So, a little over a year ago, I wrote a piece about one particular anti-WiFi activist named Rodney Palmer. It was a bit of a snarky post, written with the piss-and-vinegar that comes from a long, aggravating day at work. The post caught the attention of Mr. Palmer, who promptly threatened to sue me over the post. Long-time readers of this blog will know that this is old, old news. I’m sure Mr. Palmer, while being no fan of mine, has probably moved on by now.
After around 7 months since the last comment, that article (and not the over a dozen other related articles we’ve published here at Skeptic North, most of them since the Palmer piece) got flooded with negative comments. And I mean flooded. I’ve been blogging for several years now, and I know that when a year-old piece suddenly gets flooded with angry, insulting comments, someone probably stumbled upon it, and got upset.
Ho, boy were they upset!
WiFi Troll.
You see, this was not an sudden uptick in anti-Wifi activity, but was an organized group effort, led by one Paul Doyon. Mr. Doyon heads up a group dubbing themselves “EMF Refugees”, and to this group, he sent out a message: “Please Swamp this Word Swindler With Factual Comments”
I took a screen shot of the actual call to arms, because what the ended up posting was largely invective worthy of Jesse Ventura.
Screenshot of the call to arms, since groups like this often scrub incriminating evidence.
Right out of the gates, we can see that this group, for all their bluster, are not interested in a discussion. By their own admission, they came to swamp the blog. This is little different than how spammers operate, excepting that these aren’t robots (well….in a way….).
The “factual information” that they brought to the discussion? Here’s some samples of their discussion:
1) “I suggest that Steve Thoms read up on the subject before he continues making a fool of himself by speaking out his ass”
2) “I used to refer to skeptics as Acceptics but I think there’s more to it than that. Skeptics are clearly not sceptical at all, it appears these groups are hellbent on upholding the status quo through selling the messages of various industries. Steve you say “Show evidence of *my* agenda. You imply that I am somehow funded by corporate backers: Prove it.” I don’t need to, I’ve seen enough of these quackbuster type sites”
3) “The plural of anecdotal evidence is DATA.”
4) “I have also been thinking that I would do the world a favour and not warn you so that your spawn does not further contaminate the gene pool”
5) “I have checked your ‘teacher’ credentials with the Ontario College of Teachers and you aren’t one, so stop claiming to be one. I was going to report you for conduct unbecoming of a teacher. Aren’t you embarrassed about the language you allow on your site?”
6) “The theory is right but the problem is that the current consensus is industry driven.”
7) “This Quackivist [sic] (which is not even a word btw) cannot even spell my name correctly. You are the Quacks my friends.”
And it goes on, and on, and on, like that. They ask a question, I answer it (or point them to the answer), and they insist they didn’t get an answer, and respond with insults about how poor I am at reading, how poor a teacher I must be, and how my closed minded I am. “Factual comments”, I’m sure.
When you look at the screen shot I posted above, you see textbook examples of conspiracy theory thinking:
As I wrote back in early 2010, conspiracy theorists clump the world into three categories:
1) The Dupes: The ignorant masses who believe everything that is spoon-fed to them.
2) The perpetrators: the evil powers (and their lackeys) that push “The Lie” onto the dupes.
3) The noble army of Truth: the privileged few who know the real truth, and see it as their job to convince the poor, ignorant dupes, and to fight the evil perpetrators wherever they are.
In the screenshot of Paul’s call to arms, he and his supporters betray all their conspiracy theorist markings:
“We, who are concerned, understand how high the stakes are, as the effects on people and environment may be in placed in peril, due to mankind’s neglect as steward’s of the earth. “
They position both themselves as the privileged few who know the real truth,and the masses as the poor dupes who need to be freed. Or in this telling excerpt by Paul himself (emphasis mine):
“Actually, this is an excellent opportunity for the Speakers of the Truth to get our word out there in their own media arm against the People of the Lie.“
If this isn’t hyperbole, and rhetoric, I don’t know what is. Not only does literally identify his group as the speakers of the truth, and me as part of the great lie, but he even capitalizes these terms, as if they are titles akin to Speaker of the House or King of the Moon. And speaking of titles,
“When I read an irrational rant like what Word Swindler, which disparages any possibolity [sic] that WiFi could cause health problems and viciously attacks the mesengers [sic],”
Word Swindler.
Awesome.
I expect you all to make hilarious, and awesome logs that I can put on a t-shirt, or my twitter avatar.
So don’t be confused: there is no sudden uptick in anti-wifi “awareness”. It’s just a dedicated activity by a small, but vocal (and mouthy) group who see skeptics like me as lackeys for the telecom industry (if I was a lackey, then perhaps I’d have a better car than a Corolla), and themselves as the self-appointed “Speakers of the Truth”. Textbook conspiracy theorists.
Sincerely,
Steve Thoms,
Word Swindler.
Classic Dr. Novella’s “army of light” vs the forces of evil. It’s also a classic symptom of group think. We all think the same. These ideas seem so clear and rational to us that anyone who doesn’t accept them (because they lack scientific support) must be either ignorant (the sheeple) or evil (the ones who have seen the light but reject it for reasons of self enrichment).
Stop apologising for your Corolla. There are few finer vehicles!
Heh, I actually quite like my modest car. It’s about as bland, and inoffensive a vehicle there can be, and it doesn’t attract tickets or thieves. If, of course, I were under the payroll of Bell or Rogers, I’d be driving a BMW in a hearbeat.
AH HA! If you were driving a BMW it would give you away as being in the pocket of the evil corps out to poison our world with WiFi so Big Pharma can get even richer by selling us ineffective cures. So you drive a Corolla to make it look like you aren’t on the payroll of Bell and Rodgers ergo you are on their payroll.
And so on and so on.
A great article as usual.
PS Are the comments working correctly on the article being spammed? They do not seem to be appearing correctly, in order, when I view the article page http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/10/rodney-palmer-narcissist/ . Forexample, it says there are 164 comments, but only a small sub-set seem to appear. And there seem to be multiple comment page URLs now (such as http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/10/rodney-palmer-narcissist/comment-page-1/ and http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/10/rodney-palmer-narcissist/comment-page-2/. But there are no page controls on the main article page. Checked using Google Chrome browser and Firefox.
I’m noticing that too — maybe we hit some sort of page limit in the template. Or maybe the internet is taking the crazy into its own hands…bits…tubes?
Either way, I sure we’ll get attacked for our willful deletion of their courageous, um, reckons.
It also doesn’t seem to be nesting replies.
Is anyone at Skeptic North dealing with the technical issue of the broken comments? It is very difficult to follow comments and especially threads at the moment.
Our blog gnomes are looking into it, but please be patient. We’re a volunteer operation here… In the meantime, I suggest following our comment RSS.
Kim, that’s fine!
There had not been a confirmation that anything was being done, hence my question.
Love the new tagline, by the way.
This just in from Paul Doyon. My response is below it.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Emf Refugees wrote:
> Hi David,
> Word is that people in the group think you are The Spy. Seems like the Skeptic North are no longer taking comments. Perhaps I should take you off my list?
> Best regards,
> Paul Doyon
> –
>
> EMR-Updates
>
> Brought to you by
> EMF Refugees: The International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet
> (IC-ESP).
>
Hi Paul:
If by “The Spy” you mean somebody on your mailing list who does not
completely support your opinions, and who doesn’t like the way you are so quick to call people “ignorant” and “stupid” when they disagree with you, then I guess that’s me all right.
I don’t know why the people at Skeptic North no longer take comments, or what this has to do with me. They have a whole new thread about the WiFi trolling now, so maybe it has more to do with you. Maybe they have decided that insults and invective are not valid arguments.
I can tell you this. If it were my site, and I was doing my best to
present information I had researched and believed was valid, having
somebody call my whole site a “pile of shit” and suggest that I must
be in the pay of the big corporations, would get them banned as a
troll in a heartbeat.
By the way, instantly slapping a label on me as “The Spy” seems to be
typical of your style. Nobody is just a person who disagrees with
you, Paul. They all have to be part of something bigger. Well, I’m
not spying for anybody. I just have my opinions, and I admit that I
get cranky when people behave badly.
I’ve been on your mailing list because you send out interesting
information and I like to keep up with your issue. I can live without it.
Been nice knowing you. I guess we’re not going to be friends.
David Scott
My reply to David Scott, since he did not seem to take my advice and post it here. LOL
Hi David,
I think that they suspect that you contacted the people at Skeptic North. And given that you went behind my back and contacted people on my list, then I certainly would consider that as a strong possibility.
No, a spy does not mean anything that you state it to mean — I think you are reading too much into the definition of “spy” here. What it implies here in this specific instance is that you have been feeding information from our group to the people at Skeptic North. And I did not call you a “spy.” Why? Are you? I was just relaying what other people on my list have said about you. (And you thought it would be easier than preaching to the choir.) Please do not put words in my mouth. That is a one tactic of Skeptic North that I do not stoop so low to use.
So it is OK for the people at Skeptic North to use these tactics (invective and insults) in disparaging others like Dr. Henry Lai, B. Blake Levitt, Dr. Magda Havas, etc., but it is NOT OK for someone like myself to use their own tactics against them (fighting fire with fire) so to speak? (They did not seem to like it very much either, did they? They even stopped taking comments on their list. So much for dialectics. LOL) Wouldn`t you call that a double standard? I certainly would. Jeepers! And I thought that you were above that.
Implying that these people are ignorant is just like calling a spade is a spade! The word ignorant comes from the word ignore. People who willfully ignore information deserve to be called ignorant. People who use half-baked science to speak out their asses do not deserve to be called anything more or less. I am just being honest.
Since you seemingly identify yourself with these quacks, I can understand what seems to be the source of your seething anger — given what seems to be your large ego and psychopathological tendencies. I know! The Truth hurts! What gave you the idea that we were going to be friends?
Best regards,
Paul
P.S. You are more than welcome to post my reply here on their website. Perhaps they will then again stop taking comments on this new thread of theirs. LOL
For more insults and invective by Skeptic North, please view the following link….
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/11/hes-trolling-hes-trolling-hes-trolling-down-the-wifi/
We have never “stopped taking comments”. We are having technical difficulties due to the volume of comments.
This issue should now be fixed, at least until Y2K.
Paul: You brighten my day. Really. I love these comments you’re posting. The accusations by your group that we’re funded by a telecom company need a little more juice though. I sugest you start accusing people outside our blog of being in bed with us.
Oh, wait, you just did!
Paul, I think I love you.
I love you too there Stevey! You guys have got me rolling on the floor laughing so hard! I have not had so much fun in a long time. By the way, I am still waiting for your 35,000 studies showing that there are no biological effects from EMFs. Where are they? I guess I will have to be waiting for a very long time! LOL
Paul,
It just occurred to me that you must think the scientific process runs much like an unpatrolled school yard at recess; and that the people who win scientific debates aren’t correct in their arguments, they’re really just teacher’s pets. You certaily seem to treat it this way. We’d really love to have you back here in reality.
There you are again, trying to put words — not in my mouth again, but this time — in my mind. Is that part of your half-baked “scientific process”? The impression I get from what you say is that you do not even really understand what the “linear” one-dimensional scientific method actually is, let alone its limitations.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/cfsemf/message/1092 It’s comments like these that I love you.
“I have gotten word that they are being funded by certain individuals in the high-tech industry.”
You’re certainly welcome to back up your claim with evidence, rather than your say-so.
But I think I hope that you don’t even try. I hope that you keep making these ever-broader accusations with less less evidence.
I’ve got my Skeptic North contributor card. Where’s my iPhone 4S?
It’s adorable that Scott, you think SN bloggers get the iPhone 4S. We’re extra-special shills that get the iPhone 6 (hint: it uses Mo-Fi technology, hidden from the public view).
Don’t worry, I’m at the top of the funding heap, I’ll pull some strings for you and at least get you an iPhone 5B.
Yeah, We keep the dangerous EMF for the proles and give Ourselves the good stuff. (Capitalized to emphasize Our secret importance.)
Oops. I’ve said too much. I must remember to petition the overlords to delete this comment at the next world domination meeting. I’ll have to remember to fill out the right form, though. I wouldn’t want our nefarious dealings to be held up by bureaucracy.
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/putting-the-emfasis-back-on-the-scientific-consenus/ I’ve posted this article about 5 times now Paul, all on request. It culls many thousands of reputable research papers into one spot. I don’t know why I think you’ll actually click the link you’ve asked for, but here it is.
So, care to provide evidence that this site is industry funded? You’ve been telling this to your group, and in this thread, and frankly, it’s wonderfully paranoid.
Paul,
I did not go behind your back and contact anybody on your list. If my words went to anybody on your list it’s because you sent them on. I’m curious about what makes you think I did this.
I did not post your answer to me because I felt that if the people at Skeptic North did not want to give you a voice, I wasn’t going to take you in the back door.
Also, I felt that your answer was just more of the same, and not worth posting.
Hmm! It is because they forwarded the mail you sent them to me!
Paul, you just attempted to copy and paste an entire article from Mike Adams’ site into this, and the other comment thread. I’m not sure how the other SN bloggers feel about that kind of comment, but this isn’t your blog. You can copy-and-paste entire articles there all you like, but not here.
Another SN blogger might choose to approve it, but to me, it borders a little too near to plagiarism. I’ll not approve it. So if you don’t see that particular comment, you, and everyone will know why: you stole it.
Sound familiar?
Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as “their right.”
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for Love
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet “gets by” by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
At the risk of departing from the point scoring chucklefest that seems so common on these skeptic blogs, and at the risk of once again spending time posting a comment that may never appear, I’d like to say something near topic.
Even before Repacholi’s time at the World Health Organisation (WHO)as coordinator of the EMF Project, the mobile telecommunications industry was already hard at work minimising potential public concern regarding health effects from mobile devices.
The fact that most (but not all) Government regulatory bodies deem rf-emr as safe is primarily because they find it easiest to echo whatever WHO says.
Most countries however like to supplement the information that they get from WHO.
Here in Australia, the recently defunct Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) has also conducted some research, reviewed other research and has been the government funded public organisation that has commented publicly whenever required.
Few people knew that Telstra (a local Telco) was a research partner – this was never disclosed in any media releases.
Their website is still online http://acrbr.org.au/.
Check out the happy kids on their home page using cordless/mobile phones, looks more like an advertisement than a government funded independent research body.
Those that are part of any “skeptic” organisation, for whatever reason, fail to understand that the industry’s influence runs deep, both in government and universities (such as Swinburne in Melbourne).
This is not confined to Australia, in most countries conflicts of interest and “revolving doors” between industry and government are commonplace.
The industry even has the American Cancer Society on side, about 8 years ago they helped to refute an accusation by an individual that a brain tumour had been caused by his mobile phone.
A year later they released their cancer myths, which included mobile phones.
Apply some critical thinking: why would the ACS get involved in the first place, and why on earth would they then add mobile phones to their list of cancer myths?
“BECAUSE IT DOESN’T CAUSE CANCER!!”
If that’s what you’re screaming at your monitor right now then you’ve missed it I’m afraid.
The correct response, from an organisation who purportedly exist to prevent and cure cancer, when approached by ANY industry where the research on health effects was nowhere near complete, would be to say: “thanks for asking for our help, but you’re on your own”.
Why didn’t that happen? you tell me.
The “scientific consensus” that skeptics refer to is, in this case (as well as some others) not a consensus at all.
It is an artificial industry friendly consensus that has been fed very cleverly into those organisations that influence or control government regulation.
Anyone who has had a serious look at this industry would understand that. Blind Freddy could see it.
Amazingly the WHO, due to growing public awareness of the rf-emr/health issue, recently declared mobile phones to be a possible carcinogen.
Does the ACS still list mobile phones as a cancer myth?
It’s for the reason that the corruption around this issue is so blatantly obvious that people like me treat people like you with such, er, scepticism.
For me there’s only 2 choices:
Either you’re a pack of fools and your own worst enemy (and everyone else’s for pushing your foolish beliefs on an unsuspecting public)
or
you’re here to get a job done – which gives rise to the occasional accusations of industry backed skeptic sites. Not necessarily the mobile telco industry, could be big pharma or someone else.
The acid test would be of course, if any of you have got kids around the 10yo mark, to give them a mobile phone. Not only that but to encourage them to use it often.
I wonder, should the science end up where it seems to be headed, that in 15 or 20 years, after the latency period, you’ll be able to go up to a brain tumour victim, look him/her in the eyes ans say: “sorry, I was one of the people that said you’d be safe”.
I doubt it.
Steve Thoms, Mike Adams is a friend of mine. I am sure that he won`t mind. LOL
Mike Adams? Good lord. Why not just skip any pretense at credibility and go straight to whale.to?
Stevey, Boy! You do not even know what Plagiarism is, do you? It is when you use someone else`s words as your own. Hello. Posting an article by Mark Adams and where it shows clearly that he wrote the article is not plagiarism. Now, if I had copied his article and substituted my name for his, that would be plagiarism. Look it up in the dictionary, please!
That is what links are for. It is not appropriate to copy reams of text from another website into a comment.
The gullible mind explained
Thursday, May 05, 2011
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032293_gullible_minds.html#ixzz1e1XEIrAf
Paul…love the link to the ‘gullible mind’ article. Some of Mike’s ‘best’ work. How many times does he talk out of both sides of his mouth?
There’s where he plays the ‘don’t accept appeals to authority’ card until reversing it to ‘believe the authorities I agree with’. And then he goes ahead and actually lists some of them as ‘heroes.’
There’s also enough straw men in that article to wipe all crows off the face of the Earth.
And all covered in a thin veneer of critical thinking. Because you know what, critical thinking and skepticism _are_ a badge of honour. If only Mike’s (or your) version of ‘critical thinking’ was grounded in reality. If only he (or you) accepted the hierarchy created by the various kinds of evidence – like, say, large scale well-controlled population-level studies versus test tube or other preliminary types of evidence.
The consensus isn’t about an appeal to authority – it’s about understanding the various kinds of evidence and understanding why a consensus has been reached.
Then there’s the classic pseudoscience tactic of claiming science is incapable of discussing your particular pet theory (a tactic you certainly went into in past threads) while still clinging to any science that seems to agree with your position at all.
On top of it all I do enjoy the nit-picking between plagiarism and copyright infringement. Attributed plagiarism is still the latter.
Please, Paul, keep digging yourself deeper.
Wow! Awesome article. I’m saving it for whenever I need to show someone how absolutely loony Mike Adams is.
J.J. Do you seriously think that someone who does not know the difference between gleam and glean, and who do not know what plagiarism is, is going to understand the concept of the Scientific Method? I am still waiting for those 35,000 studies showing us no biological effects from electromagnetic radiation. I stated before that people who do not get this when confronted with the facts are either (1) pathological liars, (2) psychological deniers, (3) obsessive arguers, (4) willfully (or not) ignorant, or (5) a combination of all of the above. Thank you all for providing evidence to support at least part of my theory since we already have examples on this list of pathological lying, obsessive arguing, and (both willful and just plain) ignorance. Here is another wonderful article for you to attack:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/10/10/wireless-mind-gullible-mind/
I am not sure what kind of consensus here. What you have perhaps five people on your list taking your willfully ignorant view? You are making me laugh in my dreams, dude! Perhaps you should crawl in the hole (that YOU have been digging, not me) with Thoms and his girlfriend.
Have fun! I know I am!
For the sixth time, Paul. http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/11/putting-the-emfasis-back-on-the-scientific-consenus/
Steve,
This does not mean anything. They are just a bunch of quotes from a number of governmental agencies with close ties to industry, agencies which has thus been increasingly compromised and corrupted, (Why? Follow the $ signs), and hence agencies of which you should indeed be skeptical — but for some strange reason, are not. Perhaps the reason for this is explained very clearly in Mark Adam`s article “Gullible Minds.” (Perhaps you should reread it.) Hence, you skepticism is misplaced. Here are some more quotes from which you should be able to make a comparison, if you had the capacity to be able to perform such a function, essential for the development of your critical thinking skills (which you obviously seem to be in want of):
“In our opinion the data available today do not justify the conclusions that the increase in the frequency of cancer of the lung is the result of cigarette smoking.”
Dr. R.H. Rigdon, Director of Laboratory of Experimental Pathology at the University of Texas, quoted in the New York times, April 14, 1954.
“It is my conviction that nicotine is a very remarkable, beneficent drug that both helps the body to resist external stress and can as a result show a pronounced tranquillizing effect….”
Sir Charles Ellis, Senior Scientist, British American Tobacco Company, 1962.
“For the majority of people, smoking has a beneficial effect.”
Dr. Ian MacDonald, Los Angeles surgeon,
(quoted in Newsweek) November 18, 1963.
“We have firmly established the safety, dosage and usefulness of Kevadon [brand name for thalidomide] by both foreign and U.S. laboratory and clinical studies.” (You are probably too young to know what thalidomide is. But not too young to Google it up.)
William S. Merrell Company executive, at a special conference held to present its introductory marketing plan for thalidomide to its sales force, October 25, 1960.
“An outstandingly safe medication.”
Letter from a physician participating in the “clinical investigation” program for the new sleeping pill Kevadon [thalidomide], to the FDA, urging speedy approval of the drug.
Ahh, the thalidomide gambit, at last.
Here is another excellent article pretty much hitting the nail on the head with regards to what is going on here:
Cell Phone Cover-Up – Is Your Brain At Risk?
By Byron Richards
http://ezinearticles.com/?Cell-Phone-Cover-Up—Is-Your-Brain-At-Risk?&id=1150056
Some quotes:
“The latest stone thrown at the 200-billion-dollar-a-year cell phone industry came from a study by neurosurgeon Vini G. Khurana entitled Mobile Phone-Brain Tumour: Public Health Advisory. His meta-analysis of existing cell phone studies may not contain a lot of new information; but his rather alarming message was carried by media around the world: “there is a growing body of statistically significant evidence for a relationship between the overall length of use of a mobile phone and the delayed occurrence of a brain tumor on the same side of the head as the ‘preferred side’ for mobile phone usage.” He claimed a 2-4 fold increased risk following 10 years of regular use.
The cell phone industry mobilized its behemoth defense machine calling the study a select view of existing literature. This meant that his conclusions were not in line with all the studies the industry has been funding around the world called INTERPHONE. Indeed, a casual look through Pub Med and you will see study after study refuting a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. The cell phone industry has excelled at using “scientists for hire” to quell public concern. They have taken a page from Big Pharma’s playbook and have learned well from the troubles of previous health catastrophes like international PCB exposure at the hands of Monsanto, Bayer, GE, and Westinghouse.”
“The empire has enough money to buy votes in the governments of countries around the world, fund studies that reach conclusions it likes, suppress the publishing of information it doesn’t like (professional blackmail), parade a legion of “experts” before any court when a legal challenge is mounted, and create enough mystery about any potential problem in the minds of consumers that the net result is that nothing much is ever done.
Such strategies also hijack the public health system and use it as a shield. In essence, governments are on the take from industry and the economics of the questionable industry are woven into multiple other economic benefits.”
“Vested interests never want to hear about the obvious. They simply want to continue to make money, regardless of the damage, until they are stopped. And when they own the decision makers within governments, it takes a long time to stop them.”
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1150056
Enjoy the reading if you dare! You might just learn something if you choose not to willfully ignore, disregard, and overlook what the author has to say.
“Gambit.” Another linguistic example of the perpetual compulsive arguer — more interested in winning the argument than in finding the Truth. Cognitive Linguistics is an interesting subject in its own right. Metaphors are also a mirror of the cognition of its user.
People are starting to wake up and are less likely to believe the crap that you promote!
Wireless Mind, Gullible Mind
by CHELLIS GLENDINNING
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/10/10/wireless-mind-gullible-mind/
Some quotes:
“These sources of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, or radiofrequency, present a frightening specter. Some 3,000-plus medical, biological, and epidemiological studies have demonstrated links between exposure and deterioration of the blood-brain barrier that blocks viruses and bacteria, DNA damage, leukemia, nervous system disorders, immune deficiency, heart arrhythmias and coronaries, insomnia, anxiety, depression, memory loss, dizziness, deafness, brain tumors, etc.”
“GULLIBLE MIND
Social philosopher Lewis Mumford’s concept of “mad rationality” comes to mind. And renegade Freudian R.D. Laing’s assertion that our “socially shared hallucinations, our collusive madness is what we call sanity.” Too, psychoanalyst Eric Fromm’s observation: “That millions of people share the same form of mental pathology does not make those people sane.”
“Let’s consider repression: blanking out the facts and one’s feelings about the facts. As psychologist Daniel Goleman puts it: `One forgets, then forgets one has forgotten.` In this case the forgetting is made more likely because, like radiation from nuclear technologies, electromagnetic radiation is invisible. And indeed, upon hearing of links between radiofrequency and disease, some people sputter “Uh,” spin around in a fog, and flee. Telecommunications corporations rely on repression when touting their happy-talk-keep-talkin’ claims. `Satellite dishes receive radiation perfectly. There’s no spillover,` announce public-relations departments, while consumers stampede to their local satellite-TV outlets with nary a `Hello?`
Denial is like repression but carries an edge of active manipulation. When we repress, we erase the whole enchilada; when we deny, we rearrange the facts to make reality more palatable. Needless to say, the industry is the #1 perpetrator of this psychic defense. But the public isn’t bad at it either. After four decades of bio-radiological research, Dr. Robert O. Becker gave his wrap-up in 2000: `I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.` Environmental scientist Dr. Neil Cherry predicts that every human will develop not one, but many cancers. A New Mexico journalist with autoimmune disease, whose husband contracted cancer after they installed satellite internet-TV, responded with: `It’s just another thing in an already polluted world.`”
The following article appearing on the Harvard Law School website is about the talk given by a Dr. Franz Adlkofer. For those of you who here have read (which I strongly suspect is probably no one) Dr. Devra Davis`s (who is also presently at Harvard btw) “Disconnect” , Dr. Franz Adlkofer was the former chief of tobacco research in Germany, and became the head of the Verum Foundation, which was commissioned by the EU to conduct the 5-million-dollar REFLEX studies designed to study the effect of EMF on human cells. Apparently, at the time, Dr. Franz Adlkofer did not believe that cell-phone radiation would have any negative effect on health. However, contrary to his initial belief, the REFLEX research studies, repeatedly in a number of different laboratories, did indeed show that cell phone radiation was not only breaking DNA, but that 3G cell-phone radiation was breaking DNA at ten times the rate of 2G cell-phone radiation. The results were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Naturally, Dr. Adlkofer and the REFLEX research became the objects of attack. I suppose that you people here would also call him and Dr. Davis quacks. Why? Because that is what you do? Of course, in your quack book, he was not a quack, but an upstanding scientific researcher, until he published his research. LOL
At Safra Center event, cell phone radiation and institutional corruption addressed (video)
November 18, 2011
On Nov. 3, Dr. Franz Adlkofer, former executive director of the VERUM Foundation for Behavior and Environment, spoke to a Harvard Law School audience as part of the lectures and events series hosted by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.
In his lecture, “Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science,” Adlkofer discussed the difficulties he and other scientists face when presenting research on the carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields emanating from cell phones. He also discussed the institutional corruption which he says obstructs their research.
Read more and watch the video of his talk at
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/11/18_safra-center-cellphone-radiation-corruption.html
Adlkofer : “There cannot be any doubt that the present
exposure limits [...] owe their existence & esp. their continuance to institutional corruption.”
[i tried to contribute a couple of times a few days back at this & the other recently heavily commented-on Trottierianish skeptobit, but the comments got swallowed up by the website posting]
His talk had mostly stuff people knowledgeable on these issues are already familiar with, but if you can brave his accent, maybe a few of you not too deep yet into this skeptopile would benefit, and then hold your Scientol-, er, skepto-colleagues to account for their serious deep wrongheadedness on these issues (won’t get into others…).
And who said the following?
“A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.”
Malcolm X.
I can’t place it, but this song came to mind while reading the comment thread.
I can’t imagine why…
Congratulations on the Gish Gallop, Paul. Now by putting out thousands of words of erroneous text for every hundred by a skeptic, it’ll sure look like you’re “arguing” your points when a passer-by swings through and sees you dismissing the need for empirical evidence in making extraordinary claims.
Where are the statistically significant upticks of cancer rates correlating with wifi usage?
Jason, You do not even seem to know what “empirical evidence” is. The philosophy of empiricism, which was originally philosophically contrasted to rationalism, is based on what is directly experienced via perception — i.e. what one can perceive through the senses. Yet, your group completely disregards experience as a source of knowledge. This is just one reason why I have clearly stated honestly that you guys are figuratively talking out your asses. Then you are the ones making erroneous claims of 35,000 studies showing no biological effects. I am still waiting to see these. There is no empirical evidence to support your above statement. Yet, you use this term like you think you know what it means. http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/brain-tumor-pandemic/?mid=560
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/between-rock-and-hard-place/2011/dec/19/question-risk-brain-cancer-cell-phone-radiation/
Paul, the study number is actually 25 000 and comes from this statement by the WHO on EMF summarizing the state of the science to date: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html
Thanks for the lesson on empiracism – modern empirical investigation is not based upon direct perception but takes into account the fact that humans can fool themselves quite easily – ” your eyes can deceive you, don’t trust them” – so we have built in safeguards to prevent our misuse of pure perception. “Disregarding experience as a source of knowledge” is an incorrect statement therefore, as modern science tempers experience with logic and tries to remove the human from the observation in order to get an unbiased view of the world.
the INTERPHONE study, the CEFALO study, the Danish Cohort study – all find no epidemic of tumors from cell phone use. If this is not empirical evidence, I am not sure what you will accept as such, besides the paranoid musings of those who run sites like electromagnetichealth dot org and microwavenews dot com or groups with obvious bias like the Hallberg Independent Research group.
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6387
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/07/27/jnci.djr244.abstract
http://client.vediamo.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/aefu-data/b_documents/themen/elektrosmog/archivsammlung/7_Schuez_AmJEpidemiol_2006.pdf
Your writing has definitely inspired me to really totally change the way I run my site. I really appreciate your great work.
I agree with Jason.
Where are the upticks in brain cancer, skin cancer of the right-hand / right-hip (for the 90% right-handed world out there), in direct correlation to the growth in quantity / use of cellphones?
Oh.
That’s right.
Brain cancer rates are declining since early ’90′s.
Hmmm… (sound of gunshot in foot).
Oh the entertainment these kind of people provide… love it.
Keep the crazy coming non skeptics… keep it coming.
I know it’s a bit late for this thread, but I ran into Paul Doyon on Dariusz Lesczszynski’s Between a Rock and A Hard Place blog on the Washington Times.
It was not long before Paul validated Godwin’s law with Argumentum ad Hitlerum (which led to his banishment from the blog). I was enshrined as one of the “People of the Lie.” He must keep some sort of anti-wireless bible, because he responds with a list of skeptical sins with assigned numbers.
The Leszczynski blog is a pretty good one. Very few skeptics, but there are a number of anti-wireless pundits: Devra Davis, the Powerwatch crew, Don Maisch, Cindy Sage, Camilla Rees (I think). Leszczynski himself is one of the 30 members of IARC who voted to classify cell phones as a Group IIB Carcinogen.