Conrad Theodore Seitz

In 2001, the District of Columbia’s water treatment system changed from chlorination to chloramination to disinfect its tap water.   The change caused a sudden release of large amounts of lead into the water from old plumbing.  Apparently, the chloramination process was not as safe as it had been thought.  In 2004, the District changed back to chlorination, apparently because they realized that residents were consuming poisonous amounts of lead.

A scientist interested in this issue tried to get information on lead levels in the water and in the blood of DC residents, but was stonewalled by District officials and by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is directly responsible for DC water because there is no state agency in the District of Columbia.  Even after filing a Freedom of Information Act request, the scientist got nowhere.  His request was denied for no apparent reason.  After the Obama administration came in to office, the FOIA officials offered to reconsider the denial of information–a week after inauguration.

See the following article for details of the “science fraud”: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/science-fraud-alleged-urban-lead-incident.

What is even more shocking is the results, finally published a few days ago: the rate of stillbirths went up by one-third to two-thirds during the lead poisoning period.  Now read the new article, with information based on the FOIA request that was denied under the Bush administration but released under Obama’s administration:  https://www.sciencenews.org/article/stillbirth-rates-tied-lead-drinking-water

So, you see, officials under the Bush administration deliberately hid information showing a serious health impact from foolish changes in the water disinfection process, changes for which Bush administration officials were responsible.  Sounds like bad behavior.  Somebody could have gotten in serious trouble.  The statute of limitations has probably run out by now.

Right after the Times expose on Attention Deficit Disorder drugs, Glaxo, one of the biggest drug companies in the world, announces it will stop paying doctors for giving lectures and going to conferences.  The end of payments is not total, it is selective and still allows for some research work, but it represents an apparent major concession to ethics complaints.  However, one reason for stopping payments to doctors is that the drugs the companies make the most money on don’t give the doctors any choice:  there’s no need to talk the doctor into using it because it’s the only drug available for the problem.

The article URL is: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/business/glaxo-says-it-will-stop-paying-doctors-to-promote-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

One reason for Glaxo’s concessions may be that the company had to pay a fine in 2012 of $3 billion to resolve charges that it had marketed drugs for unapproved uses.  The company has also entered into a corporate integrity agreement with the Justice Department that makes ongoing changes to the way sales representatives are paid and drugs are marketed.  

It should be clear to the political observer that huge companies can be encouraged to act in highly ethical ways if effective and stringent regulations are in place.