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“.
A group of 50 experts has shown that the the Interphone study covering 13 countries is deeply flawed.
After thorough analysis they concluded that it has several serious methodological flaws, all of which distort the result in the same direction, so that the risk of cancer seems considerably smaller than it really is.
This is highly suspect. If the errors were caused accidentally, or due to ignorance (which is highly unlikely because many highly competent researchers were involved), at least some of the errors would have had the opposite effect. A fairly good measure of skill and creativity is required to be able to distort an epidemiological study in a way that all the flaws cause a dimininuition of the apparent risk. Here is a list of the most important flaws.
Deficiencies in Interphone study
- Insufficiently exposed subjects were included. It is very well known that brain tumors appear after at least 10-15 years of exposure to radiation. A significant majority of the subjects had been exposed for less than 10 years (the result is a great underestimation of risk).
- Exclusion of exposed people. Users of the cordless phones were considered “unexposed” to microwaves, although the exposure to this radiation is the same as from mobile phones (this gives the false impression that brain tumors occur more frequently than they actually do among unexposed persons, which is an imporant source of error, because the use of cordless phones is very widespread).
- Exclusion of children and young adults. This is a serious deficiency, because young people are particularly prone to develop brain tumors (again, this leads to an underestimation of risk).
- Exclusion of many types of brain tumors causes an underestimation of risk.
- Exclusion of people who had died of brain tumors, or were too ill to be interviewed. This causes an underestimation of the risk.
- A too large proportion of invited people refused to participate (41%). The general opinion among scientists is that when such a large proportion has refused to participate in a study, it precludes the possibility to make reliable conclusions. Scientific journals do not usually accept reports from trials with such a large proportion of refusals because it is considered to have no scientific value.
This is fraudulent science
These flaws are so numerous, serious and elementary that it seems extremely unlikely that they have occurred by accident. In plain language, this is most likely the case of fraudulent research.
The study is meaningless – confirms what is known since long time
The study is basically meaningless. If it would have lacked said methodological shortcomings, it would, at most, have proved what one already knows, namely that it takes more than 10 years to develop visible brain tumors.
The suspicion arises that the industry wanted to make a big media story of a this useless material in the same way as many times before when it sponsored studies on people with too short exposition to develop brain tumors. Every time that such a study was published, the industry made a global media drive using it for “informing” people that cell phone radiation is harmless.