Online: | |
Visits: | |
Stories: |
Story Views | |
Now: | |
Last Hour: | |
Last 24 Hours: | |
Total: |
August 22, 2016
To: Matthew P. Scott, President, Carnegie Institution for Science
To: John L. Hennessy, President, Stanford University
To: Howard Gillman, Chancellor, University of California, Irvine
From: J. Marvin Herndon, Transdyne Corporation
On August 11, 2016, Christine Shearer, Mick West, Ken Caldeira and Stephen J. Davis published in Environmental Research Letters [hereafter ERL] a nine-page letter entitled “Quantifying Expert Consensus against the Existence of a Secret, Large-scale Atmospheric Spraying Program” [Exhibit A]. Yes, that is indeed shabby science. Science is a logical process, not a democratic process. In science consensus is nonsense. Tabulating opinions has no scientific value, although it may deceive those who are unaware. But there is a far, far more serious problem with the ERL letter. The intent of said ERL letter, I allege, is to deceive the scientific community and the public about the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program that has been going on about fifteen years with ever increasing duration and intensity and that poses potentially adverse health consequences for millions of people in America, Canada, Europe and elsewhere. Said publication involving individuals associated with your institutions, I allege, makes your institutions culpable and potentially exposed to litigation in what many consider crimes against humanity.
Said ERL letter states: “There have been no peer-reviewed studies in the scientific literature addressing SLAP [secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program] claims.” That is not true. Two ERL authors, Ken Caldeira and Mick West, were aware of my peer-reviewed article entitled “Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity and Earth’s Biota by Clandestine Geoengineering Activity: Implications for India” published on June 22, 2015 in Current Science, which is associated with the Indian Academy of Sciences [Exhibit B].
There is a well-organized disinformation entity employed to deceive the public about the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program and to deceive the public of the concomitant adverse health effects. Mick West is the administrator for one of the disinformation websites, metabunk.org. There he unwarrantedly discredits scientific observations and evidence and smears individuals’ reputations, including my own. Other persons are also involved in intimidating scientific journal editors with lies and misinformation, and at least in one instance having a face to face meeting with a journal editor to ‘encourage’ unwarranted retraction. Shortly after my Current Science article was published [Exhibit B], an individual contacted the editor with a set of lies and misrepresentations and demanded retraction. The editor, a man of integrity, sent me the verbatim remarks and asked me to respond in writing, which I did [Exhibit E]. The editor would have published the complaint and my response, but the complainer would not give permission to publish.
The disinformation team is well-trained; they succeeded in causing two subsequent peer-reviewed and published scientific papers in public health journals to be retracted without the author being allowed to see the complaints and to respond to them. Exhibit F is a copy of the most recent unwarranted retraction, an article published in Frontiers in Public Health entitled “Human and Environmental Dangers Posed by Ongoing Global Tropospheric Aerosolized Particulates for Weather Modification.” That article provides three independent lines of evidence that the main substance being sprayed into the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is likely toxic coal fly ash and describes some of the serious public health risks. Exhibit G, a posting of communications related to the retraction debacle, gives a clear picture of the unwarranted actions that stem from the disinformation attack on Frontier’s editors and officials.
Frontiers’ protocol for complaints requires that the article’s handling editor first be contacted. ERL author Mick West was the front-man for that operation. In an email dated July 7, 2016, the Frontiers in Public Health Editor Judi Krzyzanowski advised me regarding her being contacted by ERL author Mick West: “I told Mick West that he should publish a rebuttal or scientific paper disproving your theory if he has problems with it. He claimed you didn’t consider the “null hypothesis” that the signatures came from soil. I am not sure that elements from soil leach up into snow, but I also informed him the null hypothesis would be that there is no relationship, not that there is another one.”
In light of the above described evidence, I allege, ERL authors Caldeira and West coopted the good name and resources of your institutions to further deceive the public and the scientific community about the existence of a secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program and to deceive the public of the concomitant adverse health effects. Why? Perhaps it was in response to the announcement of a pending major lawsuit [Exhibit H].
That lawsuit, I posit, may initiate an avalanche of litigation, and rightfully so. No one has the right to deliberately spray toxic particulates into the air millions of people breathe; even Adolph Hitler never stooped that low. So, what should you do?
If I were in your shoes, I would do three things: (1) Force retraction of said ERL letter; (2) Use your public relations resources to mount a campaign to counteract the disinformation that received widespread press coverage due to said ERL letter, and; (3) Use the scientific resources of your institutions to reveal the truth about the secret, large-scale atmospheric spraying program.
Science is all about truth, not deception, not deceit, and not turning a blind eye. You should restore integrity to your institutions. Why? To avoid potential litigation exposure and, more importantly, to restore the lost sense of humanity that should be a part of science and the institutions serving the public.
Sincerely,
J. Marvin Herndon, Ph.D.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A Published Environmental Research Letters letter
Exhibit B Current Science article
Exhibit C K. Caldeira email
Exhibit D Excerpt from metabunk.org
Exhibit E Response to Current Science criticism
Exhibit F Retracted Frontiers in Public Health article
Exhibit G Communications related to Frontiers retraction
Exhibit H 60 Day notification of lawsuit
https://www.facebook.com/SocalSkywatch
https://twitter.com/socalskywatch
https://www.youtube.com/socalskywatch