Syndication

Visualizzazione post con etichetta conflitto di interessi. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta conflitto di interessi. Mostra tutti i post

sabato 19 agosto 2017

Come si crea una commissione tecnica 'garante' ... gli interessi economici !

FCC è l'ente federale americano sulle Comunicazioni che dà le regole sui limiti di esposizione alle RF.

Ha creato quest'anno una commissione di esperti (30) che deve supportare l'ente per le regole relative ad internet ad alta velocità , ad es. la 5G.

Guarda caso i 3/4 dei membri scelti sono rappresentanti delle società di telecomunicazioni e sistemi wireless, come AT&T, Comcast, TDS, etc.  Idem per gli  invitati esperti di provenienza nota da centri di sviluppo già ben orientati sulle scelte da rendere.
Viene riportato in questo articolo
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41628-fcc-packs-broadband-advisory-group-with-big-telecom-firms-trade-groups

Nel gruppo di lavoro sulle municipalità solo 3 su 24 membri erano stati destinati a rappresentanti locali.

Il Presidente di questi comitati, designato dalla Presidenza Trump, ha il chiaro compito di facilitare la implementazione della tecnologia 5G con un forte incremento di antenne e di inquinamento elettromagnetico !




When the Federal Communications Commission went looking this year for experts to sit on an advisory committee regarding deployment of high-speed internet, they took the often favoured route and loaded the 30 member panel with corporate executives, trade groups and free-market scholars. More than three out of four seats on the BDAC are filled by business-friendly representatives from the biggest wireless and cable companies such as AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp., Sprint Corp., and TDS Telecom. Crown Castle International Corp., the nation’s largest wireless infrastructure company, and Southern Co., the nation’s second-largest utility firm, have representatives on the panel. Also appointed to the panel were broadband experts from conservative think tanks who have been critical of FCC regulations such as the International Center for Law and Economics and the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. SNIP
Read the post here.

venerdì 28 luglio 2017

Intervista al Prof Angelo Levis

... illuminante intervista ad Angelo Levis (che è appunto un ... luminare) ...

ecco il link  


Parla di conflitto di interessi,  della relazione tra ricerca e finanziamenti, le vertenze legali anche con riferimento agli ultimi (isolati) successi.

venerdì 23 giugno 2017

Conflitti di interesse in oncologia: ecco i numeri !!!

riceviamo da ISDE e volentieri pubblichiamo.





Conflitti di interesse in oncologia: 


ecco i numeri Uno studio pubblicato su Jama Oncology quantifica i conflitti di interesse finanziari con l'industria farmaceutica (Fcoi) degli autori delle linee guida del National Comprehensive Cancer Network (Nccn), suggerimenti che in pratica influenzano la scelta dei farmaci rimborsabili dal sistema di assistenza pubblica Medicare.
Aaron Mitchell, della University of North Carolina Chapel Hill School of Medicine, ha esaminato assieme ai colleghi tali conflitti di interesse nel corso del 2014 tra i 125 autori delle linee guida per il trattamento delle neoplasie di mammella, colon, prostata e polmone, i tumori con la più alta incidenza negli Stati Uniti.
Allo scopo gli autori hanno utilizzato i dati sui pagamenti a clinici e ricercatori da parte dell'industria, pubblicamente segnalati dai Centers for Medicare e Medicaid Services.


Ed ecco i risultati: 108 su 125 autori delle linee guida, ossia l'86% del totale, hanno riportato almeno un conflitto di interesse finanziario con l'industria farmaceutica. Di questi, il 56% ha ricevuto almeno 1.000 dollari o più a titolo di consulenze, vitto e alloggio, con una media di circa 10.000 dollari a testa. Ma non basta: gli autori delle linee guida Nccn hanno anche ricevuto dall'industria una media di 236.066 dollari in finanziamenti per la ricerca, compresi quelli per lo svolgimento di studi clinici. “A conti fatti, oltre l'80% degli autori ha ricevuto pagamenti per consulenze e simili, mentre quasi la metà ha ottenuto uno o più finanziamenti per la ricerca» scrivono gli autori, sottolineando che il loro studio è limitato dal fatto che il database dei Centers for Medicare e Medicaid Services permette di verificare solo i conflitti di interesse finanziari con l'industria farmaceutica dei medici, ma non quelli degli autori non medici delle linee guida Nccn. I dati riportati su Jama Oncology sottolineano l'importanza di questi conflitti di interesse in oncologia. Tanto più che in questo, come in altri campi della medicina, le collaborazioni tra industria, ricercatori e clinici non solo sono numerose, ma creano sfide e opportunità per tutta la comunità oncologica”, scrive in un editoriale di commento Ryan Nipp del Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center di Boston.

giovedì 22 giugno 2017

WHO, ICNIRP; conflitto di interessi



22 giugno 2017, 10:37:05 PM


Nella importante rivista scientifica International Journal of Oncology Prof Lennart Hardell ha pubblicato una review a carattere 'storico' di critica al WHO perché non ha finora preso in considerazione la forte richiesta che viene dal mondo scientifico di revisione delle linee guida su salute e radiofrequenze.

In particolare addebita questa riluttanza alle profonde relazioni con l'ICNIRP e con le organizzazioni legate al mondo militare e all'industria elettrica e delle telecomunicazioni.

ICNIRP organizzazione non governativa, evidenzia profondi conflitti di interesse, continua a rifiutarsi di riconoscere gli effetti non termici delle RF

nell'incontro di Marzo 2017 in cui si è discusso delle forti critiche legate alla presenza di membri del Core Group per i campi elettromagnetici, a loro volta legati ad ICNIRP, WHO ha risposto che non hanno intenzione di rimuoverli.

vedere articolo 


, June 21, 2017

WHO Radiofrequency Radiation Policy


World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health 
- a hard nut to crack (Review)

 Today the International Journal of Oncology published a critique of the World Health Organization's pending review of the adverse health effects of wireless (i.e., radio frequency or RF) radiation. The critique was written by Dr. Lennart Hardell, the world's preeminent researcher on brain tumor risk and long-term cell phone use. 

His paper provides an historical overview of WHO's EMF Project, WHO's relationship to the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the relationships of both organizations to the military and electric and telecom industries.

Dr. Hardell notes that the WHO has relied heavily on members of ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization "with serious conflict of interest." In their reviews of the scientific evidence for adverse health effects from wireless radiation exposure, ICNIRP dismisses the evidence for biological effects due to non-thermal exposures. By focusing only on short-term heating effects and ignoring the effects of chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of RF radiation, ICNIRP has been able to adopt RF exposure guidelines about 300,000 times more permissive than otherwise would be required. RF exposure standards in many nations including the U.S. have been heavily influenced by these guidelines.  
"The ICNIRP guidelines are of huge importance to the influential telecommunications, military and power industries."
Dr. Hardell calls upon the public, NGOs, and the scientific community "to exert pressure on politicians to change the WHO agenda on RF radiation and health hazards and decide that WHO's purpose is to support world health instead of industry interests."

--

Lennart Hardell. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health - a hard nut to crack (Review). International Journal of Oncology. Published online June 21, 2017. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2017.4046
Abstract
In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased.
In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group.
Open Access Paper: http://bit.ly/WHOhardell

sabato 16 gennaio 2016

Agnotologia: una parola da memorizzare

Vi segnalo un interessante articolo pubblicato sul sito della BBC (Scienza)  sulla neologismo: agnotology.  Che vuol dire ?

Si parla del tabacco e di un memo degli anni '60 che dettagliava la tattica da seguire da parte delle industrie del tabacco per contrastare il continuo aumento di pubblicazione e di informazione della pubblica opinione sui danni derivanti dal fumo. 
La parola chiave era:  DUBBIO !  creare dubbi nella mente del pubblico per creare una contrapposizione nei confronti con la informazione sui dati reali.
L'autore dell'articolo riporta come queste industrie hanno speso miliardi di dollari per creare confusione.

La parola chiave, agnotologia deriva dal greco  agnosis (da cui la parola agnostico cioè di colui che non sa, che ignora) e ontologia. 

Quindi agnotologia vuol dire lo studio di azioni con dolo finalizzati alla diffusione di confusione ed inganno con obiettivo finale di vendere un prodotto o un servizio.

Vi viene in mente un altro settore della salute pubblica che subisce questa pratica ?!

sabato 11 luglio 2015

A proposito di ICNIRP




Come vi è noto  i valori limiti alle esposizioni  da CEM  sono stati dettati dal ICNRIP in quanto riconosciuti   da WHO/OMS e dalla Comunità Europea come Raccomandazione 1999/519, pur essendo una  organizzazione scientifica privata non governativa.  
Questa organizzazione basa la definizione dei valori limiti solo ed esclusivamente considerando gli effetti termici delle radiazioni, negando tutti ed i tanti effetti non-termici, abbondantemente documentati in questa relazione.

Pur riportando nel proprio statuto che i membri della commissione preposta di ICNIRP debbano assolutamente non avere conflitti di interesse, numerose sono le indagini effettuati sui singoli membri che dimostrano assolutamente il contrario: la loro vicinanza culturale ed economica alle aziende e loro aggregazioni legate al settore industriale della produzione di energia e delle telecomunicazioni. Ultimo dettagliato report: http://is.gd/m7Wo6j .

Oltre duecento ricercatori indipendenti nel Maggio 2015 si sono rivolti al Segretario Generale dell’ONU per cercare di superare questa pesante anomali.


 

 

martedì 2 settembre 2014

Inviata al 'difensore civico' della UE una contestazione sull'operato della commissione SCENHIR



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
Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman
European Commission
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
Advisor
EM Radiation Research Trust
Eileen O’Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust

venerdì 14 febbraio 2014

Controanalisi al report inglese del MTHR : uno studio non scientifico, paziale e pre-guidato nelle conclusioni !



Here we go again: “New” MTHR report claims no health effects from cell phones, etc.

Whenever I occasionally see a newspaper headline proclaiming new research has found that mobile phones are perfectly safe for everybody my first thought is: is it industry funded and secondly, who is evaluating the research.
Well, its just happened again. On February 11, 2014 the New Zealand Herald published an article titled Cellphone cancer fear quashed, announcing the release of a ‘new’ report titled Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, Report 2012 released by the British Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) group. This report gives the findings of 31 individual research projects, funded by the telecommunications industry and UK government over 11 years.
The NZ Herald article painted a glowing picture of unproblematic scientific certainty with statements, such as: A new international study appears to have put to rest the question over whether cellphones cause cancer – they don’t . The newspaper article also stated, under a photo of a young woman using a cellphone, that You can rest easy using your cell phone as cancer fears are quashed by experts.
Next we had the headline from New Zealand’s Dominion Post (Wellington) proclaiming that a “Major study confirms cellphone use is safe” To make matters worse the Dom. Post ran a photo of a small child holding a cell phone with the caption: “Cellphones safe for kids’ New study music to parent’s ears
This was quickly followed in Australia by the Herald Sun, Feb 12: Mobile phones declared safe. As New Zealand and Australia are time-wise about a day ahead of America and Europe our media had about a 14-hour head start spreading the good news.
So here we have it. At last after all these years of controversy an industry and UK government funded study finds cell phone use (and by implication all other RF devices) are perfectly safe for one and all. Good news for the UK government’s economic policy and good news for the telco industry. A winner all around. We can all now forget about the IARC ruling, and we can forget all about Lennart Hardell’s consistent cell phone findings, which this latest feel-good report has done.
Really?
As it not-surprisingly turns out the researchers were jointly funded by the UK government and the telco industry but don’t worry they had put up a fire-wall so that industry funders could not influence the researchers. Never mind that both the UK Government and the telco industry have a huge vested interest in promoting and protecting RF technology against any possible litigation – and that the researchers are well aware that the industry controls the purse strings and if they don’t like what a researcher finds, he, or she might as well start looking for a new job , which are notoriously hard to find in the UK. No worries, however, they have a fire wall that’s about as effective as the old Maginot line was in keeping those dastardly Germans out of France.
Although it is stated in the MTHR report that the group “sees no need for further research in any of the areas addressed by the research that is summarised in this report”, it is stated in the section titled; “Advice on future research priorities”:
In our view, there are important areas in which the UK has well-established research expertise and could make a significant contribution. We consider the following to be priority areas:
a: studies of long-term behavioural/neurological outcomes in children and/or adolescents in relation to mobile phone usage,
b: provocation studies on children,
c: provocation studies to identify neurobiological mechanisms underlying possible effects of mobile phone signals on brain function, including sleep and/or resting EEG,
d: studies in suitable animal models of the effects of early-life and prenatal exposure on development and behaviour,
e: studies in suitable animal models of effects on ageing and neurodegenerative diseases

Not that they are really serious about doing the research, it is all about holding one’s hand out for more funding but at least this is a grudging admission that there are still uncertainties that need to be addressed, and if necessary to be covered up.
It is strange that the MTHR report is dated 2012 but was embargoed until February 11, 2014. This is probably to give some ‘breathing space’ from two other similar UK reports also making similar dismissive claims, all of which have the direct involvement of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the group responsible for the current industry supported RF exposure limits that only address immediate biological effects (heating). ICNIRP members have long denied the existence of other biological effects not related to tissue heating from acute RF exposures. Their inclusion in the MTHR report therefore introduces a significant level of bias in interpreting research findings, considering two other reports released about the time, also with ICNIRP member involvement.
First is the November 2011 paper from ICNIRP’s Standing Committee On Epidemiology, led by Anthony Swerdlow ,“Mobile Phones, Brain Tumours and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now?” This report concluded, “although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults.” This finding was at complete odds with the conclusion of the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) in May 2011 that RF emissions be classified as a 2B possible human carcinogen and appeared to be a ploy on the part of ICNIRP to counter the IARC ruling.
Second was the April 2012 UK AGNIR report also led by Swerdlow, titled, Health Effects from Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields .
This report claimed that although a substantial amount of research had been conducted, “there was no convincing evidence that RF field exposure [from all wireless devices- wi fi, mobile phones, base stations, TV masts, etc.] below internationally agreed guideline levels…[i.e. ICNIRP] causes health effects in adults or children“. In a further support for ICNIRP the report stated that “the evidence suggests that RF field exposure below guideline levels [ICNIRP] does not cause symptoms in humans and that the presence of RF fields cannot be detected by people, including those who report being sensitive to RF fields.” These conclusions were also good news for Swerdlow’s financial holdings which consisted of shares in the telecoms companies Cable and Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications and his wife’s shares in the BT group, a global telecommunications services company.
Dariusz Leszczynski has critiqued the Swerdlow 2011 AGNIR for significant omissions. To quote in part:
Reading it [2011 AGNIR report] feels surreal. Like the authors would either not understand the studies they read or had pre-written conclusions? It is like reading a wish list written by someone claiming that there is not and will never be any problems related to cell phone exposures…. The AGNIR Report puts lots of effort into evaluation of the research on potential causal link between cell phone radiation and cancer. However, the 2011 IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen is not mentioned at all in this report. . . It is obvious that the AGNIR’s members do not agree with the outcome of IARC evaluation. However, complete omission of it feels like rewriting of history and omitting inconvenient facts. In my opinion it shows a very biased attitude of AGNIR members towards the IARC classification.
Read his full comments here:
Now we have the 2012 MTHR report making a similar omission. Even though the Lennart Hardell group’s findings played a significant part in the outcome of the IARC RF Class 2B ruling it is not mentioned anywhere in the MTHR report, not even in the reference section where the Interphone study is mentioned. Is this because the Hardell findings are inconvenient for the MTHR’s goal of giving the all-clear to the telco industry?
Bogus provocation studies
The MTHR study also relies heavily on human provocation studies by Elaine Fox and James Rubin. Both Fox and Rubin are of the firm view that reports of electrosensitivity are not from exposure but from worry. To quote from a statement by Fox:
Psychologists have long known that worry and anxiety can lead to strong physical changes in the body and that seems to be what is happening to ‘electrosensitives’. Further research is needed but unless well-conducted double-blind studies do show effects of electromagnetic fields on health and well-being, it appears that the worry about mobile phone technology is more dangerous than the electromagnetic fields themselves.”
James Rubin has written similarly:
If the overall results of more than 40 experiments suggest that it is not EMF that is responsible for causing the symptoms of electrosensitivity, could an other mechanism provide a better explanation? A psychological process referred to as classical conditioning may provide part of the answer.”
So, both Fox and Rubin are approaching the issue with a pre-existing bias based on their reliance on the findings of specifically designed provocation studies to evaluate the reality of electromagnetic hypersensitivty (EHS). This type of study simply consists of exposing subjects who have identified themselves as electrosensitive to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) to see if they can feel when the field is turned on or off. These tests have generally found that the subjects failed to distinguish whether the field was present or not – leading to a conclusion by the researchers that the fields were not the cause of their reported symptoms and therefore the problem may be psychosomatic. Central to EMR provocation studies is the hypothesis that if a person is sensitive to EMR they should be able to feel when the exposure is taking place. If not, it must then be a psychological problem. For example, Rubin and colleagues reviewed over 40 provocation studies on EHS volunteers, referred to above, and concluded that, overall, people with EHS did not react to EMR exposure any differently from the way subjects react to a sham exposure. Thus, the authors suggested that EMR was not the cause of their condition.
A significant weakness of provocation studies when applied to possible adverse health effects of EMR exposure, however, is that by their very design, they limit the definition of electrosensitive persons to those who claim that they can feel when they are being exposed. This definition excludes the possibility that there may be people who are adversely being affected by EMR exposure but cannot feel when they are being exposed. Such an assumption would quickly be rejected if it were applied to ionizing radiation. Another problem in limiting subjects to people who claim to be affected by RF is that it could include people who are influenced by the nocebo effect and thus skew the findings towards a null RF effect finding.
Rubin’s methodology has come under extreme criticism from Dr. Andrew A. Marino, PhD, Director of Research at the Division of Sleep Medicine, Department of Neurology, Department of Cellular Biology and Anatomy, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center at Shreveport, LA. According to Marino Rubin’s consistently negative findings are “manufactured by employing experimental designs and statistical analysis that were virtually guaranteed to produce negative results”. As a result of this biased analysis Rubin can come to “the conclusion that EHS sufferers have a purely psychosomatic disease, a viewpoint that has untold benefits for his clients and funders, particularly the cell-phone companies”. . . “The natural consequence of his work is to stigmatize EHS sufferers as neurotics who need the care of a psychiatrist, not an internist or allergist.” Marino concludes that it is scandalous that scientific journals, such as Bioelectromagnetics, publish “the results without properly vetting them, and without insistence on simultaneous publication of conflict-of-interest statements”.
Read Marino’s full comments here (scroll down to Rubin)
The usual suspects: ICNIRP /IEMFP Membership on the 2012 MTHR report group
Both the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the International EMF Project (IEMFP) within the WHO were established by Michael Repacholi. Members of IEMFP are tasked with doing the RF risk assessment for ICNIRP/WHO. Although ICNIRP / IEMFP claims on being independent from industry, an interplay is endemic to the process with members consistently supporting industry wishes. This can be a significant problem ( or opportunity, depending upon one’s viewpoint) whenever ICNIRP members also serve on other bodies. In the case of the MTHR group the following individuals have this connection:
Dr. Michael Repachiol, industry consultant founder and Chairman Emeritus of ICNIRP http://microwavenews.com/CT.html
Dr. Zenon Sienkiewicz, member of the Main Commission, ICNIRP
Dr. Emily van Deventer heads the WHO’s IEMFP (risk assessment)
Alastair McKinlay formerly with IEMFP and former Chairman of ICNIRP
Closely allied with the above is Dr Simon Gerrard: expert adviser to the WHO on risk perception and communication matters and first Director of the WHO-inspired European Risk Communication Network funded in part by the UK Electricity Association.
Then there is Professor Les Barclay, a member of the industry trade organization the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) which bills itself as “The world’s largest professional association for the advancement of technology.
And then we have Professor Niels Kuster who in 1992 was Invited Professor at the Electromagnetics Laboratory of Motorola Inc in Florida, and who’s current research interest is currently focused on the area of safe on/in-body wireless communications and related topics.
Thus, without delving into the qualifications of the rest of the people on the MTHR Programme Management Committee, the above gang of like-minded true believers will have had a huge influence in the MTHR report’s findings.
Conclusion
Considering the MTHR report’s limited reference base; its reliance on government and industry funding, both who are promoters of RF technology; its avoidance of mentioning contrary findings such as from Hardell’s group; an inevitable scientific bias by inclusion of ICNIRP / IEMFP and like minded members; and its use of questionable provocation studies, this report is more spin that science. Rather than being a new “state of the art” scientific review the 2012 MTHR report is but just another industry-influenced spin designed by its limitations to give a false sense of public health safety on behalf of the telco industry where none exists.

venerdì 7 febbraio 2014

Un esempio di come la corruzione istituzionale possa governare principi etici di precauzione dai danni da EMF

Qui riporto un link ad un intervento del Prof Franz Adlkofer ,direttore di un istituto VERUM che partecipo' al progetto REFLEX finanziato dalla UE con l'obiettivo della evidenza di effetti dannosi delle EMF.

Dopo aver riportato e suffragato i propri dati subì attacchi violenti, che   dimostrarono la falsità o gli errori di calcolo delle sue conclusioni. Ma poi qualche anno dopo venne fuori che la sua collaboratrice responsabile delle elaborazioni numeriche  era stata ... forzata a questo comportamento ...!

Questo intervento  “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science,”  si è tenuto a fine 2011 presso la celeberrima Harward Law School - e specificatamente nel Centro per l'Etica.

Adikofer dice:

la pratica della corruzione istituzionale nell'area del wireless è di enorme impatto e preoccupazione, visto che coinvolge, sempre,  nella perenne incertezza delle ricerche 'sempre in corso' 5 miliardi di persone !
Grazie alla deformazione di rapporti pseudo-scientifici ai mass media voluti dalla industria l'opinione pubblica non può capire che il suo futuro benessere e salute sono in ballo.
La gente non ha fiducia nei ricercatori che portano allarmi !
Nelle democrazie c'è un principio basilare che i poteri superiori e i loro detentori sono: le leggi ed i regolamenti. Fintanto che nell'area del wireless questo principio è severamente violato è interesse della democrazia stessa insistere nell'accusa e nella difesa.


“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.”

venerdì 27 settembre 2013

5 Mil di $ per la ricerca australiana su effetti dei EMF ... già indirizzati, però !

Molto interessante è sapere che il governo australiano investe 5 milioni di Dollari (australiani) per capire meglio se le radiofrequenze creano danni ai bambini.

Questa cifra è affidata al Prof. Croft.

Forti dubbi vengono posti da, ad es.,  Joel MOSKOWITZ  sul destino di questi soldi visto che questo personaggio, molto noto a livello internazionale, ha più volte e con forza conclamato che le radiofrequenze non rappresentano rischi alla popolazione !!!  Joel ha individuato diverse sue  enunciazioni pubbliche in tal senso !!!

Questo è un altro esempio di mistificazione della scienza ad uso politico: 
l'informazione che arriva ai cittadini (australiani innanzitutto) è che il governo è buono e bravo perché spende ben 5 Mil per fare chiarezza !  Punto !  Il risultato sarà scontato ...




Australian government announce multi-million dollar research into possible health effects of mobile phones
GSMA, September 26, 2013 
The Australian government will contribute 5 million dollars over the next five years towards research into the possible health effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone technology.
This is the second 2.5 million dollar grant to be awarded by the National Health and Medical Research Council in the space of a year and will go to researchers from Wollongong and Monash Universities to establish a Centre of Research Excellence for Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy.
Just last year, ICNIRP commissioner and researcher from the Illawarra Health and Medical Research Institute (IHMRI), Professor Rodney Croft, was awarded a similar grant to set up the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research.
Professor Croft, who will also play a large part in the new research project, said the general aim of the research was to understand whether “there’s a link between radiofrequency emissions that come from things like mobile phones, and health in general.”
“While there is currently no clear evidence that low-level electromagnetic energy is impacting our health, there is not enough information, particularly relating to children, to be sure that it doesn’t,” Professor Croft said.
“The ubiquity of mobile phones coupled with the fact that digital technology will play a huge role in our future means this research is critical, with risk assessment agencies such as the World Health Organization consistently calling for further research to ensure that we identify any potential risks.”
One arm of the research will involve the development of a sleep laboratory set up to study the effects of mobile phone signals on children’s brains while they sleep.
Researchers are recruiting 108 children for tests to start next year, which will expose children to a mobile phone, or the equivalent electromagnetic energy, and look for changes in the electrical activity in the brain during a normal night’s sleep.
“There’s a pretty strong consensus that there’s not a problem in adults, but people have only started doing research on children in the last five years and very little has come out of it,” Professor croft said.
“We’ve got no reason to believe that  there’ll be a greater effect in children than in adults.
“But we just don’t understand well enough the maturational phases that children go through, so it’s possible there’s greater sensitivity.”
The research project will also try to determine the mechanisms by which electromagnetic energy from radio frequencies interacts with brain function, as well as addressing possible cancer risks.
Another research focus will be on debunking criticism by activists and the researchers will also look into the role electromagnetic energy plays in people who claim to be sensitive to wireless signals.
Professor Croft will also be working with international standards bodies to develop electromagnetic energy guidelines and with policy makers on better communicating potential risks to the public.
http://bit.ly/1fKwkif

--

martedì 25 dicembre 2012

esempi di inganni 'scientifici'

Interessante questa intervista alla ricercatrice ed esperta Magda Havas sugli inganni voluti scientificamente per arrivare a conclusioni, spesso forzate, secondo le quali  'la scinza riassicura la non esistenza di danni ...'.

si parte dai conflitti di interesse che si notano quando si nota che all'80% i risultati di uno studio è vicino a chi lo finanzia ...

... oppure come  impostare le specifiche della ricerca per classificare un utente regolare del cellulare chi fa una telefonata alla settimana !!!   e quindi arrivare alla conclusione che un uso 'regolare' del cellulare non evidenzia danni ... come lo considerate ?!

Però in genere vengono lette le pochissime righe dell'estratto, che poi viene rimpallato nei media: cio' che viene poi megafonato è la frase finale  < no danno per uso 'regolare' > !

ci sono altri esempi, come uno studio danese in cui NON si sono presi in considerazione chi  usa il cellulare aziendale , che normalmente e notoriamente - visto che non paga l'utente - è massivo !

etc etc

mercoledì 23 novembre 2011

Un articolo sul conflitto di interessi di chi gestisce la ricerca

Interessante articolo di Drsa Francesca Romana Orlando sul Conflitto di interessi di chi gestisce la Ricerca e sulla recente Conferenza sui Campielettromagnetici e salute , voluta dalla Commissione Europea