This letter that I have just received from Martin Weatherall in Canada might be of interest to all.
Martin complained to the Director General of the WHO, like we did, but got an answer from Repacholi.
We, Canadians, Brits, Israelis, Germans etc also complained, but have as yet had no answers.
Omega see also "Petition to remove Dr. Mike Repacholi" under:
We chased it, still no answers.
Attached are: Martins letter, WHO EHS factsheet, and WHO hypersensitivity.
Below Martin explains.
From: Martin Weatherall
Sent: 08 January 2006 19:00
To: Dr. David Fancy
I have recently received a reply letter from Dr. M. Repacholi, Coordinator, Radiation and Environmental Health, World Health Organization. This was in response to the letter of complaint that I sent dated November 10, 2005.
The letter stated - Dear Sir
Your letter to the Director-General of WHO has been passed on to me for reply.
WHO does not make any decisions on its own; this is done through the formation of expert groups on the topics under discussion, and they conduct a thorough review of scientific literature to reach their conclusions and recommendations.
This was the process used to reach conclusions about EMF hypersensitivity. The results of the workshop held in Prague in October 2004 are now reflected in the enclosed WHO Fact Sheet.
Dr Mike H. Repacholi
I have attached the WHO Fact Sheet to this E mail. I have also attached the WHO working document and the original complaint that I sent to the WHO.
The only good part of the document that I can find is the part under 'Physicians', where it states: "This requires - an assessment of the workplace and home for factors that might contribute to the presented symptoms." This seems to be quite a change from the working document and it may be worth finding out the reason for that change. Of course we all know that physicians are highly unlikely to ever assess the home or the workplace of a EHS sufferer. Doctors are simply to busy and do not have the knowledge and equipment to search for the true cause of electro hypersensitivity. This change would have been more appropriate if it had appeared under 'Governments' and if they then provided realistic electromagnetic dangers to search for, and details of the equipment and knowledge required for that search.
It is obvious from the document that the WHO are 'barking up the wrong tree'. With the exception of Prof Olle Johansson, it seems that the 'experts' either do not realize what is really harming EHS sufferers, or they are deliberately protecting the financial interests of the telecommunications industry, the wireless industry and the electrical industry. They are failing to look for the real reasons why people are getting sick and developing cancer near to cell phone towers, near to transformers, near to transmission lines, from defective wireless equipment and from the effects of electricity polluted by high frequencies. In short, the World Health Organization is failing in its duties to the world population.
Electromagnetic fields and public health
The Definition, Epidemiology and Management of Electrosensitivity
HPA Report on Electrical Hypersensitivity
WHO, EMF, Electromagnetic Radiation and Mobile Phones