EMFs the dangers

and a look at 5G , could it become a weapon?

notes from interview by Dr. Mercola with Dr. Martin Pall

I have rearranged the interview, starting out with the suppression of research and then getting into what happens and the consequences and then into the solutions. These are copied extracts from the Dr. J. Mercola interview.

I want to add to all of this that 5G can be weaponized and will probably be weaponized, the repeaters will be everywhere and most likely eventually be put inside of homes along with large buildings due to the nature of 5G and the higher frequencies. Here is an website that gives insight into the deployment. https://www.lifewire.com/5g-vs-4g-4156322

The higher the frequency the more immediate danger it presents. Image a higher power pulse of the super-high 5G, what damage it could do to a human, especially a human with the toxic metals contained in the vaccines. You are looking at a killer weapon. They could selectively target any individual anytime they desired with the 5G network and their super computers. The death would look like some natural cause because no one would really investigate.

In 1973 I spent 4 weeks at a special spook school in Honolulu Hawaii, (4 instructors and 4 students) we learned how to use a device called ANW-LR6. This was a requirement for special missions operatives. A few years ago you could do a search for this device, but I can no longer find any reference to it. The information that I previously could find was entirely lacking in its capabilities. This was a magical device, you could see/hear everything from voice waves to the highest known light waves, and you could locate anything that made any kind of wave. It was a receiver, and tied all of the waves together and you could turn the knobs from voice waves and keep going to AM radio, FM radio, radars, and on to light and everything in between. You cold look at them in many different ways, amplitude modulation, frequency modulation, pulse modulation and also in ways I cannot remember. What struck me was that waves are waves, just the frequency changes of the wave. Frequency is the amount of waves in a given distance, the length from crest to crest in that given distance. Hence from voice all of the way up to light, they are basically the same thing, just the wave length changes. All waves can be weaponized, there are sound waves that have been made into weapons, we see it in the news, as in what has happened to US Department of State personnel in Cuba recently, and the French using sound weapons against their own citizens in 1971, they have been around for a long time.

I apologize for the length, I wanted to summarize, but got lazy and just copied and pasted the important information. What follows are the extracts and as I said before, rearranged. Many thanks to Dr. Mercola for all of his knowledge and research and reaching out to many knowledgeable people and braving the threats and insults.

MP: We have more Nobel Laureates than any other country, etc. But basically, the funding for the EMF research was cut off starting in 1986. What happened was that the EPA had some internal research that was going on in there. The funding for that was cut off in 1986. The U.S. Office of Naval Research had been funding a fair amount of research in this area.

JM: That was in the ‘70s, 1971.

MP: Yeah. Okay. They were funding stuff, and after that too. They stopped funding new grants in 1986. There were grants that have been funded already in 1986. They went through the end of the grant period, but no grants were funded. And then the National Institutes of Health (NIH) a few years later followed the same pathway. JM: Yeah. Right. It’s not getting better. I mean the new head of the FCC is the lobbyist for the telecommunications industry. How crazy does that get? That is putting the fox guarding the henhouse and making them the head farmer.

MP: The corruption in this thing has gone - It’s been bipartisan corruption, you know? It’s gone through Reagan’s last term; Bush, one; two terms of Clinton; two terms of Bush; two terms of Obama; and it’s continuing even worse under our current administration. We’re in extremely deep trouble. We really haven’t talked yet about why we’re in deep trouble.

JM: Right. Let’s address that. The latency is, there’s virtually no one watching this. Less than 1 percent of you had a cellphone in 1995 or 1997. We’re talking about two decades. That’s it. Then there was just a progressive increase. In most people, it’s probably this century that they had a cellphone. It’s not that long.

MP: Yeah. You know, the studies on cancer have been blocked in a lot of ways by the industry. In particular, by preventing researchers from getting information about how heavily the cellphones have been used. Basically, you can’t get the information about how heavily individuals have been using their cellphones. Even if there are individuals who are willing to have the data released, you can’t get that. From the industry, they won’t give it to you.

I was interested in EMFs before I could understand how they worked. When I stumbled onto basically two papers that told me, “Well, this looks like the way they work,” and then I dug out more and more papers. Initially 23, and then 24, and now 26. Actually, there are a number of others that I haven’t published yet. They all show that EMFs work by activating what are called voltage -gated calcium channels (VGCCs). These are channels in the outer membrane of the cell, the plasma membrane that surrounds all our cells. When they’re activated, they open up and they allow calcium to flow into the cell. It’s the excess calcium in the cell, which is responsible for most if not all, of the [biological effects].

MP: The importance of this is that the industry has been claiming for at least 25 years that ionizing radiation is dangerous, but this non-ionizing radiation can’t do anything. You don’t have to worry about it at all. It’s been very clear, going back all the way to 1971 and even before that, that this wasn’t true. But we didn’t know what the mechanism was. Now, we do. I think it’s very important, basicallybecause the industry’s been trying to hoodwink everybody for decades. Now we know how it works.

One of the other things that’s very important about this is that there is a wide variety of different health impacts that have been reported. Now we can explain how all of them work, …..

JM: But let’s go into the mechanisms of what happens. What do these calcium channels do? They open up. They allow calcium ions to go into the cell, which are really low-concentration normally. But when they hit the EMFs, they open up and they put a million ions a second per channel into the cell and cause this molecular biological trauma that you’ve figured out.

MP: One of the other things about this is that these voltage-gated calcium channels - I abbreviate them VGCCs - have in their structure something called the voltage sensor. This is a structure that detects electrical changes across the plasma membrane and opens the channel. The obvious thing is that EMFs are working through the voltage sensor to activate the channel.

What is true - and this comes down to the physics - is that because of the structure of the voltage sensor and its location in the plasma membrane, one can predict from basic physics that it’s extraordinarily sensitive to the electrical forces from these EMFs. The forces are approximately 7.2 million times stronger on the voltage sensor than they are on singly charged electrical groups that are in the watery parts of the cell, the aqueous parts of the cell, which is where most of them are.

There are extraordinary forces on this thing. That’s how these very weak EMFs, which again industry claims can’t do anything, are working. They’re working by activating this. That’s critical.

How do these lead to what we call effects? There are a number of things that we know, when we have excess calcium in the cell, happen. One of the things is that you get excess calcium signaling. One of the things that’s critical in that is you get increases in nitric oxide, okay?

Now, nitric oxide can work through its signaling. There’s a nitric oxide signaling pathway. That is the mechanism by which you get therapeutic effects. There are genuine therapeutic effects that you get from these fields when they’re at an appropriate level. When they’re focused on a particular part of the body that needs some help, you can get therapeutic effects.

However, what we’re concerned about most and obviously are the pathophysiological effects, the damaging effects, because it causes various kinds of diseases. How do they work? They work, I believe, predominantly by two different pathways. One is that nitric oxide can react with superoxide. Superoxide levels also go up in response to increased calcium in the cell, intercellular calcium. They form peroxynitrite, which is a potent oxidant. It’s not a free radical, but it breaks down to form reactive free radicals.

You get both. Because you get hydroxyl radical, you get carbonate radical.

JM: That’s a question I had for you. What causes most of the damage? Is it the peroxynitrite or is it the hydroxyl free radical?

MP: It’s not just hydroxyl, because the other free radicals are important as well. I think both of them do it, but I think most of the damage is caused by the free radicals rather than the peroxynitrite. But some of it is caused directly by the peroxynitrite.

MP: So you get a lot. As you know better probably than almost anybody else, oxidative stress and nitrosative stress are involved in almost every chronic disease you can name.

JM: Let me stop you there, because the devil’s in the details. This is part of the solution, I think.

It’s not oxidative stress. The adjective that needs to be used is excessive oxidative stress, because there’s a certain baseline free radical that’s biologically useful and necessary, like nitric oxide is a free radical. You need it. But it’s excessive nitric oxide, especially from stimulating the EMF, that causes the damage. Excessive oxidative stress.

JM: Let me stop you there, because the devil’s in the details. This is part of the solution, I think.

It’s not oxidative stress. The adjective that needs to be used is excessive oxidative stress, because there’s a certain baseline free radical that’s biologically useful and necessary, like nitric oxide is a free radical. You need it. But it’s excessive nitric oxide, especially from stimulating the EMF, that causes the damage. Excessive oxidative stress.

MP: Yeah. What’s interesting, actually - this I published, but there are not many places you can find it easily - is that those two pathways, which we just talked about - the nitric oxide signaling pathway and the peroxynitrite pathway - is each of them inhibits the other.

JM: That is so interesting, because I didn’t develop this technique. It was developed by a friend of mine, Dr. Zach Bush, but it’s a series of short exercises that take about three minutes that essentially is a high intensity exercise. But the sole purpose of that exercise is to increase nitric oxide production. I had no idea until you just mentioned that that will actually lower damage from EMF stress.

Here are the links to this

MP: One of the things that I think is interesting here is that the EMFs can, to some extent - I don’t want to overstate this - produce opposite effects, depending on the conditions that we use them in and the tissues that are being exposed and so forth, because these two pathways basically act against each other.

When the industry looks at studies, they say, “Oh well, this produces hypertension and then it produces hypotension. They must all be wrong. There’s no effect.” This, of course, is sheer nonsense, because the conditions that are used are different. You can get hypertension and you can get hypotension from EMF exposures. You have this kind of nonsense stuff that comes from the industry all the time that when you look at the actual mechanisms, there’s no basis for this.

MP: It’s not just the peroxynitrite pathway. That’s very important, but it’s also true that there’s a lot of excessive calcium signaling effects. Calcium signaling is very important. When you’ve got way too much of it, you have lots of problems. That’s another part of the story that’s important to keep in mind.

MP: Where are these VGCCs? Where are they located? The highest density is in the nervous system. There are studies going back to the 1950s and the 1960s, rodent studies that show that the nervous system was the No. 1 organ in terms of sensitivity to these EMFs. There were studies done that show that there were massive changes in the structure of the neurons, including cell death, dysfunction of the synapses and many other things. The brain is very sensitive. The heart is also sensitive. I think that the pacemaker cells of the heart are particularly sensitive.

JM: I just want people to know that the consequence of that sensitivity means cardiac arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, premature atrial contractions (PACs) and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). If you have these things, EMF is a massive contributing factor. You’ve got to pay attention to it. We’ll discuss that later. So, cardiac arrhythmias.

MP: Yeah. Yes. Well, also tachycardia and brachycardia - fast heartbeat and slow heartbeat.

MP: Yeah. Okay. As I’m sure you know, arrhythmias are often associated with sudden cardiac death. We have an epidemic of young, apparently healthy athletes dying in the middle of an athletic competition, something that was extraordinarily rare in previous decades. Now, in the last few decades, it’s been happening more and more often. I think it’s due to the EMFs. I can’t tell you for certain that’s true, but as far as [inaudible 24:09] that hardly explains it. There are those things. Now, there are also effects on reproduction. The VGCCs have very important mechanisms in the reproductive system, basically in fertility and procreation.

MP: But there are much more data on the testes. There is evidence for both causing male infertility and female infertility. But the male infertility has been much more studied. It’s much easier to study. I think it’s both. Maybe I can tell you about a classic experiment that was done on reproduction that was published 19 years ago by Ioannis Magras and Thomas Xenos in Greece.

They took young pairs of mice, one male and female. They put them in a little cage on the ground outside in an antenna park. We have a bunch of broadcasting antennas. The levels at the ground were well within our current safety guidelines. The safety guidelines have [inaudible 25:52] there shouldn’t be anything that happens. They put them in two different locations, one with a higher level of exposure and one with a lower level of exposure. What they found was that at the higher level exposure, each pair produced one litter that was approximately normal sized, maybe a little bit down, then a second litter that was clearly down in numbers and then complete infertility - not a single mouse born. That only takes 30 days. The gestation period in mice is about 30 days. It takes about 30 days to go through these things. It’s a quick experiment. At the lower level exposure, it was basically the same story, except it took twice as long. They produced, in fact, four litters with decreasing numbers, and then complete infertility. We have now, in humans in many, many countries around the world, decreased male sperm count.

you’ve also mentioned the nervous system, the increased density there, but you didn’t mention the consequences of that.

There are three consequences - the A’s, which would be anxiety - because their voltage-gated calcium channels are responsible for the neuroendocrine hormone release and neurotransmitters - anxiety and depression, autism and Alzheimer’s. Why don’t you expand on that? Because you gave a brilliant presentation at AutismOne.

MP: I already said you get a massive, sort of cumulative effects on the brain in animals exposed to these EMFs. The VGCC mechanism predicts that you’re going to get massive effects in the brain, because they’re such high densities and they’re so important in the brain. We also have, interestingly, genetic polymorphism studies, which show that elevated VGCC activity, for the most important [part] in the brain, produces numerous kinds of neuropsychiatric effects. We know you can get neuropsychiatric effects from this mechanism.

What I did was I reviewed a whole bunch of studies on various kinds of EMF exposures, each of them showing neuropsychiatric effects. What you find is that these effects have been repeated many times in these epidemiological studies. It’s the same thing that everybody’s complaining about, “I’m tired all the time,” “I can’t sleep,” “I can’t concentrate,” “I’m depressed,” “I’m anxious all the time,” “My memory doesn’t work well anymore.”

MP: All the things everybody’s complaining about. We know all those things are caused by EMF exposures. There’s no doubt about that, okay? Because we know their effects on the brain, we know that the VGCCs’ excessive activity can produce various neuropsychiatric problems.

Here we’ve got all of these epidemiological data that confirms this is happening in humans who live near cellphone towers, who were exposed to Wi-Fi, who were exposed to broadcasting radiation, who use cellphones, tablets, etc. That’s going on. That’s very important. I think that

MP: We know there’s extensive evidence that the pulsed EMFs are much more damaging than the continuous wave EMFs. That’s important for quite a number of reasons, including the fact that all wireless communication devices communicate by self-pulsations. They’re much more dangerous because of that. Then they published two other papers. One was they compared pulsed EMF with a non-pulsed EMF.

And then they did a third paper, which is the paper that industry loves to hate. The senior author was C. Schwarz. It’s a Schwarz, et al. paper. These were all published in English by the way. That paper showed that when you used pulsations that were designed to be similar to what the pulsation you get from a real cellphone, you got still much more damage at much lower intensities. Cellphones are highly active. This raises the question, “How can this possibly [do this]?” I think the answer actually comes from the kind of diagram that I’ve published, which is how EMFs produce free radicals.

MP: Okay. Great. What you get then is the - Both ionizing radiation and the microwave frequency EMFs produce DNA damage through free radicals, okay? They’re similar in that way. In a way, where you get the free radicals is through the peroxynitriate pathway. It turns out that when you go from EMFs to the free radicals on that pathway, there are three steps that involve high levels of amplification.

One of them is, as you mentioned before, when you open up the channels, you get about a million calcium ions flowing in per second. The second is that you get increases in nitric oxide and superoxide. Those, in effect, will be the calcium acting catalytically, because once it’s in the cell, as long as it’s elevated, you keep getting more and more of those things. And then those two react with each other to form peroxynitrite. The reaction rates are the product of the two. You have three levels of amplification. If you have three levels of amplification, you get a hell of a response to a very small ion.

JM: It’s interesting, because it’s true. The industry is saying that there’s not enough energy in a microwave radiation to cause direct damage to the covalent bonds in the DNA. There isn’t. It’s only the biological amplification resulting in excessive oxidative stress that causes it.

Interestingly, the ionizing radiation that causes the damage - I think in one of your papers you mentioned too that that ionizing radiation that has the energy to break the bonds. But actually, more of the breaks are due to the secondary oxidative stress that breaks the DNA. It’s not directly from the energy within the radiation.

MP: Right. Yeah. That was published by Arthur Compton. He got the Nobel Prize for it in 1927. The way in which ionizing radiation works, it basically gets molecules and atoms and knocks electrons out, and then you get pairs of free radicals generated. That’s called Compton scattering.

Let me name the exposures: cellphone towers, which I think are relatively low down on the list, unless you’re right next door to one; your cellphones is a huge one; Wi-Fi routers; Bluetooth, Bluetooth headsets or any Bluetooth objects; the intermittent things; smart thermostats; baby monitors; smart meters; and then one of the most important ones, which hardly anyone looks at, is actually the microwave itself, which initially was developed as the radar range. Microwaves are radars. That’s the signals they use.

I want to show you a video right after this showing people that there are different devices you can get to measure microwaves. No, it’s not a Trifield Gauss Meter. That does not measure it. You have to use specific devices to measure from the few hundred megahertz to the gigahertz range and see what it is. When you turn on your microwave, within 10 to 15 feet, it’s 1,000 times higher radiation, 1,000 times, which is more than your cellphone. From your perspective, I’m wondering if you could prioritize those risk factors so that people know. The first step in helping yourself and your family is to limit the exposure.

MP: Yeah. I use a Cornet meter pretty regularly. But the problem basically is the following: we know that - as I mentioned before, that the pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, much more active than the non-pulsed EMFs, the continuous wave EMFs. But the other problem is - it’s not that easy to make the kind of health assessment without data. But the basic problem we have, the fundamental problem we have, is that not one of these devices, not even one, not even once, was tested biologically for safety before they’re put out to expose an unsuspecting public. They are never tested for safety. All the assurances of safety are based on this theory that they can only produce effects by heating.

We’ve known that we’re paying attention to the data that was run 45 years ago.

JM: And even with that flawed assessment, there’s still a warning on every phone to hold it more than an inch away from your head.

MP: That’s right. Yeah. That’s right. Which people don’t know about, because they’re in very fine print. It’s bizarre. As you mentioned before, my best estimate of the safety guidelines is they’re off by a factor of something like 7.2 million.

I want to talk about that now if I can. It’s that you put together the mechanism through the two dozen studies that had calcium-channel blockers. I personally would never use or recommend a drug - I mean not never, but virtually never recommend. Obviously, there are exceptions for every rule. What’s the natural alternative to form a calcium channel? It’s magnesium. Virtually everyone’s deficient in magnesium.

I’m wondering if you’ve reviewed any or if you’ve had any thoughts on the molecular biology of high-dose magnesium. I’m talking like well above 500 percent higher than the recommendations, like maybe 2 grams of elemental magnesium a day, to serve as a blocker to stop - like the calcium channel blockers did in the studies in the in-vitro and the animal studies - to block the effects of EMF or radically reduce them.

MP: I don’t know of any data on that. I heard that there can be problems with very high levels of magnesium.

MP: What I’m saying is that the main problem with magnesium, I think, is the one that you mentioned before. That is that almost all of us are magnesium-deficient because our diets are low in magnesium and because the soils have been depleted in magnesium. It is clear that when we’re deficient in magnesium, you get excessive activity of the VGCCs. It’s important to allay that deficiency.

JM: At least reduce it. Reduce it.

MP: Yeah. There are other ways of - I always tell people I’m a PhD and not an MD. None of

these should be viewed as a medical advice. But I think one approach to dealing with these things is to raise the level of nuclear factor-like 2 (Nrf2), which I published on.

JM: Yes. That’s a biological hormetic, which upregulates the superoxide dismutase, catalase and all the other beneficial intercellular antioxidants.

MP: Well, it lowers inflammation. It improves mitochondrial function. It helps detoxify the body from both carbon-containing toxicants and toxic metals. I guess that’ll do for a starter.

JM: Yeah. How do you activate Nrf2? The common way is sulforaphane from cruciferous vegetables, like broccoli.

MP: Yeah. But there are many, many other nutrients that raise Nrf2. I published a paper on that.

JM: You’re going to have to give me that paper.

MP: Okay. You can pull it out of PubMed.

JM: What’s that? What’s the title?

MP: Just put in my last name, P-A-L-L, and initials, M-L, and Nrf2. It will pop right up and you can download it.

JM: Okay. Good. Yes. I’ve got a novel, targeted selective antioxidant that I think would be really useful. That also stimulates Nrf2. I want to talk to you about it off-camera.

MP: There are a lot of things that raise Nrf2. They include the long chain omega-3s and fish oil. They include a lot of phenolic antioxidants. The sulforaphane that you mentioned, the isothiocyanates from the cabbage group. They include - I’m trying to remember which one.

They include a lot of the sulfur compounds in garlic and onion. They include terpenoids. A lot of plant materials - in fact, a lot of things that occur in various kinds of herbs, including herbs that we eat and also traditional herbal medicine.

MP: Yeah. One of the things that I argued in that paper is that the two most helpful diets known - the traditional Mediterranean diet and the traditional Okinawan diet - are both high in nutrients that raise Nrf2.