Older people and people with chronic illness are at greater risk, and how we respond to the threat affects everyone.
Even before the Covid-19 coronavirus reached more than 100 countries around the world, early data from China — where the outbreak started — suggested that older adults were the most vulnerable to the worst effects of the disease.
Now, that data, along with emerging research from Italy — the second-most-affected country in the world — is showing just how dangerous Covid-19 is for older people, and others with with heart, lung, and immunological conditions.
In Italy, a country with one of the world’s oldest populations, a March 4 analysis by the national health institute found that of the 105 patients who died from the virus, the average age was 81. This put a 20-year gap between the average age of people who tested positive for the virus and the deceased, the institute said. On Friday, an ICU physician in Lombardy — the epicenter of Italy’s outbreak — told JAMA there have been only two deaths of people under the age of 50.
The following is not medical advice. Scientists for Wired Technology is not qualified to provide any medical or legal advice. The following is for educational purposes only. This page is one of three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs); the other two are the US House/Senate Conference Report for the 1996 Telecommunications Act (“1996-Act”) and the stated purpose of the 1996-Act: to promote the safety of life and property.
San Francisco 4G/5G “Small” Cells Leads to Melatonin Suppression and Immuno-Suppression, Mar 4, 2020 WILL SAN FRANCISCO POWER OFFALL OF THEIR SO-CALLED “SMALL” CELLS OR NOT?
Resonance: Beings of Frequency — Watch from 1:07:40 to 1:18:00 to learn about pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) exposures from 4G/5G cellular infrastructure causing melatonin suppression and immuno-suppression.
Dr. Andrew Saul Discuss Vitamin C, Coronavirus, and Censorship — watch at least from 5:40 to 8:10 and read the slides
Judy Mikovitis, PhD — Coronavirus — What You Should Know
William Schaffner, MD, Vanderbilt University: Coronavirus FAQ: How Deadly Is It?
The 3rd Large Dose VIt C Clinical Study for NCP Approved
Link to China Treating Coronavirus COVID-19 with Intravenous Vitamin C
The Taiwanese physician noted that in August of 2019 the US had a flurry of lung pneumonias or similar, which the Americans blamed on ‘vaping’ from e-cigarettes, but which, according to the scientist, the symptoms and conditions could not be explained by e-cigarettes. He said he wrote to the US officials telling them he suspected those deaths were likely due to the coronavirus. He claims his warnings were ignored.
The coronavirus epidemic may well be a legitimate health concern, but it’s the government’s response to it that worries me more in the long term. Based on the government’s track record and its long-anticipated plans for instituting martial law (using armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems) in response to a future crisis, there’s good reason to worry.
Leading members of the House of Representatives are rushing a vote on Wednesday to extend abusive government surveillance powers before they’re set to expire on March 15. If approved, the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 would reauthorize Section 215 powers Congress established under the USA Patriot Act in 2001. Section 215 is the provision national-security agencies have cited to support their unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States.
Dr. Anthonu Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, testified before Congress on Wednesday and said that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is “10 times more lethal than seasonal flu.”
The US has been lying all along. Robert Redfield, CDC director, testifying to Congress, today admitted that virus deaths have been miscategorised as the flu. He also stated that the standard practice has been to first test people for the flu and, if the test is positive, they stop there. They don’t test for the coronavirus.
On the day that the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the coronavirus COVID-19 a “pandemic”, there was not the slightest trace of a pandemic. A pandemic might be the condition when the death-to-infection rate exceeds 10%. In Europe, the death rate is ~0.4%, or less. Italy which is a special case: the peak death rate was 6%.
After the pandemic has been officially declared, the next step may be – also at the recommendation either by WHO, or individual countries – forced vaccination, under police and/or military surveillance. Those who refuse may be penalized (fines and / or jail – and force-vaccinated all the same).
Why was there a coronavirus computer simulation byJohns Hopkins on October 18, 2019, sponsored by the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
"A total crackdown with artificially induced panic to the point where it would be easy for the EU and US authorities to impose a military stage of siege for “health protection of the people”. In fact, CDC (Center for Disease Control in Atlanta), has already designed harshly dictatorial directives for a “health emergency”.
University of California, San Francisco BioHub Panel on COVID-19, March 10, 2020
Panelists
Joe DeRisi: UCSF’s top infectious disease researcher. Co-president of ChanZuckerberg BioHub (a JV involving UCSF / Berkeley / Stanford). Co-inventor of the chip used in SARS epidemic.
Emily Crawford: COVID task force director. Focused on diagnostics
Patrick Ayescue: Leading outbreak response and surveillance. Epidemiologist.
Chaz Langelier: UCSF Infectious Disease doc
What’s below are essentially direct quotes from the panelists. I bracketed the few things that are not quotes.
Top takeaways
At this point, we are past containment. Containment is basically futile. Our containment efforts won’t reduce the number who get infected in the US.
Now we’re just trying to slow the spread, to help healthcare providers deal with the demand peak. In other words, the goal of containment is to "flatten the curve", to lower the peak of the surge of demand that will hit healthcare providers. And to buy time, in hopes a drug can be developed.
NAREN, ANUBHAV ELHENCE, VINAY CHAMOLA AND MOHSEN GUIZANI, (Fellow, IEEE)
Received January 11, 2020, accepted January 21, 2020, date of publication February 27, 2020, date of current version March 12, 2020
"We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to RF-EMR exposure. We also discuss some individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that can be undertaken to reduce the risk of RF-EMR absorption. This paper analyses radiation safety in pre-5G networks and uses the insight gained to raise valuable concerns regarding RF-EMR safety in the upcoming 5G networks."
IX. CONCLUSION: People should be made aware that the EMR from using day to day cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices are harmful to human health. The levels of radiation observed in most cases such as phone calls, internet browsing on laptops and smartphones, using wireless routers and hotspots, Bluetooth smartwatches and smartphones are unsafe when compared with radiations limits determined by medical bodies. According to the current medical literature, various adverse health effects from exposure to RF EMR have been well documented. Wireless technologies must be avoided as much as possible. New and innovative wired solutions should be encouraged.
Intervention of government and medical bodies with the main purpose of protecting human health is of utmost necessity to ensure good economic development without compromising the health of the population. Countries must adopt the RF-EMR exposure guidelines suggested by medical bodies which take into account both thermal and non-thermal effects of EMR. At present, all individuals must take preventive and protective measures to protect themselves from harmful EMR exposure
By Timothy Karr, 201-533-8838, Mar 11, 2020 | Original FreePress article here.
WASHINGTON — Leading members of the House of Representatives are rushing a vote on Mar 11 to extend abusive government surveillance powers before they’re set to expire on March 15.
If approved, the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 would reauthorize Section 215 powers Congress established under the USA Patriot Act in 2001. Section 215 is the provision national-security agencies have cited to support their unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States.
The new legislation, unveiled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, is sponsored by Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York and Adam Schiff of California, chairmen of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees respectively. This bill makes some minor reforms, including adding a public advocate to some additional secretive FISA court deliberations. But it fails to put in place limits favored by privacy, racial-justice and civil-liberty advocates, most of whom support an alternative bill, the Safeguarding Americans’ Private Records Act, introduced earlier this year with bipartisan support.
Free Press Action Government Relations Director Sandra Fulton made the following statement:
“In the last few weeks, progressive lawmakers have demanded legislation to protect their constituents and avoid a rubber-stamp renewal of the Patriot Act’s most dangerous provisions. But now leading Democrats are bypassing regular order, rushing the renewal process, and quietly cutting a deal with pro-surveillance Republicans to allow the NSA and other intelligence agencies to continue spying on innocent people across the United States. These lawmakers are attempting to sneak this bad bill through despite strong bipartisan opposition from the public. And they’re doing this without a proper debate, or any chance for amendments from members who want to protect our civil liberties, while the country is focused on the spread of COVID-19.
The supporters of this harmful legislation are touting it as a strong reform measure, but that couldn’t be farther from the truth. It would renew invasive spying powers that endanger vulnerable communities — like people of color, trans folks, activists and journalists — for a president who acts in open and cruel defiance of constitutional limits to his power.
By Joel Moskowitz, Sept 20, 2020 | Original SaferEMR article here.
In September 2019, Scientific American, the oldest, continuously published monthly magazine in the U.S., published an opinion piece on its website entitled, (link to) “5G Is Coming: How Worried Should We Be about the Health Risks? So far, at least, there’s little evidence of danger.”
The piece was written by Kenneth Foster, an emeritus professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania. Foster is a member of a committee that sets exposure limits for wireless radiation and consults for industry and government. His article discussed the controversy about the rollout of 5G based upon widespread concerns about the adverse impact of this technology on our health. Foster argued that exposure to radio frequency radiation (RFR) from 5G will be similar to, or lower than, current levels because of the deployment of many “small cell” antennas. Hence, 5G exposure will comply with current RFR exposure limits that protect against “excessive heating of tissue.”
Although Foster admitted that research on the effects of long-term exposure to 5G millimeter waves was lacking, he restated the FDA’s position that "[t]he available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.” Thus, “the request to ‘stop the distribution of 5G products appears too drastic a measure. We first need to see how this new technology will be applied and how the scientific evidence will evolve.’”
In October, Scientific American published an opinion piece which I wrote entitled, (link to)“We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe:The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks,” that rebutted Foster’s article. My piece is reprinted on my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website.
In the eleven years that I have been writing about the effects of RFR exposure, I anticipated that my response to Foster would provoke an attack by industry-affiliated scientists so I began my piece as follows:
“The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology’s 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.”
By Stephen Dubner, Feb 19, 2020 | Original recording/transcript here.
Apr 27, 2017 PBS Interview: FCC Chair Ajit Pai explains why he wants to scrap net neutrality
Stephen DUBNER: Now, when you first joined the F.C.C. back in 2007 I believe, a profile of you described the F.C.C. as “one of those government institutions that conceals its importance behind an impenetrable veneer of boring-ness.” I’m curious whether you think that’s about accurate?
Ajit PAI: I think the description might have described the agency for some time, but given the range of our jurisdiction today, I think it’s assumed much more prominence.
PAI: I serve as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C.
The FCC. an independent government agency overseen by Congress, was founded in 1934. Its baseline mission is to regulate communications by radio, TV, wire, satellite, and cable. Because communications technology has evolved just a little bit since 1934, the agency’s portfolio has evolved as well. Not just in size but in complexity. Its decisions carry not only economic ramifications but, increasingly, societal, security, and political ramifications too. Consider the agency’s recent effort — led by Ajit Pai — to reverse the commission’s own position on net neutrality:
View PBS NewsHour: A political fight is brewing about access to the internet.
PAI: It involves a basic concept of how the internet is governed. Do you want it to be governed by engineers and entrepreneurs? Or do you want it to be run by bureaucrats and lawyers here in Washington?
Tom WHEELER: To go out and claim that somehow this is some kind of consumer protection is a fraudulent representation.
Betthan Cooley, CTIA Assistant Vice President, State Legislative Affairs
Paul Heroux, 514-398-6988, PhD | paul.heroux@mcgill.ca | OSHA Director, McGill University; scientist with experience in physics (BSc, MSc and PhD), engineering (15 years), and the health sciences (30 years); His Q&A was excellent!
Eric S. Swanson, PhD, 412-624–9057 | swansone@pitt.edu | Prof. of Physics, University of Pittsburgh (former employer of Devra Davis) — listen to this propaganda (hand-to-forehead headslap!)
Democratic Sen. Suzy Glowiak-Hilton (left), of Western Springs, and CTIA Vice President Bethanne Cooley speak to Senate Public Health Committee members about the fifth generation of the wireless network Tuesday at the Capitol in Springfield. Cooley, whose trade organization represents the American wireless industry, said the improvement would create 3 million jobs nationally — 2,500 in Chicago and 1,800 in Aurora. (Credit: blueroomstream.com)
Proposed bills would allow panel to study health risks, give people a voice in infrastructure siting
SPRINGFIELD — First, there were cordless phones and text messages. Then, internet access and video calls.
Now, wireless’s fifth generation will drive mobile phone speeds even faster and allow for advances in telemedicine and management of traffic signals, for example, according to the Federal Communications Commission.
But two lawmakers, Western Springs Democratic Sen. Suzy Glowiak Hilton and Elmhurst Republican Rep. Deanne Mazzochi, want to give residents, legislators and industry experts a chance to weigh in on the network upgrade.
“I think government really works best when the residents are engaged and active,” Glowiak Hilton said.
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—On a drizzly day in January 2018, Jeff Alson, an engineer at the Environmental Protection Agency’s motor-vehicles office, gathered with his colleagues to make a video call to Washington, D.C.
They had made the same call dozens of times before. For nearly a decade, the EPA team had worked closely with another group of engineers in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, pronounced nits-uh) to write the federal tailpipe-pollution standards, one of the most consequential climate protections in American history. The two teams had done virtually all the technical research — testing engines in a lab, interviewing scientists and automakers, and overseeing complex economic simulations — underpinning the rules, which have applied to every new car and light truck, including SUVs and vans, sold in the United States since 2012.
Their collaboration was historic. Even as SUVs, crossovers, and pickups have gobbled up the new-car market, the rules have pushed the average fuel economy — the distance a vehicle can travel per gallon of gas — to record highs. They have saved Americans $500 billion at the pump, according to the nonpartisan Consumer Federation of America, and kept hundreds of millions of tons of carbon pollution out of the air. So as the call connected, Alson and the other EPA engineers thought it was time to get back to work. Donald Trump had recently ordered a review of the rules.
Dr. Devra Davis’ Feb 10, 2020 Keynote Presentation
Video will be posted, when available
This presentation will provide an overview of the types of information available with which to formulate public policy on environmental health with respect to wireless radiation, noting the epistemological differences between recent experimental studies with laboratory animals, anatomically-based models of insects exposed to 3G, 4G and 5G radiation, and those of epidemiological analyses of patterns of disease in humans.
The presentation will elucidate the combined exposures anticipated to occur with a densified 4G/5G system that will necessarily incorporate all prior frequencies at varying power densities and beam-forming and discuss a number of problematic aspects of this evolving system that lacks uniform standards for monitoring and evaluation. The respective strengths and weaknesses of experimental animal and modeling work that predict future damage will be contrasted with those of epidemiological analyses (especially those of workers or other highly exposed individuals) that confirm past harms.
To set the stage for this meeting and propose a framework for further discussion, the presentation will raise a few key questions regarding data gaps and research priorities about the public health and environmental impacts of current and future exposures to wireless radiation, including the phenomena of Electromagnetic Sensitivity as well as synergistic relationships with common ambient pollutants.
You must be logged in to post a comment.