Below all explanations for: Joachim Schüz is working in IARC, responsible for radiation, funded by the industry, coathored the Danish cohort & the CEFALO,claims on IARC's website that the Danish cohort confirms the Interphone, risk results of Interphone are rejected because according to his paper (bottom)there is no excess in incidence rates.
Joachim Schüz, head of Section of Environment and Radiation,International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France.
28 Oct. Microwave news: IARC Tries To Play Down Cell Phone Tumor Risks.
Joachim Schüz, IARC, is funded by the Swiss Research Foundation on Mobile Communication that is funded among the rest by Orange, Sunrise and Swisscom. source: http://www.ilcerchioperfetto.com/
Joachim Schüz received the above funding for CEFALO. (ibid)"CEFALO scientists present results of brain tumour risks from child and teenage use of cordless phone restricted to the first three years of use. This important restriction is only written in a footnote below the table 6 and not at all in the text section where the cordless phone results are presented" (Mona Nilsson Mobile phones and cancer risks Scientists manipulated research on brain tumour risk for children 28.9.11).
Joachim Schüz worked at the Danish Cancer Society before joining IARC. (MWN 28.10).
Joachim Schüz, IARC, is one of the authors of the Danish Cohort: Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study/
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387.short
Joachim Schüz, IARC, is funded by theSwiss Research Foundation on Mobile Communication that is funded among the rest by Orange, Sunrise and Swisscom. http://www.ilcerchioperfetto.com/ [on its web page: IN BRIEF The Swiss Research Foundation on Mobile Communication (FSM) is a non-profit foundation. It contributes to the investigation of opportunities and risks associated with mobile communication and distributes research findings within the scientific community and the public. Its Services are available for all interested and involved people and institutions. Decisions about research funding are taken by the Scientific Committee independently of the sponsors of FSM and solely on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals. The foundation's industry, public authority and NGO representatives have no insight into or influence on the processes and decisions of the Scientific Committee whatsoever.]
October
28….A few days ago, IARC issued some "Questions
& Answers" on mobile phones and cancer prompted by last
week's release of a new update of the Danish
cohort study in the British
Medical Journal (BMJ).
(We'll have much more to say about the Danish study in a later
post.)
The Danish study finds no association between phones
and brain tumors. IARC includes the following statement in its Q&A:
The Danish paper in BMJ
"confirms the overall Interphone findings of no association."
Huh? That doesn't make any sense... last May's decision to classify
RF radiation as a possible
human carcinogen
was made by a committee convened by IARC. Indeed in July IARC
officially announced
that the decision was based in large part on the Interphone
study.
We asked Joachim
Schüz....Here's
what he told us: "Interphone shows no increased effect estimates
by time since first use, which is the most comparable metric to the
Danish study." That's true. On the other hand, if you use
cumulative call time as the index of use, Interphone shows a 40%
increase in the incidence of glioma brain tumors. As has been widely
discussed, Interphone reported risks that are consistently low. When
the Interphone team compensated for what practically everyone
believes is bias in the way the data were collected, it found a
doubling of the tumor risk "since first use," a
statistically significant increase. (See: "Interphone's
Provocative Analysis of the Brain Tumor Risks.")
We
asked Schüz about those calculations too.
He rejects them.
(This may help explain why they were buried in an appendix that was
left out of the published paper and banished to the Internet.) Schüz
argues that the increase seen in those calculations are "incompatible
with no excess seen in the incidence rates."
To support this, he cited a paper
[below] he coauthored with Isabelle Deltour and others at the Danish
Cancer Society (Schüz worked at the society before joining
IARC). But that won't wash because, as we pointed out long ago, that
paper has nothing to say about risks for use of ten years or longer
(see the last sentence of the abstract
and our post, "Spin,
Spin, Spin.")
paper Joachim Schüz: "No change in incidence trends were observed from 1998 to 2003, the time when possible associations between mobile phone use and cancer risk would be informative about an induction period of 5–10 years."
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/101/24/1721.full
Informant:
Iris Atzmon