CDC Withheld Information On IARC Carcinogenic Classification in 2011
In June 2011, The CDC Drafted Information To Present to the Public On the May 2011 WHO/IARC Group 2B Carcinogenic Classification of Wireless Radiofrequency Radiation and Then Deleted the Information
From EHT’s Ongoing Analysis Of Internal Documents
Below please read the June 1 2011 draft of website information and talking points below which never saw the light of day in June 2011. Afterwards please see more of the EHT analysis of this June 2011 decision.
In May 2011 The World Health Organization International Agency for the Research (IARC) on Cancer classified radio frequency (wireless) radiation as a Class 2 B “Possible Human Carcinogen”. CDC’s Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Director of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Dr. Chris Portier chaired the IARC review of the mechanistic evidence as part of the expert working group.
WHAT HAPPENED IN JUNE OF 2011?
Understanding the importance of the May 2011 IARC Classification of Radiofrequency Radiation as a Class 2 B Carcinogen, CDC officials rush to write new content for the CDC website in order “to update the information with the current IARC meeting release.”
“We need to rush this since our website is out of date.”
-CDC email dated June 1, 2011 at 12:55
So on June 1, 2011 CDC officials drafted information that they were going to present to the American people about the new WHO IARC classification of cell phone radiation as a Class 2 Carcinogen. It never saw the light of day. In just 48 hours the information on the IARC classification disappeared.
“This document will need some “subtraction” before posting on the web”
-CDC email dated June 2, 2011
SPECIFICALLY WHAT INFORMATION WAS DELETED?
The following information was deleted:
- Statements about how the WHO IARC classified radiofrequency from cell phones as a possible cause of cancer.
- The fact that CDC NCEH/ATSDR Director Dr. Chris Porter was a member of the expert review panel, chaired the review of the mechanistic evidence and agrees with his fellow panel members.
- That the IARC made its determination based on a positive association between exposure to RF and the occurrence of glioma.
- That glioma is a lethal diagnosis and people who are diagnosed with glioma usually live fewer than five years.
- That the final IARC report (the Monograph detailing all the evidence in full) will not be released until 2012, but that the IARC intends to publish its preliminary findings in the journal Lancet in the next few months.
WEB PAGE WITH DELETED IARC INFORMATION WAS POSTED JUNE 2, 2011
Two days later the CDC updated their cell phones and health website but DELETED any discussion of the WHO/IARC Carcinogenic classification and DELETED information about the lethality of gioma, the brain tumor linked to cell phone use. Instead, a diluted version of the initial draft was posted on the CDC website without any mention of the fact that the world’s foremost independent scientific review group had made a new official determination on the strength of evidence showing harm. Could this explain why most people on the street, doctors and even our trusted pediatricians are still in the dark about the WHO IARC’s classification?
FACT: CDC’s 2005-2011 WEBSITE HAD NOTED THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION’S UPCOMING REVIEW Previous to June 2011, the CDC had a posted webpage on cell phones and health (a webpage which had not changed since 2005). This 2005 -May 2011 web page specifically referred to the upcoming World Health Organizations review of the evidence stating that “ results should be complete in the next 3-4 years.” How curious that the CDC decided NOT to share WHO study results once the review was completed?
FACT: SCIENTISTS SIGNED OFF ON THE MATERIAL
According to the internal documents, “The Office of Science reviewed this document” referring to the June 1, 2011 Draft that contained information on the IARC Classification. The internal communications clearly show several scientists and researchers signing off on the language (page 346 of the internal documents). According the CDC officials, “the intended audience was the general public”.
OUR RIGHT TO KNOW
Why was the “general public” DENIED this information? Why was information “subtracted” ? Does the CDC think US citizens are incapable of handling the information about the IARC classification? Why aren’t citizens being fully informed on this issue ? Where is the transparency one would expect from a government agency tasked to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease?