want to risk with faulty information.
Historically, in nations where the government controls the media, the guiding rules of evaluating news has been to listen to many, varied sources, judge the credibility and reputation of the source, and use your own experience and knowledge to evaluate the information. In the case of health information, also listen to your own body and consult with family members.
Historically, it’s been governments who controlled media. Now it’s a handful of corporations that own and control the media—for their own profit interests and not for the public’s good.
Another dimension that is wise when it comes to health matters is the Precautionary Principle applied across the European Union. That is, more research may be needed, but if enough of the evidence points to probable dangers and risks to the population, then the proposed action is halted by governing authorities. This applies to technologies and chemicals (agro and pharma) especially.
There is no such Precautionary Principles exercised in the United States. Buyer Beware applies to nearly everything we buy in the 21st century, just as it did 100 years ago. The federal offices that were created to protect the public are far too influenced, if not directly managed, by the industries they’re supposed to be regulating. This is true of the FCC, which should be controlling the telecom industry, the FDA which is so underfunded that the pharma companies pay for their own application processes. At the CDC the vaccine department is a revolving door to the pharmaceutical industry, and the EPA is permitting Bayer/Monsanto to write our pesticide laws, which many States are fighting.
Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support their efforts.
He who Pays the Piper, Calls the Tune
Professor Lai had been unaware of the wireless tech controversy. Years later he did a meta-analysis (broad survey of much of the science) on effects of wireless tech and compared the findings (impact on human or planetary health) against who funded the study. There was a clear inverse effect: of those studies funded by telecom, about 75% found no adverse effects from Radio Frequencies. If independently funded, about 75% of studies did find adverse effects.
See Dr. Lai’s contribution to The 2012 Bioinitiative Report.
The Telecom “Cover” Story
The way Telecom tells the story of the effects of Non-ionizing Radiation (NIR) on humans and all life on earth follows this line: Radiation exists in Nature. The sun emits radiation. Then we are exposed to radiation from medical testing equipment (that’s Ionizing radiation on the spectrum), and that’s not causing deadly harm (unless using it in cancer treatment). Yes, the false story continues, we’re experiencing symptoms of blah-blah and they list many that are true. This is when you feel you’re being heard!
Then the author dismisses them with a casual admission that the WHO IARC ranking of Class 2B Possible Carcinogen is on that list with some vegetables, failing to admit that list also includes asbestos, lead, and other far more relevant substances. (The IARC will be reevaluating that Class 2B ranking shortly in view of more science.) The story winds up with a tone of “we’re all going to be okay”, leaving you feeling, especially if you’re having any symptoms (and 36% of us are), confused and a bit daft—is this all in your head? And with AIChatBOT this is the story that will sweep the internet as enough corrupted scientists and assorted writers are spreading this drivel.
The only medical comparison that’s relevant: 5 Hours of a Cellphone Against your Head is the equivalent radiation of 16 chest X-rays. The average American spends that much time every day on their cell phone.
Here we will be publishing the findings of Science and the decisions of Courts worldwide as the public holds companies responsible for the consequences of their products.
SCIENCE IN THE NEWS
From The New York Times:
More Screen Time Linked to Delayed Development in Babies, Study Finds
About two years ago I saw an ad where you could buy a robot “friend” for your child for $1500. Now there’s competition, and the price has come down! The children still lose!
AI ‘Nanny Bots’ Promise Kids ‘Genuine Friendship’ — But Experts Warn of Harm to Cognitive, Social Development
How does having a cell phone become an extension of your arm that you continually disrupt attention to check it affect our humanity? Our society? What’s this doing to our children? If we let it…
Big Tech’s ‘Sinister Agenda’ Behind Getting Kids Hooked on Technology
Alliance for Natural Health International
For The Defende
Here’s how to check on your adolescent’s mental health vis-à-vis their social media behavior.
From The New York Times.
Does Your Child Have an Unhealthy Relationship to Social Media?