Media and Architects of Online Censorship Law Heap Pressure on Rumble After it Defends Principle of Neutrality
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | September 25, 2023
Media outlets and architects of the UK’s censorship law, the Online Safety Bill, are increasing the pressure on neutral video sharing platform Rumble after it refused to bow down to the UK Parliament’s pressure to demonetize comedian Russell Brand.
The pressure to demonetize Brand came after anonymous sexual assault allegations were made against him. Brand has denied the allegations and has not been arrested, charged, or convicted of any of the allegations made against him.
Several companies, including YouTube, took action against Brand after the allegations surfaced, despite Brand having no content violations on YouTube. But Rumble stood up to the pressure and rejected the UK Parliament’s request to cut off Brand’s monetization, with CEO Chris Pavlovski noting that the allegations against Brand have “nothing to do with content on Rumble’s platform.”
Now, several media outlets and people who helped craft the UK’s online censorship law, the upcoming Online Safety Bill, are targeting Rumble’s stance.
Lord Allan of Hallam, a former Facebook executive who advised on the Online Safety Bill, branded Rumble a “crazy American platform” and expressed disdain at Rumble’s philosophy of allowing free expression.
He and internet law expert Professor Lorna Woods, an architect of the Online Safety Bill, also complained about Rumble’s refusal to bow down to pressure from UK officials and framed it as “grandstand[ing] before the press.”
The Times also took aim at Rumble by noting that under the Online Safety Bill, Rumble will have to “prevent children from seeing pornography… material that promotes self-harm, suicide or eating disorders… violent content… material harmful to health, such as vaccine misinformation” and “take down material that is illegal, such as videos that incite violence or race hate.”
However, Bryn Harris, the Chief Legal Council for The Free Speech Union, pointed out that The Times’ article doesn’t actually provide examples of any of the alleged illegal or harmful to kids content on Rumble.
Additionally, the Associated Press piled in on Rumble after it stood up to the demands of UK officials by claiming that Rumble is a “haven for disinformation and extremism.”
This mounting pressure comes days after the UK passed the Online Safety Bill — one of the most sweeping censorship laws to ever be introduced in the UK. The controversial censorship and surveillance bill is set to come into law next month.
The censorship provisions in the Online Safety Bill can be aimed at both citizens who post speech that’s deemed to cause “harm” and companies that fail to censor this so-called harmful content. The harms in the bill extend beyond physical or direct harm and into the realms of “psychological” harm and “potential” harm. Certain types of “false” communications are also prohibited under the bill.
As UK officials heap pressure on Rumble, reports have revealed that several UK politicians have ties to the pro-censorship Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the UK politician that pressured Rumble to demonetize Brand received a donation in kind from Google.
Scotland To Set Up New Police Unit To Tackle “Hate” and “Misgendering,” Ignites Free Speech Concerns
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | September 25, 2023
On the brink of implementing Humza Yousaf’s highly contentious legislation early next year, a specialized hate crime unit has been announced by Police Scotland. With the unit scheduled to be operational by November, a comprehensive training of about 16,400 law enforcement officers will follow in December.
This is all in anticipation of the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, expected to be ratified early in 2024. This Act expands upon the existing law, offering a broader protective net for “vulnerable” groups and introduces the notion of “stirring up hatred”.
However, some critics and free speech advocates have raised concerns that the Act, which holds potential to elevate sentencing if prejudice is based on factors such as age, race, disability, religion, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics, may invigorate the increasingly toxic culture wars surrounding gender issues. It is posited that the law may sidetrack police resources from tackling violent conduct to address “harmful” words.
The thought of free speech being stifled by the new laws is particularly horrifying for some, with warnings that women’s rights advocates may find themselves entangled in allegations of transphobia.
Critics argue that a significant portion of police time may now be geared towards a subjective concept of hate crime, such as “misgendering,” instead of dealing with tangible violent acts.
Helen Joyce, part of the human rights group Sex Matters, asserted her alarm at the creation of this specific hate crime unit. She voiced concern for those who stand for the rights of women and children, warning of a “chilling effect” on free speech, as reported by The Scottish Express.
Police Scotland remains tight-lipped about the size of the proposed unit plus the financial implications of the new laws – a cause for concern for many.
Nord Stream Blast: Why the West Still Can’t Name the Culprit
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 26.09.2023
Exactly a year ago three out of four Nord Stream pipelines running from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea to provide Western Europe with natural gas were destroyed. Western investigators have so far failed to find the saboteurs behind the blast.
Gas leaks from the Nord Stream pipeline system were detected on 26 September 2022, with the EU leadership admitting that this could be the result of a “deliberate attack”.
Two days later, on 28 September, the Kremlin announced that Russia was ready to consider applications from EU countries for a joint investigation into the Nord Stream incident.
However, not only did the West snub Moscow’s request but also blamed Russia for destroying its own pipelines. Later, European and American officials backtracked on their accusations but fell short of naming a potential perpetrator.
On 12 October 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the incident “an act of international terrorism”. Meanwhile, as gas prices soared and US energy producers secured lucrative liquefied natural gas (LNG) contracts with European countries, it became clear that Washington had been the major beneficiary from the Nord Stream destruction.
Furthermore, the US leadership had previously issued several threats that it would destroy the pipelines.
“We know that the United States President Joe Biden, threatened openly that he would stop Nord Stream 2 if the Russians were to militarily intervene in Ukraine,” Philip Giraldi, former CIA station chief and now an executive director of the Council for the National Interest, told Sputnik. “That was repeated by Victoria Nuland, who was Number Three at the State Department. She said basically the same thing. So we had the President and a senior official both saying that they would stop the pipeline if this were to happen. So we have a statement coming from the government itself saying it would do this.”
“And then I would say on top of that, the United States – given its military capabilities – had the capability to do this. They sent divers down to attach explosives and to arrange for a drone satellite that would ignite the charges and blow up the pipelines. It had the capability to do it. And it also had the motive, which was basically to weaken Russia’s ability to use its energy resources to affect politics in Europe. So this is what it was all about,” Giraldi continued.
On 8 February 2023, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh dropped a bombshell, detailing an apparent plot by Team Biden and the US intelligence community to blast the Nord Stream pipelines with the help of Norwegian operatives.
Reflecting on Hersh’s version, Giraldi said that he feels that Hersh’s narrative is “correct in every detail.”
“And I can confirm to you that Sy Hersh, whom I know somewhat, has excellent sources inside CIA and inside the Pentagon. So what he’s telling us comes straight from people who know about it,” the CIA veteran said.
Blame Game Time: The Andromeda Yarn
On 7 March, the US and German mainstream sources published two separate articles claiming that international investigators had managed to trace the 26 September 2022 sabotage attack to a “pro-Ukrainian” group operating from the Andromeda, a 15-meter chartered yacht. The story immediately prompted a lot of controversy.
German media, for example, asked how a 15-meter chartered yacht could carry the 1,500-2,000 kilograms of explosives needed to destroy the pipelines, adding that the Andromeda does not have a crane to hoist such quantities safely into the water. It was also unclear how the group of volunteers managed to transport that amount of explosives across Europe.
Another problem, cited by the press, was that at the site of the explosion, the depth of the Baltic Sea is about 80 meters, requiring special diving equipment which the private vessel lacked. On top of this, the gang of saboteurs returned the yacht in bad condition and even left a couple of fake passports on board which made the story even fishier.
Hersh ridiculed the mainstream media yarn while discussing it with an anonymous CIA operative familiar with the issue. According to Hersh, it’s not just a “bad” media story but a deliberate “parody” fed by the CIA to the US and German media.
“In the world of professional analysts and operators, everyone will universally and correctly conclude from your story that the devilish CIA concocted a counter-op that is on its face so ridiculous and childish that the real purpose was to reinforce the truth,” the investigative journalist wrote on 5 April.
The most recent Western media stories alleging Ukraine’s involvement don’t hold water, either, according to Giraldi:
“Look, when you’re doing things in the intelligence world, you look for corroborative details – details that tell you that this story is coming from a good source or that it is fundamentally correct. And I saw none of that in this story. There have been a number of stories, of course, about people from Ukraine having done this, or people even from Germany renting boats and going over there, and they didn’t know what nationality they were. I mean, these are repeated stories. I have no reason to assume that this story is correct.”
The CIA veteran goes on to say that at present there is no story that sounds as credible as Hersh’s version. Besides, the US had the motive; it had the capability to do it; and it also had the objective to do it as a way of weakening Russia’s ability to influence Western Europe, Giraldi summarized.
“So I think that a lot of the background or the backstory supports the fact that the United States basically did it, though, apparently with the assistance of the Norwegians, and I would imagine some of the other NATO allies were also briefed in a certain fashion. In other words, not all the details, but given some indication that something might be happening in the near future in the Baltic.”
Why Couldn’t EU Investigators Name the Culprit?
It’s hardly surprising that despite official investigations in three countries – Sweden, Denmark, and Germany – the question of who is responsible for the sabotage remains unanswered, according to Giraldi.
“The fact that there have been three investigations carried out means nothing because the three countries that carry out the investigation are all NATO members. So they would have no motive whatsoever to challenge the argument that this was carried out by the Russians themselves or by the Ukrainians,” the CIA veteran said.
However, Giraldi suspects that the German investigation probably came closest to the truth. However, what they told the public was essentially a narrative acceptable to the United States and to NATO. The former CIA field officer pointed out that Germany suffered the most from the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines.
“Their economy is in trouble. They were dependent on Russian energy and so they are paying a price for it, and I’m sure that many Germans – I do know that many Germans are aware of this and are complaining that this ever took place. I was in Eastern Europe about two months ago, and I heard this a lot from Europeans, how stupid this whole thing was to destroy a resource that was very good for Europe as well as being good for Russia.”
According to Giraldi, it’s interesting to examine who else – apart from the US and Norway – was aware of the Nord Stream plot and was foolhardy enough to get involved in it. Giraldi doubted whether Berlin had been in collusion with the US and Norway from the beginning and said that it did not make sense for a country to sacrifice its own economy willingly.
Furthermore, the Nord Stream pipelines weren’t just a Gazprom asset, Giraldi emphasized: there were other countries – other companies from Western Europe – that participated in the project that had been worth billions of dollars. And because of the US plot, their money had been squandered and their infrastructure had suffered incalculable damage.
But the financial aspect is only half the story: the most worrying part is that those who blew the pipelines up risked escalating the crisis dramatically.
“The destruction of the pipeline was an act of war,” stressed Giraldi, “… so this is an interesting story if we ever find out the truth.”
On 17 September 2023, the First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Dmitry Polyansky said that Russia was calling for the UN Security Council to meet to discuss the Nord Stream gas pipelines and the council will gather on Tuesday, 26 September – a year after the sabotage occurred.
On 27 August, the Prime Minister of the German federal state of Saxony, Michael Kretschmer, announced the need to repair the damaged gas pipelines which he said will help to ensure the country’s energy supply for another five to 10 years.
The US Military Is Laying the Groundwork to Reinstitute the Draft
By Zachary Yost | Mises Wire | September 25, 2023
The most recent edition of the U.S. Army War College’s academic journal includes a highly disturbing essay on what lessons the U.S. military should take away from the continuing war in Ukraine. By far the most concerning and most relevant section for the average American citizen is a subsection entitled “Casualties, Replacements, and Reconstitutions” which, to cut right to the chase, directly states, “Large-scale combat operations troop requirements may well require a reconceptualization of the 1970s and 1980s volunteer force and a move toward partial conscription.”
An Industrial War of Attrition Would Require Vast Numbers of Troops
The context for this supposed need to reinstate conscription is the estimate that were the U.S. to enter into a large-scale conflict, every day it would likely suffer thirty-six hundred casualties and require eight hundred replacements, again per day. The report notes that over the course of twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. suffered fifty thousand casualties, a number which would likely be reached in merely two weeks of large-scale intensive combat.
The military is already facing an enormous recruiting shortfall. Last year the army alone fell short of its goal by fifteen thousand soldiers and is on track to be short an additional twenty thousand this year. On top of that, the report notes that the Individual Ready Reserve, which is composed of former service personnel who do not actively train and drill but may be called back into active service in the event they are needed, has dropped from seven hundred thousand in 1973 to seventy-six thousand now.
Prior to the Ukraine war, the fad theory in military planning was the idea of “hybrid warfare,” where the idea of giant state armies clashing on the battlefield requiring and consuming vast amounts of men and material was viewed as out of date as massed cavalry charges. Instead, these theorists argued that even when states did fight, it would be via proxies and special operations and would look more like the past twenty years of battling nonstate actors in the hills of Afghanistan. In a recent essay in the Journal of Security Studies, realist scholar Patrick Porter documents the rise of this theory and the fact that it is obviously garbage given the return of industrial wars of attrition.
As military planners have woken up from the fevered dream of imagining that modern war consisted of chasing the Taliban through the hills with complete and overwhelming airpower, they have similarly started to wake up to the idea that industrial war has vast manpower requirements and that seemingly the only way to fill these requirements is by forcing young people into the ranks. That has certainly been the only way Ukraine has been able to maintain its forces, although it has required increasingly draconian measures to do so as conscripts face attrition rates of 80 to 90 percent by Ukraine’s own admission.
Obviously, the reintroduction of conscription is an extremely disturbing prospect given America’s propensity for getting involved in meaningless wars that accomplish nothing other than empowering our enemies, killing and maiming our soldiers, and wasting vast resources.
This is especially true given the unstated assumptions implicit in this paper. Who is the enemy that would be inflicting thirty-six hundred casualties a day? A war in the Pacific against China would primarily be a naval and airpower war with an extremely limited role for the army (even the current inept regime seems unlikely to be stupid enough to try and wage a land war against China) which obviously leaves Russia as the main adversary that would require the U.S. Army to round up conscripts to feed into the attritional meat grinder.
There Is No American National Interest That Requires a Standing Army
However, while these manpower shortages may be a valid concern for someplace like Russia, Ukraine, or Poland, we here in the U.S. are quite fortunate that we have no compelling national interest that would require us to engage in an industrial war of attrition in Eastern Europe.
To the extent we are at risk of becoming involved in such a disastrous mess, it is entirely of our own doing via the entangling alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our leader’s own messianic gnostic crusades for democracy or whatever pseudo religious ideology is presently in vogue.
The U.S. is blessed as being the most secure power in history. We are the hegemon of the western hemisphere, with vast moats in the form of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that no other state has the capability to project military force across, and all our neighbors are weak and relatively friendly. We are not at any risk of being forced to fight an industrial land war on the home front. Any war the army would be used in would be as an expeditionary force fighting in the eastern hemisphere, where we have no compelling defensive need to do so.
From the beginning of the U.S., there have been warnings against the dangers of both entangling alliances and standing armies. The best solution to the military recruitment crisis is to simply abolish the standing army and not plan to wage a costly and pointless war on the other side of the planet that would result in trillions of dollars down the drain and who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed, maimed, and psychologically scarred.
FDA rush to approve killer ‘vaccines’ but reject life-saving allergy treatment
By Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | September 25, 2023
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), quick to approve an experimental and untested Covid-19 ‘vaccine’, is now stalling over approval of a new device that could save the lives of people who go into anaphylactic shock.
Anaphylactic shock, or anaphylaxis, is an extreme immune system reaction to an allergy which leads to a massive release of chemicals around the body, principally histamine, in an effort to deal with an allergen. This reaction of the body is, in fact, an overreaction and the response leads to difficulties with breathing and sudden and dramatic drop in blood pressure (shock). If untreated it can be fatal.
One of the first lines of treatment for anaphylaxis is an EpiPen which can be carried by those who know they have allergies. It is a device containing the drug noradrenaline (called norepinephrine in the US) that counteracts the shock induced by anaphylaxis. However, an EpiPen requires the injection of noradrenaline intramuscularly. This is invasive and if the person is unable to administer the drug others can be reluctant, either not knowing how to use the device or being afraid to. Also, the drug has to get from the musculature to the bloodstream to be effective. This can take five to ten minutes during which time the person may die.
How much better if noradrenaline could be administered more directly into the bloodstream. Manufacturing a device to do this intravenously, far less expecting anyone other than a medic, nurse or paramedic to have the expertise to do this in an emergency, is a tall order. But drugs can be administered rapidly into the bloodstream nasally and a company, ARS Pharmaceuticals, has developed an injection-free device for administering noradrenaline nasally in the form of an epinephrine nasal spray.
What’s not to like, you may think. Well, the FDA don’t like it and have withheld approval pending further testing. The FDA objections are based on the need for further clinical data in people with anaphylaxis due to the fear that it may fail to work.
It is, surely, heartening that the FDA has the best interests of potential anaphylaxis sufferers at heart. If only they had had the same concern on 2021 when they approved the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccines. It has been exposed in these pages from the start of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout that these were ‘experimental’ medications and had not been tested adequately before approval. Well, they have been tested now and the outcome is clear: they were completely unnecessary; they do not work; and they are extremely dangerous leading to injury and death. They undoubtedly have played a large part in the level of excess deaths observed in recent years.
According to UK government figures, the overall fatality rate from Covid-19 (always a disputed figure due to the difficulty in distinguishing ‘with Covid’ from ‘from Covid’) is 0.1 per cent. The estimated fatality rate from anaphylaxis – made uncertain by the fact that many suspected cases are dead before being found – is between 0.7 and 2 per cent. Recent England hospital Covid-19 admissions are approximately 3,000 per month at the latest available figures. The annual rate of hospitalisation in England for anaphylaxis in 2022-23 was 26,000; at approximately 2,000 monthly, the same order of magnitude as the Covid-19 admissions.
Bearing in mind that it is not easy to distinguish Covid-19 from other respiratory infections but that anaphylaxis is unmistakable and more fatal and, assuming a similar situation in the US, the recent FDA decision regarding nasally administered noradrenaline for anaphylaxis in the light of their unseemly haste over Covid-19 vaccinations is hard to understand. Could political and financial pressured be involved? Surely not!
New Warnings Show DNA Contamination and Persistence of Spike Protein in COVID Vaccine Recipients
Regulatory Agencies Are Ignoring Science Which Continues to Paint a Troublesome Picture
BY JEFFEREY JAXEN | SEPTEMBER 25, 2023
On August 31, 2023, roughly two weeks before the latest COVID booster recommendation by FDA/CDC/ACIP, independent researchers published an online, open-access analysis announcing “… it is possible to distinguish, by tryptic digestion, followed by mass spectrometry analysis, synthetic Spike proteins originated from the translation of the mRNA vaccines from natural Spike circulating in biological fluids.”
In other words, the researchers devised a method to determine how long the synthetic spike protein created by mRNA vaccines was present in the human body of vaccinated individuals.
This was a big deal. Their approach represents the first proteomic detection of recombinant Spike in vaccinated subjects. How long did they find it lasted?
They write, “The specific PP-Spike fragment was found in 50% of the biological samples analyzed, and its presence was independent of the SARS CoV-2 IgG antibody titer. The minimum and maximum time at which PP-Spike was detected after vaccination was 69 and 187 days, respectively.” Below is a chart from their study comparing the detection of the spike protein in the body of vaccinated and “after infection non vaccinated.”
The FDA and CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) didn’t care and approved the new COVID booster anyway calling for yearly boosters ‘like the flu shot.’
The mRNA vaccine technology used against a circulating coronavirus is a new, never-before-used approach and method. Proper safety testing and an understanding of what happens when you repeatedly inject billions is unknown. Why the approval? Well because it was an emergency we were told… we just didn’t have time. You understand right?
Yet, with the newly updated booster announced by the CDC for 6 months and older, with no exceptions we are still aggressively injecting. Why? America is the outlier with its cavalier approach to experimenting on its population as new warnings appear almost weekly from this injectable tech platform.
The CDC states mRNA vaccines use mRNA created in a laboratory to teach our cells how to make a protein that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. The Covid vaccine’s one and only purpose is to create that spike protein. It has only one job.
Do you think regulators or the pharmaceutical companies making the shots cared to understand what else that spike did after it was created or how long it persisted?
Pfizer’s Nonclinical overview submitted to FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, a document which doctors had to sue the agency in court to obtain, states:
“The protein encoded by the RNA in BNT162b2 is expected to be proteolytically degraded like other endogenous proteins… Therefore, no RNA or protein metabolism or excretion studies will be conducted.”
In other words, we aren’t going to bother looking because one can’t find what one doesn’t search for.
Two years later, public assertions like the one from The Infectious Disease Society of America still regularly repeated estimates that the spike proteins generated by COVID-19 vaccines last up to a few weeks.
The flashing warning of public health ignorance and medical neglect carried all the way to CDC’s ACIP meeting in 2022, two years into the most aggressive vaccine campaign in world history when Professor of Pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital Dr. Pablo Sanchez asked the therapeutic head of Moderna’s respiratory vaccine division the following question:
“I’ve asked this before and I just don’t have a clear idea about how long the spike protein the messenger RNA in our bodies produce… how long has it been detected in patient serum or tissues or even in animal studies? Do you know how long it may persist in blood or serum or tissues?”
To this question, Rituparna Das, Moderna’s Therapeutic Area Head of Respiratory Vaccines and the company’s ACIP lead answered:
“The spike protein, ah, availability I believe is on the order of days, but, like less than a week. But I will confirm that with our tox [toxicology] folks as well.”
No one knew for sure, not even the injectable product’s manufacturer, and more importantly, no one cared to know.
Yet the spike continued to turn up as the culprit in more pathogenic insults to humanity. In 2023, researchers reporting circulating spike protein detected in post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccines myocarditis stated:
“A notable finding was that markedly elevated levels of full-length spike protein, unbound by antibodies, were detected in the plasma of individuals with post vaccine myocarditis, whereas no free spike was detected in asymptomatic vaccinated control subjects”
The CDC/ACIP response was that the benefits outweigh the risks… simplistic, insulting, and lacking transparency talking down to the people being targeted by this novel shot.
The authors of the August 2023 suggested that the spike protein may be integrating into the human cells. A similar, and in ways more detailed, warning was just given by well-respected cancer genomics researcher at the University of South Carolina Phillip Buckhaults, Ph.D. during his recent testimony in front of the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Committee which he stated, among other things, that:
- The Pfizer mRNA vaccine is contaminated with the plasmid DNA vector that was used as the template for in vitro transcription reaction.
- This DNA could cause rare but serious side effects like death from cardiac arrest.
- The DNA can and likely will integrate into the genomes of transfected cells.
- There is a very real hazard for genome modification of long-lived somatic cells, which could cause sustained autoimmune attacks towards that tissue.
- There is also a theoretical risk of future cancer, depending on the piece of DNA and site of integration.

The CDC’s website states the following outdated and scientifically lazy explanation, at best, of what happens to human DNA after being injected with COVID-19 shots.

According to Professor Buckhaults, this is just not true… at all.
Two further points raised by Professor Buckhaults were first, that the plasmid DNA contamination was not present in the material used in Pfizer’s initial vaccine trials for regulatory approval. It was only after approval and rapid scale-up of manufacturing did the company used questionable, scientifically reckless techniques which led to the contamination. Second, Professor Buckhalut’s lab, a world leader in this type of research, estimates that each vaccination contains about 200 billion pieces of plasmid DNA encapsulated in the lipid nanoparticle.
We know it is now a basic technique to find the synthetic spike in vaccinated individuals. Perhaps even more troubling, it’s basic genetic research to find out if the plasmid DNA is integrating into and forever changing the DNA/genetics of vaccinated individuals yet health agencies and labs just don’t seem to want to look.
With the CDC clearly not willing to do even the most basic steps to regain the public trust lost, as new director Cohen claimed was her main goal, the public must back away further from an apparently rogue government body. As prominent scientists and doctors denounce the agency and its products, we have hit breakaway speeds into historically uncharted territory as public health agencies, once a fixture running in the background of America, have become a cyclic, menacing threat with each new booster rollout campaign.
All cell phones pose radiation threat – regulator
RT | September 25, 2023
Radiation from all cell phones is dangerous to human health and the devices should be used sparingly, Russia’s consumer rights and human wellbeing agency said on Monday. The agency was responding to speculation that Russia would follow France’s lead and ban the iPhone 12.
“Radiation from all cell phones is dangerous for humans, especially for children. It is important to follow safety rules when talking on a mobile phone: the call should not last more than two minutes, and the minimum pause between calls should be at least 15 minutes,” a spokesman for Rospotrebnadzor said, according to Russia’s Gazeta news site.
The spokesman added that cell phones should be placed aside while the user is sleeping, and should ideally be carried in bags rather than pockets.
Earlier this month, France’s National Frequency Agency (ANFR) demanded that Apple withdraw the iPhone 12 from sale in the country after it found that the device emits more electromagnetic radiation than European Union regulations allow.
The ANFR said that tests at an accredited laboratory revealed that the phone exceeded the specific absorption rate (SAR) value mandated by the EU, which is four watts-per-kilogram (W/kg), when held in hand or in a trouser pocket. The “body” SAR – measured when the phone is in a jacket pocket or a bag at least 5mm away – was within the 2 W/kg limit, however.
Rospotrebnadzor is not considering such a ban. The regulator’s spokesman said that Russia measures electromagnetic radiation using the PES scale rather than the SAR system, the results from which “cannot be compared.”
The iPhone 12 was introduced in October 2020 and has continued to be popular due to a lower price point than the subsequent models. Apple disputes the French findings, claiming that the model has a SAR of 0.99 W/kg when measured by the EU standard.
However, the American tech giant has been accused of violating radiation standards before. In the US, Apple and Korean manufacturer Samsung were sued in 2019 after research found that the iPhone 8, iPhone X, and Galaxy S8 exceeded federal radiation limits by up to 500%.


A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Business by Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski