My Personal Experience with “An Inconvenient Truth”

Al Gore’s excellent new film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, makes two points that are crucially important to the fate of our country and the world. Although the potential catastrophic consequences of global warming to the fate of our planet are the main focus of the film, another issue that the film brought up, though not discussed in as much detail, is perhaps even more important.

That is the unholy alliance between government, corporate power, and the press, which has reached obscene and unprecedented levels in today’s George W. Bush administration (with much help from a Republican Congress). I believe that this unholy alliance is even more important than global warming itself because it is a major CAUSE of global warming, the lack of effort by the most powerful country in the world (us) to do anything to counter it, and many other evils as well.


The unholy alliance

It works like this: Powerful and wealthy corporations give legal bribes – which they call “campaign contributions” – to George Bush and various Congresspersons, and in return legislation is proposed and enacted which greatly benefits those corporations, by reducing government regulation of their activities, to the great detriment of the great majority of American citizens, as well as future generations of American citizens. The process is greatly facilitated by a compliant national news media, owned by those same corporations, who not only utterly fail to inform the American people of the problem, but actively disseminate misinformation so as to obstruct us from obtaining a grasp on reality from other sources. Laws enacted in previous eras to prevent a monopoly of our national news by powerful corporations are overturned, thus consolidating their control. The gap between the wealth of the corporations and ordinary people then increases, thus enabling them to further control the national political process, and we have a vicious and dangerous cycle. Their control of the political dialogue is so great that they have actually been able to convince a substantial portion of the American people that it is their opposition, rather than themselves, who are “the elite”.


Global warming as an inconvenient truth and a case in point

Global warming is an inconvenient truth to certain corporations involved in the energy and transportation industries because wide acknowledgment of the truth of how global warming is caused and of its catastrophic effects on the world would result in demands that those industries reduce their contributions to the problem – and that would probably cause a decline in their short term profits. It is an inconvenient truth to George Bush and his allies in Congress because recognition of the problem by the American people would put great pressure on them to do something about the problem, which of course would anger their wealthiest supporters. And it’s an inconvenient truth to our national news media because it’s their supposed job to report that truth.

George Bush has responded to the threat of global warming by denying that it is a major problem, making the United States one of two countries in the world that has refused to participate in the Kyoto protocol for reducing the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, and by silencing the top climate expert at NASA, Dr. Jim Hansen, who has called for “prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming”. Senator Inhofe (R-OK) responds to the threat by calling it “the second largest hoax ever played on the American people, after the separation of church and state”. ExxonMobil responds by producing a massive disinformation campaign to create doubt about the causes of global warming. And our corporate news media responds to it largely by ignoring it or putting out disinformation to keep us in the dark.

And all of this despite the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in a study (as pointed out in Gore’s film) of 928 scientific peer reviewed articles on climate change, found not a single one that disagreed with the scientific consensus view that global warming is produced by greenhouse gases due to industrial activities, is highly likely to have catastrophic effects on the world population, and can be mitigated only by changing the industrial causes of the production of greenhouse gases.

But global warming is only one of many inconvenient scientific truths that our current leaders ignore because of their own narrow and greedy political considerations. Which brings me to the personal experience that I promised in the title of this OP.


My experience with the unholy alliance

I am an epidemiologist who has worked for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the past six and a half years. The purpose of the FDA, as initiated under President Teddy Roosevelt’s leadership in 1906, is to protect American consumers against dangerous drugs, foods, biological products, and medical devices manufactured by U.S. industries. My specific job is to evaluate the postmarket performance of medical devices.

Over approximately a three year period I evaluated the performance of a medical device whose purpose it is to prevent ruptures of abdominal aortic aneurysms, by being placed over the aneurysm (from inside the aorta) so as to prevent blood getting into the aneurysm, thus causing it to enlarge and eventually rupture. Rupture of an aortic aneurysm results in a high likelihood of death because it is followed by internal bleeding which can only be stopped surgically, and because the aorta is the largest blood vessel in the human body. The device in question provides an alternative to full surgical repair of the aneurysm.

The problem was (and is) that sometimes the device slips out of place, thus allowing blood to seep into the aneurysm, with the possibility of subsequent rupture and death. Because of my concerns about the performance of the device following the completion of my analysis, I wrote a scientific article (with the permission of my superiors) which detailed my findings, and I submitted it to Vascular surgery (the primary journal read by vascular surgeons in the United States). My article was eventually accepted for publication, and it was about to be published.

But then the manufacturer of the device found out about the article and they went directly to the highest levels of the FDA to complain about it. Their main complaints were that my conclusions were invalid and that publication of the article would violate the privacy of their data on which my analysis was based. To make a long story short, the FDA complied with the request of the manufacturer by withdrawing the article. My immediate supervisor supported me on this issue and even nominated me for an award. The decision to pull the article came from way above him.

The point that I hope to make by relating this story has nothing to do with whether my conclusions were valid or invalid (obviously, I think they were valid, otherwise I wouldn’t have submitted the article, the Journal felt they were valid, otherwise they wouldn’t have agreed to publish it, and the FDA initially had no qualms about it). Rather, what this story demonstrates is the way that life and death decisions are now being made in our country, which should be based on scientific considerations, but which in fact are often based instead on the need of politicians to placate their corporate masters – I mean supporters. Anyhow, that’s the only interpretation that I can put on this story.

I would not even be legally allowed to discuss this story publicly (because of the FDA’s rules regarding the privacy of manufacturers) if not for the fact that it is already in the public domain because someone leaked it to a conscientious reporter for the Wall Street Journal, which then published it. Here is the WSJ article if you are interested in further details of this sordid affair.


Back to Al Gore

Al Gore provided a great service to our country and the world by producing “An Inconvenient Truth”, by writing his book by the same name, and by all the meticulous work that he has performed on this subject. Our current leaders would do well to learn from his efforts – though I have no illusions that they will take them seriously.

I think it is safe to say that if Al Gore is elected President in 2008 (I am not proposing here that he be nominated, as there are several potential candidates whom I would also love to see as our President, and I am a very long way from deciding whom I’ll vote for.) there will be some MAJOR changes in the way that our government relates to corporate America, especially the oil and transportation industries. There must now be several very powerful corporations who are seething over that possibility. If Al Gore wins the Democratic nomination in 2008, it won’t be a pretty site – but it certainly will be very exciting.

the nominee, it won't be pretty. We need someone who is willing to speak truth to power, and take on the big guys.

Al Gore is certainly willing to do that.

Richard Durbin spoke out against the concentration torture camps.
Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Dennis Kucinich, and other spoke out against the Ohio election
Cynthia Mckinney dared to question the Bush administration role in the 9-11 attacks.
Russ Feingold brought up a censure resolution.
I believe that Wes Clark and John Edwards would also be willing to do that.

Actually, I like Conyers/Gore even better, but I'm afraid to say that I don't think that ticket would be as competative. Conyers has stuck his neck out again and again for the American people, but I'm afraid that in the process he has made himself such a target that he would be mercilessly lambasted if he ran on a Presidential ticket. Anyhow, I don't think he has thoughts about running for the Presidency.

But it's a wonderful thought.

He has such an understanding of due process and has worked so hard to protect our Constitutional rights that I think he would be great for putting things back together.

AND I think all US DEMS would love to see him make the rethugs sweat when they try to requisition a room to hold a hearing...

Thanks for sharing your experience, TfC, I'm sure there are hundreds more just like yours.

In your field, the results are nothing less than mass murder. First degree.


Surprised Al didn't go into national security threat...http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/02/25/pentagoners/

Just in my section of the FDA (The Center for Devices and Radiological Health) I have heard of several cases where a group of scientists work for months reviewing an application for device approval, and they recommend DISapproval. And then they are over-ruled by upper management, who has considerably less knowledge of the device than the scientists who spent all that time reviewing it.

I can just imagine what the reason is:eyes:

I particularly like how you formulate "the unholy alliance"

I just want to point out that it's global. The rest of the 'civilized' world has a more or less watered-down version of the US system, and similar policies are enacted in most of the rest of the world by international institutions created by the same corporations - institutions such as IMF, WTO, World Bank - by means of so-called "free trade agreements".

But I believe that the central problem at this time is the United States, and more specifically the Bush administration. I believe that under this administration we have sunk to record lows, at least since the Guilded Age of the late 19th Century. And I also think that we are substantially worse right now than any other developed country - and that is why we are, rightfully IMO, regarded as pariah's in today's world. And also, as the most powerful country in the world today, we should be setting an example for the rest of the world rather than bullying it.

A disgusting, but not too surprising tale (and what does that say about what our country has become?). How many thousands of similar stories never get told because of those "privacy" regulations you mention, or because their would-be tellers are intimidated into staying quiet?

Even people I know have asked my advice on how to handle situations where they feel pressured to recommend approving something that they feel strongly is not good.

I'm sure that events like this have always existed in this country - in fact I'm quite sure of it. But I also think that the frequency of these kinds of things is much higher than it used to be or ever was. I'm pretty sure that's true at the FDA. It has to do with the fact that our administration is so pro-industry and so anti-consumer and worker, and his minions know what's expected of them. Also it has to do with the shining ethical example that he sets :sarcasm:

I agree with what you're saying, this unholy alliance definitely needs to be exposed. But I appreciate the fact that Gore didn't devote this film to making attacks on the opposition; as scary as the film is, it's actually a catch more flies with honey approach by getting a wide audience of all political stripes to understand that the reality of global warming is scientific, not political.

You are correct in pointing out that the roadblock to solving global warming is most definitely political, I'm sure any film tackling this perspective would be well over 3 hours minimum. Thanks for pointing out a lot of the disinformation being propogated, hopefully whoever is President in 2008 will call the bullshit for what it is.

I hadn't thought of it as being honey coated, but I guess you're right that it did have some honey on it.

But still, I thought that he was quite straight forward about pointing out how those with financial interest in stopping talk of global warming have been putting out a lot of disinformation for a long time. I expect this film to be attacked ruthlessly as elections hang in the balance, including those that don't even involve Gore directly.

You were attempting to do your job, and you were punished for speaking out. I just wanted to say that I really admire the work that you and other researchers in health, safety, and environmental agencies have been trying to do, to protect the rest of us. Unfortunately I have been hearing more and more stories like this. Scientists in fields as diverse as forestry, pediatrics, medical geography, and hydrology have been leaned on to suppress their findings. Like that grad student in Oregon whose own dean tried to get his paper pulled from "Science" because he was scared the timber companies would not give money to the school. And all the global warming researchers who've been subjected to ugly personal attacks.

Last night I was reading "Dark Age Ahead", by Jane Jacobs, and she discusses the disrespect that's arisen in both government and industry, towards science. As you point out, it really has become an unholy alliance!

The personal injury to me from this was quite minor. But it was a terribly unethical thing to do. For a supposedly scientifc gobernment agencey that is trying to protect consumers by overseeing an industry, to let that industry dictate its actions to it. That is an egregious abuse of the public's trust IMO. In fact, the editor of the journal was very angry, and he wrote an editorial for his own journal, lambasting both the FDA and the manufacturer.

I think you're right about the disrespect for science these days. I believe that only a small minority of people share that anti-science point of view, but those are the people who are running our country today - for obvious reasons. This administration would mean the death of the world if it stayed in power beyond 2009. And somehow, I just can't see them leaving peacefully.

"This administration would mean the death of the world if it stayed in power beyond 2009."

It's tragic that this may really be the final straw for humanity.

IT IS THAT SERIOUS.



peace

:toast:

your personal story was also compelling and eerily similar to a story i just saw documented in the movie "The Corporation". It's about two reporters who were about to blow the lid off the dangers of Bovine Growth hormones used in milk cows and negative health effect on humans. Just before it was about to air (approved by the station editors-Fox!)They were shut down by corporate lawyers from Monsanto that threatened "grave consequences" ie..to pull all it's advertising dollars from the station and legal action that would cost millions. The station editor first tried to kill the story to the reporters refusal, then to edit the story to Monsanto's liking (83 edits) and then tried to fire the reporters. The story was ultimately killed to the publics detriment.

When money talks.. truth walks.

That's the problem with for-profit media.

The for-profit media can't stop pushing people to buy stuff that they don't need - the mindset necessary if there is to be any change. And not only stuff that people don't need - but as you say - they can't even report on informative stuff that is in our interests.


Which is why it was such a big deal to have the Republicans/corporations take over CPB - the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The media is getting to be quite useless these days. It's funny how much authority the Mainstream Media still has (even around here) - even though it has been documented how bogus they are.

"The Corporation" sounds like a good movie to see.

How true.

It will take a lot of work on this to take back the news media, and until we do it is a tremendous weapon for the conservative cause.

because they've lost so much business. I stopped milk and cheese quite awhile ago because of it, and I know a lot of other people did too.

Monsanto is truly evil - google Percy Schmeiser.

But Monsanto wasn't able to stop "The Corporation" from being aired, right? That was confusing me while I was reading your post.

And come to think of it, was the movie fact or fiction? - it sounds too real to be fiction.

You can read about it here. As for whether or not Monsanto was able to stop the piece from being aired, I'm not sure.

"I just paid $$$$$$$$$$$$ for this television station - Then news is what I say it is". That sounds about right. I wonder where that quote came from?

I share your concern and belief that the anti-environmental, anti-science position of the Administration has always been about corporate interests. Furhtermore I believe the Un-Holy Alliance between corporatists and Christian fundamentalism always boils back to corporatism.

Your personal account was very telling, gives you credibility and an interesting point of view on this subject. Who's to say how many harmful devices, pharmaceuticals are out there harming people who trust the FDA. It is very disturbing. Thank you for sharing.

ly under the Bush administration policies we will see more and more of this kind of thing.

Here is an article by the same reporter who wrote the one in my OP, talking about how the FDA is planning to create rules that would protect manufacturers against civil lawsuits:

http://www.rense.com/general69/bdnk.htm

Here is the most applicable quote:

"The policy could help companies argue they weren't required to warn consumers about a potential risk when the FDA had determined that the safety issue didn't warrant inclusion on a medicine's label."

I think it is safe to say, that "if Al Gore is elected President in 2008" there would be many major changes.

Hey, we've had to suffer under this Mis-administration that furthered "their" careers and pockets. It's far past time for a major change for (us) and the planet.

Gore/Finegold
Gore/Edwards
Gore/Kerry

Gore/? whatever. Just as long as it's Gore.

I think also that Gore's getting screwed in 2000 could make him a sentimental favorite in many quarters.

Had to add this, though days later, because I heard it last night, and several times today.

Al, run with Feingold or Kerry
:thumbsup:

with Kerry, Feingold or WES CLARK !!!

...was another one of the movie's "secondary points" that I thought really needed to be highlighted, and it's certainly another effect of the "unholy alliance".

The gurus of "free trade" keep saying that tight emissions standards reduce our competitivness, but everyone else has tighter standards. We can't "compete" if we don't meet the standards for their markets.

But, innovation costs more than bribery, so in the interest of maximizing performance in the next quareterly report, guess which gets done?

When I was in the corporate workforce we had an acronym PWP which could alternately be said to be products without people (just make one minor change and call it a new product) or profit without people (let's layoff lots of people and then see whether we can function - if not call a few back to work). The bottom line always made every decision, no respect for people, environment or customers.

It appears as though this philosophy has been wholly adopted by government now.

At least corporations aren't elected by the people, and they can use the excuse that it is their job to produce profits for their company, and they weren't elected to care about the environment, customers, or their workers.

But we elect government officials to serve the people. And when they serve corporate interests instead, that is an egregious breach of the public trust.

system, there's a revolving door between corp and govt employees.

I blame the bad apples, and the people who go along with them to get along.

Edit ps great OP

We need legislation in this country against legalized bribery about as much as we need anything.

...as we wring our hands and whine about the corruption in politics...as we bitch about the 'unholy alliance' of corporations, the media and politicians, I keep asking myself what's the solution? I mean we didn't get into this mess overnight and trimming around the edges won't do enough to deal with the real problem. To me the fundamental changes that must be made - after kicking all the repigs out of office that we can, of course - is to make wholesale changes in media ownership, reversing those provisions that allowed so much consolidation of ownership and control, AND, the biggest of all, massive changes in the rules and the financing of elections. Public financing of course, but also strict limits on the official campaign periods, limits on the amount and type of 'paid-media' exposure and certainly reining in of the private groups that skirt around the rules.

Until we get the massive amount of money out of the election system...until we rid ourselves, and the politicians, of the need to raise more and more money in order to run a campaign, we will never be able to avoid this crap. They, the politicians, need the money so they take it...corporations (including those that own the media) know they need the money so they offer it - in return for what they want. I believe that without the huge pressure of raising all that money we will be surprised just how quickly these people will return to being true statesmen who's primary goal is to do the right thing for the country and for the people.

Take the money out of politics with meaningful campaign finance reform, including much more public financing of elections, and bring back the media ownership rules that we once had, to bring back a meaningful press.

But I hope you don't think that I was "whining" about the problem in my OP. And I certainly wouldn't take all the blame off of the politicians because they're operating in a bad system. Many of them -- Bush, Delay, Rove, Abrahmoff as prime examples, suck the blood out of the system for all they can get, and they also abuse it in the belief that they won't be held accountable. I don't think that you were trying to do that, but I felt a need to make that point.

government, corporate power, and the press

Thank goodness the WSJ published your article on the extremely dangerous medical device after the FDA suppressed it in compliance with the manufacturer's pressure.

Yes, that's the way this government works: corruption, lies and greed at every level, serving only the powerful corporations - in a word, fascism.

I find a glimmer of encouragement, though, in the fact that someone with a conscience leaked the report and that the Wall Street Journal did publish it. The truth, however suppressed, has great power. Similarly, Al Gore's movie is making an impression, and it shows the lies and the liars for what they are.

about the corrupt suppression of the report on the dangerous medical device by the FDA, complying with the guilty manufacturer. Or, if you are not at liberty to write more about the extremely alarming and sordid story reported by the WSJ, then we should.

The high-ranking FDA official(s), company officers, and others involved in suppression of the dangerous truth about the implant are guilty of premeditated murder. I would very much like to know who at the FDA issued the order to suppress the story and whether anyone at the White House was involved. Open surgery is safer than use of the implant, but it doesn't fatten the profits of the company. Sickening. This MUST be widely exposed.

Actually, it would be better if someone else wrote this rather than me, since I would be putting my career in jeopardy by doing that, if it got too much publicity (which is the point, right?) -- though I would be enthusiastic about helping out with it, to make sure that it accurately reflected what happened. Also, it should be based on the WSJ article rather than my OP, which should be no problem, since I did not include anything in my OP that was not in the WSJ article - as I could be fired for doing that.

I would look forward to working on this with you - your outrage over injustices like this are what DU is all about.
:toast:

If this issue and incident haven't already hit the spotlight by then.

I need to explain a few things that would be better by pm.

Yes, the reporter did an excellent job on this article, and the WSJ didn't appear to have any qualms about publishing it. Despite the extremely sorry state of our news media today, there ARE a lot of conscientious and good reporters out there.

active role in seeing to it that this story of the dangerous device gets past the wall of suppression.

I know you'll disagree with what I say next, TfC, but to me you are a hero.

most of us on DU are heroes because we care enough about our country to do what little or not so little parts we can to publicize and discuss ideas for making it better.

New York Times article reported an earlier incident with a similar plot in this Feb 17, 2006 DU thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2115577
thread title: Device Won Approval Though F.D.A. Staff Objected

Excerpt:


I'd be curious to know if any of the same names came up as being involved in both this case and the current Medtronics case. My expectation: Bush appointees will have their fingers in both of these cases and more.

And then there's the whole issue of misdirection, suppression and lies related to religious extremism trumping public health or science, as reported in this current DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1464026
thread title (6-19-06): The New Lies About Women's Health (Sexy Pic to get your attention!)

Yes, more exposure of the corruption of the FDA under Bush43 is urgently needed. The cases discussed here are only the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure. Just think of how much they've been able to hide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/politics/17fda.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

(Registration required)

When I clicked on that link, this is the URL of the page I got:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1FFC3B5A0C748DDDAB0894DE404482

Which contains the title, date, authors, abstract and a statement that to get more requires registration:



As a Times Select subscriber, I opened the link to the archived article, which is here:
http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20E1FFC3B5A0C748DDDAB0894DE404482

Reading the entire article gave me some deja vu after reading Time for Change's experience in the opening post of the current thread. The evidence for efficacy was lacking. For example, in a key experiment, there was actually no control group! Dismayed scientists emailed each other:

You were right to feel a sense of deja vu, because this story is very similar to the experience I discussed in my OP. And yes, there is similarity in the names as well.

Here is another couple of FDA articles that I posted on similar subjects several months ago:

On breast implants:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4980295

And a scathing criticism by that bastion of hot headed libralism, the Journal of the American Medical Association:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2264993

Smells of corporate bribery and corruption of key FDA official(s) at the expense of the lives, health and money of vulnerable patients to me. Whatever is behind it, these acts are clearly wrong and must be exposed and stopped.