Please at least read the introduction of the published paper (http://www.arbetslivsinstitutet.se/pdf/060331Mild Hardell_Article.pdf) or get a "Introduction of Epidemiology" before accusing others as doing non-sensical study. I am afraid you are missing the whole point of the studies.
What the researchers have done, is not to take a group of brain tumour patients and see how many percents of them use mobile phones. If this is the case, then we might as well say that breathing, drinking water, walking, blinking, eating all cause brain tumours, since all the patients must have done all these things. If the researchers are all such brainless creatures, the whole profession must have been sacked.
What the researchers really do, is to recruit a similar number of (1) brain tumour patients and (2) non brain tumour patients. They then divide each group into heavy users and non-heavy users, i.e. (1) is divided into (1a) heavy user + brain tumour and (1b) light user + brain tumour; (2) into (2a) heavy user + no brain tumour and (2b) light user + no brain tumour.
A comparison is done by comparing the odds ratio of 1a&2a compared to 1b&2b. It's the odds ratio that researchers use to identify the increased risk.
(Of course there are many confoundings, possible biases that are inherent to case-control study design, but the basic design is what I am trying to illustrate here)
Slashdot Mirror
One thing for sure, this machine can't print Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
Really? I thought phrenology is already disproved.
Please at least read the introduction of the published paper (http://www.arbetslivsinstitutet.se/pdf/060331Mild Hardell_Article.pdf) or get a "Introduction of Epidemiology" before accusing others as doing non-sensical study. I am afraid you are missing the whole point of the studies.
What the researchers have done, is not to take a group of brain tumour patients and see how many percents of them use mobile phones. If this is the case, then we might as well say that breathing, drinking water, walking, blinking, eating all cause brain tumours, since all the patients must have done all these things. If the researchers are all such brainless creatures, the whole profession must have been sacked.
What the researchers really do, is to recruit a similar number of (1) brain tumour patients and (2) non brain tumour patients. They then divide each group into heavy users and non-heavy users, i.e. (1) is divided into (1a) heavy user + brain tumour and (1b) light user + brain tumour; (2) into (2a) heavy user + no brain tumour and (2b) light user + no brain tumour.
A comparison is done by comparing the odds ratio of 1a&2a compared to 1b&2b. It's the odds ratio that researchers use to identify the increased risk.
(Of course there are many confoundings, possible biases that are inherent to case-control study design, but the basic design is what I am trying to illustrate here)
Hope that helped to clear your doubts.
Here is one of the possibility: It is a FALSE CLAIM! Well, here is one of the link I have found. The false Mittring Claim
Well, at the end, who do you choose to believe? Your local newspaper or the Internet? I choose my intuition.