[http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4136992/]
Friends:An important contextual point to the recent story in the
Washington Post about this American Cancer Society paper linked below
is the back story to it. Without this context, the true story behind
the American Cancer Society's vested interests can not be seen.In 2002,
shortly before this American Cancer Society study was launched, a
high-ranking official from the American Cancer Society was a witnesses
for the mobile phone industry in a highly visible legal proceeding in
Baltimore, Maryland. The proceeding, a Daubert hearing to evaluate
scientific evidence regarding the link between cell phones and cancer,
was part of the lawsuit brought by Baltimore, Maryland neurosurgeon Dr.
Christopher Newman. The testimony of the American Cancer Society
scientist was used to unfairly and visciously discredit Dr. Neil Cherry
and Dr. Henry Lai, two important witnesses for Dr. Newman. At the time,
this was a critical legal proceeding for the mobile phone industry and
the focal point of millions of dollars of legal fees paid on their
behalf to 'keep the lid on' the cell phone cancer issue. This American
Cancer Society study was launched shortly after the testiimony. It is
noteworthy that the disclosures in the published paper do not show
funding for the study coming from the industry. I personally believe as
do others, that the industry made substantial contributions to the
American Cancer Society to secure their testimony in the litigation. In
a litigation proceeding, the industry would make sure to not pay the
American Cancer Society staff person directly, so a payment 'under the
table' had to be arranged. There would be no other reason for the
American Cancer Society official to participate in the litigation: the
American Cancer Society up to that point had not even looked into the
cell phone cancer issue; they had done no work on it whatsoever. I know
this from sources within the American Cancer Society.The industry has
systematically laundered support money to support their positions: for
Mike Repachioli at the World Health Organization; through ICNRP, the
IEEE and other so-called independent groups; through various scientific
labs around the world; through various bought scientists. In 2002, this
type of money-based influence peddling was the modus operandi of the
industry under the leadership of Tom Wheeler and his cohorts. A brief
read through Tom Wheeler's book addressing how business leaders can
take home lessons from civil war generals reveals a chapter
entitled, "If you can't win, change the rules.". That is exactly the
strategy that the industry put in place in those years and continues
forward today. The rules are being changed by biasing the process that
consumers should be able to trust. Further evidence of this was seen
two years ago. When renowned California attorney Johnnie Cochran died
of a brain tumor that his surgeon, Dr. Keith Black from Cedars Sinai
Medical Center in Los Angeles, and Johnnie's family believed was caused
by his long-time heavy use of cell phones, CNN medical correspondent
Dr. Sanjay Gupta covered it with a story that attempted to paint
Johnnie's family and surgeon as emotional outliers. The industry did
not even offer a spokesperson to appear on camera. Instead they offered
a doctor from Emory University to say there was no link between brain
cancer and cell phones -- a doctor with no history of any work on cell
phones and cancer and who was part of the industry's litigation expert
team coordinated through a law firm in Atlanta, Georgia where Emory
University is located. Further, the industry submitted a written quote
that was pasted on the screen: "The American Cancer Society has
determined that cell phones and brain cancer is one of the top ten
cancer myths". The American Cancer Society for many years now, has been
doing the bidding of the mobile phone industry. The question is why.
The answer is money. That the spokeman from the American Cancer Society
saw the need to underscore the importance of their recent work by
identifying themselves as one of the independent and reliable sources
on the causes of cancer underscores the point that they are under much
criticism for their biased bidding. This is but one more example. We
can only hope that an informed public can see through this blatant
manipulation.Dr. George L. CarloScience and Public Policy Institute1101
Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th FloorWashington, D.C.
20004www.sppionline.org www.safewireless.org_
(http://www.safewireless.org/) 202-756-7744The American Cancer Society
is misleading the public _http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4136992/_
(http://omega.twoday.net/stories/4136992/)

--
Posted By prd34 to Do You Have Microwave Illness? at 8/07/2007 12:58:00
AM