Posted on

Non Thermal Biological Effects of EMFs

mobile tower

The regulations that govern the mobile communications industry are 24 years old and are based on the assumption that these types of radiation cannot cause thermal damage. The regulations – despite literally thousands of studies since which point to the fact that NON thermal biological effects takes place – have not been changed.

Martin L. Pall, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences Washington State University has published work showing non-thermal effects of EMFs. He found that induced voltages on the body’s plasma membranes opened a gateway through which calcium can flow – thus creating an unnatural imbalance of the biological system.

Overview here:
https://www.emfacts.com/2015/09/professor-martin-palls-research-on-non-thermal-bio-effects/

One of Professor Pall’s papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

Professor Pall’s video presentation:

Posted on

Genes – Remotely Edited by a Virus and EMFs

Here’s a summary: In the disciplines of gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9), and remote neuron activation (optogenetics), the process is achieved by injecting a modified virus into a host. So through an injection delivery (eg, vaccine) it is possible to both alter the host genes and to turn neuron on and off in the brain… remotely.

Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in the wavelength range of 280–315 nm (UV light) can trigger brain neurons and control the emotions and behaviour of animals. This science is called optogenetics. First the neurons are targeted by a modified virus which allows the insertion of a protein into the DNA strand. DNA responds by activating a targeted gene when activated by the EMR at this frequency – which then alters mood, thought, and physical action.

The following link explains how this process works and shows an example of a mouse being triggered by ultraviolet light (280–315 nm).


Notice (at 1:32) the process is triggered by a modified virus.

Bear in mind that the UV light does not have to be strapped to the mouse’s head! This is just for the sake of this demo. Also bear in mind that different protein/gene combinations are likely to respond to different EM frequencies. For example this could result in genes that are triggered by EMF which is outside of the visible spectrum.

The following video is not without controversy. It is part of a leaked lecture at the Pentagon. “Fact checker debunkers” claim it was done by actors. Nevertheless everything that is said is achievable with available technology. You decided.

The fact that a lab-modified virus is needed to start the process should be cause for an eyebrow to be raised. Here is an explanation of the process: https://www.scientifica.uk.com/learning-zone/optogenetics-shedding-light-on-the-brains-secrets (TIP: load the page then search for “virus”)

Understand that the blood-brain barrier (BBB) can be opened by electromagnetic fields – such as that in the wifi and mobile comms range. And now the virus can pass through the BBB into the brain. See https://mdsafetech.org/blood-brain-barrier/

Not only can genes be turned on and off through optogenetics, they can be rebuilt, modified and re-modelled (for whatever purpose) using a technique called CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. (The two techniques can also be combined; see https://blog.addgene.org/optogenetics-crispr-using-light-to-control-genome-editing.) Here we see an interesting article about who’s baking this technology: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/bill-gates-thinks-gene-editing-artificial-intelligence-save-world.

Before you think this tech is years away from us, there are companies out there that you can order a custom built CRISPR/Cas9 RNA virus as a delivery system for gene editing! Just look it up for yourself.

Perhaps the fact the current vaccine under development now will be based around a custom RNA messenger (mRNA) and will also include a modified SARS-COV-2 virus – might trigger some thought processes for you.

Posted on

Reduce Your EMF Exposure

Reduced Exposure

General concepts to be considered are:

  1. Time, and Duration of Effect
  2. Distance
  3. Shielding
  4. Removal or Deactivation

Where Do You Spend Your Time?

Growing numbers of people are becoming sensitised to electromagnetic fields. Today it is estimated that up to 50%* of people are irritated by EM fields that the other 50% find they can tolerate. When we are talking about exposure in your home this is usually the place where you will spent a big part of your time during both your day-time routine and your sleep time.

An example of this is the broadband router, and it’s proximity to you. For example if it is under your desk and within say 1 metre of you for your working day, you need to consider moving it so that it is as far as practically possible from you. This is an example of both Time and Distance.

*Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimated-prevalence-of-electrosensitive-people-in-different-years-and-countries_tbl1_6836231

Duration of Effects

Also consider the length of time that the biological effects can linger for. The fact is that our nerves are an electro-chemical system running through our entire body. This nervous system can become over stimulated during the day due to EMFs. This stimulation does not suddenly disappear when we turn the lights off to go to sleep. It can take many hours for our nervous system to relax. Think of it like caffeine: this stays in the system for approximately 4 hours but certain individuals could have a coffee in before lunch and still have their sleep disturbed by it.

How Far Are You From the Source?

Distance from the offending source is also an important factor. For example if the source of EMF is a power supply such as an AC to DC transformer it will generally have a high EMF field. But this is called a “point” source, i.e., all the radiation has it’s source from one point in space. In this case the inverse law of squares applies, which says that the field strength diminishes by the square of the distance, not merely in a linear manner. So even a small increase of distance has a good reduction in field strength. Generally you want to be at least 2 metres from these points of radiation, particularly if you spend long periods of time in proximity.

Removal of Source… or Shielding?

The two other questions to consider are: can I deactivate (could be as simple as unplugging) the source, or remove the source of EMF from my home environment – and if not – can I shield from it’s effects? Bear in mind that a device that is plugged in – even when turned off – will usually emit EMFs.

Instead of using the switch that is on the actual device it is better to switch off the device at the wall socket, so the wall socket is off. This will reduce the antenna effect whereby the 50hz signal is broadcast through space to your body. By turning the device off at the wall you are effectively removing it’s EM field from the equation… until you turn it back on again.

Grounding a device is often an effective method of removing it’s field from the equation. For example the electric field around my laptop, when it is on charge, can be over 1,000 V/m at the point the charger attaches, and well over 100 V/m close to my head as I lean in instead of use my glasses! Also the keyboard and mouse area are well over 100 – more like 200–300 V/m. But if I ground my laptop it reduces the electric field to virtually zero V/m. This vast reduction is so important considering I can easily spend hours on a laptop each day.

I view the single most important area of the home for shielding is the bedroom. Grounded conductive paint, shielded power cables, grounded conductive mesh canopy around the bed – these are all part of effective strategies to create an EMF rest environment for recovery and detoxification from the daily stress of electro-smog. However the grounding must be done right, with a ground line that is free from harmonics and stray currents – otherwise it could actually make things worse.

The bedroom or sleeping area

I have two approaches to this – and please bear in mind this is just general information. For an accurate assessment of your actual situation I would need to visit your property.

1) removal of source: so what are the sources we need to remove? For most people this will be radiation from household wiring, and radio frequency radiation from communications devices. There are basically two ways of dealing with household wiring – one is to re-wire with shielded cables, and the other is to turn off the power at the main breaker box, either with a retro-fitted switch, or specific breakers on your box if it has been suitably configured. However this needs to include the downstairs lights because their wiring is in the floor space beneath your bedroom. There are other considerations such as fridges and alarm systems.

This approach is sometimes sufficient but depends on the amount of neighbourhood WIFI, mobile phone transmitters, AM/FM and TV masts. It can also depend on your neighbours electrical usage if you are in a terraced or semi-detached property.

2) shielding from radiation: in this approach we create a shield all around the bed. This shield in the form of a canopy is then grounded to a clean earth. A clean earth is very important otherwise the shielding canopy can become an antenna and radiate both inwardly and outwardly, obviously defeating the object.

There are other strategies for shielding which include conductive paint, window coatings, protective fabric for curtains and clothing, some of which are featured on the products page.

In future blogs I will be looking at field entrainment devices which can mitigate the biological effects of EMFs. The effectiveness of these devices is harder to show than, for instance a bed canopy, and often require blood and water analysis by the manufacturers to prove efficacy. This means we then need to investigate the manufacturer’s claims for reassurance that they do what they “say on the tin”. More to follow on this subject.

Posted on

Electrification of the Cities – a Disease Hypothesis

Electrification of the cities

There is a strong correlation between the advent of electricity, and modern chronic disease. It is a fascinating hypothesis which, on further examination, gets stronger and stronger.

Summary

“The slow spread of residential electrification in the US in the first half of the 20th century from urban to rural areas resulted by 1940 in two large populations; urban populations, with nearly complete electrification and rural populations exposed to varying levels of electrification depending on the progress of electrification in their state. It took until 1956 for US farms to reach urban and rural non-farm electrification levels. Both populations were covered by the US vital registration system. US vital statistics tabulations and census records for 1920–1960, and historical US vital statistics documents were examined. Residential electrification data was available in the US census of population for 1930, 1940 and 1950. Crude urban and rural death rates were calculated, and death rates by state were correlated with electrification rates by state for urban and rural areas for 1940 white resident deaths. Urban death rates were much higher than rural rates for cardiovascular diseases, malignant diseases, diabetes and suicide in 1940. Rural death rates were significantly correlated with level of residential electric service by state for most causes examined. I hypothesize that the 20th century epidemic of the so called diseases of civilization including cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes and suicide was caused by electrification not by lifestyle. A large proportion of these diseases may therefore be preventable.”

Samuel Milham, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA, USA

For the full article visit this link:
https://www.avaate.org/

For more in-depth look at the history of electricity, and the ailments that have followed – check out The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life by Arthur Firstenberg.

Arthur Firstenberg - The Invisible Rainbow

Posted on

Virus Activation Via Electromagnetic Field

EMF-PORTAL

The following research paper is significant as it shows that electromagnetic fields can activate viruses in human cells:
https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/13130

The title of the paper provides gives a clear synopsis –
Exposure to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field induces activation of the Epstein-Barr virus genome in latently infected human lymphoid cells.

What does it mean to “activate” a virus?

Keep in mind that a virus is not alive. It is just a string of RNA/DNA surrounded by a protein shell. It contains no reproductive system, they can’t make their own energy, and they don’t respond to stimuli. What the researchers mean by “activate” is to cause the virus to be excreted, or expressed, by the living cell.

Controversially – and I would say, effectively – it is argued that a virus is similar to a solvent that is excreted by the cell to remove debris and toxins. Where does this debris or toxin that needs excreting from the living cell come from? It is the contention of medics and researchers such as Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andrew Kaufman that these toxins are the result of external influences such as EMFs.

Not only does the above linked paper show that EMFs can activate virus expression, but that the DNA of living beings – including ours – can be modulated, remotely.

“This finding provides evidence that DNA can be modulated by a magnetic field.”

Another published paper shows that mobile phone radiation can also activate Epstein-Bar virus in human lymph cells.
https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/21619

Don’t know about you but I find all this a little disturbing:. What is even more disturbing is the possibility of your Genes – Remotely Edited by a Virus and EMFs.

Posted on

Regular Sinus Problems?

Blocked sinuses

If you regularly have blocked up sinuses I want to bring two factors to your attention:

  1. Vitamin A deficiency
  2. Allergies or Mould

Regarding mould, new groundbreaking research has shown that mould becomes many times more toxic in the presence of EMFs. Read on…

Vitamin A Deficiency

Dr. Berg says that a vitamin A deficiency, which can also/alternatively be a bile deficiency, can be an issue for the sinuses. Vitamin A is fat-soluble and bile is needed to break down fats. Hence the vitamin A deficiency could be a lack of bile rather than a lack of vitamin A.

Cod liver oil is a great source of vitamin A because it also contains omega fatty acids and natural occurring vitamin D.

Dr Berg also recommends a protein enzyme to dissolve build up of mucus.

Here are some links to these products:

Caveat: if the root problem is bio-toxic mould such as in house damp, then taking bile salts might make the symptoms worse. In which case you have more information and can confirm a mould/bio-toxin issue. See https://www.survivingmold.com/docs/UNDERSTANDING_CIRS_EDITV2A.PDF

Allergies and Mould

Blocked sinuses could an environmental bio-toxin such as mould, or an allergy such as a reaction to animals, or a food allergy. Some things to consider:

  • cutting out all grains and dairy for a month
  • kimchi or lactobacillus sakei supplement to address bacteria imbalance (for the science behind lactobacillus sakei see this page). Note – after further research it seems likely that the specific source of this beneficial bacteria might be the garlic that’s in the kimchi. So fermented garlic (at between 14 and 21 days) is particularly recommended for this condition.
  • remove mould from the home environment

Electromagnetic Fields

Mould issues can be aggravated by electromagnetic fields which have been shown to cause mould to be more ‘aggressive’. For a deeper look at this topic see Do EMFs-increase-mould-toxicity?, but here’s a few suggestions:

  • switch off the house AC power to the sleeping area at night, or
  • take action to deactivate live wires in floor space and wall space in the sleeping area

To thin down sinus mucus (doesn’t cure root cause) I would take fenugreek, and I would try acupressure of the 2nd vertebrae.

And …

Posted on

What does 95% effective really mean?

When you hear vaccine manufacturers say their “vaccines” are 95% effective you will be forgiven for thinking that, if 100 people are vaccinated then 95% will not get the virus.

But what does it actually mean?

If we look at Pfizer’s trial of 43,000 people (here) they report 162 cases of covid among the non-vaccinated control group of 21,500, while there were 8 cases of covid among those receiving the vaccine, also 21,500.

What they mean is this: 162 cases + 8 cases = 170 total cases of covid in both the vaccinated and the placebo groups.
As 162 cases is 95% of 170 (95.3% actually), the vaccine is 95% effective. Ta-daaa!

Wait, What? Did you think they meant 95% of vaccinated participants were protected from covid? Yes, that’s what you’re meant to think, but no, that’s not what they mean.

The percentage of the vaccinated group that caught covid was 0.037%, while the percentage of the un-vaccinated group that caught covid was 0.75%. So the actual effective rate for the vaccine is 0.75 minus 0.037 = 0.71% effective. The “protected group” is the difference between those not vaccinated who caught covid (162), and those vaccinated who caught covid (8). 162 minus 8 = 154. 154 expressed as a percentage of the vaccinated group (21,500) is 0.71%.

Now, 0.71% efficacy doesn’t really make for headline news does it? Knowing what you now know, do you think their claim of 95% efficiency is dishonest? Before you answer that, consider that Pfizer have been convicted 23 times in the last 20 years under the False Claims Act. And we do not know how many times they have settled out of court which are not included in this number.

This 0.71% protection actually translates to meaning that for 99.29% of the population this vaccine won’t give any advantage at all. For this 99.29%, all the jab can do is confer risk of adverse reactions.

So what about these reported adverse reactions? This is Pfizer’s statement: “no serious safety concerns observed; the only Grade 3 adverse event greater than 2% in frequency was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0%”. Pfizer’s published results are only in synopsis form – they have said they will not publish the actual data for 18 months. Convenient for them. Bear in mind this is a company that has been convicted and fined for lying every single year for the last 20 years. According to the British Medical Journal the fact that Pfizer have only published a synopsis is unacceptable: Where are the data?.

So while individual Grade 3 (severe) events which are less than 2% of the group are not detailed, there could be other severe reactions that we don’t know about because they are only reporting those with a frequency over 2%. Other Grade 3 events can include systemic (whole body) illness that “prevents daily activity and requires medical intervention” (FDA classifications of events – see the page 5). While these more serious events might happen less frequently they can also be more debilitating and permanent… and we won’t have access to the data for 18 months… we’re just being asked to trust Pfizer. I refer you back to their track record under the False Claims Act.

For example if there were 5 other types of Grade 3 reaction, and these averaged 0.5% for each events, that would equate to 2.5% of the participants. 2.5% of the vaccinated participants is 537 people. Compare that to the 154 people the jab apparently helped.

So for the sake of a disease that greater than 99.9% of those under the age of 60 will recover from; you can take a vaccine that confers 0.71% protection, while at the same time confers a documented incident rate of 5.8% for fatigue and headache (duration unknown, pathology unknown), and an un-disclosed percentage-risk of severe, possibly life-changing events.

Of the 93,000 participants of the trials done by Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZenica, zero died of Covid.

Additional considerations from the British Medical Journal:
1) There is no evidence the experimental injections will save any lives:
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/covid-19-vaccine-trials-cannot-tell-us-if-they-will-save-lives/
2) Covid “science” is being corrupted for political and financial gain:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425