Subject:  (Federer) Re "A marked deck....." (fwd)
Date:     Mon, 21 Sep 1998 044741 -0500 (CDT)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru@hotmail.com
--------------------------------------------------


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 07:58:27 -0500
From: "Wayne D. Federer" 
To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
Subject: Re: "A marked deck....."

Dear Roy,

I am certainly not naive enough to think that NIEHS is open-minded.  As a
research scientist for 20+ years, I was often frustrated (and continue to
be) by the tendency for scientists to not believe "anecdotal evidence" or
accounts of things that have really happened in this world, solely because
they cannot conceive of why they happened.  This is not real science!
Science needs to be open-minded and humble, trying to account for what
seems to be true even if we haven't a clue why.  Being open-minded does NOT
mean BELIEVING everything, only considering the POSSIBILITY it might be
true.  (One also must be careful not to be brainwashed by their employer in
industry.)

BUT we keep plugging away, and there ARE plenty of ways those of us who
know what is REAL can work together and beat them over the head with a few
big bats instead of with thousands of toothpicks that accomplish little or
nothing!  Sooner or later (hopefully in all of our lifetimes) they will
cave in!  John Evans' note suggests one viable approach.  Perhaps my idea
of publishing a database of anecdotal evidence is another one.

Wayne

=========================

At 02:57 AM 9/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>.......Wayne, receipt of your message (below) is terribly rewarding
>to me.  For reasons which I will not go into, recent weeks have been
>very discouraging.  Your message plus a few others (like John Evans'
>message this weekend) encourage me to keep going.....We ARE making
>progress.....But!!!
>
>I wish I could provide you some encouraging answers to your question
>below about the "open mindedness" of NIEHS (and others in the
>"establishment" scientific community) to the abundance of "anecdotal"
>evidence that is being reported here on EMF-L (and elsewhere!) by
>competent educated people.....But!!!
>
>Wayne, the situation as I have seen it (at NIEHS) is that they are 
>not even willing to acknowledge solid, double blind, replicated lab
>experiments (like the work done on melatonin by Liburdy) when it produces 
>results which do not conform with their EXPECTATIONS.  I see a
>governmental/industry science community that has so totally rejected
>the EMF/health effects hypothesis that the only fair description is
>that they have a ***closed mind.***  Not just NIEHS.  Repacholi (at WHO)
>is an example.  Virtually the entire scientific literature "community"
>is an example.  The PhD who chaired the Minnesota meeting, Dr. M. A.
>Gallo (selected by NIEHS) is an example......The list of examples of such
>"closed mindedness" is too long even to continue.....
>
>And yet the evidence of "bio-effects" at EMF exposure levels that we
>_already_ have in our environment (and which are increasing exponentially)
>has clearly reached the point where it is ***beyond dispute.***

>
>If ever a science 'game' was being played with a "marked deck," it is this
>one....  Nevertheless, many thanks for your message below.  I hope all
>will read it carefully ... and think about it!!!....  I WILL
>persevere......guru.....
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:29:57 -0500
>From: "Wayne D. Federer" 
>To: "Roy L. Beavers" 
>Subject: Electric Field Health Effects





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