Scientists-For-Hire Synthesize Artificial Research to Protect Astroturf disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/scientists-f…
When parents question if children should roll around in dirty old tires and chemical grass, astroturf scientists have real fake answers. /1
As concerns have grown about harmful chemicals in fake grass, industry has synthesized a crop of AstroTurf scientists to protect artificial turf—researchers who resemble scientists just as nonflammable, UV-stabilized, TrafficMASTER (with a ten-year warranty!) mimics real fescue/2
One astroturf expert defending fake grass is Julie C. Lemay, with the consulting firm Gradient, where she works w/ Michael K. Peterson, who disclosed at a study’s bottom that he “was retained as a scientific advisor by the Recycled Rubber Council from 2015 to May 2017.” /3
Peter has bombarded local papers w/ op-eds on "recycled rubber" meaning chopped up old, dirty tires, thrown all over kiddie playgrounds to save on disposal costs of dealing with this garbage. /4
Gradient’s employees have also questioned the danger of ozone causing asthma, and the science showing lead causes brain damage. See @drdavidmichaels book “The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception” /5
The other industry-synthesized expert the companies are passing around to defend fake grass is Laura C. Green. She recently separated from her work at EPA after an investigation by E&E news. disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/scientists-f… /6
In 2005, several researchers published a study on industry advocates such as Green, see here: avaate.org/IMG/pdf/provec… /7
In that study, authors discussed a lawsuit involving asbestos, where Green testified on behalf of industry that asbestos was not very dangerous. However, the judge found that Green's testimony was not very credible and "borders on the absurd." /END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Latest emails show--surprise!--researchers orchestrated an article to denigrate a Wuhan lab leak as a "conspiracy" disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/why-do-peopl… Will science publisher Taylor and Francis retract an unethical, secretly edited article that appears to have skated past peer review? /1
The article “No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2" was secretly edited by Ralph Baric of UNC & Shi Zhengli of Wuhan.
Just to be clear, when I wrote this piece on tobacco lobbyist & Fox News Columnist Steve Milloy, @newrepublic required me to turn in half a banker's box of notes and documents.
Grimes excels at is wading into controversial scientific topics, for which he has little experience or publication record, and “debunking” contrary evidence and real experts as “conspiracy theorists.” @BBCJohnBeattie /2
We now better understand the rare side effects of blood clotting w/ AstraZeneca's vaccine.
Pfizer #COVID19 Vaccine Clinical Trial Whistleblower's Documents Released disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/pfizer-covid… The FDA never bothered to inspect Ventavia & Pfizer's clinical trial, but internal documents find Ventavia was terrified of an FDA inspection.
"THE FDA IS COMING....SOON" /1
Ventavia also created a warning to staff to stop unblinding during Pfizer's clinical trial.
C4591001 is the protocol for Pfizer's #COVID19 vaccine clinical trial.
QUESTION: Why has @pfizer continued to hire Ventavia for more vaccine clinical trials? /2
It's become clear that, despite assurances from Tim Appenzeller at Science, that publication won't pursue stories about congressional investigations that make Peter Daszak or the NIH look bad. /2
The latest volley from Science is this odd profile of Peter Daszak that Science's Editor-in-Chief made clear on Twitter was for political purposes to undermine opinions that #originsofcovid could have started in a Wuhan lab. This sort of honesty is called a Kinsley gaffe. /3
In her book, Dewar notes: in January 2020, Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology submitted a study to @Nature and another study to a different journal that contradicted the Nature paper. Neither have been corrected. (Who peer reviews Nature studies?) #originsofcovid /3