Title, presently: Cont’d from my Aug. 5 post…An Alternate Viewpt. on the Anti-Smoking Campaign and its Syndicated Backers …1998 Tobacco Litigation MSA followed by the 2007 (Opinion) USDOJ RICO [started 8/7/2017] with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7pV”

At first the material was so vast, consequential, and filled with so many branches of related information, I simply called this one “Continued from the last post.” “Last” meaning “most recent,” of course.

Last post, title abbreviated: An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated Backers ….** and 1998 MSA Tobacco litigation. (shortlink ends “-7na”)

• **(mid-section of that long title….) 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®)

Mary Lasker with Albert D. Lasker. His third wife (her second husband; first had owned an art gallery, marriage didn’t last long). There appears to be something of an age difference… They married 1940; he retired (selling? Lord & Thomas) in 1942, which sale funded their foundation ($45M). L&T became Foote, Cone & Belding. By 1952 he was dead from cancer, which diagnosis (this article says) Mary kept from him…. (image of the Laskers from CBCRadio.com article, below).

After a week researching, compiling and writing the previous post, I gained a better understanding at least of the role of Mary Lasker (1900-1994), again, who, being Wife #3, outlived her wealthy husband Albert D. Lasker (1880-1952), owner of the dominating-the-field Lord & Thomas advertising agency in the early 1900s,** by some 42 years and who, with her powerful connections and relatives, made her will and influence known to a series of Presidents, Congresses, and NIH directors, as well as with some of them and/or other associates (people of influence in her social circle as a wealthy heiress of Mr. Lasker) running or re-directing a series of influential organizations central to public policy today, including at least a few associations mentioned as “Intervenors” in the USDOJ lawsuit against “big tobacco,” as shown here: [I re-post the same image and additional from the USDOJ Civil Actions lawsuit (Amended Opinion 2007)  listing the intervenor associations images much further below, with quote from its Introduction.  This gives an idea of the vast size of the proceedings. (My 12/16/2016 page has link to the entire opinion, and more)]

This image comes up again, further down in today’s (8/15/2017) post…USA Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids, American~ Cancer,Heart,Lung, NonSmokersRights+NAATPN, *INTERVENORS* v. PhillipMorrisUSA et al CivilActn 99-2496(GK) [RICO] (Opin2007) (¼ images; cover page

Click to enlarge. Notice reference to “#BtheChange” and earlier comments from my Dec. 15, 2016 page, looking up the Intervenors.

naatpn-from-bhthechange-org-was-a-usdoj-tobacco-lawsuit-intervenor-but-looks-like-a-cdc-natl-netwk-partnerscreen-shot-2016dec30-8-17pm**

Notice “BHthechange” =/= “BtheChange.  The BH stands for “Behavioral Health.”

“BtheChange.org.UK” focuses on behavioral modification, peer mentoring for offenders.  The phrase seems over-used, but here’s the log.  This seems unrelated, I’m just referencing it because of the similar sound-bite:

(Logo from SaferStronger.com apparently uploaded July 2017? it seems to be an EU charity, (guess the UK hasn’t finished its BREXIT yet, the location seems to be in the UK). Also found at BtheChange.org.uk.

POST OVERVIEW: — I NOW HAVE A SEQUEL TO THIS POST READY TO GO; SOME OF ITS MATERIAL OCCURS NEXT, BUT MAY BE RE-ARRANGED.  THIS RECURRING SITUATION COMES UP FREQUENTLY BECAUSE I AM INVESTIGATING (WRITING ALMOST AS QUICKLY AS I DISCOVER THE MATERIAL) NETWORKED ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR WEBSITE CLAIMS AND CONSIDERING WHERE THESE FIT INTO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HISTORY OF THE RAPID PROLIFERATION OF NIH INSTITUTES AND CENTERS, AND FUNDING FOR THE SAME.

So, after several days’ work on this one, I’m going to publish it at 11,100 words, but expect to move some sections around, including to or from the next post in the sequence.  Currently the content here may be more or less directly tied into post title.  Taken as a whole, however, I am continuing to bring the topics into a “systems view.”

Written much earlier and included here is a whole section dealing with a Princeton/Columbia/ Brookings connection around the social science themes of marriage/fatherhood promotion and study, including who is married to whom, and a closer look at one of the Princeton Center for Child Wellbeing’s foundation funders (Thoman-Bendheim) and as associated with the Leon Lowenstein Foundation.  I had been viewing the banner to the website over a long time (it rarely changed), and finally looked up the benefactor/s named on it.  (Scrolling help — look for the Future of Children logo)

I did this for a more familiar (to readers of this blog) example of other well-coordinated, “entrenched circles of power” who manage to steer federal HHS funding where they feel appropriate, year after year.

The story of NIH, the tobacco litigation settlement of 1998 and major players in it, and of the role of Mary Lasker is well-documented and fascinating, and it’s “current events.”   “Big Tobacco Fuels Nicotine Replacement Addiction” by Lizzie Johnson (SF Chronicle staff writer).  We should understand the situation and the major players, and that there may be considerable spin on any part of it, or the whole thing.

[Quote and discussion/expansion from this article added post-publication, and is a candidate for off-ramping to another post]. It features a recently released UCSF study, the first individual quoted is Professor Stanton Glantz, and the section I quoted after that references the lead author in the study.  Interesting, the article provides no link to the study, or a searchable title to the study. Besides the title reference, “UCSF” is mentioned several times before introducing Professor Glantz’s name for a quote in para. 4.  Why not NAME the study in an article featuring the study, for readers’ benefit? The Center he directs was named…]

Big tobacco fuels nicotine replacement addiction, UCSF study shows
By Lizzie Johnson (in SF Chronicle) Updated 7:42 pm, Thursday, August 17, 2017

Para.1…”new research from UCSF says”  Para. 2…”according to a UCSF study released Thursday…” Para. 3….”UCSF researchers who reviewed millions of pages of internal tobacco company documents said” and finally, Para. 4…

“Those products should not be used unless they are done in the proper way,” said Stanton Glantz, an author of the study, professor of medicine at UCSF and the director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education.

---

….“It was surprising to discover the industry came to view NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) as just another product,” said Dorie Apollonio, an associate professor in clinical pharmacy at UCSF and lead author of the study. “The tobacco companies want people to get nicotine — and they’re open-minded about how they get it.”

Representatives of RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris and British American Tobacco did not respond to requests for comment.

Apollonio’s researchers analyzed 90 million pages of documents from seven tobacco companies dating back as far as 1960, obtained in litigation against the tobacco industry.

Those papers showed that the tobacco industry began developing its own nicotine replacement products after its research showed that some smokers used them in addition to tobacco.

“The way the marketing is framed, it is explicitly discouraging quitting,” Glantz said. “The tobacco companies know more about tobacco products than anybody else. Now they are selling these products in a way that protects their market. I do not think most health professionals are aware of this.”

Stanton Glantz has been well-sponsored for the research, and in 2000 with another person from Tufts, authored “Tobacco War:  Inside the California Battles,” focusing particularly on California, available to read on-line, with a thorough table of contents and notes, here.  I found it by searching for an entity which showed up in one of the notes…(next image contains also the link, second one references the previous name of Americans for Nonsmokers Rights was “CNR” [Californians for Nonsmokers’ Rights?] and a 1980s strategy change for tobacco control movement (pass local ordinances) was adopted for nationwide use, successfully, and the author page gives some background as well as authors’ backgrounds. That also shows Professor Glantz was an NIH (and other agency) consultant.  Here, I’ve been talking about who’s running the NIH expansion itself.

So, a connection between Americans for Nonsmokers Rights (or its foundation) and one of the other USDOJ nonprofit-entity Intervenors does show up, but not with clarity.

Meanwhile, I am reminded of the comment from SmokersHistory.com of failure to disclose conflicts of interest in a publication, and referencing funding to UCSF Center, and Glantz’s research. I believe I’ve already posted this (see colorful image re: UCSF Center for Tobacco Control and Professor Glantz’s funding, with caption of this background color). I DNK which article the comments were referring to, however, many links are provided within the comment on undisclosed conflicts of interest in this field.

Quote re UCSF, Glantz undisclosed (in a paper) conflicts of interest — major funders of the UCSF Center and Prof. Glantz’ position include Robt Wood Johnson Fnd’tn (“RWJF”) and ALF (American Legacy Fndtn, which now goes by “Truth Initiative Fndtn” dba “Truth Initiative®) and is apparently processing litigation settlemt payments..

I think the point just above was well-stated, this was transcribed from the image (with caps intact):

Public health policies are being made as a result of these studies.  State and Federal laws were created as a result.  Worse yet, Public Health fails to protect those who depend on non-biased reporting.  It does science a grave injustice.  Furthermore, there should be journalistic ramifications for failing to disclose conflicts of interest, especially when these findings are used to validate laws and create policies.  I believe grants, such as the ones listed above, represent conflicts of interest and that authors who fail to disclose their competing interests should be suspended from publishing in these journals.**

**The journal in question here was PLoS (Public Library of Science).  Among the footnoted links for the quote (not all still work; feel free to test them all) was :

http://today.ucsf.edu/stories/american-legacy-foundation-honors-glantz-with-distinguished-professorship/ | Not being able to find it (probably because I forgot to update the entity name to “Truth Initiative” from “American Legacy Foundation”), I looked for the award separately, and found an unusual “Churchmouse” blog in the UK, “Churchmouse” being licensed under Creative Commons, called “Tobacco Control: 1994 —the Year Stanton Glantz feared for his funding.”  It links to his 2009 acceptance speech for something else, referencing the earlier one, and quotes him extensively.

This blogger is concerned about inappropriate, unlinked, and no-due-credit-given quotation (i.e., plaigiarism).  As a blogger, I understand and have dealt with some of it.  So, I’m only posting the image (which also contains a clear reference) and trusting that readers will follow through and with me make a note that

• (1) Professor Glantz is not an MD; his degree was in something entirely different, with post-doctorates in different fields, and
• (2) the rest of the article, including cite to the Helena, Montana study as if its results were scientific (confounding causes — on a small sample — of reduction of heart attack patients, which may have a variety of causes, with it being from reduction of smoking, or second-hand smoke), as well has his commentary about being concerned about losing funding during a Republican-controlled Congress… (and so forth).

In addition to the image below, this is one quote from it:

It is unclear what Engineering Economic Systems refers to. Is it that he has the competence to design — engineer — economic systems or is it a recognition that he understands economic systems within the field of engineering?

However, there is a larger question here: did you see anything unusual about Glantz’s degrees?

In an objection to an Ottawa regional smoking by-law, the smoking liberties group Forces Canada observed (emphases mine):

Disambiguation:  “mine” above doesn’t refer to “Let’s Get Honest” (i.e., me).  That link is out, but I see that “Forces, Inc.” or “Forces International” (both versions show at bottom of the web page, main domain name forces.org) is talking about anti-smoking as in general setting up invasive, authoritarian situation.  It also says it’s a nonprofit educational entity in Virginia, which — feel free to look up. This quotes the “About” on that domain:

FORCES columnists offer news and perspectives on such issues as smoking and public policy, smoking and science, and the increasingly evident slippery slope that is leading to tobacco prohibition. They also venture into adjacent territory to chart the course of an authoritarian and censorious political and bureaucratic elite that uses state-of-the-art propaganda techniques, corporate handouts and tax dollars to woo the public towards a vision of the future that offers utopian illusions about health and safety in exchange for the privacy and freedom of both mind and body.

The concerns of our columnists range from a detailed examination of local legislative issues to broader philosophical considerations touching, for example, on the gradual (and decidedly undemocratic) globalization of public health policy

This “who” page on same domain gives more background (started in 1995 in SF, and “FORCES” is an acronym.  Then the “International” registered in Virginia. http://www.forces.org/static_page/who.  I found a “Forces, Inc.” SCC# 051791763  registered in VA (Links to VA search pages) back in 1999, but images not available, and e-filing records only go back to 2010, and and oddly named “F.O.R.C.E.S., Inc.” in California, but only registered in 2016, and showing a different purpose.  I didn’t look further.

Background

FORCES is an acronym of Fight Ordinances and Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking. That name reflects the organisation’s original intent when it was founded in 1995 in San Francisco, USA. When it became clear that smoking repression, and the use of “junk” science to justify it, was going well beyond the petty prohibition to smoke in public, and implied instead a fundamental subversion of professional ethics and social values on an unprecedented scale, the scope of FORCES greatly expanded, and so did its size, through many chapters and affiliates in the United States and around the world. We are proud of our grass-root origins, as we have always grown in full independence, free of subservience to any and all special interests.

(notice spelling of “organisation” despite it being a supposedly US (West Coast, East Coast) entity).

I share some of the same concerns (see underlined portions, those emphases are mine//LGH) or wouldn’t have quoted it here.  I also found it received 2003 notice and “dishonorable mention” in an American Journal of Public Health article by Tsoukalas & Glantz, found at NCBI (National Center for Biotechnical Information) under NLM (Nat’l Library of Medicine) under NIH.  See next image:

(Source URL shown on image and here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447940/

Continuing the previous Churchmouse Campanologist quote….

In investigating this man, we obtained his Curriculum Vitae and were astounded to learn that Dr. Stanton Glantz is not a medical doctor, but has his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. Dr. Glantz was also one of the authors of the EPA Report, as well as authoring a paper entitled, “Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke Free Restaurant Ordinances, 1999”, as well as numerous other papers on economic issues relating to no-smoking by-laws about which he can make no claim to professional competence – he does not have an economic[s] degree. However, Dr. Glantz has been an anti-smoking advocate since the 1960’s and clearly is NOT a medical doctor.

Glantz engineered the now-infamous Helena (Montana) ‘Miracle’ study which purported that cardiovascular arrest rates dropped significantly within a short time of a smoking ban having been implemented. These results have been extrapolated onto several other countries’ ‘successful’ results post-ban.

Current link to Professor Glantz’s UCSF page: https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/users/sglantz

Read entire post at: https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/tobacco-control-1994-the-year-stanton-glantz-feared-for-his-funding/.

Another one of the links in the “smokershistory.com” (annotated) image above was to a “Tobacco.org/rendezvous” with Steve Schroeder.  This next was found under its archives.  The website explains how the short, cyber-interviews asked 4 questions for each guest to respond by email, and the 5th one, an  open-ended, “anything else you want to add?”

Click image if needed, to enlarge, or search for “Schroeder” under the main (Archived) website: Archive.Tobacco.org/Resources/Rendevous.”

Getting back to this reference above (may need to click twice to access the image; click on the generic “pdf” icon that pops up if page doesn’t display at first).

naatpn-from-bhthechange-org-was-a-usdoj-tobacco-lawsuit-intervenor-but-looks-like-a-cdc-natl-netwk-partnerscreen-shot-2016dec30-8-17pm

As noted in the above NAAPTN annotated image from another website, none of the links (including “About”) seemed to have been active in December 2016, and that page no longer exists (in same location at least) although BHTheChange.org does. This was a search result on the organizational name at the time.  InternetArchive (Wayback Machine) results show very few for even the website BHTheChange.org (see annotations) and none for the specific one above:

Annotations explain the context. Understand that Internet Archive snapshots don’t reflect how often a website was updated or changed, however, the 2014-2017 timeframe is still recent. How many people comprehend the relationships between the funding of the website, and the inter-related nonprofits involved? Or how tobacco cessation and major funding for “Behavioral Management/Modification/ Mental Health” are now mainstreamed within federal health policy?

Looking in 2017 August at the same website,  this time around I did find an incorporated entity because (it took some real hunting, as financials are NOT posted), an EIN# was eventually divulged for the “National Council on Community Behavioral Healthcare, Inc.” (earlier designation, website shown on tax returns:  “BCCH.org”) or as it’s now called, simply “The National Council on Behavioral Health” dba “Mental Health First Aid,” which corresponds to a training program, apparently, they are marketing (one of the “DONATE” images below references it being “brought to the USA)

A dozen years later (FY2014) this same organization, EIN#23-7092671 with a name change, is spending more than its total gross receipts from 2002 on just a few subcontractors, one of them a long-time relationship. (Heavily annotated/colorful image with a blue&yellow star shows Pt VIIB (subcontractors) – Pt. VIII Revenues (Line 1, Contributions only)….and has two superimposed images for MTM Services, LLC, the highest-paid subcontractor that year. Below the image, I reference two other subcontractors (the three highest paid that year) and follow that trail where it clearly led — to more trademarked trainings being sold the public in the mental health field at a significant markup.  And a bit of “MIA” (missing-in-action, so far) contracts from the National Council to one of the subcontractors…and strangely-reported program service revenues from the subcontractor, “Mental Health Association of Maryland,”

Thorn Run Partners (the partners shown) most came from government employment (one even ran for legislature in Virginia), and were only formed in 2010.
Thorn Run Partners in DC. “Thorn Run Partners draws its name from partner Andrew Rosenberg’s historic farm located in New Creek, West Virginia.”  (IT shows offices in Washington (D.C.), Portland OR, Denver, and Los Angeles:

Thorn Run Partners is a recognized leader among the next generation of government affairs firms. By incorporating traditional lobbying, deep policy expertise and innovative communications capabilities in one client-friendly platform, TRP approaches every challenge with a truly comprehensive arsenal of skills, strategies and tactics. And at the end of the day, it’s all geared towards one, measurable outcome – our clients’ success.

TRP offers a seamlessly blended, and truly collaborative, team of policy experts and seasoned veterans of government service. Rare among government relations firms for its efficient size, bipartisan composition and multidisciplinary capabilities, TRP relies on experience, creativity and competence to achieve remarkable legislative and regulatory outcomes for its clients.

Our clients include large and mid-sized corporations, major investment funds, stakeholder coalitions, respected nonprofits, and local governments. We operate in multiple regulated sectors including Education, Energy, Financial Services, Healthcare, Technology, Telecommunications, and Transportation & Infrastructure.

Active in both Democratic and Republican political circles, our team understands the legislative process – and the politics of the process – and possesses the relationships necessary to be effective advocates for clients before Congress and the Executive Branch. With a keen understanding of the intersection between policy and public affairs, TRP also maintains key relationships with influential members of the Washington press corps, providing the opportunity to achieve earned media placements for clients that can lend support to their lobbying efforts. Additionally, experience with numerous governors and state officials enables TRP to successfully engage with various state governments, most notably Oregon, where the firm maintains an office.  (Then the statement about its partner’s ranch in Virginia)

I’m curious, because the National Council for Behavioral Health’s President and CEO is Linda Rosenberg (<==read!!), whether this is any relation.  From Thorn Run, Andrew Rosenberg’s wife is Jenny, he’s a different age, probably, than Linda Rosenberg, as this May, 2017 article pushing for universal mental health screening for ALL schoolchildren and partnerships between schools and mental health associations indicates, and no family relationship is identified so far.  However do notice that Linda Rosenberg (above link) takes credit for bringing “Mental Health First Aid®” on board the national organization….

Patrick Kennedy and Linda Rosenberg: Make children’s mental health a high priority
Posted Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:03 pm (in “the Berkshire Eagle”)
By Patrick J. Kennedy and Linda Rosenberg

WASHINGTON — One in five children in the United States show signs of a mental health condition. In a class of 25 students, it’s likely that five of them will deal with depression, anxiety, substance use disorders or other adverse childhood experiences that make learning a serious challenge.

Remember, some posts back, I quoted another mental health or illness (MHA or NAMI, I DNR which) as saying one in four Americans has a mental health condition.   Now it’s one in five US children.

Most children — almost 80 percent — don’t get the mental health services they need.

That is why, together with other parents, educators and mental health professionals, The Kennedy Forum has developed a framework for building a comprehensive, integrated system to improve mental health services for children and adolescents across our country — some 74 million young people.

….Our parents’ generation suffered in silence with depression, alcoholism and too many other struggles. Our children’s generation can become the first to have universal access to treatment for mental health conditions. Every child deserves to enjoy a life of love and relationships, of contribution and meaning. Let’s make it so.

[By line of the article] Patrick J. Kennedy is the author of the New York Times bestseller “A Common Struggle: A Personal Journey Through the Past and Future of Mental Illness and Addiction.” He is the Founder of the Kennedy Forum and a former U.S. Representative (D-RI). Linda Rosenberg, MSW, is the president and CEO of the National Council for Behavioral Health. She has more than 30 years of experience in the development, design and delivery of mental health policy and services.

National Council for Behavioral Health Independent Subcontractor (FY2014) #3, above, for $521,047…

Mental Health Association of Maryland is running this program, training laypersons to assess emergency crisis and refer to services, and it shows clearly that Mental Health America (who I’ve blogged along with three other major mental health or illness organizations not too long ago, along with NASMHPD, NAMI, and DBSA) is an “affiliated organization.”  See the image:

Mental Health Association of MD (website) showing it’s running Mental Health First Aid USA® programming… it’s also listed as a “fulfilmt” (of this programming) org. paid over ½ million dollars by contracting with “the National Council for Behavioral Health” to do so, one of its top 3 subcontractors (out of 24 total) that year, FY2014…

Meanwhile, I don’t see that in FY2014, MHAMD.org’s tax return acknowledged $512K of program service revenues anywhere.  In fact, they only showed about half that which the tax returns categorized as “training fees” — doesn’t sound like the “fulfilment” description given by “The National Council” entity above on its tax return.  (excerpt from its first page showing summary info):

MHAMD.org, Form 990 excerpts, FY2014 (=calendar yr), EIN# 520591666, Image 1 of 6 (not necess in order)

MHAMD.org, Form 990 excerpts, FY2014 (=calendar yr), EIN# 520591666, Image 2 of 6 (not necess in order)

MHAMD.org, Form 990 excerpts, FY2014 (=calendar yr), EIN# 520591666, Image 3 of 6 (not necess in order)(REVENUES Lns 1&2 only)

MHAMD.org, Form 990 excerpts, FY2014 (=calendar yr), EIN# 520591666, Image 4 of 6 (not necess in order)(Liabilities to “MHFA partners”? Perhaps see a clue in the USPTO 3 partners who registered the MHFA trademark!

MHAMD.org, Form 990 excerpts, FY2014 (=calendar yr), EIN# 520591666, Image 5 of 6 (not necess in order) (teh only grant, $30,000, sent to MHA of Australia)

MHAMD.org, Form 990 excerpts, FY2014 (=calendar yr), EIN# 520591666, Image 6 of 6 (not necess in order) showing where the profits are being made (88% market up of inventories sold; they are running “Mental Health First Aid” trainings…

Their total gross assets, while much smaller than the National Council for Behavioral Health (shown below), are rapidly increasing recently also, per this:

Total results: 3. Search Again.

From $1.5M to $5M in just two years…more than tripled.  Take a look at FY2014’s (middle row).

Now take a look from USPTO.gov (Trademark Search) for “MHFA” or the term written out.  I clicked on all of them; only one showed three registrants; the others were all registered to the National Council for Behavioral Healthcare entity in D.C.

I remembered Mental Health America as having been registered in Missouri. Search here to find (as I just did) it’s a NY (“foreign”) entity stating, from 1950, registered to do business in MO, the filing I saw said, only this year — January 2017. Meanwhile the Mental Health Association of St. Louis continues its fictitious name MHA (Mental Health America) – Eastern Missouri). The 2017 registration (click on ‘filings’) lists the directors of the NY entity, incl. a retired judge of a mental health court, an Exec Branch administrator, someone from Sutter Health (in Sac’to Calif) and many others — including Amy Kennedy from the Kennedy Forum, who I’ve quoted in this post.//LGH Aug 21, 2017

The next two images from BHtheChange.org show the various causes of behavioral health, mental health, substance abuse and cancer prevention/ tobacco cessation. (?? How these all got consolidated is another story.. the story of the expanding NIH and NCI, and anti-tobacco litigation which is so central to our government operations today, it should be well-understood by all.  Which will take wading through and sorting out propaganda from truth, and ways to tell the difference…).  Much of this is deeply entrenched in the history of Mary Lasker’s (and her foundations’ — and relatives’ including stepchildren, sister, nieces or nephews, etc.) involvement in politics, pushing for federal funding decade after decade, for these various causes.

This website isn’t for an entity, but as an on-line connector for CDC networks involving, obviously, many different entities. The website is http://BHtheChange.org, which I learned through Internet searches, probably hasn’t been around that long (maybe three years or so).

(My comments won’t fit on the image itself) They should, but didn’t, lead with identifying the “Network” as in fact a 5-yr, federally-funded PROGRAM, instead of launching right away into describing one (but apparently not the only) 501©3 nonprofit ENTITY, which operates it —along with (para. 2, first sentence) 3 other names which have links but which this page doesn’t categorize as to ENTITY or PROGRAM.

This time, I looked at the tax returns of the “National Council for Behavioral Healthcare” dba “Mental Health First Aid” (see logo), a D.C. organization formed, it says, in  1980.

Showing a Washington, D.C. contact address

The solicitation sets up expectation that donation is going to “National Council (on Behavioral Health),” but once you get click on DONATE, it’s referenced as donation to “Mental Health First Aid” more often then its legal name (having a d/b/a is also legal, but the website doesn’t tell readers that it is a d/b/a. I only know it from reading the tax returns!)

(See image comments, and the caption comments refer to what I’ve marked with green, green, pink and again, green ovals: (see sequence of labels for a single entity, with EIN# 23-7092671. Green ovals mark calling it one name, the lone pink ovals show the abrupt nonsequitur, its searchable legal name, without connecting the two. This is not just lack of clarity, it’s a known and documented technique: The Hypnotic Art of Confusion, rendering resistant individuals more susceptible to influence below the cognitive level of informed consent (it’s a documented tactic, and being used on a “donate” page to solicit money).

I compared tax returns for this entity from FYE 2015 (which is FY2014) with those 10 years earlier, and you’ll be able to see quickly how it expanded drastically….  In addition, see the rapid expansion of funding shown in this entity’s total assets just in the last few years!  The namechange seems to have been recent, while the change in the website to reflect that name change (from NCCBH.org to simply “TheNationalCouncil.org”) predated the entity namechange, that is, not counting the d/b/a.  In FY 2010, the revenues almost doubled from the previous year, but while CEO?

Linda Rosenberg’s and prime subcontractor MTM Services, LLC, from NC’s payments also continue expanding, if not doubling, over time as well.

Total results: 3. Search Again.

I looked up the registration in DC, and found it’s currently active (but neither of its two trade names are), and also learned that, IF the “date filed” column under reports refers to when the filing entity submitted reports, and not some government (of District of Columbia) data entry/clerical function, then, they appear to be “complying” with this requirement only about even four, six, or even, or nine, until very recently when they are actually doing it timely.

Nat’l Council for Behavioral Health Filing record from Corp.DCRA.DC.Gov “Reports” tab entity detail. Click Image to enlarge.

(See above) The first gap in filing from 1980 incorporation wasn’t completed (ALL the interim reports) until 7/1992.  Disclaimer:  For more concrete or specific information on the “filing” records, contact the District.  Also, to search, one must register a username and password (at least, so far, it’s free!), which I did years ago. Unlike some states, D.C. search here provides no uploaded images.

The entity filed as domestic nonprofit in May 1980 is still active in D.C.

Trade Names tab shows that both of these, while still referenced on entity’s “DONATE” page have been cancelled. (Mental Health First Aid and Mental Health First Aid USA). In fact, the phrase is incorporated into the National Council’s logo.

Some states, I found, you must not only register, but also cough up AND PAY FOR anything beyond the most very basic search, as I found looking for “NAAPI” (National Association of African-Americans for Positive Imagery, whose leadership seems to overlap with that of NAAPTN, and which I found co-located with a church in Philadelphia).

NAAPTN as a USDOJ Intervenor, and (its) related entities, people, and miscellaneous “networks” are obviously a major topic.

This topic has been moved to a separate post for further follow-up:

NAAPTN, Inc (2000ff, Total Current Assets, $0) and Caffee, Caffee and Associates PHF, Inc. (HattiesburgMS, 2003ff, Total Assets $0, Tax Filings Questionable), and others trying to squeeze a California Race-Based Stop-Smoking Network (AATEN) into that recipe.(case-sensitive short-link ends “-7rm”) That post was started 8/15/2017.  The title may change, but the link underneath shouldn’t. As always, the link above becomes active and accurate once I publish that post; til then WordPress makes a “best-guess” connection.

Back to “Lasker Syndicate” “Mary Lasker and Friends” “Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation” and the influence on the direction and size of MANY HHS-funded campaigns, projects, divisions, institutes (such as the National Cancer Institute), and related private associations (American Cancer Society, Lung Society, etc.) and in which direction the hunt for the cause and cures of cancer has gone… and how this relates to the massive tobacco-litigation of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which has a connected // parallel direction, it seems, of today’s more “hot topic,” state attorneys general starting class action lawsuits for the opioid abuse epidemic… (topics guaranteed not to fit into just one post, but for which an alternate point of view, the longer I look at the history of the organizations and people behind this, seems more and more possible as a more accurate one).

The Lasker wealth came out of a major player (some say the dominant player) in the field of advertising, contributing to today’s consumer culture in things governmental as well as in things for private (consumable), and which had substantial investments (and whose fortune was made in part) through “big tobacco.”

The current version and more popular one is that all involved had a sudden change of heart on being confronted with medical evidence that smoking causes cancer, and when the “big BAD guys” (said these very big and well-connected “guys”) schemed, connived, and protested, the GOOD guys (including government entities) fought back, private parties persuaded public parties to fund the biomedical research to find the cure for cancer, and then “sued their asses,” (Phillip Morris et al., defendants) producing multi-billion-dollar settlements which went into foundations dedicated to the public wealth, and to eradicating tobacco and smoking, globally.

Such an entity, the American Legacy Foundation changed its name in 2015 to “Truth Initiative Foundation” dba “Truth Initiative.

Its Form 990 filing shows assets (gross) of $957M, with Gross Receipts of $203M but “Revenues” listed on the first few lines of the Form 990 as considerably less, although “investment income” was still the largest component. The huge gap between “Total Receipts” and reported Revenues USUALLY refers to selling investments (such as securities) at a major loss, such that the net will be much lower than the gross.  Meanwhile, they have financial accounts in many other countries, and are maintaining a basically “crappy” website (lots of white space, helpful information parceled out in small pieces, big-titles, tiny, hard-to-read print, more sound-bytes than detailed description or coherent statements, documented). On the website while financial statements and two types of tax returns (one year’s worth each) are posted, the past ones are not, and there is no “Finances” link — it’s under “Annual Reports” which is a different type of report.  Or, one could scroll down below a few sound-bytes on their accomplishments:

Can you read the fine print in the green banner? Is an EIN# posted? Notice, the financials are available in pdf format — wouldn’t it be nice to see their contents portrayed graphically (with the pdfs as backup) and accurate, summary statements of financial activities (including profits and losses, whether they stayed within the years budget or not (2015, they spent $86M then they took in, if the tax returns are to be believed), and list the main subcontractors (and Trustee, Director and Officer salaries over time, too…)

The major “About Us” information has a large photo of happy young people (not smoking), topped by a tiny logo at top left (not shown here)

The reference to “Master Settlement Agreement” (shown — barely — on next image) doesn’t even link to an uploaded copy of it, or reference where it may be found.  It says 40 more tobacco companies have signed on since and agreed to be bound by its terms, but doesn’t list them. I guess the “Truth Initiative” doesn’t want to confuse people with too much truth, or roadmap of where to find more of it. JUST SALESMANSHIP.

(not the complete page. The page content contains no links to further info).

And the Revenues – Expenses just that year shows an $86M deficit.  I’m so glad the movement is in such “good and responsible hands.”

American Legacy Fndtn (Tobacco MSA grants est 1998) FY2002 Sold 8’5B investmts at a 53M Loss (!!) 911956621_200306_990 (all pp, ptd 7-30-2017)

That’s a link to a FY2002 tax return (complete) for what it now called “Truth Initiative Foundation,” showing on page 1 that they sold over $8B of assets for a loss of $35M. Several images from this return also follow, but most are not annotated (a few may have captions), so here’s some commentary on what I found:

The numbers are revealing, for example, how losing over 10% of that year’s $307M of “government grants” took place, how its total expenses are $138M, of which (separate image) you can see that most — $91M — was in the category of “Other” (image which shows the program activities also and their expenses by category).  The detail for the $91M in a separate statement nearer the end of the return shows that fully $87M of this is NOT identified other than as “contract fees,” which tells the readers almost nothing – other than it wasn’t for employees.  In short, it went somewhere to someone — but this tax return facilitates (easily) NOT saying, to whom.

• Re: that category (“Contract Fees”) later versions of the IRS Form 990 have a section where at least the first five “independent subcontractors over $100K” must be named, and how much and what types of services, with a single blank for “how many others?” meaning that for any number over 5, the entity doesn’t have to post names, addresses, amounts, and types of services for the public to know — just the first five. (That change seems to have started with FY 2008 Forms 990).

Meanwhile, the foundation still earned $16M in interest and dividends on its held assets, apparently somehow acquired about $35M of “Land, buildings and equipment” during the year (see “Balance Sheet” image or page) and (from Page 1 stats) almost netted $300K as a landlord, did earn $303K in “other income,” controlled a holding company for an office building, and obtained a $30,000,000 line of credit from Sun Trust for its “operating needs” at a certain interest rate, obtained a personal loan from Wachovia of nearly $1M ($967K) to help its President and CEO Cheryl Healdon obtain a residence  and was charging her 4.99% interest for the same loan, and despite the $35M LOSS on sale of securities, managed to increase its investments value by nearly $200M (see Balance Sheet Ln. 54, from $606.9M to $794M).

Incidentally, wasn’t Sun Trust in Atlanta, Georgia, one of those “too big to fail” banks that were bailed out after the 2008 real estate bust and mortgage fraud scandals?  Yes it was!   (and Wachovia on the list also, see next pdf) (http://assets1b.milkeninstitute.org/assets/Events/Conferences/Global Conference/2009/Slide/gc09_TheNewRelationship.pdf) (chart is from Sun Trust link, characterization of the bailouts, from the Milken Institute website.  I included an image of the American Legacy Foundation tax return (Pt. I summary) for the bailout year; it only looks different because of how I took the screenshot (dark borders conceal personal laptop info on the windowframe).

This is page 1 form an “ALF” FY2008 return. Look at the size of changes from Prior Year to current!

Next several images are for illustration only; see the whole tax return (and several years of them) for a better over-view

$54M unrealized gain on investments — I guess it’s “you win some, you lose some” when the money comes from someone else…

Organization Purpose: Notice while it’s registered as a 501©3 within the US, its money came from lawsuits the American (US) people supported, and while the board of directors (image not shown) this year contained a governor (Janet Napolitano of AZ), two attorneys general and a Congresswoman), and the cause was to remedy damages to US Taxpayers as individuals with cancer, and as people supporting public health departments — the purpose of ALF is “to build a world” and, it seems, prove, in the process, that young people’s health habits (worldwide), with enough money and coordinated media campaigns, advertising (etc.), CAN be changed by this means.

Grants in two categories — and the detail for those in the larger ($27M) category was provided in almost illegible font (so small). Of the second category which, oddly, was in legible font, the $4.29M was spread out over 5 pages, but the single largest grants went to UCSF Foundation (for $3.3M). I annotated this on the tax return).

The organization was only formed around 1998…  The thing is — when someone sells at a loss, someone else gains at a significant profit. But this format (via foundation) unlike in a for-profit, public traded (which also means Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)-regulated company at least trading in the US, we would know who bought; at least the shareholders would know.

We know the settlement funds went from cigarette companies (who will pass their own costs on to consumers) via payments to the states in whatever form the master settlement agreement specified (apparently to through this foundation, but I haven’t got there yet).  Look at Schedule A (past 5 years of support) to see the major amounts from the start it received — and it’s selling massive securities at over 10% loss, while paying fees to investment managers?

That 2002 tax return, again:

American Legacy Fndtn (Tobacco MSA grants est 1998) FY2002 Sold 8’5B investmts at a 53M Loss (!!) 911956621_200306_990 (all pp, ptd 7-30-2017)

(FORMERLY THE NEXT PARAGRAPH and TOPIC was much closer to the top of this post!…)

RE: Lord &Thomas: Chicagology.com (“overshadowing all the rest”), Adage.com (Sept. 15, 2003 article) puts some timeline and numbers to its first owners, who retired (Lord) or died (Thomas)in early 1900s, with Mr. Lasker getting involved in 1898, having bought the shares to become sole owner by 1912 , and on his retirement, sold it to the heads of his three offices in 1942.  The sale of the company then funder the Albert D. and Mary Lasker Foundation at the same time.  Then he died in 1952 at age 72..)

Founded in Chicago by Daniel Lord and Ambrose Thomas, 1881; Albert Lasker joined the agency, 1898; Mr. Lasker became sole owner of Lord & Thomas, 1912; L&T merged with Thomas Logan Inc. and briefly added Logan to its name, 1926; resumed operations as L&T, 1928; Mr. Lasker relinquished presidency, 1938; Mr. Lasker gave the agency to the heads of its three main offices, 1942; opened as Foote, Cone & Belding, 1943.

…Advertising in the U.S. before Mr. Lasker mostly consisted of a simple declarative statement of availability. It took demand for granted and rarely felt the need to persuade or motivate. Advertising for the most part was local and primarily retail. In 1904, Mr. Lasker met pioneering copywriter John E. Kennedy, who saw advertising as “salesmanship in print” and believed it was driven by a reason why the consumer should make the purchase. Mr. Lasker promptly hired Mr. Kennedy at $28,000 a year, although L&T had never paid a copywriter more than $1,600 per year. Mr. Lasker embraced the “reason why” principle as an ideology; recruited and trained a staff of nine young apostles in its formulas; and created an updated copy department, the first of its kind.

This article has a straightforward lead-in to L&T’s profitable account with the American Tobacco Company and Lucky Strikes campaign.  I’m quoting because similar tactics can be seen in the anti-smoking campaign by Lasker’s widow, Mary.

….In the first 20 years of the 20th century, advertising grew side by side with the march of science into daily life through electricity, the telephone, radio, recording and transportation. The more that intellectuals contemplated the wonders of the Machine Age, the more they found in its specificity and predictability a system for understanding people. What trickled down to Messrs. Hopkins and Lasker was the certainty that selling was a science and that effective selling was a matter of scientific principle.

L&T began to codify a series of advertising techniques that included coupons, sampling, copy testing, demonstrations and the “preemptive claim.” This was the idea that an ordinary attribute, common to all similar products, could be made to seem exclusive by being the first to claim it, then claiming it more often than anyone else … The idea won L&T such early blue-chip clients as Sunkist, Van Camp, Quaker Oats and Goodyear. In Mr. [Claude] Hopkins’ {{who had been hired to preach Lasker’s copywriting ideals}} first decade with L&T, billings tripled to $18 million, briefly making it the country’s No. 1 agency. 

By the end of World War I, vast production capacity built for war made possible a consumer-driven economy in which advertising played a pivotal role. In 1923, L&T published its philosophy in a book called “Scientific Advertising,”…The 1920s were inspired years for L&T. It built product categories that had barely existed before the war and helped make them a part of middle-class life. Some of these categories signaled fundamental changes in U.S. mores. L&T made Kotex respectable to women of the era. It took Palmolive from an obscure toilet soap to one of the great brands of the century … Pepsodent {{became major stockholder}}… Frigidaire…

Simplifying the concept to a single idea, and making that the basis of the campaign….So, here comes L&T’s involvement American Tobacco and Lucky Strikes:

In 1925, the agency acquired the account of American Tobacco Co., under the leadership of George Washington Hill. By 1930, L&T had built Lucky Strike cigarettes into the country’s top cigarette brand. L&T created many Lucky Strike ads to Mr. Hill’s specifications, including one picturing a ravaged Sabine woman being carried off by a Roman warrior. Yet Lucky Strike was the brand that liberated U.S. women from the taboos against smoking.

The agency, at Mr. Hill’s insistence, built campaigns on remarkable claims. One advertised Lucky Strike as a cough cure because “it’s toasted,” a step in the refining process relatively common to all tobaccos. It also claimed that Lucky Strike could help women control their weight—”Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet.” By 1929, American Tobacco not only represented nearly one-third of L&T’s $40 million in billings, it was the largest single account in advertising. By 1931, it had grown to $20 million [Read more at Adage.com 2003 article called simply “Lord & Thomas.”…]

And Albert Lasker had become sole owner by 1912…(another article, quoted below, said 1908).

This May 18, 2017, article in CBCRadio (Canada), “Under the Influence” with Terry O’Reilly has a different tone and more product illustrations, as well as more on Mary Lasker, Planned Parenthood and the American Cancer Society.  It’s a fast read, and I hope you do… “The Most Interesting Adman in the World: The Story of Albert Lasker“ which includes reference to his originally wanting to be a reporter, and his domineering father (Morris Lasker) having been owed a favor by Lord & Thomas, and so sending his son to them in Chicago — to avoid Albert’s rebelling by signing up to go to war.  So you can see with the original urge to become a reporter, how well that would blend with the focus on copywriting for selling products…

(Source url on image, or click image to go to website). … Two Presidents, Taft & Harding. “Lasker also helped elect two Presidents. He orchestrated the election marketing for President William Taft pioneering the use of election films in movie theatres….” and “In 1920, Lasker helped President Warren Harding win a landslide victory by aiming advertising at the 22 million women who had just won the right to vote.”

“food shot from guns”

“In 1940, Albert Lasker married his third wife, Mary.  [[first wife was disabled and bedridden, the article said.  Second wife, not mentioned..]]

Mary Lasker was heavily involved in the Birth Control Federation, and asked Albert for help.

The worthwhile cause was suffering from a lot of public pushback. Lasker looked at the problem through his wise marketing eyes and said the name was the problem.

Instead, he recommended Planned Parenthood – because it sounded more constructive and would meet with less opposition.

He was right. The name stuck.”

and…

The foundation became involved in the American Society for the Control of Cancer. It was struggling to generate donations. The Laskers felt the name was weak and didn’t promote the search for a cure. So they recommended a new name:

The American Cancer Society.

The New York Times obituary of Mary Lasker lists her accomplishments, several of the organizations she was involved with (it does NOT mention “Research! America” as a major grantee organization), and survivors and relatives with last names Fordyce, Lasker and (stepdaughters, sons, or grandchildren) Brody… It tactfully mentions she had a short-lived marriage to Reinhardt (owner of Reinhardt galleries where she worked as a young woman) several paragraphs below, although obviously her working there and marrying its owner were quite likely related events. She does not appear to have been a biological mother of anyone, and perhaps her involvement in the Birth Control Federation may have related to this.

Also (less highly publicized, but it’s in there) active in the Foundation for Mental Hygiene, and others.

Mary W. Lasker, Philanthropist for Medical Research, Dies at 93 (Feb. 23, 1994, in the New York Times, by Eric Pace):

Click to enlarge or HERE for the NYT 1994 Obituary of Mary W. Lasker. (Image #1 of 2)

Click to enlarge or HERE for the NYT 1994 Obituary of Mary W. Lasker. (Image #2 of 2).

As I showed in the last post, the Lasker Foundations (both a charitable trust, and during and after it was poured into the other Lasker foundation, that foundation) helped fund the nonprofit “Research! America,” incorporated in 1989, with primary goal to “double NIH funding within five years,” a goal at which it succeeded; Research! America being notable also for involvement of the Whitehead family members who had also (Edwin C. Whitehead) start up, just a few years previously, the Whitehead Institute (at, but allegedly independent of, MIT) with a focus on genetic and biomedical research, the same cause being pushed by the same people THROUGH the NIH.

Showing Mary Woodard Lasker Charitable Trust which was poured into the other foundation), i.e., both EIN#s (Click image to enlarge)

I also showed by images from its history timeline the consistency of this goal, and from its comparative 2015-2016 audited financial statements (on the website) that its main source of revenues, by far, was “Dues.” ($1.3M as opposed to all other categories well under $1M). Where did the dues go?  Same statement, apparently majority ($1.9M total 2016) to salaries. (see image).  But, in size that of course is dwarfed by the Whitehead Institute, which itself is also dwarfed in size, obviously, by the NIH budgets pushing similar themes…

Research!America Funct’l Expenses YE 2016 vs 2015 (Main cost -Salaries) viewed 2017Aug12

See Membership page on the website & Membership Dues Structure (sliding-scale, by category, see next two images):

Apparently more and more funding will still never be enough:  As I write (Aug. 10, 2017) on the website, CEO Mary Woolley has “A Weekly Advocacy Message… Ending the Crippling Restraints on Research.” The next image shows her focus on the “threat to fetal tissue and stem cell research,” and demand for rights to experiment more, or continue experimenting, on dogs…(hyperlinks not active on image — see above link).

I’d like to remind us here that the NIH OppNet focus on not just fetal issue and stem cell research, but also searching for the key to Behavioral and Social Science, potentially in the “epigenetic” field also, and how this initiative crossed all 24 ICs (Institutes and Centers) at the NIH. (See last post!)…

From 8/10/2017 “Weekly Advocacy Message” at ResearchAmerica.org, from Mary Woolley (middle paragraphs only)

OppNet at NIH (just a brief reminder of this topic raised in last post, An Alternative Viewpoint):

NIH’s OppNet (trans-NIH initiative) *BASIC BEHAVIORAL+SOC SCIENCES RSRCH (b-BSSR) OPPTY NETWK discussed

In addition to expanding the NIH funding, Mary Lasker was influential in pushing for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to receive its funding bypassing the normal routes (as part of NIH budget) but helping it go directly to the White House to submit its budget requests. NIH itself has a multi-page website, “The Mary Lasker Papers” describing this (I’ll be quoting below), as does the “About” Page on NCI.

— How many people have their own several pages at federal agency divisions and institutes they helped promote, expand, and lobby for, as well as try to control decade after decade?  This person does.  Kindly read, the various links aren’t that long —

Mary Lasker and the Growth of the National Institutes of Health {<== that’s an active link to an NIH website}

 ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ | ~

From a different perspective — the massive size and nature of these lawsuits had already caught my attention while posting on “Children, Families & Youth” issues associated with the family courts.  Because I read CAFRs also, I’d looked at some of the places the tobacco lawsuit settlement money was being held at the state level, and what was being done with it, in at least California, and (when it came up) in Georgia.

My Dec. 15, 2016 page on the USDOJ Tobacco Opinion of 2007, besides referencing several Lasker-involved or controlled associations who sought and got “Intervenor” status on the class-action lawsuit AFTER the states’ master settlement agreement, also provides references and links within Georgia for groups complaining about how the resulting funds were being used.

I has also wondered why there should be, in addition to the income taxes, corporate taxes, and all other ways the federal government has of obtaining revenues from the population at large, there should be IN ADDITION a foundation specifically named for part of HHS, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control).  It’s in Georgia.

It was only formed in 1993, EIN#582106707, and “CDC Foundation” is its “dba.”  The latest tax return posted (on that database) is for FYJune30, 2015 only, meaning that the FYE June 30, 2016 (as we are now into FYE June 30, 2017) isn’t even up yet.  And the table shows that the assets almost doubled within a year, and did double, within just two years.  So, “what’s up with that?” one might well ask.  The purpose is overbroad, generalized, and its gross receipts for the year ($145M) closely matches its reported Total (Gross Assets)  of $143M meaning, somehow their money is being spent at a rapid pace, but still the worth of those assets somehow continues to increase — at least in the years shown:

How interesting that our new head of HHS under the Trump Administration is from Georgia, that major welfare reform promoter, former Republican Speaker of the House Rep. Newt Gingrich (Washington Post, Nov. 7, 1998, Gingrich steps down in face of rebellion, by Guy Gugliotta and Juliet Eilperin (Staff Writers) also was.

(Two images from that article show context of 1996 Welfare Reform, and Republican leadership in the same.  Key to this major restructuring of the HHS/ACF budget (with ACF having only been formed in 1991, towards the end of George H.W. Bush, Sr. (obviously Republican) presidency, was the focus on family values and promotion of “fatherhood” as a practice, profession, and “fatherlessness” as a social scourge — while in the rhetoric minimizing the usage of the word “mother” etc. (as I have posted year after year herein), and a focus on social and behavioral science modification to fix economic problems for which this rhetoric laid blame for the nations’ economic problems, and social ones too.

Click image to enlarge, or here for underlying WaPo 11/7/1998 article.

Click image to enlarge, or here for underlying WaPo 11/7/1998 article. ____ My comments: The DEMOCRAT/WhiteHouse (Clinton)-in-Trouble response to this, actually Congress’s response, was 1996 Welfare Reform, with Block Grants to states, facilitating (moneylaundering, more gov’t privatization and advancing the federal government’s involvement in “FAMILY DESIGN” where it had no LEGAL jurisdiction, but wanted that excess control anyhow, and so used economics to provide state-based” incentives”

Also, speaking of the hypocrisy of pushing family values as a national policy, and those who helped push it, see Nov. 1, 1984 Mother Jones, “The Swinging Days of Newt Gingrich,” by David Osborne (referencing his home area of Carrollton, aware of how he’d treated his first wife, failed to support her and the children after separation, while continuing with his affair, then later preaching morality of members of Congress.)  Mother Jones (“MJ”) reposted (?) this in the context of retrospective in Gingrich in 2011, as he was getting ready to announce for the U.S. Presidency…

So the one MJ quote/image re: Gingrich is from 1984, the other. also at MJ, from 2011, my point being, the hypocrisy, the tactics, and the success of those tactics, and our continued effects from the restructuring in the 1990s of the entire federal aid to the states (“Welfare”) and federal agency of HHS — while AT THE SAME TIME, the major restructuring and expansion of NIH (part of HHS), and pushing for biomedical research funding was taking place by well-coordinated leadership of the private, non-profit sector…  And towards the close of the 1990s, the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with the big tobacco companies….

From: Nov. 1, 1984 Mother Jones, “The Swinging Days of Newt Gingrich“, by David Osborne.

Newt’s 2nd wife says he wanted an open marriage. This 1984 Mother Jones’ profile was the first to expose Gingrich’s wild side.

Editor’s Note: Nearly three decades ago [[SAID IN 2011 about the 1984 article]], this profile by David Osborne offered the definitive portrait of the future Speaker of the House as a young man. As his first ex-wife later put it, Mother Jones “scooped the world on Newt Gingrich.” The article revealed sides of Gingrich that continue to dog him to this day: the reports of infidelity, the now-infamous story of his hospital-room visit with his first wife, and a mile-long trail of aggrieved colleagues. Gingrich later called the article’s publication “one of the saddest things in my public career.” Also: Read our guide to Newt’s 33 years of overheated rhetoric** and see 27 years worth of Newt illustrations in the pages of Mother Jones.

**From the “33 years of overheated rhetoric” link, first paragraph:

Editor’s Note (5/10/11): Well, it kind of seems official. On Monday, a spokesman for Newt Gingrich announced that on Wednesday Gingrich would announce on Twitter and Facebook that he is running for president. (How suspenseful!) And in the days since commentators have been dissecting the former House speaker’s past: his messy personal life (two divorces, three marriages), his erratic policy pronouncements, his combative politicking. But given that Gingrich has thirty-plus years of extreme conduct, many of his past excesses end up being truncated and compacted into characterizations. (“Known for his often controversial remarks…”) The full Newt is often given short shrift. But a month ago, Tim Murphy and David Corn set out to chronicle Gingrich’s 33 years of rhetorical extremism. They ended up with a long list. A very long list.  [[SEE ALSO NEXT TWO IMAGES…]]

From Newt in His Own Words: 33 Years of Bomb-Throwing, 4/7/2011 in Mother Jones, by David Corn & Tim Murphy, Image 1 of 2

From Newt in His Own Words: 33 Years of Bomb-Throwing, 4/7/2011 in Mother Jones, by by David Corn & Tim Murphy, Image 2 of 2 – “LANGUAGE a Key Mechanism of Control”

USA Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids, American~ Cancer,Heart,Lung, NonSmokersRights+NAATPN, *INTERVENORS* v. PhillipMorrisUSA et al CivilActn 99-2496(GK) [RICO] (Opin2007) (¼ images; cover page

USA Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids, American~ Cancer,Heart,Lung, NonSmokersRights+NAATPN, *INTERVENORS* v. PhillipMorrisUSA et al CivilActn 99-2496(GK) [RICO] (Opin2007) (2/4 images).  Complete document, HERE

USA Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids, American~ Cancer,Heart,Lung, NonSmokersRights+NAATPN, *INTERVENORS* v. PhillipMorrisUSA et al CivilActn 99-2496(GK) [RICO] (Opin2007) (4/4 images; lists Defendants

*From my Dec. 15, 2016 “US Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements” page, notice the list of intervenors.  I also supplied the link to the entire amended document (over 1,500 pages), which overview (after pages of Table of Contents listing the counts, the defendants, etc.)

USA Plaintiff, Tobacco-Free Kids, American~ Cancer,Heart,Lung, NonSmokersRights+NAATPN, *INTERVENORS* v. PhillipMorrisUSA et al CivilActn 99-2496(GK) [RICO] (Opin2007) (3 of 4 images, from TOC)

[quote from Civil Action Amended Final Opinion shown in images to left]

---

I. INTRODUCTION A. Overview

On September 22, 1999, the United States brought this massive lawsuit against nine cigarette manufacturers of cigarettes and two tobacco-related trade organizations. The Government alleged that Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, by engaging in a lengthy, unlawful conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of smoking and environmental tobacco smoke, the addictiveness of nicotine, the health benefits from low tar, “light” cigarettes, and their manipulation of the design and composition of cigarettes in order to sustain nicotine addiction. [See image for the rest of Para.1 of Intro]….

In particular, the Government has argued that, for approximately fifty years, the Defendants have falsely and fraudulently denied: (1) that smoking causes lung cancer and emphysema (also known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”)), as well as many other types of cancer; (2) that environmental tobacco smoke causes lung cancer and endangers the respiratory and auditory systems of children; (3) that nicotine is a highly addictive drug which they manipulated in order to sustain addiction; (4) that they marketed and promoted low tar/light cigarettes as less harmful when in fact they were not; (5) that they intentionally marketed to young people under the age of twenty- one and denied doing so; and (6) that they concealed evidence, destroyed documents, and abused the  [-1- page break]  attorney-client privilege to prevent the public from knowing about the dangers of smoking and to protect the industry from adverse litigation results.   [=end quote]

What would you think if a real role-reversal surfaced and that in fact, some of the intervenors and those behind this litigation were themselves in fact engaged in forms of RICO in asserting points 1,2,3 above and in the process engaging in (4) marketing a solution for this which they knew was inappropriate and possibly based on pseudo-(fraudulent) science, not to mention (5) pushing this agenda and claims on young children, including children in schools and through all kinds of media, and (6) concealing evidence and, at a minimum, concealing personal conflicts of interest and connections between the big tobacco companies being sued, and the 501©3s and ©4s supposedly fighting the good fight against the bad guys (“big tobacco”) and that, having done this formed yet another kind of network for private purposes and profits, including control of the funds from the lawsuits in yet more inter-related nonprofits??

That’s a lot of questions, but how about starting with the part in bold?

Or that in the process of achieving these ends it was felt necessary to take over and virtually run (or at least steer) federal agencies, schools of public health, and private research institutes, let alone related 501©3s — and, having done this, or made good progress in so doing, using the infrastructure to sell OTHER agenda (at will) on the gullible and deceived public, to its long-term harm?

SmokersHistory.com complains about scientific (medical schools) neglect of the possible medical role of infection (versus environmental — smoke, or second-hand smoke) in causing cancer, of the conflicts of interest shown even in major institutional pension funds (Canada) investing in tobacco while also funding anti-smoking campaigns.

I cannot post continual annotated images (see last post for several).  You have the link, and if you’re reading this, access to a computer to fact-check, consider the claims, and in the process learn, as well as start distinguishing sources of information as related or unrelated to each other, and identify where they stand on the economic continuum.. (what sectors operating in).

CONFOUNDING THE CAUSES:  Smokershistory.com website  also talks in a few places about “confounding” the causes when more than one cause may result in certain symptoms.

While those pages are more complex (contain and cite to more medical terms and publications), I have seen again, in the “social science engineering” fields how “Causal” and “Casual” connections can be switched, with preference to minimizing one potential cause (for example, of poverty, or of criminal behavior in the young, or high lethality relationships), particularly when it comes to the emotional and politically volatile issue of “fatherlessness.”

PARALLEL SCENARIOS — Stating Systems, Speculating on Causes, “In-breeding” among Reporting Professionals:

So we have situations where fatherless men from unstable households and/or poor backgrounds become some of the most powerful people in the Senate (as the late Dan. Patrick Moynihan), or the President of the USA (Barack Obama) or Harvard & MIT PhD holders (Ronald D. Mincy, who I tend to pick on because of his involvement in fatherhood programs and virtual silence on his own mother at: Columbia University, via major foundation sponsorships, and working with other fathers’ rights nonprofits, whose filings I have looked for and found MIA at times).(2008 Columbia University announces his tenure and summarizes his work):

Ronald Mincy Awarded Tenure at the School of Social Work

…Dr. Irwin Garfinkel*** noted, “Ronald Mincy is a scholar who has had a profound influence upon social policy.” Dr. Mincy has provided technical assistance based upon his research to government officials, foundations, private sector leaders, and community organizations. Based particularly upon the Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study, which Dr. Mincy spearheaded, Congress offered The Fatherhood Counts Act of 1998 and provisions in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Over the last several years, Dr. Mincy’s scholarship has informed the Enhanced Non-Custodial Parent Earned Income Tax, Responsible Fatherhood, and domestic violence-funding provisions of U.S. Senator Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Area Marriage Act of 2007 that sought to address fragile families through the inclusion of attention to low-income fathers and U.S. Senator Charles Schumer’s Recidivism Reduction & Second Chance Act of 2007, that provides employment and transitional services to assist reentry of  adult and juvenile ex-offenders into the community.

Dr. Mincy is an advisor for the noncustodial parents demonstration program operated by the New York City the Department of Community and Youth Development. He serves on the advisory committee for Mayor Bloomberg’s fatherhood initiative. Immersed in the New York community, he has also provided consultation and support to initiatives being developed by several philanthropic and business leaders, following the New York Times article on the plight of young Black males. Dr. Mincy has provided technical assistance to the Open Society Institute, which launched a $2 million special initiative targeting black males. He is an advisor to the Russell Sage, Spencer, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, which are launching grant-making initiatives aimed closing the achievement gaps between minority and other students, and to the Children’s Aid Society, which launched an African-American Male Initiative designed improve the educational attainment of a cohort of young black males who will enter elementary school over the next two years. Dr. Mincy is also working with the Urban Institute

(notice the crown logo for Columbia University in NY; click image to read more about the center.  No start date given…) … Prior to joining the Columbia faculty, Mincy was Senior Program Officer in the Ford Foundation’s Human development and Reproductive Health Program, where he developed the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative (SFFI). SFFI was a Ford Foundation grantmaking initiative working with federal, state, and local human service agencies to reform income security policies to enable low-income mothers and fathers to provide emotional, financial, and development support to their children receiving welfare. As a result of SFFI, Mincy is widely regarded as a critical catalyst for changes currently underway in the treatment of low-income fathers by U.S. welfare, child support, and family support systems… (Educ: in economics at both Harvard and MIT)

How interesting that this announcement of his tenure doesn’t even mention the Center he runs (see CRFCFWB image), and I believe at the time was running, at Columbia University itself.  Anyhow, Irwin Garfinkel is married to Sarah McLanahan of the Princeton Center for Child Well-Being (referenced in second image — and my caption — below).  That plus the common rhetoric “Child Well-Being” (Princeton, Columbia), and other features of their projects, show common purposes.  While women with PhDs are involved in these purposes, they are targeted towards assisting men and fathers specifically (not only low-income or minority males) as well as those with criminal records.  Help towards women and mothers under these theories comes through trickle-down-theory, I suppose…

The Princeton (“Bendheim-Thoman”) Center (I have images from its top and bottom) features three initiatives, one of which is the publication “The Future of Children” (orange logo on white background).  The Future of Children‘s “People” link shows: Sara McLanahan, Director (“Mrs. Irwin Garfinkel” although that’s obviously not her designation — it’s PhD — or legal name.  However, the Princeton professor and the Columbia one are indeed married, last I heard…), and Ron Haskins, and Isabel Sawhill, both Senior Editors plus two other senior editors (and some associate) whose names I do not recognize:

Click image to enlarge (this page it seems hasn’t changed for years,although the “news” varies slightly from time to time).

Click image to see its list of “People.” Notice the “Princeton-Brookings” joint sponsorship. Princeton is a private (Ivy League) university, while Brookings is a 501©3 of which Haskins and Sawhill (Isabel) are joint-fellows in ITS center for children and families. BOTH entities are obviously “flush,” that is, well-established and well-endowed…and well-known.

I didn’t know who “BendheimThoman” is (As in the Princeton Center for Research on Child-Wellbeing name), but Bloomberg’s profiles Lynn Bendheim Thoman (no hyphen) as to her LLC, corporate, foundation and trustee positions.

She’s involved with Brookings (Trustee) Princeton (BA Economics, 1977) and Harvard (MBA, 1979) and the Leon Lowenstein Foundation.  (See all-text, B/W image below, and table of tax returns for the foundation).

Lynn Thoman also shown at Columbia SIPA (School of International and Public Affairs).  “She has lived worked in over 40 countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia and lived in China.”

From what appears to be Lynn’s mother in law’s obituary (Evelyn Zumwalt Thoman, 1921-2006), I see that Lynn’s husband Richard G(ordon) Thoman (or G. Richard — the same page has both versions of his first two names) is also an adjunct professor at Columbia University SIPA and has been “top five” executive leader in four “Fortune 75” corporations in three different industries (finance, food, technology; Xerox, IBM, Nabisco, American Express, Evercore…), and:

“G. Richard Thoman is the managing partner of Corporate Perspectives, a New York corporate strategy advisory and investing firm. He is an adjunct professor of international business at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and a professor of practice at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He is also a visiting professor and leader in residence at CEIBS, the leading Chinese business school….”

Lynn Thoman’s maiden name (or, per Princeton, hyphenated-last name) was thus Bendheim; she was G. Richard’s second wife (m. 1989 after a mid-1980s divorce) and both marriages had children.  Hover cursor over link (article title) for his background in NYT’s 3/18/2001 “Private Sector: Healing from Executive Trauma” by Claudia H. Deutsch in “Business Day.”  This talks about a rough ride as leader of Xerox for only 13 months, and being blamed for the stock tumble.

This executive snapshot is from Bloomberg.com (viewed 8-8-2017) click image to for link. I didn’t confirm this is the same person as on the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton, but sounds like a reasonable assumption… [Leon Lowenstein Fndtn (EIN# 136015951) 990PFs table included in this 8/8/2017 post)(Website says establ. 1941, that they don’t take ANY unsolicited grant requests, and grantees only visible via a password.  There’s a paragraph, a street address, a “contact us form, and that’s about it!)

Fine-print annotations on this view of NRFC (fatherhood.gov) explains that NFLG (referenced there) as of that date only ONE tax return found so far, it’s been IRS revoked and re-instated, and other important info. Click this image to see full-sized as pdf.

FRPN.org home page, uses the word “practice” and “practitioner” repeatedly, but admits its an HHS Project (grant# cited) led by (a) a Temple Univ sociologist (Jay Fagan)+ (b) a ca. 1980-founded Colorado 501©3 well known in the HMRF, Access/Visitation, AFCC and fathers’rights fields (Center for Policy Research, Inc.). My related images show I was posting on FRPN probably in August, 2016.

This doesn’t reference COLUMBIA’s CRFCW but PRINCETON’s Center for Research on Child Well-Being, from which one gets “the Future of Children” featuring articles by HHS-grantee individuals or other “institutes” (Such as Bradley Wilcox) and which in 2016 featured (announced) the Daniel Moynihan joint prize shared by Ron Haskins + Isabel Sawhill. Isabel Sawhill (I discovered recently) was married (“was” only because he died in 2000) to John C. Sawhill, first Chairperson of record on the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (and many other honors and positions during his lifetime, incl. Pres. of NYU). Nonprofits Isabel Sawhill has worked for (Urban Institute, Brookings, MDRC) also known for evaluating some of the HMRF-(healthy marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) funded projects, i.e., Social Science R&D, Federally-funded. Caption 8-8-2017 by LGH

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
Leon Lowenstein Foundation, Inc.	NY	2015	990PF	31	$112,111,684.00	13-6015951
Leon Lowenstein Foundation, Inc.	NY	2014	990PF	34	$121,981,994.00	13-6015951
Leon Lowenstein Foundation, Inc.	NY	2013	990PF	56	$122,556,449.00	13-6015951

Leon Lowenstein Board of Directors (in two images) referencing Lynn Thoman (and 3 more Bendheims: Robert, John & Kim); “Thoman” is a married name) of the Princeton Bendheim-Thoman Center for Child Wellbeing

Leon Lowenstein Board of Directors (in two images) referencing 3 more Bendheims — John, Jr | Andrew | Thomas

I went looking for the Bendheim Finance Center at Princeton.  It goes by a slightly different name, with the acronym BCF (Benheim Center for Finance).

http://bcf.princeton.edu/about/

NIH even says so, clearly, on its website, and I have an interview from a former director (under Truman) of what is now, I suppose, HHS, saying so, referenced from the Truman Library at Missouri State.  Topic under discussion in the interview includes the push for a national health insurance at the time (just after World War II), but how, as that wasn’t likely to pass, they’d go for Medicaid and Medicare instead.

I am also somewhere inbetween a state of shock and anger, accompanied by recognition.

I’m recognizing the degree of bullying, manipulation, and setting up of networks of control designed to be OUT of reach of the public who would be both affected by and forced to fund the systems, how Lasker wasn’t only about cancer, or ‘biomedical research” for various diseases — but also pushing mental health initiative and psychopharmacology (i.e., drugs), and in general, sounds like a very, very pushy and entitled individual, if remarkable for her time.  She majored in art history, worked an art gallery, married its owner (Reinhardt), divorced him after just eight years, started her own separate company (I’m sure the wealth helped), was schmoozing already with powerful individuals (William J. Donovan), managed to get repeatedly (not just once or twice) introduced to Albert D. Lasker who then married her.

Even the NIH has a series of “Mary Lasker Papers” to show how influential she was to the massive growth of the NIH, and fighting to keep, underneath it, the NCI (National Cancer Institute) NOT beholden to Congress, but reporting directly to the President in making its budget requests, as I understand it.

So I have been reading materials on sites ending with the suffix “*.gov” and others ending showing Forms 990PF of various foundations, and continuing to look through “smokershistory.com” documenting what it calls the objectional “health fascism” being set up (by the elites) 100 years ago, and protesting the consistent downplaying of the role infection (vs. lifestyles) plays in various cancers, and substituting pseudo-science for the real thing.  One thing’s clear — the company the Laskers (and after 1952, Lasker’s 3rd? wife may) were keeping, including one person with known associations to the “BCCI” so-called “Bank of Crooks and Criminals..”

How many people have their own pages at health divisions they helped promote, expand, and lobby for, as well as try to control decade after decade?  This person does.  Kindly read, the various links aren’t that long:

Mary Lasker and the Growth of the National Institutes of Health

Biographical Information Mary Lasker and the Growth of the National Institutes of Health Cancer Wars From Bench to Bedside: Mary Lasker and the Drive for “Payoff” from Medical Research Further Readings