Dr George Carlo responds to Andrew Goldacre

June 8th, 2007 by Ben Goldacre in bad science, electrosensitivity, hate mail, letters, references, stifling criticism | 34 Comments »

This post is only if you’re not bored of the rather trying electrosensitivity lobby. Here is a letter which has popped up all over the interweb, I assume it is genuinely from Dr Carlo, who is hawked about as a rather eminent figure, and not a fake created in an effort to smear him.

The Radiation Blob, Indeed
Dr. George L. Carlo
Sat, 02 Jun 2007

To the Editor of The Guardian:

I am appalled by the insensitive, mean-spirited and factually incorrect opinion put forth by Andrew Goldacre in The Guardian (Saturday, June 02, 2007). His premise, that patients suffering from symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity are misinformed hypochondriacs, reeks of the adage: “Those who are saying don’t know; and those who know, aren’t saying.” Goldacre does not know. It is time for those who know to speak up.

For the past five years, through our Safe Wireless Initiative project, we have operated the only post-market surveillance database in the world systematically collecting symptom information from thousands of patients suffering from the effects of various forms of electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). In addition, we coordinate a network of clinicians who regularly share information about their experiences treating patients with these conditions, another important and unique resource. Thus, we do not rely solely on self-reported information but have corroboration from treating doctors. It is noteworthy that our health concerns registry will open in the UK through a new local Safe Wireless Initiative branch within the month. This is an important public health step because in the UK, there are absolutely no reliable data on the incidence and prevalence of EMR-related conditions. Thus, Goldacre’s speculations are all the more misinformed, but clarity is forthcoming.

In the Safe Wireless Initiative, we have a number of scientific papers in various stages of the peer-review process expected to be published by year’s end addressing this emerging medical problem. However, in the interim we continue to share summary information from our registry database in various fora around the world, including a February 2007 presentation at the House of Commons, for the benefit of clinicians and patients alike.

Overall, our data show the following:

* There are symptom and pathology similarities among patients suffering from electro-hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivities, alcohol-related disease as well as neuro-behavioral and learning disorders. We refer to the symptom constellations as Membrane Sensitivity Syndrome (MSS) and the increase in reports of symptoms consistent with MSS associated by patients with various EMR exposures has dramatically increased over the past 24 months.
* It is noteworthy that concurrently in the past 24 months, the penetration of mobile phones has tripled globally, from one billion to three billion. WiFi has reached the highest penetration in history. Satellite radio is not far behind. All of these technologies rely on information-carrying radio waves, the trigger for non-thermal adverse biological responses and the cascade toward MSS.
* In a majority of MSS cases, when EMR is removed from the patient’s environment, their acute symptoms subside. This is an important observation and indeed represents one of the Koch-Henle postulates for causation: If when the exposure is removed, the effect is diminished, there is evidence for cause and effect.
* Pathology and experimental findings support a mechanistic underpinning: an environmentally induced genetic change that renders daughter cells to carry membrane sensitivity characteristics with most symptoms directly or indirectly the result of consequent disrupt of intercellular communication.
* Therapeutic intervention regimens designed around known EMR mechanisms of harm have positively shown varying degrees of clinical symptom amelioration, another support for the causal hypothesis, but more importantly, a ray of hope for those afflicted and debilitated by these conditions.

It is a fact that every serious public health problem man has faced has first been identified through clinical observations, the historically confirmed first line of evidence for preventing epidemic spread of disease. It is a disservice to the public when uninformed speculation serves to lessen the acuity with which important early signs that can save lives are seen and heeded.

Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW — 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
www.sppionline.org
www.safewireless.org
202-756-7744

I’m afraid I can’t help noticing that his opening sentence is a bit wide of the mark. My name is Ben Goldacre – I do hope the rest of Carlo’s work [coughs] doesn’t reveal a similarly slapdash approach to accuracy – and I don’t think what I wrote on June 2 2007 is “insensitive” or “mean-spirited”, it was a rather short, clear and valid critique of an article in the Independent which itself was rich in scientific claims. You can read the pieces for yourself verbatim right here (the Independent, mine, her later one) and decide for yourself, because they are clearly linked, and anyone can see and discuss them for themselves. There is no room for obfuscation about who said what here.

I’d also hope that if someone was going to say that something from Andrew Goldacre was “factually incorrect” then they might spare the time to point out some incorrect facts in his work.

But most drearily of all, Dr Carlo explains that Andrew Goldacre’s “premise” is “that patients suffering from symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity are “misinformed hypochondriacs.” Nothing could possible be further from the truth, and on every single occasion Andrew has written on the subject he has made this very clear indeed (you can see everything I’ve ever written on the subject here). As I have said every single time I have ever mentioned the phenomenon, these symptoms are very real and deserve our compassion; but there is also a very real question about what causes them, and it is important to discuss this, in order to fully understand it, and to do something useful to prevent and ameliorate real human distress and suffering.

These bizarre accusations from Dr Carlo (and others, I’ve got a big old file building up I’m afraid) are clearly designed to close down any discussion or debate on the issue. The discussion of the data from the 37 provocation studies is effectively policed in this fashion: nobody is permitted to discuss what causes the symptoms that these people experience, because if they dare to do so, they will be accused of being insensitive, and of denying the very existence of the symptoms.

I would have expected this kind of behaviour from a rabid blogger, or in a private email, or from Rod Read of lobby group “Electrosensitivity“, but to find it from Dr Carlo, who is always presented as an academic figure with something valuable to say, is – and I mean this very honestly, rather than censoriously – a bit disappointing, because you do hope that there is someone out there who is able to present the case for a given interpretation of the data clearly and accurately.

Dr Carlo has a theoretical biological hypothesis about how electromagnetic signals might cause the symptoms that some people report in association with exposure to such signals, and although it’s currently very theoretical, that doesn’t mean it’s not interesting. It would also be very good to see him address the issue of the provocation studies. It may well be that he – or whoever from that lobby who is in a position to address this kind of data and reliably get the facts (or even the names) right – has some valuable criticisms of the methodologies of these studies. That is always useful and interesting.

As you might have picked up, I am starting to find popular rhetoric really interesting, and in that vein I do wonder if what we have seen with the electrosensitivity lobby is a product of their extraordinarily uncritical ride in the UK media. Through this, and their bullying to shut down anybody who dares to even discuss the provocation study data, the ideas and the evidence have not been subjected to the kind of rigorous discussion and debate that would improve and resolve them. In some respects I’m afraid I see Dr Carlo’s letter to Andrew as a product of that process. This failure to engage meaningfully with the critiques of others can only be to everyone’s detriment, and particularly those who suffer with symptoms.

Oh, and the fact that he may even be defending and endorsing the blatant quackery I was actually criticising hasn’t entered your mind. Don’t go there. It’s too awful even to consider.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you like what I do, and you want me to do more, you can: buy my books Bad Science and Bad Pharma, give them to your friends, put them on your reading list, employ me to do a talk, or tweet this article to your friends. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

34 Responses



  1. TimW said,

    June 8, 2007 at 11:10 pm

    “..the increase in reports of symptoms consistent with MSS associated by patients with various EMR exposures has dramatically increased over the past 24 months.
    It is noteworthy that concurrently in the past 24 months, the penetration of mobile phones has tripled globally, from one billion to three billion. WiFi has reached the highest penetration in history.”

    I can’t say I’m terribly surprised that in the past 24 months WiFi has reached the highest penetration in history. The history of WiFi isn’t very old.

    But more interesting is the question of whether the relevant symptoms are really more common now than ever before. I had a look round the safewireless.org website for supporting data and couldn’t find any. Am I, er, looking in the wrong place?

  2. GuardianOfReality said,

    June 8, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    Dr Carlo comments on the safe wireless site:

    “The problem is that the new Danish cohort study does not support the reassurances that
    have been ascribed to it. It is a ruse based upon a program initiated by the
    telecommunications industry more than a decade ago to control the global scientific
    research agenda concerning cell phones and health effects. The industry strategy has
    been to fund low-risk studies that will assure a positive result – and then use it to
    convince the news media and the public that it is proof that cell phones are safe. Even
    though the actual science proved nothing of the sort.”

    Well thank god I thought for a minute there was no global illuminate conspiracy but good old doctor Carlo knows better.

  3. dbhb said,

    June 9, 2007 at 12:02 am

    I say it again, but freshly paraphrased: “The real problem with the world today is that genetic mutations that would normally have died out are now being allowed *to spread their infectious bullshit far and wide through the miracle of technology*.
    They’re right. Scientists really *didn’t* think this through.

  4. Ben Goldacre said,

    June 9, 2007 at 12:15 am

    wow are you sure that’s the same person? Jill Ungar is the main contact on the “faculty” at safewireless, and there she is, specialising in “Marine mammal care and rehab, especially involving more holistic medical care and less western medicine. Probiotic, herbal, energy work.”

    oceanexpert.org/search.php?searchText[institutionID]=10485&orderby=name)

    i’m not saying it totally undermines the safewireless project, incidentally, for the benefit of the hypersensitive. but i am saying it’s pretty funny.

  5. le canard noir said,

    June 9, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Yeh, I’ve come across Ungar previously endorsing ‘Animal Reiki’.

    www.animalreikisource.com/testimonials.html

    Maybe, if mobiles and Wi-fi could be re-engineered to use cosmic healing energy instead of nasty old electromagnetic radiation then we could get safe broadband and be healed at the same time.

    PS I have a special contempt for those that practice quackery on animals.

  6. evidencebasedeating said,

    June 9, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Is Andrew Goldacre your evil twin? Whatever – have to take issue with Dr C’s statement

    “There are symptom and pathology similarities among patients suffering from electro-hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivities, alcohol-related disease as well as neuro-behavioral and learning disorders”

    hmmm. so the pathology of wifi hysteria is similar to alcohol induced cirrhosis? and symptoms are similar to individuals with learning disorders?

    I would have more respect for Carlo’s position if such fatuous, Holfordesque statements were avoided, and one could believe that the primer by the ignoranti advance party (Julia Stephenson et al)were completely independent of the forthcoming ‘local Safe Wireless Initiative’ programme …

  7. rongraves said,

    June 9, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    I am extremely ill. I have COPD, including emphysema (NOT due to smoking!); ME (not CFS please, the British model is seriously flawed); osteo arthritis, possibly rheumatoid, too; a seriously impaired immune system, and assorted joint and CNS problems, of varying severity, stemming from being struck by lightning in 1983, and others related to the large numbers of drugs I have had to take for many years. No, I’m not trying to elicit your sympathy; this is just to show, in my weakened state, how susceptible I might be expected to be to the dreaded “electrosmog”. Except I’m not.

    I have had a Wi-Fi Internet connection for several years now, and a small home network too. My Wi-Fi hub is well within arm’s reach, due to space constraints, and I sit between two Wi-Fi-connected computers (though they’re not always both on simultaneously). I also have Wi-Fi headphones.

    And what are the ill-effects from this? Nothing, zero, zilch – not a dammed thing. Because electrosensitivity, as described by numpties like Julia Stephenson, is a canard, and does not, I believe, exist. It does, though, provide a wonderful refuge for hypochondriacs of all kinds, who would not otherwise be taken seriously. And before anyone else says it, so does ME, sadly, but that’s another story. I accept that hypochondria is real, but it is a psychological illness, not physical.

    This electrosensitivity nonsense is all horribly reminiscent of those people who, it was claimed, were “allergic to the 20th century”, and who all drifted out of the public eye into obscurity, having spectacularly failed to die horribly. What happened to them – were they all spontaneously cured on January 1st, 2001 (or 2000!)?

    It’s all, to sum it up as succinctly as possible, complete bollocks.

  8. Hambo said,

    June 9, 2007 at 4:42 pm

    I’m just wondering if the new wireless electricity system as reported by the BBC website

    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6129460.stm

    a day ago will fuel fire for these so called scientists.

  9. Ant said,

    June 10, 2007 at 12:27 am

    I can’t but help reading this about methodology. I personally don’t believe based on current evidence that wifi has anything to do with the condition. But, there is definitely a ‘something’ there, he has that right in his piece. Would it not be better science to start from the question of “Why are these people experiencing a recognisable syndrome”?

  10. Moganero said,

    June 10, 2007 at 7:31 am

    “It’s all, to sum it up as succinctly as possible, complete bollocks.”

    As a fellow ME/CFS sufferer, I say “Right on, rongraves!” I wish I could have put it like that.

  11. briantist said,

    June 10, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    On the subject, I had an reply from the BBC again… please don’t laugh too much at it!

    I’ve spoken directly to the programme’s Deputy Editor on your behalf and enclose his response to your ongoing concerns:

    “I am sorry that you were disappointed by what I could perhaps summarise on your behalf as a lack of scientific rigour in the recent Panorama “Wi-fi: A Warning Signal.”

    However, I do feel that the comparison the programme made (in the absence of any studies on radiation exposure levels in Wi-fi enabled classrooms) was valid in the sense that it visualised a genuine concern that may come to shape public health protection policy in the future.

    We did not cast the mast/classroom comparison as having validity beyond that. We said in commentary that the test would need to be repeated and verified and that the levels we found were in any case comfortably within current safety limits, in fact six hundred times within them.

    Panorama cannot be expected to go into the level of detail on the science as say Horizon, but it is absolutely our territory to raise the question that — having adopted the precautionary principle in terms of erecting phone masts near schools — why was the same risk not apparently being considered as similar technology was being rolled out in classrooms?

    When we asked a Government Minister to take part in the programme we were directed to Sir William Stewart whose concerns shaped our approach to the subject. Like it or not there is a credible cast of politicians, scientists and teachers representatives who would like to see more work done in this area and question the whole basis (thermal vs biological) on which current safety limits are set.

    We were clear in all our references to electro-hypersensitives that this was a disputed “possible” biological effect and kept that doubt alive with commentary lines such as “if genuinely effected” and “if the symptoms are because of radiation.” We reported as you acknowledge that Sylvia’s tests results had been inconclusive.”

    I trust this reassures you although if you do wish to pursue this complaint further, you can now contact the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit who will independently investigate your complaint. You can write to them at the following address:

    Editorial Complaints Unit
    BBC
    Media Centre
    MC4C6 Media Village
    201 Wood Lane
    London W12 7TQ

    Alternatively you can email the Unit at the address: ecu@bbc.co.uk

    Please note that any complaints submitted via email must include your postal address as all responses will continue to be issued via letter.

  12. JQH said,

    June 10, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    The question has to be asked:

    Why don’t the likes of George Carlo want there to be any discussion of the causes of these symptoms? Surely, if they have evidence that coonects these symptoms with EMR they, as scientists, would wish it to be subject to the usual peer-review process. If not, why not?

    By the way, I get really bad pollen reaction from tree pollen. Can I demand that all cherry trees and magnolias in London be chopped down and buried in disused coal-pits?

  13. Ray C. said,

    June 10, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    In a majority of MSS cases, when EMR is removed from the patient’s environment, their acute symptoms subside.

    OK, let’s see, what does it take to remove EMR from the patient’s environment? How about a room completely enclosed in lead (blocks X-rays and also acts as a Faraday cage), completely dark and chilled to absolute zero.

    Hmm, I guess that would eliminate the patient’s acute symptoms. And the chronic ones, too.

    In much the same way that cancer cures tobacco addiction.

  14. odtaa said,

    June 11, 2007 at 9:54 am

    I occasionally do get some of the symptoms described – itchy eyes, tiredness, joints not feeling quite right etc – this is caused by the phenomena of sitting in front of a computer for too long and not taking sensible breaks.

    Maybe I should be working on my ‘cure’. Writing books, articles and selling objects – e.g. an alarm clock – with take a break messages.

    Going one step further I could start marketing a product to encourage people to take more breaks – let’s give it a friendly name – smoking. The new cure to electo-sensitivity.

    Just out of interest has there been a study of heavy smokers to see if they are less affected by electro-sensitivity. If they are not then the cure is definitely a more sensible use of computers and not wearing aluminium foil under my hat.

    I’m taking a sensible break now.

  15. gorky5 said,

    June 11, 2007 at 12:30 pm

    Ben – don’t get me wrong, I’m on your side. However, is it right that a letter to the editor of The Guardian has been reproduced on your blog, along with the author’s telephone number and other contact information? Just wondering. I’m presuming that Dr Carlo didn’t give his permission for its publication here.

  16. randomas said,

    June 11, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    What I’m really interested about in all this are studies on “non thermal EMR effects”. The point is that Thermal effects from WI-FI are negligible if compared with what comes out of a mobile phone (which does not necessarily mean that it’s good for you anyway). What I’d really like to know what kind of frequency responses our body, organs, bones and cells have, if they have been studied and compared with what we are systematically exposed to in everyday life (specially in urban areas).

    I haven’t had a chance to go pubmed diving yet and I was wondering if anyone could point me to some good papers to start off with.

  17. ayupmeduck said,

    June 11, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    FWIW: Just to add to the list of errors:

    “It is noteworthy that concurrently in the past 24 months, the penetration of mobile phones has tripled globally, from one billion to three billion”

    Not true that phone usage has grown so quick, best estimates are a bit less than 2.7bn now up from around 2bn 24 months ago (I know a man at SonyEricsson), but most other places will give similar numbers, or less. Not sure what “penetration” has to do with this either.

  18. simongates said,

    June 12, 2007 at 3:13 pm

    I had a quick scout around pubmed for work by the “eminent” George Carlo. I couldn’t find much – just a review from 2000 about wireless phones and brain cancer (Carlo and Jenrow MedGenMEd 2: E40) and a paper from 1996 in Epidemiology that outlines the research questions. The abstract of the 2000 review mentions peer- reviwed studies from the Wireless Technology Research Program, a “7 year, $27 million dollar effort”. Couldn’t find the publications from this huge research program – does anyone have the references?

    I’m assuming that these papers exist but I just can’t find them. Surely “the world’s foremost authority on wireless safety” must have published loads on the subject?? otherwise he’d be a complete charlatan wouldn’t he??

  19. Ginger Yellow said,

    June 14, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    “Panorama cannot be expected to go into the level of detail on the science as say Horizon…”

    You mean no detail at all? Seems a fairly low bar. And, anyway, why not? It’s a scientific question so the answer should be as detailed (and more importantly rigorous) as it needs to be to settle the matter. Why does the BBC insist on treating its viewers as morons?

  20. simongates said,

    June 14, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    PS nothing in Pubmed yet. Do you think Dr Carlo was bullshitting?

  21. Delster said,

    June 15, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    ayupmeduck – that would be market penetration as opposed to depth.

    The numbers of mobiles has certainly not tripled in the last 2 years, if they had, the networks would have collapsed… i’m a telecoms engineer and i know what kind of network capacity margins are built into these things. They would have had to rebuild most of the fixed side of the mobile networks.

    Re. the letter reproduced above
    “Pathology and experimental findings support a mechanistic underpinning: an environmentally induced genetic change that renders daughter cells to carry membrane sensitivity characteristics with most symptoms directly or indirectly the result of consequent disrupt of intercellular communication.”

    Is he claiming that the EM Radiation from mobiles / masts / wi-fi etc is strong enough to cause changes in DNA? or am i interpreting that wrong?

  22. alexandre said,

    June 20, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    I am a young man from France and I am suffering from the so-called ‘electrosensitivity’ syndroma.

    About 2 years ago, I have had to change career to work as a teacher in London in order to avoid working with a computer all day.

    I don’t know what to say, I am neither a scientific or a lobbyst or whoever with any kind of power. The only thing is that my symptoms are here, for no reason, at least none that I am aware of and nobody could cure me so far. If you knew me, you would see that I am not depressed, I am a very happy and enthusiastic person. But still, some people reject the facts and do not care at all about this fairly recent condition that is EHS.

    What don’t we meet up sometime in London? We could have a coffee or a beer and you would see by yourself that I am not an alien, that I am just a normal human being suffering from something you obviously do not know.

    alex

  23. Nanobot said,

    June 20, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    What facts are being rejected alexandre? The fact that you are ill? No-one is disputing that. The fact that electromagnetic radiation causes your symptoms? Is that a fact? You yourself state that you aren’t a scientist so I would ask how you know that your symptoms are caused by electromagnetic radiation?

    I’m afraid that scientists must be free to doubt, if not, then we would not be able to do any science.

  24. alexandre said,

    June 21, 2007 at 9:11 am

    Well,

    The fact that I get massive headaches and skin rashes when I use a conventional CRT computer screen, a regular TV, a photocopy machine and of course a mobile phone (+tachycardia)…AND that I have got no symptoms at all when I use flat screen TVs or cpu screens kind of makes me think that the technology is involved…then obviously the EMF.

    Last week again, simple fact, I went to a library to use a computer with Internet. I couldn’t stay 5 min bcz of headaches. Then, straight after, I went to the cyber cafe I always go around the corner, and I stayed 2h in front of the computer. How am I supposed to explain it?

    Would you say that it’s just a coincidence? that I maybe associate libraries to schools and therefore to a chaotic and stressful education that I have had in the past…and the relationship with my parents living in another country blah blah… Well I am sorry. I just believe it comes from the technology that I had in front of me at that time. As simple as that!

  25. tom1 said,

    June 21, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    Alexandre,

    I’m not sure that one can jump from an association of your symptoms with technology to your symptoms being cause by EMF. The flickering of the old CRT monitors can be very bad for headaches. Could the headaches not just be that you are unusually susceptible to the flickering of CRT screens? I checked EpilepsyAction (www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/employers/computers.html) who seem to feel that the big thing about LCD/TFT screens is that they don’t flicker. Might this not be the trigger for your headaches? A photocopier machine is a pretty bright, flickery source of light, this may well fall into the same category.

    Perhaps one of the medics on this forum can suggest an alternative cause for the rash.

    I’m not clear what a CPU screen is.

    You say that you get tachycardia from your mobile phone. I hadn’t heard of this before, but it sounds kind of different. Do mobile phones give you a headache? Do photocopier machines give you tachycardia?

    Nothing about your symptoms strikes me as unreasonable. I’m happy to accept that they may well be linked to technology. What I don’t understand is why you are so sure that your symptoms are caused by EMF. As Ben points out ad nauseum, there have been ~30 published studies on this and the evidence is pretty solid that electrosensitivity does not exist. They could be wrong, but unless I’m missing something, I don’t see how you can feel so sure, particularly when it seems to me there are other explanations that don’t have a bunch of research against them.

    Again, I think we all acknowledge that these symptoms are real.

  26. alexandre said,

    June 22, 2007 at 10:20 am

    Hi Tom,

    ‘Cpu’ stands for computer…
    And well, obviously I was not using a CRT computer screen as I CANNOT USE THEM AT ALL. In both places there were only flat screen screens. It’s just something else, such as the brand of the computer or screen, the fact that it is earth ground or not, etc…I don’t know the reason really, I just tell you the facts.
    And as for the photocopy machine, I always close the flap so…

  27. GrahamBM said,

    July 7, 2007 at 10:31 am

    Those interested in hearing a live debate on the subject of wireless and health particularly as they pertain to use by children and in the education sector generally may like to know that Prof Mike Repacholi (author of the WHO report on wireless EMF) will be presenting a keynote at this years Handheld Learning 2007 Conference, Oct 10-12th, Westminster, London.

    More info at:
    www.handheldlearning2007.com

    Dr Carlo may also be present as will other experts concerned with the use of wireless technologies in the education and schools sector.

    The call for papers and presentation proposals is open until July 16th and early registration discounts are available until 31st July including subsidised places for eligible schools and charities. Media passes are also available.

    The event is the worlds largest conference on mobility in learning drawing an audience of over 600 delegates.

    The Guardian Link (the ICT in education supplement from the Guardian) is the media sponsor.

    Graham

  28. BIOPROSCAM said,

    July 10, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    And this Dr. goes even further by endorsing a company that CLAIMS they have the solution to EMF. Just more Bad Science! We have launched a site/blog to stop this Dr. and the, of course, MLM company fleecing the innocent and non-technical public. www.bioprotechnologyscam.com

    This company Biopro offers outrageously priced products that can not be proven. In fact, with the help of the fraud Dr. they have launched their OWN 3rd party sites to validate their own claims!

    The level of scam and fraud is unprecedented here and this Dr. / Trail Lawyer (make sense now knowing he’s a trial lawyer?) all need to be stopped and held accountable before another corporation is sued for trump accusations!

    If you were scammed by Biopro then it is your duty to report them to the FTC.

  29. art16 said,

    July 21, 2007 at 8:39 pm

    In my opinion, Dr. Carlo’s exposition on electrosensitivity is very boring science fiction. I find “The Thing” as having more relevance to the human condition.

  30. retrolife said,

    July 30, 2007 at 5:48 am

    I think all you guys should use your cell phones as much as possible and fry your brains even more than they obviously already are.Just be good little sheep and believe what ever these nice people who sell you these nice cell phones tell you.

  31. retrolife said,

    July 31, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    Biopro Scam-what makes you think I have anything to do with BioPro? Did I say I did?
    What I’m saying is that the contributors to this board probably wouldn’t know good science from good beer. If so, they wouldn;t be wasting time contributing-like I am doing right now.
    So go ahead and trash people like Dr. Carlo and the like when you all probably have no idea what he has done, gone through and professionally and personally to bring the issue to the forefront. And BTW, Carlo has no financial interest in BioPro. He is not a distributor. They distribute his book, but he makes almost nothing from it.
    And I’ll say it again. Use those cell phones to the utmost. Since they cause no damage and those who say they do are contributing to “bad science”, just call away.

  32. BIOPROISASCAM said,

    May 19, 2008 at 12:51 am

    GEORGE CARLO ABANDONS BIOPRO!

    Total melt down and exodus from biopro begins – distributors, vendors and their most important alliance… George Carlo. Biopro’s best hope for credible verification gone! The best part, he has abandoned biopro and throwing them under the biopro bus in an ironic twist of truthful fate.

    Read about it here: bioproisascam.blogspot.com

  33. Mary said,

    April 17, 2009 at 2:17 am

    Why is it that this country tries to get us to obay
    every bit of EU regulation does it indeed in fact ignore the issue that modern technology does not comply to BSI EMC law::::::
    Engineers intalling the stuff get nasty, if you question this fact that its against the law. That law however was not put in place to protect the human or animal/plant population, only so that the technology could function without interfereing with MoD equipment.

    The MoD have known for sometime wind power has been interfereing with their RADAR systems.
    The government have stop them closing Wind Turbines.

    Most people are poor obervers of their environment let alone knowing they are being zapped. And on this basis they assume that those of us who know there are high levels of radiation in the area are mentally defective.

    If logic could shout very loudly the only mentally
    defection is on the part of the people who can`t see. Just like going down the mine shaft with or without a canary.. By the time the person without the canary sences have worked it out. They are probably beyond being saved from the mine shaft.(Gas)
    Yet they shout that whatever its can`t get me or so it seems the next generation. Like any drug addict they, might in fact love the radiation, as it can over stiumlate the body and they can get a hype. (Without taking any chemical) combineing chemical toxins and electropollution can make it even better. The next generation may became oversensitive (like children who had parents who drank too much)”They Blindly Go Where No Man Has Been Before; Or so They Think”!

    If you measure the radiation on a flat screen monitor and it only says 4 units: However if there
    is such a thing as a multi demensional reading of a
    1000 units. Which would you believe was safe?

    + the fact you were unable to feel the energy:
    Our equipment on the whole will be installed using a flat screen moniter:
    Know what your dealing with on all levels.

    Don`t be a fool and think it safe if you can`t feel or see it. And know that government and industry have created a need for technology: If it was gone tomorrow, then what?

  34. diudiu said,

    December 21, 2009 at 5:51 am

    ed hardy ed hardy
    ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
    ed hardy jeans ed hardy jeans
    christian audigier christian audigier
    ed hardy t shirts ed hardy t shirts
    ed hardy uk ed hardy uk
    ed hardy bags ed hardy bags
    ed hardy hoodies ed hardy hoodies
    ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
    ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
    ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

You must be logged in to post a comment.