Airing of case
Hi Klaus: really appreciate what you are doing to maximize awareness
my misdiagnosis (i.e. EHS condition mislabelled as psychosis)
course the support this also gives to all those other EHS unfortunates
who have experienced an identical/similar fate.
Am up in Belfast for the weekend and feeling good about being
vicinity of THE ONLY Human Rights authority which has given
EHS predicament any genuine support up to this point. That
is the NIHRC
(Northern Irish Human Rights Commission).
Today's THE IRISH TIMES (p. 3) has a bleak little article
illness principles drawn up" by journalist Alison Healy
the publication tomorrow of "a set of principles for
the treatment of
schizophrenia." (This is "Lucia"/Schizophrenia
awreness week.) These
principles are considered necessary in Ireland, it states,
people living here with this condition have generally been
badly by the Irish medical profession.
Specifically it refers to "'varying experiences' of
standards of care
and treatment" and that in many instances "basic
standards for the
physical condition of institutions" are well below acceptable
The concluding sentence is: "An estimated 1 per cent
of the population
will experience an episode of psychosis or develop schizophrenia."
And, of course, airbrushed out yet again from this article
blatant fact that a number of patients presenting with EHS
misdiagnosed as psychotics! I could ream you off a long list
scandals--including a generous number of medical ones-- each
the phenomenal Irish capacity for denial of facts that have
people in the face and then years later the populace suddenly
denying and feels such rage at the perpetrators of the injustices
they set up tribunal after tribunal after tribunal!
About my own case: I intend bringing a challenge to the Irish
Constitituion to the Irish High Court. And self-representing,
If my Irish Constitituion can not defend my most basic human
Of course I have been told disdainfully by some Irish lawyers
will cost!" which translates to that in their view only
people can afford the privilege of using Irish courts to protect
basic rights! Wow...This animal, the Celtic Tiger, is a rare
Best, Imelda, Belfast, Ireland.
July 20, 2003
Reporter: Liz Hayes
Producer: John McAvoy
LIZ HAYES: We Australians just love our mobile phones. We
can't seem to
do without them. But this story might make you pause for a
think twice next time your mobile rings. For the last 18 months,
here and overseas, we've been investigating just how safe
are. First, there's the ground-breaking research by an Australian
scientist, some good news about mobiles and cancer. Then the
a six-year study in Sweden, and that news is all bad. The
only ringing alarm bells about mobiles, they're warning about
cordless phones as well.
LIZ HAYES: You can't escape them - they're everywhere. But
of us are thinking twice before we reach for the mobile. The
in mobile technology has made this a very attractive device.
one in two Australians use a mobile phone and that number
What's not so attractive is this ongoing question mark over
And frankly, no-one is prepared to say that the mobile phone
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: You find that those persons who
have used the
mobile phone, they have an increased risk for contracting
or getting a
LIZ HAYES: Let's begin in Sweden with Professor Lennart Hardell,
leading cancer specialist.
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: What we did find was an increased
tumours in the temporal area of the brain, which is that part
brain where the highest exposure to microwaves on the same
side as the
person had used the mobile phone.
LIZ HAYES: He's been studying patients with brain tumours
believes their cancers are linked to their mobile phones.
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: We found overall an increased
risk of 30
percent for brain tumours, increasing for those who had used
phone for over 10 years to 80 percent increased risk. This
significant finding. This goes basically for the analogue
mobile phones, the older types.
LIZ HAYES: In all, Professor Hardell studied the mobile phone
1600 cancer sufferers. He worked closely with the scientist
call Dr Mobile, biophysicist Professor Kjell Mild. Their findings
the result of a six-year study. During that time, the 1600
kept under constant medical observation and had to fill out
PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: We were asking all about other confounding
factors. How many X-rays did you have? Dental X-rays? What
medication have you been on? Have you been using chemicals
in your work?
Other kinds of exposure? Have you been exposed to low-frequency
fields in your line of work? Factors we know can affect the
LIZ HAYES: And were you able to eliminate those other factors?
PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: In what we can see, this is not a factor
LIZ HAYES: It's widely accepted that mobile phones emit radiation.
Swedes say their research shows 60 percent of the emissions
by skin and bone. Most of the rest goes into the brain.
PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: The phones we have today are not good
are really bad phones. On the best phone on the market, only
half of the
output power is used for communication. The rest of the effect
deposited into the brain, into the hand and in mismatch of
system. That's the best phone. The worst phone on the market
two percent of the output power to be used for communication.
LIZ HAYES: But for them, the worst offender by far is the
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Well, we say that if you use these
phones, always use it for a short phone call. Always use a
device, an earpiece. In the car, use an external antenna.
LIZ HAYES: In terms of the digital phone, do you suspect
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Yes, we suspect that there might
be a risk or
we would say that they are not cleared as no-risk mobile phones,
people have used them too short a time, so we need to have
follow-up to be definitely sure there is a risk or no risk
LIZ HAYES: Ron Reynolds is suspicious of all mobile phones.
by rights, he shouldn't be alive today. He had an unusually
form of cancer, which his doctors were certain would prove
RON REYNOLDS: I believe mobile phones gave me cancer, gave
me a very
severe form of cancer. All of a sudden, you've got six months
years. Two years maximum, I was told, and that really rocks
you to your
foundations. It makes you take a totally different outlook
LIZ HAYES: Ron was a company director who worked long hours.
always travelling and always on his analogue mobile phone.
RON REYNOLDS: I'd probably make three or four calls in the
probably three or four calls at night of some considerable
LIZ HAYES: And that was over a period of how many years?
RON REYNOLDS: From about 1992 through to 1997.
LIZ HAYES: So about five years?
RON REYNOLDS: About five years.
LIZ HAYES: Ron says whenever he used that phone, he felt
sensation inside his head.
RON REYNOLDS: I used to feel the sensation building up, but
during the course of the next 20 minutes, it would dissipate
be back to normal. You wouldn't think another thing about
LIZ HAYES: But it would take 20 minutes after the phone call
RON REYNOLDS: At least 15 to 20 minutes before it would appear
dissipate and you'd be back to normal.
LIZ HAYES: In 1997, Ron's doctors discovered a tumour in
his temple and
then another in his jaw, close to where he always held his
RON REYNOLDS: I felt a small lump there where the aerial
used to be, a
small lump, which was most unusual.
LIZ HAYES: And the second tumour?
RON REYNOLDS: And the second tumour - this is the unusual
part - the
secondary normally occurs in the lungs. In this particular
occurred where the mouthpiece was.
DR PETER FRENCH: Are mobile phones safe? Well, it's too early
LIZ HAYES: We first met Australian immunologist Dr Peter
French when we
began this investigation early last year. He was embarking
on a world
first - testing mobile phone radiation on live human brain
DR PETER FRENCH: What we've done is we've designed a series
experiments which are rigorously testing an exact simulation
of a mobile
phone signal on the important target tissue which is relevant,
the human brain cells. We are looking at long-term chronic
That's what makes us the world leaders in this at the moment.
LIZ HAYES: It's as close as you can get to a human being
mobile phone to their head and you being able to test it?
DR PETER FRENCH: And then looking at the effects on those
cells, yes. It's as close as you can get.
LIZ HAYES: Early results seemed to indicate that Dr French
was on to
DR PETER FRENCH: The mobile phone field itself appears to
be acting like
ultraviolet radiation, in that the energy acts in a similar
ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet radiation can lead to cancer.
Therefore, this is clearly an important discovery to follow
LIZ HAYES: But 18 months on, Dr French has not been able
to repeat those
results and show how mobile phones could cause cancer.
DR PETER FRENCH: It certainly provides some comfort that
the risk of
adverse health effects from mobile phone use is likely to
be very low,
if at all. That's about as strong a statement I can make based
data at this stage.
LIZ HAYES: You find it hard to say, "I've done the study
and they are
DR PETER FRENCH: You're looking for absolute certainty in
a world that
that doesn't exist.
LIZ HAYES: Nevertheless, Dr French is more definite when
it comes to the
new Swedish research.
DR PETER FRENCH: I don't understand how they're seeing the
they're seeing. All I can say is that, as a cell biologist,
what we have
today makes it difficult for us to say that there are any
for mobile phone radiation, but it's impossible to say that
definitive, because we haven't done the experiments at a wide
range of exposures to be sure of that.
LIZ HAYES: Are you disappointed your colleagues aren't necessarily
embracing your research?
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Well, most people are reluctant
to do these
things. I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed. That's what
expect. This is how life is.
LIZ HAYES: And we have to say, it's not just his colleagues
sceptical. A US court and The Lancet medical journal have
the Swede's claims.
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Editors make their own decisions
if they want
to publish new findings or not. We know this is hot stuff
which we have
found, so not all editors have the courage to publish it.
LIZ HAYES: It is hot stuff, though, isn't it? You are saying
the technology we use all the time has risks?
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Yes.
LIZ HAYES: And Professor Hardell says the research shows
there is one
more risk, one that was news to me - the cordless home phone.
What was the risk that you calculated with a cordless phone?
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Well, it's for the temporal area,
and if you
have had the cordless phone for more than five years, it's
doubled risk for those phone types, too.
LIZ HAYES: This is a phone I'm assuming just about every
member of the
family uses at home.
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: We have, in other research, made
recommendation that always use an ordinary phone, a wire-connected
phone, not to use these cordless phones at home.
LIZ HAYES: Would you get rid of cordless phones if you had
PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: I would do that, definitely.
PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: You might be better off using your
LIZ HAYES: Than a cordless phone?
PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: Yes.
LIZ HAYES: That would be bad news, because most householders
assume that they're fine.
PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: Yes, unfortunately the exposure times
longer on your cordless phones. What we see is people are
cordless phone about three times longer than the mobile phone.
LIZ HAYES: Did any doctor say to you that there was a possible
between the mobile phone you were using and your cancer?
RON REYNOLDS: No. They were all very - probably "guarded"
is the best
word. They said to me, "It's a possibility." But
nobody had any way of
finding proof or anything else. They didn't wake up to lead
They didn't wake up to asbestos, you know, all of these things,
Yet, they are saying now - when you talk about mobile phones
problems, you'll get the smokescreen that cigarette companies
They try to cover their backs beautifully.
LIZ HAYES: You have no doubt in your mind?
RON REYNOLDS: I have no doubt now.
LIZ HAYES: The truth is, it has not been scientifically proven.
So it is
impossible to say that mobile phones cause cancer, but you
people for being wary, not when even the scientists seem to
DR PETER FRENCH: My concern about mobile phones now is much
less than it
was in the past.
LIZ HAYES: Because you were quite rigorous in how you used
DR PETER FRENCH: Yes, that's so.
LIZ HAYES: Has that changed?
DR PETER FRENCH: I tend to find that I use the mobile phone
to my head
much more often than I used to do.
LIZ HAYES: Is that because you feel as though it's safer?
DR PETER FRENCH: The data I have seen hasn't yet convinced
me that there
is a significant biological effect.
LIZ HAYES: Would that be a yes?
DR PETER FRENCH: No.
LIZ HAYES: And we should add a postscript from the Australian
Telecommunication Association. They point to the World Health
Organisation which claims current scientific evidence indicates
exposure to radio frequency fields from mobile phones is unlikely
induce or promote cancer.
Those of you in Australia who saw the July 20 - 60 Minutes
mobile phones may be wondering why Dr. Peter French was so
the health effects from mobile phones just because his latest
lab studies failed to confirm his earlier findings.
When DR. French's earlier research found an apparent effect
exposed to radiofrequency radiation questions were raised
level of exposure. The NH&MRC's radiation advisor, after
French's facilities, questioned whether the exposure level
been high enough to cause a thermal effect and was not indicative
a non-thermal action. In other words, when you put your chook
microwave oven you will get an adverse biological effect -
deal, except for the chook if it happens to be alive at the
Dr French strongly disagreed with this assessment and put
convincing argument that his findings were of a non-thermal
Obviously his subsequent studies would have used exposure
carefully calculated not to cause a significant temperature
rise in the
target cells and thus prevent this criticism. The last I heard
later research biological effects were being found but this
not to be the case.
So now Dr. French finds no effect. Does that mean it doesn't
does this give Dr. French justification to go on national
state he now feels that mobile phone use may not be as hazardous
previously thought? What a PR scoop for the industry!
It is rather a leap-of-faith to assume from results of short
term RF lab
exposures on isolated humal cells that this somehow relates
safety (or not) of long term use (years) of a mobile phone.
Negative findings from one series of lab studies cannot vindicate
position that the hazards are non-existent: they simply show
certain conditions radiofrequency fields will not induce biological
effects. When you look at the totality of literature available,
lesson, in my opinion, is that some situations may well result
biological effects, and others will probably not.
Dr French's cavaleer dismissal of concerns is in stark contrast
warnings of Lennart Hardell and many other experts.
The 60 Minutes docu. claimed to be an in-depth probe of the
focussed solely on cancer, gaining the impression that scientific
concerns over mobile phone and cordless phone use were mostly
Hardell's group in Sweden. Nothing was mentioned about other
neurological effects from mobile phone use, such as long term
impairment. For instance the Russian National Committee on
Radiation Protection's advice on mobile phone use deals with
than the possibility of cancer.
One thing is for certain. This is an issue that won't be
despite Dr. French's additude of, 'If I can't find it, it
Early last year, Liz Hayes began investigating mobile phones,
investigation that has taken her around Australia and to Europe.
she reports on the results of the latest six-year study by
Swedish scientists, which they describe as "hot stuff".
Not only do they
warn about the safety of both analogue and digital mobiles,
question the cordless home phone. As well, there's a follow-up
ground-breaking Australian research, with a surprising about-face.
Mobile concerns result from a poll
Question: are you concerned about using mobile phones?
National on community and workplace health
Len Syme on community health and reasons for ill health in
workplace: A must read for OH&S issues, especially for
illness in call centres, an ongoing problem in Australia.
pdf file now!
On Monday July 21 Geraldine Dooge, from Radio National's
program presented a special talk from Professor Len Syme,
School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.
is a well known activist for community health. He spoke at
a forum on
community in Melbourne earlier this year about what he has
a lifetime of trying to persuade people to do the right thing
Len Syme says that he has learnt from bitter experience that
people to change their risky behaviour is almost impossible,
how obvious it might seem to others. And governments struggle
limited success with trying to encourage their citizens to
to use sun screen, to eat well and exercise more. Does anything
Social Determinants of Health: The community as empowered
Author: Professor Len Syme
Paper presented at the Communities in Control conference
Omega: See also:
Informant: Don Maisch
I'm patiently waiting for the day when these new transmittes,
erroneously called 'cell towers' are seen to be the actual
cause of all
the new problems that are attributed to cellphone use. Compared
effects of cellphones, these new towers are off the chart
in terms of
damage to the nerve tissue and brain functions of everyone
within range of them (usually about three miles).
Since there's no hard data on the internet or elsewhere about
towers work, I send around the attached article, which I feel
their true purpose and effects.
campaign of mass deception
Tony Blair fooling us?'
price of contempt for free press
Informant: Edgar J. Steele
of the Bill of Rights
covered by the Bill of Rights?
double standard on presidential lies
the debate on WMDs
green revolt against Bush
shock and awe to night and fog
won't quit over scientist's death
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
paste in news letter a few times a week for a few months if
Dr. Rebecca Carley is one of the most dedicated, respected,
women I know. She has been a guest lecturer at international
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,
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.
----- Original Message -----
To: List Deleted
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: Dr Carley's medical license suspended by Medical
Please be advised that as of 7/11/03, my medical license has
suspended for a year followed by 4 years probation for "practicing
medicine with a mental illness; said mental illness being
that there is a conspiracy against me. I have been ordered
"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
have also been ordered to release all of the records on my
they can hunt the children down and catch them up on their
I will now be a wholistic practitioner doing iridology and
patients on detoxification techniques available over the counter.
However, I will not be able to write prescriptions, order
tests, and most importantly, I will not be able to write medical
exemptions. I am sure that the exemptions I have written will
null and void.
20 years ago, when this was done to Dr. Revisci, his PATIENTS
action against the medical board for depriving them of a unique
available no where else. His patients won, and his license
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
the patients/supporters/potential patients to bring their
Jennifer Grinberg (516-798-7642) will be organizing this effort
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
get ready to roll up your sleeve or go to the quarantine camps
the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act (already passed
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
In Service to the TRUTH, I Remain, Dr. Rebecca
Informant: John Mecca