By Lucia Sinatra | Brownstone Institute | February 18, 2025
With one stroke of his pen, President Trump accomplished what we have been fighting for over the last 4 years – an end to college and university Covid-19 vaccine mandates. He signed an executive order to halt federal funding to all schools, including colleges and universities, that still impose Covid-19 vaccine mandates on students. While there are only 15 colleges and universities left mandating these shots, the magnitude of his message to higher education leaders should not be underestimated.
Covid-19 vaccine mandates on healthy young adults were never based on scientific data or sound reasoning, but they were harshly implemented nonetheless. These policies coerced a captive population of students to choose between abandonment of their college programs and dreams for the future or complying with decisions over bodily autonomy made by the “experts.”
Beginning in the spring of 2021, colleges and universities mandated students to take shots that never protected against infection or transmission of Covid-19. These mandates were imposed with the mantra that injections were the best way to “protect our community” from severe illness and death – a claim that proved false by the summer of 2021 just prior to mandated compliance for fall 2021 enrollment.
In fact, colleges that never had Covid-19 vaccine mandates had less infections and have no recorded history of severe illnesses or death among their campus communities as compared to colleges that did. It was easy to analyze these data using the colleges’ own Covid infection and vaccination rate dashboards until most of them scrubbed the dashboards from their college websites.
Over 1,000 colleges announced Covid vaccine mandates by the summer of 2021. After a concerted campaign by No College Mandates and other advocacy groups, by the spring of 2022, colleges had slowly begun dropping them. By the summer of 2023, very few colleges imposed the mandates on faculty and staff, but students were still required to comply.
Until this executive order, which tasked our new Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to develop a plan to end these coercive policies, our nation’s entire academic apparatus seemed perfectly fine with the continued application of these mandates on students. For example, at CSU Dominguez Hills and CSU Cal Poly Humboldt, only residential students are required to show proof of Covid vaccination prior to enrollment. At Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore Colleges only students are required to take Covid vaccines. No other members of the college community must comply.
Coercive and mandatory policies such as these alerted many of us to the fact that student health was not at the forefront of administrators’ concerns. Somehow, they perpetuated the draconian notion that only students were to blame for spreading the SARS-CoV-2 virus and that only students must comply to put an end to the pandemic. College leaders knew such strategies were incoherent and illogical, yet they persisted almost entirely unchallenged.
From the very start, many of us lost trust in the hypocrisy of such inconsistencies. It was downright crazy for students to have to put up with such nonsense and risk injury from taking novel and needless medical treatments in the name of “protecting the community.” This is why we refused to stop shining a light on the injustice of it all.
It is with deep gratitude to President Trump and his team for keeping his promise and ending all federal funding to colleges and universities that continue these unnecessary and dangerous Covid-19 vaccine policies. There was zero science or reasoning to support them, and this new executive order might just prevent similar dictates from ever happening again.
But our work is far from done.
Healthcare students are still being forced to choose between their dreams and their autonomy to access hospitals and clinical facilities. To graduate, healthcare students must complete their clinical rotations, and hospitals and clinical facilities have required that these students take updated Covid vaccines even when faculty and staff no longer must comply. There is zero rationale for this patently retaliatory discrepancy.
In Florida, it is against the law for any “a business entity [to] require any person to provide any documentation certifying vaccination…or postinfection recovery from COVID-19, or require a COVID-19 test, to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state or as a condition of contracting, hiring, promotion, or continued employment with the business entity.”
When I called the University of Florida Nursing Program a few weeks ago, however, I was told students are required to receive updated Covid vaccines to complete clinical programs with some providers. Making matters worse, some colleges smugly refuse to disclose these requirements to prospective or even enrolled students, often leaving them to learn about them in the final year of their program.
Ironically, but perhaps not unexpectedly, UF Nursing posted on X just last week that there is a nationwide nursing shortage including in the State of Florida. It blows my mind that those who determine policies affecting the training of our nation’s nurses were somehow unaware that their coercive and nonsensical policies would likely lead to such shortages. After No College Mandates drew attention to this on X, UF Nursing deleted the post.
In Montana, there is a similar problem. Montana law prohibits discrimination based on Covid vaccine status yet the Emergency Medical Technician program at Helena College still requires students to take Covid vaccines to enroll.
I have reached out to representatives in both states to report the college programs that are not following state law because if there is anything I have learned over the past several years, colleges and universities will get away with these discriminatory and punitive policies for as long as they can until someone steps in to put an end to them.
It is uncertain what will happen to healthcare majors whose colleges and universities no longer require injections to enroll but whose clinical partner assignments are still requiring them to complete clinical rotations to graduate. So, while President Trump took a huge step forward to end federal funding to colleges and universities that perpetuate unscientific and unreasonable Covid vaccination, it is not nearly enough to end the coercive policies at partner facilities when the unreasonable and unconstitutional mandates remain for many healthcare students who need to complete clinical rotations at those facilities.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention that there are legislative efforts in at least 9 states* to completely ban mRNA shots. Such efforts promise to stop remaining Covid vaccine mandates dead in their tracks. Until we see those efforts make more progress, we will keep pressuring healthcare programs to end partnerships with hospitals and clinics when those facilities require students to receive Covid injections, and we will keep working with state representatives to hold clinical partners accountable for refusing to follow state law.
It is long overdue that our nation’s healthcare academies leave our healthcare students alone to make their own private decisions over what medical measures to take so they can pursue their dreams and help heal our very sick nation.
*On February 15, 2024, the Idaho Senate blocked the vote to ban mRNA vaccines so as of right now Bill S1036 is dead, and Idaho should no longer be on the map of 9 states.
Lucia Sinatra is a recovering corporate securities attorney. After becoming a mother, Lucia turned her attention to fighting inequities in public schools in California for students with learning disabilities. She co-founded NoCollegeMandates.com to help fight college vaccine mandates.
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | February 21, 2025
It has been commonplace for so long that most Americans cannot remember a time before the United States government was out running public relations campaigns urging Americans to take this or that vaccine or other pharmaceutical industry product. Now, an early action by new US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. suggests this practice may be coming to an end.
Helen Branswell reported Thursday at STAT News that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “was ordered to shelve promotions it developed for a variety of vaccines, including a ‘Wild to Mild’ advertising campaign urging people to get vaccinated against flu” and that the CDC was informed that Kennedy “wanted advertisements that promote the idea of ‘informed consent’ in vaccine decision-making instead.”
What a major change — a transition from being a pharmaceutical company product promoter to being a promoter of, as Branswell describes informed consent in her article, “the principle that people should be notified of all the risks, as well as benefits, of any medical intervention they receive or any drug they are prescribed.”
This is a good early step by Kennedy. It clarifies a new orientation placing focus on advancing information and choice instead of pushing product. If Kennedy continues on this course, he can accomplish major advancement for health and freedom in America as his appointment suggested would be possible.
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 18, 2025
In his first address to his staff, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to subject potential causes of chronic disease to “unbiased scientific investigation.”
“Nothing is going to be off limits,” including his personal past beliefs, Kennedy said at his welcome ceremony today.
On Feb. 13, the White House issued an executive order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission, which Kennedy will lead.
Kennedy said today that as part of that agenda, he will direct HHS to investigate many possible causes of the chronic disease epidemic in the U.S.
“Some of the possible factors we will investigate were formally taboo or insufficiently scrutinized,” he said. “Those who are unwilling to embrace those kinds of ideas can retire,” he said.
Before and during his confirmation hearings, Kennedy came under fire from Democrats and the mainstream media for raising questions about vaccine safety. Today, he included the childhood vaccine schedule as one of the formerly “taboo” areas he planned to investigate.
Other potential drivers of the chronic disease epidemic the agency will investigate will include electromagnetic radiation, glyphosate and other pesticides, ultraprocessed foods, artificial food additives, antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs, a group of chemicals known as PFAS and microplastics.
Kennedy said he plans to convene stakeholders “of all viewpoints,” and to set study protocols in advance that won’t be changed when the results look like they will be “inconvenient.”
“Let’s all depoliticize these issues and reestablish a common ground or action and renew the search for existential truths with no political impediments and no preconceptions,” he said.
Kennedy also said he’ll work to remove “conflicts of interest” on HHS advisory committees in order to reestablish the public’s trust, Bloomberg Law reported.
Related articles in The Defender
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Cites his childhood polio experience as rationale
By John Leake | Courageous Discourse | February 13, 2025
Senator Mitch McConnell was the sole Republican to vote against RFK, Jr.’s confirmation as HHS Secretary. As he explained in his statement.
I’m a survivor of childhood polio. In my lifetime, I’ve watched vaccines save millions of lives from devastating diseases across America and around the world. I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither will millions of Americans who credit their survival and quality of life to scientific miracles… a record of trafficking in dangerous conspiracy theories and eroding trust in public health institutions does not entitle Mr. Kennedy to lead these important efforts.
A public heath report titled “Incidence of Poliomyelitis in the United States in 1944” reported an above average national incidence of polio that year, with a total of 19,053 cases. However, no outbreak in Alabama was noted, indicating that the two-year-old Mitch McConnell was an exceedingly unlucky isolated case.
Alone among infectious diseases, polio only became a serious problem in the 20th century. The conventional explanation is that—while every other infectious disease was dramatically reduced by improvements in public sanitation—the increasing availability of clean drinking water apparently resulted in fewer children being exposed to the polio virus during their early childhood years (between 6 months and 5 years) when the disease is typically very mild. This, in turn, resulted in fewer mothers acquiring immunity and passing it on to their nursing infants.
The experience of the American South seemed to support this theory. Without widespread electrification or water filtration systems, the South had poor sanitation, which led to mild infant infection and widespread adult immunity. This could explain why the region saw no major polio epidemics until the late 1940s.
As Senator McConnell described his case in his memoir: “The disease struck and weakened my left leg, the worst of it my quadriceps.”
Given that he was two years old at the time—when the disease is usually very mild—and given that it was apparently an isolated case in Alabama that year, his was an especially bad piece of luck.
I wonder how the local doctor in Five Points, Alabama—which currently has a population of 114— obtained a definitive diagnosis in 1944. Laboratory testing for polio was not widespread prior to 1958.
By Jefferey Jaxen | February 13, 2025
America has just took the exit ramp off the long, failed highway of disease management towards a better direction to ensure our healthcare system actually promotes health.
How exactly?
We now see the first vestiges of a blueprint emerging in the form of President Trumps first Executive Order with Robert F. Kennedy Jr officially at the helm of U.S. Health and Human Service.
The order, titled Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission is now the founding document outlining where we are at, where we need to go, and what directions need to be aimed at to get there.
What’s clear during the first read-through of the document is that the days of petty pot shots and baseless smears upon RFK Jr. the public endured for years, up through and during his confirmation process, are over.
The adults are in the room and are stating their intentions to go to work on the ideals that propelled both Trump and RFK Jr. to populist symbols of change.
The order directs all departments and agencies to “aggressively combat… reversing “… rising rates of mental health disorders, obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases.”
Federal funding will now prioritize “gold-standard research on the root causes of why Americans are getting sick.”
The work extends beyond the medical space.
“… agencies shall work with farmers to ensure that United States food is the healthiest, most abundant, and most affordable in the world” states the order. A revolutionary act in and of itself.
The newly-formed council will advise the President on how best to exercise his authority to address the childhood chronic disease crisis.
In order to do this, the council and federal funds will “study the scope of the childhood chronic disease crisis and any potential contributing causes, including the American diet, absorption of toxic material, medical treatments, lifestyle, environmental factors, Government policies, food production techniques, electromagnetic radiation, and corporate influence or cronyism”
Of particular note regarding the assessment and strategy of the council’s assessment and strategy will be the following:
(iii) assess the prevalence of and threat posed by the prescription of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, stimulants, and weight-loss drugs;
(iv) identify and report on best practices for preventing childhood health issues, including through proper nutrition and the promotion of healthy lifestyles;
(v) evaluate the effectiveness of existing educational programs with regard to nutrition, physical activity, and mental health for children;
(vi) identify and evaluate existing Federal programs and funding intended to prevent and treat childhood health issues for their scope and effectiveness;
(vii) ensure transparency of all current data and unpublished analyses related to the childhood chronic disease crisis, consistent with applicable law
The council will also tackle conflicts of interest that have long-hurt public trust – a herculean task in the shadow of the failed pandemic response.
To those ends, a framework for transparency and ethics will be created to review industry-funded projects. Enforcement of this process will be key for its success.
The hopeful work to shift the weary direction of American health is just starting.
Per this Executive Order, an official strategy shall be delivered in 180 days to “address appropriately restructuring the Federal Government’s response to the childhood chronic disease crisis, including by ending Federal practices that exacerbate the health crisis or unsuccessfully attempt to address it, and by adding powerful new solutions that will end childhood chronic disease.”
The public is watching every moment and at every step of this process. Action and accountability will be key.
By Chris Morrison | The Daily Sceptic | February 6, 2025
Last month a group of scientists published a paper in Nature stating that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) had shown no decline in strength since the 1960s. Helped by publicity in the Daily Sceptic, the story went viral on social media, although it was largely ignored in narrative-driven mainstream publications. The collapse of the Gulf Stream, a key component of the AMOC, is an important ‘tipping point’ story used to induce mass climate psychosis and make it easier to impose the Net Zero fantasy on increasingly resentful and questioning populations. Obviously, reinforcements to back up such an important weaponised scare needed to be rushed to the front and the BBC has risen to the challenge. The AMOC “appears to be getting weaker” state BBC activists Simon King and Mark Poynting. Their long article is a classic of its kind in trying to deflect scientific findings that blow holes in the ‘settled’ narrative.
In the Nature paper, three scientists working out of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution stated that they came to their conclusion showing the stability of the AMOC after examining heat transfers between the sea and the atmosphere. It was noted that the AMOC had not weakened from 1963 to 2017, “although substantial variability exists at all latitudes”. This variability is the basis for much of the Gulf Stream fear-mongering. The BBC notes that the presence of larger grains of sediment on the ocean floor suggests the existence of stronger currents, pointing to a “cold blob” in the Atlantic that appears to have cooled of late. Thin pickings, it might be thought, to run an article titled ‘Could the UK actually get colder with global warming?’ The Woods Hole scientists note that records “are not long enough to differentiate between low frequency variability and long-term trends”.
The Nature story is not the only recent scientific finding that suggests the Day After Tomorrow alarm about the AMOC is a tad overdone. In 2023, Georgina Rannard of the BBC reported that “scientists say” a weakening Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025. There was no later reporting, needless to say, of subsequent work from a group of scientists at the US weather service NOAA that discovered the huge flow of Gulf Stream tropical water through the Florida Straits had remained “remarkably stable” for over 40 years.
Of course the BBC, along with most of the legacy media, has form as long as your arm when it comes to producing deflective copy seemingly designed to head off inconvenient scientific findings. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest and best observed collection of tropical coral in the world. Any sign of ill health is a boon for green propogandists who argue that warming measured in tenths of a degree centigrade will destroy an organism that has survived for millions of years in temperatures between 24-32°C. For the last three years, coral on the GBR has hit recent record levels with scarcely a mention in mainstream media. Days before last year’s record was announced, the places where journalism goes to die were full of stories from a paper that conveniently noted climate change posed an “existential threat” to the reef. “The science tells us that the GBR is in danger and we should be guided by the science,” Professor Helen McGregor from the University of Wollongong told Victoria Gill of BBC News. Professor McGregor’s statement was an opinion readily broadcast by the BBC, a courtesy that does not appear to have been extended to the fact that coral on the GBR was at its highest level since detailed observations began.
It beggars belief that the BBC and all its fellow alarmists can run this stuff with a straight face knowing that crucial scientific information is missing from their reports. Important findings from reputable sources emerge about the current stability of the Gulf Stream and the response is to blow more smoke around that raises wholly unnecessary fears.
The main concern is that the AMOC “could suddenly switch off”, state King and Poynting. To back up their statement and provide the inevitable political message they note the comment of Matthew England, Professor of Oceanography at the University of South Wales: “We’re playing a bit of a Russian roulette game. The more we stack up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the more we warm the system, the more chance we have of an AMOC slowdown and collapse.” Now look what you plebs have done with your steak chomping, gas-guzzling central heating and naff holidays in Benidorm, is an unpleasant subtext here.
Of course, keen and dedicated followers of climate alarmists will note a master craftsman at work. In 2023, aided by 35 million computer hours and using an improbable rise in temperature of up to 4°C in less than 80 years, Professor Matthews suggested that there was a dramatic slowdown in deep Antarctica ocean currents. Melting Antarctica ice could lead to a 40% slowdown in just 30 years. The fact that Antarctica has barely warmed in 70 years is ignored.
Who needs Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters when we have the BBC.
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – February 11, 2025
NATO countries’ ‘aid’ agencies are reeling amid Trump’s freeze on USAID and revelations on the agency’s record of global meddling and largesse. Sputnik has already explored the shady activities of USAID’s British and French cousins. Now it’s Germany’s turn.
The German Corporation for International Cooperation (German acronym GIZ) gets most of its €4 bln ($4.1 bln US) straight from the federal budget, plus EU ‘co-financing’, to support up to 1,700 projects in 120 countries.
Many of GIZ’s projects revolve around ‘climate action’ and ‘sustainability’. From organic farming in Africa to solar/wind power in Latin America, GIZ is involved in pushing countries trying to break out of poverty to adhere to development goals set by the West.
GIZ also supports things like the digitization of governance, local media, Africa’s film industry, and refugee reintegration. In Ukraine, they’ve provided over 1,100 microloans for small businesses from dance studios to fashion ateliers.
A damning 2024 Focus Magazine exposé uncovered tens of millions in questionable GIZ spending, from “vague” multi-million euro grants for “climate awareness” and monitoring projects in Thailand and Turkiye, to €5M spent to make mosques “green” in Morocco, to €44M for bike lanes in Lima as part of a €529M “climate and development partnership.”
In April 2023, the Federal Audit Office revealed, in Focus’s paraphrasing, that “nobody knows what GIZ actually does,” with lack of economic success criteria for projects, lavish salaries up to €240k, first-class flights and a fleet of luxury cars for top officials highlighting the agency’s extravagance.
Waste, combined with the increasingly sorry state of Germany’s own infrastructure amid an unprecedented economic crunch, has prompted opposition figures including the AfD’s Alice Weidel to blast the government for “squandering” millions in tax money on GIZ projects in developing nations “while the transport infrastructure in its own country is in ruins.”
GIZ-USAID cooperation has been extensive, ranging from “climate finance” projects in the developing world to small business development projects in Georgia for the EU’s Eastern Partnership (which aims to sway Russia’s neighbors toward eventual EU membership).
In Ukraine, GIZ has provided “advisory” assistance on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine association agreement – the fateful pact that triggered the 2014 coup and the present European crisis.
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 6, 2025
The basis for the wireless industry’s claim that radiation is safe for humans is scientifically erroneous, according to the author of a new peer-reviewed scientific report.
Paul Héroux, Ph.D., authored the report, which was published Jan. 30 in Heliyon, one of Elsevier’s journals on its ScienceDirect platform.
Héroux, an associate professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and a medical scientist in McGill University Health Center’s surgery department, has years of experience in physics and electrical engineering.
He is also vice chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), a “consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers” who study wireless radiation and make recommendations for wireless radiation exposure guidelines “based on the best peer-reviewed research publications.”
Héroux told The Defender :
“Industry’s most important argument to deny the health impacts of electromagnetic radiation has been that these health effects are impossible based on solid physics, specifically that the radiation is ‘non-ionizing.”
Héroux detailed the scientific faultiness of that argument:
“Ionization by the radiation itself is irrelevant because life processes produce ionization within the body itself.
“In fact, the basic laws of physics (Maxwell’s Equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) together with established biology confirm that health effects of electromagnetic radiation are in fact inevitable, and at levels much lower than those considered safe by industry.”
Dr. Robert Brown, a diagnostic radiologist with more than 30 years of experience and the vice president of Scientific Research and Clinical Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), praised Héroux’s report.
Brown said the report “effectively outlines a mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can disrupt the biology of living systems” — even at levels much lower than what’s needed to heat tissues.
Fariha Husain, manager of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, called the report “groundbreaking.”
“Héroux’s report fundamentally challenges the flawed ‘thermal-only paradigm,’ which falsely claims that non-ionizing radiation — including radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, smart meters and cellphones — can harm biological tissue only via excessive heating,” Husain said.
The report is novel in that it systematically breaks down the flawed industry arguments used to justify the thermal-only paradigm.
“But the truth of the matter is that the harm caused by RF radiation has been known for decades,” Husain said. “Unfortunately, this knowledge has been intentionally suppressed by industry.”
The wireless industry and regulatory agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), contend that harm can occur only at radiation levels high enough to cause tissue heating.
Lawyers with CHD and EHT in 2021 successfully showed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the FCC ignored massive scientific evidence suggesting that RF radiation has negative biological effects at levels currently allowed by the FCC.
CHD and EHT’s historic case alleged that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current RF exposure guidelines — which haven’t been updated since 1996 — adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation.
The FCC has yet to comply with the court’s mandate to explain how the agency determined that its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of exposure to wireless radiation.
Studies on dead tissues can’t detect health effects
In the report, Héroux provides a scientific rationale for why biological harm occurs at non-thermal levels of RF radiation.
Brown summarized key parts of that rationale:
“Héroux initially explains the difference in physical distance between redox reactions occurring in inorganic matter and those occurring in living systems. The ongoing processes of glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation require electrons and protons to continually engage long pathways in mitochondria to produce chemical energy from the breakdown of sugars.
“He clearly details why it is this increased distance that makes living systems vulnerable to the effects of non-ionizing radiation.
“I believe Dr. Héroux has presented a compelling case that non-ionizing radiation can impact the path of these charged particles and affect not only the efficiency of energy production in the cell but also increase the production of reactive oxygen species, which can lead to cellular oxidative stress.”
Oxidative stress due to RF radiation exposure has been “clearly documented” in the scientific literature, Brown added.
Héroux said his report also shows that the FCC’s safety assessments of RF radiation failed to consider basic physics in addition to its biological effects.
The current regulatory limits “completely ignore” this science, Husain said. “The expansion of wireless technology is in direct conflict with protecting public health and the environment and it is long overdue for regulators to acknowledge the growing body of evidence and take immediate action to establish safety standards that protect both human health and the environment.”
The report also explains why health effects from non-ionizing radiation cannot be detected in experiments performed on dead tissue.
“No electron transport occurs in dead tissue, regardless of whether or not it is ‘fresh.’” Brown said. “Research performed on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on dead tissue has led to erroneous conclusions in many in vitro scientific studies.”
Scientists call out WHO-funded study for ‘serious flaws’
Héroux published his report just weeks after he and other scientists with ICBE-EMF published a scathing letter to the editor of Environmental International criticizing a recent systematic review funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) that claimed it found no link between cellphone use and brain cancer.
The study — part of a WHO-commissioned series of scientific reviews of the possible health risks of wireless radiation — was available online Aug. 30, 2024, in Environmental International.
In their letter, the IBCE-EMF scientists said the WHO’s study had “serious flaws” that undermined the validity of the study’s conclusions.
“It is dishonest to assure the public that cell phones and wireless radiation are safe based upon such a flawed review,” said Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., in an ICBE-EMF press release.
Moskowitz is director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, and an ICBE-EMF member.
The WHO commissioned 10 systematic reviews on the evidence of the health risks from wireless radiation, according to the ICBE-EMF.
So far, nine have been published. All “suffer from serious methodological problems and seem biased to dismiss the substantial evidence of heart risk reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” Moskowitz said in a Sept. 30, 2024, presentation.
Once all 10 are published, the WHO plans to use the reviews as the basis for updating its 1993 “Environmental Health Criteria Monograph” on RF-EMF, ICBE-EMF said.
“A monograph is a report which overviews the scientific evidence on biological effects, identifies gaps in knowledge to direct future research and provides information for health authorities and regulatory agencies regarding public health,” according to ICBE-EMF.
In a post on his Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website, Moskowitz noted that all of the WHO’s scientific review teams have one or more ICNIRP members.
ICNIRP, which Moskowitz called a “cartel,” is a German nonprofit that issues RF radiation exposure limits “produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues.”
According to EHT, ICNIRP is an invite-only group with “deep industry ties” and no oversight.
Scientists in 2020 sent a letter to the WHO’s leadership asking how the research teams were selected but did not receive a response, according to EHT.
Related articles in The Defender
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
The 2024 Hurricane Season
By Paul Homewood | Global Warming Policy Foundation | January 28, 2025
London – The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has today published its periodic review of global hurricane activity. The review is based on the findings of key scientific bodies, comparing them to sensationalist news reporting and popular perceptions.
The author, climate researcher Paul Homewood, said:
“The observational findings of meteorological agencies in 2024 once again confound those who claim to see a ‘climate crisis’ in the hurricane data. It is clear that we have not seen an increase in hurricane frequency, even though the public have been scared into thinking that tropical storms are getting worse.”
GWPF Director, Dr Benny Peiser, said:
“The gap between media hype, popular perceptions and the reality of empirical data is becoming ever more evident. This report sets out the facts and is a welcome corrective to misleading news coverage of hurricanes.”
Read the full paper here: The 2024 Hurricane Season (pdf)
By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | January 30, 2025
The climate establishment are going to great lengths to blame the Los Angeles fires on global warming.
One attempt has already bitten the dust, with claims of increasing winter droughts contradicted by the real world data.
So another team of so-called scientists have come up with an even more ridiculous idea – that it is now both to wet and too dry in California.
The BBC report:
Climate change has made the grasses and shrubs that are fuelling the Los Angeles fires more vulnerable to burning, scientists say.
Rapid swings between dry and wet conditions in the region in recent years have created a massive amount of tinder-dry vegetation that is ready to ignite.
Decades of drought in California were followed by extremely heavy rainfall for two years in 2022 and 2023, but that then flipped again to very dry conditions in the autumn and winter of 2024.
“Scientists” say in a new study, external that climate change has boosted what they call these “whiplash” conditions globally by 31-66% since the middle of the 20th Century.
“This whiplash sequence in California has increased fire risk twofold,” said lead author Daniel Swain from UCLA.
“First, by greatly increasing the growth of flammable grass and brush in the months leading up to fire season, and then by drying it out to exceptionally high levels with the extreme dryness and warmth that followed.”
Once again though the actual data shows the new study to be just as fake as the previous one. Most of California’s rain comes in the winter half, October to March; the last two years have been wetter than average, but no more so than many other years on record:
The same applies to the South Coast Drainage Division, which includes Los Angeles:
Neither is there any evidence of bigger swings from year to year.
Patrick Brown of the Breakthrough Institute has written a full scientific rebuttal here, which demolishes this latest fake science.
This is his summary:
Summary
So, let’s recap. At the annual timescale that is most relevant to the Los Angeles fires…
While “climate whiplash events” may be increasing in frequency under most of the very specific, selected definitions used and datasets investigated in Swain et al. (2025), the general idea that annual precipitation (or more generally, the water cycle, which includes evaporation) is becoming dramatically more variable is not supported when a broader set of datasets and definitions are used.
Would a reader of Swain et al. (2025), or especially its coverage, have any idea about the weakness of its broader conclusions or the lack of robustness of its results to different definitions and datasets? Almost certainly not, and I contend that this is a major problem for public understanding and trust in climate science.
Why don’t we see a robust increase in water cycle variability given the strong theory underpinning “wet gets wetter, dry gets drier”? For one thing, the theoretical size of the effect is known to be quite small relative to natural, unforced variability, making it inherently difficult to detect. For example, we see in Figure 7 above that year-to-year rainfall in Los Angeles naturally varies by as much as 300%, yet the signal we are looking for is one to two orders of magnitude less than this. It is also apparently the case that observational uncertainty is larger than the signal (or there would not be such disagreement between datasets). Physically, perhaps increasing mean precipitation is offsetting the increase in calculated evaporation in the SPEI index, reducing its variability. Maybe reduced temperature variability (via arctic amplification) is reducing calculated evaporation variability.
I don’t know the full answer, but these would be great research questions to identify and outline in a Nature review like Swain et al. (2025). Unfortunately, Swain et al. (2025) missed this opportunity because the paper seemed so focused on assembling evidence in favor of increasing water cycle variability that contradictory evidence was never presented or seriously grappled with.
My main discomfort with Swain et al. (2025) and its rollout is that it appears that the primary goal was to create and disseminate the “climate whiplash” meme rather than conduct a truly rigorous evaluation of the evidence, including countervailing evidence. Ultimately, this makes the research a much larger advance in marketing than an advance in science.
https://www.breakthroughjournal.org/p/how-much-did-increasing-climate-whiplash
Of course, studies like Swain’s are not intended to be serious science; they are written to generate headlines.
And the climate industry is now highly organised to ensure that theses fake studies are disseminated worldwide via a corrupt media.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
By Lisa Pease | Consortium News | September 16, 2013
More than a half century ago, just after midnight on Sept. 18, 1961, the plane carrying UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld and 15 others went down in a plane crash over Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). All 16 died, but the facts of the crash were provocatively mysterious. … continue
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
Aletho News 