Dear Mayor Burnham,
this is the final page of the analysis. Please read it, it is possibly the most telling email of all. There will only be a couple more emails after this. With the greatest respect, my emails to you, which I believe are publicly available, will serve as a ‘prototype’ that I will correct, edit, document and send out more widely. I have already made a start. People do not deserve such shocking treatment as the implementation of these 5G antennas represents.
Continuing my analysis of Dr Grimes’s Guardian article ‘Mobile phones and cancer – the full picture’:
DR GRIMES: ‘Hertsgaard and Dowie insinuate the telecoms industry is obfuscating scientific inquiry, drawing parallels with contemptible efforts by big tobacco to negate public acceptance of the link between smoking and cancer, … Unlike RF-radiation, smoking is a clear carcinogen, linked to cancer experimentally as early as the 1920s. Subsequent experiments echoed this, showing clear causal links to cancer. By 1953, the weight of scientific evidence linking cancer to smoking was overwhelming.
IN RESPONSE: If I were Dr Grimes, I wouldn’t have referenced smoking. For a start,1920s to 1953? That’s roughly thirty years. How many people died from smoking related illnesses as a result of this time lapse? So, let’s look at this… ‘smoking is a clear carcinogen linked to cancer experimentally as early as the 1920s’. If so… 1. Why, in 1929, was Edward Bernays commissioned to create an advertising campaign that would dramatically increase cigarette sales? It was called ‘Torches of Freedom’ and was successful in encouraging millions of women, supposedly liberated by cigarettes, to start smoking. Thus, already aware that smoking was a possible, if not known, carcinogen, the industry was setting women up to smoke. 2. Why wasn’t at least, if not more than, the precautionary principle applied in the 1920s? Why? Why? Why? The situation with cell phones is following a similar trajectory and by the time it’s publicly announced that cell phone use causes a host of health problems, problems which are unequivocally known about already, how many people will have died… horribly and unnecessarily, due to a combination of misinformation and corporate interests usurping human interests? Dr Franz Adlkofer, a cell phone researcher who also worked as a researcher for the German cigarette industry has said, ”The mobile phone industry has taken over some methods used by the cigarette industry in the US for many, many years, to hide the truth.”
Let’s update things… ‘cell phones are a clear carcinogen linked to cancer experimentally as early as the 1990s’. Mobile phone RF radiation is carcinogenic.
January 30, 2015
We—the undersigned organizations, doctors, and scientists—wholeheartedly support the scientific findings of a connection between cancer and RF/EMF radiation. For the sanctity of human life, especially our children, we respectfully request that:
WHO/IARC immediately conducts the appropriate scientific review within IARC to move RF/EMF radiation from its current class 2B to class 1, known carcinogen based on review of the complete scientific database.
DR GRIMES: ‘With RF, however, the scientific evidence points to a conclusion totally at odds with what the authors postulate. The analogy to industry bamboozling the public to ignore findings doesn’t hold if there is no strong scientific consensus from which to deflect, rendering it cynical or ignorant to equivocate the twain. This is not a case of an industry trying to distract from inescapable scientific conclusion – the reality is there is nothing of substance from which to deflect…’
IN RESPONSE: ‘… ‘if there is no scientific consensus from which to deflect’.. There is a strong scientific consensus from which to deflect:
Scientists Against 5G: https://www.5gappeal.eu/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/
EMF Scientists Appeal to the UN: http://www.iemfa.org/emf-scientist-appeal-to-the-united-nations/
DR GRIMES: ‘The authors conclude by stating a “lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world”. Such a statement raises questions regarding their grasp of the term “logical fallacy”. The onus here is on the authors to prove their assertion – it is sheer logical contortion to present a lack of evidence as a superficial supporting argument. That the authors attribute this lack of evidence for their claims to the machinations of a nebulous big telecoms is indicative of a mindset more conspiratorial than sceptical.’
IN RESPONSE: I will address this by looking at the whole paragraph from which Grimes singled it out:
‘Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this logical fallacy to the world. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the world have been subjected to a public-health experiment: use a mobile phone today, find out later if it causes genetic damage or cancer. Meanwhile, the industry has obstructed a full understanding of the science and news organisations have failed to inform the public about what scientists really think. In other words, this public health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.’
From what I’ve written in my emails thus far, it’s clear to see that this is a very telling paragraph and also one which people can relate to. Nastily nit picking about ‘logical fallacy’ not only demonstrates smug intellectual arrogance but potentially serves to discredit the rest of the paragraph.
DR GRIMES: ‘The conspiratorial bent is relevant – misconceptions about wireless technology have long perpetuated. Like all the most enduring myths, fears over new technologies are built upon a tiny kernel of truth, hideously distorted. There is no shortage of websites and groups alleging all manner of damage from wifi. Disputing these narratives tends to result in personal besmirchment, with questioners labelled either a pawn of the industry or witless dupe.’
IN RESPONSE: …’Like all the most enduring myths, fears over new technologies are built upon a tiny kernel of truth, hideously distorted.’. Specifically, which ‘most enduring myths’?
…’A tiny kernel of truth’. The many scientists appealing to the UN and the EU don’t represent ‘a tiny kernel of truth’, they do, however, represent a very inconvenient truth… a truth which has been ‘hideously distorted’ in this article.
… ‘The conspiratorial bent is relevant.’
Why wouldn’t it be? The people quickly labelled ‘conspiracy theorists’ by the CIA after John Kennedy’s murder were the investigative journalists worthy of the title, the journalists who were questioning the things that didn’t add up according to what people were being told. That’s what investigative journalists are employed to do… investigate. Let’s take a look at the definition of ‘conspiracy’: ‘A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. The action of plotting or conspiring’. Now let us see how this relates. Many highly qualified scientists are telling us that RF radiation and mobile phones are physically harmful and carcinogenic, however, instead of this information being acted upon in order to protect people, the frequencies that are already harming us are about to be exponentially amplified. Who would give instruction and authority to do this? Who would be responsible for inflicting something known to be this harmful onto billions of people? How is that possible? What would their reasons be? What sort of conversations would take place and where? Who are the protagonists who assume they have the right to impose such known harm onto other humans… and on a global scale? In such a context, I think the word ‘conspiracy’ is both relevant and appropriate. Of course, in my email on tactics I mentioned this method of the inconvenient truth being blithely dismissed by mainstream media representatives, usually accompanied by ridicule…. and the words ‘conspiracy theory’.
…’Disputing these narratives tends to result in personal besmirchment, with questioners labelled either a pawn of the industry or witless dupe.’ Wrote Dr Grimes, before looking up to smile at himself in the mirror.
DR GRIMES: ‘While constant monitoring of an emergent technology is laudable, current evidence contradicts the hypothesis that mobile phones increase the risk of cancer. Scaremongering narratives may be more alluring than the less sensational, scientific findings, but they are not harmless. We need only look at any vaccine panic to see the cost in human life when superstition outpaces science. In an age where misinformation can perpetuate rapidly, it can be difficult to parse fact from fiction, but it’s imperative that we hone our scientific scepticism rather than succumb to baseless panics – our very wellbeing depends on it.’
IN RESPONSE: ‘current evidence contradicts the hypothesis that mobile phones increase the risk of cancer.’ Blatantly wrong. More accurately, ‘current selective and deceptive evidence from the cell phone industry, probably supported by the BBC and definitely by the Guardian newspaper, is being used to contradict the fact that mobile phones increase the risk of cancer.’
… ‘it’s imperative that we hone our scientific scepticism rather than succumb to baseless panics – our very wellbeing depends on it.’
‘it’s imperative that we hone our scientific scepticism’ .. certainly regarding the content of this article it is…. and who’s talking about baseless panicking apart from Grimes? Ascertaining the truth is not panicking. Acting on the truth is not panicking. Not being told the truth and finding out you’ve developed an ipsilateral brain tumour where you unwittingly held your phone is when it’s time to panic.
As part of this analysis of Dr Grimes’ article, I will include a paragraph which he omitted to comment on:
‘One key player has not been swayed by all this wireless-friendly research: the insurance industry. In our reporting for this story, we found not a single insurance company that would sell a product-liability policy that covered mobile phone radiation. “Why would we want to do that?” one executive asked with a chuckle before pointing to more than two dozen lawsuits outstanding against wireless companies, demanding a total of $1.9bn in damages.’
TO FINISH. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister, to C.P. Scott, editor of the Guardian newspaper, ”If people really knew the truth the war would be stopped tomorrow, but of course they don’t know and they can’t know.’ These two men are long since dead… but their legacy lives on… ”If the people knew the truth, the 5G antennas would be stopped tomorrow, but of course they don’t know and they can’t know.”
Thank you for your precious time.