Stacking Deck with Conflicted Interests for RFR Carcinogenicity Review
Prominent radiofrequency radiation (RFR) researchers Magda Havas and Lennart Hardell reported a few days ago that WHO asked last year for volunteers to become reviewers for an upcoming IARC evaluation of RFR. Many RFR researchers have volunteered, only to be rejected. Dr. Hardell has composed a list of everyone he knew of who volunteered. He has also asked Maris Neira and Emilie van Deventer at WHO several times to help him fill in the gaps in his list, but has received no reply. All who have been rejected had published on the subject and were well acquainted with the research. Names of those rejected so far include Michael Kundi, David Carpenter, Michael Carlberg, Lennart Hardell, Dominique Belpomme, Philippe Irigaray, Magda Havas, Anthony Miller, Igor Belyaev, Beatrice Golomb, Igor Yakymenko, Frank Kelly, Julia Fussell, Rodica Ramer, Richard Snow, Elcin Ozgur, Daniela Caccamo, Priyanka Bandara and Zothansiama.
With WHO flouting transparency and turning to the clubbish International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) for all its advice regarding RFR safety, it appears they aim for industry to have the final say over this too. Dr. Havas has documented evidence of previously occurring conflicts of interest at ICNIRP, along with their consequences.
Many scientists say RFR should be reclassified as a Class 2A probable or Class 1 known carcinogen, based on evidence that Christopher Ketchum describes in his new article "Is 5G Going to Kill Us All?" Dr. Havas is concerned that if WHO loads the reviewers with industry scientists they will simply come to the same conclusion as they did before, or worse, that RFR isn't even a 2B possible carcinogen. She says, "They are NOT being transparent and there must be a reason for that."
One possible reason is that a number of court cases by people suffering cancer due to prolonged exposure to elevated RFR have been won in Europe, and several class action suits are in progress in the US. The telecom industry would obviously like to forestall any victories there.
Another reason, reported by Olle Johansson and Robert Ferm is that the telecom industry has always been fully aware of health risks from RFR. As proof they note, "In the early 1990s, several major telecom companies were granted patents on inventions designed to reduce microwave radiation when using mobile phones. Over the past 25 years, companies in the telecom industry, as well as other companies and independent inventors, have thus accumulated a large number of patents to reduce the adverse health effects of artificial microwave radiation. However, new products with the technology which uses solutions from patents will only be launched on the market when there is a statutory limit value. The technology in the patents will then be used as it is, or modified, to meet such new statutory biologically-based safe limit values." The fine print warnings in your cell phone (if you have one) is another clue. They warn you not to hold the cell phone directly against your body, implying that they will not be responsible for what happens to you if you do, clearly the assumption being that you will do that very thing. (Wanna prove you didn't?)
This all suggests that they expect to lose more than they would gain from those patents if the truth about health risks from RFR were more widely known. Johansson and Ferm say, "Suppose a scenario, which may seem unrealistic but is entirely possible, where Ericsson, in the wake of several processes in the US, must pay $200 billion in damages. If such a scenario occurs, the whole of Sweden's economy and welfare system may be at risk of collapse, as we now see discussed for another risk, namely the outbreak and handling of coronavirus/covid-19."
They also note the probability of legal action for violations of human rights and corresponding crimes against nature in connection with harm from RFR, and the lack of responsibility from politicians, authorities and telecom industry decision-makers, which would be highlighted as well.
Thus this move only delays the inevitable. Awareness of RFR effects on health has been increasing recently. The percentage of people experiencing notable effects on their well-being still numbers in the single-digits, but evidence exists of health improvement with RFR remediation unawares among a large portion of people in modern societies--about a third, according to research by Magda Havas.
A Shame about Those Basic Design Errors in That Grand Utopian VisionWell, Cover 'Em Up!
If the YouTube link to Dr. Havas' presentation of her findings happens to be down by now, I will not be very surprised. The effort to censor any negative information on 5G has taken on a new urgency since the COVID-19 pandemic spun out of control in many countries, and researchers began linking 5G statistically to the severity of the pandemic. Meanwhile, the rollout of 5G technology, given protection from scrutiny as a matter of national security in many countries, has only been accelerated. Why such a headlong rush into disaster? Paul Doyon, who has been documenting a connection between 5G and COVID-19 (I have a PDF copy if anyone would like it), says "Vietnam, which shares a large border with China, and does not have the 5G yet, and probably also doesn't vaccinate its people like crazy, has had only 250 cases of COVID-19 and zero deaths. They are opening up again."
John Weigel, a writer and researcher in Ireland warns, "At issue is the contrast between individuals being denied access to the justice system and religion while private companies can install equipment which may or may not be a threat to their health, freedom and well-being." He says that in Ireland, citizens traveled hundreds of miles to attend a court case brought by two journalists claiming that the lockdown being imposed not by law, but by a caretaker government, is unconstitutional. These citizens were turned back less than a mile from the courts by police.
The case also relates to deployment of 5G, which has been described as the backbone of the "fourth industrial revolution." What does this sort of "revolution" mean to the people who govern us? It means they consider wirelessly connected devices critical infrastructure for future governance of a society too sick to function without insane distancing rules (enabled by and partly due to the use of these devices); intense surveillance; top-down control over trade, travel and financial markets; and vaccination (see their chart), the latter expected to have dubious efficacy at best due , with health-harming substances forced upon everyone for "the greater good."
So, will individuals so harmed by RFR and all the toxins in our Brave New environment that they cannot even tolerate the proximity of a cell phone be required to wear a pink triangle or scarlet letter on top of their protective clothing? Or will they just be banned from public spaces?
In collaboration with Bill Gates, the telecom industry and other well-funded interests, the Powers-That-Be are making this haphazardly rationalized (please ignore the man behind the curtain) end run around all of our rights. Given that the pharmaceutical companies have been granted immunity from prosecution for harm caused by vaccines, would these people not grant similar immunity to the telecom industry as "too big to prosecute" for malfeasance, given the chance?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).