prestigious institutions as Harvard Medical
School, the Mayo Clinic, the University of Michigan and numerous
others.
The study did find, however, a statistically significant excess in all
four groups of "Muscular rheumatism, fibrositis, and myalgia," which
the study referred to as "ill-defined rheumatic conditions." These are
the types of vague complaints that have suggested as constituting a
new or atypical disease unique to breast implants. However, the Danish
study concludes that "a likely explanation of this finding would be
that the excess of muscular symptoms is related to breast surgery per
se, rather than to any systematic effect of silicone breast implants.
A recent study published in the Journal of American Medical
Association (JAMA) found that women who receive breast implants for
cosmetic purposes had higher rates of certain lifestyle risk factors ?
such as smoking, drinking and number of sexual partners -- that could
contribute to an increased risk of disease in those women.
"This study adds breast surgery itself to this list of confounding
factors that must be controlled for in evaluating the risk -- if any
-- of breast implants," said Garrey Carruthers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Cite as: 1997 WL 764563 (U.S.))
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Robert K. JOINER et ux.
No. 96-188.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued Oct. 14, 1997.
Decided Dec. 15, 1997.
Syllabus [FN*]
FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but
has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of
the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S.
321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
*1 After he was diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer, respondent
Joiner sued in Georgia state court, alleging, inter alia, that his
disease was "promoted" by his workplace exposure to chemical "PCBs"
and derivative "furans" and "dioxins" that were manufactured by, or
present in materials manufactured by, petitioners. Petitioners removed
the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment. Joiner
responded with the depositions of expert witnesses, who testified that
PCBs, furans, and dioxins can promote cancer, and opined that Joiner'
exposure to those chemicals was likely responsible for his cancer. The
District Court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether Joiner had been exposed to PCBs, but granted summary
judgment for petitioners because (1) there was no genuine issue as to
whether he had been exposed to furans and dioxins, and (2) his
experts' testimony had failed to show that there was a link between
exposure to PCBs and small-cell lung cancer and was therefore
inadmissible because it did not rise above "subjective belief or
unsupported speculation." In reversing, the Eleventh Circuit applied
"a particularly stringent standard of review" to hold that the
District Court had erred in excluding the expert testimony.
Held:
1. Abuse of discretion-the standard ordinarily applicable to review of
evidentiary rulings-is the proper standard by which to review a
district court's decision to admit or exclude expert scientific
evidence. Contrary to the Eleventh Circuit's suggestion, Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125
L.Ed.2d 469, did not somehow alter this general rule in the context of
a district court's decision to exclude scientific evidence. Daubert
did not address the appellate review standard for evidentiary rulings
at all, but did indicate that, while the Federal Rules of Evidence
allow district courts to admit a somewhat broader range of scientific
testimony than did pre-existing law, they leave in place the trial
judge's "gatekeeper" role of screening such evidence to ensure that it
is not only relevant, but reliable. Id., at 589. A court of appeals
applying "abuse of discretion" review to such rulings may not
categorically distinguish between rulings allowing expert testimony
and rulings which disallow it. Compare Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey,
488 U.S. 153, 172, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445, with United States
v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 54, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450. This Court
rejects Joiner's argument that because the granting of summary
judgment in this case was "outcome determinative," it should have been
subjected to a more searching standard of review. On a summary
judgment motion, disputed issues of fact are resolved against the
moving party-here, petitioners. But the question of admissibility of
expert testimony is not such an issue of fact, and is reviewable under
the abuse of discretion standard. In applying an overly "stringent"
standard, the Eleventh Circuit failed to give the trial court the
deference that is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review. Pp. 4-5.
*2 2. A proper application of the correct standard of review indicates
that the District Court did not err in excluding the expert testimony
at issue. The animal studies cited by respondent's experts were so
dissimilar to the facts presented here-i.e., the studies involved
infant mice that developed alveologenic adenomas after highly
concentrated, massive doses of PCBs were injected directly into their
peritoneums or stomachs, whereas Joiner was an adult human whose
small-cell carcinomas allegedly resulted from exposure on a much
smaller scale-that it was not an abuse of discretion for the District
Court to have rejected the experts' reliance on those studies. Nor did
the court abuse its discretion in concluding that the four
epidemiological studies on which Joiner relied were not a sufficient
basis for the experts' opinions, since the authors of two of those
studies ultimately were unwilling to suggest a link between increases
in lung cancer and PCB exposure among the workers they examined, the
third study involved exposure to a particular type of mineral oil not
necessarily relevant here, and the fourth involved exposure to
numerous potential carcinogens in addition to PCBs. Nothing in either
Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to
admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the
ipse dixit of the expert. Pp. 6-9.
3. These conclusions, however, do not dispose of the entire case. The
Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court's conclusion that Joiner
had not been exposed to furans and dioxins. Because petitioners did
not challenge that determination in their certiorari petition, the
question whether exposure to furans and dioxins contributed to
Joiner's cancer is still open. Pp. 9-10.
78 F. 3d 524, reversed and remanded.
REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with
respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court w
Myrl
Myrl
