Faktencheck 04: Repacholi vs. Utteridge vs. Oberto (Allgemein)

H. Lamarr , München, Montag, 13.10.2025, 20:15 (vor 4 Tagen) @ H. Lamarr

Repacholis Mäusestudie wurde zweimal repliziert, zuerst 2002 von der Arbeitsgruppe Utteridge und 2007 noch einmal von der Arbeitsgruppe Oberto. Beide Arbeitsgruppen konnten die alarmierenden Ergebnisse Repacholis nicht bestätigen.

Was Scheidsteger über Repacholi sagt, sind die Worte eines weithin unbekannten Filmemachers, der mutmaßlich den Auftrag hatte, u.a. am damaligen EMF-Koordinator der WHO kein gutes Haar zu lassen. Scheidstegers substanzlose Wertung darf daher risikolos ignoriert werden, denn es gibt inzwischen eine substanzielle wissenschaftliche Bewertung der drei Studien und ihrer Widersprüche durch Mevissen et al., 2025. Den spannendsten Teil habe ich folgend in der Originalsprache eingefügt, da es inzwischen genug gute Automaten gibt, die solche Fragmente gratis übersetzen.

Wer's nicht so genau wissen will, bekommt vorab die Zusammenfassung des englischen Textfragments auf Deutsch verabreicht: Die Studien mit transgenen Mäusen zu Lymphomen liefern uneinheitliche Ergebnisse. Während Repacholi et al. (1997) eine erhöhte Lymphomrate unter HF-EMF-Exposition berichteten, konnten die späteren Studien von Utteridge et al. (2002) und Oberto et al. (2007) dies nicht bestätigen. Methodische Unterschiede, wie unterschiedliche Mauslinien, höhere Hintergrundtumorraten und voneinander abweichende SAR-Level, erschweren jedoch einen direkten Vergleich. Insgesamt ist daher kein klarer Zusammenhang zwischen HF-EMF-Exposition und Lymphomentwicklung erkennbar.

[...] In the study by Utteridge et al., which sought to replicate the Repacholi study, 4 SAR levels (0.25, 1, 2, 4 W/kg) were used with about the same number of animals per group and a similar exposure (Utteridge et al. 2002). No exposure-related differences in body weight or survival were noted. The outcome showed no increase in lymphomas. Despite the longer study duration of 108 weeks, a direct comparison between the studies by Repacholi and Utteridge is difficult to make since most mice in the latter study developed lymphomas only by study termination. A third study by Oberto et al. (Oberto et al. 2007), using the same exposure system as Utteridge et al., and an exposure for 18 months total to 900 MHz at 3 whole body SAR levels, observed statistically non-significant increases in lymphomas in female mice. In the Utteridge study, the background tumor incidence was higher in the Pim1 transgenic mice (74.2 %), and therefore, it makes it less likely to detect any effect of RF EMF (Goldstein et al. 2003). In addition, the positive control (ethylnitrosurea (ENU) resulted in a lower tumor incidence when compared to the control animal, which indicates differences in the Pim1 strain used (Goldstein et al. 2003). In contrast to the Repacholi study, the sham controls in Oberto et al. (Oberto et al. 2007) had a lower lymphoma incidence (12 % versus 22 %) at study termination. In addition to the differences in data acquisition and analysis, we considered whether the unexplained inconsistency across these three studies using the same model system might stem from differences in the magnitude of the SAR levels. Repacholi et al. exposed the mice at an average SAR of approximately 1.4 W/kg (one SAR level/dose), whereas Utteridge et al., used 4 SAR/dose levels of a different magnitude, namely 0.25, 1, 2, and 4 W/kg, and Oberto et al., used 3 SAR/dose levels of 0.5, 1.5, and 4 W/kg (Oberto et al., 2007, Repacholi et al., 1997, Utteridge et al., 2002). However, the exposure level used in Repacholi et al. (1.4 W/kg) falls within the ranges tested by the other studies. Even though the SAR/dose levels were different, they were considered similar enough to assume that a difference in lymphoma development could have been found. In summary, the studies performed in tumor-prone mice on lymphomas give mixed results. The initial increase in the incidence of lymphomas in Eμ-pim1 transgenic mice by (Repacholi et al. 1997) was not seen in the two subsequent studies (Oberto et al., 2007, Utteridge et al., 2002) which did not have the data acquisition concerns, but the differences in the strain, leading to higher lymphoma incidences and other methodological differences make it difficult to compare the studies. [...]

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

Tags:
Repacholi, Entwertung, Utteridge, Oberto, Mevissen