←Older revision
Revision as of 09:52, 7 December 2016
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 11:
Line 11:
==Documents & Timeline==
==Documents & Timeline==
−
<B>1994</B> Philip Morris's [[
World
Regulatory Affairs]] (WRA) division is considered the usefulness of publishing its own guidelines for ''"Good Epidemiology Practices.''" As Mayada Logue's close associate, [[Thomas Borelli]], [Head S&T PM USA] commented, Philip Morris thought it would a ''"good offensive strategy''" for Philip Morris-affiliated scientists to undertake the revision of ''"standard epidemiological practice,''" so Philip Morris issued new guidelines for endorsement by a ''"sound science coalition''" and planned seminars with carefully screened groups of epidemiologists.
+
<B>1994</B> Philip Morris's [[
Worldwide
Regulatory Affairs]] (WRA) division is considered the usefulness of publishing its own guidelines for ''"Good Epidemiology Practices.''" As Mayada Logue's close associate, [[Thomas Borelli]], [Head S&T PM USA] commented, Philip Morris thought it would a ''"good offensive strategy''" for Philip Morris-affiliated scientists to undertake the revision of ''"standard epidemiological practice,''" so Philip Morris issued new guidelines for endorsement by a ''"sound science coalition''" and planned seminars with carefully screened groups of epidemiologists.
[Source Elisa K. Ong, <I>The Lancet </I>, April 8, 2000]
[Source Elisa K. Ong, <I>The Lancet </I>, April 8, 2000]
<hr>
<hr>
−
<B>1994</B> Worldwide Strategy Plan
Incorporate
GEP into legislation and risk assessment guidelines. GEP Working Group
was
in World Regulatory Affairs (WRA) division
of Philip Morris
. [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qxj22d00/pdf]
+
<B>1994</B> Worldwide Strategy Plan
was to incorporate [[Good Epidemiological Practices]] (
GEP
)
into legislation and risk assessment guidelines.
The new fake standard had been devised by [[George Carlo]] and a group of 'tobacco consultant' scientists, and within Philip Morris the
GEP Working Group in
the
World Regulatory Affairs (WRA) division
in Washington was trying to promote it to Congress as a globally accepted standard.
+
+
It was actually a standard which could be stretched to such levels that no regulator could ever effectively use it as the basis for regulatory activity.
. [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qxj22d00/pdf]
<hr>
<hr>
Line 61:
Line 63:
* Budget: $50,000
* Budget: $50,000
−
** Goal: Organization launched by end 1994 </I>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uwy88e00/pdf
+
** Goal: Organization launched by end 1994 </I>
[
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uwy88e00/pdf
] </BLOCKQUOTE>
−
+
<hr>
<hr>
Line 69:
Line 70:
<hr>
<hr>
−
<B>1994 Jun 16</b> Matt Winokur then sends to a list of PM organisers
a note
about the formation of the new Scientific Coalition and GEP saying:
+
<B>1994 Jun 16</b>
[[
Matt Winokur
]] who ran WRA at Philip Morris
then sends
a note
to a list of PM organisers
about the formation of the new Scientific Coalition and GEP saying:
−
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>APCo (the old spelling of APCO Worldwide) is completing its evaluation of a [Sound Science] Symposium for Europe in the fall. They have forwarded the draft '''Guiding Scientific Principles''' (or GEP) which would constitute the outcome of such a meeting.
+
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>APCo (the old spelling of APCO Worldwide) is completing its evaluation of a [Sound Science] Symposium for Europe in the fall. They have forwarded the draft '''Guiding Scientific Principles''' (or GEP) which would constitute the outcome of such a meeting.
<font color=green>
−
: [Note: they have already drafted the conclusions to a symposium not yet organised or held!]
+
: [Note: they have already drafted the conclusions to a symposium not yet organised or held!]
</font>
They are on the right track but the language is too vague. (Tom) Borelli and (Richard) Carchman will review and tighten. Obviously, any output from the symposium must be supportive of GEP. So the bottom line for both the GEP resolution and GEP Symposium must be in synch. Burson (Marsteller) has begun its feasibility review based on a more explicit understanding that GEP is what we are interested in promoting.
They are on the right track but the language is too vague. (Tom) Borelli and (Richard) Carchman will review and tighten. Obviously, any output from the symposium must be supportive of GEP. So the bottom line for both the GEP resolution and GEP Symposium must be in synch. Burson (Marsteller) has begun its feasibility review based on a more explicit understanding that GEP is what we are interested in promoting.
−
I gather from Jim [Lindheim of B-M] that there may have been a misunderstanding as to whether or not Burson was to have proceeded with the review prior to the presentation of a 'joint' proposal [APCO and B-M]. I was aware that Burson began, and take responsibility for allowing them to proceed. If you don't want to pay for it then I will. But the intelligence obtained from their interviews with potential coalition sponsors as well as information about analagous efforts by existing groups, e.g., Heidelberg (Appeal), will be critical to the development of a comprehensive Burson/APCo proposal.
+
I gather from Jim [Lindheim of B-M] that there may have been a misunderstanding as to whether or not Burson was to have proceeded with the review prior to the presentation of a 'joint' proposal [APCO and B-M]. I was aware that Burson began, and take responsibility for allowing them to proceed. If you don't want to pay for it then I will. But the intelligence obtained from their interviews with potential coalition sponsors as well as information about analagous efforts by existing groups, e.g., Heidelberg (Appeal), will be critical to the development of a comprehensive Burson/APCo proposal.
<font color=green>
−
: [Note: after a territory battle, Philip Morris had suggested that rivals APCO and B-M present this as a joint proposal]
+
: [Note: after a territory battle, Philip Morris had suggested that rivals APCO and B-M present this as a joint proposal
. It became merged with the Heidelberg Appeal and the climate change controversy because APCO had also created the [[Science and Environmental Policy Project]] (SEPP), with [[S. Fred Singer]] at the helm. He and his wife [[Candace Crandall]] were the main global warming deniers at the time. The [[Heidelberg Appeal]] was closely related to the GEP concept - and both were mostly (but not exclusively) funded by tobacco.
]
</font>
The Burson research is necessary now in order to tell us whether it is possible or efficient to try to develop an enduring ['Sound Science'] coalition following on from the symposium. Possible, in that there may prove to be an insufficient amount of interest in the corporate sector for such a movement. Efficient, in that there may already exist analagous groups which we could use without going to the effort of starting one from scratch.
The Burson research is necessary now in order to tell us whether it is possible or efficient to try to develop an enduring ['Sound Science'] coalition following on from the symposium. Possible, in that there may prove to be an insufficient amount of interest in the corporate sector for such a movement. Efficient, in that there may already exist analagous groups which we could use without going to the effort of starting one from scratch.
−
And we need to be careful not to step on unseen toes. For example, Bruce Ames is part of TASSC and Heidelberg. Do we need/want him on a third group in Europe?
+
And we need to be careful not to step on unseen toes. For example,
[[
Bruce Ames
]]
is part of TASSC and Heidelberg. Do we need/want him on a third group in Europe?
Thus the benefit in having Burson complete the study now, is that what they learn will be factored into both the content of the symposium AND inform us as to what options are available after the symposium concludes. If we only want a one off event, that's our decision. But I would think we'd at least want a mechanism to be able to tap the participants to later on endorse the GEP resolution in the appropriate EU institutions.
Thus the benefit in having Burson complete the study now, is that what they learn will be factored into both the content of the symposium AND inform us as to what options are available after the symposium concludes. If we only want a one off event, that's our decision. But I would think we'd at least want a mechanism to be able to tap the participants to later on endorse the GEP resolution in the appropriate EU institutions.
Line 87:
Line 88:
<hr>
<hr>
−
<B>1994 Jun 16</b> Matt Winokur then sends to a list of PM organisers a note saying:
−
<BLOCKQUOTE><I>APCo (the old spelling of APCO Worldwide) is completing its evaluation of a Symposium for Europe in the fall. They have forwarded the draft '''Guiding Scientific Principles''' (or GEP) which would constitute the outcome of such a meeting.
−
−
They are on the right track but the language is too vague. (Tom) Borelli and (Richard) Carchman will review and tighten. Obviously, any output from the symposium must be supportive of GEP. So the bottom line for both the GEP resolution and GEP Symposium must be in synch. Burson (Marsteller) has begun its feasibility review based on a more explicit understanding that GEP is what we are interested in promoting.
−
−
I gather from Jim [Lindheim of B-M] that there may have been a misunderstanding as to whether or not Burson was to have proceeded with the review prior to the presentation of a ''"joint''" proposal [APCO and B-M]. I was aware that Burson began and take responsibility for allowing them to proceed. If you don't want to pay for it then I will. But the intelligence obtained from their interviews with potential coalition sponsors as well as information about analagous efforts by existing groups, e.g., Heidelberg, will be critical to the development of a comprehensive Burson/APCo proposal.
−
: [Note: after a territory battle, Philip Morris had suggested that rivals APCO and B-M present this as a joint proposal]
−
−
The Burson research is necessary now in order to tell us whether it is possible or efficient to try to develop an enduring ['Sound Science'] coalition following on from the symposium. Possible, in that there may prove to be an insufficient amount of interest in the corporate sector for such a movement. Efficient, in that there may already exist analagous groups which we could use without going to the effort of starting one from scratch.
−
−
And we need to be careful not to step on unseen toes. For example, Bruce Ames is part of TASSC and Heidelberg. Do we need/want him on a third group in Europe?
−
−
Thus the benefit in having Burson complete the study now, is that what they learn will be factored into both the content of the symposium AND inform us as to what options are available after the symposium concludes. If we only want a one off event, that's our decision. But I would think we'd at least want a mechanism to be able to tap the participants to later on endorse the GEP resolution in the appropriate EU institutions.
−
−
The Burson research will also turn up corporate interest in GEP in general which may help us identify allies regardless of whether we do either a symposium or create a coalition. The presentation therefore at the next TF mtg. will be a single proposal for PM prepared jointly by Burson and APCo. And I've asked Margery [Krause of APCO] and Jim [Lindheim of B-M] to come themselves, as well as any other support staff they may wish to have accompany them. [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fsd34e00/pdf]</I></BLOCKQUOTE>
+
<hr>
+
<b>1998 Sep</b> The BAT Corporate funding plan for 1999 (and following years) is with the Corporate and Regulatory Affairs (CORA) division of British American Tobacco (BAT). CORA has produced a long and detailed budget.
+
They have allocated
+
* (# 6A61.814) Support for International establishment of TASSC - £50,000
+
* [[Citzens for the Integrity of Science]] £50K in 1998, £75K in 1999, £50K in 2000, and £51.8K in 2001. (See page 321324329)
+
[https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/hghd0209] <font color=green>
+
: The support for TASSC in Europe (which was BAT's domain) was for the ESEF operation. The CIS think-tank was a new operation started up in the USA by [[Steve Milloy]] and [[Michael Gough]].</font>
+
<hr>
<hr>
<b>1999 Sept 16:</b> The '''Science & Regulation division''' of the British-American Tobacco (BAT) company had expenditure details and a budget forecast for the following year. These figures are well below the previous outlays of this division. Notable line items were:
<b>1999 Sept 16:</b> The '''Science & Regulation division''' of the British-American Tobacco (BAT) company had expenditure details and a budget forecast for the following year. These figures are well below the previous outlays of this division. Notable line items were: