“There are studies that point to problems or potential problems; and there are studies that yield no results.”
But the industry uses these studies as proof that cell phones are safe. That's scientific fraud!" (…)
The association representing the mobile communications industry as a whole called a press conference and said:
Don't worry, we have thousands of studies showing that there's no problem.
And one of the journalists was brave enough to ask, “Can we take a look at them?” But then he didn’t have anything to show. (…)
“I also know of researchers who were actually working on this and who said: ‘I never want to do any more research on
cell phone radiation, because if I discover that it’s harmful to health, the lobby will destroy me.’
Klaus Scheidsteger, the author and filmmaker, is also an investigative journalist.
He was part of the first graduating class of the journalism program at the University of Dortmund.
After completing his internship at Westdeutscher Rundfunk in Cologne, he moved to France for four years to work as a freelance
writer and produced his first documentary film in 1982—a portrait of the English author
Anthony Burgess, who wrote *A Clockwork Orange*.
As early as the mid-1980s, he founded a TV production company in his hometown of Essen and then used his own camera and studio
equipment to produce news segments, feature stories, and documentaries for the public
broadcasters ARD and ZDF, as well as for RTL and Sat.1.
And later, the German-French cultural channel ARTE joins the list; he delivers ready-to-air content to ARTE both directly
through ARTE Strasbourg and in coproduction with ARTE partner stations such as NDR, BR, and MDR,
as well as ZDF, as part of the "Portraits" series.
And in 2006, his first in-depth report on the topic of mobile communications, commissioned by the French public broadcaster
FR2, was released under the title “Portables au Accusation.”
I'd translate it as "cell phones in the dock"—is that okay?
ARD's German co-production partner, MDR, then simply cut its segment without consulting anyone.
We can already see just how popular it is on public broadcasters—it was quickly aired as part of
the morning lineup under the title *The Cell Phone War*, without any prior announcement.
However, the 50-minute film would offer a truly in-depth look at the legal battle waged by brain tumor
patients against the entire cell phone industry in the U.S.
Ten years later, the first feature-length documentary, titled "Thank You for Calling," was released,
followed in 2018 by the book of the same name on the subject.
And in May 2024, he released another film, *The Digital Dilemma*.
This film caused quite a stir at its preview screening at the European Parliament in Brussels and is now
available online in four languages and in select theaters.
Klaus Scheidsteger is the co-initiator of the ATHEM-3 mobile phone study, which has caused a stir in international scientific
circles as the basis for various international lawsuits.
And you can learn more about him at www.das-digitale-dilemma.de
And as vice chair of the MWGFD, I am more than grateful that we were able to bring you, dear Klaus, on board with the MWGFD, and
I am now looking forward to your presentation titled “Between Downplaying, Ignorance, and Deliberate Misinterpretation—Mobile
Phone Issues in the Media.” The floor is yours.
Thank you very much. Yes, for me, too, it’s a tremendous honor to be here with you all.
Well, I think your work is fantastic, and I don't think you should limit yourself to just one subject area.
I've been working my way into this for over 20 years now, and I've met so many wonderful people who are sitting here with us.
And that's actually the kind of thing that drives me and is also one of the reasons I'm still at it.
With that in mind, perhaps I should start by saying that I also have a few short video clips.
For that, I'd need a remote control like that—Klaus still has it. Thank you.
And he had recently mentioned feeling a certain amount of frustration. I felt that way from time to time, too.
But if we join forces, if we just realize that so much is going wrong and so much is being
done wrong, maybe we’ll have a chance again.
But we still can't really count on the so-called mainstream media at the moment.
But I took the liberty of sharing a little bit about my own experience so that you can better understand these connections.
So, my very first trip is to America.
Older viewers might still remember *The Larry King Show*.
That was truly a talk show that went global—it was broadcast in over 100 countries.
And today, looking back at the history of mobile communications, there was a time—starting in 1992—when we were essentially fully
digital—with GSM, which stands for Global System for Mobile Communications, so to speak; that
was 2G, and it went digital starting in 1992.
A year later, Larry King had a guest on his show, and the guest said:
My wife has a brain tumor now. She always used to hold her cell phone up to her ear.
And I'm going to sue Motorola now.
Motorola was the market leader at the time, and within a week—as a result of this media report (which is perhaps why
one might conclude that they are reluctant to address this issue)—Motorola’s stock price fell by 10 percent.
Of course, these are extreme losses.
In response, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association—then known as CTIA—which represents the entire mobile
communications industry, held a press conference and stated:
Don't worry—we have thousands of studies showing that there's no problem.
And one of the journalists was brave enough to ask, "Can we take a look at them?"
And then he had nothing to offer.
But then, just a few weeks later, the "Dr. George Carlo story," so to speak, began.
Because this man was then commissioned to conduct research for over six years to demonstrate that there
are actually no problems with cellular communications.
And this Dr. George Carlo particularly piqued my journalistic interest because it turned out that, during his time working on
behalf of the industry—with a research budget of 28.5 million—he had discovered something that,
unfortunately, wasn’t very convenient for the industry.
And that was also the birth of what is known as a "wargame memo."
That was a lobbying and public relations firm called Burson-Marsteller, working on behalf of Motorola, which then
advised on how to deal with critical scientific research.
And that, for example, leads into the realm of discrediting science.
That's a pattern we'll be able to recognize here later on as well.
Carlo had two areas of expertise: he was a scientist—specifically, a medical scientist—and he was a lawyer.
And what really motivated me to meet this man in person was the fact that, behind the scenes, he advises the lawyers who—since
2001 and continuing to this day—have been trying to use legal action to help brain tumor patients reach the same level of
compensation we once achieved with tobacco and asbestos cases.
If you’d like, I’d like to briefly touch on this documentary again, because that first work—a journalistic film—that Ronny was
kind enough to mention was, in fact, still airing on France 2.
And let me tell you, on the day the show aired in May 2006, someone called me and said:
We have to make some changes because of legal pressure.
So U.S. cell phones have to take the stand first… because—well, everything’s fine on our end, or something like that.
So the lawyers got involved.
I also mentioned Motorola, so they had to bleep out the company name, and at the end, the credits
had to say, “The WHO has everything under control.”
So there really aren't any problems.
So that's how the work is done—which is what ultimately led to this outcome, as Ronny had kindly mentioned earlier.
In fact, ARD was scheduled to air this very same report.
So, to start with, it was actually a wonderful collaboration.
But then that year—we're talking about 2006—the Bundesliga broadcasting rights—sponsored by T-Mobile—returned to ARD.
And that’s why it was possible to address such critical issues—and let me briefly share with you something that Dr.
George Carlo—who, as I mentioned, is also under legal scrutiny and can’t just say anything—had to
say in his article, following a brief introduction.
I've put together a few short video clips, because that might help lighten the mood a bit.
I first met the man who had been awarded the attractive research grant from the CTIA to conduct research for six
years in the summer of 2005, through Bob's introduction.
Dr. George Carlo, a medical scientist and lawyer, founded the Institute for Wireless Technology Research (WTA).
They should provide scientific proof that cell phones are harmless.
But the industry had hired the wrong man—one who continues to expose the truth without mercy even today.
“There are studies that point to problems or potential problems; and there are studies that yield no conclusive results.”
"But the industry uses these studies as proof that cell phones are safe. That's scientific fraud!"
Yes, well, that might be one reason, too.
At least he was allowed to say that, so to speak, and it wasn't censored in France—unlike in Germany.
Then came the next step, which was very interesting for me to observe.
That was the reflex study by Professor Adlkofer that I mentioned earlier.
And then *Der Spiegel* jumped on the story, and as we'll see in a moment, there was also a certain gentleman involved—who,
by the way, is also from Bremen—whom we all like very much.
He's down there, and then she was accused—by one of the professor's assistants—of having fabricated those
studies—which gave the whole thing a whole new twist.
So, a sort of love story was told here about this man from Bremen, a Professor Lerchl, who will come into his own again later on.
He's one of those people who essentially acts as a lobbyist and simply doesn't live up to his scientific expertise.
He really is a very special person.
We can also find this Wargaming, so to speak, in the same context.
It always comes into play whenever science uncovers something that could be dangerous to industry.
And in this case, this study—the reflex study—was then analyzed in a truly systematic manner.
And I ended up finding a journalist for that at *Profil* in Vienna—it was, so to speak, the “little *Spiegel*.”
And she just objected to that.
That actually brought the story to light.
And in my opinion, the whole story is so clear in this condensed form because we can see here how
manipulation takes place—simply through lies and misinformation.
And first up, we have the journalist.
“I also know of researchers who were really involved in that area and who said: ‘I never want to do any more research
on cell phone radiation, because if I discover that it’s harmful to health, the lobby will destroy me.’”
So there really are concerns among scientists who simply don't want to have anything to do with this research anymore.
"This has become a hot-button issue because they're afraid that they'll be destroyed not only professionally but
also, in some cases, personally—just as happened in Vienna."
In fact, a clear pattern has emerged since the 1994 Wargame memo.
All the scientists who identified a problem with the microwave radiation from our cell phones and
smartphones subsequently ran into a problem of their own.
Wargaming's strategies are still in use today.
In Vienna, too, there remains a bad aftertaste, even though the person who instigated the alleged forgery has since
been convicted in court and the scientific work of the Viennese researchers has been internationally validated.
“The Vienna research scandal was a reaction by someone—I’ll call him a lobbyist—from Germany. He made a series of accusations.”
They launched what started out as an academic debate but actually turned into a very deep-seated dispute,
simply to discredit and dismiss certain research findings.
Seven years later, I can say with a clear conscience that the man was convicted.
That is malicious slander. None of the allegations held up.
And to all those who still have it in the back of their minds that something went wrong, we
can tell them today that everything is fine.
We will continue to track this data.
We have just completed the follow-up project, so we were able to confirm and expand
upon the findings from the first major project.
It's not just that the sensitive DNA breaks in some cells.
We also know today why it breaks.
We can describe the cellular mechanism behind it.
"From a scientific perspective, this is an important finding for presenting the facts in a plausible manner."
In Austria, “wargaming” apparently also refers to malicious interpretations and distortions of the facts, as seen
here in the AUVA study led by Professor Mosgöller and carried out by the Vienna-based industry lobby group FMK.
This pattern of deliberate misinterpretation is often taken to extremes, such as when fake news is published in
the *Österreichische Ärztezeitung*, which only turns out to be paid advertising upon closer inspection.
But things are starting to get tight for the master manipulators.
One would think so. But even though the very person who sparked this so-called forgery scandal was found guilty and
was ultimately even convicted in court, *Der Spiegel* did not feel it necessary to set the record straight.
That might be a nice suggestion.
So, basically, it all came down to that forgery verdict.
And what’s also disastrous—as I later realized—is that in the U.S., these issues are,
so to speak, swept under the rug in lawsuits.
So that was a fake, even though that's nonsense.
And you've seen how things are manipulated here.
And so, naturally, Professor Lerchl came up again.
He had, in fact, submitted a proposal to the International Agency for Research on Cancer—the IARC—which was seeking to
determine whether cell phone use causes cancer: yes or no?
And that was when Mr. Lerchl applied. And this letter informed him that his application had been rejected, because even at the
World Health Organization’s sub-agency, a committee had concluded at the time that he had made a name
for himself more as a critic than as a researcher.
And so Mr. Lerchl himself posted this rejection letter addressed to him on the Internet.
Here's another example of how one might handle the situation.
But this topic, too, was not covered by the mainstream media.
When I then began researching my first feature film, the things you’ve just seen—those statements and
revelations—led people to label me a conspiracy theorist.
Well, I've been there for ten years, thanks to a cover story in *Profil*.
Okay. Here's another example: the MOBI-Kids study on cell phones and brain tumors.
Once again, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection has offered a misinterpretation that downplays the issue.
And the authors of this so-called MOBI-Kids study did not find this to be the case.
They said: It is not—and was not—the goal of the MOBI-Kids study to investigate whether cell phone radiation causes brain tumors!
And the Federal Statistical Office (BFS) has stated that cell phone use does not
increase the risk for children and adolescents.
So we just have to work through this dilemma.
In addition, I have (...), which actually refers to the ICNIRP I mentioned earlier.
And there's a very good report—the so-called ICNIRP Report—that our dear Klaus Buchner, who was still a
Member of the European Parliament at the time, helped draft.
“The main finding was that these people have ties to industry.”
So the fact that they aren't independent, and that sometimes—since you're always required to disclose whether you
have such connections—they sometimes failed to disclose them.
"So that means it was really a discovery of things that turned out differently than they were supposed to."
ICNIRP isn't really there to ensure health protection—which is what they're supposed to
do—but rather to set limits that favor industry.
And that's exactly one of the problems—and a source of frustration. The whole thing just keeps going.
We now also have some great commissions, some of which are international.
And they also demonstrate that the health assumptions on which the FCC and the ICNIRP base their exposure limits
for radiofrequency radiation do not in any way refute the scientific findings regarding health risks.
And that's why they're in hot water right now.
In the United States, the FCC and the ICNIRP are currently facing charges.
These are processes that are now underway. And that's a good thing.
This dire situation facing research and science—which is increasingly uncovering health risks—is then used, for example,
in the context of technology assessment—as was already mentioned today—to then, through an advertising agency and advertising
campaigns, as you may recall, to claim exactly the opposite.
Namely, to say: 5G is really great, everyone in Germany is talking about it, and we all need it.
And in fact, it’s true that, for example, my work always involves me reaching out to people.
Ms. Belpoggi, whom I just mentioned—one of the leading cancer researchers—I had the opportunity to visit
at the Ramazzini Institute; she was in charge of STOA.
And the STOA study came under attack.
And so I think it’s simply a message from a journalistic perspective: go out and look
at the people, don’t just stay at your desk.
In 2020, she commissioned an impact assessment of 5G technology; the findings of the so-called STOA report are clear.
An increased risk of cancer and reduced sperm quality are the main concerns and have led, among other things,
to calls for a halt to expansion and a new information policy aimed at protecting consumers.
Industry-friendly scientists attempted to cast doubt on the competence of the director, Dr. Fiorella
Belpoggi, who was also responsible for the STOA report.
“I have been working in cancer research since 1976.
And so I think I've learned a lot throughout my career.
And I was the author of the STOA report.
But at first, I thought I would be able to write this report on my own.
When I found more than 8,000 relevant papers, I decided to involve my colleagues as well.
And both of these colleagues—Dr. Sgargi and Dr. Vornoli—have a master's degree in biostatistics.
"And so they were certainly able to select studies and prepare documents for my overall evaluation."
…to engage with people, seek dialogue, and present scientific findings in this
way—that is what constitutes a marketing strategy.
And that isn't taken into account at all.
She's simply being destroyed—or at least that's what they're trying to do. And yes, no one visits her.
So it seems today's press hasn't even thought to seek out this lady.
Which is a real shame. So we said, “Okay, maybe it would help if we conducted our own study.”
And we have now launched the ATHEM-3 study, which I mentioned earlier.
And this study was published as early as 2024.
And I think this young lady sitting next to me played a major role in us even getting this project off the ground.
But that's exactly what the authorities should be doing.
We then took the initiative to set this up on our own in order to be even stronger and to be able to substantiate this
very point through a study—that there is actually no difference between non-ionizing and ionizing radiation.
My film *Die Witwenstraße* clearly illustrates this as well.
And then we'll be able to post that on your platform as well. Thank you very much for your attention.
Cell phone and Wi-Fi radiation harms people, animals, and the environment. We need radiation-free zones!
ASZA.org