Subversion of Science: RSC Panel with Conflict of Interest to Review Safety Code 6!

Finally a medical authority reveals what goes on behind closed doors!

Paul Christopher Webster wrote an article for the  Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) revealing conflict of interest for one member of the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) panel asked to review Health Canada’s Safety Code 6.  This story was also covered by The Star and Sun Media.

Daniel Krewski who is Professor in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario and Director of the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre, failed to disclose to the society that he had a $126 000 contract in 2008–2009 from Industry Canada. According to the Merx public tender document, Krewski’s contract was to ‘assist in addressing what the Department believes is opposition often based on misperception and misinformation’ with respect to cellphone antennas.

Krewski appears in a Health Canada video where he downplays the potentially harmful effects of Wi-Fi in schools.  In this video Krewski states: “Of the literally thousands of papers that have been written on this topic, very few have suggested health concerns and all of that information needs to be taken into account when reaching an overall conclusion.”

Click here for a debate on Cell Phone Safety with Krewski on KQED Radio.

There seems to be an incestuous relationship between Health Canada and Krewski.  One way to get the outcome you want is to ask the same people you hire to provide good PR to also review Safety Code 6.

Let’s examine the history of the Royal Society Reviews for Health Canada and is Krewski the only one we should be concerned about or is he the tip of the iceberg?

Read the full article of Dr. Magda’s analysis of each selected panel member and why he came to the following conclusions.

The Royal Society did not do their homework when selecting this group for their expert panel to review Safety Code 6.  Removing Krewski as the Chair is insufficient to convert this into a legitimate, unbiased, expert panel at arm’s length from both Health Canada and the wireless industry to review Safety Code 6.

The honorable thing to do is for the RSC to go back to the drawing board and select members from the international scientific and medical community, who publish in this field,  are not funded by the wireless industry, and  present a diverse mix of expertise and opinion related to this topic.  In other words, RSC should follow its own guidelines on what constitutes an expert panel.

If this is not done, the outcome of this review is obvious since the one thing panel members have in common is that they don’t believe this radiation is harmful as long as it is below Safety Code 6.