I was just telling the group that I was passing through when I was 19 through your state,
and it was 139 degrees Fahrenheit in the shade.
Not in Santa Fe, maybe in Albuquerque.
Yeah, that's where it was, Albuquerque. I was on Route 66.
Going across America in three days and three nights.
Yeah, it was a big adventure at the age of 19.
So anyway, 113 degrees Fahrenheit, so that's pretty hot in the shade.
And then the air conditioning failed on the bus, you know, the Greyhound bus.
All right, Stephen, because we've had a bit of a delay, let's get in.
I won't do my normal. I just welcome everybody to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
For those of you watching this recording, the other welcome statements you can find.
Arthur has read the fuller explanation of what we're about, so he knows how long.
And Arthur will love to have you as long as you can be with us.
Stephen, thank you. And Janet, thank you for organising Arthur Furstenberg to be with us.
This group was founded over two years ago, and we're delighted to have you here.
I use the chat as previously advised for resources and links and possibilities.
And Arthur, we're from all around the world, as you know, when you choose to finish,
stop presenting, when you stop presenting.
By the way, Arthur, a number of people here have read your books.
We've had comments from people we invited about how wonderful your book is.
So thank you for being with us. And over to you, Arthur.
And we look forward to learning from your wisdom and your journey.
Thank you very much. And I apologise for the delay.
I would like to start with some observations.
There is a disease that everyone has been talking about for the past three years called long COVID.
The most detailed study of this disease that I have seen was published by a team of researchers
from the United States and the United Kingdom in 2001, no, 2021.
They surveyed 3,752 patients with long COVID from 56 countries.
My first observation is that 75% of those patients were reported to have tested negative for COVID.
And that is about the percentage of random people in the general population who test negative for COVID.
That by itself is enough to prove that the disease they are calling long COVID not caused by COVID.
The second interesting observation that I have is that the 205 symptoms of long COVID that this team listed
is virtually identical to the list of symptoms of radio wave sickness that I published in the year 2001
that are not caused by a virus at all, but by exposure to radio waves, especially to mobile phones,
mobile phone masks, Wi-Fi and all the other wireless devices that bombard us all today with radiation.
I'm going to use the term cell phones because that is what I'm accustomed to calling them in the US, cell phones and cell towers.
The neurological effects of cell phones, Wi-Fi and telecommunication antennas include headaches,
dizziness, nausea, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, irritability, depression, anxiety, fatigue, weakness,
tremors, muscle spasms, numbness, tingling, altered reflexes, muscle and joint pain, leg and foot pain, flu-like symptoms and fever.
More severe neurological effects include multiple sclerosis, seizures, paralysis, psychosis and stroke.
The cardiac effects of wireless technology include palpitations, arrhythmias, pain or pressure of the chest, hypertension, tachycardia, shortness of breath and heart attacks.
The respiratory effects of wireless technology include sinusitis, bronchitis, asthma and pneumonia.
The dermatological effects of wireless technology include skin rashes, light sensitivity, extreme sensitivity to touch, itching, burning and facial flushing.
The ophthalmological effects of wireless technology include pain or burning in the eyes, pressure in or behind the eyes,
deteriorating vision, floaters, glaucoma and cataracts.
The auditory effects of wireless technology include chirping, buzzing, ringing in the ears and hearing loss.
The reproductive effects of wireless technology include lowered sperm count and motility, abnormal menstruation, infertility, miscarriage and birth defects.
The hematological effects of wireless technology include anemia, elevated blood sugar, low platelets, low or high white cells and elevated cholesterol.
Other effects of wireless technology include digestive problems, abdominal pain, sweating, enlarged thyroid,
adrenal exhaustion, testicular or ovarian pain, sexual dysfunction, dryness of lips, tongue, mouth and eyes, extreme thirst, puffy lips, swollen throat, dehydration, frequent urination, nosebleeds, internal bleeding,
immune system abnormalities, redistribution of metals within the body, hair loss, brittle fingernails, pain in the teeth, deteriorating fillings and impaired sense of smell.
Half of all people living in modern societies today will have cancer.
Majority of people in modern societies today have diabetes or pre-diabetes, abnormal levels of blood sugar.
More than one third of the population are obese. Heart disease is rampant.
The primary cause of these epidemic diseases is the cell phones in everyone's hands, the infrastructure that makes them work and the dozens of wireless devices that are in most people's homes.
The 15 billion cell phones on earth together with the 6 million cell towers and the 9,000 communication satellites orbiting the earth are devastating the environment.
Together, they are the single largest, most urgent threat to birds, insects, animals, fish and people.
This is both the most urgent and the most ignored threat to life on earth.
Unless all this radiation is turned off and turned off soon, nothing else will matter.
Climate change, ozone loss, deforestation, pollution of the atmosphere and oceans, none of this will matter unless we stop irradiating ourselves and our planet to death.
Radio waves are not a toxin in the ordinary sense. They are an interference with the body electric type of radio frequency interference.
In medical school, you are taught about the human body in various ways.
In anatomy and physiology, you are taught that the body is a machine composed of bones, ligaments, nerves, blood vessels and organs.
In cell physiology, you are taught that the body is composed of trillions of tiny cells with membranes, nuclei, mitochondria and other organelles.
In organic chemistry, you are taught that the body is composed of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and nucleic acids.
In genetics, you are taught that the body functions at the direction of DNA and RNA.
But you are not taught about the organizing principle of life, which is electricity.
Computer is composed of parts as well, both large and small, but none of it will work without a source of both energy and information.
It is the same with our bodies. Our bodies, our cells, whisper to one another in the radio frequency spectrum.
Even our mitochondria coordinate their activities with one another with electromagnetic signaling.
Our acupuncture meridians carry information from the earth and sky to our organs and our cells.
Our blood vessels and nerves are conductive channels that carry information.
All this information is carried at almost infinitesimal power levels,
trillions of times weaker than the signals that we blasted to space from our cell phones.
When you realize that the radiation from a cell phone is powerful enough to travel hundreds of kilometers to a communication satellite,
you must recoil in horror at what it must be doing to your child, who is just one meter away,
or to your head, which it is touching, or to your heart or brain, which are just centimeters away.
Our phones and antennas and Wi-Fi induce electric currents in every conductive channel within the body,
interfering with functioning, and they transmit radio signals that interfere with the body's own internal signaling between cells and between organs,
and between the body and the earth and sky.
There is no safe level of radio waves.
Safe use of a cell phone is an oxymoron.
The lower the power and the closer the power is to the infinitesimal power levels used within our bodies,
the more it is recognized by our bodies and the more it interferes.
The higher the power level, the greater are the induced currents in our nerves, our heart's pacemaker, our blood vessels, and our meridians,
and the greater the interference with functioning.
Cell phones, simply put, are destroying our brains, our bodies, and our planet, no matter their power output.
I emphasize cell phones for several reasons.
First, there are 15 billion of them.
To abide, they are irradiating the earth to death by themselves.
Second, of course they are used close to the body.
Close to the body, they are the biggest source of radiation by far for most human beings.
Third, all of the cell towers are there at the service of our cell phones.
Cell towers only operate when cell phones are in use.
Every time you make a cell phone call, you turn on a frequency in the nearest tower and force it to irradiate the countryside, and everyone in it.
Fourth, virtually all of our wireless devices are there at the service and control of someone's cell phone.
It is the device in everyone's head that is the source of almost all of the radiation.
Radio waves cause diabetes, heart disease, and cancer in a very specific way.
They interfere with electron transport in the mitochondria of every cell.
The electrons generated by the digestion of the food we eat must combine with the oxygen we breathe to give us the energy for living.
If we interfere with the motion of those electrons, we become starved of oxygen and we cannot efficiently digest the food we eat.
Sugars are excreted in our urine. Fats are deposited in our coronary arteries.
Cells revert to anaerobic metabolism and become cancers.
The only way we will save the earth from this radiation is to shut it off.
To get rid of all our cell phones and other wireless devices and go back to the way we all used to conduct business only 25 years ago,
with landline telephones and computers connected to one another with wires and cables.
There is no such thing as safe use of a cell phone or a safe distance from it.
No device, no chip, no pendant, no crystal, no plug-in device will protect you or anyone else from the radiation.
Even if you only use a cell phone for a few seconds at a time or once a week or once a month,
all of the wireless infrastructure, all of the cell towers on earth must be there in order for you to be able to use it when you think you need it.
2G, 3G, and 4G are not safer than 5G. They all require the lethal irradiation of every square meter of the planet.
How could I function without my cell phone, I am asked.
My job requires it, my bank requires it, I need it to communicate with my family, I need it when I travel in case of emergencies.
The short answer is that only recently we all functioned at a much higher level without it.
We all enjoyed life much more.
The short answer is that you do not need it, and it is killing you, killing me, and killing all the birds and wildlife and forests.
The short answer is that the restoration of your health and your vitality and the return of bird songs and butterflies to your neighborhoods
and the restoration of a future to your children will be your rewards, will far outweigh any momentary need for it that you think you have.
I wrote a policy brief on ElectroSmog for the World Council on Health.
It is being finalized right now and will be published next week.
It summarizes what wireless technology is doing to our world, and it lays out the actions that need to be taken by governments, schools, churches, environmental organizations to stop the radiation.
It discusses the major sources of radio frequency radiation in today's world, including satellites, underwater antennas in the oceans, smart meters, smart cities, the Internet of Things, radar, wireless technology in vehicles, microwave ovens.
Communication satellites are harming life on the Earth at another level entirely.
They are altering the electromagnetic environment of the Earth itself.
In doing so, they are interfering with the connections between every living thing and its environment.
There are almost 9,000 operational satellites in orbit so far, with hundreds of thousands more planned.
The Earth will not survive this assault.
We will shortly be organizing chapters around the world of people who do not own cell phones or who plan to get rid of them by a date certain.
Please go to our website, cellphonetaskforce.org, for information about everything I have been talking about.
Please subscribe to my newsletters by going to cellphonetaskforce.org slash subscribe.
Keep up to date on our research and our activities.
My book, The Invisible Rainbow, A History of Electricity and Life, is available in 11 languages.
Ordering information is on the home page of our website.
My book is available in the UK from Chelsea Green, UK.
I am presently working on another book which will be called The Earth and I.
It is about the broader picture, the larger environmental crisis.
I did the research for this new book because I wanted to know why my particular species, Homo sapiens, is destroying the planet while other species are not.
The answers I found are different from what most people assume.
Thank you. I will stand for questions.
Wow, Arthur. Thank you for articulating so succinctly the challenge that you have identified, living without a cell phone.
Who can remember living without a cell phone?
I certainly can.
And I'm sitting here looking at it and go, how would I live without a cell phone?
Thank you. Thank you for your work.
As I said at the start, a number of us have your book and have read it.
And so in time on a tradition, Arthur, Stephen asked the first questions and then for the rest of us, please put hands up and we'll take them in order.
Stephen, over to you.
Yeah, hi, Arthur.
So I don't know whether you know about Mark Steele, do you?
So he's talking about 5G. You didn't mention 5G, I don't think.
You did mention 2G, I think.
But how does that...
Sorry.
I mentioned that 2G, 3G and 4G are not safer than 5G.
Everybody is obsessed with fighting 5G, but they think the previous generations of wireless technology are safe and they are not.
So I've just sent a message to Mark, who unfortunately isn't on this call, but he often is on these calls and I don't know how he's missed it.
Maybe it's on holiday.
But so I just wonder, what is your perception?
So he says that 5G and the 5G towers, as I understand it, are killing people.
Are you saying something different or are you both saying the same thing?
We're both saying the same thing, but I am also saying that the 4G towers and the 3G towers and the 2G towers and the phones, mobile phones, they're all killing people.
It's not just 5G towers.
Yeah, well, it's very interesting because they were trying to put a mobile phone tower right next to our house, which is contiguous with the zoo in North Wales, or was, sorry, we're not there now.
And I opposed it and brought the full weight of orange, so opposed the planning permission, you know.
And I remember being locked. We were literally locked in a room with the orange representatives. Orange is a mobile phone company.
And I was arguing from the point of view of three children and no one knew, including me and including them, it turned out, what the effects of this tower would be on us.
But this was before mobile phones and I was saying, they were saying, oh, yes, but everybody's going to have a mobile phone.
You know, this is before. And I just instinctively knew that there was something wrong and was arguing.
Anyway, we defeated orange, the mobile phone company, because the counts after a whole day of deliberations, there was a guy from Oxford who came up to help me.
I can't remember how I found him. And he was really brilliant.
And he was asking them questions such as why can't you put the tower somewhere else?
And eventually they conceded that they could put the tower. They argued against it initially.
But eventually the council said, well, actually, they found against orange and for us, very surprisingly.
And they said you can put the tower somewhere else, but you're not putting it there in the zoo in a zoo.
What was it? What was it to be used for? If not for mobile phones?
No, it was to be used for mobile phones. So they were saying, you know, so this was ahead of the I think they were, you know, the early they were preparing, preparing to sell everybody a mobile phone.
Correct. It was before that. So they could see the future. They possibly had been briefed by our enemies.
But I don't know. But all I know that we were had a massive fight, but we fought the fight and we won against this mobile phone company.
And I remember they would have made the animals in the zoo very sick and killed some of them, too.
Yes, I think the representatives from the zoo making that argument.
I'm not. No, I don't think they were actually. I was very surprised that they weren't.
But obviously, you know, but but so it just so happened that I was a radiologist.
So I knew about the dangers of non-ionizing radiation.
And as you say, you can't actually quantify the risk because the risk is individual for each human being.
So there's no safe level of radiation, but you're allowed to use X-rays in radiology to to to reach a diagnosis.
Yes, but they are not deliberately X-ray every square meter of the earth.
Absolutely. Very different from what's going on with wireless.
So could you explain to the people on this group the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation?
And where is this the radiation that you're talking about?
Where on the spectrum is it?
The non-ionizing the ionizing radiation is considered usually to go down into the middle of the ultraviolet spectrum.
Anything of a shorter wavelength at a higher frequency is considered ionizing
because each quantum of energy has enough energy in it to break bonds to break chemical bonds and create ions.
The longer wavelengths, the individual quanta of energy are not energetic enough to break chemical bonds, to break atomic bonds.
However, the difference is artificial.
It's artificial for two reasons.
One is that when we are receiving electromagnetic radiation, we're not just receiving one quantum at a time.
And if an atom or a molecule gets bombarded with four, five, six,
at the same time, it can break a bond and create an ion.
So the difference between non-ionizing radiation and the cutoff point is not precise.
The difference, the reason that they make such a distinction medically is because it is believed that the ionization of the ion is not precise.
The difference, the reason that they make such a distinction medically is because it is believed that most cancer is caused by ionizing radiation
or that a lot of cancer is caused by ionizing radiation and that breaking, causing ionization in DNA
is supposed to cause mutations and cancer is supposed to be caused by mutations in DNA, whether it's caused by chemicals or whether it's caused by ionizing radiation.
That is controversial.
There was a scientist called Otto Warburg.
Warburg is a German in the early part of the 20th century who said cancer is caused by oxygen starvation
and that when you starve cells of oxygen, they revert to anaerobic metabolism and they become cancerous.
And his hypothesis is actually used in diagnosing cancer today, that you do a scan of the body, a PET scan,
and you find locations of anaerobic metabolism and they are going to be cancer cells.
So it is known that cancer does thrive on anaerobic metabolism and there have also been experiments by Dr. Becker and some predecessors of his
where if you supply cells, cancer cells, with sufficient connections, nerve connections or sufficient amounts of oxygen, they can re-differentiate and become normal cells.
So the idea that cancer, strictly a mutation of DNA, is almost certainly not correct.
And that will make the division between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation artificial and relatively meaningless.
Yeah. Anyway, we used to have badges in radiology to measure the radiation that we were exposed to.
We had lead coats when we were performing procedures when we were exposed to x-rays as a radiologist.
Not for the patient, but the patient was allowed to receive any amount of radiation to achieve a diagnosis.
It could always be justified if you hadn't got a satisfactory diagnosis. So diagnosis is everything in medicine.
And when in this Covid nonsense that's been going on for in the past three years, that was the one thing, there was a complete failure of diagnosis as far as I'm concerned.
So they were diagnosing in inverted commas with a test which should never have been used for that purpose.
And as the inventor of the PCR technique had said, Kerry Mullis.
But also there was no symptom which was pathognomonic for Covid-19.
And I've been very suspicious about this term long Covid that's being put about by people generally and by doctors thinking long, how can there be long Covid when there is no Covid?
And also how could three quarters of the people with long Covid test negative for Covid? It makes no sense.
Yeah, but also there was, you know, this long Covid term popped up from nowhere and everybody jumped on the bandwagon.
It was almost like the start of the Ukraine War, you know, within a week in the United Kingdom.
I don't know about where you are in New Mexico.
There were flags of Ukraine in gardens when you never see a British flag.
I've never seen anything like it.
And people were being invited to invite a Ukrainian refugee into their homes, you know, and they'd be paid by the government.
So but this long Covid thing, it seemed remarkably similar to me.
Everybody suddenly had long Covid, you know.
And everybody was using 5G telephones.
The difference, the biggest difference between 5G and 4G is what is called phase arrays.
That 5G antennas and also 5G mobile phones have the mobile phones have dozens of little tiny millimeter size antennas in them.
And the mobile phone masks that are 5G, the cell towers, have hundreds or thousands of tiny millimeter size antennas that coordinate the direction of their radiation.
They interfere with one another constructively and destructively to aim pencil like narrow beams at 5G devices.
So if you are operating a 5G phone, you're being targeted by the 5G that they will track your phone and follow you.
And by the time the beam gets to you, it depends on how far you are from the tower, it encircles you and anybody that's standing next to you.
And you're getting a lot more radiation, not because 5G is inherently more harmful radiation.
It's the same radiation, but it is targeting folks that have 5G devices, which is increasingly everybody.
And that's the biggest problem with 5G.
So what about if you have a 4G device then?
The 5G mask does not fight you.
Oh, well, I'll stay with my 4G phone then.
So you're not safe with a 4G phone, are you?
No, it's still irradiating the heck out of you.
It's like your phone is your own biggest source of radiation, much more than the masks.
Until 5G.
So say that again.
What's the relative risk from the phone to the 5G masks?
In your opinion?
They're both harmful and the phone controls the best.
The phone requires the best to emit radiation.
So you can't have one without the other.
So when I've been talking on the mobile phone for an hour, say, about sorting out some arguments or whatever,
and I feel a bit sick-headed, is that consistent with what you'd expect?
Absolutely, yes.
And the problem is, the more basic problem is there are no paid sensors in the phone.
There are no pain sensors.
There's no pain nerves in your brain.
So there are brain cells being destroyed and you can't feel that that's happening.
What you feel is the pain sensors on the surface of your brain and on your head,
but you don't feel what's going on inside of your brain.
So I think what would be most helpful to people personally in this group,
but also to people watching these videos afterwards, and there may be, I don't know how many there are of those,
because the people in this group have a lot of connections.
So I don't know myself, we can't quantify the reach of it.
But so I think what they would really like to hear, emphasized by you, Arthur, is
so you've got these 5G towers.
So Mark Steele is talking about the 5G towers.
You're talking about cell phones.
I've been saying from a doctor's point of view that these cell phones are a vehicle of addiction, if you like,
and any other addiction which afflicted so many people to such an extent around the world
so that they can't even talk to their friends when they're sitting at a table,
they're all looking at their mobile phones, would be treated very seriously indeed.
And particularly doctors should be calling this out.
But also it's the vehicle for social media.
And that is very dangerous too for a different reason.
In my view, it leads to conformity and a wish to be, you know,
in young people in particular, to be popular in inverted commas.
And it actually encourages that, you know, with all the likes and the hearts and all this nonsense.
It actually puts people, the radiation itself is trans-inducing.
So you've got to...
I know a psychologist that showed that 25 years ago.
He put people in front of... this wasn't even a mobile phone.
He put people in front of a computer screen and their brainwaves would resemble a trance state.
Exactly. Yeah.
Well, they look as though they're in a trance, even when they're not on their phones.
So I'm...
The trouble is I can't actually work it out.
So there are lots of things going on.
So people were, you know, they thought there was a pandemic.
They still think that there was a pandemic.
I don't think there was a pandemic.
I think the whole notion of deadly viral pandemics is a construct of our enemies.
And it's a Trojan horse.
So the COVID thing was a Trojan horse to achieve global totalitarianism.
There are now other Trojan horses becoming apparent, such as the Ukraine War, climate change, and the trans agenda,
which in my opinion is attack on the family, on anything that makes people happy, human beings happy.
They don't want us to be connected to each other.
They don't want to. They want us to be fighting within our families.
They want us to be fighting with our friends so that we're isolated and weak and to induce at all costs a state of fear,
which on its own and particularly when people are isolated, is going to kill people because they lose the will to live.
And I, preserving people, I don't hear much laughter these days.
I come to this as an environmentalist.
I don't involve myself in politics.
I see, I've been researching this subject of radiation since about 1981.
I wrote my first paper on it for my attending physician medical school of what I was in my third year.
You study medicine? So did you study medicine?
I studied medicine, yes. I went to medical school.
Did you actually qualify or not for whatever reason? It doesn't matter. You don't need to tell us.
I was injured by x-rays.
Oh yes, you told, yes I saw. What do you mean by that?
I had dental work that required, it didn't work.
I had a root canal and destroyed my body and I had it done over and over and over.
I had 40 or 50 x-rays during the course of the summer and that injured me.
And one day I was sitting in the dentist chair and I felt an electric current.
He turned on the x-ray machine. I felt an electric current go through my body from head to toe.
The next morning when I went into the hospital to be on rounds, I felt electricity in my body.
When I went near any electrical appliance to the hospital and I stuck it out for another year.
I finished my third year out of four and one day I collapsed with all the symptoms of a heart attack.
I was a medical student, yes. I was a third year medical student.
I realized at that point that if I tried to finish my MD that it would kill me.
So I left school. That was 1982, February of 1982 I left school.
And you never thought of going back?
That's a complicated subject. At this point...
It's okay, don't worry.
What I'm doing is so important that I could not waste time going back.
I'm 73 now.
So a lot of people...
I studied alternative healing modalities and I became a self-taught practitioner.
I became a practitioner of the Rubenfeld Synergy Method and I had quiet cell for a while.
And then the wireless revolution came in 1996 to the United States.
I had to quit everything that I was doing and oppose it.
So I can put you in touch with Mark Steele, Arthur.
I think you'd find it very interesting and I think he would too.
But I'm still confused in my mind and I think other people are.
So what would you advise people to do?
Dispense with their smartphones or with their mobile phones or what?
I know you said there's no safe level.
That was true of X-Ray.
If you want to use a mobile phone, even once, all the mobile phone masks in the world have to be there for you.
You can't have part of this technology.
You have to get rid of all of it.
And it's such a global emergency that yes, we are starting to tell people, throw away your cell phone.
And we're going to form a network of groups around the world that will do this and spread the word and make it socially and professionally possible to do this.
Right now it's almost impossible.
We have to make it possible for that to happen.
So, Arthur, can I ask you this?
Why were the British government saying that they were going to have China start the 5G program in the UK?
And then there were a lot of voices. Was that just a play for the people?
You know, while Brexit was going on, it was 2019, I think, China, they decided that China was going to do it.
And then they changed their minds and said, no, China is not going to do it.
But it almost doesn't matter who does it. It's still killing us. It has to stop.
Correct. So that was a manufactured argument, possibly, to kind of distract people from the real.
So the argument, I think, against China doing it was, you know, that we can't allow our potential enemy of the future to install 5G.
And I was thinking, well, hang on a minute. Why is it so important?
Well, one reason they did not want China doing it is because it's a tool of surveillance.
They did not want a potential enemy having charge of this surveillance tool.
Or was it to, was that whole argument to, actually a false argument to distract attention away from the risk of these 5G towers?
But you say that actually the 4G towers are just as bad. Is that correct?
That's correct, yes.
So, Stephen, we've got a lot of hands up.
Well, hang me. I still haven't got to the bottom of it, Charles. So there's no point.
So, unless you understand it, maybe you can explain it to us, Charles.
What do you want to get to the bottom of?
So we're told that the 5G is a big risk by Mark. Now, Arthur is saying, well, 5G, 4G is just as bad.
Yeah, that's clear.
Can you explain it?
I don't need to explain it.
Well, no, that's why we're trying to question Arthur, because we've got an expert on this.
We want to find out as much as we can. So I just wanted to try. I still don't know. I don't understand.
Well, I suppose you could have different views from Mark Steele, but I still don't understand what the relative risk is.
A lot of people woke up because of 5G. That 5G is giving us a lot more antennas, first of all.
They're closer to where people live. And of course, that makes them more dangerous. You can't get away from them anymore.
But people that were complacent about having a mobile phone that did not think or even suspect that it was harmful, all of a sudden people are waking up.
Oh, wait a minute. I'm seeing an antenna outside my bedroom window. What is that?
Exactly.
Oh, it's 5G. Let's oppose 5G. But the problem with that is people think that the mobile phone basically is a good instrument.
They like it. They're addicted to it. They're dependent on it. They don't want to get rid of it.
So 5G has become a scapegoat, but it will not solve the problem if they get rid of 5G.
The other reason it will not solve the problem is the whole reason for 5G is because of the development and evolution of wireless technology.
People are using it for more and more things with more and more devices. They want faster and faster service with more and more bandwidth so they could do more and more things on their websites.
Everybody wants more and more and more. You can't have that without more and more antennas using more and more bandwidth with this new technology.
And this is why they're launching thousands of satellites in the sky so people will be able to stream video in the middle of the wilderness.
It's like it's what people have become addicted to. It's crazy. It's driving the technology. It's making this industry the most profitable industry on the planet.
We have to stop the demand. If we do not stop the demand.
Stop the what did you say Arthur?
What did you ask? Stop the what did you say? If we do not stop the demand.
We are all demanding it by using our cell phones. We're demanding more and more spectrum, faster and faster with more and more bandwidth.
I was just going to say I was very suspicious of the way that every month in the UK it seemed to be the case that BT Broadband, you know, they were saying, oh, you need this and you need this new way, you know, because it's faster.
And I was thinking, well, hang on, it's fast enough as it is, you know, why do we need it?
It's all marketing. It's all marketing. It's all buddy. It's all sales. It's all they want more and more of it.
So it was it more than that? Did they want to depopulate the world?
You know, no, they don't. Okay.
Well, okay. So I would say that yes, there is an overpopulation problem, but that's not what's going on.
Okay. Well, the globalists, there are some people who think that the globalists want to depopulate the world.
But I finished now, but but I think that these mobile phones and the social media, which are on the mobile phones, these are these are really there at least two different dangers there, especially to young people, but even to adults, you know,
and this is why people can't think these days. In my view, they they they're brainwashed. If you're a lack of a better word.
A large part of the inability to think is purely the radiation.
All right. It's being blamed. It's being blamed on all these other factors because nobody wants to think about the radiation.
Yeah, well, I've been trying to talk about mobile phones on this group, Arthur. So that and I agree with you.
There is a reluctance even in this group to talk about the dangers of mobile phones. They want to talk about all the other dangers, but they don't want to talk about their mobile phone being dangerous.
So anyway, thank you so much for answering the questions and being so patient.
So Janet is a medical doctor in the UK and she actually introduced me to you. I think she gave me your email address. I can't quite remember that, but you may have introduced me as well.
So but anyway, she's a medical doctor. She's got some she's the next question. Is that all right?
Yes, anybody.
Charles, you can go.
Yeah, so.
Yeah, thank you. And yes, I read your book sometime ago, Arthur.
And I was intrigued by some of the conclusions that you came to regarding increasing electrification and the incidence of flu epidemics. I thought that was quite interesting.
And also the way you described the fact that it hadn't been proven experimentally that flu could be contagious, could be passed from an infected person to a non-infected person.
That's my first question, whether you could verify how you came to the conclusion that electrification was connected to flu.
And the other is a bit of a nice moving thought, but I remember having correspondence with yourself about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and your you had quite strong views about burning fossil fuels and the effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
And the fact that it couldn't be ameliorated by increasing levels of vegetation.
So I was wondering whether you could address those two issues, the connection of electrification, increasing electrification and flu and also fossil fuels and carbon dioxide and the effect on the atmosphere.
Thank you.
I will try.
There are two, almost three chapters in my book about influenza.
Influenza.
First of all, there are no studies that have ever showed that influenza is contagious between human beings.
There were efforts during the 1918 Spanish influenza to prove that it was contagious and they all failed.
There were several studies involving several hundred individuals, volunteers, normal, healthy volunteers that went into hospital.
And they paired them with sick influenza patients and they took secretions, mucous secretions from the sick and sometimes dying influenza patients from their noses, from their throats,
from their mouths and they transferred them to the eyes, nose and throat of normal healthy volunteers.
But at the end of time, none of them ever got sick.
None of the healthy people got sick from this contaminated stuff from the dying influenza patients.
They took blood from the influenza patients and injected it into normal healthy volunteers.
They had, they wanted to see if they could transfer the disease in the normal way by having healthy volunteers stand nose to nose next to the influenza patients and talk for five minutes
and then the influenza patient would cough directly into the face of the healthy volunteer.
Nobody ever got sick from this.
There was one study that had a hundred volunteers.
None of them ever got sick.
They tried the same thing with horses because horses had influenza during the 1918 flu epidemic.
Actually, this was in 1917.
The horses, this has happened throughout human history that horses and other animals get influenza before human beings do.
They were unsuccessful in transferring influenza from sick horses to healthy ones.
The other thing that happened, amazing thing that happened, is that influenza became suddenly a yearly disease.
It happened every fall and winter.
This happened in the year 1889, which was the year when alternating current electricity spread rapidly throughout the entire world.
Before that, influenza came every number of years, every number of decades.
Influenza spread all around the world to remotest parts of Africa where it had never been seen before.
There were people in the United States and the UK who were inundated with influenza in 1889 that had never seen a case of the disease before
because it was not a yearly annual disease.
But from then on until today, because of alternating current and then because of radio waves, which started in World War I and triggered
the spread of civil defense radars rapidly around the world.
And in 1968, the beginning of communication satellites, military constellations of communication satellites, were the big influenza epidemics of the 20th century.
And the correlation and the failure of researchers to transfer the disease in the presumed contagion method did not work.
So there's a lot more detail in my book. There's a lot of references. There's a huge bibliography about it.
And this is important today because in the last two, three years, birds of all sorts have been dying en masse.
They've been devastated all over the world for no reason.
And they're calling it avian influenza, calling it bird flu.
And I did some research into it. I published a couple of newsletters about it where I discovered there were seabirds that were in the air.
I published a couple of newsletters about it where I discovered there were seabirds that fire colonies were being wiped out.
And when I checked into it, lo and behold, there were brand new dozens of new 4G antennas on cell towers adjoining or even within these bird sanctuaries.
And they were added just before, almost exactly at the time where the birds started dying.
And everybody's blaming this on bird flu, whereas it's never been even demonstrated.
But yes, you can find an influenza virus in people that are sick with influenza. What is the function of the influenza virus?
We do not know. It's never been proven that that's the vector that transfers it between humans, between horses, between birds.
It's never been proven.
Janet?
Oh, the other question.
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, the other question was about, and it was a little bit of a nice one, about fossil fuels because I remember discussing with yourself and you felt that,
because we've had a lot of discussions in this group about climate change and CO2 and so on.
But you, I think you were quite clear that you felt that burning fossil fuels producing CO2 was actually causing harm.
Well, yes, right, right now, the average temperature of the entire world is hotter than it's ever been in recorded history.
And we've elevated the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Pre-industrial was between 190 and 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Now it's over 420 in a century, actually in a matter of decades, because most of this happened after World War II and is still accelerating.
The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have never risen so amazingly quickly in all of the history of the planet.
It takes centuries, it takes millennia for carbon dioxide to change that drastically.
We've done it in a microsecond of history and it has consequences.
There were scientists, but they are radius in 1895, I think is the first one that actually calculated how much the increase in carbon dioxide from fossil fuels was going to raise the temperature of the Earth.
But basically this was talked about since the 1830s.
And the consensus is that without any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the average temperature of the Earth would be zero degrees Fahrenheit.
And today it's upwards of 59 degrees Fahrenheit.
And this summer it's been over 62 degrees Fahrenheit.
This is entirely due to the carbon dioxide.
The reason that Venus, the planet Venus, surface temperature of Venus is over 700 degrees.
It's because the atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.
It has enormous consequences.
Yes, we could plant vegetation to take some of the carbon dioxide out and put oxygen back, which by the way I'm almost more concerned about than the increase in carbon dioxide.
Because for every molecule of carbon dioxide that is added to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, 1.4 molecules of oxygen are destroyed and pretty much permanently destroyed.
So we are actually reducing the oxygen content of our atmosphere and very few people are paying attention to that.
Arthur, just to clarify.
The other problem is that vegetation is being destroyed much faster on the planet than it's being replanted.
So Arthur, just to clarify.
So you believe in this net zero stuff do you?
And are you aware that the World Health Organization, none of whom the people on this, sorry, which is not trusted by more or less everybody on this call.
They want to save the human species from the climate change stuff that you're warning of.
What do you think of that? What do you think? Why would the World Health Organization be talking first about pandemics and then climate change?
Well, like I said, I don't get into politics. I don't get into who's trying to do what.
I just I'm a scientist.
I see.
But I agree with you that there was no pandemic.
I agree with you.
Masks are crazy for killing people.
Vaccines are killing people.
Yes, fossil fuel burning, fossilized carbon has to stay in the ground because the reason that we have any oxygen in our atmosphere,
because those old fossils of ancient plants and animals got buried instead of being reoxidized.
That's the reason we can breathe. It has to stay down there.
The solutions that they are pushing are just as bad or worse.
They want to electrify the planet and that is going to produce.
They want to electrify cars. They want to build solar cells all over the place.
They want to build solar farms and wind farms.
They're putting wind farms all over the oceans and they're killing birds and wildlife and marine life.
And they're adding to the electrocution of us all. It's not just radio frequency radiation.
Any electromagnetic fields are not compatible, artificial electromagnetic fields are not compatible with life.
And the more and more of it that we put out there, it's counterproductive.
They're going to kill our planet trying to save it.
So we need better solutions. But yes, we have to stop burning fossil fuels.
All right. So we got another question.
So I just want to ask this question, Arthur.
So if you believe, as I do, that there was no pandemic, that means that as I was arguing in March 2020,
no measures were necessary to contain this nonlethal disease, so-called disease.
My conclusion is that there was a lethal disease. There was a virus.
It was released accidentally from the laboratory in Wuhan, China, but by itself, it was not lethal.
It reduced oxygen in the body by attacking the lungs and maybe the blood cells.
But the combination with 5G, and this is where, yes, 5G was worse than its predecessor,
and it coincided with the release of this virus, radiofrequency radiation also starved the body of oxygen.
So the virus plus the RF was lethal.
But I just wanted to make the simple point that it was obvious that the response to the so-called pandemic,
which wasn't a pandemic, was a global response.
There was no way in the world that countries have ever agreed on one thing, especially on something so important.
Absolutely. And they made the problem much, much worse by installing antennas all over the place,
commanding people to work from home, getting people more and more addicted to their wireless devices.
And that is what killed so many people.
Correct. But the point I'm trying to make, you say you're not interested in politics,
but it looked like a political conspiracy to put a stop to everything that we valued in our world.
I don't get it's a conspiracy theory.
What they put was a conspiracy.
Okay, Stephen, come on, we've got questions.
Yes, okay. Peter.
Thank you, Charles. I was about I was typing to you now to say I think most of my points are being covered by Stephen
lead them out of our speaker and I think others are feeling the same.
I just wanted to cover really, Arthur, thank you so much for joining us and covering so many points.
As I say, you've covered most of them now.
I've got a couple of notes here. As you're probably aware, doctors in Hamburg actually went against protocol in early 2020.
And they conducted autopsies and they found hypoxia, something you just got on now.
The fact that the blood had been affected by an outside influence.
They linked it as did, I believe, Janet, who is an expert on this as well,
that it was the 5G microwave at a higher level than 4G that was that was causing a high box hypoxia and stopping oxygenation of the blood,
which would tie in with the fact that there was a frenzy for having what they called oxygen machines to pump oxygen into the body.
And that didn't work. And it actually killed people, especially in New York.
So during lockdown, I think we're all aware and Stephen touched on this as well, that the only people that moved during lockdown was BT, BT vans on every corner.
And every morning, magically, a 5G tower was erected on nearly every street corner.
So I think we're all quite happy that there is a correlation between the blood being affected, maybe COVID, long COVID, 5G and the spectrum.
5G came to New York City a couple of weeks before that epidemic broke out in New York City.
5G came to Wuhan, China a couple of weeks before the first COVID cases were diagnosed.
5G came to that cruise ship. What was it called?
The Diamond Princess.
Yeah, yeah. The Diamond Princess had 5G on board.
And you also had Italy was a test bed center 5G and especially Belgium.
And Belgium was hit hardest of all with COVID at the very beginning.
I put my notes away now.
But basically, I think we know that there is a correlation.
And you covered again the 1918-19 Spanish flu, which correlated with masks being put up and electromagnetic frequency or radio waves being pumped out.
And the irony about it, nobody had money at that time, but everybody ended up with a radio set, a very expensive radio set in their house.
The US government actually made sure that people could listen to the radio, whether that was fear peddling or wanting to get them used to the new electromagnetic frequency.
I don't know. And I do believe personally that the lockdowns were and we were allowed one hour a day out of our houses.
So we had the windows closed, go out for one hour a day exercise with the police actually booking people for sitting on a park bench and having a coffee.
One of our members actually was taken to court for that.
And I think that was to get us used to 5G being switched on.
So my question to you more than anything, I think you've alluded to the fact that you don't do conspiracies.
But I must ask you this. Now that we know it affects oxygenation, hypoxia of the blood, and it's not a force of good.
Do you feel, as does Dr. Barry Trower of the Royal Navy, that directed weapons using the 5G system could be used to kill people,
to kill and shame people or make them collapse in the street like they did in Wuhan, like they have done in many concerts?
There are millimeter wave weapons being used by militaries that is not the same technology as 5G.
It is about a thousand times more powerful than 5G.
There are other differences. It doesn't carry the same modulation. It's a different technology.
Well, I must disagree with you there. The systems that they put in, we know they can go up to 90 gigahertz.
The systems in Britain being put in can go up to 300. They can handle up to 300 gigahertz.
It's not just the frequency. Yes, if you amp up the beams that are put out by 5G towers thousandfold,
then they become those kinds of weapons, but they don't have that kind of energy behind them.
One was developed for a weapon and one was developed for communication.
I'm an electrical engineer originally and I worked down the mines and we had cables, obviously six inch thick, carrying really high power.
Now I see the cables going up to the top of those 5G masts as do everybody else here.
They are carrying pretty, pretty thick copper cable and they carry a lot of power, much, much more.
Is it about 10,000 times more power than 4G? I say they have the ability to do that.
It's actually less power, but the effect of the EIRP, the effect of isotropic radiated power,
is much greater because all of the power is concentrated in a narrowly focused beam.
I understand. And even then, that beam is much less powerful than what they use for crowd control.
I was in the police as well and I know about the directed weapons, especially that were used during lockdown in Australia, which has been well covered.
But again, I'll refer you back to the fact that when you looked at a 4G mast, they didn't have the big black cables going up there.
The three inch and four inch cables going up there.
And I think it's well documented that the grid cannot cope with the new 5G installations, let alone the electric cars at the moment.
Something is certainly afoot with this, and I don't think it's positive, Arthur.
And I think it needs looking into by experts like you with not a conspiracy hat on, but with a realistic hat that these people are not good people.
I think we know that.
Well, I didn't say they are.
And as I say to you, I think we all know. Look, just look at the 5G mast. Look at the sort of power plant, the electricity.
Most of the 5G masts are tidy. They're very small. It could stick you with its head on top of utility poles.
They're not large towers.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's totally different in Britain.
They are massive and the cables going up there are huge and they are taking much, much more power.
You've only got to go near. I've recorded near to them and I've presented.
The large antennas are using longer wavelengths.
The crowd control technology and the directed weaponry use millimeter wave technology and those antennas are small.
Right. I agree with you. They go on the top of cars. I agree with you.
But you look at the 5G masts that are being put up in Britain at the moment. I don't know what it's like in Australia and other countries, but they are certainly not small, Arthur.
Certainly not.
They are using longer wavelengths. They have technology. They are calling it 5G and they use 700 megahertz and they're long wavelengths and they're larger antennas.
5G is partially a marketing term. It's not all the same.
Right. Okay. Yep. Thank you, Arthur. Thank you, Charles.
Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Mikey from Netherlands. Welcome. Is this your first time here? First time I've seen you.
Yeah, it's the second time I was also with Christine Anderson. I was there. I just met her last week in Brussels, by the way.
But yes, I have a question for Arthur. I arrived a little bit late, but I still thought it was an excellent presentation. Thank you so much.
It's something I need to know much more about. Like in the Netherlands, 5G is also very big and it's amazed me how just everywhere in the Netherlands there is 5G and also in the rest of the world.
And that they secretly just in the lockdown put it everywhere.
I thought it was just... Is it really true, Arthur, that it is like in every country this 5G and how could they do it?
Because like in Europe, they have regulations like the environmental assessment procedures.
Like you need to test everything, especially birds. You have the birds directive. It's very bad for birds. How could they just do this?
And nobody complained and nobody making the fuss about birds because I don't... The habitat directive.
Like I've been doing this work for years. Like I'm completely stunned. How could this happen? I can't figure it out.
Do you have any clue? Because it's the same thing, of course, in the US, in the UK, you all have these environmental regulations, which are quite stringent on...
I think at bottom, it's because everybody's attached to their phones.
Okay.
That's the driving force.
Okay, because that's a good point. But still...
But I thought it is like...
It's like really intense. Like when you have like maps in the Netherlands, you can see how many are them.
It's just like the whole of the Netherlands is like drenched in 5G towers.
And the population density is very high. It's much higher than it is in the United States.
So the density of attendance has to be very high in order to provide the service to everybody.
Yeah. Well, I think that the Netherlands will be a testing ground for this public surveillance story.
Because I think what they did in the very close to where I live, they're building really big...
Like these places for...
Let me stop you.
Everybody is talking conspiracy, but nobody is exempt. The whole planet is being irradiated.
Even the people that you think are planning all this, they're not going to live through this.
They're going to die just like you and me. It has to stop.
And it has to stop from the bottom up, because the up, the people in charge are not going to stop it.
We the people have to stop it.
Yeah, I completely agree. I think it's very powerful.
It's very powerful what you say. And I completely agree.
And it's not simple, because it's just that we have been lured into this and everybody is very happy with the iPhone.
And also it's like a toy for grownups as well. It will be very difficult for people.
It's the greatest evil, in my opinion. The combination of mobile phones and social media breaks social bonds.
They want to destroy human connections. They want to destroy humanity. These are anti-human forces.
I completely agree.
And there was a global coup d'etat in March 2020.
Sure, I agree on that as well. It's very obvious. Also, like with this 5G, it was coordinated.
It's very obvious that it was coordinated. And if anybody knows who is coordinating it,
like what organizations are involved, like giving the instructions, please tell me, because I want to know.
I'll put it to chat.
The World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the World Health Organization. Have a look at them to start with.
Yeah, well, I have in the Netherlands.
The Dutch government, the British government, the US government, the US military.
They've all committed treason. All around the world there's been treason and particularly in Western Asia.
Come on, come on, come on. We've got to go. Come on. We're running out of time.
Okay, Micah. Thank you.
We'll put two charts that will be useful for you that Stephen's talking about. Beverly.
Thank you, Arthur, for your talk. Whereas I don't agree with your conclusions,
because I think it's frankly impractical to ask people to ditch their cell phones at this stage.
I really appreciate you drawing attention to the organizing principle of life on Earth,
which is electromagnetic and how something as rampant as 5G,
which would totally terraform our planet into a different electromagnetic environment,
could be executed without even an environmental assessment report.
That's what's happening. And I'd like to also say that if...
Well, there's a bill in the US Congress right now to exempt all wireless facilities from the National Environmental Policy Act.
Yes. Well, that's been on the books in the United States since 1969.
I'm surprised we never had that review already with the way wireless has transformed our environment, even before 5G.
But to get back to the science, I'm a biophysicist.
I've been looking at the human energy field for about 30 years.
And most recently, I've been looking at the adverse effects.
Is this Beverly Rubik?
Yes.
Okay. I know who you are.
Okay. I've been looking at the effects of 4G and 5G.
And I know that cell phones are the most ubiquitous device that maybe there are 7 billion of them now worldwide,
even in areas that don't have landlines.
But I've also found looking at the blood as well as well as the biofield that the wireless router,
and that would include even the fiber optics router, because most of them,
at least in the United States, are still emitting wireless and you cannot turn it off.
I looked into this. You cannot turn it off, even if you want wires, which we should use.
This thing is still blasting you and it's much stronger power density than cell phones.
And so we have to be aware of that as well.
So if we switch to wired, that the wireless, the so-called fiber optic router is not just giving us wires.
It's giving us microwave emissions and that cannot be turned off, at least not the AT&T variety in the United States.
I don't know about elsewhere, but that's enough of a problem.
And I also want to say that away from the science, if we looked at how much do we need,
how much radiation over background do we need to run cell phones?
It's only about 10,000 times above the background microwave radiation, which is essentially nil.
There's nothing in the natural microwaves coming, reaching the earth.
But we have guidelines in the United States and Canada and a little bit less in other countries
that are trillions of times above the natural background.
That's a problem. That huge allowance. And that is not consumer demand.
That is the military industrial complex and the surveillance control state.
It is consumer demand because we have 15 billion cell phones in the world, all watching the street videos
and do equally broadband intensive tasks.
Well, I would say that we cannot, it cannot be done at the kinds of extremely low power levels that you're talking about anymore.
I think that's the story that they're telling the consumers so that we buy it.
The average cell tower serves over a thousand customers.
You can't have a thousand people on their phones without it, without having a thousand times the radiation of one phone.
Well, it's bigger than that. You have the routers, you have the antennas, you have the Internet of Things.
But each phone turns on a signal at a frequency band in the cell tower.
So the cell tower is operating at much greater power when a thousand people are using it than when one person is using it.
Okay. I'm not going to beg the question, but I do believe that the guidelines,
which are set for a hundred trillion times above the natural background, is completely unreasonable.
For cell phones, we would require a background, a 10,000 fold over the natural background.
I've calculated it. You can read it in a paper that I wrote.
The power level is not the important factor.
Yes, but you know, the millimeter waves of 5G can't really be used for cell phones because they don't travel through water, through foliage, through building materials.
So what is it really all about to extend the spectrum to 95 gigahertz or more when from 10 gigahertz up it's pretty useless?
The reason that they're using the very high frequencies is because there is much greater bandwidth available.
If you want to have 5 gigahertz bands, you have to use 90, 100 gigahertz frequencies.
And when you use that much bandwidth per device, then each individual antenna, each individual bass cannot serve as many people as they can.
When you have just voice, you could have a thousand people on a cell tower.
When you have internet and streaming video and all this demand and huge amounts of bandwidth, they're putting up these tiny antennas that serve 20, 30, 40 people at a time.
So they have to have lots and lots of them.
Well, that means a lot of antennas close to the home because the millimeter waves don't travel that far.
They travel hundreds of kilometers from the earth to the satellites.
It's just that there's no obstacles in the way.
Where they have it on the street, yes, they're blocked by trees and houses.
Okay. But the final thing I want to say is that the copper wire landlines are going bye-bye.
And we're forced to move on to voice.
Can you let me talk, please, and then address my statements?
And then we're forced to deal with voice over internet protocol because where I live in California, I'm already told in my laboratory that the copper line is going.
I don't want any wireless in my lab.
I look at subtle energies and the influence on organisms, including humans.
That's the last thing I need is wireless.
But I need a telephone and I don't want to use my cell phone there.
I want my landline, but it's being phased out.
Even then, I'm paying $200 a month for a landline, which is a ridiculous sum that rose precipitously since the COVID pandemic in the last few years because they want to phase people out of landlines.
Whereas the voice over internet protocol and the cell phone costs today are much less, at least the monthly fees.
So you see, they're driving us away from the landlines.
So what solution can you offer people?
It seems to me we're stuck dealing with the VoIP or the cell phone.
Are you working to preserve the copper lines?
This is exactly why people have to throw away their cell phones because as long as people are willing to use their cell phones, there's so much less demand for the landlines.
When people on mass start getting rid of their cell phones and demanding of these companies to provide them with landline service, it will suddenly be profitable to do it again.
It's not anymore.
Well, I don't think they're going to go back to it.
They say they're not going to maintain it, that rodents are chewing the wires, which I find hard to believe.
But they have all kinds of crazy excuses and they are going to be gone in about a year where I live.
And so then we are not going to have a planet to live on and we will all be dead.
Well, I have a feeling that life is a little more resilient than that.
But we're going to see we're already seeing changes in people already productive.
Everybody is already having diabetes and heart disease.
We are not more resilient.
We are pretending that we are and we are not.
And all the rest of creation, all the birds and the animals, the babbles of the forest, the fishes will vanish and we will not have a planet to live on.
What's the point?
Well, here's another thing we could do.
I know there's a certain amount of money that goes into looking at the dire adverse effects of wireless communication radiation.
It's really a scanty amount that the industry provides or the government provides.
But we could put we could ask demand for funding to find the beneficial frequencies for life and build a technology around that.
And I know that these frequencies exist because I know people who worked on them, even though they've been in black ops for the most part.
I beg to disagree, but I don't want to argue the point.
So, Arthur, you don't think that the global coup d'etat of March 2020 was planned?
Yes, I think it was planned.
But I look at it more as a way for the pharmaceutical industry to make trillions of dollars.
I think that's really what's going on.
I don't think there's this plan, deliberate plan to kill us all, to depopulate the world.
They didn't say that.
So you don't think they're trying to control the world?
So the people of the...
Yes, the people that are in power are absolutely power hungry.
They want universal surveillance and they're making tons and tons and tons of money doing it.
Yes.
So which of those is more important to these people, do you think?
I'm not sure I care because if they're that powerful that they could do anything they wish, then we've lost before we've even started.
And I'm unwilling to let this planet go to hell without a fight.
And I want people to join me in giving up their cell phones and asserting our power that we have as individuals who live properly.
We do have that power.
But it's not just about cell phones, Arthur. That's the point.
So I agree with you.
Well, we have to stop using plastics and we have to stop using pesticides and there's lots of other things.
So what they're trying to do...
You get the last questions where people with their hands up.
Come on, Beverly, have you finished?
Pretty much.
Wonderful.
We need to get you, Beverly, talking.
And the point I want to make before Tessa comes on and I'll be after Tessa because my hand keeps dropping down for some strange reason.
A conspiracy is an agreement to act between people for illegal purposes.
That's number one.
And I say that the conspiracy that's apparent to all is that this conversation is not happening in the public sphere.
Government will not debate the implications.
And Arthur has made the point.
So there is a clear conspiracy to not have certain things in the public debate.
Just look at it, everybody.
We know we're all suffering from it.
But the government are people.
They are people.
But they're conspiring, Arthur.
They're conspiring and breaching the U.S. Constitution.
They're not gods.
They don't know what they're doing.
They're human beings.
They have children.
They want a future on this planet just like I do it, just like you do.
Well, they have a certain belief that they're immune to certain things.
So, Tessa.
Hi, Arthur.
First of all, thank you for your great work.
I agree with you on many things.
I disagree with you also on a few.
And I'm just curious because you have a stance on geoengineering.
And I'm asking the question very peacefully because I am genuinely a fan of your work.
So you think that geoengineering does not exist to the extent that a lot of us think it exists, that it's an actual conspiracy theory.
So I would love to hear your opinion on that.
Yes, I think it's a fraud.
It has nothing to do – there is such a thing as geoengineering plans.
They want to spray sulfates in the stratosphere to combat global warming.
It's crazy.
It should not happen.
It is not happening.
There have been some localized experiments.
It is not happening.
Whatever they do, it is not going to cause lights in the sky like everybody is saying is geoengineering.
It has nothing to do with geoengineering.
It has nothing to do with weather modification, which also is occurring on a local basis.
But the lights in the sky that's airplane exhaust cannot be avoided.
It has happened since Wright Brothers invented airplanes.
It has nothing to do with geoengineering.
It has nothing to do with weather modification.
Well, I would love to see you in debate with Nikki Florio or one of the people who actually specifically experts on that,
because I personally believe that I see it with my own eyes and the thunder doesn't sound normal anymore and all those things,
the evidence of my senses and of my eyes.
And I mean, it's not – it would be a side conversation, so I don't want to take everybody's time.
But I would genuinely love to see you in debate with Nikki or somebody like that, because we all want the truth.
And in the end, whatever it is, we all want to know that.
Excellent. Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes.
Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Tessa.
Okay. Me next, then Jim and then Stephen.
And we're finishing in 25 minutes.
So thank you so much for your time.
Did I understand you correctly that if there's 100,000 satellites around the planet, it's still –
Right now, there's about 9,000.
Yes. So I've got the 9,000, but hundreds of thousands are planned.
So if I don't use my cell phone, am I still – so what's the reduced impact compared to the radiation from all the activity
and the usage of the satellites as the numbers keep increasing?
Do I still get the benefit of not using my cell phone?
The problem with the satellites is – the biggest problem that I see with the satellites is that they're being –
most of them presently are being launched by the world's second richest person, Elon Musk.
Because he's so wealthy, he could do anything he damn pleases and these satellites are not being regulated by anybody.
That's the problem.
Yep.
And he thinks that there's a demand for it, and there is a demand for it, but he's so wealthy that he doesn't even have to face reality
as to whether there's a demand for it or not.
The other hundreds of thousands are being slowly launched by all kinds of corporations and businesses in the world.
And it's always becoming – if you're a large enough business or a large enough corporation,
it's always becoming as mandatory to have satellites up there as have a mobile phone in your hands.
It's crazy. I don't know what to do about it.
I think we have control over whether we use mobile phones, which means we have control over the number of mobile phone masks out there,
but I do not see an easy way to stop the satellites.
I do what I can. I advocate what I can, and I think that's all I can do, and we have to do something.
Okay, well, raising it here is a wonderful step that you are taking.
Now, I would like Kathleen, your assistant, give you a little bit of a rest.
Kathleen Burke, to come and tell us what your experience has been like, Kathleen, giving away your cell phone.
Tell us, does that – you look like you've survived.
I have. Yeah, thank you for asking.
I won't take up a lot of time. I've put in the chat links to some writing that I've done about this,
so I would ask you to check there if you're curious about my life without a cell phone.
I've been one year now. I just returned from a trip in Europe, and sometimes I run into minor, small problems not having a cell phone, but I get over it.
These are all things that can be resolved, right?
One adjusts. I have learned how to live without a cell phone, but what's nice is my health has improved dramatically. That's what's really great.
When I gave up my phone, I did it slowly. I started to wean myself off, and after about a month of weaning, I was ready to put it down altogether,
because within that month of weaning, I began to feel the negative effects, physical feelings, the negative effects of the cell phone.
So I started to feel symptoms, particularly pain in my face coming from having my cell phone in front of me.
This is as I was weaning off of it. So now I'm one year out. My social life has remained the same. My friends still love me, and they can reach me via computer or via my landline phone at home.
My computer is also hardwired to the Ethernet, and I just can't complain. I can't say it's been hard.
I can't say it's caused me great difficulty to go without a cell phone, because it hasn't. If anything, it's made me happy, and it's given me confidence to know that I could make a change like this.
Thank you for asking. Thank you, Kathy, for sharing and the papers are in the chat. Now one benefit of no cell phone and this potential is that in Australia and other countries, I think in the US, but there's new legislation
proposed in Australia banning misinformation and disinformation. Of course, the politicians are exempt from this, but the plan is that anybody who publishes on the Internet disinformation will be subject to huge penalties.
Now this is outrageous censorship. We know that. But of course, if we have to talk to people via landlines or in meetings, there's certainly be nothing published on the Internet that people can be or that platform providers can be penalised for.
So it's an interesting possibility. All right, so let's go to Jim and then Stephen, and we're finishing in 20 minutes. Kathleen, thank you for that possibility. And the other thing I wanted to raise, just to observe that the different views of the people here are important.
And the opportunity that Arthur, the presenters, they come and say, what's the, you know, what are the people doing in these meetings? Is this just a talk fest? Not at all. Because if one person awakens from a conversation or progresses in their learning from the conversation that we have here, that's of value.
There are groups being formed left, right and centre that we some we know of, some we don't know. And three, we get amazing links to resources that would be difficult for us to find. So the cooperative learning that happens from Arthur's presentation, and then the differing views shared, I observe is of huge, huge value.
So just observe that. And then each one of you, as Buckminster Fuller said, you have to do what you see needs to be done. And that's what Arthur's doing. And I honour you, Arthur, for doing what you see needs to be done. Jim.
Thank you, Arthur. The SETI area in West Virginia, where they have, where it's radio free, where they don't have cell phone towers, where they don't have wireless.
Yes. Was there no COVID there? And do you have any documentation of that? That's the first question.
I have not looked into that.
Number two, the people who are running this quote, agenda, COVID agenda, the spike protein, you know, my specialty is a spike protein, the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein agenda, depopulation agenda, whatever it is, may be focused rather than random and the timing of the finances.
If, as you pointed out, this is going to harm if it's only wire, if it's only this one aspect, and I'm advocating that there may be multiple aspects, multiple shots on goal.
If there's only this wavelength aspect, then they may not be able to protect themselves, these elites or the people who are, who are designing this takedown of the world and may not be able to protect themselves.
Is there any way to protect themselves besides turning off their cell phones, which they seem to rely on their private jets and cell phones?
No, there is not any way to protect yourself from your own cell phone. And pretty soon, there will not be, or there is already almost not any way to protect yourself out of the world because there's so much ambient radiation.
And then I recently had my copper line removed forcibly. They said we no longer support it, and they cut it, and they put it through the voiceover IP. So that's on the East Coast as well as the West Coast of the United States.
Now, the issue of protecting themselves, these, I just wanted to give you a little bit of something. RFK recently came out and said there may be some racial specificity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and that should be looked into.
And that may be protective of the people who are possibly designing this SARS-CoV-2 spike protein pandemic or whatever. Do you have any, do you have any knowledge? Would you like some more information on the ratio of the possible racial specificity?
Do you understand what RFK addressed? And oh, I forgot my other question about is most specifically most important to you. When you had all your dental work, did you have panorexists done? Because the panorex has the highest amount of radiation.
These were ordinary x-rays, and they were done at 1880 before panorexists were done.
Okay, thank you. And then go back, going back to the racial specificity. Are you familiar with RFK just came out recently?
I have, I have that read it.
It's a two minute video clip or something and maybe we can provide that for you. Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Jim. Stephen, over to you. Last series of two.
I just want to ask Jim about, so Jim, you're a radiologist as I am. And I, so the racial specificity of the spike protein, you've been talking about that for ages and now RFK Jr. has joined, joined as far as I can understand.
I just don't understand it because it seems to me, Jimmy, you there? You're muted, Jim.
He's gone.
All right. Okay.
Yes, I'm sorry. I'm traveling a bit.
So it seems, so you're a doctor as well. So, so this is a serious question. I'm not having a go at you, because now you've got an ally in RFK Jr. It seems.
And I'm just mystified because I'm thinking to myself, well, you know, are you suggesting that there are some groups who are so racially pure that that question is important to ask?
Yes.
You mean that they take it. So, so there are some families who go to great lengths to Cape to keep the genetics intact. You're saying that?
Yes.
Right.
But our enemies, should we put it like that? They're not all from those families, are they?
The elites, there may be some commonalities in the ACE2 receptor, the X-linked ACE2 receptor. And I must stress that the ACE2 receptor is X-linked. It comes from the mother, of course.
And, and if you have an X chromosome share, and if you're a woman, it comes from your mother and your father. And this may explain quite a bit.
I'm not, I'm not saying that anybody with this ACE2 receptor is, is a co-conspirator. I'm not saying that, but I am suggesting that the people who designed the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, I mean, if there was certain people that they wanted to protect, this would be a good way of doing it.
And the question that the US government has been asking, who invented the COVID is the wrong question. The question is who invented the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in any form?
Vaccine.
I would say that the question is who invented the false narrative. So, Jim, you say that. I would say that the question to be asked is who invented the false narrative of global viral, sorry, deadly viral pandemics as a Trojan horse to push in global totalitarianism.
That's what I would say.
Okay, well, I mean, let's start just from the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and move backward. But the reason that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is so apparent right now is because of what RFK mentioned.
There is, there are four aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that are racially specific. The ACE2 receptor is just one of them. The furin cleavage site is one of them.
And the other is the MPRSS2 cleavage site, which is adjacent to the furin cleavage site. And without both of them cleaving, there's no activation of the GP120 HIV-like portion.
So, and that GP120 HIV-like portion is a co-receptor for CCR5 that is also genetically specific with a Delta 32 variant that is protective.
I mean, it is, it is the design of this SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is genius for racial specificity. Absolute genius.
And the way you design this is on a supercomputer. And there are supercomputers that can be used. The one that was designed.
So my narrative would be at the moment anyway, would be that no deadly viral pandemic is possible, whether created or not.
Well, hang on. Can I interrupt there and ask you, is there possibility for biological warfare?
I'm not sure that it's possible on the, on the, in the way that they're pushing.
Ken, let me ask you another question. Let me ask you another question.
Why, when people ask about Coxiella bernetti, which mimics the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein disease.
Why is that topic forbidden for discussion by our CDC, including Janet Woodcock?
Why does she not allowed discussion about that? And the reason is because the Coxiella bernetti is a bioterrorist is used by our intelligence agencies as a bioterrorist.
Okay, come on. We've got Arthur here for questions from Stephen and we're having a lot of conversation.
Thank you very much, Arthur. I appreciate your time and very intriguing prospects.
And it may be one of the multiple aspects of shots on goal on this pandemic. Thanks so much.
So, I can't see Arthur's, well, we never see him. Oh yes, he's still here.
Arthur, so thank you for speaking to us. I hope you don't mind that there are so many different views and that you welcome that maybe to test your ideas against all this.
We're trying to do our best. And I hope you feel that you've been well treated.
And I would like to put you in touch with Mark Steele, if I may.
I'd rather not actually.
Okay, do you know?
I've had multiple, indirect encounters with him.
Oh, I see. Sorry, I didn't realize that.
Well, but would you, so I don't get it. I don't, I can't claim to be an expert on 5G or anything you've talked about today, or most of what you talked about today.
So, can you say what it is that you don't accept about Mark? What do you think that he meant? Or would you rather not say anything?
Oh, I'd rather not.
Absolutely.
So,
so, in March 2020, our world was obviously attacked, it was shocking in my opinion straight away.
I knew from the 2009 swine flu pandemic, which had been found to be a fraud conducted by the World Health Organization, by no less than the Council of Europe, which is one of the main institutions of the, one of the seven institutions, I think, of the European Union.
And it was headed
by a doctor at the time, at least the health part of it. And he forced an investigation.
His name is Dr Wolfgang Wodarg. He forced an investigation by the European Union's Council of Europe into the swine flu pandemic fraud. It was a fraud, because the report which was released the initial report of June 2020, I can't find a final report.
I can't remember the exact word. It didn't say initial, but there's another word like that, interim maybe.
And said that the WHO and governments around the world had conspired to create the illusion of a pandemic. Those aren't the exact words, but essentially that's what he said.
And I think that the same thing happened with COVID. The whole concept of deadly viral pandemics is a fraud in my opinion, because we learned at medical school that a deadly virus, even if you believe in viruses, which many people don't now,
a deadly virus kills its host. So it's therefore impossible to create a pandemic, to have a pandemic, whether the virus, in inverted commas, is manmade or natural.
So I think that this was a medical fraud, a huge medical fraud to induce fear, because fear of death, there is nothing like fear of death to get people to do what you want.
So it was used as a Trojan horse. The other Trojan horses were, oh, have we lost? No, we haven't, no.
So the other Trojan horses, in my opinion, were the climate change. I know you don't agree with me on that. And also the Russia war.
And also the trans agenda and related issues regarding the family. Why do I think that? Well, they were all pushing, all these, those four things I've just mentioned, they were pushing propaganda and censorship for all of them.
And I think that the aim is still to impose global totalitarianism on us all. And I just wonder what you, whether you've thought about that. If you don't want to say anything, that's fine.
Well, the only thing that I will say is that everybody that owns a cell phone is participating because...
Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. I think the cell phone...
Everything that you do with your mobile phone is recorded somewhere and stored. It is the subject of surveillance, everything.
Absolutely. And yeah, so all the people in this group can't envisage a future without their mobile phone. I can actually, I'm sure I can manage without a mobile phone.
But on the other hand, I've kind of thought, well, how do we have these Zoom calls without... But I don't use it. I use a computer.
So...
But it does not have to be a wireless computer.
Pardon?
Does not have to be a wireless computer.
Yeah. So what kind of computer... I'm not really interested in this. But what I'd like to know is what kind of computer have I probably got? Broadband, I think. So what does that mean? That's wireless, isn't it?
You turn it off to wireless and you attach an Ethernet cable. There's no difference in how you use it. It's just the radiation.
Very good.
So, and I noticed that your secretary or assistant, she came on the call and could see her. So she is doing that from a computer, presumably.
Yes.
Obviously not a mobile. And she couldn't do it from a landline, presumably. Correct?
Well, it's a wired computer. It's a computer with an Ethernet cable.
Exactly. So that would be the only reason that I would need or think I might need a mobile phone. But the reality is that people don't think that... They're addicted to these mobile phones.
And just about everyone on this call is addicted. And addiction is not a good thing.
We learned that at medical school, you know, and I think the idea was to get people to addicted and then they've got these children on social media and their mobile phones.
And this is a nightmare for us human beings because people are brainwashed through this social media. They're in their little cults, if you like, and they can't think.
Nobody challenges them because they're searching for popularity all the time. And their parents allow them to go on their phones because they can't be bothered to parent their children.
And I can't see... We've got to break this somehow or other. So I think that we're really at the crisis point.
But maybe differ from you what the crisis is about. And the crisis is about loss of our humanity.
And people on this call are a little better...
To me the crisis is about the loss of our planet and our future and our lives.
Sure. But I'm worried about the loss of humanity, people losing their humanity.
And if they're alive, that's irrelevant. First we have to survive.
Well, yes, but we don't want to survive in a totalitarian system.
I'd rather die fighting a totalitarian system than just surviving like they do in...
As I believe in China, but people tell me the China apologist says no.
Do you care that there's going to be no birds, no insects, no wildlife? Is that not important to you?
Of course, but there are lots of birds in our garden this summer. I've noticed they're a lot more than usual. I don't understand why.
But maybe that's just because I'm noticing them more this year. Anyway.
So very interesting to talk to you, Arthur. Thank you so much for coming on.
And I'm sorry that you probably had a bit of stress trying to get on to this call.
Yes.
All right, Arthur. Thank you. Thank you, everybody, for being here. I will now stop the recording.