Connect with us

Awareness

“Putting It Bluntly, They Are Damaging The Living Cells In Our Body” – Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University

Published

on

According to the World Health Organization (WHO):

advertisement - learn more

As societies industrialize and the technological revolution continues, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and diversity of electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. These sources include video display units (VDUs) associated with computers, mobile phones and their base stations. While these devices have made our life richer, safer and easier, they have been accompanied by concerns about possible health risks due to their EMF emissions.

For some time a number of individuals have reported a variety of health problems that they relate to exposure to EMF. While some individuals report mild symptoms and react by avoiding the fields as best they can, others are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle. This reputed sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS.

Other sources of this type of radiation include power lines and WiFi technology.

The WHO fact sheet quoted above also describes Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity in detail, and is based on the combined research of a WHO Workshop on the subject (Prague, Czech Republic, 2004), an international conference on EMF and non-specific health symptoms (COST244bis, 1998), a European Commission report (Bergqvist and Vogel, 1997), and recent reviews of the literature.

However, many of the facts cited seem to be countered by a growing number of publications and scientists. For example, they argue that EMFs are simply a “perceived” problem, and the sensitivities are psychological rather than physical. They state that “well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.” They also state it’s possible “these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.” In conclusion, they suggest that “treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person’s perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home.”

advertisement - learn more

These arguments are reminiscent of those surrounding Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, because for decades a plethora of publications and scientists were showing what it can do to the human body, yet it wasn’t until recently that the World Health Organization admitted that it is carcinogenic. Why does it take so long for new evidence to be considered? Why do they state that substances are safe in the face of such staunch opposition from so many professionals, and why do we assume things are safe until proven otherwise? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Are we seeing the same thing with electromagnetic radiation?

If It’s Not A Concern, They Why…

If it’s not as much of a concern as many feel it to be, then why are more than 200 scientists from more than 40 countries petitioning the United Nations about this issue? The information above provided from the WHO is more than a decade old, and in 2015 this group of scientists urged the United Nations and its organization to encourage precautionary measures and conduct an environmental assessment. They also asked for the WHO to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women, and for the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to assess the potential impact of EMF exposure on all living organisms.

Why are there more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern on this topic? According to the appeal sent to Antonio Guterres (among others), Secretary-General of the United Nations:

Numerous scientific publications have found that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below international exposure guidelines adopted by most industrialized nations. There is discrepancy in how this matter is considered at the WHO, however. While WHO accepted its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s recommendation that classifies both ELF/EMF and RF/EMF as Group 2B “Possible Carcinogens,” it also, in direct contrast to these warnings, recommends the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) guidelines for exposure standards. These guidelines, developed by a self-selected 2 independent industry group, have long been criticized as not protective given the science now established.

“Independent Industry Group”

The importance of highlighting industry’s role in this matter shouldn’t be ignored, since modern day science is, unfortunately, plagued by industry corruption and scientific fraud. Not long ago, however, the Berkeley City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance to require cellphone retailers in Berkeley, California, to provide consumers with information regarding the dangers associated with the wireless industry and, more specifically, on cell phone radiation.

It specifically requires all cellphone retailers in the area to provide consumers with a notice on radio frequency (RF) radiation exposure and the proper guidelines to help users avoid this type of exposure. Warnings may include the dangers associated with carrying a phone tucked into a shirt, pants, bra, or anywhere else on a person that may exceed federal safety guidelines.

The ordinance was created with the help of Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard University, the California Brain Tumor Association, and Robert Post, the Dean of Yale Law School, who believes, along with hundreds of other scientists, that the research is sound.

The concerns raised by all of these scientists also had at least 12 elementary and middle schools in Ontario and B.C. impose bans on wireless internet by not installing it or removing it completely from their classrooms. You can read more about that here.

Hearing From the Creator of the Initiative

The initiative was started by Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University, who has joined a group of scientists from around the world making an international appeal to the United Nations regarding the dangers associated with the use of various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cells phones and WiFi.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,”said Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, in a video message.

“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation.”

Below is a video of him speaking about this issue.

Do You Have Electromagnetic Sensitivity? What Can You Do About It?

For starters, the best think you can do is not to worry, because this is how powerful the mind-body connection really is. 

It’s also important to mention that children’s brains absorb much more radiation than those of adults. According to Mary Redmayne, Ph.D,. a professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine at Australia’s Monash University:

There is much high-quality research showing bio-physiological effects from permitted electromagnetic exposures; these findings are not nullified by research which fails to find effects. To claim that the ‘weight of evidence’ does not support these effects (even if it were true) is misleading. To infer that this means no precautions are needed is illogical and non-scientific.

It would help parents and policy makers if consensus among advisory organisations and scientists could be reached acknowledging that assurance of safety of chronic low-dose radiofrequency exposure cannot be guaranteed and is related to ill-health in some people. Therefore, minimising exposure, especially children’s, is sensible. This should be treated like other daily health precautions and warnings such as those about diet.

A publication from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, titled “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields Up To 300 GHZ,” cites an abundance of scientific research regarding these non-natural fields and their affect on human biology.

Here are the IARC’s Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.

The symptoms can differ a lot between sufferers, but will normally include some of the following: sleep disturbance, tiredness, depression, headaches, restlessness, irritability, concentration problems, forgetfulness, learning difficulties, frequent infections, blood pressure changes, limb and joint pains, numbness or tingling sensations, tinnitus, hearing loss, impaired balance, giddiness and eye problems. There have been reports of cardiovascular problems such as tachycardia, though these are relatively rare.

Many of the symptoms reported resemble those of  multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).

Some steps you can take are:

    • Don’t let your child use a cell phone.
    • Keep your cell phone use to a minimum.
    • Reduce or eliminate your use of other wireless devices.
    • Limit cell phone use to areas with excellent reception.
    • Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body, and do not sleep with it under your pillow or near your head.
    • Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone.
    • Respect others; many are highly sensitive to EMF. Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others’ cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used.
    • Walk barefoot on the earth
    • Worry less. The power of consciousness with regards to our health is huge. This has been demonstrated by recent findings within quantum physics, the placebo effect, and many other interesting phenomena, like neuro-plasticity. This could explain why some people who have such unhealthy lifestyles, but don’t worry and enjoy themselves still live longer. The human body is great at adapting — all we have to do is help it out a little bit.

You can also check out Dr. Scott Eberle, who trained as a family physician, worked for nearly two decades as an AIDS specialist, and continues as a hospice medical director. After an episode of carbon monoxide poisoning in 2010, he began having symptoms that, in retrospect, signalled the initial onset of this type of sensitivity. In 2013, his health plummeted until he finally figured out the cause.

What’s the Diagnosis, Doctor?” was published in Sonoma Medicine in 2104. “An Underworld Journey: Learning to Cope With Electromagnetic Sensitivity” was published by Ecopsychology in 2017. See also: “So You Think You Might Be Electrosensitive “and “Guidelines for Making a Home Radiowave Safe.” Read more from Dr. Eberle here.

Devices You Can Get to Help Protect You, Backed by Science

As a result of this growing issue that’s gaining more attention, scientists and researchers are now teaming up to find ways to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic radiation. One example would be the devices manufactured by Earth-Calm. They have been tested in the lab by multiple scientists, with full reports and results available on the website.

I just wanted to provide an example, and let people know that there are several companies developing these products. I recommend doing the research, reading the studies and results, as well as contacting the scientists who are conducting these studies.

2,000+ Peer-Reviewed Studies

The truth is, there are more, but these 2,000 come from the 200+ scientists who are petitioning the UN about this issue, as mentioned above. Below is the list. Feel free to look them up and contact them for more information.

Armenia

Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., UNESCO Chair – Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, Armenia

Australia
Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Env.Health Educator/Researcher, Advisor, Environmental Health Trust; Doctors for Safer Schools, Australia
Dr. Peter French BSc, MSc, MBA, PhD, FRSM, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Australia
Dr. Bruce Hocking, MD, MBBS, FAFOEM (RACP), FRACGP, FARPS, specialist in occupational medicine; Victoria, Australia
Dr. Gautam (Vini) Khurana, Ph.D., F.R.A.C.S., Director, C.N.S. Neurosurgery, Australia
Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D., Australia
Dr. Elena Pirogova, Ph.D., Biomed Eng., B. Eng (Hon) Chem. Eng., Engineering & Health College; RMIT University, Australia
Dr. Mary Redmayne, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia
Dr. Charles Teo, BM, BS, MBBS, Member of the Order of Australia, Director, Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia

Austria
Dr. Michael Kundi, MD, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria
Dr. Bernhard Pollner, MD, Pollner Research, Austria
Prof. Dr. Hugo W. Rüdiger, MD, Austria

Bahrain
Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain

Belgium
Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium

Brazil
Vânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Prof. Dr. João Eduardo de Araujo, MD, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Dr. Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo, D. Sc., Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, State of Paraíba, Brazil
Prof. Alvaro deSalles, Ph.D., Federal University of Rio Grande Del Sol, Brazil
Prof. Adilza Dode, Ph.D., MSc. Engineering Sciences, Minas Methodist University, Brazil
Dr. Daiana Condessa Dode, MD, Federal University of Medicine, Brazil
Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, MRE Engenharia Ltda, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Prof. Orlando Furtado Vieira Filho, PhD, Cellular&Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Canada
Dr. Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada
Prof. Ying Li, Ph.D., InVitroPlus Labs, Dept. of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
James McKay M.Sc, Ecologist, City of London; Planning Services, Environmental and Parks Planning, London, Canada
Prof. Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, University of Toronto, Canada
Prof. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, Ph.D., Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada
Dr. Malcolm Paterson, PhD. Molecular Oncologist (ret.), British Columbia, Canada
Prof. Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Behavioural Neuroscience and Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada

China
Prof. Huai Chiang, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Yuqing Duan, Ph.D., Food & Bioengineering, Jiangsu University, China
Dr. Kaijun Liu, Ph.D., Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
Prof. Xiaodong Liu, Director, Key Lab of Radiation Biology, Ministry of Health of China; Associate Dean, School of Public Health, Jilin University, China
Prof. Wenjun Sun, Ph.D., Bioelectromagnetics Key Lab, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Minglian Wang, Ph.D., College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Qun Wang, Ph.D., College of Materials Science & Engineering,  Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Haihiu Zhang, Ph.D., School of Food & BioEngineering, Jiangsu University, China
Prof. Jianbao Zhang, Associate Dean, Life Science and Technology School, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China
Prof. Hui-yan Zhao, Director of STSCRW, College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China
Prof. J. Zhao, Department of Chest Surgery, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Croatia
Ivancica Trosic, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Egypt
Prof. Dr. Abu Bakr Abdel Fatth El-Bediwi, Ph.D., Physics Dept., Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Emad Fawzy Eskander, Ph.D., Medical Division, Hormones Department, National Research Center, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Heba Salah El Din Aboul Ezz, Ph.D., Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Nasr Radwan, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt

Estonia
Dr. Hiie Hinrikus, Ph.D., D.Sc, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
Mr. Tarmo Koppel, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Finland
Dr. Mikko Ahonen, Ph.D, University of Tampere, Finland
Dr. Marjukka Hagström, LL.M., M.Soc.Sc, Principal Researcher, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland
Prof. Dr. Osmo Hänninen, Ph.D., Dept. of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Editor-In-Chief, Pathophysiology, Finland
Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen.
Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland

France
Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, ECERI Executive Director
Dr. Pierre Le Ruz, Ph.D., Criirem, Le Mans, France Georgia
Prof. Besarion Partsvania, Ph.D., Head of Bio-cybernetics Department of Georgian Technical University, Georgia

Germany
Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman, Pandora Foundation, Germany
Prof. Dr. Hynek  Burda, Ph.D., University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Dr. Horst Eger, MD, Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany
Prof. Dr. Karl Hecht, MD, former Director, Institute of Pathophysiology, Charité, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
Dr.Sc. Florian M. König, Ph.D., Florian König Enterprises (FKE) GmbH, Munich, Germany
Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Head, Institute of Environ.Physics; Ex-Head, Dept. Clinical Research, Medical University, Lubeck, Germany
Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, MD, Member, Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy e.V, Bamberg, Germany
Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., Bionik-Institut, University of Saarlandes, Germany

Greece
Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou,  M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece
Dr. Christos Georgiou, Ph.D.,  Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
Prof. Emeritus Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D., Depts. Cell Biology, Radiobiology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece
Dr. Aikaterini Skouroliakou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Energy Technology Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece
Dr. Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society-Kefalonia, Greece

Iceland
Dr. Ceon Ramon, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, USA; Professor, Reykjavik University, Iceland

India
Prof. Dr. B. D. Banerjee, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India
Prof. Jitendra Behari, Ph.D., Ex-Dean, Jawaharlal Nehru University; presently, Emeritus Professor, Amity University, India
Prof. Dr. Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India
Associate Prof. Dr Amarjot Dhami, PhD., Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India
Dr. Kavindra K. Kesari, MBA, Ph.D., Resident Environmental Scientist, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Assistant Professor, Jaipur National University, India
Prof. Girish Kumar, Ph.D., Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India
Dr. Pabrita Mandal PhD.,Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India
Prof. Rashmi Mathur, Ph.D., Head, Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Prof. Dr. Kameshwar Prasad MD, Head, Dept of Neurology, Director, Clinical Epidemiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India
Dr. Sivani Saravanamuttu, PhD., Dept. Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, India
Dr. N.N. Shareesh, PhD., Melaka Manipal Medical College, India
Dr.  R.S. Sharma, MD, Sr. Deputy Director General, Scientist – G & Chief Coordinator – EMF Project, Indian Council of Medical Research, Dept. of Health Research, Ministry/Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
Prof. Dr. Dorairaj Sudarsanam, M.Sc., M.Ed., Ph.D., Fellow – National Academy of Biological Sciences, Prof. of Zoology, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Dept. Advanced   Zoology & Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, South India

Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Prof. Dr. Soheila Abdi, Ph.D., Physics, Islamic Azad University of Safadasht, Tehran, Iran
Prof. G.A. Jelodar, D.V.M., Ph.D., Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Iran
Prof. Hamid Mobasheri, Ph.D., Head BRC; Head, Membrane Biophysics&Macromolecules Lab; Instit. Biochemistry&Biophysics, University, Tehran, Iran
Prof.  Seyed Mohammad Mahdavi, PhD., Dept of Biology, Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Prof. S.M.J. Mortazavi, Ph.D., Head, Medical Physics & Engineering; Chair, NIER Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Prof. Amirnader Emami Razavi, Ph.D., Clinical Biochem., National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute, Tehran Univ. Medical Sciences, Iran
Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, Ph.D., Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Prof. Dr. Mohammad Shabani, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Iran

Israel
Michael Peleg, M.Sc., radio communications engineer and researcher, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Prof. Elihu D. Richter, MD,MPH, Occupational&Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health&Community Medicine, Israel
Dr. Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Israel
Dr. Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician and General Practitioner, Sherutey Briut Clalit, Shron Shomron district, Israel
Dr. Ronni Wolf, MD, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Head of Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

Italy
Prof. Sergio Adamo, Ph.D., La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Prof. Fernanda Amicarelli, Ph.D., Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Dr. Pasquale Avino, Ph.D., INAIL Research Section, Rome, Italy
Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Ph.D., FIATP, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy
Prof. Giovanni Di Bonaventura, PhD, School of Medicine, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italia
Prof. Emanuele Calabro, Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Messina, Italy
Prof. Franco Cervellati, Ph.D., Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Section of General Physiology, University of Ferrara, Italy
Vale Crocetta, Ph.D. Candidate, Biomolecular and Pharmaceutical Sciences, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti, ItalyProf. Stefano Falone, Ph.D., Researcher in Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life&Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Prof. Dr. Speridione Garbisa, ret. Senior Scholar, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy
Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy
Prof. Livio Giuliani, Ph.D., Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florence-Bozen; Spokesman, ICEMS-International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Italy
Prof. Dr. Angelo Levis, MD, Dept. Medical Sciences, Padua University, Italy
Prof. Salvatore Magazù, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Science, Messina University, Italy
Dr. Fiorenzo Marinelli, Ph.D., Researcher, Molecular Genetics Institute of the National Research Council, Italy
Dr. Arianna Pompilio, PhD, Dept. Medical, Oral & Biotechnological Sciences. G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy
Prof. Dr. Raoul Saggini, MD, School of Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
Dr. Morando Soffritti, MD, Honorary President, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases, B.Ramazzini, Bologna. ItalyProf. Massimo Sperini, Ph.D., Center for Inter-University Research on Sustainable Development, Rome, Italy

Japan
Prof. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Ph.D., Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
Prof. Hidetake Miyata, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan

Jordan
Prof. Mohammed S.H. Al Salameh, Jordan University of Science & Technology , Jordan

Kazakhstan
Prof. Dr, Timur Saliev, MD, Ph.D., Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK

New Zealand
Dr. Bruce Rapley, BSc, MPhil, Ph.D., Principal Consulting Scientist, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New Zealand

Nigeria
Dr. Idowu Ayisat Obe, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria
Prof. Olatunde Michael Oni, Ph.D, Radiation & Health Physics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria

Oman
Prof. Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, Ph.D., Human Structure, Oman Medical College, Oman

Poland
Dr. Pawel Bodera, Pharm. D., Department of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland
Prof. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Ph.D., Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland

Romania
Alina Cobzaru, Engineer, National Institutes Research & Development and Institute of Construction & Sustainability, Romania

Russian Federation
Prof. Vladimir N. Binhi, Ph.D., A.M.Prokhorov General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University
Dr. Oleg Grigoyev, DSc., Ph.D., Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Prof. Yury Grigoryev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Dr. Anton Merkulov, Ph.D., Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation
Dr. Maxim Trushin, PhD., Kazan Federal University, Russia

Serbia
Dr. Snezana Raus Balind, Ph.D., Research Associate, Institute for Biological Research “Sinisa Stankovic”, Belgrade, Serbia
Prof. Danica Dimitrijevic, Ph.D., Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Dr. Sladjana Spasic, Ph.D., Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Slovak Republic
Dr. Igor Belyaev, Ph.D., Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

South Korea (Republic of Korea)
Prof. Young Hwan Ahn, MD, Ph.D, Ajou University Medical School, South Korea
Prof. Kwon-Seok Chae, Ph.D., Molecular-ElectroMagnetic Biology Lab, Kyungpook National University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Myoung Gimm, Ph.D., School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Myung Chan Gye, Ph.D., Hanyang University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Mina Ha, MD, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Seung-Cheol Hong, MD, Inje University, South Korea
Prof. Dong Hyun Kim, Ph.D., Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of  Korea, South Korea
Prof. Hak-Rim Kim, Dept.of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Myeung Ju Kim, MD, Ph.D., Department of Anatomy, Dankook University College of Medicine, South Korea
Prof. Jae Seon Lee, MD,  Department of Molecular Medicine, NHA University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, South Korea
Prof. Yun-Sil Lee, Ph.D., Ewha Woman’s University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Won Kim, MD, Ph.D., Hallym University School of Medicine, South Korea
Prof. Jung Keog Park, Ph.D., Life Science & Biotech; Dir., Research Instit.of Biotechnology, Dongguk University, South Korea
Prof. Sungman Park, Ph.D., Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hallym University, South Korea
Prof. Kiwon Song, Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry, Yonsei University, South Korea

Spain
Prof. Dr. Miguel Alcaraz, MD, Ph.D., Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain
Dr. Alfonso Balmori, Ph.D., Biologist, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Spain
Prof. J.L. Bardasano, D.Sc, University of Alcalá, Department of Medical Specialties, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, Ph.D., La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain
Prof. Dr. Miguel López-Lázaro, PhD.,  Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Seville, Spain
Prof. Dr. Elena Lopez Martin, Ph.D., Human Anatomy, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Prof. Enrique A. Navarro, Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics and Electromagnetics, University of Valencia, Spain

Sweden
Dr. Michael Carlberg, MSc, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Bertil R. Persson, Ph.D., MD, Lund University, Sweden
Senior Prof. Dr. Leif Salford, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, Director, Rausing Laboratory, Lund University, Sweden
Dr. Fredrik Söderqvist, Ph.D., Ctr. for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden

Switzerland
Dr. phil. nat. Daniel Favre, A.R.A. (Association Romande Alerte, Switzerland

Taiwan (Republic of China)
Prof. Dr. Tsun-Jen Cheng, MD, Sc.D., National Taiwan University, Republic of China

Turkey
Prof. Dr. Mehmet Zülküf Akdağ, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Associate Prof.Dr. Halil Abraham Atasoy, MD, Pediatrics, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Medicine, Turkey
Prof. Ayse G. Canseven (Kursun), Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Biophysics, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Salih Celik, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Turkish Biophysical Society; Head, Biophysics Dept; Medical Faculty, Dicle Univ., Turkey
Prof. Dr. Osman Cerezci, Electrical-Electronics Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag, Ph.D., Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey
Prof. Omar Elmas, MD, Ph.D., Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ali H. Eriş, MD, faculty, Radiation Oncology Department,  BAV University Medical School, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Arzu Firlarer, M.Sc. Ph.D., Occupational Health & Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey
Prof. Associate Prof. Ayse Inhan Garip, PdH., Marmara Univ. School of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Turkey
Prof. Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D., Head, Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical School, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Nazıroğlu, Ph.D., Biophysics Dept, Medical Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ersan Odacı, MD, Ph.D., Karadeniz Technical University, Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Elcin Ozgur, Ph.D., Biophysics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Selim Seker, Electrical Engineering Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Cemil Sert, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics of Medicine Faculty, Harran University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Medical Faculty of Gazi University; Chair, Biophysics Dept; Director GNRK Ctr.; Panel Mbr, NATO STO HFM; Scientific Secretariat Member, ICEMS; Advisory Committee Member, WHO EMF, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Bahriye Sirav (Aral), PhD.,Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Turkey

Ukraine
Dr. Oleg Banyra, MD, 2nd Municipal Polyclinic, St. Paraskeva Medical Centre, Ukraine
Prof. Victor Martynyuk, PhD., ECS “Institute of Biology”, Head of Biophysics Dept, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Ukraine
Prof. Igor Yakymenko, Ph.D., D.Sc., Instit. Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

United Kingdom
Michael Bevington, M.A., M.Ed., Chair of Trustees, ElectroSensitivity UK (ES-UK), UK
Mr. Roger Coghill, MA,C Biol, MI Biol, MA Environ Mgt; Member Instit.of Biology; Member, UK SAGE Committee on EMF Precautions, UK
Mr. David Gee, Associate Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, UK
Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD,  Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College, London,  UK
Emeritus Professor Denis L. Henshaw, PhD., Human Radiation Effects, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., Institute of Science in Society, UK
Dr. Gerard Hyland, Ph.D., Institute of Biophysics, Neuss, Germany, UK
Dr. Isaac Jamieson, Ph.D., Biosustainable Design, UK
Emeritus Professor, Michael J. O’Carroll, PhD., former Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Sunderland, UK
Mr. Alasdair Phillips, Electrical Engineer, UK
Dr. Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, M.Sc., Ph.D., Public Health Consultant, Honorary Research Fellow, BrunelUniversity London, UK
Dr. Sarah Starkey, Ph.D., independent neuroscience and environmental health research, UK

USA
Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA
Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept. of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of  South Carolina, USA
Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA
Prof. Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA
Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA
Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
Paul Raymond Doyon, EMRS, MAT, MA , Doyon Independent Research Associates, USA
Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA
Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA
Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA
Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA
Neha Kumar, Founder, Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Shielding Alternatives, Pvt. Ltd; B.Tech – Industrial Biotech., USA
Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA
B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA
Prof. Trevor G. Marshall, PhD, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, USA
Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA
Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA
Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA
Dr. Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA
Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA
L. Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA
Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
Dr.  Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. University of Colorado, USA
Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
Camilla Rees, MBA, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA
Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA
Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA
David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA
Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

Supporting Scientists who have published peer reviewed papers in related fields

Michele Casciani, MA, Environmental Science, President/Chief Executive Officer, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy
Enrico Corsetti, Engineer, Research Director, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy
Jacques Testart, Biologist, Honorary Research Director at I.N.S.E.R.M. (French National Medical Research Institute), France
Xin Li, PhD candidate MSc, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, USA
Dr. Carlos A. Loredo Ritter, MD, Pediatrician, Pediatric Neurologist, President, Restoration Physics, North American Sleep Medicine Society, USADr. Robin Maytum, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Biological Science, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Prof. Dr. Raúl A. Montenegro, Ph.D, Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba; President, FUNAM; Recognitions: Scientific  Investigation Award from University of Buenos Aires, UNEP ‘Global 500’ Award (Brussels, Belgium), the Nuclear Free Future Award (Salzburg, Austria), and Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award, Sweden), Argentina.
Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland
Dr. Hugo Schooneveld, PhD, Biologist, Neuroscientist, Adviser to the Dutch EHS Foundation, Netherlands
Dr. Carmen Adella Sirbu, MD, Neurology, Lecturer, Titu Matorescu University, Romania

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Study Says It’s Not Just Brain Tumours – Cell Phones Are Also Causing Heart Tumours

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Unusual cancer called Schwannoma, cancer of the heart, in male rats has been caused by electromagnetic radiation. In addition, a study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumours.

  • Reflect On:

    Animal testing is unnecessary at this point. We have tonnes of data on this, there is no more need for scientific discussion as this doesn't seem to be a debate, so why does the corporation always put up a fight?

The thing is, it’s not just cell phone radiation, but rather a plethora of electromagnetic radiation that’s currently being beamed out by our cell towers, cell phones, computers, wireless routers etc. It’s a complete sandwich and not one safety study has addressed just how much electromagnetic radiation is currently present in our environment and what our current human exposure levels are. Perhaps this is because it’s becoming so evidently clear that there are no safe levels of exposure. Now, multiple studies are emerging on the topic that is raising a clear cause for concern.

There are already existing issues with current technologies, but right now, 5G wireless is making a lot of noise. Research has also shown that the same frequencies used by the Department of Defense in crowd control weapons actually form the foundation of the 5G network.  Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor recently gave her testimony at a hearing in Michigan about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. It’s a very powerful testimony.

Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed and the peer-review literature. These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now: there is no question We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects…5G is an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics, this is called human subjects research.” – Goldberg

You can watch the entire video and read more about it here.

There are currently hundreds of scientists that have been petitioning the United Nations to look into this topic more deeply. Ask yourself, why are there more than 2,000 peer-reviewed studies that show what we are doing with EMF exposure is not safe?

According to the appeal sent to Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, about the EMF issue:

advertisement - learn more

Numerous scientific publications have found that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below international exposure guidelines adopted by most industrialized nations. There is discrepancy in how this matter is considered at the WHO, however. While WHO accepted its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s recommendation that classifies both ELF/EMF and RF/EMF as Group 2B “Possible Carcinogens,” it also, in direct contrast to these warnings, recommends the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) guidelines for exposure standards. These guidelines, developed by a self-selected 2 independent industry group, have long been criticized as not protective given the science now established.

This information, and much more, is exactly why multiple countries around the world have completely banned cell phones when it comes to young users, cell phones in school, wireless internet within elementary schools, daycare and pre-schools.

Awareness in Europe seems to be progressing at a faster rate than awareness in North America. Take France for example, they passed a law in 2015 banning WiFi from all nursery schools. In addition to that, the law states that Wi-Fi must be turned off in all elementary schools when it’s not in use. A wired connection, if possible, is preferred. When it comes to cell phones in France, all advertisements must recommend headsets to reduce the phones radiation exposure to the brain. Furthermore, advertisements directing cell phone use for young children are banned.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.” –
Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University (source)

The Heart

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’s 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. (source)

The Study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from birth all the way until their natural death to cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day. The exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell towers antennas, and this is an important point,

“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). (source)

Here’s another telling quote about the study, coming from Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., physician-epidemiologist with the Department of Oncology, Univesity Hospital, Orebro, Sweden, who has published extensively on the environmental cause of cancer including Agent Orange, pesticides and cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

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. (source)

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 tumours. Eighty percent of all human cancers are late-developing, occurring in humans after 60 years of age.

Below is an interview with the lead author of the study:

If you’d like to access more information and science regarding the electromagnetic radiation problem, be sure to visit the Environmental Health Trust(EHT). There are still several issues of critical importance that need to be addressed without somebody rolling their eyes at you. This is one of them.

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.

What You Can Do

So, what can you do about it? Well, you could turn off your cell phone when you get the chance. You could have a wired internet connection, which is also faster than wireless. You could unplug some of your appliances before you go to bed, you can purchase electromagnetic shielding materials, like bed canopies, sheets, clothes, paint to protect your entire home etc. These materials are out there, all you need is an internet search to find them.

You could also write to your government or local authority. You can create awareness by citing the science and showing it to others. At the end of the day, there are a number of ways to limit your exposure, but the truth is, it doesn’t have to be this way. These signals can be transmuted without the use of damaging high-frequency radiation, so ask yourself, what’s really going on here? Why are we purposefully selecting frequencies that harm humans?

You can also keep a healthy immune system, one that can fight off and defend any disease or harm caused by these exposures. Here at CE, we’ve created a lot of awareness about the mind-body connection and how strong it is. Fear will only make things worse and doesn’t help when trying to spark your very own placebo effect.

We’ve been living with this technology for some time, but only now are younger generations actually being born into it.

The Takeaway

This is one of many examples where industry science is clearly shown to be false, as there are a number of repeatable scientific studies showing otherwise. This is an important issue, and even more important is the recognition of the corporate control over government policy. We clearly do not live in a democracy, when so many people can become aware and concerned about an issue, yet it never receives any attention from the mainstream media and is constantly swept under the rug, while the corporation maintains its safety.

How could a human being, the one who is making these decisions and approving these process, do such a thing in good conscience? The takeaway here is to recognize that ultimately, a shift in consciousness is needed. Ethics, morality and a desire to do no harm to the human race is needed and should represent the core of our technological and intellectual advancements. These examples show us the backwards nature of how we are living so we can recognize it within ourselves and begin to operate more harmoniously. As we do in our individual lives, the greater collective does as well. No longer can we rely on a broken system to fix our problems, we have to take the initiative, like all of the people mentioned in this article are doing.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

Scientist Replies To The Medical Industry’s False Claims About Aluminum Safety

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Aluminum.org is a pro-aluminum industry website. It even lists an Aluminum Caucus. This is a look into their list of “myths” about the safety of aluminum product they promote to see if their claims pass the proof-by-Pubmed test.

  • Reflect On:

    With all of the science clearly contradicting the medical and aluminum industry's claims of safety, how are they still able to approve the use of aluminum in our medications? It makes to sense, especially from a scientific standpoint.

By: James Lyons-Weiler, CEO/Director, The Institute for Pure and Applied KnowledgeCHD Contributing Writer

“Myth” #1: Exposure to aluminum causes Alzheimer’s Disease

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum is not linked to Alzheimer’s disease, the cause (or causes) of which is unknown. In the words of the Alzheimer’s Association, ‘The research community is generally convinced that aluminum is not a key risk factor in developing Alzheimer’s disease.’

The World Health Organization has also concluded that “there is no evidence to support a primary causative role of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease.’”

JLW’S ANALYSIS: It is highly odd to see the Alzheimer’s Association and the World Health Organization describing a type of consensus that there is no role for aluminum as a primary cause in Alzheimer’s disease for one simple fact: amyloid, the gunk that gums up the brain in Alzheimer’s dementia, is part aluminum. In fact, this has been known since 1985 [1].

…when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

So why and how could these organizations claim that aluminum does not play a primary causal role? The most likely explanation is the use of incorrect science and/or focus on the incorrect level of evidence. When a substance is co-localized to the site of condition, that’s pretty strong evidence that is play some role in the process – even if it is an inhibitory role, it’s still a role. But when the substance IS the condition, no level of epidemiological evidence will overrule the direct finding of the substance at the site of the disease manifestation.

advertisement - learn more

Examples include asbestos and various lung conditions. Asbestos fibres are extremely small; the most dangerous are <2 microns. When you breathe asbestos fibre in, the fibres remain in lung tissue for a long time and cause scarring and inflammation, leading to pleural plaques, widespread pleural thickening, pleural effusion, asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma [2].

Another example is the CDC’s use of the finding of the Zika virus in one brain of an aborted fetus with microcephaly to conclude that the Zika virus induces microcephaly. Dr. Anthony Fauci of US NIAID proclaimed that the finding was the “strongest evidence yet” that Zika was the cause of microcephaly in Brazil in 2015. However, oddly, although the incidence of Zika infection in Brazil increased with the mosquito season in 2016, there was no corresponding uptick in microcephaly– and no study was conducted to seek a role of the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccination in the slums of Northeast Brazil where the microcephaly outbreak peaked. So, evidence at multiple levels should be considered in the assessment of causality.

Amyloid is, of course, universally recognized as key deposit in the brain of people with Alzheimer’s disease. But what many people do not realize is that amyloid is produced in the bones, and as people age, their bone density reduces, and amyloid can be released. When it deposits in the brain, the compound (which is part aluminum), can lead to cerebral amyloid angiopathy, a condition in which blood vessels in the brain become coated and clogged with amyloid. This can lead to strokes and contributes to age-related dementia. So healthy bones are very important to reduce the amount of amyloid, and therefore aluminum, in the brain. Medium weight training is required as people age to keep bones strong.

The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia.

When aluminum itself enters the brain (and there is zero doubt that occurs [3-5]), it can have numerous effects. One, of course, is to serve as a building block by combining with amyloid precursor protein. Aluminum can also have nefarious influences on a brain cell’s ability to fold proteins properly, lead to disease condition in which cellular necrosis (seepage of oddly, improperly shaped proteins) can occur, wreaking havoc with intercellular signaling. The inflammasome can be activated, leading to the recruitment of intrinsic immunity cellular responses (including microglial activation[6]). It causes the release of cytokines, especially IL-6, which make the brain’s innate immune cells act as if nearby cells are under viral attack. The symptoms of severe acute aluminum exposure include cell death, meningitis, and dementia. Vaccine Papers has a good resource for studies on the effects of various forms of aluminum [7].

“Myth” #2: Aluminum present as an active ingredient in some antiperspirants leads to breast cancer.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum is not, nor has it ever been, classified as a carcinogen. Further, there is no convincing scientific evidence that aluminum-based antiperspirant use contributes to the development of breast cancer. Less than 0.02% of aluminum in contact with skin is taken up by the body, the rest being excreted in a very short time.”

“The American Cancer Society states “There are no strong epidemiologic studies in the medical literature that link breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, and very little scientific evidence to support this claim. In fact, a carefully designed epidemiologic study of this issue published in 2002 compared 813 women with breast cancer and 793 women without the disease. The researchers found no link between breast cancer risk and antiperspirant use, deodorant use, or underarm shaving.’”

JLW ANALYSIS: study by Linhart et al. (2017)[8] found that the use of aluminum-containing deodorant increased both aluminum content in breast tissue and breast cancer risk, confirming studies from as early as 2003 (McGrath 2003) [9]. A growing number of studies show that mammary epithelial cells cultured accumulate mutations when exposed to aluminum [10]. While the epidemiological literature is divided, it is surprising to see Aluminum.org provide only the single study that found no link, while two other studies, including one that pre-dated the study they did cite, do report increased tissue burden and increased risk of breast cancer.

Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

“Myth” #3: Consuming aluminum in antacid pills can cause health problems.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum is poorly absorbed by the body. This means that most (at least 99.9%) of aluminum ingested from food and water merely passes through the digestive tract and out of the body. Several studies have found no adverse effects for those who have ingested even large quantities of aluminum-containing antacids from antacids…

Additional reassurance regarding aluminum’s safety can be derived from the fact that frequent users of oral antacids may consume very high quantities of aluminum (e.g. up to 1000 mg/day), several orders of magnitude higher than the intake from ordinary food and water intake, yet no adverse health effects have been demonstrated…

The Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry notes, ‘An extremely small amount of the aluminum found in antacids [is] absorbed [through ingestion].’ And further, ‘The FDA has determined that aluminum used as food additives and medicinals such as antacids are generally safe.’”

JLW Analysis: Now this is interesting, because Paul Offit of Children’s Hospital says that we get “far more” aluminum from diet than from vaccines. But we will come back that.

Aluminum.org is correct to say we absorb a tiny fraction of the aluminum we ingest. However, any dietary aluminum from one source has a cumulative effect from dietary aluminum from any other source. So, for example, cooking rhubarb in aluminum foil will lead to very high levels of ingested aluminum. Following that up with an antacid that contains aluminum adds to the total. Taking pills that contain aluminum in a carrier base also increases the dose. And then taking aluminum-containing vaccines at the same time increases the total aluminum compound dose even further. Aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous that single source safety considerations are now obsolete.

For a given day, a one-time exposure is probably not a concern for 130-lb woman or 1 180 lb-man. But in children, it’s a different story. Why? Body weight determines the toxicity of a dose. And while ATSDR looked at the effects of dietary aluminum, it is incorrect to say that studies found no ill effects. One key study (Golub et al., 1989) [11] in fact did report food intake problems (cyclic food intake, indicative of exposure to a toxin, or poison), in spite of being represented by the FDA as not finding any adverse reactions. Numerous other studies also showed that dietary forms of aluminum have adverse events (see accumulated list [12]).

The primary concern over aluminum toxicity are its whole-body accumulation, and its synergistic effect on the toxicity of other toxic chemicals in our environment – such as fluoride. A study by Kaur et al. in 2009 [13] found alterations in the neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin) due to fluoride in rats, and that the changes were more pronounced in animals given fluoride and aluminum together. They reported that histological evidence showed “deprivation of neuronal integrity with higher magnitude in concurrent fluoride and aluminum exposure, as compared to fluoride alone” and they concluded that aluminum appears to enhance the neurotoxic hazards caused by fluoride.

“Myth” #4: It is dangerous to cook with aluminum pots and pans.

Aluminum.org Claim: “The Food and Drug Administration studied this issue in the early 1980s and reported no safety concerns from using aluminum cookware. More recently, the Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry reported that ‘foods cooked in aluminum pots are generally considered to be safe.’

An independent study by America’s Test Kitchen in 2012 found that “In lab tests … tomato sauce … cooked in an aluminum pot for two hours and then stored in the same pot overnight was found to contain only .0024 milligrams of aluminum per cup.” For the sake of comparison, according to the FDA, ‘the daily aluminum intake for man from all dietary sources can range from 10 to 100 mg per day.’ Consumption at this level is considered safe.”

JLW Analysis: The category “GRAS” is an archaic category based on no science, but rather a general assumption of safety applied to food additives based on information available prior to the 1960s (and before). As we know, we are living in an increasingly toxic environment; we do not live on our grandparent’s planet. But even absent concern with low doses of aluminum from pots and pans, any amount is cumulative to aluminum from other exposures. Since there are alternative materials, why take on further risk given that aluminum is becoming so ubiquitous?

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

“Myth” #5: The aluminum salts used to clean municipal drinking water pose a danger to human health.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Virtually every municipal water purification system in the world uses aluminum salts to remove impurities and provide safe, healthy and accessible drinking water. The global public health benefits enabled by these systems are numerous and have prevented innumerable water-borne diseases.

Health Canada spent 10 years and millions of dollars studying this issue and concluded: ‘There is no consistent, convincing evidence that aluminum in drinking water causes adverse health effects in humans, and aluminum does not affect the acceptance of drinking water by consumers or interfere with practices for supplying good water.’”

JLW Analysis: Here we have a clearly misleading effort to cherry-pick not just from the scientific literature. The same report cited by Aluminum.org also reported:

An increase in pre-weaning mortality and a delay in weight gain and neuromotor development in surviving pups were reported in the offspring of albino Wistar rats given oral doses (in the diet) of aluminum chloride (equivalent to about 155 and 192 mg Al/kg bw per day) from day 8 of gestation through parturition… Neurotoxicity and weight loss were also reported in mouse dams fed a diet containing aluminum lactate at 500 or 1000 ppm from day 0 of gestation to day 21 postpartum.

Offspring showed growth retardation and somewhat delayed neurobehavioural development, which was consistent with maternal toxicity…

In a study in which pregnant rats were exposed to a 20% solution of Maalox (a stomach antacid) in tap water (approximately 3.2 mg Al/mL) from the second day of gestation, Anderson et al.205 found that offspring of aluminum-exposed dams showed significantly more aggressive responses, although the time spent on each aggressive response was less than in controls. Furthermore, the offspring of aluminum-exposed mothers showed a significantly longer latency period in the escape-training phase following a three-day period of exposure to non-avoidable shocks.

The report cited by Aluminum.org also included:

Several epidemiological studies have reported a small increased relative risk of AD associated with high aluminum concentrations in drinking water… All these studies have methodological weaknesses, but a true association between high aluminum concentrations in drinking water and dementia (including AD) cannot be ruled out, especially for the most elderly (e.g., over 75)…

According to a review by Doll… the evidence from several epidemiological, clinical and experimental studies suggests that aluminum is neurotoxic in humans but does not suggest that it causes AD. However, Doll… stressed that the possibility that aluminum does cause AD must be kept open until the uncertainty about the neuropathological evidence is resolved.

Aluminum in water can easily be avoided by consuming silica-rich mineral water, which is purported to help reduce total body burden of aluminum [14]

On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.

“Myth” #6: Aluminum contained in certain vaccines make them unsafe.

Aluminum.org Claim: “Aluminum salts have been used to improve the immune system’s response to vaccines for more than 70 years. Most of the small amount of aluminum used in the vaccinations is quickly expelled by the body. About half of the aluminum is gone in 24 hours; three-quarters is eliminated in two weeks and virtually all of it disappears within three years.”

“There are recent reports of a neurologic disease called macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) suspected to be caused by injections of aluminum-containing vaccines. The role of aluminum in the mechanism of this disorder is unclear. The only known undesirable effects that are attributable directly to aluminium salts contained in vaccines are possible local inflammatory reactions, which in some cases are due to the speed of the injection of the vaccine or to insufficient agitation of the vial.”

“In 2008, the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) stated: “From the most recent evidence, there is no reason to conclude that a health risk exists as a result of administration of aluminium-containing vaccines. Neither is there any good scientific or clinical basis for recommending any change in vaccination practice.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has concluded that the use of aluminum in vaccines is safe.”

JLW Analysis: Here we see the same abuse of logic that was used to argue that ethyl mercury from vaccines cleared quickly: the “gone” that Aluminum.org is referencing here are serum levels; there are precious few studies that examine whole-body elimination rates but Flarend et al. [15] found only 4.6% of aluminum left the body of rabbits after 28 days.

Calculations of the “safe” levels of aluminum by Mitkus et al. (the US FDA) [16] were based on myriad flawed assumptions, most importantly the use of dietary aluminum vs. injected vaccine forms of aluminum, on adult mice (instead of infant mice) to assess the safety of aluminum for use as injected forms in infant humans. But even then, we now know that their actual calculations were flawed exercises in a shell game: divide doses into three body compartments, use serum clearance rather than whole body clearance, and divide exposure by 365 days… and then the numbers look safe. We don’t need the numbers to just look safe. We need to know the safe levels of doses of injectable forms of aluminum using dose escalation studies. This was the conclusion of an extensive and careful IPAK analysis [17] which found these and other flaws and concluded that:

“On Day 1 of life, infants receive 17 times more aluminum than would be allowed if doses were adjusted per body weight.”

Regarding aluminum from vaccines and diet, Children’s Hospital in Philadelphia offers health care consumers a video on the webpage featuring Dr. Paul Offit, a CHOP employee claiming (quite incorrectly for infants up to six months of age) that we get far more aluminum from food and water, and anything made of water, than we would ever get from vaccines.

Again, IPAK’s analysis shows, considering body weight, that the information published on the CHOP website is incorrect, and, like Aluminum.org, is misleading consumers into a false sense of safety. This finding is consistent with that of Dorea and Marques [18].

IPAK Calculated Accumulations of Aluminum in Humans by Source. See report [19] for details and additional results. (mcg/kg = micrograms per kilogram cumulative body burden.)

Parents are being tricked by the CHOP website into bringing their infants to be exposed – repeatedly – to acute toxic doses of injected aluminum to accept a medical procedure and pharmaceutical product that is only assumed to be safe – not shown to be safe by science.

Studies now exist that show that aluminum is found in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease – and studies exist that show that safe removal of aluminum via chelation is effective in reducing the symptoms of these and other conditions (19). The consumption of silica-rich mineral waters was found to increase urinary excretion of aluminum from patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (SPMS) (20).  Reversal of a disease by removing a factor proves that factor is a key cause.

Therefore, I believe that both CHOP and Aluminum.org are committing fraudulent false advertising, and one or more class action suits against both should be taken up as soon as possible. The Aluminum.org webpage and the CHOP video spreading false and misleading information on aluminum safety must come down.

Citations

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC554575/
  2. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=29&po=9
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159219
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784951/
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17308763
  6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3784951/
  7. http://vaccinepapers.org/aluminum-inflammation-interleukin-6/
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514401/
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14639125
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552203/
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2755419
  12. http://vaccinepapers.org/the-foundation-for-al-adjuvant-safety-is-false/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19538017
  14. https://www.hippocraticpost.com/nursing/why-everyone-should-drink-silicon-rich-mineral-water/
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9302736
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0946672X17300950
  18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010978
  19. http://ipaknowledge.org/resources/IPAK_Aluminum_Flyer.pdf
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29128442
  21. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/758323/

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Awareness

The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple reasons exist explaining why it makes more sense not to receive the flu vaccine. It makes more sense to focus on a strong and healthy immune system to combat the flu, yet the vaccine is heavily marketed every single year.

  • Reflect On:

    With so many concerns being raised every single year regarding the flu shot, why does the corporation still blast out mass marketing, propaganda false information and fear?

This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com. His work is reproduced and distributed here with the permission. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and political motivations which generate the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review (CDR), considered by many within the evidence-based medical model to be the gold standard for assessing the therapeutic value of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or outright propaganda that flu vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’ao-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter (see our article on the vaccine agenda: Transhumanism/Dehumanism).  In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.

This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine researchers use to “prove” the “efficacy” of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the expensive-to-produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune response – a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive. These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals, xenotrophic retroviruses, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e. they do not have to prove real world “effectiveness,” only a surrogate marker of “efficacy.”  Yet, recent research indicates in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses, running diametrically opposed to the orthodox tenets of classical vaccinology.

Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent (3-strain) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Source: Cochrane Summaries).

advertisement - learn more

It is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating strains of influenza. Support of the immune system, then, becomes the most logical and reasonable solution.

Immune Status Determines Susceptibility To Infection

The fact is that our immune status determines susceptibility. If the immune system is continually challenged with environmental toxicants, nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, chronic stress, influenza is far more likely to take hold. If your immune system is strong, many infectious challenges occur, are met with an appropriate response, and often go unnoticed. In other words, it is not a lack of a vaccination that causes infection, rather, the inability of the immune system to function effectively. [Note: In some cases, we may become infected and the ultimate outcome is that we enjoy even greater immunity.]

Moreover, there is an ever-growing appreciation within the scientific community that influenza cannot be defined as a completely exterior vector of morbidity and mortality, as portrayed within the mainstream, but is actually comprised of many proteins and lipids derived from the host it occupies, and may even be more accurately described as a hijacked cellular microvesicle (exosome), i.e. it’s as much us as other.

Learn more by reading our recent articles on the topic, “Why The Only Thing Influenza May Kill Is Germ Theory,” and “Profound Implications of the Virome for Human Health and Autoimmunity,”and by watching the incredibly eye-opening NIH lecture by Dr. Herbert Virgin below on the virome and the potentially indispensable role that viruses play in establishing the baseline genotype-phenotype relationship within the human immune system:

Additionally, while there are a broad spectrum of natural substances which have been studied for their anti-influenza properties, vitamin D deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is indispensable to produce antiviral peptides (e.g. cathelicidin) within the immune system, and can be supported for pennies a day.

For instance, a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010, revealed that children receiving 1200 IUs of vitamin D a day were at 59% reduced risk for contracting seasonal Influenza A infection. Moreover as a secondary outcome, only 2 children in the treatment group versus 12 for the control group, experienced an asthma attack. For more information on Vitamin D and immunity, visit the amazing research resource on the topic: VitaminDWiki.com.

Other preventive strategies that are evidence-based, and are available without a prescription include:

1) Echinacea Tea: J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Aug;6(4):327-34

2) Elderberry:  J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):361-9.

3) American Ginseng:  J Altern Complement Med.  2006 Mar;12(2):153-7.

4) Green Tea: J Nutr. 2011 Oct ;141(10):1862-70. Epub   2011 Aug 10.

5) Probiotics: Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):e172-9.

6) Vitamin D: PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11088. Epub 2010 Jun 14.

Learn more by visiting our Anti-Influenza Research Portal.

Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.

We Need Your Support...

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

EL

We Need Your Support...

 

With censorship, things have become tough. If just 5% of people seeing this today supported CE, we'd be able to fund a TRUE investigative team INSTANTLY. Your support truly matters and goes a long way! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.