Cell Phones Cause Cancer, but 5G is Great!
The UK’s Guardian Contradicts Itself on Dangers of 5G Beast Tech.—
Between July 2018 and March 2020, the Guardian engaged in a wretched display of fallacious logic and shameless self-contradiction about the dangers of cell phone technology.
In 2018, The Guardian re-published an article by The Observer titled, The Inconvenient Truth About Cancer and Mobile Phones, insisting cell phone technology poses a real danger to humanity. With great clarity, the article outlined how the danger is whitewashed by big-business elites that fund the development of the technology and also fund “industry-friendly” research into its safety, skewing the shocking results to their own advantage. Greed is a deadly idol. The article opened with an explosion:
“On 28 March this year , the scientific peer review of a landmark United States government study concluded that there is ‘clear evidence’ that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer, specifically, a heart tissue cancer in rats that is too rare to be explained as random occurrence.
“[T]he wireless industry has ‘war-gamed’ science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves … funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies such as the World Health Organisation and seeking to discredit scientists whose views differ from the industry’s.”
You can read an extended excerpt of the article in the Salt section.
This year, in 2020, The Guardian published the article, UK Phone Masts Attacked Amid 5G-Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory, in which a logically fallacious straw-man argument is presented, “linking 5G technology to the spread of coronavirus”:
“Three recent mobile phone mast fires around the UK are being investigated as possible arson, amid concerns that people are attacking telecoms infrastructure because of a conspiracy theory linking 5G technology to the spread of coronavirus.”
“Speaking at Saturday’s Downing Street press conference, cabinet secretary Michael Gove said the theories were ‘dangerous nonsense’. Professor Steve Powis, national medical director of NHS England, condemned them as ‘the worst kind of fake news’. ‘I’m absolutely outraged, absolutely disgusted, that people would be taking action against the very infrastructure that we need to respond to this health emergency,’ he said. ‘It is absolute and utter rubbish.’”theguardian.com
The Guardian article went on to reference the mayor of Liverpool who essentially said, “all scientific and government advice showed the technology posed no harm to people.” The article went on to deceive us further:
“A spokesperson for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport, which has responsibility for telecoms policy, warned people to stop damaging key infrastructure during a national emergency: ‘These are baseless theories, there is absolutely no credible evidence of a link between 5G and coronavirus…'”
“Baseless”… “absolutely no credible evidence of a link between 5G and coronavirus“? Great! What about the link to cancer?
This shallow representation of a neo-Luddite “conspiracy theory,” as described above, also serves as a red-herring to distract us from the solid and troubling findings that The Guardian itself previously reported about the “inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones.”
The idea that 5G causes COVID-19 is absurd on its face; but, the science itself seems to indicate some relation between the two. The Scientist recently ran an article, Lost Smell and Taste Hint COVID-19 Can Target the Nervous System, in which Abdul Mannan Baig, a researcher at Aga Khan University in Pakistan, was interviewed and said t :
“There are also multiple ways that the virus could invade the central nervous system, he explains. It might circulate through the blood and then attack ACE2 receptors in the endothelia that lines blood capillaries in the brain, breaching the blood-brain barrier and invading neurons through that route. A breached blood-brain barrier could also cause brain swelling, compressing the brain stem and affecting respiration, Mannan says. The cells innervating the lungs could also become infected, making involuntary respiration more difficult.the-scientist.com
Baig’s reference to the “breaching of the blood-brain barrier” is crucial because of this 2009 study titled, Increased Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days After Exposure to the Radiation From a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. The title says it all.
Cell phone radiation can weaken the blood-brain barrier and viruses (like COVID-19) can pass through a breached blood-brain barrier more easily. Is that too profound to understand? Am I misrepresenting the facts?
The Environmental Health Trust, a respected virtual think tank, summarized the results of the study by Italy’s renowned Ramazinni Institute in an article titled, World’s Largest Animal Study on Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link, in which 2,448 Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed “from prenatal life until their natural death to ‘environmental’ cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m).” The summary continued thus:
“RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.”
“All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according to the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding,” explained Ronald Melnick Ph.D., formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). “Governments need to strengthen regulations to protect the public from these harmful non-thermal exposures.”
In conclusion, I introduce to you Dr Fiorella Belpoggi. According to her bio at the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, she has “dedicated her career to the identification of industrial and environmental carcinogens.” She was “vice scientific director and chief of pathology at the European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences.” “During her 25‐year collaboration with mentor Professor Cesare Maltoni, her work contributed to the adaptation of international standards to better protect public health against the hazards of vinyl chloride, benzene and methyl tert‐butyl ether. Currently, Belpoggi is leading the ERF integrated project on electromagnetic fields originating from electricity and cellular telephone technology.”
Watch Dr. Belpoggi describe the reproducible findings that prove radiation from cell phones causes cancer (2018):
Deuteronomy 16: 19, 20
“Do not pervert justice or show partiality. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the innocent. Pursue justice, and justice alone, so that you may live…“
“A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.“
“A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.“
THE GUARDIAN, from The Inconvenient Truth About Cancer and Mobile Phones:
“On 28 March this year, the scientific peer review of a landmark United States government study concluded that there is ‘clear evidence’ that radiation from mobile phones causes cancer, specifically, a heart tissue cancer in rats that is too rare to be explained as random occurrence.
“Not one major news organisation in the US or Europe reported this scientific news. But then, news coverage of mobile phone safety has long reflected the outlook of the wireless industry. For a quarter of a century now, the industry has been orchestrating a global PR campaign aimed at misleading not only journalists, but also consumers and policymakers about the actual science concerning mobile phone radiation… [W]ireless industry CEOs lied to the public even after their own scientists privately warned that their products could be dangerous, especially to children.
“Remarkably, mobile phones had been allowed on to the US market a decade earlier without any government safety testing. Now, some customers and industry workers were being diagnosed with cancer.
“The key strategic insight animating corporate propaganda campaigns is that a given industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety to prevail – it only has to keep the argument going… Central to keeping the scientific argument going is making it appear that not all scientists agree. Towards that end… the wireless industry has “war-gamed” science, as a Motorola internal memo in 1994 phrased it. War-gaming science involves … funding studies friendly to the industry while attacking studies that raise questions; placing industry-friendly experts on advisory bodies such as the World Health Organisation and seeking to discredit scientists whose views differ from the industry’s.
“Funding friendly research has perhaps been the most important tactic, because it conveys the impression that the scientific community truly is divided. Thus, when studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage – as Carlo’s WTR did in 1999; as the WHO’s Interphone study did in 2010; and as the US government’s NTP did earlier this year – the industry can point out, accurately, that other studies disagree
“A closer look reveals the industry’s sleight of hand. When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects.“