Conflict of interests of Alexander Lerchl (Allgemein)

Dariusz Leszczynski, Montag, 08.02.2021, 17:31 (vor 291 Tagen)

I just today re-tweeted (@blogBRHP) message from Microwave News and added my comment:

"He [Lerchl] has grant support from #BfS, where are located #ICNIRP offices. He always had support of #telecoms, e.g. #FGF. He is buddy of Mike #Repacholi and together they are science advisors to the Japan/S.Korea "replication" of US #NTP study.
Its #CoI #SCANDAL, but nobody cares."

Here are links to two Microwave News stories on Lerchl, and apparently one more story is in making...

https://microwavenews.com/news-center/german-court-moves-silence-critic-rf-dna-breaks

and

https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/big-rewards-bad-behavior

Of course you may ask of my conflict of interest when mentioning Lerchl. Yes, I have two of these CoI:

1. Due to bad-mouthing by Lerchl, MOPHORAD project, that was to continue research of REFLEX, in spite of very good science evaluation marks was not funded. One of the sub-projects of MOPHORAD was my proteomics study.

2. I was proposed for the scientific advisory board of Japan/S.Korea partial replication of US NTP study. However, Repacholi and Lerchl, among others, were chosen.

Tags:
ICNIRP, Repacholi, Entwertung, Reflex, BfS, Leszczynski, Mophorad, Sprachrohr, Slesin, Lerchl, Microwave News, Feinbild, Korea

Conflict of interests of Alexander Lerchl

H. Lamarr @, München, Montag, 08.02.2021, 21:09 (vor 291 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

1. Due to bad-mouthing by Lerchl, MOPHORAD project, that was to continue research of REFLEX, in spite of very good science evaluation marks was not funded. One of the sub-projects of MOPHORAD was my proteomics study.

Do you have evidence for Lerchl's badmouthing of Mophorad? So far, only Franz Adlkofer has spread the claim that Lerchl prevented Mophorad from being funded by the EU, but Adlkofer only claims this without providing any evidence. According to my information, Mophorad was rated well by the EU, but Mobi-Kids was rated better and was therefore awarded the contract. A fairly normal process in competition. The fact that the loser wants to blame Lerchl for this is presumably his "revenge" for the "Reflex" scandal. Without evidence, however, the accusations against Lerchl are no better than the whispers and murmurs from the activist scene.

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

Conflict of interests of Alexander Lerchl

Dariusz Leszczynski, Dienstag, 09.02.2021, 12:09 (vor 291 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]

Tags:
IARC, Interessenkonflikt, Mophorad, Baan, Gerichtsgutachter

Conflict of interests of Alexander Lerchl

KlaKla, Dienstag, 09.02.2021, 15:51 (vor 290 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

What do you still want to achieve with your objection? It's all yesterday's news.

--
Meine Meinungsäußerung

Conflict of interests of Alexander Lerchl

Dariusz Leszczynski, Dienstag, 09.02.2021, 16:53 (vor 290 Tagen) @ KlaKla

I am just informing that, in my opinion, conflict of interest (real or perceived) should be applied to every scientist, no exceptions. In case of Alexander Lerchl, person with conflict of interests due to very strong opinions on EMF and health, that made him unsuitable for IARC expert group, conducts research and sits on advisory boards in Germany. It is not OK.

We are the losers - we are the champions

KlaKla, Dienstag, 09.02.2021, 18:54 (vor 290 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

No, your objection doesn't convince me. What do your fragments change about the fact that partial results of Reflex are subject to scientific misconduct? Nothing.

Your behavior reminds me of that of the ex-tobacco lobbyist. You are the losers and you lash out like angry children.

I would not have accepted Mophorad either, not because of reflex but because of what you can read about the ex-tobacco lobbyists here.

German Tobacco Industry’s Successful Efforts to Maintain Scientific and Political Respectability to Prevent Regulation of Secondhand Smoke

REFLEX: The full Johnston Report (2008) Teil 1

--
Meine Meinungsäußerung

Tags:
Vijayalaxmi, Ablenkungsforschung, Ex-Tabaklobbyist, DKFZ, Johnston, Tabak-Library, Bersani, Rücknahme, Sammelstrang

We are the losers - we are the champions

Dariusz Leszczynski, Mittwoch, 10.02.2021, 09:36 (vor 290 Tagen) @ KlaKla

You don't convince me. I don't convince you, whoever "chicken" hides behind KlaKla. In fact it was not my idea to convince you at the IZgMF. You are like tRump supporters, no matter what Lerchl does you defend him. I just said my opinion and it is irrelevant to me whether IZgMF members disagree. As to losers/winners - who got court order to pay up...
Further "discussion" seems futile... Bye

We are the losers - we are the champions

KlaKla, Donnerstag, 11.02.2021, 07:13 (vor 289 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

I don't have to defend Lerchl, he can do that himself if it is important to him. The fact is that the private war that has been waged for many years between the ex-tobacco lobbyist and Lerchl has not changed the negative result (partial results are subject to scientific misconduct). Why not?

Because that's not what the instigators care about. Instead of accepting the negative result, he resorts to proven strategies of distraction and obfuscation. Taking into account the core competence of the instigator, I draw the conclusion that the distraction and fogging primarily serve to devalue, secondly to influence by-passers (darning geese) and thirdly to those who are commercially interested.

I come to this conclusion because I also read carefully the mouthpiece of the instigator.

--
Meine Meinungsäußerung

We are the losers - we are the champions

Dariusz Leszczynski, Donnerstag, 11.02.2021, 11:31 (vor 289 Tagen) @ KlaKla

You say "partial results are subject to scientific misconduct"?

Nobody got formally charged and convicted with misconduct.
No article was retracted because of misconduct.
The "misconduct" is only in mind of Lerchl.

You, his followers and enablers are like cult...

There is no misconduct as long as some relevant scientific body says so.
Lerchl is nobody to say so...

Enjoy your "Lerchl-echo-chamber".

No need to reply for cult followers...

"Reflex" scandal is unfortunately documented in German only

H. Lamarr @, München, Freitag, 12.02.2021, 01:28 (vor 288 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

You say "partial results are subject to scientific misconduct"?

Nobody got formally charged and convicted with misconduct.
No article was retracted because of misconduct.
The "misconduct" is only in mind of Lerchl.

You, his followers and enablers are like cult...

There is no misconduct as long as some relevant scientific body says so.

Dariusz, your comments show that you are sitting in a filter bubble and are one-sidedly informed. This is probably not a bad intention on your part, but due to your informants. Most of the information about the "Reflex" scandal is only available in German, which to my knowledge you do not speak. Therefore it is very easy to inform yourself (and Louis Slesin) in English only about what your informants like.

Do you know the "Austrian Agency for Research Integrity"? The agency investigated the "Reflex" scandal in 2010, its final report is only available in German. You can find the original in the web archive. The agency found that it could neither confirm nor refute Lerchl's accusation of falsification. This should also be known in your filter bubble. However, the agency also found about the two Viennese "reflex" studies Diem et al. 2005 and Schwarz et al. 2008:

"In all publications, the documentation of the original data and their presentation do not comply with the rules of good scientific practice and thus lack the care that is necessary to be able to comprehend the published results."

This information must not have reached your filter bubble. Nor that the expert witness involved in the recent court ruling confirmed Lerchl's factual concerns and said the two studies were flawed from a mathematical/statistical perspective. That is what Lerchl has also been saying since 2008. And the history of the invariably failed "reflex" replications proves beyond doubt that there is something wrong with the original.

Lerchl's only mistake was to insist that the questionable results of the "Reflex" studies were the product of a forgery. He did not accept the alternative that the results could also be the product of technical errors by the two working groups.

Either way, "Reflex" is scientifically off the table.

[Text translated into English with deepl.com]

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

Tags:
Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten, OeAWI, Endbericht, Simulation

"Reflex" scandal is unfortunately documented in German only

e=mc2, Freitag, 12.02.2021, 08:19 (vor 288 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

"In all publications, the documentation of the original data and their presentation do not comply with the rules of good scientific practice and thus lack the care that is necessary to be able to comprehend the published results."

It should also be noted that from a technical point of view it was easy to decode the exposure situation in the REFLEX exposure system as described here und confirmed by Kuster. Lack of blinding results in a high risk for experimental bias (be it intentionally or not).
We will probably never know the truth but the obviously biased scientific discussion of the REFLEX results by Adlkofer does not give me a lot of trust.

Tags:
Fehler, Kuster, Verblindung, IT'IS Foundation

There is no Reflex scandal, there is only Lerchl scandal

Dariusz Leszczynski, Dienstag, 16.02.2021, 10:38 (vor 284 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

There are no perfect studies. Every study has some errors and mistakes. Every study is possible to make better. This applies also to studies published by the Vienna team of REFLEX project. It is possible to debate science in their studies, to debate quality of studies, to debate scientific reliability of these studies.

Lerchl did not debate science. Lerchl was running amok to prove his own false conviction that Vienna team falsified data. There is no proof of it.

We can agree or disagree on quality of studies published by the Vienna team. But there is no debate whether they falsified data or not. There is no proof of misconduct.

As you said yourself about Lerchl:

"Lerchl's only mistake was to insist that the questionable results of the "Reflex" studies were the product of a forgery. He did not accept the alternative that the results could also be the product of technical errors by the two working groups."

Lerchl mistake was grave. It ruined EMF research of Vienna group and of the whole worldwide community of EMF researchers. Lerchl should be ashamed.

Ashamed should be also his enablers, who did not step in. The list of enablers can be long but I will point out just two. With the permission and the acceptance of German radiation protection agencies, the BfS and the SSK, Lerchl has been acting without science but with malice.

BfS and SSK should explain themselves and apologize for the mistake. Of course they will not do it. But, nevertheless, both BfS and SSK carry the stain of Lerchl's misbehaviour.

Tags:
Meinung, Deutungshoheit, Werturteil

Lerchl, BfS and SSK scandal

Dariusz Leszczynski, Donnerstag, 18.02.2021, 11:33 (vor 282 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

thomasb: Yuck! Stay away from IZgMF

H. Lamarr @, München, Donnerstag, 18.02.2021, 14:49 (vor 282 Tagen) @ Dariusz Leszczynski

Short summary of my discussion on IZgMF:

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/02/16/leszczynski-on-lerchl-in-izgmf-discussion/

Very nice, Dariusz, we feel honored.

But one of your readers doesn't like us and advises you :-):

I would strongly recommend you end any discussion with these cult members.

Unfortunately, we have to live with such simple-minded blatherers. They are everywhere.

I'll get back to you later on an older post from you.

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

Causa "Reflex": Why Lerchl favored the "falsification thesis"

H. Lamarr @, München, Sonntag, 21.02.2021, 18:45 (vor 278 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

Causa "Reflex": Warum Lerchl die "Fälschungsthese" favorisierte

H. Lamarr @, München, Sonntag, 21.02.2021, 20:00 (vor 278 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

Lieber Dariusz!

Die Causa "Reflex" fand ab 2008 in Österreich und Deutschland statt. Deshalb liegen die meisten Informationen dazu nicht in englischer Sprache vor, und wenn doch, dann sind es einseitige Informationen, die häufig auf Adlkofer zurückgehen.

Vexierbilder sind eine schöne Analogie für das, was beim Betrachten der Causa passiert. Die einen sehen dies, die anderen das, obwohl alle dasselbe Bild betrachten. Hier drei Beispiele.

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

Bilder: oben links; oben rechts; unten

Wer eine nackte Frau sieht, erliegt einer Täuschung. Das Bild zeigt die Wohnung der Hübschen von gegenüber, die ihre Wäsche zum Trocknen vor ihrem Fenster aufgehängt hat. Doch das Bild zeigt bei genauerer Betrachtung keine Person, sondern nur eine weiße Wand im Hintergrund. Und wer meint, in dem anderen Bild Albert Einstein zu erkennen, der soll das Bild am Monitor größer darstellen, aufstehen und sich vom Monitor entfernen. Je nach Sehkraft wird sich nach einigen Metern Einstein in Marilyn Monroe verwandeln. Schließlich zeigt das dritte Bild für die einen zuerst eine junge Frau, für andere eine alte Frau. Mit der Causa "Reflex" verhält es sich ähnlich, je nach Informationsstand und Bias (Voreingenommenheit) fällt das Urteil dazu unterschiedlich aus. Dies dürfte weitgehend unstrittig sein.

Da Louis Slesin in seiner jüngsten Kritik an Lerchl offenbar von Adlkofer und dessen Helfershelfer Diagnose-Funk gebrieft wurde, möchte ich hier aus der Masse der Gegenargumente nur herausgreifen, warum Lerchl sich (aus meiner Sicht) darin verrannt hat, bei "Reflex" sei Datenfälschung mit im Spiel gewesen.

1) Als Kopf der deutschen Tabakforschung im Dienst der Tabakindustrie war Adlkofer maßgebend daran beteiligt, dass die Diskussion um die Risiken des Passivrauchens in Deutschland länger offen blieb als in anderen westlichen Industrieländern. Dies gelang mit dem gezielten Wecken von Zweifeln an belastenden Studien und mit Ablenkungsforschung, die andere Gesundheitsrisiken ins Bewußtsein der Öffentlichkeit brachten (Beleg). Ein Gesetz zum Schutz vor Passivrauchen scheiterte 1998 und wurde erst 2007 verabschiedet. Diese Verzögerung dürfte tausenden Menschen in Deutschland das Leben gekostet haben.

2) Adlkofer hatte es mit "Reflex" eilig. Noch bevor der "Reflex"-Abschlussbericht 2004 veröffentlicht wurde, trug Adlkofer auf der 25. BEMS-Jahrestagung vom 22. bis 27. Juni 2003, Hawaii, die alarmierenden Ergebnisse vor. Daran gibt es nichts auszusetzen. Doch Adlkofer reiste mit einem Kamerateam des deutschen Fernsehns an (ARD). Die Sendung wurde am 7. August 2003 im Nachtprogramm der ARD unter dem Titel "Bei Anruf Smog?" ausgestrahlt. Danach reiste Adlkofer durch Deutschland und hielt meist vor Laien viele Vorträge über die alarmierenden Ergebnisse von "Reflex", obwohl weder der Abschlussbericht noch eine wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung über die in Berlin/Wien gefundenen DNA-Schäden unter HF-Einwirkung vorlagen. Bekanntlich bestand "Reflex" aus weit mehr Teilstudien, als die beiden aus Berlin/Wien. Doch wenn Adlkofer vortrug, dann ging es stets nur um die spektakulären Ergebnisse aus Berlin und Wien.

3) Adlkofer ist aus gutem Grund Nichtraucher. Ein Mobiltelefon nutzt er hingegen in aller Offenheit, auch noch nach seinem "Reflex"-Projekt.

4) Sheila Johnston und Vijayalaxmi besuchten im Frühjahr 2004 auf Einladung den Wiener Projektleiter (Rüdiger) und den "Reflex"-Koordinator (Adlkofer) in Wien. Grund: Rüdiger hatte 2003 die später als Diem et al., 2005, bekannt gewordene HF-Studie einem wissenschaftlichen Journal angeboten, das die Arbeit jedoch ablehnte. Von den Besuchern wollte er Rat, wie sich das Paper verbessern ließe. In einem Report berichtete Johnston später über irritierende Vorgänge in dem Wiener Labor, deren Beschreibung hier den Rahmen sprengen würde. Der Report ist in deutscher Übersetzung im IZgMF-Forum zu lesen, wer das englische Original benötigt, möge sich an Lerchl wenden.

Was sagt uns 1) bis 4)? Meine Interpretation: Adlkofer, zu fraglichen Zeit Geschäftsführer einer von der Tabakindustrie gegründeten Stiftung (Verum), spielte das ihm vertraute Spiel der Ablenkungsforschung auf zwei Spielfeldern. Mit großem Druck presste er die alarmierenden Resultate der beiden HF-Studien so früh wie möglich in die Öffentlichkeit, um von den Risiken des Rauchens abzulenken. Mit merklich weniger Druck fütterte er die Wissenschaft.

Jetzt versetze dich einmal in Lerchls Lage, als dieser 2008 in den Daten der "Reflex"-Nachfolgestudie Adlkofers (Schwarz et al. 2008) seltsame statistische Muster entdeckt, die gegen die Validität der Daten sprechen. Die Datei mit den Daten erhielt er von einem aufmerksamen Studenten zugeschickt (Name ist mir bekannt), mit dem er zuvor nichts zu tun hatte und dessen Familie damals Mobilfunkgegner waren. Ist es denn da verwunderlich, dass Lerchl 1) bis 4) vor Augen nicht an technische Mängel der Studie oder Unvermögen der Arbeitgruppe Rüdiger (Wien) denkt, sondern an gezielte Fälschung der Daten, womit Adlkofer seinem langjährigen Arbeitgeber einen letzten Dienst erweisen will? Ich meine, dieser Gedanke liegt in Anbetracht der Umstände sehr nahe. Lerchl äußerte seinerzeit, er sei über die irritierenden Daten zufällig gestolpert, gezielt gesucht habe er sie nicht.

Soviel zu dem Detail, wie der "böse" Lerchl überhaupt auf die Idee gekommen ist, die "Reflex"-Nachfolgestudie sei nicht nur eine Studie mit erheblichen Mängeln, sondern beruhe auf gefälschten Daten. Dass Lerchl seinen Verdacht aus Sicht eines Revisionsgerichts nicht zweifelsfrei beweisen konnte, ist für ihn persönlich wahrscheinlich sehr enttäuschend. Der indiskutable Shitstorm gegen Lerchl, den du und Louis Slesin, vor allem aber Adlkofer und Diagnose-Funk nach dem Urteil entfacht haben, empfinde ich als unfair und als Beleg dafür, wie einfach es ist, Menschen mit einseitiger Information, also mit Desinformation in Nadelstreifen, in eine gewünschte Richtung zu bewegen. Wie dem auch sei, auch nach dem Urteil gilt weiterhin für "Reflex": Abwesenheit von Evidenz ist keine Evidenz für Abwesenheit.

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

Tags:
Vijayalaxmi, Reflex, Instrumentalisierung, Einflussnahme, Verum, Rüdiger, Slesin, Gleichschaltungsmanipulation, Kampagne, Hawaii

RSS-Feed dieser Diskussion

powered by my little forum