Top Federal Scientist Expects EPA Stonewalling, Lying About Human Experiments

New e-mails obtained via the Freedom of Information Act indicate a top federal scientist expects EPA to be less than candid and to stonewall about its illegal human experiments.

JunkScience readers will recall that, in late April, we asked Hugh Tilson, editor of the National InstituteS of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) journal Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), to retract from publication the original EPA case report of the sickly, obese woman that EPA exposed to deadly PM2.5. Tilson rejected this request in early May.

After we made the request, one that was cc’d to the EHP board of editors, board member Ken Korach (the chief of NIEHS’s reproductive and developmental toxicology laboratory) frantically e-mailed Tilson as below (Click to enlarge).

We now have the follow-up e-mails between Korach and Tilson.

After erroneously e-mailing me (instead of Tilson, as above), Korach writes to Tilson (Clisk to enlarge):

Tilson responds (Click to enlarge):

Finally, Korach expresses his belief that EPA will stonewall and not be candid:

Though Korach has so far been correct, this opera is far from over.

Story Chronology:

14 thoughts on “Top Federal Scientist Expects EPA Stonewalling, Lying About Human Experiments”

  1. chem trails is another dump. most of which were aluminum oxide. its been found in plants in areas that it shouldn’t be. the epa created sulfur emissions when they forced the use of catalytic converters on cars. hows that worked out?

  2. It’s not libel lawsuits I’m afraid of. There’s no law against the EPA coming down with a vengeance upon my employer and giving us a 5-digit fine for every paperwork fault or minor parameter deviation they find. The law is so long and complex that full compliance is effectively impossible.

    There were rumors that the IRS went after attendees of the Heartland conference with punitive audits. I can’t take that chance with my family or my superiors.

  3. I will only say this: there is a reason that I do not use my surname on this message board.

  4. EPA has been evading, lying and distorting for decades. It got much worse during the wonderful Browner years, but it does predate St Carol.

  5. The fact that Dr. Korach expects the EPA to evade, lie and distort, indicates he has experience with them doing just that.

  6. Why are you slamming Judy, Bill? She has put 2 and 2 together to create a plausible link. These eco-fascists aren’t playing games, they are dangerous.

  7. I didn’t see the connection, which is tenuous at best. When making such a tangential comment, one needs to explain it a little better.

  8. Furthermore, these are specifically SULFUR-Based particles. It’s effectively a mass release of white smoke. If I did something like that, I’d be fined excessively.

  9. I think that Judy makes a good point. If EPA actually believes the farce about the dangers of fine particles that they claim is science, how can they allow geo engineers to attack what EPA says is the most dangerous of all our environmental problems, CAGW, by releasing huge quantities of fine particles into the atmosphere?

    I do not believe her point deserved ridicule.

  10. “Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering.
    Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climate.”
    “Experiment in New Mexico will try to establish the possibility of cooling the planet by dispersing sulphate aerosols”

  11. This isn’t just about particulate from coal, it is also about geo-engineering.
    So they will know how much to dump on us by “accident”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.