Elections have consequences… even with EPA’s illegal human experiments

The election of Donald Trump seems to have sent some sort of shock wave through EPA’s Office of Inspector General in the saga over EPA’s illegal human experiments.

More than four-and-one-half years ago I wrote to the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) requesting an investigation into EPA’s illegal human experiments.

Despite Congressional inquiry leading to an OIG investigation and report; a federal lawsuit; much media and an (ongoing) National Academy of Sciences investigation, the OIG never contacted me for more or supporting information.

Then Donald Trump was elected President.

On December 1, 2016 — many moons after my original May 14, 2012 letter to the OIG — I finally heard from the suddenly interested OIG.

Yesterday I had an in-person meeting with four OIG staff to discuss EPA’s illegal human experiments. I related to them the entire story (you can read it for yourself in my new book “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” Amazon | Signed copy via JunkScience Store).

I also responded to the various nonsense excuses EPA staff had come up with to excuse their illegal experiments and criticized OIG for its failure to contact me earlier. To their credit, OIG staff seemed interested and had good questions. OIG is apparently doing some follow-up report on the EPA experiments.

OIG asked me how I would fix the problem of EPA’s illegal experiments. The first of my two recommendations was that EPA staff should stop lying — that is, lying to the institutional review boards (IRBs) and study subjects about the alleged health effects of PM2.5.

My other recommendation was that, as the last line of protection for the human guinea pigs, the IRBs must be staffed with competent and independent professionals who are not acting as mere rubberstamps for EPA.

If these two recommendations were implemented, the EPA human experiments would not break the law because they would not be allowed to be conducted in the first place. That is, if EPA staff disclosed to the IRBs that it believed any exposure to PM2.5 could cause death within hours, then IRBs could not approve the experiments.

I also told the OIG that, as EPA-funded reviewers have admitted, the EPA’s human experiments are not really scientific research producing generalizable results. The experiments are small (at most dozens of study subjects) and not conducted in any systematic manner (variable forms of particulate matter and exposure levels). Because the experiments are not scientific in nature, they are barred by federal law.

Again on the positive side and in contrast to the National Academy of Sciences panel that Drs. John Dunn, Stan Young, Jim Enstrom, Albert Donnay and I testified before last August, OIG staff seemed genuinely interested and engaged if somewhat bureaucratically reserved.

So what will happen next? I suspect that, with the change of administration, EPA’s illegal human experimentation will be halted. And if past is prologue, it will end long before the OIG can produce its report.

11 thoughts on “Elections have consequences… even with EPA’s illegal human experiments”

  1. The point is not whether or not PM2.5 is harmful (as claimed) or not. The point that Milloy makes is that the EPA cannot argue both sides at the same time in good faith. If they truly believe what they say to justify regulations, than PM2.5 is potentially fatal at any dose, then their experiments are illegal. If they are NOT confident that PM2.5 is fatal and therefore they need additional research to clarify then they cannot justify their regulatory actions. What Milloy is doing is forcing their hand. Rather than being labeled as a PM2.5-denier, he has embraced their position as ‘settled science’ and forcing them to explain their contrary actions. Either way the result is positive.

  2. I am more inclined to think that this truck set-up is totally harmless. What’s not harmless is the EPA claiming that truck pollution is lethal in any dose.

    Construction workers at the Hoover Dam had to inhale orders of magnitude more, of more poisonous stuff, and yet there were no fatalities attributable to pollution. Accounts of people working in diversion tunnels feeling sick from vehicle and motorized equipment exhaust do exist, but none of those instances of exhaust poisoning had long-term effects. A staggering number of people had been exposed for over a year, but they all survived. Or got killed in violent “industrial accidents” at the rate that was not at all extraordinary for that time.

  3. I hate to say it, but I wonder if anyone else has experienced this:.

    Every time I come here and see this article I (at first) see only the top part of the photo – with label/caption about “diesel” & “chamber”.

    And each time I scroll down I feel my stomach cramp up a little bit – fully expecting to see a swastika on the truck.

  4. I needed legal counsel where I was wronged, and in spite of the mediator’s opinion, he repeated one favorite saying I will always remember: “The truth will out.” He was absolutely right. As you said, there were tremendous obstacles, which take time and perseverance, and we thank you for seeing your duty to your country and fellow Americans by exposing what I never would have believed possible! An amazing, revealing book, which God willing, President Trump will read and take appropriate measures.

    Since the EPA can be this bad here, with its support in the UN the consequences of EPA deceit along with other UN policies would be epoch unless stopped. “Scare Pollution” is a great service to America and to the world.

  5. Trump admin wants to cut EPA by 50 percent…to start…then trim more if nessisary…pinch me I’m dreaming

  6. Truth does not always prevail. If it is complicated to any degree, simple alternatives will always be promulgated.

  7. Briefly, that is good news. Thank you for your part in opening this swamp’s drain. I was afraid your work was wasted and only us few followers would ever know but the change in DC seams to have let some light onto your good work.

Comments are closed.