When scientists go to court (Allgemein)

H. Lamarr , München, Dienstag, 07.11.2023, 16:29 (vor 407 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

... and there was a reason why A.L. was rejected from participation in IARC 2011. He had expertise but he was informed that his attitudes toward scientists with different opinions were... as they were, unsuitable for civilized debate.

Yes, but how do we, you, I and many others even know that A.L. was rejected by Iarc in 2011? Iarc has not publicly announced this and an investigative journalist has not unearthed this fact either. So how do we know anyway?

It was A.L. himself who made the rejection public here in the forum on January 31, 2011, because he felt he had been treated unfairly! He voluntarily posted the original of Baan's rejection letter in the forum one day later. Had he not written the postings, he would have been spared a lot of trouble. As it was, German activists (especially Diagnose-Funk) begrudgingly seized on the information, diligently spread it across all channels and, in order to hype up the "scandal", omitted to mention that A.L. himself was the source. At some point, the rejection of A.L. became "common knowledge" that was no longer questioned.

To inflict the greatest possible damage on A.L., Diagnose-Funk (and others) also mendaciously claimed that Iarc had also rejected A.L. because of doubts about his professional qualifications. This maliciousness is unfortunately typical of the mobile communications risk debate in Germany.

But, let's get back to science...

All right, good idea .

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