The following is not only about cell phones, but microwaves and handheld radios.
Paul wrote and asked, “I use a handheld radio that radiates 10 Watts. Is that why I don’t have Glioblastoma Multiforme? There must be a rational explanation.”
The straight answer is: probably yes, the fact that you are using a HIGHER-powered handheld radio will cause the body’s protective mechanisms — heat shock proteins, etc. — to kick in. Research in this field is never complete unless there are apparent anomalies. I’ll try give you a “rational” explanation as to why you’re still alive.
Watch this video by Dr Leif Salford, a top neurosurgeon, who started investigating the effects of microwave radiation on the blood-brain barrier (BBB) back in the 1980s. He read reports that microwave radiation opened the BBB, a protein sheath that protects the brain from toxins in the blood, and he thought this might help with delivery of drugs to the brain during surgery.
There’s also a blood-testis barrier in males, with a similar protein structure, that protects the testes.
Dr Salford found that two minutes of low-level microwave radiation was indeed sufficient to open the BBB, and to his alarm found severe damage in the brains of rats that were exposed to just two hours of ordinary cell phone radiation.
What surprised him was that the highest levels of leakage into the brain occurred at the LOWEST intensities of radiation. Take a look at around 10:10 in this video and you’ll see the graphs. There is leakage at the higher levels, sure; then the leakages stop completely; and then the highest leakages occur at the LOWEST intensities:
Dr Salford showed that these lower intensities occur in the middle of the brain with handset use; and that these intensities are also found in the brain at levels of radiation experienced from towers.
He gave a warning in 2003 of “teenage dementia” in kids who used mobile phones excessively. This is now an established fact; nearly all kids show clear signs of ADD and memory impairment. I studied “attention” in classrooms in the 1980s, I developed the only proper validated protocol in the entire education literature to measure attention in the classroom, so I’m entitled to make this judgment.
Exactly the same phenomenon, of greater effects at lower intensities, was noted with brainwave changes by Ross Adey at Stanford in the 1960s; there were clear biological “windows” at LOWER intensities that saw enhanced brainwave effects. Adey’s research was used by the US military to unknown ends.
Dr Dariusz Leszczynksi, as lead researcher at the Finnish government protection agency STUK, exposed one arm of subjects to ordinary cell phone radiation. He found significantly raised levels of heat-shock proteins and other biochemical defense mechanisms, compared with the unexposed arm, a simple but elegant experiment.
Now: these biochemical changes are NOT supposed to happen with “non-thermal” levels of “non-ionizing” radiation, so this was a significant finding. When Dr Lesczynksi tried to continue his research, his contract with STUK was promptly terminated. He says openly that this was at the instigation of Nokia, then the biggest company Finland had ever seen.
These heat shock proteins are protective, and they kick in at the HIGHER levels.
Lower intensities literally come in “under the radar” of the body’s defenses.
In Dr Joseph Friedman’s research at the Weizmann Institute, he found higher levels of oxidative stress (free radicals) in living human cells after two minutes of radiation, than he did after 20 minutes of radiation. Again, this is a result of the body’s protective mechanisms kicking in. Dr Friedman went to great lengths to prove that this was not a “thermal” effect.
Also: is your handheld radio an analogue device, like old-fashioned CB radio? There is plenty of evidence that digitally pulsed radiation on biologically active frequencies is much more dangerous than analogue signals.
For example, GSM handsets are pulsed at just above 8 Hz. There are many studies showing that cellphone radiation produces anomalies in brainwaves at exactly this frequency, which is in the low alpha range. These brainwave anomalies persist for hours. This low alpha spectrum is associated with the switch from external to internal attention as you fall asleep, it’s a semi-zombie state.
Take a look, you’ll see the semi-zombies everywhere, this has become the new normal.
Mr. Barrie Trower’s interrogation of Soviet “microwave spies” was largely concerned with the pulsed frequencies that they used. For example, he says publicly that a pulsed frequency of 6.6 Hz potentiates the brain for uncontrollable sexual violence. If a spy saw that a Cabinet minister was going to visit a prostitute, Mr. Trower says, that minister might be irradiated with this frequency beforehand, with predictable results.
Look at the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who allegedly sexually assaulted a maid in a hotel in New York. This destroyed his presidential ambitions and cost him the top job at the IMF. Were I to investigate this case, I would see if anyone carrying an unusually heavy suitcase checked into a room on either side, or above or below, Strauss-Kahn’s room.
Watch this presentation by an Israeli researcher, you’ll see that 5G radiation resonates with structures in the skin, the sweat glands, and molecules like oxygen and even alcohol. He says they can detect at a distance when your skin starts perspiring — they are already using this in airport security systems. The irony is that the radiation itself will make you sweat:
Now: there are many studies indicating that about 3% of the population is particularly sensitive to microwave radiation.
Prof Olle Johannsen of the experimental dermatology unit at Karolinska Institute in Sweden showed that people with an excess of mast cells in their skin (mysterious cells associated with inflammatory processes, and therefore possibly linked to cancer and a multitude of other illnesses) were particularly sensitive to microwaves. He showed that about 3% of the population fell into this category.
Based on these studies, Mr Barrie Trower gives this 3% warning wherever he goes. If he speaks at a school with 200 students, he literally tells them that “about six of you” may get ill and die of something like leukaemia, if a tower goes up at your school. Again, he’s given expert evidence in many courtrooms around the world, and never says a thing he cannot justify scientifically. He says that this technology will kill more people than WW1 and WW2 combined. If you take 3% of 6 billion users and exposed people, you get a rock-bottom estimate of 180 million people killed or incapacitated.
What other word is there for this, but “GENOCIDE”?
So, Paul, you may be in the lucky 97%. Everyone is different. I heard a talk by Niels Kuster, a Swiss researcher who has created a family of “radiation crash test dummies”, to see how they absorb radiation. He said, the centimetre wavelengths resonate with structures in the body such as “zer fingkers, zer bridge of zer nose, and: zer penis”. So if you have a body part that just happens to resonate with the radiation you are exposed to, you may be in trouble. It’s as random as that.
The WHO, etc., always say there is no “consistent” evidence of harm from microwaves. But you can never expect “consistency” with human responses. Some people smoke 60 cigarettes a day for 70 years, and die peacefully in their sleep at the age of 99. Other people who have never smoked in their lives, die young of lung cancer from second-hand smoke. Radiation is even more complex in its effects.
There’s a classic book called Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette by Dr Robert C Kane, an engineer who tested mobile phone antennas for Motorola. He got a lesion on his head right where he held these antennas, and then a brain tumor right under the lesion. He wrote and self-published this book before he died, it’s very roughly edited, but it’s perhaps the single greatest insider account of all time — what Motorola knew and when they knew it, and how they covered up all the hazards, using ignorance as an overt excuse — just like 5G, only now it’s the FCC doing the pushing — and rushed this technology through without any proper health testing. This is an authorized PDF:
Dr Kane says — every time you hold the phone to your head, this may be the time that you initiate a brain tumor. So I really wish you well, but for crying out loud, just stop holding that thing against your head, unless you are particularly tired of life and want a very nasty way to die.
As a radio fanatic, I was aware as a teenager back in the 1970s of the dangers of microwaves, from warnings by other radio hams. One wrote a story in QST magazine as to how he worked on an open microwave transmitter and literally cooked his eyeballs, nearly going blind. Never, ever expose yourself to microwaves, he said. This was a standard warning back in the day. As Mr Trower notes, this routine warning is not given to modern engineers during their training any more.
Partly as a result of these warnings, I was always fascinated by reduced power (QRP) operating. During the sunspot maximum around 1977/78, I regularly talked with people all over the world, on all continents, using exactly one watt (1 W) of input power to the single valve in my home-constructed Heathkit DX60B transmitter, using Morse code. Who are you talking to with your 10 watts? Is it so very important?
Fred and Everyone else….Here is the proof!!!!!
CNN and Scientific American!!!!!
Brain tumor study raises cell phone concerns in England
Alterations in White Matter Integrity in Young Adults with Smartphone Dependence
Brain tumor study raises cell phone concerns in England!!!!!
New Studies Link Cell Phone Radiation with Cancer!!!!!!
I appreciate you answering my questions regarding fluoride.
Don’t listen to the haters; the doubters; the critics or the skeptics!!!
You’re only attempting to do what Moses did except on a larger scale. You are working on educating the public, and trying in earnest to save lives.
“You may be able to lead a horse to water, but you can bring the water to the horse.”
Keep up your work!!! Doubters be damned!!!
You may be “not” be able to lead a horse to water, but you can bring the water to the horse.”
To be honest — I’m actually writing for people who are aware that there is a real problem with wireless technology and health, and giving them the very best and most direct information that I can.
I do try to convince journalists to look at the issue, I’ve lobbied hundreds of them over the last two decades, with very little success.
I’ve said, over and again, that this is not a scientific issue at all — we’ve known since the 1950s that low-level microwave exposure is extremely dangerous, with a vast range of hazards, and people should be given extensive warnings, particularly pregnant women and children. It’s purely a media issue now. ONE journalist in the mainstream media could change the history of the world, simply by writing a competent, well-researched article on the subject. It just hasn’t happened.
Oddly enough, there have been some very good TV documentaries on the issue. But in print journalism, just about nothing in the entire English-speaking world. The best story I’ve seen in the mainstream print media is now a decade old, this was in GQ magazine:
If anyone is genuinely skeptical and wants proof, I’m very happy to engage with them right up to the point where it becomes clear that they’re not serious, that they’re just shills jerking you around. At that point, I simply disengage. Anyone who tries to insult me and call me names, should be aware that I’ve spent 20 years being insulted and derided as a “tinfoil-hat case”, we have very thick skins, there’s absolutely nothing anyone can say that will even remotely register. I have kept track of the industry stooges over the years, I’ve spotted the same ones appearing in forums all over the world, and I take them on and point out their lies. It’s usually quite a short debate.
For me, Frank Report is just the best. Along with some very smart debate, this forum is full of people who make me feel positively sane and balanced, and I know there is a readership out there that very intelligently keeps silent and just watches what’s going on. These are the people I’m really writing for, and the more they stay quiet, the smarter I think they are. You don’t want to get involved in this knife fight.
Where it gets real is when a 5G mini tower appears on a lamp post outside your house, outside your kids’ bedroom. That is your cue to take up this fight, if nothing else will. And when they start removing hundreds of thousands of trees in your neighborhood for no reason.
Barrie Trower, in his latest video, describes how he got a notice that they were going to remove 400,000 trees in his area to keep motorists safe. He pointed out in a letter to the press, that these trees were being removed from where 5G is being installed along a motorway. The foliage from trees seriously impedes 5G propagation, so 5G entails an all-out war on trees. Just watch.
When you see this happening in your block, it’s time to fight. And when you start fighting, you’ll find — as I’ve described — that you have absolutely no rights whatsoever in fighting the FCC; that the FCC will respond to no one under any circumstances; that the industry will hide behind the FCC and lie outright about safety and studies; that your local authorities are completely powerless against the FCC; that if you get anywhere near the FCC, they will say they get advice from the FDA and dodge responsibility that way; and that by trying to protect a tree in your street, you are instantly involved in a life-or-death war with your federal government.
BUT: just be reassured on one score, it’s the REAL war you’re fighting here. People have sneered at me for suggesting that there’s a vast cover-up involving a wide range of international and governmental agencies. I tell people: if you really want to hit at “them”, the Deep State, the people who are really out to control the world, then 5G is the single issue that will most clearly reveal all of their machinations. This is the most obvious way that they have ever broken cover, in thousands of years of human history.
Remember: telecoms is now the most powerful industry the world has ever seen, period. These companies are worth untold trillions of dollars. 5G alone is expected to generate trillions of dollars’ worth of business. You think a multi-trillion-dollar industry is not capable of buying fake studies? Of buying newspapers, like Carlos Slim and the New York Times? Of conducting vast troll campaigns on social media? Ha.
It’s very important for the shills to “slide” the story, to flood threads with gibberish and diversions, to dilute what’s being said. But people are getting very wise to this now. They can see what’s going on. Every single time I get attacked, all I think is — yes, I must be on target, if the pips are squeaking. If they only knew how much they encouraged me, they might shut up a bit.
But most of all, I love the dead silence that accompanies a post I make on the industry-run forums. If you make one tiny mistake, you will be flooded with a million clowns calling your names. Their blank silence speaks volumes. Then I know I’ve REALLY hit a sore point, and there are no answers whatsoever. I do love the sounds of silence.
Thanks sincerely for your support, much appreciated.
Talking about the media: if you want to get anything done in this world, especially the media world, what you need most is a CELEBRITY.
So for 20 years, I’ve been looking for just one bona fide CELEBRITY who was prepared to take up the issue of mobile phones and health.
Can you think of one?
There was a definite frisson on the networks once, when Lady Gaga herself was said not to hold a cell phone to her precious ear, for fear of radiation. I researched this, you can still find the stories:
Lady Gaga’s Phone Fear
Lady Gaga is reportedly so terrified of the radiation emitted from mobile phones, she insists someone holds her communications device away from her head when she has to make a call.
Q: Do you have any strong feelings about Sprint, your tour’s current sponsor?
A: The phones were shit. But I don’t use cellular phones, so it makes no difference to me. It’s like sticking your head in a microwave oven. They’re very bad for you. Phones, for me, are strictly for information. I don’t chat. Phones are the bane of my life. Alexander damn Graham Bell, I’d shoot him.
Now, there was a kid called Bill German who kept a fanzine running through much of the Stones's career, called Beggar's Banquet. He wrote a really interesting and amusing book called "Under Their Thumb," describing life on the fringe of the Rolling Stones and how he survived it.
In the book, Bill German tells this story of the Rolling Stone interview where Keef trashes his mobile phone sponsor. He even quotes Keith, but — to my disbelief — gets the quote wrong.
This Bill German is the ultimate fact-checker of the most trivial Stones minutiae. And here, just on the most crucial quote of all, the only celeb who's ever spoken out against mobile phone technology, he gets it completely wrong. He quotes Keith as just saying "It's like sticking your head in an oven."
We had an argument in our house about this. For me, as a working journalist, I will always copy and paste wherever possible, if you are doing an exact quote. The interview is easily obtainable on the internet. Why even think about typing it out?
So, I thought this mistake might have been "introduced during the editing process," what they always say in the newspapers. Your job description as a newspaper subeditor is to get none of the credit, and all of the blame.
But I honestly thought there might have been a subtle intervention behind the scenes to tone down Keef's quite explosive utterance.
The other opinion in our house was that Bill German was writing hastily and just copied the quote down wrong.
I'm revealing myself as being perhaps a bit conspiracy prone, when there's always a simpler explanation.
Nonetheless, you see, Bill German is THE guy to get every little detail of Stones history correct. It takes an obsessive to spot an obsessive, and this guy is, by self-admission, the obsessive's obsessive.
So I wrote to Bill German, a couple of years ago, to settle this bet in our house — was there foul play involved in getting this quote wrong? Did something get changed in the editing process?
Or was it just an honest mistake, which did not get picked up in the editing and fact-checking process?
I told him how important it was, and how Keith was absolutely correct — using a mobile phone IS like putting your head in a microwave oven. And explaining how I tended to use the word "microwave" wherever possible, because it was (a) technically accurate, and (b) reminded people that they were being cooked.
You can make your own guess: conspiracy or carelessness?
Bill German replied very quickly, said it was all his fault, he just typed it up wrong. He said the image he had in his mind was the old-fashioned scenario, where people committed suicide by putting their heads in gas ovens.
That's what jumped into my mind; and this image doesn't have any of the cognitive dissonance of trying to stick your head in a MICROWAVE oven, which has a locking door to prevent that kind of thing. Keith knew exactly what he was saying, and was putting a very vivid message out.
If the book goes into a second printing, and I hope it does, it'll be corrected.
Nonetheless: I tell this story for a reason. This was me actually trying to get a message through to Keith Richards in his eyrie library, reading history books about the Great Game, as he reveals in his autobiography. I was hoping maybe Bill German might pass a message along, at least just to say to Keef: you're the one celeb who's ever had the guts to speak out against this abominable tech, thanks, mate.
This is just a tiny, tiny peek into the media war that is raging behind the scenes. There is a tremendous hysteria spreading around the world, because of this "coronavirus". It's a fabulous media creation. If this fear gets linked in the popular mind with 5G, with mini cell antennas everywhere, the situation may become genuinely explosive, and people like me will be in deep, deep trouble.
As I keep saying, it's all a media war. One thing for certain: the mass media have failed the public in the most unbelievable ways with this issue. All working journalists have to carry mobile phones, it's a requirement of the job. They literally cannot imagine their existences without their devices.
A senior business journalist showed me the bald patch over her left ear, where she held her phone. I told her, hair loss is one of the symptoms of "microwave sickness" the Russians had in their clinical diagnosis books, along with cancer. These journalists know. But they just cannot say.
The tech elite use spy cameras to make sure their nannies are not using "devices" while minding their children. The elite don't let their own kids use this tech:
"I'm convinced the devil lives in our phones," is the subheading of this article, a direct quote from one of these masters of the silicon universe.
You will find that the elite, and only the elite, have been able to block 5G, to avoid "aesthetic disaster":
So Donald Trump is making sure that Mar-a-Lago is free from 5G? Is this true?
Is there a story here for a journalist? Let's see.
The story above seems to have had some material truncated: I’ll paste it in here, I’m sure you can put it together:
Q: Do you have any strong feelings about Sprint, your tour’s current sponsor?
A: The phones were shit. But I don’t use cellular phones, so it makes no difference to me. It’s like sticking your head in a microwave oven. They’re very bad for you. Phones, for me, are strictly for information. I don’t chat. Phones are the bane of my life. Alexander damn Graham Bell, I’d shoot him.
Weird, there’s a hunk of text that just disappears. I’ll try one more time:
… I think my attempt to format text here with arrows has confused WordPress. Sorry, just trying to be clear, when I can’t indent, or use italics.
This got omitted in the above, some snafu:
— and that was the extent of the story. To the best of my knowledge, Lady Gaga herself has not said anything about mobile phones.
And … then … (he hesitates) … there was …
… Gwyneth Paltrow, of course, had something to say about mobile phones:
… but I have to say, there are problems with Gwyneth Paltrow, so I hesitate even to mention her name.
A picture has been circulating recently, showing Harvey Weinstein with his arm around Gwyneth Paltrow in the olden days, and she genuinely looks totally miserable and abused. So there are just multiple issues here. Hers has not really been a useful endorsement, although it seems to be sincere.
That leaves … I mean, someone with real street cred …
To my knowledge, there’s only one real star who has ever spelled it out about mobile phones. This was Keith Richards, when interviewed by Rolling Stone magazine in 1997 about the Bridges to Babylon tour, sponsored by Sprint Mobile, which had just rolled out its networks.
I’m not a Rolling Stones fan, never was, never will be. But that’s beside the point. Keith Richards will always have cred, even if it’s just for smuggling large revolvers through airport security.
Rolling Stone asks Keith Richards:
Here are a couple of articles about what is going on behind the scenes. It’s not necessarily behind what’s being posted here – but it could be, and that alone should be very troubling. Russia, for instance, below, is promoting fears of 5G in its Western-facing media, all while they’re going on with their own internal 5G deployment without any criticism from their Russian-language press.
Your phone (still) isn’t killing you—but Russia wants you to think it will
‘The Russian propaganda network RT America is targeting the U.S. with false claims that new 5G, or “fifth generation,” phones could cause health problems ranging from cancer to autism—part of a disinformation campaign that one expert likens to “economic warfare”‘
And there’s this, on the topic in general, from Fox News:
Disinformation: How Iran could take a page from Russia’s propaganda playbook
“Iran could take a page out of Russia’s playbook and sow disinformation through social media to steer people’s reactions.”
“The most valuable real estate in the world is not in New York City or Hong Kong or Tokyo,” Anderson said in the interview. “It’s actually the screen of your mobile device…We all spend a lot of time on our devices. There are companies making fortunes and there are governments spending time trying to understand, how do I get that attention harnessed? How do I get people to read, consume, understand, and react?””
‘Anderson noted that those who are spreading disinformation want to get the most emotional response out of a post as possible because those are the kind of posts that will go viral and spread across the Internet.
“People running disinformation campaigns benefit tremendously from getting you to spread false information,” he continued. “Because how do you argue with false information? Now you have people battling over really what’s even true, much less what you may believe or not believe.”’
Note that tactic to appeal to emotions – just what we see someone like Shadowstate as vulnerable to, as Mack was to Raniere’s heart-tugging word salad. See, for instance: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
I assembled a website providing links to hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that identified biological harm from exposure to various EMF frequencies and exposure levels. See http://www.5gfrequencyfreefairbanks.org/. See subpage links on the right of my homepage, each provides a list of studies showing associations between EMF exposure and biological harms such as brain cancer, reproductive problems, DNA damage, altered brainwaves, etc.
I tried to navigate that site, and it’s rather of a jumble.
How about looking at meta-studies, rather than picking-and-choosing from among the thousands of studies that have been done?
This one from the WHO is pretty balanced in its conclusions
Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis.
“Although individual epidemiological investigations have suggested associations between
residential exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and childhood leukaemia, overall the
findings have been inconclusive. ”
Note that even just in the full abstract (which won’t cut-and-paste from the source, unfortunately) they call for further study, and for finding ways to remediate children’s exposure if necessary.
And to put things in perspective, even the high estimates of possible increased cases of lukemia of a hundred or so a year, are far less of a risk than other easily preventable but less sensational risks to children’s health and well being.
More meta-studies at Google Scholar:
Oh! So very sorry. I thought this was a conspiracy blog. Never mind.
Yep. We operate portable CW QRP.
This is one of those types of theorizing, that once again really hasn’t been thought through in terms of considering what would be necessary for it to be valid, and thus is easily debunked with fact- or reality-checks: cell phones have now been in widespread use long enough, that if there was a significant cancer risk then there’d actually be a major spike in cancer cases by now – which there is not. See, for instance:
“Is there any link between cellphones and cancer?
Answer From Edward T. Creagan, M.D.
The possible connection between cellphones and cancer is controversial. Many years’ worth of studies on cellphones and cancer have yielded conflicting results. Currently, there’s no consensus about the degree of cancer risk — if any — posed by cellphone use.
The primary concern with cellphones and cancer seems to be the development of brain tumors associated with cellphone use. Some research suggests a slight increase in the rate of brain tumors since the 1970s, but cellphones weren’t in use during the 1970s.
Instead, the subtle increases are more likely related to other factors — such as increased access to medical care and improvements in diagnostic imaging.
In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors.”
That reference actually goes on to cite a couple of small studies that indicated that there might be some rise in cancer risk among the heaviest cell phone users. I certainly don’t dismiss the need to research and understand such things further; and I’d agree it’s probably wise for heavy users to use phones on speakerphone or with ear buds as much as possible.
Also, in the big picture it has to be taken into consideration both that cell phones may help save lives such as making it easier to call for prompt emergency care when someone has been in an accident or had a heart attack (in which case 911 personnel sometimes dispense life-saving tips to callers, such as talking them through administering CPR to victims); and that the biggest actual dangers are probably more mundane things like distracted driving, and not paying attention while walking and using a phone.
It would be kind of disappointing, wouldn’t it, if we what we really just needed to do to save ourselves is to do something mundane like put down our phones and concentrate on driving (and walking), and not worry about dramatic imaginings of archetypically evil conspiracies arrayed against us?
p.s. The claim this is “GENOCIDE” also falls under one of the typical faults of such theories I noted in a comment on the previous post about this subject – in a case where what is being done is widespread, any supposed conspirators and all the functionaries necessary to carry out their machinations, would have to subjecting themselves, their families, friends, and so on to the imagined harm. Unless, of course, it’s supposed to be the work of off-planet aliens….
So I’m “easily debunked with fact- or reality-checks” as if I haven’t done my research, or maybe cherry-pick my findings.
You immediately cherry-pick the go-to story they use in the media, the infamous Danish Cohort Study of 420,000 mobile phone contract holders, published in the British Medical Journal. It sounds impressive because of the large numbers.
You are clearly not aware that the Danish Cohort Study is perhaps the single most clear case of faked, biased research in any field for many years. I have done a great deal of work on exactly this study. So let me tell you how they rigged it.
I described a tower study by Elliot in the UK, which took the very most irradiated people, and counted them as “totally unexposed” and eliminated them from the study.
Well, the Danish Cohort Study does exactly the same thing. They admit this themselves, quite openly, in the paper itself. They find a very direct way to eliminate all the people that they themselves identify as the very most irradiated subjects, by calling them “unexposed” and removing them from the sample for purely bureaucratic reasons.
But we are running ahead of ourselves. There’s a back story here, a big one. First we introduce Dr George Carlo, for several years the epidemiologist (and lawyer) hired by the wireless industry body CTIA to handle the issue of health, including funding for research.
Dr Carlo is — has to be — quite a dodgy character. For about five years, he faithfully put forward the industry line, that there was no evidence of harm, and “no mechanism” beyond simple heating to explain any effects that were reported. I have friends who sat infuriated in conferences where Carlo was impervious to any evidence of health effects.
Around 1999, however, he circulated a famous letter to all the wireless operators in CTIA, saying there was indeed evidence of cancer and genetic damage from their products. His contract was not renewed.
In February 2000, he was allowed to give a short presentation to CTIA executives. He was muscled off the stage after 10 minutes, on instructions from then CTIA chief Tom Wheeler (later FCC chairman, that famous revolving door in Washington), and Carlo was physically escorted out of the building.
This story got reported fairly recently by The Nation as if it were news, but it’s truly ancient history in the game:
(I can’t link to the original article without a subscription.)
The Nation’s coverage was scolded by Microwave News for not checking out Carlo’s claims about the research he funded. He still says he commissioned 50 studies, and Microwave News long ago proved that this was not true. “Show us the studies!” is MWN’s refrain.
So: Dr George Carlo, dodgy ultimate insider gone rogue, his reputation very much resting on his singular experience at CTIA. His house got burnt down, incidentally, just as he was spilling some of the beans. He has actually done some seemingly good research since leaving the industry fold, but I haven’t had time to check it out too carefully, it’s mostly reviews.
But George Carlo is a lawyer as well as an epidemiologist, and he’s very careful in what he says and where he says it. You have to be.
So it is interesting that Dr Carlo felt he could go public, in a peer-reviewed journal, in revealing that the exact same researchers who produced the Danish BMJ study, originally came to him, proposing that he fund their work. He turned them down:
“We also were not comfortable with the study design that was presented to us. The investigators put too much emphasis on the probability that the study would not find risk increases. Because the program was funded by the industry, they might have thought the low-risk pitch was what we wanted to hear. When we refused to give them funding to do the work, Boice and McLaughlin went directly to the industry with the same pitch – and they were hired.”
You’ll see just how systematically Carlo shreds that paper on every single count. But not least, it was openly being touted, to a presumed industry insider, as a study that could be guaranteed to produce industry-friendly findings. And it ultimately got industry funding. Carlo notes the alacrity with which this study was picked up in the media, it was quoted all over the show, and here we still find it being touted.
So, how did this intrepid Danish research team bias their findings? There were several ways, but one was decisive. They were looking at people who held long-term telephone contracts, they could assess quite well how much these people spoke on the phone.
The study noted that the very most heavy users in the early days, when airtime was very expensive, were corporate users, whose contracts were paid for by the company.
Because they could not identify which person was using the company phone, however, the study simply excluded all corporate contracts from the database. The very cohort that they themselves identify as the most highly irradiated, is entirely eliminated from the study. The authors admitted that this might seem a little odd, but they did it anyway.
Dr Michael Kundi of the Medical University of Vienna, and a damn fine epidemiologist, reworked the Danish Cohort Study, did a little bit of proper estimation, and found a “highly significant increase of glioma risk”. He predicted that when he did similar corrections of the latest data, the risk “would be even more pronounced.”
Kundi says this paper was “the most severely biased study among all studies published so far”:
Now, in case you think Dr Michael Kundi is a nobody, he is actually one of a handful of international experts who have been accredited to give testimony in the single biggest US class action ever in this domain, Murray et al. vs. Motorola et al., brain tumor victims and their families versus the wireless industry, which has has been grinding on for over 20 years now.
But it’s due to go into discovery, and Dr Kundi was accepted as a witness after a particularly tortuous legal process, which I followed quite closely. The legal standard of scientific evidence that the court used shifted, then shifted again, and then shifted again.
One of the witnesses who was eliminated in this process was Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos, who discovered alarming sterility rates in fruit flies exposed to cell phone radiation. He has shown that this radiation affects every stage of egg development. You can see his very impressive presentation here:
In this talk, he describes how the research is usually done, with a controlled microwave testbed providing a constant level of radiation. Often a “mock-up” of actual cell phone modulation is provided, e.g., a simple 216 Hz sine wave to represent all of a cell phone’s digitally pulsed spectrum profile — an almost unbelievable simplification, given that the digital pulses are often on biologically active frequencies. But for reproducible science, you must have precisely controlled and repeatable exposures.
Panagopoulos was different in using a real cell phone in much of his work, connecting in real time to the networks, being used to transmit an identical script each time. He shows in this talk how intermittent, erratic and unpredictable are the bursts of radiation from a real cell phone. He states the obvious, that the body can habituate to a constant, unchanging stress. But erratic, essentially random bursts of radiation are much more difficult for the body to adapt to.
You can decide for yourself whether Panagopoulos is correct in saying “I wanted to use the real thing” in his research, in using actual cell phones connected to actual networks, against the major trend of laboratory practice.
The fact is that simply because he did this, a US judge in the Washington, DC circuit, decided to exclude Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos as a witness for not following normal scientific practice.
I tell this long story to let you know: if Dr Michael Kundi got through this process, you may take it that he is absolutely unimpeachable on any score.
Do you think any journalists ever say — oh, but other reputable scientists have proved that the Danish Cohort Study actually shows a “highly significant” increase in gliomas with mobile use? Do any of you do the slightest digging before you trot out this hoary old canard?
But there’s more. Many researchers have called for the retraction of this paper. One of them is the respected Dr Dariusz Lesczczynski, who maintains a blog called “Between a Rock and a Hard Place” on the issue of wireless tech and health. He also rips the Danish study apart, for its obvious flaws:
Leszczynski concludes: “It is clear to me that these flaws invalidate the conclusions of the Danish Cohort study. Peer-review failed, and a study that should never have got published due to its unfounded conclusions remains as a valid peer-reviewed article in the British Medical Journal. As long as the flawed study is not withdrawn it will be used by scientists and by decision makers to justify their actions…”
This is a tiny bit of the backdrop to the only paper you reference. You want more detail, just ask. Do you still stand by it? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and no mistake.
You talk about studies that show an increase in brain tumors that begins before the rollout of mobile phones. The latest such paper, by an Australian establishment hack of note, Simon Chapman, was seized upon as just the bees’ knees by the dignitaries of WHO and ICNIRP (the wireless industry’s front body, which sets the WHO standards).
If you take a close look at Chapman’s paper, you’ll find it is one of the most fraudulent and hopelessly biased studies ever, and was also completely compromised in publication terms, as the corresponding author, one Freddy Sitas, was a senior editor at the publication itself, Cancer Research.
I personally queried Cancer Research as to the egregious errors in this paper, including the researchers apparently sucking statistics out of their thumbs — the very first bullet point in their findings is that 90% of Australians use mobile phones. This is an absolute thumb suck based on only one piece of evidence, that there are more SIM cards in circulation than there are people in Australia.
The figure then gets represented as exactly 92% on a graph. I asked Chapman via the journal — where did this extra 2% come from? How do you suddenly get so accurate? He never replied.
When I queried the peer-review process at Cancer Research (the paper was accepted on the same day it was received), given its clear errors and contradictions, and the close association of the corresponding author with the journal — the editor-in-chief replied that she had reviewed the paper HERSELF, and that was therefore an end to the matter.
Now, in this study, they employ the Interphone and Cerenac studies, which both found significant increases in brain tumors with high mobile phone use. In its original data, Interphone (a huge study conducted in a dozen countries) found a straight 100% increase in brain tumors for people in their very, very highest exposure category — people who talked for 26 minutes or more a day. In those days, this was considered heavy exposure.
This figure of a 100% increase freaked out the industry representatives on Interphone, who suppressed the findings and fought for years to get them reworked in an acceptable form. After heavy correction for “recall bias”, they eventually got this increase down to 40% — still whopping, in epidemiological terms, given the billions of people who are exposed to this radiation.
However, in doing this, they then systematically biased all the figures for lower exposure rates, so Interphone reports with a straight face that moderate cell phone usage is highly protective AGAINST brain cancer. They themselves say that this casts some doubt on the findings, but hey, we can always use this to trash the overall idea that our study shows any hint of danger.
The Cerenat study used different definitions of heavy user, but found even higher rates of brain cancer with heavy use.
In his paper, Chapman deliberately muddled the Cerenat incidence rates with the Interphone exposure rates, it’s really confusing unless you understand exactly what he’s trying to do — he’s actually trying to exaggerate the predictions of these studies as much as possible, to show that the real rates are nowhere near. (An NIH study found the brain tumor rates increasing exactly in line with Interphone.)
Now, interestingly, Chapman also identifies particularly males with company contracts as being by far the most exposed people in the early days. Business MEN were the ones given mobile phones, especially people like travelling salesmen.
So you would expect that older men show increased tumor rates. And in fact the graphs Chapman produces show that the real cancer rates in older men are way higher than even the most pessimistic reading of Interphone/Cerenac he was able to provide. The graphs are hidden away in the full paper, are not available online, but I have them to hand.
Chapman is lying outright when he says that his figures do not show a significant increase in the exact cohort you might expect it. The main way he gets around this is by showing that the increases in brain tumors started from 1982, while the phones came in only in 1987. Therefore mobile phones cannot be responsible for the graph continuing higher. It must just be better diagnosis.
Now, many people have pointed out to Chapman that cordless telephones came out in the years before cellphones, and were quite popular in Australia, where people have larger properties with big yards where they could now sit and talk. I myself tracked an Australian brand of cordless phone, operating on 90 MHz, that was manufactured and sold in the late 1970s, and was exported to the USA.
Simon Chapman refused to answer any queries from anyone about cordless phones, or why he doesn’t draw attention to the high brain tumor rates in older men, which he attributes to “better diagnostics” — how come these better diagnostics didn’t find more tumors in older women, if there’s no link to phones?
So do you see how dodgy is the research you quote, Senor AnonyMaker? This is just the tip of the iceberg, I can go on for days about the fake industry studies in this field. Microwave News long ago showed that the best predictor of what a study will find, is to see who funded it. Nearly all the “negative” studies are funded by industry. Nearly all the “positive” studies are independently funded. This way the industry can point to a “balance of doubt”, which the WHO will always point to — they have never failed to use ignorance as an excuse, ignorance is the entire cornerstone of the WHO approach. We always need more research, in the meantime, radiate yourselves on.
I have examined the studies that show problems very carefully as well, I can assure you. I can say, hand on heart, that I have never once seen a case of anything that looked remotely like fraud or bad data. In many cases, I could have wished for more robust research design, more controls. But never a case of misrepresentation or falsification of data, as I routinely find with the industry studies.
Here is just one case in point. You often read in the media that kids’ brains absorb more radiation. Two of the best-known shills and stooges in the game, Dr CK Chou, former head of Motorola Lab, and Ken Foster, another long-time recipient of industry funding, produced a review paper in which they claimed to prove that actually, adults’ heads absorb more radiation than kids’.
Watch this little video, and you’ll see exactly how they did it, by simply lying and falsifying the data in already published studies, inverting the real findings to show what they want. It’s one of the most unbelievable examples of open scientific fraud you’re likely to see:
I myself challenged both of these authors, accused them publicly of fraud, and asked them to explain their findings. Chou told me the diagrams were done by Foster. Foster said he reinterpreted the radiation levels, and he would provide the details as to how he did so. We’re still waiting.
I came face-to-face with Dr CK Chou once, at a conference. I asked him a couple of questions in a plenary session, and he flip-flopped on the spot and reversed what he’d been saying two minutes before so effortlessly, that I decided I was in the presence of a true spin master.
In his presentation, he proudly showed pictures of rabbits that he had blinded with low-level microwaves, a big potential problem.
Then even more proudly, he showed us picture of monkeys with holes literally burned in their faces from microwaves. The point? The monkeys had not gone blind; you could burn their faces with radiation, and they could still see. Humans are more like monkeys than rabbits, as we all know. And this proves that mobile phones are not dangerous to your health. I kid you not, this was his argument. I still have the notes from his presentation with the pictures of the rabbits.
I have checked out the research, checked it out at very close quarters. I don’t say anything I can’t justify. You say that I’m easily debunked; well, debunk THIS.
Fred has informed us about the dangers of :
–Obama born in Kenya
–masturbation causes blindness…I hope not because right now I’m in bed with a high fever and jacking off to Smallville playing on my 5g cell phone.
Everyone on this blog knows your routine, Sultan.
clueless and obsessed……………….and boooooriiiing
Fred – Thank you for the information. I have several questions.
Not using a cell phone is difficult for most. IF you use a cell phone, is there one that is safer than others?
How far away from your body should the cell be kept when not in use?
Is talking on speakerphone better than any type of headset?
There are various protection shields being marketed. Q-link comes to mind. What are your thoughts on these things?
Is having the microwave in your house dangerous, or is it only a danger when being used?
I’ve never owned a cell phone and never will. At an absolute push, I will stand a distance away from phone in speaker mode and shout at it, but not for long. I go with Mr Barrie Trower, the microwave warfare expert, who never allows a mobile phone near his head, saying “I have too much respect for my brain.”
Headsets have been known to radiate the brain even more than unwired devices, up to three times as much. There’s a simple device, a ferrite bead, that reduces radiation from a headset, but this is kept quiet by the industry — by offering a solution, they’re revealing that there might be a problem.
There’s huge problems with products like QLink. I once personally interrogated Ray Grimm, the CEO of BioPro, which was selling these devices. I couldn’t get the slightest idea from him how they were supposed to work.
However, George Carlo has stated that these devices work on something called “noise field” suppression, which was developed by the US military to protect radar workers, who routinely spend many hours exposed to high levels of microwaves inside shielded facilities. I’ve checked this out, and there seems to be truth in the story, along with many published studies. This is a review of the research by the only manufacturers who can actually provide some evidence as to how their devices work:
I’ve never tried them, I’m not endorsing them, I only recommend staying out of fields wherever you can. I and my dogs have been known to take shelter for hours in our car, going nowhere, on stir-crazy days. This is a very basic Faraday cage. You can buy a radiation-proof tent to sleep in at night, or quite trendy radiation-proof parkas and hoodies, much more fashionable than the old tinfoil hat; and they have been shown in clinical studies to alleviate symptoms of all autoimmune conditions tested.
A US lawyer called Joanne Suder trawled through telecoms patents and found, for example, that Nokia and other handset manufacturers had quietly patented shields that protected users from radiation. These industry patents cited studies showing that the radiation was capable of causing severe nervous system damage, including demyelinization of nerve fibres, the basis of diseases like MS. Again, although these innovations could have saved lives, they were never implemented, to prevent “alarming” the population.
This is a common theme — the WHO is opposed to precautionary warnings, because they alarm and stress people, and of course this is bad. Paolo Vecchia, chairman of the industry body ICNIRP, which sets the guidelines used by WHO, stated that this emotional stress was as bad as any possible physical stress from radiation.
Your government would far, far rather kill you, than (heaven forfend) ALARM you.
A link got left out of the above, the comment got submitted as I tried to paste the link in, sorry about that:
— again, I’m absolutely NOT endorsing these products, this is just the only research I’ve been able to find on “noise field” technology, it does seem to be a real thing.
The US military obviously does not go around advertising that it has to protect its radar workers, or people might get “alarmed”. One US military document showed that if more stringent protective limits were invoked, the military would have to buy huge plots of land to create buffer areas around military radar installations, and this would be prohibitively expensive.
If you want to see the effects on nature of these radar systems, you can watch an old classic, John Ott’s little movie of dancing aphids, jumping each time a radar beam from an airport 14 miles away swept through them, exactly in phase with the radar:
This is at a distance of 14 miles. The 5G antenna on the pole outside your house may be only 14 feet away from your bedroom; and carrying a vast range of pulsed signals beyond anything we’ve seen before, in terms of broadband.
Thank you, Fred. I really appreciate it.
(Scott – maybe you could package some of your BioPro stash with your current hot commodity of hand soap? Two birds with the hot iron? You’ll eventually get that garage cleaned out)
Fred, if your kooky theories are true then PLEASE buy a cellphone and use it 24/7.
You’ll be doing the world a HUGE favor by giving yourself a brain tumor.
Your articles are nonsensical gibberish which purport to push us back to the dark ages.