Here’s how it works: you point to suicide stats in Sweden, which is the one country off the top of my head where I know there was a paper showing an increase in suicidal behaviour that coincided with the rollout of phones. I manage to find it quickly on the Internet, there it says there was a 30% increase in suicide attempts from 1998 to 2001. Other indicators showed a spike in that year, but basically, this was the information I was trying to put across. I’m very sorry it was a bit garbled, but I am awash with statistics here, so I pick my battles. The graphs you show do illustrate exactly what I was saying very nicely, and again I thank you.

The author of that paper, Prof Olle Johansson, wrote to me last night to say:

If you look at the end-points compared to the start of the graph, it is fair to say that for 15–24 years of age an increase is seen, whereas — luckily! — a decrease* is seen for 26–44 years of age.

[*One should remember that Swedish health authorities, county councils, municipality offices, the Swedish Church, and a number of NGOs, have worked very hard to identify and treat persons risking suicide or suicidal/self-destructive behaviour. It would be very interesting to compare the Swedish statistics with other countries to find out the real culprit(s) as well as confounder(s). Also I am very curious how the statistics would have looked if Swedish society had not put such enormous amounts of money into preventative programs.]

Something happened in 1997, and Örjan and I allowed ourselves to formulate a hypothesis and publish it. I do hope the person you are discussing this with does not try to stop such scientific, hypothesis-generating papers?

Again: I have been fighting this particular stealth war for over two decades. I choose my sources very carefully. We were very lucky to get Mr Barrie Trower out to South Africa and Botswana in May 2010. I had the opportunity while travelling to ask him all kinds of background questions. I have had an extremely long association with military radio men, so I have a background against which I can judge what I’m being told, and the reason I continually quote Mr Barrie Trower is simply because I am certain he is the most uniquely qualified person on the planet to warn of the dangers of mass microwave irradiation.

The fact that he is “Mr” Trower is not really his fault. He applied to his old university to do a PhD, investigating masts. He had raised finance to do this, and his alma mater was delighted to hear all this, until he told them what he wanted to investigate. He was immediately told: please leave this university immediately, we never want to see you again. Don’t ever apply for anything further here. He says this then happened at two subsequent British universities. So it goes.

But he got off the plane in South Africa carrying only a briefcase, and it took us over eight hours to photocopy just the papers he had brought with him. He has referenced over 8,000 studies in his own personal collection showing damage or biological effects from low-level microwaves. Other researchers place the number of papers indicating problems at over 20,000. There are certainly thousands of papers on the creation of oxidative stress under microwave radiation alone.

Which brings me to the one citation that I finally managed to reference for you (the link to that article was in a previous article of mine I had linked to, I get so tired of linking, but there was a link if you followed the link) — namely Friedman et al. (2007). You seem to question even that Dr Friedman or his place of work even exist: “The Weizmann Institute does not have a “Science Park” presently,…” while the website of the Davidson Institute of Science Education at the Weizmann Institute of Science says: “In the North campus you will find the Science Park…”

So maybe you didn’t do your due diligence, pal. There’s a phone number there, maybe you can call and see if Dr Yossi Friedman is around. I’ve never spoken to him by phone myself. I got most of my information from him via Iris Atzmon, an extremely dedicated activist. The last I heard, Dr Friedman’s health had not been good, but the research was proceeding. If you look at his team’s ground-breaking study, you’ll see it was sponsored by a family trust. He seems to have a special freedom to investigate things that are off the mainstream radar. His main interest is in the neurological effects of oxidative stress.

If you have access, check out his interesting paper, really a short note, “It’s high time to follow DNA repair in Routine Labs”. I can’t find a copy on open access, but this research note begins:

Two major systems that take care of our health are Immunity and DNA repair. The history of both systems is different altogether. The concept of immunity has intrigued mankind for thousands of years. The first written description of immunity may have been made by the Athenian Thucydid in 430 B.C.E. The history of Repair of damaged DNA can be traced to the mid-30s, but the most important contribution to DNA repair was performed by Richard Setlow et al. in 1964. While immunity is followed in Routine Labs and studied in Basic Research, DNA repair is used only in Basic Research.

So you can see that Dr Friedman actually has a very wide perspective on his work. If, of course, he actually exists enough for you.

I’m mentioning this, because I’m going to give you one more actual citation, just one, and then we can have a proper discussion, now that we’ve laid the groundwork.

Point number one: you have to realise what I, as a Third World activist, am actually striving for. The only “demand” we’ve ever put to the WHO is simply that a precautionary warning be given to the world. The precautionary principle is a basic principle in both common law (it’s basically just duty of care) and in international treaties, it’s a founding pillar of the Rio Process and the European Union’s health considerations. Even where there is no full scientific proof, where there is convincing evidence of possible damage, you at least warn people that there might be a hazard.

In the UK, the Stewart Commission ruled that under-16s should only use mobile phones for essential purposes, zero use by children under 8, and that the full beam of masts should not fall on schools. In Russia, the official government guideline (I checked this directly with the head of the Russian radiation protection agency) is that there should be zero cellphone use by anyone aged under 18 years. This is because the body’s immune, nervous, and hormonal systems are still developing. Now, Russia is quite a nihilistic society, and while I’m quite sure there are government guidelines indicating that 12-year-olds shouldn’t drink vodka for breakfast, yet many of them do. And many of them use cellphones, never fear. But the fact is still that there is a government guideline in place, there is some warning of some kind somewhere, that there may be a problem.

In 2009 I met with Dr Dariusz Leszczenski, then the head researcher at STUK, the Finnish government radiation protection agency.He had organised a major international conference on this subject in Johannesburg. I confirmed a quote from him printed in Business Day newspaper: in Scandinavia, a standard warning is given not to talk for more than 15 minutes on the phone, specifically to protect against brain damage (“Your brain may be paying for your cellphone habit” was the newspaper headline). For decades, microwave radiation has been known to compromise the blood-brain barrier, exposing the brain to toxins. And Scandinavians are given a warning about this.

Yet in the Third World, where we rely on WHO, there has not been one single peep of precaution from the WHO’s International EMF Project, tasked with the radiation protection of the planet from microwaves. At that same 2009 conference, I also met Dr Emilie van Deventer, the head of the EMF Project. She has a background in microwave antenna design. She had absolutely zero biological or medical or health experience when she became head of the agency that directs health research in this field in 2006; and 2006 was the exact year the EMF Project told the world’s researchers: do not investigate masts. We also very specifically require you not to research cancer around masts. There cannot be a problem: look elsewhere for a subject to research. And there has not been one US study around masts; it’s a vast, unplanned, undocumented experiment, with no notion of informed consent, and where researchers are explicitly told not to collect results.

When you see a mast in a school playground: this is an experiment in the microwave irradiation of children. DO NOT investigate it.

Now, the doctors at WHO — as opposed to the microwave engineers — actually did put out a precautionary warning, in May 2011, when IARC, the world’s top cancer research agency, a branch of WHO, declared this radiation to be a Class 2B Possible Human Carcinogen, and warned people to minimise exposure by various means. IARC said: “It is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.”

Now, you try get the microwave engineers at WHO even to hear what the doctors at WHO, the cancer specialists, said.

I’ll tell you exactly how extreme it gets. Dr Martin Blank of Columbia University, one of the most distinguished researchers in the field, with 200 colleagues, submitted an appeal in 2015 to the UN and WHO basically to heed the advice of its own doctors, and give a precautionary warning:

I checked up. The only response that Dr Blank and his colleagues got from the UN in New York and Geneva, was a signature at the desk for their courier delivery. The WHO couldn’t even bother to acknowledge receipt.

In 2016, Dr Emilie van Deventer was at an ICNIRP conference in Cape Town. We primed a radio journalist, who had to pay a bunch of euros for the privilege of attending this meeting. And she asked Dr van Deventer directly if she had actually received this submission from Dr Blank and his 200 colleagues. And Dr van Deventer said, yes, she was aware of it. And that’s the most feedback anyone has ever gotten out of Dr Emilie van Deventer of the WHO EMF Project. Even the world’s top researchers, even the head of the Russian government protection agency (he told me) cannot get a response from her. It is a stone wall.

So to close the circle quickly: here is the one paper I want you to look at. All you need to do is tell me: is this enough evidence of potential harm to invoke the precautionary principle? This is a review paper of damage to human sperm from mobile phone radiation. You will see that 21 out of 27 studies report a consistent pattern of DNA damage, oxidative stress, and other issues. There are many, many other studies showing damage to human sperm. The point about this study is that it synthesises a complete two-part mechanism to explain how this DNA damage occurs: it’s through impairment of the DNA repair process, that exact issue Dr Joseph Friedman was highlighting. And Dr Friedman’s study is cited in this review, it’s one of the 280 papers that amplify his team’s findings.

To push this further: that same Dr Dariusz Leszczynski warned in an Australian TV documentary that men with phones in their pockets are going to be radiating their testicles above FCC guidelines. And we already know that microwaves cause damage to sperm. You do not want to microwave your testicles: the very reason they hang, is to keep them cool, don’t you know. (The documentary was then withdrawn, and the entire production team was fired, just so you know what happens to journalists who push this issue.)

Now, the 1996 Telecoms Act signed by Bill Clinton, probably the most fascist bit of legislation in history, flatly forbids the government from doing anything about radiation and health regarding “placement of a wireless utility”, as long as that “utility” is radiating below the FCC thermal guidelines. The worst guidelines in the whole world; yet they trump free speech, the right to a healthy environment, privacy, everything, in America.

However: if Dr Leszczynski is correct, and placing your mobile wireless utility in your pocket is exposing your testicles to radiation above the FCC limits: then at least the men of the USA suddenly have a voice, and can actually demand some protection and information from the government.

Do you understand what’s happening here? If just this one issue, this one paper I’ve now cited for you, becomes anything like common knowledge, that is the end of the wireless industry as we know it. Just knowledge of this one little Australian review paper. So keep it quiet, my friend, your stock market is fragile enough without telecoms stocks collapsing.

Again: the point of looking at this Australian review paper is that it adduces a mechanism. The WHO says: there is only one mechanism at play, and that is simple heating. All the thousands of papers indicating problems below thermal levels can be safely ignored, because there’s no mechanism to explain these effects. And ignore them they do.

Dr Friedman’s paper changed all that; and this Australia review paper pushes it further. Take a careful look. Do YOU think there’s enough evidence here to say: gentlemen should be careful about where they put their phones? Or am I a hyperventilating madman?

I have to rush now, your call.