Subject: EMF research story is here......
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 074726 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
A couple of months back, I "stirred up" some of you when I wrote
(words to the effect) that U.S. Science was "prostituted" by
its dependence upon industry/government funding.....
The news report below at least partially confirms my statements. I
say "partially" because I believe that the true story is, in fact,
much worse than suggested in the following report, which is couched
-- as it must be in order to be published -- in the "politically
correct" verbiage of our time. (By definition, "politically
correct" language is only a partial truth.....)
It is not just industry -- but also government -- involvement that is
robbing the public of the truth about scientific endeavors and results
in the U.S. today.
This does not mean that our scientists are "weak" to the blandishments
of industry/government influences. Nor are they being "dishonest."
Good, honest, even independent and "objective," researchers can be
subtley influenced in ways that (particularly) they themselves do
not recognize or admit..... The result is that the source of the funding
-- the industry/government in the U.S. today -- may expect (and does
receive) at least "the benefit of ALL doubts."
When the doubts are resolved in favor of the 'institution' that is
providing the funding, the public is the loser..... Public health
and safety become the "victims" of 'presumed' government (military) or
industry "needs." Needs which -- in theory -- under our system of
constitutional law are 'supposed to be' subservient to the public's
needs......
It is not happening that way.....
That is clearly the story of the past two decades of EMF research in
America -- excluding the first study by Wertheimer and Leeper....
I am still MUCH troubled at the direction toward the next round of
EMF research funding I see in "progress" (if "progress" is even an
appropriate word) following the recent release of the National
Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) EMF RAPID working
group report....[The web-page citation of that report -- which
identifies EMF as a class 2B carcinogen -- was posted to you
yesterday.]
I do not believe the public's "needs" in this health related issue
can be protected in another round of funding like that we have just
concluded.
**** Future EMF research funding should be TOTALLY devoid of any
influence by the electric/telecommunications industries, the U.S.
military, or any of the existing U.S. government RICH health
bureaucracies!!! (These agencies are all carrying conflict of interest
"baggage" within their organizations that introduce pressures other
than "scientific" into their considerations and results. e.g., The
pharmaceutical industry influences that were clearly visible in the
recent Tamoxifen press releases by the National Cancer Institute. It is
not just the NCI that is subverted by such 'parasitic' influences, each of
America's RICH health agencies has its own group of conflict of interest
"camp followers" who can often exert undue influence through the "staff"
or research levels if not always "at the top.")
**** What would work as an alternative to our reliance on the usual
"establishment" funding institutions???? I suggest a national commission
of qualified/independent citizens to manage the process.
In recent years, we have seen that such national citizens commissions
can work effectively in situations where the "deep pockets" of powerful
"conflict of interest" forces are obfuscating the results or deadlocking
the opportunities for progress. Specifically, the Social Security
Commission performed well in a most difficult task assignment. I believe
that the progress we now see toward a new national policy in that regard
is largely creditable to the work of that group.....
One thing can be said, for certain: the vested interests will not like
my suggestion ... nor (is it likely) that the RICH health bureaucracies
will favor it. Commissions of this sort -- truly independent -- cut the
rug out from under the heavily staffed public relations and lobbying
forces in the cozy Washington "establishment." I do not claim that such
commissions cannot, also, be subverted by the special interests ... but,
the public would have, at least, a fighting chance -- the public would be
at the table!!!.... We are not now......
Cheerio..... The Reuters news report below is very informative.....
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org..............http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html
................................It is better to light a single candle ...
than to curse the darkness...............................................
.....DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST?????......
_________________________________________________________________
03:52 PM ET 07/30/98
Conflict of interest likely to taint medical studies
(Release at 2301 GMT, Thursday, July 30)
LONDON, July 31 (Reuters) - The results of medical studies
are likely to be tainted or flawed if they are funded by
industry and researchers have a conflict of interest, experts
said on Friday.
``Almost all funding comes with strings attached,'' Hurst
Hannum, a professor at Tufts University in Massachusetts, said
in report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).
``At a minimum, the recipient must be accountable for how
grants are spent. At a maximum, the recipient must deliver a
particular product that is acceptable to the donor.''
In a series of articles in the weekly journal doctors,
professors and industry representatives debated the ethical
dilemma of companies -- particular tobacco, alcohol and infant
formula manufacturers -- financing research.
Tom Sorell of the University of Essex in England argued that
research funded by the tobacco industry has a tainted history
and needed to be closely monitored.
``Payments to some tobacco researchers have come from secret
funds or front organisations with misleading names. Much worse,
the industry has suppressed findings of its own researchers that
bear out what its opponents have claimed,'' he said.
Richard Smith, the editor of the journal, cited two
important studies published in American journals that showed
authors were more likely to be supportive of a drug or product
if they had financial backing from the company.
In a review of 70 medical articles about a type of drug to
treat cardiovascular disease, published in the New England
Journal of Medicine, the authors discovered that two-thirds of
the authors had industry backing.
``Almost all supportive authors (96 percent) had financial
relationships with manufacturers, compared with 60 percent
neutral authors and 37 percent of critical authors,'' he said in
an editorial.
A second study in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) of 106 reviews on passive smoking found
similar results. Three quarters of the articles that found
passive smoking was not harmful were written by tobacco industry
affiliates.
``These two papers and their predecessors begin to build a
solid case that conflict of interest has an impact on the
conclusions reached by papers in medical journals,'' he added.
Smith said from now on the authors of papers, editorials and
reviews of articles in the magazine will be asked if they have
``competing interests'' which will relate to purely financial
matters.
If they have none the magazine will tell readers at the end
of each article or if it is found that authors had competing
interest readers will be informed.
References
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html