INDUSTRY-FUNDED
SCIENCE (Updated)
Dr.
Daniel Krewski and McLaughlin Centre (a.k.a. RFcom.ca or Wireless
Information Resource Centre)
Dr
Krewski -Spokesperson on the “safety" of WiFi
in
this Health Canada video. His voice echoes the stance of the wireless
industry.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/video/wifi-eng.php
Dan
Krewski is the Head of McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk
Assessment, previously known as Wireless Information Resource Centre
(WIRC).
McLaughlin
Centre (WIRC) was founded & funded by the Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association (CWTA). See Press Release:
http://tinyurl.com/3pyuljr
Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association's
former President Poirier still manages McLaughlin Centre's projects.
CBC Marketplace exposed that the wireless industry, CWTA, funds both
the research and salary of Dr. Krewski who promotes that WiFi is
“safe”.
Dr.
Krewski represented Canada in the Interphone Study. Out of 13
countries, Dr. Krewski's Canadian team is the only research group
which accepted direct funding ($1 million) from the wireless industry.
Industry
Doesn't Give You a Free Lunch
Paul
Kleihues, Head of the World Health Organization's International
Agency on the Research of Cancer (IARC) said, "Industry
doesn't give you a free lunch...".
http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/pre-2007/files/health/iarc/pagetwo.html
There
are lies after lies behind cellphone and wireless radiation which the
mainstream media rarely reports. As in the tobacco industry, one
major reason for a lack of definitive scientific opinion is that
industry-funded studies have mostly reported no health effects, but
non-industry-funded studies have mostly (up to 9 times as often)
reported adverse biological effects from EMF exposure. Even a prominent
agency such as UK's HPA ignored the conflict of interest and let somebody
like Prof. Swerdlow chair their review panel. Even though Prof.
Swerdlow and his wife are shareholders of multi telecom companies, he
was given the chance to "defend" the "safety" of
this technology and then label the report "independent". This is
simply unacceptable.
Harvard
lecture at the Centre for Ethics:
Cell Phone Radiation and Institutional Corruption
Cell Phone Radiation and Institutional Corruption
November
18, 2011
On
Nov. 3, Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former executive director of the VERUM
Foundation for Behavior and Environment, spoke to a Harvard Law
School audience as part of the lectures and events series hosted by
the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.
In
his lecture, “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with
Science,” Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other
scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects
of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also
discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs
their research.
Adlkofer
described his experience with the EU-funded
study REFLEX, which aimed to explore the effects of cell-phone
radiation on the brain. The study’s conclusions demonstrated
that low frequency as well as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
below the allowed exposure limits displayed gene-damaging potential.
In
2004, shortly after releasing those findings, Adlkofer was the
target of allegations questioning the validity of the
findings and even accusing him of fraud. While an ethics
panel eventually dismissed the accusations, his struggle
against slander continues, he said.
In
May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified
high frequency electromagnetic fields including cell phone radiation
as merely “possibly carcinogenic” for humans, Adlkofer said, but
he pointed out that studies such as REFLEX
were not taken into account in reaching that
determination. Had they been,
he said, the classification likely would have changed from “possibly”
carcinogenic to “probably.”
“The
practices of institutional corruption in the area of wireless
communication are of enormous concern,” said Adlkofer, “if one
considers the still uncertain outcome of the ongoing field study with
five billion participants. Based on the unjustified trivializing
reports distributed by the mass media by order and on account of the
wireless communication industry, the general public cannot understand
that its future wellbeing and health may be at stake. The people even
distrust those scientists who warn. In
democracies, it is a basic principle that above power and their
owners are laws, rules, and regulations. Since in the area of
wireless communication this principle has been severely violated it
is in the interest of a democratic society to insist on its
compliance.”
—Sophy
Bishop
Orignal
text: http://goo.gl/HD2Ja
UK HPA's
AGNIR Report is NOT Independent
The Health
Protection Agency's independent advisory
group on non-ionising radiation (AGNIR) is
an "important" institute to watch for signs of rising
cancer cases, including monitoring national brain tumour trends.
Recently, this group published a report "Health
Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields".
"There
are still limitations to the published research that preclude a
definitive judgement, but the evidence overall has not demonstrated
any adverse effects on human health from exposure to radiofrequency
fields below internationally accepted guideline levels,"
said Professor
Anthony Swerdlow,
chairman of the AGNIR and an epidemiologist at the Institute of
Cancer Research."
This
same paper attempted to downplay the IARC RF classification.
Investigative
journalist, Mona Nilsson, discovered that Professor Swerdlow is a
shareholder of telecom companies Cable and Wireless Worldwide
and Cable and Wireless Communications. His wife is a shareholder
of BT group, a global telecommunications services company.
This
conflict of interest was not disclosed in the report. Unbelievable
that Mr. Swerdlow, with himself and his spouse being shareholders of
telecom companies, are still permitted to chair this panel to defend
the "safety" of wireless technology, then label the panel
and the report "independent"!
Conflict
of
interest: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103693
Scientists
Who Discovered that EMF Damaged DNA Were Oppressed by the Industry
Scientist Who Did Cell Phone Research For Motorola Speaks Of Interference and Control
Insurance Companies not Covering for Cell Phones and Wireless Carriers
Philip Morris CEO Tells Pregnant Moms Smoking is Safe
Harvard Health Policy
Review
Profit
and the Production of the Knowledge: The Impact of Industry on
Representations of Research Results
Harvard Health
Policy Review Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2007
"In
Canada , for example, most of the national funding agencies
explicitly encourage collaborations with industry. Even the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the primary
public funding agency for biomedical work, has embraced this trend.
In fact, the federal legislation that created the CIHR has
declared “commercialization of health research” and “economic
development through health research” to be central goals of
the agency... As a result, many of the relevant players are acting as
expected and as market forces would dictate."
Impact
of the Commercialization of Biotechnology Research on the
Communication of Research Results: North American Perspective
Harvard Health
Policy Review Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 2007
"Evidence
demonstrates that academic biotechnology research has become
increasingly commercial in the last twenty years in Canada and in
the US . This obvious realization does not only carry negative
implications. Private funds have helped American universities
remain on the cutting edge of scientific research and provide
the best learning environment for their students. However, it would
seem that this increasing emphasis on research commercialization
has also created situations where university teachers and researchers
could now find themselves in conflict between their traditional
academic duties and the new commercial imperatives. This situation is
especially worrisome in that it could lead researchers to delay
the communication of important findings over substantial
periods of time in order to protect commercial interests. In our
article, we first demonstrated the existence of a significant
correlation between commercialization and withholding of information
in the biotechnology research field in Canada and in the US . We then
set out to find where and how, in the commercialization chain, the
free dissemination of information was put in jeopardy. We conclude
that policy changes may be required to improve the free flow of
information."
Two
prominent European scientists (Prof. Anders Ahlbom, Dr. Alexander
Lerchl )
who
have been instrumental in setting the "safety" standards on
EMFs (with influence lasting till today), including chairing numerous
EMF expert panels such as ICNIRP in the past decade, were recently
rejected by WHO's IARC because of conflicts of interests with the
Telecom industries. It was revealed that Ahlbom co-owned a telecom
industry lobby group with his brother. Ahlbom also resigned from
Chairmanship of the Swedish Radiation Safety Scientific Council while
under investigation. Dr. Lerchl hosted the German Jurlich Research
Centre Panel for EMF-Children Studies Review in 2007-2008, as head of
the Committee of Non-ionizing Radiation in the German Radiation
Protection Commission (the highest of such position in Germany) also
works as consultant for the German Informationszentrum Mobilfunk
(IZMF)!http://www.monanilsson.se/document/AhlbomConflictsIARCMay23.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/4xqandz
http://tinyurl.com/6xlzxc5
http://tinyurl.com/4xqandz
http://tinyurl.com/6xlzxc5
Funding for EMF Studies and its Influence on
Research Outcomes
Public
or Charity-funded studies have over 9 times the
probability of reporting at least one statistically significant
biological effect, compared to industry-funded studies.
Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies
Anke Huss1, Matthias Egger1,2, Kerstin Hug3, Karin Huwiler-Müntener1, Martin Röösli1
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland
Anke Huss1, Matthias Egger1,2, Kerstin Hug3, Karin Huwiler-Müntener1, Martin Röösli1
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland
Most
non-industry funded studies found biological effects. Most
industry-funded studies found no effect.
The
Effects of Mobile Phones Electromagnetic Fields on Brain Electrical
Activity: A Critical Analysis of the Literature.
“Overall,
the doubt regarding the
existence of reproducible mobile‐phone EMFs on brain
activity.. it [the mobile
phone industry] funded, partly or wholly, at
least 87% of the reports. From an analysis of their cognitive
framework, the common use of disclaimers, the absence of information
concerning conflicts‐of‐interest, and the industry’s donations
to the principal EMF journal, we inferred that the doubt was
manufactured by the industry... Of the 48 studies supported by the
MPI (mobile phone industry) 30 were positive and 18 were negative
(38% negative)... all 7
studies not funded
by the MPI were positive. Although the industry‐funded
studies were significantly more likely to be
negative... no two positive
studies reported the same effect... Thus the apparent message
of the studies dovetailed well with the MPI position that there are
no reproducible biological effects, and did so without denying the
existence of EMF‐induced bioeffects, which was the tactical
error made by the electric power industry thirty years
ago. If the investigators funded by the MPI had published only
negative studies, the industry research program would not have passed
the laugh test... Sixty‐two percent positive served to both protect
the interests of the industry and still sustain the appearance that
its position was based on scientific experiments... The
legitimization process had the hallmark of a well‐designed legal
strategy. Any peer‐reviewed report claiming to have shown that
mobile‐phone EMFs affected brain electrical activity, particularly
a report funded by the MPI, is potential evidence in a court case on
behalf of a party adverse to the industry. Inclusion of
a disclamatory statement in
the original publication is a strategy that tends to blunt such uses
by a plaintiff. Of the 30 MPI‐funded studies that were
self‐designated as positive, 22 contained a disclamatory
statement... From a scientific perspective the disclamatory
statements were puerile, and it would be naive to suppose that so
many investigators spontaneously decided to include them. More
likely, the disclaimers were explicit or implicit requirements
of the funder, with or without the agreement of the authors.”
M.I.T.
Scientists Union Expose How Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public's Expense
Federal decision makers need access to the best available science in order to craft policies that protect our health, safety, and environment.
Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years...
Methods of AbuseHow Do They Game the System?
Suppressing Research:
Hog Farm Emissions
After pork producers contacted his supervisors, a USDA microbiologist was prevented from publishing research showing that emissions from industrial hog farms contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Corrupting Advisory Panels:
Childhood Lead Poisoning
A few weeks before a CDC advisory panel met to discuss revising federal lead standards, two scientists with ties to the lead industry were added to the panel. The committee voted against tightening the standards.
Ghostwriting Articles:
The Pharmaceutical Industry
A 2011 analysis found evidence of corporate authorship in research articles on a variety of drugs, including Avandia, Paxil, Tylenol, and Vioxx.
Methods of Abuse
Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.
Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.
Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the "revolving door" between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public.
Influencing Congress. By spending billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions, corporate interests gain undue access to members of Congress, encouraging them to challenge scientific consensus, delay action on critical problems, and shape the use of science in policy making.
Exploiting Judicial Pathways. Corporate interests have expanded their influence on the judicial system, used the courts to undermine science, and exploited judicial processes to bully and silence scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/about/ucs-history-over-40-years.html
Federal decision makers need access to the best available science in order to craft policies that protect our health, safety, and environment.
Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years...
Methods of AbuseHow Do They Game the System?
Suppressing Research:
Hog Farm Emissions
After pork producers contacted his supervisors, a USDA microbiologist was prevented from publishing research showing that emissions from industrial hog farms contained antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Corrupting Advisory Panels:
Childhood Lead Poisoning
A few weeks before a CDC advisory panel met to discuss revising federal lead standards, two scientists with ties to the lead industry were added to the panel. The committee voted against tightening the standards.
Ghostwriting Articles:
The Pharmaceutical Industry
A 2011 analysis found evidence of corporate authorship in research articles on a variety of drugs, including Avandia, Paxil, Tylenol, and Vioxx.
Methods of Abuse
Corrupting the Science. Corporations suppress research, intimidate scientists, manipulate study designs, ghostwrite scientific articles, and selectively publish results that suit their interests.
Shaping Public Perception. Private interests downplay evidence, exaggerate uncertainty, vilify scientists, hide behind front groups, and feed the media slanted news stories.
Restricting Agency Effectiveness. Companies attack the science behind agency policy, hinder the regulatory process, corrupt advisory panels, exploit the "revolving door" between corporate and government employment, censor scientists, and withhold information from the public.
Influencing Congress. By spending billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions, corporate interests gain undue access to members of Congress, encouraging them to challenge scientific consensus, delay action on critical problems, and shape the use of science in policy making.
Exploiting Judicial Pathways. Corporate interests have expanded their influence on the judicial system, used the courts to undermine science, and exploited judicial processes to bully and silence scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdfhttp://www.ucsusa.org/about/ucs-history-over-40-years.html
Excess Risk of Brain Cancer with 5 Years or More and/or Cellphone Use on Same Side of Head as Tumor Location or, Combinations of Wireless Phone Use: Interphone Results Versus Swedish Team Results
Independently-Funded Research (BLUE diamond) overwhelmingly found increasing risk of Brain Cancer, while Cellphone Industry-Funded Research found decreasing risk mostly.
Genetic
Differences Ignored
Apart
from industry funding, some scientists have pointed out that the
reason for "inconclusive" results could be the difference
in genetics of the test subjects, from study to study. Just like in
the general population, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. As
a result, one study on chicken might yield slightly different results
compared to another study of the same substance, but on another batch
of chicken. However, the difference in outcome should not NEGATE the
fact that the substance has caused harm on the first batch,
especially where it concerns a substance that is mandated for all.
Here
is a U.S. Congressional Briefing by Dr. Theodore Litovitz, Professor
Emertus, Physicist, research scientist http://youtu.be/MCe0rqqyBcw.
Dr. Litovitz talked about Thalidomide which underwent pre-marketing
testings in the lab. Some tests showed harm and some didn't. The
health agencies approved it anyway, and authorized for it it to be
sold the market. The result - more than 10,000 babies in 46 countries
were born with severe birth defects because of this drug. "Canada
was the last country to stop the sales of the drug, in early
1962.[23] It
is not known exactly how many worldwide victims of the drug there
have been, although estimates range from 10,000 to 20,000.[24] In
1962, the United
States Congress enacted
laws requiring tests for safety during pregnancy before a drug can
receive approval for sale in the U.S.[25] Other
countries enacted similar legislation, and thalidomide was not
prescribed or sold for decades.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects
Electrogate in Canada: Eliminating independent academic inquiry with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
*
This article contains information related to Lorne Trottier. Mr.
Trottier has contacted us to clarify an error published on the McGill
website which has caused some portion of the content of the article
to be incorrect. We have inserted Mr. Trottier's comments below for
readers' information. Mr. Don Maisch has removed this article (by
anonymous author) posted on his website.
July
7, 2012 Corporate
influence on Science by EMFacts
A
recent 2012 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists examined the
effect on scientific inquiry when powerful corporate interests are
involved in academic research in the US. The report found that
corporations “exert influence at every step of the scientific and
policy-making processes, often to shape decisions in their favour or
avoid regulation and monitoring of their products and by-products at
the public’s expense”. To quote:
Federal decision makers need access to the best available science in order to craft policies that protect our health, safety, and environment. Unfortunately, censorship of scientists and the manipulation, distortion, and suppression of scientific information have threatened federal science in recent years. This problem has sparked much debate, but few have identified the key driver of political interference in federal science: the inappropriate influence of companies with a financial stake in the outcome. A new UCS report, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose, shows how corporations influence the use of science in federal decision making to serve their own interests.
Reference:
Union of Concerned Scientists, Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: How
Corporations Corrupt Science at the Public’s Expense, Feb. 2012,
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html
Don
Maisch PhD
Lorne Trottier’s Financial Ties to the Wireless/Mobile Industries
By
Anonymous
5 July 2012
5 July 2012
Following the World Health Organization’s classification of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) as 2B Possible Carcinogen to Humans in 2011, this year the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the Swiss Physicians’ MfE, the Austrian Medical Association and the French Health Research Group led by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist have all issued public statements calling for precaution against wireless radiation and proper treatment of electrohypersensitive (EHS) patients.
In Quebec, however, things go backwards. Electronics tycoon Lorne Trottier has financed an “urban-electro Brigade” operation to publicly deny the hazards of EMF and the validity of Electrohypersensitivity. Lorne (owner of Matrox) enlisted 60 academics, mostly from McGill University and École Polytechnique de Montréal to which he has donated tens of millions of dollars.
Lorne Trottier is a zealous critic of all the science that point to negative health effects of electromagnetic radiation. He has written numerous articles attacking scientists and scientific studies that do not support the “safety” of EMF/EMR which he promotes. His pro-EMF opinion is disseminated through his own website EMFandHealth.com, a host of “skeptic” websites which he is connected to. Even Amazon.com!
McGill University states that its “OSS [Office for Science and Society] “does not accept funding from any vested interest and is supported solely by McGill University and the Lorne Trotter Family Foundation.” http://www.mcgill.ca/oss/who-we-are
Below are Mr. Lorne Trottier's comments:
"First
I would like to point out that Matrox, the company of which I am a
co-founder, makes only a handful of products that incorporate are
make use of wireless technology. These products represent less that
1% of our sales. The vast majority of our products are specialized
video and graphics boards that are used in commercial and industrial
computers. You can easily verify this by consulting our web site:
www.matrox.com
The article on your web site also claims that I have made substantial investments in the wireless industry through my alleged association with iNova Capital. For your information I have never been a shareholder or administrator with this company. In fact I have no association whatsoever with iNova Capital. The only potential link, which is not really a link, is that I am a representative of McGill University on the Board of MSBiV, of which iNovia Capital is a shareholder. The role of MSBiV is to help professors at McGill to commercialize their research, the majority of which is in the medical area. I serve on the board of MSBiV on a pro bono basis and I have no financial interest in either iNovia Capital or MSBiV, nor any of the companies or startups they are associated with. The web site https://secureweb.mcgill.ca/boardofgovernors/other/non-board, had contained erroneous information that I was an administrator at iNovia Capital. This error has been corrected. In short, the claim that I have invested millions of dollars in wireless technology is simply false.
The article on your web site also contains false allegations concerning my association with the Centre for Inquiry Canada. In the article I am accused of making a financial donation to this organization in exchange for the employment of my nephew Justin Trottier. I have been a donor to CFI for several years and I plan to continue doing so, whether my nephew continues to work there or not. "
More
on ICNIRP, the WHO's EMF Project and Conflict of Interest
Conflict
of Interest & Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case
study of the WHO’s Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Task Group
By
Dr. Don Maisch
Published
in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional &
Environmental Medicine - April 2006
Analysis
of the WHO RW/MW exposure standards
Prepared
for the New Zealand Ministries of Health and Environment
By
Prof. Neil Cherry, Lincoln University, New Zealand
The
Procrustean Approach Setting Exposure Standards for
Telecommunications
Thesis
by Dr. Don Maisch