Subject: Re Anecdotal info (fwd)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 182355 -0600 (CST)
From: "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To: emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 09:56:58 -0800
From: Mark Millman
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: Re: Anecdotal info
Roy,
I was interested to read your points on "anecdotal" information.
We encounter anecdotal information all the time and we also seek to
"prove" it scientifically. We are even finding that if we endeavour to
prove our claims scientifically, we are shot down immediately because
the main stream scientific community and others then state that the
instruments we are using to demonstrate the proof are not "legitimate"
or do not fit within the bounds of conventional medicine etc etc. You
know, and I know that EMF=92s are harmful. To what degree, we can argue
forever. This is not the point. The point is that most channels of
science are "closed" to exploring or accepting new ways of measuring
things. A friend of mine (who is a scientist) really encapsulates the
common mode of thought in the scientific community. He said "If I can=92t
measure it, it does not exist". The thing that I find most interesting
about this whole EMF debate, is that the funding - research loop is
never ending and I am confident it will never end. My reason is this.
The government, corporations, supply authorities etc are creating a
problem they know they can=92t fix. The researchers need to keep the
research going in the hope that they might find the answer (and to keep
themselves in work - we=92ve all got to eat!) and the funding providers
keep saying, "We have researched the problem and of course there=92s no
conclusive evidence, to say that it is harmful, so we need more
research". This is the ultimate win-win situation, both parties get what
they want. The problem makers keep the public happy by saying "we=92re
working on it", which shows they really care, and the researchers say
"we=92re" working on it" which assures the public that, if there is a
problem they will find it. Face it, they don=92t know how to look. I read
a research paper recently (courtesy of Don Maisch), which stated "In
relation to this, Dr John Reif of Colorado State University comments
"Most natural observations appear to find melatonin changes, while
controlled lab studies tend not to=85In a general way, I=92m concerned that
the lab trials may not mimic exposures in the real world". You=92re damn
right they don=92t. We don=92t live and work in controlled situations. Our
exposures vary wildly, in time, intensity, frequency, and so on, so why
does science say that these lab results are the definitive answer when
it is clear that they really mean very little. If you look back at the
EMF issue, this loop has been going on for over 20 years!!! The best
part is that because people are not dropping like flies from EMF
exposure, it is so easy to say, "the risk is low" or "the effects are
unproven". When you work with electrically sensitive people every day
(like we do), this endless loop is just a cop out and doesn=92t solve
their problem at all. We can and do help with EMF sensitive people, and
they really don=92t care about governments and supply authorities; they
care about being able to go to work, or sleep, or to just live normally.
We see what is happening to Ginny and people like her and offer to help,
but there is invariably no response. They are scientists, and what we
are saying just can=92t be real. You don=92t read about it in the papers, s=
o
it doesn=92t exist. You can=92t buy homoeopathic remedies from your drug
store either, yet millions of people use them for health problems and
they appear to work, maybe it=92s the "placebo effect", another scientific
favourite line. I know if I was sick from exposure to RF or whatever, I
would listen.=20
Anecdotal evidence is true and provable, but only if "science" is
willing to shift from their rigid long trusted methods and beliefs.
Scientists don=92t have all the answers. When are they going to start
listening to people who just might have some answers, and are willing to
offer a proof. If we stick to conventional methods of proof and results,
and never look beyond where we are now, how are we ever going to solve
this problem.
Mark Millman
markman@bit.net.au
http//www.bit.net.au/~markman
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html