The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History (Author Ronald N. Kostoff)

Stop5G Bulgaria:  https://www.facebook.com/groups/316274899061448/
Публикувано 02.2020г. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/62452

Пълния текст на монографията може да бъде свален тук:
LARGEST_UNETHICAL_MEDICAL_EXPERIMENT_FINAL pdf


           THE LARGEST UNETHICAL MEDICAL EXPERIMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY

Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D.
Research Affiliate, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology

KEYWORDS

Unethical Research; Electromagnetic Fields; Wireless Radiation; Radiofrequency
Radiation; RF;
Non-Ionizing Radiation; Mobile Networking Technology; 5G; Adverse Health
Effects

ABSTRACT

This monograph describes the largest unethical medical experiment in human
history: the
implementation and operation of non-ionizing non-visible EMF radiation
(hereafter called
wireless radiation) infrastructure for communications, surveillance, weaponry,
and other
applications.  It is unethical because it violates the key ethical medical
experiment requirement
for “informed consent” by the overwhelming majority of the participants.

The monograph provides background on unethical medical
research/experimentation, and
frames the implementation of wireless radiation within that context.  The
monograph then
identifies a wide spectrum of adverse effects of wireless radiation as reported
in the premier
biomedical literature for over seven decades.  Even though many of these
reported adverse
effects are extremely severe, the true extent of their severity has been
grossly underestimated.

Most of the reported laboratory experiments that produced these effects are not
reflective
of the real-life environment in which wireless radiation operates.  Many
experiments do not
include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal, and most do not account
for synergistic
effects of other toxic stimuli acting in concert with the wireless radiation.
These two additions
greatly exacerbate the severity of the adverse effects from wireless radiation,
and their neglect
in current (and past) experimentation results in substantial under-estimation
of the breadth and
severity of adverse effects to be expected in a real-life situation.  This lack
of credible safety
testing, combined with depriving the public of the opportunity to provide
informed consent,
contextualizes the wireless radiation infrastructure operation as an unethical
medical experiment.

Addition of the nascent fifth generation of mobile networking technology (5G)
globally to the
existing mobile technology network will contribute further to the largest
unethical medical
experiment in human history!

This monograph consists of four chapters and eight appendices.  Chapter 1
focuses on
unethical research, showing how wireless radiation infrastructure
implementation fits into the


framework of unethical medical experimentation, and providing many examples of
other types of
unethical medical experimentation.

Chapter 2 is the main technical chapter, focusing on adverse health effects of
wireless
radiation.  It describes:

•    adverse effects from past research, and what additional adverse effects
can be expected
when 5G is implemented fully

•    lack of full consensus among key stakeholders on adverse effects from
wireless radiation,
and the role played by conflicts-of-interest in this lack of consensus

•    the main reason that this unethical medical experiment was allowed to take
place:

The Federal government that promotes accelerated implementation of wireless
radiation
technology also 1) sponsors research examining the technology’s potential
adverse effects
and 2) regulates the technology’s potentially adverse impacts on the public.
This unethical
promotion-sponsorship-regulation conflict-of-interest lays the groundwork for
unethical
medical experimentation!

Chapter 3 contains the references for the main text, and Chapter 4 contains the
eight
appendices.

Appendix 1 presents more details about unethical medical experiments, including
examples and many references for further study.

Appendix 2 contains a manual taxonomy of a representative adverse EMF effects
database; Appendix 3 contains a factor analysis taxonomy of the same database;
and, Appendix 4
contains a text clustering taxonomy of the same database.  All three taxonomies
contain links
between the categories in the summary tables and the titles of papers
associated with each
category.

Appendix 5 shows the potential contribution of wireless radiation to the opioid
crisis

and potential contribution of wireless radiation to exacerbation of the
coronavirus pandemic.

Appendix 6 shows the link between funding source and research outcomes, and
presents many references on the topic of funding source-driven bias.

Appendix 7 describes the under-recognized adverse effects of wireless radiation
related
to medical implants (pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants, dental
implants, bone pins,
etc) and metal appendages (metal jewelry, etc), and potential
micro/nano-implant analogues.

Appendix 8 shows adverse effects of wireless radiation on automotive vehicle
occupants (and bystanders), and the under-advertised on-board and external
sources of this
radiation.


CITATION TO MONOGRAPH

Kostoff RN.  The largest unethical medical experiment in human history.  2020.
PDF.
http://hdl.handle.net/1853/62452

COPYRIGHT AND CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE

COPYRIGHT

Copyright © 2020 by Ronald N. Kostoff

Printed in the United States of America; First Printing, 2020

CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE

This work can be copied and redistributed in any medium or format provided that
credit is
given to the original author. For more details on the CC BY license, see:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>.

DISCLAIMERS

The views in this monograph are solely those of the author, and do not
represent the views of
the Georgia Institute of Technology.


PREFACE

Humanity is racing along two parallel paths to self-destruction: 1) accelerating
irreversible climate change, and 2) rapidly increasing exposure to health and
life-threatening
mixtures of toxic stimuli.  The most ubiquitous constituent of these toxic
mixtures is wireless
radiation, which is proceeding to blanket humanity and its ecological life
support chain.

A small fraction of the population has given informed consent to wireless
radiation
exposure, gambling (like users of cigarettes, cocaine, fentanyl) that they can
escape the severe
adverse consequences of exposure.  Another small fraction of the population has
not given
informed consent, but receives harmful second-hand exposure because of the
broad-scale
transmission of wireless radiation from terrestrial and satellite sources.  The
vast majority of the
population has given Mis-informed Consent to this exposure.  This
mis-information is supplied
by the telecommunications industry, its lobbyists, its government partners, its
political enablers,
its marketing arm (the mainstream media), and even some academic enablers.

While research over the past seventy+ years has shown hard evidence of severe
adverse
effects from wireless radiation, the full extent of the damage from existing
wireless radiation
infrastructure is not known, much less the damage expected from 4G/5G
infrastructure being
implemented rapidly today.  Attempting to identify the full extent of these
adverse effects is the
global medical experiment being conducted today.  The fact that this experiment
is being
conducted with mis-informed consent makes it an unethical medical experiment.
Because of the
magnitude of this experiment, it is the largest unethical medical experiment in
human history!

Chapter 1 of this monograph presents the case for wireless radiation
infrastructure
implementation without credible safety testing being not only an unethical
medical experiment,
but             the largest in human history.  It presents wireless radiation
infrastructure implementation in
the context of other recent examples of unethical medical experiments, and
shows how these
others pale in comparison to the projected suffering and lethality from
wireless radiation
exposure based on even the incomplete biomedical data gathered to date.

Chapter 2 is the main technical chapter in this monograph.  It covers a broad
scope of
adverse health and life-supporting ecological effects from wireless radiation,
mainly at
communications frequencies.  Some of these adverse effects are not well-known
to the general
public,            but they are important nevertheless.  While the majority of
the chapter is technical, its
initial section provides the context for evaluating the biomedical literature
results.  In particular,
it emphasizes the conflicts-of-interest operable in all aspects of the wireless
radiation biomedical
research process, ranging from the initial health-effects research sponsorship
to the final research
results dissemination in the premier technical literature and other forums.  As
Chapter 2 shows,
we have known about the adverse health and ecological effects of wireless
radiation exposure for
seventy+ years, but decision-makers of all stripes have nevertheless chosen to
impose this health
and life-threatening toxic stimulus on an unsuspecting global populace.


Additionally, there are eight appendices.  The copious material contained in the
appendices supports the statements made in the main text (Chapters 1 and 2).
Three sub-
appendices, while grounded in hard evidence, are somewhat more hypothetical
than the rest.
They   include 1) linkages between wireless radiation exposure and exacerbation
of the opioid
crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, and 2) potentially enhanced heating and
temperature
increases to thermally-damaging levels from short RF pulses and tissue-imbedded
nanoparticles.
My purpose in presenting these three more hypothetical sub-appendices is to
stimulate more
discussion, and especially more research, on the nature and validity of these
linkages.

Finally, it is my hope that this monograph receives the widest distribution,
especially
among those who have 1) been the targets of this decades-long mis-information
campaign and 2)
given their consent to wireless radiation exposure based upon mis-information.
It is this segment
of the public whose informed actions could reverse the increasing
implementation of wireless
radiation infrastructure, and prevent the infliction of even more damage, since
the other
stakeholders involved in the promotion of wireless radiation infrastructure
have shown little
desire to protect the public against the known and projected ravages of
wireless radiation.

Ronald N. Kostoff, Gainesville, VA, 15 February 2020


TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT

CITATION TO MONOGRAPH
COPYRIGHT

CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE
DISCLAIMERS

PREFACE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Chapter 1 – Unethical Research

1A. Monograph Overview
1B. Unethical Research
1B1.  Broad Definition
1B2.  Informed Consent

1B3.  Examples of Unethical Medical Experimentation
Chapter 2 – Adverse Impacts of Wireless Radiation
2A.  Overview

2A1. The Context of Wireless Radiation Health and Safety Research
2B. Wireless Radiation/Electromagnetic Spectrum

2C. Modern Non-Ionizing EMF Radiation Exposures

2D. Demonstrated Biological and Health Effects from Prior Generations of
Wireless Networking
Technology

2D1.  Limitations of Previous Wireless Radiation Health Effects Studies
2D2.  Adverse Health Effects Identified in Major Review Studies

2D3. Adverse Health Effects from Open Literature Analysis

2D4. Adverse Wireless Radiation Health Effects from Former USSR Literature
Analysis
2E. Potential Adverse Health Effects Expected from 5G Mobile Networking
Technology


2F. Why is there not Full Consensus on Adverse Effects from Wireless Radiation?
2F1. Reasons for Lack of Full Consensus

2F2.  The Role of Conflicts-of-Interest in Lack of Full Consensus
2F3.  Interpreting Wireless Radiation Health Study Findings

2G. Conclusions
Chapter 3 - References
Chapter 4 – Appendices

Appendix 1 – Unethical Medical Experiments

A1-A. Overview

Appendix 1A – Unethical Medical Experiments - Examples
Appendix 1B – Ethics of Medical Experiments – References

Appendix 2 – Manual Taxonomy of Adverse EMF Effects Database

A2-A.  Category Themes

Table A2-1 – Manual Taxonomy
A2-B.  Category Record Titles

Appendix 3 – Factor Analysis of Adverse EMF Effects Database

A3-A. Factor Themes

Table A3-1 - Factor Analysis Taxonomy
A3-B. Factor Record Titles

Appendix 4 – Hierarchical Text Clustering Taxonomy of Adverse EMF Effects
Database

A4-A. Cluster Themes

Table A4-1 - CLUTO-Based Text Clustering Taxonomy – Top Levels
Table A4-2 - CLUTO-Based Text Clustering Taxonomy - Bottom Levels
A4-B. Cluster Record Titles

Appendix 5 - Wireless Radiation Impact on the Opioid Crisis and Coronavirus
Pandemic
Appendix 6 – Funding Source Bias on Research Outcomes

Appendix 7 – Adverse Effects of Wireless Radiation Related to Implants and
Appendages

A7-A. Overview


A7-B. Specific Impacts from Passive Implants
A7-B1. Overview

A7-B2. Impacts from Passive Metallic Medical Implants

A7-B3. Impacts from Passive Macro/Nano Implant Analogues
Table A7-1 – Implant Taxonomy

Appendix 8 – Adverse Effects of Automotive-Based Wireless Radiation

A8-A. Overview

A8-B. Specific Automotive Wireless Radiation Sources
Table A8-1 – Appendix 8 References

AUTHOR BIO


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-1.  Overview

We are in the midst of the largest unethical medical experiment in human
history.  This
experiment is the implementation and operation of a global wireless network for
communications, surveillance, and other purposes.  It is a medical experiment
because we do not
know the full extent of the adverse health effects that will result from this
wireless network
implementation and operation.  It is an unethical medical experiment because it
violates the key
ethical medical experiment requirement of  ‘informed consent’ from the
participants.

Even though the adverse health effects of wireless radiation reported over the
past
seventy+ years span the range of severity from discomfort to lethality, we do
not know the full
extent of adverse health effects from this technology because:

Most laboratory experiments aimed at identifying wireless radiation health
effects bear
no relation to real-life exposures, and are performed under the most benign
conditions of

•    single stressors (wireless radiation only)

•    no pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal

•    no synergistic effects of other toxic stimuli acting in concert with the
wireless radiation
These experimental deficiencies are compounded by

•    lack of access to the global classified literature on adverse health
effects from wireless

radiation

•    lack of knowledge of proprietary basic and advanced studies on adverse
health effects
from wireless radiation.

The adverse wireless radiation health effects that have been identified already
from the
incomplete literature openly available are massive in scope and magnitude.
They support the
conclusion that wireless radiation as already implemented is extremely
dangerous to human
health.  It acts as both a promoter/accelerator and initiator of adverse health
effects.  Addition
of the missing elements described above and more wireless radiation
infrastructure will
exacerbate further the adverse effects from wireless radiation on

•    human health directly through contribution to chronic disease and

•    human health indirectly through degradation of the food chain ecosystem.


ES-2.  Adverse Impacts of Wireless Radiation on the Most Vulnerable Members of
Society
In the spirit of the ‘unethical’ medical experiments described in this
monograph,

it is the poor and dispossessed who will suffer the most from wireless
radiation exposure.

This is because wireless radiation plays a dual role of initiator and
promoter/accelerator
of serious disease.  In its promoter/accelerator role, it can accelerate the
progression of existing
serious diseases such as cancer, and/or, through synergy, can produce serious
adverse health
effects when combined with other toxic stimuli that neither constituent of the
combination could
produce in isolation.

Many toxic stimuli, such as harsh chemicals, biotoxins, ionizing radiation
sources,
vibrating machinery, prolonged sitting doing repetitive tasks, high air
pollution, etc, are
used/experienced by the poorest members of society in their occupations, and
many toxic
stimuli, such as air pollutants, toxic wastes, etc, are very prevalent in their
residential
environments.  Thus, people who spray pesticides in farm labor or household
applications,
people who do cleaning with harsh chemicals, people who dispose of hazardous
materials,
basically, people who do the dirty work in our society and live in dirty
environments, are
already leading candidates for higher risk of serious diseases.  Adding a
wireless radiation
promoter/accelerator to their residential and occupational environments will
radically increase
their chances for developing serious diseases.  Closing the ‘digital divide’
for them will translate
to increased suffering and reduced longevity!


ES-3.  Role of Conflicts-of-Interest in the Sponsorship, Conduct, and
Dissemination of Wireless
Radiation Research

The results shown in the literature cannot be separated from the context in
which this
research has been sponsored, conducted, and disseminated!

In the USA (and in most, if not all, countries), the two major sponsors of
wireless
radiation health and safety research are the Federal government and the
wireless radiation
industry, in that order.  Both of these organizations have a strong intrinsic
conflict-of-interest
with respect to wireless radiation.

The Federal government is a strong promoter of wireless radiation infrastructure
development and rapid expansion, most recently supporting accelerated
implementation of 5G
infrastructure.

The Federal government that promotes accelerated implementation of wireless
radiation
technology also 1) sponsors research examining the technology’s potential
adverse effects
and       2) regulates the technology’s potentially adverse impacts on the
public.  The fact that
these development, regulation, and safety functions may be assigned to
different Executive
Agencies within the Federal government is irrelevant from an independence
perspective.

The separate Executive Agencies in the Federal government are like the
tentacles of an
Octopus; they operate synchronously under one central command.

The wireless promoters’ main objectives of developing and implementing the
technology
rapidly are enabled by suppressing knowledge (to the public) of potential
adverse effects from
the technology’s operation.  These fundamental conflicts impact the objectivity
of the health
and safety R&D sponsors and performers.  Any Federal research sponsor of
wireless
radiation technology safety would be highly conflicted between 1) a desire to
satisfy
Executive      and Legislative objectives of accelerating expansion of wireless
radiation
technology      and implementation and 2) sponsoring objective research focused
on identifying
and reporting adverse effects of wireless radiation expected under real-life
conditions.

Likewise, any sponsored research performer addressing wireless radiation
technology safety
would be highly conflicted between 1) reporting the actual adverse effects
expected under
real-life conditions and 2) the desire to satisfy wireless radiation
promotional objectives of the
research sponsors in order to maintain long-range funding.


ES-4.  Adverse Health Effects from Wireless Radiation Exposure.

In aggregate, for the high frequency (radiofrequency-RF) part of the spectrum,
expert
reviews show that RF radiation below the FCC (Federal Communications
Commission) exposure
guidelines can result in:

-carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas,
leukemia,
parotid gland tumors),

-genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure),

-mutagenicity, teratogenicity,

-neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral
Sclerosis),

-neurobehavioral problems, autism,

-reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes,

-oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption,

-pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache,

-irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness,
tinnitus,

-burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac
irregularities, and can

-adversely impact the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal
systems.

The effects range from myriad feelings of discomfort to life-threatening
diseases.  From
this perspective, RF exposure is a highly pervasive cause of disease!


ES-5.  Adverse Impacts of Wireless Radiation on the Food Chain

The struggle for survival of human life on Earth is dependent on the logistical
food
supply chain.  At the foundation of this supply chain (before the farmers
become involved in
harvesting its bounty) are the insects, seeds, flora, trees, etc, that enable
the bountiful growth of
the myriad potential foods.  If the integrity of this foundational logistical
supply chain is
threatened in any way, then both the animals and plant products we consume
become
unavailable.

There is a substantial literature on the adverse impacts of wireless radiation
on this
foundational logistical supply chain.  These adverse effects are from the
pre-5G wireless
radiation exposures, and would include enhanced coupling from the higher
frequency harmonics
of the RF signal.  Many of these supply chain elements (e.g., insects, seeds,
larvae, etc) are very
small, and we could expect enhanced resonance/energy coupling with the
shorter-wavelength 5G
radiation when implemented.  This indirect impact of wireless radiation may
turn out to be at
least as (if not more) important as the direct impact of wireless radiation on
human survival!

From a broader perspective, most of the laboratory experiment component of the
wireless
radiation adverse effects literature can be viewed as related to the
foundational food supply
chain.   Much of this research is focused on mice, rats, insects, small birds,
small fish, etc.  These
species tend to be prey of larger animals/fowl/fish, and eventually make their
way to the human
food table.  Any environmental factor that affects the health of these species
adversely will
eventually impact the humans who are at the end of that chain.  In reality, we
have accumulated a
massive literature describing the adverse impacts of wireless radiation on
myriad contributing
components to our food supply, and the results do not bode well for our future
ability to feed the
growing world’s population!


ES-6.  Adverse Impacts of Wireless Radiation on Medical and Non-Medical
Implants

There were two major types of medical implants covered by the database articles
showing adverse effects: active implants that produced electrical signals
mainly for controlling
heart irregularities (e.g., pacemakers, defibrillators) and hearing
deficiencies (e.g., cochlear
implants), and passive metallic implants for structural support (e.g., dental
implants, bone pins,
plates, etc).  Additionally, there are articles addressing adverse effects from
wireless radiation in
the vicinity of metallic appendages (e.g., metallic eyeglasses, metallic
jewelry, etc).

The external EMF (electromagnetic fields) from microwaves (and other sources)
could 1)
impact the electrical operation of the active medical implants adversely, 2)
increase the Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR) values of tissue in the vicinity of the passive implants
substantially
because of resonance effects, and 3) increase the flow and acidity of saliva in
the vicinity of
dental structures.  While the EMF effects on the cochlear implants could
adversely affect
auditory capability, EMF effects on the heart-related implants could
potentially be life-
threatening.  The increased SAR values around the passive metal implants could
result in
increased tissue temperatures, and could adversely impact integration and
longevity of the
passive metallic implants.

In the mouth, the combination of 1) increased tissue temperatures in proximity
to the
implant or other orthodontic structures and 2) increased flow rate and acidity
of saliva could lead
to 3) increased leaching of heavy metals (a known contributor to serious
diseases).  This also
raises the question: what other adverse health effects from the exposure of
both the active and
passive implants to increasing levels of wireless radiation have not been
identified or addressed?

There is a third class of structures whose interaction physics with RF are
related to those
of the passive implants.  These are termed implant analogues, and include
myriad exogenous
particles (mainly nanoparticles) that penetrate, and imbed in, the skin.  The
resultant
nanoparticle-imbedded tissues have the potential for increased energy
absorption from the
incoming RF signal, thereby resulting in potentially increased thermal damage
over and above
the thermal damage resulting from the pulsed high-peak-to-average power of the
RF signal.

Additionally, more research needs to be done to ascertain the magnitudes of
these thermal
transients and associated stresses, in order to estimate the levels of enhanced
potential damage
from RF radiation.


ES-7. Studies in the USSR on Wireless Radiation Health Effects

Much research examining potential adverse effects from wireless radiation,
especially in
the athermal parameter range, was performed in the USSR as far back as seventy+
years ago.

Their results confirm the wide scope of adverse effects reported in recent
years and summarized
in the present monograph.  Unfortunately, their results appear to have had
little effect in
influencing wireless radiation safety standards in the USA and many other
countries.

ES-8.  Adverse Effects Expected from Addition of 5G to Existing Communications
Networks
The potential 5G adverse health effects derive from the intrinsic nature of the
radiation,

and how this radiation interacts with tissue and other target structures.  4G
networking
technology was associated mainly with carrier frequencies in the range of
~1-2.5 GHz (cell
phones,  WiFi).  The wavelength of 1 GHz radiation is 30 cm, and the
penetration depth in human
tissue is a few centimeters.  The highest performance 5G networking technology
(millimeter
wave)  is mainly associated with carrier frequencies at least an order of
magnitude above the 4G
frequencies, although, as stated in Chapter 2, “ELFs (0–3000Hz) are always
present in all
telecommunication EMFs in the form of pulsing and modulation”.  Penetration
depths for the
high-performance carrier frequency component of 5G radiation (aka high-band)
will be on the
order of a few millimeters.

For much of the early implementation of 5G, and perhaps later, 5G will be
integrated
with 4G.   Some vendors will start out/have started out with ‘low-band’ 5G
(~600-900 MHz);
some will start out with ‘mid-band’ 5G (~2.5 GHz-4.2 GHz); and some will start
out with ‘high
band’ 5G (~24-47 GHz).  All these modes are associated with potentially severe
adverse health
effects, and none have been tested for safety in any credible manner.

At the millimeter carrier wavelengths characteristic of high-band
high-performance 5G,
one can expect resonance phenomena with small-scale human structures, as well
as resonances
with insects/insect components, seeds, etc.

The common ‘wisdom’ being presented in the literature and the broader media is
that, if
there are adverse impacts resulting from millimeter-wave 5G, the main impacts
will be focused
on near-surface phenomena, such as skin cancer, cataracts, and other skin
conditions, because of
shallow RF penetration depths.  However, there is evidence that biological
responses to
millimeter-wave irradiation can be initiated within the skin, and the
subsequent systemic
signaling                    in the skin can result in physiological effects on
the nervous system, heart, and immune
system.  There is additional evidence that adverse effects from millimeter-wave
radiation can
occur in organs and tissue well below the skin surface.  This should not be
surprising, since there
are myriad signaling conduits connecting the skin to deeper structures in the
body.


ES-9. Lack of Full Consensus on Wireless Radiation Adverse Effects

Not all studies of wireless radiation have shown adverse effects on health.
There are
many possibilities to explain this.

1)   There could be ‘windows’ in parameter space where adverse effects occur,
and the
studies/experiments were conducted outside these ‘windows’.  Operation outside
these
windows could show

•    no effects or

•    hormetic effects or

•    therapeutic effects.

The single stressor studies that constitute most of wireless radiation
laboratory health
research, and indeed constitute most of the laboratory medical research
literature, essentially
yield very narrow windows.  Adverse effects are identified over very limited
parameter
ranges, and adverse effects shown by many combinations of stressors are not
revealed when
these stressors are tested in isolation over the same parametric ranges.

One could conclude that, whether by design or accident, the real-world impact
of single
stressor studies is to conceal, rather than reveal, many of the more serious
adverse health
effects of wireless radiation.

The stressor variables to be used for health studies should not be limited to
single
stressors in isolation, but should include to the extent possible combinations
of toxic stimuli
stressors, since these combinations reflect more accurately real-life
exposures.

2)            Research quality could be poor, and adverse effects were
overlooked.

3)            Or, the research team could have had a preconceived agenda

where finding no adverse effects from wireless radiation was the main objective
of the
research!


ES-10. Potential Links of Wireless Radiation to Enhancement of Opioid Crisis

The previous findings reported in this Executive Summary are based on hard
evidence
and have been validated in numerous studies.  The present section is based on
hard evidence as
well, but the link of wireless radiation to the opioid crisis is not as far
along in the validation
process.  It should be viewed as a hypothesis at this point, and serve as a
basis for discussion and
further research.

It has been shown many times that one impact of wireless radiation (at myriad
frequencies) is release of endogenous opioids.  This release of endogenous
opioids can enable
analgesic effects by itself, or can enhance the analgesic effects of exogenous
analgesics.  This
has  been demonstrated at pulsed millimeter-wave frequencies, WiFi frequencies,
mobile phone
frequencies, radiofrequencies, and extremely low frequencies.  Additionally, as
has been
demonstrated by the results of the current monograph, wireless radiation at all
the above
frequencies has resulted in serious mid-term and especially long-term adverse
health effects.

Therefore, wireless radiation exposure, especially at cell phone, WiFi, and
millimeter-
wave pulsed and modulated frequencies, generates 1) analgesic and pleasurable
short-term
effects and 2) serious adverse mid- and long-term effects.  There would be some
exceptions for
the short-term, such as electrohypersensitivity (EHS) sufferers, who are
immediately affected
adversely and strongly by wireless radiation exposure.

For most people, the enhanced analgesic short-term effects of the wireless
radiation would
in effect mask the long-term damage from this radiation.

As time proceeds, the increasing discomfort from the adverse mid-and long-term
effects
of wireless radiation requires increasingly stronger analgesics to suppress,
and the increasing use
of exogenous analgesics becomes necessary.  This potentially enhanced use of
exogenous
analgesics could lead to opioid and/or other analgesic addictions.


ES-11.  Potential Links of Wireless Radiation to Current Coronavirus Pandemic

The previous findings reported in this Executive Summary are based on hard
evidence
and have been validated in numerous studies.  The present section is based on
hard evidence as
well, but the link of wireless radiation to the coronavirus pandemic is not as
far along in the
validation process.  It should be viewed as a hypothesis at this point, and
serve as a basis for
discussion and further research.

There are on the order of 300,000 viruses, many/most of which have zoonotic
potential.

To develop vaccines for all of these viruses (before an epidemic or pandemic
strikes) is
unreasonable (based on present technology) because of the sheer numbers
involved.  To develop
vaccines for any specific virus during an epidemic or pandemic (which was the
mainstream
approach taken for the coronavirus during the SARS pandemic of 2002-2003) is
completely
unrealistic, because of the lead times required for vaccine development,
efficacy testing, credible
mid-and long-term safety testing, and implementation.

Those who succumbed during the SARS pandemic had 1) myriad co-morbidities and 2)
weakened immune systems unable to neutralize the SARS coronavirus.  Having a
strong
immune system that allowed a smooth transition from innate immune system
operation to
adaptive immune system operation was the one intrinsic defense that worked!
The SARS
experience showed that the best and most realistic approach for defense against
any potential
viral attack is reversing immune-degrading lifestyles well before any pandemic
or epidemic
outbreaks.  In that case, the immune system would be sufficiently strong to be
able to handle
viral exposure on its own without the emergence of serious symptoms, as was the
case with those
exposed to the SARS coronavirus (with coronavirus antibodies in their serum)
who exhibited no
(or minimal) symptoms.

This gets to the link between wireless radiation exposure and the latest
coronavirus
pandemic.  To the degree that non-ionizing radiation exposure, superimposed on
the myriad
toxic stimuli to which many people are exposed by choice or imposition,
degrades the operation
of the innate and adaptive immune systems, it would increase the likelihood
that the immune
system could not counteract the exposure to the coronavirus (or any virus) as
nature intended.

Thus, it would contribute to the exacerbation of adverse effects from
coronavirus exposure.
The bottom line is that exposures to essentially ALL the exogenous
immune-damaging toxic
stimuli (including, but not limited to, wireless radiation) need to be removed
before resistance to
viral exposures of any type can be improved substantially.


ES-12. Adverse Effects of Wireless Radiation in Automotive Sector

The modern automobile is a powerful source of wireless radiation at myriad
frequencies,
and is subject to external wireless radiation at myriad frequencies as well.
The trend has not
been to reduce these sources, but rather to add equipment both to the vehicle
and to the external
environment that will substantially increase the wireless radiation flux
associated with the
vehicle.  The numbers and types of sources are not well-known, even among those
experts and
laymen concerned about adverse effects from wireless radiation.

An interesting diagram (and narrative) showing radars and other wireless
sensors in
modern cars can be found at the following link:
(http://www.radiationdangers.com/automotive-
radiation/automotive-radiation/).  I would recommend the reader study that
diagram in detail, to
better appreciate how ubiquitous are these sources of wireless radiation.  Not
all the wireless
radiation enters the cabin, since some/much is outward-directed, but some/much
of it will enter
the cabins of other cars on the road.

However, that diagram tells only part of the story.  Assume there is a car pool
commuting
to work from the suburbs of a major city.  It is not uncommon (in today’s
world) for a one-way
trip to take from one-two hours, or more.  Even in a regular car, or mid-size
SUV, there might be
four or so passengers.  They may be using cell phones, WiFi, or both, thereby
adding to the
radiation from the automotive-based sensors/transmitters.

There will be cell towers lining the sides of a major highway, thereby
increasing the
radiation to the occupants substantially.  Depending on conditions, there may
be substantial air
pollution to which the occupants are exposed.  Additionally, the prolonged
sitting is very
dangerous, and is a contributing factor to many serious diseases.  If the
vehicle is new, there may
be substantial out-gassing of toxic chemicals from the interior materials.
Combined exposure to
the wireless radiation, air pollution and other toxic substances, coupled with
prolonged sitting
and continual impacts from the car’s motions, produces a synergistic effect
that substantially
exacerbates adverse impacts from any of the constituent components.


1A. Monograph Overview

Chapter 1 – Unethical Research

We are in the midst of the largest unethical medical experiment in human
history.  This
experiment is the implementation and operation of a global wireless network for
communications, surveillance, and other purposes.  It is a medical experiment
because we do not
know the full extent of the adverse health effects that will result from this
wireless network
implementation and operation.  It is an unethical medical experiment because it
violates the key
ethical medical experiment requirement of  ‘informed consent’ from the
participants.

The current chapter provides 1) some background on the requirements for ethical
medical
research/experimentation and 2) examples of how those requirements have been
violated in the
past century.  It places wireless radiation implementation and operation in the
context of these
other examples of unethical medical experiments.

Chapter 2 presents a detailed description of some of the adverse health effects
of wireless
radiation as reported in the unclassified open literature.  Even though the
adverse health effects
of wireless radiation reported over the past seventy+ years span the range of
severity from
discomfort to lethality, we do not know the full extent of adverse health
effects from this
technology because:

Most laboratory experiments aimed at identifying wireless radiation health
effects bear
no relation to real-life exposures, and are performed under the most benign
conditions of

•    single stressors (wireless radiation only)

•    no pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal

•    no synergistic effects of other toxic stimuli acting in concert with the
wireless radiation
These experimental deficiencies are compounded by

•    lack of access to the global classified literature on adverse health
effects from wireless

radiation

•    lack of knowledge of proprietary basic and advanced studies on adverse
health effects
from wireless radiation.

As Chapter 2 shows, the adverse wireless radiation health effects that have been
identified already from the incomplete literature openly available are massive
in scope and
magnitude.  They support the conclusion that wireless radiation as already
implemented is
extremely dangerous to human health.  It acts as both a promoter/accelerator
and initiator of
adverse health effects.  Addition of the missing elements described above and
more wireless
radiation infrastructure will exacerbate further the adverse effects from
wireless radiation on

•    human health directly through contribution to chronic disease and

•    human health indirectly through degradation of the food chain ecosystem.


Chapter 3 contains the references for the main text.
Chapter 4 contains eight Appendices:

•    Appendix 1 contains examples of unethical medical experiments conducted in
the last
century, mainly (not entirely) in the USA or under USA auspices;

•    Appendix 2 contains a manual taxonomy of the adverse health and biomedical
effects
component of a representative wireless radiation literature, and is derived in
part from the
taxonomies in Appendices 3 and 4;

•    Appendix 3 contains a taxonomy based on factor analysis of the same
representative
wireless radiation literature;

•    Appendix 4 contains a taxonomy based on text clustering of the same
representative
wireless radiation literature;

•    Appendix 5 shows potential links between wireless radiation exposure and 1)
expansion of the opioid crisis and 2) exacerbation of coronavirus pandemic;

•    Appendix 6 lists references showing effects of industry funding on
research outcomes

for myriad (mainly biomedical) research disciplines;

•    Appendix 7 overviews the oft-neglected topics of wireless radiation
adverse effects on
regions containing medical implants (e.g., pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear
implants,
dental implants, bone pins, plates, etc) and appendages (e.g., metal
eyeglasses, earrings,
metal jewelry, etc), as well as other micro/nano exogenous implant analogues;

•    Appendix 8 describes adverse effects of automotive-based wireless
radiation.


1B. Unethical Research
1B1.  Broad Definition

There are myriad definitions for 'unethical' research (e.g.,
http://icahn.mssm.edu/about-
us/services-and-resources/faculty-resources/handbooks-and-policies/faculty-handb
ook/research-
environment/research-integrity; https://oprs.usc.edu/training/booklets/;
https://history.nih.gov/about/timelines_laws_human.html).

These definitions of 'unethical' research encompass a broad spectrum of
actions.  Much
reporting of 'unethical' medical research in myriad media tends to focus on one
aspect only:
biomedical experiments performed on subjects who did not give 'informed
consent'.  The classic
example reflects the experiments performed on concentration camp inmates by the
Nazi-regime
doctors during WWII, and the lesser-known experiments performed by their
Japanese
counterparts during WWII.  These experiments were certainly horrific, but not
unique.  The test
subjects in these experiments were neither informed about the nature and
consequences of these
experiments, nor did they give consent.

1B2.  Informed Consent

A comprehensive discussion of the importance of ‘informed consent’ in medical
experimentation was presented in a journal Special Issue [Goodwin, 2016].  An
excellent
overview                and rationale for informed consent in human experiments
is shown in the following
box (obtained from a booklet titled Informed Consent in Human Subjects
Research), prepared by
the Office for Protection of Research Subjects, University of Southern
California
(https://oprs.usc.edu/training/booklets/).

Informed Consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research.  It is
not merely a form
that is signed but is a process, in which the subject has an understanding of
the research and
its risks.  Informed consent is essential before enrolling a participant and
ongoing once
enrolled.  Informed Consent must be obtained for all types of human subjects’
research
including; diagnostic, therapeutic, interventional, social and behavioral
studies, and for
research conducted domestically or abroad.  Obtaining consent involves
informing the
subject about his or her rights, the purpose of the study, the procedures to be
undergone, and
the potential risks and benefits of participation. Subjects in the study must
participate
willingly.  Vulnerable populations (i.e. prisoners, children, pregnant women,
etc.) must
receive extra protections.  The legal rights of subjects may not be waived and
subjects may
not be asked to release or appear to release the investigator, the sponsor, the
institution or its
agents from liability for negligence.


There are three important concepts in this definition: research, informed, and
consent.

Research

What is a research experiment?  According to myriad Web sources, an experiment
is a set
of actions undertaken to

•    make a discovery or

•    test a hypothesis or

•    demonstrate a known fact.

The first two of these can be classified as research experiments, and the third
is a
demonstration experiment.  A further breakdown would be informative.  There are
proactive
experiments, where established rules and procedures (the scientific approach)
are used to plan,
conduct, and report the experiment.  There are reactive experiments, where the
experiment is
secondary to higher priority actions, and consequently is conducted and
reported under more
constrained conditions.  The proactive experiments can be viewed generally as
explicit or ‘a
priori’, and the reactive experiments can be viewed generally as implicit or ‘a
posteriori’.

Where does wireless technology implementation and operation fit in this research
experiment categorization?  Wireless technology implementation has two major
characteristics:
development and operation of a technology to achieve targeted technical goals
(explicit), and
conduct of an experiment that may result in serious adverse health impacts
(implicit).  Of interest
in the current document is the experiment (implicit) component.

Identification of wireless radiation health effects will result from both
proactive and
reactive experiments.  The proactive experiments are (mainly) the thousands of
laboratory-based
studies (performed to estimate wireless radiation health impacts) that have
been reported in the
biomedical literature.  The reactive experiments are (mainly) those studies
that have been done
after the previous generations of mobile networking technologies have been
implemented
(usually epidemiology), and those studies that will be done after 5G is
implemented.

Thus, 5G implementation can be viewed mainly as an implicit reactive research
experiment with respect to identifying myriad adverse health effects on the
exposed population.
It       will also have a demonstration component, confirming thousands of
pre-5G research studies
that have shown adverse health effects from wireless radiation in 5G and non-5G
frequency
ranges.  Because these studies tend to under-estimate real-life effects of
wireless radiation, the
full scope of adverse health effects from 5G operation under real-life
conditions are currently
unknown.  Ascertainment of these adverse health effects will require ‘a
posteriori’ reactive
research experiments after 5G implementation, under today’s 5G implementation
scenario.  A
major concern, especially in the current environment of accelerating 5G
implementation, is that
serious longer-term latent health effects will be discovered only after 5G has
been fully
implemented.


Informed

There is much information available in the open literature detailing the
adverse health
effects of wireless radiation.  These adverse effects reflect the role of
wireless radiation both as a
promotor/accelerator and/or initiator of myriad biomedical abnormalities and
serious diseases.
However, the vast public is not informed (or is misinformed) of these adverse
health effects by
the:

•    developers of wireless radiation systems,

•    vendors of these systems,

•    mainstream media

•    government regulators of these systems, and

•    Federal, State, and Local politicians who pass laws that accelerate
implementation of
these systems.

These stakeholders 1) do not inform the public of the demonstrated adverse
effects of wireless
radiation and, in many cases, 2) misinform the public that wireless radiation
is safe from a
health perspective.

Consent

Many segments of the public do provide consent to be exposed to wireless
radiation,
because of its perceived benefits to them.  A small amount of this consent may
be informed, and
the providers of this consent may be gambling that they can escape the adverse
health effects.

Most of the consent is probably not informed, since most people will not do the
independent
research required to gather in the relevant information on adverse health
effects, but will rely on
the government’s and mainstream media’s misleading assurances that wireless
radiation is safe.

However, other segments of the public do not provide consent to be exposed to
wireless
radiation from these implemented technologies.  Unlike other forms of toxic
stimuli (e.g.,
cigarettes, cocaine, alcohol, etc), where exposures may be individual or very
local, wireless
radiation exposure is very large in extent.  With the advent of the latest
generation of wireless
radiation (5G), there may be 1) small cell towers erected outside of every few
houses, with the
consequent radiation blanketing the environment, and 2) thousands of satellites
blanketing the
Earth’s surface with wireless radiation.  There are Federal laws that
essentially prevent
opposition to construction and operation of these small cell towers, and
prevent opposition to the
launching and operation of these satellites.  Forcing exposure to this harmful
wireless radiation
on members of the public who do not provide consent is the cornerstone of
wireless radiation
implementation and operation being labeled unethical medical experimentation.

Its context differs from some other technologies with serious adverse effects,
such as
automotive technology and cigarette smoking.  For the most part, users of these
other
technologies have been informed about potential serious consequences, and
non-users are
impacted minimally (at least today).  Those users are able to make a more
informed choice.
......