- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / General discussion / Secret Ties to Industry and Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research
Author Message
Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 03:55

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD,1_,{ Martin J. Walker, MA,2{ Bo Walhjalt,3{
Lee S. Friedman, BA, MSc,4§ and Elihu D. Richter, MD, MPH 5
Recently it was reported that a Swedish professor in environmental health
has for decades worked as a consultant for Philip Morris without reporting his employmentto his academic employer or declaring conflicts of interest in his research. The potential for distorting the epidemiological assessments of hazard and risk through paid consultants, pretending to be independent, is not exclusive to the tobacco industry.
Methods Documentation is drawn from peer reviewed publications, web- sites, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency, University reports, Wellcome Library Special Collections and the Washington Post.
Results Some consulting firms employ university researchers for industry work thereby disguising industry links in the income of large departments. If the industry affiliation is concealed by the scientist, biases from con- flicting interests in risk assessments cannot be evaluated and dealt with properly. Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that editors and journal staff may suppress publication of scientific results that are adverse to
industry owing to internal conflict of interest between editorial integrity and business needs.
Conclusions Examples of these problems from Sweden, UK, and USA are
presented. The shortfalls cited in this article illustrate the need for improved transparency, regulations that will help curb abuses as well as instruments for control and enforcement against abuses. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2006.
2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
KEY WORDS: cancer research; conflicts of interest; consulting ethics; industry sponsors

Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 03:59

Recently it was revealed that the Swedish professor in environmental health at the Gothenburg University, Dr. Ragnar Rylander, had worked for decades as a contracted consultant for Philip Morris without reporting this outside commission to his employer or declaring conflicts of interest
in his research [Diethelm et al., 2005; Editorial, 2006]. His consultancy generated substantial amounts of money both for research and as consultant fees from the tobacco industry. The scientific integrity of his publications has been questioned [Diethelm et al., 2005]. Swedish law requires that public servants, including academic researchers report
_2006Wiley-Liss,Inc. 1Department of Oncology, University Hospital,O« rebro and Department of Natural Sciences,O« rebro University,O« rebro, Sweden
2 Slingshot Publications, London, England
3 Stigbergstorget1, SE-414 63 Go« teborg, Sweden
4 The Social Policy Research Institute, 8423 Monticello Avenue, Skokie,
5 Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Community Medicine and Public
Health, Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Injury
Prevention Center, Jerusalem 91120, Israel {Professor {Writer Director

*Correspondence to: Dr. Professor Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-70185O« rebro, Sweden. E-mail: lennart.hardell@orebroll.se Accepted17 May 2006

Published online inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) outside commissions, and it is the responsibility of the employer to decide whether the outside commission is acceptable, or if there is an un- acceptable conflict of interest.
If the commission is considered a case of conflict of interest it should be denied.
For 30 years Rylander kept his commission as a contracted consultant with Philip Morris secret from his employers (the Swedish EPA, the University of Gothenburg and the University of Geneva), while at the same time he
discussed all his tobacco related research at the universities with Philip Morris and their lawyers. Industry knew what the universities and the public did not know. His correspondence shed light on this loyalty to Philip Morris [e.g., Rylander, 1987]. When the first systematic description of Rylander’s relations with Philip Morris were published in Sweden 2002,
he stated: ‘‘I have never been a consultant for PM’’ [Tallmo, 2002]. Two months later in 2002 the contract was made public after being found in the Philip Morris Archives [Philip Morris Incorporated, 1972].
While there is increased scientific and public sensitivity to the scientific validity and public health implications of work funded by the tobacco industry, there is evidence to indicate that other industries such as the chemical industry are still distorting epidemiological research, especially in the field of cancer. Our hypothesis is that the case of Professor Rylander is a seminal event for a far more widespread practice of non-disclosure and concealment of ties to industry, and as well the influence on editorial decisions as to what to publish and not to publish.

Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 04:03

In the fall of 2001 a group of Swedish scientists at the Karolinska Institute (KI), Hans-Olov Adami, Anders Ekbom, Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg, Anders Ahlbom, and one researcher in Lund, Lars Hagmar, initiated an attack in a leading Swedish daily newspaper on other researchers who
had been reporting on the association between cancer and exposure to various toxic and physical agents [Walhjalt, 2002a,b]. Studies which suggested findings of an association between cellular telephones and brain tumors [Hardell et al., 2001a], dioxin pollutants in mother’s milk and the risk for childhood malignancies [Hardell and Dreifaldt, 2001], as
well as cancer risks from alcohol [Hardell et al., 2000] and dioxins [Hardell et al., 1995a,b, 2001b; Hardell and Eriksson, 1999]. This work by Hardell et al. was criticized as lacking academic rigor without any regard for research method. Hardell rebutted in a peer-reviewed journal [Hardell,
Thereafter, one of the authors of the original newspaper article, Professor Hans-Olov Adami, together with Jack Mandel, an epidemiologist working for the U.S. consultancy firm Exponent, Inc., and Dimitrios Trichopoulos, Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Harvard, went to the Dioxin
2001 conference in Korea and gave oral presentations.
Together they presented the case for the thesis that dioxins are not associated with cancer in humans. The presentations each gave a clean bill of health to dioxin [Adami, 2001; Trichopoulos, 2001; Mandel, 2001a]. Although no new research was presented, statements casting doubt on the
carcinogenicity were made as a challenge to the fact that 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) had been classified in 1997 as a human carcinogen of Group I by IARC [IARC, 1997].
Exponent had hired Adami and Trichopoulos and coordinated the presentations on behalf of an unnamed client [Mandel, 2001b]. While Mandel appeared as an employee of Exponent, Adami and Trichopoulos only quoted their academic affiliations, which would infer that they were
independent researchers rather than consultants hired by Exponent and paid for by some of Exponent’s clients. The aim of this re-manufacturing of doubt was the ongoing dioxin review process at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
In another article by Adami et al. [2000] the authors state: ‘‘There is persuasive evidence that TCDD at low levels is not carcinogenic to human beings and that it may not be carcinogenic even at high levels.’’ This article was also produced for Exponent. The article, together with another on other endpoints, was delivered to be included in the EPA review, for which the Vice President of Exponent, Dennis Paustenbach, was on the Science Advisory Board. Exponent’s activities on dioxin at the time included a number of other consultants from Exponent giving oral and poster presentations which sowed doubt about health effects from
dioxins at the Dioxin 2001 conference [Connor and Finley, 2001; Fehling et al., 2001; Hays and Aylward, 2001; Hays et al., 2001; Paustenbach, 2001; Sun et al., 2001].
Paustenbach [2002, 2005] also conducted work during this time for Dow Chemical on dioxin in soils from their production plant in Midland. He recommended a cleanup level nine times above the level stated by Michigan state regulations which would save Dow a lot of money. Dow
reached an agreement with the State governor based on Paustenbach’s conclusions. The EPA objected to the agreement [EPA, 2002]. Paustenbach was later a member of the panel to set the standards for clean up after Agent Orange negotiated between the US and Vietnam [Memorandum
of Understanding, 2002]. Corporate and governmental interests coincided and Exponent was on the market filling the needs.

Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 04:05

Recently litigation on health risks from herbicides in Israel led one of the co-authors of this article to a Monsanto website on Roundup [Monsanto, 2002] which cited Adami.
2 Hardell et al.
Via a telephone number on the Monsanto website, we traced ‘‘unpublished references’’ in Monsanto’s possession in which Adami and his associate Professor Trichopoulos stated that ‘‘errors in exposure assessment, or chance . . . are likely explanations for the weak glyphosate/NHL association’’
[Adami and Trichopoulos, 1999]. This statement, posted on the above web reference, re-emerged, as a word-for word download, without attribution of the source, as a major part of an expert opinion by the Chief Toxicologist of the Israeli Minister of Health to the Israeli Supreme Court. For more details see ED Richter, Expert Opinion, Feb 11 2004; for Physicians for Human Rights vs. Government of Israel [Dallal, 2004].
The Swedish Cancer Society has for a long time funded Adami’s appointment as a cancer researcher. Adami’s research team has gained substantial amounts in grants from the Swedish Cancer Society over the years. The main source of this money comes from gifts from the Swedish population. The aim of funds held by the Swedish Cancer Society is to
make research on different risk factors and improve the possibilities to prevent cancer. Adami’s activities, however, seem to have cast doubt on certain environmental cancer risks. The Swedish Cancer Society has made no move to require Professor Adami to publicly disclose his potential
conflicts of interest.

Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 04:12

It has also been revealed that Professor Sir Richard Doll, a long time epidemiologist for what was until recently the Imperial Cancer Research Fund in England, had failed to disclose his funding from Monsanto [Walker, 2005].
Apart from his relationship with Turner and Newall, the asbestos manufacturers [Tweedale, 2000; Castleman, 2001], the other long-term relationship that Sir Richard Doll had with industry between 1970 and 1990 appears to have been with Monsanto.
During the later part of the 1990s, Sir Richard Doll made depositions as an expert witness on behalf of chemical companies, which were being sued in North America and Italy. Coincidentally, the law firmacting for Dow Chemicals, which took Doll’s depositions, Covington and Burling, was
previously counsel for the Tobacco Institute and played a decisive role in organizing campaigns for Philip Morris [Covington and Burling, 2005].
Doll presented evidence to rebut claims brought by workers and ex-workers that they had contracted cancer from exposures to vinyl chloride. Doll’s statement was only used in the North American case of Ross, in which the plaintiffs, whose deceased husbands had contracted brain tumors after working with vinyl chloride, won massive damages.
Doll [1988] became an expert witness in these cases by virtue of his authorship of the article Effects of Exposure to Vinyl Chloride. The article made no declaration of vested interests or payments in relation to chemical companies.
Doll’s 1988 review of mainly industry-organized studies reported that there was no significant carcinogenicity associated with vinyl chloride other than in the liver. He gave the seal of approval to the safety of the chemical and its productive process, even though by 1979, a decade earlier, vinyl chloride was classified by IARC as a Group I human
carcinogen with target organs liver, brain, lung, and hematolymphopoetic
system [IARC, 1979].
Doll’s article remained the gold standard for more than a decade, and served as the basis for the following statement in 2001, by the American Chemical Council (previously called the Chemical Manufacturers Association). ‘‘The world’s leading researchers have studied vinyl chloride and brain cancer and concluded that the evidence does not support a
link between brain cancer and exposure to vinyl chloride’’
[American Chemistry Council, 2001]. In fact, in his review, like other researchers, Doll had found an association between brain cancer and working with the production of vinyl chloride but dismissed this association as not significant or unlikely to be caused by occupation. Apart from these
broader defences of vinyl chloride production, Doll’s paper [Doll, 1988] was specifically responsible for the US Environmental Protection Agency dismissing the significance of non-liver cancers in vinyl-exposed workers, as critically discussed elsewhere [Prince, 2005; Sass et al., 2005].
Doll agreed to write his review after being approached by the ICI Medical Advisor,Brian Bennett [Doll and Bennett, 2005]. Bennett had cleared his suggestion to approach Doll for the work with the US Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), the trade organization for chemical manufacture of which Monsanto was an important member.
In 2002 Sir Richard Doll deposited a number of boxes of articles at the Wellcome Institute (see PP/DOL, Sir Richard Doll (b. 1912) Epidemiologist. Wellcome Library for the History and Understanding of Medicine). In these articles there is a letter from the epidemiologist at Monsanto,William
Gaffey, renewing Doll’s contract to act as a consultant for the company at the billable rate of £1,000 a day. Doll replied to this letter [Doll, 1986]. ‘‘I greatly appreciate the offer to extend my consulting agreement and for the increased fee, and I have signed and am returning one contract note.’’
Gaffey was a mathematician, brought in by Monsanto specifically to ‘‘clean up’’ the public image of dioxin.
Furthermore, these articles reveal that Bennett and Doll agreed that any article written by Doll would be ‘‘peer reviewed’’ by Julian Peto, Doll’s closest colleague and by Geoffrey Paddle and Ted Torkelson (Dow), medical advisers of two chemical companies. The cost of the review was
settled at £15,000 plus expenses [Wellcome, 1984, 1986a,b].
One of the first letters which Doll wrote, in March 1986, on beginning the reviewwas to Gaffey, asking for his advice and it was Gaffey who also managed Doll’s—at that time Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research 3
secret—consultative contract with Monsanto [Wellcome, 1986a,b].
In February 1988, Doll sent the finished review of vinyl chloride on Bennett’s advice, to the editor of the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, which accepted it for publication [Doll, 1988].
The £15,000 fee for the reviewwas paid for by the CMA, partly by ICI, the biggest producer of vinyl chloride in the UK, and partly by Dow, another big producer of vinyl chloride.However, in the years 1987 and 1988 when Doll was finishing the review he was also separately receiving
consultancy funding from Monsanto, also one of the other biggest producers of vinyl chloride in North America and an important member of the CMA. None of this funding was declared in the published article.
In January 2000, Doll was cross-examined by Ross’s lawyers on the expert evidence he had given for Dow Chemicals and others. The lawyers cross-examined Doll on his review and the absence of acknowledgements for its funding from the chemical industry. Doll told lawyers that he
had written asking Bennett’s advice about acknowledging payment for the review from the CMA and Bennett had advised him that there was no need for him to acknowledge the source of his funding. On the matter of his consultancy payments from Monsanto at the time he was writing the
review, which involved a Monsanto product, Sir Richard (Doll) said simply that he did not know he should disclose these sources of income [Doll, 2000].
In December 1985, just prior to writing to Gaffey at Monsanto for his advice about his review of vinyl chloride studies, Doll had appeared to add his authority to the campaign that Gaffey was running to counteract the image of dioxin as a highly toxic agent. On December 4, 1985, Doll wrote to Justice Phillip Evatt, who had presided over the Australian Royal Commission that had enquired into the effects of Agent Orange and dioxin on Australian personnel during the Vietnam War [Doll, 1985; Hardell et al., 1998; Hardell, 2004].
The Commission’s conclusion was that there was no evidence that exposure to Agent Orange including TCDD was a health hazard. However, it was later revealed that part of this ruling including a review of the scientific evidence, was an almost verbatim account of a Monsanto submission on the issue. As discussed elsewhere [Hardell et al., 1998;
Hardell, 2004], the scientific evidence was distorted and manipulated in the Commission’s (or rather Monsanto) document.
Doll’s unsolicited letter to Evatt, however, supported the
Commission’s views. In his letter Doll stated:
. . . relating to 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (the phenoxy herbicides in question) that there is no reason to suppose that they are carcinogenic in laboratory animals and that even TCDD (dioxin), which has been postulated to be a dangerous contaminant of the herbicides, is at the most, only weakly and
inconsistently carcinogenic in animal experiments . . .I am sure, however, that it [your review] will be widely quoted and that it will come to be regarded as the definitive work of the subject [Doll, 1985].
Doll’s letter also attempted to question the veracity and validity of the work by Dr. Hardell and his colleagues, and for that matter, its very legitimacy as a scientific work as discussed in later publications [Hardell et al., 1998; Hardell and Eriksson, 2003; Hardell, 2004].
‘‘Your Review of Hardell’s work, with the additional evidence obtained directly from him at interview, shows that many of his published statements were exaggerated or not supportable and that there were many opportunities for bias to have been introduced in the collection of his data. His conclusions cannot be sustained and in my opinion, his work
should no longer be cited as scientific evidence. [Authors italics] [Doll, 1985].’’ In spite of receiving copies of articles that revealed the
manipulations of scientific facts in the Monsanto submission [Monsanto Australia Limited, 1985] and a rebuttal of the Commission’s findings [Axelson, 1986] Doll never changed his position. The questions to be asked are first, whether the now disclosed facts that he was at that time secretly a highly paid Monsanto consultant perhaps influenced his statements.
Second, how did Doll’s hidden consultancies influence his other work?

Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 04:16

Another example of industry ties to research, but not one where there was a failure to disclose, involves the potential association between cellular phones and brain tumors. In 2002 the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) hired two US epidemiologists to reviewpublished epidemiological studies on the relationship between the use of cellular
telephones and cancer risk. They were Dr. John D. Boice, Jr. and Dr. Joseph K. McLaughlin from the private company International Epidemiology Institute (IEI). In their review [Boice and McLaughlin, 2002], they claimed that no consistent evidence was observed for increased risk of brain cancer, including meningioma, acoustic neurinoma, ocular
melanoma, or salivary gland cancer, and mobile phone use.
Featured in their reviewwas an article by Hardell et al. [2002] of an association between cellular telephones and certain brain tumors. The review heavily criticized this article.
However, Boice and McLaughlin were co-authors of some of the studies in their ‘‘independent’’ review. The very positive words by Boice and McLaughlin about their own studies, which showed no association between cellular telephones and certain tumor types, should be viewed while
4 Hardell et al. bearing in mind their own participation in these investigations.
Despite the fact that IEI was a co-founder of their studies, cited in the review, Boice and Joseph McLaughlin made no statements of any conflict of interest in the SSIreport.
The Director General of SSI, Lars-Erik Holm, has earlier published several articles with John Boice. Also it appears that the International Epidemiology Institute was at the time of the SSI reviewinvolved in a cellular phone and brain tumor litigation in the USA on behalf of the defendants, Motorola [Newman v. Motorola Inc, 2002]. The connection was traced by the fax number on the articles with the referee comments to the journal considering for publication the Hardell et al.
article on use of cellular telephones and the association with brain tumors. The information that the article was under review had been communicated to the defendants (Letter from Mr. TomWatson, defendant lawyer for Motorola, dated January 18, 2002 and referee comments from fax 301 517
4063 International Epidemiology Institute dated 11/19/01), a violation of the confidentiality of the review process. These and other circumstances on this issue have been reviewed by the authors [Hansson Mild et al., 2003; Hardell, 2004].
A number of research projects have taken place at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm with participation of Boice and McLaughlin, with a funding model through IEI. One of the studies was published in British Medical Journal [Nyre´n et al., 1998] with Adami as a co-author. A cohort of Swedish women with breast implants was studied with regard to
connective tissue disease.No risk was found. Thanks to strict rules of stating conflicts of interest in the British Medical Journal it can be seen that the project was initiated by IEI, and that the funding from IEI was on behalf of Dow Corning, producer of silicon breast implants.

Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 04:20

We note that relationships between corporations and ‘‘independent’’ researchers appear to be prevalent across most areas of medical research and not be restricted to reviews but also affect original research. In 2001, a study of 1,396 highly ranked scientific and biomedical journals by Krimsky and Rothenberg [2001], reported that only 16% had conflict of interest policies.
A recent study found that one-third of all original research articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association were funded by for-profit healthcare companies [Friedman and Richter, 2004]. Furthermore, one in four
original research articles published in these journals had one or more authors with corporate financial relationships and conflicts of interest. The authors with conflicts of interest were two times more likely to report results supporting their sponsor’s products [Friedman and Richter, 2004]. For obvious reasons these numbers are biased. Only those with
known conflicts of interests are recognized. Those with hidden ties are not found in the correct column. There have also been cases in which editors and journal staff have suppressed publication in the peer-reviewed
literature [Egilman, 2005; Friedman and Richter, 2005]. In 2004, an editorial questioning the benefits of increased doses of Epogen1 (epoetin alfa) in patients with renal disease was rejected because it ‘‘went beyond what (the) marketing department (was) willing to accommodate.’’ In fact, the executive editor initially accepted the manuscript but was ‘‘overruled’’ by the marketing department, providing a clear example of an internal conflict of interest between editorial integrity and business needs [Vedantam, 2004]. Financial relationships between industry, researchers
and academic institutions are becoming increasingly complex [Tuech et al., 2005]. Funding from industrial sources for research itself should be a good thing, because, in theory, it should provide access to resources and information no longer readily available from public sources and can catalyze highly creative interactions to advance knowledge to promote and
protect health. But the few examples we give show that it invites abuse when it is secret, concealed, disguised or nondisclosed, and as other research suggests, these examples are not isolated. Conflict of interest in itself is widespread, but its potential for generating misinformation is greatly increased when it is undeclared.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of particular cases there are clear lessons to be drawn fromthe abuses which have until recently compromised the integrity of epidemiological research on environmental hazard and risk. Unfortunately, powerful industrial interests are undermining independent
research on hazard and risk in Europe and North America. The case studies are troublesome, because they involved some of the world’s leading epidemiologists. It is highly likely that there were delays in addressing the carcinogenic risks that these epidemiologists minimized in the interests of their clients. These case studies illustrate the need for
rigorous policies and practices to prevent the abuses of this kind by requiring open declaration of direct and indirect support, professional codes of practice that will help curb abuses, enforcement of these codes and evaluation of the efficacy of enforcement.
We call for swift, immediate and forceful policies and action by the independent academic community and, no less important, editors of scientific journals to protect scientific integrity, openness, and fairness. Such policies and actions are needed to ensure credibility and restore the essential role of the medical epidemiologist in protecting the public

Eileen O´Connor
# Posted: 17 Nov 2006 04:21

We thank Dr. Richard Laster, Hebrew University Law Faculty, for helpful review and suggestions.
Conflicting Interests in Cancer Research 5

Adami HO. 2001. Can studies by a single investigator override
collective evidence? The case of dioxin. Organohalogen Compounds
Adami HO, Trichopoulos D. 1999. Review of the study by Hardell and
Eriksson on non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure to pesticides. Cancer
1999;85:1353–1360. (Unpublished. Can be requested from Monsanto’s
Public Affairs Director for Agricultural Chemicals as 314-694-3546.)
Adami HO, Cole P, Mandel J, Pastitides H, Starr TB, Trichopoulos D.
2000. Dioxin and Cancer. Report August 7. Submission to EPA.
American Chemistry Council. 2001. Statement issued by The American
Chemistry Council in response to the Bill Moyers television programme
Trade Secrets which looked at the Ross case.
Axelson O, editor. 1986. Rebuttals of the final report on cancer by the
Royal Commission on the Use and Effects of Chemical Agents on
Australian Personnel in Vietnam. Sweden: Linko¨ping University,
Sweden ISSN 02808471 1986, January 21.
Boice JD, Jr., McLaughlin JK. 2002. Epidemiological studies of cellular
telephones and cancer risk—a review. Statens Stra°lskyddsinstitut
rapport (Swedish Radiation Protection Authority Report) www.ssi.se.
(Accessed October 24, 2005).
Castleman BI. 2001. Re: Doll’s 1955 study on cancer from asbestos.Am
J Ind Med 39(2):237–240.
Connor K, Finley B. 2001. The need for TEFs based on internal
measures of dose: An assessment of body burden TEQs. Organohalogen
Compounds 53:247–250.
Covington and Burling. 2005. Covington and Burling are aWashington
based tobacco industry law firm which was instrumental in organizing
the White Coat Project. This project was designed to ‘resist and roll back
smoking restrictions’ and ‘restore social acceptability of smoking’
while reversing popular misconceptions about passive smoking. http://
(Accessed October 24, 2005).
Dallal M. 2004. Petition 2887/04 filed on 22 March 2004. On behalf of
four Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel and eight human rights
organizations: Physicians for Human Rights-Israel; the Association of
Forty; the Forum for Co-Existence in the Negev; the Negev Company
for Land&Man, Ltd.; Bustan for Peace; the Association for Support and
Defense of Bedouin Rights in Israel; the Arab Association for Human
Rights (HRA); The Galilee Society; and Adalah. Against: The Israel
Lands Administration (ILA), the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the
Ministry of Agriculture. www.court.gov.il and www.adalah.org
(Accessed October 31, 2005).
Diethelm PA, Rielle JC, McKee M. 2005. The whole truth and nothing
but the truth? The research that Philip Morris did not want you to see.
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/03art7306web.pdf (Accessed September
29, 2005).
Doll R. 1985. Letter from Richard Doll, Green College, December 4,
1985 to The Hon. Mr. Justice Phillip Evatt, DSC, LLB [ref: 40-X-016].
Doll R. 1986. Letter from Richard Doll to Dr. William Gaffey. Letter
referenced, RD/CH/15 and dated 11 July 1986. Lodged in theWellcome
Library Special Collections at file reference PP/DOL/B/5/3.
Doll R. 1988. Effects of Exposure to Vinyl Chloride. Scand J Work
Environ Health 14:61–78.
Doll R. 2000. Transcript of cross examination on deposition ofWilliam
Richard Shaboe Doll, in the case of various claimants against the Dow
Chemical Company et al. (known as Ross v. Conoco, January 2000).
Doll R, Bennett B. 2005. Correspondence between Doll and Bennett,
copies of which were acquired by the plaintiffs during the Ross case, can
be found on the Chemical Industries Archive (Search in the vinyl
chloride papers for Doll). www.chemicalindustryarchive.org/
(Accessed October 24, 2005).
Editorial. 2006. Conflicts of interests: The responsibility of the authors
and editors of the International Journal of Cancer. Int J Cancer
Egilman DS. 2005. Suppression bias at the Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine. Int J Occup Environ Health 11:202–204.
EPA. 2002. Comments on the Draft Corrective Action Consent Order
between the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Dow
Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan [EPA ID No. MID-000-724-
724], as Published for Public Comment onNovember 9, 2002. December
6, 2002. http://trwnews.net/Documents/MDEQ/EPA%20comments%20
on%20CACO%20120602.pdf (Accessed October 26, 2005).
Fehling KA, Ruby MV, Paustenbach DJ. 2001. In vitro bioaccessability
study of low concentrations (50-350 ppt TEQ) of dioxin/furans in
weatherhead soils. Organohalogen Compounds 52:180–184.
Friedman LS, Richter ED. 2004. Relationship between conflicts of
interest and research results. J Gen Int Med 19:51–56.
Friedman LS, Richter ED. 2005. Conflicts of interest and scientific
integrity. Int J Occup Environ Health 11:205–206.
Hansson Mild K, Hardell L, Kundi M, Mattsson M-O. 2003. Mobile
telephones and cancer: Is there really no evidence of an association?
(Review). Int J Mol Med 12:67–72.
Hardell L. 2004. From phenoxyacetic acids to cellular telephones: Is
there historic evidence of the precautionary principle in cancer
prevention? Int J Health Services 4:25–37.
Hardell L, DreifaldtAC. 2001. Breast-feeding and the risk for malignant
diseases in childhood. Eur J Clin Nutr 55:179–185.
Hardell L, Eriksson M. 1999. A case-control study of non-Hodgkin
lymphoma and exposure to pesticides. Cancer 85:1353–1360.
Hardell L, Eriksson M. 2003. Is the decline of the increasing incidence
of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Sweden and other countries a result of
cancer preventive measures? Env Health Perspect 111:1704–1706.
Hardell L, Eriksson M, Degerman A. 1995a. Meta-analysis of four
Swedish case-control studies on exposure to pesticides as risk factor for
soft-tissue sarcoma including the relation to tumour localization and
histopathological type. Int J Oncol 6:847–851.
Hardell L, Fredriksson M, Eriksson M, Hansson M, Rappe C. 1995b.
Adipose tissue concentrations of dioxins and dibenzofurans in patients
with malignant lymphoproliferative diseases and in patients without a
malignant disease. Eur J Cancer Prev 4:225–229.
Hardell L, Eriksson M, Axelson O. 1998. Agent Orange in war
medicine: An aftermath myth. Int J Health Services 28:715–724.
Hardell L, Sigvardson S, Przybeck TR, Cloninger R. 2000. Cancer risk
among Swedish female alcoholics by age, birth cohort and severity of
alcoholism. Eur J Cancer Prev 9:297–301.
Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Pa°hlson A, Hallquist A. 2001a. Ionising
radiation, cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J
Cancer Prev 10:523–529.
Hardell L, Lindstro¨m G, van Bavel B, Hardell K, Linde A, Carlberg M,
Liljegren G. 2001b. Adipose tissue concentrations of dioxins and
dibenzofurans, titers of antibodies to Epstein-Barr virus early antigen
and the risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Env Res 87:99–107.
Hardell L, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M, Pa°hlson A, Lilja
A. 2002. Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumours.
Eur J Cancer Prev 11:377–386.
Hays SM, Aylward L. 2001. Temporal trends in body-burden suggest
that dioxin exposures in the general population have declined
significantly. Organohalogen Compounds 52:214–216.
6 Hardell et al.
Hays SM, Aylward L, Finley B, Paustenbach D. 2001. Implementing a
cancer risk assessment for dioxin using a margin of exposure approach
and an internal measure of dose. Organohalogen Compounds 52:225–
IARC. 1979. Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic
Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Some Monomers, Plastics and Synthetic
Elastomers, and Acrolein, Vol. 19, Lyon, France: IARC,
p 377–438.
IARC. 1997. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans. Polychlorinated Dibenzo-para-Dioxins and Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans. Lyon, France: IARC.
Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS. 2001. Conflict of interest policies in science
and medical journals: Editorial practices and author disclosures. Sci Eng
Ethics 7:205–218.
Mandel J. 2001a. Epidemiology studies of Vietnam Veterans: A critical
review. Organohalogen Compounds 54:400–401.
Mandel J. 2001b. E-mail to Trichopoulos and Adami: Meeting in Korea
and review of SAB report. 26 Apr 2001.
Memorandum of Understanding. 2002. Press Release March 10, 2002.
Memorandum of Understanding. Meeting of theVietnamese and United
States Delegations in Follow-Up to the Joint Vietnam-US Scientific
Conference on Human Health and Environmental Effects of Agent
Orange/Dioxin. Hanoi, Vietnam. March 10, 2002. http://usembassy.state.
gov/posts/vn1/wwwh020310ii.html (Accessed October 26, 2005).
Monsanto. 2002. Backgrounder: Glyphosate: Response to non-
Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Allegations. www.monsanto.com—nhl_
backgr.pdf (Assessed October 24, 2005).
Monsanto Australia Limited. 1985. Axelson and Hardell—The Odd
Men Out. Submission to the Royal Commission on the Use and Effects
of Chemical Agents on Australian Personnel in Vietnam, Exhibit 1881,
p 64–69, 146–237.
Newmanv. Motorola Inc., et al. 2002. In the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland. Civil No. CCB-00-2609.
Nyre´n O, Yin L, Josefsson S, McLaughlin JK, Blot WJ, Engqvist M,
Hakelius L, Boice JD, Adami HO. 1998. Risk of connective tissue
disease and related disorders among Swedish women with breast
implants: A nationwide retrospecti

William O
# Posted: 17 Dec 2006 03:41

The Cancer research Industry is run for profit not for healthcare.

The War on cancer is a con just like the War on Drugs.

Healthy patients are bad for business. Cures would dry up lucrative revenue streams, and sold out scientist would be out of well paid Jobs

Perpetual Research = Perpetual Profit.

That’s the bottom line.

~ William

# Posted: 18 Dec 2006 04:41

Hi William O
Yes we do agree.
A lot of, if not all, (not for me to say) Cancer research agencies are purely or partly sponsored By private industry interests, For private industry interests and totally against the interests of the people the have been set up to protect.
Well, we need to change All That, dont we?
But think of it on the bright side, we have finally got rid of Repacholi, he has finally declaired his siding whith the industry, I suppose he has known for years how lucrative that is, and so has finally come out of the cup-board (pls. note, I am not saying he has come clean, as I do not believe he has)

But Cancer is the New-age "Colera and Pest" and do they (Governments and industry) ever promote the triggers to this new pest!
The promotion is there, everwhere, all the time, in the printed and broadcast media 24/7/365.
It is very hard to dismiss.

Have you seen the new Danish study by the way?
And Dr. George Carlos comments, and the Cindy Sage interview in MV resources?

We, and I mean the people who have encountered the pollution of the microwave radiation, from the technologies that use them, are not very gullible anymore, we have become sceptic, and morbid, we know and feel when we are being sold out, I guess the only difference is, we are in no mood to take it lying down anymore, we want action, we want people who sell us out to take the responebility for their actions, of course They do not want that, but as We are acumilating in numbers by the day, and worldwide, they night soon find themselves in situations where they will me made accountable, and that will not be Nice at all.

But take a look here:
This is the website where Eileen is putting in most of her strenght.

as well as the new: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/

We are all working night and day to fight the cancer causing microwave radiation.
We need helpers and volunteers.
Are you willing?
Pls. let me know.
Best regards.

William O
# Posted: 19 Dec 2006 02:23

Thanks Agnes & Eileen,

Yes, more and more people are waking up and discovering the lies and delusion that keep them selves bound to their imposed limitations. ELF, microwave, subliminal advertising induced or Not!

Yes Cancer research agencies are run for profit just like the oil industry. You don’t need to look far to see that they have been researching the same guaranteed revenue earners since their inception. That only takes one letter to their head office for the scientific facts.

They only continue to remain in business due to their loyal cash cow supporters, and political backers.

Scotland Yard Police have a saying, “To solve a crime follow the Money”.

This is one of the cancer research profiteers’ motto:

Quote: “…we will never stop looking for ways to prevent and cure cancer”

Quite literally they will never stop, as that would put an end to their pay Cheque !
That one always makes me Laugh !

You should see what they pay their top earns, in-excess of a million pounds each excluding bonuses and travel expenses. Their financial reports are self evident.
Without going off topic I’ll end it there.

Thanks for the links. I will have a look.

Give me a proposal and we can start negotiations.

Give me your best shot Lady Ingvarsdottir.

Best regards

~ William

# Posted: 22 Aug 2007 19:20

Top Cat! The indisputable leader of the gang.

Your reply
Bold Style  Italic Style  Underlined Style  Image Link  URL Link 

» Username  » Password 
You can post anonymously by entering a nickname with no password (if that nickname has not been taken by another member) or by leaving both fields empty. If you have an account you can also log in from this page without posting a message.

These forums are running on easy forum software miniBB™ © 2001-2022