http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=269
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=524
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?cat=23

--------

Corporate Corruption of Science and Its Effects on Workers and the Environment

Please find enclosed information ‘Corporate Corruption of Science’ from Dr Gerd Oberfeld, Salzburg.

Best wishes

Eileen O’Connor
Trustee – EM Radiation Research Trust
http://www.radiationresearch.org


Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

in der Anlage wird der Beitrag "Corporate Corruption of Science and Its Effects on Workers and the Environment" zgK übermittelt.

http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/2005_xx_egilman.pdf


Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Dr. med. univ. Gerd Oberfeld
Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung Landessanitätsdirektion Referat Gesundheit, Hygiene und Umweltmedizin
Postanschrift: Postfach 527, 5010 Salzburg, ÖSTERREICH
Adresse: Sebastian-Stief-Gasse 2

--------

Comments on corporate corruption

From Gerald Goldberg:

Hi Don, Read your article on corporate corruption and the charges waged against the AMA. The problem in this country though I suspect it exists in most industrialized countries is that most doctors work for the company store. They are not free agents, which has certain benefits, but there entitlement is based on strict governmental control and regulation of the store. Most of the grants given to universities are allocated by upper level agencies, ie NIH, CDC, which merely the agenda that the government tries to set up For the most part it is an economic entitlement program that benefits the larger corporations, which are interlocked in maintaining control. Thus you see global manifestations of this in the bid to regulate say nutritional suppliments etc. Anyway to use an example in the US 2 years prior to 9/11 the budget for alternative medicine was halved from 5 milliion dollars, IN a system where the healthcare costs account for 600 billion dollars of reimbursement per year, to a mere 2.5 million dollars. In the same year the government opened a new office for bioterriosim with an operating budget of 120 million dollars per year.

After 9/11 most researchers in the US had to shift their priorities in terms of investigation because they had to go out begging to the NIH to get funds. The government had shifted it focus to bioterriosism and most top programs in order to stay alive had to switch priorites. Pork barrelism is alive and well and we should be proactive aginst the taint of MAD CASH COW DISEASE which is becoming endemic and rampant. See my interview posted on mast-victims. The tragedy is that who is kidding who, no pun intended. There is a tragic amount of sophistry around rational approaches when the system itself is irrational and dysfunctional. I quess it is good to be Pharoh, what has changed anyway.

Sincerly

Dr. G. Goldberg, MD

Source: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=528

--------

http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=betrayal+science

A Bait-and-Switch Charity
http://www.counterpunch.com/allen10202005.html


From Information Clearing House

TO: KLAUS TOEPFER, UN-Undersecretary and Executive Director, UNEP

October 20, 2005

OPEN LETTER TO UN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME (UNEP)

To Eric Falt, Director, UNEP Division of Communications and Public Information

Theodore Oben, Head, UNEP Children and Youth Unit


Dear Mr. Falt and Mr. Oben,

We read about the gathering of Young Environmental Leaders in Bangalore, organized by UNEP and sponsored by Bayer. The objective of the meeting is to discuss the environment and the implementation of the UN Millennium Development Goals.

In our opinion your partnership with Bayer thwarts these aims.

This corporation has fought, through its lobbyists, against most agreements on environmental issues, be it the Kyoto Protocol for the protection of the climate, the new EU laws on chemicals, the phasing out of CFCs or efforts to reduce the use of pesticides. At the same time Bayer produces a great number of highly dangerous substances like insecticides, plasticisers, Bisphenol A and phosgene. In the past Bayer was even engaged in the production of PCBs, poison gas, and HIV-tainted blood clotting medication.

Bayer, like any other multinational company, is primarily interested in profits. Bayer´s former CEO, Manfred Schneider, put it this way: “We´re out for profits. This is our job”. And Bayer has a long tradition in trying to “greenwash” its image. The company started dozens of partnerships and sponsorships with medical, environmental or educational organizations. In particular Bayer chooses cooperations in fields where the company is criticized. Bayer has been using these partnerships to deflect criticism by watchdog groups or the media and to use the good image of their partners to present a corporate humanitarian image.

It`s a set-back for efforts to assure environmental protection if corporations like Bayer are allowed to associate themselves with the UN or the United Nations Environmental Programme. Bayer widely uses its involvement with the UN and UNEP to bolster its integrity, for example on the company`s homepage and in numerous advertising brochures. This is an easy and informal way of achieving a positive company image without real-world consequences. To Bayer, supporting UNEP is nothing more than a sheer publicity campaign.

Our group Coalition against BAYER-dangers, based in Germany, has been monitoring the company for 25 years. During this period we have documented hundreds of cases when Bayer´s products or factories harmed people or the environment. For decades we have experienced that Bayer only stopped the production of hazardous products when pressured from the public (for more examples please visit the English part of our website or read our article Bayer and the UN Global Compact).

Big corporations are responsible for many environmental and social problems. Big companies reduce costs and increase profits on the public´s expense. Multinationals push for voluntary agreements that hinder the ratification of binding rules to ensure social and environmental standards. Therefore we believe it is not a good idea to partner with multinational companies when pursuing environmental goals.

Accepting money leads to dependency. We fear that UNEP and the Young Environmental Leaders will be less open to make the role of corporations a subject of discussion when receiving support from Bayer. We urge you to stop this cooperation.


Awaiting your answer,

Philipp Mimkes, Hubert Ostendorf, Axel Koehler-Schnura, Jan Pehrke, Uwe Friedrich

Board of the Coalition against BAYER-dangers, Germany



Coalition against BAYER-dangers (Germany)
http://www.CBGnetwork.org CBGnetwork@aol.com Fax: (+49) 211-333 940 Tel: (+49) 211-333 911

Advisory Board
Prof. Juergen Junginger, designer, Krefeld,
Prof. Dr. Juergen Rochlitz, chemist, former member of the Bundestag, Burgwald
Wolfram Esche, attorney-at-law, Cologne
Dr. Sigrid Müller, pharmacologist, Bremen
Eva Bulling-Schroeter, former member of the Bundestag, Ingolstadt Prof. Dr. Anton Schneider, construction biologist, Neubeuern Dorothee Sölle, theologian, Hamburg (died 2003)
Dr. Janis Schmelzer, historian, Berlin
Dr. Erika Abczynski, pediatrician, Dormagen


From ECOTERRA Intl.

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2005-10-13/cover_story8.php


Informant: Gomez

http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/hiwi/424472/

Audio-Download (4,5 MB):
http://ondemand-mp3.dradio.de/file/dradio/2005/10/02/dlf_200510021840.mp3

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435737a.html
http://blog.bioethics.net/2005/06/scientists-behaving-badly.html

http://ecolog.twoday.net/stories/1002897/
http://www.pressetext.com/pte.mc?pte=050830006

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10%2E1371%2Fjournal%2Epmed%2E0020124


Informant: Chris Haderer

08.09.2005

Die WHO hat am Montag ihren Abschlussbericht über die Folgen der AKW-Katastrophe von Tschernobyl vorgelegt. Dieser stellt eine unglaubliche Verharmlosung der Auswirkungen des GAU von 1986 dar. Laut Bericht sind die Opferzahlen der Katastrophe sehr viel geringer als angenommen, sie lägen bei bisher 50 Todesopfern, so die WHO. Die Forscher erwarten durch Langzeitfolgen insgesamt 4000 Todesopfer.

An der Studie beteiligt war unter anderem die Internationale Atomenergiebehörde (IAEO), eine Organisation, die sich für die zivile Atomnutzung einsetzt. Die Ärzteorganisation IPPNW verweist darauf, dass zwischen IAEO und WHO seit 1959 ein Vertrag besteht, der der IAEO die „Kontrolle über die Forschungsprogramme, -ergebnisse und -publikationen der Ärzte der WHO über die gesundheitlichen Folgen der zivilen Nutzung der Atomenergie und deren Unfälle“ zusichert. Dies und die Tatsache, dass wichtige Daten, wie die tatsächliche Strahlendosis, der die Bevölkerung ausgesetzt war und ist, nicht ermittelt wurden, lässt die Ergebnisse der Studie zweifelhaft erscheinen.

http://www.ippnw.de/index.php?/s,1/o,article,1207/%E2%80%9C


Die Einladung diverser UN-Unterorganisationen zu einem Kongress in Wien mit dem Ziel einer „Konsenserklärung“, kann als Versuch verstanden werden, die wahren Opferzahlen und Konsequenzen des GAU für immer zu verbergen.

http://www.ausgestrahlt.de/atom/info/log



Radioaktive Verseuchung um Tschernobyl ist heute gefährlicher als 1986
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/879220/