Canadian Conflict-of-Interest Follies: Anything Goes Except Non-Disclosure

  • 0 Comments
In 2011, Health Canada found itself in a tough spot. The public was becoming more and more uneasy over exposure to RF radiation from the proliferating number of cell phones, cell towers and Wi-Fi routers. After holding hearings in the spring and fall of 2010, Parliament asked the health agency to investigate whether its exposure limits —the national RF standard known as Safety Code 6 (SC6)— were too lenient and needed strengthening. Soon afterwards, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) added urgency to the assignment by classifying RF radiation as a possible human cancer agent, or, in the vernacular, a 2B carcinogen.
Read More
 

Safety Review Panel Suffers from Conflict of Interest

  • 0 Comments
Health Canada bears the responsibility in this country for researching and setting guidelines on RF radiation. However, the agency and the Royal Society of Canada have come under fire recently for the review process of the country’s wireless technology safety code.
Read More
 

Press Release – Royal Society criticized by Canadian Medical Association for undisclosed conflict of interest

  • 0 Comments
Oakville, June 20, 2013 – Allegations of conflict of interest surround a member appointed to a federal expert panel, which was convened to impartially study health and safety effects of wireless radiation. According to reports, the panel’s chair failed to disclose a six-figure federal government contract he received to provide “communications advice” on how to relieve Canadians’ concerns with respect to cellphone antennas.
Read More
 

Safety Code 6 – Call to Action

  • 0 Comments

Call-to-action-oct28

IMPORTANT UPDATE: The location and speaking schedule have been confirmed:
Location: University of Ottawa, Desmarais Building, Room 12102, 55 Laurier Avenue West
Date: Monday October 28, 2013
Time: 8:40am - 5:00pm
Confirmed Speaking Schedule: Click here for the schedule

September 27th, 2013 UPDATE: A new chair, as well as two new members have been confirmed for the expert panel reviewing Safety Code 6. The new Chair of the Panel, effective immediately, is Dr. Paul Demers, Professor with the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto and Clinical Professor with the University of British Columbia. Additionally, Dr. Bryan Kolb, FRSC, a neuroscientist from the University of Lethbridge, and Dr. Anne-Marie Nicol, the Principal Investigator of the CAREX Canada Project, from Simon Fraser University, will also join the panel. Drs. Kolb and Nicol will assume the roles vacated by Dr. Brian Christie and Dr. Louise Lemyre, who are unable to continue with the project for personal family reasons and academic commitments. Full biographies of all panellists are available here.

The public consultation will be held in Ottawa on Monday, October 28. Additional details will appear in this space shortly. The RSC will directly contact those individuals who have previously been confirmed to speak at the session. Additional invitations will then be extended. Written submissions from members of the public continue to be encouraged. For further details, please consult the RSC protocols for public consultations.

August 8th, 2013 UPDATE: Concerns have flared over possible conflicts of interest of a second member of a panel chosen by the Royal Society of Canada to examine safety levels for cell towers, cellphones and wireless devices.
Second Wi-Fi Panel Member's Conflicts are Problematic

August 6th, 2013 UPDATE:  The first article written in response to the Moulder Conflict.
Safety Review Panel Suffers from Conflict of Interest

July 29th, 2013 UPDATE:  A second scientist is under fire for conflict-of-interest on a panel examining safety levels for cell towers, cell phones and WiFi in Canada.
pdfConflict of Interest Shakes Canadas Review of Wireless and Cell Phone Safety

An update to the report done by the RSC in 1999 (below) this update was completed in 2001-2003.
pdfUpdated RSC Panel Review of SC6

Attached below is the last review of Safety Code 6 (1999) by the conflicted panel of the RSC. A must read if you haven’t seen it.
pdfRSC Panel Review of SC6 - 1999

July 19th, 2013 UPDATE: Facing public controversy over a potential conflict of interest revealed in a CMAJ investigation, the chair of a Royal Society of Canada panel reviewing federal safety guidelines for Wi-Fi, cellphones and other radiofrequency devices has stepped aside. Read the full article here.

July 16th, 2013 UPDATE: Letter written to Dr. Yolande Grise, President of the RSC, re Conflict of Interest on the Expert Panel Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices. Also contained in this letter is significant evidence as to why Dr. John Moulder is yet another conflicted panel member.
pdfLetter to RSC President

July 10th, 2013 UPDATE: Dr. Daniel Krewski has resigned from his role as chair of the “independent” federal government panel to study potential Wi-Fi health effects after allegations surfaced that he had previously received a substantial government contract.
pdfPanel Chair Resigns

July 9th, 2013 UPDATE: The Royal Society of Canada has postponed the July 8th meeting to a date yet to be determined but is anticipated to be later this Summer.
pdfJuly 8th Consulation Delayed (Notice)

June 26th. 2013 UPDATE: Below is the response being given by MP offices at this time re the RSC conflict.
pdfMP Response re RSC Conflict can be found here.

June 20th, 2013 UPDATE: The Canadian Medical Association Journal has just published an article calling out the Royal Society of Canada for undisclosed conflicts of interest re the panel chair and other members charged with reviewing Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. Due to public concern as well as the CMAJ investigation the Royal Society of Canada is currently “reconsidering only” its decision to appoint University of Ottawa professor Daniel Krewski to chair the panel, after it was uncovered he failed to disclose a $126,000 contract in 2008-2009 from industry Canada. This amount was apparently paid to him to assist in addressing what the Department believes is opposition often based on misperception and misinformation and  to convince Canadians that Safety Code 6 is legitimate.  pdfHighlights of this contract can be found here.

According to Flynn, who chairs the society’s Committee on Expert Panels and its Scientific Advisory Committee “I am confident that the existing panel, working with a wide variety of inputs and subject to peer review of its report, will make a fair assessment of Safety Code 6 and make sensible recommendations for changes.”

Read the full CMAJ article here »

Despite national news coverage and interest, at this time the Royal Society are not disbanding the panel, and are proceeding with their flawed review as planned.

They have set aside one day only - July 8thNEW DATE TO BE DETERMINED BUT ANTICIPATED TO BE LATER THIS SUMMER as a day for citizens to provide input to be considered. This is where we need you!

Given that they are restricting input to one day and allocating speaking opportunities on a first come, first served basis, we do not believe it likely that all registrants will be able to speak. However, just as importantly, we want to track and make public the desire of Canadians to have reasonable input in this process, the number allowed to delegate, as well as those not permitted. Video conferencing is allowed, so you will not have to travel to Ottawa.

Although this process is fundamentally flawed in that their criteria & bibliography have not been made public so as to allow informed public consultation, we are nonetheless keen to delegate and show Canada and those in charge just how big an issue this is. We will continue to push towards a proper evaluation and update of Safety Code 6.

Thank you again for helping us bring awareness to this disturbing process that Health Canada has chosen to update a very outdated safety code that is failing to protect Canadians everywhere.

Read More
 

C4ST’s Position on Safety Code 6

  • 0 Comments

Position of Citizens 4 Safe Technology on the Conflicts of Interest of the Royal Society of Canada’s “Independent”  Panel of experts reviewing Canada’s Safety Code 6

On behalf of our members the national organization Citizens 4 Safe Technology has initiated an inquiry into several conflicts of interest on the Royal Society of Canada’s “Expert Panel” currently reviewing Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 on behalf of Health Canada.
This safety code is Canada’s only guideline outlining dangerous exposure limits from the increasing number of wireless communication devices in our lives. Currently Canadian standards are out of date and out of step with recent science and warnings from international regulatory bodies and medical associations.
 The current  “danger threshold” requires human skin to heat. Thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers dating back decades give evidence that living biological systems are affected from wireless radiation at levels well below the “heat threshold”, making Safety Code 6 out of date in the modern wireless world. It needs review, but this review panel is conflicted with the interests of the wireless industry, not the interests of the health of Canadians.
Today we are surrounded and inundated with wireless radiation from communication devices. The economic benefits and freedoms presented by the proliferation of this technology are almost immeasurable. The devices continue to amaze and build relevant social and economic layers in the foundation of our evolving society. However, this proliferation comes with a cost to human health that is real and is being measured in doctor’s offices across the nation. We are arriving at the boundaries of the human limit to wireless exposure and Canadians require stricter regulation and protection.
The people falling ill from wireless-overload are real and falling in greater numbers with every new cell tower, wifi system, and the proliferation of cellular communication devices in every corner of our society. This human health issue must be addressed if we are to fully benefit from the brilliance of this modern technology.  Without it, the cost of this technology in health care will soon outweigh its economic benefit. There is emerging evidence that it already has.
The Royal Society, Canada’s august body of academics has been assigned by Health Canada to review the Safety Code and update it according to the latest science on the matter of radiation exposure. The Royal Society has published clearly defined conflict of interest guidelines which have not been properly adhered to in the process of selecting this committee.  
This review panel of the Royal Society has an opportunity to bring our public protection into line with the modern reality of wireless technology, but the selection of a deeply conflicted panel is unlikely to make decisions to protect Canadians. It is likely to make decisions to protect the wireless industry that pays them.
The appointed Committee is made up of scientists with financial connections to the lucrative wireless industry, and scientists with predetermined viewpoints that evidence showing harm below the published safety threshold is somehow not to be believed. Some of them are conflicted on both points. Meaning they have lectured and spoken publicly stating that wireless radiation causes no DNA damage when evidence shows it does, and they are also receiving monetary benefit from wireless companies, electrical utilities, or wireless lobby groups.  They are often quoted making controversial and questionable statements that wireless radiation at levels much lower than the current Safety Code limits actually pose no harm to humans, when an increasing number of authorities say it does.  Even the manufacturers of our wireless devices admit to it in their own manuals.
These two conflicts of interest:  financial and ideological, are evidenced in public statements and media reports on the selected panel members.
This panel’s power over the public health of our nation at this moment is far too important to relax the Standards of Conflict of Interest normally imposed by the Royal Society’s selection committee for expert panelists.  C4ST has officially asked the Royal Society why it has not followed its own rules of conflict of interest, and why it has loaded the panel with scientists paid by the wireless industry.
On behalf of our expert Board of Directors we have asked that the Royal Society review panel b e dissolved and a new one be assembled, made up of truly independent reviewers.
At a time when Children are complaining in school Boards across Canada of debilitating effects of exposure from school-wide wifi systems  measured at levels below Safety Code Six Standards, and people are moving out of apartments due to cell phone towers on the roof making them sick, and teacher unions are drafting resolutions demanding  protection from classroom wireless devices,  and doctors are on record diagnosing wireless radiation exposure, all are being told that Safety Code 6 protects them, when in fact many scientists say it does not, and they are in imminent danger of negative health effects.
Indeed, even the wireless device manufacturers place liability limiting warnings in cell phones and wifi transmitters warning consumers not to touch the devices when they are turned on, but according to selected members of this Expert Panel, people should ignore those warnings. This is a profound misstep by the Royal Society at a time when Canadians have run out of places to turn for guidance.
Despite the outcries and warnings from the World Health Organization, medical associations, and labour groups, not one person selected for this panel has shown a measureable interest in protecting public health.   This is not a single minor conflict that can be overlooked but rather conflicts running through the heart of this panel that suggest it was selected because of its conflicts, not despite them.
Due to scientifically published links to neurological and cognitive effects of wireless radiation at levels far below current Safety Code 6 Standards there is a strong argument to take higher precaution and develop much stricter levels in places where children spend time, such as schools, daycares and libraries.    Yet members of this panel have in spite of the evidence publicly and repeatedly stated that there is no danger, prejudicing their opinions on this review.
At a time when Safety Code 6 is the only instrument by which authorities and regulators continue to expose Canadians to harmful levels and durations of wireless radiation, even  after they protest it and report symptoms, and who’s doctors have supported their desire not to be exposed, this review panel requires representation from independent scientists without conflict.  It has failed miserably on this point.
Where perhaps one panelist who represents the interests of the wireless industry may be explainable or excusable, the majority of this panel including its chair are directly conflicted financially or ideologically according to public records of their recent careers.
While they are all esteemed scientists , published and academically qualified, they are also engaged in financial relationships with companies, industry associations, and lobby groups which are directly affected by the outcome of this panel review. There the panel chair and several members represent deeply conflicted and inappropriate selections.
At such a time when medical doctors are diagnosing people in increasing numbers with debilitating symptoms from wireless radiation levels well below the current safety code six limits, and medical associations are calling for precaution and protection,  and the World Health Organization has declared all wireless radiation as possibly carcinogenic  this Safety Code must be revised. But many of the reviewers have already stated publicly that it does not need revision.

This selection of a committee to review Health Canada’s  Safety Code should include the scientists whose published studies show the weakening of the blood brain barrier, not those who refute it.  It should include the scientists who have shown the effects of wireless internet connections on heart rate variability, not the ones who haven’t read it. It should include the scientists who are conducting their research independently through universities, not the ones receiving funding from the lobby group trying protect the interests of wireless companies.
This panel is about science and public health. It is the single most important panel in the current landscape of Canadian public health.  However it is highly unlikely that it will protect Canadians, since it’s selection committee relaxed or ignored their own rules of conflict of interest when choosing them.
The Royal Society of Canada should answer as to why it has ignored such blatant conflicts of interest, why it has omitted independent scientists doing leading edge work on this topic, and why it has included scientists with ideological and financial conflicts.

Read More
 

Safety Code 6 – Under Review by a Conflicted Panel of Scientists

  • 0 Comments

conflicted4

November 28th, 2013 UPDATE: Royal Society of Canada Chair of Expert Panels Dr. Geoff Flynn has been replaced by Dr. Dave Layzell from the University of Calgary. Read Dr. Dave Layzell's BIO HERE

October 28th, 2013 UPDATE: Today in Ottawa a public consulation was held by the Royal Society of Canada for input by the public in regards to their independent review of Safety Code 6. During this public consultation time C4ST released a press release that Health Canada is not allowing the Royal Society to run a proper independent review. We have in our possession from Canada’s Privacy Act, called Access to Information requests, demonstrating beyond any doubt Health Canada has hampered the independence of the Royal Society and restricted information that is to be made public. For more information about the public consultation CLICK HERE

September 27th, 2013 UPDATE: A new chair, as well as two new members have been confirmed for the expert panel reviewing Safety Code 6. The new Chair of the Panel, effective immediately, is Dr. Paul Demers, Professor with the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto and Clinical Professor with the University of British Columbia. Additionally, Dr. Bryan Kolb, FRSC, a neuroscientist from the University of Lethbridge, and Dr. Anne-Marie Nicol, the Principal Investigator of the CAREX Canada Project, from Simon Fraser University, will also join the panel. Drs. Kolb and Nicol will assume the roles vacated by Dr. Brian Christie and Dr. Louise Lemyre, who are unable to continue with the project for personal family reasons and academic commitments. Full biographies of all panellists are available here.

The public consultation will be held in Ottawa on Monday, October 28. Additional details will appear in this space shortly. The RSC will directly contact those individuals who have previously been confirmed to speak at the session. Additional invitations will then be extended. Written submissions from members of the public continue to be encouraged. For further details, please consult the RSC protocols for public consultations.

August 8th, 2013 UPDATE:   Concerns have flared over possible conflicts of interest of a second member of a panel chosen by the Royal Society of Canada to examine safety levels for cell towers, cellphones and wireless devices.

Second Wi-Fi Panel Member's Conflicts are Problematic

August 6th, 2013 UPDATE:  The first article written in response to the Moulder Conflict.
Safety Review Panel Suffers from Conflict of Interest

July 29th, 2013 UPDATE:  A second scientist is under fire for conflict-of-interest on a panel examining safety levels for cell towers, cell phones and WiFi in Canada.
pdfConflict of Interest Shakes Canadas Review of Wireless and Cell Phone Safety

An update to the report done by the RSC in 1999 (below) this update was completed in 2001-2003.
pdfUpdated RSC Panel Review of SC6

Attached below is the last review of Safety Code 6 (1999) by the conflicted panel of the RSC. A must read if you haven’t seen it.
pdfRSC Panel Review of SC6 - 1999

July 19th, 2013 UPDATE: Facing public controversy over a potential conflict of interest revealed in a CMAJ investigation, the chair of a Royal Society of Canada panel reviewing federal safety guidelines for Wi-Fi, cellphones and other radiofrequency devices has stepped aside. Read the full article here.

July 16th, 2013 UPDATE: Letter written to Dr. Yolande Grise, President of the RSC, re Conflict of Interest on the Expert Panel Review of Safety Code 6: Potential Health Risks of Radiofrequency Fields from Wireless Telecommunications Devices. Also contained in this letter is significant evidence as to why Dr. John Moulder is yet another conflicted panel member.
pdfLetter to RSC President

July 10th, 2013 UPDATE: Dr. Daniel Krewski has resigned from his role as chair of the “independent” federal government panel to study potential Wi-Fi health effects after allegations surfaced that he had previously received a substantial government contract.
pdfPanel Chair Resigns

July 5th, 2013 UPDATE: Amidst the pressure of additional scrutiny, Daniel Krewski announced today that he is stepping down from the review panel, vacating his position as the chair.
pdfKrewski Steps Down July 5th 2013

June 26th. 2013 UPDATE: Below is the response being given by MP offices at this time re the RSC conflict.
pdfMP Response re RSC Conflict can be found here.

UPDATE JUNE 19: RSC Wi-Fi panel criticized for undisclosed conflict! The Royal Society of Canada will reconsider its decision to appoint a University of Ottawa professor to chair a panel that will assess the safety of radio wave emitting devices such as cellular phones, following a CMAJ investigation that reveals a potential conflict-of-interest.
Read the full article here

UPDATE JUNE 19: RSC Secretary of Expert Panels responds to C4ST claims of a conflicted panel inviting C4ST's CEO Frank Clegg to present his concerns in Ottawa.
Read the RSC Letter and Mr. Clegg's response here

Health Canada has updated Safety Code 6 and is employing an "Independent" panel to review its work. It hired the Royal Society of Canada, which has strict guidelines to protect against conflict of interest, to conduct the panel.  But the conflict of interest guidelines have been relaxed for selecting the academically credentialed panel. Some members turn out to have financial relationships with companies, industry associations and lobby groups which are directly affected by the outcome of this panel review. At the same time, some of them have consistently published material and statements demonstrating predetermined viewpoints that they don’t believe published evidence showing that humans are in danger well below the existing safety threshold published in Safety Code 6. The selection of a significantly conflicted panel is unlikely to make decisions to protect Canadians. We are concerned that the results are predetermined.

C4ST LETTERS RE: RSC CONFLICTED PANEL

C4ST-RSC C4ST- Letter to Prime Minister Harper re: RSC Panel SelectionC4ST to Minister Of Health Aglukkaq re: RSC Panel Selection

Read More
 

Chair of Wi-Fi Safety Panel Steps Down

  • 0 Comments
Facing public controversy over a potential conflict of interest revealed in a CMAJ investigation, the chair of a Royal Society of Canada panel reviewing federal safety guidelines for Wi-Fi, cellphones and other radiofrequency devices has stepped aside.
Read More
 

RSC Glosses Over C4ST’s Claims of Conflicted Panel

  • 0 Comments
On May 23rd, 2013 C4ST CEO Frank Clegg issued a letter (click here to read) to the Royal Society of Canada in which he clearly laid out and explained a number of objections that C4ST has re the 6 members of the panel selected by the RSC to review Health Canada’s Safety Code 6.Read on to see how the Secretary of Expert Panels addresses these claims.
Read More