About Me

My photo
This site is the inspiration of a former reporter/photographer for one of New England's largest daily newspapers and for various magazines. The intent is to direct readers to interesting political articles, and we urge you to visit the source sites. Any comments may be noted on site or directed to KarisChaf at gmail.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

EPA, Medical Schools complicit in Unethical and Immoral/Illegal Human Experiments -- JunkScience

Let’s see if we can summarize the human experiments scandal.

I have an ongoing effort, along with many others to do battle with the EPA on air pollution research that violates scientific rules on how to prove causation.

Milloy and I found out the EPA was doing human experiments under the radar exposing subjects to what EPA said was lethal and toxic, even carcinogenic air pollution.

Here’s where we are in 2014:

Either the EPA is sponsoring horrific human experiments, or they are lying to the Congress about the toxicity of air pollution.


Here’s the Journal article we wrote on EPA’s human experiments.
Environmental Protection Agency’s
Air Pollution Research: Unethical and Illegal?
Steve Milloy, M.H.S., J.D., L.L.M.
John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D.


1. Lisa Jackson said fine particles kill hundreds of thousands, and that’s a big risk not a small one.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in September 2011: “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.”She added, “If we could reduce particulate matter to levels that are healthy we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer.” (Cancer kills about 570,000 in the U.S.
annually, according to the American Cancer Society).

2. Jon Samet, MD Chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee to the US EPA wrote there is no safe level of small particle air pollution. Samet’s view was repeatedly echoed by USEPA air chief Gina McCarthy in a February 2012 letter to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton(R-Mich.).

3. Senior research scientist at U of North Carolina School of Medicine, on the EPA Human experimentation project, Robert Devlin PhD, said that the epidemiology was not enough to prove their case so they have been doing Human Experiments for more than a 2 decades.

No breakthroughs have occurred so the EPA still relies on its admittedly weak epidemiological studies.

Devlin himself has claimed to do more than 50 human exposure experiments in his declaration under oath. And he details the inadequacy of epidemiology to prove up the EPA claim about lethality, which is why he justifies human exposure experiments.

In his declaration Devlin admitted the EPA’s epidemiology was inadequate to prove toxicity or lethality.

7. Epidemiological observations are the primary tool in the discovery of risks to public health such as that presented by ambient PM2.5. However, epidemiological studies do not generally provide direct evidence of causation. They indicate the existence or lack of a statistical relationship between ambient levels of PM2.5 and adverse health outcomes. Large population studies cannot assess the biological mechanisms (called biological plausibility) that could explain how inhaling ambient air pollution particles can cause illness or death in susceptible individuals. This sometimes leaves open the question of whether the observed association in the epidemiological study is causal or whether PM2.5 is merely a marker for some other unknown substance.

8. Controlled human exposure studies conducted by EPA scientists and EPA funded scientists at multiple universities in the United States fill an information gap that cannot be filled by large population studies.

4. If the testimony in Congress by Ms. Jackson and the opinion of Jon Samet are sincerely held they are committing a criminal unethical and immoral act by exposing unknowing individuals to lethal. harmful or carcinogenic air pollutants in violation of American and International Law.

(Click link below to read more)
READ MORE Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment