, 23 tweets, 5 min read Read on Twitter
I'm often surprised by how many people don't know this history so I'll share it here. The "Sound Science Movement" was created by corporations to keep cutting edge toxicological evidence out of toxic tort [court] cases. In the 1960s & 1970s corporations kept getting sued... 1/
...for toxic chemicals they produced and they kept losing in court. At the time, the only people funding cutting edge toxicology research were plaintiffs' attorneys. Big law firms would take a look at a case, evaluate the odds of winning (& potential settlement amount) and... 2/
...if the case looked promising, they would spend millions of dollars to hire the best toxicologists in the country to research the problem & produce studies that would hold up in court. Government agencies were already captured by corporation so this was the only way to... 3/
...do really innovative research. And THAT was the research that corporations wanted to keep out of cases involving toxic chemicals (because once one bars that evidence, there is no other evidence). So corporations huddled together with their PR firms & their "think tanks".... 4/
...and developed a multi-pronged strategy that they called The Sound Science Movement. So they wrote papers & organized junkets for judges (at posh resorts) to make that case that courts should only accept evidence that was already widely accepted in the scientific mainstream. 5/
Sounds innocent enough but the evidence already in the mainstream is generally the corporate funded research (that showed no evidence of harm) & because the best critical evidence was usually developed in connection with a particular trial, by definition it was new & novel... 6/
And not already widely accepted & so the new critical evidence would be excluded from trial. This was accompanied by a massive PR propaganda campaign to brand corporate science as "Sound Science" & cutting edge toxicology as "junk science" and to buy off politicians... 7/
& the media to get them to accept this framing. It worked. It took decades of coordinated corporate efforts but eventually the Sound Science Movement prevailed in 3 landmark court cases: Daubert, Joiner, & Kumho Tire, which together make it much more difficult to introduce... 8/
new & novel research into evidence in toxic tort cases (i.e. cases alleging harms from toxic chemicals). After these 3 three verdicts, corporations went from losing most toxic tort cases to winning the vast majority of toxic tort cases. And so the perfect storm of toxicants... 9/
...in our bodies & the rising rates of neurodevelopmental disabilities also stem from the fact that it is now very difficult to sue a toxic chemical company because it's impossible to fund the research because the courts will bar it as evidence because of these 3 verdicts. 10/
So anytime you hears the words "Sound Science" & "junk science" those are code words used as part of a propaganda campaign to get you to accept more toxic chemicals in your body. Here's how to translate those words. "Sound Science" is in fact usually junk corporate science. 11/
& "junk science" is often cutting edge toxicology research that corporations want to block from being used as evidence in court. The framing is so completely Orwellian that it's difficult to counteract (and the mainstream media often just repeats the corporate framing). 12/
To read more about this topic check out:

Science-Mart
amazon.com/Science-Mart-P…

Tragic Failures
amazon.com/Tragic-Failure…

And even this surprisingly good piece from 538 (that is usually terrible on toxicology issues):
fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-e…

13/
Okay but here's what's bizarre (you knew there was a twist coming right?). Good progressives know that the Sound Science Movement is corporate propaganda. They are furious about the ways that the Tobacco Industry & Big Oil funded the "Sound Science Movement (TM)".... 14/
But they refuse to acknowledge the ways that the pharmaceutical industry is the beneficiary of that same logic. Indeed the Pharmaceutical industry, including many leading vaccine makers, work together with these other chemical companies through the American Chemistry Council. 15/
Pharma benefits from these 3 key verdicts that bar new & novel evidence. And then vaccine makers went one step further and got Congress to give them complete liability protection (in 1986) no matter how harmful their products or how many vaccines they add to the schedule. 16/
My point being, the "Sound Science" of the vaccine makers is usually junk science -- no saline placebos, no unvaccinated control group, no proper RCTs, studies that are too small and too short to detect harms. Read more here: icandecide.org/hhs/ICAN-Reply… 17/
It is nearly impossible to fund new vaccine safety research because we cannot sue vaccine makers in court (so no plaintiffs' lawyers with deep pockets to fund the research we need). And the studies that they call "junk science" -- often funded by parents & conducted by a... 18/
few brave doctors & scientists, are usually the best studies available.

That's the Orwellian world we live in. Words lose their meaning. Good is bad & bad is good. And it's nearly impossible to get good data because no one will fund it & courts won't admit it as evidence. 19/
So that's the storm that we sail into when we fight against SB 276 -- this bill is the culmination of a 50 year corporate propaganda war to get politicians and the public to allow toxic chemicals into our bodies through Orwellian framing of the scientific evidence. 20/
And it takes a long time and a lot of education to deprogram a politician who has heard the corporate propaganda for decades and come to believe it. And then they cut off our microphones and complain that we are not science-y enough (because that's how they roll). 21/
As always I imagine there are lots of people reading this thread who know this history better than I do (no, not you troll, the other people). Thank you for letting me work through these ideas and share this history with you. Our lives are at stake. 22/
We must cut through this corporate propaganda. We must defeat SB 276. We must rebuild our courts to allow better data into evidence. And we must rebuild our political system to better regulate toxic chemicals (especially those found in pharmaceutical products). 23/23
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Toby Rogers PhD
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!