Urgent Need for Biologically-based EMF Public Exposure Standards

Tuesday, 31 December 2013

The Art of Propaganda

How to manipulate people into believing what you say is true/false for political and commercial purposes, known as commercial warfare

This is a time-tested trick that seems to work every time. Take for example the plight of electrohypersensitive (EHS) individuals who are experiencing symptoms from pulsed microwave devices (mobile phones, WIFI, DECT – cordless phones).

Motorola "we think we have sufficiently war-gamed the science"
Here's how they are doing this.....

At regular intervals, those with vested interests trot out a speech, an article or a video to try to persuade the masses to continue with their microwave toys. After all, they tell you, those with EHS are just plain nuts. Oh....what a comforting thought...you can then say.....it's them. I can go right on ahead and continue with my microwave toy...it's safe...and if I start to get any strange symptoms well that too will be my imagination...so I don't need to worry at all.

But it's not just what these articles, videos etc. are putting across but the sleight of hand they use to fool you into believing what they tell you.

A point in case is the latest video “This video will hurt”. Spoken in a robotic voice which somehow stays in your head.  It assumes that it's viewers will be gullible and believe it, even though it does not cite any source material at all.  It relies on the power of the rumour without giving its audience any information or reference to Scientific material.

You'll be forgiven for watching it thinking oh yeah....they had some EHS in a room, played a film to them about the warning of WIFI and they all became ill. It's all in their mind. What you might have missed is that.....

no Electrohypersensitives took part in this experiment they speak of

the symptoms experienced by the candidates did not correlate with those experienced by EHS persons

there was no report as to whether the candidates continued to experience the symptoms afterwards when exposed to emfs in their homes/workplaces as would happen with EHS persons  (i.e. for years afterwards once sensitised)

the room/s were not shielded from other sources of emfs – mobiles, TETRA (for Emergency services – on hospital roofs), RADAR so even though they weren't exposed to WIFI they may well  have been  exposed to other sources of emf. In fact unless they were in a totally screened room they most definitely would've been exposed to other sources.

The subjects had to put an aerial on their heads (this is metal and would have amplified any ambient fields in the environment)

Imagine being given a freaky aerial to put on your head/on your brain – who in their right mind wouldn't walk out of the experiment, especially given that the candidates had a pre-existing condition of anxiety”

As I say, no Electrohypersensitives took part in this experiment and symptoms reported here did not report to have correlated with those EHS persons experience, but if you watched the video this is the conclusion you will most likely have made. It's what you want to hear i.e. that you aren't in any danger or risk and can carry on just like before, using your pulsed microwaved WIFI.

The test given and conclusion is what is known as a moronic argument. Here's why......

Imagine the same experiment but now we are going to test whether heart attacks are real or whether it's all in the mind. Take a two groups of people, split them up. One watches a film about cheese and how it can give you a heart attack, the other watches a cartoon. All join together to be served with a cheese sandwich. 50% of the people think they might be having a heart attack when they eat the cheese, some even get a little anxious and a small percentage get panic attacks. Candidates have a pre-existing condition of anxiety. Therefore.....this proves that heart attacks are all in the mind and there is no such thing as heart attacks.
Convinced? Well you just were when it was Electrosensitives that were the bait. Caught hook line and sinker. Those of you more astute might have noticed I changed the end to 50% of the candidates, but I didn't mention whether that included those who watched the film or not. Just like in nocebo study, they reported those with the severest symptoms came from the group who watched the film, but they didn't say how many were affected with the “severest symptoms”. It could have been one or two people. They let you believe that it was all or the majority of those who watched the film. They led you to believe it was the 50% who watched the film. Whereas it might have been just a few people. In any study you will get people who will be influenced by what they see/hear. How convinced were you of the video with the robotic voice, telling you (without any source material or back-up, that EHS was all in the mind). We are all influenced to a certain degree but when it comes down to an obvious connection of being exposed to emfs & being in pain, not being exposed and not feeling pain you would be plain foolish to ignore that.

There are scores of articles with the same kind of propaganda. You have to ask yourself why would they go to so much trouble to tell you that EHS people are imagining things?

My advice is - be discerning. Apply critical logic and most of all....find the source....the original document, research ....and study it. Scrutinise it. Don't just look for the easy option.

Here is a little selection of more propaganda.

This is another sleight of hand they might use.

If you just read the conclusion you might be tempted to dismiss EHS, so read the whole report and you'll wonder why they made the conclusion. Did they even read the whole report themselves?

From this you'll deduce EHS isn't real because EHS persons felt prickling pain but there was no mobile phone signal. What is so blindingly obvious so much so, you'll miss it is that they are being exposed to an MRI machine (giving out high fields of emfs) which will definitely set off symptoms. Even the HPA agree on that.

In case you miss the obvious, this paper acknowledges the symptoms of Electrosensitivity to magnetic fields, i.e. The magnetic component of electromagnetic fields by the HPA.

Most of IEEE Research is undertaken by J Reilly. You'll see what Reilly has to say here
So that blows the argument that there's no link.

Another strategy propaganda uses is to utterly confuse the reader
Can anyone make sense of this article? They speak of success. Is that success of the placebo effect or success of TMS?

You see from the above experiment Fabrizio Benedetti is mentioned. He is one of the Authors of our video “This video will hurt”.
You'll see he is very interested in cognitive enhancements, “neuroinvasions” in healthy persons.

If you can't absorb all of what is said here go to “Discussion” 3rd paragraph which sums things up.
But again, best to read the whole document if you can to get the full picture.

So what have Doctors like this got to lose if we concede that WIFI is dangerous?
It would call into question the ethics of experimenting on humans with TES & with Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for research purposes – they won't be able to do the tests anymore due to the adverse health effects. This would limit or even put an end to their transhumanism/ neuro-enhancement experimentation.

This is a summation paper on the different reports of Electrosensitivity.
If you read this version you will conclude it's all in the mind

But if you read this version, you'll see that the issue isn't so cut and dry. Don't miss the bit about 7 studies showing EHS persons correctly identifying a signal.
You'll read that it's not the same for all Electrosensitives, some get effects straight away, some get the "hangover" effect as noted here, i.e. There are short term effects and longer term effects for Electrosensitives.

With Rubin's test here,
Again the moronic argument is....well then if they couldn't tell, then they can't be Electrosensitive.
they "hit" the Electrosensitives with the real signal first off and once their brains were blased, they hit them with a sham signal. Could they tell the difference? no, they couldn't tell if the next signal was a sham or not, they were too hammered by the real signal to tell. But you didn't realise that it happened in that order. You just hear Chinese whispers, the urban myth and keep that going because it's more comforting to you.

Here are additional factors which weren't revealed

whether they are earthed, i.e. On ground floor – this influences whether their systems collect a charge. 
what their particular frequency sensitivity is before testing begins
(in case you didn't know we are sensitive to a particular frequency, one that resonances with our own)

what their baseline biological rates are, e.g. Heart rate, nerve action potentials, brainwave patterns
all of these can be shown by ECG, EMG, EEG = our electrical measurements
(because we are ALL electromagnetic beings).

What were the flaws of the study?

the signal wasn't pulsed as is the case in real mobile phone signals.

they used a signal which mimicked a 900Mhz mobile phone signal, not an ACTUAL mobile phone signal.

Just ONE frequency was used – 900Mhz so if you're
who is sensitised
you won't be affected.
Any research can be put a certain way to lead you to conclude what they want you to conclude. Here they report that 60% of EHS correctly identified the presence of a signal, then they report another 63% (but didn't say it was the EHS group!) reported a signal with the sham effect. So it might have been 63% of the controls who thought there was a signal in the sham condition through guesswork thus completely negating EHS perception by a weight of measure approach.
The study confesses a leakage of the sham signal which may have been picked up by sensitives.

Don't miss....“the nature of our data required us to adopt a different analytical strategy from that originally planned. As such, this calculation should be taken as indicative only”.
Or this “

For headache, burning sensations, skin sensations, and eye pain we found evidence of a main group effect—sensitive participants reported greater severity”.

Don't miss the footnote

  • Funding This study was funded by the Programme Management Committee (PMC) of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme (www.mthr.org.uk), an independent body set up to provide funding for research into the possible health effects of mobile telecommunications. The MTHR is itself jointly funded by the UK Department of Health and the mobile telecommunications industry

Powerwatch criticizes the test methodology of Rubin's study

Here's another of Rubin's test that you don't get to hear about.  Here EHS persons registered changes in their sleep!

You can find it here, if not, well you know why......

This test used Tetra-like” signals – so not actually Tetra signals, just similar to them.

It speaks for itself – the signal didn't contain the real Tetra which would be bursts, peaks and troughs, instead they used a constant signal. The room wasn't shielded so would be open to other emfs during the sham part of the testing. Still, it reports sensitives and controls had significant effects, so why does it say at the conclusion...nothing to see here? I think you might find the backward slime adjustments, the mean averaging, the charts with unfathomable lines might help with smoke & mirrors.

In reality, the short term effects experienced by many EHS (we all have variations of symptoms) have been acknowledged for many years as a link to emfs. http://www.euitt.upm.es/estaticos/catedra-coitt/web_salud_medioamb/normativas/ieee/C95.1.pdf

Here is the chart that appears on page 16.  It tells you the maximum time in any one hour for exposure should be 6 mins.

It acknowledges the symptoms of nerve pain & spasms, heart disruption as described by many Electrosensitives. Yes, you read that correctly. You can inform yourself – to be forewarned is to be forearmed. If you experience shock-like symptoms, nerve pain, heart pain or heart disruptions then switch off your mobile, WIFI, move to an area clear of signals (including your neighbours' techno-devices). Do ya feel better now? Well do ya?

No comments:

Post a Comment