Here’s a case series of four women who carried phones in their bras, who all got a particular type of breast cancer.

None of these women had any family history of breast cancer, all tested negative for the standard markers and had no other breast cancer risk factors.

In South Africa, we published some pretty gruesome pictures of a grandmother who contracted breast cancer. She did charity work, driving around all day, and always tucked her phone in her bra. The cancer occurred exactly where she put the phone. She died shortly after.

There are so many women’s issues with this technology that I don’t even begin to know where to start. One item I’ve been putting out far and wide is this warning from British microwave warfare expert Mr Barrie Trower, to the effect that pregnant women sitting in wi-fi fields risk their grandchildren suffering terrible birth deformities. This is due to genetic damage to the ovarian follicles in the female foetus in the womb; microwave irradiation will damage that foetus’s egg line, as this early stage is when the eggs actually develop. That baby girl will be born with damaged eggs. So we will only see the most catastrophic effects in the next generation. This damage has already been done, on a terrifying scale, and more damage is done every minute.

I met and travelled with Mr Trower for a week in May 2010, in South Africa and Botswana, and I can assure you, he is the real deal. He is a far bigger whistleblower than Edward Snowden.

The Russian government guidelines stress absolutely no mobile use whatsoever by pregnant women. There are many studies showing drastically increased miscarriage rates in women exposed to microwaves, going back decades. There are mammal studies that confirm this in detail. Yet no warnings are given to pregnant women in the West.

We documented a case of infant leukaemia in Johannesburg, along with a mother suffering an acoustic neuroma, a tumour of the inner ear. I asked the mother in which hand she held her phone. It was the left hand, the same side as the tumour. “I would hold the baby in my right hand, and the phone in my left…” she said, and her voice literally trailed off as she realised she was radiating both herself and her kid full blast.

There’s a study by Elliott et al. that purports to show that masts are “safe” for pregnant women. They collected data on childhood cancer, and looked to see if the mother lived near a mast.

Weird fact! Masts protect against brain cancer! And the closer you get to a mast, the more protection against brain cancer you get!

Now, can you think what might possibly be going on, because Elliott et al. cannot, not even with all sorts of people asking them. What about handset radiation? The closer you are to a mast, the less your phone has to radiate. A study done with an electrical engineer in Sweden showed that the very most highly radiated members of the population were rural Swedes who lived particularly far from masts, and talked a lot on the phone. Their phones were powering up to a maximum, and they were getting far higher radiation doses than people near masts. This correlated with extremely high Alzheimer’s rates in these particular rural people, a complete reversal of the normal pattern where rural people are healthier than their urban counterparts in that part of the world. To my knowledge, this was the first study definitively linking wireless radiation to Alzheimer’s.

But the point is: how can you possibly neglect handset use, if you are doing a proper study? And now think, please, these are all mothers of newborn children. They are going to be home-bound a great deal. They are going to move from room to room with their baby. Are they possibly, just possibly, going to find mobile phones convenient?

And my mind immediately flashes to this mother showing me how she held her baby, very close to the phone she was using. And if that mother spends just an hour or two a day on the phone, that handset irradiation, especially if the mother lives far from the mast, will far outweigh any mast exposure.

So Elliott et al. of Imperial College, who are given contracts by the UK government to placate the public and reassure them that this technology is safe, rig the study to show that masts are actually good for you. And the delightful thing is, Elliott clearly shows that the closer you live to a mast, the more protection your baby gets against brain cancer.

However: there is a fly in the ointment. At intermediate distances from masts (which is actually where the beam is a maximum) there is a clear 16% increase in childhood leukaemias. But wait! The magic protective effect of masts kicks in again, and close to masts, the leukaemia is only 3% above the baseline. Phew. So according to Elliott et al., there is “no pattern” here (sic).

But I’m leaving out the best part. If I’m right, there should be an extremely clear cancer cluster when ALL the masts are far away. We don’t know with which particular mast the mother is connecting when she talks, we only have the general placement of all masts around her. (For Elliott et al., the specific mast she is using is of no relevance, because they don’t consider handset radiation at all).

So this is where Elliott et al. are extremely clever again. They eliminate all cases where all the masts are more than 700 metres away. They say these people are just so far away from masts, that they can be counted as “not radiated”.

A moment’s thought, and you’ll realise that if any of these mothers are using handsets, they are in fact in the very highest radiation group: people living far from masts, who talk a lot on phones.

I have asked Elliott for his dataset, so that I can prove he has hidden away a clear cancer cluster. It’s a clever trick, to take the very most irradiated mothers and count them as “unradiated”. This is British science at its best. Oh, and they don’t respond to queries from professional statistical editors like myself who want to check their data. These are publicly funded universities that are doing these cover-ups.

The last neat little finish to Elliott’s study was the wording of the press release:

We found no pattern to suggest that the children of mums living near a base station during pregnancy had a greater risk of developing cancer than those who lived elsewhere.

“Mums” don’t need to worry about masts. A nice, reassuring little English touch. I can absolutely guarantee you, that phrasing was written and planned long, long before the study design began. This is straight psychological warfare, and the Brits are right at the heart of it, as always.

Again: look at the women’s issues involved. Look what one decent study, a real micro-study of how mothers actually live, and hold their babies and phones, would reveal. Then look at all the absolute garbage that is called “Women’s Studies” these days. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again now, I am not holding my breath waiting for the feminists to wake up to the terrifying dangers of this technology specifically for women. But like the environmentalists, who have never raised a peep about EM radiation, when they do wake up, they need to wake up good and fast. This is by far the greatest threat we are facing on this planet.

Good luck with your health issues. Radiation causes oxidative stress, so for me, the “radiation refugee” diet, which is all based on antioxidants (starting with fresh turmeric, black pepper and cloves, I do a lot of curries) is absolutely basic. If you are in any doubt, buy a radiation-proof tent and sleep in it at night, there’s a Yahoo group called EMF Refugees which sells them good and cheap. Just a proper night’s repair for your body, and you will be OK.