Conflict of interests of Alexander Lerchl (Allgemein)

Dariusz Leszczynski, Dienstag, 09.02.2021, 12:09 (vor 603 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr
bearbeitet von Dariusz Leszczynski, Dienstag, 09.02.2021, 12:42

Why immediately go to calling names (loser) or saying that bad attitudes (vendetta) has guided "loser"?

1. Lerchl bad-mouthed RELEX for well over 10 years - no need to prove this fact
2. This activity of Lerchl was noticed by the international science community (see below)
3. 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 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 "balast 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.

[your statement that MOBI-KIDS scored in EU evaluation higher than MOPHORAD, and that was the reason to fund it - I have no idea]

IARC, Interessenkonflikt, Mophorad, Baan, Gerichtsgutachter

gesamter Thread:

 RSS-Feed dieser Diskussion

powered by my little forum