The One Click Group

The One Click Group
Health Advocacy

RSS Feed Follow OneClickGroup on Twitter

Dr Iain Stephenson
Found Guilty of Vaccine
Research Fraud
The One Click Group

Mobilising ME/CFS Charities
To Smash Flawed
PACE Trial Results
Lara, Health Advocate

UK Public Health
In Dire Straits
Dr Dick van Steenis MBBS

Lies Damned Lies
Swine Flu
Statistics Exposed
By Lara

Vaccination Graphs
The Awful Stats In Action
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

Issues In Immunization
Theory And Practice
Raymond Obomsawin Ph.D

March 2010

One Click
Of Information
UK Police Harassment
In The Internet Era

Barbara Loe Fisher
NVIC Conference
Style, Gonads
Brass Ovaries
By Jane Bryant

New Journalism
Status Quo
By Jane Bryant
NVIC Conference

How The
Judicial Review
NICE Guidelines
Was Lost
Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

Vaccines Propaganda
David Salisbury
Public Relations

David Southall
"A Very
Dangerous Doctor"
Panorama swims
with sharks
Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dr David Salisbury
Never Mind Me,
I'm Basil Fawlty!

David Salisbury
Vaccine Litigation

The Politics
And Commerce
Of Autism
By Lisa Blakemore Brown

Vaccine/Autism Case
Mitochondrial Disfunction
ME/CFS Patients

The Consensus Report
Family Law Reform

Canadian Definition of ME-CFS

The Weird World of Wikipedia
By Martin J. Walker

Click here to email us with any thoughts or opinions you wish to share about the website.


News Archives 5041-5060
Number Title Post Date
5041 Occupy London Stock Exchange Callout, Saturday 14/10/2011 14:18:53
5042 Occupy London Stock Exchange protest blessed by St Paul's Cathedral 16/10/2011 10:27:08
5043 Harassing British people on benefits degrades us all 21/10/2011 09:10:18
5044 Inhumane British ConDem government policy: You will lose your benefits if you appeal 21/10/2011 09:13:37
5045 Google's new good to know privacy policy 21/10/2011 09:14:42
5046 How to make people believe any anti-vitamin scare with pharma cash 21/10/2011 09:18:19
5047 Chronic fatigue syndrome eased by cancer drug 21/10/2011 09:19:37
5048 CSL negligent in failing to reveal flu vaccine adverse reactions 21/10/2011 09:20:58
5049 Death by pharmaceutical industry drugs on the rise 21/10/2011 09:22:13
5050 Misleading Danish Mobile Phones and Brain Tumour Study in BMJ 21/10/2011 09:23:31
5051 The OccupyUSA Blog for Friday (Oct. 21), With Frequent Updates 21/10/2011 09:24:34
5052 Occupy London Stock Exchange, The People’s Protest 21/10/2011 09:25:41
5053 Insight Pharmaceuticals recalls Nostrilla nasal spray over bacteria contamination 23/10/2011 07:01:16
5054 Pfizer pays $14.5M to settle Detrol off-label suit 23/10/2011 07:03:51
5055 Younger doctors question vaccines safety and efficacy 23/10/2011 07:05:16
5056 There is little doubt that Rupert Murdoch's Rosebud moment is approaching 23/10/2011 07:15:39
5057 United Nations denied access to Bradley Manning and condemns his solitary confinement 23/10/2011 07:16:43
5058 Occupy Wall Street: The Free Economy of Liberty Plaza Park 23/10/2011 07:20:10
5059 Open Letter from OccupyLSX (London) to St Paul's Cathedral plus 23/10/2011 07:21:31
5060 Three crashingly common mistakes in medical journalism 25/10/2011 17:44:54

[Previous] [Next]

Misleading Danish Mobile Phones and Brain Tumour Study in BMJ
Share |

Misleading Danish Mobile Phones and Brain Tumour Study in BMJ


Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study by Patrizia Frei, Aslak H Poulsen, Christoffer Johansen, Jorgen H Olsen, Marianne Steding-Jessen, and Joachim Schuz

Our opinion

This misleading study has many flaws and serious confounders and should not give anyone reassurance that mobile phone use is not associated with an increase in brain tumours. In our opinion the paper should not have been published in this form — it should have failed peer-review. We recommend that it is disregarded as low quality science.

Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects at the University of Bristol agrees with this view: "This seriously flawed study misleads the public and decision makers about the safety of mobile phone use. I consider that their claims are worthless."

What the BMJ Press Release says:

"There is no link between long-term use of mobile phones and tumours of the brain or central nervous system, finds new research published on today. In what is described as the largest study on the subject to date, Danish researchers found no evidence that the risk of brain tumours was raised among 358,403 mobile phone subscribers over an 18-year period."

What do we see as the main problems?

  • The Abstract wrongly claims "The risk of such tumours was close to unity for both men and women." when it means "The relative risk of such tumours..."

  • This study only looks at 7% of the Danish population who had a personal mobile phone subscription for at least one year during the period 1987 to 1995.

  • They had few women subscribers in their cohort. In this new analysis they have 6% of the Danish population as male mobile phone users and only 1% as female mobile phone users. By the end of the study period (2007) about 90% of the population were mobile phone users (but were still classified as non-users!).

  • Pre-1995 almost all these subscribers used analogue mobile phones which operate quite differently to GSM and 3G handsets used since 1995. Analogue mobile phones were slightly higher powered but did not pulse in the way GSM phones do.

  • It did not analyse corporate subscribers (the heaviest users in the 1987-1995 period). In total it placed these 36% of total users from that period in the "non-users" group of the general population.

  • The researchers have no data at all on mobile phone use since 1995 so the extra 88% of the population who started to use a mobile phone after 1995 were left in the "non user" part of the population. That will seriously damage and distort any data analysis. Other studies have shown increases in brain tumours in the first 10 years of use - these "non-users" could have actually have used a mobile phone for up to 12 years.

  • The researchers have assumed that anyone having at least a one-year a mobile phone contract in the period 1987 to 1995 will have continued to have one up to 2007. They even put categories in their tables for up to 13 years of use - yet they have no actual evidence that these people did continue having a mobile phone contract, however likely or unlikely that is.

  • They did not control for cordless phone use. This is despite the first author (Frei) having published a paper showing that a third of a person's microwave exposure can come from cordless phone use (with another third from mobile phone use and the other third from base stations and other UHF transmitters). Professor Lennart Hardell has repeatedly shown increases in brain tumours associated with extensive cordless phone use - any such cases would occur in the "non-users" group and reduce any effect in the cohort group.

  • They lost 37,093 people from the user cohort because their either died or emigrated. This represents a loss of almost 10% of the cohort of 358,403 people.

The new paper admits (our emphasis):

"A limitation of the study is potential misclassification of exposure. Subscription holders who are not using their phone will erroneously be classified as exposed and people without a subscription but still using a mobile phone will erroneously be classified as unexposed. Because we excluded corporate subscriptions, mobile phone users who do not have a subscription in their own name will have been misclassified as unexposed. Also, as data on mobile phone subscriptions were available only until 1995, individuals with a subscription in 1996 or later were classified as non-users."

The IARC panel of 30 scientists who judged RF exposure as a Class 2B possible human carcinogen in May 2011, commented on the 2006 paper of the Danish Cohort study: "In this study, reliance on subscription to a mobile phone provider, as a surrogate for mobile phone use, could have resulted in considerable misclassification in exposure assessment." [Lancet, 22 June 2011]


  1. Frei P, et al. Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study.
    British Medical Journal. E-pub 21 October 2011. [pdf] [download the paper]

  2. Ahlbom and Feychting BMJ Editorial.
    British Medical Journal. E-pub 21 October 2011. [pdf] [download the editorial]

  3. Schuz J, et al. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort.
    J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Dec 6;98(23):1707-13. [pdf] [download the paper]

  4. Kundi, M. Letter regarding the 2006 paper:
    Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. [pdf] [download the letter]
UK Web Hosting by Fri, October 21st, 2011. 09:23 am