Last year, in 2020, when virus pandemic was rapidly spreading all-over the world, equally well was spreading on social media another pandemic of posts linking virus spread and 5G technology spread.
Stories linking virus and 5G emitted radiation were, plainly, garbage.
I have written about this issue and I have condemned on BRHP some of the pseudo scientists that used virus pandemic to spread lies about 5G-emitted radiation.
The same condemnation of the baseless link between 5G-radiation and virus appeared in the mainstream news media.
However, while I was complaining from the standpoint of an independent scientist that spent 25 years of scientific life studying in wet-lab health effects of wireless radiation, the mainstream media was stimulated to write about this issue by the telecom umbrella organizations like Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF) and GSM Association (GSMA) The 5G and virus linking condemning stories, made by the mainstream news media, were then efficiently disseminated on social media like LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, and many others, by the MWF and GSMA.
This was, of course, good use of news media by telecom umbrella organizations.
However, there is no good activity by MWF and GSMA without, some dose of self-propaganda about the 5G. So, the articles condemning 5G and virus link were also full of praise how revolutionary, miraculous and super-duper technology 5G is and how irresponsible it is to try to slowdown deployment of 5G.
This way 5G industry got two birds with one shot – condemning falsehood on virus (good) and overexciting salesman pitch for 5G technology (not so good).
The “not so good” part refers to overblown accolades for 5G. Reading what is written and spoken about 5G one gets to know that it is sort of panacea for all humanity problems. 5G will help to achieve green-technology for the climate change. 5G will help to deliver clinical healthcare to the whole planet, no matter location. The same goes for industry and agriculture that will be made more efficient thanks to 5G. With 5G our businesses will thrive, and deliver not only what people need but will also pay lots of taxes that governments will use for the good of all humanity. And so on and so on. Virtually there is no part of our life on this planet that will not profit from 5G, and not only monetary profit in mind, even democracy will spread more efficiently with super-fast 5G.
However, some pesky people, including myself and my BRHP blog, dare to complain that 5G might not be such goodie for us.
Recently, David Zarnett’s story in Canadian MACLEAN*S news has very elegantly presented the major problems, and I mean MAJOR problems, with the 5G and earthy life. Story comes from Canada, but it applies to all of the world. The globally valid 5G problems were listed as:
- security of the networks, hugely expanded by the internet-of-things
- increase in electricity use causing that 5G might not be so green as claimed
- lack of knowledge whether any health problems will appear because sufficient research has not been done
- deployment of very dense 5G infrastructure, not only outdoors, as Zarnett wrote, but also indoors because some of the 5G frequencies (mm-waves) don’t penetrate walls of the buildings
As Zarnett concluded:
“…5G revolutionaries promise a lot, and perhaps they will deliver. But, in light of the technology’s track record and mounting evidence of its potential costs, there are good reasons to be wary. 5G raises a number of concerns that require concerted public and policymaker attention…”
We should be vigilant and ask a lot of questions from the telecom industry. However, asking these questions is made very difficult by the mainstream news media.
It is the “hidden in plain sight censorship”.
It is not the censorship of some sentences in the text before publication. Such censorship is not exercised because authors could openly complain and this would be not good public relations issue for the mainstream news media.
The hidden in plain sight censorship refers to simply common ignoring news stories that are negative for the 5G.
It is understandable that, following the 5G + virus hullabaloo, news media are wary of stories on 5G submitted by readership. However, there should be difference in treating stories from experts and non-experts. At least I thought so. How naïve of me.
I thought that the news media might be receptive for the opinion of expert, myself, who:
- did research on wireless radiation and health for the last 25 years (1996 – now)
- published peer-review studies that got attention of his peers
- worked in capacity of visiting professor at Harvard, Zhejiang and Swinburne
- was appointed to the group of 30 experts that in 2011 at IARC classified wireless radiation as possible carcinogen
- was invited and testified before Committee of the US Senate
- was invited and testified before a Committee of the Parliament of Canada
These few examples from my long CV (available on this blog site) demonstrated that I have extensive experience and it is valued and recognized by my peers, scientists and politicians.
So, I am expert, no matter what news media think and 5G is an important and globally valid technology that should be openly and thoroughly debated.
But not… I was apparently “wrong” in my opinion (sarcasm intended)…
Here are few examples of the “hidden in plain sight censorship” that I have personally experienced.
Finland, the land of Nokia, the current maker of 5G technology, should be interested in potential problems with 5G. But not in the Finnish news media.
Helsingin sanomat (HS)
I have written opinion on 5G and submitted it to the major newspaper in Finland, Helsingin sanomat. The polite response from one of the opinions editor was that at the time HS will not publish my text. I inquired whether the Finnish language of my text was too poor or whether the topic of 5G was unwanted. I did not receive any reply. Of course they might be too busy (again sarcasm intended). Similar experience I have had also earlier with HS.
Therefore, I have written to the three top editors of HS asking the same, is my story too lousily written or is the topic unwanted. They got my message but I did not get reply.
I have also, not a long time ago, inquired with the tiede (=science) section of Helsingin sanomat – either not interested or no reply at all.
Yle tiede – science section of Finland’s TV and Radio broadcaster
We are following each other on twitter. Using this opportunity I contacted @yletiede with proposal of doing story on 5G and health. There was some hope that it might happen as the person who responded was receptive, to some degree. However, weeks passed fast and the “receptive” person changed place of work and… the next @yletiede responding person was no more interested in 5G and health issue.
Clearly, no reply at all is the most convenient way to “respond” – no need to explain anything that could be later used against the newspaper or broadcaster. It is not direct censorship that influences submitted text but this is the censorship in plain sight that censors, without consequences, certain topics. In my case it was 5G and health.
I have also tried the international science news but was only once successful, and it was several years ago.
The Conversation is web publisher with, as they say “Academic rigour, journalistic flair”. It is published in different countries. I had contact with version in the UK and in Australia.
I was lucky to be able to publish my opinion in the UK version of The Conversation, science + technology section, on Aug. 8, 2016:
Do mobile phones give you brain cancer?
This story was read over 43000 times. However, as I was informed by the editor, he has made “exception” for my story. Namely, The Conversation is funded by different universities. Priority in publications have scientists from the supporting universities. At that time, in 2016, no university in Finland was part of The Conversation. Hence, my “exception”.
After that story I have suggested for the Australian version of The Conversation, opinion in response to opinion published by Rodney Croft and Sarah Loughran (among others). I did not get past the editor. I was outsider of The Conversation system. The same happened several times with UK version. No response and no interest on 5G or sensitivity to wireless radiation.
Here comes the censorship in plain sight by The Conversation. When scientists from the university sponsoring The Conversation write an opinion and it is published, scientist from the university outside of The Conversation circle is being unable to post competing opinion. No published other view opinion, no need to explain what and why. It is censorship in plain sight when opinion is easily rejected on technicality. In my case, of opinions on 5G or on sensitivity to EMF, the technicality was that I am not from the Conversation sponsoring university. Easy…
So, if anybody naïvely wonders why there are published so many stories in the mainstream news media about the miracle of 5G, do not wonder anymore.
This is because of the censorship in plain sight of 5G-critical opinions.
As society we have become blinded by the vision of miraculous eldorado and heaven on earth (sarcasm intended) that will be brought to humanity by the 5G of the wireless communications industry. We, as society, do not think that we are flying blind.
Anyone who contests the 5G becomes pariah.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Mr. Rabbit,
Your childish tantrum that you want your answer now is laughable. I have informed you that I am wrapping up research grant on EHS and am very busy because deadline is fast approaching. Therefore, I have not enough time to read and write response to your scientific claims.
So, I hope you understand what is ‘deadline approaching’. That you understand that to give scientifically based answer one needs time to read, think and write. Such time I do not have now and I do not intend to drop all that I am doing because Mr. Rabbit wishes his answer now.
As to censorship, aren’t your clever, and some not so clever, comments published on my website? Yes, they are. Right away. Right now.
So, please, behave as scientist and not as troll.
If you will be interested later of what I think about Fesenko’s work then, please, send me reminder in mid-March and I will respond because at that time my grant will be over and I will have time to write answer your question.
Good bye for now.
Dear me. You say “Fesenko I know and I am not excited” and then words to the effect “I am so very busy and important that I can’t be bothered saying WHY I am ‘not excited'”.
How is this any different from the censorship you spend so much time complaining about? It is certainly not the response of a good scientist.
Lastly, I have no time for debating your examples of science because I am finishing full-blown review of science on EHS. Deadline is approaching and my coming month is busy.
1. I didn’t attack you (why every activist when asked questions about education considers them as an attack?)
2. I newer said that biochemistry is my preferred science. You are making stories instead answering.
3. When I said that 5G+virus is garbage, I meant it.
4. Fesenko, I know and I am not excited.
Haaaahahaha!! There you go again 🙂 — attacking the person and refusing to address the science. No, I am not an amateur, although I have just the one PhD, and that in physiology, not your preferred biochemistry. If you no longer have access to a university library, I would be happy to send you the Fesenko et al. paper. It doesn’t appear to be possible to attach a document in this forum, so you would need to tell me how to do that.
I am asking of your background to know whether you have knowledge to understand studies you quoted. You being defensive means you are amateur. So I have 2 doctorates and worked as professor in prime universities like Harvard, Zhejiang, Swinburne. Tell me why I should waste my time to discuss with amateur. If you don’t then I will not waste my time. Good bye.
My professional background is irrelevant and your request for it is a prime example of the common human strategy of playing the man, not the ball. Which is exactly why reputable journals have lately made peer review double blind. Yes, David Carpenter is clearly an expert, and probably a wonderful guy. But has he actually read the Fesenko et al paper?
If he and/or you do read that paper and THEN choose to challenge the information in it, by all means do that and let’s have a proper scientific discussion. But arguments from authority have no place in science. As Carl Sagan put it, authorities have to prove their contentions like anyone else.
What is your professional background?
You may read his blog
Yes, there is definitely censorship — I am NOT a long-term expert in this field and even I have experienced it. But unfortunately, this censorship does not appear to be confined to the mainstream media and scientific journals run by RF boosters. I have zero social media membership at all, so I don’t know what has been said there about the relationship between coronavirus and 5G. However, I have to say I’m getting a bit sick of blanket statements from reputable scientists who DO have long-term expertise in this area to the effect that any relationship between the two is necessarily “garbage”. Here is some material suggesting there might indeed be such a relationship.
*************************
Publishe experiments on exposure of lab animals to mm or near-mm wave radiation
It is widely believed that no experimentation has been done on the biological effects of very high frequency microwaves – and indeed virtually none has been done in America. However, in the former Soviet Union, very high frequency microwaves have long been used in the immunotherapy of cancer (Logani et al 2011), so some studies of their effect on the immune system of lab animals have been done in Russia.
For example, Fesenko et al (1999) exposed male mice to whole-body irradiation with either 10 GHz continuous or 8.15-18 GHz swept radiation, at an average power density of 1 μW/cm^2 (actually 0.2–1.6 µW/cm^2, depending on location in the cage). This caused significant release of TNF (tumour necrosis factor) by the animals’ immune systems. In other words, the irradiation caused significant release of the major cytokine involved in producing inflammation and thereby destroying cells.
I tried to import Fesenko et al’s Figure 5 here, but was unable to do so. Their Figure 5 shows that the major increase in TNF release occurs after 5 hours of exposure to 10 GHz radiation; then there is a decrease in production, followed by a lesser, slow increase lasting 5 days – and then a complete decrease in the capacity for cellular immunity, with the cytotoxic abilities of macrophages becoming undetectable. This reduction in capacity lasts at least 7 days: the effect of longer lasting microwave exposure is unknown. Exposure to swept frequency radiation (8.15–18 GHz, 1µW/m^2) was even more effective in increasing TNF production by macrophages, which perhaps suggests that higher microwave frequencies are more effective at producing a ‘cytokine storm’ of inflammatory immune activity.
Further in vivo papers on the effects of high frequency, low intensity microwaves include two studies published only in Russian (Lushnikov et al 2001; Kolomytseva et al 2002). English-language summaries of these (Szmigielski 2013) report that :
• Lushnikov et al (2001) exposed male mice to 42 GHz radiation with a power density of 150 µW/cm^2 (0.015 µW/m^2), either once for 20 min or for 20 min a day for 5 or 20 days before immunization with an unspecified antigen, or for 20 min a day for 5 days after immunization – and measured the effects on the number of antibody forming cells in the spleen and thymus and the titer of antibodies. Repeated irradiation for 20 days before immunization reduced the number of immune cells in the spleen and thymus, but the other patterns of irradiation had no effect.
• Kolomytseva et al (2002) found that the phagocytic activity of neutrophils in mouse blood was reduced by about 50% within 2-3 hours after a single 20 min exposure to 42 GHz radiation at a power density of 150 µW/cm2 . This effect persisted for a day, then the phagocytic activity of the neutrophils returned to normal within 3 days. In mice exposed to the radiation for 5 days the number of leukocytes increased by 44%, mostly but not completely due to an increase in lymphocyte count. So apparently a burst of radiation briefly reduced the ability of neutrophils to carry out their assigned function of eating invaders, but continued exposure to the radiation resulted in an increase of neutrophil numbers – so the overall effect of prolonged irradiation may have been to increase immune function, as found with the lower frequency radiation studied by Fesenko et al (1999).
The message from these two studies seems to be that very high frequency microwaves (millimetre waves) do have direct effects on the immune system – but in ways that change over the course of a week or so. Basically, the immune system adapts to continued irradiation, in ways that are not a priori predictable and may or may not be beneficial to the animal.
More recently, Gapeyev et al (2008) find that low intensity mm waves cause an overall decrease in the inflammatory activity of macrophages and neutrophils in response to injection of the yeast antigen zymosan – which decrease is, however, strongly dependent on all of frequency, power and duration of exposure. With regard to frequency, some frequencies reduce the inflammation caused by injection of zymosan, while others do not, and this effect is quite narrowly frequency-dependent.
With regard to power and duration of exposure, the dependence on these was complex. A bell-shaped dependence of the anti-inflammatory effect on exposure duration was seen at a power density of 0.1 mW/cm^2, with the most effective duration of exposure being 20–40 min. However at a power density of 0.01 mW/cm^2 there was a linear dependence on exposure duration, with a significant effect appearing only after 2 hours of exposure.
In summary, mm waves demonstrably have catastrophic effects on the ability of the immune systems of lab animals to respond to challenges – either increasing the immune response to levels counterproductive to the organism, or reducing it to zero – and these effects are strongly dependent on both the precise frequency and the precise power density of radiation, and the duration of exposure.
So a fair summary of what little evidence there is on the effects of microwaves on the immune system is that all forms of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, but especially those employed in mm wave ‘5G’ technology cause
• large increases in the release of inflammatory cytokines from the immune cells underpinning cell-mediated immunity, but
• no change or a decrease in antibody production after an antigen challenge and
• a wide variety of reported effects on leukocytes.
Thus, the only thing that appears to be clear is that exposure to high frequency 5G radiation alone exactly mimics the lethal health effects currently being attributed to a coronavirus (Huang et al 2020).
Unfortunately, no reliable information is currently available about either:
(1) the geographic locations where and the switch-on times when mm-wave 5G technology has been deployed (the umbrella term ‘5G’ appears to be applied equally to the 3.5 GHz version of the technology) or
(2) what percentage of deaths reported in various locations are actually due to the acute respiratory syndrome first described in Wuhan (which includes a number of features consistent with the effects of a great increase in release of inflammatory cytokines – as Huang et al (2020) specifically put it, a ‘cytokine storm’) and what percentage might more reasonably be attributed to existing ‘underlying conditions’.
In the absence of such information, I would argue that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RULE OUT the hypothesis that many COVID-19 deaths are actually due not to a coronavirus, but to the onset of chronic irradiation by mm wave 5G technology. The only thing that is clearcut at this stage is that the widespread pronouncements by The Establishment that “there is no scrap of evidence for any effect of high frequency radiation on the immune system” are simply wrong. Yet again, the complaint that anti-5G activists are “spreading misinformation” is an egregious example of the pot calling the kettle black. What “there is no scrap of evidence for” is the pronouncement that 5G is harmless.
Let’s get real here, folks. Certainly, there absolutely needs to be research on the effects of the precise frequencies currently being “rolled out” in blithe disregard of the fact that nobody knows what they do to biology. But let’s not ignore the fact that there actually IS already at least a tiny bit of data which should give us serious pause.
References
Fesenko EE, Makar VR, Novoselova EG, Sadovnikov VB. (1999) Microwave and cellular immunity.
I. Effect of whole body microwave irradiation on tumor necrosis factor production in mouse cells. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 49:29–35.
Gapeyev AB, Mikhailik EN, Chemeris NK. (2008)Anti-inflammatory effects of low-intensity extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation: frequency and power dependence. Bioelectromagnetics 29(3):197-206.
Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu, Y, Zhang L, Fan G, Xu J, Gu X, Cheng Z, Yu, T, Xia J, Wei Y, Wu W, Xie X, Yin W, Li H, Liu M, Xiao Y, Gao H, Guo l, Xie J, Wang G, Jiang R, Gao Z, Jin Q, Wang J, Cao B (2020) Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. http://www.thelancet.com 395: Feb 15, 498 – 506.
Kolomytseva MP, Gapeev AB, Sadovnikov VB & Chemeris NK (2002) Suppression of nonspecific resistance of the body under the effect of extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation of low intensity [article in Russian]. Biofizika 47: 71-77.
Logani MK, Bhopale MK & Ziskin MC (2011) Millimeter wave and drug induced modulation of the immune system – application in cancer immunotherapy. Journal of Cell Science and Therapy S5:002. doi:10.4172/2157-7013.S5-002
Lushnikov KV, Gapeev AB, Sadovnikov VB & Cheremis NK (2001) Effect of extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation of low intensity on parameters of humoral immunity in healthy mice [article in Russian] Biofizika 46: 753-760.
Szmigielski S (2013) Reaction of the immune system to low level RF/MW exposures. Science of the Total Environment 454–455: 393–400
Pingback: *Censorship in pain sight* in Finland continues – Suomen Kuvalehti | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: Insightful comment from Carl Blackman | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Thank you for your persistence, Dariusz. I think it is important to have independent scientists in universities and government labs do some sensitive biological tests to determine if 5G radiation can alter biological processes, and follow up to determine if any changes are harmful to organisms. This is what NASA did when a manager was concerned that the increased presence of EMF fields in space vehicles that would circle the earth carrying astronauts; they had research done at the Brain Research Institute at UCLA to test reaction times after a warning light was energized. The concern was that humans might have slower responses in the large EMF inside the vehicle and not respond appropriately. In their case, it was found that the time between a warning light and the pressing of a button was not lengthen in the higher electric field environment, but rather that people responded more rapidly, compared to normal electric field environment. These results caused others to examine this phenomenon (including myself).
It would seem that with all the money that is going into this 5G development, some funds should be awarded to independent scientists to do tests to determine what if any biological changes might occur in humans, and/or animal surrogates, before the fields are placed into the human environment. This is such a simple thing to do as a logical precaution, that in concerns me that it hasn’t been done.
Thanks Casper. Sadly you are correct.
Good article. Unfortunately, as you may or may not know, you have only touched the tip of the iceberg of modern media censorship. This same type of media modus operandi extends to many other fields. The media has in essence become the silent marketing arm of multinational corporations in many fields of technology, science and also politics. Most articles that could hurt the bottom line profits of these companies, are not allowed to be published. Investigative journalists looking into (and being allowed to publish) inconvenient facts in the main stream new outlets is a rare thing indeed.
Interesting and enlightening article: What happens to Professor Leszczynski, happens to many researchers and scientists from different universities around the world, critical of 5G