Weaponizing 5G and Nanotechnology: How Do We Protect Ourselves?

Source: Health Impact News

Nano Technologies Flat Composition. Human Brain With Micro Chip

Protecting Yourself from Nanotechnology and Frequency Radiation

by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

Previously, I wrote about the weapon-like qualities of nanotechnology and terahertz frequency radiation. As was explained, these two technologies can be combined to weaken our health, create illness, and control our minds. See:

Will Nanotechnologies and the New 5G Network Become the Most Powerful Weapon System the World Has Ever Seen?

In response to that article, one of our readers asked this question: 

I had been taking this oral spray, and found it effective for mercury from amalgams, and brain fog, and removing a precancerous skin growth. However it apparently is nanotechnology. Is there such a thing as good and bad nanotech? Can anyone explain this seeming contradiction? I’ve stopped using for the moment until I have clear answers. Thank you. [18]

This is the Problem with Nanotechnology in a Nutshell

It is extremely easy to get nanotechnology into our bodies, but the human body has difficulty removing it and preventing it from accumulating. [1, 2]

Our immune systems have been weakened by the constant bombardment with chemicals such as glyphosate, which contaminates nearly all of our food including organic products. [3] These chemicals strip out essential minerals from our bodies and damage the normal bacteria in our guts. [2] The normal human microbiome in the gut is the primary home for our immune system.

When we add the stress caused by the constant exposure to a thousand different radio and microwave frequencies, our bodies are further weakened so that they cannot effectively respond to penetration by nano substances. As a result, nanotechnology which has been programmed to perform certain tasks can operate in us with relative freedom. [2] 

Even if nanotechnology is intended for good, such as when it is added to a medicine, supplement, skincare product, processed food, or when sprayed on the crops raised by farmers it is still very difficult to remove from the body. 

Nanotechnology can also be intended for harm as when it is sprayed in the atmosphere above the Earth. In this case, it is designed to secretly create physical lethargy, to inhibit mental clarity, to provide a mechanism for establishing mind control programming, to modify human DNA, and to stimulate disease formation and early death. [4]

Regardless of the intent behind nanotechnology, it is embedding itself in our bodies on a daily basis and is establishing networks within us that have the quality of a pseudo-lifeform or synthetic biology. [5, 6] It is not just inert small pieces of junk that just sit there, but it fulfills its mission to self-assemble into structures that perform functions according to those who programmed the materials. [2]

The problem is that once nanotechnology enters our bodies, our brains, our cells, and even modifies our DNA, then extraordinary steps must be taken to deprogram it and remove it.

Thus, even nanotechnology intended for good eventually becomes part of a toxic condition in our bodies, and becomes something that we need to help our bodies remove.

The Precautionary Principle is being Ignored by Government and Industry 

The US government and the industries that are developing and selling nanotechnology products do not embrace the precautionary principle.

Instead of proving that nano is safe before manufacturing it for product distribution, they are doing the opposite — manufacture and sell first and then study later – much later.

National Nanotechnology Initiative

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has assembled leading nanotechnology leaders from 25 US government agencies to coordinate the government’s response to the development of nanotechnology by government and industry.

In 2011 the “Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy” was published by the NNI [7], which was intended to guide the safe development of nanotechnology. They didn’t do safety studies — they just developed definitions for nanotechnology and formulated risk assessment policy guidelines. [8]

The NNI is of course concerned about nano safety, because it is one of their priorities to assure the public that we should not be concerned about nanotechnology. [8] They are trusting in their definitions and guidelines to keep us all safe.

Despite the NNI mandate about public health and safety, their focus falls squarely on supporting research and development of new products. [9, 10] 

Are Government Agencies Convinced that Nanotechnology is Safe? 

This is what US government regulators say:

The National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOSH) as would be expected, is focusing their concerns on the safety of workers who handle nano materials. This is what they understand about nano:

Occupational health risks associated with manufacturing and using nanomaterials are not yet clearly understood. Minimal information is currently available on dominant exposure routes, potential exposure levels, and material toxicity of nanomaterials.

Studies suggest that some nanoparticles can move from the respiratory system to other organs. Research is continuing to understand how these unique properties may lead to specific health effects. [11]

In other words they don’t understand the risks, but are allowing workers to handle the materials anyway.

The National Organic Program (NOP), which oversees organic certification programs, makes these statements in their Nano Fact Sheet: 

The NOP does not consider nanotechnology to be intrinsically benign or harmful.

As with other substances, no engineered nanomaterial will be allowed for use in organic production and handling unless the substance has been: 1) petitioned for use; 2) reviewed and recommended by the NOSB; and 3) added to the National List through notice and comment rulemaking. [12]

In other words, they are sitting on the fence and will consider requests from industry when they are made. They are not going to draw a line in the sand and just say “not in organic food.”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states:

Due to their tiny size, engineered nanomaterials (ENM) have unique properties that have the potential to advance electronics, medicines, and other fields. However, while ENM have many promising benefits, we know very little about their potential effects on human health and the environment.

Recognizing that engineered nanomaterials (ENM) are increasingly being used in everyday products, such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, sunscreens, clothing, and electronics, NIEHS has developed an interagency federal research strategy to explore this emerging field. The outcome of these efforts will allow scientists to design nanomaterials that are both innovative and safe for commercialization. [13]

In other words, they know nanotechnology is already being used in most sectors of the manufacturing economy, and they are starting to develop a plan to study health and safety issues. 

The US Geological Survey has been studying snails and other aquatic life. They stated:

USGS scientists are studying the linkages between contaminant bioavailability and toxicity, especially in aquatic organisms exposed to metals and metallo-nanomaterials through solution and diet. The intent is to improve understanding of the physiological and geochemical processes influencing bioaccumulation and toxicity.

ZnO nanoparticles damage digestion, although it was not clear whether the toxicity was due to the high Zn dose achieved with nanoparticles or to the ZnO nanoparticles themselves. Further study of exposure from nanoparticles in food would greatly benefit assessment of ecological and human health risks. [14]

In other words, it looks like some nanomaterials are a problem for snails, therefore there is reason for concern about human health. The government is studying snails, but not long term effects on humans.

The US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) has policies about products that use nanoscale materials. The FDA states:

Since this report published [in 2007 by the Nanotechnology Taskforce, the] FDA issued several guidance documents on topics relating to application of nanotechnology in FDA-regulated products. While guidance documents do not create or confer any rights for or on any person and do not operate to bind FDA or the public, they do represent FDA’s current thinking on a topic. 

Industry remains responsible for ensuring that its products meet all applicable legal requirements, including standards for safety — regardless of the emerging nature of a technology involved in the manufacturing of a product. [15]

In other words, regardless of what the FDA thinks about nanotechnology, it is up to private industry to assess human safety for the nano products they produce or use. It’s not the FDA’s problem or concern. 

Given the failure of the pharmaceutical industry to protect the public from vaccine harm and the failure of telecom companies to protect us from microwave radiation harm, do we have the slightest reason to believe that the manufacturers of nanotechnology will protect us from being harmed by nano?

To be fair to the US government, it has funded almost 500 studies about nanotechnology since 2010, but I haven’t seen any restrictions applied to the marketing, sales, or use of nanotechnology because of the research, even though some studies show risks to animal health. [19]


Safety of the Chemtrails Geoengineering Spraying Program

Beyond the industrial, agricultural, cosmetic, processed food, and medical uses for nanotechnology that US government agencies say they are studying, I must wonder about the unknown quantity of nano substances that the US government is spraying over the entire country on a daily basis through its aerial spraying programs (chemtrails), also known as geoengineering.

These spraying programs operate without public oversight. As far as anyone knows, the harmful health effects have not been studied for the sake of preventing harm though secret studies that may have been conducted by the US government to determine levels of intentional harm.

We don’t know the entire list of substances (nano and larger) that are being sprayed into the atmosphere. This is some of what is falling on us and on farm fields every day after chemtrail spraying:

Over the past decade, independent testing of chemtrails around the country has shown a dangerous, extremely poisonous brew that includes: barium, nano aluminum-coated fiberglass [known as CHAFF], radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, desiccated blood, mold spores, yellow fungal mycotoxins, ethylene dibromide, and polymer fibers. Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic. (4)

Barium is known to adversely affect the heart. Aluminum has a history of damaging brain function. Independent researchers and labs continue to show off-the-scale levels of these poisons. A few “anonymous” officials have acknowledged this on-going aerosol spraying. [1]

For previous articles on this topic, please see:

Artificial Clouds and Geoengineering: Public Exposed to Toxic Chemicals

Controlling Weather for Profit: Geoengineering and World Dominance

Covert Chemical Geoengineering Programs – A Real Threat to Public Health

Assessment of Nanotechnology Risks beyond Government Oversight

A research paper from Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri entitled “Chemtrails- the Consequences of Toxic Metals and Chemical Aerosols on Human Health,” and author of the book, The Uterine Crisis, comments on the problem we are facing today.

The late Dr. Perlingieri died under mysterious circumstances in 2013 [16] shortly after publishing this information. She stated:

… there are three main routes that nanoparticles can enter the human body: inhalation into the pulmonary system; absorption through the dermal system; ingestion through the gastrointestinal system. It must be highlighted that inhalation exposure is of the greatest concern with regard to the effects of particulate nanomaterials on occupational health, and special attention is being given to studying impacts on the respiratory system and the cardiovascular system. 

Dermal exposure is also of importance. However, healthy skin has a better barrier function when compared to the respiratory tract although this barrier function could be limited by skin lesions, strong mechanical strain or small nanoparticles (<5 to 10 nm). 

Due to the size effects, smaller particles may diffuse faster in air than their larger counterparts and can get further down the respiratory tract. In addition, it is hard to remove nanoparticles from the body as they are known to cross mucus membranes. 

Potential health effects include: inflammation of airway (bronchitis, asthma, emphysema); lung cancer; neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease); cardiovascular effects and heart disease; liver cancer; Crohn’s disease and colon cancer. [1]

Read Dr. Perlingieri’s full report:

Chemtrails: The Consequences of Toxic Metals and Chemical Aerosols on Human Health

A Handful of Researchers Continue to Ring the Early Warning Bell about Nanotechnology

These researchers are not in government agencies, in corporation research labs, or in university research centers. They are conducting research from their personal labs.

They are rigorously working to reveal the truth about nanotechnology and to develop methods that people can use to protect themselves. These researchers are raising very serious concerns based on empirical observation and review of relevant scientific literature concerning the qualities of nanotechnology and its manufacturing processes. 

These researchers have witnessed extensive harm in the lives of men and women — not in theory, but based on personal observations of people who have suffered the harmful effects of nano poisoning.

According to independent researcher Jean Bryan Pelletier, when levels of nanotechnology become too high in a person’s body, they develop a wide range of symptoms of illness and can be considered as having been poisoned by toxic substances.

Nano substances are very small, but when the levels accumulate they can eventually reach a toxic threshold where a person can be said to be experiencing “nano poisoning.” [17]

I recently interviewed one of these researchers – Tony Pantalleresco, an herbalist from Canada, and specifically asked him to share what he and his colleagues have documented about the human health effects of nanotechnology and high frequency microwave radiation.

The interview focused on steps we can take to protect ourselves from these technologies.

Mr. Pantalleresco is part of a small group of researchers who are risking their lives by revealing the dark side of these technologies that are being used by industry and secret government programs.

Both Tony Pantalleresco and Jean Bryan Pelletier (AKA Bryan396) have been targeted for harm through the application of these technologies and have been called upon to help other targeted individuals.

They understand the risks of the technology and the dangers posed by those who are developing the dark side of the technology. [17]

Removing Nanotechnology from the Body

Many of us might want to rush out and take immediate steps to clean the nano junk out of our bodies, but there can be risks unless the process is handled properly and systematically.

The initial recommendations can be done by anyone at any time. Anyone who is concerned should start with these three steps.

  1. Reduce your new exposure to nanotechnology by making changes in the food that is eaten, the kind of water that is drunk, the types of cosmetics and skincare products that are used, and the pharmaceuticals and supplements that are taken.
  1. Build up your body’s natural defenses and detoxification pathways by taking a few select mineral supplements.
  1. Protect yourself by reducing exposure to WiFi and other frequency sources, which activate nanotechnology in the body and weaken the immune system.

The last part of the process must be done before any attempt is made to detoxify the existing load of nanotechnology. 

  1. Deprogram the existing nanotechnology that is in the body. If deprogramming is not done before detoxification, then the nanotechnology will not come out and can actually become more strongly embedded. Details about this will be explained in the next article.

Limiting New Exposure to Nanotechnology

This section focuses on how to limit new exposure to nano substances in food, water, skincare products, pharmaceuticals, and supplements.

These recommendations will be unpopular and some may even call them ridiculous until we stop and think about all the nano materials that are currently used in agriculture and the millions of tons of nano materials that have been falling over agricultural fields and even our home gardens for decades.

Key fact: It is impossible to escape from exposure to nano materials, but we can limit our exposure by the choices we make.

General Guideline regarding products with labels: Don’t consume any food or use any skincare product, pharmaceutical, or supplement that indicates that it contains nano ingredients such as nano silver, nano gold, nano titanium dioxide, nano silica, (diatomaceous earth), or other nano ingredients.

The long-term health risks are likely much greater than any short-term benefit. Remember nano is easy to put into the body, but very difficult to get out. 

Specific Guidelines Concerning Food

Our largest source of nano exposure, beyond what we inhale from the air, comes from the food we eat and the water we drink. As a result, a person who is concerned about minimizing consumption of nano materials may need to make new choices regarding food and water. 

Tony Pantalleresco begins with a blanket warning about grains. He indicated that grains can contain nano. Thus, he advises to not eat grains because there is no way to remove the nano. This includes pseudo-grains such as quinoa, millet, buckwheat, spelt, barley, oats, rice, etc.

Of course, grains are not the problem. The problem is where they have been grown and what has fallen upon them or what has been sprayed on them.

Grains grown in the United States and Canada will be contaminated with nano and glyphosate even if they are organic. Grains grown in remote areas far from the United States using organic growing methods can test free of glyphosate [3] and may not contain the high levels of nano found in the United States where there is constant chemtrail spraying.

Tony Pantalleresco stated:

Only eat root-based vegetables. Do not eat vegetables grown above ground – they are saturated to the core with nano. [2] 

Tony Pantalleresco explained to me that nano substances pass into the cells of plants and cannot be washed off. Thus, leafy greens simply must be avoided unless they are grown indoors. Even root vegetables must be peeled thickly before cooking. 

Tony Pantalleresco continued:

There are very few fruits you can eat. Citrus is one of the few that doesn’t have high levels of nano saturation. All berries are shot. There isn’t one type that is fit to consume. [2]

Tony Pantalleresco Offers this Process for Removing Nano From Fresh Berry Juice:

I asked Tony Pantalleresco: Is it safe to eat meat and eggs?

Everything is contaminated with nano no matter what you eat – organic, conventional, etc. Chicken, beef, lamb, whatever – I would say you can eat – but be sure to eat the saturated fat from these animals.

They will be contaminated but they will at least have filtered out a lot of the nano so that you are not going to get the full 100% hit as you would get if you go out and pick and eat a piece of parsley from the garden. 

Nano will get into meat, but at least with meat I can further filter it by consuming sulfur or trisodium phosphate that will bind with the nano in meat before it has a chance to establish itself. [2]

I asked Tony Pantalleresco: Are you saying that a diet consisting of animal meat, eggs, animal fat, and very small amounts of vegetables and fruit is the safest alternative diet?

I eat that kind of diet – that’s how I live. 

This is the best diet to go with now, but they already are working on eliminating meat from the system by bringing in this thing called CRISPR which is where they are manufacturing meat out of a lab. It will be completely suicidal to eat that. It will be just as bad as eating vegetables today that are grown in the field because of genetic contamination. 

CRISPR is already being utilized in the food supply. It is not registered or labelled as a GE or GMO even though it is.

There are no restrictions on it or regulation on it. They don’t even have to tell you it is there. It is already affecting many people by turning off their genetic code.

With the activation of this with frequencies with these towers and cell phones and what-not it will activate whatever programming that has been put into that food. And people are becoming more and more compromised. 

Our generation may be the last that knows what meat tastes like. [2]

Specific Guidelines Concerning Water

I asked Tony Pantalleresco: What is the safest form of water to drink?

The only two waters I tell people to drink are distilled or reverse osmosis. I don’t care about the minerals or anything else – I am looking at purity of water. These are the only two options that will reduce nano by 95% the rest don’t. Unless you have a filtering system that is on a nano or pekoe level you won’t pull out everything. The only thing better than distilled and reverse osmosis is double distilled. [2]

I asked Tony Pantalleresco: Is water from drilled wells contaminated with Nano?

The research I have done on those types of water systems showed that they will be loaded with bacteria and fungi, which cannot be filtered out with regular filtration. There will also be other contaminates such as pesticides from farmer’s fields or industrial waste, this is why I only advocate for RO or distilled water. [2]

Coming Up in the Next Article

The next article will look at foods that can fortify the body against nanotechnology and frequency radiation, mineral supplements that can be used to strengthen the body against nano, tools that can be used to minimize frequency radiation exposure, and the technology that can be used to deprogram existing nanotechnology that is in the body before trying to remove it.

About the Author

John P. Thomas is a health writer for Health Impact News. He holds a B.A. in Psychology from the University of Michigan, and a Master of Science in Public Health (M.S.P.H.) from the School of Public Health, Department of Health Administration, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.


[1] “Chemtrails: The Consequences of Toxic Metals and Chemical Aerosols on Human Health,” By Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri, Wake Up World, 3/14/2013.

[2] I interviewed Canadian herbalist Tony Pantalleresco on April 26, 2019 by Skype and he confirmed this statement. He is an independent researcher who studies nanotechnology and frequency radiation from wireless technologies. 

[3] “ALERT: Certified Organic Food Grown in U.S. Found Contaminated with Glyphosate Herbicide,” Health Impact News.

[4] “Will Nanotechnologies and the New 5G Network Become the Most Powerful Weapon System the World Has Ever Seen?” John P. Thomas, Health Impact News, 4/16/2019.

[5] According to Tony Pantalleresco, the term “synthetic life form” was originated by the late Dr. Gwen Scott, ND, an independent researcher who investigated nanotechnology and Morgellons.

[6] “Gwen Scott died in March 2015 from Morgellons complications. Dr. Scott, a former TV news anchor and later a naturopath who studied widely and extensively, was one of the early professionals to recognize and treat Morgellons syndrome, which she herself had.” https://aboutthesky.com/smallstorm-blog/599-gwen-scott-nd and http://www.gwenscottnd.com/aboutdrgwenscott.html 

[7] “Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues,” NNI, Retrieved 5/2/2019.

[8] “2011 NNI EHS Research Strategy Webinar.”

[9] “NNI in the News,” NNI, Retrieved 5/2/2019.

[10] “Highlights of Recent Research on the Environmental, Health, and Safety Implications of Engineered Nanomaterials,” National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), 2014.

[11] “CDC – Nanotechnology – NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic,” Retrieved 5/2/2019.

[12] “Nanotechnology, Policy Memorandum,” Miles V. McEvoy, Deputy Administrator, National Organic Program, 3/24/2015.

[13] “Nano Environmental Health and Safety (Nano EHS),” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Retrieved 5/3/2019.

[14] “Environmental Toxicology, Nanotechnology, USGS Microbiology Research,” U.S. Geological Survey, Retrieved 5/3/2019.

[15] “Nanotechnology Fact Sheet,” Food and Drug Administration (USFDA), dated 3/23/2018.

[16] “Leading Environmental Activist Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri Passes Away Amid Suspicions of Foul Play,” Andy Whiteley, Wake Up World, 10/17/2013.

[17] “Two Guys Who Know Some Stuff Talk Nano With Suzanne Maher Of Bye Bye Blue Sky,” November 2017.

[18] “Will Nanotechnologies and the New 5G Network Become the Most Powerful Weapon System the World Has Ever Seen?” HIN Community.

[19] “Nanotechnology Notable Papers and Advances,” Retrieved 5/15/2019.

How ‘Teen Vogue’ Indoctrinates Teens: “This Idea That the Body is Either Male or Female is Totally Wrong”

12:44pm – 5-30-19 – Update

If you agree that this type of video is uncalled for and inappropriate for children from ages 13-18 then I would email them like I did. We shouldn’t stand such gross manipulation of biological fact. If they email me back I’ll post if here on this article. Here’s my email I sent:

“Teen Vogue,

I find your 5 Misconceptions About Sex and Gender video to be gross manipulation of scientifically proven biological fact. When a child is born, you’re either a boy or girl, that is that. There is no way to determine if one child is going to be tran-sexual or not. Genetic studies have been inconclusive in regards to our genes determining sexual orientation. The fact of the matter is your biological gender cannot be disputed, but your chosen gender identity can be since you have the free-will choice to do so.

The fact that a organization such as Teen Vogue whom has a primary base readership of teens from ages 13-18 would promote such material to readers whom are in their adolescence is insulting. To blatantly come out with the idea that it’s wrong that you’re either or boy or girl is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to promote these type of beliefs and opinions do so with a reader base that is mostly 18 years old and older. Don’t target young teens and start to confuse gender facts with subjective beliefs.

I respect the right of an individual to exercise their free-will and identify with whatever sexual and gender orientation they desire, but I will not tolerate the gross misinterpretation of biological fact.

You all at Teen Vogue should be ashamed of yourself for this material and attempting to confuse young children about their gender.


Tim Frappier “


11:11am – 5-30-19

When I read this article and watched the video I was quite astonished at the fact that Teen Vogue would deny basic biological facts. I have nothing against the LGBTQIA+ movement. I have a very good friend whom is gay and he’s one of the nicest and kindest souls I’ve met.

The point being I don’t mind what gender you identify yourself with, but please don’t blur the distinctions that science has proven. You’re either born a boy or girl, it’s really that simple at the end of the day. I acknowledge and support the individuals free-will to identify with whatever gender they desire. I am a straight male, but I also respect the people’s right to exercise their free-will. If your a male who wants to be gay, be gay and be happy. If your a female and you want to be a lesbian, be a lesbian and be happy.

If your a male and want to be a female, then identify yourself as a female. If your a female and you want to identify yourself as a male, then identify yourself as a male. Yet please don’t make this gender topic complex, because at the end of the day your either born a male or female. It’s not until later on in life that you identify with transgender characteristics and thus exercise your free-will to choose your gender and sexual orientation.

I respects the people’s right to choose what gender and sexual preference they desire, but I also understand no amount of beliefs, thoughts, opinions will change the biological fact your either born a male or female. That is that and this campaign by Teen Vogue is blurring subjective beliefs and biological facts. Which we should avoid if we don’t want our children to be confused about genderism. 

Anyways I want to give a shout out to all your LGBTQIA+ out there and that I appreciate and love you; regardless of your sexual preference because I know we’re all one and that you are worthy to choose whatever gender and sexual preference you desire, but please don’t muddle scientific fact with personal opinions and beliefs.

Peace Out!

Timothy Frappier 


Source: VigilantCitizen.com

Teen Vogue, a magazine marketed directly to young people, posted a video on YouTube where various speakers dismiss the science that differentiates the male and female sexes. It is yet another blatant example of the agenda to blur genders.

Teen Vogue recently posted a video on YouTube entitled “5 Common Misconceptions About Sex and Gender” and it is … quite surreal.

The YouTube description says: “7 Activists and LGBTQIA+ people debunk common misconceptions about sex and gender”.

In the video, various speakers (none of them in the field of science) dismiss scientific facts about the human body to replace them with artificial constructs.

To be honest, this was difficult to watch. Because it is NOT about the right of people to live their lives in whatever way they feel happy and comfortable.  

It goes way beyond, into a strange territory of delusion and social engineering. It is about superseding science and replacing it with a radical and extreme agenda that denies the existence of two sexes.

And this is posted by a magazine that caters to young people.

Here’s the video:

Here are some “lowlights”:

The video begins with Belgian model Hanne Gaby Odiele who says:

“Binary is bullsh*t.”

Then, Maria Trida, a producer at Teen Vogue says:

“This idea that the body is either male or female is totally wrong!”

Then, the video adds a thick layer of confusing, non-scientific “facts” to explain sex.

“We all have characteristics that are typically male and typically female, and it is really about political choices, social factors, ideological choices, that we assign meaning to different parts of our body. So, the meaning may be that they meant, most of us are taught that if you have a vagina, you’re a girl; or if you have a p—s, you’re a boy.”

Then the video attacks the fact that chromosomes determine the sex of a human being.

“Saying that a person with XY chromosomes is only male is a narrow way to look at the diverse range of chromosome differences that we can have as a person.”

“Too many people still believe that there’s such a thing as a true sex and that it comes from your chromosomes. It’s not the case. Science has known this for decades, and it’s actually a consensus in science and uncontroversial.”

Then the video explains that a trans woman (a man who decided to become a woman) is actually a biological woman. The video insists that all of the body parts of a trans woman are actually female body parts. One trans woman in the video says:

“My biology is the biology of a woman, regardless of whether or not doctors agree.”

In short, the video wants you to ignore what your eyes can clearly see and to embrace a complex and confusing agenda that denies sex and gender.

What we appear to be witnessing is called Lysenkoism:

“Lysenkoism can be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.” – Wikipedia, Lysenkoism

Like most attempts by mass media to blur genders, the video was not well received at all. Here are the first comments one reads under the video:

If you scroll down, the comments keep going:

Sadly, this is not the first attempt by mass media to indoctrinate young people with this agenda. Here’s a segment from the Netflix show Bill Nye Saves the World. Set your face to cringe.

The gender blurring agenda is strong and it has been going on for years. The fact that it is being pushed by the world’s major media outlets tells us that it comes straight from the elite.

Why? For many reasons.

The main one: They want people to be debased and removed as far as possible from anything that makes them grounded and in harmony with life and nature. I mean, they want young people to be confused about being male or female – a basic (easily observable) building block of human life.

Here’s what they’re looking to creation: A population that is lost, confused and depressed. Because these people are the easiest to control and manipulate.

Antarctic Ice Core records resolve competing Pole Shift Theories

Source: Exopolitics

A declassified CIA document called The Adam and Eve Story has generated much controversy over predictions of an upcoming pole shift (aka crustal displacement) and catastrophic events that may sweep the planet in the not distant future. The 57-page document is based on a book authored by Chan Thomas in 1963. In it, Thomas proposed a pole shift scenario that differed in significant ways with what Charles Hapgood had earlier proposed in his pioneering 1958 book, The Earth’s Shifting Crust.

Hapgood’s theory, which was endorsed at the time by Albert Einstein, proposed that the geophysical poles periodically move by as much as up to 40 degrees through crustal displacements. This phenomenon was brought about by the increasing weight of the polar ice caps which accumulate more and more ice over the millennia until they eventually generate sufficient centrifugal force due to the planet’s rotation, to make the crust move over the mantle as Einstein explained in the book’s foreword.

In The Adam and Eve Story, Chan proposed that the pole shift was much greater, as much as 90 degrees with the poles shifting into the equatorial zone in less than a day. Chan has proposed the poles would flip back and forth in this way so that Antarctica would eventually return to the South Pole region, and the Arctic would do likewise.

Each time the geographical poles did one of these 90 degree flips, there would be catastrophic winds and tidal waves all over the planet, especially in the equatorial region where the Earth’s spin was  1000 mph. Water and wind would continue to move in the westerly direction through the law of inertia, sweeping over the landmasses that traveled over the equatorial region during the shift as Thomas explained:

In ¼ to ½ a day the poles move almost to the equator, and all hell lets loose. The atmosphere and oceans don’t shift with the shell – they just keep on rotating West to East – and at the equator that speed is 1000 miles per hour. It has to be, normally, to make one rotation per day. So, while the shell shifts with the poles going toward the equator, the winds and oceans go eastward, blowing across the face of the earth with supersonic speeds, inundating continents with water miles deep….

You can see, then,  that ice ages are not a matter of advancing and retreating ice; it’s simply that different areas of the Earth are in polar regions at different times, for different durations of time, with the changes between positions taking place in a fraction of a day. [The Adam and Eve Story, pp.13-14]

The following video illustrates what happens during one of these 90 degree shifts, and what Thomas was proposing for what’s to come. One can easily see how devastating such a 90 degree shift could be and why the CIA may have been motivated to suppress such information.

According to Ben Davidson, author of the popular Earth Catastrophe series, this flipping back and forth would address paleomagnetic studies that show that the magnetic poles have been in their present locations for millions of years. Davidson concluded that this made Thomas’ pole shift theory much more compelling than Hapgood’s. In fact, Davidson believed Hapgood was putting out his theory as a “limited hangout” by the CIA in order to put the truth out in a way that later could be easily discredited.

Unfortunately for Davidson, ice core samples from Antarctica clearly support Hapgood and not Thomas’ theory. Ice core samples from East Antarctica date back as much as 1.5 million years. The following diagram illustrates ice core samples taken from different Antarctic regions and show how far back in time the ice sheets date.

Figure 1. Antarctic ice core drill sites with depth and record duration. From the US ITASE project.

The results from the ice core drill sites show that East Antarctica has been covered by ice for hundreds of thousands years, with Lake Vostok having some of the oldest discovered ice (220,000 years). Older ice core samples than those recorded in the above map have subsequently been found both at Lake Vostok (400,000 years), and the Dome C area (800,000 years) as shown in NOAA records.

subsequent 2013 study asserted that ice core samples of up to 1.5 million years are most likely to be found in the Dome C area of East Antarctica. Put simply, scientists agree that East Antarctica has been covered by ice sheets for at least 1.5 million years, and likely much longer than that.

In contrast, the ice core samples in West Antarctica are only a few centuries old, with only one so far matching the age of many of the East Antarctic sites. This site is in the drilling area designated Boyd whose ice was found to be 70,000 years old as the above map illustrates.

The ice core records show conclusively that much of the Antarctic continent has been located in the polar zone (latitudes greater than 66 degrees) for at least 1.5 million years, and not in the equatorial zone (O-23 degrees latitude) as proposed by Thomas. Hapgood’s theory offers a better explanation for why only part of Antarctica has been ice-free for significant periods. But how do we explain the 70,000 year old ice sample found in the Byrd region of West Antarctica?

To find a definitive answer to where the geographical poles have been located and then move via crustal displacements to new positions, preserving some but not all the ice accumulated before the displacement, we can turn to the work of Rand and Rose Flem-Ath, authors of When the Sky Fell.  

In their well-documented book, they used a range of archeological and fossil records to show where ice sheets have been found over the last 100,000 years, and how these positions had changed due to crustal displacements as first proposed by Hapgood. To date, I have found no other authors laying out such a compelling case for using available scientific data to track the respective positions of the geographic poles during the last 100,000 years.

Their findings provide a clear explanation for the varying ages found in the ice core samples extracted from different regions of Antarctica; and why Hapgood, rather than Thomas, provides a more accurate explanation for how the crustal displacement theory works.

First, I begin with Flem-Aths’ illustration of the positions of the North and South poles prior to 91,600 BC. It shows how the bulk of East Antarctica was inside the Antarctic circle, while West Antarctic lay in the temperate zone – similar to the present day location of New Zealand. Note the South Pole was located just off the coast of East Antarctica at the time, while the North Pole was located in Alaska.

Importantly, the Dome C area containing some of the oldest ice core samples found to date was located within the Antarctic circle, thereby preserving much of the ancient ice sheets acquired over the previous 1.5 million years or more.

Figure 2. p. 83 from Rand and Rose Flem-Ath, When the Sky Fell

The next diagram shows the Antarctic continent in relation to the South Pole after a crustal displacement led to a pole shift around 91,600 BC. Consequently, during the period from 91,600 BC to 50,600 BC, much of lower region of West Antarctica, along with the Transantarctic mountains, lay within the Antarctic circle, while the Palmer peninsula and significant areas of East Antarctica lay within the temperate zone.

Once again the physical South Pole was located over the ocean, rather than the Antarctic continent – this time off the coast of West Antarctica – adjacent to the Ross Sea. The geophysical pole had moved approximately 40 degrees from off the coast of East Antarctica to just off the West Antarctic coast during the 91,600 BC pole shift.

Read the rest of the article here

Scientists Plan to Clone 42,000-Year-Old Horse Using Liquid Blood

Source: The Mind Unleashed

A team of Russian and Korean scientists in the Siberian region of Yakutsk has managed to salvage pristine samples of liquid blood from the heart of an ancient 42,000-year-old horse that was preserved in permafrost.

Their goal? To eventually gather the cells necessary to revive the extinct species back to life through cloning.

The male foal, which was discovered last August in the Batagaika depression, is a remarkably well-preserved specimen that belongs to an extinct equestrian species known as Lenskaya, or Lena Horse, according to the Siberian Times, which populated the remote corner of Russia between 30,000 to 40,000 years ago.

Now a joint team from the North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk and the South Korean Sooam Biotech Research Foundation has begun analyzing the remains with the clearly expressed goal of cloning the Ice Age-era horse.

Semyon Grigoryev, the head of the Mammoth Museum in Yakutsk, told Russian news agency TASS that the autopsy has revealed the animal’s “beautifully preserved organs” as well as muscle tissue that has maintained a healthy “natural reddish color.” Likewise, the hair on its head, legs, and body parts is largely intact–a fantastic attribute given that “preserved hair is another scientific sensation as all previous ancient horses were found without hair,”Grigoryev remarked.

“We can now claim that this is the best preserved Ice Age animal ever found in the world.”

The foal likely died of drowning early in life judging by the results of its autopsy, Grigoryev added.

“A lot of mud and silt which the foal gulped during the last seconds of its life were found inside its gastrointestinal tract,” Grigoryev said.

It remains unclear, however, if viable cells can be grown from the blood samples extracted so far.

However, another team of Russian scientists working alongside Japanese researchers have managed to spark activity in the cells of a well-preserved mammoth carcass that dates back 28,000 years ago.

Whether the material on-hand will provide the Russian-Korean team with the basis for a fully-cloned animal is another story, however. Interestingly enough, Gizmodo notes that lead collaborator Sooam Biotech has made a lucrative business for itself by cloning pet dogs as a means to “heal the broken hearts” of bereaved pet owners, and its own lead researcher was the subject of accusations that he had committed several egregious ethical violations in the 2000s.

Likewise, the ethics surrounding the possibility of cloning the ancient foal remain questionable for various reasons, such as the fact that the clone will likely enjoy the existence of a lab-rat throughout its life, without its natural wild habitat of Ice Age-era Siberian tundra and vast forests.

Nevertheless, the team is so “confident of success” that it is already “reportedly choosing a mother for the historic role of giving birth to the comeback species,” according to Siberian Times.

Whether the idea sounds wild or not, if it’s left up to the researchers in Yakutsk we could be in for a show lifted straight out of Jurassic Park.

This is how matter can be both liquid and solid at the same time

Source: Ancient Code

It’s not every day we learn about a new state of physical matter, but today is such a day. Rather than your typical solid, gas, or liquid, scientists have confirmed a new “chain-melted state”that is simultaneously solid and liquid at the same time. The state is thermodynamically stable, and a new discovery. It’s also quite weird.

Now consider that this exotic and improbable-sounding matter has been inside our bodies all along. It’s a newly discovered state of potassium atoms, an alkali metal first isolated from the ashes of plants. Potassium is an electrolyte that helps your nerves to function and allows your muscles to contract. It helps your heart to beat and facilitates moving nutrients in and out of cells.


The consequences of low potassium levels are apparent in a variety of symptoms: restricted growth, reduced flowering, lower yields and lower quality produce.8:42 PM – Apr 16, 2018Twitter Ads info and privacySee Potassium’s other Tweets

“Potassium is one of the simplest metals we know, yet if you squeeze it, it forms very complicated structures,” explained the study coauthor.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

The University of Edinburgh@EdinburghUni

Atoms can be solid and liquid at the same time, scientists discover https://edin.ac/2UmIjj8  @PhyAstroEd @ScienceUoE @PNASNews95:09 AM – Apr 9, 2019See The University of Edinburgh’s other TweetsTwitter Ads info and privacy

The atoms of potassium can be changed under high pressure and temperature to this new state. This state could occur within the Earth’s mantle right now but is improbable since potassium is not usually found in a pure form. In fact, most of the matter (as we know it) in the universe exists under high temperature and pressure, inside stars and planets. This means that chain-melted dual-state matter could exists just about everywhere.

The study was presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science by coauthor, Andreas Hermann of the University of Edinburgh.

“It’s kind of strange,” says Hermann. “It would be like holding a sponge filled with water that starts dripping out, except the sponge is also made of water,” he says.

Imagine holding a sponge that is both a liquid and solid at once, and you can see why it’s slightly mind-bending. This new state of matter could have a wide range of applications. According to Metro, the researchers believe about six other elements, including sodium and bismuth, are capable of existing in this new state.

According to National Geographic, the discovery was not made by human beings, but by an artificial intelligence machine.

“Hermann and his colleagues turned to simulations to find out, using what’s known as a neural network—an artificial intelligence machine that learns how to predict behavior based on prior examples. After being trained on small groups of potassium atoms, the neural network learned quantum mechanics well enough to simulate collections containing tens of thousands of atoms.”

Matt Leising@mattleising

what could go wrong? “After being trained on small groups of potassium atoms, the neural network learned quantum mechanics well enough to simulate collections containing tens of thousands of atoms.”https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/new-phase-matter-confirmed-solid-and-liquid-same-time-potassium-physics/ …6:27 PM – Apr 8, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacyConfirmed: New phase of matter is solid and liquid at the same timeThe mind-bending material would be like a sponge made of water that’s leaking water.nationalgeographic.comSee Matt Leising’s other Tweets

Scientists have known for many years that metals similar to potassium change their molecular structure in surprising ways when compressed. Another similar common metal, sodium changes from an orderly structure to a complex crystal formation that becomes transparent.View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Physics Astro @ Edin@PhysAstroEd

Elements can be solid and liquid at the same time, study reveals. Researchers have found that some elements can, when subjected to extreme conditions, take on the properties of both solid and liquid states. https://edin.ac/2UsAZTl 24:16 AM – Apr 9, 2019See Physics Astro @ Edin’s other TweetsTwitter Ads info and privacy

See an experiment that changed sodium  below (do not try at home):

Like sodium, potassium changes under high temperature and pressure in an elaborate way. Researchers argue about what actually happens as the atoms form latticed X shapes with separate chains that disappear as the temperature climbs. The chains convert to liquid while the X shaped crystals of potassium remain in solid form.

Featured image: Screenshot via YouTube


Dr. MercolaGuest
Waking Times

Cellphones were classified as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen”1 in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization and the global gold standard for the classification of toxins.

This classification was based on evidence showing that nonionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and tumors.2,3 In my view, this is a mistake and, just like smoking, I am confident it will be recategorized in the future to a 1A carcinogen.

Earlier this year, preliminary findings of two government-funded animal studies4 were published that further support the notion that cellphone radiation has carcinogenic potential.

The finalized report5 of these two studies — conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — was released November 1, 2018. While the preliminary report released in February 2018 significantly downplayed the findings, subsequent peer review upgraded the findings of risk.

Cellphone Radiation Linked to Brain and Heart Tumors

The NTP rates cancer risk based on four categories of evidence: “clear evidence” (highest); “some evidence;” “equivocal evidence;” and “no evidence” (lowest). According to the NTP’s final report, the two studies, done on mice and rats of both sexes, found:6

Clear evidence for heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats. These types of tumors started developing around week 70, and are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use

Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats. Glial cell hyperplasias — indicative of precancerous lesions — began developing around week 58.

(Incidentally, incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (the deadliest type of brain tumor) more than doubled in the U.K. between 1995 and 2015.7,8 According to the authors of the analysis, the dramatic increase is likely due to “widespread environmental or lifestyle factors,” which would include cellphone usage)

Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats, both benign and malignant tumors and/or complex combined pheochromocytoma

Equivocal or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders

The studies also found evidence of:

Low body weight in female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation

DNA damage and damage to heart tissue in exposed male and female rats, but not mice

Prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors in both rats and mice

Are Humans at Risk?

According to The New York Times:9

“‘We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,’ John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot ‘be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience’ …

The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users … The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.”

While the NTP insists the exposure — nine hours a day for two years, which is the lifetime of a rodent — is far more extensive than that of heavy cellphone users, I would strongly disagree, seeing how many, especially the younger generation, have their cellphones turned on and near their body 24/7.

Many are literally sleeping with their phone beneath their pillow. What’s more, cellphones are not the sole source of radiofrequency (RF) EMFs. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled tablets, computers, smart TVs, wireless baby monitors, cordless phones, smart appliances, smart meters and nearby cellular phone basestations are sources of similarly harmful radiation, and most of us are exposed 24/7. So, my guess is that the duration of RF-EMF exposure is actually far greater than the one tested in the study.

Did NTP Minimize Press Coverage of Their Report?

According to Microwave News, the NTP may have purposely minimized press coverage of its final report, which upgraded the risks. “Reporters were given very little notice to join the NTP teleconference on the release of the report. Nor was there much time to prepare a story for publication,” Microwave News reports,10 adding they were not informed of the teleconference via email until 10:45 a.m. October 31.

The conference was held at 2 p.m. that same day. While NTP refused to state how many reporters were on the call, the transcript reveals only eight reporters asked questions, giving the impression that many likely missed the advisory. Editors also had precious little time to assign a reporter to cover the story. Microwave News adds:

“The news that the NTP now believes the cancer link is “real” was under embargo until the next day, November 1. That gave the news media less than 24 hours to prepare their stories, an unusually short time for a technically complex subject. The main reason for embargoes is to give reporters time to do their homework and prepare a clear and accurate write-up …

Even the fact that the report was coming out in less than a day was embargoed by the NTP. It apparently wanted no advance notice of any kind … There was one exception among major media outlets: The New York Times … As it happened, [William] Broad, a long-time member of the science desk, was already working on the story. He was making background calls a week earlier …

There’s a long history of New York Times science reporters — Broad included — downplaying, if not outright dismissing, news of electromagnetic health effects. Anyone wanting to conceal the fact that NTP had found ‘clear evidence’ that cellphone radiation could lead to cancer would likely leak the story to the Times. And the Times delivered.

Here’s the headline from its web site: ‘Study of Cellphone Risks Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats’ … [T]here is the obvious error in the headline: NTP found more than ‘some evidence’ — it saw ‘clear evidence’ … The subhead … ‘Many Caveats Apply, and the Results Involve Radio Frequencies Long Out of Routine Use,’ offers additional — unjustifiable — reasons to discount the NTP finding.”

The New York Times also claims the results are out of date due to the fact they used 2G, which is no longer in widespread use, and that 3G, 4G and 5G are “far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans” due to the higher frequencies. However, there’s no evidence to suggest the newer technologies are safer. Quite the contrary. As noted by Microwave News:

“Two different German labs have exposed mice to 3G. Cancer promotion was found in each case. The lead author of the second study, Alex Lerchl, concluded that 3G signals ‘obviously enhance the growth of tumors’ … The fact is that we don’t know whether the higher G’s are any safer than 2G. Believing so is simply wishful thinking.”

The NTP also downplayed the risks by stressing that “high exposure” was associated with cancer in male rats, when in fact the results in some instances revealed a greater effect at a lower dose.

Such nonlinear dose response was also found in Lerchl’s study, in which a dose 50 times lower than the highest dose resulted in a greater response. “At this point, one can only guess where the threshold for RF effects may be. It could be lower than now commonly believed, possibly much lower,” Microwave News notes.

Why Evidence of Rodent Schwannomas Could Spell Trouble for Human Health

As explained by Louis Slesin, Ph.D., editor and publisher of Microwave News, the increased incidence of schwannomas in rodents exposed to radiofrequencies is of great concern for public health:11

“Schwann cells play a key role in the functioning of the peripheral nervous system. They make the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve fibers and helps speed the conduction of electrical impulses. There are Schwann cells just about everywhere there are peripheral nerve fibers. They are present in most organs of the body — whether mice, rats or humans.

Schwann cell tumors are called schwannomas. The NTP found schwannomas in many other organs, in addition to the heart, of rats chronically exposed to cellphone radiation. These included a variety of glands (pituitary, salivary and thymus), the trigeminal nerve and the eye … The NTP also saw schwannomas in the uterus, ovary and vagina of female rats.

The brain has no Schwann cells — the brain is part of the central nervous system. There, glial cells play a similar function. In fact, Schwann cells are a type of glial cell … Tumors of the glial cells are called gliomas. The NTP also saw an increase in glioma among the male rats exposed to GSM and CDMA radiation …

While schwannomas and gliomas are commonly noncancerous tumors, they can develop into malignant schwannomas or glioblastomas … The implication is that instead of searching for consistency in radio frequencies’ ability to cause cancer in specific organs, the emphasis should now be on specific cell types — beginning with Schwann cells in the periphery and glial cells in the brain.”

Mitochondrial Dysfunction Is the Primary Hazard of Cellphone Radiation

In my view, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage,12,13,14,15 which can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. The process begins when low-frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)16 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell. This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs. This is reviewed in more detail in my interview with professor Martin Pall below.

For example, excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to produce peroxynitrites — extremely potent oxidant stressors.17 Peroxynitrites in turn:

  • Can cause single-strand DNA breaks18
  • Modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.19Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease20

This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low-frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,21 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.

Heart Problems, Neurological Disorders and Infertility Are Risks of EMF Exposure

While an estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each year,22 another 787,000 people die from heart disease.23 So, while the relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that cellphone use is safe, that’s only because you’re looking at a less prevalent outcome.

Cellphone radiation has also been shown to have a significant impact on neurological and mental health,24 contributing to and/or worsening anxiety, depression and dementia, for example, and all of these conditions are rampant and growing more prevalent. (This also makes sense as brain dysfunction will occur much faster than a tumor, which can take decades.)

Research also suggests excessive EMF exposure is contributing to reproductive problems. For example, researchers have found prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman’s risk of miscarriage.25

According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division, Dr. De-Kun Li,26 “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” adding his findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.”

According to Li, there are at least six other studies, in addition to two of his own, showing this link.27,28,29,30,31 EMF exposure may also play a significant role in testicular cancer and male infertility.

Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.32,33 Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.34

US Food and Drug Administration Stands Firm on Cellphone Safety

NTP’s final report has now been given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the two agencies involved in the regulation of cellphones and assessment of health risks. Unfortunately, the FDA appears unwilling to change its stance on cellphone safety.

This is no surprise as the telecommunication industry has far more political lobbying influence than Big Pharma and Big Food combined. To expect anything other than full support for the telecommunication industry would be irrational.

In a November 1 press statement, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, reaffirmed the agency’s position, saying:35

“The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cellphones — and any radiation-emitting electronic product — are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the [FCC] to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cellphones, called radiofrequency energy …

We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the [NTP] … [W]e disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.

In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones … [T]hese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.

NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports … which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report.

Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambiguous) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment …

Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cellphones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

NTP Findings Have Already Been Reproduced, and at Power Levels Below FCC Limits

While the FDA insists it “must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study,” it fails to address the elephant in the room, which is the corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute just one month after the NTP released its preliminary report in February 2018.

The Ramazzini study36 reproduces and clearly supports the NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors (schwannomas)37,38,39 — but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP.

While NTP used radiofrequency (RF) levels comparable to what’s emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones(near-field exposure), Ramazzini simulated exposure to cellphone towers (far-field exposure). Ramazzini’s rats were exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation at electric field strengths of 5, 25 and 50 volts per meter40 for 19 hours a day, starting at birth until the rats died either from age or illness.

To facilitate comparison, the researchers converted their measurements to watts per kilogram of body weight (W/kg), which is what the NTP used. Overall, the radiation dose administered in the Ramazzini study was up to 1,000 times lower than the NTP’s — and below the U.S. limits set by the FCC — yet the results are strikingly similar.

As in the NTP studies, exposed male rats developed statistically higher rates of heart schwannomas than unexposed rats. They also found some evidence, although weaker, that RF exposure increased rates of glial tumors in the brains of female rats.

The fact that the Ramazzini study used a radiation dose well below FCC limits yet still reproduced the NTP’s findings of cancer really weakens the FDA’s claims of safety.