Home » Corruption in international bodies
Category Archives: Corruption in international bodies
The Chairman of WHO:s expert group for assessing the cancer hazards of mobile phones, professor Anders Ahlbom, is the founder of a lobby firm for supporting mobile phone industry interests. His brother Gunnar runs the firm. This was recently discovered by investigative journalist Mona Nilsson. Ahlbom is renowned for his active support of mobile phones in various contexts since over a decade, but not until now has his partiality been revealed.
Ahlbom chairs the expert group on epidemiolgy at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organisation (WHO). He did not disclose this conflict of interest when he was appointed as chairman. He was dismissed from the expert group, right before he was to lead the international conference of IARC on the hazards of electromagnetic radiation.
Mona Nilsson writes in her Press Release about Ahlbom, that was issued one week before said conference (our highlightings)
– The industry-loyal scientists are easy to recognize. They systematically repeat a set of policy messages that counter the results of independent scientists and coincide with the interests of the industry. This is crystal clear in the case of Professor Ahlbom, who has dismissed all studies indicating health risks or biological effects whenever he has chaired an expert panel on this subject. He even denies the results of his own research if it indicates a health risk. * There is no doubt he speaks to the benefit of the industry.
Source: Conflict of interest at the WHO Press release May 23rd 2011 by Mona Nilsson.
We have been appalled by the flat denial of the European Union and WHO of any risks of mobile phone radiation, referring to their experts. This denial comes into a new light now that it was revealed that one of the most influential scientists in the whole world is heavily biassed in favor of cellphones. As a chairman of the most important and authoritative expert group in the world on this issue, he has had ideal preconditions for suppressing and distorting the truth about the dangers of cellphone radiation.
This is a blatant case of bias, further confirming our opinion that the denial of cellphone hazards by WHO, EU, the US and others has only been possible because their scientific advisors are biassed or corrupt. This is because the evidence proving that mobile phone radiation is harmful is so strong that any competent and impartial scientists will inevitably conclude that it is hazardous. For more, see our website section “Corrupt Science“.
WHO now admits that mobile phones may increase the risk for brain tumors
While formerly declaring that cellphones are innocous, referring to the Interphone study (that actually was inconclusive due to severe weaknesses, see here), now WHO has changed its stance after a meeting of 31 scientists from 14 countries (the IARC expert committee).
(Reuters) – Using a mobile phone may increase the risk of certain types of brain cancer in humans and consumers should consider ways of reducing their exposure, World Health Organisation WHO.L cancer experts said on Tuesday. A working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries meeting at the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC.L said a review of all the available scientific evidence suggested cell phone use should be classified as “possibly carcinogenic”.
Source: Reuters press release May 31, 2011.
Comment by PSRAST
What a relief, this was long overdue. Could this change be a consequence of the recent discovery that the chairman, Anders Ahlbom of the IARC expert committee who made this statement has been found to be a mobile phone lobbyist and so lost his influence (see the next news item immediately below this one)?
So far, WHO has based its opinon on the Interphone study that we and other scientists have critisized heavily for its numerous flaws. Through the new position, regarding mobile radiation, the IARC expert group discredits the Interphone study, evidently acknowledging its inconclusiveness. More about the flaws of the interphone study.