Is Generation Rescue trying to get Airborne to fund junk science?

Posted in Autism on 11. Dec, 2009

The latest Generation Rescue newsletter leads me to believe that Airborne may be considering funding Generation Rescue. Here is the latest Generation Rescue newsletter:

Generation Rescue is in the final stages of receiving grant funding for a vaccine research study on the long term effects of the current U.S. recommended schedule. The last thing we need are declarations of support from our community who purchased Airborne Health.

1.) Did you purchase Airborne during May 1, 2001 – November 29, 2007?
2.) Do you support a vaccine research study on the long term effects of the current U.S. schedule?
3.) Do you support a study on vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children?

If you answer yes to all three of these questions, then you are a supporter and can help Generation Rescue provide ground breaking research.

The first 40 respondents will receive a free bag of revitaPOPS for completing a declaration of support.

Airborne is a supplement company that produces a product that claimed to be able to help people fight the common cold. They were involved in a class action lawsuit, resulting in an agreed payment of $23 million to consumers who purchased the product and who could prove they purchased it.

Steve Novella at Science Based Medicine discussed this.

My speculation: there is a big pot of the $23M left over, and Generation Rescue is trying to get Airborne to donate it to fund a vaccinated/unvaccinated study.

Of all the groups to manage such a study, Generation Rescue is way (WAY) down on the bottom of the list.

Generation Rescue has a history of misrepresenting and misusing science to forward their agenda. A few cases: their “phone survey” and their pseudo study on vaccination, childhood mortality and autism around the world.

The deadline to submit claims was December 5, 2009 (4 days ago). It strikes this observer as likely that only a small percentage of Airborne’s customers saved their receipts and were able to be compensated, leaving a large amount of money unclaimed.

I really wonder if Airborne knows what sort of group they are working with in Generation Rescue. Soon Airborne will receive testimonials from people who claim to have purchased their products, who want a Vaccinated/Unvaccinated study done by Generation Rescue.

The very fact that Generation Rescue is paying people to submit testimonials should raise red flags at Airborne.

In my opinion, if, for whatever reason, Airborne wants such a study done, they should find a group other than Generation Rescue to manage it. Funding Generation Rescue in this effort is just throwing money away. Airborne would do much better to fund something that could make a real impact in the lives of autistics.

Edit to add

1) Note that Airborne made no admission of fault in this settlement.

2) Here is a section from the settlement document, noting that money left over could be donated to a non-profit group

If the aggregate value of Valid Claims by Settlement Class Members is less than the amount of the Net Settlement Fund, the balance of the Net Settlement Fund, after payment of all Valid Claims of Settlement Class Members, shall be distributed cy pres to non-profit organizations. Class Counsel shall nominate the non-profit organization(s) that will be recipients of any cy pres funds, which shall then be subject to the consent of Defendants (which Defendants shall not unreasonably withhold) and approval by the Court. For purposes of this paragraph, Defendants agree
that in order to validly withhold consent, Defendants must demonstrate that including a non-profit organization as a recipient would substantially
undermine Defendants’ legitimate business interest or is otherwise improper, and that Defendants’ refusal to consent is not philosophically or
politically motivated. Plaintiff agrees that the Center for Science in the Public Interest will not be a recipient of cy pres funds.

It appears to this reader that the class action lawyers (Center for Science in the Public Interest ) get to nominate the possible non-proffits, and that Airborne has the right to reject. In order to reject a non-profit, Airborne would have to claim that the donation “would substantially undermine Defendants’ legitimate business interest or is otherwise improper, and that Defendants’ refusal to consent is not philosophically or politically motivated”

I wonder if class counsel has to prove that the nominations are not philosophically or politically motivated?

3 people like this post.