Susan Foster ha inoltrato all'Ombudsman, che è il difensore civico [previsto dalla Commissione Europeo per riportare contestazioni sull'operato di organismi comunitari], un ricorso contro la decisione presa dalla commissione SCENHIR in quanto nel suo rapporto sulla pericolosità delle radiazioni EM, sono stati volutamente esclusi importantissimi contributi scientifici del Dr Hardell , concretizzato in ben 3 lavori pubblicati nel 2013.
Qui viene contestato l'operato del responsabile di questa commissione DR J. Schuz che ha evidenti conflitti di interesse e precedenti finanziamenti dalla industria (vedere sotto in giallo).
Susan fa presente al Difensore come gli studi di Hardell (precedenti a questi del 2013) sono stati basilari per la classificazione 2B (possibili cancerogeni) della radiofrequenze da parte dello IARC (WHO) nel 2011, ma anche più recentemente, nella nota vertenza aperta presso la Corte Suprema USA, il giudice ha riconosciuto la validità di questi studi superando i selettivi e stringenti test legali denominati Frye : grazie a questi studi di Hardell il giudice ha deciso di andare avanti in questa macro-causa (somma di ben 13 cause) !
E questo Schuz con determinazione, nonostante i richiami dei colleghi della commissione, ha deciso che NO, Hardell non rientra !!!
Susan spara diretto: è ben pagato per tenere lontano questi lavori, da parte della industria delle telecomunicazioni !
Please see enclosed letter sent to the EU Ombudsman regarding SCENIHR Suppression of Science.
August 31, 2014
RE: SCENIHR Report 2014 and The Suppression of Dr. Lennart Hardell’s Science
Dear Emily O'Reilly:
In July 2014 we received individual letters from Acting Director John Ryan following our deeply and urgently conveyed concerns that scientific misconduct had occurred at SCENIHR under the direct actions of Dr. Joachim Schüz. Dr. Schüz took it upon himself to unilaterally write the epidemiology portion of SCENIHR’s report. Because SCENIHR was entrusted with examining the RF standards for all of Europe, this task and position calls for great integrity and objectivity. We are strongly suggesting both were lacking as Dr. Schüz “cherry-picked” the science that went into SCENIHR’s preliminary and then final report, purposefully and negligently omitting the five 2013 studies of independent epidemiologist Dr. Lennart Hardell of Sweden.
From Acting Director John Ryan we received the following replies to our concerns, as did others who wrote with similar concerns:
Subject' Reply - EC - SCENIHR Preliminary Report
“Our investigation found no facts to support these allegations, which seem to be
completely unfounded. The working methods used by the EMF working group were appropriate and in accordance with our rules of procedure. All members of the working group agreed upon the preliminary opinion and its conclusions before the draft preliminary opinion was sent to the SCENIHR for approval.
No conflict of interest could be identified among members of the EMF working group or the stakeholder members.”
We would contend, with all due respect to Mr. Ryan, that the Secretariat of the Scientific Committee assigned by Acting Director John Ryan may not have fully investigated the multiple conflicts of interest that Dr. Schüz brought to SCENIHR. To be blunt, the body of Joachim Schüz’s work and his telecom industry affiliations – so carefully elucidated by others who share our concern – must be scrutinized. This conflict of interest by Joachim Schüz impacts hundreds of millions of lives. We suggest the fox is guarding the hen house, and the victims are an unsuspecting body of humanity entrusting their lives, their children’s lives, and their progeny to the industry-biased goals of an epidemiologist who is on the industry payroll through a multitude of organizations including the Danish Cancer Society (as foreign as that conflict of interest may sound). There has been excellent reporting on Dr. Schüz’s well-known conflicts of interest by Louis Slesin of Microwave News, and more recently a comprehensive letter to John Ryan by Israeli author Iris Atzmon which includes the following conflicts of interest:
Dr. Schüz declared his contract with the electric industry, see "2006-2012 Electric Power Research Institute" (EPRI), EPRI is the US power industry research arm.
He also declared that he was a management committee member of COST BM 0704. IT'IS Foundation was appointed as the Grant Holder of COST Action BM0704. http://www.itis.ethz.ch/news-events/news/other-news/it-is-foundation-appointed-as-the-grant-holder-of-cost-action-bm0704/
Additionally, Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc. of Berkeley, California, published a comprehensive list of Dr. Joachim Schüz’s conflicts in Electromagnetic Health.org. http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/has-the-fox-been-put-in-charge-of-guarding-the-hen-house/
Our complaint to you on behalf of the UK’s EM Radiation Research Trust, sent with the greatest urgency, is about Dr. Schüz receiving money from a variety of telecommunication and power industry sources, money which sometimes flows through and insidiously influences organizations like the Danish Cancer Society – and now SCENIHR. This complaint is about the unethical actions of Joachim Schüz, a man who purports to be objective, places himself in charge of the epidemiology section of the SCENIHR Report, and then single-handily ignores, dismisses, and suppresses the brilliant 2013 epidemiology studies of Dr. Lennart Hardell of Sweden. Four of these five 2013 Hardell studies found a statistically significant link between cell phones and gliomas -- the deadliest of brain tumors, and acoustic neuromas. Both types of brain tumors are on the rise; prompting an unprecedented industry attempt around the world to suppress these statistics.
It should be noted that Dr. Hardell’s earlier science, even before the 2013 studies were published, was included in the science that went before Judge Frederick H. Weisberg of Superior Court in Washington D.C. Judge Weisberg is presiding over 13 consolidated lawsuits against the telecommunications industry in the United States. After months of testimony and careful deliberation, Judge Weisberg ruled that scientific evidence from five experts is strong enough to meet what is called the Dyas/Frye legal standard. The science must be generally accepted and meet what some experts refer to as “the test of time”. Never before has this happened in the US. Now the cases have been cleared by Judge Weisberg to proceed to trial.
Not all science brought before the court was accepted. The science of Dr. Lennart Hardell – and again, this is Dr. Hardell’s epidemiological science that preceded the five studies published in 2013 (which are even stronger) -- was considered strong enough by Judge Weisberg to be included in the brain tumor cases as they go forward to trial. It is critical to understand that the five more recently published studies by Dr. Hardell, which cover more than 20 years and show an even greater statistically significant correlation than the science considered and accepted by Judge Weisberg, were tragically dismissed by Dr. Schüz from consideration by SCENIHR.
Dr. Kjell Mild, co-author of four or five of the studies with Dr. Hardell and a member of SCNEIHR, tried repeatedly to have Dr. Hardell’s science included in the SCENIHR report. He chronicled his strong objection to the dismissal of this science in a letter many of us sent to Mr. Ryan. Those efforts by Dr. Mild were in vain. Dr. Schüz was steadfast in his refusal to accept the Hardell science.
It is clear Dr. Lennart Hardell’s science is a “game-changer”, and Dr. Schüz is well-paid, albeit indirectly, to see that Hardell’s science does not adversely influence the profitable flow of the telcom industry’s business-as-usual. There are two casualties in all of this cover-up: 1) the truth, and 2) the well-being of humanity.
The telecommunications industry is concerned about the liability implications of these recent court cases, with several precedents linking cell phones and brain tumors being set in Europe. Honest, brilliant scientists around the world are having their funding cut because the telecommunications industry puts pressure on the universities that fund RF radiation research. Because of this massive suppression of research monies by the industry, and because of the money we can trace to “industry-friendly scientists” who offer the study results that find “no harm” from cell phones and other wireless applications, Dr. Hardell’s independent science is more needed, more honored, and more timely than ever.
Yet Joachim Schüz suppressed the Hardell science, and our letters to Mr. John Ryan detailed this concern. We believe Mr. Ryan was well intentioned but the reports to him that there was “no conflict of interest” had to have been false. Too many facts tell us otherwise.
To suppress science that has stood the test of time and is telling the world we need to consider RF radiation not as a 2B or “possible human” carcinogen but rather a Group 1 or “absolute” carcinogen in the same category with asbestos and DDT is not an oversight. It is not a forgetful act. It is a purposeful hiding of the truth. When SCENIHR is entrusted with evaluating the standards for all the citizens of Europe, and when we see the telecommunications industry’s fingerprints all over this suppression of Dr. Hardell’s science through Dr. Schüz, we must call this exactly what it is. It is a crime against humanity.
We implore you to open an investigation into this scientific fraud.
With Great Respect,
Susan Foster, MSW
EM Radiation Research Trust
EM Radiation Research Trust