The Washington Times made the following editorial announcements: here and here.
"Had the Times known these facts, we would not have run the article."
"It isn’t likely that we will run op-eds by the American Council on Science and Health in the future."
In their "note to readers" the Washington Times states that USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Los Angeles Times had also published Dr. Ross.
But, MediaMatters reports that the Washington Times published 6 OpEds by Dr. Gilbert Ross within the past two years–
and 13 editorials authored by him since 1998.
In 2005, Bill Hogan of Mother Jones exposed Dr. Gilbert Ross–both his criminal record and his prolific output of disinformation on behalf of the American Council on Science and Health:
"It was Ross who defended the Wood Preservative Science Council, saying that, contrary to reams of scientific evidence, the arsenic in pressure-treated wood poses "no risk to human health"; Ross who wrote on behalf of the farmed-salmon industry that the PCBs in fish "are not a cause of any health risk, including cancer"; and Ross whose organization once asserted that the jury’s still out on whether environmental cigarette smoke really is hazardous to your health. Much of his time is spent tarnishing noncorporate-sponsored work as junk science of questionable motive."
"When American corporations come up against inconvenient science, say, a study showing that mercury in fish can damage a developing fetus, or that a blockbuster drug has nasty side effects, they call in the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). Industry-funded ACSH is the most aggressive debunker of pesky research reports emanating from government and academia. Its medical/executive director’s calm, soothing voice can be heard on television and radio, quelling public fears about the latest bad news about health and the environment."
Given the expose in Mother Jones (2005) it is difficult to excuse the Washington Times for its repeated selection of Dr. Ross and the ACSH–who are in the business of tarnishing objective (i.e. noncorporate-sponsored) scientific findings that threaten the business interests of their corporate funders as "junk science"–as if Ross / ACSH were impartial authorities on health safety issues.
The second WT editorial response to AHRP’s Infomail bearing the headline:
"Dishonest Alliance for Human Research Protection."
So, here’s the Question:
What is dishonest about informing AHRP Infomail readers that the author of the Washington Times OpEd who lambasted the Senate Finance Committee’s investigative report disclosing evidence about the potentially fatal hazards of GlaxoSmithKlines’ diabetes drug, Avandia, has a criminal background involving healthcare fraud????
Vera Hassner Sharav