The Latest Reassurance Ruse about Cell Phone and Cancer
Same researchers involved with INTERPHONE
Read further comments about the Danish study, it is worrying to discover that the same researchers are also involved with the INTEPHONE study, what hope have we got?
If the allegations of corruption are true, many people’s lives are at risk and we should be demanding an investigation.
If huge cancer agencies are prepared to put money before public health, trust and respect will continue to diminish calling all authorities into question. If cancer levels continue to rise, questions will be raised and I believe this has the potential to bring huge authorities down; there will be no forgiveness as our children’s lives are at risk.
Please see details about the latest Danish study and read the truth behind it from Dr George Carlo.
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://tinyurl.com/yeumd8
I have some very unique personal insight that I would like to share on this new Danish study. I will have a formal analysis and Safe Wireless Alert out on this by the end of the week. But, here is important background.
Indeed, John Boice and his colleagues have been on the cell phone industry payroll, and for big money, since the late 1990's. The money laundering vehicle is the International Epidemiology Institute -- the name sounds like a non-profit by design, but make no mistake, this is a big for-profit enterprise. When I ran the WTR, the International Epidemiology Institute, with Boice and a fellow named Joe McLaughlin, applied for funding to do this exact epidemiology study that was released this week. After much discussion within the WTR, they were refused funding because I felt they were blatantly biased and had overtly given us the notion that they would always create findings that were favorable to the industry. They thought that is what we wanted in the WTR -- they thought they were playing to the audience. But, they were wrong. When we refused to give them funding to do work, they wen t directly to the industry with the same pitch, and were hired. They were able to make good on their pitch of being able to put "put all of this under the radar" by further laundering the industry support money through the Danish Cancer Registry. This is the pitch that was given to me personally and directly. I still have their proposal.
The study released this week is the second such study with the same "spin on the findings" from this group of investigators. In 2001, they also had "one of the largest studies to date", and Boice went on a bit of a television tour -- paid directly by the industry -- to blunt the effects of my Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age book tour. I faced off with him a couple of times on T.V. most notabley on John Gibson's news show on MSNBC. It is interesting that MSNBC is also asleep at the switch on this one.
Interestingly, the other person quoted in the news reports on this study -- and I am certain his name was given in the press package released by the industry for the study as that is common practice to make sure there is "independent corroboration" -- is Joshua Muscat. Muscat worked for me under the WTR. Muscat blatantly changed his data after his studies were completed under pressure from the industry. Specifically, Muscat's work -- peer reviewed and completed according to a specific protocol under the WTR -- identified a near tripling in the risk neuroepithelial tumors and a correlation between the side of the head where the phones were used and the side of the head where the tumor was located that were both statistically significant. I speak of these findings in my "Cell Phones" book because they were the findings in the final peer-reviewed report of the data. The findings of a statistically signifi cant increase in neuroepithelial tumors and significant tumor laterality concordance were the official findings of the WTR. However, the industry hired an epidemiologist named Linda Erdreich to participate in the peer review. Under her influence, Muscat's data "mysteriously" changed -- not once, but twice. First, in the report Muscat gave at the Second State of the Science Colloquium -- and published in the book that contains all of the papers presented at the Long Beach Colloquium in June 1999 -- the statistically significant correlation between side of the head where tumors were and side of the head where phones were used disappeared. Then, yet again, in the paper that he submitted to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the data were further altered so that the statistically significant increase in tumor risk disappeared as well. Both of these alterations in the data were flagrant breaches of the peer-reviewed scientific protocols that were intended to guide that research. In a letter to the editor of JAMA before the study was published, I pointed these inconcistencies out and indicated that I was the funder of the study. The journal ignored the letter and went forward with the publication. Clearly, the industry carefully orchestrated the Muscat fraud so that the data that were "published" in JAMA carried no statistical significance. The press release for that study carried the "no statistical findings" heading. Of course, all of these data manipulations are evident in published papers, but no one has chosen to raise the issue in the media.
Interestingly, when the Muscat JAMA study was released in January 2001, there was another "high credibility" companion paper released in the industry package along with it to support the "no cancer from cell phones" spin. That study, done by Inskip et al., was realeased two weeks early at the request of the industry, so that there would appear to be two leading journals debunking the cell phone-cancer hypothesis at the same time. They were all bundled into one package that was sprung on me one night when I was being interviewed by Dan Rather of CBS News. In that paper, Inskip himself pointed out that the study did not any tumors that were within the range of exposure to the cell phone near field plume. However, even with the admitted shortcoming that the data were only marginally relevant to actual cell phone induced radiation exposures, it was lauded as another cell phone safety harbinger in the press package. And, who was that Jo urnal who agreed to release the study early under pressure from the cell phone industry? You guessed it, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. And, who had just left the payroll of the National Cancer Institute who runs the journal at the time? You guessed it -- John Boice.
Finally, also now circulating in the press package as part of this latest study are comments from Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society. He is using this as an entre to get in the news to raise some money for ACS. His take -- the studies show no risk. Of course, what people don't know is that in 2002, scientists from the American Cancer Society testified in brain cancer litigation in Federal Court in Baltimore, Maryland on behalf of the cell phone industry. They would want you to believe that no one was paid for that testimony. However, shortly after that, a report was released by the American Cancer Society that included cells phones as one of the greatest cancer myths. So blatant was this connection between the American Cancer Society and the cell phone industry, that last year, when Sanjay Gupta of CNN ran a story about the belief of Johnnie Cochran's surgeon that his fatal brain tumor was due to his cell phone use, the indust ry did not even reply in the story. Instead, they simply referred to and quoted the American Cancer Society's report on cell phones being one of the cancer myths. Thus, they used the American Cancer Society paper as a public relations shield.
Everything I say here is fully documented by publicly available information. But, it is so diffuse that it is difficult for folks to connect the dots. Inexplicably, there remains a peculiar absence of investigative journalists who are working on uncovering the full breadth and depth of the industry's orchestrated manipulation program. Where are Woodward and Bernstein when you need them?
Am I callling out some very prestigious groups and openly showing their conspicuous unethical behavior, questionable integrity and disregard for public health? You bet I am. The Danish Cancer Registry, John Boice, Joshua Muscat, Michael Thun, Linda Erdreich, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the Journal of the American Medical Association and the American Cancer Society have ties to the telecommuncations industry that compromise their ability to provide meaningful information on this important public health issue. As sad as it is, this is a "follow the money" exercise that is yet another example of public health being compromised by industry subterfuge.
Please feel free to pass this word.
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
Cell phones...no risk claimed..Denmark...2006
To the Danish Cancer Registry
If the statements made by Dr Carlo are true then I feel your agency is letting down the population of the world and your agency should be Shut Down. If the world can't depend on our cancer agencies to protect us then we are doomed. Please reply with an explanation to the statements below.
"They were able to make good on their pitch of being able to put "put all of this under the radar" by further laundering the industry support money through the Danish Cancer Registry. This is the pitch that was given to me personally and directly. I still have their proposal."
Latest Danish cell phone study: Giving the industry what they paid for
Cell phones...no risk claimed..Denmark...2006
We have to know who paid for the study as well. I would guess that the Danish Cancer Industry receives lots of money from the Wireless Industry?? Paid Stooges??
----- Original Message --
From: JCMPelican @aol.com
To: r_riedlin @telus.net
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: Fwd: Cell phones...no risk claimed..Denmark...2006
Dear Robert: Computer "playing tricks" as usual.......
Meant to include comment that these reports are "so lacking and inaccurate" (as you know). The reporter mentions Leukemia. Well, we definitely do know that Leukemia doesn't take 30 years to develop. Toddlers and children who die from Leukemia and other EMF/EMR exposures such as electrical items close to beds are obviously not 30 years old!!!
Also, taking a look at the actual study is necessary to determine whether the info means much at all because, as you also know, comparing persons who use cell phones for many years, regardless of "number of years," depends primarily upon the "amount of chronic, prolonged exposure" and not necessarily on "numbers of years."
The reporter uses the word "gabs" but that, of course, can have many meanings.
There is a distinct difference in reasons for concern when comparing an attorney or medical doctor, real estate agent/broker, and many other occupations that require almost constant contact during a given day for many days in a row compared to other persons who use their phones to "occasionally gab....."
As with all the rest of the misleading reports, this one basically "says nothing.....!!!" A look at the actual study may possibly reveal important facts. Thanks and take care - Joanne
Joanne C. Mueller Guinea Pigs R Us
731 - 123rd Avenue N.W. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55448-2127 USA Phone: 763-755-6114 Email: jcmpelican @aol.com (12-5-06)
Cellular Telephone use and cancer risk
The Danish study (from Prof Lennart Hardell)
Note - it is written in the study that the funding came from the Danish Cancer Society (and the danish strategies research council) but the original study from 2001 was funded THROUGH the Danish cancer society and BY the 2 biggest cellular companies in Denmark, Teledenmark and Sonophone (it cost them 1 millions krones). It was reoprted at the time by Sianette Kwee. So it is the same case here - but it is not reported. Unethical.
The Danish study
If cellphones are as harmless as J. Olsen showed, why did he warn people only to use a cellphone for short messages and not for long conversations? He also keeps up the warning that children and young people should be careful in using a cellphone, but in 2 years' time they should have the answer. Boice, Mc Laughlin, Christopher Johansen have a record and they were involved in the Newman vs. Motorola case.
Only the media outside Denmark was informed about this study in the first place by????industry. In Denmark it was not made public before Wednesday 12/6/2006. Since it is based on the old study, it does not include information about cell phone use in industry, trades and crafts, governmental and other public institutions etc. In the television interview with J. Olsen it was said that now all craft-/tradesmen, who are so dependant in their work on the their cellphone can use it safely and unlimited.
The Danish Cancer Organization is a private organization and get its money from all types of donations i.e. everybody can donate them money and they will certainly never refuse.
Re: Danish Cancer study
It is exactly like the Swedish Cancer Foundation, I'm afraid... They are the largest funding organization in Sweden for such studies, and they were the ones that told me that "if you mention EMFs, then you will definitely not get any money"... Neat, eh?!
Olle Johansson, assoc. prof.
The Experimental Dermatology Unit Department of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Denmark Study in The Times
This particular study might not be but the author was involved with some other interphone work in the past. http://www.microwavenews.com/nc_apr2005.html
No mention has been made in the article about who has funded the latest study published in the Timesonline article Dr Christopher Johansen specializes in psycho social research.
Url from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute shows the abstract of the paper
the data starts and ends 1982- 1995 and follows up until 2002 The time period under study is 2002-1985............. 17 years, I don't know where the figure of 21 years comes from.
What is worrying is that the corporate subscribers that were removed because "the individual could not be identified" blows a big hole in the studies credibility. Corporate subscribers are the ones most likely to use the phones more than non corporate users. These were numbered as 200,000. This issue was ignored rather than addressed for the sake of transparency and credibility.
And another 100.000 were removed for other reasons.
Out of 723,421 registered users only 420,095 were admissible, only 58% of the users were included in the study.
The fact that the expected figure was higher than what was observed suggests some skewing effect might be at play. The results show that phone use might help inhibit cancer. This however was stated as "phones had no impact on cancer risk"
I would have difficulty sharing the view that this is definitive evidence from a large population.
panayis zambellis luton
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
Re: The Danish study
In Israel it was informed (two national newspapers, radio, internet and TV ) that the study was funded by very respected bodies - the Danish cancer society and the "Danish research consulship". When some critical readers reacted to the internet articles that this study must have been funded by the cellular companies, others replied that it can't be, because how can the Danish cancer society be related to the companies? No chance.
NOT ONE WORD was said in the media about the industry involvment in this study. The paid expert prof Yossi Riback who runs the environmental unit in the public health school of Tel Aviv university, told on the evening TV news that this study can be used to calm the public, and that it did not find any link, "PERIOD." He also said that the panic and hystery of the public is what causes damage to health. He is a tutor of Thesis and doctorats in the university. The afternoon TV report said that the study did not include children, and that another study did show link to ear tumors, and that it is not a green light to use the phone 8 hours a day. Dr. Sigal Sadezki was interviewed yesterday on the radio, from Texas, where she is now, about the Danish study and the Interphone. She said that the problem of the study is that they did not check whether the subscriber is also the talker, she also said that the same researchers are also in the INTERPHONE, she emphasized that the methodology of the study is different from the INTERPHONE methodology, because in the Danish study they did not speak with the people, and in the INTERPHONE they did speak with them, and they devided the subjects to groups according to their phone use, as control groups. She said the results will be released "soon" and that the reason she cannot talk about it yet, is because it has not gone through peer review yet.
Here are the internet versions of the reports as published in the printed newspapers:
Re: The Danish study
We have now put up an initial commentary:
We very crudely re-adjust the ORs with some interesting results, I think.
Alasdair & Graham Philips (Graham did the story)
Gerald Goldberg on the Danish health statistics
For John Boice
I ask to deliver this directly to Dr. J. Boice please, I don't have his email:
Dear Dr. Boice,
I am interested in your latest study, and would like to bring forward one of the concerns that were raised in view of the latest developements (media etc). You were quoted in the media saying that: "There's really no biological basis for you to be concerned about radio waves". In light of this comment, how would you explain the REFLEX project (Adlkofer), the blood brain barrier findings (Salford), Lai's DNA breaks and Belyaev, I. Microwaves from GSM mobile phones affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX foci in human lymphocytes from hypersensitive and healthy persons. Environmental Health Perspectives, online 28 April 2005? What do you think of the above in terms of biological basis? Do they not mean anything to you, as a scientist?
Thank you very much in advance,
Danish cell phone study: Sage radio interview
Paul and all,
In response to the Danish Interphone Study (just released) by Schüz, Boice and McLaughlin, I got several calls saying "see- no problem".
If you all want to hear what was wrong with that study, here is a link (below) to a radio interview given last Monday for a New York station. The 20-minute Q&A covered some of the things that were wrongly designed (research design) or misreported (the "all clear" message was not remotely correct). All one could reasonably say is that "this study didn't turn up any strong results."
What I cannot understand is that Schüz is a good and careful researcher. He has published quality work on ELF and childhood leukemia (with Michaelis). His research outline for a brain tumor study was handed out at the Monte Verita conference in Switzerland (November 20-24, 2005) and it looked pretty good then. He was looking for funding then.
The Danish study does not use the same method of grouping low, medium and cell phone heavy-users as Schüz proposed in his original research design. What happened? Did they simply omit the detail in the published article? Or, did they change the way they counted "users" and "non-users"?
That would make a big difference. When researchers look in the right places, we see effects (Hardell, 2006; Hardell 2005 a,b): Hardell, 2004; Hardell 2002) and Kundi, 2004 (Kundi is a good review paper). Hardell consistently looks at "same side of head use of phone as cancer" or ipsilateral use. He looks at longer latencies (periods required to see a cancer). He compares truly heavy users to non-users (2000 hours of cell phone use or one hour per day for 10 years). These kinds of judgements make the chance of finding an effect more likely, if there is one.
If we go looking in the wrong places, we find nothing (all effects are diluted out). The only specific information on cell phone users was that all corporate users (i.e. heavy users) were omitted; a cross-check to another study was done which identified "users of cell phones" as anyone who had one call per week for 6 months which is a very low use rate (effectively mixing controls and exposed to further dilute the results). Some others have complained that the "expected cancer" rate was too high (this would dilute the findings). There was no objective measure of how long calls lasted (duration) and only outgoing calls were tallied (no incoming calls, which obviously cause exposure to RF). There was no questioning about which side of the head users predominantly used their cell phones (so no laterality information).
So, we have a study that was billed as completely negative; when the research design could not reasonably find an effect - it went out of its way to obscure any effect. Then, it had massive publicity with a distorted message about what conclusions could be drawn. I made a comment during the radio program that intentional distortion of scientific information on which people rely might be considered "negligent homicide" if misleading enough, people are falsely reassured, and they become ill or die by relying on this message. What is the responsibility of scientists? Where does accountability come in? What should be the penalty for spinning science in a way that harms the public?
Cindy - Thanks again - you did a terrific job of summarizing the info and making a passionate case for serious concern about cell phones. Sorry I couldn't respond to your email this morning -- I had already left for my job, where I don't usually get to check my personal email. (I take a long lunch hour every time I do my unpaid show on WBAI.)
To download an MP3 or podcast of today's show, just go to http://www.archive.wbai.org
, page down to:
Monday, December 11, 2006 1:00 pm
There you will find options for download & podcasting.
Again, many thanks, and I look forward to having you on again. Please add me to your email list, if you have one.
Best, Bob (Lederer Pacifica Radio)
P.S. For future reference, our broadcast streams live at wbai.org.
The following link is to an mp3 file with the Cindy Sage interview alone (rest of radio programme removed): http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=resources
(click on the "Cindy Sage interview 11.12.2006" link to listen)
There is a number of audio & video interviews about EMF to be found at the link.
Henrik Eiriksson, admin,
Epidemiologists with secret ties to industry - Industry 'paid top cancer expert'
Scientist admits conflict of interest
Under a plea deal, the NIH researcher would pay the government $300,000, the amount he received from Pfizer.
By David Willman, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
December 9, 2006
Saturday Part A; Pg. 21
A senior government scientist from the National Institutes of Health who took about $300,000 in unauthorized payments from a drug company pleaded guilty Friday to a federal charge that he committed a criminal conflict of interest. The admission by Dr. P. Trey Sunderland III came after years of denials by his attorneys and six months after the scientist had asserted his constitutional right against self-incrimination to a congressional subcommittee. The prosecution was the first of an NIH scientist under federal conflict-of-interest laws in 14 years. Sunderland, 55, admitted that he failed to get required authorization for taking $285,000 in consulting fees and $15,000 in expense payments from the drug company Pfizer Inc. from 1998 to 2003.During the same period, he provided Pfizer with spinal-tap samples collected from hundreds of patients as part of a research collaboration approved by the NIH. After the hearing Friday, U.S. Atty. Rod J. Rosenstein told reporters that Sunderland's actions were a breach of the publictrust. "This case is not about an honest mistake," Rosenstein said. "If a government employee is actually on the payroll of a company that benefits from its dealings with the United States, there's a chance that that employee's financial interest will affect his or her official actions." Sunderland, who joined the NIH in 1982 and headed its geriatric psychiatry branch, answered in even tones more than two dozen questions from U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz. Afterward, Sunderland's eyes welled as he embraced his teenage son. A plea agreement calls for Sunderland to pay the government the $300,000 he took from Pfizer, perform 400 hours of community service, and submit to two years of probation. Motz set sentencing for Dec. 22. Federal guidelines give the judge discretion to impose up to ayear in prison and a fine of up to $100,000 for Sunderland's violation, a misdemeanor. However, the judge reviewed the plea deal privately with Sunderland's lawyers and with federal prosecutors before the Friday hearing, and those familiar with the case said they did not expect a harsher sentence. Under the collaboration with Pfizer, Sunderland's staff provided Pfizer with spinal-tap samples they had collected from patients who had Alzheimer's disease or were at risk of developing it. Drug companies prize the material because it could contain genetic clues for finding a breakthrough treatment. Sunderland at no point from 1998 to 2003 sought permission from his NIH bosses to take the personal payments from Pfizer, and he didnot disclose the income on annual financial reports. Sunderland did not address reporters Friday. His lawyer Robert F.Muse declined to comment. Unaddressed at the hearing was how the guilty plea might affect Sunderland's employment. An NIH spokesman in Bethesda, Md., said Sunderland remained a federal employee.
ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability http://www.ahrp.org
The Los Angeles Times reports that Dr. Trey Sunderland III, who headed Alzheimer's research at NIMH, pleaded guilty to criminal conflicts of interest. The prosecution was the first of an NIH scientist under federal conflict-of-interest laws in 14 years. Ironically, NIH scientists are so embedded that the LAT reports, it is uncertain "how the guilty plea might affect Sunderland's employment. An NIH." An NIH spokesman said "Sunderland remained a federal employee."
Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
I got the following published in last Fridays issue of local Brighton Community newsletter the Kemptown Rag which gets pushed through every letterbox in Kemptown, B'ton, a large area
The recent Danish study of 420,000 users having used cell phones for between 10 and 15 years was quoted in the British media as finding no causal link with any form of cancer.
Head researcher and scientific director of the International Epidemiology Institute (IEI) John Boice, said "There’s really no biological basis for you to be concerned about radio waves.”
Also quoted Joshua Muscat of Pennsylvania State University said: "As the body of evidence accumulates, people can become more reassured that these devices are safe".
However, Dr George Carlo who headed the US WTR (Wireless Telecommunications Research) programme throughout the 1990s, had this to say:
"John Boice (and co) have been on the cell phone industry payroll, and for big money, since the late 1990’s. The money laundering vehicle is the (IEI)...When I ran the WTR, the IEI, with Boice and (another), applied for funding to do this exact epidemiology study that was released this week. After much discussion within the WTR, they were refused funding because I felt they were blatantly biased and had overtly given us the notion that they would always create findings that were favorable to the industry...When we refused (them funding), they went directly to the industry with the same pitch, and were hired. They were able to make good on their pitch of being able to put “put all of this under the radar” by further laundering the industry support money through the Danish Cancer Registry. This is the pitch that was given to me personally and directly."
"In 2001, they also had “one of the largest studies to date”, and Boice went on a bit of a television tour — paid directly by the industry — to blunt the effects of my Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age book tour.
"Muscat worked for me under the WTR. Muscat blatantly changed his data after his studies were completed under pressure from the industry. Specifically, Muscat’s work — peer reviewed and completed according to a specific protocol under the WTR — identified a near tripling in the risk neuroepithelial tumors and a correlation between the side of the head where the phones were used and the side of the head where the tumor was located that were both statistically significant...However, the industry hired an epidemiologist named Linda Erdreich to participate in the peer review. Under her influence, Muscat’s data “mysteriously” changed — not once, but twice..Both of these alterations in the data were flagrant breaches of the peer-reviewed scientific protocols that were intended to guide that research."
Carlo also details huge complicity between the American Cancer Society and the cell phone industry in denying any harm from cell phones, masts and the many other microwave devices available. He adds "..there remains a peculiar absence of investigative journalists who are working on uncovering the full breadth and depth of the industry’s orchestrated manipulation program."
For the whole shocking story, go to http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=598
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
Complements of investigations of studies
GLOBAL CORRUPTION BAROMETER 2006
SUBVERTING THE SCIENCE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY