By  Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.

A Swiss study found high cellphone use was associated with reduced male fertility measures. But experts criticized the authors for speculating newer phones emit less radiation and for their ties to a group aligned with telecom industry interests.

The study found that men who used their phones more than 20 times a day had significantly lower sperm counts and decreased sperm concentrations — two critical measures of male fertility — than men who used their phones just once a week.

These men had roughly 21% higher risk of sperm counts and 30% higher risk of sperm concentrations falling below the World Health Organization’s reference values for fertile men.

The authors of the study — which tracked the health data and cellphone usage data of 2,886 young men from 2005 to 2018 — said the link between cellphone use and lower sperm counts was “more pronounced in the first period of the study (2005 and 2007) and decreased progressively over the subsequent time periods (2008–2011 and 2012–2018).”

They attributed the differences to newer wireless technologies, which they said emit less radiofrequency (RF) radiation.

Do newer technologies really emit less radiation?

Experts like Lennart Hardell, M.D., Ph.D., a world-leading scientist on cancer risks from radiation, took issue with the authors’ suggestion that newer wireless technologies emit less radiation.

“The authors gave an overgeneralized explanation that conveniently suited wireless companies’ interests,” Hardell told The Defender.

Hardell, an oncologist and epidemiologist with the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation who has authored more than 350 papers, almost 60 of which address the topic of RF radiation, said he disagreed with statements made by Martin Rӧӧsli, Ph.D., one of the study authors and an associate professor in epidemiology and public health at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute.

Rӧӧsli told Forbes the link between phone use and sperm counts lessened over time periods corresponding to the transition from 2G to 3G networks and from 3G to 4G networks because the newer networks “led to a reduction in the transmitting power of phones.”

If the amount of power — as in energy — is lower, that would mean people’s exposure to RF radiation would be lower.

Rajeev Singh, Ph.D., an environmental science professor at the University of Delhi who studies the impacts of RF radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMF) on male reproductive health, also disagreed with the study authors’ argument that newer phones emit less power.

In February, Singh and other researchers published a review of 168 studies, many recent, that found RF radiation had negative impacts on male reproductive health.

“It’s not accurate to make a blanket statement that 4G or 3G devices emit more power or energy in all cases,” Singh told The Defender.

“The specific power levels emitted by a mobile device can vary based on the device’s design, its antenna and how it’s used,” he said, adding:

“Some 3G devices may have higher power requirements than some 4G devices, and vice versa … the power or energy emitted by a 4G mobile device can vary depending on network conditions, the device’s power efficiency, and how it’s being used.”

W. Scott McCollough, chief litigator for CHD’s electromagnetic radiation (EMR) cases, agreed. “The claim that higher generations — such as 4G versus 3G — emit less power is an overgeneralization since there are several physical factors that determine the power output of wireless devices.”

“Plus, we are seeing multiple generations at the same site,” McCollough said. “Wireless companies commonly run both LTE, which is 4G, and 5G on the same cell tower, each with its own power output.”

With the greater numbers and concentrations of transmitting towers, “people may be exposed to more, not less, RF radiation,” McCollough said.

Wireless industry experts interviewed by the scientific research and education nonprofit Environmental Health Trust (EHT) said 5G antennas emit RF radiation as a concentrated rather than a diffused beam, with output power 20 to 35 times more than 4G.

Dr. Marc Arazi, founder and president of the France-based Phonegate Alert, told The Defender the study authors’ argument about the power of cellphones was “misleading.”

Arazi pointed out that just this fall, France temporarily banned Apple’s iPhone 12 for emitting RF radiation levels above the legal limit.

Hardell also said the study authors ignored other probable explanations for differences over time they saw in the sperm counts.

For instance, European men’s exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls — better known as PCBs — “has decreased over time due to regulations,” Hardell said.

PCBs have been shown to function as endocrine disruptors that negatively impact sperm counts.

“This fact might obscure a true impact from RF radiation,” Hardell added.

Röösli part of key ‘invite-only’ group with ‘longstanding industry ties’

According to Arazi and Hardell, the study authors’ argument that newer technologies emit less power paints a picture that is favorable to wireless companies that want to market their products as safe.

“One must remember,” Hardell said, “that Röösli is a long-time gatekeeper regarding health risks from RF radiation, which obviously is in accordance with his membership in ICNIRP [the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection].”

Founded by scientist and wireless industry consultant Michael Repacholi, who funneled industry money through a hospital to fund his EMF activities, ICNIRP is an “invite only” small group with “longstanding industry ties” that “is “accountable to no one,” according to EHT.

Rӧӧsli has been an ICNIRP member since 2016.

Mona Nilsson, managing director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation and co-researcher with Hardell on the negative health impacts of 5G, told The Defender, “Martin Röösli’s suggestion that today’s phones would be less harmful is rather typical for a person with conflicts of interests, such as being a member of ICNIRP.”

ICNIRP and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission in the 1990s adopted RF exposure limits based on the assumption — sometimes called the “thermal-only paradigm” — that harm could only come at radiation levels high enough to heat tissues.

ICNIRP in 2020 reaffirmed its guidelines based on the same assumption, despite substantial scientific evidence showing biological effects at non-thermal levels.

Researchers in 2023 accused ICNIRP of basing its 2020 guidelines largely on studies done by its own members and ignoring scientific studies showing harm could occur at radiation levels below what’s needed to cause tissue heating.

The researchers said, “With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP contrasts with the majority of research findings.”

Hardell agreed. “ICNIRP is basically a product defense organization,” he said, meaning it acts like a scientific authority in order to protect telecommunication companies by ignoring and discrediting research that shows their products may be unsafe.

Additionally, Hardell and Michael Carlberg in a 2020 paper noted that many ICNIRP members — including Rӧӧsli — sit on other key international committees that make decisions on what science is regarded or ignored regarding RF radiation.

“There appears to be a cartel of individuals working on this issue,” they wrote, who “propagate” ICNIRP’s thermal-only paradigm on RF radiation.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cellphone-radiation-male-fertility/

By  Dr. Joseph Mercola

GlaxoSmithKline renewed its deal to mine 23andMe’s client genetic data for disease clues and drug leads. If you’ve used a DNA testing company like 23andMe, chances are your genetic data is in the hands of insurance companies and drug companies — and maybe even in the hands of hackers. Either way, your DNA could be used against you.

• GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) will pay 23andMe $20 million to extend its five-year contract to mine the company’s consumer DNA data for another year.
• The drugmaker is searching for hints about genes that might be at the root of disease. 23andMe will get royalties on any drugs developed.
• 23andMe also recently launched a new DNA-sequencing service called Total Health, which sequences your entire exome, the protein-coding part of your genome, which is thought to be responsible for most disease-causing genes. The move is another step in 23andMe’s plan to transform itself into a full-fledged healthcare company that also treats patients.
• 23andMe acquired a telehealth and drug-delivery startup called Lemonaid Health in 2021. Lemonaid doctors are being trained by 23andMe on how to interpret DNA results and provide tailored health advice.
• 23andMe’s concept of “healthcare” is all about expanding the use of drugs by getting people on them earlier, before they even have symptoms, based solely on genetic risk factors.

Do you know who has access to your genetic data? If you’ve used a DNA testing company like 23andMe, chances are your genetic data is in the hands of insurance companies and drug companies.

It may also be in the hands of hackers. Either way, your DNA could be used against you.

GlaxoSmithKline extends data mining contract with 23andMe

As reported by Bloomberg, GSK will pay 23andMe $20 million to extend its five-year contract to mine the company’s consumer DNA data for another year:

“The idea for drugmakers is to comb the data for hints about genetic pathways that might be at the root of disease, which could significantly speed up the long, slow process of drug development.

“GSK and 23andMe have already taken one potential medication to clinical trials: a cancer drug that works to block CD96, a protein that helps modulate the body’s immune responses.

In case this wasn’t obvious, YOU pay to have your DNA tested, and then 23andMe sells the mining rights of those data and makes royalties on new drugs. Quite the profit model, having customers pay for their own exploitation.

And GSK isn’t the only drug company mining your data. The deal is nonexclusive, so any number of other companies may be mining your genetic data as well.

23andMe seeks to transform into a healthcare company

23andMe also recently launched a new DNA-sequencing service called Total Health, which sequences your entire exome, the protein-coding part of your genome, which is thought to be responsible for most disease-causing genes.

While their basic DNA test for health and ancestry has a price tag of $229, this expanded test will set you back $1,188 — per year.

The move is another step in 23andMe’s plan to transform itself into a full-fledged healthcare company that also treats patients.

With this goal in mind, 23andMe acquired a telehealth and drug-delivery startup called Lemonaid Health in 2021.

Lemonaid doctors are reportedly being trained by 23andMe on how to interpret DNA results and provide tailored health advice.

[…]

Genetic predisposition — a tactic to increase drug sales

This is an excellent example of why Americans are so mired in chronic illness, and why genetic testing, as it currently stands, will do nothing to ameliorate the situation.

If you have genetic risk factors for early heart disease, the last thing you want to do is go on cholesterol-lowering drugs as they destroy heart tissue and act as mitochondrial toxins. Statins also raise your risk of diabetes and dementia.

Unfortunately, if you do an online search for “statins damage heart” or something similar, the first page or two of results will be articles “debunking” claims that they can harm your heart.

This is Big Tech censorship at work, and it’s only going to get worse from here. You have to dig deeper into the search results to actually find what you’re looking for. Eventually, you may not find it at all.

The point here is that cholesterol has little to do with the development of heart disease, so the entire premise of this kind of “prevention” is flawed from the get-go.

Basically, 23andMe’s concept of “healthcare” is all about expanding the use of drugs by getting people on them earlier, before they even have symptoms, based solely on genetic risk factors.

Your genetic data can be used against you in many ways

Adding insult to injury, your genetic data may be sold to insurance companies that may then charge you extra for a “preexisting condition” you don’t actually have but might potentially develop in the future. Life insurance companies may also charge you more, or decline coverage altogether.

As reported in a Sept. 7, article in The Conversation:

“In Australia, life insurance companies can legally use the results of genetic tests to discriminate. They can decline to provide life insurance coverage, increase the cost of premiums, or place exclusions on an individual’s cover. …

“This week, a number of federal parliamentarians argued for a ban on genetic discrimination by life insurance companies. …

“The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 prohibits discrimination on a number of different bases, including genetic risk factors.

“However, there is a specific carve-out in the Act that allows life insurers to discriminate in ways other entities are prohibited from doing.

“This means companies providing insurance for death, income protection, and disability can discriminate on the basis of genetic risk of disease.

“Other companies that provide risk-rated insurance (where insurers assess an individual’s risk factors and change coverage or premiums based on this risk) can also use genetic test results to discriminate. This includes travel insurance.”

23andMe, the Google of gene-based medicine

As noted in a November 2013 article by Scientific American, 23andMe poses a unique threat to the public that few ever discuss.

While sold as a medical device, its true function is that of a massive information-gathering operation, just like Google turned out to be.

While it took a while, it’s now become crystal clear that Google is using all that personal data gathered from users to control and suppress information that doesn’t benefit its advertisers. Will 23andMe end up being a repeat of Google’s bait and switch?

As reported by Scientific American:

“Although 23andMe admits that it will share aggregate information about users genomes to third parties, it adamantly insists that it will not sell your personal genetic information without your explicit consent. We’ve heard that one before. …

“Even though 23andMe currently asks permission to use your genetic information for scientific research, the company has explicitly stated that its database-sifting scientific work ‘does not constitute research on human subjects,’ meaning that it is not subject to the rules and regulations that are supposed to protect experimental subjects’ privacy and welfare.

“Those of us who have not volunteered to be a part of the grand experiment have even less protection. Even if 23andMe keeps your genome confidential against hackers, corporate takeovers, and the temptations of filthy lucre forever and ever, there is plenty of evidence that there is no such thing as an ‘anonymous’ genome anymore.

“It is possible to use the internet to identify the owner of a snippet of genetic information and it is getting easier day by day. While the FDA concentrates on the question of whether 23andMe’s kit is a safe and effective medical device, it is failing to address the real issue: what 23andMe should be allowed to do with the data it collects.

“For 23andMe’s Personal Genome Service is much more than a medical device; it is a one-way portal into a world where corporations have access to the innermost contents of your cells and where insurers and pharmaceutical firms and marketers might know more about your body than you know yourself.

“And as 23andMe warns on its website, ‘Genetic Information that you share with others could be used against your interests. You should be careful about sharing your Genetic Information with others.’ Present company excepted, of course.”

For the record, that warning no longer exists on 23andMe’s website. In the end, we may well see DNA testing companies like 23andMe share everyone’s genetic data with insurance companies, which in turn may force you into pharmaceutical solutions for problems you don’t yet have.

The CIA connection

Interestingly, the connection between Google and 23andMe is closer than you might think. 23andMe cofounder Anne Wojcicki was married to Google founder Sergey Brin for eight years and the couple have two children together. They divorced in 2015.

Wojcicki’s sister, Susan Wojcicki, was one of Google’s first employees. In 2006, she convinced Google to acquire YouTube and served as YouTube’s CEO from 2014 until 2023. She’s now an adviser to Google and its parent company Alphabet.

As reported by Quartz magazine, Google came about largely thanks to research grants for mass surveillance technologies from the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA).

Similarly, Wojcicki was finally able to take 23andMe public after raising more than $1 billion in funding from, among others, Google, GSK, Johnson & Johnson and Sequoia Capital, the latter of which is also heavily invested in artificial intelligence and has drawn scrutiny from Washington for having “significant operations” in China that might benefit the Chinese military.

Google — probably the biggest spy machine ever built — the CIA, NSA, Big Pharma and a Chinese-linked artificial intelligence (AI) investment firm. These are all either directly invested in, or linked to through investments, a company (23andMe) that is harvesting the genetic code from millions of Americans.

Does that really sound like a good idea?

You don’t need predictive AI to figure out that the beneficiaries of 23andMe’s data will be the drug industry and the intelligence agencies that are working to further the transhumanist and technocratic goals and ambitions of the globalist deep state.

[…]

Via https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/glaxosmithkline-20-million-consumer-dna-data-23andme/?utm_id=20231108