March 9, 2016


News Clips For The Day


http://insideclimatenews.org/news/02032016/justice-department-refers-exxon-investigation-request-fbi-climate-change-research-denial

Justice Department Refers Exxon Investigation Request to FBI
Attempt by two California congressmen to prompt a federal investigation is passed to the FBI's criminal investigation unit.
BY DAVID HASEMYER, INSIDECLIMATE NEWS
MAR 2, 2016

Photograph -- ExxonMobil chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson looks on while speaking at a an event on March 12, 2015. The oil giant has been under pressure after revelations that it knew about the climate dangers of its product in the late 1970s. A request made to the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon by two U.S. congressmen has now been sent to the FBI. Credit: NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)


The U.S. Justice Department has forwarded a request from two congressmen seeking a federal probe of ExxonMobil to the FBI's criminal division.

U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sought the probe last year to determine whether the oil giant violated federal laws by "failing to disclose truthful information" about climate change.

In response, the Justice Department deferred to the FBI, saying it is that agency's responsibility to conduct an initial assessment of facts that prompted the congressmen's request. Such action is considered standard procedure, according to former federal prosecutors who say the response appears ambiguous as to what action may be taken by the FBI.

"As a courtesy, we have forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)," said a letter to the congressmen from Peter J. Kadzik, an assistant U.S. attorney general.

"The FBI is the investigative arm of the Department, upon which we rely to conduct the initial fact finding in federal cases. The FBI will determine whether an investigation is warranted."

The Justice Department's referral letter to the FBI, however, has not been released, so it is not known if it contained any specific instructions.

The referral was made to the assistant director of the FBI's Criminal Investigative Division.

The FBI and Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.

DeSaulnier said he would have preferred a more aggressive response, though the DOJ's position did not surprise him.

"I would very much like the attorney general to get involved and I think it's inevitable that will happen because of the growing recognition of how the public was misled," he said in an interview with InsideClimate News.

Even if the FBI invests minimum effort in a due diligence inquiry, DeSaulnier said he thinks the facts will prompt a deeper investigation.

"I will continue to make the argument there is too much compelling evidence not to hold companies accountable," he said.

Lieu said he believes the letter is a signal from DOJ to the FBI to begin a preliminary investigation.

"They [DOJ] could have just said 'thank you' or declined to get involved," Lieu said. "It makes sense in a case this complex that you would want the investigative arm of the Justice Department involved."

The congressman said he believes there is enough on the public record for the FBI to conclude a full-blown investigation is justified.

"There is substantial evidence to support a full investigation and prosecution," he said.

Even if the FBI does not investigate thoroughly, DeSaulnier said more heat is being applied to Exxon and the industry, with an investigation underway in New York and probes being considered in other states, including California and Maryland.

"There is going to be a moment of judgment both politically and legally," he said. "I think a moment of judgment will be quite critical of the fossil fuel industry in terms of obfuscating the scientific facts and for not adhering to their moral and legal responsibility to the public."

Exxon declined to answer questions about the Justice Department's letter.

John Marti, a former federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota, called the Justice Department's response a "punt."

"The department appears to be reluctant to engage in this matter," Marti said. "They are being careful to remain neutral."

Yet at the same time, he said, the letter puts the FBI in the position of seemingly requiring at least a rudimentary review of the issues raised by the congressmen. That review could consist of nothing more than reading the news stories detailing Exxon’s climate research and its history of sowing doubt about the science to performing a detailed inquiry, he said.

He said he would expect the FBI to proceed cautiously.

"They are not going to be excited over what they may perceive as a dispute over public policy as opposed to violations of federal criminal laws," Marti said.

Lieu and DeSaulnier, both Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in their letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch requesting an investigation that they were "alarmed" by the possibility that Exxon withheld vital climate change information and tried to discredit the science confirming global warming.

The congressmen made their request for a federal probe following disclosures in an InsideClimate News series that Exxon scientists were warning of potentially catastrophic effects of a buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as early as 1977. The letter also cited a story published later by the Los Angeles Times addressing Exxon’s research into melting Artic ice.

The request by Lieu and DeSaulnier is one of a number of investigation requests to the attorney general, including appeals by both Democratic presidential candidates.

In addition, a coalition of nearly 50 environmental, civil rights and indigenous people's groups have urged Lynch to open a federal investigation into whether ExxonMobil purposefully misled the American people on climate change.

Lieu and three colleagues also called on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to look into Exxon's past federal filings to determine if the company violated securities laws by failing to adequately disclose material risks to its business posed by climate change.

Mary Jo White, chair of the SEC, told Lieu in a letter she could not comment on the issues he and the other representatives raised or acknowledge the existence or non-existence of any investigation.

"But I want to assure you that the Commission's staff will consider carefully the information included in your correspondence in connection with our statutory and regulatory responsibilities," according to White’s letter to Lieu.

Exxon is the subject of an investigation by the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Investigators for Schneiderman served a subpoena on Exxon last year to turn over documents related to its research into the causes and effects of climate change.

Sharon Eubanks, a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who won a racketeering case against the tobacco industry in 2006, said deferring to the FBI is customary in cases like this, though federal prosecutors generally give more direction.

"It would have been much more powerful had the Justice Department said it was asking for an investigation," she said.

The language gives the FBI tremendous discretion, Eubanks said.

"This could mean it will go into a black hole or it could mean the FBI will be taking some action that could lead to a referral back to the Justice Department," she said.

Eubanks said the request puts the two agencies in a delicate position given the high-profile nature of the request and implications of digging into the issues raised by the congressmen.

"It’s a hot potato; you take it, no you take it," she said.



“In response, the Justice Department deferred to the FBI, saying it is that agency's responsibility to conduct an initial assessment of facts that prompted the congressmen's request. Such action is considered standard procedure, according to former federal prosecutors who say the response appears ambiguous as to what action may be taken by the FBI. "As a courtesy, we have forwarded your correspondence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)," said a letter to the congressmen from Peter J. Kadzik, an assistant U.S. attorney general. "The FBI is the investigative arm of the Department, upon which we rely to conduct the initial fact finding in federal cases. The FBI will determine whether an investigation is warranted." …. That review could consist of nothing more than reading the news stories detailing Exxon’s climate research and its history of sowing doubt about the science to performing a detailed inquiry, he said. He said he would expect the FBI to proceed cautiously. "They are not going to be excited over what they may perceive as a dispute over public policy as opposed to violations of federal criminal laws," Marti said. …. Even if the FBI does not investigate thoroughly, DeSaulnier said more heat is being applied to Exxon and the industry, with an investigation underway in New York and probes being considered in other states, including California and Maryland. "There is going to be a moment of judgment both politically and legally," he said. "I think a moment of judgment will be quite critical of the fossil fuel industry in terms of obfuscating the scientific facts and for not adhering to their moral and legal responsibility to the public."


“U.S. Representatives Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier sought the probe last year to determine whether the oil giant violated federal laws by "failing to disclose truthful information" about climate change.” I do hope that there will indeed be a “moment of judgment,” rather than just another cover-up. The way the DOJ and the FBI are trying to stay out of the controversy doesn’t speak well for the outcome. The fact that it was known in business circles way back, and then the Republicans began their outrageous war against “climate change,” makes their obdurate behavior more understandable to me. It was, indeed, a “conspiracy.” It has always annoyed me the way modern Republicans always talk as though they were reading from a script. The fact is, they are!


BEHIND THE NEWS

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
By Shannon Hall on October 26, 2015

Photograph -- The company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. Credit: Getty Images/MARS


Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,” says Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University. But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research.

In their eight-month-long investigation, reporters at InsideClimate News interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists and federal officials and analyzed hundreds of pages of internal documents. They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act.

But ExxonMobil disagrees that any of its early statements were so stark, let alone conclusive at all. “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they suggest,” ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers tells Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”

One thing is certain: in June 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that the planet was already warming, Exxon remained publicly convinced that the science was still controversial. Furthermore, experts agree that Exxon became a leader in campaigns of confusion. By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty. At that point, “a lot of things unraveled,” Oreskes says.

But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle. Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”

Experts agree that the damage is huge, which is why they are likening Exxon’s deception to the lies spread by the tobacco industry. “I think there are a lot of parallels,” Kimmell says. Both sowed doubt about the science for their own means, and both worked with the same consultants to help develop a communications strategy. He notes, however, that the two diverge in the type of harm done. Tobacco companies threatened human health, but the oil companies threatened the planet’s health. “It’s a harm that is global in its reach,” Kimmel says.

To prove this, Bob Ward—who on behalf of the U.K.’s Royal Academy sent a letter to Exxon in 2006 claiming its science was “inaccurate and misleading”—thinks a thorough investigation is necessary. “Because frankly the episode with tobacco was probably the most disgraceful episode one could ever imagine,” Ward says. Kimmell agrees. These reasons “really highlight the responsibility that these companies have to come clean, acknowledge this, and work with everyone else to cut out emissions and pay for some of the cost we're going to bear as soon as possible,” Kimmell says.

It doesn’t appear, however, that Kimmell will get his retribution. Jeffers claims the investigation’s finds are “just patently untrue, misleading, and we reject them completely”—words that match Ward’s claims against them nearly a decade ago.



“But as it turns out, Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research. …. He continued to warn that “present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." In other words, Exxon needed to act. …. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.” One thing is certain: in June 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen told a congressional hearing that the planet was already warming, Exxon remained publicly convinced that the science was still controversial. …. By 1989 the company had helped create the Global Climate Coalition (disbanded in 2002) to question the scientific basis for concern about climate change. It also helped to prevent the U.S. from signing the international treaty on climate known as the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 to control greenhouse gases. Exxon’s tactic not only worked on the U.S. but also stopped other countries, such as China and India, from signing the treaty. At that point, “a lot of things unraveled,” Oreskes says.”


“We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Republicans are really big on total loyalty and pledges. Some of their free-thinking members in the recent past have been essentially drummed out by a campaign of ridicule or more serious attacks. They are labeled “RINO” and the party digs up some dirt on them for a smear campaign. I wouldn’t make a good Republican, even if I believed in their political agenda. Anytime anybody wants a pledge from me, I question their honesty. In a case like this, when the party faithful are doing something so horrific that the knowledge of it by the public may severely damage their power structure, they feel they need such measures. To me any group that tries to force me to say I believe anything other than what I truly do, is my mortal enemy.

This kind of collusion sounds just like the recent news about a loyalty pledge coming from the Party organization, for Trump’s competitors to vow that they will back Trump if he wins the nomination, even though they hate him and know that he will warp the party even further over to the right. Perhaps the issue is that they not only hate him, they also fear him. The corrosive language and accusations in this week’s Trump ad against Marco Rubio probably illustrates what they all fear. Hell hath no fury like Donald Trump scorned.

The video of Christie standing on the stage behind Trump on the night he swung his support over to him, showed some 15 minutes of something like horror and deep sadness, presumably at what he had just done. One commenter said of the video that Christie seemed to have “sold something very precious to him for a position in the Trump White House.” That comment really hits the nail on the head.



WHO ARE THE PLAYERS?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition
Global Climate Coalition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“ . . . . GCC's advocacy activities included lobbying government officials, grassroots lobbying through press releases and advertising, participation in international climate conferences, criticism of the processes of international climate organizations, critiques of climate models, and personal attacks on scientists and environmentalists. Policy positions advocated by the GCC included denial of anthropogenic climate change, emphasizing the uncertainty in climatology, advocating for additional research, highlighting the benefits and downplaying the risks of climate change, stressing the priority of economic development, defending national sovereignty, and opposition to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions."



Can we trust InsideClimate News? They received the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, along with ProPublica and Huffington Post. See: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130415/insideclimate-news-team-wins-pulitzer-prize-national-reporting. I will try to follow this case as more information emerges.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-police-officer-lee-cyr-fired-for-comment-about-activist-marshawn-mccarrels-suicide/

Ohio cop fired for inappropriate comment about activist's suicide
CBS/AP
March 9, 2016, 7:30 AM

Photograph -- MarShawn McCarrel II, WBNS


FAIRBORN, Ohio -- An Ohio police officer accused of making an inappropriate comment about a Black Lives Matter activist who killed himself on the Statehouse steps has been fired.

Fairborn police say officer Lee Cyr was fired after an investigation into a Facebook comment posted last month under Cyr's account.

The comment stated "Love a happy ending." It was posted on the Ohio Politics Facebook page two days after MarShawn McCarrel II shot himself. McCarrel had helped with protests after high-profile police shootings led to the Black Lives Matter movement.

McCarrel had helped with protests after high-profile police shootings led to the Black Lives Matter movement.

CBS affiliate WBNS reported that McCarrel's final post on Facebook: "My demons won today. I'm sorry."

Police say that while Cyr was off duty when he posted the comment, his actions violated the department's social media policy.

Cyr had been with the department since 1994. No publicly listed phone number could be found for him Tuesday.



“An Ohio police officer accused of making an inappropriate comment about a Black Lives Matter activist who killed himself on the Statehouse steps has been fired. …. The comment stated "Love a happy ending." It was posted on the Ohio Politics Facebook page two days after MarShawn McCarrel II shot himself. McCarrel had helped with protests after high-profile police shootings led to the Black Lives Matter movement. …. Cyr had been with the department since 1994. No publicly listed phone number could be found for him Tuesday.”


Racism among police officers – and violence toward citizens in general -- has been a recognized phenomenon for years, but since Ferguson it has exploded into the news, as events such as police killings, vile emails and these online personal statements keep appearing. The fire departments around the country have also had similar incidents, including one case when a black fireman found a noose on his bunk. Patriotism and personal courage are good things, but they shouldn’t generate such hostile events. It’s really no different from the KKK’s history of activities. I honor both of those groups, but I can’t condone heartless attitudes and behavior. I am so glad to see police departments stepping in and firing their bad cops. One police website had a letter from an officer in the last year in which he stated that the lack of punishment by departments is the main cause of the incidents. Thank you, Fairborn, Ohio PD!



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ronald-hamilton-ashley-guindon-questions-over-access-to-guns/

Questions over whether alleged killer of rookie cop should have had gun
CBS NEWS
March 8, 2016, 2:21 PM

Photograph -- Prince William County Police Sgt. Jonathan L. Perok displays a picture of Officer Ashley Guindon before a news conference at Western District Station, in Manassas, Va., Sunday, Feb. 28, 2016. JOSE LUIS MAGANA/AP


NEW YORK -- Investigators are trying to determine if the man suspected of killing a rookie Virginia police officer should have been prevented from owning a firearm, a source tells CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues.

Law enforcement officials are said to be angry because "he was not the kind of person who should have had access to guns."

Ronald Hamilton allegedly shot and killed the 28-year-old officer, Ashley Guindon, on Feb. 27, as she and two other officers responded to a domestic violence call at Hamilton's home. Guindon had been sworn into the job the day before.

Now, investigators want to know if a 2006 "road rage" charge should have disqualified Hamilton from owning the rifle he used to kill her, according to sources.

Law enforcement officials say warning signs of the sergeant's erratic behavior should have kept him from owning the deadly weapon and they are trying to figure out whether some kind of procedural mistake made it possible for Hamilton to keep a gun.

They are concerned that "this is another case that may have fallen through the cracks," according to a source.

The 2006 arrest stemmed from an incident in a Clarksville, Tennessee parking lot. A man allegedly accused Hamilton, an Iraq veteran, of driving too close to his girlfriend.

Court records show that Hamilton then reached into his vehicle and pulled out a silver handgun. When the man asked Hamilton if he was going to shoot him with a pellet gun, investigators say Hamilton replied: "It ain't no pellet gun," and inserted a magazine into the weapon.

The man allegedly backed away, asking Hamilton if "he was going to ruin his life by shooting him," which is when, sources say, he drove off.

A warrant was issued for Hamilton's arrest on Dec. 30, 2006 and he was booked on Jan. 2, 2007. Hamilton, who was serving in the U.S. Army at the time, eventually pleaded the charge down to a simple assault and was given a pretrial diversion.

The probe into Guindon's death is sensitive for local and federal law enforcement officials because it involves "one of their own" and a suspect who worked at the Pentagon.

Police point out that Hamilton, who was an employee of the Pentagon's Joint Staff Support Center, not only killed Guindon, but also killed his wife.

Two other officers who responded to the scene were also shot and wounded when Hamilton fired a rifle as they approached the front door, investigators say. The injured officers are expected to make a full recovery.


“Now, investigators want to know if a 2006 "road rage" charge should have disqualified Hamilton from owning the rifle he used to kill her, according to sources. Law enforcement officials say warning signs of the sergeant's erratic behavior should have kept him from owning the deadly weapon and they are trying to figure out whether some kind of procedural mistake made it possible for Hamilton to keep a gun. …. Hamilton, who was serving in the U.S. Army at the time, eventually pleaded the charge down to a simple assault and was given a pretrial diversion. The probe into Guindon's death is sensitive for local and federal law enforcement officials because it involves "one of their own" and a suspect who worked at the Pentagon. Police point out that Hamilton, who was an employee of the Pentagon's Joint Staff Support Center, not only killed Guindon, but also killed his wife.”


The 2006 road rage instance wasn’t a minor one. Most often they involve an angry driver driving up too close to the car ahead because he cut in front of him – not only dangerous, but an insult. If police and highway patrol officers were doing their job, they would not only ticket both parties, but the fines should be sufficiently high to really make a difference. In this case, I have often noticed that people in parking lots try to drive as fast as they can, and I’ve heard that a large percentage of accidents occur in such settings. I can well imagine him driving “too close” to a pedestrian or another car, and the angry reprisal that ensued.

People often react with anger when approached by anyone in that manner, even if they are actually in the wrong. Pulling a gun, however, or even getting out of the car to initiate a fist fight, goes across a sanity line in my opinion. Yes, I do believe that this kind of thing should prevent a citizen’s being allowed to buy a gun. Hamilton also, not to be forgotten, had just killed his own wife.

It has long been my opinion that the military, the police, some sports figures, perhaps due to the use of testosterone to “bulk up,” religious maniacs, and racists all have one thing in common. They are deeply involved with “group think,” and they believe in physical violence as their God-given right. Unfortunately, what they aren’t good at is individual thought.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/theranos-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-company-under-review-federal-regulators-cms/

Why much-hyped biotech company is fighting to save its reputation
CBS NEWS
March 9, 2016, 7:14 AM

Play VIDEO -- Youngest self-made female billionaire takes high-tech approach to blood testing
Play video – Put To The Test


Theranos, one of the rising stars in biotech, is battling to save its reputation. Just last year, founder and CEO Elizabeth Holmes was featured among Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People." Her company promised to offer hundreds of fast, cheap and accurate blood tests, using a few drops of blood, rather than vials.

But a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal raised questions about its technology and lab practices, and the Silicon Valley startup is now under review by two federal regulators. This week, the Journal reported one agency found Theranos gave results of blood-clot testing to dozens of patients, despite erratic results from quality-control checks. The company says it already notified potentially-affected patients.

"Every time you create something new, there should be questions, and to me, that's a sign that you've actually done something that is transformative," Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes said in her April 2015 interview with CBS News.

Last spring, we asked the then-31-year-old about her mission to disrupt the $75 billion diagnostics industry.

"You could transform healthcare not only here in America but around the world. ... But where is the revolution?" O'Donnell asked.

"First of all, making it possible to do tests on tiny samples," Holmes said.

In 2014, Theranos was valued at $9 billion, effectively making Holmes the world's youngest self-made female billionaire. Excitement about Holmes and her company grew as she appeared on the covers of Forbes, Fortune, T Magazine and Inc. On television programs, panels and stages, she described the promise of her breakthrough technology.

"We've made it possible to eliminate the tubes and tubes of blood that traditionally have to be drawn from an arm and replaced it with the Nanotainer," Holmes said in a 2014 TedMed Talk.

The Nanotainer was part of blood tests offered at Theranos Wellness Centers in more than 40 Arizona Walgreens. But Wall Street Journal reporter John Carreyrou said former employees told him that Theranos' proprietary technology wasn't being widely used, and some had concerns about its accuracy. Theranos said it validates the accuracy of every test and has voluntarily submitted more than 120 tests to the FDA.

To date, one has been cleared.

"The promise was that with one drop of blood, you could test for all of these different sorts of things. And you're telling me now it can only test for herpes?" O'Donnell asked Carreyrou.

"That was the promise. And right now, the reality on the ground is that the only thing their...device is being used for is a test for herpes," Carreyrou said.

"Well, why haven't they been able to deliver?" O'Donnell asked.

"The company says ... that they still have the capability to do many tests off a drop of blood ... but the sources I've talked to ... tell me that actually the technology is pretty limited," Carreyrou said.

Last October, the FDA released heavily redacted inspection reports calling the Nanotainer an "uncleared medical device." In January, federal laboratory regulator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) said it found "deficient practices" at a California lab, one of which posed "immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety."

Theranos said it has voluntarily suspended using its Nanotainer while it waits for clearance and has submitted a plan of correction to CMS.

"I was there when it was invented. I was in the laboratory, putting the screws in the first instruments," Stanford professor emeritus and technologist Channing Robertson said.

Robertson is Holmes' former mentor and has been working with Theranos for 13 years.

"I expect we'll be under the microscope and we'll be scrutinized. We welcome that. We're not afraid of it. Because we know what we've done works," Robertson said.

Theranos board member and outside counsel David Boies said although the company is in a holding pattern now, its tests have already been shown to work in Arizona.

"The number of tests being run on Theranos proprietary technology today is zero?" O'Donnell asked him.

"Well, it depends what you mean," Boies responded.

Boies said going through the FDA is the best way for Theranos to be transparent while protecting its intellectual property.

"The company suspended using its proprietary technology in the field pending FDA review. But it's very important to keep in context that before they did that they had successfully run more than 80 tests on thousands and thousands of patients," Boies said.

"And when do you expect an answer from the FDA?" O'Donnell asked.

"We're hopeful it'll move along; we think that it will... These tests... have been demonstrated to work, demonstrated to be reliable," Boies said.

Theranos told CBS News it invited top laboratory experts to evaluate its work late last month. We were able to speak to one doctor who confirmed the meeting took place.

"We had six independent medical professionals in here, all day long, going over our data... They were -- in sort of the local vernacular -- blown away," Robertson said.

Carreyrou also cited unnamed executives from Safeway who said the company dissolved a $350 million plan to include Theranos Wellness Centers in its stores, and that sources from Walgreens told him that company threatened to end its deal. Theranos said both claims are untrue, and that Carreyrou's anonymous sources aren't credible and possibly disgruntled former employees.

"The former employees who spoke to me felt ... this story needed to come out," Carreyrou said. "Because blood tests are used by doctors and patients to make important medical decisions."

"You're saying your sources came to you not just because they thought she'd overhyped her value, but it was something more serious?" O'Donnell asked.

"The public health, patient safety," Carreyrou said.

We made requests to interview Holmes again, but she was not made available.

Walgreens said all test analysis at the Theranos California lab under CMS review has been suspended, though another lab in Arizona is still accepting patient samples.

Theranos said all of its Arizona Walgreens locations are still operating and their number of customers is increasing. Theranos also said the Wall Street Journal's reporting is "inaccurate" and "misleading."



I sometimes tend to believe that science is good, but sometimes it gets involved with some kind of money making project which is understandably desirable, but which too often leads to corrupt practices. People, in the presence of lots of money and political string-pulling often become corrupted. The human soul is apparently very fragile. When we have a chance to make megabucks, it’s easy to come to love money for its’ own sake. Someone very famous spoke against that, calling it “the root of all evil.” Unfortunately, the medical field, which is so important to our daily lives, is too often involved. Marketing a breakthrough device or drug can be as good as owning oil wells or diamond mines. The recent disgusting behavior of Martin Shkreli is a great example. The resulting damage to our population is so serious that I think we need a law, if there isn’t already one, which makes such shady business dealings criminal in nature rather than merely ethical.

I’m glad to see that this company has been caught and is being examined by the FDA. Several days ago there was a shocking article by NPR which quoted a Republican Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia when he told the head of the USDA that he had gone “off script” in his testimony concerning environmental damage from chemicals, specifically by discussing the dying honey bee population, very likely due to the pesticide group called neonicotinoids. That was a highly qualified FDA scientist, but the Congressman thought that he had no right to impart his knowledge if it disagreed with the Republican Party line. Some of these things that I read tell me how much danger we are in as a society. Today’s story is just one of many.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-chemical-weapons-expert-captured-us-commandos/

American commandos capture key ISIS asset
CBS/AP
March 9, 2016, 10:55 AM

20 Photos -- An unidentified ISIS fighter appears in a propaganda video released by the militant group.
Play VIDEO -- Obama promotes ISIS strategy amid high disapproval
Play VIDEO -- How is the fight against ISIS going?


U.S. commandos have captured a chemical weapons expert for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports.

The capture has led to at least one strike in Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, which was designed to destroy a building where mustard gas munitions were believed to be manufactured. There are 12 reported instances of ISIS using mustard gas on the battlefield.

It's the first known major success of Washington's more aggressive policy of pursuing the jihadis on the ground.

The Obama administration launched the new strategy in December, deploying a commando force to Iraq that it said would be dedicated to capturing and killing ISIS leaders in clandestine operations, as well as generating intelligence leading to more raids.

U.S. officials said last week that the expeditionary team had captured an ISIS leader but had refused to identify him, saying only that he had been held for two or three weeks and was being questioned.

The two Iraqi officials identified the man to The Associated Press as Sleiman Daoud al-Afari, who worked for Saddam Hussein's now-dissolved Military Industrialization Authority where he specialized in chemical and biological weapons. They said al-Afari, who is about 50 years old, heads ISIS' recently established branch for the research and development of chemical weapons.

He was captured in a raid near the northern Iraqi town of Tal Afar, the officials said. They would not give further details.

The officials, who both have first-hand knowledge of the individual and of the ISIS chemical program, spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to brief the media.

The U.S.-led coalition began targeting ISIS' chemical weapons infrastructure with airstrikes and special operations raids over the past two months, the Iraqi intelligence officials and a Western security official in Baghdad told the AP.

Airstrikes are targeting laboratories and equipment, and further special forces raids targeting chemical weapons experts are planned, the intelligence officials said. They and the Western official spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the press.

ISIS has been making a determined effort to develop chemical weapons, Iraqi and American officials have said. It is believed to have set up a special unit for chemical weapons research, made up of Iraqi scientists from the Saddam-era weapons program as well as foreign experts. Iraqi officials expressed particular worry over the effort because ISIS gained so much room to operate and hide chemical laboratories after overrunning around a third of the country in the summer of 2014, joined with territory they controlled in neighboring Syria.

Still, its progress has been limited. It is believed to have created limited amounts of mustard gas. Tests confirmed mustard gas was used in a town in Syria when ISIS was launching attacks there in August 2015. Other unverified reports in both Iraq and Syria accuse ISIS of using chemical agents on the battlefield.

But so far, experts say, the extremist group appears incapable of launching a large-scale chemical weapons attack, which requires not only expertise, but also the proper equipment, materials and a supply-chain to produce enough of the chemical agent to pose a significant threat.

"More than a symbolic attack seems to me to be beyond the grasp of ISIS," said Dan Kaszeta, a former U.S. Army chemical officer and Department of Homeland Security expert who is now a private consultant. "Furthermore, the chemicals we are talking about are principally chlorine and sulfur mustard, both of which are actually quite poor weapons by modern standards."

The United States has been leading a coalition waging airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria for more than a year. The campaign has been key to backing Iraqi and Kurdish forces that have slowly retaken significant parts of the territory the militants had seized.

But after coming under pressure at home for greater action against the militants, the Obama administration moved to the tactic of stepped up commando operations on the ground.

Last year, U.S. special forces killed a key ISIS leader and captured his wife in a raid in Syria, but the new force in Iraq was intended as a more dedicated deployment. American officials have been deeply secretive about the operation. Its size is unknown, though it may be fewer than 100 troops.

"This is a no-kidding force that will be doing important things," was about all Defense Secretary Ash Carter would say about the force in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in December.



“The capture has led to at least one strike in Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, which was designed to destroy a building where mustard gas munitions were believed to be manufactured. There are 12 reported instances of ISIS using mustard gas on the battlefield. It's the first known major success of Washington's more aggressive policy of pursuing the jihadis on the ground. …. They said al-Afari, who is about 50 years old, heads ISIS' recently established branch for the research and development of chemical weapons. He was captured in a raid near the northern Iraqi town of Tal Afar, the officials said. They would not give further details. …. But so far, experts say, the extremist group appears incapable of launching a large-scale chemical weapons attack, which requires not only expertise, but also the proper equipment, materials and a supply-chain to produce enough of the chemical agent to pose a significant threat. …. The campaign has been key to backing Iraqi and Kurdish forces that have slowly retaken significant parts of the territory the militants had seized. But after coming under pressure at home for greater action against the militants, the Obama administration moved to the tactic of stepped up commando operations on the ground. …. "This is a no-kidding force that will be doing important things," was about all Defense Secretary Ash Carter would say about the force in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in December.”


I am thankful that the US has put commandos on the ground to fight rather than simply acting as advisors. Going after chemical weapons sites and ISIS leaders is good. This is still an aim to “degrade” rather than defeat, however. I hope it does make a great difference in aiding the heroic Kurds and the nearly overwhelmed Iraqis. The two have, according to this article, “slowly retaken” lost ground, so hopefully this move will really do some good. ISIS is the kind of enemy that desperately needs to be defeated, as they show no human honor or other redeeming characteristics.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seat-back-failures-injuries-deaths-auto-safety-experts-demand-nhtsa-action/

"No excuse": Safety experts say this car defect puts kids in danger
By MEGAN TOWEY, KRIS VAN CLEAVE
CBS NEWS
March 9, 2016, 7:15 AM

Play VIDEO -- Dangers exposed for car passengers in back seat
Play VIDEO -- Are carmakers, government ignoring deadly seat back danger?


Auto safety experts are demanding action on what they call a serious safety defect. The move comes days after a Texas jury awarded more than a $124.5 million verdict against one automaker for a problem car companies admit would only cost a couple of dollars to fix.

Crash test videos obtained during the course of our CBS News investigation show how when cars are hit from behind, the front driver and passenger seats of many vehicles can collapse backwards, launching the occupants into the backseat area.

For years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has told parents the safest place to put children is in the backseat. Cases of apparent seatback failure reviewed by CBS News show, while drivers can also suffer catastrophic injury, children in the backseat are suffering the worst of the injuries, even death.

It happens in an instant.

Eleven-year-old Jesse Rivera, Jr. is living with the consequences of a seatback failure. He was sitting behind his father in the backseat of his family's Audi sedan when it was rear-ended in San Antonio, Texas in 2012.

"We're constantly told to put children in the back seat," said Jesse Rivera, Sr., "but you just don't know that this danger is there."

The driver's seat Jesse Sr. was sitting in broke, launching him head first into his son. Both were taken to the hospital. As the elder Rivera was being treated in the emergency room, his wife, Kathy, told him of their son's condition.

"She said, it's bad. He's got a real bad head injury and...he may not make it through the night," Rivera said, fighting back tears. "So I started praying, I said, 'Please God, don't take my boy.'"

Jesse, Jr., then just seven years old, was left with permanent brain damage, partial paralysis and the loss of some of his eyesight. His younger brother Patrick, sitting behind the unoccupied front seat, was uninjured. Jesse Jr. will need care for the rest of his life.

"There's times when he'll see all the other kids playing and he'll sit there and he watches them and he gets up and walks away with his head down," said Rivera's mother, Kathy.

The family sued Audi.

In a deposition for the case, a company engineer said the car was designed so someone in the backseat would "support the front seat with his knees."

The carmaker's attorney argued the seats were designed to absorb the impact of a collision, even showing a crash test video of the seats collapsing while questioning the EMT who responded to the accident scene. The EMT asked, "So you are saying the seat is supposed to do that?"

"Yes, absolutely. Proudly so. It's absorbing energy," the lawyer responded.

Ultimately the jury ruled in favor of Rivera family finding young Jesse's injuries resulted from Audi's "gross negligence." In making their decision, the jury assigned 55 percent of the responsibility for the accident to the carmaker, 25 percent to the driver that rear-ended the Rivera's and 20 percent on Rivera, Sr. The elder Rivera was not wearing a seat belt and Jesse, Jr. was not in a booster seat at the time of the accident.

In a statement to CBS News, Audi said, "We of course are not pleased with the verdict and we will evaluate the next steps to be taken. It's worth noting that neither the driver nor the injured boy were wearing seat belts nor was the boy seated in a booster seat.''

The automaker did not respond to additional questions about its seats.

"I was shocked when I looked at the crash-test videos and observed the way the seats moved. I couldn't believe that they collapse and I couldn't believe that they sold a vehicle when they knew their seats would perform in that manner," said Jeff Wigington of Wigington, Rumley, Dunn and Blair.

Wigington, Fidel Rodriguez, Jr. and Joe Dunn represented the Rivera family in their lawsuit.

"If you're going to defend your product, why wouldn't you bring someone from Germany, a design engineer from Germany to explain why your product is not defective. But they didn't do that," Wigington said.

The jury ruled against Audi even though the seats in question met or exceeded the federal standard for strength. An accident expert hired by CBS News showed us the standard is so low even a banquet chair can pass. In fact, nearly every major American, Japanese and Korean automaker has seen similar cases recently.

Internal documents show carmakers and the NHTSA have known about the potential for seatback collapses for decades.

"Shame on them. My boy wouldn't be hurt if they'd have done their jobs" said an emotional Jesse Rivera, Sr.

NHTSA insists it has looked into the issue, but says it is "very challenging" to upgrade the standard because these accidents are "rare." The agency stopped reviewing changes to the standard in 2004.

A small 2008 study by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, reviewed by NHTSA, found "a doubling of the injury risk" to children if the seat in front of them "deformed" or suffered some form of a collapse in a rear end collision. Seventy-one percent of the crashes studied involved a car where there were occupants seated in front of children, and "deformation of the front seat back into the child's space was reported in eight percent of cases."

NHTSA staffers argue the scale of the study was too small to build a case for changing the existing standard and also point to two other studies that question if improving seat strength would reduce injury risk.

Through interviews with lawyers and reviewing court cases, our CBS News investigation has identified more than 100 people nationally who were severely injured or killed in apparent seatback failures since 1989. The majority were children. Seventeen have died in the past 15 years alone.

"My child got turned into a human safety device. An airbag," said Stephanie Collins as she cried. Her 7-year-old daughter Crystal Butler was among the 17 children killed. "She saved my life and it wasn't supposed to be that way."

Improving the seats would not necessarily be expensive. In an earlier seatback failure lawsuit, an engineer being deposed said strengthening them would cost "on the order of a dollar or so."

Still, accident experts interviewed for this CBS News investigation say at least three automakers--Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Volvo -- have strengthened their seats well above the NHTSA standard to guard against seatback failure. As far back as 1992, Mercedes showed 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley their stronger seat design.

The Center for Auto Safety filed a petition with the NHTSA urging the agency to warn parents of the potential danger of a seatback failure and to create a new seatback standard.

"There's no excuse for NHTSA's inaction on this serious safety defect," Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, told CBS News Transportation Correspondent Kris Van Cleave.

Despite repeated requests, NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind has not agreed to talk to CBS News about the seatback standard and refused to answer questions when Cleave caught up with him after he testified before Congress last October.

In a statement Rosekind tells CBS News:

"NHTSA has long recognized that the agency's seatback standard is decades old, but we've also had to acknowledge the reality that while even one death is too many, severe rear impacts are rare compared to other crash types, and crashes where seat collapse can be determined as the cause of injury are even more rare. This makes demonstrating measurable safety benefits that meet the requirements of the rulemaking process very challenging. In addition, although simply requiring increased rearward seat strength is not a technical challenge, doing this in a manner that assures that no harm is done in very frequent low speed rear impacts is technically challenging. We're working to improve our ability to quantify the potential safety benefits of improving rear impact protection. We're also working hard to promote the use of automatic emergency braking, which research by NHTSA and others has shown can sharply reduce the number and severity of rear-impact crashes, including those that could lead to a seat collapse. Whether it is through rulemaking or other means, we're committed to saving lives through every tool available."

These are efforts that will come too late for the Rivera family, who as part of their case, showed a "day-in-the-life" video of Jesse struggling to complete relatively simple tasks.

"Your children are at risk and if you don't write your legislator and tell him to do something about this thing, nothing is going to be done," said Jesse, Sr. "More children are going to be hurt. And it could be your child."


“In a deposition for the case, a company engineer said the car was designed so someone in the backseat would "support the front seat with his knees." The carmaker's attorney argued the seats were designed to absorb the impact of a collision, even showing a crash test video of the seats collapsing while questioning the EMT who responded to the accident scene. The EMT asked, "So you are saying the seat is supposed to do that?" "Yes, absolutely. Proudly so. It's absorbing energy," the lawyer responded. …. In a deposition for the case, a company engineer said the car was designed so someone in the backseat would "support the front seat with his knees." The carmaker's attorney argued the seats were designed to absorb the impact of a collision, even showing a crash test video of the seats collapsing while questioning the EMT who responded to the accident scene. The EMT asked, "So you are saying the seat is supposed to do that?" "Yes, absolutely. Proudly so. It's absorbing energy," the lawyer responded. …. In making their decision, the jury assigned 55 percent of the responsibility for the accident to the carmaker, 25 percent to the driver that rear-ended the Rivera's and 20 percent on Rivera, Sr. The elder Rivera was not wearing a seat belt and Jesse, Jr. was not in a booster seat at the time of the accident. …. An accident expert hired by CBS News showed us the standard is so low even a banquet chair can pass. In fact, nearly every major American, Japanese and Korean automaker has seen similar cases recently. Internal documents show carmakers and the NHTSA have known about the potential for seatback collapses for decades. …. NHTSA insists it has looked into the issue, but says it is "very challenging" to upgrade the standard because these accidents are "rare." The agency stopped reviewing changes to the standard in 2004. A small 2008 study by the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, reviewed by NHTSA, found "a doubling of the injury risk" to children if the seat in front of them "deformed" or suffered some form of a collapse in a rear end collision.”


“… our CBS News investigation has identified more than 100 people nationally who were severely injured or killed in apparent seatback failures since 1989.” Sometimes our education leads us to think in an inferior way rather than better. I can’t imagine a company who actually want to keep selling cars, would even consider designing the seat so that someone sitting in the back would “support the front seat with his knees!” Why don’t they just admit upfront that they made a terrible booboo and recall all cars with the poor designs for repair, if fixing them “only costs a couple of dollars?”

Statistics should be set aside when the severity of the human damage done is great. You won’t find NASA skimping on safety measures for the astronauts. Here we go again with a prominent business failing to give “a flying flip” about the public safety. It would cost them $2.00 per car to fix the problem, but they decided against it. The NHTSA, on the other hand, was perhaps paid off to look the other way. As we used to say, “One hand washes the other!”