Bioelectromagnetics

[cogreslab]

Bouncer, you would go up in readers' estimation somewhat if you stop making stupid remarks like this:

"I'm making a Jamaican Jerk roast. How appropriate, Roger, that you should pop in here now".

 

[cogreslab]

To PJ:

RE your point about the Hungarians using a conventional cancer model, yes and we think they are making a mistake trying to fit that model to their results. The cells up/down regulate gene expression IN RESPONSE (sorry for the shout, but i can 't find out how to italicise at present) to challenging cellular events and not the other way around. If they had access to the William Koch papers I think they might revise their understanding, as we did.

The down regulation of MHC 1 was a response to the normalisation of their metabolism in my view. I don't see any evidence that the cells necrotised as a result of the quinone. Remember the dilution of their quinone was way above that regarded by Sigma Chemicals as cytotoxic.

 

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by cogreslab I repeat my statement that I paid no costs whatsoever, nor did I pay any costs to the defendant. All my costs were paid by third parties, including the costs of the barrister. The solicitors handled the case on a pro bono publico basis. Sorry, but you got it wrong again Bouncer.

Good evening Mr. Coghill, I hope you had a pleasant trip.

Could you please check BBC's site and tell us if BBC is lying? Also, I wonder if I must check if there were any local elections in your area when you brought the charges against Cwmbran... I will be back.

 

[cogreslab]

To PJ:

Your next point was:

"Additionally you have not addressed what I consider to be a major concern with your model, ie that in the absence of the carcinogen the cancer should not occur. As I said easy to test in-vitro. Has this been done, and if not why not?".

I thought I had referred to the 1953 study by Harry Goldblatt and Gladys Cameron from UCLA as an example of creating a cancer cell without any carcinogen being present.

Briefly, they intermittently starved perfectly normal cells of molecular oxygen, and in a few weeks the cells took on an appearance indistinguishable from cancer cells. Cells not so treated remained normal in appearance.

The reference is:

GOLDBLATT H. Gladys CAMERON
Induced malignancy in cells from rat myocardium subjected to intermittent anaerobiosis during long propagation in vitro
J. Exper. Med v97 i4 p525 p552 1953

 

[cogreslab]

Cleopatra, can you not see the difference between the estimated costs in this long (two years) time it took to bring this case, the attendant publicity, and the legal costs which I estimated to amount in all to around £20,000, and said so to the BBC when they asked me, and the simple fact that all these costs were covered by third party donations, volunteer witnesses whio asked no fees, solicitors who made no charges, so the case actually cost me nothing, except perhaps my time? As for the two days of witmesses (mainly Alisdair McKinley of NRPB, who appeared for nothing also) Are you suggesting now, that, although I had been researching this issue for a decade the motivation I had was simply to won votes for the Green Party at some local election? You don't think much of me. do you!

 

[Cleopatra]

Cleopatra, can you not see the difference between the estimated costs in this long (two years) time it took to bring this case, the attendant publicity, and the legal costs which I estimated to amount in all to around £20,000, and said so to the BBC when they asked me, and the simple fact that all these costs were covered by third party donations, volunteer witnesses whio asked no fees, solicitors who made no charges, so the case actually cost me nothing, except perhaps my time? As for the two days of witmesses (mainly Alisdair McKinley of NRPB, who appeared for nothing also) Are you suggesting now, that, although I had been researching this issue for a decade the motivation I had was simply to won votes for the Green Party at some local election? You don't think much of me. do you!

According to "Aristotle" the general elections of 1997 were the last that you participated. A decade of researching only to go after a local shop?

You are a candidate in elections and you sell protective products. What do you want me to think?

 

[cogreslab]

To Bouncer:

Now I can read your post, would you be good enough to explain to us how the carcinogen alters the blueprint code?, as you have claimed below:

"What happens with a carcinogen is the carcinogen manages to force a significant alteration of the blueprint code.

This step appears to be missing in your explanation. And what happens when there is no carcinogen (e.g. in the example of Goldblatt et al)?

 

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra: You were trying to imply in a previous post that my motives in bringing the Cwmbran case were simply political as a vote getter for my Green party candidacy. You said you were going to check this possibility out. Now you have checked you see that was incorrect, because there was no candidacy of mine pending at the time of the court case, and actually I had been a candidate for years before this cases anyway. Be honest enough to report the truths you have found to this thread.

Instead, you now accuse me of attacking a small retailer rather than taking on the entire cellphone industry frontally. Others have also accused me of attacking the weakest party, - that's absolutely right, because even I am not foolish enough to mount a civil action against a multinational industry and thereby lose everything I have been working for for so many years.

The fact is my tactics were successful: since then the cellphone industry has had to label phones, if only on the box. And Stewart has had to warn children against using cellphones excessively. And the Government has had to initiate a £7 million research programme, (which, had cellphones been pharmaceuticals, would have been the case prior to their being put on the market).

That case was a pivotal one in getting the message over to the public and forcing change.

Now I have a different task, which may seem objectional to some, but in my view not as objectionable as knowingly leaving these infants and children at risk of hazardous exposure (well confirmed by many ELF epi studies and others on live animals and also in vitro).

For everyone who dislikes my Coghill Challenge there are many who recognise it as effectively pointing out that there is something very wrong with the present ELF EMF guidelines, and are beginning to wonder why other European countries are urgently bringing in stricter EMF exposure regulation.

As I said, my Challenge has never harmed the hair on the head of any infant, but the NRPB's and the utilities' laxity, procrastination, obfuscation, and downright public deception has in my view been responsible for hundreds of deaths and family tragedies in this country and elsewhere.

 

[Cleopatra]

To Cleopatra: You were trying to imply in a previous post that my motives in bringing the Cwmbran case were simply political as a vote getter from my Green party candidacy You said you were going to check this possibility out. Now you have checked you see that was incorrect,because there were no candicacy of mine pending at the time of the court case. Be honest enough to say so.

The case was brought to the court in 1998 and you said that it took you two years to achieve that. But this is minor to what follows.

The fact is my tactics were successful: since then the cellphone industry has had to label phones, if only on the box. And Stewart has had to warn children aguinst using cellphones excvessively.

FULLSTOP. And then you advertize a woo-woo crystal that supposes to protect people from the side-effects of the cell phones. I told you before and you did not reply. Have you ever considered that with this WOO-WOO CRYSTAL you advertize and the WOO-WOO OBJECTS you sell, many people including children will increase the use of the cell phone feeling secure with the crap that supposes to protect them? What about that?

For everyone who dislikes my Challenge there are many who recognises that there is something very wrong with the present guidelines.

Your challenge is theatrical, it's political, it's a huge nothing. You don't contribute anything to general public, you mislead people. Instead of asking the general public to buy your protective products, ask them to donate to the cancer research.

 

[cogreslab]

"And then you advertize a woo-woo crystal that supposes to protect people from the side-effects of the cell phones".

Where on my website?

 

[Cleopatra]

Oh let us not start again. I am talking about those Phone Shield people.

They use your name to sell crystals, they claim you checked it. Some parents now in Britain and in Greece allow their kids to use their cells because Roger Coghill said so.

 

[Rolfe]

Since this was a criminal charge, I paid no costs whatsoever.

I repeat my statement that I paid no costs whatsoever, nor did I pay any costs to the defendant. All my costs were paid by third parties, including the costs of the barrister. The solicitors handled the case on a pro bono publico basis.

Which is it, old chap?

Was this a civil or a criminal charge? My reading of the report is that you brought a private prosecution, is that correct? Irrespective of whether this was a civil or criminal matter, the loser will be ordered to pay costs, and clearly you were indeed ordered to pay costs. So you had both your own and Mr. Morgan's costs to find.

Maybe someone else funded your side of the case, but you still haven't told us who paid Mr. Morgan's costs. Those philanthropic third parties of yours again?

None of that negates the fact that you lied when you said that you were absolved of the requirement to pay costs because it was a criminal charge. If your benefactors hadn't come to your assistance, you would indeed have been personally liable. Is this a representative sample of your openness and honesty? If so, colour me unimpressed.

Now, does the Institute of Biology know about your "Challenge"? I wonder. I was involved in getting someone else's MIBiol rescinded after he was successfully prosecuted for selling medicinal products without a licence. I wonder what they'd think of one of their members inciting infanticide?

[Mods, Roger's posts are still missing in my browser window, including the opening post - up until after the part where Upchurch said he was archiving the thread. Any chance of fixing it? And it's not late-editing, I often late-edit for spelling including my previous post above.]

Rolfe.

 

[cogreslab]

To Rolfe:

It was a criminal charge. The law says that any private citizen may bring an action for violating an Act of Parliament, unless the Act specifies otherwise. This was an important consideration before the magistrate decided to hear the case under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In that Act there is no clause florbidding a private criminal prosecution. I hope this addresses part one of your question.

We do not sell medicines without a licence. Are you implying that we do? I might also mention that my lab was responsible for the creation of the IoB website in Wales which we provided at well under cost, also that I attend Committee meetings at my cost, and help the IoB in other ways without charge.

What do you do for the IoB? I would welcome your drawing this Challenge to attention of the IoB Council (though I think many members are already aware of it), since it would give the whole issue massive publicity in the scientific community and the media. Which is my objective anyway. I want this issue addressed, not suppressed.

 

[Pragmatist]

The early pages of this thread have gone all weird. All of Roger's posts before the part where Upchurch talks about archiving the thread are missing. This makes for a very peculiar read.

Mods, is there any practical way of restoring the invisible posts? Those of us who only recently came across the thread (well, me) would quite like to read it in context.

If Roger thinks that what he's doing is science, why does he keep posting in the paranormal forum? If this had been where it belongs, science and medicine, I for one would have seen it a lot earlier.

Now, this whole challenge thing is making me feel so ill that I'm seriously considering turning in my own Fellowship of the Institute of Biology, since it seems as if the spineless PTB don't have the bottle to throw Roger out for publicising such an unethical challenge. Or do they actually know about it?

Rolfe.

Rolfe: This is the original thread as far as I am aware:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38678

This is a later spinoff

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40335

And this is a new, related one:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40805

I would sincerely hope that the IoB DOESN'T know about this and have failed to act on it.
But I think they should.

This "challenge" is a blatant incitement to violate Articles, 5, 6, 8, 14, 18 and 24 (amongst others) of the Helsinki Declaration 2000 as currently ratified by most countries in the world, relating to Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. And I haven't even looked for the breaches of generic or European Human Rights, or statutes relating to Child Abuse.

I note that Iob's charter says:

Professional Conduct

The Institute’s Royal Charter incorporates the objective of upholding professional standards of skill and integrity. Applicants are required to signify their agreement to comply with the Bylaw that relates to professional conduct, which states:

Every member of the Institute shall at all times so order his or her conduct as to uphold the dignity and reputation of biology and to safeguard the public interest in matters of safety and health and otherwise. He or she shall exercise his or her professional skill and judgement to the best of his or her ability and discharge his or her professional responsibilities with integrity.

If they let this behavior go, they have zero credibility in my eyes, and I would suspect that of many others.

Although the challenge is basically illegal, the fact remains that Roger trades on his IoB membership to lend weight to an attempt to misinform and scare the lay public.

 

[Pragmatist]

To Rolfe:

It was a criminal charge. The law says that any private citizen may bring an action for violating an Act of Parliament, unless the Act specifies otherwise. This was an important consideration before the magistrate decided to hear the case under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In that Act there is no clause florbidding a private criminal prosecution. I hope this addresses part one of your question.

We do not sell medicines without a licence. Are you implying that we do? I might also mention that my lab was responsible for the creation of the IoB website in Wales which we provided at well under cost, also that I attend Committee meetings at my cost, and help the IoB in other ways without charge.

What do you do for the IoB? I would welcome your drawing this Challenge to attention of the IoB Council (though I think many members are already aware of it), since it would give the whole issue massive publicity in the scientific community and the media. Which is my objective anyway. I want this issue addressed, not suppressed.

Roger, would you please answer one question. Was Wayne Morgan, "in" on this? Or was he an innocent victim of you and your sponsors.

It's a simple question.

 

[cogreslab]

"Every member of the Institute shall at all times so order his or her conduct as to uphold the dignity and reputation of biology and to safeguard the public interest in matters of safety and health and otherwise. He or she shall exercise his or her professional skill and judgement to the best of his or her ability and discharge his or her professional responsibilities with integrity".

That is exactly what I am doing, Prag. I would be ashamed of the Institute and of myself if we let this issue of deliberately wrongful guidelines remain under the carpet. To do the latter would be to fail to safeguard the public interest in matters of safety and health.

BY bringing this issue before you and other readers of my Challenge I firmly beleive I am discharging my professional responsibilities with integrity.

Now, do you want to discuss the science of this issue or do you prefer hide behind your inadequate attemopts at moral rectitude?

 

[cogreslab]

Wayne Morgan was basically an honest man, who had no idea of the issues nor of the possible health hazards of cellphone use until he found himself involved in this case. The suppliers never told him anything about it so far as I know. I checked with a local Dixons' staff around that time and they had not been advised of any question of health risk by their cellphone suppliers either.

Now the position is changed, thanks to that case. Every retailer now is required to hand a leaflet to cellphone purchasers setting out the potential hazards of excessive use. The Government claims they sent some millions of such leaflets to retailers, but whether the retailers actually give them to customers i do not know.

 

[Pragmatist]

We do not sell medicines without a licence. Are you implying that we do? I might also mention that my lab was responsible for the creation of the IoB website in Wales which we provided at well under cost, also that I attend Committee meetings at my cost, and help the IoB in other ways without charge.

You sell alleged "medical products" including at least one "medicinal supplement". I have also seen references on the web to you giving training and "therapy" with magnets. You have never presented any license to us.

I have another question based on a web report I saw. Is it also true that you have a satellite web link that was at least partially sponsored or paid for by grants from the Welsh Government? Are the people of your country aware that their tax money is going to support your activities?

Finally, were any of the "costs", I don't care WHOSE, in your court action, paid out of public funds?

 

[Rolfe]

It was a criminal charge. The law says that any private citizen may bring an action for violating an Act of Parliament, unless the Act specifies otherwise. This was an important consideration before the magistrate decided to hear the case under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. In that Act there is no clause florbidding a private criminal prosecution. I hope this addresses part one of your question.

So you confirm that you brought a private prosecution. As is your right. If you are prepared to bear the costs, should you lose.

You simply lied when you stated that you were not required to pay costs because the matter was a criminal one. You were indeed required to pay costs, and whether or not you found the money yourself is quite irrelevant.

We do not sell medicines without a licence. Are you implying that we do?

Don't be silly. I said no such thing. That was what the other guy whose Membership was revoked was convicted of doing. Even if you are sailing close to the wind on that one, it's no more than many other quack medicine suppliers are doing, and a prosecution seems highly unlikely. I just mentioned it to demonstrate that the IoB will remove Membership from someone whom it believes is bringing the Institute into disrepute. As I believe you are doing.

I might also mention that my lab was responsible for the creation of the IoB website in Wales which we provided at well under cost, also that I attend Committee meetings at my cost, and help the IoB in other ways without charge.

Well, bully for you. You mean you actually charged them money for putting up a web site? What a cheapskate. I host and maintain the site for the learned society of which I am Hon. Sec. entirely free of charge. And nobody gets paid expenses for attending those sorts of meetings, don't flatter yourself.

What do you do for the IoB? I would welcome your drawing this Challenge to attention of the IoB Council (though I think many members are already aware of it), since it would give the whole issue massive publicity in the scientific community and the media. Which is my objective anyway. I want this issue addressed, not suppressed.

What I do or don't do for the IoB is none of your business. At least I don't bring their name into disrepute by spouting pseudoscientific nonsense with an MIBiol in my sig line. And again, don't flatter yourself. The removal of the membership of the illegal drug-supplier didn't trouble the media in the slightest.

Pragmatist, it's this thread, the one started by Roger himself, called "Bioelectromagnetics", the one moved offline at one point, which is giving trouble. The other three threads are fine, indeed it was through a link on one of these that I came to this one and was completely baffled by the absence of the initial post, and indeed all of Roger's posts for the first few pages.

Are you also a member or fellow of the IoB?

Rolfe.

 

[cogreslab]

"This "challenge" is a blatant incitement to violate Articles, 5, 6, 8, 14, 18 and 24 (amongst others) of the Helsinki Declaration 2000 as currently ratified by most countries in the world, relating to Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. And I haven't even looked for the breaches of generic or European Human Rights, or statutes relating to Child Abuse".

Your value judgment is laughable. First there is no medical research involved, secondly I am forcing no one to do anything. And thirdly if you regard putting a child into an ELF field recommended as perfectly safe by the regulatory authorities, then clearly there is no abuse.

You are hoist with your own petard, Prag.