Palaces For The People
Friday, May 28, 2004
Michael Gough - Disinfopedia
(Revision as of 00:32, 28 May 2004)
Michael Gough was involved as "peer-review" for a deception piece crafted by the Tobacco Institute: SCIENCE, ECONOMICS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: A CRITICAL EXAMINATION. He has since been identified as associated with the usual suspects of think tanks, and same-funders. He is a very activist collaborator in the modern disinformation scene.
Michael Gough co-authored a book with Steven J. Milloy, appropriately and ironically titled Silencing Science published by Cato Institute. Gough is listed as "hired gun" for trial testimony by Atlantic Legal Foundation, which is a Koch-Scaife-Coors-Bradley funded organ.   Moore's activities are known to blow smoke at Dioxin dangers, and climate change worries in manners uncannily similar to his co-authors Michael Fumento,  and Steven J. Milloy, all of which hang their hats at the same set of institutes and front organs.
In one tract, THE FEAR PROFITEERS , Gough, Fumento, and Milloy were all included among the eight authors, tying them together in an undisputable package.  In the one-hand-washing-each-other theory, Fumento from Monsanto-funded Hudson Institute needs to whitewash Dioxin that Monsanto produced, and Gough slips into his white labcoat and helps his buddy.
The internet site, CFIS.org (Citizens for the Integrity of Science), is registered to Steve Milloy's home address in posh Potomac, MD, with Steve Milloy listed as the administrative contact. So who is actually paying for junkscience.com? We don't know, and Milloy has repeatedly refused to disclose his patrons.
CFIS does appear to have some sort of board, though we know of only two members, including Milloy. In a May 11,1999 Freedom of Information Act filed by Citizens for the Integrity of Science posted on the Junkscience web page, Steve Milloy listed himself and Michael Gough of the Competitive Enterprise Institute as "Directors" of Citizens for the Integrity of Science, with TASSC's old 1155 Connecticut address and contact info, which is also Milloy's current business address. 
Additional material added May 27th, 2004, needs some merge-editing by some volunteer with some time to spend...
Full and Sufficient evidence of Michael Gough's intimate connections to Philip Morris, Tobacco Institute, TASSC's Steven J. Milloy, tobacco-funded Cato Institute and a long-term campaign of use of dishonest scientific methods to aid corporate serial murderers,
Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc., "Choices In Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process" Date: 1994
Length: 293 pages
page 7 "We would like to express our deep appreciation to ... Michael Gough, Ph.D. (Manager, Biological Applications Program, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress) ..."
Steven J. Milloy, Project Manager
Pamela S. Aycock, Research Manager
Jason E. Johnston, Senior Research Associate
Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc.
A documented 1994 connection between Michael Gough and Steven J. Milloy is demonstrated by this Tobacco Institute document.
Copies of report can be ordered on Milloy's website:
http://www.junkscience.com/order.html, Choices in Risk Assessment: The Role of Science Policy in the Environmental Risk Management Process. Published in 1994 by the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project for the U.S. Department of Energy. 270 pages.
Michael Gough and Steven J. Milloy will go on to many collaboration projects in the decade following this first evidence of teamwork.
At this moment in history, 1994, Michael Gough has been publically playing the role of conspicuous loose-cannon scientist. In what must surely be a staged series of events, he writes a preposterous letter to a Philip Morris executive that is milked over and over in tobacco PR campaigns.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke Science or Social Policy? Date: 1992 (est.)
Length: 32 pages
Type: SPCH, SPEECH, PRESENTATION
In October 1990, I sent a copy of the Yale study to Michael Gough, Program Manager, Biological Application Program, in the Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of the United States. The Yale study, you will recall, was the largest study on ETS ever conducted in the United States. And it reported no statistically significant increased risk due to ETS exposure in the home, workplace or in social .settings.
Here is Mr. Gough's response.
Dear Dr. Borelli:
Thank you for your earlier mailing of the Varela Ph.D thesis and your letter of October 3, 1990. Without careful reading of the thesis or careful attention to the ETS issue, I tend to agree with the thesis and the general conclusions of your letter. On the other hand, I probably profoundly disagree with any use that might be made of those conclusions by Philip Morris or any other tobacco company~ Anything that reduces smoking has substantial health benefits, and making smokers into pariahs, for whatever reasons, does just that.
I doubt that either of us benefits from my being on your mailing list. Please remove my name.
- SLIDE 31 -
As you can see he tends to agree with the findings of the study. He agrees with the science. He says the science is right. Then he says the science doesn't matter. He further says, for all intents and purposes that these data should be ignored because of the social agenda against smoking.
- SLIDE 32 -
AS a scientist, I find this kind of attitude to be most disturbing. Science is, after all, the pursuit of knowledge based on truth. Science is not meant to conform, regardless of fact or lack thereof, to the preconceived notions of individuals who have taken it upon themselves to validate a theory that is based on conjecture or the social whims or beliefs of specific groups of individuals. Science is meant to find the truth, and when it comes to ETS, scientific truth has fallen by the wayside.
But, in 1994, Michael Gough was meeting with tobacco company strategists and advising them on exploitable weaknesses for use in disinformation campaigns. So Michael Gough is not as privately anti-smoking as he makes out to be publically.
Ashrae 52-89 Meeting in New Orleans Date: 23 Jan 1994
Length: 3 pages
Author: Mayada Logue
Author (Organization): PM, Philip Morris
Master ID: 2025522931/2939
Michael Gough--quantitative risk assessment to become more ...... important in the fed. govt.
verify risk assessments--cannot because we depend on epidemiology--RISK ASSESSMENTS ARE ESTIMATES ONLY
Indoor radon and voc--unresolved and unresolvable --human evidence all the studies done permit two interpretations (radon) increased risk--not an increase--(doesn' t the SAME APPLY FOR ETS?)
epidemiology is a very crude tool to used to predict risk Jonathan Samet- agreed with Michael Gough that -epi is crude
Samet and Gough--low dose extrapolation not always appropriate
Also in 1994, busy covert tobacco operative, Michael Gough, is finding his way to lending "scientific credibility" to anti-EPA literature being generated by Tobacco Institute pawn Alexis de Tocqueville Institution in two hit pieces they issued by Kent Jeffreys and S. Fred Singer.
the EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Date: 1994 (est.)
Length: 19 pages
Author Jeffreys, K.; Singer, S.F.
Author (Organization) Alexis de Tocqueville Institution; University of Virginia
Characteristic DRFT, DRAFT
Type SCRT, SCIENTIFIC REPORT; FOOT, FOOTNOTE
Full text (2 fragments)
page 7 S. EPA, Report, at page 4-1. 10 See, for example, Michael Gough, "Reevaluating the Risks From Dioxin," Journal...
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: a Critical Examination, 11 Aug 1994, 70 pages
Author Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Full text (6 fragments)
page 3 Economics University of Tennessee-Chattanooga Dr. Michael Darby Professor of Economics and Director J.M...
Lowder Eminent Scholar Auburn University Dr. Michael Gough Project Director Congressional Office of...
Professor of Economics University of Georgia Dr, Michael Marlow Professor of Economics Calilomia State...
page 16 EPA, Report, at page 4-1. 10. See, for example, Michael Gough, "Reevaluating the Risks From Dioxin," Journal of...
EPA, Report, at page 4-28. 13. See, for example, Michael Fumento, "Is EPA Blowing Its Own Smoke?" lnv~tor...
page 1-2, 1-3. 15. For a general discussion, see Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege, (William Morrow...
page 68 66 (1981), pp. 1193- 1308; see also, generally, Michael Gough, "Risk Assessment and the Misplaced Focus on...
The utter total moral corruption of S. Fred Singer and Kent Jeffreys is dealt with at length elsewhere in the Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: a Critical Examination page.
Michael Gough's role was to appear to be tobacco-hostile to lend an air of "balance" to the peer-review panel. He is famous letter to Philip Morris already established his anti-smoking credentials. Alexis de SMOKEville Institution uses him to create an illusion of a vigilant watchdog wary of tobacco trickery defending the integrity of their reports. However, compliant Michael Gough has an inventory of quotes for all occasions that his future book co-author, Michael Fumento, uses freely to help establish the "science-support" for their tobacco-funded propaganda.
Is Epa Blowing Its Own Smoke? How Much Science Is Behind Its Tobacco Finding? Date: 28 Jan 1993
Length: 2 pages
Author: Fumento, M.
page 2 "You cannot run science with the government changing the rules all the time.,,
- Michael Gough
1993, going into the year that Alexis de SMOKEville Institution will use Michael Gough's quotes and person to boost their fraudulent science report, Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: a Critical Examination, sees Michael Gough's crafty groundwork appearing in other similar propaganda pieces.
Do Rodent Studies Predict Human Cancers? Date: 1993 (est.)
Length: 45 pages
Author: Wildavsky, A.
Type: SCRT, REPORT, SCIENTIFIC
The argument that if we don't regulate we'll count dead bodies is dead wrong. The predicted cancer rate at one in a million (one, even one in 100,000 or one in 10,000) is so low it will never be detected by epidemiology or any other method unless we know a lot more about the mechanism of cancer causation. By this time the reader should have smelled the rat in this argument. "The problem with . . . risk assessments.., based on animal tests," the Office of Technology Assessment's Michael Gough tells students, "is that their theories cannot be tested."47
47Michael Gough, "Chemical Risk Assessment Is Not Science." p. 5. To appear in Chemistry, a publication for undergraduates of the American Chemical Society.
The chemicals regulated, as our Superfund study shows, are so small in amount and so far from people that they could hardly do much damage unless, through unknown mechanisms, very small exposures are doing significant harm. In a seminal study, Michael Gough showed that if everything EPA claimed for its regulation proved out, the most that could happen would amount to a one percent or smaller reduction in cancer rates.58
58Michael Gough. "How Much Cancer Can EPA Regulate Away?" Risk Analysis. Vol. I0, No. I (1990). pp. 1-6.
As early as 1991 we find Michael Gough appearing on a roster sponsored by Cato Institute, a place Michael Gough and Steven J. Milloy both call home in 2004.
Making Sense of Safety Date: 21 Mar 1991
Length: 4 pages
Author (Organization): Cato Inst
March 21-22, 1991
Thursday, March 21
State Salon, Sheraton Carlton
THE MEASUREMENT OF RISK
"Risk Assessment as a Tool for Decisionmaking: Is It Benign or Malignant?"
Richard B. Belzer, Office of Management and Budget
"Estimating Risks and Ignoring Killers"
Michael Gough, Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress
"New Directions for Chemical Risk Assessment"
John Graham, Harvard School of Public Health
Cato Institute, lavishly funded by Philip Morris for many years until very recently, has in turn funded Michael Gough and Steven J. Milloy over the years right up to 2004.
Cato Policy Analysis No. 366 February 2, 2000
The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data
by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy
Michael Gough is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. A biologist by training, he is the author of Dioxin, Agent Orange (1986) and a former staff member at the National Institutes of Health and the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Steven Milloy>, also an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is a lawyer and the publisher of the Junk Science Home Page, www.junkscience.com. He is the author of Science without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research (1995).
January 21, 1997
The EPA's Clean Air-ogance
by Steven J. Milloy and Michael Gough
Mr. Milloy is publisher of the Junk Science Home Page on the World Wide Web. Mr. Gough is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute.
This is another case of government action having unintended consequences. In "The EPA's Clean Air-ogance," Steven J. Milloy and Michael Gough, commenting on air standards, show how "a close inspection of the EPA proposal shows that it lacks a sound basis in science."
366. The Case for Public Access to Federally Funded Research Data, by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy (February 2, 2000)
1. June 1, 1999: Saving Secret Science, by Steven Milloy and Michael Gough
June 1, 1999
Saving Secret Science
by Steven Milloy and Michael Gough
Steven Milloy and Michael Gough, coauthors of Silencing Science, are adjunct scholars at the Cato Institute.
Cato Policy Analysis No. 263 November 12, 1996
EPA Cancer Risk Guidelines:
Guidance to Nowhere
by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy
Michael Gough is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. Steven Milloy> is president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network in Washington, D.C.
... authors Steven Milloy and Michael Gough ... offering readers a "how-to" guide to silencing science. Tips from the authors, with supporting material drawn from real-life cases, cover such areas as banning science education, regulating science out of existence, putting the squeeze on federal or private funds, using intimidation and harassment, seizing researchers' tools, blackmail, playing the lawsuit card, using "the Oliver North Method" (obliterating the evidence), hiding data (refusing to share the data for others to review it), discrediting viewpoints and using the media to spread misinformation.
... Once groups pursuing a political agenda have successfully silenced science, they proceed to "fill the void" they've created. One popular technique for doing that, Gough and Milloy note, is to use "junk science," defined as "exaggerated or overinterpreted science used to advance some predetermined, often politically correct, politically desired, or financially lucrative conclusion." The authors add, "In the best light, junk science is poor science; in the worst light, it is fraud."
February 13, 1998
An Empty Uniform
by Michael Gough And Steven Milloy
Mr. Gough is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. Mr. Milloy is executive director of the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
November 12, 1996
EPA cancer risk guidelines flawed, Cato study says
Proposed changes, based on bad science, are a risk to public health
"The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed revisions to its cancer risk assessment guidelines represent a setback for public health, science and the EPA cancer risk assessment process," says Michael Gough, director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute, in a new Cato study, "EPA’s Cancer Risk Guidelines: Guidance to Nowhere."
Gough and co-author Steven Milloy, president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network
Cato Policy Analysis No. 263 November 12, 1996
EPA Cancer Risk Guidelines:
Guidance to Nowhere
by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy
Michael Gough is director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute. Steven Milloy is president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network in Washington, D.C.
Because Cato may "sanitize" it's website to hide the involvements someday, I list multiple pages, including some pages with links to those pages, so they might forget to clean up them all and leave scraps of evidence of the sanitization effort. There are always non-Cato pages summarizing the evidence, so these guys will never escape their sordid history.
The International Food Information Council (IFIC), an industry-funded group, was created in 1985 to "communicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition" to virtually any group it believes wields Right-wing policy factories are also stepping up their pro-biotech campaign. Earlier this year, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received money from the oil industry, Philip Morris, and from pharmaceutical and chemical companies, hired Michael Gough, PhD as its "biotechnology advocate" to "help advance the great promise of biotechnology in food production, medicine development and environmental protection." For Gough to even use the phrase "environmental protection" is an interesting exercise in hypocrisy, since he has spent much of his career denying that environmental problems even exist. Gough co-authored Silencing Science with internet "junkman" Steven Milloy> (see story on page 10 of this issue), and he frequently trashes health and environmental advocates on the op-ed pages of publications like the Washington Post, the Detroit News, the Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Commerce, and the Chicago Tribune. 4 PR Watch / Fourth Quarter, 1999, page 4
The Charles A. Sanders Page
Tobacco Institute Newsletter, 1977 / tobacco document
Office of Technology Assessment
Sanders was on the OTA Health Program Advisory Committee. Stuart H. Altman of the Florence Heller School at Brandeis University was a fellow committee member. Lester Breslow was Chairman of the Advisory Panel on Efficacy and Safety, and Kenneth E. Warner was a member. Michael Gough of the National Institutes of Health assisted in the preparation of the report. (Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies," OTA, Sep. 1978.)
Image of Gough's famous letter to Philip Morris.
Final note by page author, May 27, 2004: there was a sales employee named "Michael Gough" mentioned in several Philip Morris documents -- he is not a Ph.D, not a "Dr.", and does not write reports on risks. Do not allow a minor confusion to spoil a well documented history and pattern of deception by the person of this article.
* Bonner Cohen, et al., ed., "The Fear Profiteers: Do ‘Socially Responsible’ Businesses Sow Health Scares to Reap Monetary Rewards?", February 2002.