Re: Dow, the Stern trial, Marc Lappe and the famous dog study

[Guest guest]

Great find ... thanks Patty.

In reading other things on Dr. Lappe ... he too was very opposed to

Genetically Modified foods ... another topic that the Junk Science

Propagandists have been corrupting for years.

>

> http://66.102.7.104/search?

q=cache:fLIvZlHnSjcJ:www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/course/videos/fsriskcom

m/ch5.pdf+Dr.+Marc+Lappe,+breast+implants & hl=en

>

>

>

> Most damning of the internal Dow Corning documents revealed at the

>

> Stern trial, however, was a report on a study co-authored by Silas

Braley, the

>

> chemist who was in many ways the father of the silicone implant at

Dow

>

> Corning. The study, which had been published in a medical journal

in 1973,

>

> 37

>

> involved four dogs implanted with small implants and observed for

two years.

>

> The published study largely reported the results at the end of the

six-month

>

> mark (even though published after the end of the 2-year period),

finding only

>

> minor inflammation in some of the dogs. The internal report which

had been

>

> keep within the company, however, revealed that, at the end of the

2-year

>

> period, one of the dogs had died, and the other three had varying

degrees of

>

> severe chronic inflammation. Two dogs suffered thyroiditis —

evidence of

>

> autoimmune response — and spots on the spleen.

>

>

>

> During the Stern trial an expert witness named Marc Lappe, called

by the

>

> plaintiff to comment on the study, pointed out the discrepancies

between the

>

> published study and the internal reports. Dow Corning lawyers

tried

>

> unsuccessfully to have Lappe's testimony excluded. The judge then

asked to see

>

> the documents both Lappe and the Dow Corning lawyers brought into

court,

>

> and noticed that the identifying numbers on the dogs had been

altered on the

>

> documents Dow Corning had given the attorneys. It looked

suspiciously like the

>

> company had altered the data to make it more difficult to get at

the full two-year

>

> results of the study.

>

> 39

>

> The revelation of these internal documents, especially the

allegedly

>

> misreported dog study, was the key reason why the Stern jury found

Dow

>

> Corning guilty of fraud and awarded Stern $1.7 million.

Subsequent

>

> developments in the case led to the continued suppression of this

information

>

> from the public. Dow Corning appealed the jury's decision, and

during the

>

> appeal reached a settlement with Stern for an undisclosed

amount of

>

> money and an agreement that all the internal Dow Corning documents

disclosed

>

> at the trial would remain confidential. This secrecy agreement won

by the

>

> company may have been one of the most important contributions to

its later

>

> troubles with the courts, for it made much more plausible the

later charges that

>

> the company had withheld important risk information from the FDA

as well as

>

> from its consumers and the public.

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

>

> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

I call GMO foods " enfoods " ...

I will go to great lengths to keep these freak foods out of my

family's diet!

I hope that Dr. Lappe's efforts will be carried on by those who

recognized the great contributions he made to sound science in our

world, and seek to keep spreading truths, regardless of what the

Junk Science " mammals " have to say.

Patty

> >

> > http://66.102.7.104/search?

>

q=cache:fLIvZlHnSjcJ:www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/course/videos/fsriskcom

> m/ch5.pdf+Dr.+Marc+Lappe,+breast+implants & hl=en

> >

> >

> >

> > Most damning of the internal Dow Corning documents revealed at

the

> >

> > Stern trial, however, was a report on a study co-authored by

Silas

> Braley, the

> >

> > chemist who was in many ways the father of the silicone implant

at

> Dow

> >

> > Corning. The study, which had been published in a medical

journal

> in 1973,

> >

> > 37

> >

> > involved four dogs implanted with small implants and observed

for

> two years.

> >

> > The published study largely reported the results at the end of

the

> six-month

> >

> > mark (even though published after the end of the 2-year period),

> finding only

> >

> > minor inflammation in some of the dogs. The internal report

which

> had been

> >

> > keep within the company, however, revealed that, at the end of

the

> 2-year

> >

> > period, one of the dogs had died, and the other three had

varying

> degrees of

> >

> > severe chronic inflammation. Two dogs suffered thyroiditis —

> evidence of

> >

> > autoimmune response — and spots on the spleen.

> >

> >

> >

> > During the Stern trial an expert witness named Marc Lappe,

called

> by the

> >

> > plaintiff to comment on the study, pointed out the discrepancies

> between the

> >

> > published study and the internal reports. Dow Corning lawyers

> tried

> >

> > unsuccessfully to have Lappe's testimony excluded. The judge

then

> asked to see

> >

> > the documents both Lappe and the Dow Corning lawyers brought

into

> court,

> >

> > and noticed that the identifying numbers on the dogs had been

> altered on the

> >

> > documents Dow Corning had given the attorneys. It looked

> suspiciously like the

> >

> > company had altered the data to make it more difficult to get at

> the full two-year

> >

> > results of the study.

> >

> > 39

> >

> > The revelation of these internal documents, especially the

> allegedly

> >

> > misreported dog study, was the key reason why the Stern jury

found

> Dow

> >

> > Corning guilty of fraud and awarded Stern $1.7 million.

> Subsequent

> >

> > developments in the case led to the continued suppression of

this

> information

> >

> > from the public. Dow Corning appealed the jury's decision, and

> during the

> >

> > appeal reached a settlement with Stern for an undisclosed

> amount of

> >

> > money and an agreement that all the internal Dow Corning

documents

> disclosed

> >

> > at the trial would remain confidential. This secrecy agreement

won

> by the

> >

> > company may have been one of the most important contributions to

> its later

> >

> > troubles with the courts, for it made much more plausible the

> later charges that

> >

> > the company had withheld important risk information from the FDA

> as well as

> >

> > from its consumers and the public.

> >

> >

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> >

> > Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

> > __________________________________________________

> >