* Anger at advisers' biotech links - Re: Books and refs on understanding EMF....and the chemical connection - HAARP-A CHUNK OF THE IONOSPHERE is blown out into space - Supreme Court Preemption decision (17/7/03)

Anger at advisers' biotech links

In message #536 I suggested to a possible conflict of interest in
having a Motorola radiation expert as a radiation/health consultant
on the NH&MRC's expert committee on electromagnetic energy. The
following article from the UK Observer further explores concerns over
scientists with industry links dominating expert committees on
everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of
GM crops.

Its no different in Australia. One only needs to look at the membership
of most of the Australian standards setting committees to get a list of
whos-who in industry land.



Anger at advisers' biotech links

Dossier reveals Ministers' worries over connections between science
experts and leading drugs firms

Antony Barnett and Mark Townsend
Sunday July 13, 2003

Dozens of the Government's most influential advisers on critical health
and environmental issues have close links to biotech and drug
corporations, according to a dossier of Whitehall documents obtained by
The Observer.

Internal papers from the Department for the Environment, Farming and
Rural Affairs (Defra) reveal for the first time the extent of the close
connections between big business and scientists hired to give
independent advice to Ministers. Many work as consultants for the firms,
own shares in the companies or enjoy lucrative research grants from them.

Confidential documents disclose that former Environment Minister Michael
Meacher and Food and Farming Minister Lord Whitty, were deeply concerned
that scientists with industry links were dominating committees on
everything from food safety and air quality to the imminent arrival of
GM crops. Both Meacher and Whitty were alarmed that the scientists'
commercial links jeopardised the independence of the advice they gave.

- A key member of the committee advising Ministers on the safety of GM
products has received research funding from biotech giants Monsanto and
Syngenta. Professor Phil Mullineaux also works for the John Innes Centre
- the GM research centre funded by Science Minister Lord Sainsbury;

- More than three-quarters of the members of the committee which advises
Ministers on food safety have direct links to major food companies and
drug giants including Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Syngenta. Its chair,
Professor Ieuan Hughes, has personal interests in Pharmacia - which in
April was bought by Pfizer to create the biggest drugs company in the
world - and owns shares in BP Amoco where his daughter works.

- A former deputy chairman of the committee which examines the safety of
pesticides, Professor Alan Boobis, received research funding from
GlaxoSmithKline for his department at Imperial College but never
declared it. Other members of this committee have links to agrochemical
firms like Aventis, Astra Zeneca and Monsanto. The current head of the
body, Professor David Coggon, was a close friend of Esso's chief medical
officer and received a gift from the oil giant.

- The chair of a group examining air quality in Britain, Professor
Stephen Holgate, is a consultant to drug giant Merck. His university
department has received grants from Glaxo and Astra Zeneca. Others work
for biotech and drug giants like Novartis and Schering-Plough.

- Almost three out of four members of the committee advising Ministers
on the cancer risks of chemicals in food and other consumer products
either own shares in or work for major biotech and drug corporations;

While the scientists openly declare their interests, Meacher was so
exasperated by the structure of committees advising him that he
personally intervened on a number of occasions in an attempt to get more
environmentally friendly members on them.

Last week it emerged that Whitty was so alarmed about the industry links
on the committee advising him on the safety of farming chemicals that he
broke official rules and hired a toxicologist, Dr Vyvyan Howard, who is
known to be more sensitive to environmental issues.

In one internal Defra document, Meacher scribbled his concerns in the
margins: 'I do not agree with this. No member of the Advisory Committee
on Pesticides should have current commercial considerations because this
fundamentally undermines their integrity and judgement.'

Alongside his comments, a government official admits that Whitty shares
his concerns and will be writing to the relevant parties to make his
concerns clear.

Last night Meacher told The Observer: 'These committees are absolutely
critical. They give definitive advice which Ministers at their peril
seek to overturn. I constantly argued that nobody with significant
commercial links should be allowed to sit on these bodies. It is vital
they are truly independent.'

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: 'It is now crystal
clear how big business is setting the agenda right at the heart of
government. The whole process needs to be opened up and made
transparent. How can the public trust what Ministers say if their advice
is coming from those with vested interest in the biotech or
pharmaceutical industry.'

A Defra spokesman said the committees publish their members' interests.

He went on: 'Defra has full confidence in the capability of independent
advisory committees across the range of issues the department deals with
to provide high-quality, well-informed advice and support.'

The Observer contacted many of the Government's scientific advisers, who
denied that their links to industry compromised the impartiality of
their advice.

Professor Boobis, who took legal advice on which interests he should
declare, summed up their view: 'It is almost inevitable that any
scientists of international repute will have some current or past links
with industry.

'To say we would risk our professional integrity because we own a few
shares in a company is ridiculous.'

Informant: Don Maisch

Re: Books and refs on understanding EMF....and the chemical connection

Dorothy, Iris, and all:

Good book refs Iris!!

For background and understanding the natural and artificial exposure
reasons why EMF/Chem sensitivities exist (usually both together) take a
look at these additional two books, which I have found as probably the
best general explanation info which supports and updates Dr. Becker's
excellent earlier work "The Body Electric"..

Oschman, J.L., "Energy Medicine: The Scientific Basis," Harcourt
Brace/Churchhill, Edinburgh Livingstone, Spring 2000. NOTE: THIS BOOK,

Ho, Mae-Wan, "The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisms", 2nd
Edition, World Scientific Pub.Co., 1998.

Amazon.com....well worth the buy....a bit more technical than Oschman's
book, above, but one can skip the formulas.

Some additional refs, general info and available detailed
publications/CD, from my 40 yrs collecting data in this area, may be
found on my website www.emfinterface.com

Regards to all,

Jim Beal
EMF Interface Consulting

RE: HAARP - A CHUNK OF THE IONOSPHERE is blown out into space

EGroup and Friends (excerpt)

This was posted by someone on my discussion group and the entire article
is here below - part of it in a zipped file attached. This confidential
report goes right along with, and unfortunately supports, the material
in Scalar Wars


that I sent the day before yesterday.


Source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RMNEWS_DAILY_EMAILS/message/31993

Supreme Court Preemption decision


Judge Catherine Blake who is overseeing the RF cell phone health
lawsuits has asked counsel in the several cell phone headset cases to
respond taking this new Supreme Court decision into account. She has yet
to rule whether to remand the cell phone headset cases back to state
court. Her inclination so far has been to keep those cases in federal
court and hold that federal regulation of radiofrequency radiation
overrules state product liability arguments.

RCR Wireless News

Supreme Court ruling may impact health lawsuits
July 14, 2003

WASHINGTON-A Supreme Court ruling has thrown into question whether brain
cancer and health-related consumer lawsuits currently pending in federal
court should be sent back to state court, a venue mobile-phone carriers
and equipment manufacturers have managed to largely avoid to date.

In health lawsuits, scientific evidence is critical. But so is
jurisdiction. Industry has put together a string of victories in court
cases by making persuasive scientific arguments and removing state
lawsuits to federal court, which has proved legally advantageous to
lawyers defending wireless firms.

The dynamics of health litigation could drastically change if the
wireless industry cannot keep the cases in federal court. The chances of
wireless health lawsuits returning to state courts, however, appear
relatively small. But such a scenario remains a possibility. All pending
wireless health lawsuits, except for one in Las Vegas, reside in one
federal court or another.

At a minimum, the immediate impact of the high court's June 2 ruling in
Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson could be to freeze for months
proceedings-including consideration of scientific evidence on medical
causation-in nine brain cancer lawsuits against industry overseen by
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake in Baltimore.

Blake is poised to rule on pending motions to remand the nine lawsuits
to various state courts where they were first filed.

Blake solicited comment June 6 on whether to halt further action in the
nine brain cancer lawsuits until a federal appeals court in Richmond,
Va., rules on health-related litigation involving issues of jurisdiction.

Blake's previously strongly held wireless health claims give rise to a
federal question that does not belong in state court, saying some
lawsuits "amounted to a disguised attack on the validity and sufficiency
of federal safety regulations regarding cell phones."

Indeed, in addition to the nine cancer cases in Blake's court, the
ruling also has implications for five class-action lawsuits dismissed by
Blake in March and on appeal in federal circuit court in Richmond, Va.

The class actions on appeal, originally filed in state court, see
damages on the theory that wireless carriers should have warned
consumers about potential health risks from mobile phones and supplied
them with headsets to protect against possible radiation injury.

The plaintiffs' opening brief in the headset cases was to have been
filed today, but the court granted an extension to Aug. 1.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond is also entertaining
the $800 million lawsuit that began in a Maryland state court before
being transferred to Blake, who dismissed the suit for lack of
scientific evidence last fall. Oral argument in the case is set for September.

Beneficial involves a lawsuit filed in state court against a national
bank by parties who argued interest rates on loans from the bank were
excessive and violated the common law usury doctrine. Bank lawyers had
the lawsuit moved from state court to federal court. A federal court
rejected a motion to remand the case to state court. But the 11th U.S.
Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the lawsuit was improperly moved from
state court to federal court.

A Supreme Court majority (7-2) thought otherwise and ruled "the cause of
action arose only under federal law and could, therefore, be removed" to
federal court.

Both plaintiffs and industry defendants in wireless health lawsuits said
the Supreme Court's decision in Beneficial favor them on the
jurisdictional issue.

"The complaints in these actions ... not only conflict with federal law,
but also intrude directly on a limited field-the technical aspects of
radio transmission and the regulatory of RF [radio-frequency] emissions
from licensed radio equipment-governed exclusively and pre-empted
completely by federal law. The complaints thus trigger not only the
blocking effect of ordinary pre-emption, but also the displacing effect
that the Beneficial court recognized is the essence of complete
pre-emption," wireless firms stated in a June 20 letter to Blake.

Industry lawyers told Blake they favor a stay of proceedings in the nine
brain cancer cases before her until the 4th Circuit rules on the headset appeal.

Lawyers for Sarah Dahlgren, one of nine plaintiffs in brain cancer
lawsuits before Blake, have a different take on the Supreme Court ruling
in Beneficial.

"Unlike the non-existent state usury claims asserted in Beneficial, the
statue cited by defendants in Dahlgren as the basis for federal question
jurisdiction (the Federal Communications Act), provides neither a
prescribed remedy for the damages alleged in the Dahlgren complaint or
any ordained procedure for obtaining relief. Indeed, far from implying
complete pre-emption, the FCA contains a savings clause that expressly
preserves state law causes of action such as those contained in the
Dahlgren complaint," stated Dahlgren's attorneys. The lawyers oppose
delaying the case.

In a blistering dissenting opinion penned by Supreme Court Judge Antonin
Scalia, in which Judge Clarence Thomas joined, Scalia stated: "The
proper response to the presentation of a nonexistent claim to a state
court is dismissal, not the `federalize-and-remove' dance authorized by
today's opinion."

Janet Newton
The EMR Policy Institute, P.O. Box 117, Marshfield VT 05658
Tel: (802) 426-3035 FAX: (802) 426-3030
Web Site: www.emrpolicy.org

O.T. themes:

USA Today: Pentagon Fails to Learn from Gulf War Illnesses

Fox News Reporter: Bush's Lies Unraveling

More Big Lies Exposed in Bush Speech

Bush's Mis-State-Ment Of The Union Fiasco

Bush's Lies to Start War: "A Firm Basis for Impeachment"

Cheney Under Pressure to Quit Over False War Evidence

US faces 'Iraqi guerrilla war'

Informant: George Paxinos

Please paste in news letter a few times a week for a few months if


Dr. Rebecca Carley is one of the most dedicated, respected, and upright
women I know. She has been a guest lecturer at international conferences
on the subject of the dangers of vaccines. She is deserving of your support.

She is fighting this battle for all of us. In retaliation, NYS
government has come down as hard on her as they can. Anything you may be
able to do to help her will be remembered by many.

Ron Loeber

----- Original Message -----
From: Drcarley1@aol.com
To: List Deleted
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: Dr Carley's medical license suspended by Medical Mafia

Please be advised that as of 7/11/03, my medical license has been
suspended for a year followed by 4 years probation for "practicing
medicine with a mental illness; said mental illness being the "delusion"
that there is a conspiracy against me. I have been ordered to undergo
"psychiatric treatment" for one year. (I will put as much of the 40 page
decision [which is 90% misinformation such as saying my son is in foster
care] as I can on my website by the end of the week). They admit that no
complaints have ever been filed regarding my treatment of patients. I
have also been ordered to release all of the records on my patients, [so
they can hunt the children down and catch them up on their vaccines].

I will now be a wholistic practitioner doing iridology and counseling
patients on detoxification techniques available over the counter.
However, I will not be able to write prescriptions, order diagnostic
tests, and most importantly, I will not be able to write medical
exemptions. I am sure that the exemptions I have written will be deemed
null and void.

20 years ago, when this was done to Dr. Revisci, his PATIENTS brought an
action against the medical board for depriving them of a unique treatment
available no where else. His patients won, and his license was restored.

Although I will be bringing my own artice 78 proceeding in my case, I am
convinced that the fastest and most likely to succeed strategy is for
the patients/supporters/potential patients to bring their own suit.
Jennifer Grinberg (516-798-7642) will be organizing this effort to restore the
license of the only court qualified expert in VIDS in the country.

It is time for people to do more than "feel sorry" for me, it's time for
ACTION! Since the only people I can NOT write exemptions for are my son
& I, I will not be affected.

However, if nothing is done, when they come to your door and with that
Smallpox/SARS or whatever vaccine and your exemption is deemed invalid,
get ready to roll up your sleeve or go to the quarantine camps as per
the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act (already passed in NYS).

I have given all I can; the only thing left for them to take from me is
my mind (with psychiatric drugs). I await the response of those who I
have served.

In Service to the TRUTH, I Remain, Dr. Rebecca

Informant: John Mecca

Citizens' Initiative Omega

If you want our (normally daily) Newsletter in German, sometimes partially in English, please go to

Note: Citizens' Initiative Omega works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many hours of daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to support our activity for people around the world with a donation or an aid fund unique or on regular base, you can do it here https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=Star.Mail%40t-

If you have informations which you would like to share with your friends and colleges around the world and which are from common interest, please send us this informations, we will send them out. Thank you.

Disclaimer:  The informations contained in our EMF-Omega-News are derived from sources, which we believe to be accurate but is not guaranteed.

Citizens' Initiative Omega is not responsible for any errors or omissions and disclaims any liability incurred as a consequence of any of the contents of this resources.