Connect with us

Alternative News

Are We All A Little Bisexual? Exploring Gender Identities & Cultural Programming

Published

on

Are we all bisexual at our core? How much of our sexual orientation is influenced by cultural programming around sexual identity?

advertisement - learn more

My curiosity with these questions was sparked after reading an article by Mike Iamele, fascinatingly titled, I’m An Otherwise Straight Man (Who Fell In Love With His Best Friend). Mike unabashedly shared his story with the world, which revealed how he developed romantic feelings for his best friend and roommate, Garrett, after a life threatening illness left Mike debhilitated and needing assistance. Because of their close friendship and shared living situation, Garrett stepped up as Mike’s caretaker.

“My roommate, Garrett, one of my best friends at the time, took pity on me. He took care of me. He picked up my prescriptions from the pharmacy. He cooked me dinner. He stayed in on Friday nights to watch movies. He’d even rub my back when I was in pain.”

Two months into the routine, Mike said romantic thoughts began to creep into his head.

“I had a thought — a tiny, little thought — that I loved him. It seemed preposterous. It seemed laughable. I shooed it away immediately. But that thought started creeping into my mind whenever he was away. That thought sneaked in whenever he did something nice or made me laugh.”

Eventually Mike came to terms with these thoughts as something very real. He decided to tell Garrett one evening, and Garrett revealed to Mike that he “loved him too.”

advertisement - learn more

“We had no idea how to make this work. We had no idea if this even could work. Sometimes we still don’t. It took time — years even — to figure it out. But it’s a relationship. None of us know what we’re doing. We just try and negotiate and compromise. And, little by little, you become just another boring couple.”

Mike revealed that yes, he is an otherwise ‘straight’ man in love with another man. His thoughts around his relationship are fascinating,

“I would never reduce Garrett down to just being a man… He’s a pharmacist and a good cook and a great cards player… I love him for who he is, not what he is. We’re more than our gender. We’re more than one attribute. And sometimes we need to remember that. We have this myth of identity — that who we are is the summation of a lot of choices we made in the past. In every moment, we’re changing and evolving and growing. In every moment, we’re reconstructing our identity. We’re not defined by our decisions from two years ago. We’re not even defined by our decisions from two minutes ago. We’re defined by who we choose to be in this very moment.”

Mike’s words are powerful and couldn’t be more accurate. Should we so quickly and directly be defined by our decisions? Should our sexual identity be limited by predisposed cultural programs? I became very curious about human sexuality.

At our core, are we all open to bi-sexual experiences? Is our mono-sexual (hetero or homo) orientation and identity more so influenced and decided by cultural programming?

Bi-Sexuality In The Animal Kingdom

Many animal species exhibit bisexual behaviours.

Many animal species exhibit bisexual behaviours.

When looking at our animal relatives, the Bonobo Chimpanzees, we quickly learn that bisexuality is commonplace among various chimp groups. They engage in sexual acts with one another for many reasons, whether they are hungry, tired, tense, or whether they just want to play.

In fact, as of 1999, over 1500 species have been observed to showcase bisexual behaviours, including lions, lizards, swans, and dolphins.

Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting–even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding.

Could this observation tell us something about our own innate sexual curiosity?

Are We Born Naturally Inclined To Bi-Sexuality?

Neurologist Sigmund Freud suggested that we were all innately bisexual.

Neurologist Sigmund Freud suggested that we were all innately bisexual.

Famous neurologist Sigmund Freud was one of the first public figures to address the concept of innate bisexuality.

The conclusions that he drew were based on the fact that at early stages of development, humans undergo a period of hermaphrodism. Based on this, he asserts that all humans are born predisposed to bisexuality but gain other sexualities throughout later psychological development – with bisexuality remaining latent.

This develops into a general theory that attraction to both sexes is possible, but that one is more common for each sex. From there, it is the supposition of some that the way in which humans express or enjoy themselves sexually is indifferent to the gender of the person from which that erotic fulfillment is derived.

Late author Gore Vidal spoke about innate bisexuality during a time when the idea was widely condemned. He said it is the “tribal taboos” that have taken our innate bisexuality away, whereas in fact it is a matter of our human condition that we are all responsive to sexual stimuli from whichever gender it should come from.

Male And Female Same-Sex Experiences: Double Standards?

Traditionally, if a man has experienced even one same-sex encounter, his sexual orientation is almost immediately equated to being article-2514246-19AC6E4200000578-495_634x826homosexual. This old cultural idea effectively erases the possibility of bisexuality being possible for a man.

Yet conversely, it seems bisexuality is more commonly accepted in women. If a woman has a one-time sexual experience with another woman, she is less likely to be categorized as ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ as opposed to two men in the same circumstance.

In the past there seemed to be more sexual identity standards with regards to men as opposed to women.

Even those identifying as bisexual have often been stigmatized, sometimes being described as simply being in transition into pure homosexuality, or being sex crazed.  Other social attitudes towards bisexuals paints them as neurotic or ‘incapable of making up their minds.’

In this way, bisexual individuals have been subject to double discrimination, facing hostility from both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

The point is that all too often we get caught up in defining our sexuality and thereby limit our potential as free and open beings. We are quick to place gender labels on people based on predisposed cultural ideas of gender norms. But is this all beginning to change?

Survey Says?

Perhaps the labeling of sexuality is dissolving in our current era. In a 2011 study published in the Journal of Bisexuality titled Aren’t We All a Little Bisexual?: The Recognition of Bisexuality in an Unlikely Place, a group of heterosexual male sports players from universities across the US were asked about same-sex experiences.

Researchers asked the men questions such as, “If a straight guy had sex with a guy once, would it make him gay?”. A common answer was, “Only if he wasn’t attracted to women.” article-2514246-19AC6E4F00000578-381_306x423

Instead of viewing sexuality as a polarized ‘either/or’ identity, most of these men were interested in discussing issues of sexuality through a recognition of its complexity.

On participant said, “What does it really mean to be gay anyhow?”. When asked to ‘describe bisexuality’ many of these men initially offered an explanation that being bisexual means being sexually attracted to men and women.

Almost all of the men in the study maintained that bisexuality exists among men, and most even recognize bisexuality in themselves, but few know male friends who publicly identify as bisexual.

One of the participants elaborated, “It’s cool right now for girls to be into other girls. I don’t think it’s bad for guys to say they are into other guys… I don’t think there is much homophobia [biphobia], but it’s also not ‘cool’ yet. Maybe it will be in a few years. But, right now, a guy just doesn’t get the same credit with his friends for doing guys as he does for doing girls. So if you’re a guy, and you like girls [too,] I guess it just make sense to say you’re straight.”

Another participant chimed in, “I don’t get it. Why do we have to be straight or gay, or whatever? Why can’t we just be?”

In an article written for the Daily Mail titled Rise of the Female Flexi-Sexuala study revealed that in 2010 16% of women admitted to sexual experiences with other women, compared to only 4% claiming the same in 1990.

On top of that, women said that they enjoyed the experience, but wouldn’t necessarily classify themselves as bisexual. It seems that our current era offers more sexual freedom without the worry of gender labels.

Dropping The Labels

All of these findings are fascinating indeed, they signify that sexuality is best understood as a spectrum rather than a definitive label. It’s important to take into account multiple variables in understanding sexuality, including emotional preference, social preference and more.

The questions begs, if we were born into a society that was completely neutral and void of gender and sexuality standards, would we all be open to sexual experiences with either sex? Is there an innate same-sex curiosity in all of us, that has been buried by layers of cultural programming around sexual norms?

These are all important questions which will continue to evolve as sexual freedom and non-identification becomes more ubiquitous throughout society. For now, let’s drop the identities and labels around sexual orientation and let sexual expression flow both naturally and freely.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Strange, Round & Perfectly Symmetrical ‘Object’ Discovered Off The Coast Of Greece

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A strange underwater object appears off the coast of Greece in Google Earth images. Some are calling it a UFO, but up to this point, it has not been investigated. The object appears to be quite large and perfectly round.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we not more willing to discuss this in the mainstream media? With all of the available and credible documentation surrounding UFOs and their reality, shouldn't this become more of an everyday discussion?

A strange, mysterious and perfectly round object has been revealed via Google Earth (satellite maps), right off the coast of Greece and has captured the attention of UFO enthusiasts. You can view the coordinates here. Apparently, the mysterious object measures 220 feet long, and as RT points out, “It’s unclear whether the unidentified object has ever been viewed for real, or whether the image is simply an optical illusion, like a trick of the light.”

According to Nigel Watson, UFO researcher in the field and author of the UFO Investigations Manual, “some might think its shape indicates it is a submerged flying saucer lurking under the depths… More likely it is probably a natural formation… Without being able to look at it closely or researching the history of the area it is hard to tell. Using the worlds ‘unidentified submerged object’ implies it is an artificial construct of some type.”

The object seems so close to the shore, that whatever it is, could easily be investigated by anybody who has the means to do so. I wanted to cover this story because it makes it easy for mainstream outlets to jump on it and deem this topic a ‘conspiracy theory,’ but we now know it’s far from that, and that for decades, everything has been “in a process of investigation both in the United States and in Spain, as well as the rest of the world,”  and on a global scale, “the nations of the world are currently working together in the investigation of the UFO phenomenon” and there is “an international exchange of data,” according to General Carlos Castro Cavero.

I almost didn’t cover this piece because there are a multitude of other cases with verified credibility that have been documented. Literally, thousands of cases are verified by the military pilots who are sent out to see what these objects (invading international air-space) and have captured photographs of these objects (like this one), and even have electrooptical, video footage and radar trackings.

The sighting I referred to above lasted for a couple of minutes and was analyzed by Dr. Bruce Maccabee, who estimated (from available data) that the luminosity of the object (the power output within the spectral range of the film) to be many megawatts. The Sturrock Panel also found it to be the case that a strong magnetic field surrounding the phenomenon or object was a common occurrence.

Maccabee published his analysis in the Journal of Scientific Exploration (“Optical Power Output of an Unidentified High Altitude Light Source,” published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 13, #2, 1999).  He also published one in 1994 titled “Strong Magnetic Field Detected Following a Sighting of an Unidentified Flying Object,” in the same journal (8, #3, 347).

advertisement - learn more


Related CE Article:

Chilean Air Force Receives A Radar Return of A UFO Equal To The Size of Ten or More Aircraft Carries


There are more than enough cases to see strange objects, with 100 percent credibility, instead of speculation and supposed pictures of objects from sources that don’t really seem to have too much credibility in the field.

Which is why I wanted to go into the information below.

Just recently, the US Government, in cooperation with To The Stars, released actual video footage of UFOs, further emphasizing the fact that “there are objects in our atmosphere which are technically miles in advance of anything we can deploy,” said by Lord Admiral Hill Norton, Former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee.

The statement below from former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence agency, Victor Marchetti, doesn’t seem to hold so true anymore, at least the last part,

“We have, indeed, been contacted – perhaps even visited – by extraterrestrial beings, and the US government, in collusion with the other national powers of Earth, is determined to keep this information from the general public.” (Second Look, Volume 1, No 7, Washington, DC, May, 1979)

We are now seeing UFO disclosure hit the mainstream, with the major articles hitting the New York Times and Washington Times (major mouthpieces for the establishment) written by people who have held the highest security clearances. They’ve now admitted to actually recovering materials form these objects, which is huge and didn’t really get enough attention. What’s worse, is that although the mainstream has admitted to the recovery of materials from these objects, they seem to be lying about what they actually are.

As Alejandro Rojas, host of the UFO Congress points out, Louis Elizondo (Director of the Pentagon’s Airel Threat Identification Program, who has gone on national television claiming that there is evidence that we “we may not be alone, whatever that means”) told him with regards to the materials recovered, they are “not an alloy like the New York Times claims.

As the Scientific American points out:

One of the authors of the Times report, Ralph Blumenthal, had this to say on MSNBC about the alloys: “They have, as we reported in the paper, some material from these objects that is being studied so that scientists can find what accounts for their amazing properties, this technology of these objects, whatever they are.” When asked what the materials were, Blumenthal responded,“They don’t know. They’re studying it, but it’s some kind of compound that they don’t recognize.””

According to Rojas: “I shared at our conference that Elizondo has told me it is a ‘meta-material’ with strange isotopic values indicating it is not from Earth.” 

You can read more about that specific story in the article linked below.

The US Government Just Admitted To Recovering Materials From UFOs – Here Are The Latest Updates

“Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered. . . . We are not alone in the universe, they have been coming here for a long time. I happen to be privileged enough to be in on the fact that we have been visited on this planet, and the UFO phenomenon is real.” – Apollo 14 Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell (sourcesourcesource)

I thought it was a good idea to use this strange submerged object to illustrate the fact that there is much more to this topic than meets the eye, and much more than what is presented by various alternative and mainstream media outlets.

If you want to get into the extraterrestrial hypothesis, you can read the article linked below:

“It’s official – We Now Know That UFOs or UAP Are Real – So Are They Extraterrestrial or Not?”

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

Media Misses Key Detail On Recent Trump GMO/Pesticide Ban ‘Lifting’, Here’s Why

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Trump's administration recently released a memo cancelling a 2014 Obama-era memo about GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticide use. The media covered this story as a 'lifting of a ban' on GMOs, yet that's not what either memo says.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are we still leaving the door open for GMO and pesticide use in both administrations? Why is the media, across the whole board here, using any story possible to put people against the current administration? Has the deep state lost control?

In early August, Trump’s administration released a new memo from the Fish and Wildlife Service stating that the 2014 version of the memo, out of Obama’s administration would be cancelled and the terms of the new memo would now be in place.

The memo was in reference to a GMO and neonicotinoid bans that put in place to help protect the bee population and wildlife refuges. The 2014 memo was a positive step forward as it was publicly stating, even at higher governmental levels, that GMOs were harmful to agriculture and wildlife, as were neonics. This initial memo was coined a GMO and neonics ban, even though the language in the memo doesn’t actually say that.

Before we continue, we recognize and have painstakingly covered, the dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides and GMOs on our environment and wildlife. We have called for an all-out ban, based on our research, numerous times over the last 6 years and still hold completely strong to that truth.

What is discussed in both of these memos in regards to how to go about using pesticides and GMOs are NOT safe for our environment and wildlife. The fact that both administrations are leaving the door open for use is not in humanities best interest.

The 2014 Memo

Specifically, the 2014 Obama-era memo states that when it comes to both GMOs and neonicotinoid pesticides, they can be used on a case by case basis when refuge managers request such and the case is brought through the proper channels of approval.

Below is a piece of that memo, which can also be viewed here, referring to the requested use of neonics.

advertisement - learn more

2014 memo referring to neonic pesticides.

When it came to the subject of GMOs in the 2014 memo, Obama’s administration made their stance very clear as well:

2014 memo referring to GMO use.

In both cases, we see that it was never an all-out ban, but simply an open door where neonicotinoid pesticide use and GMO use to be requested and reviewed on a case by case basis.

Now let’s have a look at the 2018 memos that resulted in media coverage alluding to a ‘lifting of the GMO and neonic ban’ put in place by the Obama administration.

“The Trump administration has rescinded an Obama-era ban on the use of pesticides linked to declining bee populations and the cultivation of genetically modified crops in dozens of national wildlife refuges where farming is permitted.” Reuters

The 2018 Memo

When referring to GMOs, the 2018 memo states:

And when speaking about neonicotinoid pesticides the 2018 memo states:

As you can see once again in both cases, the language is the same. There was never an all-out ban in place, and all uses will be based on approval on a case by case basis.

What Media Coverage In This Way?

When we initially printed this story, we only had access to the 2018 memo that was recently released. Based on widespread media coverage and the memo itself, it appeared as though this was, in fact, a lifting of the ban. But once we got our hands on the 2014 memo from the Obama admin, it became clear this was the same language, and that the media was now weaponizing this story against Trump’s administration.

You may follow CE’s work a lot, or you may be new to it, we are politically neutral and do not side with political parties in any way. We report on what ACTUALLY happens, not a slanted angle based on a political agenda. In that perspective, we are not attached to events but can instead see how they play into a big picture.

With that said, why did the media cover this story in a manner that was so damning to the Trump administration?

We have been reporting on the fact that from our observation, experience, and analysis, as well as our conversations with contacts we have connected to the intelligence communities, we feel that Trump has come into this space as an outsider to the specific cabal/deep state group that has been in control for many many decades. This was the cabal group that would have put Hillary in place if there wasn’t a divide taking place in the intelligence community that had the plan flipped. You can learn about that in detail here.

Leading up to the election, and since he has been POTUS, Trump has been all out attacked by every single news station, with the exception of FOX, in a big way – an unprecedented happenstance. Since we know that only 5 corporations own all of the US media, and these 5 corporations are tied to powerful elite within the deep state, it would begin to seem like a war on an outsider more than anything else. Again, a detail we have covered in depth over the last 2 years as many examples of this have surfaced.

Below is a video that dives into this story and the deep state involvement in more detail, but the thing to note here is, we must step beyond identity politics and siding with a political party in general if we want to see the truth of our world and begin to change it. This is the illusion being set forth to divide us and keep us from unifying under a deep understanding. Before we react to and believe much of what is coming out of the mainstream media today, we must recognize this deeper war taking place here and dig deeper to find the truth.

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading

Alternative News

World’s Largest Study On Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A groundbreaking study shows the strong connection between Cell Phone towers and cancer. It's one of many showing how electromagnetic radiation is harming human health at an exponential rate, and another example of industry trumps science.

  • Reflect On:

    There are thousands of scientists creating awareness about this, but the industry has become so powerful that they can do whatever they want. How are they allowed to continue when we have definitive proof of harmful health effects? What's going on?

Scientists call on the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer to re-evaluate the carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation after the Ramazzini Institute and US government studies report finding the same unusual cancers.

I am posting this article with the permission of Environmental Health Trust and can be found online at ehtrust.org.

(Washington, DC) – Researchers with the renowned Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy announced that a large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower radiation developed cancer. A $25 million study of much higher levels of cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation, from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), has also reported finding the same unusual cancer called Schwannoma of the heart in male rats treated at the highest dose. In addition, the RI study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumors in female rats and precancerous conditions including Schwann cells hyperplasia in both male and female rats.

The study findings are making headline news. Read the Corriere Di Bologna article “Cellulari, a study by Ramazzini: “They cause very rare tumours.

“Our findings of cancerous tumours in rats exposed to environmental levels of RF are consistent with and reinforce the results of the US NTP studies on cell phone radiation, as both reported increases in the same types of tumours of the brain and heart in Sprague-Dawley rats. Together, these studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to re-evaluate and re-classify their conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans,” said Fiorella Belpoggi Ph.D., study author and RI Director of Research.

The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats 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). 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.

advertisement - learn more

“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.”

“This important article from one of the most acclaimed institutions of its kind in the world provides a major new addition to the technical literature indicating strong reasons for concern about electromagnetic radiation from base stations or cell towers,” stated Editor in Chief of Environmental Research Jose Domingo PhD, Professor of Toxicology, School of Medicine at Reus University, Catalonia, Spain.

“The US NTP results combined now with the Ramazzini study, reinforce human studies from our team and others providing clear evidence that RF radiation causes acoustic neuromaa (vestibular schwannoma) and gliomas, and should be classified carcinogenic to humans,” stated Lennart Hardell MD, PhD, physician-epidemiologist with the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, who has published extensively on environmental causes of cancer including Agent Orange, pesticides and cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

“The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored,” stated University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus Anthony B. Miller MD, Member of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of Canada and the UK, and Senior Medical Advisor to EHT who is also a long-term advisor to the World Health Organization.

“This study raises concerns that simply living close to a cell tower will pose threats to human health. Governments need to take measures to reduce exposures from cell tower emissions. Cell towers should not be near schools, hospitals or people’s homes. Public health agencies need to educate the public on how to reduce exposure from all sources of wireless radiofrequency radiation—be it from cell towers or cell phones or Wi-Fi in schools,” stated David O. Carpenter MD, former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. “This is particularly urgent because of current plans to place small 5G cell towers about every 300 meters in every street across the country. These 5G ‘small cell’ antennas will result in continuous exposure to everyone living nearby and everyone walking down the street. The increased exposures will increase risk of cancer and other diseases such as electro-hypersensitivity.”

You can listen to the full press conference below:

Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds, and their study design is unique in that animals are allowed to live until their natural deaths in order to allow detection of late-developing tumors. Eighty percent of all human cancers are late-developing, occurring in humans after 60 years of age. This longer observation period has allowed the RI to detect such later-occurring tumors for a number of chemicals, and their published research includes studies of benzenexylenesmancozebformaldehyde and vinyl chloride.

The Ramazzini research results come in the wake of similar findings from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) large-scale experimental studies on cell phone radiation. Both studies found statistically significant increases in the development of the same type of very rare and highly malignant tumor in the heart of male rats—schwannomas.

“This publication is a serious cause for concern,” stated Annie J. Sasco MD, DrPH, SM, MPH, retired Director of Research at the INSERM (French NIH) and former Unit Chief at the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, France, who commented that, “some of the results are not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of animals involved. Yet, that does not mean they should be ignored. Larger studies could turn out statistically significant results and in any event statistical significance is just one aspect of the evaluation of the relation between exposure and disease. Biological significance and concordance of results between humans and animals clearly reinforces the strength of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The facts that both experimental studies found the same types of rare tumours, which also have pertinence to the human clinical picture, is striking,”

“Such findings of effects at very low levels are not unexpected,” stated Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH, president of EHT, pointing to a Jacobs University replication animal study published in 2015 that also found very low levels of RFR promoted tumour growth. “This study confirms an ever-growing literature and provides a wake-up call to governments to enact protective policy to limit exposures to the public and to the private sector to make safe radiation-free technology available.”

In January 2017 at an international conference co-sponsored by Environmental Health Trust and the Israel Institute for Advanced Study at Hebrew University, Fiorella Belpoggi PhD, Director of Research at the Ramazzini Institute, presented the study design and the findings that RFR-exposed animals had significantly lower litter weights. Belpoggi’s presentation and slides are available online. The Ramazzini findings of lower litter weights are consistent with the NTP study, which also found lower litter weights in prenatally exposed animals. At that time, the  Italian journal Corriere published an article about the presentation of the Ramazzini study and quoted Belpoggi’s recommendation of “maximum precaution for children and pregnant women.”

Noting that “current standards were not set to protect children, pregnant women, and the growing numbers of infants and toddlers for whom devices have become playthings,” Davis, who is also Visiting Professor of Medicine of Hebrew University Medical Center and Guest Editor in Chief of the journal Environmental Research, added, “Current two-decade-old FCC limits were set when the average call was six minutes and costly cell phones were used by very few. These important, new, game-changing studies show that animals develop the same types of unusual cancers that are being seen in those few human epidemiological studies that have been done. In light of these results, Environmental Health Trust joins with public health experts from the states of California, Connecticut and Maryland, as well as those in France, Israel and Belgium to call on government and the private sector to carry out major ongoing public health educational campaigns to promote safer phone and personal device technology, to require and expedite fundamental changes in hardware and software to reduce exposures to RFR/microwave radiation throughout indoor and outdoor environments, and to institute major monitoring, training and research programs to identify solutions, future problems and prevention of related hazards and risks.”

“More than a dozen countries recommend reducing radiofrequency radiation exposure to children, and countries such as China, Italy, India and Russia have far more stringent cell tower radiation regulations in place when compared to the United States FCC. However, this study provides scientific evidence that governments can use to take even further action,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT.

The article is Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission” by L. Falcioni, L. Bua, E.Tibaldi, M. Lauriola, L. De Angelis, F. Gnudi, D. Mandrioli, M. Manservigi, F. Manservisi, I. Manzoli, I. Menghetti, R. Montella, S. Panzacchi, D. Sgargi, V. Strollo, A.Vornoli, F. Belpoggi .  It appears in Environmental Research published by Elsevier.

This study is making headline news. See examples here:

About Environmental Research

Environmental Research publishes original reports describing studies of the adverse effects of environmental agents on humans and animals. The principal aim of the journal is to assess the impact of chemicals and microbiological pollutants on human health. Both in vivo and in vitro studies, focused on defining the etiology of environmentally induced illness and to increase understanding of the mechanisms by which environmental agents cause disease, are especially welcome. Investigations on the effects of global warming/climate change on the environment and public health, as well as those focused on the effects of anthropogenic activities on climate change are also of particular interest.

About Environmental Health Trust

EHT is a scientific virtual think tank conducting cutting-edge research on environmental health risks with some of the world’s top researchers. EHT educates individuals, health professionals and communities about policy changes needed to reduce those risks. EHT maintains a regularly updated database of worldwide precautionary policies: more than a dozen countries recommend reducing wireless exposure to children.

Ramazzini Institute Resources

Link to the Ramazzini Institute Study.

Link to Media Advisory Online With Biographies for Experts on Conference Call

How To Reduce Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation5G Factsheet

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation

Dr. Lennart Hardell and Colleagues Comments on the NTP

Dr. Melnick Comments on the NTP

Dr. Annie Sasco Comments on the NTP/  Ramazzini Comments 

Environmental Health Trust Comments  on the NTP RF

Dr. Anthony Miller NTP Submission

Additional Resources:

Link to Infographic on Cell Phone Radiation

The National Toxicology Program Presentation on DNA Damage

 Recommendations on Reducing Cell Phone Radiation5G Factsheet

National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cell Phone Radiation

Dr. Lennart Hardell and Colleagues Comments on the NTP

Dr. Melnicks Comments on the NTP

Dr. Devra Davis/EHT Comments on the NTP

Dr. Annie Sasco Comments on the NTP

Dr. Anthony Miller Comments on the NTP 

Additional Resources:

Link to Infographic on Cell Phone Radiation

The National Toxicology Program Presentation on DNA Damage

Conference Call Bios 

Fiorella Belpoggi, PhD

Lead author of the new study will discuss how the research was designed to test cell tower base station radiation association with cancer. Dr. Belpoggi is the Director of the Ramazzini Institute Research Department and Director of the Cesare Maltoni Research Center, Bologna, Italy. Dr. Belpoggi has been invited as an expert participant to meetings on the evaluation and safety of chemicals at the European Parliament, at the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Affairs and at the European Food Safety Agency and as a temporary advisor to the World Health Organization/European Centre for Environment and Health .Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds. Full Bio

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD

Dr. Hardell is a clinical and medical research doctor at the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden. He has published more than 300 peer-reviewed scientific articles specializing in epidemiological research studying cancer risks related to exposure to environmental toxins such as Agent Orange, the herbicide glyphosate, and cell phone radiofrequency radiation. As one of the world’s leading experts on this topic, he served as an expert on the World Health Organization International Agency for the Research on Cancer EMF (Electromagnetic Fields) Working Group for the classification of radiofrequency fields in 2011. Bio here.

Ron Melnick, PhD

Dr. Melnick is a toxicologist, served 28 years a a scientist with the National Institutes of Health focused on assessing human health risks of environmental chemicals. He lead the design of the $28 Million National Toxicology Program(NTP) Studies on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation.  Dr. Melnick can discuss comparisons between the Ramazzini Institute research and the recently released NTP data on cell phone exposure on rats and mice.

David O. Carpenter, MD

Dr. Carpenter is a public health physician and graduate of Harvard Medical School. He is the Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, a Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization, and former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. He has been involved in this topic since the 1980s when he served as the Executive Secretary of the New York State Powerlines Project. He is Co-editor of the Bioinitiative Report and has testified on EMF issues to both houses of Congress and also to the President’s Cancer Panel. He has two books and numerous publications on EMF, and over 400 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of human health and environmental exposures. Bio here

Devra Davis, MPH, PhD

Dr. Davis is an epidemiologist, former member of the National Toxicology Program Scientific Review Board is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Turkey. She was Founding Director, Center for Environmental Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. President of Environmental Health Trust, she is also an award-winning scientist and author on environmental health issues. She can address the emerging studies on cell phone radiation worldwide. Full Bio

Watch Dr. Melnick present on the NTP study last year in this video.

https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/

© 2018 Environmental Health Trust. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Environmental Health Trust ehtrust.org. Want to learn more? Sign up for the newsletter here. Link is here https://ehtrust.org/publications/newsletters/

 

Free David Wilcock Screening: Disclosure & The Fall of the Cabal

We interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.

So far, the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.

Watch the interview here.
Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

Watch: Exclusive Uncut Interview With David Wilcock'Disclosure & The Fall Of The Cabal'

Enter your name and email below to watch the interview.

You have Successfully Subscribed!