|
Post Time: 27/01/2009 20:58:40 |
GilStevens
Total Forum Posts: 21 |
Team Powerwatch,
In the Bias and Confounding link, the following statement is found:
===================
They put together a total of 85 genotoxic studies on RF/Microwave radiation, of which 43 were "positive" findings and 42 were "negative" or "null" findings. The statistical findings were striking: 32 of the 35 studies that were paid for by the mobile phone industry and the U.S. Air Force show no effect. They make up more than 75% of all the negative studies.
===================
What is the source of this info? How does one go about independently validating the funding sources for research (Big Cellular Operators, Big Cellular Equipment Manufacturer Companies, Pharmeceutical Companies, or Government Branches (US Air Force, DARPA, FCC, etc.)?
I have my own indepenent OMG's with a top research institution that there might be probable cause to suspect considerable BIAS towards the funder's business model. The concern being that I suspect big pharmaceutical companies are a big part of the problem for research towards finding and resolving the root cause of electromagnetic radiation ailments. The pharmaceutical companies goal is to increase life time prescriptions per person, and a root cause research study to resolve issues is very much against their business model.
So any help in finding the tools to figure out funders of research is very much appreciated.
Thx...
...Gil
|
|
Post Time: 05/02/2009 16:54:21 |
GilStevens
Total Forum Posts: 21 |
To those interested,
I have talked to a few contacts who are in the research field. According to them (USA) that some research papers will document their funding source, but many won't. So to get the "who" funded question it requires calling one or more of the researchers. Also my contacts recommended that I also investigate the research firm/institution for whom they work under and understand their funding sources in order to get a good handle on the $$$'s that an institution is getting that may influence the researchers as well. Most for profit and non-profit companies (USA) need to have on public record their funding sources (investors or donators). This still doesn't include all $$$'s coming into the institution, but it may help identify big company (Cellular providers and Pharmeceutical Company) influence. The instition may influence the report to narrow it down to put into print only where the problem doesn't exist, and not put into print where the problem was found.
Would anyone like to team up and divide up the list of negative studies listed on this website (list of studies section) and let's get an official record of who is funding these negative studies and those institutions they work for funding sources. If you would like to help but not post, please use my email below. Of course the findings would be provided to the website hosts for posting by negative research item (as they see fit), so that it becomes public info.
Thx...
...Gil
email: gil_stevens_grs@yahoo.com
|
|
Post Time: 08/02/2009 21:52:32 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
Gil
We will respond further. It is an interesting and very complex field. The trouble is that it is not just direct funding. There is a lot of indirect funding of departments and facilities (especially equipment) but not specific studies or researchers who then do not have to cite the industry or military funding connections. Also, most Government funding wants good ideas for industry and commerce (for the economy) and strongly discourage people behind the scenes from "rocking the boat". I personally know of departments being closed down (losing core funding) because of "boat rocking".
Read Robert Becker's books and George Carlo and Martin Schram's "Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age: An Insider's Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage", for example. Roger's Coghill's "Something in the Air" is an excellent read for this sort of thing (if you can get a copy).
Martin Walker's ( a great guy) site is good:
www.slingshotpublications.com
Especially see Skewed and some of the more recent publications.
|
