Let's Get Honest! Blog: Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017)

with one comment


PREVIEW on a REVIEW:

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7na”

(Section background-color reverts to this color after preview)

After working on this post and its background material for about a week, I’m publishing it “as is,” with an alert that it may be revised substantially after publication, or further split. It is a good read, however some of its information leads to awarenesses and understandings that are disturbing, if not shocking, on the scope of activities and reach (influence on government policies) by some of the people and organizations covered.

I wouldn’t expect it to be grasped in a single read anyhow. If there are substantial revisions (you’re reading one right now), the purpose is to clarify, or supply missing documentation to support some statements where a post-publication read may reveal the need.

Some areas in this post newer to me, others not entirely new, but not my main area of research (such as the details of the tobacco class action and RICO litigation, although I have looked at periodically and am aware of it as a force in social services programming — such as the First 5-type funds —  at the state levels).** On other areas (backgrounds of some of the greats in psychology or public relations — this post adds a key advertising great name) I may sound more authoritative because I have done more research on them  over the years, as it intersects/overlaps with “Family Court Matters.”

** USDOJ Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements (Just a~First 5~Footnote to the 2016 TOC Intro. (a Page with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-5e8” published Dec. 2016.  Added to the sidebar near top of “Vital Links/Info” menu in Aug. 2017.)

However, probing this new area and historic account of major system movements referenced by the website “SmokersHistory.com,” I am seeing people, foundations, and systems transformation characteristics in common with material I’ve already processed in and around this blog.  If I’d not seen the commonality, I would probably not have referenced so prominently the “smokershistory.com” post, especially not even knowing who its author is.  Because just now I do not know, and because of some of the angry tone of that website, I felt obliged to look further, and more independently at at least its claims which resonated as reasonably probable with what I already knew.

In the process, I ended up learning more about key foundations and people, as well as about organization of the NIH, the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and putting some serious timeline and dates to changes within the NIH, which is to say, also within HHS.  I’m confident most readers also will.  I also found it reassuring not to be the only person (many MIT faculty were asking the same question in the early 1980s) (NYT article links below) asking just HOW MUCH of our current universities and current federal agencies is really “up for sale to the highest bidder,” and how reliable is conflict-of-interest-funded science? Is that what our nation needs?

Answering all these questions is not just a matter of posting links and throwing them up in the air, hoping they come down in some sort of order.  It is a LOT of reading; this type of reading involves processing the information as it comes up with an awareness of reasonably objective (vs. name-calling, or personal-values-laden) categories and at a minimum the ability and willingness to look at tax returns, comparing one to another within organizations or across organizations, and an awareness what decision-making by the very-well-endowed may affect in a given year, whether the “Total Assets” are very very big and growing, or while still large by many standards, being spent down.  And an awareness that when the issue (goal) is steering the direction of a federal agency along with the future of a certain are of scientific research, those determined — with each other — rarely operate through just one organization, foundation, or media at a time.

It takes time, and its part skill, part “art” in the sense of a developed skill over time. I look forward to, ideally, connecting conversing with more people who are willing to use some of these skills and willing to encourage/exhort/persuade others that they are basic to comprehending government — with regard to our individual AND collective relationships to it.  Unfortunately (?), when it comes to many advocacy groups (especially in some well-worn ruts within the family court reform advocacy arena) what I know better is where NOT to find such people, or exhaust personal energies attempting to reason with people who for years have continued to demonstrate that group-membership/brainwashed state on the chosen cause is, like old blue jeans conformed to one’s body countours, just more “fun,” or standing apart, too scary.



Previous and related post: Who? (besides Harvard, MIT and other Boston-based Institutes) is Funding and Promoting/Soliciting for Personal Genomics (volunteer your personal, identifiable, genetic code for a global database to be shared internationally) — GET Research (fine-tuning and equipping the Nature vs. Nurture debate) as Essential for Global Public Health Issue? (title’s short-link ends “-7m3”; published 7/31/2017)

This post was inspired mostly by the urge to report on the confluence and long-term influence of two) organizations involving two family lines.  Those two family lines are the Whiteheads and the Laskers, and the two organizations (who both also show close connections with a third organization the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, EIN#061043412) are the Albert & Mary Lasker Foundation (EIN#131680062, with another trust which poured is assets into them on dissolution; see next table below*) and the other, much smaller but well-connected (with Congressmen on board, literally) Research! America (<==EIN#521609875, link to FY2015 Form 990; see next image).” (for contrast, FY2005 Form 990):

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) showing highest paid fees-for services (see CATEGORIES) and employees (2 diff’t categories). This year Mary Woolley’s salary was 310K + benefits.

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) describing exempt-purpose activities.

Rsrch! America FY2015 “Additional” page from Form 990 describing PR activities. Not their largest expenses this year (see return for more info).

Porter-Novelli PR Business Agency Report 2015 (4/27/2015):

Former Unilever marcomms chief Christine Cea returned to the firm to lead its global consumer practice, based in New York. She previously worked in Porter’s London and New York offices from 1999 to 2005. Ted Sabarese joined as regional creative director for North America, focused on content strategy, development, and production, as well as advertising, experiential marketing, and design. He previously worked at Chobani. … Amy Nicole Nayar took up the newly created role of SVP of global health and wellness and lead for longtime client Johnson & Johnson. She previously ran a consultancy called Forefront Leadership.

Growth in North America
The North American region grew the fastest in 2014, with New York serving as the impetus after the office added work from Pfizer, Merck, and other blue chips in the healthcare space, expanding digital and analytics work, and a communications brief for The Shops at Columbus Circle.   Read more at [PRWeek.com/article/1344304]

 

With Porter-Novelli a main contractor of Research! America in 2005, and William D. Novelli on the board (1h/week unpaid) at Research! America, I decided to look further.

I found he was CEO of AARP 2001-2009 (severance pay of over $1M protested there, next image) and “his LinkedIn” (another image) shows that, besides co-founding Porter-Novelli and running it (1972-1990) he also founded “Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids” and ran it 1995-1999.  See where I’m going with that?  He’s now professsor of “Global Social Enterprise Initiative” (“GSEI”) at “George McDonough School of Business” at the prestigious Georgetown University(since 2011)… While there I see that Georgetown also started, looks like around the same time, a “Global Human Development Initiative”  (<=link to Novelli as faculty on it) stemming from the “Jesuit ideal of using knowledge to serve society” and an “initiative” (guiding paradigm) crossing different schools and degrees within the university. (use that link to access the “About” page on the GHD). It says in part:

Georgetown started planning this initiative in spring 2011 when members of the Georgetown faculty and administration from the Main Campus, the Medical Center and the Law Center formed a working group to focus on global human development across the entire university. New efforts in the research and scholarship agenda, educational programs, and outreach and service have succeeded in bringing together current strengths across three campuses in this important field of inquiry.

Next annotated image, with maroon borders on top, right: Porter-Novelli referenced at Sourcewatch.org (again, I’ve established that this website, run by “Center for Media and Democracy” is likely to point fingers at things “right-wing” and ignore the progressive.  A similarly partisan website “Discover the Networks” does the opposite.  People can either read both, or find other sources of information, and/or work hard to check facts when quoting either).  Here I’m pointing out SourceWatch’s description of PN’s federal contracts over a certain time period, and from which agencies, as well as its role in re-designing the US “healthy food pyramid,” and expressed concerns about its conflicts of interest in the same. Click image to enlarge and see source url.

(If image is too complex, just go to Sourcewatch on Porter-Novelli and read!) Shows a timeline of its fed contracts from NIH & CDC, discusses the conflict-of-interest issue and its involvemt (then & later) on the “food pyramid” affecting schoolchildren and ($46B) food stamps programs; superimposed image (2001) points out its internat’l scope at least since 1996, UK merger, and another individual (Robt Druckenmiller) involved.

2009? post protesting $1M pay FY2008 of AARP execs as possible conflict of interest re: impending ACA (healthcare reform act), featuring Wm. D. Novelli.

Bill Novelli (of Porter-Novelli), formerly AARP, formerly Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (1990-1995) EDUC shows he came up through Annenberg School of Communication at U Penn (see my posts on some of the Annenberg projects, esp. at USC and UPenn…)


MOVING ON:  *Up to 2007/008 (when it terminated) there was also a “Mary Woodward Lasker Charitable Trust” funneling grants to the A&M Lasker Foundation and Research! America, as well as receiving them (in part from her estate, in part from other places). Both entities had common directorship (looking at early 2000s forward only) and street addresses.  Albert Lasker lived until 1952, Mary until 1994.


For now, just to show the two different Lasker entities in a Form 990s table.  The “Charitable Trust” referenced in some of the Research! America website pages as part of its history, says its termination papers, was an “inter vivos” trust which lasted 1995-2008, when the $24M (+ some) assets were poured into the other one, almost doubling its size at the time, although the grants had been moving from the Charitable Trust to the Foundation (as the primary source for its grants) previously.

Total results: [6]Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation NY 2015 990PF 37 $72,971,942 13-1680062
Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation NY 2014 990PF 20 $75,694,962 13-1680062
Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation NY 2013 990PF 33 $75,471,492 13-1680062
Lasker Charitable Trust, Mary Woodard NY 2008 990PF 34 $130 13-7049274
Lasker Charitable Trust, Mary Woodard NY 2007 990PF 39 $26,956,020 13-7049274
Lasker Charitable Trust, Mary Woodard NY 2006 990PF 25 $26,207,512 13-7049274


The Lasker Foundations and family line (and their associates) are deeply entrenched within the content and leadership of the present NIH (currently 24 Institutes, plural, under HHS), which is “a thing to behold” and a thing to know, including “how’d THAT happen?  How do private foundations start to run, literally, parts of federal agencies, without loud protests and some response to those protests?  Take a look!

Edwin C. Whitehead founded or co-founded both Research! America and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and the Lasker Foundation(s) were supportive certainly of the former.  Also Mary Woolley, I found (it’s in this post below), an original CEO of Research! America also claims to be a co-founder of the Whitehead Institute (although I don’t see her name on the original list of directors).

(Massachusetts Business Search shows the Whitehead Institute is a Delaware corporation (in Cambridge, MA) which registered in MA in Feb. 1982, in Delaware in 1981, and which made NYT headlines in Fall 1981 over Whitehead’s offer to start the Whitehead Institute at MIT. For that record, here are two articles (A Fracas over Funds Roils MIT + MIT Faculty Backs Research Institute Offer) on the debate at the time, which also show key members of the board of directors, and note some of the possible conflicts of interest.  “Fracas” was the second of the two NYT articles.

By looking through both the NYT Fall 1981 articles (my pdfs here are annotated/marked up) on this debate (before it was OK’d), several names from the original board of directors for the Whitehead Institute (shown on a third pdf link also under that name) will reveal their affiliations — whether former NIH official, involved with Whitehead’s company (he developed his father’s company and then sold about the same time) Technicon, or otherwise.  On myself checking out one of those names, I was almost shocked to see that he was married to a key person/writer and “bipartisan” justification for the marriage/fatherhood programming this blog has dealt with for so many years. (The Sawhills).

A FRACAS OVER FUNDS ROILS M.I.T. – The NYT Nov 15 1981 by Stanley Klein **For Personal Noncommercial use only! (more background on Whitehead Institute) 6pp ~||~ M.I.T. FACULTY BACKS RESEARCH INSTITUTE OFFER – Oct 1 1981 by Fox Butterfield, Special to The NYT (4pp) FOR PERSONAL NONCOMMERCIAL USE ONLY (printed 2017Aug5) excerpt:

Mr. Whitehead, a 62-year-old native of New York, last year (@ 1981) sold a company he founded with his father in 1939, Technicon Inc., to Revlon Inc. for $400 million in stock and cash. The sale made him Revlon’s largest single shareholder.

Technicon is one of the leading manufacturers of scientific instruments for automatic analysis of blood, serum, food, drugs and water pollutants. Disclaimer on Connection

Mr. Whitehead currently runs Whitehead Associates, a concern in Greenwich that specializes in investing in new concerns in the bioengineering field.

He said in a telephone interview that ”there won’t be any connection at all” between the new institute and either Whitehead Associates or Revlon, which now earns a large proportion of its income from biomedical sales. ‘‘This is a purely philanthropic activity in every sense of the word,” he added

~||~  From Mass Corp Div – WhiteheadInstitute (FEIn3061043412) Foreign Corp Certificate showing orig Bd of Directors, CT principal office, and registered agent at MIT) (sevl pp).  Note:  The entity had been registered in Delaware before either of the two NYT articles later the same year, after which it registered in Massachusetts in 1982.  IRS Forms 990 for the Whitehead Institute continue to claim “MA” as legal domicile (Header Info on p.1, part “M” since 2008; before then the IRS Form just didn’t ask either date of founding or legal domicile).  However either the business records in TWO states (which match each other — it’s a foreign corporation in MA, home state DE) or the filing entity’s Form 990 (as uploaded on the database I access, which claims to get it from the IRS) are wrong, or the data on those other states are mistaken.  Guess which way I vote….


One of the NYT articles also mentioning a third firm (Whitehead Associates in Connecticut) Edwin C. Whitehead had going at the time (and probably if still going, is now run by his son John). Also, my attention having been drawn to the name John C. Sawhill as an original board of directors of Whitehead, this VERY well-known and well-connected person was married to Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution, MDRC, and formerly the Urban Institute, who is known (and whose name probably shows up on this blog frequently enough) for her collaboration with Ron Haskins around the theme of marriage promotion and welfare reform.  (Both received, jointly, The Moynihan Prize not too long ago (in 2016), highly significant in some of the most abusive/controlling (in my opinion) and ‘facilitating loss of track of public money” PRWORA (1996 Welfare Reform Act and its prior re-authorizations or renaming, such as 2005 “Deficit Reduction, 2009 ARRA, or the 2010 Claims Resolution, and I DNR the most recent version’s name offhand.).

Brookings Institution announcemt. continues: “In their joint lecture delivered at the ceremony, Haskins and Sawhill emphasized the importance of evidence-based public policy, highlighting Sawhill’s latest work in her book, Generation Unbound (Brookings, 2014). Watch their entire speech here” (Click link to access; I didn’t) || And the usual factoids, year after year re: marriage: “Marriage is disappearing and more and more babies are born outside marriage,” Sawhill said during the lecture. “Right now, the proportion born outside of marriage is about 40 percent. It’s higher than that among African Americans and lower than that among the well-educated. But it’s no longer an issue that just affects the poor or minority groups.”2

John C. Sawhill (d. 2000) was also head of the Nature Conservancy).  In this 2000 article, notice where he was (in which positions) when, particularly at NYU, and/or working in government, shortly before putting his name (not mentioned in the obituary) as Chairman to the first Whitehead Institute in 1981/1982:

John Sawhill, Ex-N.Y.U. Chief Who Led Conservation Group, Dies at 63 May 20, 2000, in The New York Times, by Don Stout:

John C. Sawhill, a former president of New York University who advised three presidents on energy policy and for the last decade of his life was president and chief executive of the Nature Conservancy, died on Thursday at a hospital in Richmond, Va. He was 63 and lived in Washington and Virginia. | The cause of death was diabetes, the Nature Conservancy said.

Mr. Sawhill became head of the conservancy, which describes itself as the world’s largest private conservation group, in January 1990. The organization’s mission is to preserve animals and plants by acquiring land and water to protect the environment from development.  … The conservancy said that in 1995, under Mr. Sawhill’s direction, it completed the largest fund-raising campaign in the history of the conservation movement, raising $315 million. Last March, Mr. Sawhill announced the start of a $1 billion campaign.

Mr. Sawhill was president of New York University from 1975 to 1979. When he took office, the university, like its hometown, was mired in debt and its very future seemed in danger. Mr. Sawhill, who was a professor of economics while serving as president, led a huge fund-raising drive and was widely credited with putting the university’s finances back in order.

And here’s the article’s reference to a close friend Laurence Tisch, of Loew’s Corporation, which puts this also within range of major cigarette company (“Lorillard” it comes up later), while Tisch is known (I discovered, not favorably), for a media takeover of CBS (1986 – 1995) and helping drive it into the ground, making a few billion in the process.  So he’d done this just shortly before his friend John Sawhill died at only age 63.  (link after next paragraph).

Laurence A. Tisch, co-chairman of Loews Corporation and a longtime friend of Mr. Sawhill, also expressed surprise today upon learning of Mr. Sawhill’s disease. Mr. Tisch described Mr. Sawhill as ”a very private man,” especially for a public figure, and one who managed to be blunt and honest without being rude.

(two images with associated 2-page pdf re Tisch, Loews, CBS, Lorrillard Tobacco and CNA Insurance). Notice money characterized as made in “tobacco, hotels and insurance,” and taking down CBS and selling off its parts, then selling its stock back helped turn Laurence Tisch from multi-millionaire-to multi-billionaire. This does represent some of the company, apparently, John C. Sawhill, first Chairperson of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (at MIT) was keeping. The trend its towards LBOs, a characteristic also of the 1980s…,

Check this out:  John & Belle Sawhill: Separate Careers Make Their Life a Tale of Two Cities BY   POSTED (in People.com) ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1975 AT 12:00PM EDT  (Isabel’s grandfather Willis DeVanter was a Supreme Court Judge from 1911-1937, and her father a “financial adviser in the District” (D.C.?) (another Washington Post article from 2015 re: Isabel’s pro-marriage stance). (She married at 21, had one son (their only son) by age 23, and fortunately, her husband supported her going back to school — she’d dropped out to marry) and was obviously well able to support her.  Like both of this couple (Princeton, Wellesley, private prep school for him growing up), their son also went to a boarding school while they pursued their two-career lifestyle).

“SourceWatch” (a project of The Center for Media and Democracy) also notes — none of the other articles I saw did — that John C. Sawhill (d. 2000) was also board of directors Phillip Morris, Inc. in 1979 (!!).  The “Stub” article inset notices it was on a “Tobacco Watch” project by American Legacy Foundation (hypocrites!  ALF was formed from anti-tobacco lawsuit settlement, being characterized by the website in the title as a staged (phony) fight with ulterior motives).  Here’s that link and a image:

Click image to access web page at “SourceWatch.org”


 

The second organization has a VA address and D.C. legal domicile. Unlike the much larger Whitehead Institute’s website, it posts at least one audited financial statement and a single (most recent) Form 990.  This audited financial statement for YE Dec. 2016 shows its purpose (Note 1 to the FS), and its “statement of Activities” (Revs + Expenses) shows that its main source of revenues is “membership dues” and that (see total expenses compared to total revenues 2016), it’s spending about $355K more than it took in, even having released about $500K from assets.  Also some of its assets ($800K++, a good part) are in the form of “pledged” and not actually in hand at the time:

From FYE2016 Financial Statements posted on its website.

 

 

 


Title w/ case-sensitive short-link ending “-7na” An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31/2017)

My post here shows the ripple effect (or, tidal waves might  be more appropriate) and some of the synchronized timelines of their funding, lobbying, and campaigning for vastly increased funding for the NIH (National Institutes of Health, under the US Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and within it, the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”), particularly around the anti-smoking theme, as post  title implies. Alongside this were HUGE anti-tobacco class-action lawsuits by many of the U.S. states and territories,  with settlements by government entities (the states) and later, a federal department representing the United States itself (i.e., by the Department of Justice) against major cigarette producers.


The two organizations started in the 1980s, the tobacco litigation was settled in the late 1990s and in the 21st century, a RICO case by the USDOJ was settled or ruled on in 2007 (as I recall, generally speaking.  Links provided in this post, incl. to a prior page I wrote up in a different context, Dec. 2016. I do not have the details memorized.)

Meanwhile, the biomedical research, for which vastly increased NIH funds were also sought and obtained, continues along the genetic (Human Genome Project, personalized genetics) fields also, with attempts to figure out how to fine-tune where this might be applied to regulate or moderate human behavior and relationships.

Following up on just those two organizations, I discovered within the NIH as in other places, the tendency to consolidate many separate institutes under ONE over-arching theme, and that theme will be represented as (a) health-related with (b) typically a large emphasis on behaviors and social science research AND applications.  This is apparently across the system preferable to an emphasis, or the framework on law (criminal vs. noncriminal) and enforcement of laws with a view towards protecting the people while preserving their rights under those laws, let alone some of the “unalienable ones” we like to, periodically, still pretend exist.  Like to life, liberty (including some privacy) and the pursuit of happiness (which implies exercising personal choices on how to live…)


Within the NIH, that overarching theme I see is named after Behavioral and Social Science Research, and draws funding from and activities across all (currently) 24 National Institutes of Health (!!), and is called, for short, “OppNet.”

See full name of “OppNET” on the green banner. More on how OppNet operates (as to funded projects) comes up when I quote a funding opportunity announcement from 2013 (FOA), below.


Campaigns, litigation and lawsuits this large (the anti-smoking campaigns) would and did need some serious, or at least impressively stated scientific documentation when it comes to the scientific/medical cause giving rise to such causes of action.

A timeline involving both the backgrounds (corporate history) AND the startups of both the organizations (Whitehead Institute, early 1980s, preceded by Whitehead Fellows at MIT, emphasizing funds for biomedical and specific genetic research) and “Research! America,” its website says, 1989.  Simultaneously, a part of the National Institutes of Health which I mention below (in passing, in reference to a CEO of one of the above organizations), called the NCBI (National Center for Biomedical Information) was set in place 1988.  <==There’s a link and statement in two images:

NCBI About (Image #1 of 2) (the three dark-background rectangles are my “callouts” from the text itself).

NCBI About (Image #2 of 2, bottom of same page)

 


 

This post is now nearing completion (pushing 10,000 words, incl. all the quotes and their captions), and I’ve just finished reading, a.k.a., learning, about a project under OppNET which is short for the way in which the NIH consolidates funding across its (now) all 24 “Institutes and Centers” (or “ICs”) for Behavioral and Social Science research. This closed FOA (Funding Opportunity Announcement) under Activity code R21 seeks to connected epigenetic influences on a cell (or organism, human or animal) “across the lifespan and across generations,” starting pre-conception from the father, and of course, intrauterine in the mother.  Look at pp.2-3, or just read, including my markups and exclamations in the available white-space on the funding announcement:  NIH (ClosedProjects listed @ GENE) FOA# RFA-TW-13-002: Resrch on Role of EPIGENETICS inSocial,Behavioral,Envir’mntal+Biological Relatnshps thru-out LifeSpan+ across Generatns (13pp

This FOA closed in 2013, and to be honest, I found it offensive, knowing what I already do about how hard the attempt to shove “behavioral modification” programming into the courts also, over the past several decades (1980sff), and as usual, at public expense, but effectively I found, mostly for private profits, but sold as in the public interest.  Knowing how programs were developed separately, then the push for consolidation — but under the behavioral health/modification (etc.) umbrella/framework/ “reigning paradigm,” it’s not hard to see the same thing taking place with “biomedical research” no matter how technical it sounds, or is, or how many times, in this example, the word “epigenetic” or “epigenome” is used in the funding announcement.

I took some images from that pdf above, to show the language I’m talking about.  Next quote is just two paragraphs from them.  In a desire to understand the “mechanisms” and “behavioral traits” they are talking also about how to, eventually and effectively, be able to control these, starting before birth (the words “pre-conception” did also come up, regarding the paternal involvement), across the lifespan and across generations….  Keep telling yourself this isn’t seeking an alternate “final solution,” and isn’t eugenics — it just wishes to improve human welfare and stop disease.

An integrated approach is needed to understand the role of interactions among social/behavioral/genetic/biological/environmental factors with dynamic changes in the epigenome and to explain individual variability in behavioral traits as well as mechanisms underlying psycho-social and normal/diseased/disordered phenotypes throughout life and across generations.

For this initiative, applications may focus on behavioral epigenetics using the existing biological, psychological, clinical pathologic and/or epidemiologic data sets from experimental human or animal studies with archived or new biospecimens available for epigenetic analysis. Existing data sets with exposure information such as measures of maternal, paternal & child behavioral/social and environmental exposures, diet, anthropometrics, infections, medications as well as other measures of outcomes and function (cognitive, emotional, sensory, motor, social etc.) may be used. Either the exposure or outcome/function data, or both, must be in the behavioral/ social/ cultural realm. Physical specimens for epigenetic analysis might include an array of biological samples and measures (e.g. gut microbial markers, mother’s blood and placenta; cord blood; blood or buccal cells at later ages).

Some vocabulary here; it may sound more technical than it is!

(1) The last possibly unclear term is the simplest: “Buccal”  — of or pertaining to the cheek (or sometimes mouth), or the cavity between the gums and cheek.  Sublingual and Buccal Medicine Administration (from healthline.com). NIH/NCI Definition of “buccal mucosa” (with a small diagram of parts of mouth, teeth, tongue, etc.– just one definition among over 8,100 more.  See image for an idea of the on-line organization and presentation of the National Cancer Institute:

Want a Cancer Terms widget in case you forget about it? NIH/NCI offers one (and social media promotion). Recommended: Look through the “About NCI” link, for its history in Acts of 1937 and 1971 (under Nixon) and authority.

Anthropometrics, interesting applications, but also an easy definition:

(2) “Anthropometrics” (anthropos – human; metron (?) – measure.  The measurement of humans.  Is this for “phrenology” or in-the-closet eugenics?  Well, it was once, but (take it on faith) isn’t now — now it’s just to prevent disease, and not for racist, backwards, elitist (etc.) purposes like back then.

Source to find some data sets: http://researchguides.library.tufts.edu/humanfactors/anthropometric.  Defined in relation to the need for product design (i.e., Ergonomics) — see next (two) images.

The question thus comes up here — what’s the NIH product or services (NIH being under US DHHS of course) for which anthropometrics and all this other data including what reversible or controllable (through the well-tuned interaction between the factors listed above) — and a field of research integrating all 24 NIH Institutes or Centers under “OppNet” — is required?

ANTHROPOMETRY from Thought.com “The study of anthropometry has had some less-than-scientific applications throughout history…. ” but now (in our more progressive days, implied) it can assess risk factors for a host of diseases…” {{Nice to know times have so changed…}}

The last term (from above) I’ll define (or, let others define!) also has some of the broadest meaning, which is good for a BROAD range of research. But the basic meaning is straightforward enough, something “epi” genetics (genes) isn’t INSIDE them, but may affect their expression. Like the difference between “genotype” and “phenotype,” some of the meaning is in the root words…

(3) Epigenetics (Greek prefix “epi-” “upon,” that is, not “in” or inherently part of.. EPI-upon, or surrounding the gene, not part of the gene..).  This term is used approximately every three lines in the Funding Opp. Announcement, and its title, and as an area of interest for more research, so we might as well get it straight off the top.

(Remember, previous posts, when I showed how “PgEd.org” — located at the Harvard Medical School Genetics Department (!!) couldn’t — or at least didn’t — really, define “phenotype” as distinct from “genotype”?  Well the Wiki here uses “phenotype” as an alternate term for “epigenetics.”  I think the examples and definition will get the point accross, and also introduce a few more terms (histones, DNA methylation, etc.) showing up in the FOA, so here it is.  First result, “BEHAVIORAL epigenetics” (Wiki) which turns out only to have been discovered somewhere around 2004, and on maternal rats, bringing up my accuracy (and how some themes NEVER change) the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate:

Wiki opening paragraphs on “Behavioral Epigenetics

Same article, cont’d.:

Epigenetics are stable heritable traits (or “phenotypes“) that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence.[1] The Greek prefix epi- (ἐπι- “over, outside of, around”) in epigenetics implies features that are “on top of” or “in addition to” the traditional genetic basis for inheritance.[2] Epigenetics often refers to changes in a chromosome that affect gene activity and expression, but can also be used to describe any heritable phenotypic change that does not derive from a modification of the genome, such as prions. Such effects on cellularand physiological phenotypic traits may result from external or environmental factors, or be part of normal developmental program. The standard definition of epigenetics requires these alterations to be heritable,[3][4] either in the progeny of cells or of organisms.

The term also refers to the changes themselves: functionally relevant changes to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of mechanisms that produce such changes are DNA methylation and histone modification, each of which alters how genes are expressed without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Gene expression can be controlled through the action of repressor proteins that attach to silencer regions of the DNA. These epigenetic changes may last through cell divisions for the duration of the cell’s life, and may also last for multiple generations even though they do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[5]instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to behave (or “express themselves”) differently.[6]

I think the sense of the word “generations” here (and in the NIH application) would not have the traditional, common use meaning (as in, my offspring are next generation of this family line, my parents, the previous — referring to entire human beings), but possibly to at the cellular level.  But no question the research isn’t intended just for the cellular (i.e., cells divide and multiply, different “generations” I guess) alone.

The Wiki article, further down, then quotes “Erik Erikson” (searchable on this blog — not now, please!) as using this biological (metaphor) for application into how youth develop:

The developmental psychologist Erik Erikson used the term epigenetic principle in his book Identity: Youth and Crisis(1968), and used it to encompass the notion that we develop through an unfolding of our personality in predetermined stages, and that our environment and surrounding culture influence how we progress through these stages. This biological unfolding in relation to our socio-cultural settings is done in stages of psychosocial development, where “progress through each stage is in part determined by our success, or lack of success, in all the previous stages.”[19][20][21]

Psychoanalyst Robert S. Wallerstein, whose wife Judith Wallerstein was influential within AFCC and within the family courts fields (where psychology and psychoanalysts “come home to roost”) respected Erik Erikson, who had just died at age 94 (IN 1994?), and organized a symposium in SF 1995 in honor of him.  Found on-line (1998) as the proceedings (?) of this one-day symposium: “Ideas and Identities: The Life and Work of Erik Erikson…” at an Australian government site.  Here’s a book review, published in “International Psychoanalytical Association” journal (2000) of a biography of Erik Erikson by Friedberger. At the bottom of page 1, the word “epigenetic” (incidentally) is also used, showing it was in common use by this time. The book is “Erik Erikson:  An Outsider at the Center of Things.”

#1 of 2 (images from) a Yr 2000 Book Review of EE biography

..With such accomplishments to his name, some might assume he was a man of singular purpose and direction. But in Friedman’s book we learn of a man moving back and forth across borders between an identification with a father he never knew and a step father who didn’t look like him, between his Jewish family heritage and the blond hair, blue eyes and tall stature he had inherited from his unknown father, between art and psychoanalysis, between the University and the Psychoanalytic Societies, between Denmark, Germany, Austria and the United States, between New England and the San Francisco Bay Area, and between being seen as a leader in psychoanalysis on the one hand and being viewed by some as a discredited outsider to psychoanalysis on the other.

(next image is just references and a brief description of this book review):

#2 of 2 on a Yr 2000 Book Review of EE biography

Dr. Wallerstein (Robert S.) died in 2015; his wife, Judith who teamed up with colleague Joan B. Kelly (famous — both of them — in AFCC circles) was commemorated in a 2012 NYT obituary as the psychologist who analyzed divorce, before him.  (I have posted this before).

Judith Wallerstein’s AFCC connections shown as she was a 2009 recipient of the Stanley Cohen Award (sponsored by the Oregon Family Institute), with Joan Kelly its 1997 (and first?) awardee. (I also posted an image, below-left).

Wiki definition of “Behavioral Epigenetics” referenced Erik Erikson, which brought to mind the Wallerstein/Psychoanalysis/ Family Court connex.



Here’s that pdf (Funding Opportunity Announcement from NIH under OppNET) again:  NIH (ClosedProjects listed @ GENE) FOA# RFA-TW-13-002: Resrch on Role of EPIGENETICS inSocial,Behavioral,Envir’mntal+Biological Relatnshps thru-out LifeSpan+ across Generatns (13pp

And five (5) of those images:

NIH OppNET 2013 FOA Annotated Image #1/5

NIH OppNET 2013 FOA Annotated Image #2/5

NIH OppNET 2013 FOA Annotated Image #3/5

NIH OppNET 2013 FOA Annotated Image #4/5

NIH OppNET 2013 FOA Annotated Image #5/5 (post also quotes the circled paras. here).

I backed up, looking at the NIH Almanac where I first heard about it, and as the two families involved, in their own words (and others’) were canvassing for more and more NIH funding for some of these same purposes (biomedical research AND behavioral modification/social sciences research and how to connect the two…), I saw the link to “LASKER AWARDS.”  So, I’m going to start with two quotes from NIH Almanac and about those awards:

NIH has grown to its preeminent status as the largest source of funding for medical research in the world. Thanks in large part to NIH-funded medical research, Americans today continue to enjoy longer and healthier lives.

Approximately 81 percent of NIH’s $32.3 billion FY 2016 budget goes to more than 300,000 research personnel at over 3,000 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state and throughout the world. While most ICs [[THAT MEANS “INSTITUTES & CENTER” REFERRING TO NIH, BUT THIS PAGE DOESN’T EXPLAIN THE ABBREVIATION..]] receive direct appropriations from the U.S. Congress, from which they award research grants and support scientific programs, non-research funding ICs — located on the agency’s campus in Bethesda, Maryland — include the NIH Clinical Center, the agency’s combined research hospital and laboratory complex; the Center for Scientific Review, which supports the scientific review of grant applications; and the Center for Information Technology, which provides, coordinates, and manages information technology for the NIH.

 

OTHERWISE (where post started, #2…)

This post came from the bowels (so to speak) of my previous one on the “economics of personal genomics” (surprising information and characteristics of institutes pushing/financing the field and ensuring public financing for biomedical research in the field continues to go to private (but prestigious) universities, or institutes formed in collaboration with them). I called that post:

Who? (besides Harvard, MIT, and other Boston-based Institutes) is Funding and Promoting/Soliciting for Personal Genomics (volunteer your personal, identifiable, genetic code for a global database to be shared internationally) — GET Research (fine-tuning and equipping the Nature vs. Nurture debate) as Essential for Global Public Health Issue? (title’s short-link ends “-7m3”; published 7/31/2017, “MIT” added to this title description 8/4/2017; the actual post already includes it.  MIT is involved with both the Broad Institute (referenced specifically on the incorporation papers) AND the Whitehead Institute, while (like Broad Institute) its own separate corporation, still uses “MIT” in its web url:  “WI.MIT.edu.”


For this post, it’ll need a nickname. This will do: “Who’s Been Funding, Promoting, Soliciting for Personal Genomics? (publ. 7/31/2017)”

When it comes to some big money behind the big push for bigger public funding of a chosen field, in recent years, you don’t get MUCH bigger, perhaps, than the offerings from cigarette companies who settled with 46 U.S. states and territories through a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) (1998) followed by the USDOJ RICO act (2007) which were then supposed to be used to re-indoctrinate new generations (and everyone else) to quit smoking.

Meanwhile, oddly, I learned, the cause was financed in part by some who’d made a fortune, through successful advertising in part persuading women, for example, to smoke more cigarettes and helping turn the country AND how our government sets public policy into its consumer-driven self (consumers being subject to mass manipulation throughout), that is, profiting not just those involved in producing and selling cigarettes (sources, manufacturing), but also those in advertising and public relations industries, both of which drew some of their practices from other fields, such as (cf. Freud), such as the appeal to the irrational, groupthink, and in general the fields of psychology, etc. …

On the website smokershistory.com, which I found simply searching for more on Edwin C. Whitehead, a claim was made that the whole thing was and is a staged (phony) fight with the goal of getting the federal government and gullible (and by now, media-drenched, advertising-conditioned, consumer-driven (?)) American public (through major investment in opinion polls) to do the well-organized syndicate’s dirty work: shut down competing tobacco companies, pay them (through the nose) for the privilege of doing it, too.  

In the process, federal agencies (especially the NIH) have been lobbied, and drastically expanded their grants, and are being pushed into certain scientific directions through ongoing funding of scientists, professors, activists such that should some other unproven theory (or claim which, if another line of investigations were followed — which also means “and funded” — a more scientifically accurate answer might be found). Reversing the normal process of government, here, the privately coordinated networks AND funded institutes AND involving Congressmen on some of the boards, collaborated to push the interests of the few on the many and invest heavily in opinion polls and public relations to persuade the many “it’s in your own best interest.”

Keep your eyes on the assets, I say, which if producing enough revenues, will be held, or if not, will be sold.  Or may be moved outside the country “in our own best interests” quietly, en masse, and by way of those 501©3s (private foundations or public charities).  For example, the Whitehead Institute on just one return showed ½ million being held in “other securities” of this type:

(Identifies the family members on the Board of Directors)

Sched D (Whitehead Institute FY2014) details the Other Securities approaching $500M or ½ Billion, notice which amounts are held in what types and where.

Whitehead Institute FY2014 Balance Sheet, compare Line 12 (Other securities — $491M end of year) to much smaller, Line 11 (Public traded securities, which would mean visible SEC reports on the same). (Sched D details what kinds for Ln 12 assets held).

Same tax yr, for Whitehead Institute — notice key subcontractors, and main source of contributions (Pts. VIIB and Pt. VIII, Lns. 1abcdef (just omits the Line 1 total), see next image from Pt. VIII Revenues.

Pt. VIII Revenues (most of it, not all). I did call-outs to show that, as the gov’t does with its citizens, they are using the public (contributions) to stay “even” while having already built up enough assets to basically pay their own bills — should they have chosen too. Balance sheet shows main liability is for a tax-exempt bond (a series of bonds from the state of Massachusetts also involved over time). Meanwhile, their own website fails to disclose even a single Form 990 or audited financial statement (!!), while continuing to solicit and advertise their accomplishments (despite an ongoing patent war over CRISPR with UCBerkeley, an institution the public also supports). COMPARE $37.1M contribs from nearly that much, lines 2ff below; and the largest chunk from sale of assets (see corresponding Sched D WHERE they are investing).

Disclaimers: RE: the screenshots/images from “SmokersHistory.com”: Readers should understand that: the website is B/W; any color are my annotations; web pages have titles and subtitles which may not be reflected on my many screenshots, which are fragments of the whole; and that the website itself doesn’t seem to have a TOC, or much of an identifiable author.  It’s not within the scope of my blogging to check out ALL the claims, references, or links (several of which have expired since), but I did read and check many of them linked to outside sources, and separately look up several of the key topics from links not provided.

RE: SmokersHistory.com:  I do not like the tone, particularly, or some of the language, but I do understand the concern about conflicts of interest, and pseudo-science (as has showed up in parallel situations within the areas I am more expert in, that is, from studying over an EIGHT-year period (2009 – 2017) following and accompanied by networking and experiences interacting with elements of the system I was blogging as to its: history, operations, practices (i.e., from on-line sources about the corporations, federal agencies and nonprofits / tax-exempt big players (and the corporations that funded the typically individual family wealth in the first place).  So, I am not unfamiliar with the overall concepts, but I am still presenting images from this website “FYI” and encourage people to read for what they see on the site, and evaluate separately — or decide whether it qualifies for “dismiss” or “toss.”  In my opinion, it doesn’t qualify for “dismiss or toss,” obviously.

SmokersHistory.com (my image “10”) RWJF involvemt, and saying it’s NOT about selling the pharma, but setting up totalitarian systems of control, all aspects of our lives (incl. behaviors). That, I can agree with, although no doubt the drug profits “hit two birds with one stone.”

SmokersHistory.com (my image “09”) American Legacy Foundat’n (now, misleadingly, “Truth Initiative(™)” This image has a small inset of the Forms990. Also undisclosed conflicts of interests protested (Professor Stanton Glantz (see Wiki on him also), citing grants incl to UCSF.

SmokersHistory.com (my image “07”)

SmokersHistory.com (my image “06”)

SmokersHistory.com (my image “05”) the anti-smoking campaign ignores possible cause, perinatal illnesses / infection (medical info cited)

SmokersHistory.com (my image “08”), I added callouts and superimposed image from current major donor (of $314M, coming with a renaming after donor family) to Harvard School of Public Health.INTERESTING INFO as the brothers (both Harvard grads, one with several degrees) are also RE investors “buying up Harvard Square” (family background, RE in Hong Kong, multi-billionaires now.

Sounds something like a combination between Edward L. Bernays (“Sigmund Freud’s Nephew,” father of public relations, previously well-known for helping the US government with propaganda during wartime), (see Lucky Strikes image below); Albert D. Lasker (1880-1952) with his company Lord & Thomas (<==link to Chicagology on L&T + Lasker: Read! It’s a pre-requisite for this post!!**) a major influence in advertising; see image and its caption), plus a healthy (or unhealthy?) dose of Clifford Beers (father of the “mental hygiene movement” and MHA, Mental Health America…[bio at NASW]) and/or William James (father of American psychology, a field known for its influence on what I’ve been blogging these past eight years, incl. but not limited to the family courts!), a century later…. (WJ from Plato.stanford.edu)(“influenced generations of American thinkers incl. John Dewey, Bertrand Russell…”)  (WJ from “Psychology.fas.harvard.edu“): (1842-1910), at Harvard 1872-1907, where (first doctorate rec’d) G. Stanley Hall in 1879 (<==that’s an NIH reference) says, it’s the only place in the country students (at the time, obviously, meaning men only) could learn about recent German researches in “physiological psychology.”). 

Click image to enlarge, or HERE for rest of NCBI/NIH 2006 article (context seems to be Gerontology) on G. Stanley Hall.

In 1882 Hall was appointed a lecturer in psychology and pedagogy at Johns Hopkins University, becoming a professor in 1884. This professorship was the first chair in the new field of psychology in the country. Hall was a major force in organizing the field, focusing on scientific approaches and in 1883 establishing a psychology laboratory at the university.3 In 1887 he launched the American Journal of Psychology, and in 1892 he convened the American Psychological Association and served as its first president.

In 1888, Hall became the first president of Clark University, in Worcester, Mass. He envisioned Clark as a major graduate school and invited a number of leading scholars to join the faculty, including anthropologist Franz Boas and biologist C. O. Whitman. The accidental asphyxiation of Hall’s wife and daughter in 1890 left him raising his young son alone,4 yet over the course of the next decade he made some of his most significant contributions to the new science of psychology. He developed his influential concept of “genetic psychology,” based on evolutionary theory, and solidified his reputation as a leading educational reformer.

In 1904, Hall published Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relation to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education. In this 2-volume study, based on the idea that child development recapitulates human evolution, Hall took on a variety of issues and synthesized scholarship from a wide range of disciplines. After his retirement in 1920, Hall wrote a companion volume on aging.  [[Note, this article has 5 references.  See link and “Author notes” for more information, incl. on the NCBI, formed only in 1988…]]

NCBI = National Center for Biotechnology Information.  I’ve been at this site before (not from researching “personal genomics” though).  The center under the National Libraries of Medicine is under the NIH and this fits with part of my theme that certain organizations, including one with several Congressmen or women, historically (since 1989) on its board, worked HARD to increase the NIH funding specifically for this field.  How interesting that the NCBI was formed in 1988, and right after, here comes a 501©3 Research! America.


Did experiments of the time pre-shadow 1960s psychedelics? (Probably).  Experiments included experiments with himself.  (William James asThe Nitrous Oxide Philosopher” in The Atlantic, May 1996 issue):

The Nitrous Oxide Philosopher Do drugs make religious experience possible? They did for James and for other philosopher-mystics of his day. James’s experiments with psychoactive drugs raise difficult questions about belief and its conditions  (by DMITRI TYMOCZKO)(May 1996, The Atlantic).

…The psychedelia of the 1960s was foreshadowed by events in the waning years of the nineteenth century. This first American psychedelic movement began with an anonymous article published in 1874 in The Atlantic Monthly.* The article, which was in fact written by James, reviewed The Anaesthetic Revelation and the Gist of Philosophy, a pamphlet arguing that the secrets of religion and philosophy were to be found in the rush of nitrous oxide intoxication. Inspired by this thought, James experimented with the drug, experiencing extraordinary revelations that he immediately committed to paper….

(from the article, titled as a review of the article by Wm. James):…More indeed than visionary,–crack-brained, will be the verdict of most readers, when they hear that he has found a mystical substitute for the answer which philosophy seeks; and that this substitute is the sort of ontological intuition, beyond the power of words to tell of, which one experiences while taking nitrous oxide gas and other anaesthetics. “After experiments ranging over nearly fourteen years, I affirm what any man may prove at will, that there is an invariable and reliable condition (or uncondition) ensuing about the instant of recall from anaesthetic stupor to sensible observation, or ‘coming to,’ IN WHICH THE GENIUS OF BEING IS REVEALED; but because it cannot be remembered in the normal condition, it is lost altogether through the infrequency of anaesthetic treatment in any individual’s case ordinarily, and buried amid the hum of returning common-sense, under that epitaph of all illumination, This is a queer world!..

This experience, which in James’s words involved “the strongest emotion” he had ever had, remained with him throughout his lifeIn 1882 he first described his experiments with the drug; in 1898 he published an article titled “Consciousness Under Nitrous Oxide” in the Psychological Review ; in 1902 he recounted the experience in his greatest work, The Varieties of Religious Experience ; and in 1910, in the last essay he completed, he implied that nitrous oxide had had an abiding influence on his thinking.

A little frightening, given how much is founded on the field he helped found, with some German import on research in “physiological psychology” and an experimental lab started in the 1870s at Harvard… In addition to the drugs, there was communication with the deceased (NYT Learning Network “On This Day” series — August 26, 2010 — his obituary, which also described conditions of his illness and death, the support and communications with his brother the (famous author) Henry James, his surviving wife and children (barely named)).  As you can see from the honors even back in 1910, the prominence given to (a) societies and (b) university connections and honorary degrees.  And, in general, Harvard University.

William James’ books are still talked about, esp. Principles of Psychology and the above “Varieties of Religious Experience.”  So, he was pragmatic == and figured the proofs of his posthumous communications with a deceased person would show up in 100 or 150 years…

[Click image for the whole article]

Wm. James Dies; Great Psychologist (NYT On this Day, 2010):[… is survived by…] his wife, daughter, son, and his brother, Henry James, the author. ((at least his published brother had a name…))It was to be at the side of the sick bed of his brother Henry that Prof. James several months ago went abroad. He watched over his brother until he recovered, then the two made a joint tour through Europe…


In 1880 he wrote for The Atlantic Monthly “Great Men, Great Thoughts, and the Environment,” and for a long time was a contributor to The International Journal of Ethics. He was President of the American Psychological Association and of the International Society for Psychical Research.

Upon his retirement from active teaching he took up a line of studies seeking “to find a balm for men’s souls.” He became the chief American advocate of “pragmatism,” a trend in philosophical thought which holds that “that is true which works.” On July 8 of last year he startled the scientific world by announcing that he had held communication with the spirit of the late Dr. Richard Hodgson. He made a report upon his supposed spiritual communication occupying more than 100 pages in the “Proceedings of the American for Psychical Research,much of the report consisting of alleged verbatim records of his spooky conversation.

“I await more facts,” he said when questioned about his proofs that it was really Dr. Hodgson who spoke to him, “facts which may not point clearly to a conclusion for fifty or a hundred years.”

The honorary degrees of Ph.D. and Litt. D. were bestowed upon Prof. James by Padua in 1893; he was made Doctor of Laws by Princeton in 1896; Edinburgh in 1902, and Harvard in 1903. He was Gifford lecturer on natural religion at the University of Edinburgh from 1899 to 1901; a corresponding member of the Institute of France, and of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.


The influence of the gentlemen from the turn of the century before last (1800s-1900s) being continued through societies, and PhDs by those with an inclination to spread the good news (such as G. Stanley Hall), although not when it comes to religion, helped perpetuate not only Freud’s ideas (psychoanalysis) but prominently the field of psychology, characterizing (constantly) it as “science” and insisting it be taken seriously as a science — after all, it has labs and clinical specialties, and came out of Harvard, John Hopkins (etc.) — reminds me, with respect for his accomplishments, that some of this is founded on “The Nitrous Oxide Philospher” and he who also communed with the dead — proofs forthcoming within the next 150 years or so, he said.  This was called “pragmatic” somehow.  (One more bio blurb of Professor James, from Harvard, just below).


(Wm. James description from Psychology.FAS.Harvard) Note: first experimental psychology lab (for a course) and oversaw first doctorate in the field, G. Stanley Hall.

So yes, what I’m reading about (see post title) does sound possibly like a combo of Bernays, William James + G. Stanley Hall, Albert Lasker, and some Clifford Beers.  (Public relations, psychology/philosophy incl. experiments in it, advertising, the “mental hygiene” movement, etc.) Maybe.

Anyhow so much what we ARE dealing with a century later originated in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and as facilitated in a major way by the class system maintained in part through the taxation/tax-exemption setup started in 1913, and further (exacerbated?) 1933/1934.

I trust you know what I’m referring to in those key dates in American (and world) history. If not, and if you have a paystub resulting from wages, take it out and take a look!

From “CHICAGOLOGY** (wonderful reference: you might want to bookmark this site/its bibliography).

One Chicago ad agency—Lord & Thomas—overshadowed all the rest, achieving greater national influence and notoriety than any other agency in the United States. Albert Lasker started at Lord & Thomas as a floor sweeper. In 1904, became general manager at a salary of $52,000 per year, and within a decade owned the agency. Preaching that advertising was “salesmanship in print,” he clarified client account/creative partnerships, held firmly to the 15% commission, financed some campaigns for clients, scorned research and trained many future agency leaders.

Lasker drove L&T to No. 1 rank, left in 1921 to serve in Washington, returned to a faltering agency in 1923, ruthlessly revived it, built Kimberly-Clark Corp.’s Kotex and Kleenex businesses and created Lucky Strike cigarette ads aimed at women. In 1942, he sold his L&T holdings so that the shop could reopen — in January 1943 — carrying the name of the key executives in the agency’s New York, Chicago and Los Angeles offices — Foote, Cone & Belding.

He traveled the city in a yellow chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce and maintained a suburban estate with a staff of 50 (etc.)….Lasker sold the public on the idea of orange juice (people previously only ate oranges), built brands such as Goodyear and Van de Kamps, established a “records of results” department that monitored its clients’ advertising impact with catalog-response precision, and even used advertising to help defeat Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations. Advertising legend David Ogilvy rightly ranked Lasker as one of the “six giants of modern advertising.”

**(from: https://chicagology.com/advertising/lordthomas/)

From article, quoting Bernays: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.”

(Bernays, b. 1891 Austria, d. 1995 USA):

The manipulation of the American mind: (etc.) July 2015 by Richard Gunderson in The Conversation US (see image)

…Bernays was also Freud’s nephew twice over. His mother was Freud’s sister Anna, and his father, Ely Bernays, was the brother of Freud’s wife Martha.

The year after his birth, the Bernays family moved to New York, and Bernays later graduated from Cornell with a degree in agriculture. But instead of farming, he chose a career in journalism, eventually helping the Woodrow Wilson Administration promote the idea that US efforts in World War I were intended to bring democracy to Europe.

Bernays rebrands ‘propaganda’

Having seen how effective propaganda could be during war, Bernays wondered whether it might prove equally useful during peacetime.

Yet propaganda had acquired a somewhat pejorative connotation (which would be further magnified during World War II), so Bernays promoted the term “public relations.”

All of the above use a combination of force and persuasion to obtain desired consent — or get around it where it’s withheld, one way or another.

Bernays, for his clients, including The American Tobacco Company, promoted Lucky Strikes for women to smoke more, but for his wife (says the article) restricted her smoking by grabbing cigarettes when he found them. Another 2002 article on Bernays (not that there aren’t many, still years after his death at age 103) from The Guardian.com in “Education: The Observer, I think is well-written and makes several good points (even as it advertises an upcoming series on Bernays):

How Freud got under our skin (March 10, 2010 by Tim Anderson in “The Guardian”; url lists it under “medical science/higher education”)

….He believed, like his uncle, that man was controlled by his irrational desires; he also saw that by applying the principles of psychoanalysis, these desires might be controlled and manipulated on a vast scale, for power and profit.

Bernays was among the first to understand that one of the implications of the subconscious mind was that it could be appealed to in order to sell products and ideas. You no longer had to offer people what they needed; by linking your brand with their deeper hopes and fears, you could persuade them to buy what they dreamt of. Equipped with our subconscious wish-lists, we could go shopping for the life we had seen portrayed in the adverts.

Happily, as Bernays realised, Uncle Siggy’s creation – the great lasting invention of the twentieth century – arrived at a time when business, and American business in particular, through the techniques of mass production, and planned obsolescence, was suddenly  able to satisfy those shifting desires …. || All of this – the way in which Western society has made sacred the feelings and desires of the individual, and how several generations of the Freud family has been at the heart of that crusade – is the subject of a remarkable BBC series which begins next Sunday. The Century of the Self is written and produced by Adam Curtis, the inspired and curious documentary essayist, whose previous work includes Pandora’s Box , the wonderful series about the science of the Cold War, (etc.)

That article — now 15 years old! — is still relevant.

Consider how both the father of public relations and a pioneer in advertising, Albert D. Lasker with Lord & Thomas (next image + caption), was specifically working for tobacco companies, big ones….  Of course this has influenced governments, as it was intended to, giving us a sense of choice and distracting the public from “dangerous political thought” as The Guardian goes on to say (discussing the upcoming documentary):

….Our news does not often ask us to think; it requires us to emote, and our politicians, on the advice of their research and PR men, do likewise.

In Bernays’s terms, this is all pretty much as it should be. Fearing the unleashed subconscious, Freudians believed that psychoanalysis could normalise people for democracy. Bernays, particularly after the rise and fall of the Third Reich (Goebbels was an assiduous student of his methods), thought that the safest way of maintaining democracy was to distract people from dangerous political thought by letting them think that their real choices were as consumers. He believed, and argued to Eisenhower, that fear of communists should be induced and encouraged, because by unleashing irrational fears, it would make Americans loyal to the state and to capitalism.

Wow.  Even if this is NOT news to readers, what would be the antidote

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE. Relevant in part because his surviving widow (and 3rd wife) Mary Lasker, with presumably control of the Albert D. and Mary Lasker Foundation, had such social, congressional (influencing the direction AND size of NIH), and at times presidential connections (in addition to these funds) that “SmokersHistory.com” called the coordinated network pushing for lawsuits against “big tobacco” the “Lasker Syndicate.” Within Research! America nonprofit (which also ran at least two other 501©4s campaigns parallel to itself), while the Lasker Foundation isn’t the only one mentioned, it is frequently mentioned on their own timeline. Research! America shares a co-founder Edwin C. Whitehead, in whose name the Whitehead Institute (located at MIT and major contributor to the Human Genome Project, as I previously blogged), Whitehead Fellows (etc.) were established. | Whatever the syndicate may be informally named (so far, this one seems reasonable), one does exist and has been exerting its influence over major causes, societies (American Cancer & American Heart Association among others) and federal agencies (such as NIH !!) involved with this situation. See also separate Wikis on both named Laskers…She outlived him by 42 yrs until 1994.

Looking into this (Lasker Foundation & Research! America, via Smokershistory.com reference to them) exposed more information which connects to similar understandings I’d come to over time, specifically about the tobacco settlement funds and anti-tobacco lawsuits, and use of those mega-funds for massive behavior-change and public relations campaigns.  The component of behavioral modification throughout (regardless of FOR WHAT) infrastructure depends a LOT on media, and saturation of various institutions to get the message out (of course) to kids and youth, with a heavy dosage of guilt and fear attached.

When it’s also that large, there’d better be major scientific backing for the cause — however, there are also rule-making ways to get around it (as was discovered in the 1990s through “TMAP” regarding those drugs).  One difficulty in the scientific field is the money (major investments) it takes and keeping such money conflict-of-interest-free.   The public has to be sold on this too, which we know (the art of persuasion) is both an art and a science, apparently.

…and similar understandings I’d come to over time in general about the alleged vs. probabl purposes of private wealth, concentrated and retained better in various tax-exempt foundations as expressed in pay-to-play philanthropy** in exchange for greater influence over federal agencies, universities and their professors, and in which direction those agencies, completing the privatization circle, direct money back to nonprofits — all of course for the love of one’s fellow man (“phil-anthropy”).  (**i.e., lower federal and state taxation on the income (interest, dividends) or other profits (capital gain when sold at a profit) produced by the stockpiled assets in exchange for donations which are then used for greater control of donees/recipients).

Part of this game is all those involved who know better pretending (unless it’s directed against the “other”: political party, gender, race, or religion, etc. in which case pretense — about the designated “other” is suspended, but about those pointing fingers, maintained) that this is NOT about: personal profit, fame, or greed, gain, the lust for further expansion of power, or a messianic delusion of personal insight/private shared visions of improve the planet — if only existing barriers (like, in the USA, law and/or jurisdiction where rights under those laws exist) could first be overcome (compromised) for greater efficacy.  All of these, if ever identified (especially “profits”) are “of course” being a secondary motivation, coincidence, and not the driving influence.

The pretense is, “we are all on the same page” when major conflicts and differences of motivation exist.  Success of the ruse is that if the public knows, the public doesn’t dare tell, but first line of resistance/defence is to so organize that they just wouldn’t know. This requires many different interests operating in different sectors coordinating so as to seem more independent and dissociated than they actually are.


These organizing and financing behaviors within my memory and consciousness over the years.


My previous “Who’s Been Funding, Promoting, Soliciting for Personal Genomics?” post referenced these topics and two specific organizations with both people and (judging by one’s sponsorship of the other) purposes in common.  See bottom of that post for a timeline of accomplishments (1989ff) from the first organization (Research! America) mentioned below:

In this post,* you will also hear about two more entities who have worked side-by-side for decades to shape government-sponsored research in particularly cancer (smoking cessation), heart disease, biomedical research into genetics, and to push for more and more NIH funding:  

~|~ Research! America (est. 1989), and ~|~ the Albert & Mary Lasker Foundation (it seems 1974)

Briefly, how they came up.

When the Whitehead Institute’s famous founder is looked at, and through basic Google search on my part (I didn’t know who he was…), this also brings up his participation/founding of Research! America (inc. 1989, a VA-based entity with a D.C. legal domicile — and apparently some legislators (or at least “Hon.’s”) on its board over time)*, with its push for doubling NIH funding for biomedical research in five years, and in general PR for BioMedical Research (incl. on stem cells) as a public and global health benefit.

(* the quoting the prior post…)

From the website timeline on Research! America posted at the bottom of that “Who’s been Funding …Personal Genomics” post, and from its tax returns (I didn’t post, but did review, in part), a consistent Officer /Director has been Mary Woolley, characterized as also having led two other major associations — the Medical Research Institute of SF, and the Association of Independent Research Institutes (AIRI). I’m not yet sure whether this is any relation to Mary Emma Woolley, (1863-1947) first female student woman to attend Brown University and later 11th President of Mt. Holyoke College (1900-1937).  (See Image #1 of 4, I posted, top of image):


Bio Blurb of Mary Woolley (on Research America) also notes she was a founding member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (note it’s start date ca. 1982 as I recall):

(from “Institute for Systems Biology“) Mary Woolley is the president of Research!America, the nation’s largest not-for-profit alliance working to make research to improve health a higher national priority. Woolley is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine and served two terms on its Governing Council. She is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and serves on the National Academy of Sciences Board on Life Sciences. She is a Founding Member of the Board of Associates of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and is a member of the visiting committee of the University of Chicago Medical Center. Woolley is also a member of the National Council for Johns Hopkins Nursing. She holds an honorary doctoral degree from the Northeast Ohio Medical University (NEOMED). Woolley has also served as president of the Association of Independent Research Institutes, as editor of the Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, as a reviewer for the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, and as a consultant to several research organizations. She has a 30-year publication history on science advocacy and research related topics, and is a sought-after speaker, often interviewed by science, news, and policy journalists.

Apart from her honorary doctorate, what other degrees (or even undergraduate and, if any, masters, major — is significantly omitted).

Here’s a 2012 Q&A Interview from Fogarty Center at NIH (note: Woolley was co-founder of Whitehead Institute AND Research! America which, as helped by the Lasker Foundation, heavily pushed Congress (and the American public) to double NIH funding within 5 years, and succeeded (more than) in doing so. So in fact, the NIH PR is appropriate recognition for someone whose work helped them keep going (next, green-banner color image).

I’m enclosing this in part because of its reference to how all these jobs help reduce the deficit and keep America competitive globally. This is, IMHO, also a pretense.  That topic would be “the CAFRs” and the sequestration and evasion of showing the extent of collective assets held. I don’t know how many more ways to communicate it, and others have also, such that there shouldn’t really be any more excuses for JUST NOT LOOKING, even if to disprove half or more of what those of us who DID look, are saying.  (See posts on State-Run Banks and related, just before these on the Personal Genomes theme.  I.e., May/June 2017 on this blog!).

Mary Woolley comes up as key co-founder of both the organizations (Whitehead Institute | Research! America) esp. per its own timeline.  I’ve also looked at the tax returns of the latter, and see her name (and the rapid increases in her salary year by year) on the Forms 990.

Mary Woolley, as someone who seems VERY familiar with federal funding (and part of this entails understanding CAFRs, i.e., those agencies’ financial statements) AND nonprofit leadership, I’m sure knows the difference between a budget (revenues-expenses), and assets to liabilities, and that held assets (as investments which can be held and produce dividends and savings interest, OR be sold, either at a profit — if this is desired — OR at a major loss, if this is in some circumstances also desired, which some circumstances in the larger (nonprofit) sector may very well desire…. And as having been involved with the Whitehead Institute (if she isn’t currently), she can easily see where ITS assets are being invested these days — which is already globally.  So, the “patriotic” purpose fails the smell test here.  Also notice the center’s motto (Advancing Science for Global Health) and that while it’s under “NATIONAL institute for health,” the center is “international” in scope.  Also, the banner is displaying “50” years old.  (See History):

NIH Q&A with Mary Woolley of Research! America reveals her reasoning — deficit reduction and keeping US globally competitive (and global health). Sure… (Click image to enlarge w/ annotations, or HERE to read this (June 2012) page without).

History page of Fogarty International Center at NIH (named after a U.S. Rep John E. Fogarty, who died suddenly of heart attack in 1967, and established by Exec. order of LBJ)

The “History” page of the Fogarty Center (see image) links to further events in its timeline, (NIH Almanac, after “Mission” and “Vision” paragraphs.  That page is long, and I see starts ca. 1988 (Research! America started 1989….), and HIV/AIDS and USAID play major recurring roles in key events, as do international collaborations.  I picked, somewhat arbitrarily, some events from Nov. 2013ff (referencing Anti-Tobacco campaigns and Bill & Melinda Gates statements regarding their support of the NIH.  Know that the Gates Foundation (and this couple) plays also a major role in the GAVI Alliance, which I blogged (possibly on my “Cold Hard Facts blog, not this one) for its historic plan to vaccinate ¼ billion of the world’s children in developing worlds.  I.e., vaccines, and major receipts from the project also.  The HIV/AIDS issues is historically huge, and has been debated as to whether HIV causes AIDS, but so far as I know, that aspect (Peter Duesberg, UC Berkeley) has been well-quashed since.

From: History of Fogarty Center ==> Fogarty Center described in the NIH Almanac

November 2013 — After 10 years of investing in tobacco cessation projects, Fogarty conducted a review of its International Tobacco and Health Research and Capacity Building Program. The report found the program has made “significant scientific advances” in contributing to tobacco control and fueled collaborations among investigators in more than 30 countries, trained at least 3,500 individuals and contributed to the publication of over 415 scientific papers. The review also observed that “notable opportunities exist” for further achievements in the field.

December 2, 2013 — Global health philanthropist Bill Gates visited NIH to deliver the annual David E. Barmes Global Health Lecture, titled “Why the Future Needs Biomedical Innovation.” Gates paid tribute to the numerous flourishing partnerships between his family foundation and the NIH. He also said the two organizations are united by their common goals of improving health and understanding the root causes of disease so that effective interventions can be developed.

February 11-12, 2014 — Scientists gathered at NIH to explore the frontiers in neuroscience for global health and to mark the 10th anniversary of Fogarty’s brain disorders program, which is designed to focus attention and resources on this neglected area of health in low- and middle-income countries. The initiative supports activities that address neurodevelopmental disorders — such as autism, fetal alcohol syndrome and learning disabilities — as well as neurodegenerative diseases including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, addiction, seizure disorders, neuropsychiatric conditions such as depression and schizophrenia, posttraumatic stress and other disorders. In all, the program has awarded more than 150 grants totaling about $85 million — mostly from NIH partner Institutes and Centers.


I looked up the Medical Research Institute of San Francisco, how called something else (CPMC stands for California Pacific Medical Center), and this is its “RI” Research Institute:

http://www.cpmc.org/professionals/research/about/history.html

The Institutes of Medical Sciences became the Medical Research Institute of San Francisco in 1982. In May 1993, the Medical Research Institute of San Francisco merges with California Pacific Medical Center to create the California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute (CPMCRI).

When Mary Woolley was president might be seen from the Forms 990 if they are still available after that merger, or in California, if filed (under “founding documents” or otherwise) at the Registry of Charitable Trusts. More lookups….

1959
The San Francisco Institutes of Medical Sciences is established with headquarters at Webster and Clay Streets. This non-profit California Corporation is created to engage in research in the medical sciences and to further post-doctoral medical education. The original incorporators and Board of Directors are: Frank Gerbode, M.D.; Knox Finley, M.D.; Arthur Jampolsky, M.D.; Fred H Merrill, M.D.; Henry W. Newman, M.D., John J. Osborn, M.D., Arthur Selzer, M.D., and Mrs. Harley Stevens. Dr. Gerbode is the first president of the Institute of Medical Sciences.

1962
Heart Research Center is established through a NIH grant of approximately $2 million. Officers are: Frank Gerbode, M.D., President; Arthur Jampolsky, M.D., Vice-President; John J Osborn, M.D., Secretary-Treasurer.

There’s more history, but the American Heart Association (as well as Cancer) comes up in this post.


I named this post:

First, shorter title:

About the Anti-Smoking Campaign and its Backers from “SmokersHistory.com” (started 7/31/2017, case-sensitive short-link ends “-7na”

But why I’m including it is better reflected in the longer title, although that version is still a WIP (Work In Progress):


WHY: Already I had been moving from writing specifically about: family courts, divorce, custody domestic violence, fatherhood and marriage movements, advocacy to correct some of the same which (it turned out to be) sometimes, playing both sides of the fence, into looking at another big “transformation target” and its players — the public school systems of the US (and globally, with a view towards global alignment and standardization).  School Reform, etc.  And the relationship between central government (U.S. federal level) and the states by way of their many specialized networks coordinating standards, protocols, where possible, legislation, practices, and policies, and doing this OUTSIDE the open-meeting, participation, and designated means within this country’s elected governments.  Which is to say, moving away from government “by, of and for” the People.

I saw throughout a tendency to meld several federal agencies (some which ahd been previously separated, then expanded, and now should be re-consolidated, apparently) around the chosen theme of the day, or decade — such as “Promise Zones” or “Place-based Philanthropy” or “Social Impact Funding” and so forth. I saw regionalism throughout being based on the 10 federal regions that, for a while, existed, but then were shut down — but their footprints left in the form of agency organization of the USA into regions anyhow, as the HHS has done, and I’ve shown it, too.  Here’s that map:

We’ve already been regionalized and internationalized.  NOT GOOD! If there are questions of most individual rights, safety from crime, or family matters — or responsibility for educating citizens — that belongs to the states…. Go back and ask your local representatives if there’s a problem… if you want to know why there are self-contradicting programs in operation locally, both sides being funded, resulting in harm, disease, dysfunction, or sometimes even deaths (the premature kind), well the problem can be used to generate more federal-regional (privately generated) programming to distribute nationwide, but getting heard when there’s a problem with (a) the programming and/or (b) that infrastructure — it’s the Infrastructure vs. the Individual at almost all points and from agency to agency, or venue to venue.  “Challenge the infrastructure and encounter natural opposition from people who’ve made a living (or even a conference-circuit career) on it,” is the subliminal (not very) message.  Challenge whether it’s even a good idea without the right “connections” or showing “what’s in it for us” for the major philanthropists and investors — and “good luck.”

REGIONALISM OF HHS (10 federal regions) has already been shown.  Here’s some in the Department of Education:

RELs — REGIONAL EDUCATION LABS: – Remember the posts on “WestEd” and its “MIA” comprehensive audited financial statements for this California-originated but created by two other regional labs (FWL and SWRL or similar acronyms) that already crossed several state borders? As did this JPA (Joint Powers Agency or Authority).***

  • as well as the personel connections to an individual (Gary Hoachlander) who ran a consulting firm out of Berkeley, CA (for a while), AND
  • the relationship to “ConnectEd: The California Center for Career and College” (<= it’s “Donate” page; notice street address) which got initial funding — PLENTY of it — ca. 2006 but didn’t register as a charity until 2010, at which time
  • AND how the James Irvine Foundation (originating wealth from the historic Irvine Company, being at some point basically owned by JUST ONE MAN (Donald Bren) handed over a cool $11M, despite (or was it because of?) it’s badly-behaving nonprofit track record at the time..

Some images to this effect.  Now a Donald Bren Foundation also being featured:  Donald Bren Foundation next to James Irvine Foundation is between 10-and 20-fold difference ($127M vs. $2.1B for FYE 2015; see tables below)– but Bren controls the Irvine Company now.  I seriously doubt all his “eggs” are in this philanthropic basket.  Neither of them, however, are public charities — they are still privately controlled foundations (990PF filers):

Total results: 3Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
The Donald Bren Foundation CA 2016 990PF 26 $127,370,520.00 95-4094426
The Donald Bren Foundation CA 2015 990PF 23 $126,507,633.00 95-4094426
The Donald Bren Foundation CA 2014 990PF 24 $137,455,111.00 95-4094426

Total results: 3Search Again. (ignore the database added-words below.  They’re wrong!)

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
James Irvine Foundation Foundation-Administered Program CA 2015 990PF 84 $2,185,767,087.00 94-1236937
James Irvine Foundation Foundation-Administered Program CA 2014 990PF 95 $2,080,342,364.00 94-1236937
The James Irvine Foundation CA 2013 990PF 99 $1,887,715,935.00 94-1236937

For a point of comparison, here is the DC-based foundation entrusted with the proceeds of the anti-smoking (tobacco settlement master agreement), originally called “American Legacy Foundation” or called that at least before it changed its name to “Truth Initiative®”):

 

Total results: 14Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
American Legacy Foundation DC 2016 990 65 $957,381,718.00 91-1956621
American Legacy Foundation DC 2015 990 92 $1,096,789,302.00 91-1956621
American Legacy Foundation DC 2014 990 97 $1,151,506,314.00 91-1956621

Irvine Company featuring (among its “10 Facts”) #3 is Long-term ownership. Ownership = control.

Click to enlarge. The Irvine Company got started in 1864 with Mexican and Spanish land grants, and is into real estate development, master planning, maintaining open space, and of course, philanthropy to go with all this control of land, buildings, and populations..

The JamesIrvineFndtn 2006<~<~ blg -An Intvw w Gary Hoachlander[ConnectEd the CalifCntr), see also DanielSilvermn background (Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 10.38AM)

(#1 of 3, Click the Image)

ConnectEd~The CalifCtr for Career + Learning plus LINKEDIN plus James Irivine Fndtn Plus Where ConnectEd works besides Calif SShot 2017May11 @ 6.23.50 PM 2

(***These details by memory; I posted them once, this is as I recall only!).  FWL = “Far West Labs” and even Wiki only has a stub on it, not touched since 2012.  Seems to me the subject might be less than a major point in the average citizen’s consciousness:

Far West Labs Wiki gives a time and origin. Click image to go to the wiki, although that’s pretty much it.

IES = Institute of Educational Sciences (see org. chart)

While there are only 10 Regions now, under IES Org. chart there are four Centers:   (NCER, NCES, NCEE, and NCSER; see also banner images).  The acronym “NCEE” is misleading because the letters for the last few words, “and Regional Assistance” are missing:

About us:

(from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ aboutus/)

The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) is one of the four centers of the Institute of Education Sciences. NCEE is responsible for conducting rigorous evaluations of federal programs, synthesizing and disseminating information from evaluation and research, and providing technical assistance to improve student achievement through the work of the evaluation division and the knowledge utilization division that includes the Regional Educational Laboratory Program; the What Works Clearinghouse, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the National Library of Education.

NCEE’s evaluation division focuses on conducting rigorous impact studies of promising education programs and practices that are supported through federal funds by conducting studies that will assess the impact of education programs on academic achievement, particularly in reading, mathematics, and science. The evaluation studies use methodologies that can provide credible scientific evidence to answer questions of effectiveness.

Note: 4 centers (NCER, NCES, NCEE, and NCSER) on black footer beneath the moving slide on home page. 5 Slides, only 4 with people and this is the only one with grown men in, apparently talking and interacting. A blond woman (fuzzy image foreground) is perhaps listening. All other photos either what looks like a teaching situation (one woman + boys and girls), or a young woman (thinking of becoming a teacher) in them. What message does this send about leadership and adult-to-adult interactions??

(see my comments on previous IES banner image)

Org. chart of IES, found on the NCES.Ed.Gov website.

Second, right below here are the opening paragraphs from a 12/15/2016 page I’d written as a footnote to posts dealing with “First 5” funding (white-background with purple border).

I’d been studying programming targeted at young children (and their families) which sometimes involving funds from the historic tobacco lawsuit settlements; at the time I see it was in reference to Georgia (?).  Back then, I knew nothing about and hadn’t heard much about, either the Whitehead family (Edwin C. “Jack” Whitehead — famous for his collaboration with MIT, then Harvard, MIT and the Broad Institute — surrounding the Human Genome Project, and now, which I was blogging, the PGP – Personalized Genome Project, gone global…..), but I’d run across the Broads and Broad Foundations in general because — well, they’re based in California and involved as philanthropists in many things, but this time — their school-transformation activities, which I’d been writing up late 2016 and for a good part of 2017.  So I put out a short (about 6,700 words, now 6,900) page in Dec. 2016, which starts like this and would be good to review before taking on some of the controversial statements coming up in this one).

Published as a “work in process” Dec. 15, 2016, at about 6,500 words.  “I’ll be back!!”


I don’t know that a link to this FamilyCourtMatters page USDOJ Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements (Just a~First 5~Footnote to the 2016 TOC Intro.) will be put in my blog sidebar;** it is published here to produce a link to  a “footnote” in my Table of Contents 2016 post in context of a comment about the impact upon public services (particularly welfare-related, which in effect also includes marriage/fatherhood public relations and advocacy programming).

[**8/1/2017 update; I had cause to review this information (it came up again in the course of blogging] and see that sometime last year I did add a link to this informal (?) page to the sidebar. I also last night moved that link closer to the top of the “Vital Info/Links” blogroll because I believe these tobacco lawsuits and anti-smoking campaigns ARE vital to understand in the 21st century…]

It is neither final nor in-depth, but just for a point of reference to support a statement made in the TOC.

USDOJ Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements (Just a~First 5~Footnote to the 2016 TOC Intro. (a Page with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-5e8”   Page formatting changed, but not much content (no added images but I enlarged some of them) 8/1/2017 for easier reading. )

A more complete statement would include some of my existing write-ups and understandings of where this money went, at the state level and how those entities were named.  And then read different state CAFRs and see the amounts involved!  Including that just now is not in my blogging schedule; what’s not already posted may come here later.  Or, better yet, readers may look this up, always a good process to engage in for the collateral learning acquired in that process.  (How do you think I learned what’s up here? It certainly wasn’t spoon-fed, organized, and assembled for easy comprehension on Day 1!)

 

This volatile and angry in its language but detailed-documentation website described parallel situations in a way I could relate to from my experience having researched (or at least diligently investigated!) the federal grants pushing themes common to “welfare reform” based, or I should say, SOLD under, social science theories wielding the guilt trip on the public of welfare dependency as increasing the public debt, while playing key heartstrings in the emotional topics of fatherlessness, juvenile delinquency and crime, teenage promiscuousness, and the specter of too-independent-minded single mothers who would rather be single than married, or relationship-abused.

I wouldn’t reference or quote this smokershistory.com website (especially as its writer isn’t really made clear), or spend hours reading through it if it had not resonated with situations I knew of personally through writings for this blog, including at a few points, overlapping foundations (particularly Robert Wood Johnson), and even a reference to “ICF Consulting,” as well as the role of pharma.  I thought the writer “had it in for” the Laskers in particular, possibly just anti-Semite — until I began reading outside the blog also and started understanding how influential the family associations were, and how.  But the driving of public-sponsored medical science research by private money and organizations networking together is a serious issue, as it is also when the theme. Also the point was raised raised about a “phony fight” in tobacco being used to have the federal government, with manipulated public opinion, help the private interests invested themselves in tobacco, literally shut down or intimidate the competition.


In this blog I’ve called it the “good cop/bad cop” routine in the gender war, an artificially-created conflict masking the coordinated mutual interests between the opposing sides to generate the desired result — consolidated centers of power in the social services field, etc. These consolidated centers or collaborations, partnerships (etc.) are promoted as in the best interests of the public, while they effectively steer (and, literally, divert) public funds into more and more private hands, creating a maze of networked interests, and a system FULL of conflicts of interests.  Browse the archives of table of contents (another reason I put out LONG post titles: in part to keep the parts of the networks straight).

Some parts are indeed privately generated, I found, but inevitably they are targeting the ongoing production of more and more PUBLIC  monies for the cause.  Professions have been created around the family courts, the juvenile courts, and other types of courts; these professions have further had their individual nonprofit associations, while the theme was then sold that services are too “fragmented,” for which solution “One-Stop Justice Shops” (Family Justice Centers) or ‘Unified Family Courts” (etc.) are promoted. This takes time, but when the progress is steady, results are achieved.  Another term popularized in the above fields (again, I wrote plenty about this:  use the “Search” function) is “Coordinated Community Response” (to domestic violence or should I say “family abuse..”).

Two consistently common themes seems in the above fields (i.e., healthymarriage.org, fatherhood.gov and the like) were:  (1) promotion, advertising, media campaigns and (2) behavioral modification of criminals — or”high-conflict” parents or even just plain old “parents,” individually of fathers, and of mothers, and of teens, etc.) as a goal, and again, with public HEALTH as a primary (if not only) primary umbrella framework. In the 1980s – 2000s the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) continued to grow as a grantmaking agency; in 1991 the Administration of/for Children and Families is set up, and after 1996 welfare reform as we know (see my About Blog Motto post for one place), “HMRF.ACF.HHS.Gov” to push curricula, vocabulary, recite (usually piecemeal) accomplishments, and evaluations of the same.

So guess what kinds of subcontractors benefited from this promotion of developing a public infrastructure for mass population behavioral modification and research, testing, and evaluation of who well it works? I saw this in “Research! America” tax returns (Opinion Polls, Advertising).

That’s my way of saying, the website I referenced above with “volatile language” talks about the campaign to modify people’s behavior regarding smoking as a cause of cancer calls this in effect the “Lasker Syndicate” (in many parts) and deals with who, what, when and where.  It also talks about the Whiteheads, and presents an entirely different theory on why this multi-hundred-billion-dollar campaign against smoking, specifically, as health behavioral change, was set in motion.  The terms “health fascism” and “pseudo-science” are used frequently.  The “Albert D. & Mary Lasker Foundation” wealth came from, in good part, advertising; he was called the “father of advertising” and Mary, his third wife who outlived him by about 42 years (died at age 94 in 1994…).  They have been activist in sponsoring many things we may take for granted, as commonplace, today, and have done this with the platform of that wealth and connections.

Some of this also overlaps with the tobacco lawsuit settlements and “master settlement agreement” (MSA) of, I believe it was 1998.  When I heard from one of th epage of the American Legacy Foundation (created from those funds), now called the “Truth Initiative®” (which, it might not actually be…) a quick look at the earlier returns showed the hundreds of millions of contributions from its start, and within just a few years (2003), of course these contributions, being held under a nonprofit, would be invested in certain assets; the assets held in that size DO produce dividends, and interest income, and they can be also sold for profits — or losses.

Somehow in fiscal year 2002 (as early a return as I could get my hands on), the ALF managed to sell OVER $8B of securities for a $53M loss. One wonders who profited from buying them, and where this is in the public interest.  It reminded me of when the State of California lost about ⅓ of its fiduciary funds held under public benefits’ value in a single year (2008), that time $400M in value became closer to $300M.  When this results, why should they be entrusted in the first place with stewarding so much?

MOVING ON…

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 5, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    August 6, 2017 at 7:20 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

Let's Get Honest! Blog: Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: