SUMMARY - The Triumph of Doubt_ Dark Money and the Science of Deception - David Michaels



Here is a summary:

  • The passage discusses an effort by DuPont consultant Paustenbach to downplay concerns about PFOA exposure from DuPont's Washington Works plant.

  • Paustenbach argued that local residents' exposure was below levels considered dangerous by an "independent" panel.

  • However, this panel was actually established by TERA, a consulting firm that did significant work for DuPont. Therefore, it was not truly independent.

  • By claiming the panel was independent when it was not, Paustenbach appearing to be trying to artificially bolster his argument and create a false impression of objectivity.

  • However, the passage suggests the panel had a conflict of interest due to its connections to DuPont, calling into question the credibility of any safety levels it proposed regarding PFOA exposure.

  • This reflects how DuPont consultants attempted to minimize health concerns from PFOA by invoking supposedly independent third parties that were actually not fully independent from the company's interests.

    Here is a summary of the key points:

  • The passage discusses concerns about a large randomized controlled trial called MACH (Moderate Alcohol and Cardiovascular Health trial) that was being designed in collaboration between researchers at NIAAA and representatives from the alcohol industry.

  • The aim of the trial was to test the purported health benefits of moderate drinking (1 drink per day) in lowering risks of heart disease. This aligned with claims the industry wanted to promote.

  • Critics argue the trial design compromised scientific integrity by pre-determining results that would show benefits, rather than conducting an unbiased examination of health effects.

  • Specifically, concerns were raised that limiting the study population only to older drinkers lowered the chances of observing harmful effects, skewing results in the industry's favor.

  • The industry pledged $67.7 million to fund the expensive trial, seeing it as an opportunity to bolster claims about moderate drinking. But this raised questions about whether the funding compromised research objectivity.

  • Overall, the passage discusses how the collaboration between researchers and industry raised red flags about the potential for bias in the large MACH trial's design and interpretation of results.

    Here is a summary:

  • In the 1990s, pharmaceutical companies aggressively marketed opioids to doctors by downplaying risks of addiction and overstating efficacy. This was driven by the introduction of OxyContin by Purdue Pharma in 1995.

  • Purdue claimed OxyContin provided 12 hours of pain relief, but it could be easily crushed to defeat extended release. This, coupled with overprescribing encouraged by pharma marketing, made prescription opioids widely available.

  • If not for this overprescription due to misleading promotion, the non-medical use of opioids and overdose epidemic would not have ballooned in subsequent years. While other factors contributed, pharma companies primary responsibility lies in unsafe business practices that enabled the crisis for profits.

  • When issues arose, industries fought regulations by questioning science showing health risks, intimidating researchers, delaying standards, and leveraging front groups. cleaner engine technologies have since reduced emissions, but risks remain from legacy vehicles and weak standards in some areas.

    Here is a summary:

  • IARC and NTP are respected regulatory agencies that classify substances as carcinogens based on rigorous scientific reviews. Their assessments carry weight.

  • IARC has classified over 400 substances since 1971 as known, probable or possible human carcinogens based on animal and human studies.

  • The NTP publishes the Report on Carcinogens listing substances known or reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans based on strong scientific evidence from published studies.

  • A carcinogen classification by these agencies can have major regulatory and economic impacts, as it prompts efforts to limit exposure and develop safer alternatives. Manufacturers may face lawsuits.

  • Therefore, industries have sought to influence the classification process through undermining studies, commissioning contrary reviews, and lobbying the agencies directly. However, the science-based reviews generally withstand such efforts at interference.

The key points are that IARC and NTP are respected regulatory bodies that can significantly impact industries through their carcinogen classifications, leading to attempts to influence their reviews but with limited success given their rigorous scientific processes.

Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Corporations do not want their products labeled as carcinogenic due to the regulatory and legal consequences. They will engage in lobbying, public relations campaigns, and efforts to influence the scientific review process in order to prevent or delay such a labeling.

  • Documents revealed how the talc industry, including Johnson & Johnson, successfully lobbied the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to stop considering talc for its Report on Carcinogens through a sophisticated campaign intended to manufacture scientific uncertainty. Tactics included challenging research, influencing committee members, and using consultants like CRE.

  • Early evidence from the 1970s showed asbestos contamination in J&J's baby powder, but the company downplayed this and pressured scientists. It lobbied regulators through industry groups to avoid regulation and adopt lenient testing protocols.

  • In 2000, the NTP was planning to designate talc as carcinogenic but deferred the decision after pressure from CRE and industry representatives. CRE played a key role in delaying this designation indefinitely through political and regulatory pressure on the NTP.

  • Independent epidemiological studies have continued finding a risk of ovarian cancer associated with talc use, but the industry has fought regulation and kept talc on the market. The tactics set a precedent for other industries to undermine classifications.

    Here are the key points summarized:

  • The sugar industry funded research in the 1950s and 1960s that aimed to downplay the link between sugar consumption and heart disease, instead emphasizing links to dietary fats. This mirrored tobacco industry tactics.

  • Documents showed the sugar industry hired former tobacco industry researchers to direct its public relations campaign questioning the health risks of sugar.

  • They funded a prominent study at Harvard that was influential but did not disclose the industry funding and aimed to exonerate sugar.

  • The sugar industry also promoted an "energy balance" theory, echoed later by Coca-Cola, that weight is determined by calories in vs. out and sugar calories are no more fattening than others. This contradicted emerging evidence.

  • Coca-Cola funded a nonprofit called GEBN with $20 million to aggressively promote an energy balance framework focusing on exercise over diet limits. But their funding ties undermined credibility when uncovered.

  • Further research found over 100 additional Coca-Cola funded studies touting similar messages without disclosing funding, showing this was a coordinated strategy to influence science.

  • Industry-funded studies are much more likely than independent research to find results minimizing links between sugary drinks and health issues, reflecting an attempt to shape the science to their interests.

    Here is a summary:

  • Product defense firms, which are paid by companies to challenge scientific evidence of risks from their products, use tactics like "weight of evidence" literature reviews and risk assessments to reinterpret data and downplay health risks.

  • In literature reviews, they subjectively weigh studies to cast doubt on established conclusions, despite conflicts of interest making their judgments biased.

  • Risk assessments attempt to quantify "safe" exposure levels, but these can be manipulated through selective use of data to reach sponsor-preferred conclusions finding much higher "safe" levels than independent research.

  • Michael Dourson and his firm TERA are examples of conducting biased risk assessments that nearly always conclude much weaker standards than government research, due to funding from regulated industries seeking to avoid regulation and liability.

  • The goal of these tactics is to manufacture uncertainty around health risks and delay or prevent regulation through reinterpreting evidence in ways favorable to the sponsoring companies. Critics argue it undermines transparent, objective science-based decision making.

    Here is a summary of the key points:

  • Jerry Ensminger was successful in lobbying Republican Senators Burr and Tillis against Michael Dourson's nomination to lead the EPA's chemical safety office due to Dourson's history of defending toxic chemicals.

  • Residents of Willowbrook, IL organized against the local Sterigenics sterilization plant after discovering high levels of the carcinogen ethylene oxide in their air. The plant and trade groups downplayed risks but the governor closed the plant, validating residents' health concerns. Air pollution levels dropped significantly after closure.

  • Public Health Dean Lynn Goldman facilitated the author returning to academia after serving at OSHA. Grants from several foundations partially supported the author's salary.

  • The author wrote the book during a Rockefeller Foundation residency. They provide expert witness consultation but were legally prohibited from conflicts for two years after leaving OSHA.

  • The author discloses foundations, individuals, agencies and labor groups that supported their work or provided cited documents. They wrote in hopes of making the world safer through science and acknowledge sole responsibility for any mistakes.

    Here is a summary of the key points from the article:

  • The study examined the carcinogenicity of cigarette smoke in hamsters by exposing groups of hamsters to either diluted mainstream smoke from cigarettes or fresh air for several hours per day, multiple days per week, for up to 18 months.

  • After exposure, the hamsters were examined for tumors. The results showed that hamsters exposed to cigarette smoke had significantly higher rates of tumors compared to the control group exposed only to fresh air.

  • Lung tumors were found in 38% of hamsters exposed to cigarette smoke compared to 0% of controls. Other tumors observed more frequently in the smoke-exposed hamsters included tumors of the nose and larynx.

  • This provided early experimental evidence that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke can induce tumors in animals, supporting the conclusion that cigarette smoking is carcinogenic.

  • The results helped establish smoking as a cause of lung cancer and other cancers in humans by adding to accumulating epidemiological evidence linking smoking to increased cancer risks.

  • In summary, the study demonstrated cigarette smoke has carcinogenic properties and causes tumor development in exposed animals, validating conclusions from human epidemiology that smoking causes cancer.

    Here are summaries of the key points from sources 10-13:

Source 10:

  • Sam Clovis was a top Trump campaign aide who spoke to Mueller's investigation team and grand jury about contacts between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates.

Source 11:

  • The Texas Public Policy Foundation promoted hydrocarbon energy development and opposed government regulation through their "Fueling Freedom Project".

Source 12:

  • Kathleen Hartnett White of the Texas Public Policy Foundation argued that energy development and freedom are closely linked, and policymakers should ensure access to affordable energy.

Source 13:

  • The article analyzes cases where government science advisory panels provided advice without dissenting views and calls for reforms to ensure independent and diverse viewpoints to improve transparency and credibility.

    Here is a summary:

The Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) influenced nutrition research and public understanding of diet and heart disease starting in the 1960s. Specifically, SRF promoted the view that fat and cholesterol, rather than sugar, were responsible for heart disease. They sought to deflect blame from sugar and onto other macronutrients.

SRF's tactics resembled those used by other industries like tobacco and lead manufacturers to obscure health risks and protect profits. As evidence emerged linking sugar to diseases like heart disease, SRF worked to sow doubt and shift blame elsewhere through influencing research and how findings were communicated publicly.

Overall, SRF and industries like tobacco aimed to defend their commercial interests when public health evidence began implicating their products as causes of serious illnesses. Both worked to cast doubt on health risks and maintain revenue streams in the face of emerging scientific consensus on product harms.

Did you find this article valuable?

Support Literary Insights by becoming a sponsor. Any amount is appreciated!