An end to the dubious methods of the DKFZ

A new party denounces the dubious methods of the DKFZ

In an open letter to the DKFZ, German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg, calls for the newly founded party BmB ( Federation of mature citizens ), that conclusion should be with the misuse of the DKFZ.

The DKFZ is requested to ensure a "clear organizational and media separation and return to the statutory mission of the research financed by public funding foundation." It is further required to "raise awareness of the interaction with the WHO - Collaborating Centre for Tobacco Control" of funds.

The National Chairman of the BmB, John Brender said, word for word in reference to a press conference at the DKFZ for judicial review of the Non smoking control in Germany: "This press conference is a new sad example of how the renowned research institute is transformed more and more a propaganda unit of the WHO. Martina Poetschke-Langer, head of the Collaborating Centre will, with very dubious methods of an ideologically motivated war on tobacco products and their consumers. The incorporation of WHO staff position for the sole purpose of deceiving the people over them, that they pursued exclusively political goals, no research and which are to achieve their goals even uses the lie. "

Literally the BmB writes in a press release: "The BmB considered it his duty to denounce this situation and to inform citizens. John Brender: The BmB is committed in its program to protect the rights of citizens. We see ourselves in the obligation to remove the trojan horse Collaborating Centre at the DKFZ, before his outstanding reputation has suffered so far beyond repair. Serious research and dirty lobbying can not live under one roof. "

In the public letter to the Board of the DKFZ states, inter alia, "We would like to point out that a section of your foundation for a long time contrary to the purpose of the foundation. It operates either cancer research or education and training, or promotion of young scientists.

The activities of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Tobacco Control are clearly political in nature and therefore damage the reputation of the DKFZ as a research institution. The spread is not scientifically tenable evidence (garage study, refuted by the BGN), the refusal to disclose data and computing because of secondhand smoke study by Prof. dead wedge against the BGN are typical examples of the work of this department. The use of foundation funds for legal opinions are also not covered by the statute. What has to do a legal opinion on cancer research? "

The BmB will take "another waste of tax money for political influence" any more. It was expected that the Director "accepts the public criticism as a welcome opportunity to throw this out of the cuckoo's nest."

Popularity: 1% [ ? ]

Related posts:

• 19th January 2011 - Referendum against Bavarian smoking ban?
• 7th December 2009 - Prevention of lies - Lecture and Discussion
• 29th September 2009 - Once again calls for ban on smoking in playgrounds
• 23rd February 2012 - Bill Gates Chinese funded tobacco control
• 17th January 2012 - Association warns from NRW and collar for false statements

These products may also be interested in:

1. Sales in the catering trade collapsed - lying DKFZ? It is clear from the publications of the national statistical offices and the Federal Statistical Office, the turnover in the restaurant use ...
2. Lies exposed again DKFZ DKFZ, German Cancer Research Institute in Heidelberg, his integrity has lost for good. Again it was shown that the DKFZ consciously or ...