Faktencheck: Stoa antwortet auf Nachfrage (Allgemein)

H. Lamarr , München, Donnerstag, 30.09.2021, 23:24 (vor 1148 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

Am 19. September 2021 fasste ich noch einmal nach, diesmal bei Ewa Kopacz, der für Stoa zuständigen Vizepräsidentin des Europäischen Parlaments:

Dear Ms Kopacz!

I am writing to you in your capacity as board member of STOA because I am of the well-founded opinion that STOA, with the recently presented review "Health impact of 5G", is not offering objective but subjectively distorted information about the risk of 5G to the members of the European Parliament. In my view, STOA should consider withdrawing this review immediately after considering my objection in order to avoid damage to STOA (credibility) and the EP (disinformation).

Fiorella Belpoggi, author of the Review, may be a renowned scientist, but she has also been a critic of cell phone technology since 2002. More often than most other critical scientists, she publicly states her conviction that electromagnetic fields (EMF) below applicable limits are hazardous to health. That is her right. But the vast majority of scientists involved in bioelectromagnetics do not see it that way.

As you probably know, Ms Belpoggi did not present a systematic review with clearly defined selection criteria for the evaluated studies, but a narrative review with subjective study selection. Considering Ms Belpoggi's conviction that wireless communication (especially 5G) in its current form is a health risk for the population, it can be assumed that this conviction was also reflected in her review, and her recommendations at the end of the review confirm this assumption.

In my view, it is therefore incomprehensible why STOA commissioned Fiorella Belpoggi, of all people, with a review on the health risks of 5G. An author who did not share Belpoggi's convictions would probably have come to very different conclusions. Because of her convictions, Ms Belpoggi should have been classified as biased under Article 1 of the STOA Rules of Procedure and the review should have been assigned elsewhere, probably better to a team than to a single person.

I usually try to resolve ambiguities like this at the technical level. So too in this particular case. However, I received no response to my query of 21 August 2021 to Mr Quaglio, nor to my query of 5 September [...]. That is why I am with you now.

Here now some evidence for my claim that Fiorella Belpoggi is a convinced critic of cell phone technology:

· 2002: Participation in the Catania Resolution, Italy, (16 scientists).
· 2006: Participation in the Benevento Resolution, Italy, (52 scientists)
· 2012: Participation in the Smart Meter Appeal, USA, (54 scientists)
· 2014: Participation in the Safety Code 6 Appeal, Canada, (53 scientists)
· 2017: Participation in the Martin Blank Appeal, global, (224 scientists)
· 2017: Participation in the Hardell/Nyberg Appeal, global, (417 scientists)
· 2018: Participation in the Firstenberg Appeal, global, (number unknown)
· 2019: Performance with Stop-5G activist Maurizio Martucci (YouTube video)
· 2021: Organisation of a Stop-5G petition in Italy together with Martucci
· 2021: Various video appearances (website of Stop-5G activists)
· 2021: Protest letter to Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi

It should be noted that not only serious scientists participated in the more recent of the above-mentioned scientific appeals, but also pseudo-scientists, scientists from other fields, doctors and laypeople. It should also be noted that Ms Belpoggi only published scientific papers on EMF from 2010 onwards, initially on low-frequency magnetic fields, which have nothing to do with cell phones. Her first and so far only scientific publication on high-frequency EMF (exposition by cell tower signals) appeared in 2019 (source).

I hope I have been able to present my concerns in a comprehensible manner and would be pleased if my questions to Mr Quaglio are subsequently deemed worthy of a response.

Please note: I have documented the case in German on the website https://izgmf.de and also intend to post the answers to my questions there. If you do not wish to do so, please expressly object.

Yours sincerely

Stephan Schall

Diesmal klappte es. Am 30. September 2021 traf Antwort aus Brüssel ein (anschließend Originaltext in Englisch, Übersetzung ins Deutsche hier). Zur Bewertung der Antwort sollte man sich in Erinnerung rufen, was ich von Stoa eigentlich wissen wollte.

Dear Mr Schall,

I am writing to you in my capacity as head of the administration of the European Parliament's Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA). I am hereby responding to the recent e-mail you sent to Vice-President Ewa Kopacz, who has kindly forwarded it to me, as well as to the earlier e-mails you addressed, via the STOA mailbox during my absence, to my colleague Gianluca Quaglio, who is the administrator responsible for the STOA study on 'Health impact of 5G' published in July. I would first of all like to thank you for your interest in the activities of the European Parliament and STOA in particular.

I believe we would agree that the health impact of 5G is a sensitive subject, which is actively debated by experts and policy-makers. STOA's aim is to support this debate with the knowledge of expert authors (of studies) and speakers (in events), with a view to providing a comprehensive and authoritative overview of the best available evidence. The particular study is only one element in this multi-faceted, long-term effort. As you seem to be primarily concerned about the choice of Dr Belpoggi as the author of the above-mentioned study, allow me to provide below some clarifications in relation to your concerns:

1) The idea of assigning studies to a group of scientists working together on a specific topic is pertinent, but it is often not easy to implement while observing our strict financial rules, especially when, as in this case, we have to provide the advice to the Members of Parliament within a relatively short period of time. We will certainly consider it, if feasible, for future studies.

2) The choice of a single scientist, who provides a review of the literature on a specific topic - as is the case for the present study - is a procedure commonly used by parliamentary research services.

3) As in the case of the STOA study on the 'Environment impacts of 5G', published in parallel with the health-impact study, we invited a scientist who had recently published relevant articles on the health impact of electromagnetic fields (EMF; see annex), including one published by the Ramazzini Institute in 2018, whose outcomes were corroborated by those of another study, published around the same time by the US National Toxicology Program.

4) Another reason for inviting Dr Belpoggi was that she works as head of research at the Ramazzini Institute, an independent, internationally recognised research institute, which has been dedicated for over three decades to the fight against cancer. The Ramazzini Institute collaborates with the Collegium Ramazzini, an international academy with about 180 fellows in 32 countries, experts in the area of occupational health.

5) Under the leadership of Dr Belpoggi, the Ramazzini Institute has launched and managed a laboratory for in vivo studies on rats and mice, which has been certified to operate according to the principles of Good Laboratory Practice. Further qualifications include Ms Belpoggi's past appointments as an expert for the European Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Affairs (DG SANTE) and the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), and as a temporary advisor for the World Health Organization/European Centre for Environment and Health (WHO/ECEH).

6) The report was drawn up by Dr Belpoggi as an expert in the impact of EMF on human health, especially regarding the long-term effects observed experimentally in an animal model, generally recognised as a predictor for effects on humans. While Dr Belpoggi was the principal investigator, she was supported by experts specialising in systematic/scoping review methodology, biostatistics, cancer research, exposure assessment, and human reproduction and development. Together, the team ensured strong collective expertise in most domains required for the review.

7) Allow me finally to draw your attention to the fact that any opinions expressed by authors based on their expert knowledge and intuition do not represent an official position of STOA or the Parliament (see disclaimer on page II: "This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position by Parliament").

I hope to have addressed your concerns and explained the way we have proceeded in our selection of the particular author.

Kind regards,

Theo Karapiperis

ANNEX
· Soffritti M, et al. Am J Ind Med. 2015;58:46-60.
· Soffritti M, et al. Int J Radiat Biol. 2016;19:1-13.
· Soffritti M, et al. Am J Ind Med. 2016;59:509-21.
· Bua L, et al. Environ Res. 2018;164: 271-279.
· Falcioni L, et al. Environ Res. 2018;165:496-503.
· Vornoli A, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16: 3379.
· Belpoggi F, et al. Environ Res. 2021;197:111067.
· Kovi RC, et al. Poster submitted at the AACR Virtual Special Conference: Radiation Science and Medicine. 2021.

--
Jedes komplexe Problem hat eine Lösung, die einfach, naheliegend, plausibel – und falsch ist.
– Frei nach Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956) –

Tags:
Anfrage, STOA, Neutral, Brüssel, Ramazzini, Belpoggi, Karapiperis, Kopacz, STOA-Kampagne, Scoping, Ergebnisoffen