Matrix Security

Image from the movie “Iraq for Sale”Military contractor DynCorp has retained Qorvis Communications for “messaging and image work,” reports O’Dwyer’s. Qorvis is best known as being the PR firm for the Saudi Arabian government. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, is investigating DynCorp for “accounting problems and unauthorized spending.” At issue is a $43.8 million State Department contract “for a camp that was never used by police trainers,” including $4.2 million that DynCorp billed for “unauthorized work.” Another $36.4 million expenditure, intended “for weapons and equipment, including armored vehicles, body armor and communications equipment … cannot be accounted for,” reports the Dallas Morning News. DynCorp also holds contracts for police training in Afghanistan — and a new $95.6 million U.S. Army contract, “to support and maintain various aircraft fleet,” reports Associated Press.

Where I got the story

Some public-health officials say [drug] industry-funded doctors are ignoring … studies that suggest cold turkey is just as effective or even superior to nicotine patches and other pharmaceuticals over the long run, not to mention cheaper,” reports Kevin Helliker. One example: Dr. Michael Fiore, who headed the panel that developed federal guidelines on smoking cessation, “runs an academic research center funded in part by drug companies that make quit-smoking aids” and has personally “received tens of thousands of dollars in speaking and consulting fees from those companies.” At least eight other members on the federal panel also “had ties to the makers of stop-smoking products,” such as GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. The panel now revising the guidelines includes seven members with industry ties, including Fiore, who continues to head it. Health researcher Lois Biener pointed out that most smokers “who do quit successfully do so without” drugs. But the bias for patches and drugs is strong. “In November 2006, during the week of the Great American Smokeout, doctors around the country participated in a campaign called ‘Don’t Go Cold Turkey.’ the creator of the campaign was GlaxoSmithKline.”

Where I got the story

Updating Bush’s spin on climate change
The White House is choosing the president’s past words carefully in its portrayal of him as a longtime ally in the fight against global warming.
By Maura Reynolds and James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writers
February 11, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush is widely considered one of the world’s most prominent skeptics of global warming. But to hear White House officials tell it, the world’s view of him is wrong.

In recent days, White House officials have made a special effort to argue that Bush has always been concerned about climate change. Moreover, they say, he has long acknowledged that human activity may be a significant factor.

“Perhaps folks have not taken notice of the fact that this is an administration that’s been keenly committed both to environmentalism and conservationism from the start,” White House spokesman Tony Snow said last week.

Indeed, the climate around global warming in Washington is getting hotter. Members of both parties are scrambling to get ahead of each other — and ahead of public demands — to take measures against the threat.

Apparently concerned that Bush was not perceived as being on the global warming bandwagon, White House officials released an unusual open letter Wednesday contending that “climate change has been a top priority since the president’s first year in office.”

“Beginning in June 2001, President Bush has consistently acknowledged climate change is occurring and humans are contributing to the problem,” said the letter, signed by John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

But the record isn’t quite so clear.

The letter cites a June 2001 speech by Bush, quoting him as saying that “we know the surface temperature of the Earth is warming…. There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming…. And the National Academy of Sciences indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity.”

But the parts of the speech excised or ignored by the letter give a somewhat different impression. For instance, the citation deletes a sentence that asserts that “concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution” — a time frame suggesting that the contemporary world may have played only a small role.

Moreover, Bush’s mention of the National Academy of Sciences was quickly followed by a sentence that cast doubt on the notion of human contribution to climate change. “Yet the academy’s report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming,” Bush said at the time.

“We do not know how fast change will occur or even how some of our actions could impact it,” he added.

Critics see such discrepancies as evidence that the White House is trying to take positions on both sides of the debate. “The president is all over the map,” said Daniel Becker, a global warming expert with the Sierra Club, an environmental group.

The critics argue that Bush soft-pedaled the issue early in his presidency because of pressure from corporate interests, such as oil companies and operators of coal-fired power plants, that oppose regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They note his frequent statements that technology is the answer to the problem.

“America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil,” Bush said last month in his State of the Union address. “And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.”

Last week’s release of a United Nations commission report proclaiming that global warming is incontrovertible has put additional pressure on Bush to appear responsive.

However, despite his pledge to devote new funds to research and to support efforts to curb the use of gasoline, critics remain unconvinced that Bush truly intends to confront longtime business allies.

Bush’s latest pronouncements suggest that he is no longer ignoring the problem, Becker said, but also that he is still not committed to acting.

Critics say that Bush has repeatedly pledged to take action on climate change, only to backtrack.

The pattern began, they say, in Saginaw, Mich., on Sept. 29, 2000, during Bush’s first presidential campaign. While calling for greater production of oil and natural gas, and more coal mining to reduce the reliance on foreign oil, he also said that “with the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean-air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time.”

Six months later, as president, Bush stepped away from that pledge, saying he had decided not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants out of concern that doing so could increase already high energy prices.

But perhaps the defining moment came in June 2001, when he declared the Kyoto Protocol — the United Nations’ consensus document on climate change — “fatally flawed in fundamental ways” and announced that the United States was withdrawing from the pact. That is the speech his aides are now citing as evidence of his commitment to tackling the problem of global warming.

Kyoto “would have been economically ruinous and would have thrown a lot of people out of work,” Snow said last week. “The president instead has aggressively pursued ways of trying to clean the environment that don’t have to make people lose their jobs, and … at the same time, proceed on all the major areas where pollution is concerned.”

The Kyoto agreement, completed in 1997, proposed carbon dioxide emission caps for the 35 richest countries. President Clinton signed it but never submitted it to the Senate, where it would have faced certain defeat from lawmakers concerned about the protocol’s impact on the U.S. economy and irked that it did little to curb emissions from such large developing nations as China and India.

Bush in effect erased Clinton’s signature, removing the United States from any obligation to meet the pact’s emissions-reduction goals even without Senate ratification.

At the same time, Bush sought to blame global warming on “a natural greenhouse effect,” suggesting it wasn’t primarily caused by human activity. And, though acknowledging that limiting emissions was one way to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases, he immediately raised issues with such an approach, saying, “A growing population requires more energy to heat and cool our homes, more gas to drive our cars.”

Whether White House officials succeed in their campaign to paint the president as a leader in battling global warming may, at this point, make little difference. The energy on the issue has moved to Congress, where the Democrats — now the majority in both chambers — and prominent Republicans are pressing ahead with an agenda that may depend little on Bush.

“For years we have been frustrated by the lack of recognition, much less cooperation, on the part of the administration in addressing this issue,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a potential presidential candidate in 2008. “Hopefully, we have now turned the corner, in that there is finally recognition that the debate is over.”

——————————————————————————–
maura.reynolds@latimes.com

james.gerstenzang@ latimes.com

Times researcher Robin Cochran contributed to this report

Where I got the Story

Philip Morris (PM) is a sophisticated company that runs at least ten years ahead of public health authorities in devising strategies to shape its destiny and preserve its future markets. PM knew that sooner or later push would come to shove and public pressure would make the U.S. government try to regulate its products and corporate behavior, especially after the U.S. Department of Justice found PM guilty of 50 years of conspiracy to defraud the public about the dangers of its products. True to form, in 1999 PM started an internal project called the Regulatory Strategy Project to enact Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations on the company’s own terms. During the project, in 2000, PM generated a “Privileged and Confidential” document listing what the company would require in what it sees as “sensible” FDA regulations.

The document is heavily edited by John Holleran of Philip Morris Management’s Legal Department, and states, “We [PM] support strong but sensible FDA regulation of cigarettes based on five core principles.”

The first principal is that FDA “not infringe on the right of adult Americans to choose to take the risks of smoking” and that FDA be prohibited from banning cigarettes and having the power to alter cigarettes to make smoking unpalatable to smokers. This principal would both preserve a market for cigarettes and assure that cigarettes remain available.

The second requirement is that FDA regulate cigarette design and manufacturing processes “to assure that no additives increase the inherent risks of smoking” and that cigarette ingredients be “fully disclosed to FDA in a framework that protects trade secrets.” The simultaneous requirements of full disclosure and maintaining trade secrets seem contradictory, since “full disclosure” means the absence of secrets.

The third principle says that “The long-range goal of FDA regulation should be to reduce the risks of smoking by encouraging industry innovations,” and that “FDA should set standards that allow products to be certified as ‘reduced risk’ and marketed as ‘reduced risk.’ ” This measure would appear to have a goal of transferring liability for tobacco products onto the FDA.

The 4th principle PM requires that FDA “assure continuous, updated disclosures to smokers as science evolves so that people continue to be fully informed of the risks of smoking.” As it is written, this measure presumes that smokers are already fully informed about the risks of smoking, and places the burden of public health education about tobacco products onto FDA and takes it off the manufacturers.

Two alternatives are listed for the fifth requirement, which nominally claims to address youth smoking:

“5. (Alternative 1) In the area of youth smoking prevention, FDA should set policies that acknowledge the significant changes created by the MSA (Master Settlement Agreement) and, like the MSA, recognize the legitimacy of marketing communications to adult smokers…”

The first alternative further says that, “Marketing to adults…should not be regulated by the FDA.” Instead of addressing youth smoking as the introduction suggests, this principle appears to be aimed at protecting marketing to adults.

The second version of principle #5 says, “FDA should NOT be given a specific regulatory responsibility regarding how cigarettes are marketed and sold. Through the [Master Settlement Agreement], states have a strong legal framework for preventing tobacco marketing to youth. The FDA’s mission is and should be scientific in nature — focusing on the products and its risks.” The document threatens to embark on a Constitutional legal challenge if FDA makes any effort to regulate tobacco marketing. The second version of principle #5 also says, somewhat haughtily, “There is no need for the FDA to use its scarce resources on youth smoking prevention. That is best left to others.”

This paper represents the starting point for laying out the elements of what PM wants in its preferred FDA regulation. Taken as a whole, the document indicates that PM’s goals in pressing for FDA regulation are:

1) To assure a future market for cigarettes,

2) To preserve the company’s ability to make cigarettes that appeal to their market,

3) To safeguard the ability to market cigarettes without restrictions,

4) To keep FDA from engaging in smoking prevention efforts, particularly among youth,

6) To prevent FDA from obtaining any authority to restrict the marketing and promotion of cigarettes,

7) To give FDA the responsibility of fully informing the public about the dangers of tobacco use, rather than the manufacturers,

8) To transfer legal liability for the safety of tobacco products onto the FDA, while allowing cigarette companies to continue to design and market cigarettes as they see fit.

Of course, all the principles PM laid out in this document serve to protect the cigarette business rather than public health. While the major health groups and Philip Morris currently are the only groups that are privy to the text of the recently-introduced Kennedy/Waxman bill to regulate tobacco, it would be prudent when the bill becomes available to see how many of PM’s Core Principles are in it. If they are, the bill will benefit Philip Morris, and be detrimental to effective future regulation of tobacco

Where I got the Story

Judge says Internet documents fall outside injunctions’ reach
By Michael Muskal, Times Staff Writer
3:58 PM PST, February 13, 2007

A federal judge in New York gave websites a partial victory by acknowledging today that when documents are published on the Internet they take on a life of their own, an existence that cannot be reversed by a court.

Senior U.S. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein issued a mixed decision in the closely watched case involving documents relating to the drug Zyprexa. The case pitted opponents of the drug against its manufacturer, Eli Lilly & Co., and both sides claimed at least part of a victory.
——————————————————————————–
FOR THE RECORD:
Documents: This story stated that the Zyprexa documents were published on the Wikipedia website. In fact, the entry in Wikipedia provided a link to the documents, which were on another website. —

——————————————————————————–
The Brooklyn jurist ordered that the documents be returned to the proper officials and enjoined eight parties from further distributing the documents, which are part of civil liability cases. But Weinstein noted that the wave of modern communication made it all but impossible to extend a traditional legal remedy such as an injunction to the Internet.

“To extend the reach of the injunction further might involve the court in attempting to control a constantly expanding universe of those who might have, or will have, access by reason of the original breach,” Weinstein wrote.

“That such an amplified injunction could be enforced effectively is doubtful. Even if enforcement were possible, on policy grounds the risk of unlimited inhibitions on free speech should be avoided when practicable,” he said.

Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group that works for digital rights, praised what he agreed was a split decision. The foundation represented an anonymous individual who was earlier barred by Weinstein from posting web links to the Zyprexa documents.

“My client is pleased because he is no longer part of the injunction,” Von Lohmann said in a telephone interview. “The bad news is that others still are restrained and that the judge didn’t decide this based on the 1st Amendment.”

Lilly also claimed victory, though the company didn’t know whether it would appeal. Weinstein delayed implementing the order for 10 days to allow an appeal.

“We are very pleased the judge reaffirmed the validity of the protective order so that the litigation can proceed according to the law,” Marni Lemons, a spokesperson for Lilly, said in a telephone interview. “The judge acknowledged that [the documents] got out in a reprehensible and illegal manner. Lilly certainly feels vindicated.”

But “there is a certain element of the genie being out of the bottle,” she added.

The case deals with documents relating to Zyprexa, also known as olanzapine, which is used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The drug accounted for an estimated 28% of Eli Lilly & Co.’s $14 billion a year in revenue.

Critics have sued Lilly, contending that the company failed to adequately warn Zyprexa users that the drug could heighten the danger of weight gain and raise the level of blood sugar, possibly leading to diabetes. The company has denied that Zyprexa causes diabetes.

Lilly has announced that it had settled 18,000 lawsuits involving Zyprexa and would take a maximum charge of $500 million. In June 2005, the company agreed to pay about $700 million to settle 8,000 Zyprexa-related suits.

About 1,200 cases are still pending, Lemons said.

In such product liability litigation, the company is usually required to make internal documents available to the opposition lawyers. Lilly gave thousands of pages of e-mails, studies and research.

The documents, which were confidential by court order, were eventually given to several news organizations, including the New York Times. The drug company contends that the documents were selectively leaked to support the critics’ arguments.

The Times published stories based on the leaked documents, which the paper said showed that Lilly had tried for a decade to minimize the risks of taking Zyprexa.

In addition to the Times, the documents were published on a variety of websites, including Wikipedia.

On Dec. 18, Lilly obtained a temporary court order to get its documents back. The New York Times refused, but other Web links were ordered shut down.

Weinstein was asked to give the websites the broadest constitutional protection, but the jurist stopped well short of that and kept his ruling narrow. “No newspaper or website is directed to do anything or to refrain from doing anything,” he said.

mailto:michael.muskal@latimes.com

Where I got the story