|
 |
|
         |
|
|
|
The Latest Reassurance Ruse About Cell Phones and CancerBy Dr. George L. Carlo After a number of prominent, peer-reviewed studies indicating that cell phone radiation can cause genetic damage, brain and blood cell dysfunction and a host of health problems including cancer, now comes a Danish study that appears to say there is no danger at all. And, that is exactly what cell phone users want to hear – if it is true. The problem is that the new Danish cohort study does not support the reassurances that have been ascribed to it. It is a ruse based upon a program initiated by the telecommunications industry more than a decade ago to control the global scientific research agenda concerning cell phones and health effects. The industry strategy has been to fund low-risk studies that will assure a positive result – and then use it to convince the news media and the public that it is proof that cell phones are safe. Even though the actual science proved nothing of the sort. It is against this backdrop that the Danish study provides an illustrative case history. The StudyIn my training as a professional epidemiologist, I learned early in my career how to properly design a study to produce a valuable finding. In the process it became evident that it was also possible to skew a study in order to produce a pre-ordained outcome. And this is what appears to have happened in this Danish epidemiological study. This study, funded by the telecommunications industry, was clearly created in order to produce a positive, low-risk finding. A low risk study is one that has minimal opportunity to conclude with results contrary to the interests of the industry. Epidemiological studies are targets because they are observational in nature instead of experimental (the subjects are not manipulated according to a study protocol) and there are methodological shortcomings in all study designs. It is therefore possible to design studies with pre-determined outcomes that still fall within the range of acceptable science. Thus, even highly flawed epidemiological studies can be published in peer-reviewed journals because they are judged against a pragmatic set of standards that assume the highest integrity among the investigators. Experienced investigators clearly understand the influences of various decisions in the study process, and that is why epidemiological studies contain very extensive discussions about methodological assumptions and shortcomings. Because this in-depth knowledge of methods is a necessary skill for all epidemiologists, epidemiological studies can be relatively easy to manipulate – in design, implementation and reporting. The Danish Cohort Study Was Epidemiologically Designed To Produce A Pre-Ordained Positive Outcome The study, although published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, followed a pre-determined methodology that gave it little chance to find any increase in the risk of cancer among cell phone users in Denmark. The basis for this assertion is described below. The study was also industry-friendly from a public relations perspective: several hundred thousand people could be included in the study, and thus it could be packaged as a very large study that would seem meaningful to the media. Prior to the onset of the study, it would have been clear that, if managed properly, the study could provide very useful data for the industry’s position that cell phones are safe. The Working Hypothesis And Statistics Were Weighted Toward Finding No Risk
The Study Included No Reasonable Exposure Variables And Thus Created Bias Toward A Finding Of No Risk
The Study Was Not Based on Any Previous Biological Findings, so its Chances of Finding a Biological Risk Were Exceedingly Low
The Investigators Limited Their Access to Data That Would Have Made the Study More Robust, Thus Limiting the Chances of Finding Any Risk Increase
Internal Inconsistencies Raise Red Flags About the Methods
Dissemination of the Study Results It is not likely an accident that immediately after the Danish study was released media outlets from around the world were somehow made aware of the new study and the findings. It is noteworthy that the bland title of the study, "Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort," bears little resemblance to the headlines it produced:
It is also not likely to be an accident that science groups immediately and aggressively weighed in to validate the conclusion:
It would strain the credulity of even the most casual observer to believe that these media and science groups were anxiously awaiting the release of the Danish cohort update. That the information release was highly coordinated would be a reasonable assumption based on the facts. However, given the weaknesses in the study and the obvious limitations that follow from those weaknesses in terms of ruling out a cell phone related cancer risk, it is remarkable that so many groups would blindly run with the headlines. However, when a study like this Danish report is released, the media need a reason not to cover it, especially against the frontal public relations assault that comes from the industry with the release of new data that they believe supports their position. No one is providing those reasons to the media, so the stories run around the globe. But, there is more going on here. In 1993, I was asked by the cell phone industry to run a $28.5 million dollar research effort, funded by the industry and overseen by the federal government. The program, called the WTR, was aimed at addressing the cell phone and brain cancer question. When the initial studies seemed to indicate no problem, the industry was pleased and supportive; but when the subsequent and more thorough studies indicated that cell phone radiation caused biological changes, the industry became displeased and sought to close down the program. Completed in 2000, the WTR program remains the largest ever addressing cell phones and cancer. Our WTR program also had a tie with the present Danish study. Back in the 1990s, two of the authors of the 2006 Danish study, John Boice and Joe McLaughlin, applied to the WTR program for funding to do the same epidemiology study that was released this week. When they made the proposal on behalf of their company, the International Epidemiology Institute, both were employees of the National Cancer Institute. That affiliation was an important part of how they presented their credentials. After consideration of their proposal, we denied them funding because we were not convinced they would provide meaningful findings. We also were not comfortable with the study design that was presented to us. The investigators put too much emphasis on the probability that the study would not find risk increases. Because the program was funded by the industry, they might have thought the low-risk pitch was what we wanted to hear. When we refused to give them funding to do the work, Boice and McLaughlin went directly to the industry with the same pitch – and they were hired. The Danish study released this week is one of many studies from this group of investigators – all concluding with similar findings of no tumor risk from cell phones. In 2001, they released what they then lauded as one of the largest studies to date, and Boice went on a television tour to blunt the effects of a book I co-wrote with renowned Washington syndicated columnist, Martin Schram. The book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age told of the clash of science and politics within the research program and concluded that by 2001, science had raised serious red flags about the health of millions of cell phone users. The American Cancer Society is also in on the support bandwagon for the Danish study. Now circulating to attest to the findings of the study are comments from Michael Thun, a vice-president at the society. He has taken the position that the Danish study confirms no risk from cell phones. It is noteworthy that in 2002, scientists from the American Cancer Society testified on behalf of the cell phone industry in brain cancer litigation. The case was brought in Federal Court in Baltimore, Maryland by surgeon Christopher Newman, who had claimed that his terminal brain tumor was the result of his cell phone use. The American Cancer Society testified that the tumor had not been caused by his cell phone. Within a year of that testimony, a report was released by the American Cancer Society that included cell phones as one of that year’s greatest cancer myths. The subsequent connection between the American Cancer Society and the cell phone industry was arrogantly blatant. In 2005, Dr. Sanjay Gupta of CNN ran a story that included Mt. Sinai Medical Center surgeon Keith Black. Dr. Black believed that the tumor that took the life of his patient, famous attorney Johnnie Cochran, was due to cell phone use. The industry did not even reply to the questions raised in the story about the link between the tumor and Johnnie Cochran’s cell phone use. Instead, the industry submitted a written statement that simply referred to and quoted the American Cancer Society’s report indicating that cell phones were a cancer myth. Thus, the industry was able to use the American Cancer Society paper as a public relations shield to manage the story. Final CommentThe world wants to know that the cell phones that they have used and will continue to use are safe. But the Danish study was epidemiologically constructed to produce a finding of reassurance that may well not have been supported even by a more professionally conceived study designed to really assess risk. The study has been trumpeted far beyond any reasonable reading of the data as proof that cell phones are safe. This is a disservice to consumers who want to believe that scientists and doctors can be trusted to be honest with data and to keep them safe. The Danish registry remains a valuable resource. But, we are still awaiting a proper epidemiological study that will be able to use that resource to help tell the world what it needs to know. The cell phone industry indeed has a sophisticated program in place to guard their financial interests. That is reasonable so long as harm to an unwitting public is not part of the result. One symptom of the effectiveness of the program is that industry-funded studies in many cases now produce industry-desired outcomes. But tampering with the integrity of scientists, scientific systems and public information steps over the lines of propriety that are appropriate for protecting business interests – especially when the casualty of the interference is public health and safety. Also see: 'Dr. George Carlo's response to the Danish study' at EMF-Health.com 1. Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
Safe Wireless Initiative
Washington, D.C. www.safewireless.org 202-756-7744
|
|
|
