Thanks. My read.
- From
- Marc Edwards
- To
- Eden Wells
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Thanks so much. A clear story is now emerging. There were two efforts in DCH. One started with great intentions anda
good heart and resulted in the july analysis, but was derailed by MDEQ’s misrepresentations from the start. Nobody can
be faulted for not picking up the problem with that data given the MDEQ input in July, but that group (in my opinion at
least) started going a wrong in early to late September by not sharing data and not being completely forthcoming with
results and spinning the data a little especially vs. Mona and the Free press reporter, and then epi took over the analysis
and it was back in the hands of competent scientists and over in a few days.
There was the second effort prompted by MDEQ in early August, and then gained urgency as a response to our data
(email below) and the likelihood VT would “scandalize us all” (email below), resulting in the Flint DW Communications
plan. Just FYI...The idea that this person did not know about the high lead in water as they told you, given the e-mails
was absurd, as was the idea it was not related or based on our work, or it was a draft. The e-mail trail is pretty much like
what | figured it had to be. Of public interest but not really epic wrong-doing. Plus, they obviously believed MDEQ as
well. Who wouldn’t.
There are two pieces missing. One is the e-mails associated the Bob’s meeting on September 8". In his e-mails to me,
he said it would be a great idea for me to do the blood lead work (see below), as they had just met on that subject on
that day. | can’t find anything about that meeting anywhere, no notes..no mention of the meeting | can find..nothing on
who attended or the purpose of the call. | still think this meeting is responsive to my FOIA including the planning of it,
etc.., and who attended. If you want | can submit a new FOIA to get information about the September git phone call
and/or meeting, but | don’t see why it is not responsive.
The other point just for you information, is that virtually everything | got about Karen’s e-mails, came from someone
else, or when | asked for it directly. So | really think something stinks about that. Mona asked her for DCH blood lead
data on September 8"" and she did not even bother responding to Mona, and did not lift a finger to get the data? It
doesn’t make sense. Someone probably told her not to give Mona the data, or not to respond to Mona. But you have
tried really hard with her and | appreciate it. Just wanted to give you my take on how the story rolls.
lam really glad | did not have to do that January 4% piece, as it would have been about how your staff was misleading
you, and would have looked bad, and this really saved a lot of pain and suffering on all sides. | really appreciate your
effort to get the story straight. | hope | was proven to not be completely crazy about the origins of the communications
plan.
Thanks, and please tell me if | need to submit a new FOIA on the September gi meeting/call, etc. with Bob. Or if you
want to talk about any of this let me know.
Best Regards,
Marc