Cell Phone Lawsuit and Brain Cancer with Hunter Lundy
RFK Jr and Hunter Lundy are suing cell phone corporations for harming our public health.
According to the lawsuit, the telecom industry suppressed credible cell phone safety concerns and has conspired to conceal or alter results of safety studies to make them more “market friendly.” The lawsuit cites a long history of relevant scientific studies and industry actions taken since the 1980s, including the firing, defunding or denigration of researchers who discovered adverse effects associated with cell phone use.
Defendants in the case include Motorola Mobility, LLC; Motorola Solutions, Inc., Motorola, Inc.; AT&T Mobility LLC; ZTE Corp.; Cricket Communications LLC; HMD Global Oy; the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association; and the Telecommunications Industry Association.
My guest this afternoon is Hunter Lundy, my friend, my colleague, my co-counsel, Lake Charles, Louisiana, one of the finest, most revered trial lawyers in America, won every award that our profession can honor a trial lawyer with.
Last week, Hunter, and I'm co-counseling on this case, Filed a case, really a groundbreaking case against the Motorola and the cell phone industry for causing cancer specifically in a Louisiana preacher named Frank Aaron Walker who died at the age of 49 after using a Motorola cell phone for 25
years.
And he got the same kind of glioblastoma cancer.
I killed my uncle Ted Kennedy in 2009, my friend Johnny Cochran in 2006.
And Hunter has really pioneered this area of litigation, trying to get some justice from these cell phone companies who've known For decades that their cell phones are causing cancer and continue to tell them, encourage people, children and adults to use them at terrible, terrible risk.
And Hunter, thank you so much for joining us today on the podcast.
Glad to be here, Bobby.
I'm honored to be on your show and those were some kind statements you said about my career.
Let me ask you, let me get you just to talk about some of the other cases that you've brought in the past so people can kind of understand what your interests are.
Your interests have kind of overlapped with mine on a lot of the environmental issues.
You're from Louisiana and yet you sue oil companies which are sanctified and untouchable in your state.
You won a $50 million Historic settlement against Carmichael for creosote contamination.
You've won one of my favorite lawsuits of yours, your septic system lawsuit, and I've sued so many septic companies, and you're one of the few other attorneys in this country who have kind of specialized in suing that industry.
One of your most interesting cases was against Jimmy Swaggart.
Can you just tell us a little bit about that?
Yes.
In the mid to late 80s, I was hired by a pastor out of New Orleans, Reverend Paul Gorman, who had been defamed by Reverend Swigert in the denomination that he was affiliated with.
And so we filed a lawsuit in New Orleans for defamation, invasion of privacy, and violation of Pastor Gorman's First Amendment rights.
And it ended up in 1991 in a 10-week trial.
Resulting in probably the largest defamation verdict in the history of Louisiana.
And so it was interesting.
I met a gentleman who started off as my client, and then he became my friend.
And later in life, he became a mentor to me, and that was Reverend Gorman.
He's deceased now.
But that was a kind of a pioneering case on the First Amendment.
And I was a very young lawyer at the time when I met him in 1985, or as we like to call them, puppy lawyers.
I had just started my law firm, and so that was kind of the story.
Of course, back then, we didn't have social media, and I tell people that when we argued that case in the Court of Appeals, the Tokyo News and the BBC and every major network was there, and I tried that case with a famous trial lawyer that came out of World War II, Tommy D. Frazier from Oklahoma, who was a paraplegic and was quite a Quite a mentor in the profession to me.
And so it was a great experience in life, and it was a great opportunity for my law firm to start off on.
And so that's the story.
And there was a book written about it called Let Us Play, P-R-E-Y, and that gives the history and it develops the characters of Marvin Gorman, Jimmy Swigert, and Tommy D. Frazier.
It's a nonfiction, but it's pretty descriptive in parts.
And people can go back and research the history that was behind all of that, but just a chapter in my career.
But, you know, you mentioned the Kerr-McGee case.
We filed that in 99, and we represented residents from Bossier, Louisiana, local Pennsylvania, most of the ones from Columbus, Mississippi, that made up the largest number of the cases.
And we did have a great result, shy of a trial.
But the case that you might see in textbooks Is the Vista Chemical case.
There's a community right outside of Lake Charles on the other side of the river called Mossville.
Conoco had their chemical plant there for years, and then a company named Vista Chemical bought it out.
And their tank form, they had never replaced the tanks, and they leaked into this small, economically, or I would say economically deprived, but African-American community, was right on top of the plant.
And the ethylene dichloride, which is very lethal, had gotten into the groundwater.
And so me and some colleagues brought a suit against them that ended up in a very good result, relocating about 2,000 people and greenbelting that area that had been contaminated.
So that was a great start into the environmental practice.
That case I filed in 1995.
Kerr McGee in 1999.
From that point on, like you, Bobby, I've been doing environmental work in different states, primarily in Louisiana and Mississippi and Arkansas, some in Ohio and various other places.
Dabbled in California a little bit, but not much.
I try to leave that to the smart lawyers.
So let's talk about cell phones.
How did you get into this?
Originally, I know you've been interested many, many years, trying to get me into litigation, and you haven't had to try that hard.
As I said, I'm convinced my Uncle Ted Kennedy died of one of these tumors, and my friend Johnny Cochran, and many, many other people.
In 2008 and 2009, I started looking at products that were on the market.
There were screen devices, there were chips, there were things that were being put on Cell phones to help change exposure or reduce exposure and I was interested in it but one day I got a call from Erin Brockovich and I had met Erin years ago.
We had worked on contamination in Beverly Hills and she said she had a lady that was looking for a lawyer whose husband had a glioma and he believed it was from he was a realtor and he had an abundance of cell phone exposure So I had already done some research on the cell phones and so I ended up being co-counsel for a gentleman named Alan Marks in California and we filed the suit along with a group of other cases in the District
of Columbia of Superior Court and that's kind of how we got into it.
A lawyer out of Detroit had filed some suits earlier and had gone up to the Court of Appeals and they'd come back and there'd been some decisions And so because the nonprofits involved in the cell phone industry, the lobbying groups, are located in D.C., it made what appeared to be a good venue for cases that could be joined together in that venue that were from around the country.
So no matter where you were located and where you got your tumor and where you bought your cell phone, you could bring your case in the District of Columbia.
So we did that, and so we've been Walking through this process for a decade almost in the District of Columbia, and we had a Fry hearing, and as you know, Bobby, there's a standard called the Daubert standard,
which are, of course, the Frenchmen in Louisiana like to say dober, but the Daubert standard is applicable in most all of the states, and it's a standard in which you challenge the experts of parties, but District of Columbia was still operating under the Fry standard, That standard meant you challenged a witness to see if his opinion was generally, or the methodology that he used to form his opinion, was generally accepted in the scientific community.
That was the frustration.
I want to interrupt you, Hunter.
So our listeners understand, when you sue somebody because of an environmental exposure, the courts will not let you go to a jury.
Until the judge makes an independent determination that there is reliable science that shows that that exposure indeed can cause that particular injury.
And if the judge does not find that there is some kind of prevalence in science, if one or two studies is not enough, it needs to be a certain threshold of studies that makes it In the judge's view, reliable.
And only then will he let you take it to the jury.
Go ahead.
And what you just stated is accurate under Daubert.
It's a little different under Frye.
And so we tried our experts under Frye and they challenged them.
And the court entered a ruling which was favorable for us for most all of the experts.
But then it was taken up on appeal and the court reversed it.
Saying, we're going to now apply Daubert.
So we had to go back and do a redo under a new standard.
Instead of Frye, we had to redo it under Daubert.
And it's still sitting with the court.
And in D.C., they change the judge every year.
So we're now on our fifth judge on those group of cases.
But as you stated when we started, we're working together on Pastor Frank Walker's case.
He's deceased now for his widow and two kids that we filed in federal court in Louisiana.
And, of course, we'll have the Daubert Challenge, just like you explained to the audience here.
But I think that we're going to move much quicker than what we just seem to be bogged down in the District of Columbia.
And we have an advantage now because the science also has matured enormously.
And there have been over a thousand studies now that show that, yes, That cell phones can indicate that cell phones can cause cancer.
The International Agency for the Research on Cancer, IARC, which is kind of a key metric in these kind of losses, has also found that it's a probable carcinogen.
And the probably most convincing of all The cell phone industry hired a, what we used to call a biostitute, an industry insider, a scientist who normally just does science for the industry to prove that a certain exposure is safe.
They hired a guy called Dr.
George Carlo.
And around 1990, the Industry Trade Association, which we are suing also in this case, And they gave him $28 million, and they told him, go out and find the science to show that cell phones are safe.
And he was so alarmed by the science that he actually found, that showed it damaged DNA, they cause cancer, they penetrate the blood-brain barrier, that it alters the cellular system.
Performance and function of children's brains after only three or four minutes of exposure.
And he was so alarmed by that, that he told the industry who had paid him $28 million, I cannot do what you want me to do.
These cell phones are causing cancer.
And then they had to spend a lot of money trying to Trying to discredit George Carlow and I back in the early or the mid 90s, I actually had him on our television show, on our radio show and TV show that Mike Papantonio and I used to do, which is Ring of Fire.
He was really an extraordinary character, but he's one of the kind of the major figures in this day.
He is.
Dr.
Carlow was in the, I would say, had inside information About decision-making that took place in the cell phone industry.
And, of course, if you read the complaint that we filed in federal court here a week or so ago, it outlines the information and the history of the development of the phone and so forth.
But we know that they've known for many years the dangers involved, and they have not educated the public with the dangers.
And so, I mean, we filed this suit.
Under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act of Louisiana that people have been deceived of the dangers or misled of the dangers involved in using cell phones.
And Bobby, you know, just like I know, that we know we have free will.
But you can't use that free will unless you're educated and told.
You can't make a choice.
All we want is people to be able to make choices.
And you and I both believe that this technology, we wouldn't be doing this podcast.
But for the fantastic technology that exists today.
But we just want to be educated on the dangers, especially our children.
And I know you're aware that the CDC in 2014 put a warning on their website, especially to the children on the hazards involved or the potential hazards involved with exposure to cell phone radiation.
And within two weeks, they had it down.
They took it down because of the pressure from the wireless community.
I mean, there's an unhealthy relationship between industry and government agencies.
And I know you know this, but Tom Wheeler, who was head of the CTIA during the George Carlo years, became the chairman of the CTIA. It is the trade association, the lobby association for this industry, and it is just a rank criminal enterprise.
They are just, they are creating havoc.
They're killing people across the country for money.
It's like mafia.
And they, well, go ahead and tell them what happened.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, and there's another one called TIA, the Telecommunications Industry Association.
But they're the lobbying firm, and they're driving legislation, they're driving instructions to the federal agencies, and they're working with industry.
And so they had a guy running that organization named Tom Wheeler.
Who was making the decisions and he made a decision that's very significant to the health of the world as well as the American public and that was when we went from analog phones to digital phones.
They never did any testing on what the consequences of the digital phones would be that run from a code versus a frequency like the old analog phones.
Wheeler made that decision And he made it for the purposes of industry, for the purposes of selling off the old phone frequencies.
But I mean, that's something that is detailed information we can talk about later.
It's very unhealthy between business and industry.
I don't know if people understood what we were saying, but the head of the lobbying group...
Yeah.
Was involved in this criminal activity, became the head of FCC. And while he was at FCC, he was making all these rules that favored his industry and utterly ignored any of the health problems that he knew this technology was causing children.
And to have the CDC alter their website at the pressure of of industry is sad because we've seen so much inconsistency and of course there were many articles written in 2015 and 2016 about that change on the website warning children but Bobby the audience needs to know that an individual's skull and brain does not reach its full formation until they're in their early 20s
and so children are getting much greater exposure Than adults are when they're putting cell phones up next to their brain.
It's going deeper.
It's causing worse consequences.
And so they need to be warned.
And this is a little pet peeve that I have right now.
Now you're seeing the Frank Walkers of the world who are in their 40s.
But you're actually seeing people that are a decade younger than him that are in their 30s.
Why?
Because these kids got on their phones in the 90s.
They stayed on them a decade.
Then they got married when they were 22, 23 years old, and they never had a landline.
So you don't find landlines in homes anymore.
People are saving their money and using cell phones.
So then they're on the cell phone for another decade.
So now kids that were 12, 14, 15 years old that got on phones are getting tumors when they're in their 30s because they've had 20 years of exposure.
And you know that the science reveals that 10 years or more of exposure, more than 30 minutes a day, increases your risk by two-fold of getting glioma or acoustic neuroma, which are the two focused tumors in this litigation.
And of course, I'm not going to talk about the individual client, but we'll talk in general concepts.
But these lawsuits all involve gliomas and acoustic neuromas.
And classically, the glioma or the acoustic neuroma occurs in the back of the ear at people's favor for their cell phone.
And that's what happened to my uncle, Ted Kennedy.
That's what happened to Johnny Cochran.
Johnny Cochran knew that it was a cell phone tumor that killed him before he died, of course.
One of the studies that George Carlow uncovered is a study that actually measures the amount of radiation that penetrates the brain.
And two inches into the brain, into the skull, into the actual brain tissue, the exposure levels to radiation are about two billion times background levels.
That's correct.
They've studied and try to regulate for the depth and breadth of the radiation that goes in the brain.
But we've learned through time, and you mentioned a thousand studies That have occurred since the early years.
And recently, we've had animal studies that confirmed everything that the epidemiology, the human health studies revealed.
And as you remember, Bobby, in 2011, when the International Association of Research on Cancer came back and said that it's a possible carcinogen, they rated it to be cell phone radiation.
And they said possible because we don't have enough animal studies at this time.
We had the human epidemiology, and they had studies from Dr.
Hardell, and they had what was called the Interphone Study, which was done among 14 countries.
But they were still waiting on animal data.
Well, in 2016, 17, and 18, the United States had funded a study.
The National Institute of Environmental Health, called the National Toxicological Program, funded a study.
They said rats and mice, and it came back Showing just what we're saying.
That animal study, the largest and most robust animal study conducted in history on cell phone radiation, showed that this stuff would increase the risk of these exposures, would increase the risk of getting gliomas and acoustic neuromas.
And so the animal studies were there.
So your scientists have moved from a possible to a probable carcinogen in the community.
It's like you said what they did with Dr.
Carlo.
Anybody that says anything that's contrary to what the wireless industry believes, they immediately try to destroy the messenger or hurt the credibility of the scientists who say it.
We're all renowned scientists.
We're not talking about somebody from just any institute.
We're talking about people that have been Advisors to the National Academies of Science.
We're talking about the former head of the National Institute of Environmental Health.
We're talking about the former head of the ATSDR, the former Associate Director to the National Institute of Environmental Health.
I can go on.
And these are the scientists that are now saying it's a probable carcinogen.
And you and I know that there's nine billion cell phones on this earth.
And my concern is those young people, our children, Who got on phones when they were teenagers are at high risk today because they were on them.
I started telling mine, you know, 10 years ago, you know, you need to speaker it.
You need to text.
You need to wear earbuds.
Do anything you can to reduce your exposure.
Use your Bluetooth in your car or your truck or wherever.
Reduce your exposure because it's all about distance, as you pointed out, the study that reflected it.
How much was going into the brain when you hold it up next to your head?
So these are things that the industry has secretly started mentioning in some of their phone literature, but you and I know that the public needs to be warned, just so they can make a choice.
We see warnings on cigarette packs, and it took a long time to get those warnings on those cigarette packs.
Well, that's what we did in the Roundup case.
If Monsanto had just told people this is a possible carcinogen and this can cause Monsanto's lymphoma, we wouldn't have had any case.
We weren't saying we should ban Roundup.
We were saying people should be able to make an informed choice.
And when they take a risk, they may choose to take that risk.
And most of us would probably choose to take a rather high risk when it comes to cell phones.
We need to have the choice and we need to have the knowledge to tell our kids don't sleep with that thing next to your head.
Turn it off.
Use an alarm clock.
Don't leave that in your room near your head all night.
And because this is a huge mass experiment, as you say, we have, you know, we have the most prominent scientists in the world who are, some of them who are testifying versus this lawsuit.
They are basing their opinions in large part on studies that were funded and performed by the United States government.
Yes.
The idea that there's any ambiguity about this science, it's kind of laughable.
There's a data that reflected 30% of our teenage children sleep with their cell phones.
I mean, it's just a ubiquitous environment now because of As many towers that are going up and many wireless devices that are in place.
And I know our litigation is about the cell phone and our focus is on the cell phone because everybody's got one and many have two and three.
And I could name off a list of people.
You mentioned your Uncle Ted Kennedy and Johnny Cochran.
I think the former Attorney General of Delaware died with a brain tumor.
And y'all can just...
Yeah, I think he died with a cell phone tumor.
I can name celebrities, I can name athletes, I can name a lot of people.
And why?
Because, and realtors and lawyers and doctors, people who back in the 1980s were frequently traveling, frequently could afford, remember the cell phone bills were outrageous when they first came out.
Somebody who was on the road And you mentioned me in the Garmin Swagger case.
I used to drive back and forth from New Orleans daily, 200 miles from Lake Charles, and I was on the cell phone.
Sometimes those phone bills were, you know, $1,000 a month.
They were just outrageously high.
Today, the phone bills are nothing.
But, I mean, people were using them.
And so you see people in our age bracket that started getting tumors in their 50s and their 40s and 50s because they could afford those phones.
And then you see people in rural areas because, you know, the towers, the location of the towers control the amount of radiation that is either going in or coming out of the phone because when you're searching for a signal, the energy causes it to search with a deeper power.
You remember the days when you were looking at the bars on your phone.
If you saw low bars on your phone, that meant you were searching for a tower.
So you were getting, when a signal came in or a signal went out, you were getting high exposure.
In rural areas, it was worse than in urban areas because of the distance of towers between each other.
So all of that plays into the role of who gets the most exposure.
But then we started putting these cell phones in our children's hands.
It's sad to say that the Europeans are way ahead of the Americans.
And even Israel and some of the other countries and India and others are way ahead of us on protecting their citizens.
Some of them would not allow children under 16 to use cell phones.
Some of them banned the use of the cell phone to kids under 16 years of age.
Unfortunately, American public, we fought a lobby that was stronger than the consumer lobby that has allowed this thing to They wanted, let's just be truthful, they wanted market saturation before the Bobby Kennedys and Hunter Lundys and others of the world started educating people on the dangers of cell phone.
So they got market saturation.
They got what they want.
You know, it's always, you know, we like to say as lawyers, follow the money.
That always gives you the answer.
And so that's what they've done.
And now we're risking a lot.
I'm seeing personally In a community like I live in, where young people in their 30s are getting glioblastomas, it's sad, but we've got to have a day in court.
We've got to have a day in court.
You didn't mention Russia.
Russia definitely knows more about cell phone radiation than at any place in the world because they were the ones who did all the initial studies on it back in the 50s, the 60s, and the 70s.
And they're so cautious about it in Russia, they don't let it.
They have laws over there against allowing cell phones in those schools.
Their exposure levels that are allowable in Russia are 1,000 of the exposure levels that we have here in this country.
And another thing people should know about it is that the amount of radiation that your cell phone is emitting is Largely related to its functionalities.
If you have a lot of apps on that cell phone, you are getting more and more and more radiation.
You mentioned the danger to kids.
I have seven kids.
No matter how much I tell them, they won't take that cell phone.
They will not put it down.
For them, it's like living without air.
And I'm in a constant battle with them, telling them, get that thing away from your head.
I haven't put a cell phone next to my head for years, because I interviewed George Carlin in the late 1990s, Carlo in the late 1990s.
After that, I was like, wow, I'm not gonna, this thing is dangerous.
But the people who really probably have the most exposure and where you're seeing these really disastrous impacts are first responders, police, Firefighters and the military and it really is a national crisis what's happening in those professions.
And think of your hotel clerks now and you think of other hospitality areas and you go and you watch them and they have a cell phone.
They're holding it on their shoulder and their ear and they're taking notes here with their hand because people have gone away from landlines and they're all using these cell phones And so they're getting much higher exposure with these cell phones and they're doing it all day.
And again, the science is indicative that latency and the cumulative amount of exposure is relevant to the risk.
So the longer the exposure and years and hours, the greater the risk.
I just encourage people, whoever's listening to this conversation, that they take, follow the precautionary advice and And speaker, text, wear earbuds, whatever.
But you know, you mentioned Russia.
You know, there is a scientist named Igor Believ, who is Russian.
First language is Russian, second is Swedish, third is English.
He heads up the Slovakia Cancer Institute.
He is well versed in this issue of the dangers.
He's a geneticist, he's a radiation physicist, and you're right.
The Russians know better than anybody about the dangers of radiation.
Again, other countries have taken measures way ahead of us because industry still wants people to be in denial.
And back to your kids.
They've addicted our children with cell phones.
One of the government agency employees did a peer-reviewed published study That talked about the addictive nature of the cell phone.
And of course they told her not to write anything else or she'd be fired.
They know that what they were doing, getting market saturation, and now they got our kids and everybody addicted to phones.
If you happen to walk through a Target, a Walmart, a mall of some kind, You don't see anybody looking at one another as they're walking down the mall.
They all have their hand next to their ear with their phone or else they're looking at their phone.
They're doing one of the two.
They're addicted.
Again, I'm not against the technology.
I'm all for it.
But it's just like you say, we want the right to choose.
And if you don't give people the information and you don't tell people the truth, they'll never have the right to choose.
I mean, one of the reasons the Russians know so much about it is they moved very aggressively in the 60s and 70s to weaponize cell phone radiation and wireless radiation and they were very successful and the U.S. government now has weaponized it too and can do God knows what with it,
but the Russians understood the danger very, very early and You know, a lot of the best publications on cell phone injury and damage, cancer, and DNA damage, cellular damage, chromosomal damage is coming out of Russia.
Hunter, let's talk just, you know, as we close down here, let's tell the audience what the status of the case is.
We have our Daubert hearing in July coming up.
And that's really going to be the big milestone because if we go forward, if the court finds that we can go forward, if we have sufficient science to go forward, it really is the beginning of a changing tide for this industry.
The hearing was set a year ago, and the process has been slow.
We've switched judges one more time.
They wanted to do the hearing by Zoom.
We felt like it would not be very effective, so the judge agreed that it should be a live hearing.
We still don't know whether this hearing will be by Zoom or live this July.
It's in D.C. The judge is limiting us to the old witnesses in the case that have been in the case for a number of years.
We would like to add a witness if we could.
I don't think we'll be allowed or not being allowed to add a witness.
But when we proceed in Louisiana, we'll be able to have new witnesses.
Like you said, the science has continued to evolve.
It's different today than it was seven years ago.
But the defendants have done everything they can to prevent us from using any new evidence, any new science, to prove our case.
But we will go to the Dalbert hearing like we did in the Fry hearing.
And that Fry hearing took several weeks.
They were cross-examining eight of our witnesses and calling their witnesses, and it took about three weeks.
I think we'll probably do the Dalbert hearing in a week to ten days' time this July, if it goes far.
And I hope it goes far.
After the judge makes the decision on which witnesses will be allowed to testify and which ones won't, then we will go back and seek a trial date for an individual plaintiff.
At that time, we'll have to disclose who our specific causation witness is.
And so the audience knows a specific causation witness is one that goes beyond saying that I know that the radiation causes the disease.
That doctor has to say, I know that the radiation caused this person's disease.
And they do what they call a differential diagnosis and they eliminate other potential causes and say that the substantial contributing cause was a cell phone radiation.
So that's the next stage in the litigation.
And like I said, you and I hope we live long enough to see a case tried.
This is what I want to see happen because I've been waiting for years.
And so we're filing suits in other states now.
We cannot wait any longer.
We're going to get it brought to a head.
We think we have a good venue here in Louisiana.
We will push fast and hard.
Again, we have been denied the right to get the liability documents of the industry.
We've gotten their scientific documents, but we want the documents between them and their insurance companies.
And because the insurance industry quit writing for the wireless industries back in around 2000, when Lloyds quit writing them, You know there was some communication going on because they knew of the dangers.
So we want that evidence, and we haven't been provided the opportunity to get that evidence.
And so when that happens, I think, and you know, you mentioned Roundup a while ago.
You know, when those studies became public about what happened in the 1970s when they were trying to decide whether or not glyphosate was a carcinogen or not, when the studies became public, The whole atmosphere of that litigation changed, and so the truth gets out.
As a trial lawyer, you know, we're truth seekers.
We want the public and the consumers to know so they can make an informed decision, but they really need to know what happened in the background in the beginning, and that's what we want.
All we want is the truth to come out and have an opportunity to have our day.
Don't deny our day in court because, I mean, it's the jury that so often changes.
The safety of America, and I could go through a list of the things that they've done.
The reason we have seat belts and shoulder harnesses, steel-toed shoes and helmets, and we can go on.
The reason the Ford Pinto gas tank was taken off all was because of what juries did and what information.
Of course, we owe that one to a journalist who exposed them first, the one about the Ford Pinto.
I forget his name right now.
He's written books, but great guy.
I'm going to think of his name.
Lee Strobel.
Lee Strobel was the Chicago Tribune.
And you know, in the Tribune...
Oh, he got the Pinto memo.
Yes, he did.
And it was the Chicago Tribune who recently outed them on their test data, too.
I want the audience to understand what Honor just said to me that it was the insurance industry in 2001 that said, we are not going to write policies for your industry anymore.
You understand what that means?
It's not just this Lake Charles, Louisiana attorney and Robert Kennedy were saying cell phones are dangerous.
It is the guys from Wall Street with the suits and the ties from the AIG, from Lloyd's in London, Who are the ultimate arbiters of risk in our society?
Who said, this activity that you're conducting is so dangerous that we are not going to write you an insurance policy because you could never afford it.
It's the same, you know, the same industry did the same thing with vaccines.
And the vaccine makers, you know, they told the vaccine makers, if you want an insurance policy, you're going to have to pay so much for it that you won't be able to afford to make that product anymore.
So Congress had to pass laws that said, you know, you can't sue them and insulate them from lawsuits.
And in this case, they're self-insuring, but, you know, they don't want to discuss and they don't want the public to know the rationale at the insurance companies, the information that the insurance companies Had available when they made that hard-nosed decision.
We're going to drop this very, very lucrative industry, and we're not going to make any money from you anymore because we think the hazards of what you're doing...
Are so enormous that it's going to cost us more money in the long run.
We need to get at those documents.
Hunter Lundy, thank you so much for everything that you do, and I look forward to all of the great work that we're going to do together.
Oh, we lit a fire under some people.
You know, we need some of our colleagues to step out.
You know, everybody likes the low-hanging fruit, and I think that This is one you've got to fight for, but it's the truth.
It is.
Well, thanks for everything you do.
Thank you, Bobby, for having me on the show.
God bless.
Look forward to seeing you.
You too.
I will see you down in Lake Charles, I think, in May.
