Mobile phone use - sponsored study?
Mobiles 'don't raise cancer risk'. Doesn’t raise risk doesn’t mean doesn’t cause a risk or is not an actual cause. Some still believe that smoking does not CAUSE lung cancer. Still in denial even now. Amazing.
Children are still advised not to use mobile phones unless necessary. Why? If there is not a problem. There is more that we are not being informed about - we are being fucked, of course. Mobile phones are BIG money. Mustn’t harm the business. Mobile phone use does not lead to a greater risk of brain tumour, the largest study on the issue has said.
The study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - and length of mobile use. This is, in fact, 966 people diagnosed with glioma and 1,716 without the condition in five areas of the UK. A very small study group, don’t you think? Well, I do. Less than 2,800 from all over the UK - that’s not many from any one region - the whole UK!
Among cancer sufferers the tumours were more likely to be reported on the side of the head where they held the phone. Rocket science there! But the British Medical Journal study said people over-reported phone use on the side their cancer developed.
Of course, some sufferers sadly died. Couldn’t respond. It never said that all 2,782 were survivors. It just never mentioned survival rates at all. Not important. It would spoil the story.
Isn’t it probable that as a cancer develops in the hearing side normally used, the user switches to the other ear as hearing deteriorates? A tumour along the hearing nerve (acoustic neurinoma) will cause poor hearing - and the reason won’t be obvious until it’s too late.
The research, which was carried out by the British arm of an international project called Interphone, reiterates the findings of most earlier studies in saying that there is no connection between cancer and mobile phone use. Is Interphone sponsored by the phone companies? Rather like McDonald’s stating that their ‘food’ isn’t harmful. Such results are reassuring for everyone with a mobile.
The team of researchers, involving scientists from Leeds University, the Institute of Cancer Research and the University of Nottingham, spoke to 966 people diagnosed with glioma and 1,716 without the condition in five areas of the UK. All 2,782 were interviewed about their history of mobile phone use over the previous 10 years.
Suggests that no young kids were involved, then. What a surprise! They were asked to recall in detail how much they used their mobile phones, how often they used hands-free kits and what types of phones they had used.
Sounds like a survey for the phone companies to see what sells the best.
Research author Professor Patricia McKinney, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology at the Leeds University, said: "For regular mobile phone users, there was no increased risk of developing a glioma associated with mobile phone use." But, she acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone.
Wait a minute: if you have a brain cancer then there is an increased risk of getting... brain cancer. Just happens to be on the same side as most phone use. How odd. Mobile phones are safe then. Unless you’re predisposed to cancer in the brain or already have it. All brain tumours are brain cancers.
MOBILE PHONE FACTS
Available in the UK since 1985
Widely used since late 1990s
Now estimated to be owned by more than 40m Britons, including many children
Most studies have found no raised risk of brain tumour
But long-term effects still not known
Children still advised to use mobiles only when necessary - why the warning if mobile phones are essentially safe?
You are being fucked.
The team, however, did not put this down to a causal link, because almost exactly the same decreased risk was seen on the other side of the head, leaving no overall increase risk of tumours for mobile phone users.
What amazing spin. Decreased risk on non-use side to balance increased risk on the other! Wow! I am reassured.
They blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on. Eh? Another research team member, Professor Anthony Swerdlow of the Cancer Research Institute, said: "It would be very misleading to the public to say that because there was a positive that this (mobile phones) causes brain tumours."
Of course. The public is just too dim and wouldn’t understand anyway.
He explained: "If we had found a raised risk overall and it was all coming from one side, I would believe there was a real case. But as there is a drop on the opposing side - the overall risk is not raised.“
How is this ‘drop’ measured?
“That makes it rather unlikely that there is a raised risk." Is that an assumption? Draw your own conclusions. But he added that epidemiological studies could never show there was no risk of an activity, they could only suggest there was no raised risk.
The National Radiological Protection Board said the research was good news, but that it did not give mobile phones a clean bill of health. The board said it would not be changing its advice that children should not make unnecessary mobile phone calls. Dr Kat Arney, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said research such as this was vital for getting to the environmental causes of cancer.
We must assume that Dr. Arney is a scientist with specialised knowledge in her field. A science information officer only implies a spokesperson. Not necessarily someone who is 100% behind their research. "This is the biggest and most thorough study into mobile phones and glioma so far, and it adds to the growing evidence that there is no link. Although we still don't know about the very long-term effects of phone use, these results are reassuring for everyone with a mobile."
Everyone, except for me it seems.
Wendy Fulcher, who founded ther Brain Tumour Research Campaign, said she hoped people would be finally reassured by the results of the research.
NO!
She added: "In relation to other cancers, brain tumours are the poor relation when it comes to research funding. That’s absolutely correct.
"There should be more money focused on the root causes of brain tumours."
Alasdair Philips, director of campaign group Powerwatch, says the study "doesn't really prove anything. I think they should have waited another couple of years and recruited more people with brain tumours so they could have interviewed them, because the trouble was they went back a few years and the people had died.
"If you get a grade four glioma you can die within a year or 18 months of it being diagnosed, and these people are just gone, so they couldn't get their mobile phone history."
My point exactly. A 10 year use history is meaningless. Especially when some of the users aren’t even 10 years old!
Children are still advised not to use mobile phones unless necessary. Why? If there is not a problem. There is more that we are not being informed about - we are being fucked, of course. Mobile phones are BIG money. Mustn’t harm the business. Mobile phone use does not lead to a greater risk of brain tumour, the largest study on the issue has said.
The study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - and length of mobile use. This is, in fact, 966 people diagnosed with glioma and 1,716 without the condition in five areas of the UK. A very small study group, don’t you think? Well, I do. Less than 2,800 from all over the UK - that’s not many from any one region - the whole UK!
Among cancer sufferers the tumours were more likely to be reported on the side of the head where they held the phone. Rocket science there! But the British Medical Journal study said people over-reported phone use on the side their cancer developed.
Of course, some sufferers sadly died. Couldn’t respond. It never said that all 2,782 were survivors. It just never mentioned survival rates at all. Not important. It would spoil the story.
Isn’t it probable that as a cancer develops in the hearing side normally used, the user switches to the other ear as hearing deteriorates? A tumour along the hearing nerve (acoustic neurinoma) will cause poor hearing - and the reason won’t be obvious until it’s too late.
The research, which was carried out by the British arm of an international project called Interphone, reiterates the findings of most earlier studies in saying that there is no connection between cancer and mobile phone use. Is Interphone sponsored by the phone companies? Rather like McDonald’s stating that their ‘food’ isn’t harmful. Such results are reassuring for everyone with a mobile.
The team of researchers, involving scientists from Leeds University, the Institute of Cancer Research and the University of Nottingham, spoke to 966 people diagnosed with glioma and 1,716 without the condition in five areas of the UK. All 2,782 were interviewed about their history of mobile phone use over the previous 10 years.
Suggests that no young kids were involved, then. What a surprise! They were asked to recall in detail how much they used their mobile phones, how often they used hands-free kits and what types of phones they had used.
Sounds like a survey for the phone companies to see what sells the best.
Research author Professor Patricia McKinney, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology at the Leeds University, said: "For regular mobile phone users, there was no increased risk of developing a glioma associated with mobile phone use." But, she acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone.
Wait a minute: if you have a brain cancer then there is an increased risk of getting... brain cancer. Just happens to be on the same side as most phone use. How odd. Mobile phones are safe then. Unless you’re predisposed to cancer in the brain or already have it. All brain tumours are brain cancers.
MOBILE PHONE FACTS
Available in the UK since 1985
Widely used since late 1990s
Now estimated to be owned by more than 40m Britons, including many children
Most studies have found no raised risk of brain tumour
But long-term effects still not known
Children still advised to use mobiles only when necessary - why the warning if mobile phones are essentially safe?
You are being fucked.
The team, however, did not put this down to a causal link, because almost exactly the same decreased risk was seen on the other side of the head, leaving no overall increase risk of tumours for mobile phone users.
What amazing spin. Decreased risk on non-use side to balance increased risk on the other! Wow! I am reassured.
They blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on. Eh? Another research team member, Professor Anthony Swerdlow of the Cancer Research Institute, said: "It would be very misleading to the public to say that because there was a positive that this (mobile phones) causes brain tumours."
Of course. The public is just too dim and wouldn’t understand anyway.
He explained: "If we had found a raised risk overall and it was all coming from one side, I would believe there was a real case. But as there is a drop on the opposing side - the overall risk is not raised.“
How is this ‘drop’ measured?
“That makes it rather unlikely that there is a raised risk." Is that an assumption? Draw your own conclusions. But he added that epidemiological studies could never show there was no risk of an activity, they could only suggest there was no raised risk.
The National Radiological Protection Board said the research was good news, but that it did not give mobile phones a clean bill of health. The board said it would not be changing its advice that children should not make unnecessary mobile phone calls. Dr Kat Arney, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said research such as this was vital for getting to the environmental causes of cancer.
We must assume that Dr. Arney is a scientist with specialised knowledge in her field. A science information officer only implies a spokesperson. Not necessarily someone who is 100% behind their research. "This is the biggest and most thorough study into mobile phones and glioma so far, and it adds to the growing evidence that there is no link. Although we still don't know about the very long-term effects of phone use, these results are reassuring for everyone with a mobile."
Everyone, except for me it seems.
Wendy Fulcher, who founded ther Brain Tumour Research Campaign, said she hoped people would be finally reassured by the results of the research.
NO!
She added: "In relation to other cancers, brain tumours are the poor relation when it comes to research funding. That’s absolutely correct.
"There should be more money focused on the root causes of brain tumours."
Alasdair Philips, director of campaign group Powerwatch, says the study "doesn't really prove anything. I think they should have waited another couple of years and recruited more people with brain tumours so they could have interviewed them, because the trouble was they went back a few years and the people had died.
"If you get a grade four glioma you can die within a year or 18 months of it being diagnosed, and these people are just gone, so they couldn't get their mobile phone history."
My point exactly. A 10 year use history is meaningless. Especially when some of the users aren’t even 10 years old!
posted by Louis Brothnias at 4:37 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home