Interessante seguire la cronistoria riportata da Dariusz L eszczynsk
che parte dalla pubblicazione nel 2011 di articoli scientifici, dopo aver separato i dati, con il risultato di non dare evidenza positiva della piena correlazione esistente tra glioma ed uso del cellulare .
Ora solo a fine 2016 - 5 anni dopo - è stato pubblicato un lavoro che tratta tutti i dati e trova, guarda caso, una correlazione: articolo firmato anche da personaggi notoriamente 'negazionisti' ... tra lui la italiana Lagorio.
Qual'è stato il risultato raggiunto nel 2011 ? Che la classificazione è stata 2B (possibile cancerogeno) invece di 2A (probabile cancerogeno)!
Capito come si fa ad usare la scienza per ritardare la conoscenza e quindi le decisioni da attuare secondo il principio di precauzione ?!
In 2011 Interphone scientists committed scientific misconduct when instead of publishing all data concerning correlation between brain tumor localization and exposure distribution in the brain in a single study, they split data and published two separate studies.
When I wrote about it in my science blog ‘BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place’ I was threatened by, then, STUK Director General with being fired. Under the threat of being immediately fired, my blog post describing the scientific misconduct within the Interphone was personally censored by, then, STUK Director General (link to censored post #1). Director General even demanded that the censored already by him post will be approved by the STUK epidemiologist (Research Professor).
Following the first post on the BRHP, I wrote two additional posts and a letter to the Director of IARC. Links to both posts are here: post #2 and post #3).
Now, on Jan. 24, 2017, STUK published a press release bragging that the Interphone published new study where correlation between tumor localization and exposure location is presented. Study shows a positive correlation.
STUK behaves as if nothing happened in the past, in 2011, and the study by Grell et al. was just published in 2016.
Interestingly, STUK does not mention at all own study on the same subject, published in 2011. This 2011 STUK study is part of the scientific misconduct by Interphone. In 2011, STUK scientists, with the rest of Interphone scientists, committed scientific misconduct. But nobody cared then and, still, nobody cares now.
Two studies published by Interphone in 2011 should be retracted as some form of falsification of scientific data. These two studies skew the scientific evidence because now we have from the same data set three publications:
partial data showing some correlation published in 2011
full data showing correlation published in 2016.
The studies that should be retracted were published in 2011 in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21610117) and the second article was published in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21659469).