Here is my report of last Wednesday’s National Academy of Sciences (NAS) public meeting public meeting about EPA’s illegal human experiments.
The background and cause for the meeting has been described in earlier posts — i.e., I discovered and exposed EPA’s secret effort to have the NAS whitewash EPA’s illegal human experiments, which forced the NAS to open up the process and have a public meeting at which my colleagues and I testified.
The people who testified were myself, emergency room physician John Dunn, MD, JD, statistician Stan Young, Phd, epidemiologist James Enstrom and Albert Donnay, MHS.
Links to the testimony are here:
Notes on the meeting:
The public meeting was held via webinar rather than in-person. Why? I don’t know for sure. But one can speculate that a quick (two-and-one-half hour long) afternoon webinar at the end of the summer was any easy way to check the “listened-to-the-public” box.
Most of the NAS committee members appeared to be on the webinar. Although who knows who long they actually stayed on or whether they listened or played solitaire.
The webinar technology (WebEx) was poor. During a good portion of my presentation, for example, there was a terrible echo, probably from folks failing to mute their phones — you had to dial-in to talk while viewing slides on your computer. It wasn’t until part way through Dunn’s presentation that someone (Albert Donnay, I believe) informed the NAS staff that they could mute everyone’s phone via WebEx. That solved much of the sound problem — but I recall hearing Neil Armstrong step onto the moon more clearly than much of this meeting.
The NAS made it difficult for the public to participate. If you wanted to listen in, you had to e-mail the NAS and then NAS staff would set you up with the WebEx software, dial-in number and passwords. No doubt between this hurdle and the poor quality of the sound at the beginning of the meeting (when I was presenting) many people were just turned off out of frustration.
The content of the presentations was superb and quite damning to the EPA and its “science.” Nevertheless, only one NAS Committee member asked questions (two). He was Dr. Robert Phalen of the University of California-Irvine. Hats off to him. The rest of the NAS Committee was entirely silent. Possibly Committee members were too shocked to say anything and needed more time to go through all the material that was presented. Possibly, though, they just wanted the afternoon to end so they could get on with rubber-stamping the whitewash and the rest of their government research-grant dependent lives.
What impact will the meeting have on EPA’s effort to whitewash its crimes? That remains to be seen. By the time we intervened in June, the whitewash (which began a year earlier) was nearly over. No doubt much of the NAS report has already been written. That said, it’s not clear how the NAS Committee can ignore the evidence we presented. Then again, all you need do is look at how Hillary Clinton is able to escape justice. If you are too big to fail/jail, then anything is possible.
Stay tuned.
The bureaucrats at the EPA, like many other Federal agencies, are so drunk with power that they think they can play God. They no longer make much effort to disguise their depravity. (“It is the nature of government to become a despotism.” Thomas Jefferson) Stick a fork in us; we are done as a nation.
Note: I sent a request for access to the Webinar and never received a response.
Your dedication to keeping the system from running over the people is deeply appreciated.
I went through your PPT of the presentation and enjoyed the illustration of ethical violations should you believe that PM2.5 is deadly and therefore should be regulated. Using their own junk science against them … very entertaining.
Ken… the air pollution scare is a open-and-shut case of EPA science fraud. The climate debate on the other hand is something that is far less clear in terms of the science and outcome. EPA’s PM scare has launched the costliest and most destructive EPA rules — including the war on coal and the ozone rule. Obama’s Clean Power Plan depends on the PM scare. I can prove science fraud in EPA’s flagship regulatory program — air quality. That is more than anyone can do on climate. I agree that climate is an important issue — I am one of the original “skeptics.” I will still cover climate where interesting and important. But short of a smoking gun e-mail or video of the climate conspiracy, the PM topic is the best and most clear cut example of EPA’s and environmentalist science fraud. Steve
While I recognize the great importance of this subject, because it highlights the extremes to which out-of-control bureaucracies will go and the all too frequent costs to humanity, I would very much like to see junkscience get back to reporting on other issues, which also have human costs, such as the climate change scam, et al.
Steve
Were the sessions recorded so we can view them?