Will COVID19 Cause a Recession or Depression

Posted on April 30, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

Wow! A robust analysis that is easy to read and understand.
No ventures into politics, blame, personal issues as you would normally expect from a post of my own, just unadorned information.

RISE

There is no doubt that the COVID19 virus has taken over our world. With that comes great uncertainty. We are unsure what the aftermath of this pandemic represents and wonder about the economic consequences of the actions we’ve taken to save lives.

Early indicators, prior to the COVID19 crisis, pointed to a recession. You can read my previous post here. Now in April, we have more data and can make better predictions, though these are still based on several unknowns regarding the course of the pandemic, the duration and severity of which ultimately determines our actions and outcomes.

First, we should understand the difference between a Recession and a Depression. A recession is an economic contraction that generally lasts for two quarters, where real GDP is null or negative. A depression is an elongated and more severe period of economic decline. Depressions last longer, often years and see enormous decreases…

View original post 1,617 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Climate Change Reconsidered

Posted on April 28, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

“Climate Change”, as a scare for gaining global dominance over all countries may have been superseded, but still lives on and is a hugely negative factor on Australian resources, also a drain on our finances. Given that, critical opposition and related information is still relevant!

This introduces a report that is based on fact, not propaganda:

Titled “Climate Change Reconsidered II – Fossil Fuels”

Somewhat technical, tedious for some, but facts are often that way.

No sensationalism, just education!

Click to access 10-05-18-DRAFT-CCRII-Fossil-Fuels-Summary-for-Policy-Makers.pdf

Posted in climate change, ENVIRONMENT, World Issues | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Administered

Posted on April 23, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

The “Children’s Health Defense” organization, and website  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/ present the following information to support the title claim of serious frequencies of vaccine damage and unfounded contrary claims by the medical industry.

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense

During our September 18 debate, Spectrum TV host Renee Eng asked Kaiser’s, Dr. Robert Riewerts, how many vaccine injuries he had seen during his 30 years as a Pediatrician. His answer: “None, not a single one.”

Slide 1. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the AHCR.

Slide 1 shows a 2010 U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) to test the efficiency of a state-of-the-art machine counting (AI) system on data records from the Harvard Pilgrim HMO. Those government researchers found that 2.6% of vaccination resulted in injuries—a ratio one for every 39 vaccines administered. The same study found that typical clinicians see 1.3 vaccine injuries per month.

Source: https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system

 

Slide 2. A table from HHS’s 2016 Neiss-Cades survey published in JAMA

Slide 2 is a table from HHS’s 2016 Neiss-Cades survey published in JAMA reporting an astonishing 19.5% of children under five who are admitted to emergency rooms for drug reactions are suffering vaccine injuries. This finding certainly represents an undercount since pediatric hospitals, which treat most serious injuries, were badly underrepresented in the database, (Only six of 63 hospitals surveyed).

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27893129 

 

How is it then that Dr. Riewerts has given thousands of vaccines and never seen an injury?

Medical schools—largely funded by Pharma, do not teach doctors to recognize vaccine injuries, and indoctrinate pediatricians to believe such injuries don’t exist. CDC tells doctors that vaccine injury is vanishingly rare. Therefore, Pediatricians like Dr. Riewerts whose patients suffer vaccine injury like seizures, epilepsy, allergies, autoimmune and neurological injuries, or SIDS, are likely to dismiss those incidents as “sad coincidences” unrelated to vaccines and never report them to VAERS.

Slide 3. AHCR confirmed these assessments, finding that “fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries were reported.

Indeed,  HHS commissioned the AHCR pilot study in response to criticism that vaccine injuries were horribly underreported. AHCR confirmed these assessments, finding that “fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries were reported.”

Source: https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

 

Slide 4. CDC terminated the system-wide roll-out and stopped returning phone calls from their sister agency.

Slide 4 shows that CDC officially were so panicked by AHRC’s revelations that they killed the AI system-wide roll-out and stopped returning phone calls from their sister agency. Today, CDC purposefully continues to use a surveillance system designed to under-count vaccine injuries by over 99%!

Source: https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

There is more than enough evidence to support the truth of this claim.
Claims of “false news” can easily be ignored, even easily disputed.
There is plenty of “false news” about but reading this will help readers better discern which sources are reliable, and which sources have such enormous power to brainwash the public.

 

Posted in HEALTH, Vaccination Dangers, vaccines | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Covid-19 – Circus or Global Control

Posted on April 1, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

Greg Piper – Associate Editor March 19, 2020
‘Like an elephant being attacked by a house cat’

“If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR [virus] tests, the number of total deaths due to ‘influenza-like illness’ would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.”

This was not written by some right-wing crank claiming coronavirus is a conspiracy to deny President Trump a second term, or an excuse to bring down capitalism.

It’s from a sobering and illuminating essay by Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis, co-director of its Meta-Research Innovation Center, published in the life sciences news site STAT.

The coronavirus-driven crackdowns on public life by state and local political leaders are being made in a data vacuum, Ioannidis warns, and extreme government measures to prevent infections may actually lead to more deaths.

“The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic,” he says. “But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco,” with policymakers relying on “meaningless” statistics based on unreliable samples:

Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population. …

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

The general ignorance of journalists when it comes to reporting scientific research is making the response worse.

Consider the complicating factors when trying to project that one cruise ship’s mortality rate “onto the age structure of the U.S. population”: It’s based on seven deaths, in a population (tourists) that “may have different frequencies of chronic diseases” than the general population.

The “reasonable estimates” for the general population range from 0.05 percent to 1 percent (the elderly tourist cruise line death rate), Ioannidis writes:

A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.

MORE: Student threatened for calling socialism more dangerous than coronavirus

The Stanford scientist notes that “mild” coronaviruses (not COVID-19) have much higher case fatality rates when infecting “elderly people in nursing homes” (the main cluster of cases in the Seattle area), and account for up to a tenth of respiratory hospitalizations.

Ioannidis further notes the difficulty of nailing down what might have killed a person with multiple infections, citing an autopsy series of elderly victims of respiratory viruses: “A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.”

His own “mid-range guess” for the COVID-19 mortality rate – 0.3 percent of the general population – would produce 10,000 deaths, but that would not even register a blip “within the noise” of estimated deaths from “influenza-like illness.”

Without better data (and yes, the Trump administration irredeemably botched the testing), policymakers are using “prepare-for-the-worst reasoning” to impose “extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns”:

Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work. School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease.

The conventional wisdom to “flatten the curve” – managing the load on the health system through social distancing – could even backfire, Ioannidis writes:

Yet if the health system does become overwhelmed, the majority of the extra deaths may not be due to coronavirus but to other common diseases and conditions such as heart attacks, strokes, trauma, bleeding, and the like that are not adequately treated. If the level of the epidemic does overwhelm the health system and extreme measures have only modest effectiveness, then flattening the curve may make things worse: Instead of being overwhelmed during a short, acute phase, the health system will remain overwhelmed for a more protracted period. That’s another reason we need data about the exact level of the epidemic activity.

He warns policymakers to consider the consequences of “lockdowns of months, if not years, [where] life largely stops.”

If we’re going to risk the “financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric” caused by such extreme measures, “we need unbiased prevalence and incidence data for the evolving infectious load to guide decision-making.”

Many pixels have been spilled mocking the Trump administration for its indifference to rigorous science, with some criticisms more fair than others.

But Ioannidis’s analysis should be taken the most seriously by state and local leaders, who actually have the power to destroy their economies and civic life, and the scientifically ignorant media who feed them doomsday coverage.

h/t Robby Soave

MORE: ‘Fixing Science’ conference called ‘dangerous’ for airing research problems

Posted in AGENDA 21, Civil Liberties, Financial Crisis, HEALTH, New World Order, World Issues | Tagged , | 13 Comments

A Contribution to the Corona Virus Circus

Posted on March 22, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

John W Barnes shared a link.

CONVID-19 background & outcomes goes a lot deeper then many of the comments here. This video explains the back ground to an incompetence in communication (or even a possible darker intervention) by the CCP.

The below video by Dr Paul Cottrell confirms that analysis of the 35 genome strands of the virus that actually caused 35 deaths around the world, were in fact from a specially bio engineered (man made) genome virus.

Nothing to do with Bats & animals etc.

The genome strand contained 4 specific “pastes” of known current virus variations which could not have got there by natural selection (evolution). The Wuhan lab “P4” is apparently less than 500m from the seafood market (but there are many such labs all around the world which have been researching SARS type viruses since 2010).

Whether the outbreak was accidental (or as Dr Cottrell offers the possible “dark road of intervention & release”) one thing is certain, is that it’s man made & our natural immunity will be vulnerable. It ain’t a flu variation.

So yes to call it a Chinese or Wuhan virus isn’t racist rather these are the facts as we know them at present. Please note I worked in China for 3-4 years (& in Wuhan) & I have a G8 affection for the Chinese people 🤔🤗.

A G8 video to watch (despite the initial technical jargon which I had watch twice to come to grips with), confirming the likely source, & how it impacts various organs & longer term medical & economic impacts 👏

 

Posted in China, HEALTH, World Issues | Tagged , , | 6 Comments

Is Clear-Thinking being Lost in the current Evolution of Civilization?

Posted on February 28, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

OR,  IS “COMMONSENSE”  no longer COMMON?

Observations and opinions:

So much of the world’s current behaviour clearly exhibits various degrees of insanity.

Insanity discernible as irrationality, often demonstrably psychopathic.

A certain amount of  irrational human behaviour is traditional in our remarkable evolution but it has now become more noticeable and more extensive globally.

Our obtaining possession of, and our ability to use our human intelligence, has been developing steadily but has not followed an intelligent progression towards creating a rational civilization.  More likely a regression, one that is following a self-destructive pattern.

{Not referring specifically to the claimed “climate change” threat to civilization in it’s recognized format. Except that the existence of a threat not supported by a logical basis is one good example of an observed failing in our collective intelligence}.

How does one define rational? Something that makes sense to a rational person? Although true, that is a circular argument without a meaningful answer.

‘Once upon a time’, the ‘survival of the fittest’ was largely a physical process of personally maintaining food/water, shelter and the associated environment, with the result that humans had a degree of justification of killing each other. In the extreme, even cannibalism could be “justified”.

With the evolution of what we call civilization, we have achieved, in general, a much more humane and intelligent way of survival. And yet, the killing goes on. Why?

And the starvation goes on, why?

Taking that the general population’s preference is for peaceful resolutions rather than conflicting situations, yet it does not exist as a force in societies. It does not have the strength nor the means to prevent armies being formed, terrorist groups created and funded, and vast amounts of money diverted from civilized purposes in order to cause enormous destruction of lives and property.

This inhumane, destructive behaviour exists because, in the main, ‘future survival’ does entail ownership, or access to, or control of, essential resources such as energy and water. That this contrasts with humanitarian outcomes is the illogical outcome.

The question is, why is it that the evolution of the most intelligent, universally capable species on our planet has not developed without resorting to selfish, animalistic, unintelligent behaviour?

Why does this basic animal instinct still over-ride our acquired ability to think clearly and act humanely?  Not only has the basic warring instinct not effectively been controlled or weakened, there is no evidence of that ever occurring. Worse still, it seems, it is increasing!

Some thought needs to be given to the demographics(?).  There exists two types of human consciousnesses. One having overpowering desire to achieve end results without concern for other humans, a psychopathic state of mind. The other, a pacifist state of mind where human life and well-being is strongly respected.

Understandably, there are people who range between these two extremes. Most parents, at least mothers, would do all they can to prevent or discourage their sons, and these days, daughters, from going off to war.  Yet, the general public see war as somehow justified and unavoidable, even an acceptable part of civilization.

The current status is basically, never-ending wars.

Is it something to do with our detectable and measurable personal intelligence levels?  Average IQ levels of 100 result from a range roughly from 70 to 140. Is there a correlation of IQ and willingness to go to war? Or even acceptance of war as normal? It would seem likely that such a correlation does exist in people regarding criminal behaviour, at least at the physical level.  In the case of internet, white collar and fraud type crimes, the relationship is possibly inverse.

Is it something to do with male /female characteristics? Female characteristics are predominately pacifist, and exist to various degrees in males. Male characteristics are predominately physical strengths and forcefulness but can be exhibited by some women. In current times there is a great deal of confusion evident in the progress of feminism, whereby there seems to be a desire for women to ‘compete’ for an equality which is counter to their femininity.

Commonsense?  An unmistakable absence of commonsense is ironically becoming common, if that makes sense. This is not gender oriented, but universal. Decision making by governments, authorities and individuals is increasingly devoid of best choices for best future outcomes for societies. Too often decisions are based on biassed assumptions and selfish agendas. On short term goals rather than long term! In the extreme, but nevertheless occurring generally, our ‘civilization’ is proceeding on a self-destructive path. This is across the whole range of individuals through to governments and includes, if not dominated by, non-government powers.

This excercise in ‘Thoughts’ is simply a matter of putting thoughts in writing. It is offered published for possible reactions. No gain for anyone is envisaged.

Posted in AGENDA 21, Conspiracies, Corruption, Globalism, Human Behaviour, Human Folly, Inhumanity, New World Order, Psychology, Warfare | Tagged | 6 Comments

Ulterior Motives regarding Vaccines

Posted on February 21, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

Much has been “said”, here and mostly elsewhere, about the vast vaccination topic.

Starting with whether it is true, or false, to claim “vaccines are ‘safe’ and ‘effective'”.

It is logical to label the claim as ‘false’ on the basis of indisputable evidence that vaccines are not always safe, a clear admission by pharmaceutical personnel and recorded awards for vaccine damages in court rulings. ‘Effectiveness’, is a little less definable, but professional vaccine promoters are usually honest enough to include covers such as “generally”, “mostly”, or similar language.

It is usually the likes of politicians and pedantic public supporters who are prepared to make bald, incorrect statements and expect the listener to accept their arguments.

Accepting that “vaccines are generally safe and usually effective”, then raises the questions “to what extent are they safe and effective”?  Answers are in the realm of  “how long is a piece of string”, because the variables are many and varied.

It is also reasonable to pose the questions, “How necessary are the vaccines, in what circumstances do they become justified and in what circumstances can mandatory, indiscriminate and forced applications be justified?”

These, and many other valid questions exist. In an intelligent community they deserve to be listened to, in a civilized community they deserve to be answered. Only in the social media are these issues addressed. There they are met with fierce opposition by authorities and thus their motivation becomes also questionable.

A number of motivations exist for this opposition. Public health, Company profits, Shareholder incomes, Practitioner benefits, Political lobbying rewards, cover most.

There is however, another possible reason which, although unbelievable in an ideal world, would explain the fervour of a), promoting questionable practices and b), opposing logical and commonsense responses. That is the theme of this post and video.

Readers comments are invited.

 

Of particular interest in the light of the current “epidemic”.

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak

The 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak is an ongoing epidemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2, which started in December 2019.It was first identified in Wuhan, capital of Hubei province, China.Initially it was spread from heretofore unknown animals to humans; it has subsequently spread between people. The virus propagating the outbreak has an estimated time of exposure …

  • Overview

    Wuhan is the capital of Hubei and is the seventh-largest city in China, with a population of more than 11 million people. It has been a major transport hub of…

  • Epidemiology

    As of 18 February, 1,875 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19. According to China’s NHC, most of those who died were older patients – about 80% of deaths…

  • Signs and symptoms

    Those infected may be asymptomatic or have mild to severe symptoms, including fever, cough, shortness of breath, and diarrhoea. The time from exposure to onset…

  • Cause

    Coronaviruses are spread through aerosol droplets expelled when an infected individual coughs or sneezes within a range of about 6 feet, which can contaminate…

Posted in AGENDA 21, drugs & medication, HEALTH, New World Order, vaccines | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Promotion of 5G Networking in Australia – Thoughts

Posted on February 2, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

TV media is currently championing the introduction of the 5G communication network in Australia.

One does not have to look far to discover that the new radiation frequencies and strengths involved  are not without a great degree of controversy.

Claims of associated, potentially serious health issues are there to be considered.

This USA post is a comprehensive introduction to the topic. Comprehensive and therefore lengthy and somewhat involved. It is considered a serious health issue which justifies readers’ time and patience to absorb its significance.

https://whatis5g.info/posts/  Click to access the main post.

One of its papers:

5G and its small cell towers threaten public health.  Implications for HB654/SB937 and HB1020/SP713 before the Maryland General Assembly

Feb 2019 | 5g, Fiber vs wireless, Health, Infrastructure, Wired, Wireless

Fiber optic cable extending from and wrapping around globe.

By Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

This message describes, as briefly as I can, the answers to the questions below.  Kindly read what interests you.  I present these comments as a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D. in Applied Physics, Harvard University).

  • Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?
  • Why are both HB654/SB937 and HB1020/SP713 fatally flawed?
  • What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?
  • What is Maryland’s implicit policy on exposure to radiofrequency radiation?
  • Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?
  • What is the evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G?
  • What should our telecommunications goals be?
  • Who am I?
Why is control of 5G secondary to stopping its deployment?

Control by local government of the deployment of 5G’s small cell towers is, indeed, an important goal, because local governments are closer to the people and can better reflect their wishes.  That makes HB1020/SP713 the better approach, as intended by its authors, compared to HB654/SB937 which forfeits local control entirely.

But there is an even more important goal:  STOPPING the deployment of 5G altogether.  The reason, as shown throughout this message, is that there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather, there are only “bad ways” and “worse ways”.  So local control means that local governments can have a say in the choice among the “bad ways”.

Why are both HB654/SB937 and HB1020/SP713 fatally flawed?

Both bills reaffirm the worst aspect of Federal policy:  a prohibition against stopping all deployment.  For example, HB1020/SP713 makes statements like these:

S-703 (C) (1):  “THE APPLICABLE LOCAL LAW AND REGULATION PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (A) OF THIS SECTION:
(1) MAY NOT GENERALLY PROHIBIT THE INSTALLATION OF ALL WIRELESS FACILITIES OR POLES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY; AND”

S-704 (C):  “THE DESIGN AND AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS OR STANDARDS OF AN AUTHORITY MAY NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING ANY WIRELESS PROVIDER’S WIRELESS SERVICE.”

Statements like these write into Maryland law the principal provision of Federal policy that so many efforts are now trying to overturn.  For this reason, in my view, neither HB654/SB937 nor HB1020/SP713 should be made law.

What makes Maryland a leader in MANDATING exposure to harmful radiofrequency radiation?

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of electricity have already been forced on virtually every home and business in Maryland.  These meters bring the source of radiation up close and personal to the residents, even to the walls against which children sleep.  They transmit pulses of radiofrequency throughout the day and the night, every day of the year.  To escape the radiation from your own meter, you must pay the electric power company a monthly Opt-Out fee, forever, for a non-radiating meter.  At last report, about 44,000 Maryland homeowners have made this choice.  But there is NO way to escape the radiation from your neighbors’ wireless meters.

Wireless Smart Meters for the measurement of natural gas and water are either already implemented in parts of the State, or are contemplated (WSSC), and will worsen the problem already created by the Wireless Smart Meters for electricity.

WiFi is implemented widely in Maryland’s schools and bathes the children and teachers in radiofrequency radiation every school day for all their school years.  Parents who don’t want their children exposed to such radiation MUST forfeit a public school education for their children.  All this has occurred even though the Maryland Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council, which reports to the Governor, recommended phasing WiFi out of the schools in favor of much safer wired technology.  (Wifi Radiation in Schools in Maryland, Final Report, December 13, 2016, page 8, https://phpa.health.maryland.gov/OEHFP/EH/Shared%20Documents/CEHPAC/MD_CEHPAC_SchoolWiFi_022017_final.pdf

The addition of the radiation from 5G’s small cell towers, located up close and personal to Maryland residents, and operating 24 hours per day throughout the year, will complete this assault on the health of the public.

What is Maryland’s implicit policy on radiofrequency radiation?

The State’s implicit policy appears to be this:

“No resident of Maryland shall be permitted to escape 24-hour exposure to radiofrequency radiation, at ever higher levels, even though such radiation has already been shown to be harmful to human health.”

“All biomedical research from any source, including the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, and the international biomedical research community more broadly, that shows that exposure to radiofrequency radiation is harmful to human health, will be categorically denied.”

Why is human health so vulnerable to harm from radiofrequency radiation?

In the simplest terms, human beings are bioelectrical in nature.  That is why electrocardiograms work when they monitor a beating heart.  And that is why electroencephalograms work when they monitor the activities in the brain.  Humans evolved in levels of radiofrequency radiation far below those produced by human technology today.  We humans are simply not designed to tolerate today’s high levels of radiofrequency radiation.

When the radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, including 5G’s small cell towers, and other wireless sources, hits the body, that radiation disrupts the bioelectrical workings of the body.  This disruption occurs at levels of radiation far below those set as the FCC’s Maximum Permitted Exposure limits.  In response, the body must fight back constantly to regain control.  This battle can lead to a wide range of symptoms.  Here is just a partial list:  sleep disruption, headaches, irritability, ringing in the ears, fatigue, loss of concentration and memory, nerve pain, dizziness, eye problems, nausea, heart palpitations, depression, and cancer.

No one is immune to harm, but vulnerability varies widely with the individual.  That vulnerability does appear to be greatest for pregnant mothers, young children, teenagers, men of reproductive age, seniors, the disabled, and those with chronic health conditions.  A host of major medical conditions are now under study by the international biomedical research community to determine what role exposure to radiofrequency radiation may play in causing, or aggravating, them.  Examples include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autoimmune diseases, and Alzheimer’s disease, among so many others.

The effects of radiofrequency radiation appear to be cumulative; so the longer that exposure continues, the greater the chance that an individual will be overtly affected.  Some individuals will develop a devastating condition called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome, with a host of symptoms, including extreme pain from exposure to even very low levels of radiofrequency radiation.  Just to survive, such individuals must often leave their homes and jobs, where exposure levels were too high, and move to rare locations away from radiation sources.  Such individuals regularly contact scientists (including me), doctors, and other aware individuals for advice on what to do.

What is the evidence of the harm caused by radiofrequency radiation?

There are thousands of archival biomedical research papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, that have shown that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to the body in one way or another.  These have been collected and reviewed in a number of summary documents.  Here are just two examples:  (1) BioInitiative 2012, draws on about 1800 publications (https://bioinitiative.org/); (2) EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of EMF-Related Health Problems and Illnesses, draws on 308 references (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27454111). (“EMF” stands for electromagnetic fields, a term inclusive of radiofrequency radiation.)

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B Human Carcinogen (“possibly carcinogenic”), naming explicitly “wireless phone” radiation (cellular radiation), based on the increased risk for glioma.  Glioma is a malignant type of brain cancer that is usually fatal.  It most recently took the life of Senator John McCain and Beau Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden.  (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf)

In 2018, a massive study by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiofrequency radiation (RFR) to cancer of the nerves of the heart (schwannomas), to cancer of the brain (glioma), and to multiple other health effects in test animals.  (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html)

In 2015 and continuing, 247 scientists from 42 nations signed an appeal to the United Nations, described below.  These scientists have “published peer-reviewed papers on the biological or health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields” (which are inclusive of radiofrequency radiation).

“Address the global public health concerns related to exposure to cell phones, power lines, electrical appliances, wireless devices, wireless utility meters and wireless infrastructure in residential homes, schools, communities and businesses.”  (https://www.emfscientist.org/)

For more information on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, please see the website of the Environmental Health Trust, especially the Science tab.  (https://ehtrust.org/)

“read more”

 

What are the advantages and disadvantages of 5G?

5G has some true advantages.  5G is expected to employ higher radiofrequencies than those currently in use in cellular systems in the United States.  Those higher frequencies will permit more rapid rates of data transfer compared to current WIRELESS technology.  And, as a wireless technology, 5G will support mobility.

But wired technology, especially fiber-optic technology, is superior to 5G in so many other ways.  Fiber-optic technology produces NO radiofrequency radiation, so it poses NO health hazard.  Fiber-optic technology is safer, faster, more reliable, more cyber secure, and more private than any wireless technology, including 5G.  (See https://whatis5g.info for a detailed description of the limitations of 5G.)

So users of wireless technology, including 5G, will have to decide if mobility ALONE is more important for their particular application than any other factor, including their own health and the health of their families and colleagues.

When listening to the hype about 5G, consider the following:
Is the hype coming more from potential providers of 5G, who hope to profit from 5G, or from potential users, who will have to pay for 5G?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G more about staking out claims to small cell sites in right-of-ways than about providing services that customers really need?

Is the RUSH to implement 5G driven by the growing awareness of the public and its representatives that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to health, and thus the providers feel that they must act quickly before resistance builds further?

What scientific studies, from impartial sources, can the providers of 5G identify that prove that 5G has NO adverse health effects on humans?  The burden of proof is on the providers.

When questioned by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal in a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee (February, 7, 2019), the representatives of industry could name no existing studies and none in progress.  (Story:  https://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/at-senate-commerce-hearing-blumenthal-raises-concerns-on-5g-wireless-technologys-potential-health-risks; Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4)

What should our telecommunications goals be?

Let me suggest the following:

Promote the expansion of fiber-optic technology as widely as possible, instead of degrading our environment with more harmful radiofrequency radiation, this time from 5G.

Require that the safety of 5G be proven by impartial studies before 5G can be installed in Maryland, instead of facilitating the use of Maryland residents to be the guinea pigs to test that safety.

Join forces with other state governments, and with local governments, to fight back against Federal laws and regulations that force any potentially harmful technology on the states without adequate PRIOR proof of safety.  Any technology with the potential to harm, and even take, life should not be mandated by the U.S. Government or encouraged by the states.

It will be difficult to stop 5G, but it will be easier to stop it NOW than to get it removed later after huge numbers of Maryland residents have become ill.

Who am I?

I am a retired U.S. Government career scientist (Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University).  I worked for the Executive Office of the President, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  For those organizations, respectively, I addressed Federal research and development program evaluation, energy policy research, and measurement development in support of the electronics and electrical-equipment industries and the biomedical research community.  I currently interact with other scientists, with physicians, and with aware individuals around the world on the impact of radiofrequency radiation on human health.

I have been a resident of Montgomery County since 1979.

Respectfully,

Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.

Continue reading →

Posted in AUSTRALIA, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, radiation | Tagged , | 1 Comment

BBC’s Climate Check

Posted on January 20, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

One doesn’t need to look far to see the fraudulent presentation of climate data.
Accepting that, there is only one interpretation possible – The public are being gypped with lies that “climate change” is a result of atmospheric CO2 emissions.
There is no valid science to support the alarmists.
If readers cannot understand this, what is their basis for believing the propaganda?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Hiding 230 Years Of Global Heatwaves

Posted on January 13, 2020 by Ken McMurtrie

U-Tube video by Tony Heller, presented below.

“If government climate scientists were actual scientists, they would want to understand history – rather than trying to make it disappear.”

Setting the records straight.

It is not just that the facts are being adulterated by the “official” climate scientists.
It is the fact that there is a reason for this unjustified behaviour.

There is an agenda behind this totally unacceptable, Orwellian rewriting of history by the current “Department(s) of Truth”.
What is this agenda?
It should be obvious to any thinking person that these activities are being carried out to support the beliefs that
a), unprecedented catastrophic climate changes are now occurring,
b), that these changes are due mainly to the burning of fossil fuels for our energy requirements, and
c), that the resulting rising atmospheric CO2 levels are the actual cause.

Only if all three factors are scientifically valid is this agenda realistic.
In reality, not only is just one of them incorrect, they all are.

Who is behind this agenda? The United Nations Climate Commission.

Books are being published that cover all these issues. It suffices to state here that one can see the agenda clearly exhibited in this groups title and mission statement. Their agenda is to convince the public that all three above “beliefs” are valid, NOT to investigate what are the various causes of our climate changes.

This video offers some of the proofs that this conclusion is valid.

So, we try to educate the “proles”.

Posted in AGENDA 21, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Planet Earth, Science, World Issues | Leave a comment