Research Void Is Huge Opportunity! Reassessing the EMF Research
There is nothing new here, In 1977 Dr. Robert Becker, explained the disturbing trend that started in the 70s and answered why the #NTP halted further #cellphoneradiation (#EMF) health effects research after finding “Clear Evidence Of Cancer”!
The EMF safety community is at a pivotal moment with the closure of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, a project dating back to collaborations between the FDA and EPA in the 1990s. We should celebrate this moment, not because of a lack of funding, but for the opportunity it brings to fill a research void. The NTP study’s conclusion of “Clear Evidence” of carcinogenicity is a milestone and a cornerstone in our understanding of RFR risk.
This closure comes at a crucial time, with the Ramazzini Institute (RI) confirming the NTP’s results. Additionally, a coinciding study published around the same time as the NTP’s January 2024 announcement offers another profound insight. It found that the tumors in rats exposed to RFR bear a morphological similarity to low-grade human gliomas using the tissues from the RI research. This finding is significant as it suggests that the effects observed in animal studies indeed have parallels in human health, challenging the notion that such results are irrelevant to human health concerns, especially regarding cell phone radiation.
The NTP Study’s Conclusive End: A Call for Advanced Research in EMF Safety
The closure of the US government-funded National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, the only one of its kind on cell phone radiation health effects, marks a significant moment. Despite its slow pace, dating back decades, the study’s conclusion is unequivocal: clear evidence of carcinogenicity, replicated results, and morphological similarities to low-grade human gliomas. This clarity in research paves the way for urgent, advanced research methods to fill the void left by the NTP’s limitations.
The necessity for quicker, more efficient research is paramount, especially given the urgency of the situation. This gap in ongoing research, a result of funding constraints and the inherently slow progress of government-funded studies, presents an opportunity for private entities. These organizations, driven by shorter timelines and the potential for return on investment, are already making strides in leveraging non-ionizing radiation’s effects for medical purposes.
For instance, DARPA’s RadioBio initiative and FDA-approved treatments like TheraBionic, along with the success of the Oncomagnetic device in treating gliomas, demonstrate the practical applications of controlled, non-thermal RFR exposures. These advancements in medical technology not only validate the concerns regarding everyday exposure from devices like cell phones but also highlight the potential benefits of RFR when used responsibly.
The debate over the bioeffects of RFR should now shift focus. It’s no longer about questioning its existence but understanding its implications and mitigating its risks. The NTP and RI studies have laid a foundation that is unlikely to be refuted. The reality is clear: cell phones, as currently utilized, pose a cancer risk.
It’s time for the industry to start cutting checks to fund the research through a government-controlled fund into cutting-edge research for safer communications technology and how to mitigate the risk!
In light of the NTP study’s conclusive findings on RFR, the issue of EMF safety now deserves exploration beyond traditional government-run research frameworks. This responsibility should shift into the hands of private entities, particularly in fields like bioelectric and regenerative medicine. Inspired by the insights of pioneers like Robert Becker, we must delve into how environmental EMFs affect the EMF integrity of our biological selves. Understanding this relationship is crucial, not just from a pathological standpoint but also for potential therapeutic innovations. This pivot towards private research could catalyze more dynamic, rapid advancements in our understanding and application of EMF-related knowledge.
As an advocate for RFR safety, I urge a shift to proactive change. It’s time for industry and regulators to acknowledge these risks and work towards safety advancements. Meanwhile, the research community should embrace this void, driving forward in public, private, and institutional sectors to explore and understand EMF’s effects more deeply. The future of EMF research lies in agile, innovative hands, ready to explore and address the complexities of our technologically advanced world.
