Martin Wells: Shapeshifter, Contortionist and Cherry-Picker for Hire

A recent court decision not only identified serious methodological, factual and research integrity inconsistencies in Cornell professor Martin Wells’ vain attempt to link Parkinson’s disease to paraquat exposure, but it also revealed how Predatorts are building large multidistrict litigations (MDLs), involving the management of thousands of plaintiffs, without any credible factual link. The presumption is that the lawyers can find some scientist to produce some document needed for the courtroom even if no credible research or evidence exists.
It is astonishing to see how little value Predatorts give to actual evidence when building their cases against industry. They build castles upon sand, strong enough to extort settlements from companies in the immediate flurry of fear and outrage, but with no respect for reality or actual justice. Predatorts bluff wildly in their settlement game, assuming they will never have to actually show their hand. This month, an Illinois judge called on their scientist to lay their cards on the table, and their hand was laughable (if this routine deception process had not been so common).

The Paraquat-Parkinson’s tort extortion process is a perfect example of the Predatort Playbook in action.

• Tort law firms contact activist scientists looking for potential links between chemicals and widespread diseases.
• They fund further studies or pay off scientists to get an international agency to produce a monograph confirming a potential link.
• Provide confidential documents to a friendly, attention-hungry activist journalist to establish doubt in the public eye.
• Fund NGOs who then use this “news” to run campaigns against the vilified companies, creating public outrage.
• Engage with the tort ecosystem of misery merchants to run ads or scan medical networks to produce thousands of potential victims claiming to have used the products.
• Go to the targeted companies to try to force a settlement and, if necessary, bring a couple of the more credible or emotional cases to court.    

Deceive, frighten, extort … then settle out of court for billions (for the tort lawyers that is … while the thousands of plaintiffs get next to nothing for their time).

In the case of paraquat, some decades-old evidence linking the herbicide to Parkinson’s was very weak but several studies suggested a correlation was not impossible. But a firm scientific link is never necessary in the Predatort Playbook (recall that while not one single government agency accepted that glyphosate causes cancer, faced with more than 100,000 lawsuits, Bayer was extorted to settle out of court for 11 billion USD … with more opportunists still ponying up for their take). In the case of the paraquat-Parkinson’s hustle, tort law firms have targeted two companies: Chevron and Syngenta, in the hopes of coming away with lucrative out of court (and out of plaintiff) settlements.

Then, to add a bit of circus entertainment, thousands of pages of confidential court documents mysteriously appeared outside of Carey Gillam’s front door. While she jokes about it, Tabloid Carey has proven to be the perfect Predatort useful idiot: willing to break the law and any journalism ethics codes if it means another lucrative book deal and, perhaps finally, that coveted Pulitzer. She calls her internal work with Predatorts: “protecting her sources”.

Gillam’s new paymaster, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), joined the rest of the NGO hordes, piling onto the “Paraquat causes Parkinson’s” Playbook, smelling the blood of another industry takedown. Soon the media had sealed the deal: We now all know what causes Parkinson’s and these companies will have to pay for it! The time was ripe to exact justice and the first four bellwether cases were called in front of a judge.

One thing these slimy Predatorts and their corrupted cabal of activist scientists, NGOs and media did not anticipate, was a judge with attention to detail and a conscience. Chief US district judge, Nancy J. Rosenstengel, saw the scam being played out in her courtroom and threw the con artists out. But not before releasing a scathing attack on the lack of scientific integrity of their key litigation consultant, Cornell professor, Martin Wells.

Her ruling illustrates how these opportunists will lie, cherry-pick and literally say whatever it takes to win and reach that million-dollar honeypot. Judge Rosenstengel made it clear that not every county in the state of Illinois welcomes the Predatort shenanigans, opportunism and extortionary practices. She reminds us that scientific facts and respect for proper methodology does still matter in a legal process and that the Predatort Playbook will not always succeed.

Judge Rosenstengel used her decision to school Professor Martin Wells on basic rules of scientific methodology, perhaps in the hopes that the lawyers will return with a more serious argument or abandon their gameplan. Sadly I suspect they will return with a more malleable litigation consultant. At 500 USD/hour, I’m sure their network of opportunistic statisticians is deep.

Given how the judge’s decision highlights the serious flaws in the Predatort strategy of employing a highly-paid litigation consultant to twist scientific evidence until it can be used to manufacture jury doubt, it would be beneficial to visit some of Judge Rosenstengel’s remarks in the Paraquat Products Liability Litigation decision to better understand how tort law cases have been systematically abusing science and evidence. Rosenstengel’s text is in blue.

Martin Wells’ Main Obligation: Produce the Link

Cornell University professor and statistician, Martin Wells, served as paraquat plaintiffs’ sole expert witness to offer a scientific opinion arguing that “occupational exposure to paraquat can cause Parkinson’s disease”. The court recognised that Wells, on behalf of the plaintiffs suing Syngenta and Chevron, had attempted to draw the following conclusions:

(i) the available epidemiological evidence supports a causal relationship between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease; and (ii) the trial selection plaintiffs fit the exposure and diagnostic criteria of the seven studies in his meta-analysis, meaning that they were at “near tripl[e]” the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

The court was tasked with evaluating Wells’ “opinion to determine whether he formed it with the requisite “soundness and care”.”

“Methodological contortions and outright violations of the scientific standards”

For the purpose of determining the likelihood of paraquat causing Parkinson’s, Wells conducted a meta-analysis of existing research that had indicated a potential link. He had identified 36 studies, narrowed it down to nine studies from which he included seven in his meta-analysis. The first point of concern for the court was Martin Well’s methodology … or lack thereof.

Although Dr. Wells presents certain data points that support this conclusion, his  proffered opinion required several methodological contortions and outright violations of the scientific standards he professed to apply. These methodological deficiencies, in turn, suggest that Dr. Wells failed to apply the same level of intellectual rigor to his work in the four trial selection cases that would be required of him and his peers in a nonlitigation setting.

By “methodological contortions”, Judge Rosenstengel refers to how the Cornell professor adapts his methodology to reach the conclusion he has been employed to present. One problem with Wells’ meta-analysis is that the seven studies he had selected “excluded a significant amount of relevant information”. And of these seven studies, some were more rigorous than others and were thus weighted higher in the meta-analysis.

When pressed, Dr. Wells testified that studies of occupational paraquat exposure, to him, were “primarily focused on . . . people’s work and, you know, exposure because of their workplace.” (Doc. 4364-20 at 6). Under this definition, however, Dr. Wells was forced to concede that Liou, the study that carries nearly 74% of the weight of his meta-analysis, “did not meet [his] own stated criteria for occupational exposure”

Three quarters of the data in Well’s meta-analysis came from the Liou study. It could not be excluded if he was expected to reach the “paraquat exposure triples the risk of Parkinson’s” headline claim. But to include it entailed changing the definition of occupational exposure. Later in the decision, the judge refers to this as “reverse engineering”. One thing it is not is credible research.

The judge was clearly frustrated with the Cornell professor’s arrogant attitude, lack of rigour and respect for sound methodology.

Although he could not recall his search strategy that yielded the initial set of 36 studies, Dr. Wells insisted that his identification of relevant studies was “obvious,” and that it was therefore unnecessary to explain it in his original report.

I understand that most scientists who sign on to be Predatort litigation consultants, at an average payout of 500 USD per hour, do so merely as a means of lining their pensions and do not see any professional relevance in the actual work they take on. They produce a “research report” they assume no one will understand, show up in court, say what the tort lawyer wants (and coached) them to say, and then pick up the cheque on the way out. But Geez Louise Marty, at least try to be professional.

Defining occupational exposure … “amorphously”

Judge Rosenstengel finds Wells’ attention to detail less than impressive.

So, what is “occupational” exposure? The record reveals a strikingly amorphous definition of this term. Indeed, Dr. Wells redefined “occupational” exposure no less than three times, creating more questions than answers about the types of paraquat exposures that, according to him, can cause Parkinson’s disease.

The three definitions of occupational exposure included workplace contact, situations with a risk of dermal contact and direct contact with the substance. These different definitions go beyond occupational exposures. It can be assumed that Wells was going through these pedantic contortions so that he could keep the heavily-weighted Liou study in his meta-analysis.

Nowhere is Dr. Wells’ failure to predefine his eligibility criteria more problematic than in his attempt to square the inclusion of Liou (1997) in his meta-analysis with his requirement that studies address “occupational” exposure. … Logic dictates, however, that without Liou, Dr. Wells’ elevated odds ratio of 2.8 would look very different because its 74% of weight would likely be redistributed among the six remaining studies, five of which revealed a statistically insignificant association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease. So, while this change may have helped Dr. Wells conclude that  occupational paraquat exposure was associated with a “near tripling of PD occurrence,” it violated the basic rules of meta-analysis, which mandate that researchers “develop a protocol for the review before commencement and adhere to the protocol regardless of the results of the review.”

What Martin Wells had done here was certainly not scientific. His paymasters, the Predatorts who have invested heavily in filing thousands of lawsuits against Syngenta and Chevron, did not task the Cornell professor with providing the best available science. They tasked him with finding a means to show that there was a clear link between exposure to paraquat and the onset of Parkinson’s. If the statistician could pull some numbers out of a hat to show a tripling of risk of Parkinson’s due to exposure to the chemical, then headlines would become emotional and the defence would have no choice but to settle (for billions of dollars). But this is not how science is done and the evidence, as the court determined, was clearly not there … no matter the degree of “methodological contortions”.

Any scientist with an ounce of integrity would have looked at how the Predatorts were trying to manufacture science, and would simply have walked away. This is one good reason why scientists testifying in such cases should not be allowed to be paid by the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Wells tried to deflect his disrespect of scientific methodology by claiming, perhaps via a page from some new-age science, that he took a “holistic approach”.

Dr. Wells’ violations of the rules of meta-analysis are evident from the very beginning of his process. One of the initial steps in a meta-analysis involves the search for relevant studies that are then further analyzed for potential inclusion in the analysis. Dr. Wells’ first report is entirely devoid of a search narrative that would allow other researchers to validate his process. … And even after he identified these 36 studies, he failed to explain how he identified them in his research. Dr. Wells admitted that he “can’t remember the details” about how he searched for and identified the 36 studies that made up the initial universe of studies that were then systematically reviewed. (Doc. 4561-10 at 27). As a result, any attempt to replicate his search for relevant literature would require a degree of clairvoyance that this Court does not possess.

Risk-Monger note: Courts should not try to be clairvoyant.

With an unwritten, “holistic” approach, Dr. Wells was free to select the studies he wanted to meta-analyze, and then justify his selections based on the results they provided. This, in turn, undermines the reliability of his meta-analysis because it allowed him to generate a pre-determined result.

As seen with countless glyphosate cases, most courtrooms have been completely ignorant of basic scientific principles, facts and evidence. I suppose Martin Wells, and the Predatorts who coached him, assumed this court would be no different and they could reverse-engineer any conclusion that could achieve their goals. Kudos to Judge Rosenstengel for not only catching on to this game, but also for taking the time to meticulously call them out on their disgraceful assault on basic scientific methodology. For years, members of the scientific community have been mourning the decline of scientific integrity in these court cases, the elevation of pointless public fears, mistrust of innovators and the disgraceful actions of their contemporaries, simply for a vain dash for cash.

But Martin Wells, and his lawyers, for once, failed … spectacularly:

Dr. Wells’ failure to clearly predefine his eligibility criteria, his subsequent redefinition of eligibility criteria, his varying definitions of quality criteria, and his inconsistent application of quality criteria, which conveniently imposed a more onerous standard on a less favorable study, are just some examples of his violations of these standards.
Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis does not pass muster under Rule 702 because its methodology was unclear, inconsistently applied, not replicable, and at times transparently reverse-engineered.

The court did have one positive thing to say about Martin Wells: he did not try to hide his deceit and incompetence.

“Methodological shapeshifting” or just plain “cherry-picking”?

The court meticulously went through Dr Well’s methodological failures to reach a clear conclusion: the Cornell professor was bending all of the rules to reach his required conclusion.

Dr. Wells’ definition and evaluation of participation rates in the eligible studies offers an even more blatant example of methodological shapeshifting. Dr. Wells has consistently criticized van der Mark for its low participation rate. … Because van der Mark does not meet this threshold, Dr. Wells’ “lower quality” rating for its participation rate, at first blush, appears reasonable.
But not all studies that ultimately made it into Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis reported their participation rates. Tanner (2011), the second most-heavily weighted study in Dr. Wells’ meta-analysis, simply stated that participation was “good,” and Liou (1997)  reported no participation data at all. Dr. Wells nevertheless assigned both studies a “higher quality” rating for their participation rates, notwithstanding the vagueness of the information reported in Tanner and the complete absence of relevant information in Liou.

Methodological shapeshifting to only include studies that add weight to your desired conclusion is one problem, but when counter-evidence that would challenge your conclusion is blatantly ignored, excluded or downplayed, then the cherry harvest has truly begun.

Dr. Wells was plainly interested in finding “positive results” that supported a dose-response relationship. Indeed, he searched the epidemiological literature for data that supported his conclusion, while considering inconsistent evidence to be meaningless. His rebuttal report then doubles down on this proposition, with the conclusory declaration that “[n]on-significant statistical results would not impact the analysis and do not demonstrate a lack of a dose response.” (Doc. 4355-3 at 34). This is the very definition of unscientific cherry-picking.

Predatorts cherry-pick evidence they wish to allow a jury to hear (and it is up to the other party to counter their claims). That is the nature of their game – part of the show. But when scientists do it, it is a complete failure of research ethics. If no legitimate peer review would accept a paper with rampant cherry-picking, why would any scientist think this practice would be acceptable in a courtroom. Scientific integrity is not a localised issue and Martin Wells clearly should have known this.

So Cut to the Chase: Does Paraquat Increase the Risk of Parkinson’s?

The court was clearly not convinced by Wells’ performance. Beyond his poor methodology, the question remained: Could occupational exposure to paraquat cause Parkinson’s?

At its core, Dr. Wells’ weight of the evidence/Bradford Hill analysis is a selective presentation of supportive evidence that fails to meaningfully account for data points that refute his conclusions. His failure to weight the Bradford Hill factors against each other, his reliance on the Court to match evidence to each factor from other places in his reports, and his failure to meaningfully analyze evidence that refutes his conclusions requires the exclusion of his opinion that occupational paraquat exposure is causally related to Parkinson’s disease under Rule 702.

A causal link was not sufficiently made. But was this a weakness of the scientist or the science?

After all of Martin Wells’ methodological contortions, amorphous definitions, shapeshifting and cherry-picking (I cannot believe Judge Rosenstengel wrote all of this – I want to have a drink with her), the question was posed directly to the Cornell professor: Does anyone else in the scientific community believe paraquat exposure causes Parkinson’s? Are there any peer reviewed papers that make that same conclusion?

But to further engage on this issue, the Court asked Plaintiffs’ counsel whether any scientist outside of this litigation had ever conducted a Bradford Hill analysis and concluded that paraquat exposure was causally related to Parkinson’s disease. On this point, Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that he was not aware of such an analysis. … This argument is somewhat perplexing as it appears to support the proposition that Dr. Wells is alone in the scientific community, notwithstanding decades of scientific inquiry into this exact issue.

So let me get this straight. Thousands of plaintiffs have been lined up to sue Syngenta and Chevron, claiming their Parkinson’s disease is due to exposure to paraquat, all based on the conclusions of one Cornell statistician who had done a really shoddy job in trying to prove this. This is a failure not just of Martin Wells to deliver the goods but of the tort lawyers who based all of these claims, and the hopes for justice of all of the plaintiffs suffering from Parkinson’s, on this one “Hail Mary pass”. Certainly there must be other papers that could be relied on. Again the court asked:

Dr. Wells, for his part, admitted that he is not aware of any peer-reviewed literature that establishes a cause of Parkinson’s disease other than genetic mutation. (Doc. 4364-20 at 11). Dr. Wells also admitted that none of the published systematic reviews he relied on to collect relevant studies for his meta-analysis found a causal relationship between paraquat and  Parkinson’s disease.

OK, finally a moment of honesty. Martin Wells, in trying to claim that exposure to paraquat led to a tripling of the risk of Parkinson’s, was alone in this claim. No publications, no peer reviewed scientific research, support him. Wells was reverse-engineering a conclusion he was paid to manufacture for lawyers hoping for a lucrative out-of-court settlement. He was wasting the court’s time and was rightly dismissed. The scientific community, and Cornell University, should dismiss Martin Wells for his lamentable actions.

Too bad Tabloid Carey is too busy to report on this while working on her book on the “Paraquat Papers”. Just one more hypocrite in a long line of bottom feeders. How long will this madness be allowed to continue? How long will lies and fear manipulation continue to be tolerated, because, well, it’s only industry? Once again, am I the only one who finds these integrity violations, greed and incompetence so morally offensive?

Professional Deceivers

This is not Martin Well’s first Predatort rodeo. His poor methodology and penchant for cherry-picking to please his paymasters has insulted the courts’ intelligence quite frequently in the past. Judge Rosenstengel identified a past infraction of Martin Wells, in Testosterone Replacement Therapy Litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, where the Cornell professor acknowledged that his lack of an objective methodology was the equivalent of “cooking the books”.

Nathan Schachtman wrote, in 2022, that Martin Wells’ cherry-picking was legendary in his failed consulting work for plaintiffs in Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation. At that time, Schachtman said, prophetically, that “On Planet Earth, the only scientists who contend that these medications cause pancreatic cancer are those hired by the lawsuit industry.” Some things never change (although they desperately need to).

Perhaps that is why the “paraquat causes Parkinson’s” lawyers chose the Cornell professor as their white coat closer. History has shown that integrity would not be an issue.

In a month where the Predatort community lost another reliable cherry-picker, David Egilman, perhaps this ruling should be a sober reminder to the tort industry that they cannot base their strategy on fact-free correlations between chemicals and illnesses. Paying malleable activist scientists unimaginably large consulting fees is not enough to fit the science to the Predatort Playbook. Facts still matter and sometimes their egregious violation of scientific methodologies does get caught out.

Sadly though, the Predatorts are too far invested in this fishing expedition. I suspect they will go back and find another malleable scientist, perhaps one who is far more cunning and ruthless, to manufacture a more clever line of attack. I can think of a few names.

——————-

Enjoyed this read (free with no ads)? Support The Risk-Monger via Patreon.
Become a Gold-Monger patron for 5 € / $ per month and get David’s newsletter.