Re: Comments on Egilman's response to Hessel regarding the health hazards of brake dust and his reflections on corporate behavior

Paustenbach, Dennis J.

doi:10.1002/ajim.22976

American J Industrial Med

2019

DOI: 10.1002/ajim.22976

|View full text |Cite

Re: Comments on Egilman's response to Hessel regarding the health hazards of brake dust and his reflections on corporate behavior

Dennis J. Paustenbach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2019

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dr. Paustenbach states, "Generally they[clients] don't care one way or the other about the-about the papers…" 1. However, the company lawyers specified that Exponent would be paid to publish eight papers ("manuscripts") including the Kelsh et al reanalysis of the Australian Registry study 10.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response to Paustenbach

Egilman

2019

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dr. Paustenbach's letter begins with an ad hominem attack, "Given his (Dr. Egilman's) history in the courtroom, it seems that the editor would be especially cautious." 1 The citations for this sentence refer first to my release of previously secret documents and information on pharmaceutical giant Ely Lilly's marketing practices, which were causing deaths in elderly dementia patients. 2 The release of these documents resulted in three front-page New York Times stories and spurred a Justice Department investigation of Lilly's practices. 3-5 Dr. Paustenbach is not a physician and appears not to care that physicians' have an ethical obligation to release information that critically affects the public's health, even if it means risking prison or fines. As a result of my release of this information, Eli Lilly and company agreed to pay $1.415 billion to resolve allegations of off-label promotion of Zyprexa. The $615 million criminal fine was the largest individual corporate criminal fine in history; the civil settlement was $800 million. 6 Much more importantly, lives were saved. In the second case, Dr. Paustenbach cites misleading half-truths. Dr. Paustenbach omits the fact that on appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial Judge's sanction against me. 7 Dr. Paustenbach also omitted the fact that the trial Judge's order resulted from illegal and unethical conduct by the defense lawyers in the case who had hacked my computer, downloaded corporate documents, and then falsely alleged in a motion to the trial Judge that I had released the documents in violation of a prior general "gag order" by the court. a Pursuant to my complaint the Texas Bar sanctioned the lawyer whose misconduct resulted in the original decision. aAlthough the court sanction based on this fabrication was reversed on appeal, 7 the sanction still impaired the ability of over 90 workers to recover damages because I was struck as an expert witness. a In addition, many workers were unable to file cases. 8 I do not believe this "courtroom history" is anything but ethical conduct on my part. Furthermore, it is certainly not related to my scientific qualifications.Complaint 1: Dr. Paustenbach states: "Kelsh did not fail to disclose that the information might be used in litigation." 1 He is partly correct-the authors refer to past activities rather than the work at hand-but I did not criticize this omission.My criticism was different. I said: "The project included an EGILMAN …technical strategy development, providing scientific advice, expert testimony, selection and preparation of expert witnesses, assistance in cross-examining opponent's expert witnesses." 41

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 This is a linear risk function and contains no threshold for carcinogenicity. Complaint 18: Dr. Paustenbach argues that evidence of "heavy" asbestos exposure among US brake mechanics is limited 1. Out of court, however, the brake companies acknowledge the risks of brake maintenance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Paustenbach

Egilman

2019

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The editors respond to Dr Paustenbach

Ehrlich

Markowitz

2019

American J Industrial Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Re: Comments on Egilman's response to Hessel regarding the health hazards of brake dust and his reflections on corporate behavior

Cited by 2 publications

References 53 publications

Response to Paustenbach

Response to Paustenbach

The editors respond to Dr Paustenbach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About