Interphone’s new study…

please, see also a companion blog here

In 2011 Interphone scientists committed scientific misconduct when instead of publishing all data concerning correlation between brain tumor localization and exposure distribution in the brain in a single study, they split data and published two separate studies.

When I wrote about it in my science blog ‘BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place’ I was threatened by, then, STUK Director General with being fired. Under the threat of being immediately fired, my blog post describing the scientific misconduct within the Interphone was personally censored by, then, STUK Director General (link to censored post #1). Director General even demanded that the censored already by him post will be approved by the STUK epidemiologist (Research Professor).

Following the first post on the BRHP, I wrote two additional posts and a letter to the Director of IARC. Links to both posts are here: post #2 and post #3).

Now, on Jan. 24, 2017, STUK published a press release bragging that the Interphone published new study where correlation between tumor localization and exposure location is presented. Study shows a positive correlation.

STUK behaves as if nothing happened in the past, in 2011, and the study by Grell et al. was just published in 2016.

Interestingly, STUK does not mention at all own study on the same subject, published in 2011. This 2011 STUK study is part of the scientific misconduct by Interphone. In 2011, STUK scientists, with the rest of Interphone scientists, committed scientific misconduct. But nobody cared then and, still, nobody cares now.

Two studies published by Interphone in 2011 should be retracted as some form of falsification of scientific data. These two studies skew the scientific evidence because now we have from the same data set three publications:

  • partial data showing no correlation published in 2011
  • partial data showing some correlation published in 2011
  • full data showing correlation published in 2016.

The studies that should be retracted were published in 2011 in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) and the second article was published in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM) (

5 thoughts on “Interphone’s new study…

  1. EMF radiation should be classified under Group 2a . Protect the Citizens .

  2. STUK Director General had nothing to do with publication of two separate articles from Interphone. STUK Director General, as Well as STUK Research Director and STUK Director of Research Department minded that I wrote critically of Interphone. In their opinion I was criticizing research done at STUK and as STUK employee it was wrong of me to do. I disagreed but under threat of being immediately fired I agreed to censorship of my blog post by STUK Director General. In the end it did not help much because other bosses at STUK were against any open debate and wanted to “sweep debate under carpet”.

  3. Dear Darius,
    Where we can read “one-stop” situation that took place during the voting for 2b classification for RF – EMF in May 2011?

    Thank You in advance…

    Branislav Vulevic

  4. “What if” is the question here … I know Interphone was 50% of the science IARC relied on, in conjunction with Lennart Hardell’s science, to arrive at a 2b classification for RF – EMF in May 2011. The vote was 29 to 1, so nearly unanimous. I have heard many scientists wanted to vote for 2a which would have made RF – EMF a “probably human carcinogen”. By splitting the data from Interphone and publishing two separate studies, did the STUK Director General and others dilute the science the IARC Working Group relied on so as to avoid a 2a classification? Had the data not been split, do you think the scientists, you among them, would have voted to classify RF – EMF a 2a carcinogen?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.