Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference
Locked
Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference
 
Administrator
|
Hi all,
In our eSens "file" area, I've added a 12-page Microsoft Word document containing a report on the WHO EHS conference from last October. This report comes from Lucinda Grant, and also covers some other topics of interest to folks with ES. You can find it at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/files The filename is: who_es_conference_report.doc If for some reason you cannot access this file, just email me and I'll email the file to you. Marc |
RE: Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference
|
Thanks Marc,
That is a very promising report. Good to see so many doctors from so many countries taking ES sersiously. It may only be a few years before our own GP's learn and accept that ES is a real problem, and provide proper support. Glenn >From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> >Reply-To: [hidden email] >To: [hidden email] >Subject: [eSens] Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference >Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:05 -0800 > >Hi all, > >In our eSens "file" area, I've added a 12-page Microsoft >Word document containing a report on the WHO EHS conference >from last October. This report comes from Lucinda Grant, >and also covers some other topics of interest to folks >with ES. > >You can find it at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/files > >The filename is: > > who_es_conference_report.doc > >If for some reason you cannot access this file, just email >me and I'll email the file to you. > >Marc |
Re: Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference
|
|
Was it some other WHO EHS conference than the one I attended :-) :-)?
The dominant conclusion there was that the E(H)S phenomenon has not yet been verified as really related to electric devices operation! Unfortunately, I have no objections to that conclusion, although I am ES myself. I have to admit that we have not succeeded in obtaining convincing evidence that the phenomenon is real! Most provocation studies simply - fail. And from the side of the officials there is no readiness to focus at the small number of case studies that seem not to be failing - they simply ignore them... All we can hope is that somebody would soon invent a proper experimental design in which ES people would be having 100% predictive response... Fortunately, there are some scientists aware of that necessity! Drasko ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn Coleman" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:03 PM Subject: RE: [eSens] Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference > > Thanks Marc, > > That is a very promising report. Good to see so many doctors from so many > countries taking ES sersiously. It may only be a few years before our own > GP's learn and accept that ES is a real problem, and provide proper support. > > Glenn > > >From: "Marc Martin" <[hidden email]> > >Reply-To: [hidden email] > >To: [hidden email] > >Subject: [eSens] Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference > >Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:05 -0800 > > > >Hi all, > > > >In our eSens "file" area, I've added a 12-page Microsoft > >Word document containing a report on the WHO EHS conference > >from last October. This report comes from Lucinda Grant, > >and also covers some other topics of interest to folks > >with ES. > > > >You can find it at: > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/files > > > >The filename is: > > > > who_es_conference_report.doc > > > >If for some reason you cannot access this file, just email > >me and I'll email the file to you. > > > >Marc > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > |
|
|
--- In [hidden email], "Drasko Cvijovic" <pecina@c...> wrote: > I have to admit that we have not succeeded in obtaining convincing > evidence that the phenomenon is real! from what you originally posted on this WHO conference, I think the assumptions of the majority of presenting 'scientists' (mostly psychologists, yes?) about what constitutes 'convincing evidence' and how that evidence should appear need to be scrutinized. When your worldview doesn't allow particular metrics, or attach significance to accepted metrics behaving in an unpredicted fashion, you're going to ignore the evidence. The evidence does exist. The problem with the majority of the research is that it is done by folk who don't believe the phenomenon can be something besides psychosomatic. When you're not measuring the appropriate metrics, or interpreting the observed data in a completely unbiased way, the results of your study are flawed. And I'd bet the majority of the 'researchers', if they were really honest with themselves, would admit that they have a bias towards proving it is just psychological since that fits their worldview and the worldview of their sponsors. Biased studies, biased and/or suppressed results. And there is a very strong push to bury the physical reality of ES. It is financially unpopular with industry and, hence, politically unpopular with government. How much of this plays into the presentations at the WHO? A tremendous amount. Beau |
Re: Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference
|
|
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
One of the difficulties though with testing for ES is that most
scientists are not totally familiar with the way electricity and radiation work; well, none of us are -its an area we're still learning about. I was asked a couple of years ago to take part in an ES study at a university here in Melbourne - but before taking part I asked them about their methodology. When the chief scientist said that they were not taking any particular measures to shield the testing room from other sources of radiation not involved in the study, I lost interest and backed out of being involved. The way that radiation and ELFs affect the human body is complex; different frequencies affect different organs or/and people in different ways. There are windows, for example, where one particular frequency (apparently) will have no affect at all on the body, whereas a bit higher on the spectrum this all changes. Prof Ted Litovitz at the Catholic University in the US is an expert in this area, and Neil Cherry had a thorough understanding of these problems as well. So I think until the scientific/electronic engineering fraternity get to grips with all this there's very little point in trying to provide any 'proof' or expect much acknowledgment from the medical community, apart from a few enlightened Scandinavian souls! Sarah -----Original Message----- From: Beau [mailto:[hidden email]] Sent: Tuesday, 8 February 2005 7:19 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: [eSens] Re: Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference --- In [hidden email], "Drasko Cvijovic" <pecina@c...> wrote: > I have to admit that we have not succeeded in obtaining convincing > evidence that the phenomenon is real! from what you originally posted on this WHO conference, I think the assumptions of the majority of presenting 'scientists' (mostly psychologists, yes?) about what constitutes 'convincing evidence' and how that evidence should appear need to be scrutinized. When your worldview doesn't allow particular metrics, or attach significance to accepted metrics behaving in an unpredicted fashion, you're going to ignore the evidence. The evidence does exist. The problem with the majority of the research is that it is done by folk who don't believe the phenomenon can be something besides psychosomatic. When you're not measuring the appropriate metrics, or interpreting the observed data in a completely unbiased way, the results of your study are flawed. And I'd bet the majority of the 'researchers', if they were really honest with themselves, would admit that they have a bias towards proving it is just psychological since that fits their worldview and the worldview of their sponsors. Biased studies, biased and/or suppressed results. And there is a very strong push to bury the physical reality of ES. It is financially unpopular with industry and, hence, politically unpopular with government. How much of this plays into the presentations at the WHO? A tremendous amount. Beau Yahoo! Groups Links |
|
|
In reply to this post by Drasko Cvijovic
Drasko, provocation studies always will tell that EHS does not exist. Imho the problem is that it is not understood as radiofrequent radiation sickness (disease) with phases, windows, doses, accumulation, threshold values, different frequencies with different characters, person-connected parameters, a-specific symptoms and effects like EHS. What the scientists do is 1. the moon can not exist (dogma). 2. They see reports of people who have seen full moon, half moon, no moon at all. 3. They conclude the reports are inconsistent, the moon cannot exist and we don't understand how, so no proof of anything. Stupid, of course. As soon as you know the moon turns around the earth and the earth around the sun, you understand how it works and why the reports are not consistent, the conclusion is the moon exists. We should emphasize time and time again it is radiofrequent radiation sickness (disease) (by vdt, microwave, gsm, umts, tetra, wifi, wlan, dvb-t, the whole mix) by non-ionising, non-thermal heating radiofrequent radiation. This moon has been seen full, half and none. --- In [hidden email], "Drasko Cvijovic" <pecina@c...> wrote: > Was it some other WHO EHS conference than the one I attended :-) :- )? > > The dominant conclusion there was that the E(H)S phenomenon has not yet been > verified as really related to electric devices operation! > Unfortunately, I have no objections to that conclusion, although I am ES > myself. > I have to admit that we have not succeeded in obtaining convincing evidence > that the phenomenon is real! Most provocation studies simply - fail. And > from the side of the officials there is no readiness to focus at the small > number of case studies that seem not to be failing - they simply ignore > them... > All we can hope is that somebody would soon invent a proper experimental > design in which ES people would be having 100% predictive response... > Fortunately, there are some scientists aware of that necessity! > > Drasko > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Glenn Coleman" <glennhcoleman@h...> > To: <[hidden email]> > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:03 PM > Subject: RE: [eSens] Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference > > > > > > Thanks Marc, > > > > That is a very promising report. Good to see so many doctors > > countries taking ES sersiously. It may only be a few years before our own > > GP's learn and accept that ES is a real problem, and provide proper > support. > > > > Glenn > > > > >From: "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> > > >Reply-To: [hidden email] > > >To: [hidden email] > > >Subject: [eSens] Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference > > >Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:05 -0800 > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >In our eSens "file" area, I've added a 12-page Microsoft > > >Word document containing a report on the WHO EHS conference > > >from last October. This report comes from Lucinda Grant, > > >and also covers some other topics of interest to folks > > >with ES. > > > > > >You can find it at: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/files > > > > > >The filename is: > > > > > > who_es_conference_report.doc > > > > > >If for some reason you cannot access this file, just email > > >me and I'll email the file to you. > > > > > >Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Re: Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference
|
|
Frans, That about Moon is good, I have't heard that before! Anyway, what I wanted to say by commenting the posting about Lucinada Grant's paper (that had been added at Group's site), was that her paper doesn't reflect the reality of that Meeting. With all the respect to her efforts and what she is doing for ES issue, I have to say that this her paper is more what we would like it had happened in Prague... She probaly had just partial information about the event, as the complete papers from Meeting are unavailable, just the abstracts were printed in the limited number of copies... Drasko ----- Original Message ----- From: "franspppp" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: [eSens] Re: Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference > > > Drasko, > > provocation studies always will tell that EHS does not exist. Imho > the problem is that it is not understood as radiofrequent radiation > sickness (disease) with phases, windows, doses, accumulation, > threshold values, different frequencies with different characters, > person-connected parameters, a-specific symptoms and effects like EHS. > > What the scientists do is 1. the moon can not exist (dogma). 2. They > see reports of people who have seen full moon, half moon, no moon at > all. 3. They conclude the reports are inconsistent, the moon cannot > exist and we don't understand how, so no proof of anything. Stupid, > of course. As soon as you know the moon turns around the earth and > the earth around the sun, you understand how it works and why the > reports are not consistent, the conclusion is the moon exists. > > We should emphasize time and time again it is radiofrequent radiation > sickness (disease) (by vdt, microwave, gsm, umts, tetra, wifi, wlan, > dvb-t, the whole mix) by non-ionising, non-thermal heating > radiofrequent radiation. This moon has been seen full, half and none. > > > > --- In [hidden email], "Drasko Cvijovic" <pecina@c...> wrote: > > Was it some other WHO EHS conference than the one I attended :-) :- > )? > > > > The dominant conclusion there was that the E(H)S phenomenon has not > yet been > > verified as really related to electric devices operation! > > Unfortunately, I have no objections to that conclusion, although I > am ES > > myself. > > I have to admit that we have not succeeded in obtaining convincing > evidence > > that the phenomenon is real! Most provocation studies simply - > fail. And > > from the side of the officials there is no readiness to focus at > the small > > number of case studies that seem not to be failing - they simply > ignore > > them... > > All we can hope is that somebody would soon invent a proper > experimental > > design in which ES people would be having 100% predictive > response... > > Fortunately, there are some scientists aware of that necessity! > > > > Drasko > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Glenn Coleman" <glennhcoleman@h...> > > To: <[hidden email]> > > Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 2:03 PM > > Subject: RE: [eSens] Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Marc, > > > > > > That is a very promising report. Good to see so many doctors > from so many > > > countries taking ES sersiously. It may only be a few years > before our own > > > GP's learn and accept that ES is a real problem, and provide > proper > > support. > > > > > > Glenn > > > > > > >From: "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> > > > >Reply-To: [hidden email] > > > >To: [hidden email] > > > >Subject: [eSens] Report on 2004 WHO EHS conference > > > >Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 10:37:05 -0800 > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > >In our eSens "file" area, I've added a 12-page Microsoft > > > >Word document containing a report on the WHO EHS conference > > > >from last October. This report comes from Lucinda Grant, > > > >and also covers some other topics of interest to folks > > > >with ES. > > > > > > > >You can find it at: > > > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/files > > > > > > > >The filename is: > > > > > > > > who_es_conference_report.doc > > > > > > > >If for some reason you cannot access this file, just email > > > >me and I'll email the file to you. > > > > > > > >Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > |
«
Return to ES
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |