The Wireless Industry and Media are War-Gaming 5G Critics

Media-wireless-industry-wargaming-silence-5G-critics

According to two separate reports on Louis Slesin’s highly regarded Microwave News website, it now appears that both the New York Times and Scientific American magazine may have irresponsibly misled their readers by allowing inaccurate and perhaps even biased reporting on 5G to appear in their publications.

According to Microwave News, in May of 2019, the New York Times attempted to discredit David Carpenter, who is not only a public health physician but the country’s most prominent 5G critic. Veteran science writer William Broad presented Carpenter as a willing tool of a disinformation campaign promoted by RT America, a TV network which he described as “the cat’s paw of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.” The page-one story ran under the headline, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You To Think Otherwise.”

Then, two months later, in July, Broad returned for yet another hit on Carpenter. This time, he was given most of the front page of the Times’ Tuesday science section to portray Carpenter as a fringe player working “hard to revise established science.” The trouble is that much of what Broad wrote was fiction. I’ve included a link to Microwave News’s article on Broad’s inaccurate reporting below this video so that you can read it for yourself.

And now, in another example of inaccurate and possibly biased reporting, Scientific American magazine has gone after Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D.

Moskowitz, based at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, runs the widely read blog Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. According to Microwave News, Moskowitz is one of the few other academics willing to state the obvious: that no one knows with any degree of certainty whether 5G is safe. This new attack, written by Irish physicist and science columnist David Grimes, calls Moskowitz a scaremonger and quotes various scientific sources to bolster its claims. However, it’s Grimes who gets the science all wrong. For example, he claims that the cancer findings of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) are nothing more than a “canard,” which is a fancy-sounding word that means an unfounded rumor or story. This is demonstrably false. While the strength of the link between cell phone radiation and cancer can be argued, it can’t be argued whether one was found.

It was.

The NTP concluded that its $30 million animal study found “clear evidence” of an association. Grimes calls this claim “profoundly misguided,” citing only an isolated blog post from May 2016 as his backup, which appeared two-and-a-half years before the final NTP report was even released.

Grimes is also wrong about the Interphone study. This 13-country epidemiological study also showed a link according to an expert panel convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. As a rebuttal, Grimes touts the Danish cohort study as a “most reliable” example of a study showing cell phones are safe, but, in fact, it is of dubious quality, again according to the IARC panel, as well as just about everyone who has read beyond the abstract. Also, radar radiation has not been exonerated from cancer risks, as Grimes would have us believe —his claim is based on a literature review by a group of industry consultants. Which of course means that they were completely unbiased, right?

In the end, there is currently no incontrovertible proof that 5G is ultimately safe or harmful. For the industry to be making statements that it is safe is, in my opinion, wildly irresponsible, because they are not only assuming without proof but are not heeding the well-established ALARA standard. Just because something has not been proven to be harmful doesn’t mean that it is safe. Thus the precautionary principle must be followed because it may be decades before we have any real, solid verification as to the extent of negative effects the 5G signal may have on human health.

Regrettably, and this is what you need to pay attention to, the mainstream media, most recently the New York Times and Scientific American, are taking part in this smear campaign against David Carpenter and  Joel Moskowitz to discredit the indisputable scientific studies to which they commonly refer to or have been contributors.  

When you look at the history of big industry in this country, it’s easy to see that there is seemingly no end to the misinformation they will spread, or to the amount of money they will spend to cover up any shady dealings. It also seems as if the media is always happy to provide the necessary spin.

The media’s relationship to the Wireless industry and the immense amount of money and influence it wields is of no real surprise.  

From the tobacco industry to Big Pharma and beyond, the landscape of American industry is littered with examples of the corruption and coverups that their greed has made necessary, as well as the so-called journalism that helped their efforts.

So until we know for sure, I recommend that you continue to use a system of protection to limit your exposure to all cell phone radiation, which includes using your phone’s speakerphone whenever you can, using air-tube headsets when speakerphone is not an option, and keeping your phone in an RF Safe radiation-protective case if the critical factor of distance cannot be achieved to mitigate your exposure to excessive cell phone radiation.

Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You Link:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html

A Fact-Free Hit on a 5G Critic Link:https://microwavenews.com/news-center/fact-free-hit-5g-critic

Microwave News Website:https://microwavenews.com/

National Toxicology Program Cancer Report:

https://www.rfsafe.com/clear-evidence-of-cancer-from-cell-phone-level-radiation-exposure-rf-safe-issues-holiday-shopping-warning-over/National

Toxicology Program Fact Sheet:

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf