Dr George Carlo and the WTR
[Wireless Technology Research]
PART 2

    Carlo's science activities for the industry.

The CTIA discovers it has a problem.

The Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) undertakes to conduct urgent research into the safety of cell phones.

Until now, it has done absolutely no research into possible health effects, at all.

Cellphone Industry problems

Jan. 21, 1993: The story broke about the Florida claim that a woman had died from a brain tumour, allegedly promoted by her use of a NEC cell phone. Her husband, David Reynard, was suing two cellular phone companies and the shop which sold the phone. He created a sensation when he appeared live on the Larry King Show. Cellular stocks tumbled on Wall Street.

Feb 1 1993: The CTIA president, Tom Wheeler, announced that a special "blue-ribbon" panel would be formed, staffed by representatives from industry and government to oversee a newly invigorated research project. The industry rejected the plan to have the FDA oversight the work. It said it would fund the research itself -- but at arm's length -- and it bought in the Harvard University Center for Risk Analysis to provide peer-review.

Feb 1993: The Florida lawsuit begins, with Reynard suing the cellular telephone companies (NEC and GTE) over the fatal brain tumour.

In early 1993, the hypothesis that radiation from cellular telephones might be causally related to brain cancer in users was first advanced in a Florida lawsuit. Officials from industry and government agreed on the need for additional research. (Carlo speech 1995)

In February 1993, the United States wireless telecommunications industry made a public commitment to support independent scientific research into the safety of portable cellular telephones and other aspects of wireless communications technology. (Carlo overview report 1995)


April 1993: The establishment of the Scientific Advisory Group, the precursor to Wireless Technology Research. Dr. George Carlo is contracted the run the organisation.

If you are wondering why he was chosen, you need look no further than Burson-Marsteller -- the PR advisors to both the tobacco industry and the cellphone industry. Carlo is one of their favourite boys.


April 1993: The first Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) of the CTIA meets under Dr. Carlo. Carlo has also recruited a number of his friends from the Society of Risk Assessors and the Harvard University Risk Assessment group. These two organisations are almost synonymous at this time, and the Harvard Risk group under Dr John Graham also worked for and with Philip Morris.

This SAG organisation was specifically charged only with "cellular telephone research" and it did not (as stated later) including health research into "other aspects of wireless communications technology". At this time SAG did nothing other than glance quickly over a few research reports.

George Carlo later (30 April 97) claimed that this was the beginning of the WTR 'research program' (implying actual research funding). He said:

"WTR has been exploring the concept of cancer promotion since the beginning of our research program in April 1993. As part of our step by step approach to evaluating the risk of human cancer among wireless phone users, our Expert Panel on Tumor Promotion has completed a comprehensive review of the available scientific information regarding RF and promotion.

These leaders in the field of promotion have advised us that the weight of existing science does not support the hypothesis that RF is a tumor promoter."

It was also reported in this way in a 1995 Carlo overview:

The Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) on Cellular Telephone Research was subsequently established with criteria and procedures guaranteeing non-interference by the industry to assess the public health impact of wireless technology and to recommend corrective interventions when necessary. The SAG began developing its research program by looking at existing research and identifying data gaps.

And also:

The Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) on Cellular Telephone Research was established in April to review the literature, develop an overall research plan and then implement the program of research in independent laboratories. The SAG was supported by a $25 million commitment from the cellular industry. (Carlo speech 1995.)

The actual support was only $2 million at this time, as Carlo admits in his 1995 overview report. The $25 million came later -- and then only after pressure from Congress.

The 1994 budget included more than $2 million for fundamental risk evaluation research in the areas of dosimetry, toxicology, epidemiology, and electromagnetic interference.

I've never heard of any useful or worthy activity funded by this Foundation. It seems to have disappeared into the mire. .

1993: At about this time the CTIA also got the urge to demonstrate how socially responsible it was by establishing an entirely altruistic CTIA Foundation to bring joy and light into the world. Here's what they said at the time:

The mission of the CTIA Foundation is to meet the challenges of the 21st century in areas that are crucial to American society; education, health care, and job creation/productivity, using innovative, groundbreaking applications of wireless technology.

Founded in 1993 on the 10th anniversary of the inauguration of wireless phone service, the CTIA Foundation For Wireless Telecommunications seeks out worthy projects that utilise wireless telecommunications technology for the benefit of their communities. As part of this effort, CTIA member companies make a fair share annual contribution to fund the work of the Foundation.

Through its hands-on support of worthy projects, the CTIA Foundation is showing the nation how wireless telecommunications can help solve society's greatest problems and improve the quality of life for the American people.

July 1993: The FDA admonished the president of the CTIA for making statements to reporters that displayed "an unwarranted confidence that these products [cellphones] will be found to be safe,".

They concluded by saying that the public might "wonder how impartial the research can be when its stated goal is a determination to reassure customers, and when the research sponsors predict in advance that [they] expect the new research to reach the same conclusions ... that cellular phones are safe."

Dec 1995 The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis lists the following companies as providing grants (as distinct from the main funders, including HESG):

3M, Aetna Life & Casualty Company, Alcoa Foundation, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, American Crop Protection Association, American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Corporation, ARCO Chemical Company, ASARCO Inc., Ashland Inc., Astra AB, Atlantic Richfield Corporation, BASF, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, BP America Inc., Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chevron Research & Technology Company, CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, Cytec Industries, Dow Chemical Company, DowElanco, Eastman Chemical Company, Eastman Kodak Company, Edison Electric Institute, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Electric Power Research Institute, Exxon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Frito-Lay, General Electric Fund, General Motors Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Grocery Manufacturers of America, Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Hoechst Marion Roussel, ICI Americas Inc., Inland Steel Industries, International Paper, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Kraft General Foods, Mead, Merck & Company, Mobil Oil Corporation, Monsanto Company, New England Power Service, Olin Corporation, Oxygenated Fuels Association, PepsiCo Inc., Pfizer, Procter & Gamble Company, Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., Rohm and Haas Company, Shell Oil Company Foundation, Texaco Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Unocal, USX Corporation, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and WMX Technologies, Inc. .

Dec 1993: In order to be able to demonstrate how independent and arm's length all this research was, WTR announces that research pertaining to cellular telephones would be coordinated through Harvard University's Center for Risk Analysis -- HCRA -- originally part of the Harvard School of Public Health.

It now appears certain that the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis was essentially a private operation owned and run by Dr John Graham and a number of his associates. They paid Harvard University an annual fee for the right to use the Harvard name, and they accepted money from the tobacco companies (even though forbidden by Harvard University rules) by having the money paid from a Kraft account (Philip Morris owns Kraft)

John D Graham is now President George W Bush's director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which gives him oversight on the spending of the major environmental and health regulatory agencies (FDA, EPA, OSHA, etc). Graham has spent his life, like Carlo, as another science entrepreneur, but his line was the quasi-science of Risk Analysis. He spent a lot of time cosying up to the tobacco, food and chemical industries looking for work and funds.

You'll find the Harvard group and JD Graham himself, prominentaly featured in the Phillip Morris documents [See], and he was on the TASSC Advisory Board along with George, and involved from the start (called the 'Landsdown Panel') in the London Principles( tobacco-funded Risk Assessment project).See

Graham became a favourite anti-science activist for the Republicans, and they exploited his value to big business in a range of ways. See

When the CTIA announced that the Harvard Risk Group would audit the science conducted by WTR, they didn't spell out what was meant by 'independent'. It turned out that Carlo's Health & Environmental Sciences Group Ltd. (supposedly a small company owned by Carlo himself) is the sole small company listed among a few very big and wealthy foundations and government departments, in the Center's list of donors. I wonder where the $26,000 it costs to be listed comes from?

Here is the Center's list:

Restricted grants for project support have been provided by the:
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation,
  • American Industrial Health Council,
  • Andrew Mellon Foundation,
  • Bradley Foundation,
  • Brookings Institution,
  • Congressional Research Service,
  • Health and Environmental Sciences Group,
  • National Institute of Justice,
  • National Science Foundation,
  • Trustees of Health and Hospitals of the City of Boston, Inc.,
  • US. Department of Energy,
  • US. Department of Health and Human Services,
  • US. Environmental Protection Agency, and
  • US. Department of Transportation.

Dr Carlo must be a very rich and very generous man to afford this sort of donation. Either that, or the HESG has been acting as a front for the Cellular Telephone Industry Association in laundering funds. And if it is, one would need to ask: Why was it necessary?

What did the CTIA have to hide.?

Remember,the donations listed above are quite separate from the payment for services which appears (presumably) on the WTR books for auditing services rendered.

How can an organisation claim to be independent and arms-length when it is being funded surreptitiously by the organisation it is supposed to audit?

In fact, John Graham, who runs the Harvard Risk Assessment Group also appears prominently in the Philip Morris documents seeking donations and work from the tobacco company.


Early 1994 Dr Soma Sarkar of New Delhi, publishes a paper suggesting that EMF can cause breaks in DNA strands.




Mid 1994: Word leaks out that Professor Henry Lai and Dr Narendra Singh, from the University of Washington in Seattle, have found single and double-strand DNA breaks in the cells of live rats exposed to only two hours of low-power microwaves at 2.45GHz. This is obviously going to be the story of the year.

.

Feb 11 1994: The SAG officially becomes known as the "SAG on WT". In a later reported speech he says:

In 1994, the SAG changed its name to the Scientific Advisory Group on Wireless Technology as a reflection of its expanding research role in the areas of telecommunications technology and electromagnetic interference.(Carlo speech 1995).

Actually, this name-change appears to be an attempt to downplay the role of cellular phones, by widening the coverage of the investigations to encompass all radio-emitting devices -- two-way radios, cordless phones, radar, etc. However the funding and the industry focus remained the same.

The Wall Street Journal about this time lists Dr George Carlo as an "Epidemiologist at Georgetown University" when announcing his involvement in cellphone research." Yet The Wall Street Journal must have, in its own files, records of Carlo's antics during the dioxin debate.

Doesn't anyone at the WSJ ever check?

The GAO report.

Nov. 1994: The US General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report concluding that existing research into the safety of cellular phones is inadequate. They do not believe cell phones should be taken off the market, but they say that further research should be done as a matter of urgency to determine whether they pose a health hazard.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also closely monitoring the progress of the SAG group.




The RCR article:

  • Page 1
  • Page 2

    See also Microwave News release of the memo text in full.





    An Indian doctor, Soma Sakar, had found similar problems in the DNA of cells, using a quite different analysis technique. .

  • The Lai-Singh evidence of DNA breaks

    About this time the story break of research conducted by Dr Henry Lai and Narendarah Singh at the University of Washington in Seattle.

    Using a special research technique called 'comet assays' (Singh is the world authority on the technique) these two independent scientists had show an increase in damage to the DNA in rat brains after only brief exposures to microwave radiation at frequencies just above those used by cellphones..

    Dec 13. 1994: A Motorola memo to the industry's PR company Burson-Marsteller (from Norm Sandler to Michael Kehs) shows how close the relationship was between the industry giants, and the SAG team.

    Sadler said in the memo that Motorola was prepared to tell the media that, until the work was replicated and interpreted "any conclusions about the significance of this study are pure speculation". They also note that even if the DNA breaks are found, there is not evidence of increased cancer rates, anyway.

    The Media Strategy, as listed in the memo, is that it:

    "is not in the interest of Motorola to be out in front on this issue because the implications of this research -- if any -- are industry wide. Therefore, we suggest that the SAG be the primary media contact followed by the CTIA. It is critically important that third-party genetic experts, including respected authorities with no specific background in R/F, be identified to speak on the following issues:"

    This is quite obviously seen a cooperative effort between the cellphone companies and WTR/SAG ... so what has happened to the claimed independence and the arms-length relationship?

    In the memo they plan tactics to dilute the effect of the report on DNA breaks. This comes from the leaked memo:

    "I think we have sufficiently war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue, assuming SAG and CTIA have done their homework.

    "SAG will be prepared to release the Munro-Carlo memos, which touch on key points made in this material."

    This shows that they fully expected the so-called 'independent' scientists [Carlo as director of the SAG and Ian Munro as his deputy], to be ready and willing to help them denigrate the legitimate reseach of a number of top independent molecular biologists and researchers in the USA and India, merely because they had produced some alarming results.

    In the memo, Sadler [from Motorola] is quoted as being:

    "...adamant that we have a forceful one- or two-sentence portion of our standby statement that puts a damper on speculation arising from this research, as best we can."

    He goes on to say that: [Motorola]"was insistent as ever about the prominent inclusion" [of a phrase pointing out the Lai-Singh research was conducted at frequencies higher than the 800MHz band where cellular communications operates].

    In the memo he also discusses the fact that Motorola would claim in public that the Lai-Singh findings and other similar research by Dr Soma Sarkar, of the Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences in New Delhi (India) were of "questionable relevance."

    You'd have to be a Prozac-doped moron to believe that!

    There is no suggestion that Carlo or the WTR be kept at arms-length here; they are to be used a spokesmen for the industry, and say what the industry wants them to say. The memo defines the main problems to be overcome as:

  • "Problems with the Lai-Singh and Sarkar studies."
  • "The health implications of DNA single-strand breaks."

    "We do not believe that Motorola would put any one on camera", Sadler says. Obviously they do not want to be in the front line themselves; they'd prefer to work secretly.

    "We must limit our corporate visibility and defer complex scientific issues to credible, qualified scientific experts. We have developed a list of independent experts in this field and are in the process of recruiting individuals willing and able to reassure the public on these matters. "(Norm Sandler to Michael Kehs).

  • This is the tobacco industry all over again.

    Dec.1994 Towards the end of 1994 Carlo wrote the introduction to the CTIA's Health and Safety Media Manual, saying:

    a concerted industry response succeeded in blunting unsubstantiated allegations about a link to brain cancer in early 1993.

    His role is obviously seen by himself and the CTIA as primarily one of public relations, not science.

    January 20 1995: David Rosenbaum (New York Times) reports on the close relationship that has developed between the Harvard Centre for Risk Analysis (part of the Harvard University School of Public Health) and the SAG group:

    The CTIA had assembled a SAG through the Harvard University School of Public Health. It was chaired by George Carlo.(listed as Mobile Office Magazine Edition)

    January 25 1995: Carlo announced to the public that the name "Scientific Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Research" is now changed to "SAG on Wireless Technology" and that it is now conducting a wider program of research into all aspects of radio-frequency exposures:

    .... because the scope of the SAG's scientific research effort has expanded dramatically in the past year, and now involves an evolution to all wireless communications.
    .


    The Wireless Technology Research group actually gets underway.


    Feb 18 1995:The WTR advertises for grant proposals. These are to be presented before June 15, 1995.

    Mid 1995: Dr. Carlo, Health & Environmental Sciences Group, WTR and the CTIA figure in a civil claim before a Chicago court (Cook County). The plaintiff, Debbra Wright was suffering from recurrent brain tumours.

    She had worked for many years in the cell phone industry and had attended a San Diego workshop and training program run by Carlo, the main purpose of which had been to provide advice to cellphone industry employees as to how they should to avoid answering direct media questions about cellphone health research, and how to discount any questions about cellphone safety.

    She and was furious at the line Carlo and his associates were using in their training program, and charged them with systematic orchestration of a cover-up of health risks. So she charged them, along with the CTIA, as part of a conspiracy.

    The implications of Debrra Wright's personal conspiracy charge against Carlo were very significant, since he now saw that he was vulnerable. This was the way that the attorneys-general had broken the back of the tobacco industry, by charging the lawyers, scientists and the industry itself with conspiracy to conceal evidence of health harm.

    It now appeared to those scientists and science-entrepreneurs involved in the WTR that they could be held legally responsible for their actions, or for concealing evidence of health risks (despite their confidential contracts).

    The Debbra Wright case against Carlo is dismissed.

    [Jumping ahead] Jan 1 1996: Newsnet report on the beginning of the Debbra Wright case in Chicago. She had charged him and the HESG group with (concealing and distorting evidence) . The Judge said their case had merit.

    96 Circuit Court, Chicago, dismissed Health & Environmental Sciences Group (HES) and Dr. George Carlo as defendants in lawsuit brought by Debbra Wright, who charged cellular telephone caused brain cancer and who accused industry of conspiracy to conceal evidence. Judge Paddy McNamara said the Wright case, originally filed against Motorola, included substantial evidence, but nothing linking HES to conspiracy.

    He's expected to issue written opinion this month and rule in March on similar charges Wright filed against Wireless Technology Research (WTR), which also is headed by Carlo and set up by industry to study health effects of cellular phones. WTR said all allegations should be dismissed because "they are based on the same key factual issues the judge has now resolved...

    WTR believes that lawsuits such as the Wright case are wasteful attacks on the scientific community, that they slow completion of the research necessary to answer the public's questions about the health effects of all wireless technology and that these tactics could themselves pose threats to public health if they delay implementation of any interventions that may prove necessary.

    The Wright case gives Carlo a fright. He says to another scientist "I almost lost my house, my car, and my boat." [He jointly owns, probably with Thorne Auchter, a very large deep-sea sports fishing boat moared in Florida.]










    At the 'insistence' of the GAO [for 'arms length' confidence] They established "escrow funding" ... whatever that actually means in this context. .

    Wireless Technology Research

    At the beginning of 1995, the SAG evolved into a legally constituted entity, the Wireless Technology Research, LLC., at the recommendation of the US. General Accounting Office.(Carlo speech 1995)

    This appears to be the formation of the Wireless Technology Research LLC. organisation, which is a limited liability company rather than a trade organisation. The GAO recommendation, quoted below, was for arms-length funding arrangements, not for limited liability.

    We are told that Dr. George Carlo oversees epidemiology and human studies, Dr. Ian Munro oversees experimental toxicology, and Dr. Arthur W. Guy oversees bioelectromagnetics and dosimetry. In fact, Guy was only paid by the hour to appear at a few conferences.

  • (AW) Bill Guy is an electrical engineer who had made a reputation in the early days of R/F research by conducting a $5 million study for the US Air Force. This was a token employment of a retired gentleman who provided the group with some credibility.

  • Dr Ian Munro is an old friend and associate of Carlo's from the dioxin days, and he runs Cantox in Canada, which appears to be a norther version of Carlo's Health and Environmental Services Group. Later he and Carlo both worked for Philip Morris, and more recently they work together on preparing Environmental Impact Statements for oil companies.

    This is how the Carlo promoted his new organisation in a 1995 speech:

    "Although SAG scientists had always been promised -- and always received -- complete independence from the industry, the GAO suggested that an escrow arrangement would further enhance the independence--and therefore the credibility -- of the research program.

    "The program itself is based on a public health paradigm--as opposed to more traditional regulatory models--and combines a complete program of surveillance to detect possible public health impact with a comprehensive and integrated program of research, safety evaluation and risk management.

    "Four operating questions define the scope of the program:

    1. Is there a public health problem posed by wireless communication technology?

    2. If yes, what are the characteristics of that public health problem?

    3. What are the appropriate corrective interventions to mitigate any identified public health risk from wireless technology?

    4. What is the appropriate implementation strategy for those interventions?

    The program is unique in that the combination of surveillance and focused research affords a rapid trigger for intervention, while the integral inclusion of risk management assures that any necessary interventions will be both appropriate and timely.

    "Each of these factors are essential to satisfy the requirements of public health protection, and together facilitate actions where prevention replaces intervention. In addition, the program represents a fresh approach to public-private partnerships, conserving taxpayer dollars and employing available research funds efficiently. "

  • Claims about the WTR's budget. .

    At this time Carlo makes extravagant claims that the budget is about $10m, which is about twice the actual figure ($25 m over 5 years) or $5 million a year. In fact it turned out to be less than $4 m ($27 m over 7 years).

    The 1995 Wireless Technology Research budget nears $10 million.

    All studies conducted pursuant to the research agenda will be subjected to rigorous, scientific peer review, both by the SAG and through the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. In addition, investigators funded through the program will be required to submit their work for publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. (Carlo overview report 1995.)

    At this time he also presents a paper to the Society for Risk Analysis's 1995 Annual Meeting, which outlines how the WTR is conducting Risk Management. Thus proving, once again, that he is better at dealing with fiction than with fact.

    Fake organisations, loaded conferences.

    The WTR starts using the old tobacco industry tactics of floating fake science symposiums, and loading them with its own tame scientists. .

    ICWCMR

    Sep 29, 1995: About this time the International Committee on Wireless Communications Health Research (ICWCMR) was formed. Carlo is listed as chairman, and the WTR also funds their conference program and provides keynote speakers. Don't confuse this with the IRCNIP. See ICWCMR

    Nov 13-15 1995: The ICWCMR conference was held in "La Sapiencia" in Rome this week with Carlo as the chairman and spokesman. Carlo later summed up the conclusions of the conference to the press -- and I'm sure you'll be surprise to find that the conference agreed that there was no health risk. In fact, this organisation was nothing more than a front for the WTR. Some of the documents admit openly that "WTR has been instrumental in forming the ICW." There was no such organisation.

    Gert Friedrich of the FGF is listed as member also, and his organisation appears to be a German version of the WTR, which is also funded and controlled by the industry. Carlo was key speaker and chairman of the ICWCMR conference, and the conference appears to have been totally funded by the WTR. Presumably they also selected the speakers.

    The CTIA's press report promoted this event:

    In October 1995, an international symposium on the health effects associated with wireless phones was held in Rome, Italy. Researchers from throughout the world met to review existing research on this subject. The researchers reported that they were unable to identify any health risks associated with wireless phone use.

    Scientists strike. .

    Scientists Strike

    At about this time many of the scientists that the WTR had on contract also become aware that scientists involved in 'scientific research' for the Tobacco Institute and for the tobacco companies, had been charged with conspiracy, along with the companies. This was an entirely new concern which shonky scientists had never faced before.

    So the WTR scientists all go on strike and refuse to budge until the CTIA indemnifies them against any possible legal action. The CTIA refuses, and there is a stalemate for nearly a year. Fortunately George has other research for other industries to keep his people occupied.

    The problem comes about because the legal protection afforded by having a lawyer theoretically in charge of all research and funding (to provide protection from discovery, through privilege), had disappeared overnight. The tobacco industry had exploited this 'lawyer-client priviledge', but had found themselves along with the scientists being charged for conspiracy, also. Carlo's J.D. qualification was no longer protection against legal discovery in a court case, if conspiracy to conceal could be shown.

    This protection of the lawyer-client relationship disappeared when the State Attorneys-General wsued the cigarette companies, and included the tobacco lawyers, the public relations organisations and staff and the scientists, in their charge of conspiracy to conceal evidence about the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Suddenly, any pseudo or distorted science came under threat if it had the potential to harm customers, and this was a real problem for science-for-sale practitioners.

    The CTIA made things worse by refusing to pay for this insurance, nor would it pay Carlo's personal legal fees in defending himself in the Wright case in Chicago. So for nearly a year all WTR-funded research work (what little there was) ceased.

    E-mail Stewart Fist
    70 Middle Harbour Rd,
    Lindfield 2070 NSW, Australia
    Ph:+61 2 9416 7458
    Fx:+61 2 9416 4582<

    NEXT

    JUNKSCIENCE INDEX               CARLO'S FRIENDS