Thursday, 24 January 2019

Cover-ups, Obfuscations and Conflicts of Interest re: #WiFi #5G #AWFB #LossofSignal


As I have suggested in previous posts on this subject that the WiFi industry seems to have deliberately sought to lower the profile of Ethernet technologies and restrict the growth of their use, I could not give a better example of this than that of an experience I had the other day, quote;

"I'm sitting here waiting for my New Enterprise Allowance mentoring session...unfortunately all the Job Centre computers are on Wi-Fi (attendant said; "can't afford Ethernet"), funny I was at Jamie's' computers getting mine sorted out the other day and all their computers are on Ethernet and Jamie's' is a charity!....I get my Job Coach to see me on the same day as my NEA mentoring if possible because I can claim back my travelling expenses on NEA.
When I was on DLA they wouldn't fund me to go self-employed as a multi-level marketing distributor (no-names-no-pack-drill), but now I'm not getting those benefits they will! Hmmmph...."the head bone's connected to the neck bone now hear the word of the algorithm!""
"Can't afford ethernet? You can pick up a 48 port cisco switch for 300 quid. Admittedly you need the structured wiring also but which office that has been used in the past 20 years does not have that already installed? Also, imho, ethernet is typically faster and more secure then wifi. If this is the state of job centre IT infrastructure right now then god help us." Posted by mike January 18, 2019, 6:19 pm, in reply to "Hi from Southampton Job Centre!"
"It was physically unpleasant to use the computers..I got a headache almost instantly...I'm contemplating arriving wreathed in garlic next time..!" Posts to the Lifeboat News ("TLN"), message board, subject to edit, all posts by author unless otherwise stated.

Also see: "Buffy Special Features - Behind Spike" go to:
UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation a Compromised Body?

Quote; "One story that never made it into the mainstream media or even any independent media outlets in the UK at the time was the disbanding of the UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) in May 2017. This followed the revelation in December 2016 that AGNIR’s latest assessment of the science on the health impacts of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs)—the type emitted by modern wireless technologies—was inaccurate and subject to conflicts of interest, a story that elicited no media interest in the UK either. 
AGNIR’s role was to provide Public Health England with objective, science-based recommendations and advice on safe public exposure levels to man-made RF-EMFs. PHE is the agency from which the devolved UK nations take their advice, and other public health agencies from around the world also referred to AGNIR’s recommendations.

In 2012 AGNIR published what turned out to be its last report: Health Effects from Electromagnetic Fields (RCE-20).

The report’s executive summary included the following definitive-sounding statement on RF-EMF safety: ‘Taken together, these studies provide no evidence of health effects of RF field exposures below internationally accepted guideline levels."...
"For some reason, AGNIR set the cut-off date for research to be considered in its report as December 2010. This meant that it excluded reference to the classification in May 2011 of RF-EMFs as a 2B possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and to a paper by the IARC Monograph Working Group published in The Lancet in July 2011.

It is clear, however, that AGNIR’s official cut-off date was not always adhered to: for example, a paper co-authored by one of its members (Maria Feychting) and published in 2011 was included in the report. This paper concluded that there was no causal association between mobile phone use and brain tumours in children and adolescents. Including this ‘no-effect’ paper while excluding reference to the IARC classification might be considered an instance of ‘cherry-picking’."...

"..the executive summary and overall conclusions of the AGNIR report disregarded or excluded much of the evidence of harm to health from RF-EMFs (p. 493). 

For example, although 78% of the studies cited on male fertility described significant adverse effects on sperm, male reproductive organs or changes in male testosterone concentrations, AGNIR’s conclusion was that there was ‘no convincing evidence that low-level exposure results in any adverse outcomes on testicular function’ (p. 495)."...

"the accuracy of the AGNIR report was echoed by Dariusz Leszczynski, an expert on RF-EMFs from the University of Helsinki and a member of the IARC panel that classified RF-EMFs as a 2B possible human carcinogen. Describing reading the report as ‘surreal’, Leszczynski wrote that it appeared that ‘the authors would either not understand the studies they read or had pre-written conclusions. It was like reading a wish list written by someone claiming that there [are] not and will never be any problems related to cell phone exposures.’ He condemned the report as misleading, pointing out that it is ‘not a comprehensive review [as it claimed to be] but it is a biased review.’

According to the British Medical Journal’s website, biases in reviewing science and in conclusions reached can be considered scientific misconduct: the definition of falsification of data ranges from ‘fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data."..

"the AGNIR report also was subject to conflict of interest: AGNIR’s chair, Anthony Swerdlow, and two of its members—Maria Feychting and Zenon Sienkiewicz—were also members of the controversial International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), whose contested RF-EMF exposure guidelines have been adopted by most of the western world, including the UK. In fact, in 2012 Swerdlow was chair of AGNIR and simultaneously chair of the ICNIRP standing committee on epidemiology.

There is an obvious conflict of interest in allowing scientists who are members of the body pronouncing on safe exposure guidelines to sit also on panels tasked with evaluating the science relating to the adequacy of the guidelines.",,

"Any queries addressed to governments or public health bodies in the UK about the safety of wireless technologies continue to be dismissed through reference to the ‘authoritative’ AGNIR report from 2012. Recent research, however, has strengthened IARC’s 2011 classification of RF-EMFs as a 2B carcinogen."..

"Following the disbanding of AGNIR, the assessment of health risks from RF-EMFs is now the responsibility of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE), another expert committee which is supposed to provide ‘independent’ advice about the health impacts of both ionising and non-ionising radiation.

The UK government website states that COMARE has a watching brief on non-ionising radiation and that Public Health England ‘remains committed to delivering expert review reports on non-ionising radiation topics as and when sufficient new evidence has accumulated.’ No review of research on non-ionising RF-EMFs appears to be on the horizon in COMARE’s work programme for 2018-19, the main focus of which remains ionising radiation."..

"As a scientific appeal of September 2017 made clear, 5G deployment will lead to a massive increase in mandatory exposure to RF-EMFs. Over 180 scientists from 35 countries called for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G technology in the EU until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry."..

"..closing down AGNIR on the grounds that it had ‘completed its work’ also suggests that the UK government considers—or, more likely, wants—the case to be closed as far as RF-EMFs and health effects are concerned, something that clears the way for the planned deployment of 5G and other so-called ‘smart’ wireless technologies." Go to:

for full article.

Quote; "You're probably aware that AGNIR, like their older brother ICNIRP, were created to mislead and stonewall on the effects of electromagnetic fields.

The BMA and other NHS bodies quoted and followed the pronouncements of these bodies religiously, apparently blind to the most obvious of gaps - like the fact that the ICNIRP guidelines were designed to protect against serious effects arising from sudden large exposures, like shocks and burns - and expressly excluded long term effects like cancers.

Perhaps this is of merely historic interest now - this below is from 2006, commentary I wrote on a report of theirs on headache effects, in which they brazenly turned black into white. 
AGNIR anger

Headaches, fatigue, loss of concentration, memory loss, skin problems….are sometimes referred to as ‘microwave sickness’.

The official line on such symptoms and EMF ought to be challenged.

There was little study of these ‘subjective symptoms’ in the Stewart report other than to discuss how to treat them as arising from fear or psychological factors. The first (and last) serious official coverage of these symptoms seems to be in the 2003 AGNIR report [AGNIR report to the (then) NRPB]

This is of some importance because the BMA informs the GPs, and a perusal of the BMA website suggests BMA appears only to refer to official reports, for example:

“The BMA supports the conclusions of the AGNIR report.”

[NB AGNIR 2003 is obtainable from NRPB for a modest £28 but you can get it free from SCRAM (
and click ‘reports’ then the ‘Stewart’ icon)]

So what does the AGNIR report say about all these symptoms? Well, under this heading:-


AGNIR includes the following symptoms:
headache, fatigue, irritability, loss of appetite, sleepiness, sweating, difficulties in concentration or memory, depression, emotional instability, and also bradycardia (or occasionally tachycardia), hypertension and abnormalities of cardiac conduction. 
Good start - this appears to be a serious review of these symptoms. Fourteen studies are discussed before AGNIR gets to its conclusion. However this is as good as it gets. In fact, AGNIR’s conclusion when it comes is pretty shocking:-


"Some studies, particularly in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia have suggested a marked excess of 'neurasthenic symptoms' in people exposed to RF radiation through work or use of mobile phones. However, this has not been a universal finding. In some investigations, associations may have occurred spuriously as a consequence of biased ascertainment of health outcomes or failure to take adequate account of confounding variables. In addition, the apparent inconsistency of findings from one country to another raises the possibility that the occurrence of such symptoms is psychologically induced and determined by cultural influences and health beliefs rather than a direct effect of RF radiation.”

So – according to AGNIR, reports of headaches etc are pretty inconclusive, maybe all in the mind, brought on by “psychological” or “cultural” influences and beliefs in certain parts of the world.
So should you put the paracetamol away? Time to consider the evidence:

In two of AGNIR’s fourteen studies (Barron+Baraff and Lilienthal) strong association between EMF and some of the various symptoms was found but explained away by the authors - to the consternation of Neil Cherry (link no longer works, but try this

and then further downplayed by AGNIR, but lets go along with the gag and leave them out. In another (Siekierzynski) I couldn’t find the abstract and the conclusion is unclear, and a fourth (Lee) although claiming an effect is not credible in this context.

That leaves ten studies. At this stage, having chucked out 3 or 4 postive studies, the reader is invited to guess, out of the remaining ten studies, how many positive and negative findings prompted AGNIR’s description of a picture of “apparent inconsistency”, and consequent diagnosis of symptoms that are “psychologically induced” and “culturally influenced”?

Well go on then, guess. Five positive and five negative? How many negatives? The answer is … NONE. They ALL found positive (significant) effects, some were multiple. Bear in mind that a positive (=statistically significant) effect is one that would have had less than a 5% probability of occurring purely by chance.

These studies are listed below, but lets carry on with the commentary.

AGNIR says “Some studies, particularly in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia have suggested …”.

So is it a communist bloc/northern type of thing? Hardly - in fact, there are 7 studies from the US, France, Australia and Italy – almost half the total.

“However, this has not been a universal finding”.

No? Well with no negatives, and studies from Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, USA, France, Australia and Italy what’s missing? SCRAM have even reported many Chinese studies with similar findings. But lets not allow the facts to get in the way of a good story:

“In some investigations, associations may have occurred spuriously as a consequence of biased ascertainment of health outcomes or failure to take adequate account of confounding variables”.

So … in TEN studies there was either bias or all confounding errors happened to fall on the same side? Kind of implausible.

But all this is building up to a speculative crescendo - back to the yarn:

“In addition, the apparent inconsistency of findings from one country to another raises the possibility that the occurrence of such symptoms is psychologically induced and determined by cultural influences and health beliefs rather than a direct effect of RF radiation”

Given the results are remarkably consistent, this is a speculative conclusion directly OPPOSITE to the results. With precisely NOTHING offered by way of evidence to support it, there is no science behind it and it seems to reveal a clear predisposition to dismiss positive findings. With about ten out of ten (used to be a good test result in the old days) the studies VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT the connection between EMF and headaches and the rest. NO OTHER CONCLUSION IS REASONABLE.

Why the BMA blindly supports this is a mystery. So much for sound science.

AGNIR’s excuses for dismissing positive results are noteworthy. On this topic I will finish with some words of wisdom from the much better California study [], admittedly in the context of reviews of other ailments. AGNIR would do well to read them:

“Invoking unspecified con-founders to explain away results is inappropriate.”
“Con-founders, like biases, may act both to increase or decrease an association.”
“The existence of a strong, yet unidentified and not even hypothesized con-founder present in every population studied is less plausible than accepting EMF as the causal factor”" With thanks to Walter for this post to TLN (subject to edit), go to: for this and other stories.

Mounting evidence suggests electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and cancer.

Quote; "As early as 2011, the evidence was strong enough for the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization, to declare cellphones a Group 2B "possible carcinogen."3 Two government-funded studies4 bring renewed attention to this link"..

"In fact, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage, which is harmful to health in general and can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. An estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each year.11 Meanwhile, 787,000 people die each year from heart disease.12 The relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that your cellphone is safe.

After all, when 91 percent of the adult population of the U.S. carries a cellphone13 and less than 0.02 percent14 develop a brain tumor, it may appear that using a cellphone is benign. The evidence shows it's not. Even these NIH studies reveal DNA and cellular damage, even though the researchers insist there's no explanation as to why. This, despite the fact that a number of other scientists and EMF specialists have presented evidence for a number of different mechanisms of harm"..

"The take-home message is that radiation from your cellphone weakens your blood-brain barrier, allowing toxins in your blood to enter your brain, and into the cells of your entire body. But that's not all. Following I will summarize evidence produced by a number of other experts in the field, who claim to have identified one or more mechanisms of harm."..

"Martin Pall, Ph.D., has identified and published research describing the likely molecular mechanisms of how EMFs from cellphones and wireless technologies damage plants, animals and humans.19,20,21,22 The process begins when low−frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)23 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells. Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell.

This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs.

The excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide, producing peroxynitrites, extremely potent oxidant stressors believed to be a root cause for many of today's chronic diseases.24 Nitric oxide is the only molecule in your body produced at high enough concentrations to outcompete other molecules for superoxide and is a precursor for peroxynitrite.25

Inside your body, peroxynitrites modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create a new substance, nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.26 Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease.27

Significant oxidative stress from peroxynitrites may also result in single-strand breaks of DNA.28 This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low−frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,29 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.

EMFs More Likely to Cause Neurological Dysfunction, Heart Problems and Infertility Than Brain Cancer

According to Pall's theory, the physical locations where VGCCs are the densest are indicative of the diseases you might expect from chronic excessive exposure to EMFs. As it turns out, the highest density of VGCCs are found in your nervous system, the pacemaker in your heart and in male testes. As a result, EMFs are likely to contribute to neurological and neuropsychiatric problems, heart and reproductive problems.

Indeed, studies dating back to the 1950s and '60s show the nervous system is the organ most sensitive to EMFs. Some of these studies show massive changes in the structure of neurons, including cell death and synaptic dysfunction. When the VGCCs are activated in the brain they release neurotransmitters and neuroendocrine hormones.",,

"Most recently, researchers showed prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman's risk of miscarriage.31 According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente's research division, Dr. De-Kun Li; "This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts," adding his findings "should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.""...

"Alasdair Philips, founder of the Powerwatch41 — a British organization committed to uncovering EMFs' effects on health — believes there's even more to it than what Pall has discovered. He references Gerald Pollack's work on the fourth phase of water, so-called exclusion zone (EZ) water, which is the kind of water you have in your body."..

"Paul Héroux, Ph.D., professor of toxicology and health effects of electromagnetism at the faculty of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, also stresses the impact EMFs have on the water in your body. The mechanism of action proposed by Héroux involves the enzyme ATP synthase, which passes currents of protons through a water channel (similar to current passing through a wire).

The protons have to go through about 20 molecules of water to get through this channel. ATP synthase is extremely ancient and common to all living systems. It basically generates energy in the form ATP from ADP, using this flow of protons.

Magnetic fields can change the transparency of the water channel to protons, thereby reducing the current. As a result, you get less ATP, which can have system wide consequences, from promoting chronic disease and infertility to lowering intelligence." Go to:

for full article, explanations and links.

You can help support both my work and this blog by making a payment (however small, all gratefully received I can assure you). to: If you're as skint as I am but you like my work please simply share this content! 

Google’s true origin partly lies in CIA and NSA research grants for mass surveillance

Quote; "Two decades ago, the US intelligence community worked closely with Silicon Valley in an effort to track citizens in cyberspace. And Google is at the heart of that origin story. Some of the research that led to Google’s ambitious creation was funded and coordinated by a research group established by the intelligence community to find ways to track individuals and groups online.
The intelligence community hoped that the nation’s leading computer scientists could take non-classified information and user data, combine it with what would become known as the internet, and begin to create for-profit, commercial enterprises to suit the needs of both the intelligence community and the public. They hoped to direct the supercomputing revolution from the start in order to make sense of what millions of human beings did inside this digital information network. That collaboration has made a comprehensive public-private mass surveillance state possible today."..
"In the mid 1990s, the intelligence community in America began to realize that they had an opportunity. The supercomputing community was just beginning to migrate from university settings into the private sector, led by investments from a place that would come to be known as Silicon Valley.
A digital revolution was underway: one that would transform the world of data gathering and how we make sense of massive amounts of information. The intelligence community wanted to shape Silicon Valley’s supercomputing efforts at their inception so they would be useful for both military and homeland security purposes. Could this supercomputing network, which would become capable of storing terabytes of information, make intelligent sense of the digital trail that human beings leave behind?"..
"the internet itself was created because of an intelligence effort: In the 1970s, the agency responsible for developing emerging technologies for military, intelligence, and national security purposes—the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—linked four supercomputers to handle massive data transfers. It handed the operations off to the National Science Foundation (NSF) a decade or so later, which proliferated the network across thousands of universities and, eventually, the public, thus creating the architecture and scaffolding of the World Wide Web."..
"The research arms of the CIA and NSA hoped that the best computer-science minds in academia could identify what they called “birds of a feather:” Just as geese fly together in large V shapes, or flocks of sparrows make sudden movements together in harmony, they predicted that like-minded groups of humans would move together online. The intelligence community named their first unclassified briefing for scientists the “birds of a feather” briefing, and the “Birds of a Feather Session on the Intelligence Community Initiative in Massive Digital Data Systems” took place at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose in the spring of 1995.
Their research aim was to track digital fingerprints inside the rapidly expanding global information network, which was then known as the World Wide Web. Could an entire world of digital information be organized so that the requests humans made inside such a network be tracked and sorted? Could their queries be linked and ranked in order of importance? Could “birds of a feather” be identified inside this sea of information so that communities and groups could be tracked in an organized way?"..
"Did the CIA directly fund the work of Brin and Page, and therefore create Google? No. But were Brin and Page researching precisely what the NSA, the CIA, and the intelligence community hoped for, assisted by their grants? Absolutely." Go to: for full article.

Quote; "Known as the ‘open government’ law, FACA requires that US government officials cannot hold closed-door or secret consultations with people outside government to develop policy. All such consultations should take place via federal advisory committees that permit public scrutiny. FACA requires that meetings be held in public, announced via the Federal Register, that advisory groups are registered with an office at the General Services Administration, among other requirements intended to maintain accountability to the public interest.
But Government Executive reported that “O’Neill and others believed” such regulatory issues “would quell the free flow of ideas and no-holds-barred discussions they sought.” Pentagon lawyers had warned that the word ‘group’ might necessitate certain obligations and advised running the whole thing privately: “So O’Neill renamed it the Highlands Forum and moved into the private sector to manage it as a consultant to the Pentagon.” The Pentagon Highlands Forum thus runs under the mantle of O’Neill’s ‘intellectual capital venture firm,’ ‘Highlands Group Inc.’"...
"“We funded Stanford University through the computer scientist Jeffrey Ullman, who had several promising graduate students working on many exciting areas,” Prof. Thuraisingham told me. “One of them was Sergey Brin, the founder of Google. The intelligence community’s MDDS program essentially provided Brin seed-funding, which was supplemented by many other sources, including the private sector.”
This sort of funding is certainly not unusual, and Sergey Brin’s being able to receive it by being a graduate student at Stanford appears to have been incidental. The Pentagon was all over computer science research at this time. But it illustrates how deeply entrenched the culture of Silicon Valley is in the values of the US intelligence community.
In an extraordinary document hosted by the website of the University of Texas, Thuraisingham recounts that from 1993 to 1999, “the Intelligence Community [IC] started a program called Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) that I was managing for the Intelligence Community when I was at the MITRE Corporation.” The program funded 15 research efforts at various universities, including Stanford. Its goal was developing “data management technologies to manage several terabytes to petabytes of data,” including for “query processing, transaction management, metadata management, storage management, and data integration.”"..
"Long before the appearance of Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Stanford University’s computer science department had a close working relationship with US military intelligence. A letter dated November 5th 1984 from the office of renowned artificial intelligence (AI) expert, Prof Edward Feigenbaum, addressed to Rick Steinheiser, gives the latter directions to Stanford’s Heuristic Programming Project, addressing Steinheiser as a member of the “AI Steering Committee.” A list of attendees at a contractor conference around that time, sponsored by the Pentagon’s Office of Naval Research (ONR), includes Steinheiser as a delegate under the designation “OPNAV Op-115” — which refers to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations’ program on operational readiness, which played a major role in advancing digital systems for the military."..
"In 2003, Google began customizing its search engine under special contract with the CIA for its Intelink Management Office, “overseeing top-secret, secret and sensitive but unclassified intranets for CIA and other IC agencies,” according to Homeland Security Today. That year, CIA funding was also being “quietly” funneled through the National Science Foundation to projects that might help create “new capabilities to combat terrorism through advanced technology.”"..
"In sum, many of Google’s most senior executives are affiliated with the Pentagon Highlands Forum, which throughout the period of Google’s growth over the last decade, has surfaced repeatedly as a connecting and convening force. The US intelligence community’s incubation of Google from inception occurred through a combination of direct sponsorship and informal networks of financial influence, themselves closely aligned with Pentagon interests." Go to: for full article by Nafeez Ahmed and link to pt.2.

No comments:

Post a Comment