Why does the media tell us cell phones are safe?
6 ways the WHO misleads us on cell phone safety
Here are six topics we’ll explore:
1. Cumulative call time
2. Real-life scenarios
3. Misinformation on power levels
4. Biased results
5. Heavy users of cell phones
6. Light users of cell phones
“What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Five years ago, I remember Bohdanna and I being rattled by a caravan of blaring car horns while peacefully weeding in our garden. Just as quickly as our heads had turned up at the noise, our heads sank down in disappointment. We instinctively knew this was the sound of chaos descending upon the world, stoked by the emotional gunsmoke of pandemic patriotism. The first fanatic shots were fired in Wuhan, as collective cheering rituals in January spread across the globe by March of 2020. Clapfests emerged in cities as a way for people “to connect” from their separate windows, terraces, fire escapes, stoops and rooftops. The masses had given up their freedom of assembly for self-assembling slogans of mass media mind control. Just one year before in 2019, Big Tech had even bigger scandals. WhatsApp had a massive security breach, FaceTime faced privacy concerns, and a naked Jeff Bezos was exposed, literally, ultimately leading to his divorce. The screens that were slowly becoming our enemy quickly transformed into our savior once lockdowns forced human hamsters to run endlessly on the doom scrolling wheels of misfortune.
Five years later in 2025 a new pandemonium sweeps the streets. Sidewalks of children’s chalk faded in a forgotten fog of war that told us to stay safe and stay home, have covered up the tears of the years with a new and improved asphalt that smells of the rotten North American dream. Black flags of “Elbows Up” litter the Canadian landscape as a new patriotic fervor takes root in a collective nightmare. The American desire to be free from tyranny has smacked the shores of dark masses like a subconscious tidal wave. Whether they realize it or not, love it or hate it, Canadians now know what it feels like to be truly American - and defend one’s country against a foreign invader.
Ghost towns called home linger in quiet terror, watching, waiting, scrolling, and clicking their remote control to escape reality as quickly as Dorothy smacks her heels. The common thread linking the disease of society’s pandemonium is the endless torrent of information crashing upon our psyche’s once serene shores, through a medium that harvests our emotions and irradiates love out of our heart.
Since the outbreak of insanity occurred in 2020, few researchers and authors dared consider how manmade electromagnetic radiation could create disease. After all, the word influenza got its meaning as our ancestors ascribed flu outbreaks to the “influence of the stars.” Scientists and doctors witnessed as rapid shifts in sunspots caused flu faster than transportation could carry any alleged contagion. Illness occurred at the quantum level of an instant. The truly independent scientists of today recognize the same electromagnetic influence in the surrounding cellular architecture, devices, and smart grid that is causing humanity to outbreak its shell of sanity. Social media influencers shout about the next pandemic while speaking no evil of the electronics making us sick.
As America now vows to become the AI capital of the world, techno-fanaticism pervades both left and right sides of the political spectrum. While many virtuously wave the flag of progress, they don’t consider how much we may regress. Head down we march into the quicksand of time lost to the void of endless distraction. How do we recover our future and break out of the past?
Nietzsche believed that if we gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into us. Reclaiming our power begins by averting our gaze, and changing the mind’s channel so we can tell a vision that doesn’t advertise false hope. While researching the latest stance of the World Health Organization on cell phones and cancer, I came upon a news broadcast on YouTube that wanted to reassure all of us that there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to cell phones harming us. All we need to do is trust the science.
Where does the doctor media personality in the above clip get his information? He cites a 2024 research review and meta-analysis (combines data from multiple independent studies) commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO). The analysis was published1 by Ken Karipidis and colleagues and includes sixty-three studies between 1994 and 2022, stating cell phones “likely do not not cause brain cancer.” There are many flaws with this study, which include:
Cumulative Call Time excluded
The study’s authors ignored the largest studies with statistically significantly odds (OR) in the highest exposed groups. Cumulative call time (CCT) is one of the most important variables to consider when studying the impacts on health effects. However, the 2024 WHO review only published users who had a low CCT, some as little as one minute per week for 10 years (2001-2011). Put into perspective, this is about 8.7 hours of total use in ten years.2 The study also did not publish the CCT results of high users, and excluded the data on the graphs included in the study. Dr. Joel Moskowitz and colleagues countered the WHO review with their own study. Their comprehensive analysis of studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years).
Real-life scenarios excluded
The Karipidis study did not take into account laterality, or the side of the head used during mobile phone calls related to the location of brain tumors. Studies on laterality show clear evidence of increased risks of brain tumors for ipsilateral (same side as the brain tumor) use of the mobile phone, including also the cordless phone. Thus, results on the most exposed part of the brain were excluded.
The WHO review by Karipidis also only included five studies that modeled (simulated) exposure from transmitters or base stations and only studies on pediatric cancer, thereby excluding several studies showing increased risks for cancer in children and adults near transmitters and base stations. One of the two included base station studies reported increased risk “of all neoplasms in children with higher-than-median RF exposure to [Mobile phone base stations] MPBS”. Yet, the authors claimed there would be “moderate certainty evidence” of no childhood leukemia risk.
All use of cordless (DECT) phones was disregarded although they were also exposed to the same kind of RF radiation as from mobile phone use. Lennart Hardell and colleagues has shown that also use of cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma tumors.3
Powerful misdirection
Karipidis and colleagues state in their review that the “average output power of a cordless phone is 1–2 order of magnitude less than that from 1G to 2G mobile phones,” and also write that “most participants in the reviewed studies had used mobile phones operating on 1G-2G networks, and mobile phones of newer technology (3G-4G) have substantially lower average output power.” Here the authors are referring to the SAR (specific absorption rate), or the amount of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the body. The SAR measurement is misleading as it does not take into account the frequency or the electric fields generated by cellular base stations or mobile phones. While you may have a microwave that is less powerful, which may not heat your food as quickly, the frequency of 2.45 GHz is still the same, and has biological effects on DNA.4
Older cell phones used lower frequencies, whereas newer cell phones use higher frequencies. As frequency increases, the wavelength (or space between each electromagnetic pulse) is lessened, resulting in more information transmitted over a shorter distance. Newer 5G cellular systems also use laser beamforming technology, which has a substantial increase in power level and power density from older (1G-4G) generations.
Support our work with a premium subscription.
(just $5 per month)
Biased results
Several of the authors in the Karipidis group have conflicts of interest, with ties to ICNIRP, a private organization that has recommended the exposure limits that most countries in the world have adopted. The telecommunications industry has adapted their technology to the ICNIRP limits. Several investigations5 have concluded that there are ties between the telecommunications industry, the ICNIRP and the WHO6, the latter commissioning the Karipidis report. According to the Ethical Council at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden in a verdict on Anders Ahlbom at Karolinska Institute Stockholm, the membership in ICNIRP is a potential conflict of interest.7
According to one of the major telecomm infrastructure providers, lower limits than ICNIRP’s would make the 5G roll out “difficult or impossible.”
Below is a list of authors with conflicts of interest:
Ken Karipidis, first author, is member of ICNIRP (today vice chair), since 2015
Dan Baaken, second author, is scientific secretary of ICNIRP since July 2024.
Tom Loney has performed research and provided advisory services to the defense, industrial and healthcare sectors. The defense industry has interests in the outcome of a cancer risk evaluation of RF radiation, thus a potential conflict of interest.
Martin Röösli is a member of ICNIRP since 2016. In addition, he has received funding for research from a Swiss foundation funded by the telecommunications industry8 that serves as an intermediate between telecom industry and researchers.
Susanna Lagorio has collaborated with scientists with known conflicts of interest in terms of funding from industry and membership in ICNIRP.9 She has testified on behalf of Radio Vatican regarding cancer risks from the RF-radiation.
Heavy cell phone users excluded
According to the highly-touted Interphone study10 conducted in 2010 by the World Health Organization, the results on cell phones and brain cancer are inconclusive. The study included 2,708 cases of glioma and 2,409 of meningioma, another type of brain tumor, with a total of over 5,634 controls —from 13 countries. It is the largest study of cell phone and tumors ever done. The total budget of the study, which got underway in 2000, was €19.2 million (~US$25 million). Funding came from the European Commission (€3.74 million) and the cell phone industry (€5.5 million), as well as other sources.
I read the study, and do you know what I found?
The published paper did not include heavy users of cell phones.
“That’s like doing a study on obesity looking at people that are slightly overweight.”
The parts of the study that did look at high cell phone users found a doubling and up to a quadrupling of tumors. The chances (odds ratio, OR) of having brain cancer doubled once you were a heavy cell phone user:
Light users also excluded
Jack Siemiatycki of the University of Montreal, a member of the Canadian Interphone group, called the study “genuinely perplexing, enigmatic and paradoxical” because, as he put it, "the data were dirty.”
The way the data were collected created what is known in research as selection bias, which occurs when certain individuals or groups are more likely to be included or excluded, leading to inaccurate or misleading conclusions. Interphone is a case-control study, in which those with brain tumors are compared with a reference group. In the published paper, the members of the reference group are those who never used mobile phones. In the appendix, which is only available when doing an internet search, and not attached to the main study, has a recalculation that includes the lightest users of cell phones (i.e. those who used cell phones for less than two years) The reason for the substitution is that the non-users were not properly matched to the users, which distorted the results.
When the Interphone team analyzed the data in a way to compensate for selection bias, they saw a much more provocative picture of the risks associated with long-term use of cell phones. Those who used a mobile phone for ten or more years were found to be twice as likely to develop a brain tumor. This increased risk is statistically significant. Indeed, the risk is higher for all three indices of exposure —years of use, total talk time and total number of calls. There even appears to be a dose-response relationship, with the highest risk among the heaviest users.
~ Source: Microwave News
In a series of interviews with Microwave News, members of the Interphone project said they now see the risk among long-term users as being larger than when the study began. Some think the risk warrants serious attention:
“To me, there’s certainly smoke there…overall, my opinion is that the results show a real effect.” Elisabeth Cardis leader of The Interphone project
Ms. Cardis is with the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL) in Barcelona,11 and also worked at IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) for close to a decade.
As reported by Microwave News:
Siegal Sadetzki,12 the Israeli member of Interphone, goes further. She pointed out that while the risks are inconclusive, a number of the results show some consistency. These include increased risks among the heaviest users, the fact that the risks were highest on the side of the head the phone was usually used and that the tumors were in the temporal lobe of the brain, which is closest to the ear.
Where do we go from here?
Where there is smoke there’s usually fire. The problem is we’ve been living in a collective brain fog of war so long that we’ve been unable to see the smoke through the haze that has become our invisible maze of radiation. The only way out is through. Our war is won with drills of peace each day, marching off to nature’s front line, bombing distractions in airplane mode, and calling our family and friends for reinforcements.
“We’re not just facing a technological revolution. We’re in the midst of a full-blown spiritual war that’s largely invisible and occult in nature.
I call it the ‘end game’ because the outcome determines the spiritual future of humanity.”
~ Bernhard Guenther, Time of Transition: The Battle for the Soul
In today’s technological war, let us take up arms by surrendering the weapons of our foe to the arsenal of the hazardous waste bin.
Instead of wishing our enemies ill and casting stones, let us crystallize our consciousness so that others may know the fringed thread of time cradles them dearer than the frayed fabric of the flag.
We are more powerful than we know,
Roman & Bohdanna
Additional resources:
Enter 'The Borg’ by Proton Magic:
June 20th. Join the World. Cancel your cell phone plan.
To commemorate the initiative of Arthur Firstenberg, our colleagues around the world have decided to re-launch “World Cancel Your Cell Phone Account” Day.
Tanja Katarina Rebel check it out!
Does this mean you have to throw out your cell phone? No, but preferable.
Cancelling your cellular account is a huge first step in dissolving the shackles of the digital gulag.
Check out The Power Couple Bookshop - dedicated to helping us relearn from our ancestors!
Support us the old fashioned way!
Send us an email to info@thepowercouple.ca if you’d like to send us other forms of payment, including 🐌 mail.
Or…you can donate to our upcoming EMF projects here:
Ken Karipidis, Dan Baaken, Tom Loney, Maria Blettner, Chris Brzozek, Mark Elwood, Clement Narh, Nicola Orsini, Martin Röösli, Marilia Silva Paulo, Susanna Lagorio, The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies – Part I: Most researched outcomes, Environment International, Volume 191,2024,108983,ISSN 0160-4120, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983.
Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson. A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency
Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks. Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics. 9 (2025): 09-26
Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours. Int J Oncol. 2009 Jul;35(1):5-17. doi: 10.3892/ijo_00000307. PMID: 19513546.
Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril. 92(4) 1318-1325, 2009.
Buchner K, Rivasi M. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: Conflicts of interest, corporate interests and the push for 5G Brussels June (2020)
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/i/99270587/the-revolving-door-keeps-spinning
Ethical Council, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm. Sweden DNR 3753-2008-609 (2008).
https://www.emf.ethz.ch/en/
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/repacholi-half-who-emf-project-funding-came-industry
The INTERPHONE Study Group, Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 39, Issue 3, June 2010, Pages 675–694, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq079
http://www.creal.cat/creal/quisom/en_info_user.html?idusuari=ecardis
http://www.gertnerinst.org.il/e/epidemiology_e/cancer_e/Cancer_director_e/
But I asked my kid's superintendent about the safety of all the computer/cell phone etc.. radiation on our kids and he said it was all studied and safe. LOL
Other studies show it is hard to have a New World Order where every one is freakishly controlled if we don't all walk around with a pocket full of 5 G radiation. Matter of fact, I hear in China you are not allowed to leave home without your cell phone as they can't mirco control everyone yet if they don't have their phone. They get mad at you if you do and lower your social credit score. I am sure that can be remedied when we all get chipped up and won't need phones to be controlled so much.
Trump wants his 5 G, and 6 G, and REAL ID with his Big Beautiful Bill, including lots of money to Palantir. Nothing can go wrong. It's going to be great. I am sure it is all safe and effective just like his beautiful vaccines are.
Excellent practical info from Roman for those who love to put phones next to their heads, even with ear buds.
Here see the "rules of the phone psyop"
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/rules-of-the-phone-psyop