Q: Who ARE these fact-checkers?
Here is a very good overview of the frothy world of fact-checking, a growth industry largely funded by George Soros, Google and the CIA:
Take a careful look especially at the British organization Full Fact, you will shortly bang your head against a brick wall by that name below.
Note the lords and ladyships and other worthies and former BBC luminaries who are Trustees and grandees of this registered charity. This is The Establishment on dress parade.
Full Fact is probably the most-quoted fact-checking organization worldwide on the specific subject of 5G. I’m not sure how they were awarded point on this issue, but I keep running into mainstream stories that quote Full Fact in debunking all these “hysterical 5G conspiracy theories.”
For this reason, I was very keen NOT to query Full Fact on the subject of 5G. Just mentioning #5G is enough to get you in trouble these days. However did a radio access network become so controversial? That you get banned for just mentioning it?
So I zeroed in, rather, on a statement Full Fact made about conventional base stations. I never mentioned 5G once in my initial challenge to their statement that these existing base stations posed “no radiation risk”.
Full Fact then snowed me with statements they had made refuting all these 5G conspiracy theories. They didn’t say a word about base stations or all the evidence I had sent them.
Gaslighting; Instant Evasion
I told them, patiently: I did NOT ask you about 5G. I only asked you to look at the scientific evidence on base stations.
I then repeated the query, this time as a proper media exercise.
And then Full Fact went dead silent on me.
This is when I realized I was in trouble if I pushed this query under my real name. I am criticizing the World Health Organization, among other things. Following WHO guidelines is part of our emergency regulations for the COVID-19 epidemic. In my country, I can actually be sent to jail just on my track record in criticizing WHO, never mind anything else I might say.
So I decided to do this right here on Frank Report as Fred, which is a pen name I’ve used for more than 20 years. This is the only time I’ve checked ahead with Frank Parlato to make sure he was OK with this. And hence, below, for your edification and entertainment, you will find a full fact check of Full Fact, the fact-checkers de jour.
Please understand, engaging British media organizations is the very worst hell into which you can possibly descend. You are entering a nightmare world, in which only lies, deception and perfidy prevail. It is now the truly Orwellian world of COVID-1984.
FullFact.org will tell you how they welcome feedback, how they’re always trying to improve their fact-checking, how open and unbiased they are. (They’re very keen on automating the whole process, by the way, so any actual human beings at Full Fact are busy working themselves out of a job. Microsoft just fired most of its journalists and replaced them with AI [artificial intelligence], to select stories, fact-check, and write the headlines; this is not a joke.)
So: brace yourself, steel your nerves, and observe a master class in utter obtuseness from the British establishment, live, as it unfolds. It is precisely the length it is. Please don’t complain, this process is far more excruciating for me than it is for you. This is already Round Three, remember.
I received an immediate reply from Full Fact this time, answering me with the exact same fact-check I was querying, as you will see. The only way I can interpret their responses is that they are quite overtly trying to find the most maddening ways to insult and inflame me. You just have to keep calm and carry on:
I have to say, when dealing with the British establishment, I feel a genuine affection for the psychos and sickos of Frank Report. Let me tell you, the very worst among you is but an infant in malice and deceit when compared with the Brits.
I don’t know how this exercise will play, but I would really like an American audience to see firsthand exactly how these slimy creatures across the Atlantic operate.
What follows is verbatim; I will add notes [in square brackets] to try keep the action clear.
All Full Fact does is repeat the line that the authorities like WHO say it’s safe, so it’s safe, the end.
I keep saying: yes, yes, ALL the authorities say it’s all safe. But look at the SCIENCE, look at the research. And try find a single study around a real live base station that does not report health problems [with 5G].
I made that challenge to Full Fact very strongly the first time round. I said, just show me ONE scientific paper on actual towers that doesn’t report problems. I then spent three weeks completely updating my list of base station studies. And I did find just one, which reported not finding an increased cancer risk around towers in Bavaria. You’ll find it highlighted at the end, where I list all the studies.
This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of base station studies available in the world at present, and it is appearing exclusively in Frank Report for now. If you do nothing else, take a look at those 33 studies at the end of my query, examine the severity and consistency of the symptoms reported, and tell me that towers are safe.
Let’s watch how Full Fact manages to avoid even mentioning the elephant in the room. When the elephant is as big as this, it’s quite a contortionist’s feat.
[My full query to Full Fact, sent on 5 June 2020]
Dear Full Fact:
This query addresses only one issue, captured by the title of this article on your website: “Mobile phone base stations like this do not pose a radiation risk”:
The base station in question is a conventional, non-5G type. I wish you either to justify this statement about pre-5G base stations in light of actual scientific findings on the impact of these facilities, or to withdraw the statement and issue a public correction outlining the real truth about the radiation risk posed by existing base stations.
I have researched the issue of human health around mobile phone base stations for over a decade. I was greatly assisted in this by Dr Michael Kundi of the Medical University of Vienna, an acknowledged authority on the subject. He has been accepted as an expert scientific witness in a major class action lawsuit against the mobile industry in the United States, after a very rigorous legal process which I will outline briefly below.
In researching health around base stations, one has to differentiate between two very clear classes of literature. The first class comprises the official reviews of the issue prepared by governments, industry bodies, regulators, and other official agencies, such as the World Health Organization.
The other class comprises the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies themselves, the hard literature of the field.
In a previous attempt to get you to clarify your statement that base stations do not pose a radiation risk, I pointed out the following dichotomy: on the one hand, ALL the official reviews claim that there is no consistent evidence whatsoever that base stations are harmful in the least.
On the other hand, I said that ALL the peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around base stations, without a single exception, reported an extremely consistent and wide range of health issues, including drastically increased cancer rates. At that stage, I had compiled a list of 24 studies, every one of which reported some kind of problem; and I challenged Full Fact to find ONE such study that did NOT report a problem.
Instead, you chose to send me all sorts of statements you had issued about 5G, which was NOT the subject of my query. My repeated request for you to answer my actual query was then ignored.
I am now therefore repeating the whole process, this time as a formal media query to be carried out in public view.
However, as I have explained to you separately and confidentially under my own name, the current situation with global lockdown and threats against people who engage in “misinformation” makes it impossible for me to make this simple query to yourselves without putting myself at serious risk of prosecution and possible imprisonment. Simply by querying the official line of the World Health Organization, I am automatically running foul of government policy in my country.
I am keen to support my government in every way possible and I fully accept that they are following advice from WHO in good faith. I am therefore making this query anonymously. I have been writing on the subject of radiation and health on the American investigative website www.FrankReport.com using the byline “Fred”. This query will be published on that platform, subject to moderation by Mr. Frank Parlato, who runs the site.
You may answer “Fred” directly, via the website, or both; but I would now like a proper, considered response to my query.
I have spent the last few weeks updating my list of all the peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around base stations that have been undertaken anywhere in the world. You will find this updated list at the end of this mail.
My criteria for inclusion on this list are simply that these be formal journal articles reporting studies done around actual live telecoms towers. There is no convincing way that long-term daily irradiation in one’s one home can be simulated in a laboratory, and I have excluded all laboratory studies and psychological “attitude” studies that do not directly report health outcomes.
In identifying the “official review” studies, I emphatically include one written by the Swiss researcher Martin Röösli, prepared with the assistance of WHO and published on the WHO website. Many researchers have questioned Röösli’s independence and his biased attitude to the research.
He manages to ignore all the actual studies of health around base stations, saying they are methodologically unsound. The only example he gives of such unsoundness is a study in which respondents self-estimated their distance from a base station, which was held to be unreliable.
Röösli did, however, manage to find the one study that reported finding no problems, in this case, no increase in cancer near base stations in Bavaria. This is reported below as Meyer et al. (2006). Unfortunately the full paper is only available in German, but it is clear that the study by its own admission did not control adequately for other factors affecting cancer. Its findings are also contradicted by a carefully controlled study by Eger et al. (2004), which found significant increases in cancer near base stations in a Bavarian region.
I am also including three independent reviews of the literature on base stations, since each makes an analytical contribution to the literature.
All told, I now have 33 studies worldwide on base stations, of which 32 report health problems.
I would therefore like to know on what basis you say that “Mobile phone stations … do not pose a radiation risk.”
The overwhelming majority of actual scientific studies on this issue, 97%, report a consistent pattern of health problems.
Reviews such as those of Martin Röösli tend to rely overwhelmingly on laboratory “provocation” experiments, in which people are exposed for brief periods to a simulation of base station radiation. This simulation is generally carefully controlled to provide a consistent and unchanging radiation level for measured lengths of time.
In this respect, these laboratory studies completely fail to capture the characteristics of real base station radiation, which is constantly fluctuating and displays erratic and intermittent peaks.
As pointed out by the researcher Dr Dimitris Panagopolous in the video below, living organisms are able to adapt to unchanging fields, while fluctuating and unpredictable intensities provide a completely different challenge to biological systems:
However, in the interests of “controlled” science, nearly all the laboratory experiments on the effects of mobile phone technology – both handsets and base station antennas – use simplified “mock-ups” of real-life exposures that omit many features of this digitally pulsed radiation.
Dr Panagopoulos is therefore unusual in studying what he calls “the real thing”, i.e. actual mobile phone and base station radiation, in his experiments. Starting at 25:17 in the video, he demonstrates the drastic differences in radiation profiles when you compare real with simulated exposures. At around 30:00, in reviewing the literature, he shows that about 50% of studies with simulated exposures show effects, while 50% do not.
With real exposures, he reports, 98% of studies find effects.
This exactly matches my own tally, in which 97% of all studies around real base stations indicate health problems or biological effects.
Now: Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos was excluded as an expert witness in the abovementioned U.S. court case, specifically because he used real mobile phones and real exposures in his experiments, in which (among other things) he found drastic genetic damage to irradiated fruit flies, which became completely sterile after a few generations. The judge ruled that good scientific practice in this case meant using simulated, controlled exposures, and that using real devices in your studies was enough to exclude your evidence:
Again, there is no viable way that you can simulate the long-term microwave irradiation by base stations of people living in their own homes. Laboratory studies conducted by psychologists do not even begin to match the real 24/7 exposures experienced by people residing near telecoms towers.
If Full Fact is able to provide further scientific studies of human health around actual base stations, please let me know so I can add them to my list. If you wish to rationalize the exclusion of all studies of health around real-life mobile phone base stations and reporting only the “official” reviews, which ignore all the real-life studies, please do so clearly, with your reasoning, so that we can understand your biases and your rejection of virtually unanimous and highly consistent scientific findings from countries all over the world.
Otherwise, would you kindly issue a correction to reflect the full fact that actual scientific studies of human health around existing base stations “like this” overwhelmingly indicate a consistent range of severe health impacts, including drastically raised cancer rates.
I am quite prepared for my identity to be revealed, once emergency regulations are lifted and I am not put at risk because I challenge authorities such as the World Health Organization. The most recent comment I made on Frank Report refers; for me it simply represents basic due diligence on WHO:
You will see that I have a unique track record in challenging WHO and its pattern of denial in this field. All of this track record can now be used against me, as representing a challenge to official policy. I would therefore most stringently request you to respect my anonymity until emergency regulations have been lifted.
Please note that this mail is being cc’d to a range of officials at Full Fact, to avoid quarantining of this information, as well as to Mr Frank Parlato. I have also copied Dr Louis Slesin of the publication Microwave News in on this correspondence to keep an eye on this story once it is up on Frank Report. Please note that I have only ever made comments on www.FrankReport.com, I have never published a full article on this site and I am completely unpaid for any material posted there. However, I am extremely grateful for this platform. Although free speech still theoretically exists in America, Frank Report is taking a genuine risk in carrying this writing and I completely accept Frank’s editorial judgement in all cases.
I therefore remain
Worldwide list of all peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around mobile phone base stations, as of end May 2020. Out of 33 studies, 32 (or 97%) report health problems.
1. Santini et al. (2002) Five hundred and thirty people living near mobile phone base stations in France reported headaches, sleep disturbances, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, and concentration problems. These effects were more pronounced the closer people lived to the mast.
2. Navarro et al. (2003) This Spanish study found that the greater the power density of microwaves in the home, the more severe were complaints of depression, fatigue, sleeping disorders, concentration problems, headaches, irritability, memory problems, loss of appetite, nausea, audio and visual dysfunction, dizziness, and cardiovascular problems.
3. Bortkiewicz et al. (2004) This Polish study confirmed that residents living close to mobile phone masts reported “Various complaints mostly of the circulatory system, but also of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo. The study shows relationships between the incidence of individual symptoms, the level of exposure, and the distance between a residential area and a base station. This association was observed both in persons who linked their complaints with the presence of the base station and those who did not notice such a relation.”
4. Eger et al. (2004) This study, commissioned by the German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, compiled medical histories between 1994–2004 of people living in Naila, Bavaria. The study found a threefold increase in malignant tumours for people exposed for five years or more to cellphone masts within 400 metres, compared with people living further away.
5. Röösli (2004) This Swiss survey study reported that out of 429 questionnaires returned, 394 people reported symptoms from mobile phone tower exposure. Fifty-eight percent of these symptomatic people suffered headaches, 19% nervous stress, and 18% fatigue, while concentration difficulties were the most common complaint.
6. Wolf and Wolf (2004) A Tel Aviv University study of 622 people living in Netanya, Israel, revealed an overall fourfold increase in the incidence of cancer among residents living within 350 metres of a cellphone mast for a period of between three and seven years. Among women in the 350-metre group, the increase in cancer was 10 times the norm, compared with people living in other areas of the city.
7. Hutter et al. (2005) Three hundred and sixty-five people living near 10 cellphone masts in urban and rural Austria were studied. Reported symptoms of radiation included: headache, vertigo, tremors, cold hands and feet, exhaustion, difficulty concentrating, stress, and the urge for sleep. Radiation levels were 0.2 to 0.4 volts per metre, hundreds of times lower than legal US exposure standards of 47 to 61 volts per metre. Higher exposures showed higher percentages of health complaints.
8. Abdel-Rassoul et al. (2006) Residents living beneath or adjacent to a long-established mobile phone mast with numerous antennas in Egypt reported significantly higher occurrences of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance than did a control group.
9. Meyer et al. (2006) compared the cancer incidence among 177,428 persons living in 48 municipalities in Bavaria between 2002 and 2003 in relation to base station coverage. “Cancer incidence was not found to be elevated in municipalities with cellular telephone relay stations. The cancer incidence was highly variable in areas without any relay station.” This is the only study of human health around base stations that did not find any problems.
10. Preece et al. (2007) A study of three villages in Cyprus found “a considerable excess of migraine, headache and dizziness, which appears to share a gradient with radiofrequency exposure” that was mostly due to mobile phone base station radiation.
11. Eger et al. (2009) The Bavarian town of Selbitz conducted a health survey of 251 residents exposed to cell tower radiation at no more than 1 volt per metre. The study found a significant correlation, depending on dose exposure, for: insomnia, depression, cerebral symptoms, joint illnesses, infections, skin changes, heart and circulation disorders, disorders of vision/ hearing, and gastrointestinal problems.
12. Kundi and Hutter (2009) This important independent review of base station studies reported “strong indications that long-term exposure near base stations affects wellbeing. Symptoms most often associated with exposure were headaches, concentration difficulties, restlessness, and tremor. Sleeping problems were also related to distance from base station or power density.”
13. Leitgeb et al. (2008) This study looked at the sleep patterns of 43 subjects when true- and sham-shielded from base station radiation in their homes. Four of the subjects showed dramatic changes in sleep patterns when exposed to the radiation.
14. Augner and Hacker (2009) This study examined relationships among 57 subjects to see if they were affected by living near base stations. Those reporting living near base stations “had significantly higher concentrations of alpha-amylase in their saliva, higher rates in symptom checklist subscales somatization, obsessive-compulsive, anxiety, phobic anxiety, and global strain index PST (Positive Symptom Total) … EMF-related health concerns cannot explain these findings.”
15. Elliott et al. (2010) For this study, researchers from Imperial College London looked at almost 7,000 children and explored whether there was any correlation between a mother living near a mobile phone base station during her pregnancy and that child’s risk of developing cancer. While the study claimed not to find a pattern, there was in fact a 16% increase in childhood leukaemias at intermediate distances from towers.
16. Khurana et al. (2010) This independent review looked at ten epidemiological studies: “We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances under 500 metres from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations.”
17. Levitt and Lai (2010) This independent review looked at reports and studies indicating “headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.”
18. Dode et al. (2011) This study looked at 7191 deaths by cancer in Brazil’s third-largest city, Belo Horizonte, between 1996 and 2006. The highest rate of deaths from cancer was found among those who had lived within 500 metres of cellphone masts; there was a 35% increase in cancers for those living within 100 metres. There were high rates of prostate, breast, lung, kidney and liver cancer among the victims living closest to masts.
19. Buchner et al. (2011) In this study conducted in Bavaria, Germany, urine samples of 60 study participants were analysed for their adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine, and phenylethylamine (PEA) levels before and after the activation of a new GSM cell tower. After activation, the stress hormone levels increased significantly, while dopamine and PEA levels decreased substantially. Sleep problems, headaches, allergies, dizziness, and concentration problems were common. This study indicates that base station radiation induces radical dose-responsive changes in human stress hormones.
20. Li et al. (2012) This Taiwanese study focused on childhood tumours in relation to RF exposure from cell towers erected between 1998 and 2007. Researchers calculated the annual power emitted by all 71,185 cell towers in Taiwan and compared the calculated exposure of populations in each irradiated township: “This study noted a significantly increased risk of all tumours in children with higher-than-median RF exposure to mobile phone base stations.”
21. Eskander et al. (2012) This Egyptian cellphone tower study focused on the changes in human hormone profiles. Blood samples were taken from volunteers prior to the installation of a base station. Following installation, ongoing samples were taken which showed a significant decrease in volunteers’ ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels.
22. Navarro et al. (2013) An extension of their earlier study, this found significant correlations with lack of appetite; lack of concentration; irritability; and trouble sleeping. Controls for demographic factors and other possible risk factors were applied. Concerns about exposure did not affect the strong and direct association between exposure and sleep disorders.
23. Shahbazi et al. (2014) This Iranian study was conducted on 250 randomly selected people living near cell towers. Statistically significant symptoms included: nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbances, memory loss, and lack of libido among people living within 300 metres of the cellphone towers, compared with those living further away. While this paper appears to have been retracted for no given reason, it is recorded here for interest, given the health situation in Iran with the COVID-19 outbreak.
24. Gandhi et al. (2014) This case-control study evaluated genetic damage in individuals living in the vicinity of cellphone towers. The blood of irradiated subjects showed significantly elevated DNA damage compared with non-irradiated control subjects matched for gender, age, and other factors. Females were especially affected by cellphone tower DNA damage.
25. Shiniyo et al. (2014) This study documents the myriad serious health effects suffered by condominium inhabitants living under rooftop antennas in Japan, who were examined by medical professionals. Every single one of a long list of illnesses suffered by the residents during their years of exposure improved after the antennas were deactivated. The symptoms ascribed to microwave radiation include numerous neurological dysfunctions, eye damage, severe fatigue, and tumours.
26. Meo et al. (2015) This Saudi Arabian study examined 159 students with varying exposure to base station radiation and found significantly elevated levels of glycolated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and risk of type 2 diabetes among those with high exposures.
27. Pachuau (2014) This Indian study looked at 64 adults living at varying distances from a base station. Complaints .of fatigue, nausea, dizziness and muscle pain were significantly higher from those living within 50 metres of the base station.
28. Golati et al. (2016) Scientists studied 116 persons exposed to radiation from mobile towers and 106 control subjects. The researchers looked for DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes using alkaline comet assay and micronucleus assay in mouth tissue cells. They found significant DNA damage among cellphone tower subjects as compared with the non-irradiated control group, including increased micronucleus frequencies. Micronuclei are known precursors for cancer.
29. Prakash et al. (2016) This study of 181 inhabitants of Bangalore found that “headache, irritability, nausea, appetite loss, discomfort, sleep disturbance, depression, memory loss difficulty in concentration and dizziness, etc., are more frequently observed symptoms of ill-health in the exposed groups. It is concluded that the cell phones and cell phone tower radiation are a strong risk factor for all the adverse health effects.”
30. Singh et al. (2016) This Indian study examined the general health and salivary function of 20 persons living near base stations and 20 on their periphery. “It was unveiled that a majority of the subjects who were residing near the mobile base station complained of sleep disturbances, headache, dizziness, irritability, concentration difficulties, and hypertension. A majority of the study subjects had significantly lesser stimulated salivary secretion (P < 0.01) as compared to the control subjects.”
31. Siersma et al. (2016) Medical scientists from Denmark and Sweden launched an electronic questionnaire posted to special interest websites. The questionnaire requested feedback on symptoms suffered by people exposed to cell phones, Wi-Fi, occupational radiation, energy-saving light bulbs and cell towers. Of 60 respondents, significant associations were noted for both chronic exposure to Wi-Fi and for cell tower exposure. Symptoms associated with tower antennas included: cognitive, head, eye, body and skin problems. The report noted: “Mobile phone towers seem to be the most problematic of the various EMF exposures.”
32. Zothansiama et al. (2017) looked at cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes of individuals residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations, compared with healthy controls. This Indian study matched the groups for various demographic data including age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use. The 40 exposed subjects showed significantly higher frequencies of micronuclei, changes in glutathione, and increased oxidative stress, compared with controls.
33. Meo et al. (2018) This Saudi Arabian study examined 217 students at two schools with varying exposures to base station radiation. Significant impairment in motor screening tasks and spatial working memory tasks was identified among the group of students who were exposed to high levels of base station radiation. “High exposure was associated with delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in school adolescents compared to students who were exposed to low RF-EMF.”
[Full Fact’s reply on 5 June 2020]
May I refer you to this fact check: https://fullfact.org/online/
In the article, which was published on 25 July 2019, Full Fact wrote:
I hope that helps.
[So Full Fact responds to my complaint about this fact check, by referring me to the fact check about which I’m complaining. Can you understand why I get angry? When this is now Round Three with Ben? And can you see how they push 5G again? This is my response, still on 5 June 2020:]
Ben, please will you refrain from this disingenuous behaviour, and read my complaint. I am making a clear distinction between OFFICIAL statements, such as the ones you are now quoting, and the actual RESEARCH on base stations in peer-reviewed publications. Please will you look at the RESEARCH. Please stop trying to make a facile response that ignores the detailed complaint I have sent you. All of this correspondence is going to be published.
you missed out this report on the Essex Study, found half way down the page, written by a participant.
This is another long, mean and ugly document. After proving (see above) that the UK fact-checking organization Full Fact had no intention of taking a single look at the actual scientific studies on health around cell phone towers, or even acknowledging the existence of this research, I then undertook my own little “peer review” of their behaviour, which you will find below.
I appealed to all the other fact checkers I could find in the world to examine this case, especially members of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), to which Full Fact proudly belongs, since all of them theoretically subscribe to a code of ethical conduct.
In total, I emailed 76 different organizations and individuals, many of them researchers who were members of Science Feedback, an IFCN affiliate. I sent these emails individually, each with a carefully personalized message to avoid being classified as spam. Each one was cc’d to Full Fact, so they could see what I was doing. This took me six days in all, from June 12 to 17. You will find the list of lucky sendees at the very end of this, I mailed them in alphabetical order.
I doubt that Full Fact, or anyone else in the global fact-checking industry, has ever been subject to a “peer review” quite like this one.
After 12 days, I had received exactly three replies. One was from a professor who was retiring and unavailable for any further comment. Another suggested that I write a scientific paper about how scientific papers were being ignored.
I sincerely wished the retiring prof well, and told the other academic that this is not a scientific issue at all any more, it is purely a media issue, and therefore my focus is concentrated on the media.
The last response, however, is included at the end here, because it is very important. It comes from the great Global Commissar of Radiation himself, Professor Rodney Croft, the Chairman of the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, or ICNIRP, to give it its entirely unlovely acronym.
ICNIRP provides the radiation exposure guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization and is thus the de facto radiation authority for much of this planet. I do not call Prof. Rodney Croft the “global radiation commissar” without cause.
By any measure – given the importance of wireless telecoms, not least 5G, to society, governments and industry worldwide – Professor Rodney Croft is a crucial member of the global control cartel, someone right at the top of the pyramid in terms of wielding functional power over this planet.
Rodney Croft is the only member of the extensive Health Feedback “community” of fact checkers to have stated expertise in electromagnetic exposure. You’ll find most of the academics I emailed listed here:
As a health expert, you might expect Croft to have medical or biological knowledge. Instead, he is a psychologist. This is very important, in terms of the particular biases and blind spots that ICNIRP exhibits, and especially in how the organization dismisses all base station research in one loaded sentence. You can very clearly see the psychologist at work in this carefully crafted exercise in denial.
So let me dwell for a little while on Professor Rodney Croft, because as it happens, the Chairman of ICNIRP has been subject to an unusual degree of scrutiny lately.
You will see that Prof. Croft accuses me of having an “agenda”. Here is a very recent paper prepared by two Members of the European Parliament, looking at conflicts of interest at ICNIRP:
You will see that the greatest recipient of Australian government funds for medical research in this field has been Prof. Rodney Croft – payments from industry channeled to him by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC):
“The money that the Australian NHMRC receives in order to provide grants for medical research has mostly gone to industry-friendly researchers who have direct links with the wireless industry. For example, the largest recipient of these NHMRC research funds is Prof. Rodney Croft, a psychology researcher at the University of Wollongong … Rodney Croft has essentially been the head of RF-EMR health research in Australia, despite his questionable qualifications for this health research role.
“Notably, he has led ICNIRP’s RF-EMR exposure guidelines development team and now he has been elected as the next Chairman of ICNIRP as from May 2020. Prof. Croft has received ample direct industry funding in addition to his lucrative NHMRC grants, which should be termed indirect industry funding.”
This same report describes how industry money is disbursed by the government and describes this process as “money laundering”:
“ICNIRP funding partly comes from government regulatory bodies, such as, for example, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). What is actually going on is best described as ‘money laundering’ by the telecom industry through government (ARPANSA) and on to WHO’s International EMF Project and ICNIRP.”
Interestingly, just this week, an alert arrived from Microwave News. For the first time ever, the actual sources of funding of this mysterious, self-appointed body ICNIRP have been revealed. The largest funder, by far, is very interesting. Can you guess who finances the world’s “independent” radiation regulator? And provides office space for them?
It’s the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, which provides 70–80% of ICNIRP’s budget. The rest is mostly provided by the European Union Programme for Employment and Innovation; the self-same ARPANSA mentioned above; and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.
Why are these antipodean governments so heavily invested in global radiation “protection”? ICNIRP was started by an Australian, the infamous Dr Michael Repacholi, who then moved to the World Health Organization and started the International EMF Project. This is now headed by his personal protege, the microwave engineer Dr Emilie van Deventer, who came to this crucial WHO job in 2006 with absolutely zero biological, medical or health expertise whatsoever.
Who so designates these people? How are they consistently allowed to select their industry-friendly pals in Australian universities to these top positions and get away with it? Take a look at Croft’s many other conflicts of interest in that document, this is systematic, brazen and open corruption.
Dr Michael Repacholi has very seriously been accused of genocide on two completely separate counts. One was a charge from Iraqi doctors, who pointed to evidence that Repacholi had hidden evidence of harm to humans from depleted uranium exposure, a widespread consequence of the Gulf war:
Repacholi has also been called out by many researchers for crimes against humanity for his central role in denying the dangers of wireless technology. This is just one such charge, made by a Colombian medical doctor in 2008:
Back in 2000, a Swiss petition backed by many doctors begged Kofi Annan, then UN secretary-general, not to take advice from Repacholi, because of his bias. I can’t find the English version, here’s the German:
I ran one passage through a translation engine, it’s quite revealing:
“This means that all scientific studies submitted to ICNIRP and WHO have so far been rejected without assessment if they showed findings other than thermal effects, including Dr. Repacholi’s own published research, which showed a doubling in cancer rates in mice that had been chronically exposed to non-thermal radiation.”
This is the classic basis of “non-ionizing radiation protection”, which is branded into ICNIRP’s very name. The hugest possible distinction is made between “ionizing radiation” like nuclear radiation and X-rays (known by everyone to be bad, bad, bad) and “non-ionizing” radiation, like radio waves, which can maybe just heat you up a teeny little bit.
ICNIRP’s mantra, its foundation stone, its core belief, the essence of its being and existence, its alpha and omega, is the axiom that radio frequencies can ONLY cause heating in the body. There is no other “mechanism” to explain any “effect” you may see, including the brainwave changes reported in dozens of studies, sometimes at a trillionth of the ICNIRP levels. Therefore, all the literature that finds such effects can be ignored, because there is no “mechanism” to explain them. Ignorance is thus used as an invincible, overt weapon. This carefully cultivated ignorance is the most precious possession of any member of the ICNIRP cult.
As this Swiss petition indicates, Repacholi’s own early research found highly elevated cancer rates in rats that were exposed to low-level microwaves, it was close to a tripling. He then built a career out of pouring scorn on his own findings and explaining why they could be ignored. One of the main reasons is that he used genetically modified rats that were particularly susceptible to cancer. This was supposed to speed the research up. When the exposed rats indeed contracted cancer at significantly higher rates than unexposed rats, Repacholi said that this meant nothing, since the rats were prone to cancer anyway.
The advisability of creating laboratory rats that are prone to cancer may be debatable in the first place. But once you deliberately breed them and choose them as subjects in research, you cannot then turn around and say “Oh, this study is meaningless because of the GMO rats we used.” Unless you’re Australian, apparently, when such hypocrisy becomes the central pillar of a lifetime career in the radiation protection racket.
Going back to “mechanisms”, you’ll see that I put a mechanism to Rodney Croft that has been in the hard literature for over a decade, confirmed in every detail in hundreds of studies, which explains exactly how living human cells are flooded with free radicals after just two minutes of low-level mobile phone radiation. Researchers at the Weizmann Institute tracked a biochemical cascade all the way back to an individual enzyme that reacts to the radiation. You’ll see the details below. It’s as fully worked out as you could possibly hope a mechanism to be.
ICNIRP will still say, hand on heart, that there is absolutely no “consistent” evidence of “non-thermal” effects. Take a look at this Israeli research and see what great care they took to prove that this is NOT a thermal effect at all. The chronological consistency of the cellular reactions to radiation enabled the scientists to reverse-engineer the kinase cascade that gets triggered, in a truly brilliant piece of biochemical detective work.
This paper alone completely shatters ICNIRP’s stone tablet, the one that came down the mountain with Moses, proclaiming that “Non-Ionizing Radiation Cannot Have Biological Effects.” As you will see, you simply cannot get ICNIRP even to admit the existence of this biochemical research, let alone to comment on it.
ICNIRP is not an “independent” body at all. It is literally a cult, a central hub of the military-industrial-academic cabal. It is entirely self-appointed. Its domain is that of stealth warfare. Everything happens in the deepest shadows here.
Microwave News, the only reliable source of information in this dark jungle, calls this cabal the “microwave mafia”:
You will see that I very pointedly use the word “cabal” in my short conversation with Prof. Croft. I’m very glad I worked it into the narrative.
I leave it to the readers of Frank Report to decide, between Monsieur Fred and Professor Rodney Croft: who is trying to tell the public the truth here?
For nearly two decades now, I have been taunting the wireless industry on forums, while being savaged by hordes of trolls calling me a tinfoil-hat whack job. I say to them – any one of you can be an instant hero to all your industry pals, and especially to your industry bosses. Just find ONE base station study that doesn’t report health problems. I’ve been looking for years, I can’t find a single one. Prove me wrong. Just show me the study.
With all of their resources, with all of their personnel, with all their bandwidth, none of them ever succeeded in answering my challenge. I did finally track down one negative study for them. I can now say that 97% of scientific studies on cellphone towers to date (May 2020) show a clear pattern of health risks. That is the full fact.
There have been many, many other challenges to ICNIRP over the years, more than I can possibly mention. Most signally, however, Microwave News itself recently finally lost patience and issued a headline reading:
The Lies Must Stop
“Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever”
I’m going to mention just one other such challenge, a comprehensive account of the conflicts of interest surrounding practically every member of ICNIRP, compiled by a Spanish organization in 2015:
You’ll find an early mention of Prof. Rodney Croft’s industry connections there.
Now, you’ll see that Rodney Croft refers me to the new ICNIRP guidelines, which he says deal with all these matters in “some depth”.
This ICNIRP document dismisses the whole issue of base stations literally in one sentence, here it is:
“In studies on transmitters, no consistent associations between exposure and symptoms or well-being have been observed when objective measurements of exposure were made or when exposure information was collected prospectively.”
There’s a WHO-sponsored review of cell phone tower research by a Swiss stooge named Martin Röösli that summarily dismisses all the actual studies of health around base stations, because of exactly one investigation that asked respondents to self-estimate the distance of their house from a tower. This was held to be unreliable.
On the basis of this single issue with a single study, ALL the tower studies are deemed “unobjective”, even though many of them not only measure the exact distances from base stations, but measure the exact electromagnetic exposures of the subjects.
However, you’ll see that ICNIRP loves and adores “prospective” studies. These are more accurately called “provocation” studies, where they trap you in a Faraday cage with a nasty-looking antenna and you have to guess whether it’s turned on or not. These provocation experiments are invariably carried out by psychologists like Rodney Croft.
One of the most infamous of these provocation studies was that carried out by the psychologist Elaine Fox of Essex University. You can hear an analysis of this truly evil research from Brian Stein, a prominent British businessman who was an enthusiastic early adopter of mobile phones, until he started suffering excruciating headaches whenever he tried to use them:
At around 9:37 in this video, he reveals the actual question these Essex researchers were investigating:
“How do we find a better way to rubbish these people who claim to be electrically sensitive?”
Just listen to his account of how he suffered massive internal bleeding, for ten days, as a result of just one 30-minute “provocation” radiation session; and how, when he then dropped out of the study, all of his carefully noted symptoms were rejected, because he had failed to complete the full radiation course.
In another video, he described how he was diagnosed several years later with colon cancer; and how oncologists could pinpoint the initiation of this slow-growing tumor to the date of this “psychology” experiment in which he was irradiated.
Participants in this study had to fill out a questionnaire that was all about their mental state and attitudes. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If you decide that “electrosensitivity” is a psychological issue and hire psychologists to investigate it, then psychological issues are what you will find. If you give your subjects cancer during the process, well, first, it’s just “not possible”, to quote Elaine Fox, talking about the internal bleeding; and second, those pesky individuals eliminated themselves from the study anyway, so who cares about them.
Go back and look at that sentence from ICNIRP, it’s a masterpiece. No “consistent” associations are found when you use “objective” measurements of exposure from towers. In other words: only laboratory investigations under controlled conditions done by psychologists are considered proper transmitter studies. Real-life studies around real-life towers are all excluded.
Go and look at the 32 studies out of 33 around real base stations that reported symptoms. Go and look how amazingly consistent those symptoms are. We are talking about scientific unanimity here. Yet in the face of this fleet of studies, Admiral Rodney Croft raises his telescope to his blind eye and proudly proclaims: “I see no ships!”
Monty Python fans will all be familiar with the “boss fella himself” of the Philosophy Department of the University of Wollamaloo, by name of Bruce:
Rodney Croft, boss fella at the Psychology Department of Wollongong, is no less of a caricature. Observe how this stooge is selected as the lone “expert” for the fact checkers to rely on, when he’s deeply implicated in setting the very regulations he’s now “impartially” judging. You take a look at this whole peer review exercise with Full Fact and tell me that these “fact checking” organizations are not just slick propaganda fronts for industry and the establishment.
As far as I’m concerned, I’ve proved here that the entire media establishment is rotten with corruption when it comes to the wireless industry, rotten beyond belief.
Journalists are getting sacked in the UK by the boatload. To have a cushy job at a “reputable” charity like Full Fact must be a godsend to those who work there. No one dares rock the boat. All will cower and hide and lie and deny, so long as the public is not told the truth about these towers sprouting all over their landscape: that these base stations are known risks to health.
Telling the public the full facts would simply never do; and trust the British to hold the line. When it comes to genocide, no one does it better.
I hereby put the intrepid fact checkers of Full Fact on notice. You have been proven to be engaging in crimes against humanity, in covering up the inconvenient truth about mobile phone towers. This is corporate genocide. You would far rather be complicit in the illness and death of hundreds of millions of people, than, heaven forfend, look for one moment at the scientific research in this field.
So to Ben Weich, the journalist who was assigned my case: thanks for your time, Ben, and be sure to keep a note of who at Full Fact told you when to say what. Because these people are criminals, and you are now complicit in their lies and crimes. Keep the evidence and you may have a bargaining card, when crunch time for the media comes.
In my book, the very worst and most complicit members of the microwave mafia are actually the media manipulators. There’s a very special place in hell for them. I can’t do better than quote Kurt Vonnegut, talking about the PR people for the nuclear industry:
“And, among all the dumb and vicious people, who jeopardizes all life on earth with hearts so light? I suggest to you that it is those who will lie for the nuclear industries, or who will teach their executives how to lie convincingly — for a fee. I speak of certain lawyers and communicators, and all public relations experts. The so-called profession of public relations, an American invention, stands entirely disgraced today.
“The lies we have been fed about nuclear energy have been as cunningly handcrafted as the masterpieces of Benvenuto Cellini. They have been a damned sight better built, I must say, than the atomic energy plants themselves.
“I say to you that the makers of such lies are filthy little monkeys. I hate them. They may think they are cute. They are not cute. They stink. If we let them, they will kill everything on this lovely blue-green planet with their rebuttals to what we say here today—with their vicious, stupid lies.”
I put it to you that the filthy little monkeys of the nuclear industry are but infants in the propagation of lies, compared with the media spinners of the wireless industry. When I have time, I’ll start pointing out some other truly egregious errors Full Fact makes, when they act as instant experts in radiation health. For now, the prosecution rests.
Note: since Frank Report has appropriated square brackets for [redactions and comments], I’m using ~> these symbols <~ to track my running commentary.
~> Below is the form email I sent to fact checkers globally, over the period June 12–17. Each mail was then personalized to match the interests and expertise of the addressee. The full mailing list of 76 recipients is at the end of this document. <~
I am writing to you as a member of …., which is part of the International Fact-Checking Network. I would most sincerely ask you to look at the appeal below, in which I am trying to get just one fact-checking organization anywhere in the world to tell the truth about the scientific findings on the effects of cell phone tower radiation on human health and wellbeing.
How do you deal with a “fact check” organization that not only refuses to look at the scientific findings in an important field, affecting the health of every person on this planet, but literally refuses to acknowledge the existence of all this peer-reviewed, journal-published research?
Amid the present controversy over the 5G wireless networks being rolled out worldwide without any health testing, I specifically challenged a statement made by the UK fact-checking organization Full Fact about conventional, non-5G mobile phone base stations. Full Fact said that these existing towers presented “no radiation risk”.
I have researched health around mobile phone base stations for nearly 20 years. I provided Full Fact with an affidavit in which I had collected all the peer-reviewed scientific research on base stations that had been conducted worldwide up to 2017, proving that all 24 such studies to that date showed consistent evidence of severe health effects from living near base stations.
In response, Full Fact sent me their “fact checks” on 5G, which were all completely irrelevant. The whole point of my query was to look at scientific research on conventional, pre-5G base stations. I did not mention 5G once in my initial query.
I then repeated this query in my capacity as a working journalist. This time, Full Fact refused point-blank to answer me. I was going to publish an article on their pattern of avoidance and denial; I have written a science column in a major national newspaper in my country every week for the last six years, with full freedom to choose my own subject matter. However, I realised that because I was critiquing the World Health Organization in this query, I might run foul of my government’s emergency regulations, which provide for a five-year jail term for anyone contradicting official policy. This policy includes following all WHO guidelines.
I therefore repeated the entire media query under my pen name, which I have used for over 20 years. However, this time I insisted that Full Fact respect my anonymity and respond to me as a correspondent for the U.S. investigative journalism website http://www.FrankReport.com, where I have been reporting simply as “Fred”.
To make this media query current, I then spent three weeks exhaustively updating my list of ALL the peer-reviewed scientific papers worldwide on health around base stations. I now have 33 studies, of which 32 (or 97%) report health problems. This is the most up-to-date and comprehensive compilation of this research available in the world at present.
This time, Full Fact responded to my detailed query about their fact check by simply referring me back to the fact check itself, the very one I was questioning, pretending that this devious and evasive ploy was an answer my questions. I gave them five days to send me a proper response. They failed to reply.
I have now posted the entire story, along with Full Fact’s final response, here:
As far as I am concerned, referring me to the original fact check in question (when this was now my third attempt to get a proper response from Full Fact) is simply an open insult and a clear admission that they have no answers whatsoever to my query and my review of the actual scientific research.
If you look at this query, you will see that there is a very clear divide in the literature. ALL the reviews by “official” government bodies and “official” agencies such as WHO – as faithfully quoted by Full Fact – state that there is absolutely no evidence of harm from base stations.
On the other hand, the actual scientific evidence is very nearly unanimous that base stations pose a clear and extensive risk to human health. Please examine all the peer-reviewed scientific studies listed in my post on Frank Report to see just how consistent this research is, and just what a wide range of illnesses is reported, including drastically raised cancer rates.
However, the “official” reviews simply ignore ALL of this research. WHO has designated research on base stations as “low priority” since 2006. It is the only topic in the study of wireless technology and health that is listed as “low priority”, despite the existence of millions of base stations around the world, radiating populations 24/7 without any possibility of choice. There has not been a single study of health around base stations in the United States, the country that originated this technology.
Then WHO simply ignores all the existing peer-reviewed scientific research that has actually been conducted, although this research shows clearly that base stations pose a consistent and grave radiation hazard.
We thus see that Full Fact is totally biased in only reporting the “official” reviews of the science, which are actually just opinions, without looking at the real scientific findings at all. In fact, Full Fact seems to refuse to accept the very existence of this scientific research.
What can be done about “fact checkers” who refuse point-blank to acknowledge the scientific research in a highly crucial field? Is this acceptable practice for a fact-checking organization?
Yourselves and Full Fact are members of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). The IFCN’s principles include the following points:
“A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS
“We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.”
There is no question that Full Fact is completely biased to “one side”, this being the “official” line on base stations represented by governments and agencies like WHO, which make a point of ignoring all the published scientific research on actual base stations. Full Fact is quite clearly taking a policy position as to which “facts” it reports in this case. This policy entails completely ignoring the very existence of the actual scientific research, the “evidence” you are all supposed to follow, and parroting the opinions of authorities that have every vested interest in covering up any risks.
“A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY
“We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.”
I have asked Full Fact to explain their methodology in rejecting all the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies in this field. They have refused point blank to do so. They are acting in anything but a transparent manner. They have responded to my query with contempt and open insults to my intelligence.
“A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS
“We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.”
Full Fact has failed to be “open and honest” in their approach to this query on base stations. There is no doubt whatsoever that Full Fact is in complete breach of its own and the IFCN’s principles.
My query reveals that this “fact-checking” organization is simply acting as an echo chamber and mouthpiece for totally biased “official” reviews on the safety of base stations.
By trying hard to associate my query with 5G, when I never mentioned 5G once in my initial query, when I am only trying to correct the record on conventional base stations, I feel that Full Fact is deliberately trying to cast me as a “5G conspiracy theorist”, which could seriously endanger my safety and security.
I feel this shows – in this case, at least – that the entire “fact-checking” process is simply another layer of deception to hide any “facts” that might be inconvenient to the authorities and powers-that-be that fund your organizations, and to threaten and insult anyone who contradicts the official line.
Please will you look at this case and decide whether this behaviour on the part of your peer organization is acceptable. Please will you consider doing your duty and engaging in a proper fact check of this issue, which is of critical relevance to the entire population of the world, every single one of whom is now subject to this radiation from towers, satellites and other sources.
Please note that all of this correspondence may be published in full on Frank Report, including any responses you make.
Irradiating entire populations with pulsed microwave radiation has been described as “The biggest experiment ever carried out on the human race” by many researchers. Yet WHO refuses even to try collect the results of this experiment, doing its best to dissuade researchers from investigating health around base stations. Conducting experiments on human beings without fully informed consent is a textbook crime against humanity, covered by the Nuremberg Code, a binding treaty signed by all the Allied powers at the end of World War II.
If you choose to associate yourself with this policy of Full Fact – to ignore all the scientific findings on the irradiation of populations by mobile phone base stations – you will therefore be associating yourself with crimes against humanity. If you would like to take a stand against such heinous crimes, which will without doubt cost the lives of millions of people, could you please investigate this case properly, to show that you retain some integrity in relation to the actual scientific findings in a field and do not simply parrot the “official” reviews of this research?
Just one of you taking a look at this case could literally make all the difference in the world.
Would you kindly respect my anonymity by referring to me simply as “Fred” in all public correspondence on this issue. This is purely for my own safety. If you undertake to protect my anonymity, I will happily send you all the confidential background correspondence I sent to Full Fact, giving full details of my journalism and my extensive scientific background to undertake this query.
I look forward to hearing from you. Given the gravity of this case I am leaving this “peer review” open-ended, but after posting this appeal in full on http://www.FrankReport.com, I will publish a first report-back on Wednesday 24 June 2020.
~> As an example of a complete mail, below is the message I sent to Prof. Rodney Croft, this is just the preamble to the main appeal. <~
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2020 10:13 AM
Subject: Peer Review: Full Fact refuses to consider scientific research on base stations
Dear Prof Croft:
I am writing to you as a member of the “Health Feedback” fact-checking community, which is part of the International Fact-Checking Network. I would most sincerely ask you to look at the appeal below, in which I am trying to get just one fact-checking organization anywhere in the world to tell the truth about the scientific findings on the effects of cell phone tower radiation on human health and wellbeing.
Since you are the only member of the Health Feedback community listed as having expertise in electromagnetic fields, I am writing to you last of all.
You will see that I am strongly challenging the ICNIRP orthodoxy that there are only thermal effects of microwave radiation, and that there is no consistent evidence of harm from base stations.
I have compiled the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of ALL peer-reviewed studies of health around base stations, you will find this in the link below. You will see that 32 out of 33 studies, or 97%, report an extremely consistent range of health effects, including drastically raised cancer rates.
Will you please now acknowledge the existence of this research, and tell the public the truth about the hazards of base station exposure. I know this is inconvenient for ICNIRP, but I would draw attention to the recent statement by Microwave News, the most reliable, authoritative, and patient publication in this field, that it is finally time to end the lies and bias and disband ICNIRP once and for all.
Many years ago, I tried without success to get ICNIRP to acknowledge the studies on masts, and I fought a battle for more than a decade just to try get acknowledgement of receipt of submission on this issue from the WHO International EMF Project, all completely without success. I regard these institutions as the most untransparent, unresponsive, unaccountable, biased and totally deceitful agencies I have ever encountered in my life. I will note that both of these organizations were started by a single Australian, Michael Repacholi, and will note the number of Australians in world agencies and other institutions who have made a very good living out of denying the risks of wireless technology. This denial now has to come to an end. Please will you now publicly acknowledge the reality of the actual scientific findings on health around base stations; or forever stand condemned as complicit in overt crimes against humanity, in conducting experiments on human populations without any consent, any information, any attempt to collect the findings, or any attempt to tell the public about the truth of the hazards of exposure to base stations.
As a coda: do you have anything to say about the findings of Friedman et al. (2007), who elucidated a complete mechanism to explain how living human cells are subject to severe oxidative stress after just two minutes of ordinary cellphone radiation exposure?
They traced the biochemical cascade to a single enzyme, NADH oxidase, that reacts to this radiation. Their findings have been confirmed in every detail by over 300 other studies. The ERK cascade they identify is particularly found in glial cells and is associated with the long-term potentiation of the brain, the hard-wiring of the cortex in response to repeated brainwave signals. I predicted to Dr Friedman that we would find evidence of damage to the cortex. Now the NIH has reported that 9-year-old children who use devices for more than seven hours a day, are showing “premature thinning” of the cortex — severe brain damage that makes their brains appear like those of 60-year-olds who are losing brain cells and going senile.
This mechanism of Friedman has been in the hard literature for over a decade. It has been confirmed by hundreds of other studies. The oxidative stress reported would explain many of the metabolic, neurological and genetic issues reported for this radiation, which you at ICNIRP ignore, because you say there is no “mechanism” to explain it.
Why do you not acknowledge the reality of Friedman’s findings and the complete mechanism he elucidates? This mechanism was also quoted in an Australian review of sperm studies, showing that 21 out of 27 studies report severe damage to sperm from low-level microwaves. How can you possibly ignore this research? You have to realise that when Microwave News says that time is up for ICNIRP, time really is up. For years now, Prof Croft, your name has been a byword in denial and evasion. This is your chance to stand up and prove that you do, in fact, possess some ethical principles. The fact that you are the only listed expert on electromagnetic fields in the entire “Health Feedback” community puts a special responsibility on you to take this fact-checking exercise seriously.
~> Croft’s reply, received 17 June 2020 <~
From what you have said below it strongly appears to me that you have a clear agenda which is other than to find out the truth of the matter (it appears that you want to demonstrate that you are correct). I am not able to help you with this quest. For information about RF health and safety issues, I would recommend that you read the latest guidelines (https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf), which can be downloaded for free and that explain about this in some depth.
Professor Rodney Croft
Chairman, International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research
School of Psychology | Faculty of Social Sciences
Illawarra Health & Medical Research Institute
Room 32.116 | University of Wollongong NSW 2522 Australia
~> My final reply to Prof. Rodney Croft, sent 17 June 2020 <~
Dear Prof Croft:
My only agenda here is to establish exactly what the scientific research says about health around base stations; and then ensure that the public is told the truth about this research. If you had the slightest interest in advancing either of these goals, you would recognise this effort and support it. I think the general public will be able to make this call.
If you can produce peer-reviewed scientific studies of health around base stations that contradict the research I have listed, please tell me. I have made every effort to find such “negative” studies, and I can only find one minor and very poorly controlled paper. This, I believe, is why the International EMF Project lists base station studies as “low priority”, because this research is far too revealing. How about that for an “agenda”? Can you explain this policy in any other terms?
Otherwise: thank you for your time. Please understand that I am serious when I say that ICNIRP not only has zero credibility any more, it has become a byword for intentional ignorance and denial, all in the interests of industry. Your smug, self-selecting, self-serving cabal is no longer tenable. The public needs to be made aware of your total lack of standing in the non-industry EMR community.
~> Below are all the agencies and individuals to whom this message was sent. As of 29 June, I have received three replies. <~
1 20 Minutes Fake Off
2 AFP Fact Check USA
3 Africa Check, Nigeria office
4 Africa Check, Senegal office
5 Africa Check, South Africa office
6 Alt News, India
7 Aos Fatos, Brazil
8 AP Fact Check
9 Baloney Meter, Huffpost, Canada
10 BDFactCheck, Bangladesh
11 BDFactCheck, Bangladesh
12 Channel 4 FactCheck
13 Check Your Fact
16 Demagog, Poland
18 Dubawa, Nigeria
19 Fact Check Assistant, Sweden
20 Fact Crescendo, India
22 FactChecker India
24 International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)
25 IFCN Director
26 IFCN Associate Director
27 IFCN Reporter
28 Lead Stories
29 Media Bias/FactCheck
31 New York Times Fact Check
32 Pesacheck, Kenya
34 Politifact Editor-in-Chief
35 Reuters Fact Check
36 Science Feedback Dr Anna Moscicki
37 Science Feedback Dr Clare Gerada
38 Science Feedback Dr Harri Hemilä
39 Science Feedback Dr James Turner
40 Science Feedback Dr Jana Anderson
41 Science Feedback Dr Joshua Petrie
42 Science Feedback Dr Leigh Jones
43 Science Feedback Dr Lone Simonsen
44 Science Feedback Dr Martin Clift
45 Science Feedback Dr Michael Binks
46 Science Feedback Dr Rose Chesworth
47 Science Feedback Dr Stephen Burgess
48 Science Feedback Dr Sujit Kootala
49 Science Feedback Prof Akiko Iwasaki
50 Science Feedback Prof Alexis Shub
51 Science Feedback Prof Andrea Chronis-Tuscano
52 Science Feedback Prof Andrew Saxon
53 Science Feedback Prof Anitra Carr
54 Science Feedback Prof Elisabet Stener-Victorin
55 Science Feedback Prof Marc Lipsitch
56 Science Feedback Prof Margreet Vissers
57 Science Feedback Prof Mark Slee
58 Science Feedback Prof Megan Huchko
59 Science Feedback Prof Natalie Dean
60 Science Feedback Prof Neal Halsey
61 Science Feedback Prof Nicholas Wood
62 Science Feedback Prof Nina Fefferman
63 Science Feedback Prof Paul Glaszio
64 Science Feedback Prof Pedro Plans-Rubió
65 Science Feedback Prof Sandie McCarthy
66 Science Feedback Prof Sheena Sullivan
67 Science Feedback Prof Stephen Morse
68 Science Feedback Prof Tom Marshall
69 Science Feedback Prof Wayne Hall
70 Science Feedback Prof William Ledger
71 Snopes.com Assignments Editor
72 Snopes.com Senior writer
73 TheJournal.ie Fact Check
74 Washington Post Fact Checker Investigations Editor
75 Washington Post Fact Checker Managing Editor
76 Science Feedback Rodney Croft, ICNIRP
Dr Gate$ Foundation funds so-called fact checkers as well. They’re completely unbia$ed, hahahahahhahaha.
I asked them to Fact Check the Telecom Industry claim that 5G is safe because it is all non-ionizing radiation. https://reject5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Big-Telecoms-Big-Non-Ionizing-Lie6.pdf
I don’t have 2 cents. LOL
“Here is a very good overview of the frothy world of fact-checking, a growth industry largely funded by George Soros, Google and the CIA:”
What a nice conspiracy (not original but well…)
Everything has been done once apparently (or people are just not as creative as they used to be)
“but I keep running into mainstream stories that quote Full Fact in debunking all these “hysterical 5G conspiracy theories.””
Maybe because that is what it is really…you have clearly failed to prove your point while always citing the shadiest (or inappropriate) sources…alternate medicine, medium psychic…you name it.
But you ignored systematically the clear undebatable fact that justifies why it’s a BS story.
You are definitely a flintstone material if you ask me…hide under your rock, and don’t forget your tinfoil hat!
“This is when I realized I was in trouble if I pushed this query under my real name”
Yeah, don’t you hear them, they are at your door already…come one, the effect of dementia is already starting for you?
“I feel a genuine affection for the psychos and sickos of Frank Report”
Probably because you fit better with them than with sane people? BTW, of all the “psychos and sickos” on FR, you are the biggest one of them.
It’s conspiracy on conspiracy on conspiracy…maybe you should stop making stories and live in the real world…it’s frightening at first but it can’t be as bad as your nutjob’s world.
it doesn’t matter how much science is laid out, the disinformants, most likely paid industry shills, have found that the trump doctrine of saying the same thing over and over will eventually gain credibility. there are thousands of studies by all branches of the military and nasa showing harm to every biological system. with the 5g roll out, the fcc is going to raise “acceptable” exposure levels 400% and allow for the heating of skin. THAT IS A FACT. Now i don’t know about you industry shills but if you have kids and are concerned about their eyes, testicles and brains, i would be alarmed about where we are going with radiation in our environment. the aforementioned organs are the most affected because of their water content. So you can do all the name-calling, attach the word conspiracy to your arguments but the minute i see the word conspiracy I know chances are you are a paid industry shill. In case you are not aware, the cia invented the term conspiracy theory to pigeon hole and dismiss valid theory and dissent. we’ll see how you feel when you wake up in the morning, like many others, and find an antenna outside your child’s bedroom window. http://www.ehtrust.org
This group is very light in the RF technical area: https://ehtrust.org/about/meet-the-team/ LOL
The day you become Electrically sensitized to microwave radiation, you will understand that we who are EHS were all telling the truth. It’s a condition I do not recommend. And its cause is man-made and denied by corporations that do not care about the pain and distress they cause, just money. Your the one hiding under a rock, “Fred”. Raise your head and see the light.
Coronavirus have existed for 10,000 years
It is caused by exposure to primitive wildlife. We should be arguing to ban that exposure.
Noooo it’s the 5g, the 5g I tell you!!! it’s mainstream media who made up this story like they made stories about giant lizards ruling the world millions of years ago while the earth is only 50 years old…
Now, more seriously, you try to convince a real nutjob with facts? Good luck with that!
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Published today (Tues, June 2nd, 2020) on Independent Science News
The Case Is Building That COVID-19 Had a Lab Origin
by Jonathan Latham, PhD and Allison Wilson, PhD
Synopsis: The view that COVID-19 (Sars-CoV-2) has a potential laboratory origin is being attributed to President Trump. But plenty of scientists are raising this issue too. What are the chances, after all, that the epicentre of the COVID-19 outbreak should occur within literal walking distance of the leading research and collection centre in the world for SARS-like bat coronaviruses? Much additional data points in the direction of a lab escape of the kind that some researchers have long warned of. On the other hand, new information has made the zoonotic origin thesis less likely. This article explains the specific lab accident scenarios and describes how the kind of research conducted at the WIV makes a lab accident a strong possibility.
(PS JRL is a virologist by training)
We hope you will enjoy and share this article. All our articles may be reprinted in full without obtaining explicit permission.
Jonathan Latham, PhD
The Bioscience Resource Project,
Ithaca, NY 14850 USA
Look if you live in a apartment building with a 5G cell expander tower on the roof…..
……You are f*cked. The signal will be too strong. Too much radiation no matter what bandwidth.
Don’t believe me? Move to a building with a cell tower and try to grow microscopic animals like fungi or parameciums.
Re My Previous Post on Cell technology and microscopic organisms:
Here is a white paper the effect of cellphone towers on microscopic animals which live in the soil near cell phone towers:
Humans have an epithelium or outer skin much thicker, obviously, than microscopic organisms. Our outer layer of skin is dead and it protects us from the energy emitted from cell towers and phones. Microorganisms are not so lucky.
The point of my previous comment and this post is to point out the fact that cell towers are not completely benign or innocuous.
Presently, the government and private industry can claim cellular technology is safe(for humans). However current cellular towers are not safe for all organisms.
People can talk about safe bandwidth and radiation spectrum all they want, but at the end of the day, energy is energy.
A buddy of mine had trouble fermenting beer. He lived in a building with a cell repeater tower. It’s not scientific evidence because it has not been reproduced or reported. I did a Google search for articles like the one above and found a few.
5G is many times more powerful than 4g.
Will 5 G be as safe as 4G? It remains to be seen. Why? The 5G technology is too new to have been studied scientifically on a large scale.
Side Note: I am skeptical that 5G is a dangerous, but something being rolled out on such a large scale should be adequately studied.
My stance has changed on 5G after reading the 5G articles on the Frank Report. My stance meaning, is 5G safe, not my stance on 5G conspiracies.
Insomnia sucks! Just made a 1:26am post.
My proof for my theory:
If you look back over the history of the last 100 years, what you see is the history of ‘advances’ being found to be dangerous in retrospect.
Two very obvious examples are Thalidomide and synthetic opioids.
Both were trialled and declared to be safe, only to go on and create terrible harm
So even scientific studies and clinical trials do not guarantee safety.
5g might well be found out to be harmful, but if so, it will probably be found to be so in retrospect.
How can that be prevented?
You tell me.
I don’t know.
Good points Paul
At one time, uranium spring water was considered a libation of sorts.