Warning: Keep iPhone 12 Away From Pacemakers

Apple recently included a warning in their support documents for the iPhone 12, cautioning users to keep the phone at least 6 inches away from medical devices, specifically implanted pacemakers and heart defibrillators.1

The idea that electromagnetic fields can damage your health is not new. Over the past decade, I have written many articles discussing the evidence of biological harm from EMF.

While the wireless industry has been built on the premise that only ionizing radiation, such as that produced for X-rays, can cause health damage, researchers and scientists have been warning that even nonionizing and nonheat-producing radiation can cause damage to your health and the environment.2

I have been so convinced of the damage that EMF can cause to human health that I took three years to write “EMF*D,” which was released in early 2020 during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the book, I reviewed the overwhelming scientific evidence that EMFs are a hidden health hazard that simply cannot be ignored any longer. Over the years I have interviewed several scientists who have shared their knowledge and expertise in a field that is poorly understood and in which the wireless industry has a vested interest in keeping you in the dark.

For over two decades evidence has demonstrated that EMF exposure has a negative influence on your immune system, which is significant during cold and flu season, as well as during the current COVID-19 pandemic.3 While Apple acknowledges the interference EMF may have on pacemakers, it is far from the only damage EMFs can do to your health.

Apple Cautions All iPhones May Interfere With Medical Devices

The new Apple iPhone 12 has reintroduced MagSafe magnets, which are built into the back of the device to attach accessories like magnetic cases or wireless chargers.4 MagSafe magnets were introduced in 2006 on the Mac computer, which allowed the power connector to magnetically attach. These were replaced with a USB-C connector in 2016 and reintroduced on the iPhone 12.

In late January 2021, Apple published a new support document cautioning these magnets, as well as the “radios that emit electromagnetic fields,” should be kept a “safe distance away from your device (more than 6 inches / 15 cm apart or more than 12 inches / 30 cm apart if wirelessly charging). But consult with your physician and your device manufacturer for specific guidelines.”5

The devices they refer to are “medical devices such as implanted pacemakers and defibrillators …”6 After Apple released the support documents, the New York Post7 reported that Apple was unable to be reached for comment.8 

Although there was no explanation for why the warning was published, it comes just weeks after a paper published in Heart Rhythm9 found the iPhone 12 could disrupt implanted defibrillator function. When brought near the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) over the left chest, the researchers found the ICD immediately suspended action.10

The researchers were able to reproduce the effect multiple times and warned that the iPhone 12 “potentially can inhibit lifesaving therapy in a patient, particularly when the phone is carried in an upper chest pocket.”11

In their statements, Apple said the recent iPhone model poses nearly the same risk of interference as their past models and cautioned that the magnets and EMFs may interfere with the function of medical devices.12

Landmark Study Calls for Less EMF Exposure

Data published in late 2020 confirm many of the health effects scientists have warned about from EMFs. The New Hampshire Legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5g Technology was engaged to “study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.”13

The commission was made up of 13 members who were asked to answer questions such as why thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have demonstrated negative health effects have been ignored by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and why FCC guidelines do not account for the health effects of wireless technology.

In all, there were eight crucial questions. The commission heard from experts who all acknowledged that the RF radiation from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants — all, that is, except for the telecommunications representative.14

In much the same way the tobacco industry worked to convince the public that smoking was not dangerous,15,16 the telecommunications industry is trying to sell the public on speed over safety. The 5G technology promises speeds that will be from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G17 and, yet, the signals will likely be weaker since the wavelengths do not penetrate buildings and tend to be incorporated into rain and plants.18

One of the significant problems is that it relies primarily on millimeter-wave (MMW) bandwidths, which are known to penetrate human tissue up to 2 millimeters, where it is absorbed by the surface of the cornea and conducted by sweat glands within the skin. Each of these factors leads to an association with several potential health problems.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has also found MMW useful in crowd control weapons called the Active Denial system, since it produces a severe burning sensation. The DOD writes, “The Active Denial System generates a focused and very directional millimeter-wave radio frequency beam.”19

MMW is also known to suppress your immune function20 and increase cellular stress, harmful free radicals, learning deficits21 and, potentially, bacterial antibiotic resistance.22 There is nothing to suggest that 5G will produce less harm than the current technology, and there are thousands of studies demonstrating the harmful effects that it could.

4g vs 5g

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

EMF Pollution Likely Taking a Hidden Toll on Your Health

One of the significant challenges with EMF radiation is much like high blood pressure. You cannot see it and most people do not feel it. Additionally, EMF radiation cannot be heard or smelled. However, the evidence is clear — there are biological effects taking place whether you’re able to sense those changes or not. For most, it’s simply a matter of time and overall exposure load.

It is important to realize we’re not talking about just radiation emitted from your cellphone. Within your home and work environment you are likely exposed to electromagnetic frequencies from Wi-Fi routers, computers, home appliances and wireless “smart” technology. With the development and rollout of 5G, it’s bound to get far worse.

In 2004, the World Health Organization acknowledged the existence and reality of electromagnetic hypersensitivity, writing about those who experience it saying: “Their EMF exposure is generally several orders of magnitude under the limits of internationally accepted standards.”23

One year later they acknowledged, “Approximately 10% of reported cases of EHS were considered severe” and “… others are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle.”24

In 2008, one study25 noted the prevalence of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome in Austria had risen 1.5% since 1994, which appears to follow the industry growth curve.26 Symptoms can vary between individuals, but some of the commonly reported symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome include:27,28


Body pain

Burning sensation on the skin


Heart arrhythmia


Muscle aches


Skin rash

Sleep disturbances


Tinnitus (ringing in the ears)

US Military Investigating EMF and Pilot Crashes

Wireless technology is also used by the U.S. military. Following a history of unexplained aviation crashes, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) issued a solicitation for research in late 2020 for the Impact of Cockpit Electromagnetics on Aircrew Neurology (ICEMAN) project.29

The objective is to determine how the flood of “radio frequency noise from onboard emissions, communication links, and navigation electronics — including strong electromagnetic fields from audio headsets and helmet tracking technologies” are affecting combat aircraft pilots.30

In 2018 there was a series of three plane crashes that killed five servicemen over two days. At a press conference the director of the Pentagon’s joint staff downplayed the trend and rejected questions that suggested the military program was in crisis.31 One year earlier 37 servicemen died in non-combat crashes, double the number that died in 2016.

Fox News reported in April 2018 of additional crashes and emergency landings that did not result in fatalities.32 In 2016, Martin Paul, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, published a paper describing how EMF can trigger neuropsychiatric problems.33

The paper built on past research34,35 that showed EMF triggers voltage-gated calcium channels to open, which in turn causes a chemical cascade resulting in the production of harmful peroxynitrite. Since the brain and nervous system have particularly high density of voltage-gated calcium channels they are prone to the impact of EMFs.

Strategies to Reduce Your Exposure to EMFs

There is no doubt in my mind that microwave radiation from wireless technologies is a significant health hazard that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health. Unfortunately, you may be frequently exposed at home and in the workplace. With the rollout of 5G, this will make remedial action even more challenging.

It is important to get involved and do what you can before 5G becomes a permanent fixture in the environment, such as contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions. There are also strategies to help reduce your exposure and mitigate the damage from wireless technology.

I’ve made a chapter from my book “EMF*D” free to download. It summarizes many of the major recommendations and is a handy reference as you’re making changes in your home.

In early 2020, I also interviewed Brian Hoyer, a leading EMF expert and primary consultant for my book “EMF*D.” In a two-part series Brian shared his personal journey and training and we answered many questions. Consider the suggestions in these articles as well:

Mindless Mask Mandates Likely Do More Harm Than Good

In breathless tones, NBC News recently reported1 the existence of a business where mask wearing isn’t enforced. In the Naples, Florida, grocery store, hardly anyone wears a mask. The store’s owner, who the news station claimed “is known for his conservative and often controversial viewpoints,” told a reporter he’s never worn a mask in his life and never will.

The store does have a mask policy posted, but video shows that many customers are fine with not wearing one. There is a mask mandate in Naples, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has issued a ruling that makes enforcement of the rule difficult, NBC said.

The irony of the whole thing is that while the media claims mask mandates are based on science and will “save lives,” this simply isn’t true. Science is actually being ignored wholesale and recommendations are primarily pushed based on emotional justifications and triggers. If science were actually followed, universal mask wearing by healthy people would not — indeed could not — be recommended.

A Timeline of Unscientific Extremes

From the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, health experts have been unable to unify around a cohesive message about face masks. In February 2020, Surgeon General Jerome Adams sent out a tweet urging Americans to stop buying masks, saying they are “NOT effective.”2 (He has since deleted that tweet.) Adams also warned that if worn or handled improperly, face masks can increase your risk of infection.3

Similarly, in March 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci stated4 that “people should not be walking around with masks” because “it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.” Logically, only symptomatic individuals and health care workers were urged to wear them.

Fauci even pointed out that mask wearing has “unintended consequences” as “people keep fiddling with their mask and they keep touching their face,” which may actually increase the risk of contracting and/or spreading the virus.

By June 2020, universal mask mandates became the norm and we were told we had to wear them because there may be asymptomatic super-spreaders among us. Interestingly enough, that same month, the World Health Organization admitted that asymptomatic transmission was “very rare.” If that’s true, then why should healthy, asymptomatic people mask up?

By July 2020, Fauci claimed his initial dismissal of face masks had been in error and that he’d downplayed their importance simply to ensure there would be a sufficient supply for health care workers, who need them most.5

Fast-forward a few weeks, and by the end of July 2020, Fauci went to the next extreme, flouting the recommendation to wear goggles and full face shields in addition to a mask, ostensibly because the mucous membranes of your eyes could potentially serve as entryways for viruses as well.6

This despite the fact that a March 31, 2020, report7 in JAMA Ophthalmology found SARS-CoV-2-positive conjunctival specimens (i.e., specimens taken from the eye) in just 5.2% of confirmed COVID-19 patients (two out of 28).

What’s more, contamination of the eyes is likely primarily the result of touching your eyes with contaminated fingers. If you wear goggles or a face shield, you may actually be more prone to touch your eyes to rub away sweat, condensation and/or scratch an itch.

Toward the end of November 2020, the asymptomatic spread narrative was effectively destroyed by the publication of a Chinese study8 involving nearly 9.9 million individuals. It revealed not a single case of COVID-19 could be traced to an asymptomatic individual who had tested positive.

Around December 2020, recommendations for double-masking emerged,9 and this trend gained momentum through extensive media coverage as we moved into the first weeks of 2021.10 Undeterred by scientific evidence and logic alike, by the end of January 2021, “experts” started promoting the use of three11,12 or even four13 masks, whether you’re symptomatic or not.

These recommendations quickly sparked a mild backlash, with other experts encouraging the return to common sense, as wearing three or more masks may impair airflow, which can worsen any number of health conditions.

True to form, while promoting the concept of double-masking as recently as January 29, 2021,14 by February 1, Fauci conceded “There is no data that indicates double-masking is effective,” but that “There are many people who feel … if you really want to have an extra little bit of protection, ‘maybe I should put two masks on.'”15 In other words, the suggestion is based on emotion, not actual science.

The Singular Truth Behind Mixed Messaging About Masks

The logical reason for all this flip-flopping is because actual science is NOT being taken into account. From the start, the available research has been rather consistent: Mask wearing does not reduce the prevalence of viral illness and asymptomatic spread is exceedingly rare, if not nonexistent.

Both of these scientific consensuses negate the rationale for universal mask wearing by healthy (asymptomatic) people. The only time mask wearing makes sense is in a hospital setting and if you are actually symptomatic and need to be around others, and even then, you need to be aware that it provides only limited protection.

The reason for this is because the virus is aerosolized and spreads through the air. Aerosolized viruses — especially SARS-CoV-2, which is about half the size of influenza viruses — cannot be blocked by a mask, as explained in my interview with Denis Rancourt, who has conducted a thorough review of the published science on masks and viral transmission.

According to Rancourt, “NONE of these well-designed studies that are intended to remove observational bias found a statistically significant advantage of wearing a mask versus not wearing a mask.”

COVID-19 Specific Mask Trial Failed to Prove Benefit

While most mask studies have looked at influenza, the first COVID-19-specific randomized controlled surgical mask trial, published November 18, 2020, confirmed previous findings, showing that:16,17

a. Masks may reduce your risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by as much as 46%, or it may actually increase your risk by 23%

b. The vast majority — 97.9% of those who didn’t wear masks, and 98.2% of those who did — remained infection free

The study included 3,030 individuals assigned to wear a surgical face mask and 2,994 unmasked controls. Of them, 80.7% completed the study. Based on the adherence scores reported, 46% of participants always wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended and 7% failed to follow recommendations.

Among mask wearers, 1.8% ended up testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 2.1% among controls. When they removed the people who reported not adhering to the recommendations for use, the results remained the same — 1.8%, which suggests adherence makes no significant difference.

Among those who reported wearing their face mask “exactly as instructed,” 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 2.1% of the controls. So, essentially, we’re destroying economies and lives around the world to protect a tiny minority from getting a positive PCR test result which, as detailed in “Asymptomatic ‘Casedemic’ Is a Perpetuation of Needless Fear,” means little to nothing.

CDC Relies on Anecdotal Data to Promote Mask Use

If you want additional proof that health authorities are not concerned with following the best available science, look no further than the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.18 What do they rely on as the primary piece of “evidence” to back up its mask recommendation?

A wholly anecdotal story about two symptomatic hair stylists who interacted with 139 clients during eight days is all they offer. Sixty-seven of the clients agreed to be interviewed and tested. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

The fact that the stylists and all clients “universally wore masks in the salon” is therefore seen as evidence that the masks prevented the spread of infection. The Danish study reviewed above didn’t even make it onto the CDC’s list of studies.

The CDC’s own data19,20,21 also show 70.6% of COVID-19 patients reported “always” wearing a cloth mask or face covering in the 14 days preceding their illness; 14.4% reported having worn a mask “often.” So, a total of 85% of people who came down with COVID-19 had “often” or “always” worn a mask.

This too contradicts the idea that mask wearing will protect against the infection, and is probably a slightly more reliable indicator of effectiveness than the anecdotal hairdresser story.

Another recent investigation22 revealed the same trend, showing that states with mask mandates had an average of 27 positive SARS-CoV-2 “cases” per 100,000 people, whereas states with no mask mandates had just 17 cases per 100,000. I reviewed these and other findings in my December 31, 2020, article, “Mask Mandates Are Absolutely Useless.”

Masks Don’t Protect Against Smoke

The CDC also contradicts its own conclusions that masks protect against viral spread by specifying that wearing a cloth face mask will NOT protect you against wildfire smoke, because “they do not catch small, harmful particles in smoke that can harm your health.”23 To get any protection from harmful smoke particles, you’d have to use an N95 respirator.

The particulate matter in wildfire smoke can range from 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller in smoke and haze, to 10 micrometers in wind-blown dust.24 SARS-CoV-2, meanwhile, has a diameter between 0.06 and 0.14 micrometers, far tinier than the particulate found in smoke.

SARS-CoV-2 is also about half the size of most viruses, which tend to measure between 0.02 microns to 0.3 microns.25 Meanwhile, virus-laden saliva or respiratory droplets expelled when talking or coughing measure between 5 and 10 micrometers.26

N95 masks can filter particles as small as 0.3 microns,27 so they may prevent a majority of respiratory droplets from escaping, but not aerosolized viruses. Influenza viruses and SARS-CoV-2 are small enough to float in the air column, so as long as you can still breathe, they can flow in and out of your respiratory tract.

The following video offers a simple demonstration of how masks “work.” Or rather, don’t, as the vapor flows in and out, all around the mask — even if you’re wearing two of them.


Psychrometric’s Visualized we show you what Science has missed . Take a deeper look into this Science it will help stop Covid!#science #school #fyp

? original sound – user579705

More Science

If you’re still on the fence about whether masks are a necessity that must be forced on everyone, including young children, I urge you to take the time to actually read through some of the studies that have been published. In addition to the research reviewed above, here’s a sampling of what else you’ll find when you start searching for data on face masks as a strategy to prevent viral infection:

Surgical masks and N95 masks perform about the same — A 2009 study28 published in JAMA compared the effectiveness of surgical masks and N95 respirators to prevent seasonal influenza in a hospital setting; 24% of the nurses in the surgical mask group still got the flu, as did 23% of those who wore N95 respirators.

Cloth masks perform far worse than medical masks — A study29 published in 2015 found health care workers who wore cloth masks had the highest rates of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infections, when compared to those wearing medical masks or controls (who used standard practices that included occasional medical mask wearing).

Compared to controls and the medical mask group, those wearing cloth masks had a 72% higher rate of lab-confirmed viral infections. According to the authors:

Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks … Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”

“No evidence” masks prevent transmission of flu in hospital setting — In September 2018, the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) won its second of two grievances filed against the Toronto Academic Health Science Network’s (TAHSN) “vaccinate or mask” policy. As reported by the ONA:30

“After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted … Arbitrator William Kaplan, in his September 6 decision,31 found that St. Michael’s VOM policy is ‘illogical and makes no sense’ …

In 2015, Arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province … Hayes found there was ‘scant evidence’ that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients …

ONA’s well-regarded expert witnesses, including Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres, and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, testified that there was … no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.

They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.”

No significant reduction in flu transmission when used in community setting — A policy review paper32 published in Emerging Infectious Diseases in May 2020, which reviewed “the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures … in non-healthcare settings” concluded, based on 10 randomized controlled trials, that there was “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks …”

Risk reduction may be due to chance — In 2019, a review of interventions for flu epidemics published by the World Health Organization concluded the evidence for face masks was slim, and may be due to chance:33

“Ten relevant RCTs were identified for this review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of community-based use of face masks …

In the pooled analysis, although the point estimates suggested a relative risk reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza of 22% in the face mask group, and a reduction of 8% in the face mask group regardless of whether or not hand hygiene was also enhanced, the evidence was insufficient to exclude chance as an explanation for the reduced risk of transmission.”

“No evidence” that universal masking prevents COVID-19 — A 2020 guidance memo by the World Health Organization pointed out that:34

“Meta-analyses in systematic literature reviews have reported that the use of N95 respirators compared with the use of medical masks is not associated with any statistically significant lower risk of the clinical respiratory illness outcomes or laboratory-confirmed influenza or viral infections …

At present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID- 19 and in healthy people in the community) on the effectiveness of universal masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19.”

Mask or no mask, same difference — A meta-analysis and scientific review35 led by respected researcher Thomas Jefferson, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration, posted on the prepublication server medRxiv in April 2020, found that, compared to no mask, mask wearing in the general population or among health care workers did not reduce influenza-like illness cases or influenza.

In one study, which looked at quarantined workers, it actually increased the risk of contracting influenza, but lowered the risk of influenza-like illness. They also found there was no difference between surgical masks and N95 respirators.

Statistics Show Mask Use Has No Impact on Infection Rates

Another way to shed light on whether masks work or not is to compare infection rates (read: positive test rates) before and after the implementation of universal mask mandates. In his article,36 “These 12 Graphs Show Mask Mandates Do Nothing to Stop COVID,” bioengineer Yinon Weiss does just that.

He points out that “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time.” To see all of the graphs, check out Weiss’ article37 or Twitter thread.38 Here are just a select few to bring home the point:

austria covid-19
germany covid-19
belgium covid-19
italy covid-19
european covid-19

To Pose a Risk, You Need To Be Symptomatic

Studies have repeatedly shown that masks do not significantly reduce transmission of viruses, so it’s safe to assume that a mask will in fact fail in this regard. That leaves two key factors: There must be a contagious person around, and they must be sufficiently close for transmission to occur.

We now know that asymptomatic individuals — even if they test positive using a PCR test — are highly unlikely to be contagious.39 So, really, a key prevention strategy for COVID-19 seems to be to stay home if you have symptoms. As for masking up when you’re healthy, let alone double, triple or quadruple masking, there’s simply no scientific consensus for that strategy.

Charlie Ward 2-16-21… Five (5) VIDEOS… “Medbeds, Gesara, Humanitarian projects, Peace (not attacks), and a Thank you to Patriots”

Well, there’s a lot of data here, in short bits. These are videos about various things that may be of interest to many. One of the keys to all of this is the “switching on” of the Quantum Financial System.

My suggestion for these, there’s always 2 minutes of intro, so suggest going to 2 minutes to hear the message topic.






Lockdowns, masks destroying mental health of children and young people

(Natural News) In areas of the world where Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdowns are still a thing, rates of mental illness in children and young people are skyrocketing, according to Dr. Omer Moghraby, a psychiatrist based out of London. Moghraby says he is seeing a massive influx of children cutting themselves or overdosing on pharmaceuticals. Many…

Harvard has extensive financial ties to Chinese Communist Party

(Natural News) The indoctrination center would never openly admit to such, but Ivy League icon Harvard University has deep financial ties to communist China. Its Shorenstein Center, which published a report recently claiming that Dr. Li-Meng Yan’s Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) studies are bunk, has longstanding ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), working on its…

Young nurse suffers from hemorrhage and brain swelling after second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine

(Natural News) A 28-year-old healthcare worker from the Swedish American Hospital, in Beloit, Wisconsin was recently admitted to the ICU just five days after receiving a second dose of Pfizer’s experimental mRNA vaccine. The previously healthy young woman was pronounced brain dead after cerebral angiography confirmed a severe hemorrhage stroke in her brain stem. Her…