As Dr. Meir Barak responds - denial strengthens

Weizmann Institute- continued:

 

Dr.  Barak, who refers the readers to learn on radiation effects from ICNIRP website, and who quotes Jame Rubin's (Ph.D in psychology) review:  "The experiments that are described by Prof' Marino are many (http://andrewamarino.com/journalarticles.html ) but the fact is, that his studies do not succeed in being replicated by other researchers."

 

Lawyer Dafna Tachover and Amir Borenstein, both EHS, wrote responses to Dr. Meir Barack's article on the website, in response to Weizmann Institute's position on EHS.  Tachover wrote: "Your article is misleading and is scientifically and factually wrong. It is clear that you do not know prof' Marino's study from 2011. Clearly you are not aware of the EU's recognition in EHS from 2009. Clearly you are not familiar with  Belpomme's study that found that the BBB is penetrated and this is after he checked it in 1000 patients. Clearly you are not aware of the European Council decision in 2011 that EHS is a real disease, not psychosomatic disease and not mental, and is caused by the EMF. Clearly you did not read the article from 2006 which is scientifically shameful, and if you read it and still quoted it, then your negligence is even worse.

Clearly you are not aware of the guidelines of the Austrian doctors association how to diagnose EHS. I ask you to correct the document, which is professional negligence and defame, and if not, we would take formal steps. For your information, your article is defame and if it will not be changed, we will open ___ process [message was edited by the webmaster?]. I would be happy to help you in writing a right and responsible article.    

 

Dr. Meir Barack responded this:  

One of the most difficult problems of education during our time (all over the world), is "scientific orientation".  

The meaning here is the ability of the average people, who are not scientists, to read an article that claims to be scientific and understand whether what is written is logic or not, and if the source is reliable. To our great sorrow, most of us fall into the trap again and again (to my great sorrow also many science people who read articles on subjects beyond their expertise). For most of us,  the fact that "it was written in the newspaper" gives the contents "Kosher" signature because we trust the journalist that he did his work well. The situation is worse today - when everyone can put contents and websites on the internet and it is very difficult for the regular person to filter the niddle from the haystack.

 

Part of the things that were written here by the respondents, fall exactly into this category: 

For example, the respondent "No Radiation for You" sends us to his sources which include, among the rest, a website that carries the same name, and notes, that "we inwww.norad4u.com  believe that electromagnetic radiation harms and damages the human body in multiple and varied ways, and that in today's world we are surrounded by it anywhere any time".

If  the respondent would have bothered to read the website he would see the next notifications: "the website was not written by an M.D, a biologist or RF engineer. The website was written by a regular person, EHS."

 

And more: "the website contains opinions and personal experiences". Is this a "scientific" source on which we would count?

The respondent also refers us to links in Tapuz (which is news portal and not a scientific reliable source), which are also publications of the same website (www.norad4u.com)  of which agenda is to advance the EHS subject.

 

A reliable scientific study is done by researchers who have no earlier bias on the subject. The study needs to be double blind (both the researchers and the patients do not know who belongs to the control group and who to the experimental group) and the study must enable replication ability (meaning the same study will be done by other researchers and will produce the same results).

 

During the time of writing this, there is no study which shows that EHS exists. The meaning here is that there is no study which shows that the EMF causes the same problems that are described by the suffering people.

 

The respondent "Dafna Tachover" does not give us at all links to her sources. The experiments that are described by Prof' Marino are many (http://andrewamarino.com/journalarticles.html ) but the fact is that his studies do not succeed in being replicated by other researchers. I would love to see links to "facts"  that are described in the above response, which show that the EHS is indeed a "proven" disease which is caused by exposure to EMF. I do not know such publications, not from the EU and not from WHO.