Dan Mac Guill from Snopes asked for me to get back to him regarding inquiries about Lead in Corelle. Here’s my response.

You can see this morning’s original email from Dan at Snopes if you scroll down to the bottom. 

1. My first response (9:57 a.m.) was to let him know I was working on a response.
2. My second response (1:59 p.m.) was to let him know Jennifer – from Michigan (the recipient of the original email pictured above) would be willing to talk to him.
3. My third response (2:09 p.m.) suggested that while he wait for me to finish my response (below) that he consider watching the film on YouTube as background for this article, and any other articles he might write in the future about my work: https://youtu.be/eRKlaC2EjL0
4. This final response (below) is being completed around 10:00 p.m. (after working on it all day) and will be sent to him via link in his e-mail, so he will have the opportunity to read it along with my readers and any skeptics lurking out there.
5. If you are one of my regular readers – familiar with what I do and why I do what I do – and  interested in writing Dan an e-mail in support of my work, his email address is below. Thank you!

My husband and I have been working on this response (below) ALL DAY and I apologize for any typos or other errors. 

My response to Dan at Snopes: (I’m numbering the sections to make it easier to follow since this is so long!)

Here’s a summary statement encapsulating the following very long email / blog post: Dan, if Snopes is willing to fix the false statements and blatant (seemingly intentional) errors on the Snopes’ website about my work, I would be happy to make the time to talk to you about the communications between Corelle and my readers (communications which are all included below.)

And the above request and background in more detail (approximately 4500 words…) lol!

• poor study designs; 
• cognitive biases; 
• tiny sample sizes;
• unproven – or disproven – speculative theories;
• preconceived expectations/notions;
• inappropriate, flawed, shoddy, and/or completely unscientific methodology;
• unverified/unverifiable/unreproducible results and/or mere anecdotal “evidence”;
• dishonest dataset manipulation;
• absence of peer review;
• external and/or internal political considerations/pressure,
• covert conflicts of interest,
• outright falsification, 
• censorship, 
• suppression, 
• corruption, etc.

1.) These so-called “claims” are neither “new” nor “divergent”.

2.) But hey, Tamara – you are way off-topic, I wrote you about Lead in dishes!

3.) Four Snopes articles about the work of Lead Safe Mama, LLC to date:

1. December 1, 2016 by Kim Lacapria
2. June 3, 2017 by Dan Evon
3. June 10, 2017 by Dan Evon
4. March 2019 by Alex Kasprak 

4.) I met David Mikkelson last month, November 2019 –  Watch the videos – links below 😉

5.) In my questions in November I asked specifically…

• How can you (Snopes) both validate my work  – referring to me as an expert on your website confirming or negating a claim (fidget spinners and jelly shoes) and simultaneously attempt to invalidate my findings (findings made using the same methods and technology – technology used by our government agencies) on the same website (Pyrex and Tupperware)?
• And how you can do this with no apparent repercussions and no obvious opportunity for your articles to be challenged by those whose work you attack.
• And I shared why a retraction (or a significant re-write of the invalid pieces and statements) was warranted and asked how to go about making that request.

And did you know that David had no reasonable answer? Actually he nearly completely avoided answering my question and talked in circles and frankly sounded like an idiot – saying I should email through the website, but that your email system is broken. Here are links to the videos from that exchange:

• My question: https://tamararubin.com/2019/12/on-november-25-2019-i-asked-a-question-of-david-mikkelson-the-founder-of-snopes-video/
• David’s “answer”: https://tamararubin.com/2019/12/david-mikkelsons-response-to-me-on-november-25-2019-when-i-asked-him-a-question-fyi-hes-the-founder-of-snopes-video/

6.) My request of you, Dan:

8.) Snopes “just wants traffic”, too…

9.) A disrespectful request:

12.) “Yellow journalism” and irrelevant “facts”

13.) Legal actions / Libel / Slander, etc.

14.) Back to the subject at hand: “ _Company Name_ has always complied with all regulatory standards”

Please continue reading below the image…

15.) Reasons these corporate statements are bullshit and do not negate my findings:

1. My findings have NEVER been about leaching.
2. My findings are ALWAYS about total content as detectable with an XRF instrument and this is stated LITERALLY more than 1,000 times in various places on my website.
3. My stand is NEVER about compliance with current regulatory standards but instead about the need for stricter regulatory standards because (time and time again) regulatory standards have been proven to be set (or at least heavily influenced) by industry and not be protective of human health. This is not a myth, this is a fact. [Several national experts discuss this in my film.]
4. Leach testing is ONLY relevant at the time of manufacture – and the moment those dishes come off the showroom floor (or out of their box) and start being used they start deteriorating and the toxicants that did not leach out at the time of manufacture find their way out over time.
5. You can read more about that here.
6. And here.
7. And here.
8. This corporate party line is most ridiculous in that, in most cases (nearly all cases actually), there were no standards regulating TOTAL toxic heavy metal content in these products (for colorants, glazes, coatings, decorative elements or otherwise) at the time these products were manufactured (and this includes NOW! – see link for example).
9. Just because they were not regulated (vintage) at the time of manufacture or “met regulations at the time of manufacture” (newer) does NOT make them safe for families to use today after years – or decades of regular daily use.
10. Unfortunately people come away with a solid belief that these items are inherently safe to use after reading Snopes’ articles from 2016 and 2019.
11. When it comes to heavy metals and health, the principal of “first do no harm” is fundamental – and in the absence of proving these vintage items safe today (studies which the companies have refused to undertake as there is no financial benefit to them doing so), encouraging consumers to refrain from using them is prudent (and you in your coverage of the subject may want to do the same.)

Just for fun… I wanted to share this ADDITIONAL email yet ANOTHER reader got from Corelle this week (12/27). I found this hysterical except for the implication that dear Monica (in the original email in question above) may have lost her job over this. But again – more bullshit “All of our products have met the safety standards of the time they were made” – total bullshit when referring to vintage items given the message I am conveying is that the are possibly not safe NOW (10, 20, 30,… 50+ years later) because there WERE no standards limiting total Lead content THEN (when they were made.)

16.) Importance / relevance of Snopes as Facebook “Fact Checker”

17.) Others “legitimately” researching in this area:

18.) Why I bother…

• I have the original email sent to Jennifer.
• I know it’s real.
• Corelle has not sent their lawyers after me.
• They know it’s real.
• If Corelle thought it was fake I would have gotten a letter from their lawyers already and I would have published that letter on my blog.
• I don’t give a *fig* what Snopes thinks.
• I am just a stand for honest journalism.