While the manufacturers did spend approximately $4.5 million on scientific studies, including five epidemiological studies, the defendants had absolutely no control over the results.

These studies were conducted by some of the most prominent experts in their fields, and many of those experts have provided sworn testimony that the defendants had no control over the results of their work.

Moreover, many of the studies and articles at issue were subject to — or are in the process of being subjected to — peer review. Thus, if there were a flaw or bias in these articles, it would be uncovered through the normal scientific process.

Of course, Morris fails to report that the findings of these “industry-funded” studies are completely consistent with findings of studies funded by European governmental and other organizations that have no involvement in this litigation. The source of the scientists' funding does not undermine the irrefutable results of their work.

Finally, Morris's suggestion that defendants have tried to hide the information about who paid for what studies is simply false.

The defendants' funding of these studies has been disclosed routinely both in the studies themselves and in the litigation. Despite Morris's suggestion otherwise, there is no smoking gun.

Juries that have been presented with these studies were fully informed of the source of funding for them, and the juries have overwhelmingly rejected suggestions of any industry bias or influence.

More probative than defendants' contributions to peer-reviewed scientific studies is the $10,000 per day paid by the plaintiffs to Dr. Paul Nausieda to conduct five-minute screenings on thousands of welders.

Based on his cursory examinations, Dr. Nausieda diagnosed 60 percent of the welders he saw with manganism, an extremely rare neurological disorder, which before that had only been seen a handful of times in human history. To date, the plaintiffs have paid Dr. Nausieda more than $2 million dollars for his work — far more than the half a million cited in Morris's article.

Unlike the studies funded by defendants that have been published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals, Dr. Nausieda has been unable to publish his studies in peer-reviewed journals. This is not surprising since his findings are based on assembly-line screenings and are completely inconsistent with those of other movement disorder specialists.

The main studies that Morris suggests establish causation — Bowler's Bay Bridge welder study and Racette's Alabama welder study — were authored by people who have been funded by the plaintiffs — another fact that Morris also failed to disclose.

Considering the thesis of his article and the accusation he hurls at the defendants, Morris's failure to disclose these payments can leave no doubt as to where his bias lies.

Besides the payments to Bowler and Racette, these studies are questionable on the merits. For example, the welder screenings Dr. Racette uses as the basis for his Alabama study were entirely funded by plaintiffs' attorneys and were being used to gather claimants for lawsuits. Additionally, most of the screened welders were sent to Dr. Racette by plaintiffs' lawyers.

In fact, in a deposition conducted in January 2003, Dr. Racette acknowledged that these screenings could in no way constitute a valid scientific study. Needless to say, Morris does not disclose any of this in his article.

The bottom line is clear: notwithstanding the rhetoric from plaintiffs' counsel and the unsubstantiated and erroneous claims of a biased reporter, there is no substance to these claims or this litigation.

The plaintiffs' accusations have not panned out, and their accusations against the welding defendants — responsible companies that have acted to protect the safety of welders — are simply false.