- Forums - Sign Up - Reply - Search - Statistics -
www.mast-victims.org forum / Health / German Interphone study finds increased risk after ten years of mobile phone use
Author Message
Frans
# Posted: 10 Feb 2006 03:36
Reply 


The Interphone study in Germany has found a double risk of glioma after more than ten years of mobile phone use. The group of long-term users was relatively small and part of them has been using the 450 MHz analogue system too. The elevated risk can be the result of a statistical deficiency or an unknown cause. Therefore a press release of Bielefeld University says, mobile phone use does not increase the risk of brain tumours. However, the elevated risk is remarkable, because it is most plausible in the group of long-term users, according to the press release.

Two Interphone studies in Great Britain found elevated risks of acoustic neuroma and glioma. In both cases press releases did not mention an elevated risk. The European Interphone studies are done in 13 countries. The studies are financed partially by the Mobile Manufacturer's Forum and the GSM Association. The German study was partially paid by the Mobilfunkforschungsprogramm of the Bundesregierung, two ministries and Mainz University. The German study was conducted by J. Schüz of the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, Denmarkt. He was also involved in the Danish Interphone study.
Regards, Frans

Link to peport in German
http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news144621

Iris
# Posted: 10 Feb 2006 03:55
Reply 


To: Joachim Schüz
Subject: Interphone study question

Dear Dr. Schüz,

I am a student of Public Health, and I write you with regard to your latest study (Interphone)-
I would like please to ask for your professional opinion not only as the leader of the study, but also as a key person in the international area of public health. Your study defines a regular user as someone who has at least one incoming or outgoing call per week for 6 months or more.
I find this definition quite problematic: would we call a person who smokes at least once a week for 6 months or more- a "regular" smoker ? I feel this basic definition is a basis for a bias of the study- bias towards finding that phones are not linked to brain tumors because it includes people who use phones occasionaly.

I have read that the British Interphone researchers attribute a recall bias to people to say they used the cell phone on the same side where they got a tumor, so in this aspect, I feel the researchers are trying to be very precise although it is not logic that all of the subjects were wrong or everybody was lying, many of them probably did use the phone at the same side of the tumor- but in the aspect of the "regular user" definition, maybe there is not the same strong attempt to be presice or to search for the "scientific truth" considering that in reality, people are attached to the phones non- stop in average at least 2 hours a day . Don't you feel this definition is a source for bias? I tell you openly, that non- scientific people laughed at my face when they heard the definition.
I understand that the industry has a say in the study, because they fund part of it, but STILL- what about the scientists? Do they feel it is a responsible definition to the millions of cell- phone users ? why do scientists agree to such a problematic definition?

I would really like to know your serious professional opinion here, it really bothers because of the importance and the weight of the Interphone study to millions of cell-phone users
With much respect and wish you success in your future studies,
Iris Atzmon.

Joachim Schüz
# Posted: 10 Feb 2006 03:56
Reply 


Dear Iris Atzmon,

Thank you for your deep interest in the Interphone results.

There is no biological mechanism that could be used as the basis for an a priori cut point, thus, in Interphone, we use a variety of approaches to compare groups of different use patterns. As you can see in the papers, other exposure definitions than the concept of a regular user depend on years of use, amount of use and a mixture of both characteristics and include subjects that use a cellular telephone daily for many years of use. This approach is being criticized for increasing the odds of chance findings, but to my mind it is justified, as it is a relatively new research area and we don’t want to miss something.

Some of the analyses, especially those in which tumor location are taken into account, are based only on regular versus non-regular users, but this is due the fact that the national components have small sample sizes. Such analyses will certainly be part of the international pooled analyses. This is why we (in our paper) and also others of the Interphone group have expressed the caveat that results should not be overinterpreted with regard to heavy long-term users but the international results should be awaited.

Kind regards
Joachim Schüz

Dr Joachim Schüz
Head, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Institute of Cancer Epidemiology
Strandboulevarden 49
DK-2100 Copenhagen
Phone direct +45 3525 7655
Fax +45 3525 7731
Mobile +45 24312678

Iris
# Posted: 10 Feb 2006 03:59
Reply 


...I don't know what about you, but I wasn't convinced at all by the below Dr. Schuz's answer -Dr Schuz is
the leader of the german Interphone study.
The interphone researchers are the first to claim that a positive connection is a recall bias, but they don't treat their BASIC SYSTEMATIC BIAS with the same norms. I pesonally think that the the definition of a regular user makes the Interphone study an international fraud:
Would 13 countries bother to gather together in order to study the link between smoking and lung cancer, on the basis of "regular smokers" who smoke once a week? Would anyone dare to conclude from such a study on the link between smoking and lung cancer? would anybody call such a smoking study "the most conclusive study done ever"..."the most comprehensive study" etc etc like the Interphone is called by the media and the researchers themselves. What exactly are they trying to prove there?....who approved this definition? Why did the scientists agree to such a definition if they are serious people? or are they? That was
what I was trying to understand from Dr. Schuz.

Dr. Schuz wrote that
"As you can see in the papers, other exposure definitions than the concept
of a regular user depend on years of use, amount of use and a mixture of both characteristics and
include subjects that use a cellular telephone daily for many years of
use. This approach is being criticized for increasing the odds of chance
findings, but to my mind it is justified, as it is a relatively new
research area and we don't want to miss something"

I think that on the contrary - an approach based on years + amount of use decreases chance findings and increases the odds of real findings instead of defining a regular user a person who talks once a week and then write, like the germans wrote in their conclusions- no increased risk
for a regular user.

..."especially those in which tumor location are taken
into account, are based only on regular versus non-regular users, but
this is due the fact that the national components have small sample
sizes."

- it is not convincing.

"Such analyses will certainly be part of the international pooled
analyses. This is why we (in our paper) and also others of the Interphone
group have expressed the caveat that results should not be
overinterpreted with regard to heavy long-term users but the international
results should be awaited."

- So is the study built in a way that people shouldn't "overinterpret" the
long term results?! - that reflects the quality of the study: why were the long term
users samples so small: was it really that hard to find such people,
or was it the control of the industry over the data collection?
(selection bias).

[/i][i][/i][i]

Anonymous
# Posted: 8 May 2006 23:34
Reply 


here send notice to:

Verein der Rutengaenger

Karlheinz Maurer

info@verein-der-rutengaenger.de

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 bulletin board software miniBB™ © 2001-2024