Guest guest Posted April 11, 1999 Report Share Posted April 11, 1999 It's here, back as promised. World Health Organization has a web site which is very interesting reading. In the long message was the statement that WHO did not pander to pharmaceuticals. Nothing could be further from the truth. A recent book all about their aims and objectives for vaccination after year 2000 is absolutely disgusting reading. It makes it plain throughout that its aim is to work with pharmaceuticals to ensure their success on the stock market, their continuing profit margins, and to work with them to ensure as wide " consumption " of vaccines in as many countries as possible. The action is that of bed mates, not altruism. If you don't believe me, go onto their web site. Some of the documents I have had downloaded from there and sent to me make such horrific reading that the only reason I didn't need 10 buckets was that my stomach contents only fill an ice-cream container. You guys all have the capacity to suss out WHO. Go to it. Marcy Koltun-Crilley wrote: > From: Marcy Koltun-Crilley <marcy@...> > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 10:40:23 EDT > From: MooMomTo2@... > Subject: Re: Digest Number 184 > > In a message dated 4/6/99 2:52:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > marcy@... > writes: > > << I can not help but comment here! > The W.H.O. is not high on my list of objective information. > The W.H.O. is behind the the campaign to vaccinate the world against > everything. > And does anyone know just " who is the W.H.O. ? " > >> > > So does the AAP!! Oh yeah, and the AMA. The World Health Organization > is > by far one of the more intelligent agencies...although it still does its > > share of harm. At least they advocate healthy initiatives like extended > > breastfeeding and midwifery, they do not bow down to the pharmaceutical > companies and the AMA the way we do in the US. Money is the only reason > > why > all those poor formula fed babies are given such a lousy start in life, > and > the drugged births and c-section rates!! Grrrrr. I could go on and on > about > how W.H.O. is a far better organization than anything we have in the > states. > Just my not so humble opinion, > ~~G > > When I first started researching the vaccine issues I thought the same > thing. > The world health organization had always gotten bonus points from me > because of their stance on breast feeding. I have since become more then > a little suspicious . I can never prove anything or know for sure, but > the more I uncover, the less I like them. > > Start here: > During the early 1990’s the WHO (World Health Organization) has been > overseeing > massive vaccination campaigns against Tetanus in a number of countries > In 1994 suspicion of these campaign protocols began. > http://home.sprynet.com/~noshots/hcg.htm > and > http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/reviews2.html#corporate > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > You can now easily share photos and documents with your fellow list members > http://www.ONElist.com > Check out our homepage for details on how to use our new shared files feature! -- from Sharron sherules@... Please Check out my Web Page at http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Villa/2009/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 24, 2005 Report Share Posted October 24, 2005 There seems to be a misunderstanding, probably stemming for a partial knowledge of the so callled aternative medicines. If you wanted to get acquainted with the common physiological basis of acupuncture, homeopathy and other regulatory techniques, you should start by reading an old book by a professor of mine, Dr. Alfred Pischinger, from the U of Vienna , Austria: " Matrix and Matrix Regulation " , in Haug Verlag. Anaesthetic acupuncture is very superficial technique. Either if you believe in the Theory of the Five Elements or not, acupunture is a complete system of medicine that can act at much deeper levels, unheard of in -and utterly misunderstood by- modern medicine. As for the amount and quality of information being exchanged in the body, to think in grams and milligrams, or mV, for that matter, may be absolutely misleading. Cells exchange signals that are in the 1x10(super-index -6 and -8)ranges. Photons are exchanged between tissues and cells, to deploy certain mechanisms. The ring of Waldeyer at the throat and Peyer plates around the gut (parts of the lymphatic system) can learn best from substances in the micrograms range and more diluted. If a bodily system were in an unstable equilibrium and resonant with a specific signal (a dilution of a certain substance, a certain acupuncture point, or in need of a specific enzyme), the signal would start a complex curative snowball, absolutely different from the pharmacological action of a Western remedy or of the common usage of medicinal plants. Most of the conventional critiques of alternatives are usually associated with an utter ignorance of the critiqued field, seasoned with a set of crippling preconceptions, most of them already outdated for modern physics, materials science, etc. Best regards. Ignacio Ignacio Fojgel, M.D. Maimonides University, Buenos Aires, Argentina On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:46:54 -0300, nospam.rwp@... <nospam.rwp@...> wrote: > > Firstly I was tired and some of my grammar was a bit iffy, what I meant > to say is there are hypotheses about how acupuncture works which don't > require mystic explanations (e.g. out-of-body energy fields), the best > hypotheses I read says something like, the needles obscure pain by > confusing the brain with another source of pain or irritation at a > strategic location on the nerve map; this does not require higher brain > functions, that is why it works on animals. As for hypnotism, that's an > attempt to bypass the conscious filters to program the subconscious part > of the mind to change it's perception of reality and behave accordingly > (e.g. physically) as though the illusion were real, an effect may > religions, advertisers and rulers are well aware of!. > > I have tried many alternative ideas and found them wanting, I find I now > waste less time and money as a sceptic and now only run with alternative > ideas where I see strong enough proof that it is worth me investing my > time and money. > > The human body does not to my knowledge produce much electrical power, > uses fairly low frequency signals (so no 'skin effect') and generally > has a very high resistance at the skin, so very few (weak) electrical > signals get to the skin, thanks to signal attenuation, so low noise, > high impedance, high gain amplifiers are needed for ECG, EEG and > nerve-driven robotic hands, this suggests that an external body energy > field is unlikely. It also tends to require much higher voltages and or > higher frequencies, than inside the body, to influence the body e.g. in > T.E.N.S. units, muscle stimulator's, stun guns. It is also known that > strong magnetic fields can influence the body (e.g. cause 'divine' > hallucinations in the brain), however this is not surprising given > electrical principles. > > As I said faith is belief without proof i.e.often a subjective belief > based on feelings, emotions and other faith, not a solid foundation!. > This is not compatible with science, a rational, objective methodology > and process, this may explain why some religious or mystic scientists > fail to reach their full potential. BTW it is a cop out to say let the > scientists explain these spurious effects *, also you can get in trouble > here too e.g. BBC Horizon sponsored a scientific experiment to see if > homoeopathy works or not, they found no statistically significant proof > that it works, pretty damning! > > * 'Cold fusion' and 'bubble fusion' both looked very convincing on the > surface, but were clearly proven wrong, several times, by other > scientists, without a blinding emotional investment in it's proof. > > I will grant that there are some genuinely useful alternative sources of > information e.g. herbalism, given that there is extensive scientific > proof that lots of herbs work, however I have not heard any definitive > proof that the Eastern energy healing ideas are viable except possibly > as a rather indirect way of mapping nerves and other physical nodes in a > human body. > > I agree science does not know it all, it would be pretty boring if it > did, however science is not just facts, it is a well thought out process > and methodology to strive to better understand how everything works > (e.g. Occam's Razor is damned handy for cutting out the BS), science is > not a static edifice, it is dynamic and can take wrong turns sometimes, > but tends to correct itself with time and has a nasty habit of > convincingly disproving superstitions, which is the intention. Just > because some Eastern philosophies look like science does not necessarily > mean they embody the same high standards of proof as science, age and > tradition do not automatically make something true, only objective proof > does that, science is not religion and should never be confused with it > e.g. Intelligent Design (Creationism) is clearly religion not science > (see Darwin's Watch: Science of Discworld III by Terry Pratchet, Ian > and Jack Cohen for an amusing demolition of ID). > > http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor> > > > Apricot85 wrote: > >> Faith is also based on someone's personal experiences & perceptions. I >> value hearing about the experiences of others. I respect each point of >> view. Absolutely, I believe each side holds merit on this whole issue. >> My experiences have taught me there isn't just one 'right' way. >> Simply, science doesn't know it all yet. >> >> nospam.rwp@... wrote: >> >> >> >>> Faith is belief without proof, that maybe OK when building a >>> hypothesis, but is no good for a scientific theory, this requires >>> repeatability and impartial, statistically verified testing e.g. >>> double-blind testing. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under >> no circumstances should any information published here be considered a >> substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the >> owner >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 CORRUPTION AT THE WORLD HEALH ORGANIZATION " Precautionary policies should not be applied to EMFs, " states Dr. Repacholi. (MWN, S/O 01). As reported in Microwave News, Mike Repacholi, the head of the WHO EMF project, “recruited utility representatives to help write the original draft of the WHO document recommending exposure levels, and later asked them to review the completed draft. Repacholi invited eight utility representatives to attend task group meeting -the only observers who were invited. Dr. Repacholi also denied Prof. Johansson participation in the WHO workshop summary, although he participated in this workshop. It is not a coincidence that the recommendation to governments to discourage the public from measuring radiation in their homes emerged from this workshop group. This is an active harm to the public.†“On the 5th of July 2005, it was publically [sic] published that Dr. Repacholi - Coordinator of the WHO's Radiation and Environmental Health Unit- receives 150,000 dollar a year directly from the cellular phone industry with additional money for meetings and travels, meaning he broke the rules of the WHO which bar to receive money directly from the industry.†(microwavenews.com 5.7.05). In addition, Dr. Repacholi is documented as having invited power industry representatives to participate actively in setting public health standards for electromagnetic fields emitted by powerlines and transformers. (Microwavenews.com 1.10.05, 22.9.05) It is important to note that this happens despite the fact that Dr. Repacholi said himself to a Senate Committee Inquiry that: " [T]he world health Organization does not allow industry to participate in either standard setting or in health risk assessment. The WHO takes the view that there cannot be industry representation on standard setting working groups. There cannot be someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when they derive benefit from that industry. " Reference: Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, Section 4.115, page 151, May 2001 Professor Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute, one of the key referral institutions for the WHO reported that at the Prague conference on electromagnetic sensitivity, Dr. Repacholi distributed disinformation about the acknowledgement of electrosensitivity by the Swedish government. Mike Repacholi (of WHO's EMF project) was recently reported in New Scientist (10th September 2005, page 14) as saying that " the worst effects of the Chernobyl nuclear accident are mental health problems brought on by too much worry. †[Repacholi was also involved in a follow up report on Chernobyl that apparently falsified death/disease statistics at the behest of the nuclear energy industry, which was set back by public concern due to the Chernobyl disaster. “The joint press release from the International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health Organization and United Nations Development Program has sent shockwaves throughout the world and brought strong condemnation from physicians, environmental organizations, religious groups and even some political parties.†(The Nuclear Reporter #634 9/16/05) -Shivani] Documents published lately show that tobacco industry and asbestos industry both were very much involved with WHO and managed to prevent stricter actions to protect the public. (with regard to tobacco- www.microwavenews.com 22.9.05, with regard to asbestos- Ladou ph, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 112 no. 3 March 2004) November 2, 2004 - The World Health Organization's EMF Project is advising national governments against setting stricter exposure limits for exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) to protect children from leukemia. The EMF project states that “WHO believes exposure limits should be based on effects conventionally regarded as established and are not an appropriate mechanism for implementing precautionary approaches. Therefore WHO does not recommend including exposure limits based on the childhood leukemia data as an option.†The current ICNIRP exposure limit is 1,000 mG (100 µT) for the general population. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown a leukemia risk to children exposed, on average, above 3-4 mG (0.3-0.4 µT). [The effect " conventionally regarded as established " is simple tissue heating. As long as this, the absurdity of which has been proven over and over, remains the basis of " safety " standards, industry can continue to recklessly irradiate all living beings, and the health damage caused will continue and increase. The effects most important to industries and their political friends are money and power, not the suffering occurring due to present standards. Common sense, evidence, logic and compassion are not part of the decision making process here. Shivani] [The WHO has also denied that there is any indication that lowering internationally accepted limits would reduce the prevalence of symptoms attributed to EMF, advised that persons complaining that electromagnetic radiation is affecting their health be given psychological evaluations, and advised governments to discourage people from taking measurements of radiation levels in their homes. The World Health Organization may be criminally liable for offences in the countries that follow these guidelines. Outraged international experts may take legal action. Stay tuned. -Shivani] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.