Unethical Reporting – my new opinion in The Scientist Magazine

In the summer of 2010 I published three blogs dealing with Interphone project’s splitting of data and publication of two separate articles (Did INTERPHONE commit… #1, #2, #3) . Nieither of the articles had, according to the authors, enough cases to provide statistically significant conclusions.

Now, the Interphone project is closed and seemingly nobody cares that scientists split data arbitrarily, without any scientific justification.

Why this issue is important? Because ICNIRP and WHO are currently performing evaluation of all scientific evidence concerning biological and health effects of mobile phone radiation. The two arbitrarily split reports from Interphone as well as the flawed Danish Cohort will be considered as evidence.

If there is no any pressure to retract these scientifically flawed studies, these studies might be used to justify the “no risk proven” option.

Editors of the journals did not respond to my e-mails. May be, if more e-mails will reach them, the editors will be finally compelled to take a stand.

Today, April 15, 2013, The Scientist Magazine published my opinion concerning unethical publication of two studies by Interphone: read story here.

For those who missed it, on March 25, 2013, The Scientist Magazine published my opinion about flawed Danish Cohort study: read story here.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s