Repacholi's money or WHO's?
John, I was asked by someone (who used to seem helpful but now??) how I knew repacholi was being paid $150,000 to represent a phome company, did I not think it was possibly a helpful donation to the WHO rather that going into his pocket. Comments please.
Gill Lyden
Gill,
It's corruption in it's most blatant form. The WHO purports to be independent and unbiased. We have all just received the latest from Omega News, snippets proving your argument copied and pasted as follows:
Regards,
John E.
“Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group” is now available on the EMFacts web site:
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf
It is published in the latest Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April 2006
Introduction
The potential problem of conflicts-of-interest biasing outcomes in papers submitted to bio-medical journals, including papers published in journals by expert advisory bodies, was an issue addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in November 3003. To quote from their “Uniform Requirements”:
“Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. . . The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgement. Financial relationships . . . are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself.” (1)
This paper briefly examines this problem, using recent actions taken by the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International EMF Project and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
In both organisations the case is presented that maintaining independence from industry vested interests is essential for maintaining scientific objectivity and credibility in giving expert advice on public health matters.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=490
Andrew Marino on the Repacholian Era
From Robert James:
Dear Don
After digesting your paper on the WHO charade (message490) your readers might find the extensive Repacholi commentary posted on Andrew Marino’s web site somewhat relevant to your paper.
http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Comments/RepacholiTestimony.html#52306
Here’s a snippet to wet your reader’s appetites.
Yours
Robert
“At the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who functions as a brainwasher to deceive the public, innocent young and old alike, into giving themselves cancer and other diseases. There is no purer example of such a man than Michael Repacholi. He is at the end of a historical line of change that must be recognized before science can once again resume its task of finding the best truth possible”
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=493
--------
The $150,000 is really just a weekend's drinking money for the industry. I believe that it was intended as cash for unspecified travel and hotel expenses that do not necessarily want to be put through the Project's main accounts. They move their meeting around the world, supposedly a WHO think to make all countries feel they have their share, but making it almost impossible for alternative voices to attend other than on rare occasions due to the cost of travel. I think the whole WHO EMF Project finances need looking at. They obviously use a lot more money than goes through the books - which don't seem to be available for public scrutiny and are kept by Repacholi's old Australian chums, rather than by the finance dept of WHO. Seems to me, to be an odd thing to do - especially as the details are not made public. Nor are salaries, expenses and perks, as far as I can find out. So, there is no need to just slip the dosh in the pocket illegally. Mike will be getting deservedly very well rewarded through legal channels. I would educatedly guess at least £250,000 GBP per year minimum, plus pension contributions, plus expenses. And of course he spends most time travelling and meeting people so most of his year's living costs will be legitimate expenses.
WHO EMF Project 2004: "Over the past year there have been questions raised as to the funding sources of the EMF Project. A summary of funding sources and conditions are given below. There are very strict requirements for WHO to receive funds for extrabudgetary projects, such as the EMF Project. WHO can receive funds from industry (preferably from industry associations) only after review and approval by WHO's Legal office. A special WHO committee provides further review of funding from industry. All contributions and accounting are strictly audited by WHO and the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH). The EMF Project has adhered to all the requirements placed on it by WHO and will continue to do so until the Project concludes."
Why not write to them and ask for copies of their simmaries accounts for the past 10 years? See if you are any more successful than I have been. Maybe, ask your MP to write to them.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE INTERNATIONAL EMF PROJECT Contact: Radiation and Environmental Health World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Website http://www.who.int/peh-emf/
Email emfproject@who.int
Tel +41 22 791 40 76
Fax +41 22 791 41 23
Of course, a great deal of the industry support and influence legitimately never gets written down - like the costs of their attending and influencing the meetings, helping to write WHO reports, etc. Done in work time, at industry work places, and it never comes into view. All quite legal. That's one of the many ways industry effectively lobbies WHO and the safety regulators.
Alasdair
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
Gill Lyden
Gill,
It's corruption in it's most blatant form. The WHO purports to be independent and unbiased. We have all just received the latest from Omega News, snippets proving your argument copied and pasted as follows:
Regards,
John E.
“Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees: A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group” is now available on the EMFacts web site:
http://www.emfacts.com/papers/who_conflict.pdf
It is published in the latest Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April 2006
Introduction
The potential problem of conflicts-of-interest biasing outcomes in papers submitted to bio-medical journals, including papers published in journals by expert advisory bodies, was an issue addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in November 3003. To quote from their “Uniform Requirements”:
“Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. . . The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgement. Financial relationships . . . are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself.” (1)
This paper briefly examines this problem, using recent actions taken by the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International EMF Project and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
In both organisations the case is presented that maintaining independence from industry vested interests is essential for maintaining scientific objectivity and credibility in giving expert advice on public health matters.
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=490
Andrew Marino on the Repacholian Era
From Robert James:
Dear Don
After digesting your paper on the WHO charade (message490) your readers might find the extensive Repacholi commentary posted on Andrew Marino’s web site somewhat relevant to your paper.
http://www.ortho.lsuhsc.edu/Faculty/Marino/Comments/RepacholiTestimony.html#52306
Here’s a snippet to wet your reader’s appetites.
Yours
Robert
“At the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who functions as a brainwasher to deceive the public, innocent young and old alike, into giving themselves cancer and other diseases. There is no purer example of such a man than Michael Repacholi. He is at the end of a historical line of change that must be recognized before science can once again resume its task of finding the best truth possible”
http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/index.php?p=493
--------
The $150,000 is really just a weekend's drinking money for the industry. I believe that it was intended as cash for unspecified travel and hotel expenses that do not necessarily want to be put through the Project's main accounts. They move their meeting around the world, supposedly a WHO think to make all countries feel they have their share, but making it almost impossible for alternative voices to attend other than on rare occasions due to the cost of travel. I think the whole WHO EMF Project finances need looking at. They obviously use a lot more money than goes through the books - which don't seem to be available for public scrutiny and are kept by Repacholi's old Australian chums, rather than by the finance dept of WHO. Seems to me, to be an odd thing to do - especially as the details are not made public. Nor are salaries, expenses and perks, as far as I can find out. So, there is no need to just slip the dosh in the pocket illegally. Mike will be getting deservedly very well rewarded through legal channels. I would educatedly guess at least £250,000 GBP per year minimum, plus pension contributions, plus expenses. And of course he spends most time travelling and meeting people so most of his year's living costs will be legitimate expenses.
WHO EMF Project 2004: "Over the past year there have been questions raised as to the funding sources of the EMF Project. A summary of funding sources and conditions are given below. There are very strict requirements for WHO to receive funds for extrabudgetary projects, such as the EMF Project. WHO can receive funds from industry (preferably from industry associations) only after review and approval by WHO's Legal office. A special WHO committee provides further review of funding from industry. All contributions and accounting are strictly audited by WHO and the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH). The EMF Project has adhered to all the requirements placed on it by WHO and will continue to do so until the Project concludes."
Why not write to them and ask for copies of their simmaries accounts for the past 10 years? See if you are any more successful than I have been. Maybe, ask your MP to write to them.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE INTERNATIONAL EMF PROJECT Contact: Radiation and Environmental Health World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Website http://www.who.int/peh-emf/
Email emfproject@who.int
Tel +41 22 791 40 76
Fax +41 22 791 41 23
Of course, a great deal of the industry support and influence legitimately never gets written down - like the costs of their attending and influencing the meetings, helping to write WHO reports, etc. Done in work time, at industry work places, and it never comes into view. All quite legal. That's one of the many ways industry effectively lobbies WHO and the safety regulators.
Alasdair
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Repacholi
Starmail - 8. Jul, 16:24
