References: <3A434D67.39065ADA@emfguru.com>
Roy,
Here is what Paul Harvey calls "the rest of the story !" As we have all recently heard
and read the 2 studies spun from Wheeler's CTIA & Medai camp you will find the following
facts more revealing:
Gary: Here is the chronology of the Muscat data shift.
Please look at this against the backdrop of what was going on in the book at
the time -- spring of 1999. The industry began direct communication with
Muscat in March, around me. Up to that point, I handled all of the
communication with the WTR's investigators. When the results began to come
in, the CTIA cut me out.
9/98 - data collection for the Muscat study is finished. No new patients
were entered into the study. Data base for analysis is finalized according
to Good Epidemiology Practices. GEP says that once the database is fixed,
that is it.
NEUROEPITHELIAL TUMORS:
3/3/99 - Muscat gives us data showing 29 cases of neuroepithelial tumors,
with 11 cell phone users among them. That yields a statistically significant
risk increase of 2.8.
4/7/99 - Muscat presents these data to the FDA and the governmental Inter
Agency Working Group.
5/3/99 - Muscat gives us an updated report that we sent out for peer review
to Harvard. Now they have 35 cases of neuroepithelial tumors because they
have re-done the pathology. This change was approved according to GEP
procedures. 14 of the 35 are cell phone users. Risk is 2.4 and
statistically significant. The report withstands peer review. This
constitutes final report to WTR. That is what we have in the book.
6/20/99 - Muscat presents the 2.4 risk data to State of Science colloquium in
Long Beach.
9/9/99 - Muscat submits paper to New England Journal of Medicine for
publication that is rejected -- they say not enough data relevant to cell
phone users. Risk presented in that paper is now 1.8 and not statistically
significant. This is based on a different statistical analysis with control
variable worked in on the same 35 cancer cases, 14 of which are cellular
phone users.
6/2000 - Muscat signs off on Chapter in my upcoming State of the Science II
book, to be published by Kluwer this spring. In the book, he presents the
2.4 risk data that are statistically significant.
12/19/2000 - in JAMA, Muscat presents yet another analysis of the same 35
cancer cases. The risk presented is 2.1. Even though this is more than a
doubling in the risk, the authors dismiss it because it is not statistically
significant. The headlines carry this as evidence of no brain cancer risk.
TUMOR LATERALITY:
3/3 - Muscat in report to WTR shows that in 27 instances, the tumor is on the
same side of the head as where the person uses the phone; in 15 instances it
is not. They give no statistical data on significance.
12/19/2000 - In JAMA article, they report that in 26 instances the tumor is
on the same side as where the person used the phone, and in 15 instances it
is not. The P value is .06 (.05 is statistically significant). If the
original data of 27 is used, the result becomes statistically significant.
No mention of where the missing patient is. The authors dismiss the finding
of laterality because it is not statistically significant.
As you know, the media have carried this study as reassuring to consumers.
In fact, this and the NCI studies are baseline studies against which future
observations of cancer among cell phoneusers can be judged. As I point out
in the book, no one could expect epidemiological studies to show much for 15
to 20 years. The fact that we found anything at all is the news. As an
epidemologist, the doubling in risk of neuroepithelial tumors, statistical or
not, would be a caution for me. Yet in the materials given to the press,
this is not even mentioned.
The overinterpretation of the data in the Muscat study is dangerous to
consumers. If this leads people to put phones up against the sides of their
heads when they otherwise wouldn't, well that is tragic.
The NCI investigators are even handed in how they caveat their study. Note
in their study that they say that their study is not adequate to look at rare
tumors that would be very close to where the antenna from the phone is. They
get it, but nonetheless, their study has been spun by the industry. It is
peculiar that the study was made available at 4 p.m. -- many media put it in
their stories without even reading it.
I also heard that the pre-release of the NCI study to coincide with the
Muscat study was orchestrated by the FDA -- the public pressure that the
release of the study cites is actually the FDA. They are now in bed with the
CTIA and it appears that these folks are working in concert.
This was a pretty sophisticated media manipulation. How so little data could
be used to make such broad assurances of safety is a Houdini trick. And most
of the media went for it.
Only in America.
GC
(By the way- GC= George Carlo the former Director of the WTR)
Roy Beavers wrote:
> Hi everybody:
>
> I have looked at the two recent studies (in JAMA and in the NEJM) which
> give the cell phones a clean bill of health with regard to brain cancer
> risk. Of the two, it seems to me that the NEJM (Iskip) study is the
> more deserving of attention.
>
> I provide the direct link below. And I encourage all of my readers to
> follow that link and read the Iskip study.
>
> It says to me -- that **normal** cell phone usage MAY NOT increase the
> brain cancer risk..... Or, alternatively, that the increase (if any)
> is barely measurable.
>
> It also says to me, rather clearly, that this study provides NO information
> about the risk that the "heavy user" may experience. It does NOT give a
> "go ahead" -- in other words -- to those teen agers (and politicians??
> like Synar or Atwater) who "live" in a world of high intensity, prolonged
> exposure with their phones virtually "glued" to their ears over a period
> of weeks or months......
>
> It also says to me, very clearly, that the study provides NO information
> about the newest cell phone technology -- the "digital" as opposed to the
> "analogue" cell phones.
>
> Assuming, therefore, that this study survives the intense examination it
> is sure to be given by other scientists in the field, it **by no means**
> upholds a "forget about any Blue World EMF hazards to health" conclusion
> -- as it is likely to be represented (to the public) by the Moulders and
> Adairs of the world.......
>
> I urge all of you to study it carefully, so that you may be aware of the
> misrepresentations of its findings that -- in my view -- are likely to
> occur in the public information domain.
>
> The Iskip study link:
> http://www.nejm.org/content/inskip/1.asp
>
> Cheerio.......
>
> Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
> roy@emfguru.com
>
> It is better to light a single candle
> than to curse the darkness.....
>
> WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com
>
> People are more important than profit$$
--------------C9A45C906C31B13A10F456D6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
.........Response from EMF-L.......
Gary has forwarded an exchange with George Carlo which SHINES THE LIGHT
upon
the JAMA published (Muskat) study...... It is disconcerting --
to say the least (!!) -- that
serious science would play such games with the data -- UNDER INDUSTRY
INFLUENCE,
of course!!!
Nevertheless, I had already discounted the importance (validity) of
that study in my earlier
message. It is the NEJM (Inskip) study that merits attention
... I believe.......guru.....
-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: |
Re: The study that counts (guru). |
| Date: |
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:46:52 -0500 |
| From: |
"Dr. Gary Brown" <dlhelp@bellsouth.net> |
| To: |
roy@emfguru.com, |
| CC: |
guru <guru@emfguru.com> |
| References: |
<3A434D67.39065ADA@emfguru.com> |
Roy,
Here is what Paul Harvey calls "the rest of the story !" As
we have all recently heard and read the 2 studies spun from
Wheeler's CTIA & Medai camp you will find the following facts more
revealing:
Gary: Here is the chronology of the Muscat data shift.
Please look at this against the backdrop of what was going on in
the book at
the time -- spring of 1999. The industry began direct communication
with
Muscat in March, around me. Up to that point, I handled all
of the
communication with the WTR's investigators. When the results
began to come
in, the CTIA cut me out.
9/98 - data collection for the Muscat study is finished. No
new patients
were entered into the study. Data base for analysis is finalized
according
to Good Epidemiology Practices. GEP says that once the database
is fixed,
that is it.
NEUROEPITHELIAL TUMORS:
3/3/99 - Muscat gives us data showing 29 cases of neuroepithelial
tumors,
with 11 cell phone users among them. That yields a statistically
significant
risk increase of 2.8.
4/7/99 - Muscat presents these data to the FDA and the governmental
Inter
Agency Working Group.
5/3/99 - Muscat gives us an updated report that we sent out for peer
review
to Harvard. Now they have 35 cases of neuroepithelial
tumors because they
have re-done the pathology. This change was approved according
to GEP
procedures. 14 of the 35 are cell phone users. Risk
is 2.4 and
statistically significant. The report withstands peer review.
This
constitutes final report to WTR. That is what we have in the
book.
6/20/99 - Muscat presents the 2.4 risk data to State of Science colloquium
in
Long Beach.
9/9/99 - Muscat submits paper to New England Journal of Medicine
for
publication that is rejected -- they say not enough data relevant
to cell
phone users. Risk presented in that paper is now 1.8 and not
statistically
significant. This is based on a different statistical analysis
with control
variable worked in on the same 35 cancer cases, 14 of which are
cellular
phone users.
6/2000 - Muscat signs off on Chapter in my upcoming State of the
Science II
book, to be published by Kluwer this spring. In the book,
he presents the
2.4 risk data that are statistically significant.
12/19/2000 - in JAMA, Muscat presents yet another analysis of the
same 35
cancer cases. The risk presented is 2.1. Even though
this is more than a
doubling in the risk, the authors dismiss it because it is not statistically
significant. The headlines carry this as evidence of no brain
cancer risk.
TUMOR LATERALITY:
3/3 - Muscat in report to WTR shows that in 27 instances, the tumor
is on the
same side of the head as where the person uses the phone;
in 15 instances it
is not. They give no statistical data on significance.
12/19/2000 - In JAMA article, they report that in 26 instances the
tumor is
on the same side as where the person used the phone, and in 15 instances
it
is not. The P value is .06 (.05 is statistically significant).
If the
original data of 27 is used, the result becomes statistically significant.
No mention of where the missing patient is. The authors dismiss
the finding
of laterality because it is not statistically significant.
As you know, the media have carried this study as reassuring to consumers.
In fact, this and the NCI studies are baseline studies against which
future
observations of cancer among cell phoneusers can be judged.
As I point out
in the book, no one could expect epidemiological studies to show
much for 15
to 20 years. The fact that we found anything at all is the
news. As an
epidemologist, the doubling in risk of neuroepithelial tumors, statistical
or
not, would be a caution for me. Yet in the materials given
to the press,
this is not even mentioned.
The overinterpretation of the data in the Muscat study is dangerous
to
consumers. If this leads people to put phones up against the
sides of their
heads when they otherwise wouldn't, well that is tragic.
The NCI investigators are even handed in how they caveat their study.
Note
in their study that they say that their study is not adequate to
look at rare
tumors that would be very close to where the antenna from the phone
is. They
get it, but nonetheless, their study has been spun by the industry.
It is
peculiar that the study was made available at 4 p.m. -- many media
put it in
their stories without even reading it.
I also heard that the pre-release of the NCI study to coincide with
the
Muscat study was orchestrated by the FDA -- the public pressure
that the
release of the study cites is actually the FDA. They are now
in bed with the
CTIA and it appears that these folks are working in concert.
This was a pretty sophisticated media manipulation. How so
little data could
be used to make such broad assurances of safety is a Houdini trick.
And most
of the media went for it.
Only in America.
GC
(By the way- GC= George Carlo the former Director of the WTR)
Roy Beavers wrote:
Hi everybody:
I have looked at the two recent studies (in JAMA and in the NEJM) which
give the cell phones a clean bill of health with regard to brain cancer
risk. Of the two, it seems to me that the NEJM (Iskip) study
is the
more deserving of attention.
I provide the direct link below. And I encourage all of my readers
to
follow that link and read the Iskip study.
It says to me -- that **normal** cell phone usage MAY NOT increase the
brain cancer risk..... Or, alternatively, that the increase (if
any)
is barely measurable.
It also says to me, rather clearly, that this study provides NO information
about the risk that the "heavy user" may experience. It does
NOT give a
"go ahead" -- in other words -- to those teen agers (and politicians??
like Synar or Atwater) who "live" in a world of high intensity, prolonged
exposure with their phones virtually "glued" to their ears over a period
of weeks or months......
It also says to me, very clearly, that the study provides NO information
about the newest cell phone technology -- the "digital" as opposed
to the
"analogue" cell phones.
Assuming, therefore, that this study survives the intense examination
it
is sure to be given by other scientists in the field, it **by no means**
upholds a "forget about any Blue World EMF hazards to health" conclusion
-- as it is likely to be represented (to the public) by the Moulders
and
Adairs of the world.......
I urge all of you to study it carefully, so that you may be aware of
the
misrepresentations of its findings that -- in my view -- are likely
to
occur in the public information domain.
The Iskip study link:
http://www.nejm.org/content/inskip/1.asp
Cheerio.......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com
It is better to light a single candle
than to curse the darkness.....
WEBSITE: http://emfguru.com
People are more important than profit$$
--------------C9A45C906C31B13A10F456D6--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com