Reply #44: It's clearly not meant to be a counter study but it's so sloppy that the argument merits are lost. [View All]

For example, in "Flaw 8" where the authors discuss the exclusion of some categories of brain tumors as way of underestimating risk, they state "another Telecom-funded study reported a 2.1-fold risk of a neuroepithelial brain tumor" but don't discuss what that means -- was it an increase of high grade or low grade tumors? Which types of neuroepithelial brain tumor were excluded? Are the types excluded of a higher grade than the ones included? And what does a 2.1-fold risk mean in terms of incidence numbers? And finally, they also make no mention of whether the subject Interphone study's methodological report discusses the reason for this limitation, or whether they reported the results with proper footnoting on this limitation.

I'm not arguing that their list of flaws is in itself flawed, just that this report seems rather amateurish and incomplete. There are easy, concise ways to explain how studies are flawed, as I noted above.