This is probably Microsoft leak, trying to cripple into unusable state the remaining XPs they didn't get to previously.
They work on the same principle, well known as hormesis. Yet, vaccines are not only praised as one of the greatest achievements of public health, but are routinely forced upon those who would rather not be medicated against their will by the "health" bureaucracies.
Attacks on homeopathy via regulatory agencies are simply an abuse of government power by the Sickness Industry cronies seeking to squash the competition.
This "study" is meta-junk-science about other meta and non-meta junk science (epidemiology) contracted by the telecom industry & regulators (i.e. the future & former industry consultants). As they acknowledge in the report, experiments are left for the future research.
I would like to see animal experiments replicating typical exposures of someone keeping the phone in their pocket or on their head all day. Or teens talking on the phone for hours day after day. Also model of pregnant woman having the phone inches away from the fetus throughout pregnancy. The animal studies should also follow test and control groups for the whole lifespans of animals (e.g. lab mice and rats live only 2-3 years so it shouldn't be a big problem).
Another aspect, also left for future research, are the effects of mobile & Wi-Fi exposures on large organic molecules in the cells. This is very relevant since such molecules have photon frequencies (or energies) of various quantum transitions (e.g. those involved in protein folding or enzyme actions) in the GHz frequency ranges. Resonances with such molecular processes could have more subtle and narrow effects (e.g. on some cognitive and immune functions) for which epidemiology and even animal experiments are much too blunt to detect.
This is a common sleight of hand in the pharma (or general 'sickness industry') sponsored mercenary pseudo-science, when they want to "prove" that inexpensive, non-patentable substance X which is actually good for you, "causes" cancer -- they give X to mice bred specifically to develop cancers they wish to blame on X. After the coarse grained form of the "discovery" story is retold in mass media (or on Slashdot), it becomes "X causes cancer."
To see exactly how this sleight of hand works, consider substance X that improves circulation and promotes growth and vitality of blood vessels (e.g. gingko biloba, arganine, etc), which are all the effects normally good for you. But if you get a cancer, then cancer will use the improved blood supplies and stronger angiogenesis to feed itself, hence it will grow faster than if you had poor circulation and suppressed angiogenesis. That is then twisted to declare "X causes cancer." In fact the cancer was caused by the genes that were deliberately bred into this type mice.
More generally, onset of cancer turns values upside down -- what was good for you when you were healthy, becomes bad for you when you get cancer, since cancer will co-opt it for its own growth. What was bad for you (poor circulation, cellular toxins and pro-oxidants, heavy metals, chemo, etc) becomes good for you, since it may affect cancerous cells more than the non-cancerous cells.
A useful analogy illustrating the nature of this reversal of values in cancer, is to consider human society as a (super-)organism, which it is in many ways. In a peacetime, roads and other transport systems are good for the social organism. But in the case of war, the good transport systems often becomes a major downside since the enemy can use those roads to advance its troops and boost supply lines. In contrast, poor transportation in peacetime is bad for the social organism (backward nations). But it is also bad for the potential enemy during war. This can be easily observed on historical examples, such as WWII, where German blitzkrieg conquered the more developed nations, such as France, Netherlands, Poland very quickly, while it got bogged down in the backwards Balkans, with lots of mountains and few roads, and never really had control of those territories (except for the major cities, which were few in numbers). Similarly, in more recent wars, the backwards, mountainous undeveloped Afghanistan (or jungles of Vietnam) is practically impossible to conquer, while the more developed Iraq was overrun in weeks.
Hence, the above style of mercenary "science" using cancer mice to "prove" alleged carcinogenicity of wholesome Vitamin C or E is analogous to mislabeling transport systems and other infrastructure as a national weakness, and advocating going back to stone age, by demonstrating how much quicker the nation can be conquered if their infrastructure is good.
It is also similar to policies which mislabel personal liberty and privacy as harmful and deadly, by showing how terrorists (or drug dealers, crazies, etc) can take advantage of those liberties and privacy to cause harm. These are all the same kind of scams as the above "study" scaring people away from the vitamins C and E. All of such scare campaigns are often promoted by the very same people from the same crony front groups/NGOs, as result of natural synergies of interests -- a need to condition and herd the sheep with common scare tactics.
I actually find these kinds of "studies" quite useful, since they help me identify what is good for me -- it is always the stuff that the sickness industry is trying to scare me away from (e.g. fat, meat, eggs, bacon, cholesterol, tobacco and other ancient medicinal/entheogenic plants, etc). Further, as a rule the greater the efforts and lengths they go to with their scare mongering about X, the better X must be for me (i.e. worst for their profits). The most useful one for my health was when it dawned on me to invert "make sure have the regular medical checkups" into "stay away from doctors or hospitals" as much as possible. Last time I saw doctors was when I traveled to the 'old country' in 1991 to visit my parents, both medical doctors. In the meantime, I was mostly doing exactly the opposite from the advice of sickness industry.
Whatever the deal he may be offered, he better stay where he is (Russia and China, at least, would love to have him be accessible, as long as he wishes to stay there). Once he is in custody here in USA, anything can happen e.g. he could be found hanging in his cell and declared a victim of suicide. Who is going to investigate?
You may have not read the full text pdf, since I was quoting from a peer reviewed paper which had 40 citations backing up all figures and facts stated in the paper.
You should take it up with the referees for the peer reviewed journal if you believe your objections have merit. Maybe they will retract it if you send them your opinion backed by the above list.
The paper provides 40 citations, meticulously backing up all their statements of facts and figures. They have opinions, too (that the campaign was a wrong approach for India), in the conclusion, but these are stated as their opinions. What is stated as fact and figure is fully supported in their citations.
"Could it be that perhaps the correlation between vaccination and NPAFP was because the surveillance was part of the vaccination programme and the temporal relationship was not inherently vaccination -> NFAFP."
You can speculate all you want, since the paper you cited was not designed to test your conjecture. It was an unrelated qualitative study, designed to "We conducted a qualitative research to explore care and support for children with AFP after their diagnosis." They merely interviewed "parents of children with polio (17), with non-polio AFP (9), healthcare providers (40), and key informants from community including international and government officers, religious leaders, community leaders, journalists, and academics (21)".
Some facts that contradict your speculation: It is the systematic AFP surveillance for 10 years before the polio vaccinations campaign in that very state Uttar Pradesh that established the 25-fold increase in AFP following these vaccinations, and 35-fold increase in another polio test state, Bihar. (cf.  pp.115-116).
Another interesting quote from the same paper  p. 116:
We have seen how polio, that was not a priority for public health in India, was made the target for attempted eradication with a token donation of $ 0.02 billion. The Government of India nally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant.
So, the way it works is that Gates buys pharma stocks, then bribes few officials in India for $0.02 billion to make their country spend 100 times more on the program. Of course, the pharma makes big bucks not only on the vaccines, but far more on life-long "management" of the diseases they caused, all the while Bill's pharma stocks go up. Having been scammed of intellectual property by Microsoft in mid-1990s, I can see that Bill Gates hasn't changed his "ethics" one bit after moving into the "charity" business. It's same old Bill Gates.
Paper from: Indian J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr-Jun;9(2):114-7
"while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated. "
"a weak measurement extracts such a small amount of information that it leaves the quantum state intact."
That's not correct description -- the quantum state is changed, albeit less than with projective measurement. The paper itself calls it in the abstract "minimal disturbing" measurement, not the "non-disturbing" measurement.
The responses illustrate how easily most people, especially the educated ones, fall for scams if they are wrapped into scientific language. That's why there are so many of them, especially from sickness industry since that's where people are the most ready to part with their money.
One little clue to help you recognize a pseudo-scientific scam is when you hear a pronouncement from high up "debate is over" or "science is settled" -- that's a scam. Another clue, especially regarding health pronouncements, is silence about experiments and exclusive focus on parroting statistical correlations on non-randomized samples, or throwing around scary numbers spewed by computer models based on such correlations. One more clue is when someone overdoes it on how solid their "science" is by comparing their scientifically sounding pronouncements to law of gravity.
It says that you should announce your great discovery to the whole world by publishing a paper and becoming famous since causing lung cancer via inhalation of tobacco smoke is still the unattained holy grail of the antismoking "science" that no one has been able to figure out how to achieve. Animals won't cooperate (half the smoking bastards are still alive after all the healthy living non-smoking ones have already gone to the happy hunting grounds), and even in the few randomized human trials that were ever done, the smoking group ended up with fewer lung cancers than the non-smoking/quit group. Check that thread mentioned earlier for literature details and discussions (especially items #1, #2, #3, #6).
Epidemiology by itself isn't a junk science. It crosses into junk science when someone leaps from observed statistical associations on non-randomized samples to wishfully ($$$) declaring causal relations. Such associations are at best a hint that there may be causal relation, but one needs hard science, such as randomized trials or animal/human experiments to find out what kind of links (e.g. causal or protective/therapeutic) connect those correlated variables.
That's how it is done in normal science, you use statistical hint to make hypothesis that is followed up with hard science. But antismoking "science" is stuck on the same hint since 1950.
And it is not for lack of trying hard science. There were thousands of experiments done since then. The problem was that they all went the "wrong" way -- the smoking animals live longer, perform better on cognitive tasks, get cancers less often, etc. What can poor scientific mercenaries do, when their bosses want the opposite result, but stick with what works, parrot the statistical hints disguised as "science." This was so unusual pattern that already in 1958, the father of modern statistical methods, famous British mathematician R. A. Fisher noticed it and wrote (pdf; this article also contains a very readable exposition of the sample randomization topic):
"Most of us thought at the time, on hearing the nature of evidence, which I hope to make clear a little later, that a good prima facie case had been made for further investigation. But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention to several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind..."
Yet, the antismoking "science" still rests its case squarely on the same kind of soft/junk science that Fisher objected to over half a century ago.