The American Cancer Society is misleading the public
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/american_cancer_society.htm

--------
Re: The American Cancer Society is misleading the public

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 Repacholi at the World Health Organization; through ICNIRP, 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 [ http://tinyurl.com/yvdmq9 ]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. (and I would also say the Sick-care, mass genocide agenda, Amandha)

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. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 http://www.sppionline.org
http://www.safewireless.org
202-756-7744