This is another long, mean and ugly document. After proving in my article, Who Checks the Fact Checkers? In Brave New Big Tech World 5G Health Concerns Must Be Censored 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 professor 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. <~
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