60 Comments
User's avatar
Hypernoia's avatar

FedGov has long known the biological harms of non-ionizing radiation, and intentionally hid them. If the records haven't long ago since been destroyed, one day they will come to light.

Expand full comment
Chief Justice of Nuremberg 2.0's avatar

Never. The impossible can never come to light. Like vaccine adjuvants being "safe and effective". That's impossible! Myth Busted: Tesla's Motors Have 100X less EMF than a wall socket https://teslaleaks.com/f/myth-busted-teslas-motors-have-100x-less-emf-than-a-wall-socket

Expand full comment
StellaMaris's avatar

So does intramuscular injection.....brain damage, as well.. autism, etc... the list is long....

Expand full comment
Ken warfle's avatar

Correct. They don't mention all the other radiation that is naturally occurring. Cell phone is about one watt of radio frequency. Radio stations put out 100 W and people commonly stand right next to their microwave putting out 1 cm higher energy radiation of 1500 W. How about the power supply on your 15 W screw base LED? I'm not worried about my cell phone and I use it on speakerphone anyways. We should be more worried about all the other poisons we are voluntarily ingesting.

Expand full comment
Barbara Charis's avatar

Life is a minefield with all the dangers people face on a daily basis. Ignorance is not bliss!

Expand full comment
Chief Justice of Nuremberg 2.0's avatar

You mean the radiation from the Sun? Why aren't you all dead yet? Myth Busted: Tesla's Motors Have 100X less EMF than a wall socket https://teslaleaks.com/f/myth-busted-teslas-motors-have-100x-less-emf-than-a-wall-socket

Expand full comment
StellaMaris's avatar

🎯💯

Expand full comment
Michelle Rabin Ph. D.'s avatar

I’m sure there are millions and millions of American babies who sleep next to a monitor- let’s do a human study to prove the harm. It’s well past time to do so!!!!

Expand full comment
John F Diedrich's avatar

One of my professors at University (engineering/magnetism) warned us in 1992 that cell phones were going to “fry” our brains. He was right, in more ways than even he knew. 😎

Expand full comment
Barbara Charis's avatar

In the past, I have seen advertising with parents letting their small children hold cell phones to their ears...and it disturbed me. I thought to myself this is so wrong. People need to be warned of the danger of unseen radiation, not promote it. I got along all my life without a cell phone...and don't want one. I do have a landline. Many people have developed brain tumors from cellphone radiation by holding the phone close to the ear. Children sitting close to a TV playing video games are getting their brains radiated, too. Electronics have deadly side effects that more people should know about, if they want to be healthy.

Expand full comment
evergreen's avatar

Horse to water, and all of that.

Some will be cautious, most will scoff. So be it.

Expand full comment
Renate's avatar

My philosophy: better safe than sorry. The industry should have to follow the guideline of DO NO HARM. Whether its chemicals in food and water, radiation or cars that don’t have proper breaks. We are consumers depending on the gov bodies to regulate.

Expand full comment
alice's avatar

Remember the speed guns police used that caused cancer to lap area,because in between use,they would set device in their lap?

Expand full comment
Elizabeth D.'s avatar

Well. They are baby rats? How do you quantify the comparable amount? Stating this before finishing your article. Give me grace if you addressed it.

Expand full comment
Bonnie Lewis's avatar

Here in Canada , we have safety code 6, which is a joke. Seriously outdated, which is in their favor, not protecting humanity. I believe it was put in effect before all the increase in emr: cell phone and towers, smart everything: meters for hydro, wifi in homes and businesses.

Expand full comment
John Day MD's avatar

This makes the cut for my next blog post.

Thank You, Nicolas.

Expand full comment
DrLatusDextro's avatar

If that's the case JD, then how about considering, The Great BigPharma 'Bake-Off' ... https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/the-camouflaged-tools-of-war. ?

After all, the concealment and baking in of neuro-developmental consequences of vaccination by the WHO/UNICEF is the de rigueur act of a constellation of interests that continue to promote, deflect and distract from the vaccine mammoth in the room?

Expand full comment
John Day MD's avatar

We are already on the same page. See my most recent post here, and scroll to the last few excerpts and links, which is where I keep democidal bioweapon news. https://www.johndayblog.com/2025/09/will-it-be-official.html

Expand full comment
DrLatusDextro's avatar

Excellent.

I do not see where anyone has fingered the use of a standardised neuro-developmental psychometric instrument (uncontrolled against vaccines) of the (Ages and Stages Questionnaire® (ASQ®)-3) that is used internationally to conceal and bake in endemic adverse neuro-developmental consequences of the schedule of the neonatal and childhood schedule of vaccination?

Expand full comment
John Day MD's avatar

Thae Amish kids are the control group, are they not?

Before 1986 a standard option for parents, consistent with human immunology, was to start vaccinations after 12 months of age.

Our kids were born in 1989 and later, but many docs I worked with still went by that, as did we with our 4 kids. They are fine.

The information is available for individuals to protect their children, even if a societal turning is only slowly beginning, and could still be thwarted.

Our grandchildren are being cared for thoughtfully, also.

Expand full comment
DrLatusDextro's avatar

If they spurn the schedule of all neonatal and childhood vaccines, then yes, they provide a control group.

Consistency with 'human immunology' increasingly appears a significant problem (one could describe both 'human' and 'consistency' somewhat differently) while there now exists increasing questioning and falsification of methodology. Given the advent of computational genomics and in silico representations of alleged pathogens, it appears that we're now in rather nebulous and most uncertain territory of deep concern.

There is, as you suggest, a gradual awakening. I believe it will continue until reason, ethics and science once again prevail. Should they not...the future of homo sapiens appears bleak to non-existent.

Expand full comment
John Day MD's avatar

I think a series of "selection events" has begun, and may last a couple of hundred years. I can't really be sure, ya'know?

I think we are now being culled, we human herds, because our owners see that economic growth on our finite planet has ended in real terms, andonly froth has been "growing since 2019 or so.

Therefore, the new paradigm is to cull useless-eaters, troublemakers, and retirees, without destroying modern industrial economy, which can go to the moon for Helium3 and drill the north sea and arctic for deep oil.

Expand full comment
AwakeNotWoke's avatar

I either use AI glasses and keep the cell phone at a distance or if I'm not wearing AI glasses I put calls on speaker and keep the cell phone at a distance. I also don't take mRNA shots. Would that provide some protection?

Expand full comment
Elizabeth D.'s avatar

They probably rely on Bluetooth? Anything Bluetooth is emitting EMF? So the glasses maybe aren’t great? Idk.

Expand full comment
AwakeNotWoke's avatar

Thanks. I'll have to look into it. I haven’t had them long.

Expand full comment
Deirdre River's avatar

What are AI glasses? Sincerely asking. Have eye issues.

Expand full comment
AwakeNotWoke's avatar

The newest ones have in-lens display so you can check messages, preview photos, see translations, and get help from AI without needing to pull out your phone. They can convert speech to text on your phone. There are cameras at the edge of the lenses so you can take photos or videos without having to pull out your phone. (I haven't used this function yet). If the phone rings AI will talk to you and you can hear the caller through your glasses and carry on a conversation without having to pull out your phone.

They come "with a full-color, high-resolution display that’s there when you want it — and gone when you don’t. The display is placed off to the side, so it doesn’t obstruct your view. And it isn’t on all the time — it’s designed for short interactions that you’re always in control of. This isn’t about strapping a phone to your face. It’s about helping you quickly accomplish some of your everyday tasks without breaking your flow. 

It’s the first product that takes microphones, speakers, cameras, and a full-color display backed with compute and AI — and puts it all together in a single device ..."

Expand full comment
Deirdre River's avatar

Wow! Amazing! I did not know this at all. Thank you! Very helpful.

Expand full comment
Alexander Scipio's avatar

So the net is that if you let your kid have a cell phone, you’re going to raise a Democrat, like it or not.

Expand full comment
Jack's avatar

😂

Expand full comment
The Science Analyst's avatar

Check out http://microwavenews.com for lots of research on this topic. Has a huge library of peer-reviewed articles.

Here is my article: How non-ionizing radiation affects biological systems (a technical approach). - https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/how-non-ionizing-radiation-affects

Expand full comment
Jackie King's avatar

Anyone here not use a cell phone?

Expand full comment
Jack's avatar
Sep 26Edited

Me.

I don't even own one.

I hate those stupid things...

I also hate the companies that operate the network. Truly evil, greedy, cheating, and uncooperative people...

Oh, and BTW, I once got a tablet with Android installed.

I am baffled with people nagging to Microsoft about Windows and not saying anything bad about Android. This has to be the most unstable, buggy, bloated, insecure, limiting, feature-lacking OS I have ever seen.

Oh, and I am a programmer by profession.

I literally write code for those stupid devices...! 😂

Expand full comment
DrLatusDextro's avatar

Hulscher [?intentionally, deflecting or distracting] while ignoring the mammoth in the room....The Camouflaged Tools of War?

The Great BigPharma 'Bake-Off' ... https://drlatusdextro.substack.com/p/the-camouflaged-tools-of-war

The confounding of the psychometric instrument (endorsed by WHO/UNICEF) used to evaluate neonatal and childhood neuro-development is not controlled for the schedule of neonatal and childhood vaccinations. The neuro-developmental consequences are therefore concealed AND further, baked in going forward. They are quite blind to the neuro-developmental consequences of vaccination, as indeed they are to EMF. EMF appears an adverse influence on neurobiology, but its effects are also irretrievably confounded by vaccination and used as a cover for vaccines.

Almost no one is listening or paying attention.

Little wonder then 1:31 autistic and hardly a squeak.

Expand full comment
Nicolas Hulscher, MPH's avatar

I am very aware of and have frequently reported on the horrendous neurodevelopmental harms of childhood hyper-vaccination.

Expand full comment
DrLatusDextro's avatar

Reassuring to learn Nic. Thank you. It would be helpful to define "hyper?"

The chief emergent concern here is the use of a WHO/UNICEF internationally utilised instrument 'Ages and Stages Questionnaire® (ASQ®)-3' that does not appear to control for neuro-developmental psychometrics impacted by neonatal and childhood vaccinations.

The previous Indian EMF study commented upon recently actually states: 'Parents/mothers were encouraged to follow up at two-month intervals (some of the follow-up visits by the mothers were planned to coincide with the vaccination schedule of their babies or regular health follow-up)'.

It appears difficult to understand how neonatal/childhood 'vaccination' is not alluded to as a potentially significant confounder in the commentary, let alone the confounding pre-installed in neuro-developmental metrics, while EMF emerges as an putative key influence?

Expand full comment