Search

 

Undoing the Real Cancer: President Trump’s Call, the NTP Research Crisis, and Our Collective Fight Against Deadly Disease

Trump’s Executive Order and the “Cancer” from the Biden Administration

On a day that was meant to usher in yet another shift in American leadership, President Donald Trump made a striking remark during his swearing-in ceremony, referring to the so-called “cancer” caused by the previous administration—the Biden administration. In a short but telling exchange, he declared his intent to remove this “cancer” through executive orders aimed at reforming the federal workforce and revisiting policies that had been set in motion by the preceding White House. While the President’s words initially targeted bureaucratic issues, they have also revived a deeper conversation around another form of “cancer”—one far more literal and life-threatening.

As the inauguration ceremony concluded, a single, pressing question emerged: What is the true “cancer” that needs undoing? Among various criticisms leveled against the Biden administration, one stands out for its immediate public health implications: the decision to effectively end a crucial National Toxicology Program (NTP) research endeavor that allegedly found clear evidence linking cell phone radiation to certain types of cancer. According to many experts and activists, this move halted what might have been one of the world’s most important cancer research initiatives.

In this blog post, we will delve into the details surrounding these claims. We will examine the transcript of President Trump’s remarks, explore the background and implications of ending the NTP study, recount tragic cases of prominent American figures who succumbed to glioblastoma (GBM), and shed light on the overwhelming evidence suggesting that radiofrequency (RF) radiation—particularly from cell phones—can pose a genuine cancer risk. Ultimately, we will issue a clarion call to the current administration to restore critical cancer research programs, update outdated Federal Communications Commission (FCC) safety guidelines, and ensure that public health takes precedence over profit and convenience.

Whether you are a health-conscious consumer, a parent concerned for your children’s well-being, or simply an individual vested in scientific truth and policy transparency, the story that follows should command your attention. If President Trump seeks to undo the “real” cancer caused by the last administration, then he must address, as a matter of urgency, the potential health risks left unexamined in the wake of the NTP’s defunding—and reinstate robust research that might help protect millions of people from preventable cancers in the years to come.

Although his response transitions to an entirely different geopolitical topic (the Gaza ceasefire), the phrase “getting rid of all of the cancer … the cancer caused by the Biden Administration” resonated immediately, not just in bureaucratic contexts but also in matters of literal cancer research. Over the last several years, rumors and reports have circulated about how critical cancer research projects were left to languish under the Biden presidency—particularly after “clear evidence” of a carcinogenic link between cell phone radiation and malignancies such as glioblastoma (GBM).

The question looms: Could the “cancer caused by the Biden administration” also refer to the detrimental effects of ending pivotal health research? In a political climate where the phrase “cancer moonshot” has been used to evoke hope and progress, how does one reconcile the termination of a study that might have life-saving implications for millions of Americans—and indeed, for billions worldwide?


Biden’s “Cancer Moonshot” vs. The End of the NTP Cancer Research Program

A Grand Promise, A Disappointing Turn

On the surface, President Biden’s announcement of the “Cancer Moonshot”—accompanied by the distribution of $150 million in grants—seemed to herald a new era of medical breakthroughs. Cancer remains one of humanity’s most devastating diseases, and any efforts to eradicate or mitigate it should be universally applauded. However, critics argue that this initiative amounted to little more than a red herring.

Why? Because the same administration also terminated critical research by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which had produced some of the strongest evidence yet of a connection between cell phone radiation and cancer. In the words of many researchers and watchdog groups, halting this research after finding such evidence is eerily akin to discovering that smoking causes lung cancer—and then immediately ceasing all further investigation.

NTP Findings: Clear Evidence of Carcinogenesis

The NTP’s multi-year studies were groundbreaking for their scale and scientific rigor. They involved exposing rats and mice to radiofrequency (RF) radiation under controlled conditions, mirroring the frequencies and modulations people encounter through ubiquitous wireless devices. Their peer-reviewed findings pointed to “clear evidence” linking this type of radiation to the development of rare heart tumors (schwannomas) and brain tumors (gliomas) in animals.

Although rat and mouse studies do not map perfectly onto human health outcomes, they have historically served as strong indicators of potential carcinogenic or toxic risks. Indeed, many substances labeled carcinogenic to humans—like certain chemicals or tobacco products—were first identified via animal studies.

A Personal Connection: Beau Biden’s Glioblastoma

Joseph “Beau” Biden III, the 46th President’s son, tragically died from glioblastoma in 2015. GBM is one of the most aggressive forms of brain cancer, often resistant to standard treatments like surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Some scientists posit that Beau Biden’s frequent use of cell phones—on the same side where his tumor developed—could have increased his risk.

While causation is far from definitively established, the correlation raises uncomfortable questions. Why would an administration led by a president who lost his son to brain cancer end a study that found a potential link between cell phone radiation and malignant tumors—particularly glioblastomas? This apparent contradiction has deepened public concern and fueled calls for the immediate restoration of NTP funding.

Connecting the Dots: Policy vs. Public Health

On the policy side, this move represents more than a quizzical defunding decision; it suggests a troubling trend of ignoring scientific evidence that might inconvenience powerful industries. Wireless communications technology drives economic growth, fosters national security infrastructure, and shapes daily life for billions of people. However, unrestrained technological advancement—without updated, science-based guidelines—can pose real public health challenges.

President Trump’s vow to “remove the cancer” implies a mandate to reverse any policies that might ignore or suppress crucial scientific findings. If the administration is sincere in this commitment, reinstating NTP research would be a pivotal first step.


The Real Cancer: Why Ending This Research Poses a Grave Threat

Surging Rates of Glioblastoma

In medical journals and public health data sets across the globe, an alarming trend has been noted over the last few decades: glioblastoma rates are on the rise. Research from England, the Netherlands, and the United States suggests increasing GBM incidence in frontal and temporal regions of the brain—precisely those areas most exposed to radiofrequency radiation during cell phone use.

Meanwhile, rates of lower-grade brain tumors have shown a relative decline, creating a statistical “mask” for GBM increases. Essentially, if one lumps all brain tumors together, the uptick in deadly glioblastomas can be obscured by decreases in other tumor types. But when scientists look carefully at the types of brain tumors, glioblastomas have become a more prominent fraction of cases, spurring debate about environmental risk factors—including RF radiation.

High-Profile Cases Underscoring the Concern

Tragedies in the political sphere provide further anecdotal evidence, though not conclusive proof, of potential environmental contributors:

  • Senator John McCain passed away from GBM on August 25, 2018. McCain was known to frequently hold his phone to his left ear; ironically, his tumor developed on the same side.
  • Senator Edward M. Kennedy died from GBM on August 25, 2009, also using a phone extensively.
  • Beau Biden, as already noted, succumbed in 2015 to the same form of cancer. Like Kennedy, he reportedly favored phone use on the side where his GBM ultimately emerged.

Though the public cannot ascertain individual lifestyle or genetic factors in these cases with certainty, the coincidence of high-frequency cell phone use, laterality of tumor development, and the specific cancer type (GBM) is cause for deeper investigation. The halting of the NTP research effectively denies us further clarity on such correlations.

Beyond Brain Tumors: The Non-Thermal Effects

A common assumption about radiofrequency radiation is that its only potential harm is heating tissue—often referred to as the “thermal effect.” However, an expanding body of research, including the NTP and Ramazzini Institute findings, indicates “non-thermal effects” can disrupt cellular function, break DNA strands, create oxidative stress, and influence neurological well-being.

  • DNA Damage: Studies have documented DNA strand breaks in cells exposed to RF levels below what is deemed safe by outdated FCC standards.
  • Oxidative Stress: Chronic exposure can lead to an overproduction of free radicals, damaging cells and potentially triggering oncogenic pathways.
  • Neurological Impact: Some people report symptoms such as headaches, memory issues, and even sleep disturbances with high or prolonged wireless exposure.

Given these findings, cutting research funding short after “clear evidence” emerges is tantamount to shutting our eyes and ears right when the scientific pursuit grows most urgent.


The FCC’s Outdated Safety Guidelines: A Critical Bottleneck

Why 1996 Standards Are No Longer Adequate

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established its radiofrequency exposure guidelines in 1996—a time when the most advanced mobile phones were rudimentary, used primarily for calls or text messages. Today, smartphones are minicomputers, streaming high volumes of data over 3G, 4G, or 5G networks, with constant connectivity. Our living spaces are often saturated with Wi-Fi signals, Bluetooth devices, and other wireless technologies.

Yet, the regulatory framework remains largely unchanged, focusing on thermal exposure limits. This approach ignores the mounting evidence of non-thermal biological effects, such as genetic damage and cellular stress responses. This glaring regulatory gap has led the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and other organizations to file lawsuits aimed at forcing the FCC to modernize its guidelines. Indeed, in August 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC had failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” that its 1996 guidelines were safe in light of current scientific data.

Children: The Most Vulnerable Population

Children’s thinner skulls, rapidly dividing cells, and longer lifetime exposure make them uniquely susceptible to potential risks. Research shows that RF radiation can penetrate deeper into a child’s brain compared to an adult’s. Many scientists warn that a child regularly using a cell phone from a young age faces an increased lifetime cumulative exposure, which could influence their cancer risk profile over time.

The Implications of Doing Nothing

If these outdated guidelines remain unchallenged and un-updated, entire generations will be exposed—unnecessarily—to levels of RF radiation that growing scientific consensus flags as potentially harmful. While technology evolves at breakneck speed, policy remains glacial, often stymied by industry lobbying and complacency within regulatory bodies.


The National Toxicology Program (NTP): Why Its Work Must Resume

Overview of the NTP and Its Significance

The National Toxicology Program, an interagency effort across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has historically conducted extensive research on chemicals and physical agents that may pose public health risks. The rigorous methodology employed in its RF radiation studies placed it at the forefront of evaluating the long-term safety of cell phone technologies.

What Halting the NTP Study Means

  1. Loss of Crucial Data: The NTP’s findings had already pointed to “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity in lab animals. Suspending further investigation robs the scientific community of deeper insights.
  2. Policy Vacuum: Lawmakers rely on such data to craft updated regulations. Without it, protective legislation or guidelines remain out of reach.
  3. Missed Therapeutic Avenues: Intriguingly, the same non-thermal mechanisms that might pose risks could also hold therapeutic promise. The FDA-approved TheraBionic device, which uses RF radiation at lower power levels, has shown effectiveness in treating inoperable liver cancer. Ending research could stall this promising line of inquiry.

Parallels to Smoking Research

Drawing parallels to the mid-20th century is unavoidable. When initial studies hinted at a correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, the response was not to curtail research; it was to expand it—leading to definitive evidence and robust public health campaigns. For cell phone radiation, the opposite scenario appears to be unfolding: upon finding signs of risk, the crucial follow-up was discontinued.

If President Trump genuinely aims to tackle “the cancer caused by the Biden administration,” a key step would be to restore the NTP’s funding and allow the next phase of research to proceed unimpeded.


Legislative and Regulatory Roadblocks: The Role of the FCC, FDA, and Telecommunications Act

FCC Regulatory Capture: A Longstanding Problem

Regulatory capture occurs when an industry exerts outsized influence over the very agency meant to oversee it. Critics argue that the FCC has been subject to such capture for years. The appointment of officials with close ties to the telecommunications sector, or direct lobbying from industry stakeholders, can result in guidelines that favor corporate interests over public health.

This has manifested in a reluctance to revise safety standards that might necessitate expensive changes to the infrastructure or devices. Despite the 2021 court ruling demanding that the FCC revisit its guidelines, progress remains slow—and significant pushback from industry coalitions remains a formidable obstacle.

Amending the Telecommunications Act of 1996

An equally pressing concern is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which bars local governments from rejecting cell tower placements on health or environmental grounds. This effectively hamstrings communities from protecting themselves if they fear that too many towers (or too much cumulative radiation) are saturating their neighborhoods.

Demanding that the Telecom Act be reformed to restore local autonomy is a direct way to empower municipalities to act on emerging scientific data. If new research supports the notion that excessive RF radiation raises cancer risks, communities should have the right to adjust tower zoning accordingly.

The FDA’s Mandate Under Public Law 90-602 (1968)

Less well-known is Public Law 90-602, which requires the FDA to minimize unnecessary electronic product radiation exposure. Despite this clear statutory responsibility, the FDA has refrained from enforcing updated, science-based standards that reflect non-thermal RF radiation risks. Even after the NTP found evidence of carcinogenicity, the FDA did not push for continued research but instead supported effectively shutting it down.

For the sake of public health, the FDA must fulfill its legal obligations, especially concerning the research, regulation, and public advisories around wireless devices.


Real-Life Tragedies That Spotlight the Urgency

The Cases of John McCain, Edward Kennedy, and Beau Biden

  1. John McCain: A celebrated war hero and long-serving senator, McCain died of glioblastoma on August 25, 2018. Circumstantial evidence points to frequent cell phone use and the presence of GSM cellular infrastructure near his ranch.
  2. Edward Kennedy: Ted Kennedy passed away exactly nine years prior to McCain, also from glioblastoma, on August 25, 2009. He was known for extensive phone usage, frequently holding the device on the side where his tumor formed.
  3. Beau Biden: Died in 2015, sharing a similar pathology. Beau Biden similarly used his phone against the side of his head where the tumor grew.

Again, these anecdotes do not constitute incontrovertible proof, but they are symbolic of a potentially broader public health pattern. If cell phone radiation plays any role in GBM, or speeds its progression, then ignoring the signals from these real-world tragedies compounds the tragedy further.

Warnings from the NTP and Ramazzini Institute

The NTP’s near-field study and Italy’s Ramazzini Institute far-field study both reported higher rates of tumors in lab animals exposed to RF radiation. Notably, the tumors that arose—gliomas in the brain and schwannomas in the heart—mirror human tumor types that have appeared suspiciously in politically prominent individuals and ordinary citizens alike.

This confluence of data from multiple independent research institutions strongly suggests the need for further, not reduced, scrutiny. Ending the NTP’s investigations right at this juncture feels unconscionable to many scientists and health advocates.


TheraBionic and the Potential Therapeutic Horizon

A bright spot amid these concerns is the emerging possibility of harnessing RF radiation for medical treatments rather than letting it remain an unmitigated hazard. The TheraBionic device, approved by the FDA, uses non-thermal radiofrequencies to treat inoperable liver cancer—indicating that certain frequencies may disrupt cancer cell growth while sparing healthy tissue.

This therapy underscores a crucial point: RF radiation is not inherently good or evil. Its effects depend on frequency, modulation, power density, and the biological systems exposed. With comprehensive research, humanity might discover new, non-invasive cancer treatments. But if investigations remain stifled due to defunding, that potential could be lost for generations.


A Call to Action: Restoring Funding, Updating Guidelines, and Protecting Public Health

Given the high stakes, here is what must happen to truly “remove the cancer caused by the Biden administration”—if indeed that is a priority for the current White House:

  1. Restore NTP Funding
    • Why? NTP’s work was on the cusp of clarifying the risks associated with RF radiation. Canceling it is akin to quitting right after discovering smoking might cause cancer.
    • Action: The administration should immediately allocate resources to resume and expand research into cell phone-level electromagnetic radiation and its carcinogenic potential.
  2. Update FCC Safety Guidelines
    • Why? Current FCC standards date back to 1996 and only reflect thermal harm thresholds, ignoring the growing evidence of non-thermal biological effects.
    • Action: The FCC must collaborate with independent scientists to overhaul exposure limits, ensuring public safety in an era dominated by wireless connectivity.
  3. Amend the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    • Why? This law preempts communities from basing tower placement decisions on health or environmental concerns, effectively nullifying local governance in protecting citizens.
    • Action: Restore local authority and allow municipalities to set stricter, data-driven guidelines or impose limitations on the densification of cell towers.
  4. Force the FDA to Enforce Public Law 90-602 (1968)
    • Why? The FDA has an explicit mandate to minimize unnecessary electronic product radiation exposure, yet has lagged in addressing the non-thermal RF effects identified by the NTP.
    • Action: Demand enforcement and oversight, including mandatory research expansions and transparent reporting to the public about potential health risks.
  5. Encourage Public Precautionary Measures
    • Why? While policies slowly evolve, individuals remain vulnerable. Simple steps can reduce exposure, particularly for children.
    • Action: Advocate using speakerphone or wired headsets, texting instead of calling when possible, and avoiding carrying phones on the body.
  6. Explore and Fund Therapeutic Research
    • Why? The TheraBionic device showcases the potential for RF to treat cancers if the right frequencies and intensities are used.
    • Action: Stimulate federal grants and private investments that explore the therapeutic uses of specific RF frequencies, while ensuring that safety remains paramount.

Significant Studies and Expert Voices: Why the Alarm Bells Are Ringing

Below is a partial list of major studies and scientific groups that have sounded alarms about the health risks of RF radiation:

  • Interphone Study: A multinational case-control study focusing on cell phone use and brain tumors.
  • Hardell Group Studies: Swedish epidemiological research suggesting a correlation between prolonged cell phone use and glioma or acoustic neuroma.
  • CERENAT Study (France): Found elevated risk of brain tumors in heavy cell phone users.
  • U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP): Reported “clear evidence” of carcinogenesis in rats subjected to near-field exposures.
  • Ramazzini Institute (Italy): Provided far-field exposure data, also pointing to tumor-promoting effects.
  • REFLEX Project (European Union): Showed DNA strand breaks and chromosomal changes in human cells exposed to RF-EMF levels below current safety standards.
  • BioInitiative Report: A comprehensive review by an international group of scientists indicating significant risks from electromagnetic fields.

Together, these studies strengthen the argument that ignoring the potential dangers of radiofrequency radiation—and especially halting vital research just as it begins to yield concerning results—would be reckless.


Conclusion: A Moment of Reckoning

President Trump’s vow to “remove the cancer caused by the Biden administration” resonates far beyond the realm of federal workforce reforms. If taken at face value in the context of public health, it implies an imperative to reverse decisions that ended one of the most important cancer research efforts in recent history. Cutting off the National Toxicology Program’s investigation at a juncture where “clear evidence” of carcinogenic risk was emerging is a move that could hamper cancer prevention efforts for decades.

The real tragedy is not just the political about-face or the shuttering of a single study. It’s the untold number of potential lives at risk when science and policy are not harmonized—when economic convenience eclipses the pursuit of truth, and when the well-being of children, families, and entire communities becomes collateral damage.

We have a collective responsibility—as voters, parents, professionals, and concerned citizens—to insist that public health be placed above lobbying interests. By restoring the NTP’s funding, updating the FCC’s outdated guidelines, and compelling regulatory agencies like the FDA to heed existing laws, we take a significant step toward genuine cancer prevention. We can demand that local communities regain the right to regulate cell tower placements according to evolving scientific knowledge. And we can push for robust investments in both safety and therapeutic innovations—recognizing that radiofrequency radiation is a powerful force that must be handled with care and wisdom.

Call to Action

  1. Contact Your Representatives
    • Voice your demand for reinstating the NTP study.
    • Urge them to support legislation to overhaul outdated RF guidelines.
  2. Stay Informed
    • Follow credible sources like the Environmental Health Trust, BioInitiative, and peer-reviewed journals.
    • Share updated research findings within your network.
  3. Adopt Safer Tech Practices
    • Use hands-free or wired earpieces whenever possible.
    • Do not carry cell phones in pockets or close to the body.
    • Limit children’s screen time and teach them safer device usage.
  4. Support Litigation and Advocacy
    • Consider donating to or volunteering with groups challenging the FCC in court.
    • Advocate for local control over tower placements and stricter oversight of new wireless rollouts.

In an era where technology seems poised to touch every corner of our existence, ensuring that progress does not come at the cost of public health must be a non-negotiable priority. There are times in history when science and policy stand at a crossroads. This is one of those times—and the choice we make may echo for generations.

Will the Trump administration—and all political leaders—commit to undoing the “real cancer” by backing evidence-based cancer research and updated safety standards? Only time, and pressure from an informed citizenry, will tell.

Let us remember that reversing the decisions of the past is not merely a political chore. It is a moral obligation to safeguard human health, foster scientific transparency, and continue the quest for cures that might finally put an end to one of humanity’s most devastating diseases—cancer in all its forms.

 

 

We Ship Worldwide

Tracking Provided On Dispatch

Easy 30 days returns

30 days money back guarantee

Replacement Warranty

Best replacement warranty in the business

100% Secure Checkout

AMX / MasterCard / Visa