Am up in Belfast for the weekend and feeling good about being in the
vicinity of THE ONLY Human Rights authority which has given our whole
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 "Mental
illness principles drawn up" by journalist Alison Healy which concerns
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, because
people living here with this condition have generally been treated so
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 standards!

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 is the
blatant fact that a number of patients presenting with EHS were probably
misdiagnosed as psychotics! I could ream you off a long list of Irish
scandals--including a generous number of medical ones-- each exposing
the phenomenal Irish capacity for denial of facts that have been staring
people in the face and then years later the populace suddenly stops
denying and feels such rage at the perpetrators of the injustices that
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, of course.
If my Irish Constitituion can not defend my most basic human rights then....

Of course I have been told disdainfully by some Irish lawyers that "it
will cost!" which translates to that in their view only wealthy Irish
people can afford the privilege of using Irish courts to protect their
basic rights! Wow...This animal, the Celtic Tiger, is a rare democratic beast!

Best, Imelda, Belfast, Ireland.

Danger signals

Transcript

July 20, 2003
Reporter: Liz Hayes
Producer: John McAvoy

Mobile concerns

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 moment and
think twice next time your mobile rings. For the last 18 months, both
here and overseas, we've been investigating just how safe they really
are. First, there's the ground-breaking research by an Australian
scientist, some good news about mobiles and cancer. Then the results of
a six-year study in Sweden, and that news is all bad. The Swedes aren't
only ringing alarm bells about mobiles, they're warning about home
cordless phones as well.

LIZ HAYES: You can't escape them - they're everywhere. But lately, more
of us are thinking twice before we reach for the mobile. The explosion
in mobile technology has made this a very attractive device. Already,
one in two Australians use a mobile phone and that number is rising.
What's not so attractive is this ongoing question mark over its safety.
And frankly, no-one is prepared to say that the mobile phone is
risk-free.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: You find that those persons who have used the
mobile phone, they have an increased risk for contracting or getting a
brain tumour.

LIZ HAYES: Let's begin in Sweden with Professor Lennart Hardell, a
leading cancer specialist.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: What we did find was an increased risk for
tumours in the temporal area of the brain, which is that part of the
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 and now
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 the mobile
phone for over 10 years to 80 percent increased risk. This is a
significant finding. This goes basically for the analogue types of
mobile phones, the older types.

LIZ HAYES: In all, Professor Hardell studied the mobile phone habits of
1600 cancer sufferers. He worked closely with the scientist the Swedes
call Dr Mobile, biophysicist Professor Kjell Mild. Their findings are
the result of a six-year study. During that time, the 1600 patients were
kept under constant medical observation and had to fill out regular
questionnaires.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: We were asking all about other confounding
factors. How many X-rays did you have? Dental X-rays? What kind of
medication have you been on? Have you been using chemicals in your work?
Other kinds of exposure? Have you been exposed to low-frequency magnetic
fields in your line of work? Factors we know can affect the level of
brain tumour.

LIZ HAYES: And were you able to eliminate those other factors?

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: In what we can see, this is not a factor in this.

LIZ HAYES: It's widely accepted that mobile phones emit radiation. The
Swedes say their research shows 60 percent of the emissions are absorbed
by skin and bone. Most of the rest goes into the brain.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: The phones we have today are not good phones, they
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 is
deposited into the brain, into the hand and in mismatch of the antenna
system. That's the best phone. The worst phone on the market has only
two percent of the output power to be used for communication.

LIZ HAYES: But for them, the worst offender by far is the old analogue
phone.

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: Well, we say that if you use these types of
phones, always use it for a short phone call. Always use a hands-free
device, an earpiece. In the car, use an external antenna.

LIZ HAYES: In terms of the digital phone, do you suspect a risk?

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, because
people have used them too short a time, so we need to have longer
follow-up to be definitely sure there is a risk or no risk with the
digital types.

LIZ HAYES: Ron Reynolds is suspicious of all mobile phones. Why? Well,
by rights, he shouldn't be alive today. He had an unusually aggressive
form of cancer, which his doctors were certain would prove fatal.

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 or two
years. Two years maximum, I was told, and that really rocks you to your
foundations. It makes you take a totally different outlook on life.

LIZ HAYES: Ron was a company director who worked long hours. He was
always travelling and always on his analogue mobile phone.

RON REYNOLDS: I'd probably make three or four calls in the morning and
probably three or four calls at night of some considerable duration.

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 a burning
sensation inside his head.

RON REYNOLDS: I used to feel the sensation building up, but slowly
during the course of the next 20 minutes, it would dissipate and you'd
be back to normal. You wouldn't think another thing about it.

LIZ HAYES: But it would take 20 minutes after the phone call to settle
down?

RON REYNOLDS: At least 15 to 20 minutes before it would appear to
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 mobile phone.

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 case, it
occurred where the mouthpiece was.

DR PETER FRENCH: Are mobile phones safe? Well, it's too early too say.

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 cells.

DR PETER FRENCH: What we've done is we've designed a series of
experiments which are rigorously testing an exact simulation of a mobile
phone signal on the important target tissue which is relevant, which is
the human brain cells. We are looking at long-term chronic exposure.
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 holding a
mobile phone to their head and you being able to test it?

DR PETER FRENCH: And then looking at the effects on those specific
cells, yes. It's as close as you can get.

LIZ HAYES: Early results seemed to indicate that Dr French was on to
something.

DR PETER FRENCH: The mobile phone field itself appears to be acting like
ultraviolet radiation, in that the energy acts in a similar way to
ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet radiation can lead to cancer.
Therefore, this is clearly an important discovery to follow up.

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 on this
data at this stage.

LIZ HAYES: You find it hard to say, "I've done the study and they are
safe"?

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 effects
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 real dangers
for mobile phone radiation, but it's impossible to say that that's
definitive, because we haven't done the experiments at a wide enough
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 I would
expect. This is how life is.

LIZ HAYES: And we have to say, it's not just his colleagues who are
sceptical. A US court and The Lancet medical journal have both rejected
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 potentially
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 almost a
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 the
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 a choice?

PROFESSOR LENNART HARDELL: I would do that, definitely.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: You might be better off using your mobile phone.

LIZ HAYES: Than a cordless phone?

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: Yes.

LIZ HAYES: That would be bad news, because most householders would
assume that they're fine.

PROFESSOR KJELL MILD: Yes, unfortunately the exposure times are much
longer on your cordless phones. What we see is people are using the
cordless phone about three times longer than the mobile phone.

LIZ HAYES: Did any doctor say to you that there was a possible link
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 poisoning.
They didn't wake up to asbestos, you know, all of these things, DDT.
Yet, they are saying now - when you talk about mobile phones and
problems, you'll get the smokescreen that cigarette companies put up.
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 can't blame
people for being wary, not when even the scientists seem to be hedging
their bets.

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 a mobile
before?

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 Mobile
Telecommunication Association. They point to the World Health
Organisation which claims current scientific evidence indicates that
exposure to radio frequency fields from mobile phones is unlikely to
induce or promote cancer.

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_07_20/
story_903.asp?MSID=a6a7848745384889aa3f6045ea01b427

Commentary Don Maisch:

Those of you in Australia who saw the July 20 - 60 Minutes segment on
mobile phones may be wondering why Dr. Peter French was so dismissive of
the health effects from mobile phones just because his latest series of
lab studies failed to confirm his earlier findings.

When DR. French's earlier research found an apparent effect on cells
exposed to radiofrequency radiation questions were raised about the
level of exposure. The NH&MRC's radiation advisor, after observing Dr
French's facilities, questioned whether the exposure level may have
been high enough to cause a thermal effect and was not indicative of
a non-thermal action. In other words, when you put your chook in the
microwave oven you will get an adverse biological effect - no big
deal, except for the chook if it happens to be alive at the time.

Dr French strongly disagreed with this assessment and put up a
convincing argument that his findings were of a non-thermal nature.
Obviously his subsequent studies would have used exposure levels
carefully calculated not to cause a significant temperature rise in the
target cells and thus prevent this criticism. The last I heard of his
later research biological effects were being found but this now appears
not to be the case.

So now Dr. French finds no effect. Does that mean it doesn't exist? And
does this give Dr. French justification to go on national media and
state he now feels that mobile phone use may not be as hazardous as he
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 to the
safety (or not) of long term use (years) of a mobile phone.

Negative findings from one series of lab studies cannot vindicate the
position that the hazards are non-existent: they simply show that under
certain conditions radiofrequency fields will not induce biological
effects. When you look at the totality of literature available, the
lesson, in my opinion, is that some situations may well result in
biological effects, and others will probably not.

Dr French's cavaleer dismissal of concerns is in stark contrast to the
warnings of Lennart Hardell and many other experts.

The 60 Minutes docu. claimed to be an in-depth probe of the issue but
focussed solely on cancer, gaining the impression that scientific
concerns over mobile phone and cordless phone use were mostly from
Hardell's group in Sweden. Nothing was mentioned about other possible
neurological effects from mobile phone use, such as long term memory
impairment. For instance the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection's advice on mobile phone use deals with far more
than the possibility of cancer.

One thing is for certain. This is an issue that won't be going away,
despite Dr. French's additude of, 'If I can't find it, it doesn't exist'.

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_07_20/
story_903.asp?MSID=a6a7848745384889aa3f6045ea01b427

Omega: see also:

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2003_07_20/
story_899.asp?MSID=bf3ac46b62aa41cc960754c10e7e0bfb :
Early last year, Liz Hayes began investigating mobile phones, an
investigation that has taken her around Australia and to Europe. Now,
she reports on the results of the latest six-year study by two respected
Swedish scientists, which they describe as "hot stuff". Not only do they
warn about the safety of both analogue and digital mobiles, they also
question the cordless home phone. As well, there's a follow-up on
ground-breaking Australian research, with a surprising about-face.

Mobile concerns result from a poll
Question: are you concerned about using mobile phones?

Yes: 81%

No: 19%

and

Radio National on community and workplace health

Len Syme on community health and reasons for ill health in the
workplace: A must read for OH&S issues, especially for stress and
illness in call centres, an ongoing problem in Australia. Download the
pdf file now!
http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/len_syme_speech.pdf

On Monday July 21 Geraldine Dooge, from Radio National's "Life Matters"
program presented a special talk from Professor Len Syme, from the
School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. Syme
is a well known activist for community health. He spoke at a forum on
community in Melbourne earlier this year about what he has learned from
a lifetime of trying to persuade people to do the right thing by their
own health.

Len Syme says that he has learnt from bitter experience that getting
people to change their risky behaviour is almost impossible, no matter
how obvious it might seem to others. And governments struggle with
limited success with trying to encourage their citizens to stop smoking,
to use sun screen, to eat well and exercise more. Does anything work?

Publications:
Social Determinants of Health: The community as empowered partner
Author: Professor Len Syme
Paper presented at the Communities in Control conference
http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/len_syme_speech.pdf

Omega: See also:
http://www.ourcommunity.com.au/article/view_article.jsp?articleId=575

Informant: Don Maisch

Mind Control

(excerpt)

I'm patiently waiting for the day when these new transmittes, which are
erroneously called 'cell towers' are seen to be the actual cause of all
the new problems that are attributed to cellphone use. Compared to the
effects of cellphones, these new towers are off the chart in terms of
damage to the nerve tissue and brain functions of everyone who lives
within range of them (usually about three miles).

Since there's no hard data on the internet or elsewhere about how these
towers work, I send around the attached article, which I feel tells of
their true purpose and effects.

Don

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/subliminalsuggestion/mindcontrol.html

O.T. themes:

A campaign of mass deception

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33637
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jul20.html

Informant: kevcross4

'Was Tony Blair fooling us?'
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,994234,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39224000/rm/_39224884_gilligan06_29may.ram

Tragic price of contempt for free press
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1001072,00.html

Iraq
http://www.bushflash.com/occupied.html

Informant: Edgar J. Steele

Revenge of the Bill of Rights
http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/aug2/revenge.html

Who's covered by the Bill of Rights?
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/19/guestoped_lc.htm

Running against Ashcroft
http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/2003/07/19
http://tinyurl.com/hjlo

GOP's double standard on presidential lies
http://tinyurl.com/hjlm

Framing the debate on WMDs
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy73.html

A green revolt against Bush
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/21/emissions/index_np.html

From shock and awe to night and fog
http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_kenmacleod_archive.html

Blair won't quit over scientist's death
http://www.msnbc.com/news/940959.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp

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

Folks,

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

http://www.drcarley.com/

Informant: John Mecca