Jens

Currently restructuring a 118-year old brand, #1 in its niche.

[Konstantin Kisin @KonstantinKisin]

125,000 years ago, the Thames was full of hippos.

2,000 years ago, the Romans grew grapes on the Scottish border.

Today, British councils force people to rip out their aircon because of "unprecedented climate change".

https://t.co/DhOjKIDFxN

[Precision Pulse Capital @JediMasterCoggy]

🌞 Mind-blowing solar data from Vienna that's rarely talked about:

Scientists measured surface solar radiation at the famous Wien Hohe Warte station in Austria.

Since around 1980, there's been a +23 W/m2 increase in sunlight actually reaching the Earth's surface.

For comparison:
The entire radiative forcing from CO2 since 1750 is only about +2.2 W/m2 globally.

That means the extra sunlight from cleaner air (reduced aerosols/pollution) is over 10 times larger than the CO2 forcing we've accumulated over 270+ years.

This is called "solar brightening" as Europe cleaned up its air pollution, more sunlight started hitting the ground. And it lines up with a lot of the warming we've seen.

Data source: GeoSphere Austria long-term pyranometer measurements. The climate system is complex. CO2 matters, but so do changes in actual sunlight reaching us.

So while alarmists scream that the sky is falling… it’s actually letting a lot more sun through. Whoops.

[Chris Martz @ChrisMartzWX]

Why is it hot in Europe this week?

Well, it has to do with the “omega block” in the jet stream. Omega blocks get their name because they resemble the Greek uppercase letter omega, Ω.

You can see that in the synoptic setup. The map below on the left shows the 500 mb geopotential height anomaly at 18z. The contour lines resemble the Ω shape due to an enormous high-pressure ridge in the mid-troposphere that is sandwiched between two low-pressure systems to its east and west.

Hot Saharan air has been advected—that is, horizontally transported—northward into western Europe due to anticyclonic (clockwise) airflow, and as that air mass moves north, it is compressed adiabatically beneath the ridge where air is sinking.

This process is natural and has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, there are quite a few studies suggesting that reduced latitudinal baroclinicity (north-to-south temperature gradient) caused by Arctic amplification could reduce the frequency of mid- and high-latitude blocking events (e.g., Hassanzadeh et al., 2014; Woollings et al., 2018).

🔗 https://t.co/NGsFsRKpEt

🔗 https://t.co/M7h3vg232H

There is, however, debate about this.

Europe has seen an unusual amount of these extreme heat events since 2019, but most other areas of the globe have not. The notable exception was the June–July 2021 Pacific Northwest heatwave in North America, but even that wasn’t as rare as previously thought.

🔗 https://t.co/rNRFfJohs4

The most likely explanation for this boils down to a combination of two things:

1️⃣ Undiagnosed changes in atmospheric circulation patterns.

2️⃣ Increased absorbed solar radiation at the surface due to reduced stratiform low- and mid-level cloud cover (increased sunniness), some of which is likely due to reduced atmospheric aerosol concentrations from the EU’s strict pollution regulations.

The overall increase in the “global mean temperature” (which mostly affects overnight lows) has very little to do with this event. Even in a “pre-industrialized” climate, a record-breaking heatwave would still be happening. Heck, the “global mean temperature” fell today despite the heat cranking up in Europe.

This is mostly weather systems moving around. When you have a chaotic system with two turbulent fluids interacting with each other (the atmosphere and ocean), wild things can happen.

Get your weather information from real meteorologists, not sensationalistic clickbait news outlets like BBC News or the Daily Mail.

[Ulf Poschardt @ulfposh]

wie scheissegal den linken feminist:innen die misshandelten mädchen in nürnberg, UK und afghanistan sind.

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

BREAKING: Largest Human Cancer Study of Ivermectin + Mebendazole Is Now PEER-REVIEWED and PUBLISHED in a MAJOR Cancer Journal

84.4% of cancer patients taking ivermectin + mebendazole for 6 months declared either CANCER DISAPPEARANCE, TUMOR REGRESSION, or CANCER STABILIZATION.

Our study, “Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort,” is now peer-reviewed and published in Anticancer Research—a major international oncology journal of the International Institute of Anticancer Research (IIAR), established in 1995.

The results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.

A diverse population of cancer patients (n=197) was prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole through a U.S. telemedicine platform, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole.

Participants were followed for approximately six months using standardized digital surveys assessing cancer outcomes, medication adherence, and tolerability.

At approximately six months post-treatment initiation, we observed an 84.4% Clinical Benefit Ratio (CBR)—meaning more than four out of five patients reported either:
No evidence of disease (32.8%)
Tumor regression (15.6%)
or Cancer stabilization (36.1%)

Importantly, adherence was remarkably high, with 86.9% completing the initial prescription and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.

Side effects were predominantly mild and manageable, reported in 25.4% of patients (primarily gastrointestinal), with 93.6% of those experiencing side effects continuing treatment after minor dosing adjustments.

This groundbreaking peer-reviewed publication was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and epidemiologic expertise to evaluate inexpensive, repurposed therapies with major translational potential.

With these extraordinarily promising results, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials are now required.

In the meantime, many cancer patients are exercising their right to try.

@twc_health @McCulloughFund @IIAR_Journals @P_McCulloughMD @DrHarveyRisch @DrKellyVictory @jathorpmfm @drdrew @PeterGillooly @FosterCoulson

[Jens @JGrudno]

@andreasklinger @bijucyborg TU Munich up in Garching will most likely be happy to host. Have good contacts and can make a connection if you like. Write me a DM. UnternehmerTUM has the capacity to host.

[Jesús Fernández-Villaverde @JesusFerna7026]

Smartphones are not the explanation for the recent decline in fertility. Instead, they are an accelerator of deeper forces already at work.

Let’s start with the facts. Fertility is falling almost everywhere: in rich, middle-income, and poor countries; in secular and religious countries; and in countries with high and low levels of gender equality.

The decline accelerated around 2014. So, no country-specific explanation will work unless you are willing to believe that 200 distinct country-specific explanations arrived at roughly the same time.

Smartphones look like the obvious candidate: the first iPhone was released in 2007, and global adoption has been astonishingly fast.

Economists understand the first major decline in fertility in advanced economies, from 6 or 7 children per woman throughout most of human history to about 1.8, that occurred between the early 1800s and roughly 1970, well before smartphones. The main drivers were a sharp fall in child mortality (effective fertility was rarely above 3 and often close to 2) and the shift from a low-skill, rural agrarian economy to a high-skill, urban industrial one. We have quantitative models that fit these facts well.

Country-specific factors mattered too, of course. Proximity to low-fertility neighbors accelerated Hungary’s decline, while fragmented landowning structures accelerated France’s. But these were second-order mechanisms.

This is also why most economists long considered Paul Ehrlich’s doom scenarios implausible. We forecast that fertility in middle- and low-income economies would follow the same path as in the rich, probably faster, because reductions in child mortality reached India or Africa at lower income levels (medical technology is nearly universal, and most gains come from handwashing and cheap antibiotics, not Mayo Clinic-level care). Much of what we see in Africa or parts of Latin America today is still that old story.

But in the 1980s, a new pattern appeared. Japan and Italy fell below 1.8, the level we had thought was the new floor. By 1990, Japan was at 1.54 and Italy at 1.36.

This second fertility decline began in Japan and Italy earlier than elsewhere, driven by country-specific factors, but the underlying dynamics were widespread: secularization, an education arms race, expensive housing, the dissolution of old social networks, and the shift to a service economy in which women’s bargaining power within the household is higher. The U.S. lagged because secularization came later, suburban housing remained relatively cheap, and African American fertility was still high. U.S. demographic patterns are exceptional and skew how academics (most of whom are in the U.S.) and the New York Times see the world.

My best guess is that, without smartphones, Italy’s 2025 fertility rate would be about 1.24 rather than 1.14. I doubt anyone will document an effect larger than 0.1-0.2. Italy was at 1.19 in 1995, not far from today’s 1.14. The TFR is cyclical due to tempo effects, so I do not read too much into the rise between 1995 and 2007 or the decline from 1.27 in 2019 to 1.14 today. The direct effect of smartphones is not zero, but it is not, by itself, that large.

Where social media, in general, and smartphones, in particular, matter is in the diffusion of social norms. What would have taken 25 years now happens in 10. Social media are not the cause of fertility decline; modernity is. But they are a very fast accelerator.

That is why social media are a major part of the story behind Guatemala (yes, Guatemala) going from 3.8 children per woman in 2005 to 1.9 in 2025. Without them, Guatemala would also have reached 1.9, just 20 years later.

Modernity, in its current form, is incompatible with replacement-level fertility. By modernity, I do not mean capitalism: fertility fell earlier and faster in socialist economies than in market economies. Socialist Hungary fell below replacement in 1960, and socialist Czechoslovakia in 1966 (both experienced small, short-lived baby booms in the mid-1970s). By modernity, I mean a society organized around rational, large-scale systems and formalized knowledge.

Countries will not converge to the same fertility rate. East Asia is likely stuck near 1, possibly below, given its unbalanced gender norms and toxic education systems. Latin America faces the same gender problem plus weak growth prospects, so I expect something around 1.2. Northern Europe has more egalitarian family structures and might hold near 1.5. The very religious societies are probably the only ones that will sustain 1.8.

All of this could change with AI or changes in population composition. We will see. But on the current evidence, deep sub-replacement fertility is the “new new normal.” Unless we reorganize our societies, better learn to handle it as best we can.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Tu confonds deux choses, et c'est exactement le piège que la French Theory a tendu.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité — égalité *de droits*, égalité *devant la loi*, égalité *de dignité*. C'est la promesse républicaine, et personne ici ne l'attaque.

Le wokisme, ce n'est pas ça. C'est l'égalitarisme des résultats. Et l'égalitarisme des résultats, contrairement à l'égalité des droits, n'est pas un élargissement de la liberté — c'est sa négation.

Quelques exemples concrets :

— San Francisco supprime les classes de maths avancées au collège pour "réduire les inégalités". Résultat : les écarts entre élèves explosent, les familles aisées prennent des cours privés, les pauvres se font enterrer. L'égalitarisme a creusé l'inégalité.

— Les politiques de discrimination positive à Harvard : étudiants admis avec des scores très en dessous de leurs camarades, taux d'échec dispropportionné, sentiment d'imposture, ressentiment généralisé. On a saboté ceux qu'on voulait aider.

— L'aide humanitaire qui distribue du riz gratuit pendant 30 ans en Afrique : effondrement des filières agricoles locales, dépendance institutionnalisée. Donner un poisson, c'est empêcher d'apprendre à pêcher.

Le wokisme ne détruit pas l'humanité dans le sens dramatique. Il fait pire : il dessert systématiquement ceux qu'il prétend protéger, et il génère du ressentiment des deux côtés — ceux qu'on infantilise et ceux qu'on culpabilise.

La fraternité républicaine dit : tu es mon égal, donc je te traite en adulte capable.
Le wokisme dit : tu es ma victime, donc je dois te protéger de toi-même.

L'un élève. L'autre infantilise. Ce n'est pas la même chose, et confondre les deux est exactement le tour de passe-passe qu'on dénonce.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

Activist: "Your cows are putting carbon into the atmosphere."

Farmer: "Where did they get it?"

Activist: "What?"

Farmer: "The carbon. Where did the cow get it before it put it anywhere."

Activist: "From... eating?"

Farmer: "From eating grass. And where did the grass get it."

Activist: "The soil?"

Farmer: "The air. The grass pulled it out of the air last spring. The cow ate the grass. The cow breathed some of it back out. It went back into the air it came from."

Activist: "But it's still going into the atmosphere."

Farmer: "It's going back. There's a difference between a thing going somewhere and a thing going back. You've described a circle and you're frightened of it."

Activist: "Then just don't have the cow."

Farmer: "The grass still dies in autumn. It rots where it falls. The carbon goes back into the air either way, just without anyone getting fed in the middle."

Activist: "It's not that simple."

Farmer: "It's grass, cow, breath, grass. Or it's grass, rot, air, grass. Same circle, fewer dinners. If that's complicated for you I'd stay away from the water cycle. That one's got clouds in it."

[David Domjahn @domjahn]

Wir (https://t.co/GhtkgZ1qz8) verkaufen gerne in Europa. Und hören trotzdem damit auf.

Was kostet z. B. ein Paket nach Österreich? 14,50 € Porto.

Realität für uns als Gewerbetreibende: 135 € pro Paket bei gerade einmal zehn Sendungen pro Jahr nach Österreich 2025.

Dabei sind wir nur eine kleine GmbH aus Deutschland mit vereinzelten Kunden in Europa. Unser gesamtes jährliches Aufkommen für den EU-Export liegt bei etwa 100 Kilogramm Verpackung. Nicht Tonnen. Kilogramm.

Die Rechnung für Österreich allein: Wer als ausländisches Unternehmen nach Österreich verschickt, ist gesetzlich verpflichtet, die Entsorgung der Verpackung zu lizenzieren und dafür einen lokalen Beauftragten zu benennen, der die Einhaltung der Vorschriften garantiert und dafür haftet:

- Porto (10 Pakete à 14,50 €): 145 €
- Jahrespauschale Verpackungsbeauftragter: 450 €
- Notarkosten für die Vollmachtsbeglaubigung: 150 €
- Opportunitätskosten: 600 €

Und das ist nur Österreich. Frankreich verlangt z. B. ein eigenes Logo samt Anleitung auf jedem Versandkarton, sonst drohen empfindliche Bußgelder. Spanien, Italien, Polen: jeweils eigene Anforderungen, eigene Register. Ab Mitte 2026 kommen mit der EU-Verpackungsverordnung #PPWR weitere Pflichten hinzu.

Konzerne verteilen solche Fixkosten auf Millionen Sendungen. Für kleine Unternehmen und Selbständige wird daraus ein reales Exporthindernis. Das ist kein Versehen des Gesetzgebers, sondern ein struktureller Konzentrationsvorteil zugunsten großer Marktteilnehmer.

Dahinter steht ein System mit eigener Ökonomie: Wer Verpackungen in Verkehr bringt, muss deren spätere Entsorgung lizenzieren. Allein in Deutschland fließen dabei jährlich Milliardenbeträge an Lizenzentgelten an marktbeherrschende Entsorgungsunternehmen. Diese profitieren dabei mehrfach, über Lizenzgebühren beim Inverkehrbringen von Verpackungen über die Abholung und Verwertung der eingesammelten Rohstoffe. Komplexität ist dabei kein Fehler im System; sie ist Teil des Geschäftsmodells.

Besonders grotesk wird das im Vergleich mit Plattformversendern aus Fernost. Millionen Kleinsendungen fluten den europäischen Markt bei erkennbar geringerer Vollzugsintensität. Der europäische Mittelstand wird kontrolliert, weil er greifbar ist.

Der ursprüngliche Gedanke hinter der @EUCouncil war ein anderer: ein gemeinsamer Binnenmarkt, der Grenzen abbaut statt neue errichtet. Stattdessen: 27 nationale Compliance-Silos, die kleinen Unternehmen den Export systematisch verleiden.

Was sich ändern müsste:
1. Eine zentrale EU-Registrierung statt 27 nationaler Alleingänge
2. Eine De-minimis-Regelung für Kleinversender
3. Konsequenter Vollzug gegenüber Drittstaatsversendern statt Belastung des europäischen Mittelstands

Wir ziehen uns deshalb vorerst auf Deutschland und die Schweiz zurück, weil wir unsere Energie lieber in Produkte und Kunden investieren.
Die aktuelle EU-Bürokratiearchitektur erleben viele Unternehmen nur noch als Belastung.

Wir sind Unternehmer und keine Verpackungsjuristen, @vonderleyen , @DIHK_News, @MarkusFerber , @svenja_hahn , @nicolabeerfdp , @ANiebler

Gerne reposten - es betrifft den Mittelstand generell.

[Chris Masterjohn @ChrisMasterjohn]

Salt increases blood pressure (when it does) by attracting water into the blood, increasing the volume of blood pushing out against the blood vessel wall.

You can’t replicate this by dumping salt onto isolated endothelial cells because you don’t have an intact blood supply inside a closed lumen.

Inflammation responds to this to increase vascular permeability, allowing blood to leak out of the vessels. This lowers blood pressure directly and in the kidney it helps get rid of salt in the urine.

If you get sepsis, for example, the inflammation causes low blood pressure.

This paper is using vague terms like “endothelial dysfunction” to describe this totally adaptative inflammatory process and then trying to claim that salt doesn’t do anything directly but in fact it’s all driven by inflammation and cellular senescence.

This is total nonsense.

Salt attracts water.

This is basic chemistry with innumerable real-world applications as ancient and basic as drying meat or using salt as an antimicrobial.

There is nothing going on fundamentally with this except the transfer of water.

Everything else is secondary to this.

Potassium ABOLISHES the effect of salt on blood pressure by moving the water into your cells. If it goes in the cells, it doesn’t stay in the plasma. Plasma volume goes down, so blood pressure goes down.

But these people are trying to sell an experimental “senolytic” drug navitoclax by claiming that salt acts though some complicated process of cellular senescence to raise blood pressure.

But it doesn’t. It raises blood pressure by drawing water into the plasma.

Sustained high blood pressure causes senescence to the endothelial cells because high blood pressure is bad for them.

The catch: if you draw the water into your cells with a 1:1 ratio of potassium to sodium you hydrate your cells instead of raising your blood pressure.

Not because potassium has fancy immunomodulating senolytic gibberish about it but because it moves water to where it belongs.

[Sama Hoole @SamaHoole]

The year is 1950. Your doctor lights a cigarette and tells you smoking is fine. He read it in a study. He is telling the truth about having read it. He does not know, or is not saying, that the study was funded by the tobacco industry.

The year is 1958. Your doctor tells you to eat less fat. The evidence is contested. The contestation is not in the public messaging. The food industry has been helpful in clarifying which findings deserve attention. Some researchers who published contradictory data have been quietly defunded. Ancel Keys is on the cover of Time magazine.

The year is 1962. Your doctor prescribes thalidomide to your pregnant wife for morning sickness. It has been approved. The FDA gave it the green light in Europe. Twelve thousand children will be born with severe limb malformations before anyone in an official capacity acknowledges the problem. The families are told the drug was safe. The drug was approved. Both of these things remain true.

The year is 1972. Your doctor prescribes Valium. Britain is in the grip of a benzodiazepine wave that will last two decades. The dependency risk is known internally. It is not shared. Your doctor is not lying to you. He was not told either.

The year is 1999. Your doctor prescribes Vioxx for your arthritis. It is newer than ibuprofen, well-tolerated, and Merck has a study showing it works. Merck also has internal data suggesting it roughly doubles the risk of heart attack. This data will not reach your doctor for four more years. Fifty thousand people are estimated to have died in the interim. Merck eventually settles for 4.85 billion dollars. No criminal charges are brought.

The year is 2002. Your doctor prescribes OxyContin. Purdue Pharma trained its sales representatives to tell doctors the addiction risk was less than one percent. That figure came from a letter, not a study. The letter was about patients with terminal cancer on short-term doses in hospital settings. Your doctor is a GP with a patient who has a bad back. Nobody draws a distinction. Nobody is required to.

The year is 2008. Your doctor checks your cholesterol. Your LDL is elevated. You are prescribed a statin. Nobody mentions that the number needed to treat for primary prevention is approximately 250. Nobody mentions that the muscle deterioration you'll notice over the next two years is listed as a rare side effect rather than a documented pattern affecting a meaningful percentage of patients. The trial that informed the prescription was funded by the manufacturer.

Now it is today.

Your doctor has new guidelines. New studies. New consensus.

He is confident.

He has always been confident.

The confidence has never been the problem.

The confidence is, in fact, precisely the problem.

[Nicolas Hulscher, MPH @NicHulscher]

🚨BREAKING: Largest Real-World Study of Ivermectin + Mebendazole in Cancer Patients Shows 84.4% Clinical Benefit — Nearly HALF Report Cancer Disappearance or Tumor Regression

After just 6 months, 48.4% of cancer patients taking ivermectin and mebendazole reported NO EVIDENCE OF DISEASE (32.8%) or tumor regression (15.6%), while 36.1% reported disease stabilization⬇️

We have completed the largest real-world human analysis to date evaluating ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients—and the results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.

The groundbreaking analysis was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel (Dr. Harvey Risch)—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and high-level epidemiologic expertise to deliver urgently needed insights in oncology.

This was a real-world prospective clinical program evaluation of 197 cancer patients, with 122 completing a follow-up survey at about six months (61.9% response rate).

Cancer patients were prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole—most commonly taken at 1–2 capsules per day.

The cohort represented a clinically relevant population, including a wide variety cancer types, with 37.1% of patients reporting actively progressing disease at baseline and many having already undergone chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

At six months, 84.4% of cancer patients reported clinical benefit (Clinical Benefit Ratio: 84.4% [95% CI: 77.0–89.8%]):

✅ 32.8% reported no evidence of disease (95% CI: 25.1–41.5%)
✅ 15.6% reported tumor regression (95% CI: 10.2–23.0%)
✅ 36.1% reported stable disease (95% CI: 28.1–44.9%)

Treatment adherence was high, with 86.9% completing the full protocol and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.

The regimen was well tolerated, with 25.4% reporting side effects, primarily mild and gastrointestinal, and over 93% continuing treatment despite these events.

Patients were treated in real-world conditions alongside concurrent therapies, including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation (21.3%), surgery (19.7%), supplements (49.2%), and dietary modification (37.7%), supporting use as an adjunctive approach.

Together, these findings represent a large, internally consistent real-world clinical signal that supports URGENT further investigation of ivermectin and mebendazole as low-toxicity, adjunctive cancer therapies.

Given the strength of the signal observed here, advancing this line of investigation is no longer optional—it is necessary.

This is NOT the end. We will continue advancing this work with larger datasets to further define and validate the role of anti-parasitics in cancer outcomes.

The manuscript is now available as a preprint on the Zenodo research repository, operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, while undergoing peer review at leading oncology journals: “Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort.”

@twc_health @McCulloughFund @P_McCulloughMD @DrHarveyRisch @DrKellyVictory @jathorpmfm @drdrew @PeterGillooly @FosterCoulson

[Jikkyleaks 🐭 @Jikkyleaks]

🚨 Breaking: The story about the dog "cured with an mRNA vaccine" went viral but was fake.

The dog wasn't cured and the bit missing from the story was that it was actually treated with Merck's new PD-L1 inhibitor, newly introduced for mast cell tumours.

I don't even care about which AI was open on their computer at some point during this process.

The whole story was manufactured to advertise gilvetmab at the same time as to condition you to accept mRNA as a cancer therapy when it is often the opposite.

For the record, UNSW takes millions of dollars in pharma funding every year.

See next tweet for the admission about using the checkpoint inhibitor.

https://t.co/eumgkoXIj6

[RF Safe @rfsafe]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
[email protected]
1-510-646-0658

Current Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation Limits Fail to Protect Against Cancer and Reproductive Harm, New Study Finds

Researchers conclude that current wireless radiation exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to safely protect people.

Berkeley, CA — March 14, 2026 — A new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Environmental Health reveals that current safety limits for radiofrequency radiation (RFR)--emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, smart meters, and cell towers—are severely inadequate to protect public health.

Taking results from a $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer study, the researchers applied standard procedures developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and found that current RFR exposure limits are at least 200 times too high to protect us from cancer risk with 8 hours per day of exposure. Also, based on other research, RFR limits were 24 times too high to protect against reproductive impacts.

For decades, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have maintained RFR exposure limits based on behavioral studies with less than one hour of exposure, conducted on small groups of animals in the 1980s. Those limits were designed solely to prevent tissue heating during short-term exposure, ignoring non-thermal biological effects and long-term exposure.

The new study, co-authored by Drs. Ronald L. Melnick and Joel M. Moskowitz, on behalf of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), conducted risk assessments on cancer and reproduction because recent systematic reviews commissioned by the World Health Organization concluded with “high certainty” that RFR exposure caused cancer and adverse reproductive impacts in animal models.

Key Findings

● Cancer Risk: Current FCC and ICNIRP public exposure limits need to be reduced by at least 200 times to maintain an acceptable environmental cancer risk of 1 in 100,000.

● Reproductive Toxicity: Limits need to be reduced by 8 to 24 times to address risks related to male reproductive outcomes, such as decreased sperm count, vitality, and testosterone levels.

● Workers Are at Risk: Occupational exposure limits for RFR are currently set five times higher than those for the public, putting workers at an even greater unmitigated risk for these adverse health effects.

"Current regulatory limits for RFR are based on outdated assumptions that have been thoroughly invalidated by the last thirty years of scientific research," says Dr. Melnick, a retired toxicologist from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences who led the design of NTP’s cell phone radiation study.

Our analysis clearly demonstrates that the current limits for cell phones and wireless networks are structurally incapable of protecting human health. We urgently need governments to step up, abandon these obsolete guidelines, and conduct rigorous risk assessments using modern toxicological data. The science is there; now we need the policy to catch up so we can protect public and occupational health."

"We are constantly surrounded by devices emitting wireless radiation; yet government regulations do not account for the chronic, low-level exposures they create," adds Dr. Moskowitz from the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley.

"The exposure levels calculated in this paper should not be interpreted as ‘safe limits;’ rather they represent risk-based estimates derived from the data reviewed in the WHO systematic reviews using standard EPA risk-assessment methods, indicating that current regulatory limits should, at a minimum, be reduced to levels in this range to better align with modern scientific evidence.”

The authors strongly recommend an immediate, independent re-evaluation of wireless radiation exposure limits. They urge regulatory bodies to lower RFR exposure limits by applying the rigorous, health-protective methodologies commonly used for toxic and carcinogenic environmental agents as discussed in this paper.

About the Study

An unedited version of this paper, "Exposure Limits to Radiofrequency EMF Do Not Account for Cancer Risk or Reproductive Toxicity Assessed from Data in Experimental Animals," can be downloaded from the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health::
https://t.co/ccflO8EIWt.

About the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)

ICBE-EMF is an international consortium of scientists, doctors, and researchers with expertise and peer-reviewed publications on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields, including wireless RF radiation.

Wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless phones, Wi-Fi, and cell towers emit radiofrequency radiation.

The Commission is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific research and makes science-based recommendations to ensure the protection of the public and the environment. https://t.co/4ucJG0dnDl

[Massimo @Rainmaker1973]

The Hindu–Arabic numeral system was invented between the I and IV centuries by Indian mathematicians. The system was adopted in Arabic mathematics by the IX century more widely known through the writings in Arabic of the Persian mathematician Al-Khwārizmī

[Alexander Stahel 🌻 @BurggrabenH]

9% of the European chemical capacity has been announced to be closed in 2025…! Most capacities will be closed in Germany and the Netherlands.

Why? Energy costs are too high. The wind & solar utopia starts to bite in Germany and the Netherlands. As does the carbon tax that basically makes China win market share with cheap exports into Europe, free of tariffs or Carbon Tax. Just ridiculous

[Jessica Rose 🤙 @JesslovesMJK]

1. Glyphosate is a metal chelator originally used to clean pipes. Think about that. Chelation is the act of removing metals. We need metals for proper functioning.

It binds: iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg). Even if it only interferes with their bioavailability or absorption rather than removing them, please think about the long-term effects of constant ingestion of this shit. Think about the essential role of Calcium!! @uTobian @brownstoneinst

[Thomas P Seager, PhD @seagertp]

The first author of this 1962 paper showing the exponential decline in measles fatality rates prior to introduction of the vaccine is Alexander Langmuir.

He served as the first "chief epidemiologist of the newly established Communicable Disease Center (now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) in Atlanta, Georgia, for over 20 years."
https://t.co/W7O0Jhg5kl

He's not the same Langmuir that won the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1932. That was his uncle.

The modern CDC fails to cite this data from their 1st chief epidemiologist. They prefer made up numbers that pretend the measles vaccine somehow was responsible for the 50x reduction in measles case fatality rate before the vaccine was ever introduced.

Math is not a modern CDC strength.

[₿ernie ⚡️ @Bernie_Manrique]

Listen up, you bike-riding, clog-wearing pricks in The Hague: What the actual fuck were you thinking with this Box 3 reform? A 36% tax on paper gains that haven't even been realized? That's not taxation; that's straight-up financial sodomy without the courtesy of lube! You're basically telling every hardworking investor, "Hey, dipshit, we see your portfolio went up on some imaginary ledger—now bend over and cough up 16 grand on shit you haven't sold yet!" You cunts are forcing people to liquidate assets in a market crash just to pay your greedy, deficit-fisting bills? Brilliant! Why not just raid their goddamn bank accounts while you're at it, you thieving, herring-gobbling bastards?

And don't give me that "it's for the greater good" horseshit, you hypocritical, EU-ass-kissing wankers. You're inflating assets with your own retarded monetary policies, then taxing the phantom gains like some kind of fiscal circle-jerk. Europe-wide? Yeah, because nothing says "economic powerhouse" like driving investors to flee to Switzerland or Singapore, you short-sighted, dyke-building dickheads. Remember Sweden ditching their wealth tax in the '90s because it was bleeding the economy dry? But no, you morons double down like a gambler with a micropenis complex, pretending this won't tank investment and turn the Netherlands into a socialist shithole where the only growth is in your bloated bureaucracy.

Michel Hoogeveen, that one MP with half a brain, calls you out, and what do you do? Reject the motion to scrap this turd of a policy on February 11th, right before it kicks in for 2028. You spineless, Gouda-stuffed pussies couldn't even muster the balls to rethink it! Instead, you're accelerating capital flight faster than a Dutchman dodging a bar tab. Wealth confiscation? More like a government-sanctioned reach-around for the poor, funded by raping the middle class's savings. You absolute cum-guzzling incompetents—may your windmills collapse on your smug, liberal faces, and your canals fill with the piss of a thousand outraged taxpayers.