PRESS TELE-CONFERENCE, THURS., Dec. 7th, 12 NOON PST.
This is the first known published study to show pictures of EHS on an fMRI.
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The Peoples Initiative Foundation has announced the conclusion of a pilot study they organised, headed up by Dr. Gunnar Heuser, showing EHS on an fMRI. This study was originally published by Degruyter in July of 2017, but was absent pictures of the controls. The company waited until the pictures were placed in the study to issue this press release, as the visual difference between the cases and controls is quite dramatic.
Exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure is believed to have been the cause of the EHS in the cases.
The large white area on the left side of the left picture shows hyperconnectivity in the brain of a case (EHS person). The same small white area in the picture to the right shows normal brain activity in a control (non EHS person).
EHS or “electrohypersensitivity” in civilian terms, “microwave radiation poisoning” in military terms, is an RF (radio frequency) or microwave radiation induced illness who’s very existence is hotly debated by government and wireless industry scientists and personnel. This study provides evidence that abnormalities exist in the EHS brain that are not present in the non EHS brain and could put an end to the debate on the existence of EHS. It also defies the widely held governmental and wireless industry stance that wireless devices and infrastructure have no consequences to human health and could impact the prevailing opinion of wireless radiation being deemed safe.
The Peoples Initiative Foundation will be holding a tele-press conference to take questions from the media Thurs. Dec. 7th @ 12 noon PST. The study’s principle author, Dr. Gunnar Heuser will be on the call to take questions about the study, as well as Liz Barris, study organizer and one of the EHS cases in the study to take questions about EHS.
Journalists on deadline who RSVP by emailing: firstname.lastname@example.org with the # they will be calling in from will be given first priority in the tele-press conference queue.
THE LINK ABOVE IS A 5G LEAFLET THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED, PRINTED AND SHARED IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.
The Dangers of 5G and What We Are Not Being Told!
Governments throughout the world are pushing for the rollout of 5G (Fifth Generation) technology as if it is just an upgrade from 3G and 4G.
THIS IS FALSE
Mobile and Wireless experts such as Nick Hunn and William Webb state that this technology does NOT guarantee better connectivity, faster speeds or reliability and that the huge amounts of tax payers’ money being used to fund this would have been better spent upgrading the 4G network AND been far cheaper.
4G is between 1GHZ and 4GHZ whilst 5G Technology is 4GHZ to 100’s. xBandwidths of 26-90 GHZ are to be utilised. This is the equivalent of 90 billion electromagnetic waves hitting the body per second – tens of Billions MORE electromagnetic waves than what we have been used to.
The difference will also be in wave lengths, millimetre wave lengths that are shorter and pulsed and can penetrate the skin easier.
There are already over 10,000 studies showing the radiation that we are exposed to using EM radio frequency levels from 3+4G.
220 doctors and scientists in 39 countries have petitioned to stop this technology from being used and many citizens worldwide are against this being used in this way.
There are NO research studies on the long term effects of this onslaught of millimetre wave radiation but government agencies are going to go ahead regardless.
This type of radiation is called non-thermal or non-ionizing and government agencies have tried to deny that there is any danger despite the studies of medical and Independent researchers.
The technology is also government surveillance technology.
Millimetre waves in the ultra-high bands can affect our cells and cause higher levels of cancers, strokes, heart problems – all the life threatening diseases that we already suffer from.
Also, the biggest insurers, Lloyds, have refused to insure against EMF injuries from using phones, etc.
According to the Infrastructure Commission in the UK, small cell towers will need to be placed between 100 and 300 meters apart EVERYWHERE.
The so-called ”Internet of Things” means even household appliances will use this technology and smart cars will also contain heavy radars systems that will spew out EMR (electromagnetic radiation) from all angles – magnify this by millions of cars!
Government Agencies and University funded research is being paid for by the telecommunications Industry who stand to profit. Government can no longer be trusted to put our health before profits.
If this technology is supposedly safe, why do the American military use millimetre wave technology weapons that disperse crowds, causing burns to the skin?
We demand Independent, long term, medical and safety research BEFORE this technology is rolled out in our streets and homes. Those who force this technology on us without proper safety assessments will be served Notices of Liability and will be personally liable for any harm that this technology causes.
Further Info at: inpowermovement.com Annie Logical Uncensored: www.vigiliae.org Real Change is a group started in Leeds by Jason Nota and we have many local Facebook groups that help homeless and street kitchens, etc. To get in touch, contact Annie at her site above.
The Truth Behind the ‘Dash for Gas’
A Documentary by Marco Jackson
In December 2012 David Cameron lifted the moratorium (temporary ban) on the process known as Hydraulic Fracturing. A moratorium which had been in place since June 2011, when it was acknowledged that two minor earthquakes in the Blackpool area, had been triggered by Hydraulic Fracturing in the vicinity.
The process of High Volume High Pressure Hydraulic Fracturing is an integral part of the extraction process for Unconventional Gas & Oil, found in Shale deposits and Coal Seams. The UK reportedly has sufficient Unconventional Gas resources to provide the Country with Energy Security for many decades into the future.
You can purchase this DVD for just £5.00 from here a trailer for this video can be found below.
Spreadsheet of Fracking Chemicals below. Downloadable Version here
Ian R Crane at http://www.frackingnightmare.com along with many other dedicated protestors could use some help and support at Kirby Misperton Yorkshire. For more information on their progress and current status at stopping Barclays Bank from proceeding with the drilling you can visit the website here Facebook Page here support for the campaign is growing daily but more is needed. Please take some time to support them.
Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims + woensdag, 25 maart 2015 – Dossier: Juridische informatie
Bron 1: smartmeterharm.org/2015/03/18/lloyds-of-london-excludes-liability-coverage-for-rfemf-claims/ . 18 maart 2015 Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public.
Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims, “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32) This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology: This is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 The policy document is here: emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf or www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Insurance%20AE%20Wording%20Canada%20v1%207%20Feb%202015.pdf From the Lloyd’s of London policy: “Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf): We will not a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or
b) incur any costs and expenses, or c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or d) pay any medical expenses: … 32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy): directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.
“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada. “Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer. “Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.” Yours truly, Sharon Noble Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada The full letter with policy document is here: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 . Scholen verantwoordelijk voor schade door RF straling Bron 2: thebridgenewsservice.com/2015/02/26/school-boards-left-on-the-hook-for-wi-fi-injuries/ . 26 febr. 2015
CANADA, CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENT, HEALTH School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries. By Janis Hoffman School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools. School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools. In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation. With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence? School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children. Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.
School boards may be covered by directors’ insurance which applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” The question is: are they still protected when it could be shown that they were being “willfully blind?” Definitions: “In good faith:” in contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. “Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.
https://thebridgenewsservice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/image001.jpg Zie ook: www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-emf-clause/ . 25 maart 2015
Lloyd’s Won’t Discuss Their New EMF Exclusion Clause Last week, a couple of blogs noted that a recent commercial liability insurance renewal policy issued through a Lloyd’s of London underwriter contained a liability exclusion clause about electromagnetic fields. The clause excludes any compensation for claims: “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” It is important that “radio waves” are explicitly included as they, specifically the microwave zone, are what enable wireless communications devices like cell phones, wi-fi, cordless phones etc. After the policy holder made an inquiry seeking clarification about the exclusion language, CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s, sent the following: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Sharon Noble, Director of the Coalition to Stop Smart Meter Harm in British Columbia (Canada) brought the clause and CFC’s response to public attention.
My interpretation of this revealing statement is that CFC Underwriting, and perhaps all of “the market” is that the time has come to hedge against a future surge in “illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Why else would they refuse coverage “across the market as standard.”? “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Lloyd’s of London describes itself as “the world’s specialist insurance market,” and they’ve insured and paid on a variety of unusual risks and catastrophic claims. Unlike many other insurance brands, Lloyd’s is not a company; it’s “a market where our members join together as syndicates to insure risks.” What they insure falls into seven broad categories: casualty, property, marine, energy, motor, aviation and reinsurance. Reinsurance is the key here, as, among other things, it serves “to protect an insurer against very large claims.” Think tobacco, asbestos and climate change. And microwave radiation apparently, even though regulatory and health agencies around the world refuse to accept RF exposure as causing illness. www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-their-emf-exclusion-clause/lloyds-emf-exclusion/ I was seriously intrigued at all of this and emailed an inquiry to the Lloyd’s press center stating that I wanted some more details about the exclusion. I told them that as I primarily produce radio, I’d want to capture the conversation on tape, but would also be happy to talk with someone off tape, but on the record. Two hours later, I received a response from a woman at Prosek Partners, “a communications consultancy that delivers an unexpected level of passion, creativity and marketing savvy,” which apparently handles such issues for Lloyd’s. She wanted to know more about what exactly I was seeking and asked if I would “mind expanding on your request a bit?” so she could best determine how to help me. I obliged, sending back “Basically I’m interested in the 5 Ws, but why especially. I’d also like to how widely the exclusion is being replicated in Lloyd’s policies. Is there any sense internally at Lloyd’s about this being a first step that is likely to be copied industry wide? Was there any conversation pre/post release of the exclusion language with any wireless industry businesses?” This afternoon (she apologized for the 24 hour ‘delay’) she wrote back to tell me “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Now I’m used to rejection as a reporter, but I couldn’t quite believe this and told her so in my reply, mentioning that their refusal to talk about the policy change would possibly “draw attention away from more important aspects of the story.”
The takeaway here is that the Lloyd’s, the world’s largest insurance market place has “across the market” not only refused to provide coverage for any claims arising from exposure to cell phones, wi-fi or any other source of electromagnetic frequency radiation, but also refused to answer a media inquiry about why, claiming that there is no one “who can.” Hmmm…
Gathering a body of global agreements
Adopted by Resolution 31/72 of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1976.
The Convention was opened for signature at Geneva on 18 May 1977.
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
The States Parties to this Convention,
Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and of bringing about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare,
Determined to continue negotiations with a view to achieving effective progress towards further measures in the field of disarmament,
Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,
Recalling the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted at Stockholm on 16 June 1972,
Realizing that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations,
Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of such techniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,
Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangers to mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to work towards the achievement of this objective,
Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Have agreed as follows:
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.
2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article.
As used in article 1, the term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.
1. The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes and shall be without prejudice to the generally recognized principles and applicable rules of international law concerning such use.
2. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information on the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes. States Parties in a position to do so shall contribute, alone or together with other States or international organizations, to international economic and scientific co-operation in the preservation, improvement and peaceful utilization of the environment, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to take any measures it considers necessary in accordance with its constitutional processes to prohibit and prevent any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.
1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to co-operate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of, the Convention. Consultation and co-operation pursuant to this article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. These international procedures may include the services of appropriate international organizations, as well as of a Consultative Committee of Experts as provided for in paragraph 2 of this article.
2. For the purposes set forth in paragraph 1 of this article, the Depositary shall within one month of the receipt of a request from any State Party to this Convention, convene a Consultative Committee of Experts. Any State Party may appoint an expert to the Committee whose functions and rules of procedure are set out in the annex which constitutes an integral part of this Convention. The Committee shall transmit to the Depositary a summary of its findings of fact, incorporating all views and information presented to the Committee during its proceedings. The Depositary shall distribute the summary to all States Parties.
3. Any State Party to this Convention which has reason to believe that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all relevant information as well as all possible evidence supporting ItS validity.
4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Parties of the results of the investigation.
5. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, to any State Party which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.
1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose amendments to the Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to the Depositary, who shall promptly circulate it to all States Parties.
2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Parties to this Convention which have accepted it, upon the deposit with the Depositary of instruments of acceptance by a majority of States Parties. Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instrument of acceptance.
This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.
1. Five years after the entry into force of this Convention, a conference of the States Parties to the Convention shall be convened by the Depositary at Geneva, Switzerland. The conference shall review the operation of the Convention with a view to ensuring that its purposes and provisions are being realized, and shall in particular examine the effectiveness of the provisions of paragraph 1 of article I in eliminating the dangers of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques.
2. At intervals of not less than five years thereafter, a majority of the States Parties to this Convention may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to the Depositary, the convening of a conference with the same objectives.
3. If no conference has been convened pursuant to paragraph 2 of this article within ten years following the conclusion of a previous conference, the Depositary shall solicit the views of all States Parties to this Convention concerning the convening of such a conference. If one third or ten of the States Parties, whichever number is less, respond affirmatively, the Depositary shall take immediate steps to convene the conference.
1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it at any time.
2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification or accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
3. This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by twenty Governments in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article.
4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.
5. The Depositary shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention and of any amendments thereto, as well as of the receipt of other notices.
6. This Convention shall be registered by the Depositary in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.
This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.
In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention
Done at Geneva, on the 18 day of May 1977.
Annex to the Convention
Consultative Committee of Experts
1. The Consultative Committee of Experts shall undertake to make appropriate findings of fact and provide expert views relevant to any problem raised pursuant to paragraph 1 of article V of this Convention by the State Party requesting the convening of the Committee.
2. The work of the Consultative Committee of Experts shall be organized in such a way as to permit it to perform the functions set forth in paragraph 1 of this annex. The Committee shall decide procedural questions relative to the organization of its work, where possible by consensus, but otherwise by a majority of those present and voting. There shall be no voting on matters of substance.
3. The Depositary or his representative shall serve as the Chairman of the Committee.
4. Each expert may be assisted at meetings by one or more advisers.
5. Each expert shall have the right, through the Chairman, to request from States, and from international organizations, such information and assistance as the expert considers desirable for the accomplishment of the Committee’s work.
UN Documents: Gathering a Body of Global Agreements
has been compiled by the NGO Committee on Education of the
Conference of NGOs from United Nations web sites
and made possible through freely available information & communications technology.
As the FCC’s vote on net neutrality rules approaches, one data scientist found a problem with the comment process
With the Federal Communication Commission’s net neutrality rules for internet service providers set to be voted on, and likely reversed next month, critics have slammed the agency’s public commenting process as having been “corrupted” and flooded with more than one million comments that were likely automated by bots and largely in favour of rolling back net neutrality rules.
Consumers have written letters to the FCC and claimed that their names, or addresses were used in comments that they had not written, and some were even listed as having come from people that are deceased, according to the Washington Post.
The public commenting process is in accordance with a law that requires federal agencies accept public comments on proposed rule changes. The FCC intends to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules in a meeting on December 14, which critics say will create an unequal internet that favours major telecom companies and provides them with the ability to charge consumers more for certain services.
Data scientist Jeff Kao wrote in a post on Medium that, according to his research, there were at least 1.3 million comments in favour of repealing net neutrality rules.
“It was particularly chilling to see these spam comments all in one place,” Kao wrote. “As they are exactly the type of policy arguments and language you expect to see in industry comments on the proposed repeal, or, these days, in the FCC Commissioner’s own statements lauding the repeal.”
“It was particularly chilling to see these spam comments all in one place,” Kao wrote. “As they are exactly the type of policy arguments and language you expect to see in industry comments on the proposed repeal, or, these days, in the FCC Commissioner’s own statements lauding the repeal.”
“There were likely multiple other campaigns aimed at injecting what may total several million pro-repeal comments into the system,” he added.
Kao tallied duplicate comments and reached a total of “2,955,182 unique comments and their respective duplicate counts.”
The Post elaborated on Kao’s findings:
Using an algorithm to sort out duplicate entries, Kao said he was then able to apply another algorithm to identify the remaining comments that could be considered “unique.” Further analysis revealed that even some of the unique submissions shared common language and syntax, suggesting they weren’t unique at all but perhaps written by a computer program to appear superficially different. In total, Kao estimates more than a million comments, supporting Pai’s effort to repeal net neutrality, may have been faked.
Kao found that several comments contained similar language, for example one comment said, “Citizens, as opposed to Washington bureaucrats, should be empowered to buy whatever products they prefer.”
While another comment said, “Individual citizens, as opposed to Washington bureaucrats, should be able to select whichever services they desire.”
Brian Hart, a spokesperson for the FCC says the agency is not equipped with the resources needed to sift through every single comment, the Post reported. Hart shifted some blame onto those in favour of keeping net neutrality rules in place, and pointed out that 7.5 million comments appeared to come from 45,00 distinct email addresses “all generated by a single fake e-mail generator website.”
He added that there were roughly 400,000 comments in support of the rules that “appeared to originate from a mailing address based in Russia,” the Post reported. However, there is currently no public evidence to back up that claim.
The news surfaces as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman directly called out the FCC and raised on Tuesday and raised suspicions about the commenting process, which he compared to “identity theft on a massive scale,” Salon previously reported.
“In today’s digital age, the rules that govern the operation and delivery of internet service to hundreds of millions of Americans are critical to the economic and social well-being of the nation,” Schneiderman wrote in an open letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.
He added, “Yet the process the FCC has employed to consider potentially sweeping alterations to current net neutrality rules has been corrupted by the fraudulent use of Americans’ identities — and the FCC has been unwilling to assist my office in our efforts to investigate this unlawful activity.”
Schneiderman concluded that there was a “submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules.”
Pai, a former lawyer for Verizon, and the Trump administration have been set on voting to repeal the Obama-era rules that require that websites be treated equally by internet service providers. But major telecom companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) have spent at least “$572 million on attempts to influence the FCC and other government agencies since 2008,” according to Maplight.
However, the Dec. 14 vote is still unlikely to change, even as 60 percent of Americans have expressed support for the current net neutrality rules.
There is no doubt that plants are a fascinating and integral part of our environment. Aside from playing the essential role of balancing nature and life, they also beautify our surrounding. Think about it; there is just something amazingly extraordinary and serene about standing in a dense forest and taking in all the natural, pleasant smells, and dizzying heights Plants have intrigued the scientific community for centuries due to their therapeutic potential and scientific breakthroughs. One of these fascinating, yet highly controversial plants is Mitragyna Speciosa or better known as Kratom.
While commonly known as Kratom, Kratum or Ketum, its scientific name is Mitragyna Speciosa. It belongs to the Mitragyna species and is a member of the Rubiaceae family. Apart from South East Asia, it is also found in some African regions. While the Asian species are typically predominant in the rain forests, the African species which are still categorized in a separate genus and are mostly observed in swampy areas. The majority of this species are arborescent (treelike in growth or appearance), with some peaking to a majestic height of as high as 30 meters.
The Kratom tree has an average height of fifteen meters, while the ground covers around four and a half meters. It has a robust stem that stands firmly and branches out. The flowers are yellow while the leaves are dark green and feature an ovate, acuminate shape that is hard to miss. Since this plant is evergreen more than deciduous, the leaves are frequently shed then replaced. The changing environment is what causes the quasi-seasonal leaf shedding. Leaf shading becomes more rampant and abundant during the dry season while plenty of new growth happens during the rainy season. If this plant is grown outside tropical conditions, shedding of leaves will only take place when the temperature is above four degrees Celsius.
Kratom plant can naturally be grown using the seeds, provided they are fresh. The rate of germination typically hovers from around twenty to thirty percent and once the seeds have been germinated the seedlings to grow to a height of fifteen to around twenty feet. As mentioned earlier, the leaves are typically dark green and glossy with an ovate, acuminate shape. Although it is relatively easy finding kratom for sale, finding seeds could be difficult and growing the plant is not recommended due to the sensitive nature of this plant. Additionally, these leaves also feature an opposite growth pattern, coupled with twelve to seventeen pairs of veins and can grow to over twenty centimetres long and fifteen centimetres wide when fully open. The yellow flowers, on the other hand, grow in clusters of three at the far end of the branches. On the other hand, the calyx-tube is two millimetre long and has five lobes, while the corolla tube is around three millimetres. This tree prefers a moist environment coupled with nitrogen-rich soils in a protected position. As an extremely heavy feeder, the growing plant will need fertile soil consistently. Additionally, this tree is also extremely sensitive to drought and frost. This being said, buying kratom powder is recommended instead of growing the plant yourself.
One of the most obvious and widely known effects of kratom leaves is pain relief. Since the leaves were first introduced to their indigenous cultures, this has been a primary use, as the analgesic properties of the alkaloids and nutrients of the leaves can quickly relieve pain throughout the body by impacting the hormonal system. By increasing the amount of serotonin and dopamine that is released into the body, pain can be alleviated (or masked) by chewing on kratom leaves. Essentially, the alkaloids dull the pain receptors throughout the body. This morphine or opium-like quality of kratom leaves is widely regarded as its most important application.
Immune System Booster
Independent studies on the various alkaloids found in kratom leaves have shown that the combinative effects can have major effects on the strength and resilience of the immune system. While this research is still being qualified and checked, traditional and anecdotal beliefs about kratom leaves show that it can reduce the severity of illnesses or prevent illness altogether.
The metabolic effects that kratom has are one of the other reasons that the leaves are so popular, particularly with laborers in various countries. It can increase your energy levels by optimizing certain metabolic processes and impacting hormone levels. This is a result of increased circulation, despite its soothing nature, and a general increase in oxygenated blood to areas of the body that needs it, combining with increased metabolic activities to provide a burst of energy. For sufferers of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, kratom leaves are often an alternative, natural solution.
Kratom is seen by many traditional practitioners and users as an aphrodisiac and a fertility booster, as the extra energy and blood flow can help increase fertility, re-energize a tired libido, and improve duration/conception rates.
As you can probably imagine, any substance that is able to relieve pain and cause opium-like effects on the body will also likely have an impact on the mental stability and tone of an individual. Kratom leaves are widely used as anxiolytic substances for people who suffer from chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and mood swings. By regulating the hormones in our body, people can finally get relief from these exhausting symptoms of chemical imbalance without having to rely on pharmaceuticals and all of the implicit side effects of those drugs.
Due to the inherently healthy nature of kratom leaves, in combination with their range of effects, they have been used as a method of curing addiction for hundreds of years. In many cultures, opium addiction is a major issue, but regularly chewing on kratom leaves provides a similar sensation without the comedowns and negative side effects. Therefore, when people are attempting to “get clean” and stay that way, they often turn to kratom leaves as a tolerable solution, thereby making these leaves very valuable in many parts of the world. This also helps to cover withdrawal symptoms during the transition away from that more intense drug.
Studies have connected the use of kratom leaves to a distinct drop in blood pressure. As the leaves and their chemical components impact the body’s hormones, they also reduce inflammation throughout the body, including the blood vessels and arteries. By relieving that tension in the cardiovascular system, kratom leaves are able to help prevent more serious heart conditions, such as atherosclerosis, heart attacks, and strokes.
One of the lesser known benefits of kratom leaves is their effect on blood sugar levels. Limited research has shown that the alkaloids found in the leaves are able to help regulate the amount of insulin and glucose in the blood, effectively preventing the dangerous peaks and troughs that diabetics face. This can not only help diabetics manage their disorder, but also prevent it from developing in the first place.
So what is the real reason behind this
Well a patent was filed by Smith Kline, of Glaxo Smith Kline, & French Laboratories to synthesize kratom. Cannabis is a schedule one substance but the pharmaceutical industry can manufacture a synthetic version of the same active ingredient in cannabis, THC, and it magically becomes legal so as with Cannabis, kratom will become illegal and then magically become legal with a synthetic version.
As the legal pain medication epidemic sweeps the nation killing thousands every year and converting its users into heroin addicts, the pharmaceutical companies are scrambling to find an alternative. Kratom could be that alternative.
However, since kratom can be grown in your backyard, pharmaceutical companies can’t monopolize it — unless the government outlaws it.
On September 30, kratom will be illegal, but the synthetic patented and monopolized version will not.
While the mainstream media often acknowledges that these drug companies charge exorbitant prices for their medications, they conveniently leave out the reason they can do so is because they have the full support of Uncle Sam.
Instead of looking at the corrupt government, who has the unique ability to create and sustain monopolies, the evil drugs and the market are blamed.
How many more people will have to die of opioid overdose before Americans stand up to the DEA and refuse to obey their tyrannical and corrupt laws?
This month the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) updated the cell phone information page on its website and the fact sheet which summarizes the NTP cell phone radiation study. See below for a summary of the study and its findings.
The NTP’s website indicates that the NIEHS has warned its “federal regulatory partners” (i.e., the Federal Communications Commission and the Food and Drug Administration) that the NTP’s research found that cell phone radiation caused cancer in male rats to enable these agencies to provide the latest guidance to the public about safe ways to use cell phones and other radiofrequency radiation-emitting devices.
Following is some of the language which now appears on the NTP website.
Nov 21, 2017
Two-year oncogenicity evaluations of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in Sprague-Dawley rats and B6C3F1 mice
McCormick D. Two-year oncogenicity evaluations of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in Sprague-Dawley rats and B6C3F1 mice. Toxicology Letters. 280 (Suppl. 1): S31. Oct 20, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.07.07
Epidemiology data concerning possible health effects of exposure to radiofrequency fields (RF) are conflicting. For this reason, well-designed and controlled studies in predictive laboratory animal models provide the best prospective opportunity to identify effects of RF exposure that may translate into human health hazards.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program supported a program in our laboratory to identify and characterize effects of acute, subchronic, and chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of RF in Sprague-Dawley rats and B6C3F1 mice.
Five-day pilot studies were performed to identify the maximum Specific Absorption Ratios (SARs) to which juvenile, adult, and pregnant rodents can be exposed without increasing body temperature by >1.0 °C.
Subsequent subchronic (ten-week) toxicity studies failed to identify any toxicologically significant effects of non-thermal RF on survival, body weight, clinical signs, hematology, or gross or microscopic pathology.
Two-year studies were performed to determine if exposure to non-thermal levels of RF increases the incidence of neoplasia in any site. Male rats exposed to RF demonstrated significantly increased incidences of glioma (brain) and schwannoma (heart); these increases were not seen in female rats or in either sex of mice.
Gliomas and schwannomas have been identified in some epidemiology studies as possible RF-induced neoplasms. Considering (a) the conflicting results of RF epidemiology studies and (b) the lack of generally accepted biophysical or molecular mechanisms through which RF could induce or promote neoplasia, data from animal bioassays will play a central role in “weight-of-the-evidence” assessments of the possible health effects of RF exposure.
Sep 20, 2017
Scientists from the National Toxicology Program presented their data on the genotoxicity of cell phone radiation in rats and mice at the annual meeting of the Environmental Mutagenesis and Genomics Society held in Raleigh, North Carolina from September 9-13, 2017.
Male and female rats and mice were exposed to 2G cell phone radiation, either CDMA or GSM, for 18 hours per day in 10 minute intervals. The rats were exposed to cell phone radiation at 1.5, 3, or 6 W/kg specific absorption rate (SAR) for 19 weeks from gestation day 5. The mice were exposed to radiation at 2.5, 5, or 10 W/kg SAR for 13 weeks from postnatal day 5.
DNA damage was assessed in three brain regions, in liver cells and in blood leukocytes using the comet assay. Chromosomal damage was assessed in peripheral blood erythrocytes using the micronucleus assay.
DNA damage was significantly increased:
There were no significant increases in micronucleated red blood cells in rats or mice.
The authors concluded that, “exposure to RFR [radio frequency radiation] has the potential to induce measurable DNA damage under certain exposure conditions.”
The NTP is scheduled to publish a complete report about its cell phone radiation studies in early 2018. The FDA called for this research in 1999.
Here is the abstract for this presentation.