EPA administrator has no knowledge of inhumane experiments?

Imagine that the Administrator of the US EPA would testify that she doesn’t know that the US EPA is funding and promoting unethical human exposure to small particulate air pollution experiments at 10 US Medical Schools?

I won’t belabor the point, but Milloy and I have been tracking the US EPA small particulate human experiments, performed at 10 prominent medical institutions across the United States. We have submitted complaints to Medical Boards in Michigan and North Carolina and participated in filing a lawsuit in Virginia Federal Court trying to stop the human experiments. Our position is that either the US EPA is lying about the toxicity and danger of small particulates or they are performing unethical and inhuman experiments that expose people to what they say are small particle exposures that kill, main or cause cancer.

I personally have written to the Deans of the ten medical institutions that are doing human exposure experiments, according to an EPA researcher physician Eugene Cascio, MD in his declaration under penalty of perjury in a Federal District Court.
Eugene Cascio declaration. American Traditions Institute v. US EPA in Federal District Court Alexandria Division Eastern District Virginia. Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-1066-AJT-TCB.

Not one Dean has responded.

I have also written to all the Republican physicians in Congress asking that they halt the unethical conduct, and i have received no responses. There are 18 republican physicians in congress and one democrat–crazy Jim McDermott, a psychiatrist from Washington. I skipped him for obvious reasons. He never lets professional ethics get in the way of partisanship.


A lead research scientist for the US EPA, Robert Devlin, Ph D., Senior Scientist (ST) for the Environmental Public Health Division (EPHD), National Health and Environmental Research Laboratory (NHEERL), Office of Research and Development (ORD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Devlin, says that the reason for the research is that human exposure experiments might support or confirm the epidemiology that is used by the EPA that doesn’t provide reliable information.

Devlin declaration in the lawsuit American Traditions Institute v. US EPA in Federal District Court Alexandria Division Eastern District Virginia. Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-1066-AJT-TCB.


And Gina McCarthy states in congressional testimony that she doesn’t know anything about human exposure experiments?

Here’s the ignorant or lying Gina.

If you don’t get it assume that bad things happen because of bad people. That’ll help.

About these ads

5 responses to “EPA administrator has no knowledge of inhumane experiments?

  1. The miscreants only get away with this criminality, if people are willing to turn a blind eye.

  2. Call them what they are – human guinea pig experiments – worse than the ones dreamed up by the Hitler regime. In CA, at USC’s Keck School of Medicine, Dr Frank Gilliland – who heads the USC Center for Children’s Environmental Health – got EPA grants all the way back to 2003 to pump diesel exhaust fumes into confined areas to see how kids reacted when compared to adults. Sounds creepy, doesn’t it? Kids getting gassed in the name of science? The documents authenticating this claim are located at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index/cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/80. Bad enough they pulled this stuff at Chapel Hill, NC on adults but to do it out here under the noses of the Hollywood Elites and to be experimenting with kids. And this only scratches the surface. Don’t keep this under your hat – tell someone what’s really going on with an out-of-control Federal Government. Obamacare, Obamaphones, with Common Core, Obamaschools and now Obamahumanexperiments. Where will it end?

  3. Thank you very much for your note, Duffy, I know a little of the Children’s study at USC because of a junk science paper put out by a guy named Gauderman. here is my letter to Lancet in response to his article claiming effects of roadways on kids lungs.

    Note he was not aware of research by his own University that showed no air pollution effect from roadways beyond 300 meters.


    Editor Lancet

    Dear Editor, (word count sans footnotes 294)

    W. James Gauderman of the University of Southern California, and his research Children’s Health Study (CHS) wrote in the January 26, 2007 issue of Lancet about traffic air pollution effects on adolescents (Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study) asserting that they find a “significant” deleterious affect proportionate to residential proximity for four groups living up to and then beyond 1500 meters from busy roadways.

    This study is low power with a high drop out rate (3677 to 1497). Air pollution from busy roadways rapidly decreases at 150 meters until it becomes background at slightly more than 300 meters (1,2,3). The study claimed “significant” health effects results when the pulmonary function test (PFT) results were 2% for the more than 1500 meter group and the rest were clustered with no trend line. A 93% outlier MMEF in the less than 500 meter group was all that could possibly make a dose trend line and two points do not make a trend. The PFT differences for all the groups in the study are too small, given the margin of error for PFT.

    The power of this study cannot overcome the imprecision of PFT. Less than 5% differences in PFTs cannot be “significant” or proof of a toxic effect.

    The authors make the risible claim that they have no conflicts when they list their funding sources as the California Air Resources Board, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Gauderman’s work is essential to the survival and prosperity of these state and federal environmental agencies. They, in turn, have been a steady funding source for the CHS for many years.

    The Lancet is committed to journalistic and scientific integrity and ethics, and should be more careful in its decision to publish. Lancet should also review and monitor relationships of public agencies and public health researchers for financial conflicts.

    John Dale Dunn MD JD

    Civilian Faculty, Emergency Medicine, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas
    Advisory Board on Science and Policy—American Council on Science and Health, New York, New York.

    1. Zhu, Y, Hinds WC Seongheon K et. al. Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atomospheric Environment 2002; 36: 4325-35.
    2. Zhu Y, Hinds WC, Seongheon K, et. al. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway. Journal of Air & Waste Management 2002; 52: 1032-42.
    3. Zhu Y, Kuhn T, Mayo P, et. al. Comparison of Daytime and nighttime concentration profiles and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway Environmental Science & Technology 2006; 40: 2531-36.

  4. EPA has no knowledge.

  5. When I’ve heard McCarthy speak, I can well believe she has no knowledge about much of anything, however, I’m willing to bet she has more than casual knowledge on this testing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s