Highly Respected Yesterday, Discredited today?

Updated: Mar 29, 2021

Dr Olle Johansson PhD, neuroscientist and head of Experimental Dermatology Unit, Karolisnka Institute, Sweden [pictured above] said:

“[We have] 1000s of published papers [on biological effects of EMFs] in the scientific literature, few of which, or sometimes none of which, have entered the official documentations from authorities and likewise, so I think it’s really time to have an independent compilation of data, such was done at August 31st 2007 in the form of the Bio-initiative report. We put together approximately 2000 scientific references on more than 600 pages clearly saying that, for instance, if you’re a rat or a mouse or a cell or a molecule you should definitely not allow yourself to be exposed to this, and in the meantime we have this full scale experiment using our own kids.”

Two scientists at Oxford discredited the Bio-initiative report and, along with it, all the scientists and doctors who contributed to it. This discrediting operation was financed by the Wellcome Trust. The Wellcome Trust was originally set up as a charity dedicated to independent research. In 1995 it merged to become part of GlaxoSmithKline.

GlaxoSmithKline has an interest in selling pharmaceuticals to sick people. It needs sick people. If people were well GlaxoSmithKline would not enjoy net profits of over £4billion.

Imagine how the world would be if people were just well, like the rest of the world’s wildlife. Wildlife do not produce cancers, get Altzheimers disease or need vaccines. We should be asking why humans do? What is it about our modern lives that makes us so susceptible to sicknesses of all kinds? We should overhaul our diet, what chemicals we are ingesting, look at how much the increasing electrosmog contributes to the toxic mix. Instead we have industry-paid scientists discrediting any scientist who makes a case against EMFs. They discredit the research and they try to discredit the scientists who speak about the research.

The National Toxicology Report (2019) found tumours in rats exposed to RF radiation. The peer review process was long, and the conclusions drawn was that there was a clear problem. Immediately industry scientists rushed to discredit the report.

The scientists answered what they called 'unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects'

Then they got angry and took the Federal Communications Commission of America (FCC) to court.

”The [FCC] has dismissed hundreds of scientific studies submitted to its inquiry on wireless radiation and the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others, without providing any rationale for doing so," said Devra Davis, Nobel Co-laureate, president of the Environmental Health Trust in America and a woman who refuses to get back in the box. Thank the Gods for her.

Dr Olle Johansson, a highly regarded neuroscientist, has had his funding cut twice since he started talking about EMF issues. He is not the only one.

Meanwhile Public Health England (PHE) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) say all is well (all is not well) there is nothing to worry about (then why are so many scientists worried?) British MPs, and our mainstream media point to those two bodies as having the last word on the issue. WHO/PHE findings are based on ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) guidelines. But do they really have our best interests at heart?

The Council of Europe, a human rights organisation, say the following about ICNIRP,

"it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields."

Dr Lennart Hardell made his own study into the WHO and ICNIRP.

He found a revolving door existed between the WHO, ICNIRP and other ‘independent’ regulatory bodies and the telecoms industry. Microwave News reported that ICNIRP’s original founder, Michael Repacholi later began working for the communications industry. It was found out that he was being paid by Motorola during his time at ICNIRP with funds being diverted through the WHO in what looked suspiciously like a bizarre money laundering operation.

If you Wikipedia Hardell's name you will find reports of his findings being discredited by John D. Boice Jr. and Joseph K. McLaughlin, two scientists whose own study into health effects of mobile phones was funded by Danish telecoms companies Unsurprisingly they found no links between mobile phone use and cancer.

Robert Becker, Ph.D Nobel Prize nominee, spent decades researching the effects of electromagnetic radiation. He said, “I have no doubt in my mind that, at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.” He was, of course, discredited and lost his funding. It takes men and women of immense courage to risk their careers. That alone should ring bells. Why are some of the world's leading scientists moved to speak despite knowing the consequences?

Abraham R. Liboff, PhD Research Professor Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida Co-Editor of Biology and Medicine says,

“The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.

"The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also in the radio frequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard (My italics).

"There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm. The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.”

Prof. Livio Giuliani, PhD Spokesperson on the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (, Deputy Director of the Italian National Institute for Worker Protection and Safety, East Venice and South Tyrol, and Professor at the School of Biochemistry of Camerino University, Italy helped to write "The Venice Resolution", initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) on June 6, 2008, and now signed by nearly 50 peer reviewed scientists worldwide. In it he states,

“We are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological.

"Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before. We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity. We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant exposure standards are developed.”

Long live these brave scientists who speak out against an ocean of hype and fake mainstream news. Now look at our mainstream news and decide for yourself who is telling the truth.

262 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All