Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Review

Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone


Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies
Anke Huss,1 Matthias Egger,1,2 Kerstin Hug,3 Karin Huwiler-Müntener,1 and Martin Röösli 1
1Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland; 2Department of Social Medicine, University of
Bristol, United Kingdom; 3Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basle, Basle, Switzerland

data on the source of funding (industry, public


OBJECTIVES: There is concern regarding the possible health effects of cellular telephone use. We or charity, mixed, not reported) and potential
examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radia- confounding factors, including study design
tion is associated with the results of studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies of con- (crossover, parallel, other), exposure (fre-
trolled exposure to radiofrequency radiation with health-related outcomes (electroencephalogram,
cognitive or cardiovascular function, hormone levels, symptoms, and subjective well-being).
quency band, duration, field intensity, and
location of antenna), and methodologic and
DATA SOURCES: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and a specialist database in February 2005 and reporting quality. Four dimensions of quality
scrutinized reference lists from relevant publications.
were assessed (Jüni et al. 2001; Repacholi
DATA EXTRACTION: Data on the source of funding, study design, methodologic quality, and other 1998): a) randomized, concealed allocation of
study characteristics were extracted. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one statisti- study participants in parallel or crossover tri-
cally significant association between the exposure and a health-related outcome. Data were analyzed
using logistic regression models.
als; b) blinding of participants and investiga-
tors to allocation group; c) reporting of the
DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications specific absorption rate (SAR; watts per kilo-
industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding
(including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded
gram tissue) from direct measurement using a
exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a phantom head or three-dimensional dosimet-
statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.78), com- ric calculations (“appropriate exposure set-
pared with studies funded by public agencies or charities. This finding was not materially altered in ting”); d) appropriate statistical analysis. For
analyses adjusted for the number of outcomes reported, study quality, and other factors. each item, studies were classified as adequate
CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation or inadequate/unclear.
should take sponsorship into account. The primary outcome was the reporting of
KEY WORDS: electromagnetic fields, financial conflicts of interest, human laboratory studies, mobile at least one statistically significant (p < 0.05)
phones. Environ Health Perspect 115:1–4 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9149 available via association between radiofrequency exposure
http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 15 September 2006] and a health-related outcome. The message in
the title was also assessed. We distinguished
among neutral titles [e.g., “Human brain
The use of mobile telephones has increased February 2005. Key and free text words activity during exposure to radiofrequency
rapidly in recent years. The emission of low- included “cell(ular),” “mobile,” “(tele)phone(s)” fields emitted by cellular phones” (Hietanen
level radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in connection with “attention,” “auditory,” et al. 2000)], titles indicating an effect of radi-
leading to the absorption of radiation by the “bioelectric,” “brain physiology,” “cardio- ation [e.g., “Exposure to pulsed high-fre-
brain in users of handheld mobile phones has vascular,” “cerebral,” “circulatory,” “cognitive,” quency electromagnetic field during waking
raised concerns regarding potential effects on “EEG,” “health complaint(s),” “hearing,” affects human sleep EEG” (Huber et al.
health (Rothman 2000). However, the stud- “heart rate,” “hormone(s),” “learning,” “mela- 2000)], and titles stating that no effect was
ies examining this issue have produced con- tonin,” “memory,” “neural,” “neurological,” shown [e.g., “No effect on cognitive function
flicting results, and there is ongoing debate “nervous system,” “reaction,” “visual,” “symp- from daily mobile phone use” (Besset et al.
on this issue (Ahlbom et al. 2004; Feychting tom(s),” or “well-being.” The search was com- 2005)]. Finally, authors’ declaration of con-
et al. 2005). Many of the relevant studies plemented with references from a specialist flicts of interest (present, absent) and affilia-
have been funded by the telecommunications database (ELMAR 2005) and by scrutinizing tions (industry, other) were recorded.
industry, and thus may have resulted in con- reference lists from the relevant publications. Differences in data extracted by A.H., K.H.,
flicts of interest (Thompson 1993). Recent Articles published in English, German, or and M.R. were resolved in the group, with the
systematic reviews of the influence of finan- French were considered. senior epidemiologist (M.R.) acting as the
cial interests in medical research concluded We included original articles that reported arbiter. In addition, two of us (K.H.M.,
that there is a strong association between studies of the effect of controlled exposure M.E.), who were kept blind to funding
industry sponsorship and pro-industry con- with radiofrequency radiation on health-
clusions (Bekelman et al. 2003; Yaphe et al. related outcomes [“human laboratory studies” Address correspondence to M. Egger, Department of
2001). This association has not been exam- in World Health Organization (WHO) ter- Social and Preventive Medicine, Finkenhubelweg
ined in the context of the studies of potential minology (Repacholi 1998)]. Health-related 11, University of Berne, Switzerland. Telephone:
41-31-631-35-01. Fax: 41-31-631-35-20. E-mail:
adverse effects of mobile phone use. We per- outcomes included electroencephalogram egger@ispm.unibe.ch
formed a systematic review and analysis of (EEG) recordings, assessments of cognitive or Supplemental Material is available online at
the literature to examine whether industry cardiovascular function, hormone levels, and http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/9149/
involvement is associated with the results and subjective well-being and symptoms. We supplemental.pdf
methodologic quality of studies. excluded studies of the risk of using mobile This study was funded by intramural funds of the
phones when driving a motor vehicle or oper- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine,
Methods ating machinery as well as studies on electro- University of Berne, Switzerland.
The authors declare they have no competing
We searched EMBASE (http://www.embase. magnetic field (EMF) incompatibilities (e.g., financial interests.
com) and Medline (http://www.ncbi.nlm. pacemakers or hearing aids). Three of us Received 7 March 2006; accepted 15 September
nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed) in (A.H., K.H., M.R.) independently extracted 2006.

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 1 | January 2007 1


Huss et al.

source, authors, and institutions, repeated


Potentially eligible articles identified extraction of data from abstracts and assess-
(n = 222)
ments of titles. Differences in data extracted by
K.H.M. and M.E. were resolved with the
Exclusions based on title or abstract senior epidemiologist (M.E.) acting as the
(n = 142)
• Studies of the risk of using mobile phones when driving arbiter. Based on the abstracts, we assessed
a motor vehicle or operating machinery whether authors interpreted their study results
(n = 29) as showing an effect of low-level radiofrequency
• Studies of the use of mobile phones in the monitoring
of and communication with patients radiation, as showing no effect, or as indicating
(n = 28) an unclear finding.
• Other study designs We used logistic regression models to assess
(n = 29)
• Studies of interference with hearing aids or pacemakers whether the source of funding was associated
(n = 28) with the reporting of at least one significant
• Studies of other exposures or methodologic issues
(n = 26) effect in the article (including the abstract). We
• Animal studies examined the influence of potential con-
(n = 2) founders, such as the total number of out-
comes that were reported in the article, the
80 full-text articles examined type of study (crossover, parallel, other), the
four dimensions of study quality (adequate or
Excluded not adequate/unclear), exposure conditions
(n = 21)
• Other study design (position of the antenna next to the ear com-
(n = 9) pared with other locations; use of the 900-
• Published in Chinese or Russian MHz band compared with other bands;
(n = 3)
• Publication was withdrawn duration of exposure in minutes), as well as
(n = 1) the type of outcome (e.g., cognitive function
• Double publications tests: yes vs. no). Variables were entered one
(n = 5)
• Studies of reducing exposure (”shielding studies”) at a time and, given the limited number of
(n = 2) studies, models were adjusted for one variable
• Funded by company producing “shielding devices”
(n = 1) only. Results are reported as odds ratios
(ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
59 studies included in analyses All analyses were carried out in Stata (version
8.2; StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA).
Figure 1. Identification of eligible studies.
Results
Table 1. Characteristics of 59 experimental studies of the effects of exposure to low-level radiofrequency We identified 222 potentially relevant
electromagnetic fields. publications and excluded 163 studies that
Source of funding
did not meet inclusion criteria (Figure 1). We
Industry Public or charity Mixed Not reported
excluded one study that had been funded by a
Study characteristic (n = 12) (n = 11) (n = 14) (n = 22) company producing “shielding” devices that
reduce EMF exposure (Croft et al. 2002). A
Study design [no. (%)]
Crossover trial 10 (83.3) 7 (63.6) 12 (85.7) 11 (50) total of 59 studies were included: 12 (20%)
Parallel group trial 0 (0) 2 (18.2) 1 (7.1) 2 (9.1) were exclusively funded by the telecommuni-
Other, unclear 2 (16.7) 2 (18.2) 1 (7.1) 9 (40.9) cations industry, 11 (19%) were funded by
Exposure [no. (%)] public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had
Location of antenna mixed funding (including industry and indus-
Next to ear 4 (33.3) 8 (72.7) 11 (78.6) 14 (63.6)
try-independent sources), and in 22 (37%)
Other/unclear 8 (66.7) 3 (27.3) 3 (21.4) 8 (36.4)
Frequency banda studies the source of funding was not reported.
900 MHz 11 (91.7) 8 (72.7) 13 (92.9) 14 (63.6) None of 31 journals published a statement on
Other frequencies 2 (16.7) 7 (63.6) 0 (0) 5 (22.7) possible conflicts of interest of the 287 authors
Unclear 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7.1) 5 (22.7) listed in the bylines. Five (8%) studies had
Median duration of exposure (range) 180 (3–480) 20 (5–35) 45 (30–240) 30 (4–480) authors with industry affiliation. All studies
Outcomes assessed [no. (%)]a
except two (3%) were published in journals
Electroencephalogram 7 (58.3) 5 (45.5) 8 (57.1) 12 (54.5)
Cognitive function tests 0 (0) 3 (27.3) 8 (57.1) 8 (36.4) that use peer review, and one was published in
Hormone levels 5 (41.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (9.1) a journal supplement. The bibliographic refer-
Cardiovascular function 2 (16.7) 1 (9.1) 0 (0) 2 (9.1) ences are given in the Supplemental Material
Well-being or symptoms 1 (8.3) 1 (9.1) 1 (7.1) 0 (0) (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/
Other 4 (33.3) 3 (27.3) 1 (7.1) 3 (13.6) 9149/supplemental.pdf).
Study quality [no. (%)]a Blinded and open extraction of data
Randomization adequate 10 (83.3) 7 (63.6) 13 (92.9) 9 (40.9)
Participants and assessors blinded 1 (8.3) 3 (27.3) 8 (57.1) 3 (13.6) yielded identical results with respect to the
SAR determined 4 (33.3) 4 (36.4) 8 (57.1) 2 (9.1) reporting of statistically significant effects in
Statistical analysis adequate 3 (25) 3 (27.3) 7 (50) 1 (4.5) the abstract and the message of the title. Study
Median study size (range) 21 (8–38) 24 (13–100) 20 (13–96) 20 (8–78) characteristics are shown in Table 1. All studies
Percentages are column percentages. were published during 1995–2005, with the
aThe same study could be listed in more than one category. number of publications increasing from one to

2 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 1 | January 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives


Source of funding and studies of mobile phone use

two publications per year to 11 publications in were indeed substantially less likely to report Our study has several limitations. We
2004. Median year of publication was 1998 for statistically significant effects on a range of restricted our analysis to human laboratory
industry-funded studies, 2002 for public or end points that may be relevant to health. studies. This resulted in a more homogenous
charity funding and studies with mixed fund- Our findings add to the existing evidence set of studies, but may have reduced the sta-
ing sources, and 2003 for studies that did not that single-source sponsorship is associated with tistical power to demonstrate or exclude
report their funding source. The median size of outcomes that favor the sponsors’ products smaller associations. The WHO has identified
all the studies was small (20 study partici- (Bekelman et al. 2003; Davidson 1986; the need for further studies of this type to
pants); most studies (n = 32, 54%) were of a Lexchin et al. 2003; Stelfox et al. 1998). Most clarify the effects of radiofrequency exposure
crossover design and mimicked the exposure previous studies of this issue were based on on neuroendocrine, neurologic, and immune
situation during a phone call, using the 900- studies of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of systems (Foster and Repacholi 2004). We
MHz band with the antenna located close to drug treatments. A recent systematic review and considered including epidemiologic studies
the ear. Exposure duration ranged from 3 to meta-analysis showed that studies sponsored by but found that practically all of them were
480 min, with a median of 33 minutes. the pharmaceutical industry were approxi- publicly funded. The study’s primary out-
Thirty-three (59%) studies measured outcomes mately four times more likely to have outcomes come—the reporting of statistically significant
during exposure, 14 (24%) postexposure, and favoring the sponsor’s drug than studies with associations—is a crude measure that ignores
12 (20%) at both times. Thirty-nine (66%) other sources of funding (Lexchin et al. 2003). the size of reported effects. However, we
studies prevented selection bias with adequate The influence of the tobacco industry on the found the same trends when assessing the
randomization; 15 (25%) blinded both partici- research it funded has also been investigated authors’ conclusions in the abstracts.
pants and assessors; in 18 (31%) the field (Barnes and Bero 1996, 1998; Bero 2005). To Although we have shown an association
intensity had been assessed appropriately, with our knowledge, this is the first study to examine between sponsorship and results, it remains
SAR values ranging from 0.03 to 2 W/kg tis- this issue in the context of exposure to radiofre- unclear which type of funding leads to the
sue. Finally, in 14 (24%) studies we considered quency electromagnetic fields. most accurate estimates of the effects of
the statistical analysis to be adequate. Study
quality varied by source of funding: Studies Table 2. Results from assessments of article text, abstract, and title of 59 experimental studies of the
with mixed funding (including public agencies effects of exposure to low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
or charities and industry) had the highest qual- Source of funding
ity, whereas studies with no reported source of Industry Public or charity Mixed Not reported
funding did worst (Table 1). (n = 12) (n = 11) (n = 14) (n = 22)
Forty (68%) studies reported one or more Article text
statistically significant results (p < 0.05) indi- No. (%) of studies with at least one result 4 (33) 9 (82) 10 (71) 17 (77)
suggesting an effect at p < 0.05
cating an effect of the exposure (Table 2). Median no. (range) of outcomes reported 17.5 (4–31) 10 (1–80) 16 (9–44) 7 (1–35)
Studies funded exclusively by industry reported Median no. (range) of outcomes 0 (0–6) 1.5 (0–7) 3 (0–15) 1.5 (0–12)
on the largest number of outcomes but were suggesting an effect at p < 0.05
less likely to report statistically significant Abstracta (n = 12) (n = 11) (n = 14) (n = 20)
results: The OR for reporting at least one such No. (%) of studies with at least one result 4 (33) 7 (64) 10 (71) 15 (75)
suggesting a significant effect
result was 0.11 (95% CI, 0.02–0.78), com- Median no. (range) of outcomes reported 3.5 (1–36) 3 (1–5) 6.5 (3–44) 3 (1–64)
pared with studies funded by public agencies Median no. (range) of outcomes 0 (0–6) 1 (0–3) 2 (0–5) 1.5 (0–7)
or charities (Table 3). This finding was not suggesting a significant effect
materially altered in analyses adjusted for the Authors’ interpretation of results [no. (%)]
number of outcomes reported, study design No effect of radiofrequency radiation 10 (83.3) 5 (45.5) 4 (28.6) 5 (22.7)
Effect of radiofrequency radiation 1 (8.3) 5 (45.5) 8 (57.1) 14 (63.6)
and quality, exposure characteristics, or out- Unclear finding 1 (8.3) 1 (9) 2 (14.3) 3 (13.6)
comes [Table 3; see Supplemental Material, Title [no. (%)]
Table 1 (http://www.ehponline.org/members/ Neutral 7 (58) 5 (46) 8 (57) 17 (77)
2006/9149/supplemental.pdf)]. Similar Statement of effect 0 (0) 4 (36) 3 (21) 4 (18)
results were obtained when restricting analy- Statement of no effect 5 (42) 2 (18) 3 (21) 1 (5)
ses to results reported in abstracts (OR = Percentages are column percentages.
aTwo publications that did not report their source of funding had no abstracts.
0.29; 95% CI, 0.05–1.59) or on the conclu-
sions in the abstract (OR = 0.10, 95% CI,
Table 3. Probability of reporting at least one statistically significant result (p < 0.05) according to source of
0.009–1.10). Thirty-seven (63%) studies had funding: crude and adjusted ORs (95% CIs) from logistic regression models.
a neutral title, 11 (19%) a title reporting an
Source of funding
effect, and 11 (19%) a title reporting no effect
Industry Public or charity Mixed Not reported
(Table 2). (n = 12) (n = 11) (n = 14) (n = 22) p-Valuea
Discussion Crude 0.11 (0.02–0.78) 1 (reference) 0.56 (0.08–3.80) 0.76 (0.12–4.70) 0.04
Adjusted for
We examined the methodologic quality and No. of reported outcomes 0.12 (0.02–0.89) 1 (reference) 0.60 (0.08–4.28) 0.96 (0.15–6.23) 0.04
results of experimental studies investigating Median study size 0.08 (0.009–0.62) 1 (reference) 0.61 (0.08–4.59) 0.57 (0.08–4.02) 0.02
the effects of the type of radiofrequency radia- Study design (crossover, parallel, 0.08 (0.01–0.68) 1 (reference) 0.38 (0.05–3.07) 1.16 (0.16–8.61) 0.029
tion emitted by handheld cellular telephones. or other)
Study quality
We hypothesized that studies would be less Randomization adequate 0.04 (0–0.56) 1 (reference) 0.16 (0.01–2.15) 1.27 (0.16–9.89) 0.005
likely to show an effect of the exposure if Participants and assessors blinded 0.14 (0.02–0.96) 1 (reference) 0.54 (0.08–3.91) 0.76 (0.12–4.8) 0.09
funded by the telecommunications industry, Statistical analysis adequate 0.12 (0.02–0.85) 1 (reference) 0.67 (0.09–4.85) 0.54 (0.08–3.76) 0.07
which has a vested interest in portraying the Exposure setting appropriate 0.13 (0.02–0.89) 1 (reference) 0.47 (0.07–3.39) 0.86 (0.14–5.5) 0.06
use of mobile phones as safe. We found that Models adjusted for one variable at a time.
the studies funded exclusively by industry aFrom likelihood ratio tests.

Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 1 | January 2007 3


Huss et al.

radiofrequency radiation. For example, if included such a statement, in line with a survey Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. 2003. Scope and impact of financial
researchers with an environmentalist agenda of science and medical journals that showed conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic
review. JAMA 289:454–465.
are more likely to be funded by public agen- that adopting such policies does not generally Bero L. 2005. Tobacco industry manipulation of research.
cies or charities, then their bias may result in lead to the publication of disclosure statements Public Health Rep 120:200–208.
an overestimation of effects. Interestingly, (Krimsky and Rothenberg 2001). A review of Besset A, Espa F, Dauvilliers Y, Billiard M, de Seze R. 2005. No
effect on cognitive function from daily mobile phone use.
studies with mixed funding were of the high- 2005 instructions to authors showed that 15 Bioelectromagnetics 26:102–108.
est quality. The National Radiological (48%) of the 31 journals included in our study Croft RJ, Chandler JS, Burgess AP, Barry RJ, Williams JD,
Protection Board (NRPB 2004) reviewed had conflict of interest policies. Our results Clarke AR. 2002. Acute mobile phone operation affects
neural function in humans. Clin Neurophysiol 113:1623–1632.
studies of health effects from radiofrequency support the notion that disclosure statements Davidson R. 1986. Source of funding and outcome of clinical
(RF) fields and concluded that “scientific evi- should be published, including statements trials. J Gen Intern Med 1:155–158.
dence regarding effects of RF field exposure indicating the absence of conflicts of interest. ELMAR. 2005. Dokumentationsstelle ELMAR, Elektromagnetische
Strahlung und Gesundheit. Available: www.elmar.unibas.ch
from mobile phones on human brain activity The role of the funding source in the design, [accessed 10 February 2005].
and cognitive function … has included results conduct, analysis, and reporting of the study Feychting M, Ahlbom A, Kheifets L. 2005. EMF and health. Annu
both supporting and against the hypothesis of should also be addressed. Rev Public Health 26:165–189.
an effect.” We found that the source of fund- There is widespread concern regarding the Foster KR, Repacholi MH. 2004. Biological effects of radio-
frequency fields: does modulation matter? Radiat Res
ing explains some of the heterogeneity in the possible health effects associated with the use 162:219–225.
results from different studies. The association of cellular phones, mobile telephone base sta- Hietanen M, Kovala T, Hamalainen AM. 2000. Human brain
was robust and little affected by potential tions, or broadcasting transmitters. Most activity during exposure to radiofrequency fields emitted
by cellular phones. Scand J Work Environ Health 26:87–92.
confounding factors such as sample size, study (68%) of the studies assessed here reported Huber R, Graf T, Cote KA, Wittmann L, Gallmann E, Matter D,
design, or quality. biologic effects. At present it is unclear et al. 2000. Exposure to pulsed high-frequency electro-
Possible explanations for the association whether these biologic effects translate into magnetic field during waking affects human sleep EEG.
Neuroreport 11:3321–3325.
between source of funding and results have relevant health hazards. Reports from national Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. 2001. Systematic reviews in health
been discussed in the context of clinical and international bodies have recently con- care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.
research sponsored by the pharmaceutical cluded that further research efforts are needed, BMJ 323:42–46.
Krimsky S, Rothenberg L. 2001. Conflict of interest policies in
industry (Baker et al. 2003; Bekelman et al. and dedicated research programs have been set science and medical journals: Editorial practices and
2003; Lexchin et al. 2003). The association up in the United States, Germany, Denmark, author disclosures. Sci Eng Ethics 7:205–218.
could reflect the selective publication of stud- Hungary, Switzerland, and Japan. Our study Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. 2003. Pharma-
ceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and
ies that produced results that fitted the spon- indicates that the interpretation of the results quality: Systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170.
sor’s agenda. Sponsors might influence the from existing and future studies of the health NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board). 2004. Health
design of the study, the nature of the expo- effects of radiofrequency radiation should take effects from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
sure, and the type of outcomes assessed. In sponsorship into account. Report of an independent advisory group on non-ionising
radiation. Documents of the NRPB 14(2):1–177. Available:
multivariate logistic regression analysis, the http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/documents_
only factor that strongly predicted the report- REFERENCES of_nrpb/pdfs/doc_14_2.pdf [accessed 3 July 2006].
ing of statistically significant effects was Repacholi MH. 1998. Low-level exposure to radiofrequency
Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. 2004. electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs.
whether or not the study was funded exclu- Bioelectromagnetics 19:1–19.
Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency expo-
sively by industry. We stress that our ability sure. Environ Health Perspect 112:1741–1754. Rothman KJ. 2000. Epidemiological evidence on health risks of
to control for potential confounding factors Baker C, Johnsrud M, Crismon M, Rosenheck R, Woods S. 2003. cellular telephones. Lancet 356:1837–1840.
Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic Stelfox H, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky A. 1998. Conflict of inter-
may have been hampered by the incomplete est in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.
studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 183:498–506.
reporting of relevant study characteristics. Barnes D, Bero L. 1996. Industry-funded research and conflict of N Engl J Med 338:101–106.
Medical and science journals are imple- interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco Thompson DF. 1993. Understanding financial conflicts of inter-
est. N Engl J Med 329:573–576.
menting policies that require authors to dis- industry through the center for indoor air research. J Health
Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. 2001. The associa-
Polit Policy Law 21:515–542.
close their financial and other conflicts of Barnes D, Bero L. 1998. Why review articles on the health tion between funding by commercial interests and study
interest. None of the articles examined here effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract
JAMA 279:1566–1570. 18:565–568.

4 VOLUME 115 | NUMBER 1 | January 2007 • Environmental Health Perspectives


The BioElectric Shield Company has been dedicated to helping create a more balanced and peaceful
world one person at a time since 1990.

In the 1980’s, when Dr. Charles Brown, DABCN, (Diplomate American College of Chiropractic
Neurologists), the inventor of the Shield, became aware that a certain group of his patients exhibited
consistent symptoms of stress and a slower rate of healing that the rest of his patient population. This
group of patients all worked long hours in front of CRT computer screens for many hours a day, and
usually 6 days a week. He began researching the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the literature, and
found there were many associated health effects. He wanted to help these patients, and hoped that he
could come up with a low-tech, high effect product.

In 1989, he had a series of waking dream that


showed him a specific pattern of crystals. Each
of 3 dreams clarified the placement of the
crystals. He showed the patterns to an individual
who can see energy and she confirmed that the
pattern produced several positive effects. She
explained that the Shield interacts with a
person’s energy field (aura) to strengthen and
balance it. Effectively it created a cocoon of
energy that deflects away energies that are
not compatible. In addition, the Shield acts to
balance the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual bodies of the aura.

A series of studies was conducted to investigate the possible protection from EMF's wearing this kind of
device. Happily the studies were consistent in showing that people remained strong when exposed to
these frequencies. Without the shield, most people showed measurable weakening in the presence of both
EMF’s and stress. Of interest to us was that these same effects were noted when people IMAGINED
stress in their lives. It seems obvious that how we think and what we are exposed to physically both have
an energy impact on us. The Shield addresses energy issues-stabilizing a person's energy in adverse
conditions. See “How the Shield Works” for more information.

Since that time, we have sold tens of thousands of Shields and had feedback from more people than we
could possibly list. Here are just a few of the testimonials we have gotten back from Shield wearers.

Dr. David Getoff was one of the earliest practitioners to begin wearing a Shield and doing his own testing
with patients with very good results (video).

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


OUR MISSION

Our mission is to make the BioElectric Shield available worldwide. In doing so, we feel we are part of the
solution to the health crisis that is, in part, caused by exposure to electromagnetic radiation and well as
exposure to massive amounts of stress, from situations and other people’s energy.

We also want to bring more peace, balance and joy to the world - and the Shield offers a vibration of
peace, love, and balance in a world filled with fear and uncertainty. Selling a Shield may seem like a
small thing in the scheme of things, but each Shield helps one more person find a greater sense of ease,
balance and protection, allowing them to focus on living their dreams

To enhance your sense of well-being, (In addition to the Shield, ) we offer other products that provide
health and wellness benefits on many levels.

By working together we can, and are, accomplishing miracles.

Charles W. Brown, D.C., D.A.B.C.N.

Dr. Brown graduated in 1979 w ith honors from Palmer College of Chiropractic. He
is a Di plomate of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners and a Di plomate of
the A merican B oard o f Chiropractic Neu rologists. He al so i s cer tified i n Ap plied
Kinesiology. Dr. Brown has had his own radio show "Health Tips". Additionally, he
has t aught an atomy at B oston Un iversity an d t he New E ngland I nstitute o f M assage
Therapy.

He invented the BioElectric Shield, Conditioning Yourself for Peak Performance (a DVD of series of
Peak Performance Postures with Declarations) and Dr. Brown’s Dust and Allergy Air Filters, as well as
Dr. Brown’s Dust and Allergy Anti-Microbial, Anti-Viral Spray. He is presently working on other
inventions.

Dr. Brown’s experience of the Shield is that it has helped him move deeper into spiritual realms, quantum
energy, and creative meditative spaces. It has always been his desire to help others, and he is grateful that
the Shield is helping so many people worldwide.

Virginia Bonta Brown, M.S., O.T.R.

As child, I always wanted others feel better. As a teenager, I volunteered as a


Candy Striper at the local hospital, wheeling around a cart of gifts to patients’
rooms. The hospital setting didn’t really draw me, so summers were spend
teaching tennis to kids at a wonderful camp in Vermont. With the idea of
becoming a psychologist, I received a B.S. degree from Hollins College in

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


psychology and worked with drug addicts for a year. Called by the practicality of Occupational Therapy, I
received an M.S. degree in Occupational Therapy from Boston University in 1974

For the next 16 years, working with ADD, ADHD, autistic and other special needs children was my
passion. Because of my specialty in Sensory Integration Dysfunction (a technique based on neurology), I
met Anne Shumway Cook, RPT, PhD, a brilliant PT, with a PhD in neurophysiology. We created special
therapy techniques for children with vestibular (balance and position in space) dysfunction while she
worked with the Vestibular Treatment Center at Good Samaritan, and while I managed the therapy
services of the Children's Program at this same hospital in Portland, Oregon. A fun project at that time
also included collaborating with a team of other therapists to create a therapy in the public schools manual
for OT, PT and Adapted PT procedures. It included goals and treatment plans which has served as a
model for nearly every school district in the United States. There was nothing quite so satisfying as
seeing a child move from frustration to joy as they began to master their coordination and perceptual
skills.

For the next seven years, I shifted my focus. Married to Dr. Charles Brown, we decided that I’d begin to
work with him in his Pain and Allergy Clinic, first in Boston and then in Billings, Montana. During this
time I began to hear people talk about how thoroughly stressed out they were by their job environment.
Their neck and shoulders hurt from sitting in front of computer screens. They were fatigued and
overloaded dealing with deadlines and other stressed out people! They wanted to be sheltered from the
“storm” of life. Though conversation, myofascial deep tissue and cranio-sacral therapy helped them, the
stress never disappeared. It was our patients who really let us know that something that managed their
environment and their energy would be a wonderful miracle in their lives.

What could we do to help them? I became an OT so I could help children and adults accomplish whatever
it was that they wanted to do. When my husband, Dr. Brown, invented the Shield, initially I felt I was
abandoning my patients. Running the company meant I didn’t spend as much time in the clinic. But then
I saw what the Shield was accomplishing with people. They got Shields and their lives began to improve.
People told me they felt less overwhelmed, didn’t get the headaches in front of the computer, were less
affected by other people’s energy and enjoyed life more. I began noticing the same thing!

In 2000, we received a request for a customized shield for a child with ADD/ADHD. After it was
designed, our consultant told us that she could create a special shield that would help any person with
these symptoms. Read more about the ADD/ADHD Shield.

When we started the company in 1990, I was still seeing patients nearly full time. I was wearing the
Shield and began to notice something different about my own life. At the clinic, I noticed my energy was
very steady all day. Instead of being exhausted at the end of the day, particularly when I had treated
particularly needy patients, I was pleasantly tired and content. I noticed I was more detached from the
patient’s problem. In other words, I didn’t allow it to tire me. Instead I became more compassionate and
intuitive about what they needed to help them. I was able to hear my Guides more clearly as they helped
me help them. As I wore it during meditation, I felt myself go deeper into a space of Unity of all things,
from people to mountains to stars.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


Over the years, I’ve spoken with many, many people, from all walks of life. Because they consistently
tell me how much it’s helped them, I become more committed each year to offer this to as many people
as possible. It is my belief that the Shield is a gift from the Divine, and that those who wear it will be
helped on earth to accomplish their own mission, with greater health and greater compassion. For this
reason, it is my desire to provide the blessing of the BioElectric Shield to as many people as possible.

Carolyn (Workinger) Nau:

I joined the BioElectric Shield Company in January 1994 when the shipping and order
department consisted of one computer and a card table. With my help, the company
grew to what it is today. From 1994 to 2000 I traveled and did approximately 100 trade
shows, talking to people, muscle testing and really finding out how much difference the
Shield makes in people’s lives.

An empath and natural intuitive, I have personally found the Shield to be one of my most important and
valued possessions, as it assists me in not taking on everyone else’s stuff. That ability has also been
invaluable when I talk to and connect with clients in person, over the phone or even via email. I am
frequently able to “tune in” and help advise on the best Shield choice for an individual.

I felt a strong pull to move to California and reluctantly left the company in 2000. While in California I
met the love of my life, David Nau. After being married on the pier in Capitola, we relocated to
Milwaukee, Wisconsin where he’d accepted a job as design director of an award winning exhibit firm.
David is an artist and designer, and has taken all the newest photos of the Shields. They are the most
beautiful and accurate images we have ever had!
Through the magic of the internet I was able to return to working with the company in January 2008. I
love how things have changed to allow me to live where I want and work from home. I am fully involved
and even more excited about the Shield’s benefits and the need for people to be strengthened and
protected. I am thrilled to be back and loving connecting with old and new customers. It’s great to pick up
the phone and have someone say, “Wow, I remember you. You sold me a Shield in Vegas in 1999”

How did I get started making Energy Necklaces? It's not every day that going to a trade show can totally
change your life. It did mine. I must have been ready for a drastic change. I just didn't know it. I guess
I’ve just always been a natural Quester.

Quite by chance, I went to the Bead and Button Show in Milwaukee. The show is an entire convention
center filled with beads, baubles and semi-precious stones. I looked over my purchases at the end of the
first day and realized I didn't have enough of some for earrings. So I went back with a friend who
normally is the voice of reason. I thought if I got carried away she’d help me stop. Joke was on me.

I was unable to resist all those incredible goodies. My friend turned out to be a very bad influence, she’d
find fabulous things and hold semi-precious and even precious stones in front of me saying "Have you
seen this?". How can a woman resist all that beauty? I can’t! I couldn't. I walked out with a suitcase full
of beads and stones. The only problem was, I didn’t even know how to make jewelry.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


I spent the summer taking classes, reading books, practicing jewelry making. Immediately people were
stopping me in the street asking about the jewelry I was wearing. It finally dawned on me that just maybe
I was meant to design and share my creations. Thus Bold Bodacious Jewelry was born.

I still laugh about this whole process. Obviously the Universe or someone was guiding me. Looking back
it should have been obvious that I was buying enough to start a business. But at the time, it just felt like
the right thing to do. Not a conscious plan. Sometimes following your gut can change your life.

In the fall of 2008, I felt a pull to examine how various gemstones could enhance the protective and
healing effects of the BioElectric Shield. I also wanted to wear great jewelry and my gold and diamond
Shied at the same time, so I created something new so I could do that. After making a few “Shield energy
necklaces”, I was convinced that not only was my jewelry beautiful and fun to wear, it had additional
healing qualities as well. Since then I’ve been immersed in studying stones and their properties, paying
particular attention to the magical transformation that happens when stones are combined. Much like the
Shield, the combined properties of the stones in my jewelry are more powerful than the same combination
of stones loose in your hand. To view gem properties and styles to complement your shield, please visit
Shield Energy necklaces .

David Nau:

We’re pleased to have added David to our team. David is an award winning creative
designer who readily calls on the wide variety of experience he has gained in a
design career spanning over thirty years. His familiarity with the business allows
him to create a stunning design, but also one that works for the needs of the client.
The design has impact, and functions as needed for a successful event. Having
owned his own business, David maintains awareness of cost as he designs, assuring the most value
achieved within a budget.

A Graduate of Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY, David’s career has included positions as Senior Exhibit
Designer, Owner of an exhibit design company, Design Director, and Salesman. This variety of positions
has provided experience in all phases of the exhibit business; designing, quoting, selling, directly working
with clients, interfacing with builders and manufacturers, staging and supervising set-up.

David has worked closely with many key clients in the branding of their products and themselves in all
phases of marketing, both within and outside the tradeshow realm. He has designed tradeshow exhibits,
museum environments and showrooms for many large accounts including Kodak, Commerce One,
Candela Laser, The Holmes Group, Kendell Hospital Products, Enterasys, Stratus, Pfizer, Ligand
Medical, Polaroid, Welch Allyn, and Nortel. He has also designed museum and visitor centers for
Charlottesville, NASA Goddard, Hartford and Boston children’s museums.

David’s artistic eye has added to other aspects of our BioElectric Shield site and we appreciate his
ongoing contributions. David is currently unemployed and so has started going to trade shows with
Carolyn. For someone who has been designing trade shows for 35 years actually being in the booth he
designed is a whole new experience for him.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


Sam Sokol

Sam is our Internet consultant, bringing expertise and wisdom to this area of
communication for our company. Sam works with a wide variety of companies
in many industries to build, market and maintain their online presence. He has
helped both small and big companies to increase their online sales and build their
businesses. He has helped us to grow BioElectric Shield by giving us direct
access to great tools to make changes to our web site.

Dedicated to helping create a more balanced and peaceful world one person at a time Let's change our
lives and our worlds one thought, one action at a time.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen