Causa "Reflex": Why Lerchl favored the "falsification thesis" (Allgemein)

H. Lamarr @, München, Sonntag, 21.02.2021, 18:45 (vor 160 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

Dear Dariusz!

The "Reflex" causa took place in Austria and Germany from 2008 onwards. Therefore, most of the information about it is not available in English, and if it is, it is one-sided information, often based on Adlkofer.

So called "vexier pictures" (picture puzzles) are a nice analogy for what happens when you look at the causa. Some people see this, others that, even though they are all looking at the same picture. Here are three examples (click on the pictures to enlarge).

[image]...[image]
[image]

Source of figures: top left; top right; bottom

Those who see a naked woman succumb to a deception. The picture shows a view of the flat of the pretty woman opposite, who has hung her washing out to dry in front of her window. But on closer inspection there is no person there at all, only the white wall in the background. And if you think you recognise Albert Einstein in the other picture, you should enlarge the picture on the monitor, stand up and move away from the monitor. Depending on your eyesight, after a few metres Einstein will turn into Marilyn Monroe. Finally, in the third picture, some will first see a young woman, others an old woman. The causa "Reflex" is similar; depending on the level of information and bias, the verdict will differ. This should be largely undisputed.

Since Louis Slesin was apparently briefed by Adlkofer and his accomplice Diagnose-Funk in his most recent criticism of Lerchl, I would like to pick out here from the mass of counter-arguments only why Lerchl (in my view) got it wrong that data falsification was involved in "Reflex".

1) As the head of German tobacco research in the service of the tobacco industry, Adlkofer was instrumental in keeping the discussion about the risks of passive smoking open in Germany longer than in other western industrialised countries. This was achieved by deliberately raising doubts about incriminating studies and with diversionary research that brought other health risks to the attention of the public (proof). A law to protect against passive smoking failed in 1998 and was not passed until 2007. This delay probably cost the lives of thousands of people in Germany.

2) Adlkofer was in a hurry with "Reflex". Even before the "Reflex" final report was published in 2004, Adlkofer presented the alarming findings at the 25th BEMS Annual Conference, 22-27 June 2003, Hawaii. There is nothing wrong with that. But Adlkofer travelled with a camera team from German television (ARD). The report was broadcast on 7 August 2003 in the ARD night programme under the title "Bei Anruf Smog?" (Dial for Smog?). Afterwards, Adlkofer travelled through Germany and gave many lectures, mostly to lay people, about the alarming results of "Reflex", although neither the final report nor a scientific publication on the DNA damage under RF exposure found in Berlin/Vienna was available. As is well known, "Reflex" consisted of far more partial studies than the two from Berlin/Vienna. But when Adlkofer lectured, it was always only about the spectacular results from Berlin and Vienna. He steamed "Reflex" down to these two high-publicity studies.

3) Adlkofer is a non-smoker for good reason. On the other hand, he uses a mobile phone openly, even after his "Reflex" project.

4) Sheila Johnston and Vijayalaxmi visited the Viennese project manager (Rüdiger) and the "Reflex" coordinator (Adlkofer) in Vienna in spring 2004 upon invitation. Reason: In 2003, Rüdiger had offered his RF study, later known as Diem et al., 2005, to a scientific journal, which, however, rejected the paper. He wanted advice from the visitors on how the paper could be improved. In a report, Johnston later reported on irritating processes in the Vienna laboratory, the description of which would go beyond the scope here. The Johnston report can be read in German translation in the IZgMF forum. If you need the English original, please contact Lerchl.

What does 1) to 4) tell us? My interpretation: Adlkofer, at the time in question the managing director of a foundation set up by the tobacco industry (Verum), played the familiar game of diversionary research on two playing fields. With great pressure, he pressed the alarming results of the two RF studies into the public domain as early as possible in order to divert attention from the risks of smoking. With noticeably less pressure, he fed the science.

Now put yourself in Lerchl's shoes when he discovers strange statistical patterns in the data of Adlkofer's "Reflex" follow-up study (Schwarz et al.) in 2008 that speak against the validity of the data. He received the file with the data from an attentive student (name is known to me) with whom he had nothing to do before and whose family were mobile phone opponents at the time. Is it any wonder that Lerchl 1) to 4) in front of his eyes does not think of technical deficiencies of the study or incompetence of the working group Rüdiger (Vienna), but of deliberate falsification of the data, with which Adlkofer wants to do a last service to his long-time employer? I think this thought is very obvious in view of the circumstances. Lerchl said at the time that he had stumbled across the irritating data by chance, that he had not specifically searched for it.

So much for the detail, how the "bad" Lerchl came up with the idea that the "Reflex" follow-up study was not just a study with considerable flaws, but was based on falsified data. The fact that Lerchl was unable to prove his suspicions unequivocally from the point of view of an appeal court is probably very disappointing for him personally. The indisputable shit storm against Lerchl, which you and Louis Slesin, but above all Adlkofer and Diagnose-Funk, sparked after the verdict, I see as unfair and as proof of how easy it is to move people with one-sided information (what is disinformation with "pinstripes") in a desired direction. Be that as it may, the following still applies to "Reflex" after the judgment: absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.

(Translatetd from German to English with help of Google Translator and deepl.com)

Note: The date of the broadcast "Bei Anruf Smog?" was corrected from August 6 to August 7, 2003.

--
Nicht die Masten sind das Problem, sondern die Handys!

Tags:
Vijayalaxmi, Desinformation, Manipulation, Einflussnahme, Verum, Ablenkungsforschung, Ex-Tabaklobbyist, Slesin, Shitstorm, Spaltung, Hawaii, Koordination


gesamter Thread:

 RSS-Feed dieser Diskussion

powered by my little forum