Response from the BioInitiative

In response to my inquiry, e-mailed to Cindy Sage of the Bioinitiative, I received the letter signed on behalf of the BioInitiative by Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter: Round-Table is Obsolete and Disfunctional.

In the letter they explained reasons why the BioInitiative is not going to participate in the proposed “The Round-Table Initiative” and why BioInitiative considers such a waste of time.

I disagree with some of the arguments in this letter. Fact that many people viewed the first BioInitiative report does not yet mean that the viewers agreed with the report’s conclusions. Many years passed since the publication of the first BioInitiative report and not much progress has been achieved. Yes, it might be so that more people are aware of the problem. But the fact remains that safety standards are the same as before, that the Precautionary Principle is not considered and the expansion of wi-fi continues at increasing speed. To me it means that the opinions of ICNIRP, and not of BioInitiative, are still dominant and implemented by WHO and by governments around the world.

To me, the only way to include BioInitiative opinions is to sit down with ICNIRP and reach consensus. As I know such consensus is possible. IARC evaluation in 2011 has shown that when gathering scientists from ICNIRP and from BioInitiative and debating science is possible to find commonn ground. Some of the BioInitiative opinions, that were different from ICNIRP opinions, were included in the final conclusions of IARC classification.

The response of Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter was very negative towards “The Round-Table Initiative” but may be not everything is lost and “The Round-Table Initiative” is not dead yet. 

When I approached individually 17 of the scientists listed as the authors of the BioInitiative 2012 report, I received immediately (within 48 hours) positive responses from 5 of them. These five responders agreed  to participate in “The Round-Table Initiative” and considerd it as a step in the right direction. Though, of course, as everyone, including myself, they were concerned whether the really unbiased review of science is possible and whether the prevously experienced problems will repeat themselves in the “behind-the-scenes” activities.

Interestingly, it appeared that the individual scientists of the BioInitiative were not aware of the outright rejection of my proposal by the BioInitiative and of the letter that I received from Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter. To my question, whether the letter was agreed by all BioInitiative members, so far Cindy Sage did not respond.


4 thoughts on “Response from the BioInitiative

  1. Pingback: Leszczynski: Statements for Hearing on Canadian Safety Code 6 | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

  2. It’s pretty obvious you have an ax to grind after reading your dismissal of Milham’s and Stetzer’s paper on dirty electricity:,-chronic-stress,-neurotransmitters-and-disease.pdf

    Here is your response that you posted in which you attack the data used as “unreliable”:

    Epidemiologists doing research on the effects of mobile phone radiation seem to live in their own universe, far from the reality…

    The “Parallel Universe” of Epidemiologists
    Some of the epidemiologists, doing research on mobile phones and cancer, seem to forget this simple truth. Some of them are imagining, and are imposing this mistaken view on others, that the unreliable scientific data is possible to make reliable by using statistical analyses.
    To read full post go to:

    Bottom line: exposure to most EMF/ RF produces stress proteins, causes the body to deplete key enzymes (like catalase which the lack of causes gray hair), trace minerals, messes up calcium efflux, interferes with DNA replication and lowers one’s immune system overall.

    In short, continued exposure and increasing levels of RMF/RF/microwave radiation is a health disaster and big telecom industries know this and are doing everything they can to “white out” the few folks who have the courage and the time and tenacity to speak out

    This round table will be dominated by wireless/telecom industry paid scientists who have a vested interest in continuing the onslaught of proliferation of wireless and will do everything they can to marginalize and discredit the research of ANYONE who disagrees with them.

    Can you blame anyone who decides to opt out of your “roundtable” ?

    • John Harris,

      First, I never commented on Milham Sterzer paper. Therefore, your coment is incorrect. Please, do not mislead and present your own spin as my opinions.

      I stand by my comments on epidemiological studies. When you read Interphone or Danish Cohort you cannot come to different conclusions that the “parallel universe”

      Yes, RF induces stress proteins and my group has shown it in paper published in 2002. I spoke in 2012 in London that the stress protein evidence confirms that there are non-thermal biological effects at exposure levels below safety standards.

      We do not know yet who will participate in “The Round-Table Initiative” so talking that the scientists will be in “pocket of industry” is at least premature and shows bias on your part.

  3. Dariusz Leszczynski

    regarding the response from Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, while I can understand their feelings, and I agree with most statements they make (especially about ICNIRP/CTIA “tandem”),

    regarding the key point – about the roundtable
    looks like they do not quite realise what is really happening in the *”real world”*…

    while a veyr small percentage of people has became aware and made valuable educational conclusion regarding the real landscape of science in this field by familiarising themselves with their work(s),
    the vast majority has not even heard of them (e.g. “BioInititative” as such) – and that includes policy makers, regulators, government, school teachers, parents, children and so on…

    any chance or opportunity for more open, more objective, even if a “balanced compromise” or at least “food for thought” reaching the 99.9% of people via the “official” channels of WHO, IARC and with some hope ICNIRP

    the mere fact of people being informed that this is stil a debatable topic (based on the proper convencional science, not “alternative”) and that “scientific consensus” is a myth in this field will be already valuable and beneficial for population and society at large…

    this is why I think you roundtable idea is great and please don’t give up and make it happen in whatever format possible – even if just an online discussion board venue…

    Thank you!
    Oleg Kiorsak


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s