Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Sunlight will kickstart a series of healthy natural RF in the earth. Apart from Solar RF.

Rife machine needs electricity to operate, so does the bioresonance machine. Electricity is always intrinsically bad. But the Rayonex machine doesn't use electricity so I think that would be the ethical one to use. Rayonex uses a series of orgonites and shungites, completely natural frequencies.

On second thought, you do need untainted control group because we were saying about how the FCC would ultimately want 'absolute material evidence' not only relative ones.

Yes, so you reserve a control group to establish a baseline and then expose the treatment group to additional RF. If damage scales with RF exposure, then the treatment group will show more damage. Does that makes sense?

Yeah, as my job. I never said that any of this stuff had anything to do with lasers. A coherent RF wave wouldn’t be a laser anyway. It would be a maser

Yes, the incoming radiation is (mostly) unpolarized, and subsequent interactions with the atmosphere produce polarized waves

I listen to the one that I think has the best evidence for their position. In this case, that’s the FCC. And the FCC is on your side here - they’re trying to prevent excessive RF exposure. Aren’t you happy about that?

Not really, no

That’s ironic. But natural electricity is fine, right? Like the aurorae and lightning and redox reactions and neural activity?

What are those?

Absolute material evidence would be evidence demonstrating a direct causal relationship between RF exposure and ROS generation. You don’t need to find an individual with no endogenous ROS or no RF exposure. Imagine a similar experiment where you are trying to determine if oxygen is responsible for a chemical reaction. You would not need to start by demonstrating that the reaction does not occur at 0% oxygen, although that would be convenient - you would just need to demonstrate that the reaction only proceeds when the % of oxygen increases

Impossible to reserve a control group as 100% of human beings are always reacting, mostly subliminally like you are as you write your post on your computer or phone to me, and the rest conscious hypersensitivity as was already found by experts and shown to you in the previous article. In true scientific fashion, there would be no baseline difference between any non-hypersensitive control group and hypersensitive one since all would present physiological changes in blanket fashion! So you need an untainted control subject unfortunately! How many times must I have said that already! You simply don't get it. The research has been done, and findings have been made, the experts have said it, the FCC is lying to you my friend!

Still polarized in all directions so that's why I say the net polarization is still unpolarized. Only the maser has a net polarization in one single direction because mirrors and reflectors are used to control the direction of emission.

You are right the FCC has the best evidence for their 'chosen position'. To change the position, it's simple, just change the evidence duh. You claim to understand theory of falsifiability yet tell me nonsense like FCC has monopoly over the truth. By the theory, FCC needs to be falsified and their evidence needs to be drastically watered down. Which organization isn't outwardly professing of its core values and ethos on paper? They need to present a front and appearance as that's basic public expectation. However being a political entity there is always dissonance between appearances and actual on the ground reality.

Yes natural electricity is generally fine except 'geopathic radiation stress' and solar flares. These are all geoelectric/geomagnetic disturbances which are bad for humans.

Orgonites/shungites are scalar devices. They transform bad energies and frequencies into good ones. Also known as harmonizers.

Well if you need true blue causal relationship of spatio-temporality, you need to be thorough. Which is you need to get as wide a temporal sample as possible and that necessarily means you need a 1600 untainted control subject. What we already have is that there is evidence for physiologic (not causal) relationship in all human beings bar none, to various degrees. For experts to say that there is enough evidence for this physiologic relattionship is no mean feat as you need quite disproportionate peer reviewed proof of that.

How about I just put it straight to your face?

The theory of falsification is so endemic and ubiquitous in indubitable manner that EVEN if say there is absolute zero % evidence or LACK OF one slightest doubt/hesitance of anthropogenic EMF being harmful to human health, YOU CAN AND SHALL still be safe to say in 100% manner with no doubt and hesitance that its harmful to human health. You would be safe to predict that in the future there will be at least 1 piece of evidence streaming in showing harm, perhaps not even evidence, just a tinge of doubt, a mere suspicion is all it takes. You don't need to undertake no scientific research.

But hey, we aren't talking only about 1 tinge of suspicion in EMF science, we are talking about 100 years of actual study and war against EMFs from millions and billions of people, except you it seems!

You sound too obviously bias in your favoring FCC science and scientific evidence. I pick that out a long time ago in a jiffy.

Can I ask you what were you thinking in your mind by 'theory of falsifiability'? Do you actually think you need at least 50.0001% of evidence on a balance of probabilities for the theory to stand or 0.000000000001%? Or 0% absolute for that matter? Cuz I study morals/ethics, kinda philosophy, and it says that given the illusory non-permanent nature of reality, you can 100% safely assume that a provenly safe theory in this very moment will always be unsafe in the future whether or not actual scientific evidence ever materializes. We only don't know when in the future this will happen, but the theory is always right, and right till the end of the time, so even there is no evidence of its unsafe-ness till the end of time, you CAN STILL SAY it's unsafe and not lose your integrity and honor!

This is what I have been driving at all along. Every theory is fallible even without the need for evidence because everything is illusion bar none. The evidence is just to whet your appetite and your ego! The evidence is more mental than substantial, it's for weak-minded folks to grip onto like handle so that they don't mentally implode and lose it! The mentally tough, especially the religious pastors or otherwise don't need no evidence for anything. Everything is FAITH-based for them because they understand the illusory and transient-ness of all space and time.

Ever heard of Max Planck? He once said that the study of science at its zenith is to ultimately invalidate it! All study of anything is ultimately to disapprove its very foundation. So basically you build a house/ship only to dismantle it at the end and exclaim "oh how empty, futile and grasping for the wind".

Our argument here is futile if you mess up the idea and meaning of 'theory of falsifiability' and impose your own ego and scientific appetite on it. Science is just the icing on the cake, you don't need no science to disprove anything because that thing will disprove itself in space and time. It's just the nature of things just as a man will ultimately die, you don't need to kill him. Nature will take its course!

Why does a control group have to be totally unexposed? If you were studying the effects of eating apples on human health, would you use a control group made of of people who had never eaten an apple?

If there is no baseline difference between the physiological changes of hypersensitives and non-hypersensitivies following RF exposure, then how do you distinguish one group as hypersensitive? Isn't hypersensitivity defined by an unusually intense response to RF exposure?

Yes, that's correct. However, I did not compare anything to a laser or a maser

Could similar claims be made about the sources you post?

So lightning is fine? As a radio engineer, you must be aware that lightning generates intense polarized RF

Can you explain how they work? I'm not familiar with this kind of thing

You're the one who keeps going on about falsifiability, not me. I haven't attempted to show that anything is false. I am not disagreeing with the findings of the sources you've posted - I disagree with the experiment designs and the conclusions. My point all along has been that the sources you post have failed to isolate a causal link between RF and biological harm from either a theoretical or experimental perspective

What about your theory that healthy solar RF is beneficial? Will that theory be unsafe in in the future?

Even your own arguments?

If you have faith that you're right, why even debate?

Can you give me that full quote? Yes, the point of the scientific method is to improve the predictive power of our theories, and it works by invaliding old verisons of itself with the goal of providing a perfectly predictive final version. It sounds like you do not think there can be a perfectly predictive version though - so why try at all?

Again - if you truly believe this, why are you trying to convince me of anything at all? Your argument undermines itself

If there is no baseline difference between the physiological changes of hypersensitives and non-hypersensitivies following RF exposure, then how do you distinguish one group as hypersensitive? Isn't hypersensitivity defined by an unusually intense response to RF exposure?

How about I put this straight to you-----a hypersensitive population can demonstrate every other biologic or otherwise changes not related or vague related to physiologic because EHS is a well-known multi-system head to toe kinda condition. Would that make some sense to you now? Now hopefully it's self-explanatory. That was why I was saying a provocation direct test using double-blind methods is the best holistic way to tell a hypersensitive one from another. And only a 100% test score suffices for proving one's hypersensitivity. There can not be a single mistake such as found here in this famous test. HERE

Why does a control group have to be totally unexposed? If you were studying the effects of eating apples on human health, would you use a control group made of of people who had never eaten an apple?

Yes I would, given that it's a traditionally elusive quantum mechanical flavoured condition where relationships are highly quantized, microscopic and non-linear, I would not want to take any risks with no using an untainted control group. It's not limited to me though, many other expert EMF scientists have said and want the same thing too.

Again - if you truly believe this, why are you trying to convince me of anything at all? Your argument undermines itself

Everything is yin and yang, positive and negative, both illusions of the same argument. All these undermining serves to illustrate that all endeavor on earth is fruitless, both the one promoting and the one anti-promoting so that the final glory be given to the Almighty God of the heavens. Don't you get it? I've been trying to push you, with all these undermining of both you and myself at the same time, towards the bigger picture that of which is God Himself duh! Now don't be shocked that I as a scientist/engineer would say such a thing because I know something you don't and backed by some of the more illustrious ones in history such as Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, James Clerk Maxwell----all of whom were deeply spiritual intellectuals

No, that statement makes no sense, and it doesn't address what any of the physiological differences actually are

Let's imagine a test where we study the ROS generated in human T cells by exposure to RF. Let's use the RF generated by a standard 5G smartphone, e.g. constant 100GHz signal at 200mW, 0.01m from the target, for 24hr. Place the cell suspension at the chosen location and leave it there to be exposed to RF for the duration of the experiment. Leave an identical control group in a faraday cage in another part of the building. Monitor RF intensity across the spectrum at both locations for the duration of the experiment to get an idea of baseline SAR. After the experiment, immediately process the samples and look for ROS. There are many different assays you could use to look for ROS, but let's use a fluorescence probe which enters a light state after reacting with ROS, since that's easy and cheap and allows us to get a readout via confocal microscopy. After the experiment is done, you're left with some data - specifically, you have a large matrix of fluorescence values, each associated with a cell. You'd do a statistical analysis to see if the RF-exposed cells showed more fluorescence than the non-exposed cells. Regardless of whether or not the control group has ever been exposed to RF or not, this test would reveal the additional oxidative stress caused by additional RF. This is exactly the type of test that was done in many of the papers you yourself cited, including Simko et al 2019

Simko et al 2019 nor any of the other papers you posted present an "untainted" sample. Yet you say that this type of test is not accurate? So are the sources you posted not accurate either?

Sure, but they saw science as a way to deepen their understanding of divine creation, not as a fruitless and useless endeavor. Also, unlike you, they actually understood what they were talking about

Can we get back to the issue of polarized vs nonpolarized light? I'm really interested in your claim that polarization is the key to the harmful nonthermal effects of RF. Can you elaborate on that a little more? I'm wondering what exactly it is about polarization that generates ROS. It seems to me that polarization would only affect a molecule during the brief period that its radiation cross-section lines up with the polarization of the wave - thus, you could study the effect as an anisotropic phenomenon. Do you agree?

Look you are not stupid. You said you have read most of the citations and publications I send you but yet cannot come to any understanding that the various laboratories and scientists couldn't come to any consistent readings in physiologic or other biologic markers or indicators of hypersensitivity. This is say all these different labs and scientists all got measurement values that don't tally up with each other. The FCC read this inconsistency as 'bad evidence', but the higher IQ scientists read these as evidence consistent with EMF health phenomena as there being a wide spectrum of differing degrees of physiologic response. The physiologic response are well known to be related to NADPH, calcium flux channel, ATP synthesis, insulin resistance, palpitation and cardiac related issues, red blood cell deformation and deoxygenation and so many. You aren't reading enough.

And what were the findings of those who peer-reviewed Simko? Didn't they say that they weren't statistically significant enough? Or if they were statistically significant enough they manage to find a way to pass off these ROS generation as manageable by the body and pose no serious damage in the long and short term with no evidence to support their claim. And they slap you with the usual retort "more evidence is still needed" LOL! And that is why I say you still need an untainted control group to put these guys to rest forever! Once you do the experiment and get criticized from all quarters will you understand where I'm coming from. You just don't know the 'game' that they play. They want irrefutable hence impossible evidence! That's how it is up there! You have ways to learn.......

Wait, why are you firing shots at me now? Weren't you the one who previously said the human body definitely has robust systems to deal with ROS so it's not something for you to worry at all, as you had assumed?! But you are right now changing your principle and saying that Simko et al 2019 and others did post accurate tests showing relationship between ROS numbers and biologic or physiologic decline? Are you testing me or something? What are you asking me about if you already know the answers to them then? If you already found evidence that there can be physiologic differences with ROS numbers then I'm happy for you but I thought that wasn't your main concern since you were more concerned with whether those physiologic differences are significant not only statistically but in terms of actual manifested human health issues and diseases. Even if we all know ROS increase leads to physiologic decline the question really would be whether it's a cause for concern. Somebody carrying a gun in his bag doesn't mean he is a murderer ya know? So having high ROS in your body also doesn't mean you are hypersensitive you know? So ROS alone is not enough indicator for hypersensitivity. Instead, I do repeat for the umpteenth time that the real experiments you wanna look at isn't Simko et al but William J Rea et al 1991 where he beams 0-100Hz EMF at true EHS subjects double blind and they all passed the test and correctly differentiated the sham from the real source! Only this one is 100% for eternity. Simko et al's test aren't! Theirs ain't in vivo too!

They saw science as a way of futility or as circle looped back upon itself. They spent an entire lifetime trying to deepen their understanding of something only to find out that there was nothing deeply spiritually satisfying inside this something! That's the right outcome, btw! It should loop back to null or zero. If you found a scientist in any part of this earth today who deepened their understanding of some subject matter to the extent that he found something that could independently satisfy or satiate his thirst for the subject without regard to its null/zero source that of which is obviously God, then this scientist is 1) probably working for the FCC or you, and 2) eternally deceived!

Polarization is information and information vector that don't belong to Mother Nature, simple as that! All modern wireless communication all use polarized RF precisely because it can't do the opposite which doesn't carry or encode any information. Yes, polarization will stress and strain the body or cell in a way that therefore changes the natural healthy information exchange intercellular and intracellular hence also change their behaviors. Also it's not only about polarization per se but the consequences of polarization working in tandem with coherence of wave which leads to wave amplification effect to many times that of other non-polarized and non-coherent ones. This amplification (peak) effect then harms the cell the most. I don't think anisotropic and isotropic can be used interchangeably with polarized or non-polarized.

Would you two please start a separate RF thread, this TDLR-pong is not going to help solve the mystery of the Earth's shape. Thanks

I still support freedom of speech regardless how outlandish and how ridiculous the claims are. Nowadays, people seem to end discussions and debates with name calling such as Anti-Vaxxers, Conspiracy Theorists while at the same time embracing the idea that Men can be Women by Pharma Drugs. It is weird that those who proclaim "Its Science" think merely having discussions is misinformation and should be silenced.

I'm fine with an RF thread within a flat-earth's one. They both have things in common such as being highly disparaged and controversial subjects with lots of fierce argument and wars surrounding them! But in the end God is above all these.

That's because there are no consistent readings. You yourself said that there are multiple different protocols for assessing EHS and that they cannot be compared to one another

As most scientists would, yes

Yet they haven't managed to describe or predict it, which makes the diagnosis useless

You can't just name a bunch of scientific terms and expect your theory to be useful. How does RF affect each of these parameters? Let's take the CA++ channel as an example. How does RF interact with a given calcium channel protein? Does it alter conformation of the protein? Does it alter activity of the protein? Why does the effect that RF has on the protein lead to negative health outcomes? Has the effect been demonstrated in vivo or in vitro? Does modification or mutation of the channel protein affect how it interacts with RF? Does siRNA knockdown of the protein reduce the effects of RF on the cell? These are all questions that I would expect a researcher who is interested in the effects of RF on cells to answer readily. They can be answered with easy experiments that use conventional methods of inquiry - it's not like I'm asking these researchers to break any new ground here. A single PhD student could churn out a dozen papers on this topic in a year or two

Let's find out:

My interpretation of these results is that they did observe ROS production, but there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the ROS production is non-endogenous or that ROS production is linked to loss of motility. The authors themselves state that there is endogenous ROS production as well as endogenous antioxidant function. Unfortunately they do not offer specific mechanistic hypothesis about how RF interacts with them apart from calling it "disruption". I'm also concerned that the sample handling may have caused the ROS production by itself, since they indicate that a relationship between sample temperature and ROS production has been observed in other studies - and if the RF exposure has thermal effects on the sample, maybe that's why they see RF exposure causing ROS production. By itself, this data is certainly interesting, but I don't think it's proof that RF is killing us all

It doesn't have to be irrefutable, it just has to be reproducible

Correct, and Simko et al 2019 explicitly acknowleges this

Like I said earlier - I am not disagreeing with the accuracy or quality of their data (well, maybe a little, but not generally). I am disagreeing with their interpretation

To see if you know what you're talking about

Yes, I agree

You are arguing the opposite though. You are claiming that the symptoms of EHS are correlated with or caused by high ROS due to RF exposure. Your argument is that overly-high ROS generation is a symptom of RF interacting with the physiology of EHS sufferers in a unique way

100Hz huh? I'd love to see the size of that antenna!

So natural sources cannot produce polarized EM waves? That's a strange and incorrect claim. For instance - a solution of any chiral molecule in water can polarize visible light. Can you explain to me what you think polarization is?

Nonpolarized waves are perfectly capable of encoding information. The information content of an RF signal has little or nothing to do with the polarization of the wave

How so?

If anything, polarization would reduce the chances of two waves cohering constructively, not increase it.

Certainly they cannot, and I didn't claim that they could. Polarization is a subset of anisotropic phenomena

Yes there are multiple protocols with some slight similarities to each other as they aim to diagnose EHS holistically. So different in ways but sometimes the same in other ways. It's always a mixed bag.

Most scientists? Don't speak for them like they owe it to you! If you can back yourself up with 100 scientists, which I"m sure you will and you can, let me assure you the opposite as well, I can and sure will back myself up with equal number if not more scientists who would say it's not bad evidence! It's good rather. Did you forget the scientific ethic? Always be overcritical than undercritical, overcautious and overprudent than underprudent?! Why are you so freely giving your pledge away like that?

Oh so you now you pledge so quickly that they haven't managed to describe or predict it yet fail to mention that your set of FCC scientists haven't also managed to prove its safe-ness? Bad evidence isn't equal to safe-ness and you know it! Why can't bad evidence be attributed to willful ignorance to the actually good enough evidence? it's all relative here, if you think I'm making relative statements then aren't you undermining yourself too when you say that about me since you can also only make relative statements about space-time just like me??

Sorry I didn't mean to refer to calcium channel protein at all. I refer to voltage gated calcium channels. I refer to the channel gate and not the channel protein. But if you rather want to know which other proteins RF directly interacts with check out Henry Lai the Washington State University EMF genius who precisely does a lot of scrutiny on biologic parameters of hypersensitivity. In particular RBC protein. Affects everything the shape, the size, the volume, the resistance, both in vivo and in vitro proven effects. Leads to hypoxia, ischemia in vivo.

Sorry but I read it differently, it PROVES that there are actual causes of concern for reproductive health decline in men and women in modern cities with sperm rates dropping 50 percent from the 1960s till present day and dropping further still. The same in decline of ovules in women also another 50 percent drop. But not enough proof yet for other types of biologic effects such as for immune cells, neuronal and glion cell, skin cells and many more, at least for this paper.

Yes I know it just has to be reproducible but I'm not questioning that instead I'm questioning the unscientific ways of the FCC as wanting now from us absolutely irrefutable proof without prejudice to you! it's not you, it's them!

There are as many interpretations of EMF harm as the number of elements in the visible universe!

Yes since there is a spectrum for hypersensitivity, and multi-system, and individualized, then a high amount of ROS generation can correlate with EHS due to RF. Why not? If there are as many interpretations of EMF harm as there are elements in the visible universe then why can't there be at least 1 single hypersensitive human being on earth today who engendered high ROS production?

I said 0-100Hz EMF, not RF. Meaning static magnetic fields of the power grid imitated and modulated from 0-100Hz. Maybe you should try this experiment yourself, it would be fun to go under the circuit. I'm sure you will fail the test as you are not hypersensitive like some others. As i always say, this is the only test in the world, and just 1 of them is enough, to put to rest all the doubts you and FCC ever had about EMF harms!

Yeah and so polarized visible light is harmful to your eyes right? While you may think this may mean a blanket ban on Mother Nature you would be greatly remiss to omit that artificially polarized man-made sources are produced in far greater ubiquity, quantity and variations/types than Mother Nature ever did hence far more harmful and bad for health than the latter. By this relative comparison do I say that polarization is greatly monopolized by mankind and his man-made fancies hence as good as do not belong to Mother Nature!

Um no, I wasn't referring to information content of an RF wave or signal, instead I'm referring to the polarized waves being information content for the human biology hence transducing of harmful health effects cumulatively.

Polarization can intensity RF effects at different space-time intervals in a time-varying manner. Of course it can also cancel them out. It's both! It does both increasing and decreasing.

I'm treating the data you're presenting exactly the same way my colleagues and I treat each other's data. I know what typical scientific criticism looks like

All calcium channels are proteins, and most calcium channel proteins are voltage-gated. There is no such thing as "RBC protein" - red blood cells contain many different proteins. Can you describe how RF causes hypoxia or ischemia? What component of the red blood cell does it affect?

It does not prove that. It does show an association between RF and ROS in sperm, but it does not demonstrate a causal mechanism nor does it isolate RF as the sole possible cause. Also, the claim that ROS impact reproductive health is outside the scope of this paper, because none of the samples were assessed for reproductive ability. And of course the paper does not have anything to say about ova, immune cells, etc. None of those are addressed in that paper

So roughly 118?

There could be, but I don't see strong evidence that there is. What are some physiological characteristics of EHS individuals?

They are the same thing. An EMF (electromagnetic field) oscillating at 0-100Hz would produce RF (radiofrequency waves) with a period of 0-100Hz. Such waves would be considered to be ELF or SLF (extremely low frequency or super low frequency) radiofrequency waves. To be fair, I guess you would not technically need an immense antenna to generate RF in the 100Hz range, although the amount of 100Hz radiation you could generate with a shorter antenna would be very very tiny. And, of course, you'd need an immense antenna to pick it up with any appreciable efficiency. There is no indication that these types of waves can interact with organisms at all. The radiation you are so concerned about - e.g. cell phone towers - operate using waves that oscillate a million times faster than ELF waves

No, polarized light isn't any more harmful to your eyes than any other kind of light

Can you describe this in more detail? What information is delivered to "human biology" via RF, and why does polarized radiation affect it while nonpolarized radiation does not?

Okay, but can you define polarization specifically?

Same thing, I might not be a flat-out EMF scientist but I know how scientists on my opposing camp treat each other's data too. They will definitely be satisfied with the 'bad' evidence as 'good' instead! They would know how to criticize your FCC too. Otherwise how in the world did FCC end up losing a lawsuit on 5G/4G/3G/2G/WiFi or EMF in general? Shows you that you don't need a causative mechanism to win in court! You just need a big number of people in one accord filing the lawsuit, top EMF scientists from the opposing camp, and you are good to go.

RBC protein = hemoglobin. RF causes the blood to change its behavior (Rouleaux effects) over time with exposure. Mechanism can be via ROS production again which activates autoimmunity pathways and cause uncontrolled inflammation not only in blood but also in heart and brain. If it's in the brain, good luck, your BBB opens and you get brain damage and neurodegenerative diseases, also possibly stroke and many others. No oxygen, loads of ROS, you get hypoxia!

Yes it does prove that, because I say so duh! I will make the exception that only in the realm of EMF science do the standard scientific rules don't fully apply! A correlation, however vague and weak is virtual 100% causative physical proof, don't you understand? You are too narrow-minded like a one track pony! Gotta apply heuristics, instincts, and inductive learning here. Throw out that useless deductive nonsense! Why do you need a paper to assess reproductive ability for you to be sure impacts on sperm by RF is translated as such? Science in EMF just doesn't work the way it does in other areas of science.

Yes 118 or whatever you like.

You are in self-denial here regarding high ROS and EHS. Characteristics? Chronic low-to-high grade inflammation and lack of sleep and lack of concentration. Also Chronic gut, cardiac, CNS issues....

I wasn't talking about using an antenna to pick up 100Hz. The human body is the antenna in and of itself. William J Rea did the experiment and let me fish it out for you as I can't seem to find the research to show you that whatever you think is impossible is possible. The human brain and body is more intelligent than you think. The human being himself/herself is the most advance scientific marvel ahead of the evidence. It's always been the case. Feats of human achievement always staggers miles ahead of its proof of theory. Being able to differentiate a sham from a true source is precisely such a human achievement btw!

It depends on the intensity of the polarized light. Nah I think you absolutely do know what polarization defines as! Any thing that has frequency, energy or vibration automatically transduces something in any living biology and by default this is 'information'.

Next, take a look at table 4 too. That's where your 1-100Hz static magnetic field via a solenoid emission is used to test the authentic EHS subjects. As you can see, different frequencies engender different biological effects and symptoms.

Oh did you know what the FCC said or did about William J Rea after this shocking experiment in 1991? They were so embarrassed that they had to terminate his medical career and license lol. How woeful that FCC? Of course William J Rea fought back and regained his career but the FCC wouldn't be so riled up if it weren't true that EMFs could both cause very bad damage to human health, and, also cause EHS! William J Rea was thus like the Edward Snowden of the CIA, a person who told the truth and paid the price with his life or career. That's just how it is, you gotta be willing to die for the truth to win it!

Question for you is are you ready to take a stand and die for it?! Are you courageous enough?

Oh btw ever heard of Sir Austin Bradford Hill? Never? I suggest you tap on my unmatched knowledge of biologically harmful EMF health effects on this forum and go google it right now! I quote him for you:

"Dr Bradford Hill's comments on "biological plausibility" or "biological mechanism" place
them at the lowest priority. He states:

"It will be helpful if the causation we suspect is biologically (physically) plausible. But it is a feature I am convinced we cannot demand. What is biologically (physically) plausible depends on the biological (physical) knowledge of the day".

The absence of a detailed step by step biological (physical) mechanism is not a limitation on classifying EMFs, such as radiofrequency, as carcinogens."

Btw if you didn't already know, Sir Austin Bradford Hill is well known among the western world during the cold war era as 'The Sherlock Holmes of Cause-and-Effect'! What this epithet really means is that he had developed an uncannily good theory on how much evidence, what type of evidence, nature of evidence is needed before a causal relationship between any 2 elements can be established. People were lining up literally at his doorstep and presenting all their moral dilemmas for him to crack and solve, and, crack and solve them he did with aplomb! He was the one who singlehandedly ordered that tobacco smoke and lung cancer were indeed causally related, and the same to order that EMFs and cancer or health issues also as well.

So my question put to you is this: are you one-tenth anywhere near the prestige and reputation of the world's greatest causal analyst Sir Austin Bradford Hill for me to believe you? They even knighted him 'Sir' like 'Sir Mo Farah' because he was that good at such analysis. I'm not saying I'm also as good as him at making causal analyses but at least I'm not pretentiously disparaging and discrediting, like you, that anthropogenic EMFs severely harm even normal healthy folks like you, much less CHILDREN, ELDERLY FOLK, and CANCER PATIENTS, THE ILL IN GENERAL AND THE EHS!

Think about it and try not to return a reply unless you only absolutely agree with Sir Austin Bradford Hill your talisman and lucky charm!

Pretty sure Khamis and valjean are the same person.