Report of specific cardiovascular outcomes of the ADVANTAGE trial.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
Biomedical subjects
David S Egilman
Publications and source records attributed to David S Egilman.
Handling conflicts of interest between industry and academia.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Academies and Institutes↗
The beryllium "double standard" standard.
Brush Wellman, the world's leading producer and supplier of beryllium products, has systematically hidden cases of beryllium disease that occurred below the threshold limit value (TLV) and lied about the efficacy of the TLV in published papers, lectures, reports to government agencies, and instructional materials prepared for customers and workers. Hypocritically, Brush Wellman instituted a zero exposure standard for corporate executives while workers and customers were told the 2 microgram standard was "safe." Brush intentionally used its workers as "canaries for the plant," and referred to them as such. Internal documents and corporate depositions indicate that these actions were intentional and that the motive was money. Despite knowledge of the inadequacy of the TLV, Brush has successfully used it as a defense against lawsuits brought by injured workers and as a sales device to provide reassurance to customers. Brush's policy has reaped an untold number of victims and resulted in mass distribution of beryllium in consumer products. Such corporate malfeasance is perpetuated by the current market system, which is controlled by an organized oligopoly that creates an incentive for the neglect of worker health and safety in favor of externalizing costs to victimized workers, their families, and society at large.
Air Pollutants, Occupational↗
Suppression bias at the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
When the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine rejected an article on corporate suppression of science on the grounds that the topic "was not a high priority" for journal readers, the author bought advertising space in JOEM to present his findings. The JOEM editor regretted he had not seen the ad to prevent its publication, and subsequently allowed the corporate-sponsored authors of a criticized study to respond to the advertisement. The editor then refused to allow the ad's author to respond in turn, suppressing scientific information with the apparent intent of protecting the interests and profits of the corporate sponsor. A reputable journal has a responsibility to eschew corporate interests and work to uncover science hidden by interests that do not prioritize the pursuit of truth. JOEM needs to re-examine its priorities.
Advertising↗
Over a barrel: corporate corruption of science and its effects on workers and the environment.
Although occupational and environmental diseases are often viewed as isolated and unique failures of science, the government, or industry to protect the best interest of the public, they are in fact an outcome of a pervasive system of corporate priority setting, decision making, and influence. This system produces disease because political, economic, regulatory and ideological norms prioritize values of wealth and profit over human health and environmental well-being. Science is a key part of this system; there is a substantial tradition of manipulation of evidence, data, and analysis, ultimately designed to maintain favorable conditions for industry at both material and ideological levels. This issue offers examples of how corporations influence science, shows the effects that influence has on environmental and occupational health, and provides evidence of a systemic problem.
Communication↗
Maximizing profit and endangering health: corporate strategies to avoid litigation and regulation.
Corporations and industries use various tactics to obscure the fact that their products are dangerous or deadly. Their aim is to secure the least restrictive possible regulatory environment and avert legal liability for deaths or injuries in order to maximize profit. They work with attorneys and public relations professionals, using scientists, science advisory boards; front groups, industry organizations, think tanks, and the media to influence scientific and popular opinion of the risks of their products or processes. The strategy, which depends on corrupt science, profits corporations at the expense of public health. Public health professionals can learn from this strategy how to effectively build scientific and public opinion that prioritizes both good science and the public health.
Advisory Committees↗
Abuse of epidemiology: automobile manufacturers manufacture a defense to asbestos liability.
Much of the "debate" about the relationship between asbestos exposure from automobile brake work and asbestos-induced cancer has been fueled by studies that have been funded by corporations with billions at stake in tort litigation. The authors explore how asbestos-lined brake manufacturers have corrupted medical literature to escape liability, analyzing studies funded by these companies to enable them to claim that work with asbestos brake linings never causes mesothelioma. They reveal how the companies have redefined scientific criteria for the determination of cause-effect relationships and manipulated scientific data to give the impression of an absence of effect. But the absence of evidence is not evidence of the absence of an effect.
Asbestos↗