RRT

Thousands of Albanians took to the streets of the capital, Tirana on Thursday for the fourth consecutive day of protests against a controversial luxury resort project linked to Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump.

By Maryanne Demasi
June 4, 2026 

This week, I reported that Pfizer’s mRNA flu shot offered almost no clinical benefit in adults aged 18–64 — and that the harms were more significant than the headlines suggested.

But that was not the full story.

The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) did not publish any data from the older adults in the same trial — the very population most at risk from influenza and the main reason these vaccines exist.

Instead, the over-65 results were quietly uploaded to ClinicalTrials.gov, where they sat buried on a government website, out of sight and far from the scrutiny that comes with publication in a leading medical journal.

When MIT professor Retsef Levi discovered the missing cohort while reviewing the trial documents, he was stunned — not only by what the data showed, but by what it means when a flagship journal selectively reports findings that may directly shape public health decisions.

What he told me calls into question not just this study, but the integrity of the system that allowed it to happen.

Burying Data

Levi said the missing data in the NEJM article was “puzzling,” adding that “it seems like the reason for omitting the older participants was because the results were not favourable for the studied mRNA vaccine.”

The trial enrolled about 27,000 participants aged 65 and older. Their data make it clear: Pfizer’s mRNA flu shot did not outperform the traditional flu shot in the elderly.

On top of that, Pfizer’s shot caused slightly higher rates of mild-to-moderate local and systemic reactions — injection-site pain, fatigue — consistent with the well-known reactogenicity profile of mRNA products.

Levi said omitting data from this group was “unacceptable, especially since the over-65s are among the high-risk populations that influenza vaccines aim to protect.”

He did not soften his criticism of NEJM’s role.

“It’s either gross negligence in the review process, or worse, scientific misconduct,” said Levi, questioning how the public can trust a journal “if its review process either misses or hides major results in the trial.”

Rather than presenting the full dataset in the journal, Pfizer uploaded the unfavourable results on ClinicalTrials.gov, where they remained effectively invisible to clinicians and the public.

Levi said there was no question this was an egregious oversight.

“I do not see how NEJM can argue that the published article is transparent, when results are selectively reported, and moreover, negative results are not reported.”

The failure to publish the older cohort’s results has now placed NEJM — and its Editor-in-Chief, Dr Eric Rubin — under intense scrutiny.

Levi said, “I think that what we see here is a clear failure of the NEJM’s review process and integrity, and the ultimate responsibility rests with the Editor in Chief…Dr Rubin should be expected to provide a clear explanation as to how this has happened.”

The Eric Rubin Problem

Dr Eric Rubin presided over the decision to publish a Pfizer trial stripped of its most important age group, allowing a reputed journal to become complicit in the same selective reporting practices that have long undermined scientific publishing.

Rubin also sits on the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — the same committee that may one day review Pfizer’s biological licence application for this very product.

His track record during the pandemic has been fraught.

In a 2021 VRBPAC meeting on Covid-19 vaccines for children, Rubin dismissed concerns about unknown safety gaps, saying, “We’re never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it. And that’s just the way it goes.”

NEJM under his leadership also published the pivotal AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine trial — a paper that omitted adverse event data.

One of those missing cases involved participant Brianne Dressen, whose severe neurological complications were removed from the trial records. Dressen personally contacted Rubin asking him to correct the record and update the trial data.

But Rubin refused.

Asked whether someone in Rubin’s position can objectively assess a product when his own journal has published selective data about it, Levi said, “The personal integrity of members in government advisory committees is a critical factor to consider.”

Levi declined to comment on whether Rubin should remain on the committee, saying only that “this type of incident harms public trust in science and more broadly, public health recommendations.”

What Should Happen Next?

Publication ethics are clear.

COPE (the Committee on Publication Ethics) states that retraction is warranted when there is “scientific misconduct or honest error that significantly affects the reliability of the findings.”

Selective reporting of pre-specified primary or secondary outcomes — particularly when it conceals clinically relevant harms — fits that definition precisely. At a minimum, NEJM must issue a formal correction with the full dataset.

Levi would not be drawn on whether the study should be retracted, but he was unequivocal about the principle: “Proper scientific conduct requires scientists and academic journals to be transparent and truthful.”

This case is neither.

The Real Issue Now

What happened here is a textbook case of regulatory capture.

A manufacturer runs a trial. A major journal publishes only the flattering part. The negative data are buried on a federal website. And the journal’s editor-in-chief sits on the FDA committee that may soon decide whether the product should be licensed.

This is precisely the kind of institutional rot that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has vowed to root out.

The question now is whether he will call for Rubin’s resignation from VRBPAC — a test of how far he is willing to go in confronting industry influence and demanding full transparency in medical journals.

Because unless this system is forced into the open, selective reporting will continue to be standard practice in even the most prestigious journals. And the public will keep receiving a polished marketing story instead of the full scientific truth.

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/major-journal-under-fire-for-omitting-pfizers-failed-flu-data-in-seniors/

Rebekah Barnett

If a scientific paper offers a counter-narrative conclusion, should it be deleted from the record?

Science publisher Elsevier says yes, if the topic is vaccines, because allowing doctors and parents to read it would pose a risk to public health.

This raises the question: Is censorship of science really the best way to ensure public health and safety?

The paper under scrutiny is a peer-reviewed analysis of three decades of vaccine adverse event reporting data which found that 75 percent of sudden infant deaths occurred within seven days of a vaccination, a statistically significant finding.

Author Neil Z. Miller reviewed the medical literature linking SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) to vaccines and proposed several pathogenic mechanisms, concluding that, “While the findings in this paper are not proof of an association between infant vaccines and infant deaths, they are highly suggestive of a causal relationship.”

The main finding from the paper, titled ‘Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature,’ is represented in the below image, which was widely shared on social media since its publication in the journal Toxicology Reports, in June 2021.

Nearly five years later, the paper has been removed, a highly unusual step reserved only for papers that may present legal risks to the publisher, Elsevier, or that could pose a serious health risk. Usually, serious concerns are dealt with either through the publication of a correction, an expression of concern or, in the most egregious cases, a retraction. Removal differs in that it essentially deletes the paper from the scientific record.1

According to a 9 April notice, the removal was triggered by reader complaints over “potential research errors and methodological flaws,” leading an investigation by the journal. The main sticking point was the use of data from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System), a passive reporting system to which anyone can make a report, to infer a correlation between vaccination and SIDS.

The notice states that Miller’s response during the investigation “did not satisfactorily address” concerns raised. “In light of these concerns, and given the potential implications for medical practice, the Editor-in-Chief has decided that the article should be removed. The author disagrees with this decision and disputes the grounds for removal.”

In a further comment to Retraction Watch, an Elsevier spokesperson confirmed that the paper was removed because “the recommendations and conclusions presented in the paper may pose potential risks to public health and could potentially be applied in clinical practice resulting in harm to patients.”

This is striking given that paper explicitly states that “this paper does not prove an association between infant vaccines and sudden infant deaths.”

Miller qualified that because the article “reveals unusual patterns and safety signals highly suggestive of a causal relationship,” “additional investigation is warranted,” as well as “finding ways to increase vaccine safety, reduce inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death certification practices, and support families in their quest to make genuinely informed healthcare decisions.”

It is hard to see how any of these recommendations could do anything other than improve public health and clinical practice.

In an email, Miller told me that he “strongly opposed the removal of my paper,” calling the decision “unjustified.”

The problem with VAERS data

VAERS is the US national passive vaccine surveillance system, the purpose of which is to “detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines,” according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Anyone can submit a report to VAERS — patients, caregivers, doctors, pharmacists, even lawyers. On the other hand, if a patient experiences a post-vaccine side effect and a report is not voluntarily submitted to VAERS, it is a proverbial tree falling in the forest with no witness.

Thus, VAERS captures reports of adverse events that occurred after vaccination, but it does not capture all adverse events and it cannot establish that the vaccine caused the event.2

The CDC states that correlation alone does not constitute a signal, and regarding SIDS specifically, that clustering deaths close to infant vaccinations is likely coincidental because, “At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”

The fact is that public health agencies and their defenders want to highlight the limitations of VAERS when it benefits them, but gloss over them when it doesn’t:

Authorities and their sanctioned researchers are allowed to “investigate” correlations between VAERS reports and vaccines and produce findings that the vaccines had nothing to do with anything, but independent researchers are not to use the data at all.

As noted by Retraction Watch, Miller’s article is just one of a number of vaccine-critical studies featuring VAERS data that has come under scrutiny in recent years. These include one retracted by Cureus which called for a moratorium on mRNA Covid vaccines, and another retracted by Toxicology Reports which questioned, “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?”

A third under investigation by publisher Taylor & Francis, was incorrectly described by Retraction Watch as “claiming to find DNA contamination in COVID-19 vaccines that was based on VAERS data.” In fact, the DNA contamination finding was based on lab work, however VAERS data provides specific lot information along with reports of medical incidents after vaccination, allowing the scientists to correlate batches with high DNA contamination reads with potential real-world impacts as reported to VAERS.

Cynics might speculate that it benefits the vaccine industry and public health agencies promoting vaccine uptake to keep VAERS exactly as is, limitations and all.

A 2007-2010 investigation into VAERS conducted by Harvard for the US Government which found that fewer than one percent of post-vaccine adverse events were reported to VAERS recommended that “proactive, spontaneous, automated adverse event reporting” linked with electronic health records and other information systems could improve the speed and accuracy of identifying the risks of pharmaceutical drugs.

Conspicuously, the researchers claimed that the CDC was “no longer responsive” to their “multiple requests” to continue the investigation, and a planned randomised trial comparing an improved surveillance system to the existing VAERS never happened.

No one in the US Government has since shown serious interest in improving VAERS until US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. identified implementing recommendations from the Harvard investigation as a priority.

VAERS and SIDS

While VAERS data cannot prove a causal relationship between vaccination and SIDS deaths, Miller argues that temporal associations should be considered alongside potential biological explanations for any correlations that are apparent.

“The reason infants are at greatest risk for medical events at this age is precisely because they receive multiple vaccinations — that have never been tested in combination — at a time when their immune, neurological, and respiratory systems are still immature,” he told me (emphasis Miller’s).

Miller said that he acknowledged the potential of reporting bias — where parents and doctors may be more likely to report SIDS deaths closer to vaccination than weeks later — in the limitations section of his paper.

But that potential reporting bias should be taken alongside the biological plausibility of an “an incubation period,” whereby vaccinations can, according to various experts referenced in the paper, trigger a cascade of physiological responses that peak within 24-48 hours after vaccination.

Miller said that the smaller proportion of infant deaths reported on Day 1 and Day 3 post-vaccination compared to the peak on Day 2 was statistically significant and “strongly suggests that reporting bias cannot fully explain the clustering of infant deaths and SIDS cases in the early post-vaccination period.” If parents were simply reporting deaths near vaccination opportunistically, you would expect Day 1 to have the most reports, not Day 2.

Moreover, Miller references seven studies and two confidential reports which display similar distribution of sudden infant death reports following vaccination, highlighting that this finding is not unique to his analysis of VAERS data. These studies comprise of passive data collection and case reports across multiple countries in relation to a range of different vaccines.

The GSK (formerly GlaxoSmithKline) confidential post-marketing surveillance data relating to the Infanrix hexa vaccine, from 2011 and 2015, is the most damning. Miller attests that the manufacturer’s own internal reports showed that 97 percent and 98 percent, respectively, of sudden infant deaths occurred in the first 10 days post-vaccination.

According to a critique published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (Puliyel & Sathyamala, 2018) and cited by Miller, GSK in a sleight of hand calculated the comparative ‘expected’ rate of SIDS deaths according to doses distributed, not administered, thus likely inflating the expected rate of deaths. Also, no active surveillance was conducted, and deaths acknowledged in an earlier report were eliminated from a later one. GSK concluded that SIDS deaths did not exceed the expected rate and that its vaccine was safe: regulators accepted this at face value.3

On the subject of expected background rates, Miller acknowledges that population-level SIDS rates would be a useful comparative metric, but notes that with immunisation coverage above 90 percent in the US, a meaningful unvaccinated baseline is challenging to quantify.

Miller also acknowledges that while some studies have found a correlation between vaccination and SIDS, other studies have not. One wonders if any papers in the latter category have been subject to campaigns for their deletion from the scientific record.

Timing suggests social media popularity was a factor in removal

According to Miller, whose LinkedIn page says he is a psychology graduate who has been researching and publishing on vaccine safety for some forty years, the complaints he was asked to respond to were brought from a single person soon after publication.

However, Miller was not notified of the complaints until December 2025. During that year, high-profile vaccine-skeptics Dr Peter McCullough and Dr Pierre Kory shared posts about Miller’s paper on their Substacks and discussed its findings on social media. The image at the top of this post showing the clustering of SIDS deaths within days of vaccination in particular was shared widely on social media sites.

In February 2026, Miller was informed by the publisher, Elsevier, that despite his thorough responses to concerns raised, Editor-in-Chief Professor Lawrence Lash had decided that the findings of the article “constitute potentially unsafe research for medical practice,” warranting a removal rather than a correction.

Is the Editor seriously suggesting that medical practitioners are too stupid to understand what VAERS is, and how the data should be weighed alongside other scientific data and in the broader context of the scientific discourse around vaccines and SIDS?

Lash, the Founding Editor of the journal, is a highly-cited Professor of Pharmacology at Wayne State University. It is unlikely that he genuinely believes his peers are so dumb.

More likely, this was a political retraction. Prior to its removal, Miller’s paper had been cited only 12 times in the scientific literature, according to Semantic Scholar. Its primary impact was clearly in the public sphere, not the scientific.

If this is the case — and we have seen journals remove valid peer-reviewed articles before due to social media virality, as I have previously reported — then this is yet another instance of politics dictating the bounds of scientific discourse.

[…]

It’s worth noting that the Editor-in-Chief of the journal at the time of the article’s peer-review and publication was not Professor Lash, but the extraordinarily highly-cited Greek Professor of Toxicology Aristidis Tsatsakis, senior author on the aforementioned and now retracted article, “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?”

Professor Tsatsakis said in an email that he believed his paper had been “retracted unjustifiably” due to “the policy [of] that period.” He noted that he has published several books with Elsevier which is a “huge publisher” and that “people representing Elsevier at various times can do mistakes.” He characterised Professor Lash as reputable scientist who acted as a “kind of yes Sir” Editor-in-Chief under these circumstances.

[…]

Via https://news.rebekahbarnett.com.au/p/study-linking-vaccines-to-sids-deleted

Illustration released by Hezbollah Military Media depicting Israeli soldiers fleeing from a military vehicle during combat operations.

Uprooted Palestinians

June 3, 2026

Despite renewed talk in Washington of a ceasefire in Lebanon, the reality facing Israeli occupation forces deployed in southern Lebanon appears markedly different, according to military affairs correspondent Yaniv Kubovich in Haaretz.

Israeli occupation troops operating in the area say there is little sense of any genuine de-escalation. Drones, aerial attacks, rocket fire, and attempts to target soldiers continue to occupy commanders and troops on the ground, despite US President Donald Trump’s assertion that Hezbollah had agreed to halt attacks on Israeli forces. Solely on Tuesday, the occupation forces reportedly faced ten drone-related attack attempts. The only tangible change, soldiers say, has been a reduction in launches toward the occupied territories and the suspension of attacks in Beirut.

Kubovich reports that the Israeli military maintains that the US-backed ceasefire directives do not apply to the areas where ground forces are operating. Field commanders say neither the threat environment nor operational tasks have changed and that fighting continues at nearly the same intensity.

According to the report, the Israeli military has drawn a distinction between areas under Northern Command responsibility—including buffer zones and territories entered during ground operations—and areas overseen directly by the General Staff, including Beirut, major urban centers, and deeper regions of Lebanon. While little has changed in the first category, military attacks in the second were halted following a direct request from Trump.

Senior officers described an unprecedented situation in which authority over the use of force is no longer determined solely by the Israeli occupation government or military leadership but is increasingly influenced by decisions made in the White House. Planned strikes against targets in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon—including operations requiring extensive preparation by the air force, intelligence services, and other military branches—were reportedly canceled at the last moment.

The situation has reportedly generated unease within the Zionist entity’s military leadership. Many officers say they have never operated under conditions where battlefield decisions with direct consequences for troops are so immediately affected by a foreign government’s political choices.

For commanders, uncertainty has become a defining feature of the conflict. Commanders prepare large-scale plans, mobilize forces, and ready complex operations without any guarantee of their execution. Some military officers also believe recent public statements by the Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the defense minister undermined military initiatives. According to those officers, key targets had been awaiting favorable operational conditions, but inflammatory political rhetoric increased international and political pressure, complicating their execution.

Kubovich further reports that military and security officials presented political leaders with multiple escalation scenarios ahead of a proposed expansion of military operations. Some options included strikes deep inside Lebanon and broader campaigns targeting Hezbollah’s centers of influence.

The military reportedly believed such operations could inflict greater damage on Hezbollah but would require substantial resources and lengthy preparations. Ultimately, the plans were not fully approved. The operation that did proceed was more limited than the alternatives proposed and has now also been suspended following the US push for a ceasefire.

According to military and security sources, a widening gap between actual battlefield outcomes and the rhetoric promoted by political leaders and official spokespersons has fueled frustration and eroded public confidence among Israeli settlers.

In this context, Israeli military officials acknowledge that while Hezbollah has suffered significant blows, it has not been defeated. Its command structure remains intact, much of its organizational framework survives, and substantial capabilities have been preserved for the future.

Field commanders have also warned against a return to the institutional culture that prevailed before the October 7 attacks. They argue that conformity with senior leadership is increasing while critical voices are being marginalized. According to officers, the perspectives of commanders on the ground are often ignored, and few within the military are willing to challenge operational decisions.

Israel currently maintains military operations across Lebanon, Syria, and the Gaza Strip. Each front demands significant manpower, intelligence resources, logistical support, and defensive capabilities. Field commanders warn that such a posture is unsustainable without a clear strategic vision. Reserve forces are already under severe strain, while regular units continue to face rapid attrition.

One senior reserve officer summarized the dilemma: “The issue is not how much territory can be occupied. The issue is who will hold it a year from now. If the state does not define a strategy for all fronts, the Israeli military will eventually reach its breaking point.”

Former Israeli Army Chief: Current Situation in Lebanon Is Pointless

The concerns raised by serving officers and security officials are echoed by prominent figures from Israel’s military establishment. As criticism grows over the absence of a clear strategy, former Chief of Staff Dan Halutz has joined a widening chorus of voices questioning the government’s conduct of the war and warning that continued military operations without defined political objectives risk further deepening the Israeli occupation’s strategic predicament.

Halutz said military leaders must establish clear limits and demand solutions from the government.

Speaking to Radio 103FM about developments on the northern front and in southern Lebanon, Halutz delivered a scathing assessment of the government’s conduct.

“They sent our soldiers like sitting ducks into a shooting range. They are exposed. These soldiers are doing everything they can with courage, but they have been given undefined objectives and no clear path to achieving them,” he said.

Halutz also criticized the capture of Beaufort Castle (Qalaat Al-Shaqif), arguing that Netanyahu was seeking “symbolic victories” rather than strategic achievements.

“We seized Beaufort Castle, and Netanyahu was looking for symbols. Suddenly he remembered Begin’s symbolism from 44 years ago and clung to it. The castle means nothing without a comprehensive strategy,” he said, adding that the insistence on maintaining the current situation in Lebanon serves no purpose.

Asked whether military leaders should tell the government that enough is enough, Halutz answered unequivocally in the affirmative. “Of course. They should say, ‘This is enough.’ Let’s stop and consider another solution.’” Halutz expressed little confidence that Netanyahu’s political and diplomatic circle would challenge his decision.

[…]

Via https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2026/06/03/israeli-military-admits-strategic-deadlock-in-lebanon-as-officers-warn-occupation-is-unsustainable/

Over the past eight or so days, the US has targeted Iranian vessels as well as targets on the Iranian mainland. This included non-Iranian oil vessels. In essence, this was the US seeking to escalate the blockade of the blockade.

At first, Iran’s response was proportional. The US could tolerate that response.

In fact, it was beneficial to the US to continue the exchange of blows but keep them relatively limited, as it would slowly but surely erode Iran’s deterrence without imposing intolerable costs on the US.

But yesterday, Iran moved to change that equation.

After the US struck a Botswana-flagged tanker as part of Trump’s blockade, the Iranians counter-escalated disproportionally.

Tehran struck Kuwait International Airport as well as a US base in Kuwait, Ali Al-Salem.

It struck the 5th Fleet facilities in Bahrain. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck Jordan. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck northern Iraq. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck the UAE. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It struck the Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar. (Full extent of damage unknown.)

It was a demonstration – and reminder – that Tehran retains escalation dominance.

Whereas the US is comfortable with either a possible deal or a low-level exchange of fire, but not a return to full-scale war, Tehran is comfortable with a possible deal or a full-scale war, but not with a low-level exchange of fire that erodes Iran’s deterrence and allows for Trump’s “blockade of the blockade” to become effective.

The area where both can actually be comfortable is some sort of a deal. Reaching it, however, is a different story.

[…]

Via https://tritaparsi.substack.com/p/iran-moved-to-change-the-us-iran

Episode 1 Introduction to Human Prehistory

Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations

Dr Brian Fagan (2003)

Film Review

Six million years ago primates known as hominids, which showed, began to appear among African apes. Two and half millions years ago, hominids had developed sufficiently to establish themselves as a human species.

The term prehistory covers all history prior to written records and is derived from:

• archeological remains
• oral history
• fragmentary written accounts
• biological and zoological fossil remains
• radioactive dating and other scientific disciplines

The modern human species Homo sapiens first appeared 100,000 years ago in Africa and eventually spread across the globe. The features that distinguish Homo sapiens from more primitive hominids are the capacity for

• rational thought
• future planning
• conceptualizing theoretical ideas
• art
• cultivation of wild grasses
• domestication of animals

In 5,000 BC Native Americans, at the time the most skilled farmers in the world, first adopted agriculture in the New World.

The world’s earliest civilizations arose in the eastern Mediterranean in Egypt and Mesopotamia. This would be followed by the Minoan civilization on Crete and Mycenaean civilization in Greece and the Xia dynasty in China.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/video/15061946/15061950

Residents living near artificial intelligence (AI) data centers are reporting symptoms — including dizziness, nausea, vertigo, insomnia, headaches and anxiety — that they believe are directly related to the centers’ noise pollution.

According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, the noise emitted by data centers can be heard and felt hundreds of feet away, and noise levels can reach up to 96 decibels — for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Sound levels exceeding 85 decibels are considered dangerous and potentially damaging to human hearing, depending on the duration of the exposure.

Data centers also emit infrasound, a low-frequency (below 20 Hertz) rumble that the human ear can’t hear, but the body feels as pressure or vibration.

Infrasound generated by data centers is “the new enemy,” Futurism reported earlier this month. The centers’ cooling systems, power generators and server racks are suspected infrasound culprits.

‘Infrasound’ may negatively affect heart functioning

Some data centers have been built as close as 50 feet from people’s homes.

Residents exposed to infrasound from data centers are reporting symptoms similar to EMR Syndrome, which is linked to the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cell towers, cellphones and Wi-Fi networks.

This symptom overlap comes as no surprise to Paul Héroux, Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and a medical scientist in the McGill University Health Center surgery department.

“Sound, electric and magnetic fields of the same frequency have some overlap in their biological effects because they are similarly disruptive energy injections,” Héroux said.

Héroux is also vice chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, a “consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers” who study wireless radiation and make recommendations for wireless radiation exposure, “based on the best peer-reviewed research publications.”

According to Héroux, infrasound at high volumes can directly affect the human central nervous system, causing disorientation, anxiety, panic, bowel spasms, nausea, vomiting, eventual organ rupture and even death.

He pointed out that in 1957, French scientist Vladimir Gavreau began experimenting with low-frequency acoustics to create an audio weapon for the French military.

Just five years ago, German researchers published results from an in-vitro study showing that after just one hour of exposure, high levels of infrasound interfered with the heart muscle’s ability to contract properly.

Based on those findings, it’s possible that chronic exposure to infrasound from data centers could negatively affect heart function, Héroux said.

W. Scott McCollough, lead attorney for Children’s Health Defense (CHD) EMR & Wireless cases, also wasn’t surprised that exposure to infrasound emitted by data centers and radiofrequency (RF) radiation from cell towers and other devices can trigger similar symptoms. He said:

“Infrasound waves come from periodic pressure fluctuations, very akin to how modern radio systems modulate RF energy to carry information. The modulation leads to asymmetric bursts of energy with sharp peaks and valleys. Both lead to resonance and amplification, leading to stronger peaks in energy or sound pressure.”

‘Not in my backyard’: Most U.S. adults don’t want a data center near them

The average data center is roughly 100,000 square feet — large enough to fit nearly two football fields. Proponents of the gigantic infrastructures argue they are necessary for the U.S. to keep its competitive edge over China in the AI revolution.

But local residents — especially women — are sounding the alarm. Critics warn that the center will likely harm nearby residents, including children, and the surrounding environment.

Last month, Maine was poised to become the first state to enact a moratorium on new data centers. However, Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the bill. She wrote in a letter explaining her decision:

“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates. But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region.”

Maine is one of at least 11 states that have proposed legislation to restrict or ban data center development since late 2025.

A Gallup poll conducted in March found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults oppose having a data center in their area. Only 7% said they were strongly in favor. Fifty-five percent of women said they strongly opposed data centers, compared to 43% of men.

AI data centers have already drawn fierce, bipartisan criticism for their water and electricity consumption and environmental impact.

Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD’s EMR & Wireless Program, said she sees similarities in the U.S. situation between data centers and new cell towers, which are also known to cause harm to human health and the environment.

In both cases, companies that stand to profit try to put up infrastructure close to where people live, learn and play. “People don’t want them, so they oppose them,” Eckenfels said.

Local communities should have the right to say no to such developments. “These decisions must be made at the local level and not in Washington D.C., where folks are far removed from the reality on the ground and the negative consequences.”

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/ai-data-centers-noise-pollution-nausea-insomnia/