Tag Archives: brain tumour

The Court of Appeal of Turin confirms the link between a head tumour and mobile phone use

Buy a headset … and no point checking with the respective industries on this, like Monsanto & Roundup they’ll invariably continue to deny this damning evidence & much of the gullible public will swallow the lies. And your government of course will just turn a blind eye. Yawn. Good luck with that. EWR

From phonegatealert.org

The Court of Appeal of Turin confirms in a full judgment published on 13 January 2020 (904/2019 of 3.12.2019 , Romeo v. INAIL) the decision of the Tribunal of Ivrea of 2017. Judge Fadda considers that the worker’s acoustic neuroma (benign tumour of the head) was indeed caused by the use of the mobile phone.

According to the Court:

“there is protective scientific jurisprudence that supports the assertion of causation based on criteria of “more likely than not”. P.33.”

And to add:

“Epidemiological data, the results of experiments on animals (not contradicted, at present, by other experiments of the same type), the duration and intensity of exposure … which are particularly important in view of the dose-response relationship established – at the scientific level – between exposure to mobile phone radiofrequencies and the risk of acoustic neuroma, as well as the absence of any other factor which could have caused the disease”.

The scientific analysis by independent experts appointed by the Court confirms the causal link

All the scientific elements of the case were re-examined and re-analysed by two new experts appointed by the Court of Turin (Carolina Marino, Angelo D’Errico). The Court of Appeal fully accepted their conclusions and rejected INAIL’s* appeal, stating that CTU had provided:

“strong evidence to assert a causal role between the complainant’s occupational exposure, his exposure to radiation from mobile phones and the disease that occurred”.

This is the second Italian appeal judgment in favour of a worker after the Brescia judgment in 2010, which concluded with the confirmation of the Supreme Court in 2012, case of Marcolini v. INAIL. In this case, the Court of Bergamo had rejected the application in first instance.

A landmark judgment that will have international repercussions

The Romeo v. INAIL case is therefore historic. It is the first in world judicial history to have had two consecutive judgments in favour of the plaintiff. It is also historic because of the principles underlying this decision and particularly because it is written about the conflicts of interest of certain experts close to the mobile phone industry.

READ MORE

LINK https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/the-court-of-appeal-of-turin-confirms-the-link-between-a-head-tumour-and-mobile-phone-use

Photo: Image by Anastasia Gepp from Pixabay

Ways of Reducing Your EMF Pollution — Exploring Practical Solutions

A short video here (6 minutes) to assist you in protecting your family from harmful levels of radiation emitted from many devices in your home and elsewhere …

THRIVE Movement

Published on Oct 31, 2015

For more information please visit: http://bit.ly/EMFInfo
Stay informed, subscribe to our mailing list: http://bit.ly/MoEMFinfo
Watch this quick video for tips from EMF expert Jeromy Johnson on how to protect your home and family while still staying “connected.”


Please visit our EMF pages for further info and links & search ‘categories’ (left of any page) for related articles … and do share this info. So many folks are completely oblivious to these and many other health risks in our world today.
EnvirowatchRangitikei

Police Officer Claims Government Is Hiding Cure For Cancer

Re Published on Sep 6, 2016

Published on Jul 20, 2011

Transcript
My name is Sergeant Ric Schiff. I am an eleven-year veteran of the San Francisco police department. I hold the department’s highest metal of honor for bravery—that used to mean a lot more to me than it does now. What I’d like to talk to you about today is—my now 7 year old daughter. This is an identical twin, her sister is now dead. Her sister, when she was 4 years old, Crystin—developed a highly malignant brain tumor that had spread throughout her spine and her brain. The doctors told us that we had really two options—take her home and let her die, or bring her in for massive dosages of chemo and radiation simultaneously. In either event she was going to die, they were quite certain of that—and very quickly.

Believing her only chance to be the standard route, we gave her the chemo and radiation. It burnt her skull so bad she had second degree burns and her hair never came back. To change her diapers we had to wear rubber gloves because her urine was so toxic and it burned her.

At the end of 6 months, miraculously she survived the standard treatment, although there was a high expectation that she wouldn’t. She still had cancer. We were told “sorry, we’ve done everything we can, now she’s going to die, probably within a couple of months.” My wife and I choosing not to except that, started reading—the first book I picked up, the third chapter, discussed Dr. Burzynski.

As you may guess, I have some expertise in fraud, in fact I’m quite certain there are enough attorneys in the room that I could be ordered as an expert in fraud—and, I conducted my own investigation. I have no doubt the man is not a fraud. I have no doubt that he does what he does out of earnest belief that his medicine works. Now, you are in a position to judge for yourselves whether is works or not—but it’s well established by the FDA, that it’s non-toxic.

Eighteen months later, we took my daughter off the Antineoplaston—she had not died. She had no signs of tumor, she remained free for eighteen months of cancer. Within a month, her cancer was wide-spread in her brain. We put her back on Burzynski’s—by the way at the objections of our doctors who for some reason felt that it had failed her. We put her back on—within nine weeks the tumor was completely gone. She died last July, of neurological necrosis—her brain fell apart from the radiation. The autopsy showed that she was completely cancer-free. Out of fifty-two cases of that disease ever, no one died cancer-free, just Cryssie.

So she didn’t die of a terminal illness—she died of my inability to care for her properly and she died from bad advice. She died because there is a government institution, that disseminates false information, and is not looking out for the welfare of the people. You know, ladies and gentlemen I swore an oath eleven years ago and I think most of us in this room swore it at one time or another to uphold the constitution? It says “life” right in the beginning.


See our Cancer pages for further info and links to websites featuring Health Professionals including MDs.

EnvirowatchRangitikei