Introduction

According to a briefing published earlier this year by the European Parliamentary Research Service, “a need to measure real potential exposure to 5G and update the safety limits of such exposure does exist.” The report raises alarming questions about the rapid rate of 5G deployment and the overall indifference of politicians, corporations, and the scientific community towards conducting legitimate 5G safety studies. There is absolutely no doubt that the rapid rollout of 5G networks all across the developed world poses a devastating threat to humanity. This is not hyperbole or fear-mongering; it is a long-overdue examination of a disastrous health risk that has been largely overlooked up until now. In this post, I will clearly demonstrate why further research isn’t just necessary for 5G—it is decades overdue for all electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in general, which is indicative of a massive and gruesome cover-up by governments worldwide.

International appeal to protect from non-ionizing EMFs

In 2015, a group of scientists involved in researching the biological effects of non-ionizing EMFs (the kind we are regularly exposed to) submitted an international appeal to the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for protection from such kinds of electromagnetic radiation exposure. The appeal clearly outlines the scientific basis for concerns about non-ionizing EMFs, while noting that international guidelines for non-ionizing EMF exposure are insufficient and desperately need revision. While it seems the appeal fell on deaf ears, it was still a step in the right direction. Here is one alarming passage from the document:

That should give you a taste of what we’re dealing with here. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to wade through the relentless amount of corporate propaganda that overwhelms and drowns out any opposing viewpoints on the safety of EMFs. Admittedly, I myself totally ignored the dangers of wireless radiation for many years, often using my smartphones and wireless gadgets in an unsafe or excessive manner, and with little discretion or self-control.

However, after seriously considering the information put forward by this appeal, as well as doing in-depth research on the topic of EMFs, I can say with the utmost certainty that this technology is far more lethal than I ever could have possibly imagined. This is why it’s always important to do your own research and dig deeper, rather than just taking things at face value. Something as simple as this could ultimately be the difference between life and death.

International appeal to protect from 5G

On September 17, 2018, another international appeal from scientists and researchers, entitled “International Appeal: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space,” was signed and submitted by Arthur Fistenberg, an activist in the field of electromagnetic radiation and health. It attempts to set the record straight regarding the enormous dangers of electrosmog, or electromagnetic pollution, which will become exponentially worse with 5G. As of August 4, 2020, the appeal had 296,842 signatories from 218 nations and territories. Below is the appeal’s introduction:

Reading through the entire 18-page appeal, which cites a whopping 123 references (including numerous peer-reviewed research studies on the biological effects of EMFs), might make your skin crawl. Nevertheless, it’s well worth a look, just to get more of an idea about the urgency of this matter.

Veteran MD explains the little-known dangers of 5G

Speaking of urgency, if you want to get a sense of urgency regarding 5G, have a listen to this stunning five-minute testimony by Dr. Sharon Goldberg, a veteran doctor and former medical school professor with more than two decades of experience (courtesy of Collective Evolution). This took place at Michigan’s 5G small cell tower legislation hearing in 2018. Dr. Goldberg clearly outlines the dire health risks of 5G technology and EMFs in general.

I’m guessing that got your attention. The direct link between EMFs and diabetes is particularly unsettling, although the involvement of EMFs with ADHD and other neuropsychiatric disorders is less surprising. Nevertheless, this is just the tip of a very scary iceberg.

U.S. Senator Blumenthal raises 5G concerns

At a Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on “the future of 5G wireless technology and their impact on the American people and economy,” which took place on February 7, 2019, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) voiced his concerns over the potential health risks of 5G wireless technology. Telecom representatives at the hearing openly admitted that no studies have been done to show 5G is safe.

Blumenthal, along with U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18), sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr in December 2018, seeking answers about the safety of 5G. However, Carr’s written response to their inquiries was massively underwhelming. Watch as Blumenthal hammers the FCC and FDA for failing to provide sufficient answers to his questions (courtesy of the Environmental Health Trust).

Blumenthal noted the huge amount of “small cell sites” that will be required to support the 5G infrastructure. He concluded the exchange with this disturbing statement:

That’s an alarming admission, although certainly not surprising, considering the massive amount of money involved in 5G. This is a clear indication that telecom corporations only care about profits—public health be damned.

Thinking intuitively

Before diving into the spine-chilling research, let’s take a moment to think about EMFs from an intuitive standpoint. Invisible electromagnetic radiation is literally manipulating microscopic atoms and electrons inside the microchips within our smartphones and other mobile devices. These wireless signals are often transmitted from very far away, and they enable you to enjoy a wide array of diverse, dynamic applications offering full-fledged functionality and entertainment within the palm of your own hand. This is thanks in no small part to significant advancements in semiconductor technology (as predicted by Moore’s Law, which observes that the transistor count in a dense integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years).

Therefore, I have to ask: why do so many people simply dismiss the idea that EMFs could affect the neurons or other cells within the human body? Do they seriously think this radiation is harmless, simply because it is invisible? Could these people explain to me, then, how wireless radiation literally enables them to experience a supercomputer in the palm of their own hand, while somehow COMPLETELY missing, bypassing, or having no effect at all on the trillions of tiny and delicate cells within their own bodies? Quite frankly, that’s just laughably idiotic, from a basic intuitive standpoint. It is precisely this kind of widespread arrogant naïveté that can lead to disastrous outcomes for entire populations.

I suggest you ponder that idea for a bit—that is, of course, unless you want to dismiss the entire notion as a deranged “conspiracy theory.” It appears that far too many people are lacking in this very basic understanding of just how dangerous and manipulative the effects of invisible electromagnetic radiation can be to the human body. Therefore, let me drive this point home even further from another angle, in case you still think this post has the ramblings of a “conspiracy theorist.”

The human brain is, in many ways, analogous to a microprocessor—an integrated circuit that serves as the central processing unit, or CPU, of a computer. I’ve always wondered about the similarities between a transistor (the building block of an integrated circuit) and a neuron (the building block of the human brain). Let’s take a look at how they both work.

The fundamental building block of modern electronics

A transistor is a semiconductor device that can amplify or switch electrical signals. Before transistors, product engineers had to use gigantic, unreliable, and inefficient vacuum tubes in order to complete electrical circuits. However, a team led by William Shockley, director of transistor research at Bell Telephone Labs, invented the first point-contact transistor in 1947. The invention enabled scientists and engineers to have much greater control over the flow of electricity. Additionally, it earned Shockley’s team the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics.

A transistor consists of three terminals: source, drain, and gate. The gate is a switch that controls the flow of current from the source to the drain; it switches on and off in response to an applied voltage. In other words, a transistor is a device that controls the flow of electrons, and thereby, electricity. The way a transistor works is analogous to a water faucet; it can start and stop the flow of current, as well as control the amount of current that flows.

Transistors have come a long way since their inception. The gate length is a defining feature of transistors. For a long time, the semiconductor industry had considered transistors with gate lengths below 5 nm to be infeasible. The reason for this was a quantum mechanical phenomenon known as “tunneling,” which makes the electron flow from source to drain uncontrollable at smaller gate lengths. However, in 2016, a research team at Berkeley Lab reported the smallest transistor ever created, with a 1 nm carbon nanotube gate. Ali Javey, the lead principal investigator of the Electronic Materials program in Berkeley Lab’s Materials Science Division, stated the following about his team’s groundbreaking creation:

Javey and his team published their findings in the journal Science. The key to their discovery was utilizing molybdenum disulfide (MoS₂), which is an engine lubricant frequently sold in auto parts shops. The MoS₂ was used in place of silicon—the world’s most commonly used semiconductor material—enabling Javey’s team to overcome the limitations of the tunneling phenomenon.

Transistors are the building blocks of modern electronics in much the same way that cells are the building blocks of life. In some ways, transistors can be viewed as the “brain cells” of electronic devices, similar to the way neurons in the brain communicate with other cells to transmit nerve impulses.

The fundamental building block of the human brain

Nerve cells, or neurons, are the fundamental building block of the human brain. A typical neuron varies in size due to the wide variety of functionality needed; this is analogous to the diverse assortment of transistors that may be found on a microprocessor. We are born with approximately 1 billion neurons at birth, and this obviously grows over time. Neurons are also the longest cells in the human body. There are thousands of different kinds of neurons, which are classified according to three broad types: sensory, motor, and interneurons. All neurons consist of three main parts:

• soma (cell body)
• branching dendrites (signal receivers)
• axon (projection fiber which conducts the nerve signal)

The soma, which is essentially the neuron’s core, can range anywhere in size from 7-8 µm to 120-150 µm. According to the report “Dendrites,” published by Oxford University Press in 1999, the average soma diameter of neurons in the human brain is 33 µm. Another noteworthy research overview from 1997 describes how biological neurons transmit information using action potentials (APs), which are defined as brief and uniform pulses of electrical activity. A key passage from this article describes APs in more detail:

A sequence, or “train,” of APs may contain information involving diverse coding schemes, depending on the particular action and body part involved. For example, the strength at which an innervated muscle is flexed primarily depends on the “firing rate” of motor neurons, i.e., the average number of APs per unit time. A train of APs can be generated intrinsically by the neural circuitry itself or locked to an external stimulus, e.g., in the auditory system.

Of course, there is a big difference between the human brain and a densely packed microprocessor, but the parallels in regard to electrical activity are nonetheless noteworthy. Interestingly enough, as recently as 2017, researchers constructed a supposedly new type of “neuron transistor” that mimics the behavior of a neuron in a living human brain. Phys.org reported on the new invention:

Thanks to its wide frequency range, the innovative neuron transistor, which was developed by researchers in China and Singapore, is able to replicate the firing rates for a variety of neurons. This makes it suitable for developing so-called “neuromorphic” hardware. Researchers are seeking to add more control gates, which will enable them to create a more realistic model of a biological neuron consisting of many inputs. A device known as a “memristor” is used to implement model synapses.

Hopefully, you can see where I’m going with all of this. I’ve illustrated some of the striking parallels between the fundamental building block of our brains and the fundamental building block of modern-day electronics. Moreover, since our cell phones have antennas that are capable of picking up wireless signals transmitted from a great distance away, do the neurons and other cells in our body also have similarly receptive antennas of their own? I will cover that a bit later, but first, let’s review some of the key characteristics of electromagnetic waves and antennas.

The basics of electromagnetic waves and antennas

A wave is just a disturbance of one or more fields in a particular physical medium, resulting in a vibration, or oscillation. The crest (peak) and trough (lowest point) of an ocean wave, for example, is the oscillation of the water at the surface of the ocean. Waves come in many different forms. While some basic properties are shared by all waves, they are grouped by their differences into three broad categories:

• Transverse waves: Oscillations are perpendicular to the direction of propagation
• Longitudinal waves: Oscillations are parallel to the direction of propagation
• Surface waves: Oscillations occur along a “free surface” or along the interface between two dissimilar media

Electromagnetic radiation refers to waves propagating through space that carry electromagnetic radiant energy. Such waves are known as electromagnetic waves. They are a type of transverse wave, consisting of inseparable electric and magnetic field components. The electric and magnetic fields in the wave are perpendicular to each other, and they oscillate in a plane that is perpendicular to the wave’s direction of propagation. These components are typically denoted as E and B, respectively. Electromagnetic waves are capable of traversing through many different forms of medium. An ideal medium would be either air or free space (vacuum). *However, they are generally unable to penetrate conductive media such as metals, which can act as a barrier.*

Electromagnetic radiation is generated whenever electrically charged particles undergo acceleration. The resulting electromagnetic waves can interact with other charged particles and thereby exert force on them. The energy, momentum, and angular momentum carried by electromagnetic waves can be transferred to the matter they interact with. Electromagnetic radiation includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.

Electromagnetic waves are a very complex phenomenon due to their ability to propagate through open space without the need for a physical medium. Additionally, due to intricate quantum mechanical phenomena, they simultaneously behave like waves and particles. When electromagnetic waves encounter materials, they are partially reflected, attenuated, repolarised, and delayed in comparison with an identical wave traveling through free space. The dielectric properties of a material, as well as how these properties change the electrical and magnetic properties of the space it occupies, govern all interactions between the material and any electromagnetic waves that encounter it. Due to the fact that materials are composed of various charged particles, materials alter the electrical and magnetic behavior of the space around them. Electromagnetic waves have several basic properties that are of particular importance:

• Frequency: The rate of oscillation, measured in Hz (oscillations per second).
• Wavelength: The distance between a particular point on one cycle and the same point on the next cycle.
• Speed: Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light, which is ~300,000 km/s

The wavelength and frequency are related by the speed of the wave, according to the formula below:

λ = c/f

where

• λ = wavelength, measured in meters
• f = frequency, measured in Hertz (cycles/second)
• c = speed of light (3×10⁹ meters/second)

Electromagnetic waves travel through free space at the speed of light and in a straight line. However, they can be diffracted when traveling past sharp corners or edges, just like visible light traveling through a prism. Diffraction is the bending or spreading of electromagnetic waves around an obstacle. When the obstacle is sharper, i.e., similar to the edge of a knife, diffraction becomes more pronounced.

The energy of an electromagnetic wave is proportional to its amplitude squared (E² or B²). The average intensity I_ave for a continuous sinusoidal electromagnetic wave is given by the following equation:

I_ave = cε₀E₀²/2

where

• c is the speed of light
• ε₀ is the permittivity of free space
• E₀ is the maximum electric field strength

Intensity is measured in power per unit area, which is W/m² (watts per meter squared) in this case. The permittivity of free space is a physical constant used in electromagnetic theory; it denotes a vacuum’s capability to store electric fields. It is also fundamentally related to the speed of light, and it equates to 8.8542×10⁻¹² F/m (farads per meter). Note that farad is a unit of capacitance.

Shown above is the electromagnetic spectrum, indicating the wavelengths and frequencies for all kinds of electromagnetic radiation. The human visible light spectrum only represents 0.0035% of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. This means that 99.65% of electromagnetic energy is completely invisible to us. The radio frequency (RF) range is from around 20 kHz to about 300 GHz. These are the frequencies at which the energy from an oscillating current can radiate off a conductor and into space as radio waves. The microwave range is a special portion of the radio frequency range between 1 GHz and 300 GHz. A typical microwave oven, for example, cooks food using a 2.45 GHz RF radiation frequency.

A special subset of the microwave range occurs between 30 GHz and 300 GHz. These are denoted as Extremely High Frequency (EHF), also known as millimeter waves (often abbreviated as mmWave). The wavelength of radio waves in this portion of the electromagnetic spectrum range from 1 cm (30 GHz) to 1 mm (300 GHz). Radio waves in the EHF band have a high degree of atmospheric attenuation, meaning they are absorbed by atmospheric gases (such as oxygen).

In the field of radio engineering, an antenna is a device for transmitting or receiving radio waves. Radio antennas are one of the primary elements in a wireless system. Their ability to radiate and receive signals is critical to the operation of any overall radio communications broadcast system. Thus, maximizing antenna performance is critical for the system to work properly.

The transmitting antenna’s key function is to transform a radio frequency (RF) alternating current signal into an electromagnetic wave, which can then travel through the space between the transmitting antenna and the receiving antenna. The receiving antenna subsequently converts the power applied to it in the form of the traveling electromagnetic wave back into an RF alternating current signal. In this manner, data can be transferred wirelessly between two distant locations. An antenna is basically a transducer that picks up the electromagnetic energy sent to it and passes the signal on to a radio chipset; it is typically made from copper. The chipset subsequently turns the analog signal into a digital one, so that it can be used by the device’s main processor. This process is reversed for transmitting signals. IEEE Spectrum further describes how antennas work as follows:

A transceiver is a device that can both transmit and receive RF signals through a transmission medium, such as air. In other words, a transceiver contains both transmitting and receiving antennas. Modern-day smartphones and tablets contain highly advanced transceivers capable of handling RF signals. Interestingly, even the cells in the human body carry their own kinds of “antennas,” as I will explain later. Of course, there is no shortage of EMFs in most of our home, office, and academic environments—many of us are bombarded by electromagnetic radiation on a regular basis. This radiation comes from a variety of sources, including “smart” devices, wireless access points, and perhaps most importantly, cellular towers, which all together form an inescapable “EMF sandwich” that basically envelops most of the developed world.

The human body as an antenna

The human body contains trillions of cells. Each of these cells performs thousands of metabolic processes every second. The smooth operation of these complex metabolic processes requires a significant amount of rapid communication both within and between these cells. Our cells are intelligently programmed to enable this type of communication. As a result, the human body naturally conducts its own electricity, which you may have already deduced from the prior section on neurons. Nearly all of our cells use charged elements, known as ions, to generate electricity.

All organs and cells emit their own electromagnetic fields. The primary area where the body’s electrical activity occurs is in the cell membrane, which protects the contents of the cell from the outside environment. Electrical currents are generated by the flow of charges across the cell membrane. An appropriate transmembrane “charge” or voltage (potential difference) is required for a cell to function properly. If this voltage is disrupted or altered in any way, it can damage the cell. The transmembrane potential of a healthy cell is roughly 80 or 100 mV; cancer cells, on the other hand, can have a transmembrane potential as low as 20 or 25 mV. A damaged cell has a lower transmembrane potential, which leads to a higher voltage inside the cell—this causes the membrane channels to function improperly, eventually leading to disease. Perhaps now you can see how EMFs can be a direct cause of cancer, something that I will cover in more detail later in this post.

In case you haven’t figured it out by now, this is a major red flag with regard to electropollution. Just imagine how much a constant barrage of EMF pulses can disrupt these delicate transmembrane potentials all throughout the entire body—even from something as simple as a nearby Wi-Fi router or a smartphone in your pocket. Again, given the endogenous electromagnetic fields produced within our bodies, this is so basic and intuitive that it’s simply astonishing how countless people dismiss, mock, or ridicule the deadly effects of EMFs as some sort of comical “conspiracy theory”—it’s grossly and recklessly idiotic.

Given the natural electric currents generated within the body’s cells, it is clear that the human body is also a good conductor, similar to copper and other metals. Thus, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the body can effectively be utilized as an antenna for signal propagation, as shown by a study in which researchers explored the interaction of EMFs with the human body. They determined the efficiency of signal propagation between two antennas, first with the antennas by themselves and then with either one of them attached to a person. The researchers found that the human body could feasibly be used as a transmitting or receiving antenna.

The dielectric properties (permittivity and conductivity) of different tissues in the human body are different. Nevertheless, for purposes of simplicity, the researchers modeled the human body “as a homogeneous model of skin, fat, muscle, bone, and organ, respectively.” They noted that there is no major difference in the dielectric properties of the heart and other organs, like the liver, kidney, etc. Thus, they used the dielectric properties of the heart to represent other organs, as well.

The study also found that high-water-content tissues, such as the skin, muscle, and heart, had a significantly higher efficiency (i.e., signal propagation) than low-water-content tissues such as fat and bone. This means that the electrical conductivity of these tissues is much higher. Some of the key results are summarized as follows:

Although this study was conducted at a very low frequency of only 44 MHz—which corresponds to a wavelength of roughly 6.8 meters—the results nonetheless clearly indicate the antenna-like capabilities of the human body as a whole. Again, this is unsurprising, given the fact that the human body emits its own endogenous electromagnetic fields.

Biological EMF sensors

An enlightening Scientific American article by Nicholette Zeliadt describes the “communication machinery” of cells in the human body. Virtually all cells contain numerous microscopic projections called cilia. A large number of cilia are motile, i.e., they help propel cells through fluid by paddling like oars. In addition to these, cells contain “a single, nonmotile cilium known as the primary cilium.” The primary cilium plays a critical role in an array of cell communication processes, such as enabling retinal cells to detect light, allowing cells in the olfactory system to detect odors, and more. The article goes on to describe the antenna-like capabilities of the primary cilium:

The fact that “the primary cilium serves as a sort of molecular antenna” is interesting as it pertains to EMFs. However, I doubt that this molecular antenna can radiate at or around microwave frequencies, due to its tiny size. The primary cilium varies between 1 and 9 μm across various cell types. This means that when viewed purely as an antenna, it is on the scale of infrared radiation, which has a much higher frequency than anything used by our modern-day mobile devices. However, that doesn’t discount the possibility that the primary cilium could form part of a larger unintended antenna with other biomolecules, cells, or tissues, and thereby possibly resonating with certain types of EMF radiation. This is something that is extremely difficult to model or predict, due to the complex nature of modeling electromagnetic waves propagating through a living organism—along with the numerous electrochemical and electromagnetic interactions occurring between different cells, as well as across various organs and tissues.

Nevertheless, the more pressing concern with regard to the primary cilium is potential damage arising to it from EMFs. Even though the cilium itself may not radiate or resonate at microwave frequencies, that doesn’t mean it isn’t being affected by any radiation it is exposed to. Again, this is very difficult to model. Nonetheless, I strongly suspect that any interaction of EMFs with the primary cilium can be highly disruptive to the delicately balanced electrochemical interactions taking place within and around this critical organelle.

Oddly enough, biologists have largely failed to understand the molecular processes involved in the primary cilium and its capabilities. It was previously thought to have little or no function, which is highly perplexing. In her Scientific American post, Zeliadt highlights the research of Maxene Nachury, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology at Stanford University. In 2010, Nachury published an insightful paper in the journal Cell, shedding some much-needed light on this cellular process. Zeliadt notes:

The fact that “a wide range of organ dysfunction” can arise from abnormalities in the primary cilium is a huge cause for concern as it pertains to EMFs. This raises the critical question as to whether invisible EMFs from everyday sources such as Wi-Fi or cell phones are directly causing disease and organ failure, simply by repeatedly bombarding the delicate primary cilium of cells in various parts of the body. Consequently, those who use wireless internet frequently, in any of its various forms, could be at great risk of “a wide range of organ dysfunction” without even realizing it.

A 2009 study from the discontinued journal PathoGenetics describes the role of cilia in various human diseases. The paper states that “the function of primary cilia in most tissues is unknown,” which confirms the observation from the Scientific American post cited earlier. It also confirms the antenna-like capabilities of cilia and their role in signal transduction. In addition, the authors of this paper indicated that primary cilia are necessary for the development of the cerebellum, hippocampus, and forebrain. They also made the following key observations:

Once again, I find it perplexing that “little is known about the role and importance of cilia during post-natal life.” One would think that this would be a huge topic of interest within molecular cell biology and an already well-established subject. The fact that researchers and “experts” claim little is known about the role and importance of such an integral component of our bodies’ cells is a huge red flag. This is inexcusable, considering the documented role of cilium defects in disease and organ failure.

 

A fascinating review article from the journal Cytoskeleton explicitly describes the primary cilium as an EMF sensor, which confirms my initial suspicions. However, this article approaches the topic from a more benevolent standpoint, exploring EMFs as an alternative to drug-based therapies for bone disease. This process is still not entirely well-understood. Nevertheless, under certain conditions, well-controlled and pulsed EMFs can be used to trigger beneficial changes in the body, which can be used to combat certain types of diseases. The authors describe the EMF-sensing capabilities of the primary cilium as follows:

It is unknown as to how the primary cilium receives EMF stimuli and subsequently activates intracellular signaling to create a physiological response. The article proposes one possible explanation: EMF-induced cellular calcium oscillations. The primary cilium is a key mediator for Ca²⁺ (ionized calcium), because it contains Ca²⁺-permeable channels

Despite little being known about the primary cilium overall, activity has picked up on this front over the past decade. More and more researchers are investigating the primary cilium’s role in molecular cell biology, as evidenced by the papers cited above. I looked for more research studies that specifically investigated whether EMF exposure detrimentally affected the cilia or primary cilium of various types of cells; however, I was unable to find any clear-cut research in this area. Instead, I found a few studies investigating the usage of pulsed EMFs for treating bone disease or healing wounds.

One study did catch my eye, however. Researchers at Hiroshima University in Japan explored the effects of pulsed magnetic fields on the cilia of comb jellies, which are found in marine waters worldwide. Interestingly enough, marine comb jellies (also known as ctenophora) are the largest animals that use cilia as their primary means of locomotion, i.e., moving from one place to another. The study investigated the effects of pulsed magnetic fields of up to 2.2 Tesla on the cilia of comb jellies. They placed both living and formalin-fixed specimens of comb jelly in electromagnetic coils and illuminated them using laser light with a wavelength of 472-nm.

A spectrophotometer, which is an instrument that determines the relative intensity of different wavelengths in a spectrum of light, was used to examine changes in light scattering by isolated intact cilia. The researchers summarized their conclusions as follows:

The researchers photographed an individual cilium being irradiated 0.33 seconds, 1 second, and 2 seconds after exposure. Clearly, an individual cilium from a comb jelly is nowhere near as small as any of the cilia in the human body (which would be on the scale of nanometers). This is evident from the 10mm scale of the photo above. However, it is apparent that even a very short exposure to a pulsed magnetic field induced mechanical stress on the cilia, causing it to bend sharply.

Keep in mind, however, that only the effects of a pulsed magnetic field were considered in this study; the electric field component was not included. Adding the electric field component would complicate the analysis further, although it would have been useful to see the results of such an experiment. Nevertheless, it does give us a glimpse into how cilia in the human body might respond in the presence of EMFs. It seems very likely that the much smaller cilia in the human body can undergo significant electromechanical stress in the presence of most commonly-used sources of wireless radiation—even with their significantly lower power levels.

EMFs and disease

As discussed earlier, the primary cilium plays a critical role in a variety of cell communication processes; it acts as a sort of “molecular antenna.” Abnormalities or defects in this crucial organelle can lead to a wide variety of diseases and organ failure. Interestingly, a 2018 review article from the international peer-reviewed journal Cells discusses the primary cilium’s role in cardiovascular diseases. This article confirms that “primary cilia are recognized as mechanical and chemical sensory organelles which serve as antennae to transmit extracellular to intracellular signaling mechanisms.”

The primary cilium also plays a key role as a blood flow sensor; defects in primary cilia can lead to a variety of cardiovascular diseases and conditions, including hypertension, vascular aneurysm, and atherosclerosis. This is even more alarming in light of the fact that cardiovascular diseases affect almost half of American adults (as of 2019). Could it be that widespread electropollution is a key trigger for such diseases? I suspect that is indeed the case. The authors conclude the following:

The role of the primary cilium in dysfunctions of the heart is a major red flag as it pertains to electropollution. Going further, electrostatics also plays a huge role in cell biology; DNA, in particular, is a highly charged molecule. The electrostatic force holds the DNA molecule together and gives it its structure and strength. The two strands of DNA are separated by a distance of 1 nm, while the individual atoms in each base are separated by a distance of about 0.3 nm. The fact that DNA structure is dependent upon electrostatic forces to hold it together is a major cause for concern with regard to EMFs. One shocking study indicates that even a very low-power electromagnetic wave of 5.6 mT with a frequency of only 100 Hz can induce genotoxicity in normal cells—with a mere 45 minutes of exposure.

The researchers indicated that the most likely manner in which these effects were induced was through “the production of different types of reactive oxygen species.” Regardless, if a mere 100 Hz EMF is capable of breaking the bonds in a DNA molecule, can you even imagine what the significantly higher frequencies coming from Wi-Fi routers and cell towers are doing to our bodies? The effects, while disastrous, can be so subtle that you may not realize the damage done until it’s too late—like a slow decay that suddenly manifests itself unexpectedly.

Damage to DNA is a precursor to developing tumors or cancer—it is the central component that ultimately leads to cancer forming in the body. Therefore, it is highly likely that various forms of cancer are being incorrectly attributed to other causes, when in reality the actual cause may very well be EMFs. This is a topic that desperately needs a closer look with an analytical eye—there is far too much pseudoscience and junk medicine being peddled as genuine, and this is further compounded by the egregious level of corrupt media garbage polluting the information landscape.

Oddly enough, a peculiar report from 2003 entitled “DNA electronics” highlights the unique ability of DNA to form electronic components. The authors note that due to the physical, technical, and economic limitations of silicon transistors, DNA could be used as an alternative to silicon for future nanoscale circuits.

A report like this raises even more questions about the research being done in this area. The fact that DNA can conduct an electrical current is no surprise, and it certainly raises red flags with regard to the damaging impact of EMFs—and whether they are even appropriate for humans to utilize on such a widespread basis. Due to the delicate nature of human DNA and the cells in the human body, along with the intrinsic characteristics of electromagnetic waves themselves, it is extremely likely that a plethora of diseases and illnesses are being directly caused or exacerbated by EMFs, even if they have already been attributed to other causes by the so-called “experts” in the “health” community. It is hard to know the true extent of the damage, especially when governments and corporations seem to have deliberately ignored legitimate studies on the biological effects of EMFs.

Needless to say, it is long overdue for this largely unacknowledged reality to upend the health industry entirely on its head and open up a huge can of worms with regard to numerous diseases and illnesses that are being wrongly attributed to other causes. The mainstream medical community is squarely in the crosshairs of this article. Make no mistake about it—this will eventually be a major scandal and a complete disaster for allopathic medicine; it is only a matter of time. There is no question in my mind that this is an absolutely sloppy and gruesome mess of epic proportions.

It’s safe to assume that virtually all EMFs generated by today’s wireless technologies pose an enormous risk to our health, simply due to the intrinsic nature of electromagnetic waves combined with the delicately balanced electrochemical forces involved in the body’s cells. Again, this is incredibly basic and intuitive, which makes it all the more perplexing—not to mention flagrantly idiotic—that the vast majority of the population is ignorant enough to show virtually no concern at all towards this profound and disastrous health risk. This isn’t something new with 5G, either—studies indicate that virtually all commonly used sources of EMFs can induce severe abnormalities in the molecular structure of our cells, whether they come from 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or any other kind of wireless technology. This raises the question of how much damage may occur to various tissues and organs over time.

The mainstream media’s reporting on 5G

An inspection of the recent news—or lack thereof—regarding the safety of 5G technology reveals an alarming phenomenon: a consistent effort by the mainstream media to ridicule so-called 5G “conspiracy theories,” while dismissing any notions of 5G’s harmful effects—mostly with nonsensical arguments and embarrassingly inadequate science. However, it turns out that whatever science these absurdly foolish writings do focus on is just complicated and fancy enough to give them the illusion of legitimacy, while keeping the truth hidden from most of the general public. Consequently, the public’s attitude seems to be, “Let’s just leave it to the experts.”

The even scarier part is that these are some of the world’s biggest news outlets brazenly pushing such reckless disinformation about 5G, such as the NY Times, Washington Post, and Forbes, just to name a few. I won’t even bother breaking down these hilariously crappy articles in detail, because I found them to be an insult to my intelligence. Articles such as these are actually quite appalling and sick, due to their egregious levels of overt and malicious deception, and there are plenty more where these came from.

Needless to say, such mainstream news outlets—which are already miserably atrocious and littered with low-quality propaganda, nonstop virtue-signaling and fear-mongering over senseless issues, ridiculously fake news, horribly distorted information, and irrelevant garbage all across the board—should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. What an absolutely filthy and repugnant mess. There are NO excuses for deceiving the public on this one—zero.

In my estimation, this type of deception is what has led to the deaths of countless millions over the last few decades—surreptitiously, of course. Innumerable people all over the world are viewing these repulsive, dishonest, and heinous articles from major news outlets and taking them seriously because, in their view, the information is coming from “trusted” or “authoritative” sources. The implications of this are a profound risk to your health and safety.

One recent example from such an “authoritative” source is an irresponsible post from Business Insider featuring a lackluster and unconvincing interview with Dr. Eric van Rongen, vice chair at the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP “sets the global guidelines for phone makers and telecommunications companies on how much radiation is safe for humans,” which isn’t particularly reassuring. Rongen tells Business Insider:

This is a very inadequate explanation from Rongen, which arouses suspicion as to his real motivations. He should know much better than that. Rongen’s dismissal of 5G radiation is something that “doesn’t result in adverse health effects like with ionizing radiation” is not only laughable, it’s extremely reckless and alarming.

Ionizing radiation is radiation that has enough energy to dislodge electrons from atoms or molecules, which subsequently causes the atom or molecule to become “ionized.” Non-ionizing radiation has the ability to make atoms vibrate or move them around within a molecule, but not enough energy to remove electrons from atoms. The problem with designating electromagnetic radiation according to these two categories is that it gives the false impression that ionization is the only manner in which electromagnetic radiation can harm the human body. However, this is not the case at all. Atoms and molecules within our cells do not need to be specifically ionized in order for them to sustain damage.

Ionization is not the be-all and end-all of harm caused to the molecules within our cells. The fact that non-ionizing radiation can still cause atoms and molecules to vibrate is more than enough of a reason to thoroughly investigate their effects on the human body, as this vibration can easily disrupt the normal functioning of biomolecules via “heating, altering chemical reactions or inducing electrical currents in tissues and cells,” according to a paper from IntechOpen. Moreover, the cutoff between “ionizing” and so-called “non-ionizing” radiation is not particularly well-defined, which muddies the waters even further.

ICNIRP guidelines

The ICNIRP is a registered non-profit in Munich, Germany, which immediately raises red flags. Anytime a non-profit is involved with influencing public policy, it raises red flags, due to collusion with the government, corporations, et al., as well as a lack of transparency and accountability with the general public. It is unwise to simply take such an organization at their word, without having any sort of public oversight to verify what the organization claims. Simply taking the claims of such an organization at face value enables any nefarious or self-serving individuals in powerful positions to easily manipulate the organization’s direction and overall agenda. Additionally, the fact that the group has “non-ionizing” in its name is also a cause for concern, due to its false sense of reassurance. It reeks of trying to hide something.

Earlier this year, the organization published a set of guidelines for limiting exposure to EMF from 100 kHz to 300 GHz. This was an update to their previous set of guidelines from 1998. The paper makes the following claim at the outset, which doesn’t exactly inspire much confidence: “Although these guidelines are based on the best science currently available, it is recognized that there may be limitations to this knowledge that could have implications for the exposure restrictions.“

Deceptiveness of the guidelines

For a supposedly comprehensive review coming from the international “scientific” community, these guidelines are highly insufficient and flawed. The report fixates on the faulty idea that the primary harm from non-ionizing EMFs is body heating. However, this is entirely incorrect. There are numerous ways in which non-ionizing EMFs can detrimentally affect the human body, not just from a thermal aspect. By focusing primarily on the increase in body temperature caused by these types of EMFs, this seemingly conflicted organization is letting itself off the hook by providing a false sense of safety from a highly dangerous and surreptitious technology. The ICNIRP elaborates on the methodology used for deriving these guidelines:

Notice the sneaky deception here. Again, the ICNIRP provides a false sense of safety by claiming that it adopts a so-called “conservative approach” to ensure that its limits are protective in case they are “exceeded by a substantial margin.” Then, the group lets itself off the hook by claiming “no evidence” exists to indicate that additional precautionary measures beyond their so-called “conservative approach” would benefit the health of the population.

Another concerning statement from the report goes as follows: “Although the present guidelines replace the 100 kHz to 10 MHz EMF frequency range of the ICNIRP (2010) guidelines, the science pertaining to direct RF radiation effects on nerve stimulation and associated restrictions within the ICNIRP (2010) guidelines has not been reconsidered here.” It should be intuitively obvious that EMFs can have a direct impact on nerve stimulation, from our earlier discussion about neurons; thus, the fact that the ICNIRP failed to provide updated research on this topic within its new set of guidelines is grossly negligent.

Moreover, the report goes in-depth into heavy mathematics and complex derivations of concepts that are either totally irrelevant or already intuitive in nature. In this manner, the report avoids discussing the wide-ranging and deadly biological effects of non-ionizing EMFs unrelated to body heating. By focusing only on the narrow and limited scope of health hazards encompassing the thermal effects of EMFs, which is clearly illogical and shortsighted, the report manages to mislead the public about the huge assortment of other health hazards directly linked to non-ionizing EMFs. Above all, the ICNIRP and its partners are engaging in sinister dishonesty, while also covering up a particularly hideous and grisly crime against humanity.

Five false assumptions of the EMF exposure limits

Instead of adopting proper safety limits, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the ICNIRP’s “guidelines,” which were developed in association with ANSI and IEEE, as well as industry and military organizations. The guidelines are based on decades-old research, and they have a far lower level of certainty than a proper safety standard. The Environmental Health Trust (EHT), a think tank that uses research, education, and policy to promote a healthier environment, states the following about the FCC’s guidelines:

According to the EHT, the existing electromagnetic exposure limits are based on five fallacies, or false assumptions, which renders them obsolete. Let’s take a look at how the EHT breaks down each of these false assumptions in detail (summarized here, from the EHT website).

Fallacy 1: Heating is the only detrimental effect of exposure to EMF.

Contrary to what the ICNIRP and its partners claim, heating is not the primary issue. Thousands of studies show detrimental effects unrelated to heating, ranging from sperm damage to various forms of cancer, including brain cancer. Even the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the WHO, reluctantly declared RF radiation to be a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) in 2011.

Fallacy 2: Long term effects are not a concern; only immediate biological effects should be considered.

The FCC decided not to consider the health effects of continuous long-term exposure over several years. Considering the fact that we are accustomed to using wireless internet for many years now, this is something that should have been meticulously studied a long time ago. There is a definitive link between long-term exposure to EMF and brain tumors, among other forms of cancer. As mentioned above, the WHO/IARC classified microwave radiation as a Group 2B (possible) human carcinogen in 2011.

Fallacy 3: The impact on health can be understood merely by averaging radiation power levels across time.

It is wrong to assume that simply averaging power levels over time is enough to capture the negative impact on health. Under the FCC’s exposure limits, the radiation exposure is averaged for 30 minutes, which means they don’t consider the intense pulses (short bursts) that people are regularly exposed to. Peak millisecond radiation bursts need to be taken into account since they significantly impact our bodies at the cellular level. The problem with average power levels is they hide the peak power levels (corresponding to the short bursts) during the same time period. Averages can often be much lower than peak levels. The EHT uses a great analogy to explain this:

That just about sums it up nicely.

Fallacy 4: The unique vulnerability of women, children, and fetuses is not a concern.

FCC compliance testing only takes into account a model of a 220-pound male head. However, research shows that radiation penetrates deeper into the smaller bodies of women, children, and fetuses, which the FCC neglected to consider. In other words, the FCC exposure limits did not consider the fact that women, children and fetuses have a much higher energy absorption.

Fallacy 5: RF radiation is uniformly absorbed by all types of body tissue. It is not important to consider the discrepancy in EMF absorption across different body tissues and organs.

RF and microwave radiation is absorbed differently by different types of body tissue, but the FCC’s exposure limits do not take this into consideration. For example, EMF penetrates deeply into the female breast tissue, because it is highly absorbent; consequently, this results in a significantly higher dose of radiation. The eyes and male testes are also particularly vulnerable to EMF. Additionally, since children’s bodies have a higher water content than adults, their tissues are more absorptive of EMF. David Gultekin (an associate research scientist at Columbia University), together with Bell Labs electrical engineer Lothar Moeller, demonstrated that normal working cell phones create tiny hotspots inside living brain tissue.

Additional concerns of the EHT

The EHT highlighted some additional concerns with regard to the FCC exposure limits. First of all, the FCC does not take into account wireless signals coming from multiple antennas. In other words, the FCC exposure limits assume that “wireless signals at a human body from a distance are only from one transmitter antenna.” However, in the 21st century, we are bombarded with numerous radiation streams from a wide variety of transmitter antennas. For example, a typical classroom might have radiation streams emanating from “30 laptops, 30 cell phones, a wireless printer, a wireless security system, an overhead internet access point and a cell tower located in line of sight outside the window.”

Another issue is that the “standard operating positions” used by the FCC do not consider how we use our devices today. FCC regulations specify a set of consumer “standard operating positions,” e.g., the user keeps their laptop a distance of at least 20 cm (8 inches) away. A user would thus violate this “standard operation position” if they placed the laptop on their lap. Since devices are radiation tested only at these fixed distances, we can frequently expose ourselves to radiation levels exceeding the FCC’s limits when we violate their “standard operating positions.”

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had started the process of creating exposure guidelines; unfortunately, they were unable to finish as their funding was cut off. In 1995, the EPA provided a briefing for the FCC, titled Development of RF Radiation Exposure Guidelines. In 1996, they drafted a set of RF exposure guidelines that were only focused on thermal effects, before announcing that another set of exposure guidelines for non-thermal effects would be released in 1998. However, the Telecommunications Industry Association lobbied Congress to prohibit the EPA’s release; Congress passed an Appropriations Bill in 1996 that defunded the EPA’s work in this area. The bill contained language specifically prohibiting the EPA from adding more regulations, stating that “…EPA should not engage in [electromagnetic field] activities.” The 1996 Telecommunications Act gave the FCC, a non-health agency, authority over the health effects of wireless technology.

There are thousands of studies that indicate the harmful effects of EMF from the non-ionizing portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Yet the FCC still claims that there is “inconclusive evidence” to show whether such radiation is even carcinogenic. The WHO’s subsidiary organization IARC reluctantly designated extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation to be a “possible” carcinogen in 2013, despite the fact that it definitively IS a carcinogen, based upon numerous peer-reviewed studies. Even then, the WHO—just like the FCC—continues to claim that there is insufficient evidence to lower the quantitative exposure limits. Considering the exorbitant amount of taxpayer funding gifted to our federal government year after year, I would consider their ineptitude on this matter to be either astoundingly pathetic or highly sinister—probably the latter.

At least a half-century of egregious cover-ups

What is truly astonishing and disturbing is that the deadly effects of RF and microwave radiation have been covered up by the WHO, CDC, telecommunications companies, and governments worldwide for nearly 50 years—or longer. Such obvious scientific and medical fallacies cannot be attributed to mere human error; it is quite obvious that this issue has been deliberately overlooked.

Amazingly, in 1973, the WHO themselves convened a wide-ranging symposium in Warsaw, Poland, which included 60 researchers specializing in the biological effects of microwaves on the human body. An excellent resource from the website EMF Off! contains detailed information about the symposium. The proceedings of the symposium were published in a startling 350-page document which, according to EMF Off!, primarily describes “the adverse effects of microwave radiation on neurological, vascular and cardiac systems, as well as on the thyroid and thrombocytes; it also reports that microwaves can cause Type II diabetes, sleep issues, cataracts, opacification of the ocular lens, and behavioural disorders, among others.”

The fact that such deleterious health effects were known as early as 1973 is incredibly alarming because it indicates an active effort on the part of the WHO, ICNIRP, FCC, telecom corporations, et al. to suppress this information since then. It was not that difficult for me to locate this document on the web. The problem is that a document like this is completely drowned out by the staggering amount of industry- and State-sponsored propaganda from numerous bought-and-paid-for corporate media outlets mocking the so-called “conspiracy theorists” for essentially raising a “false alarm.” Mind you, there is absolutely nothing “false” about this particular alarm, as one astonishing passage from the 1973 symposium report indicates:

There were four key observations from the symposium with regard to the interaction between EMFs and living systems:

1. EMFs applied to a living system modify the electromagnetic interaction between the glial cells and neuronal cells in a nervous structure.
2. All the parameters that characterize the electromagnetic field, the environment, and the subject radiated must be quantified and incorporated.
3. The interaction between electromagnetic fields and living systems triggers a set of interactive biophysical phenomena.
4. The unstable sequence of events triggered by electromagnetic fields impacting living systems may be stabilized at the cell, tissue, organ, or organism level.

In addition, the symposium attendees noted the following:

Remember, this was way back in 1973—that’s 47 years ago. Considering the eye-opening research discussed at this symposium, you would think that the WHO and other entities involved would have made a concerted effort to expand upon this research and incorporate such findings towards the development of legitimate safety standards. But instead, they have consistently shunned such research and stubbornly stuck to a narrow set of guidelines for “limiting” exposure to RF/microwave radiation, based upon deceptive and faulty reasoning. And yet, most of the public still seems to believe that such a duplicitous, sick, two-faced, and psychopathic organization is actually telling them the truth about something like COVID-19, which is absolutely laughable and shamefully idiotic. Give me a f**king break—just look at their creepy, serpentine flag, which is clearly inappropriate and sinister in and of itself.

If you’ve managed to read this far, you should probably be outraged at your government and telecom corporations for basically throwing your life under the bus in the name of profits. But hey, as long as I can download a movie on my phone in 30 seconds, who cares if my body gets irradiated—right?

Sadly, that seems to be the mentality of the vast majority of the population.

Overview of 5G and other sources of EMFs

In light of the fact that most of the public has already been exposed to EMFs for several decades now, it is prudent to discuss a few key sources of EMFs before specifically diving into the health effects of 5G. This will provide a glimpse into how hazardous the situation already was before even a single 5G transmitter was installed.

In this section, we’ll take a closer look at the biological effects of EMFs from smart meters, Wi-Fi, 4G LTE, and 5G. That doesn’t even cover the full extent of it, though—I won’t go in-depth into earlier generations of cellular technology (1G, 2G, 3G). If you want more information about these, you can  find them here.

Smart meters

 

Utility companies worldwide are replacing electric, gas, and water analog meters with so-called “smart meters,” (also called AMI, or AMR). They are part of an expensive wireless system called the “Smart Grid,” which is installed in homes, businesses, and the environment. Smart meters eliminate meter reader jobs by managing and recording the electricity and performance of electronic devices in the home. Unfortunately, they come with several huge drawbacks, namely cybersecurity threats, privacy invasion, and health hazards. This becomes more of a pressing issue due to the fact that smart meters are being installed without informed consent and without full disclosure of how they work or what is done with the personal data they collect.

James Woolsey, a former CIA director, says the Smart Grid is a “really really stupid grid” due to its hacking vulnerabilities. A Trojan horse is capable of infecting any smart meter on the grid and causing the entire grid to be shut down or destroyed. Smart meters are also a surveillance device because it collects data about detailed energy usage. This can be used to predict your behavioral patterns and detect whether you are in the home or not. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that California utility companies admitted to disclosing “the energy-use records and other personal information of thousands of customers” in 2012.

Nevertheless, the most pressing concern with regard to smart meters is the focus of this article: health hazards. And the health hazards are quite deadly. Here is a short but disturbing video of an experiment conducted in 2013, where a subject’s blood was drawn live while they were standing next to a smart meter, and subsequently tested to examine the effects of the pulsed radio waves on their red blood cells (courtesy of Stop Smart Meters! UK).

Smart meters are hazardous in two different ways:

• They can emit up to 60 times the US safety limit for RF radiation (1000 micro-watts per square meter)
• They transmit spikes of high-frequency electricity into the walls of the home, creating an electromagnetic smog—also known as “dirty electricity”—that “covers” or “surrounds” the home environment with high levels of RF radiation; since this dirty electricity is unusable by your electronics, it gets trapped in your home’s wiring
  

According to the American Amateur Radio League (AARL), the frequency of operation for smart meters fitted with an RF transmitter “is typically in the 902 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands,” with power output “typically 1 watt in the 902 MHz band and much less in the 2.4 GHz band.” Of course, I would take such claims with a grain of salt until seeing actual data.

A grassroots organization called Maryland Smart Meter Awareness (MSMA) managed to compile such data, and the numbers are terrifying. They noted that smart meters have been associated with over 900 fires. In addition, “smart meters pulse RF radiation anywhere between 14,000 to 190,000 times each day according to utility documents.” This is in stark contrast to the commonly stated amount of 6 times per day, claimed by a host of utility companies. Why is this so significant? Well, with what you’ve read thus far, do you really need another largely useless device emitting pulsed RF radiation (more dangerous than continuous RF radiation) 14,000 to 19,000 times each day? What is the purpose of so many RF pulses, and why would the utility companies lie about it so grossly? What, exactly, is the purpose of such devices? You be the judge.

Wi-Fi

Although Wi-Fi is ubiquitous nowadays, it is a very deceptively sinister technology. One particularly alarming 2018 paper by Professor Martin L. Pall of Washington State University, entitled “Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health,” reported on the results of 23 controlled, scientific studies of the detrimental effects of Wi-Fi and EMFs on animals, cells, and human beings. Pall states:

The multitude of harmful health effects caused by Wi-Fi is astounding. They are listed below for reference (copied from Pall’s report):

• Oxidative stress, in some studies effects lowered by antioxidants
• Sperm/testicular damage, male infertility
• Neuropsychiatric changes including EEG; prenatal Wi-Fi leads to post-natal neural development, increased cholinesterase; decreased special learning; Wi-Fi led to greatly lowered ability to distinguish familiar from novel objects, changes in GABA and cholinergic transmission
• Apoptosis (programmed cell death), elevated apoptotic markers
• Cellular DNA damage
• Endocrine changes incl.: Catecholamines, pancreatic endocrine dysfunction, prolactin, progesterone and estrogen
• Calcium overload
• Melatonin lowering; sleep disruption
• MicroRNA expression (brain)
• Abnormal postnatal development
• Disrupts development of teeth
• Cardiac changes, blood pressure disruption; erythrocyte damage
• Growth stimulation of adipose stem cells (role in obesity?)

It may be difficult to wrap your head around this list. It may be even more difficult to wrap your head around why the FCC, WHO and others have all but ignored such deleterious health effects, while countless households all over the world have been using wireless routers for many years. Needless to say, this is not something that should be taken lightly. Pall goes on to explain that the studies he reviewed may actually be greatly underestimating the damage done by Wi-Fi:

If you’re using a personal Wi-Fi network to read this article, you might immediately feel the urge to turn off your wireless router. Regardless, the primary reason why I bring up Wi-Fi in an article about 5G is to provide you with some perspective. If a local Wi-Fi router alone can cause such significant damage to your body over extended periods of time, what do you think a supercharged mobile network like 5G will be able to do—especially considering its vastly increased amount of cell towers compared to previous generations?

4G LTE cellular networks

4G LTE, which stands for “fourth generation long-term evolution,” is the current generation of wireless technology. According to Verizon, 99% of Americans—which amounts to 327 million people—currently have access to 4G LTE. Verizon launched the first large-scale 4G LTE network in 2010. 4G boasts a peak speed of 1.45 Gbit/s and a latency of 40-50 ms (latency is the time required for a set of data to travel between two points). It is capable of supporting anywhere from 10k-100k devices per square mile. 4G is also an all-IP (Internet protocol) standard, meaning it sends and receives data in packets, using a standard communications protocol. 4G LTE carrier bands used in the USA include 600 MHz, 700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1700 MHz, 1900 MHz, 2300 MHz, and 2500 MHz. The vast majority of 4G LTE mobile data volume utilizes the mid-band spectrum, which means 1700 MHz and/or 1900 MHz for a given carrier.

Currently, the dominant source of RF EMFs outdoors is mobile network base stations, primarily from 4G. Base stations are just cellular towers affixed with antenna equipment that relay data to and from the Internet and your mobile device. A single 4G base station is capable of serving 300-400 people. 4G also supports a maximum of 100,000 devices per square kilometer. Many people probably aren’t aware that 4G is a highly sophisticated, self-organizing, and self-configuring system. It also has advanced self-healing capabilities that enable it to route traffic through other towers in case of a power outage or equipment failure. Thus, 4G is capable of performing many workarounds without human intervention. Sounds like something straight out of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator, and we haven’t even gotten to 5G yet. Yikes.

The geographical area covered by a cellular radio antenna is represented by a simple hexagon. Such hexagons are commonly referred to as sectors (or cells). Normally, cell towers emit electromagnetic radiation in a radial manner, spreading outwards equally in all directions. However, beamforming is a technique which uses multiple antennas to control the direction of the wave-front, in order to beam it in a specific direction. In this manner, more energy can be targeted in the direction of a specific user or mobile device, resulting in less loss and higher throughput. This is obviously an important factor with regard to safety.

The first peer-reviewed study on 4G LTE cell phone radiation was released in September 2013 in the journal Clinical Neurophysiology, entitled “The alteration of spontaneous low frequency oscillations caused by acute electromagnetic fields exposure.” In the study, 18 participants were exposed to 4G LTE cellphone radiation on their right ear. The results showed that 4G LTE exposure affected brain neural activity in both the closer and remote brain regions. An article by Joel M. Moskowitz, a professor at UC Berkeley, discusses the results of this critical study:

Moskowitz has researched disease prevention programs and policies for over 40 years, and his recent work has focused on the adverse effects of wireless radiation. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website serves as a valuable resource for learning about the dangers of 4G and other sources of EMFs and is well worth a visit.

5G cellular networks

The majority of wireless communication worldwide currently occurs between the frequencies of 100 MHz and 6 GHz. However, this range increases significantly with 5G. Cellular companies began deploying 5G worldwide in 2019. The primary advantage of 5G networks is that they will have greater bandwidth, providing higher download speeds (up to 10 Mbit/s). It is expected that 5G networks will eventually be used as general internet service providers (ISPs), overtaking existing ISPs such as cable internet, and will also enable new applications for the Internet of Things (IoT).

Base stations play an even more significant role for 5G than they did for 4G since 5G utilizes a much denser network of cell towers than previous generations of cellular networks (due to the significantly higher millimeter wave frequencies involved). If you recall the frequency formula from earlier, the frequency and wavelength of an electromagnetic wave are inversely proportional—this means the higher the frequency, the lower the wavelength, and vice versa. Thus, the higher frequency millimeter waves utilized by large portions of the 5G spectrum will have a much shorter wavelength than previous generations. This, in turn, means that millimeter wave 5G frequencies can only travel short distances—hence why the need for so many more transmitters in order to propagate signals over the same distances.

The millimeter waves used by 5G also have more difficulty penetrating homes, buildings, and other such barriers. Thus, instead of using large towers spaced widely apart (like 4G LTE), 5G will use significantly more small relays and towers that are in close proximity to each other. This will enable the higher-speed 5G signals to have the same penetration and coverage as earlier generations of cellular technology, while also pushing far more information through—which equates to far more dangerous RF pulses. This also means there will be very little breathing room when it comes to avoiding or distancing ourselves from 5G hardware in our cities, neighborhoods, and local communities.

Many new smartphones are 5G ready and only need a software update to begin using the new standard. Additionally, 5G promises to be able to support 1 million devices per square kilometer, which sounds like a gargantuan number. That’s ten times the maximum amount supported by 4G. Moreover, 5G will enable smart homes equipped with ultra HD and 3-D video, which will usher in virtual reality and the AI revolution. However, as has been the case for every generation of wireless technology, the safety of 5G has not been explored by the FCC. Not even remotely.

A recent study explores the exposure of insects to RF electromagnetic radiation from 2 to 120 GHz, which includes the frequency range utilized by 5G. The paper is the first to report on the absorbed RF electromagnetic power in four different types of insects across these frequency ranges. The researchers note that the absorbed dose in both insects and humans can be “strongly enhanced” when there is full-body or partial-body resonance. Their new study expands upon similar studies previously done on insects at 27 MHz, 900-915 MHz, and 2450 MHz.

The absorbed power in all insects showed a dependence on “a peak frequency that depends on their size and dielectric properties.” The maximum absorbed RF power occurred at wavelengths comparable to the insects’ body size. Additionally, the absorbed power did show a decrease at frequencies above the peak frequency (i.e., smaller wavelengths), but only slightly.

While the insect study serves as a reasonable baseline from which to examine the potential health effects of millimeter-wave radiation on humans, insects are significantly smaller than humans—which means the wavelengths (and hence, the frequencies) are not exactly comparable. Nevertheless, a number of studies have also been done to investigate 5G’s direct effects on humans, which are conveniently summarized by the EHT here (although most of them require paid access).

A review article in The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, entitled “5G Wireless Communication and Health Effects—A Pragmatic Review Based on Available Studies Regarding 6 to 100 GHz,” analyzes 94 relevant studies that conducted in vivo or in vitro investigations. The article characterized each study according to the following criteria:

• study type (in vivo, in vitro)
• biological material (species, cell type, etc.)
• biological endpoint
• exposure (frequency, exposure duration, power density)
• results
• certain quality criteria

As per the article, there was a response to radiation exposure in 80% of the in vivo studies and 58% of the in vitro studies; all the biological endpoints studied were affected by these responses. However, the authors also note the following:

The review primarily covers studies done in the 30.1 GHz to 65 GHz frequency range. A majority of the studies, as indicated by the percentages noted above, show biological responses to mmWave exposure. The authors indicate that “no in-depth conclusions can be drawn regarding the biological and health effects of MMW exposures in the 6-100 GHz frequency range,” which is where 5G frequencies will fall under. They also note that the studies vary widely, and “the total number of studies is surprisingly low.” Nevertheless, they concluded that a consistent relationship does seem to exist “between intensity (power density), exposure time, or frequency, and the effects of exposure,” which is to be expected (given what we’ve covered so far). The article concludes with the following three observations:

I certainly can’t fault the authors for being unable to come up with in-depth conclusions, given the lack of studies and the variability in the ones that were conducted. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that they stressed the low overall amount of studies in this area, which further indicates that the rollout of 5G technology is reckless and unwarranted.

A particularly interesting study from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published in 2018, investigates human skin “as a sub-THz receiver”—sub-THz refers to frequencies in the 100 GHz to 300 GHz range. The authors of this paper build upon their previous work in which they showed that “the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band.”

The skin consists of two main layers: the epidermis (outer layer) and the dermis (inner layer). There are also between 2 and 5 million sweat ducts distributed throughout the skin covering the body. Apparently, the tips of these sweat ducts, which are responsible for expelling sweat from the gland to the skin’s surface, are shaped like a helical structure. This, along with the fact that the dermis has a higher dielectric permittivity than the epidermis, led the authors to assume that the sweat ducts could be modeled as electromagnetic entities in the form of imperfect helical antennas. The researchers applied basic antenna theory to the typical duct dimensions, and in conjunction with the known dielectric and conductivity characteristics of skin tissue, they found the bandwidth to be in the sub-THz frequency range.

In their study, they developed a “unique simulation tool of human skin” which accounts for both the skin’s multi-layer structure as well as the embedded helical segment of the sweat duct. They initially proposed that the electric current “activated” in the sweat duct “antenna” would be a result of “the diffusion of protons via hopping through distributed H-bond networks” that are “known to exist in biological structures.”

Their simulation results were verified in a series of in vivo experiments conducted on a number of test subjects using the W-band frequency range (75-110 GHz). Additionally, their simulation showed that the primary mechanism of sub-THz absorption occurring in the skin layer is through absorption in the sweat duct. Their study concludes with the following stark assessment:

The scope of studies beyond this was relatively limited, so I had to pursue the alternative media and blogosphere for more information about the risks. An excellent Scientific American article entitled “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe” provides a rare example from a relatively well-known publication. The article is written by none other than Dr. Moskowitz, the aforementioned professor from Berkeley. Dr. Moskowitz says of the FCC’s RFR exposure limits:

Dr. Moskowitz also notes that while the exposure limits do regulate the intensity of the exposure, they ignore the RFR’s signaling properties—which play a key role in the biological effects.

He makes a good point here—lab rats aren’t exactly human beings (and they certainly don’t possess a complex brain or nervous system like humans, either). The article goes on to indicate that there is little research even on the health effects of the prior three generations of cellular technology (2G, 3G, and 4G), which makes the reckless leap to 5G even more egregious. Dr. Moskowitz highlights the dangers of deploying 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S., which will blanket the places we live, work, and play with harmful, round-the-clock EMFs. He rightfully asserts his support for the recommendations of 250 scientists in yet another 5G appeal submitted in 2017.

The highly respectable and well-researched publication GlobalResearch also produced a fabulous article about 5G in January 2020, authored by Makia Freeman, which highlights 13 reasons why 5G wireless technology will be a “catastrophe for humanity.” I will briefly describe the most startling of these reasons here. Freeman explains how EMFs activate voltage-gated calcium ion (VGCCs) in the body, causing them to release excess calcium into cells. She highlights the research of the aforementioned Dr. Pall of Washington State University:

I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Pall’s assertion here. The formation of peroxynitrite and free radicals due to the release of excess calcium ions is a disaster as it pertains to human health. In fact, a stunning article from nearly three decades ago in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology, entitled “The role of free radicals in disease,” makes a shocking admission: “Evidence is accumulating that most of the degenerative diseases that afflict humanity have their origin in deleterious free radical reactions.” The fact that such an article was published all the way back in 1992 should be a great cause for concern with regard to EMFs.

In her GlobalResearch article, Freeman also notes how the pulsed microwaves that 5G towers will transmit are far more active (and lethal) than continuous waves. It is true that 4G radiation and other lower-frequency microwaves can travel further distances and penetrate deeper than millimeter waves, due to their higher wavelengths. However, there are certain characteristics of 5G radiation that will also enable them to achieve similarly deep penetration within the body. The telecommunications companies claim that 5G millimeter waves can only penetrate the outer 1 cm of the body; this is patently false. Freeman also highlights the research of Arthur Fistenberg from a 2018 article:

In other words, 5G pulses actually replicate inside the body and create “tiny new 5G antennas internally.” This means 5G radiation will still penetrate deep into the body, even with its much shorter wavelengths—which will in turn produce significantly more lethal effects than lower-frequency EMFs. This becomes even more deadly due to the significantly higher number of transmitters in 5G than previous generations. Freeman points out the danger of the phased array densification of 5G:

I encourage you to read through the article for yourself to see the other important points highlighted by Freeman. Nevertheless, her overview details how 5G is essentially a weapons system under the guise of consumer convenience; this is also evident from examining 5G hardware, which utilizes a dielectric lens. 5G will beam up to hundreds of times more radiation than 4G, and it is part of the greater agenda to establish “a giant, inescapable command and control grid that eliminates all privacy and allows the manipulators to surveil every single person on the planet all the time.” If you care anything at all about your health, safety, and privacy, you may want to start alerting people to the dangers of 5G immediately.

5G and COVID-19

Did you really think I would end this article without a discussion of the so-called “conspiracy theories” involving 5G and the “novel” coronavirus, aka SARS-CoV-2? Not a chance. These “conspiracy theories” have been actively mocked and discredited by the mainstream media as of late. Before diving headfirst into the gnarly details of this one, however, let’s pause and reflect on this for a moment. Why would there be such an active, widespread push by the corporate media to ridicule and dismiss this particular “conspiracy theory” so feverishly? Is it really out of “benevolence,” i.e., because they truly care about “protecting” their consumers from supposed “misinformation”? Or is there another agenda behind it? And what exactly is “misinformation”? Who gets to decide what “misinformation” is? Just make sure it isn’t a psychopath (or a group of them).

This may come as a surprise to you, but there is no actual proof that SARS-CoV-2 even exists; the reason for this is that no SARS-CoV-2 virus has ever been isolated. This is covered by Jon Rapaport in a pair of articles on his fantastic blog, which you can find here and here. In light of this, I will look at the reported symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 and examine whether there is any overlap with the symptoms of RF radiation, particularly from 5G. According to the WHO, “The most common symptoms of COVID-19 are fever, dry cough, and tiredness.” These are very general symptoms that can occur across a wide variety of ailments. However, there are also less common symptoms that include “aches and pains, nasal congestion, headache, conjunctivitis, sore throat, diarrhea, loss of taste or smell or a rash on skin or discoloration of fingers or toes.” The WHO indicates that roughly 80% of patients are able to recover without hospital treatment. The other 20%, however, become seriously ill and develop difficulty breathing. That sounds a bit vague, but regardless, it’s a starting point. The CDC also provides a list of symptoms, which include the following:

• Fever or chills
• Cough
• Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
• Fatigue
• Muscle or body aches
• Headache
• New loss of taste or smell
• Sore throat
• Congestion or runny nose
• Nausea or vomiting
• Diarrhea

However, the CDC also states, “This list does not include all possible symptoms. CDC will continue to update this list as we learn more about COVID-19.” Most of the symptoms appear to overlap with the WHO’s list, although the lack of consistency between the two intertwined organizations’ list of symptoms for a virus supposedly causing a worldwide pandemic is a bit odd. In light of this, I decided to look for a more detailed analysis of COVID-19 symptoms, particularly the more serious symptoms and complications involving hospitalized patients, from a peer-reviewed research paper.

Using this approach, I came across a Lancet paper that describes the clinical features of pneumonia patients in Wuhan, China, who were deemed to be infected with SARS-CoV2. The authors indicate that human coronaviruses “cause mild respiratory diseases.” They also note that there are similarities in the clinical features between SARS-CoV-2 and “previous betacoronavirus infections.” The following symptoms were observed in these patients:

Among these symptoms, dyspnoea (difficult or labored breathing) and bilateral ground-glass opacities (abnormal findings on a lung CT scan) stand out the most. Additionally, the indication that target cells could be in the lower airway, due to the lack of patients with “prominent upper respiratory tract signs and symptoms (eg, rhinorrhoea, sneezing, or sore throat)” is worth mentioning. This gives us a general idea of the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 patients.

I also found a paper that details a useful timeline of the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak. It indicates that the first coronavirus case was confirmed on December 8, 2019. Additional pneumonia cases with “unknown etiology” were reported to the WHO on December 31, 2019. This timeline is noteworthy for this particular analysis since China—in the words of the BBC—rolled out “one of the world’s largest” 5G networks as of November 2019. Hubei Province, where Wuhan is located, had already set up over 300 5G base stations as of May 2019, according to Chinese media hub Xinhua News Agency. The media platform’s digital outlet, XinhuaNet, reported that Wuhan alone would have 10,000 base stations by the end of 2019. China Mobile Hubei Branch had activated 1,580 5G base stations in Wuhan as of mid-October. That is a lot of base stations blanketing the city with millimeter wave radiation.

 

 

Now that we have a good idea of the specific symptoms of COVID-19, let’s determine whether any of these can actually be triggered by 5G radiation. In March 2020, the aforementioned Dr. Pall provided a breakdown of how the 5G rollout may be severely exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic. While he doesn’t outright claim that the virus doesn’t exist—perhaps just to be politically correct—he does highlight five different effects resulting from the activation of VGCCs by 5G radiation:

1. Excessive intracellular calcium
2. Oxidative stress
3. NF-kappaB elevation
4. Inflammation
5. Apoptosis (programmed cell death)

Dr. Pall notes that each of these five effects plays a role in pneumonia—reportedly the predominant cause of death in the COVID-19 pandemic—in a manner that greatly increases the percentage of people dying. He elaborates further:

It appears Dr. Pall was already well ahead of the industry when it came to examining the health effects of 5G; he published another article back in March 2019 entitled “5G Criminally Insane Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Fry Living Things.” Even further back, in August of 2017, Dr. Pall had written a letter to California legislators about the dangers of rolling out 5G technology. One insightful passage from this letter succinctly captures the stark dangers of EMFs—even the weak ones that we are exposed to regularly:

Dr. Pall’s work clearly describes how even weak EMFs can have massive biological effects on our bodies’ cells. This opens the door to further investigating the role that 5G could be playing in the COVID-19 pandemic. The symptoms of dry cough, dyspnoea, and bilateral ground-glass opacities, as noted above, are particularly noteworthy when considering 5G radiation. Interestingly, the chart below reveals that 98% of RF radiation is absorbed by oxygen at 60 GHz (due to complex quantum mechanical phenomena). This is critically important due to the fact that 60 GHz lies within the 5G frequency spectrum. Furthermore, oxygen still absorbs at least some amount of RF energy at frequencies between roughly 40 GHz to 80 GHz.

An incredible blog post by Mike Adams of Natural News explains how 5G radiation can “alter the structure and function of hemoglobin,” leading to oxygen deprivation. Adams notes that coronavirus patients are not exactly dying from “viral pneumonia”—rather, they are dying “from an inability to absorb or carry oxygen in the blood.” This is also explained by NYC ICU emergency physician Cameron Kyle-Sidell in the video below.

Adams breaks it down further in his blog post:

Hence, the diagnosis of “viral” pneumonia for COVID-19 patients may in fact be a misleading one, in light of Dr. Kyle-Sidell’s prognosis. Interestingly, New York City was actually one of the first places to receive widespread 5G coverage in the United States after T-Mobile and Verizon launched their 5G networks in 2019. In his Natural News post, Adams describes the mechanism by which 5G can induce coronavirus-like symptoms.

First, it’s necessary to understand how the blood carries oxygen, which is an absolutely fascinating and miraculous phenomenon. Blood consists of three different groups of cells: plasma, white blood cells and platelets, and red blood cells (RBCs). RBCs (also known as erythrocytes) are the most common type of cell in the blood, possessing a diameter of just 6μm. Every second, the bone marrow produces 2-3 million RBCs and sends them into circulation. They circulate in the body for up to 120 days before being removed by the spleen and liver. The body uses a protein called hemoglobin to transport oxygen in the blood. Hemoglobin is the primary component of RBCs; it is also what gives RBCs their red color.

The hemoglobin molecule is comprised of four subunits; each subunit is an iron atom bound to a chemical structure known as a heme group. When functioning normally, a hemoglobin molecule uses iron (Fe²⁺) to bind with four molecules of oxygen, forming the molecule oxyhemoglobin (the oxygen-loaded form of hemoglobin). However, this binding is only achieved due to “partial pressure,” meaning the oxygen concentration in the lung tissues is greater than the oxygen concentration on the hemoglobin molecule—causing the oxygen to “leap” onto the hemoglobin such that the partial pressures across the chasm are equalized.

However, as Adams explains, “5G radiation alters the porosity of cell membranes, allowing some molecules or ionic elements to move more easily across those members, displacing other molecules (or soluble gasses such as carbon dioxide) that might normally make that leap.” This explanation further validates the work of Dr. Pall, who also came to a similar conclusion. 5G exposure alters cell permeability (porosity) and also releases “peroxinitrites,” which are “inflammation-producing molecules that ravage other healthy molecules circulating in the blood.”

To better understand this process, it is important to explain hemoglobin’s protein structure. The core component of hemoglobin is the aforementioned heme group—a complex molecule that contains iron (Fe²⁺) at its center. The heme group is surrounded by a “porphyrin ring,” a cluster of unique structures that has a special affinity for oxygen. This porphyrin ring is composed of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. Oxygen’s ability to “leap” onto this molecule completely depends on the structure (i.e., ionic charges) of the structures in the porphyrin ring.

Adams describes the hemoglobin molecule itself as a “miracle of nanotechnology,” due to its ability to transmorph into two separate structural states. This is dependent upon whether or not the molecule is carrying oxygen. In the “R-state,” hemoglobin becomes a magnet for oxygen. Once it binds with four oxygen atoms, the hemoglobin structure becomes highly stable and appears red. Conversely, in the “T-state,” hemoglobin lacks oxygen and appears blue—this is the reason why low-oxygen blood has a blue color.

Hemoglobin relies on a special protein called “histidine” to bind to oxygen; without the presence of this critical protein, the heme group would have a higher affinity toward carbon monoxide instead of protein. This means the entire heme group would be occupied by carbon monoxide, thereby blocking the absorption of oxygen. Thus, if the histidine protein is altered or affected in any way, hemoglobin ends up carrying carbon monoxide (CO) as opposed to oxygen (O₂), which leads to oxygen deprivation in the blood. This is particularly dangerous due to the fact that carbon monoxide binds to hemoglobin roughly 210 times more tightly than oxygen. Hemoglobin’s heme group also has a special affinity for carbon dioxide (CO₂), which enables it to carry CO₂ out of the body’s cells and transport it back to the lungs. In his Natural News post, Adams highlights an important point regarding this dual-functionality of the hemoglobin molecule:

The primary takeaway is that any modification in hemoglobin’s delicate structure will hinder its ability to bind with oxygen. The polypeptide chains (shown in the figure above) help hemoglobin to transmorph between the R-state and T-state, depending on whether it is in the lungs or another part of the body. Adams further notes:

In other words, if the atomic structure of hemoglobin is significantly altered—thereby altering its affinity towards other soluble gasses—the blood’s ability to carry oxygen may be “shut off.” Changing the structure of the heme group means that it is no longer able to transport oxygen; this is because the structure itself is the molecule’s function. Adams believes it is unlikely that 5G radiation exposure blocks the ability of hemoglobin to carry oxygen; rather, he indicates that 5G radiation probably “occupies the hemoglobin molecule with other elements that alter its structure and therefore its function, inhibiting its ability to bind with oxygen.”

Based upon this analysis, it is very likely that 5G radiation is the direct cause of the very same symptoms that are being wrongly attributed to SARS-CoV-2 (which appears to be a fictional entity). Thus, the pandemic that is being wrongly attributed to a “novel” coronavirus is bound to be more pronounced and lethal in areas with extensive 5G coverage, such as Wuhan and New York City.

Neuropsychiatric effects, testicular damage, and oxidative stress—three of the symptoms of 5G exposure—have all been observed in coronavirus patients. The chart above, courtesy of Natural News, compares the overlapping symptoms of 5G exposure and purported SARS-CoV-2 “infections.” In a previous Natural News post published in December 2019, Adams describes the neuropsychiatric effects of 5G radiation:

This is yet another alarming—albeit not surprising—deleterious effect of 5G exposure; it could also help to explain the widespread irrationality in terms of the general public’s submissive and unquestioning compliance with ridiculous, inhumane, and wholly unjustified COVID-19 mandates from governments all across the world—mandates that any reasonable and intelligent person would have recognized as an orchestrated crime against humanity right at the outset.

How you can protect yourself

There are some basic precautions you can take immediately to protect yourself from 5G radiation, as well as radiation from other sources of EMFs. The easiest would be simply to turn off your Wi-Fi router, smartphone, and any other wireless gadgets you own whenever they are not in use. Using airplane mode on your phone is also suitable for this purpose if you don’t want to power down your phone completely. This is a very straightforward way to prevent significant—and avoidable—wear and tear on your body, which easily piles up over time. Another easy trick is to use a headset or your phone’s speakerphone whenever possible for voice calls, as holding the phone straight to your ear can expose your brain to harmful radiation that can cause brain tumors.

A particularly dangerous habit is keeping your cell phone in your pocket or purse. Of course, you need your phone on you when you’re out in public; you can’t just keep it away from your body, otherwise of what use is the phone itself? Perhaps keeping your phone in airplane mode for intermittent periods while you’re out and about might be practical for some people. For an imperfect solution, you can also choose to store your cell phone in an EMF protective bag while traveling with it. A few online stores where you can purchase an EMF protective bag for your phone are listed below:

• DefenderShield
• EMF Clothing and Shielding
• GeoEMF

It is prudent to keep your distance from sources of radiation—especially in light of the Inverse Square Law of Physics, which indicates that the level of radiation reduces by 50% every time the distance from the radiation is doubled.

Essentially, this means that moving further from the source of radiation exponentially decreases the potential damage to your body. This law is exemplified by the formula below:

intensity ∝ (1/distance²)

which states that the intensity of radiation is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the radiation source. Thus, as an example, it may be wise to stay as far away from your home Wi-Fi router as possible while still ensuring that you can access the internet. If you need to keep your smartphone powered on to receive calls and messages but don’t need to use it constantly, it is probably wise to keep it in a separate room.

Of course, these simple tips don’t account for any 5G hardware (i.e., base stations or small cell transmitters) that may be in your vicinity. This is an even bigger concern with the increased amount of 5G hardware installed (as compared with previous generations of cellular technology). If you do happen to live within close range of any kind of 5G transmitters, you may want to consider moving to an area that doesn’t have 5G coverage. Of course, relocating yourself and/or your entire family may not be practical or realistic for most people, particularly if it involves moving from an urban area to a rural area; nevertheless, it’s still an option worth thinking about, considering the dizzying array of harmful biological effects that can result from 5G exposure.

You may also find it useful to purchase an EMF meter to gauge the radiation levels in and around your home. These are also sometimes called radiation dosimeters. This can be purchased from big-box retailers such as Wal-Mart or even an online superstore such as Amazon. However, if you choose not to support one of those corporate monopolies, below are some specialized vendors that sell such devices:

• Instrumart
• Wave Control
• EMR Shielding Solutions

Additionally, there are holistic methods of detoxing your body from EMF exposure. One of these is something you may have heard of as “earthing,” or grounding. All you have to do is stand on the ground barefoot and allow your feet to soak up negatively-charged electrons from the Earth. These electrons are beneficial in removing heavy metals, air pollution, trans fats, and inflammation (an underlying cause of many diseases). Electrons from the Earth are a sort of “magnetic mop,” helping to create a balance in your body’s electrical circuitry. There are also special conductive devices that you can use, even while sleeping, in case you have difficulty practicing grounding regularly. One example is this ground therapy sleep mat which can give you 6-8 hours of uninterrupted grounding (or however long you sleep for). You may also want to consider purchasing an EMF protector pyramid, such as this one from Orgonite Crystal.

It is also imperative to get out into nature as much as possible, which goes hand in hand with grounding. Getting as much sunlight as possible is incredibly healing—and not just for countering the effects of wireless radiation. Most importantly, however, don’t live in fear. Believe it or not, fear will enable 5G to enact even more harm to your body’s cells, since it leaves your body in a vulnerable “fight-or-flight” state. There is no need to fear 5G technology, no matter how scary it may seem in light of all this information. Just be mindful of its harmful effects and take the necessary steps to counter them.

Conclusion

With the COVID-19 pandemic firmly upon us, I find it hard to believe that most people are worried about an invisible, unverified, and supposedly “contagious” virus, yet seem to have absolutely no concerns whatsoever about the extraordinarily lethal, disease-causing, slow-kill EMF radiation soup that engulfs their entire body on a regular basis—radiation that literally damages and mutates the body’s cells over time, modifying and inhibiting their normal function. People are wearing totally ineffective (not to mention harmful—duh) face masks to protect themselves from a purported virus that has yet to be isolated (another rabbit hole entirely), yet they seem to be completely unconcerned with something that is definitively harming their bodies on a regular basis and stealthily inducing conditions of disease and decay—not just physically, but psychologically as well.

I hate to say it, but this is some egregious stupidity and hypocrisy on the part of the gullible, ill-informed, and unwise general public. Those who support government lockdowns and mandates for COVID-19 simply cannot be taken seriously at this point. While corrupt politicians and corporations are no doubt responsible for the gargantuan mess of 5G and electropollution, the public should nevertheless be ashamed of themselves for allowing things to get to this point without so much as a whimper (although, I probably shouldn’t have expected too much from a lazy, selfish, narcissistic, and self-absorbed population where the vast majority of people are actually dumb enough to willingly suffocate themselves slowly by unnecessarily restricting their own breathing with a mask that demonstrably serves no useful purpose, simply because a corrupt politician or some other authority figure told them to do so).

With the aggressive push towards more “smart” technology to fuel the widespread adoption of 5G, along with the ambitious Internet of Things (IoT) agenda, one has to pause and wonder: how much is enough? Trust me—this question is coming from someone who enjoys his high-tech gadgets. Yet even I have to pause and ask myself whether I really need to go out and get the latest and greatest smartphone. Upgrading to 5G is an absolute “no” from me—no exceptions. My 4G smartphone—which is already dangerous in and of itself—provides me with more than enough value and convenience such that anything faster and better is completely unnecessary.

There is enough of a body of research to suggest that the 5G rollout is devastatingly irresponsible and reckless. Perhaps that’s what the “experts” and technocrats want, however, considering how people with psychopathic characteristics can frequently find themselves in such positions of influence and power. Regardless, the enormous and definitive health risk of 5G wireless technology greatly outweighs any potential reward from improvements in speed, bandwidth, performance, etc. If you live in the vicinity of any 5G (or even 4G) base stations, you may want to seriously consider moving out of the area—assuming you value your life.

The so-called “non-ionizing” signals we experience from our low-power devices may seem benign, but over extended periods of usage, they are a direct cause of disease and organ failure (especially if one is regularly exposed to multiple sources of EMFs). This is not a game. This is literally a matter of life and death. Humanity is being poisoned and slow-killed on a mass scale with lethal electropollution and it’s going to get exponentially worse after 5G is fully implemented. It is time to speak up about the dangers of 5G and withdraw your consent for this lethal technology. 5G may seem very “exciting” and like the “next big thing”—the problem is, you won’t be able to enjoy this “exciting” technology if you’re dead.

References

1. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646172/EPRS_BRI(2020)646172_EN.pdf
2. https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal
3. https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks
4. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/moores-law-technology.html
5. https://www.britannica.com/technology/transistor
6. https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/leading-figures/william-shockley-and-the-invention-of-the-transistor/
7. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/10/06/smallest-transistor-1-nm-gate/
8. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6308/99
9. https://synapseweb.clm.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/synapseweb/files/1999_dendrites_fiala_harris_dendrite_structure.pdf
10. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/94/24/12740.full.pdf
11. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-neuron-transistor-brain.html
12. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-chemistry/electronic-structure-of-atoms-ap/bohr-model-hydrogen-ap/a/light-and-the-electromagnetic-spectrum
13. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-1/Categories-of-Waves
14. https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/lightandcolor/electromagintro/
15. https://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation
16. https://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_To_Electromagnetic_Wave.html?id=gME9zlyG304C
17. https://www.intechopen.com/books/electromagnetic-fields-and-waves/energy-transfer-from-electromagnetic-fields-to-materials
18. https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/propagation-overview/radio-em-wave-diffraction.php
19. https://openstax.org/books/college-physics/pages/24-4-energy-in-electromagnetic-waves
20. https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/passives/article/21769333/welcome-to-antennas-101
21. https://www.graduate.umaryland.edu/gsa/gazette/February-2016/How-the-human-body-uses-electricity/
22. https://www.drpawluk.com/education/magnetic-science/biomagnetic-fields/
23. https://www.newsday.com/business/technology/how-come-human-body-a-conductor-for-electricity-1.4940988
24. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/12/2878/htm
25. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-cells-primary-cilium-functions-as-a-molecular-antenna/
26. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-cells-primary-cilium-functions-as-a-molecular-antenna/
27. https://ciliajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13630-016-0028-2#Tab1
28. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(10)00551-9
29. https://pathogeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1755-8417-2-3
30. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cm.21529
31. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5079785
32. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/7/12/233/htm
33. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2019/01/31/cardiovascular-diseases-affect-nearly-half-of-american-adults-statistics-show
34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897901/pdf/2052-336X-12-15.pdf
35. https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/sj.embor.embor834
36. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/science/5g-cellphones-wireless-cancer.html
37. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/04/5g-conspiracy-theories-threaten-us-recovery/
38. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/01/the-science-of-why-5g-is-almost-certainly-safe-for-humans/#1534f3a370e3
39. https://www.businessinsider.com/scientist-sets-guidelines-5g-safety-conspiracy-theories-debunked-2020-6
40. https://www.intechopen.com/books/electromagnetic-waves/electromagnetic-waves-and-human-health
41. https://www.icnirp.org/en/about-icnirp/aim-status-history/index.html
42. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPrfgdl2020.pdf
43. https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
44. https://ehtrust.org/policy/fcc-safety-standards/
45. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
46. https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/1/58.full.pdf
47. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1995-Briefing-for-the-FCC-by-the-EPA-on-the-Development-of-RF-Exposure-Guidelines.pdf
48. https://www.emfoff.com/symposium/
49. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Calif-utilities-yield-energy-use-data-4611159.php
50. https://honestemf.com/smart-meter-emf-protection/
51. http://nhne-pulse.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Maryland-WhatIsaSmartMeterBrochure.pdf
52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355?via%3Dihub
53. https://www.verizon.com/about/news/what-4g-lte-and-why-it-matters
54. https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/4g.htm
55. https://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/first-study-on-short-term-effects-of-4glte-cell-phone-radiation-shows-affects-on-brain-activity/
56. https://www.saferemr.com
57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22271-3
58. https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/
59. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/18/3406/htm
60. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1210030663890/The%20human%20skin%20as%20a%20sub-THz%20receiver%20%E2%80%93%20Does%205G%20pose%20a%20danger%20to%20it%20or%20not%20(1).pdf
61. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijap/2019/9573647/
62. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
63. 5gappeal.eu
64. https://www.globalresearch.ca/5g-danger-13-reasons-5g-wireless-technology-will-be-a-catastrophe-for-humanity/5680503
65. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1442-9071.1995.tb01638.x
66. https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/5g-from-blankets-to-bullets/
67. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses
68. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html
69. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext
70. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/12/4409/htm
71. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50258287
72. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/27/c_138094302.htm
73. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-10/31/c_138517734.htm
74. https://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/5g-covid-19-epidemic/
75. https://phibetaiota.net/2019/03/dr-martin-pall-5g-criminally-insane-electromagnetic-fields-emf-fry-living-things/
76. https://phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Pall-Letter-to-CalLegis-FINAL-8-7-17.pdf
77. https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/fixed-wireless-communications-at-60ghz-unique-0001
78. https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-04-06-5g-alter-hemoglobin-coronavirus-patients-oxygen-deprivation.html
79. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2263/
80. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-biology2/chapter/transport-of-oxygen-in-the-blood/
81. https://www.drawittoknowit.com/course/biochemistry/glossary/biochemical-pathway/hemoglobin-myoglobin-1-prosthetic-heme-group
82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1281520/#ref1
83. https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-12-03-5g-radiation-causes-behavior-changes-in-humans-mass-insanity.html
84. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
85. https://www.drnorthrup.com/7-habits-to-boost-your-emf-protection-from-cell-phone-radiation/
86. https://www.ultimatelongevity.com/earthing-grounding/products/ground-therapy-sleep-mat-double_ggl.shtml?gclid=Cj0KCQiAlZH_BRCgARIsAAZHSBn4YxfgUIw_e3S5Uaz0_V6iYLTePLr2JKbrb4xqxV1bT43YcTUdcmUaAmDEEALw_wcB