Here are few excerpts from my discussion on IZgMF website that concerned Alexander Lerchl and his “crusade” against Vienna group of the EU REFLEX project. These are 3 slightly edited comments of mine that I posted on IZgMF website (link to my comment on IZgMF.
On Moday, Feb. 8, 2021 I have re-tweeted (@blogBRHP) message from Microwave News and added my comment. Here is my tweet:
“He [Lerchl] has grant support from #BfS, where are located #ICNIRP offices. He always had support of #telecoms, e.g. #FGF. He is buddy of Mike #Repacholi and together they are science advisors to the Japan/S.Korea “replication” of US #NTP study.
Its #CoI #SCANDAL, but nobody cares.”
I have also posted links to two Microwave News stories on Lerchl, and apparently one more story is in making…
Of course I have my conflict of interest when mentioning Lerchl. I have two of these CoI:
- Due to bad-mouthing by Lerchl, MOPHORAD project, which was to continue research of REFLEX, in spite of very good science evaluation marks was not funded. One of the sub-projects of MOPHORAD was my proteomics study.
- I was proposed for the scientific advisory board of Japan/S.Korea partial replication of US NTP study. However, Repacholi and Lerchl, among others, were chosen.
Project MOPHORAD, that was to continue research of REFLEX was victim of Lerchl’s “activities”:
- Lerchl bad-mouthed REFLEX for well over 10 years – no need to prove this fact
- This activity of Lerchl was noticed by the international science community (see below)
- Proof that the international science community was feeling uneasy with Lerchl activities is seen in letter from the IARC. Lerchl asked IARC to be appointed to the expert group that was to review studies pertinent to cancer and RF-EMF. IARC declined and Lerchl sent another letter, explaining his conflict-of-interst and requesting revision of the original IARC decision. IARC disagreed and pointed out importance of both, perceived conflict-of-interst and publications record of Lerchl. Here is quote from IARC letter, sent to Lerchl on October 26, 2010 and signed by Robert Baan and Vincent Cogliano:
“…Thank you for your letter of October 20th, explaining in detail again your arguments against our decision to refrain from inviting you to join the IARC Monographs Working Group to evaluate the carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation. We note that you omitted to mention in your letter our e-mail response of September 3rd, in which we indicated the critical importance of a perceived conflict of interests in making our decision over participation.
We accept your explanation about the nature of your consultancy for the German Informationszentrum Mobilfunk (IZMF) and thank you for this additional clarification. We appreciate, given your distinguished position on the German Radiation Protection Board, the important implication that would have come with concluding a real conflict of interests. Your argument about being on a WHO committee – as a technical consultant – to prepare a Research Agenda for Radiofrequency Fields attempts to compare two activities that are fundamentally different. An IARC Monograph is an evaluation exercise that demands complete independence from all commercial interests and from advocates who might be perceived as advancing a pre-conceived position.
In this connection, leaving aside the interests you mention in your Declaration, about half of your recent publications on radiofrequency radiation are not original research papers but criticisms of studies that suggest a harmful effect of exposure to radiation emitted by mobile telephones. In addition, some of your statements on the web pages of the “IZGMF” and “Next-Up” follow a similarly strong stance.
Taking the above points into account, we feel that your participation would not contribute to a balanced search for consensus within the forthcoming Working Group. Given this and the fact that we had many more qualified applicants than we can invite for the meeting, our final decision remains unchanged…”
This letter from the IARC clearly indicates that the international scientific community paid attention to what Lerchl was doing.
In this context, it was easy to happen that when the EU had two highly rated projects, MOBI-KIDS and MOPHORAD, but the MOPHORAD had “ballast of bad publicity and rumors” disseminated by Lerchl, that the EU has chosen to fund MOBI-KIDS, because it was good project and had no bad “publicity” behind.
So, Lerchl didn’t need to bad-mouth MOPHORAD. It was enough to bad-mouth REFLEX.
Complaints of Lerchl about publications from Vienna team of REFLEX should have been about quality of science and not fraud.
There are no perfect studies. Every study has some errors and mistakes. Every study is possible to make better. This applies also to studies published by the Vienna team of REFLEX project. It is possible to debate science in their studies, to debate quality of studies, to debate scientific reliability of these studies.
Lerchl did not debate science. Lerchl was running amok to prove his own false conviction that Vienna team falsified data. There is no proof of it.
We can agree or disagree on quality of studies published by the Vienna team. But there is no debate whether they falsified data or not. There is no proof of misconduct.
As one activist on IZgMF, H. Lamarr, said about Lerchl:
“Lerchl’s only mistake was to insist that the questionable results of the “Reflex” studies were the product of a forgery. He did not accept the alternative that the results could also be the product of technical errors by the two working groups.”
Lerchl mistake was grave. It ruined EMF research of Vienna group and of the whole worldwide community of EMF researchers. Lerchl should be ashamed.
Ashamed should be also his enablers, who did not step in. The list of enablers can be long but I will point out just two. With the permission and the acceptance of German radiation protection agencies, the BfS and the SSK, Lerchl has been acting without science but with malice.
BfS and SSK should explain themselves and apologize for the mistake. Of course they will not do it. But, nevertheless, both BfS and SSK carry the stain of Lerchl’s misbehavior.
I know Franz that they are lost case, the same as Rodney and many others. However, nevertheless, I am trying to break their “bubble”. Maybe, sometimes someone will understand something else than own bubble propaganda.
Franz Adlkofer on March 07, 2021 at 21:00 said:
I have taken the IZgMF, Alexander Lerchl’s no.1 battlesheet against the REFLEX study, to court twice. The first time in 2010 because its forum compared the South Korean clone forger Hwang with REFLEX Adlkofer/Rüdiger, the second time in 2017 because the forum threatened me with a criminal complaint for litigation fraud. Both times the IZgMF was ordered to cease and desist. Since then there have been several occasions to take legal action against this nasty forum. But two popular sayings prevented me from doing so. The first one, I already told them, is “You don’t wage war against fools”. The second one is a fitting addition. It reads “You don’t fight with riffraff.” Please, follow my advice, as any reaction on your part will only enhance the gang.
The “Reflex” causa took place in Austria and Germany from 2008 onwards. Therefore, most of the information about it is not available in English, and if it is, it is one-sided information, often based on Adlkofer.
So called “vexier pictures” (picture puzzles) are a nice analogy for what happens when you look at the causa. Some people see this, others that, even though they are all looking at the same picture. Here are three examples (click on the pictures to enlarge).
[To see the pictures, please visit the IZgMF forum: https://izgmf.de/scripts/forum/index.php?id=70242%5D
Those who see a naked woman succumb to a deception. The picture shows a view of the flat of the pretty woman opposite, who has hung her washing out to dry in front of the window. But on closer inspection there is no person there at all, only the white wall in the background. And if you think you recognise Albert Einstein in the other picture, you should enlarge the picture on the monitor, stand up and move away from the monitor. Depending on your eyesight, after a few metres Einstein will turn into Marilyn Monroe. Finally, in the third picture, some will first see a young woman, others an old woman. The causa “Reflex” is similar; depending on the level of information and bias, the verdict will differ. This should be largely undisputed.
Since Louis Slesin was apparently briefed by Adlkofer and his accomplice Diagnose-Funk in his most recent criticism of Lerchl, I would like to pick out here from the mass of counter-arguments only why Lerchl (in my view) got it wrong that data falsification was involved in “Reflex”.
1) As the head of German tobacco research in the service of the tobacco industry, Adlkofer was instrumental in keeping the discussion about the risks of passive smoking open in Germany longer than in other western industrialised countries. This was achieved by deliberately raising doubts about incriminating studies and with diversionary research that brought other health risks to the attention of the public (proof: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5ds4w4f5). A law to protect against passive smoking failed in 1998 and was not passed until 2007. This delay probably cost the lives of thousands of people in Germany.
2) Adlkofer was in a hurry with “Reflex”. Even before the “Reflex” final report was published in 2004, Adlkofer presented the alarming findings at the 25th BEMS Annual Conference, 22-27 June 2003, Hawaii. There is nothing wrong with that. But Adlkofer travelled with a camera team from German television (ARD). The report was broadcast on 6 August 2003 in the ARD night programme under the title “Bei Anruf Smog” (Dial for Smog?). Afterwards, Adlkofer travelled through Germany and gave many lectures, mostly to lay people, about the alarming results of “Reflex”, although neither the final report nor a scientific publication on the DNA damage under RF exposure found in Berlin/Vienna was available. As is well known, “Reflex” consisted of far more partial studies than the two from Berlin/Vienna. But when Adlkofer lectured, it was always only about the spectacular results from Berlin and Vienna. He steamed “Reflex” down to these two high-publicity studies.
3) Adlkofer is a non-smoker for good reason. On the other hand, he uses a mobile phone openly, even after his “Reflex” project.
4) Sheila Johnston and Vijayalaxmi visited the Viennese project manager (Rüdiger) and the “Reflex” coordinator (Adlkofer) in Vienna in spring 2004 upon invitation. Reason: In 2003, Rüdiger had offered his RF study, later known as Diem et al., 2005, to a scientific journal, which, however, rejected the paper. He wanted advice from the visitors on how the paper could be improved. In a report, Johnston later reported on irritating processes in the Vienna laboratory, the description of which would go beyond the scope here. The Johnston report can be read in German translation in the IZgMF forum (https://izgmf.de/scripts/forum/index.php?id=68400). If you need the English original, please contact Lerchl.
What does 1) to 4) tell us? My interpretation: Adlkofer, at the time in question the managing director of a foundation set up by the tobacco industry (Verum), played the familiar game of diversionary research on two playing fields. With great pressure, he pressed the alarming results of the two RF studies into the public domain as early as possible in order to divert attention from the risks of smoking. With noticeably less pressure, he fed the science.
Now put yourself in Lerchl’s shoes when he discovers strange statistical patterns in the data of Adlkofer’s “Reflex” follow-up study (Schwarz et al.) in 2008 that speak against the validity of the data. He received the file with the data from an attentive student (name is known to me) with whom he had nothing to do before and whose family were mobile phone opponents at the time. Is it any wonder that Lerchl 1) to 4) in front of his eyes does not think of technical deficiencies of the study or incompetence of the working group Rüdiger (Vienna), but of deliberate falsification of the data, with which Adlkofer wants to do a last service to his long-time employer? I think this thought is very obvious in view of the circumstances. Lerchl said at the time that he had stumbled across the irritating data by chance, that he had not specifically searched for it.
So much for the detail, how the “bad” Lerchl came up with the idea that the “Reflex” follow-up study was not just a study with considerable flaws, but was based on falsified data. The fact that Lerchl was unable to prove his suspicions unequivocally from the point of view of an appeal court is probably very disappointing for him personally. The indisputable shit storm against Lerchl, which you and Louis Slesin, but above all Adlkofer and Diagnose-Funk, sparked after the verdict, I see as unfair and as proof of how easy it is to move people with one-sided information (what is disinformation with “pinstripes”) in a desired direction. Be that as it may, the following still applies to “Reflex” after the judgment: absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.
(Translatetd from German to English with help of Google Translator and deepl.com)
IZgMF is not a place for serious discussions,but an insult to the human intellect. The organisers just have in mind to suppress critical voices and ridicule people suffering from RF (EHS). It is a place where the unsavoury side of the participants’ character is revealed. No wonder that lerchl feels comfortable in such a sociopatic commmunity.
I would strongly recommend you end any discussion with these cult members.
“Lerchl should be ashamed.” … why?
Lerchl got exactly what he wanted: destruction of competition and moneeeeey for research – from BfS with love.
Funny how people like Lerchl are acting as if someone powerful has their back. Think about that.
Indeed, Lerchl was relentless… He also attacked my PhD student from South Africa, Nadia Falzone, and myself because he did not like results or our research on human sperm and RF.
He has attacked Niels Kuster several times stating that he was responsible for the outcome of the project. For 12 years Niels (and IT’IS Board) had the to fight him off. After his last letter to Niels, the board was ready to start a legal action against Lerchel.
…and apologize to the one who denigrated without proof
Lerchl should be more than embarrassed, it’s not just a scientist’s misconduct. The judges demand a sanction if you persist in his behavior. He has nothing to do with serious, rigorous, bona fide scientific debate