Few of the general public I speak to have any awareness of the possible health harms of radio-frequency radiation such as 5G or Wi-Fi. Could this be because Government and mainstream media have colluded to ignore these risks? In fact, the Court of Appeal has recently given permission for a judicial review challenging the Government for “failure to give adequate information to the public about the risks of 5G and to explain the absence of a process for investigation of any adverse health effects”. This hearing, led by Michael Mansfield QC will take place on February 6th and 7th in London.
Politicians, however, are undeterred in continuing with the proliferation of electronic communication, now in the form of 5G. The Government states that it has a “clear ambition for the U.K. to be a global leader in the next generation of mobile technology, 5G”, and that there is “enormous potential to boost productivity and grow the economy” through it. It’s worth noting that almost all independent commentators on 5G suggest that the motives for its launch are entirely economic, not humanitarian. Certainly I don’t know anyone who is enthusiastic about smart cities, smart motorways, driverless cars or the intensification of electronic communications in healthcare settings, for example.
Regarding the health risks of 5G, the Government states, “there should be no consequences for public health”. Does that reassure you? What evidence is being relied upon? Isn’t there just a hint of unfounded optimism in that statement? Given my own health issues discussed here, I am highly sceptical, but, aware of my own lack of medical and scientific knowledge, I have enlisted the help of Professor John W. Frank, retired Chair of Public Health Research and Policy at Edinburgh University and an experienced epidemiologist/physician. I will summarise his 2021 peer-reviewed article entitled, “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” Professor Frank has kindly reviewed and checked the scientific accuracy of my work.
Before outlining Professor Frank’s article, I would like to clarify some terms. Radio-frequency radiation (RFR) refers to communication signals from Wi-Fi routers, mobile phones, cordless phones, suburban towers, masts and panels on buildings (including hospitals), bluetooth devices, smart meters, Fitbits, smart watches, baby monitors, game consoles, smart diapers (nappies) and more. RFR may also be referred to as electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or non-ionising radiation. In clarification of the frequencies used for 5G, a Government Guide explains that most 5G technology uses already existing frequencies, but the higher frequencies of 26GHz and 40 GHz (millimetre wave) are likely to be allocated soon for commercial use. I note that 60 GHz is already in use for 5G testbeds such as the one in Liverpool.
I now come to the essence of Professor Frank’s article. He explains that as well as higher frequencies, “5G will also make use of very new — and thus relatively unevaluated, in terms of safety — supportive technology (including pulsing, beaming, phased arrays and multiple-input and mulitple-output (MIMO)) to enable a higher data transmission capacity”. Because the new higher frequencies do not penetrate objects, signal boosters or ‘small cell’ antennae will be required on every second or third lamppost, thus creating a dense transmission network, which is likely to mean a substantial increase to overall population exposure.
Current controversy as to the health impact of radio-frequency radiation (RFR) is evidenced by reviews by public health agencies and others with widely differing results and recommendations. On the one hand, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified RFR as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”, while others such as the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have set very high (lax) safety exposure guidelines, which are based on the results of behavioural studies involving the exposure of five monkeys and eight rats to RFR over a period of one hour. Behaviour disruption was linked to increase in body temperature. This is controversial because studies have found that there may be health impacts without any heating of tissue and because the studies did not take account of continuous exposure or possible chronic or long-term effects.
Independent radiation and health scientists have expressed concern about the rollout of 5G because of the likely huge increase in exposure to a wide range of frequencies and because there is hardly any evidence on the safety of 5G-specific RFR emissions, while there is, to quote Professor Frank, a “growing body of research suggesting harms from other current RFR exposures, which have been studied for much longer”. Further references can be found in Professor Frank’s article.
Several international groups such as the EMF Scientist Appeal and the 5G Appeal have asked governments for a moratorium on 5G until more research has been done and for better safety exposure guidelines. Certain countries have taken some precautions such as banning Wi-Fi in pre-schools and some areas have banned 5G antennae. The USA, U.K. and some parts of Europe have followed the ICNIRP guidelines but other countries have adopted guidelines which are 10-fold or 100-fold lower (stricter).
Professor Frank then identifies four areas of “scientific uncertainty and concern”. The first is the lack of a clear definition of 5G internationally as regards frequencies to be used. Equally confusing is the “complex set of special signal modulations, pulses, polarisation, phased arrays and novel equipment designs — for example, ‘massive MIMO antennas’ — which represent the cutting edge technologies that accompany 5G system installation. He states that it is “highly likely that each of these many forms of transmission causes somewhat different biological effects — making sound, comprehensive and up-to-date research on those effects virtually impossible”. These difficulties are compounded because many of these technologies are protected by patent, so that researchers cannot know their precise technical nature.
The second area that worried Professor Frank concerns the preponderance of laboratory studies showing the negative biological effects of RFR, in which, however, there are many knowledge gaps. As regards recent innovative technology around 5G, studies with the same combination of radio frequencies, modulation and pulse patterns have not been replicated (replication being the “hallmark of reliable research”). Despite that, biological effects are remarkably similar irrespective of the combination used, according to a high quality review. Another review states that “some of the new RFR technologies are so new that biological scientists have not been able to keep up — that is, no studies yet exist of these new technologies’ biological effects”. One Israeli study throws serious doubt on the theory that 5G is less dangerous than its predecessors supposedly because it only penetrates the outside layer of skin.
Importantly however, the reviews reveal “a growing body of evidence that RFR exposures produce effects spanning reproductive, oncological (cancer-related), neuropsychiatric, skin, eye and immunological body systems. In addition, there are many fundamental effects at the subcellular level, in terms of oxidation, DNA alteration, gene expression and bacterial antibiotic resistance”. These are unrelated to heating effects. Professor Frank then discusses the widely cited National Toxicology Program studies using rats, which link RFR exposure to cancer, but he finds too many methodological weaknesses to allow a clear interpretation of the results. His conclusion is that laboratory studies “cannot replace high-quality human epidemiological studies” i.e., studies of the precise relationship between exposure and disease in large numbers of persons at different levels of exposure.
The third area concerns epidemiological studies. In 2019, an international expert team led by Canada’s most senior cancer epidemiologist Professor Tony Miller (Miller et al.) summarised the “human epidemiological evidence linking human breast and brain tumours, male reproductive outcomes and child neurodevelopmental conditions to RFR exposures” and found “compelling evidence of carcinogenesis, especially in the brain and acoustic nerve, as well as the breast, from strong RFR exposures to previous generations of mobile phone transmissions”.
However these results do not apply to novel 5G systems, as this type of epidemiological study designed to prove causation requires “decades of follow-up to detect delayed health effects, such as most cancers.”
In his review, Miller called for an update on the IARC classification of RFR as “possibly carcinogenic” and predicted that it would at least be changed to “probable” on the basis of the latest evidence. I note that the IARC review will now not take place until 2024 at the earliest. 5G will not be risk assessed by IARC until 2025.
The fourth area of concern is the unscientific basis for present health protection guidelines as well as conflicts of interest on scientific advisory panels, such as ICNIRP. The Swedish epidemiologist Hardell suggests that ICNIRP’s narrow focus on the heating of tissues being the only measure of harm is due to its pro-industry bias. This focus has remained unchanged for 25 years in the face of widespread criticism by other scientists. An important article from October 2022 has highlighted the 14 false assumptions made by ICNIRP in creating its guidelines. The article and a slide summary can be found here.
Professor Frank also highlights Hardell’s evidence of the number of cross-appointments held by six members of the WHO IARC Monograph Group across five major international advisory panels on the health effects of non-ionising radiation as well as their strong personal links to the telecommunications industry. These observations are confirmed by an article written last year about the self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines. In addition, a 90-page document written by two MEPs has confirmed all these concerns about ICNIRP.
In conclusion, as a result of his review of the evidence, Professor Frank “is convinced that RFR may well have serious human health effects” and that “there is also increasing scientific evidence for RFR effects of ecological concern in other species both plant and animal”, though reviewing this would be outside the scope of his expertise. He states that “several nations’ regulatory apparatus for telecommunications innovations such as the 5G rollout is not fit for purpose” and seems to have been captured by vested interests.
Professor Frank states that, as regards 5G, “there is a sound basis for invoking ‘the precautionary principle’” due to “significant doubt about the safety of this new and potentially widespread human exposure” and that there should be “a moratorium on that exposure, pending adequate scientific investigation of its suspected adverse health effects”.
This article was written in collaboration with Professor John W. Frank, retired Chair of Public Health Research and Policy at Edinburgh University.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Many of us on here instinctively saw the March 2020 lockdown madness right away as a watershed moment and a clear leap forward towards the dystopia Simon Elmer describes.
Since then, for me at least, it’s been very stressful and relentless battle to alert people to this danger.
To be honest, I still don’t see anything but the large mass of the people marching towards their digital enslavement either oblivious or resigned that there is nothing they can do to avert it.
Anyone who’s alarm bells went off in early 2020 deserves a big pat on the back for having the wisdom and intelligence to understand that something was just not right with Covid 19.
Despite the almost universal understanding that this ‘virus’ had a 99.8% survival rate, that those dying were dying ABOVE the average age of natural death and that, despite social media, know one actually knew anyone who had unequivocally died of it, the governments still decided to lock the world down, stamp on civil rights, shut down the world economy and insist that everyone was injected with a highly dubious experimental drug.
Just as an illness has no chance of being cured unless the diagnosis is correct so Covid 19 has been misdiagnosed and the treatment and cure will, therefore, be ineffective.
This is an illness, just not a virus. Covid is actually an imaginary virus that does not exist in reality.
The real illness is Mass Psychosis, easily the biggest outbreak since the Medieval Witch Trials and just as lethal.
It is the apparent irrational, bizarre and illogical reaction to this illness by the Governments and elites that have indicated to the skeptics that this MUST have been planned but, in fact, makes sense when we understand that it is actually the Doctors, scientists, politicians and media who were MOST affected by this group collective insanity.
The doctors were busy ventilating panic attacks, the elderly were being dispatched in the care homes with Midazolam and Morphine, the scientists were insisting PCR was 100% accurate (when the true figure could well be 0%) and people were dying at home from the effective shutdown in the health services. Add the vaccines, that must be killing people if Covid does not exist, and all those deaths, added together, equal the supposed Covid and excess deaths.
The Governments and elites are, today, simply acting out of irrational fear as the real cause of Covid has still yet, I believe, to be understood. Some of these people may understand what has happened but, if true, they would have to keep quiet as jail, or death by mob, may be a distinct possibility for daring to admit it.
The actual threat is that not understanding that this was a Mass Psychosis outbreak over an imaginary virus could lead to something even worse in the future.
As the saying goes “those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”
We’ll have to wait and see.
The mass psychosis you refer to is the brainwashing that has taken place across the whole of the NHS, and you most definitely. I know upwards of a score of people who work in the NHS or associated fields and their adherence to the Covid1984 story is absolutely astonishing. Have you all been drugged and chipped?
Despite your disavowal of the covid story you have still been captured by it.
Have you not read and understood the above article? Covid1984, real or imagined, is not the point. The real point is Control and lockdowns were simply the opening Blitzkrieg aimed at taking control of national populations.
Your blinkered intransigence is staggering. For someone in your position I must say you are a menace and sadly I am beginning to think the same of all NHS staff.
How exactly have I been brainwashed if I’m saying that the medical profession went stark raving mad over an imaginary virus and slaughtered lots of innocent people?
You obviously don’t work in the NHS but, believe me, that’s NOT a popular point of view.
In fact, If I said it out loud to the management, I’d almost certainly be sacked.
Same here. I was posting on the DT website in April 2020 that Covid was “a very useful crisis” and the Establishment were using it to force through policies which otherwise they would struggle to advance – ie a cashless society.
I do think Covid was a test run, it started pretty well with lockdown compliance high, however I think the jabs where a failure. 20-25% of the population withstood the coercion. Jabbing kids was beyond the pale for most except the most ardent brainwashed zealots. The 40,000 who stood their ground in the face of no-jab no-job are heroes who proved that no amount of coercion will work on many of us.
Will they one back and try again? Maybe, maybe not.
Schwab et al couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery.
Is that to say we shouldn’t be very concerned by the direction things are going? No, of course not, but let’s not imagine they’re more competent than they are, and let’s realise how impractical their ridiculous ideas are. The control they want is absolute, and they are too blinded by idealism to realise it simply cannot succeed.
“The weakness of all dictatorships is that they are vast bureaucracies – what does not exist on paper does not exist.”
Frederick Forsyth, The Day of the Jackal
You don’t need to be competent to dictate to people. You just need power.
An enormous amount of power is concentrated in the state and its institutions. That power can be and is captured and used for the benefit of some at the expense of most others.
Given that the state has accumulated all that power over time, somebody will be there to wield it. I suppose you can hope that it will be well-meaning people that only act in the interest of the general public. Or you can be realistic and expect that people who are good at manoeuvring their way into power are likely to be not very nice people.
The massive accumulation of power in the state (or in anywhere really) is the fundamental problem. Once that happens, you can only expect that eventually terrible things will happen.
Competence or incompetence has literally nothing to do with it whatsoever.
I think you both make valid points.
More competent tyrants are more dangerous, surely.
Another question is whether the power grab has a notional “benevolent objective” or whether it is unambiguously malign. While I don’t agree, it could be argued that climate change or better management of the economy would both be better addressed by having a system based on central bank digital currency / personal ID / social credit. For example, limiting people’s ability to fly or drive using a system other than rationing based on price might be seen as fairer. Likewise, the use of negative interest rates to manage an economy would be arguably much more effective with a CBDC than the current system.
For people you say “couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery,” they seem to be achieving their objectives so far.
In other words – what Icke said.
If I write a book can I also advertise it on here in the guise of an article?
The Advertorial Interaction with Free Speech and Journalism by Occams Pangolin Pie. Now available from all good bookshops. Please see screeds of details below on how to register your retina with our online Credit Score factors.
Anyone else find the phrase Add to Cart sinister?
Only when preceded by the words ‘Bring out your dead’.
A good piece, thank you. I’d suggest flying farther above the clouds and seeing with even clearer perspective.
The Hegelian dialectic currently at play (create the thesis and its antithesis, control the synthesis, perpetuate conflict) was also around during WWII.
Wall Street financed Nazi Germany. Mussolini was employed by MI5. And so on.
The point is – the enemy is always YOU.
The Satan-worshipping cabal of top-tier international finance has always been at war with humanity. Let’s stop shying away from the fact we are at OPEN WAR with them.
We must then wage this war wisely – with unity, kindness, compassion, awareness.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8306475.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
But precisely why are the RPTB doing this.
Surely a major factor is that they realised years ago that Capitalism which they grew fat on, was dying and 2008/9 was final proof, the temporary way out only being to print more and more money which only kicks the can down the road.
The result now is that every “Western” nation owes trillions in debt.
But who exactly is that debt owed to?
It’s owed to the RPTB, the very bastards screwing us at the moment.
You’ve got to give them credit for using climate change, proxy wars and “pandemics” to instil the necessary fear to gain compliance, our only salvation being grateful acceptance of their digital social credit system – purely to enable them to carry on screwing us.
One way out would be for every nation to simply say in unison that they will not pay the “debt”.
I wonder what action the likes of Black Rock, Vanguard, The Great Unseen Banks ie the Rothschilds/Rockefellers etc would take to stop it happening.
I believe a certain Austrian Chancellor tried that about 90 years ago.
It didn’t end well.
Don’t lump Vanguard in with BlackRock, please.
The two are quite different organisations, with completely different ownership structures.
Jack Bogle (RIP) founded Vanguard in 1975 to great scorn from all the money managers, as the first passive Index Fund and a mutual which has done enormous amounts to improve the lot of the Regular Joe.
BlackRock, on the other hand… Don’t get me started, but I will write that Rob Kapito is a proper douche and a huge part of The Problem.
Thanks for the information.
I didn’t appreciate the distinction.
While appreciating the differences in structure (investors vs shareholders, etc), Vanguard Group Inc is one of the top investors in BlackRock (7.86% / 11,930,799 shares) and BlackRock Fund Advisors is one of the top investors in Vanguard (14.29% / 90,297,279 shares)(as of June 2022) and, for all practical purposes between them they own significant holdings in the vast majority of global companies. Vanguard’s purpose is focussed on (from their website): ‘investor needs first’ – which I assume is RoI or profit rather than social justice for all, just like BlackRocks shareholders. So pots and kettles, when it comes down it. Tim Gielen’s vid worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuSpEgFkW94
Great to see Simon Elmer on DS. Elmer’s writings were hugely important and instructive for me very early in the plandemic, and back then, I wasn’t aware of anyone writing with more lucidity about the confected crisis and its totalitarian implications. I remember thinking instinctively right at the onset of the corona exercise that the state had effectively declared war on us, and it was so reassuring to read the words of someone who was able to express this in such an intelligent and coherent way.
But I find the current state of biosecurity affairs fascinating. We seem to be in a strange period of limbo where the corporate and state powers responsible for the plandemic are unsure about whether to maintain the pretence any longer. There was certainly a plan to forever change the social contract, making access to normal life contingent on regular ‘vaccinations’ but this clearly collapsed under the weight of its own nonsense and became completely untenable when it became obvious even to the most brainwashed that the injections didn’t work, even on their own preposterous terms. ’They’ overplayed their hand and in doing so exposed themselves to more scrutiny than they have even known. I think at this point we – the ones who weren’t fooled – have the initiative and need to make sure that the crimes of the last nearly three years don’t go unpunished.
Any way, I’ll be ordering the book. Enjoyed the article.
“Since the revocation of coronavirus-justified regulations in the U.K.”
Well, the enabling legislation – the Public Health Act 1984 – is still on the books.
Yup …. and Hunt, who supported Chinese-style full lockdowns and mandatory jabbing, has effectively been appointed Fuhrer.
This is the current status of The Tyrants Charter (pt 2) AKA The Coronavirus Act 2020.
It was last updated 7th October 2022.
Note Northern Ireland temporary powers remain in force.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-act-2020-status#full-publication-update-history
The Tyrants Charter (pt 1) AKA The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 – is still valid, festering on a back burner, ready to be reignited.
Elmer’s book certainly sounds interesting. But his launch piece here doesn’t mention the other war that has been going on at more or less the same time.
And it is important to note that the war against affordable and reliable energy (which IS mentioned) started, at latest, in 1988. It seems possible that the Covid war came about because the Climate, or initially Warming war, had run out of steam.
But the war that is not mentioned here, or at least in Simon’s piece, is “The War on the West-how to prevail in the age of unreason” admirably set out in Douglas Murray’s brilliant new book, which amazingly seems to have had little mention on LS, or anywhere else.
Douglas specifically writes about the Critical Race Theory nonsense, the rise of REAL (anti-white) racism, of antisemitism, or the complete uninterest of our Beloved Leaders in the ongoing invasion, in the Muslim rape gangs, in the continual attacks on Western (especially British) history and culture, the incessant ‘blame’ for slavery to the West (which Britain went to great pains to abolish) but the ignoring of the larger and much longer slavery to the East and, of course, the slavery that is so obvious today. He also points out the sheer oddity of heaping blame on an obscure letter by David Hume, whilst airbrushing far more direct racist and antisemitic letters from Karl Marx.
This is by no means a criticism of Elmer’s book, which obviously I have yet to read. But it does seem odd that the war that he describes in the piece above was going on, just before the death of George Floyd sparked off paroxysms in the war against “whitey”, usually by the same “Antifa” protagonists.
An excellent excerpt, book ordered! I just wish that someone would be able to help organise the resistance, instead of each of us desperately trying to be prepared and doing our own thing. I make contact with other like-minded individuals in my area (or even generally), but it won’t be anything like enough. Anyway, forewarned is to a certain extent forearmed. (I am interested that Toby has let this go at the head of today’s DS email. Is he moving away from his bumbling foolishness of government idea?)
In order to implement this dystopia it would be necessary to change human DNA and achieve an enormous loss of individuality. Perhaps there is a connection between these things and concealing the faces of human beings while regularly injecting them with gene therapy. Sorry, if that sounds slightly sarcastic. These two assaults are the most objectionable, closely followed by Social Credit Scoring and biometric surveillance and governance. Patrick M Wood has predicted much of this for some years, but Elmer’s article and book are more than welcome. I too have been derided for venturing to warn of our impending fate, but fewer people are laughing now.
Part of the reason for the government’s easy removal of our democratic rights was the gutless, ignorant journalists in the mainstream media. None of whom carried out any accurate research or queried if the governments actions were fair or reasonable and the politicians who did not properly query what the government was doing. Hancock was a complete medical imbecile given the job of health secretary pretending he knew what he was taking about, signing off laws he knew nothing about. How is he still an MP?
The financial collapse, caused by decades of fraud, quantitative easing, selling out to the CCP, building-up unpayable debt that was never properly resolved after 2008 isn’t going to go away. Of course government’s are going to try to impose all manner of control measures to save their own skin whilst blaming the inevitable consequence of years of irresponsibility on a pandemic, institutionalised racism, Climate Change, Vladimir Putin, another pandemic, Dr Evil plotting to take over ze world, etc.