We’re gonna continue our investigation into how critics of 5G the fifth generation of wireless technology are being silenced.Michele Greenstein has been working on this story all week long and she joins us now with the very

latest edition of what she’s been finding out this is really a fascinating story.

So many people are saying look good , at this being told no we’re not taking a good look at this right let’s take you to the case of Miss Clara Edwards she lives in Vienna Austria where the rollout of 5g is actually already on.They have pre 5g in some public spaces like airports one of the town’s squares and her friends and her friends kids are already reporting some of the symptoms of electromagnetic radiation poisoning nosebleeds headaches chest pain fatigue cardiac pain nausea. So being a UN staff member she took this issue to the UN secretary-general and called for the halt of 5g at all UN base stations.

As per her, “Highly dangerous biological effects of EMFs have been documented by thousands of studies since 1932

indicating that we may be facing a global health catastrophe orders of magnitude worse than those caused by

tobacco and cigarettes. Mr. secretary-general on the basis of the precautionary principle, I urge you to

have these EMF emitting devices removed immediately from these buildings and to call a halt to any rollout of 5g at unduty stations because of 5g network health hazards. 5G is designed to deliver concentrated and focused radiation in excess of 100 times current levels in the same way as directed energy weapons.”

Now what’s interesting is that the UN’s World Health Organization and the International Telecommunications Union both adopted their so-called safety guidelines from a non-governmental body that’s housed in Germany called the International Commission on non ionizing radiation protection. So again not a state actor just an NGO in Germany and these guidelines were adopted in 1998 right when people weren’t really using that much wireless technology. That’s obviously changed right, we not only have the technology evolved since then but our habits have also changed.

We’re talking now five point one five billion people having mobile devices worldwide that’s over 66% and 3.5 billion of those people are smartphone users that’s over 45% of all users worldwide. We’re also at a point where infants and toddlers are using these devices like iPads and sometimes iPhones right we also have people sleeping with their devices sometimes their routers are on 24/7 and with the rollout of 5g. We’re going to be seeing exponentially more devices being connected the Internet and that of course means exponentially more base stations to allow for all of this data to be transferred now it’s interesting because in most studies that you don’t see an increased risk of brain cancer right but the way that most of these studies define a cellphone user. According to Dr. Deborah Davis who we’ve had on the show before they define a cellphone user by someone that used as a phone for one call a week every six months so obviously that’s not what we’re dealing with right in the year 2020. Now we’ve in the past discussed the industry’s influence our research right. How you know you can have biased publications depending on who’s funding studies but we should also discuss the study the scientific research that does exist that actually does show harm.

But what’s interesting is that the ICN IRP which is the body of the german body that I just mentioned in addition to having those you know outdated guidelines from 1998. They’re also dismissing the science that’s come out since then. The independent peer-reviewed scientific literature that does show a connection between things like tumors alzheimer’s you know cardiac stress oxidative stretch which is the baseline for a host of other diseases and wireless radiation and they’re dismissing the science. When it comes to the effect of this radiation on humans now dr. Martin Paul who’s another scientist that we’ve had on the show in the past tried to submit a document to the IAC and IRP in October of 2018 because they were having this kind of public consultation on reviewing their guidelines. But they actually refused to take his paper into consideration now Claire Edwards who’s the young woman who we just listened to was asked to edit that submission let’s take a listen to what she had to say okay in his submission he pointed out that I see an IRP just unilaterally dismisses all the science.

So it doesn’t matter what it is you know they’ll say oh well you know I’m just making this up at random oh well you know rabbits you know there studies have shown that rabbits go blind but there are no implications for humans. You know Oh studies have shown that you know mice become sterile but there are no implications for humans and the whole document is like this and throughout the whole document.Professor Paul just said well you know as scientists you cannot just dismiss the science you have to give your grounds for dismissing it yeah now we’re talking about science like the National Toxicology program which is the world’s largest most expensive study to date costs thirty million dollars. That showed that rats that were exposed to high levels of RF radiation we’re developing heart tumors we’re also talking about you know mobile phone radiation exposures in terms of their effect on reproductive health.

We have male rats that were exposed to high levels of radiation having lower testosterone increased DNA damage and their offspring had lower fertility. So it’s interesting that this body which is the body that the World Health Organization derives its health standards from is dismissing this kind of science and saying it cannot possibly be applicable to humans now according to Clare Edwards. When she and Martin Paul tried to submit some of this increased evidence of 5g effects on body to this platform they refused to accept those documents and that’s a really interesting story that we will be bringing our audience in the coming days good stuff stay on it.

By Michelle GreenStein