Addressing EMF Pollution — A 21st Century Health Imperative

Over the past decade, I’ve written many articles discussing the evidence of biological harm from nonionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation.

While the wireless industry is built on the premise that the only type of radiation capable of causing harm is ionizing — X-rays being one example — researchers have for a long time warned that even nonionizing and non-heating radiation can jeopardize your health. This includes not only human health, but also that of plants and animals.

Over time, I became so convinced of the deleterious effects of EMF, I took three years to write “EMF*D,” which is slated to be released in February 2020. In it, I review the now overwhelming evidence showing EMFs are a hidden health hazard that simply cannot be ignored any longer, especially seeing how the rollout of 5G will exponentially increase exposures.

preorder emfd

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Scientists Now Understand How EMFs Impact Your Health

Over the years, I’ve interviewed several experts who have shared their in-depth knowledge about the poorly understood mechanisms behind EMF harm. Among them:

Martin Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, has published research1,2,3,4 showing that the primary danger of EMFs — and what drives the processes of chronic disease — is the mitochondrial damage triggered by peroxynitrites, one of the most damaging types of reactive nitrogen species.

Low-frequency microwave radiation activates the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) in the outer membrane of your cells, causing them to open, thus allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions. This activates nitric oxide, which is a precursor for peroxynitrite.5

These potent reactive nitrogen species are associated with an increased level of systemic inflammation and mitochondrial dysfunction, and are thought to be a root cause for many of today’s chronic diseases.

For an in-depth understanding of peroxynitrites and the harm they inflict, see “Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite in Health and Disease”6 by Dr. Pal Pacher, Joseph Beckman and Dr. Lucas Liaudet. It’s one of the best reviews I’ve ever read and free to download.

One of its most significant downsides of peroxynitrite is that it damages DNA. While your body has the capacity to repair that damage through a family of enzymes collectively known as poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARP), PARP require NAD+ for fuel, and when they run out of NAD+ they stop repairing your DNA, which can lead to premature cell death.

Dr. Sam Milham, a physician and epidemiologist, wrote the book, “Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization.” In his interview, he explains the biological mechanisms of high-frequency electric transients (electromagnetic interference patterns), and details some of the lesser-known household sources of this “dirty electricity.”

Magda Havas, Ph.D., associate professor at Trent University in Canada, has written research including the effects dirty electricity can have on children’s behavior, and helpful remediation techniques.

EMF Pollution Is Likely Taking a Hidden Toll on Your Health

The problem with EMF radiation is that you cannot see it, hear it or smell it, and most do not feel it. Still, researchers assure us that biological effects are taking place whether you’re able to sense it or not. For most, it’s simply a matter of time and overall exposure load.

Here, it’s important to realize that we’re not just talking about radiation from your cellphone. The electromagnetic frequencies emitted from your Wi-Fi router, computer, home appliances, all manner of wireless “smart” technology, and even the wiring inside your walls are all capable of inflicting serious biological harm to your body and mind. And with 5G, it’s bound to get far worse.

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome Is on the Rise

For some, the effects of EMFs are unmistakable and undeniable, and the number of people reporting pathological hypersensitivity to EMFs is rising. In 2008, an Austrian study7 noted that actual prevalence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome in Austria had risen by 1.5% since 1994, from 2% to 3.5%.

In 2006, Germany had an electrosensitivity incidence rate of 9%, and Taiwan reported an incidence rate of 13.3% in 2011.8 The RT documentary “Wi-Fi Refugees,” featured in “Documentary Explore Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome,” investigates the struggles reported by these “canaries in the coal mine.”

While symptoms may vary from one individual to another, commonly reported symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome include:

  1. Skin itch/rash/flushing/burning and/or tingling — Many describe a “burning pins and needles” kind of pain, especially in the head and chest area
  2. Confusion/poor concentration and/or memory loss
  3. Fatigue and muscle weakness
  4. Headache
  5. Chest pain and heart problems

Other reported symptoms include:

Ear pain

Panic attacks



Tinnitus (ringing in the ears)

Feeling a vibration in the body


Unrelenting dizziness

One 2015 study9 pointed out that electromagnetic hypersensitivity is becoming an increasing challenge to the medical profession, which has yet to fully understand its implications, let alone its remedies.

Still, the complaints of modern-day hypersensitivities match those reported in the 1970s and ’80s by those working with radio and radar equipment and cathode ray tube monitors, which tells us that this is not a brand-new phenomenon. According to the authors:10

“In population-based surveys, the prevalence of EHS has ranged from 1.5% in Sweden to 13.3% in Taiwan. Provocation studies on EMF have yielded different results, ranging from where people with EHS cannot discriminate between an active RF signal and placebo, to objectively observed changes following exposure in reactions of the pupil, changes in heart rhythm, damage to erythrocytes, and disturbed glucose metabolism in the brain.”

As early as 2005, the World Health Organization warned that people have “for some time” reported health problems attributed to EMF exposure, and that some are “so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle.”11

The possibility of large portions of the population being unable to work or live as free individuals due to incessant, elevated exposure to EMF is a very real threat to society as we know it. The reality is that there are very few EMF-free zones left on the planet, and such zones will further shrink with the global implementation of 5G.


I believe EMF exposure is one of the greatest challenges to public health facing us today. If we go back in time to the end of World War I, around 1918 or so, and use that timeframe as a baseline of EMF exposure among the general public, you come to the astonishing conclusion that EMF exposure has increased about 1 quintillion times over the past 100 years.

Knowing the impact EMFs can have, it’s completely irrational to assume that this radical increase won’t have adverse effects. My new book, “EMF*D,” is an attempt to inform you about the hidden harms of EMF and what you need to do to protect yourself and those you love. In it, you’ll learn:

  • How EMFs are impacting your body and mind
  • Where you can find them in your daily life
  • How they can cause disease and speed up aging
  • How to repair the damage done by EMFs at the cellular level
  • Practical strategies to protect yourself and your loved ones from EMFs

In my book, I also reveal the reasons why you’ve been left in the dark about this serious health threat. “EMF*D” comes out February 18, 2020, but you don’t need to wait. Preorder your copy today and receive these five bonus gifts immediately:

  • Early access to a chapter from the book
  • $10 discount on a Mercola order
  • 30-page Sneak Peak PDF Book
  • 7 strategies to help reduce EMF exposure
  • 5 tips to minimize your cellphone risk (SMS exclusive bonus)

preorder emfd

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Brain Cancer Is Not the Only, Nor the Major, Concern

While a number of studies have shown that cellphone radiation can trigger brain cancer this is not the greatest cause for concern. Your brain does have a far greater density of VGCCs than other organs, but so does your nervous system and heart, as well as male testes.

As a result of the elevated density of VGCCs in these areas, EMFs are likely to contribute to neurological and neuropsychiatric problems,12 as well as heart and reproductive problems, including but not limited to cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility13,14 and miscarriage15,16,17,18 — and these conditions are far more prevalent than brain cancer.

That said, studies have also linked radiofrequency radiation equivalent to that emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones to other forms of cancer, including heart tumors. This includes U.S. government-funded animal studies19 published in 2018 that were further corroborated by the Ramazzini Institute that same year.20

As early as 2011, the evidence was strong enough for the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research arm of the WHO, to declare cellphones a Group 2B “possible carcinogen.”21

I’ve already mentioned one of the primary mechanisms by which EMFs harm your biology — i.e., the creation of peroxynitrites, which are potent oxidant stressors — but EMFs also damage your health in other ways.

For example, the enzyme ATP synthase — which passes currents of protons into the mitochondrial intermembrane space, similar to current passing through a wire — powers the generation energy of the creation of ATP from ADP, using this flow of protons.

Magnetic fields can change the transparency of the flow of protons to the mitochondrial intermembrane space, thereby reducing the current. As a result, you get less ATP, which can have system wide consequences, from promoting chronic disease and infertility to lowering intelligence.

EMFs may also alter your microbiome, turning what might otherwise be beneficial microbes pathogenic or toxic. This too can have far-ranging health effects, since we now know your microbiome plays an important role in health.

5G Rollout Will Significantly Magnify Health Risks

Any and all health ramifications attributed to previous generations of wireless technologies will be exponentially magnified with the rollout of 5G, which is simply being added on top of the already existing wireless infrastructure. This 5th generation technology may also present additional health risks.

A main concern with 5G is that it relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is known to penetrate 1 to 2 millimeters of human skin tissue.22 There’s also evidence suggesting sweat ducts in human skin act as antennae when they come in contact with MMWs.23

Many can feel the impact of MMWs as a burning sensation and/or pain, which is precisely why it’s used in nonlethal crowd control weapons.24 MMW has also been linked to eye problems, suppressed immune function and altered heart rate variability (an indicator of stress) and arrhythmias.25

In 2015, more than 230 scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of nonionizing EMFs in 41 nations signed an international appeal to the United Nations, calling for protection from nonionizing EMF exposure due to evidence of health effects even at low levels.26

Two years later, more than 180 doctors and scientists from 35 countries signed a petition27 to enact a moratorium on the rollout of 5G due to the potential risks to wildlife and human health.

Dr. Mercola Answers Your EMF Questions

Dr. Mercola Answers Your EMF Questions

I believe that the risk of EMFs is so important that I’ve decided to answer your questions on this topic in an upcoming video. Please submit any EMF questions you may have by clicking on the button below.

preorder emfd

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

The earlier I get the questions, the greater the likelihood I will have a chance to include them in my response. Looking forward to answering your questions!

Protect Yourself From Excessive EMF

There’s no doubt in my mind that EMF exposure is an important lifestyle component that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health, which is why I spent three years writing “EMF*D.”

My aim was to create a comprehensive and informative guide, detailing not only the risks, but also what you can do to mitigate unavoidable exposures. To get you started, see the tips listed in my previous article, “Top 19 Tips to Reduce Your EMF Exposure.”

If you know or suspect you might already be developing a sensitivity to EMFs (full-blown hypersensitivity can often strike seemingly overnight), mitigating your exposures will be particularly paramount. Many sufferers become obsessed with finding solutions, as the effects can be severely crippling. My book can be a valuable resource in your quest for relief.

The EMF Experts website28 also lists EMF groups worldwide, to which you can turn with questions, concerns and support, and EMFsafehome.com29 lists a number of publications where you can learn more about the dangers of EMFs.

Should you need help remediating your home, consider hiring a trained building biologist to get it done right. A listing can be found on the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology’s website.30

BPA in Your Body May Be 44 Times Higher Than Reported

BPA was created in 1891; by the 1930s scientists had discovered that the chemical mimics the hormone estrogen in the body. In the 1950s BPA was being used by industry as a chemical to produce strong and often transparent plastic; it’s now known as an endocrine disruptor.1

It took until 2011, however, for the European Union to ban BPA in baby bottles and 2012 before the FDA followed suit.2 According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the chemical is widely used in polycarbonate plastics that are integrated into nearly every industry, including the food industry.

Citizen watchdog groups have petitioned the FDA to remove BPA from packaging that comes in contact with food, but their efforts have been thwarted.3 On its website the FDA states that it believes4 “the available information continues to support the safety of BPA for the currently approved uses in food containers and packaging.”

Contrary to the FDA’s approach, the EPA5 believes BPA is a “reproductive, developmental and systemic toxicant in animal studies and is weakly estrogenic, there are questions about its potential impact particularly on children’s health and the environment.”

Researchers noted in a study published in Environmental Health Sciences that, previously, it was believed that exposure to BPA not only occurs mostly through food, but is quickly cleared from the body. But, when they studied BPA in urine from fasting subjects, they discovered the half-life of BPA, or the time it takes for half the amount ingested to be metabolized, is much longer than they’ve thought.6

Since the levels of BPA did not drop as quickly as expected, they theorized that either BPA builds up in body tissue or there is significant nonfood exposure — or both.

Independent Tests Show Higher BPA Levels Than Published

New information also shows that traditional testing used by governmental agencies may have underestimated your exposure to BPA. One group of researchers7 developed a new test to measure BPA metabolites present after the body begins breaking down the chemical.

Following analysis of the data, the authors argued traditional tests used to measure BPA in the body are inaccurate.8 The tests in current use by the FDA indirectly measure the presence of BPA by converting metabolites back to BPA through an enzyme pathway. In their background research, the scientists found:

“Experimental and epidemiological studies provide compelling evidence of a causal link between increasing exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (environmental contaminants with the potential to perturb the development and function of the endocrine system) and increases in non-communicable diseases, including most aspects of metabolic syndrome.”

An expert at Washington State University told Gizmodo the assumption had always been that the original method would be accurate. However, the research team consistently found higher levels of BPA using their testing method. Some levels were measured 44 times higher than estimated by government tests of the same samples.

One of the researchers spoke with Gizmodo and said the implications are especially troubling in those with potentially high exposure, as it’s possible current screening programs are completely missing those at high risk.

This could make it even more difficult to uncover the extensive health impacts of BPA. While the impact of higher levels is still under investigation, the FDA’s assurances that there is little to worry about is questionable since the scale of exposure may be drastically underestimated.

Implications of New Test Method Go Far Beyond BPA

BPA may be the poster child for toxic chemicals in mainstream media, but the new testing method reveals there could be further implications for other chemicals. After a one-year investigation, Environmental Health News (EHN) found a “willful blindness”9 on the part of the FDA in handling the science behind BPA.

They concluded10 regulators could be “operating at the fringes of scientific integrity, possibly with the intent to keep the current testing and regulatory regime intact and to avoid scrutiny.” EHN read hundreds of emails under the Freedom of Information Act. After analyzing the data, they wrote:

  • “FDA and industry scientists continue to use decades-old study methods that fail to detect effects known to be associated with BPA exposure;
  • Emails between federal employees suggest an effort to ignore evidence of harm;
  • Biased data interpretation methods by the FDA;
  • Sharp disagreement between the FDA regulators and health officials at the National Institutes of Health on the safety of BPA and what messages are relayed to the public.”

The investigative journalists at EHN believe the analysis in the feature study uphold their arguments the FDA testing is woefully inadequate. Laura Vandenberg is a health researcher at the School of Public Health at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She was not involved in the study, but discussed the results with EHN.

As she describes, chemical evaluation may include an assessment of how much of the chemical could be found in consumer products or food that drives exposure. A laboratory assessment is then done based on measurements of human exposure.

Vandenberg points out that when exposure assessments are not accurate, it can throw off the entire result. This study highlights the need to standardize the direct measurement of metabolites and may have a significant impact on measurement of other toxic chemicals in the environment.

BPA Once Considered for Pharmaceutical Hormone

In the 1930s after it was discovered that BPA mimics the activity of estrogen, it was in the running to be developed into a pharmacological hormone by Big Pharma.11 Instead they chose another synthetic estrogen, diethylstilbestrol (DES), that was prescribed to millions of pregnant women over the next 30 years before its health risks were discovered.

BPA was then used in the chemical industry. In 1963 it was approved for food and beverage containers and classified is “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS). The argument was the chemical had been used in consumer products for years without obviously causing damage.

Thirty years later in 1993 — the length of time it took the damaging effects of DES to be documented — scientists at Stanford discovered BPA was seeping from lab flasks. It took until 1997, though, for the first studies documenting health damage to be published, after scientists conducted an animal study that demonstrated exposure to tiny amounts of BPA changed the reproductive system and prostate in mice.

By 2008 Canada decided enough evidence had been presented to demonstrate that BPA is toxic; it wasn’t long before manufacturers removed it from baby bottles and sippy cups. However, many of the BPA substitutes currently used in products have a similar chemistry to BPA and present similar risks.12

In one comprehensive review of the literature,13 a Colorado researcher found that 75 of 91 studies pointed to a link between BPA and human health. These had to do with negative effects on perinatal and childhood health as well as that of adults.

CLARITY May Be Clouding the Issue

The FDA co-led a multimillion-dollar project called Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity, or CLARITY. Launched in 2012, the project ostensibly was to link data from independent researchers with toxicological information held by the government.

It took aim at settling the dispute between independent scientists and the government over how BPA affects human health. EHN describes the argument between the two camps as:14

“Academics with modern methods and a sophisticated understanding of human physiology versus government and industry scientists who lean on decades-old established science in their evaluation of industrial chemicals.”

Despite all the evidence and a long list of manufacturing chemicals that are known endocrine disruptors, the FDA still appears reluctant to change its testing methodology, clinging to the idea that BPA poses no health risk, and ignoring the mounting peer-reviewed studies showing the opposite.

The truth is FDA’s stance on BPA ignores the results of their own scientific committee established in 1982, which warned of the potential that low concentrations of endocrine-disrupting chemicals were binding to hormone receptors, and that future technology could reveal interference in the endocrine system would have a significant effect on human health.

The CLARITY project was a collaborative effort among the FDA and 14 participating academic scientists. It’s a document that was to be used to decide on any changes that might occur to U.S. regulations on BPA.

But when a draft report from the results was issued in February 2018, the FDA jumped the gun with a public statement saying BPA is still safe to use — a claim that didn’t go down well with the other collaborators, who were busy putting together an independent review of the data.

Cheryl Rosenfeld, University of Missouri biologist and a CLARITY investigator told EHN, “Many of us are not happy with the FDA.”

Reduce Your Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

BPA is just one toxic endocrine-disrupting chemical found in food packaging and leaching from plastics into your food. As I’ve mentioned in earlier articles, you may reduce your BPA exposure and potentially the health risks by considering these suggestions:

Eat mostly fresh whole foods. Processed and packaged foods are a common source of BPA and phthalates — particularly cans, but also foods packaged in plastic wrap. Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic and avoid using plastic wrap.

Never use plastic in a microwave as it increases the release of chemicals in the plastic.

Be aware that even “BPA-free” plastics typically leach other endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are just as bad as BPA.

Look for products made by companies that are Earth-friendly, animal-friendly, sustainable, certified organic and GMO-free.

Buy products in glass bottles rather than plastic or cans.

Check your home’s tap water for contaminants and filter the water if necessary.

Teach your children not to drink water from the garden hose to avoid plastic chemicals.

Be careful with cash register receipts. In stores you visit regularly, encourage the management to switch to BPA-free receipts.

Breastfeed your baby exclusively if possible, for at least the first year (to avoid endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure from infant formula packaging and plastic bottles/nipples). If bottle-feeding, use glass baby bottles rather than plastic ones.

Choose toys made from natural materials to avoid plastic chemicals, particularly items your child may be prone to suck or chew on.

Futuristic Airline Uniforms Making People Sick

When you think about environmental pollution, your clothing is likely not the first thing to come to mind. However, the clothing industry nears the top of the list of toxic industries that pollute water and expose you to dangerous chemicals used to dye and treat the textiles.

According to Rita Kant of the University Institute of Fashion Technology, color is one of the main reasons people choose specific pieces of clothing.1 While there are safe ways to dye clothing, the toxic nature of what is currently used has caused concern.

Other chemicals used for a variety of reasons pollute the environment, too, with heavy metals like arsenic, lead and mercury as well as sulfur, nitrates and naphthol. In 2018, Delta Airlines released new uniforms to their employees. Not long afterward the company began receiving reports of allergic and toxic reactions that the employees believed were due to chemicals in the uniforms.

The uniforms are “ultra-stretchy, brightly colored, designed for flying, and dizzyingly high-tech,” according to Quartz, which reported on the attendants’ complaints.2 In addition, the material used for the uniforms was designed to resist water stains, wrinkles and static. In what sounds like a science fiction movie, it is also self-deodorizing. But these features apparently come at a high cost, if it turns out that the attendants’ illnesses can be definitively linked to them.

Lawsuits Allege Toxic Uniforms Making Attendants Sick

The uniforms were first unveiled in May 2018, having been designed by Zac Posen and manufactured by Lands’ End. They were issued to 64,000 Delta Airline employees3 who began reporting a number of health concerns, including skin rashes, headaches and fatigue soon after they started using them.

The problems were first made public in a report by The Guardian4 in which several flight attendants spoke with the promise of anonymity, as they feared retaliation by the company. The Guardian published some pictures of the complainants’ skin conditions. One attendant reported:

“I noticed right away after I put the uniforms on that I had shortness of breath and I have been a runner my whole life. I don’t smoke or anything like that, so when I couldn’t get up the stairs without being extremely winded, I know there was some sort of problem.”

Another found it impossible to sleep, commenting:

“I don’t even want to call them rashes because it’s worse than that. Some of them look like chemical burns, some of them look like chemical bites, but they don’t go away for weeks at an end. I had a huge patch that got infected and I had to take an antibiotic, even, to get rid of it.”

One of the first class-action lawsuits was filed in May 2019 against Lands’ End by two Delta flight attendants seeking $5 million in damages. As 2019 progressed, the number of employees filing complaints rose to 943.5 Delta Airlines engaged an independent laboratory to test the garments, which found they are not linked “to any attributable health risk.”

Company Response Has Been Inconsistent; Union Steps In

The newest suit was filed in the Western District of Wisconsin court against Lands’ End, whose operations are based in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. Of the 525 Delta employees listed in the current lawsuit, 90% are flight attendants.6

The lawsuit alleges employees working in a variety of positions within the company suffered symptoms including severe respiratory illnesses, hair loss, nosebleeds, hives and anxiety.

The lead attorney for the suit was allowed access to a closed Facebook page devoted to discussions of the uniform issue at Delta Airlines. He remarked there were 6,000 registered users. Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA), commented on the clothing concerns:

“This issue is real. It affects different people in different ways, and the reactions can vary in severity with symptoms such as rashes, headaches, hair loss and breathing problems when wearing the uniform to becoming so sensitized to the chemicals that it’s impossible to even be in the same space without getting extremely sick.”

It wasn’t until November 2019 that the airlines began allowing some employees to wear non-uniform clothing they purchased independently.7 Many of the complaints have centered on inconsistent and unfair treatment. After 18 months of mystery illnesses and symptoms, Delta employees are no closer to an answer or resolution.

Many have fears for their health and job security, resulting in a heavy financial burden. One attendant was seen by a dermatologist in Atlanta, who told her she had been exposed to a toxin causing her reactions. Most of the employees agree the company’s response has been disjointed.

Several spoke anonymously to Business Insider, who reported attendants were not logically granted permission to wear an alternative uniform. Some were threatened with job loss if they refused and others were given permission only after telling the company they wouldn’t return to work unless they were allowed to wear a different uniform.

Judith Anderson, a 20-year industrial hygienist for AFA, explained that the dye is a suspicious target as it has rubbed off on airplane seats and flight attendants’ skin. Anderson believes a lack of oversight in the supply chain, combined with poor testing before distribution, resulted in inconsistent chemical application.

She believes this may partially explain why a higher percentage of employees have not had health complaints since the uniforms may not have had equal chemical treatments applied.

Flight Attendants May Be Unwitting Test Subjects

Delta Airlines is not the first airline that flight attendants have had trouble with, due to health issues resulting from their uniforms. Historically, only legal actions have triggered policy changes by affected airlines.8 In 2010 new uniforms were issued to Alaska Airlines attendants. Not long afterward the company received reports of rashes and eye irritation, as well as scaly skin patches, hives and blisters.

The uniforms were manufactured by Twin Hill, which subsequently won a lawsuit filed by the attendants, with the court ruling “there was no reliable evidence that the injuries were caused by the uniforms.” Shortly afterward, the airline received more new uniforms manufactured by Twin Hill and flight attendants again began to report symptoms.

In 2018, a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health report noted that there were no complaints in 2015 before the new uniforms were issued. However, by 2016, the airline’s OSHA logs showed 87 skin disorders, 83 of which employees claimed were related to the new uniforms.

Skin symptoms were most common, but employees also reported migraines, shortness of breath, vomiting and hair loss. Employees filed a lawsuit against Twin Hill in 2017 following more than 3,500 complaints.

The case against Alaska Airlines interested researchers from Harvard University9 who were studying the health effects of working in an airplane cabin environment.

Using survey data from 684 flight attendants working for Alaska Airlines before and after the uniforms were issued, they found that respiratory, allergic and dermatological symptoms began to rise after flight attendants started wearing the new uniforms.

Eileen McNeely is a lead researcher in the study from Harvard University, and she believes flight attendants may be inadvertently testing the toxic chemicals that are in their clothing. She describes an ideal laboratory environment for researchers in which the attendants are wearing the same articles of clothing in the same environmental conditions on a consistent basis.

Fast Fashion Major Source of Pollution

The textile industry is also a major source of environmental pollution. During the dying process, 80% of the dye remains on the fabric while the rest is flushed down the drain. In the case of the uniforms from Delta Airlines, flight attendants said the dye was rubbing off on their skin and airline jump seats.

The dyes cause problems, but so do the chemicals used to fix the color into the fabric. According to Kant,10 the industry uses more than 1,000 chemicals that are directly or indirectly poisonous and damaging to human health.

In addition to using a massive amount of water, producing clothing also pollutes it. A textile mill that produces 8,000 kg (17,637 pounds) of fabric each day can use 1.6 million liters (422,675 gallons) of water to do so. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the fast fashion industry encourages consumers to continually buy the latest fashions, which are sold cheaply.11

Americans buy more and more clothing every year, with the average consumer purchasing more than 65 articles in 2016. At the same time, 70 pounds of clothing and other textiles are thrown out each year.

As Green America wrote in their 2019 Toxic Textiles report, even when recycled, “less than 1% of the resources required to make clothing is recaptured and reused to create new clothing.”

Much of donated clothing ends up being sold to textile recyclers and exported to other countries, all contributing to a growing global waste problem. While speaking to The Guardian, one flight attendant voiced a concern regarding the airline industry, which may potentially identify a challenge in the general population:12

“Image is one of the five metrics that we are rated on by customers that contribute towards our overall profile as employees. As a largely female workforce, it feels as though our general appearance takes priority over our health.”

Change May Happen Only When Consumers Speak

Irina Mordukhovich, an epidemiologist from Harvard University, said Delta Airlines did not allow the research team access to study the concern. In discussing the issue with The Guardian, she said she saw parallels in how other airline companies historically responded to uniform health concerns:

“The airlines always deny there is a problem. The airlines are very risk averse when it comes to any health research studies. They don’t tend to cooperate.”

On attendant wrote in an email:

“I flew a two-day trip and have been coughing and clearing fluid from my throat all day today. And my voice went last night. But the only way this will change is when the traveling public demands it.”

Realistically, the only way most industries change is when you vote with your pocketbook. Moving forward, consider giving serious thought to cleaning up and “greening” your wardrobe.

Remember, being a conscious consumer does not stop at food and household products. Your clothing can be a source of hazardous chemicals, and cheaply made fast fashion items take a tremendous toll on the environment and the people working in the industry.

Harry and Meghan – God’s Garden

By Anna Von Reitz

The Truth is that “merit” is not established by genetics.  Merit is established by character, courage, and goodness of heart, hard work, fairness, and the fruits of our labors demonstrating all the aforementioned choices that we have made all on our own in our own lives.
And Nature, for its part, demands that while we respect where we come from and the people who gave birth to us, and that we give back to our diverse cultural and ethnic and racial roots and preserve them, we cannot impose homogenous   This is the Principle of Nature that I call “God’s Garden”. 
If your eyes are open, you can easily observe the vast, vast numbers of differing plants, trees, fungi, algae, insects, worms, birds, and animals that form our forests and garden and every biome on Earth — all occupying their own space and doing their own jobs.  Faced with this, you also realize that there is vast beauty and richness of life made possible because of this diversity. 
Is a rose any “better” than a lily?  A violet to be trampled for a verbena?   Can we establish any particular “divine grace” with which a Sycamore is imbued, above and beyond a Cedar?  No. They are all Divine Creations. They all have their part.  They all deserve the deepest respect.  And so do we all deserve the same, in all our rich varieties of color and kind, heritage and substance.
There is no answering Principle in Nature allowing for static homogeneity.  None.
So while we stand up for and honor and respect our own “kind”, we must also grant the Rule of Nature and of Nature’s God, to create this magnificent panoply of life and form and heritage of all kinds, and if we do not, we end up with One World Government provided by One Homogenous Ruling Family and a world as bereft of life and color as a fading black and white photograph.
The Generic (Internationalist) Royal Family  has a nasty habit of destroying and denigrating and crippling those who are not of “the” Royal Blood so as to maintain control and advantage over others, and to preserve the “purity” of their own Genotype, though even the term “Generic Royal Family” suggests that there is no such “purity” involved.
When Harry married Meghan, I shook my head and wished him luck, well-knowing the kind of quiet firestorm of racial and cultural prejudice his fledgling family would face despite the more open-minded and supportive younger members of the Royal Tribe.
The entire concept of “Royalty” depends on Eugenics, breeding, as in dog breeding, and privilege based on blood inheritance.  They have to keep up the pretense that they are so special, so different, so pre-destined for greatness on the basis of something, so this excuse, blood-line inheritance,  is what they have settled upon.  Anything counter to this oddball proposition of “divine right by inheritance” and the preservation of these claims must, in the view of the proponents of this scheme, be squelched.
Even if it means disinheriting a King, like Edward VIII.
Even if it means death and mayhem, like Princess Diana.
Even if it means losing your Grandson, like Prince Harry.
Even if it is nothing but a Big Lie and against Nature itself.
“Preserving one’s own” may be the Greater Course of Nature, but there is a time when this Draconian and inhumane definition of family by blood means losing that which you sought to preserve, and the stultification of what remains, trapped by self-limiting definitions of who and what we are.
The moment when Elizabeth II endeared herself to me came in the early 1960’s.  She was being hard-pressed in a conversation with a American interviewer.  She looked a bit flustered and finally said, “Well, I suppose someone must be in charge of things.”
The Royal Family, including the Internationalist Royal Family, needs to back-track to their shared Celtic roots and take a look at what Family in the Celtic Tradition really means.  It’s not about “pure blood”.  It’s about being part of something greater than yourself. It’s about embracing a higher purpose than any advantage of birth. And, it’s about the journey forward, together, accepting new blood and new visions, building a shared future.

I am very proud of Prince Harry, of his courage and his self-evident love for his wife and small children.  For their sakes, he has done the right thing, and yet, inevitably, this strikes yet another death knell for the Generic (Internationalist) Royal Family, which continues to lose their best and brightest for the sake of a Big Lie that actual Celtic Culture has never tolerated.

See this article and over 2200 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

Is the new ‘deadly China virus’ a covert operation?

by Jon Rappoport

January 22, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)


In the 19 years of this website, the one story I’ve researched and covered more than any other is the DEADLY VIRUS hustle. SARS, Swine Flu, Ebola, etc.

Now, we have a new one. The possible maybe CORONAVIRUS from China.

In each case of these could-be killers, we have an official warning. “This could be the big one.” Millions of people could fall ill and die. In each case, there are travelers. “People returning from X have the virus and they are spreading it.” In the case of SARS and Swine Flu, the patients’ symptoms were typical “flu” symptoms: fever, fatigue, cough, weakness. In other words, there was no reason to think the “new disease” was any different from ordinary traditional illness.

The big and only difference is the claim that researchers have found a new virus as the cause of illness.

But in each case, there are serious problems with that claim.

First, only “official researchers” are involved with the “discovery” of the new virus. There is no confirmation from independent researchers. For example, in the case of SARS (2003), ten labs belonging to the World Health Organization (WHO) performed the “discovery” of that coronavirus. They were connected through closed circuit—no outsiders allowed.

Eventually, a Canadian biologist working for WHO, Frank Plummer, told the press he was quite puzzled by what he was seeing: more and more SARS patients didn’t have the SARS virus at all. In fact, almost no new SARS patients had the virus. Well, when you stop and think about that ridiculous state of affairs, you realize you can’t say a person, with ordinary flu-like symptoms, is suffering from a new disease if he doesn’t have the cause of that disease. But the mainstream press took no notice of this and moved on.

In the case of the Swine Flu “epidemic” (2009), the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was reporting thousands of cases in America—but CBS star reporter Sharyl Attkisson found out that the CDC had, mysteriously, stopped counting cases. How could this be? She came up with the devastating answer. The overwhelming percentage of blood tests on Swine Flu patients were coming back from labs with no sign of the Swine Flu virus or any other flu virus. That story ran on the CBS News site, but as Attkisson told me in an interview, the bosses at CBS wouldn’t allow it on the national television news broadcast. Censored. And that was the end of the CBS exposure of the Swine Flu hoax. Yet, as I reported: about three weeks after CBS shut down the story, WebMD ran a piece in which the CDC estimated there were 22 MILLION cases of Swine Flu in the US. If your head is spinning, it should be.

The second major problem with the announcement of a “new disease” or an epidemic is the absence of research on what we could call the “infection factor.” Let me explain. To even begin to say a particular germ is causing a particular disease, you have to prove the germ is present in a patient’s body IN GREAT NUMBERS. A few little viral particles floating around here and there are irrelevant. You need millions. So if an ignorant doctor or a researcher states, “Well, this patient has the coronavirus so he has the disease,” he’s falling far short of proving anything useful. Where are the tests proving the patient has millions of the virus in his body? Nowhere.

The third major problem with the announcement of a “new disease” or an epidemic is the “test factor.” What test is being run on a patient to prove he has the “new virus” in his body? Most of the time, it is an antibody test. Stay with me here, this is important. Prior to 1984, it was generally recognized that a positive antibody test was a good outcome. In short, it indicated that the patient’s immune system had come in contact with a germ and successfully defeated it. But then, for several reasons, this science was turned on its head. A positive antibody test, from that time on, was evidence that the patient currently had the disease in question. Boom. Now, disease numbers could easily be inflated. And they were. And they are.

Automatically assuming that the announcement of a possible epidemic is accurate—well, it’s a major mistake, to say the least.

The CDC and WHO are operated by virus hunters. Running a new virus up the flagpole is their stock in trade. They rush to an area where an “outbreak” has been announced, and they roll up their sleeves and look for the virus. They pay no attention to environmental factors, such as contaminated water supplies or toxic chemicals or malnutrition or lack of basic sanitation.

Epidemics are good for business. Pharmaceutical business, inducing fear business, shutting down travel business, diverting the public from key events business, surveillance and quarantine business, and so on.

I’m sure, at some point, there will be THANK YOU, CHINA, BUSINESS, too. Thank you, China, for your rule by iron fist over the population. Your ability to stop anyone for any reason and test for “the virus” may have saved the planet from an extinction event. Freedom? Forget it. Public safety is the ace in the deck. It wins every time. Hell, we may need a good epidemic in the US, so we can exert more control over the unruly citizenry. The doctor is king. Do what he says. Always. How many vaccines are there now? Take all of them. Everyone must.

Nineteen years ago, when I started this website, I told you that, of all the cartels in this world, the most important and powerful one, long-term, was the medical cartel. Nothing since that time has changed my mind.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

A Brief Note for Our Still Utterly Clueless Military

By Anna Von Reitz

The British Royal Family is GERMAN.  

It has been GERMAN since Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prince of Wettin, on February 10, 1840.

Ask yourselves — what happened when a Queen married in the nineteenth century? Her husband owned her and all her property.  Prince Albert became the de facto owner of Britain, because he owned Victoria.

The power of the British Monarchy and everything else resides in the House of Wettin to this day.

The British aristocracy and the German aristocracy were one-in-the-same during both the First and Second World Wars.  Two faces of the same coin.

That’s why you get those photos of the King and Queen Mother giving the Nazi salute, and the young Elizabeth wearing a Nazi armband, and come to think of it, why in blazes does Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler’s Second-in-Command bear such a striking resemblance to Prince Charles? 

Military intelligence?  You dolts couldn’t find your way out of a paper bag with a 10,000 Lumen LED Flashlight and a Guide Dog.

The problem is not and has never been “the Russians”. 

The problem is now and has always been the Nazis.  You are still fighting the fricking Nazis, and you don’t even have sense enough to know that, because they have British accents and wear tweed suits. 

Bless me, I am disgusted with all of you. 

It’s not Russian interference. 

It’s British interference.  Which in this case means German interference. 

Where did that famous “Russian” Dossier come from?  Oh, a Brit. Christopher Steele. 

Who actually interfered with all our past elections going back to 1860?  Oh, the Brits. 

Who substituted their “State of State” organizations for ours–without telling anyone, of course?  Oh, the Brits.

Who screwed up the entire Middle East?  Oh, the Brits.

Wake to bloody hell up. 

If a Great-Grandma from Big Lake, Alaska, has to tell you this stuff and shove it up your noses, what good are you? 

A bunch of fancy-dressed flat-asses who are adept at running drugs and money laundering and nothing else on the face of the Earth? 

The Problem is not the Russians.  It hasn’t been the Russians ever since 1840, and it’s still not the Russians now.

If you don’t grasp that simple, straight forward, obvious, 100% true and verifiable FACT, my next suggestion to you is to get serious about your GERMAN language studies and bone up fast. 


See this article and over 2200 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

Meet Your Eyes

By Anna Von Reitz

As I have already and at some length explained, all law comes from religion. That includes the “religion” of science.

This is because religion naturally begets precepts, tenets, truths — and these become doctrines and laws. It is part of the categorization function of our brains. We do this sifting and winnowing process of discernment by nature, and it has always been part of us to engage in this process of developing beliefs (in science, called “theories”, though it is the same thing) and testing those beliefs until we arrive at a settled agreement about the truth of our beliefs — which becomes a “Law”.
Notice the capital “L” on Law.

So, for example, in Judeo-Christian Ecclesiastical Law, we have The Law of Kinds, mandating that men can only contract with other men, and business organizations with other business organizations. In science, we have The First Law of Thermodynamics.

All incipient “Laws” follow the same pathway into existence: observation, hypothesis, testing of the hypothesis, belief in the hypothesis, recognition of the content of the hypothesis as “Law” — for the purposes of that group of Believers.

Both religion and science, if they are sane and proper, admit that their “Laws” are the Truth to the best of the ability of the Believers to find Truth, and they hold out the possibility — however remote it might seem at the time — that they could be wrong to one degree or another.

Just as a scientific theory can never be truly proven, neither can a religious belief.

At best, a long and thorough testing that consistently yields the same results may be relied upon as the most likely true answer or, at least, can be avowed as such by a group of Believers, whether those Believers are scientists or monks.

A religious process of belief, like a line of scientific inquiry, can yield results that are right or wrong or some of both, and the doctrines and precepts and rules that men derive from their beliefs in religious theories, like their scientific theories, can be right or wrong or some of both.

It turns out that in order to understand law or what goes on in a courtroom or what goes on in your world, you have to understand the religion giving rise to the law — and that, if you take the Quest, requires going back a very long time indeed: all the way back to the Stone Age.

What religion goes back that far and underlies all the laws and systems of law that we know today, including all our scientific laws?

It’s called “Magic” or “Mandamus”—- but not in the sense we use those words today, and not even in the sense that the Bible talks about sorcery. We are not talking about soothsayers and summoning the dead and shaking boxes full of bones and reading Tarot cards. Not the religion of Babylon.

We are talking about searching for the fundamental truths of Nature and the powers of Nature and the results of that search over a very, very long time.

Now I am going to take you on a short mental trip into the worldview of this very ancient religion so you can better understand both this particular religion and the world you live in and co-create.

Imagine that you are standing in the middle of an old-fashioned carpenter’s shop, with wooden work benches and hand tools scattered about and half-finished projects everywhere. It’s a very pleasant place. Sunshine is pouring in through the windows, and you feel perfectly at home as you look around.

This is the True God’s Workshop. We call it “Now”. It’s where we spend our waking hours. It’s where we work and create and have our power, along with all the other people who work here, developing new ideas and tools and models. It’s a wonderful, empowering place to be.

But, if you turn your attention to the floor of this workshop, you will notice that it seems dark and dirty and littered with all sorts of detritus that needs to be cleaned up and cleared out. This is the Shadowland where all the debris of the creative process goes — the half-finished thoughts and dreams, the discarded theories, the rubbish of the Universe.

There are doors opening off the main workshop, and as you step into these, they offer you different views. These are the so-called “Higher Dimensions” though in fact, they are part of the same dimension as the Workshop, obviously. Just like you can see a different view from the back of your house than from the front of your house, these “rooms” let you see yourself and other people from different perspectives.

If you step out the door of the Workshop, you find yourself in a very strange place indeed, a place where black is white and white is black, like an old-time photographic negative, and strangest of all, you find yourself standing on a gridwork of light. This is the Time Grid, a locational gridwork that allows you to find any past or present time, person, or action.

Now, this gridwork appears completely square on a local basis, like grid paper marked off in squares, but as you perceive distance, it curves in an odd way.

As you learn to navigate in this strange world of the Time Grid, you realize that time is space and locked to spatial coordinates, but is, at the same moment, completely malleable and fluid. You can pick up a corner of the Time Grid and fold it over to another square of the Time Grid, like folding a fishing net.

Well, it’s all very strange, but not threatening. This is, after all, your Father’s Creation and you are safe within it and part of it. You don’t have to understand it all, all at once. You are free to take baby steps and explore at your own pace.

So these are the basic elements — your Father’s Workshop, where you help build and co-create the world, the Shadowland of detritus on the “floor” of the Workshop, the Rooms with different views opening off the Workshop, and the Time Grid, just outside the door.

Your Father’s Workshop, where we co-create our world, is what we call “Now” and there is no other “Now”. Everything that was in the past and everything that will be in the future is outside the door, on the Time Grid. And none of it is ever lost or dis-ordered once it is complete.

I called this article “Meet Your Eyes” because I want to describe how I first became aware of “perceptual physics” or what some people are calling “quantum physics” though that is an inadequate description, too.

I was about seventeen and driving down a multi-lane interstate highway in the Midwest in the late morning on a summer day. Everything was bright and clear and the road was dry, not the least hint of any kind of roadway danger — when a small white sub-compact car came whizzing by at very high speed on my left-hand side.

I watched in horror as the driver lost control and the car went spinning and twirling end for end down the road in front of me, and with equal distress saw the two semi-truck trailers, also just in front of me and on either side, both right and left, start veering violently away from the center lane and the wreck happening directly in front of me.

It seemed that I had no options at all. Either I plowed into the white car which was now in my lane, or one or both of those careening truck trailers were going to swing around like a baseball bat and send me to the moon.

In that instant, I found myself looking down at the unfolding drama from a vantage point about three hundred feet above the roadway, and everything that was happening slowed down to a very nice manageable pace.

I could see that the white car was heading to a resting place just beyond the pillars of an upcoming overpass, and that if I just kept driving at the same speed and in the same lane, I’d avoid the whole mess and just shoot past it all. Which I did.

My “eyesight” returned to its normal vantage point, and the slow motion feature went back to normal speed and that was that. But….

How could that be?

Many, many people who have faced truly threatening situations have reported this same perceptual shift, very clearly saying that: “time stopped” or “everything moved in slow motion”. Some people, about one in one hundred of those who report the “Slow Motion Effect” also do what I did, and shift the vantage point from which they are viewing the slow motion action.

So, of course, I had to investigate this. For the next ten years or so, whenever I would meet with veterans or firemen or others in dangerous professions, I would invite discussions about the “Slow Motion Effect” and found that it was a universal, common-as-dirt phenomenon.

In really, truly dangerous situations, I concluded that the “the film” either slows down, or, our ability to perceive “the film” speeds up so that the unfolding action appears to slow down.


Add that to the fact that we know precisely how fast still photos have to be projected to give us the illusion of live action “motion pictures”, and how fast a Hummingbird’s wings have to move before they appear to disappear entirely, and you have a fecund basis from which to understand both illusions and facts about mathematics, time, space, energy, gravity, mass (that doesn’t really exist), and a great many other things that neither science nor religion can account for.

When neither science nor religion can explain something, they have a nasty tendency to discount it, because it disturbs both their established prejudices and their gravy trains. In their efforts to evade knowledge that doesn’t fit their suppositions they will go to great lengths and hurl great insults and even inspire great fears as we have seen with the current nonsensical non-debate about human-caused climate change.

It turns out that if you go back tens of thousands of years and study the Laws of High Magic, you will find that our distant ancestors knew and cared far more about the Truth and the actual nature of our world, than we do. It also turns out that these Laws underlie every other system of law on the planet.

We will explore more about your Father’s Workshop and about the nature of Nature and also the nature of Law, and if you stick with it, you will come to a new understanding of yourself and your world. You will discover God-given abilities you never knew you had and you will be empowered.

Use these gifts for good. Share these gifts with others so that they also become empowered. Don’t hoard your knowledge, thinking to use it as an advantage over others, or to deceive or for any other vain purpose. The time has come when those who love the True God will do miracles for his glory.

All you have to do in “equitable exchange” is to get up every day and ask yourself, “What can I do today, right here and right now, to make the world a better place?” —And then, go do it.


See this article and over 2200 others on Anna’s website here:

To support this work look for the PayPal buttons on this website. 
How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

Deep State Attempted False Flag Failed? Feds Ran the So-called “White Supremacist” Group Tied to VA Governor’s False Claim That Gun Owners Would Stage Armed Assault on Capitol in Richmond

(Mike Adams) As has been long reported by the independent media, so-called “white supremacist” groups are actually run by the FBI, and it was the FBI that masterminded the actions of a group called “The Base,” which provided a pretext for the authoritarian actions of Democrats. In particular, Virginia Gov. Northam invoked the fake threat of this white supremacist group to nullify the Second Amendment during yesterday’s pro-2A rally in Richmond, underscoring how the treasonous FBI conspires with treasonous Democrats like Northam to both run the terror groups and then use the existence of those very groups as a justification to outlaw guns from law-abiding citizens.

The post Deep State Attempted False Flag Failed? Feds Ran the So-called “White Supremacist” Group Tied to VA Governor’s False Claim That Gun Owners Would Stage Armed Assault on Capitol in Richmond appeared on Stillness in the Storm.