Press Statement

'DDT Doctor Caught Misrepresenting Stanford AGAIN

For Immediate Release: October 16, 2012

Palo Alto:  Stanford University is investigating the continued misuse of the university’s name to push a political agenda to oppose Proposition 37. Today, new evidence was presented to Stanford documenting how the No on 37 campaign has repeatedly misrepresented the affiliation of their lead spokesperson, Dr. Henry Miller, in campaign ads, in violation of Stanford University policy.

The No on 37 campaign first landed in trouble with Stanford two weeks ago, when their first television ad falsely identified Miller, a researcher at the Hoover Institution, as “M.D., Stanford.” Stanford ordered the ad to be reshot to correct the misidentification and remove Stanford’s buildings from the background, as the Los Angeles Times reported.

Six days later, voters across the state received a No on 37 propaganda mailer that falsely identified Miller as an MD at Stanford. In a letter to Stanford, Yes on 37 attorney Joe Sandler notified Stanford Vice President and General Council Debra Zumwalt about the violation – pointing out that the mailing arrived a week after Stanford insisted on the correction.
 
According to the Stanford press department, the No on 37 Campaign said the mailer "wasn't widely distributed” and it wouldn’t happen again. But today, the Yes on 37 campaign notified Stanford that Miller is falsely identified in another mailer, this one a large brochure. An online ad featuring Miller also appears to have Stanford’s buildings in the background. [Update 3:45 p.m.: Stanford says that's not their building in the ad on the right. Regarding the incorrect mailer that "wasn't widely distributed," Yes on 37 volunteers around the state reported receiving it.]

miller_mis_IDs.png

Sandler asked Zumwalt to put a stop to communications that violate university policy and to clarify to the public that they have not taken a position on Proposition 37.  
 
“Opponents of our right to know are waging a campaign of deception in California, funded by the world’s largest pesticide companies and fronted by a doctor who has done the dirty work of the pesticide companies for years, as evidenced by Miller's campaign to re-introduce DDT,” said Yes on 37 spokesperson Stacy Malkan.

"The No on 37 campaign has put Henry Miller in front of millions of California voters as a credible source, yet the public has no idea that Dr. Miller's extreme views are far outside the mainstream of acceptable science. We want to know: Does the No on 37 campaign stand behind Miller's fringe views on tobacco, climate change, nuclear radiation and DDT?"

Yesterday, the Right to Know campaign sent a letter to No on 37 campaign manager Kathy Fairbanks asking if she stands behind Miller’s radical scientific views

Read about the dubious credibility of No on 37 Science Spokesperson Henry Miller here. 

Contact: Stacy Malkan, 510-542-9224stacy@carighttoknow.org

Do you like this post?

Showing 6 reactions

followed this page 2013-10-14 03:27:00 -0700
commented 2013-07-22 20:39:13 -0700 · Flag
commented 2013-04-24 12:26:23 -0700 · Flag
It seems that those who oppose proposition 37 will do anything they can, even if its not legal to prevent the public from his basic rights.
The publishers of on 37 campaign should be punished severely!
http://fridgeadvisor.com/how-long-do-refrigerators-last/
commented 2013-01-14 09:19:56 -0800 · Flag
That would be a copy/paste fail. Today’s NY Edition of the New York Post. Which is not surprising for the Post to obfuscate. http://m.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/don_eat_your_organic_veggies_lmKSN9VIJGE3HjG7kRhsiO
commented 2013-01-14 09:17:24 -0800 · Flag
The post makes it appear as If Henry Miller represents Stanford on Page 21 PostOpinion 1/14/13. Here’s the link http://www.carighttoknow.org/_ddt_doctor
commented 2012-10-19 19:58:54 -0700 · Flag
Because there are apparently very few journalists in California, we especially thank you, Right to Know, for keeping us up to date.

—I think we can be confident that our opposition has a few other tricks up its sleeves.

—Voter fraud is an extremely distinct possibility.

—I am hoping that throughout California teams of lawyers and observers will be on hand from now until after November 6 to monitor what I believe will be inevitable attempts of fraud.

—Sacramento obviously needs to be monitored very closely. Personally, I have no faith in the integrity of the newspapers, governing bodies, and political machinery in Sacramento, California.

—Observers from all over the country, and media from all over the world should be asked to set up residence in Sacramento from now until November 6.

—Monsanto’s PR firm in Sacramento (and any other PR firms throughout California) must be monitored very, very closely.