Attorney Jimmy Gonzalez, “Cell Phones Do Cause Cancer”!

When Evidence of Cancer Isn’t Enough: Unmasking the Suppression of Cell Phone Radiation Research

In August of 2011, attorney Jimmy Gonzalez underwent surgery for a glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) on the left side of his brain. He also suffered nerve tumors in the hand that habitually held his phone and a third tumor near the area where he kept his cell phone in his suit. Jimmy’s testimony before the Pembroke Pines City Commission—where he boldly stated, “Cell phones cause cancer”—sparked national discussion.

Initially, many dismissed Jimmy’s assertion as anecdotal. But as the years passed—and as Jimmy sadly lost his life to his cancers—research has steadily accumulated to validate his concerns. Major studies, including those by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Ramazzini Institute in Italy, as well as numerous epidemiological investigations (e.g., the Interphone study, Hardell group research, the CERENAT study), strongly suggest that cell phone–level electromagnetic radiation (RFR) can pose significant health risks.

Even more alarming is how certain U.S. agencies and regulatory bodies—particularly under the Biden-Harris administration—have effectively halted or side-lined further federal research into these dangers, despite mounting evidence. Simultaneously, potential medical breakthroughs based on non-thermal RF interactions are being overlooked, indicating that misclassifying RFR risk is more than just a scientific misstep—it may be costing lives.

In this blog post, we’ll:

Revisit Jimmy Gonzalez’s legacy and how his testimony foreshadowed research findings that followed.
Outline major studies (e.g., NTP, Ramazzini, BioInitiative, Hardell group, Interphone) that collectively show cell phone–level RFR is anything but benign.
Explore the regulatory failures at the FDA and FCC, including the halting of NTP’s ongoing research, in direct violation of Public Law 90-602 from 1968.
Examine how Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act has gagged localities from acting on health concerns.
Discuss the untapped therapeutic potential of low-power RF treatments—like the FDA-approved TheraBionic device—showing that RFR does indeed cause non-thermal biological effects.
Offer a call to action, emphasizing why the American public deserves updated safety standards, renewed independent research, and transparent public-health policies.

By the end, you’ll see how ignoring this evidence is tantamount to the early days of tobacco research—when corporate interests stalled warnings about smoking. We stand at a pivotal moment: either we heed the signs or we risk a new public-health crisis in our hyper-connected world.

Jimmy Gonzalez’s Legacy: From Testimony to Tragedy

The Pembroke Pines Address

In 2012, Jimmy Gonzalez stood before the Pembroke Pines City Commission in Florida to share a personal tragedy:

A brain tumor (GBM) located precisely where he held his phone against his left ear.
A nerve tumor in his left hand, which gripped his phone.
A tumor near his aortic bifurcation, where he stored the device in his suit pocket.

Jimmy highlighted the World Health Organization (WHO) classification from May 2011, which categorized radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). He implored local officials to enact a “right-to-know” ordinance—similar to actions in San Francisco and other localities—to inform citizens about keeping phones away from their bodies.

His testimony struck many as anecdotal, but it brought critical attention to the disclaimers buried in cell phone manuals, warning users to keep the device at least 5–15 mm (sometimes about 1 inch) from the body. Few people realize they’re carrying their phones in ways that exceed even the manufacturers’ own recommended separation distances.

The Final Outcome and Why His Story Still Matters

Jimmy Gonzalez ultimately died from his cancers, but his case catalyzed public discourse:

He became a face of the personal toll that cell phone–level RFR may exact.
His pleas for municipal action anticipated the wave of studies that would soon report biological effects at non-thermal levels.
His experience also underscored how official guidelines have barely shifted since the mid-1990s, despite exponential increases in usage and technology changes (2G to 5G).

While Jimmy’s story alone doesn’t constitute scientific proof, subsequent research has largely validated his concerns. His scars and personal tragedy became symbolic evidence that demanded further investigation—a call that U.S. federal agencies have, alarmingly, chosen to ignore or stall.

An Avalanche of Research: Key Studies Underscoring RFR Risks

Below, we overview major studies and reviews, many published after Jimmy first raised the alarm. Collectively, they illustrate mounting evidence that “non-thermal” radiofrequency radiation has the potential to damage DNA, promote tumors, disrupt fertility, and more.

The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study

A $30 million, decade-long investigation initiated by the FDA and conducted by the NTP found:

Gliomas (brain tumors) and schwannomas (nerve sheath tumors) in male rats exposed to cell phone–level RFR.
DNA damage in certain tissues.
Nonlinear dose-response patterns, i.e., in some cases lower exposure correlated with greater harm, which upends the assumption that “higher power is always worse.”

Initially released in draft form around 2016, final results published in 2018/2019 designated these findings as “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity. Ordinarily, such results would prompt:

Updated safety guidelines.
Further targeted studies to clarify dose thresholds and mechanisms.
Heightened public advisories.

Yet, under the Biden-Harris administration, any planned follow-up or expansion of NTP research was halted. This parallels an absurd scenario: If we discovered that tobacco causes cancer, would we abruptly pull the funding on all tobacco research?

The Ramazzini Institute (RI) Study

Location: Italy
Exposure Levels: Significantly lower than the NTP’s, approximating what people experience from cell towers (far-field exposure).
Findings: Increased incidence of schwannomas of the heart in male rats, similar to NTP.

By demonstrating comparable results at lower exposures, the Ramazzini data reinforce the NTP’s conclusions and highlight that cumulative and chronic, low-level exposures can be detrimental.

Genetic Profiling of Tumors from NTP & RI

A new study published January 17, 2024, conducted by scientists at NIEHS and the Ramazzini Institute, genetically profiled rat gliomas and cardiac schwannomas resulting from life-long RFR exposure. Key revelations:

Morphological similarities to low-grade human gliomas—indicating that these rat tumors share structural and genetic hallmarks with real human cancers.
Despite not finding certain common IDH mutations, the tumors exhibited other alterations known to be relevant in human oncogenesis.

This directly confronts the critique that animal tumors are irrelevant. These new findings show, genetically and morphologically, that rat tumors can mirror human cancers and thus should absolutely inform safety guidelines.

Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT, and Others

Beyond large-scale animal studies, numerous human investigations point to elevated risk:

Interphone Study: A multinational case-control study covering 13 countries. Found that the heaviest 10% of cell phone users (over ~1,640 hours of call time) experienced a significantly increased risk of glioma.
Hardell Group (Sweden): Multiple studies linking long-term cell phone use to gliomas and acoustic neuromas, often finding 2–3x increased risk beyond 10 years of usage.
CERENAT (France): Observed a similar correlation—heavy users had significantly higher odds of developing brain tumors.

Although each study has methodological nuances, collectively they show that chronic, long-term usage correlates with heightened tumor risk—particularly for brain tissues adjacent to the phone.

The BioInitiative Report

An international group of scientists, physicians, and public health experts reviewed over 3,800 studies. They concluded:

Current exposure limits (based on thermal models) are outdated and do not account for non-thermal interactions.
Evidence indicates elevated risks for brain tumors, neurological effects, and reproductive system damage.
Children, whose skulls are thinner, face higher vulnerability.

Regulatory Failures: The FDA, FCC, and a 1968 Law Ignored

Public Law 90-602 (1968): FDA’s Mandate

This law compels the FDA to “minimize … exposure of people to unnecessary electronic product radiation.” In simpler terms, the FDA must actively research and mitigate hazards from devices that emit radiation—including cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and more. Yet, the FDA has:

Clung to thermal-only assumptions, rarely acknowledging evidence of non-thermal effects.
Canceled follow-up research from the NTP after it found “clear evidence” of cancer.
Issued no updated guidelines or advisories, even as 5G and IoT proliferate.

The Halting of NTP Research Under Biden-Harris

Shortly before its abrupt end, the NTP had planned follow-up or “clarification” studies, presumably to explore mechanisms of DNA damage, dose-response patterns, and risk to children. However:

“They say no more. It’s akin to discovering a major hazard and then walking away.”
— Dr. Devra Davis, epidemiologist and former HHS adviser

This about-face suggests systemic pressure to look the other way, reminiscent of early tobacco politics. If the government no longer invests in clarifying studies, agencies can feign ignorance.

The FCC and Outdated 1990s Guidelines

Year of Current Standards: 1996
Focus: Preventing tissue heating from phone usage.
Contradiction: The NTP and Ramazzini data clearly indicate sub-thermal harm, meaning the “thermal-only” focus is inadequate.

Yet the FCC has not meaningfully updated these guidelines. Attempts by local municipalities to impose stricter standards or question tower placements have been preempted by Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act.

Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act

Key Clause: Local governments cannot cite health or environmental concerns when rejecting cell tower permits—provided the tower meets archaic FCC exposure limits. So, even if a city council reads the NTP’s findings and wants to move a tower away from a school, they may be legally barred from doing so.

Result:

Federal inaction at the top (FDA, FCC) +
Muzzling local autonomy from below
= A perfect scenario for continued, unfettered wireless expansion with no updated safety net.

When Cancer Evidence Isn’t Enough: The FDA’s Abandoned Duty

Historical Parallels—Tobacco, Asbestos, Lead

When early data showed smoking caused cancer, governments did not halt research; they expanded it. Similarly:

Asbestos: Once early links to mesothelioma surfaced, more studies and regulations followed.
Lead: As lead’s toxicity became clear, phase-outs and strict standards were introduced.

Yet with cell phone radiation, we see the opposite: finding “clear evidence” of harm led to less research, not more. This is a systemic failure that contravenes the entire approach to modern public health, where caution and thorough scientific inquiry are the norm once red flags appear.

The Consequences of Ignoring Red Flags

Children’s Health: Schools, flooded with Wi-Fi-enabled tablets, have no updated guidelines or exposure monitoring.
Cumulative Exposures: Many adults carry a phone in a pocket, have a smart meter at home, work in Wi-Fi-saturated offices, and live near a 5G small-cell antenna. The synergy of these exposures remains unstudied by the very agencies tasked to protect us.
Medical Costs: If a wave of RFR-related illnesses emerges in 10–20 years, the public health burden could be staggering, reminiscent of the multi-decade tragedy with tobacco.

Beyond Warnings: The Unrecognized Therapeutic Power of RF

TheraBionic—A Paradigm Shift

One of the most striking revelations proving that non-thermal RF effects are real and significant is the FDA-approved TheraBionic device. This therapy:

Uses RF radiation at power levels up to 1,000 times lower than cell phone emissions.
Targets inoperable liver cancer cells.
Operates through non-thermal mechanisms (e.g., resonance frequencies, modulation of cancer cell signaling pathways).

This alone disrupts the “if it doesn’t heat, it can’t hurt you” narrative. If radiofrequency waves can selectively impair cancer cells at sub-thermal levels, how can we keep claiming cell phone–level RFR is inert?

Bioelectrical and Electromechanical Molecular Mechanisms

Emerging studies suggest that living systems employ electric fields and signals in:

Neural communication
Cell division
Electro-chemical gradients that regulate membrane channels

By extension, external RF can disrupt or modulate these processes—sometimes harmfully, sometimes beneficially. DARPA’s RadioBio initiative also indicates the military’s keen interest in how organisms use electromagnetic signals. Yet civilian agencies (FDA/NIH) remain publicly silent or defunded on these areas.

Missed Medical Breakthroughs

Suppose we approached non-thermal RF therapy with the same vigor we devote to new pharmaceuticals:

We might discover targeted cancer treatments with fewer side effects than chemo.
We might exploit resonance frequencies to quell inflammation or chronic pain.
We might accelerate tissue regeneration or expedite wound healing.

Yet all these potentials hinge on accurately classifying RFR risk. If the official stance is “No proven non-thermal effects,” we fail to appreciate the entire spectrum of RFR’s biological power, be it dangerous or therapeutic.

Major Findings Across Biological Systems

The user-provided transcript includes an extensive list of scientific research on:

Fetuses (e.g., impacts on fetal growth, increased miscarriages, and disruptions in early neurological development).
Children and Adolescents (higher absorption rates, potential cognitive/behavioral issues).
Brain Tumors (gliomas, acoustic neuromas, meningiomas).
Parotid Gland Tumors (salivary glands).
Other Malignancies (colon, rectal, melanoma, breast cancer).
DNA Damage and Gene Expression (oxidative stress, epigenetic changes).
Neurological/Cognitive Effects (memory deficits, anxiety-like behaviors, sleep disturbances, ADHD symptoms).
Cardiovascular Effects (arrhythmias, heart schwannomas, possible changes in heart rate variability).
Male Fertility (reduced sperm motility/viability, DNA fragmentation).
Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EHS, or “microwave sickness”).
Implanted Medical Devices (pacemakers, interference issues).
5G Effects (millimeter-wave exposures, potential sub-thermal interactions with the skin and deeper tissues).
Wildlife and Plants (effects on bees, birds, insects, trees, and agricultural crops).

It’s a staggering compendium that should prompt urgent, well-funded research. Instead, we see deflections or trivialization. The sheer breadth of potential impacts underscores how simplistic “thermal” guidelines are.

Why Most Americans Aren’t Aware: The Suppression of Science

Corporate Influence and Regulatory Capture

The telecommunications industry wields massive lobbying power:

The FCC is often chaired by former telecom executives or lobbyists.
Industry-funded studies frequently minimize RFR’s harm, reminiscent of the old tobacco “white papers.”
Legal intimidation, such as lawsuits against municipalities (e.g., San Francisco’s “Right to Know” ordinance), discourages local governments from taking bold steps.

Outdated Classification = Misleading Public

Stuck under a thermal-only definition, the FCC can claim compliance with 1996 standards, even if the real risks revolve around non-thermal biological disruptions. This misclassification has effectively:

Downplayed legitimate concerns—“If it isn’t cooking you, it’s safe.”
Obscured the need for new guidelines.
Created the illusion that mounting scientific data is inconclusive or fringe.

Parallel to Big Tobacco’s Playbook

The rhetorical strategies—funding doubt-oriented studies, highlighting scientific “uncertainty,” ridiculing early warnings—closely parallel how tobacco giants handled lung cancer evidence. Let’s not repeat history, especially when cell phone usage dwarfs smoking prevalence of past decades.

The Untold Costs: Foregone Medical Advances

Suppression Stifles Innovation

If RF radiation is an active biological agent at sub-thermal levels, imagine the breakthroughs if public research had the freedom and funding to:

Identify exact frequencies to target specific cancer cells.
Enhance synergy with conventional treatments (radiation therapy, immunotherapy).
Extend discoveries in embryonic development or neuronal repair.

By burying or ignoring non-thermal risk, we also bury the possibility of life-saving non-thermal treatments. For instance, the user’s text references a recent review concluding that RF-EMF therapy “might aid in damaging cancer cells … while minimizing adverse effects on healthy tissue cells.” This synergy is rare in oncology—where most therapies carry severe side effects.

The FDA’s Hypocrisy

It’s telling that the FDA green-lit TheraBionic for advanced liver cancer, yet halts further study of non-thermal carcinogenic effects from phone-level exposures. On one hand, the FDA acknowledges sub-thermal RFR can kill cancer cells; on the other hand, it’s absent on the question of whether sub-thermal RFR can cause cancer in healthy tissues.

What Must Be Done?

1. Demand the Reinstatement of the NTP Research

Halting further inquiry after discovering “clear evidence” of tumors is unconscionable. Public Law 90-602 demands ongoing efforts to reduce radiation hazards. We must:

Insist our representatives press the FDA, NIH, and NTP to resume and expand these investigations.
Ensure that scientific teams have the resources and freedom to explore dose-responses, non-thermal mechanisms, and vulnerable populations (children, pregnant women).

2. Push the FCC to Update Safety Guidelines

The mid-1990s guidelines are woefully antiquated:

They ignore the last 25+ years of biological research.
They revolve around short-duration exposures, ignoring lifetime usage patterns and the near-constant presence of devices.
They fail to incorporate real-life usage (phones in pockets, Wi-Fi routers active 24/7, 5G small-cell arrays).

3. Repeal or Amend Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act

Localities deserve the right to:

Consider health concerns when approving tower locations.
Impose prudent setbacks from schools or hospitals.
Reflect updated science in their decisions, not be handcuffed by archaic federal rules.

4. Implement “Right to Know” Ordinances Nationwide

Cities like San Francisco tried requiring cell phone retailers to post or distribute basic RF-exposure information:

Advising to use headsets or speakerphone.
Indicating recommended body-separation distances from the manual.
Explaining non-thermal risk.

Though industry lawsuits hampered these ordinances, more municipalities must step up. Public health campaigns can also be done at the state or county level to circumvent legal pushback.

5. Stimulate Independent, Publicly Funded Research

One idea proposed by Dr. Devra Davis and others: impose a nominal fee on wireless services or devices to fund independent research—similar to how we fund environmental oversight or “Superfund” sites. This new revenue would bypass industry capture and ensure a constant flow of resources for unbiased studies.

6. Adopt Personal Precautions

While waiting on regulators, individuals can reduce personal exposure:

Use Speakerphone/Wired Headsets: Keep the phone away from your head.
Carry Phones Off Your Body: In a purse, backpack, or briefcase.
Minimize Wi-Fi and Bluetooth: Turn off unnecessary signals; use wired connections if possible.
Limit Kids’ Access: Children’s brains are more vulnerable. Restrict phone time or use airplane mode.

Such steps are not panic-driven but reflect prudent caution akin to wearing seatbelts or applying sunscreen.

Facing the Future: 5G, 6G, and IoT

Faster Data, Higher Frequencies, Unanswered Questions

The next generation of wireless—5G, 6G, and the expanding Internet of Things (IoT)—introduces new frequencies (millimeter waves) and more ubiquitous small-cell deployments. By design, devices are set to become even more intimately woven into everyday life—autonomous cars, smart appliances, wearable tech, etc.

Millimeter-wave exposures can be highly localized, potentially affecting the skin or eyes.
Chronic exposure patterns remain largely unstudied.
Preliminary data from the BioInitiative team warns these higher frequencies can still produce non-thermal biological effects.

Without updated guidelines, we’re stumbling blindly into an era of unprecedented microwave saturations.

The Tragedy of Delayed Action

History warns that ignoring or downplaying potential hazards leads to public health crises. If the connections between RFR and diseases like brain cancer, Alzheimer’s, or infertility become incontrovertible decades from now, we’ll face the question: Why didn’t we act sooner?

Choosing Knowledge Over Willful Blindness

More than a decade has passed since Jimmy Gonzalez pleaded with local officials to warn the public about non-thermal cell phone radiation. In that time, evidence of carcinogenic and genotoxic effects has multiplied—culminating in large-scale animal studies (NTP, Ramazzini) and dozens of epidemiological investigations. We now know:

Non-thermal RF radiation can damage cells, causing DNA breaks and oxidative stress.
The misclassification of RFR as merely “thermal” has stalled meaningful updates to safety guidelines.
Federal agencies, mandated by law to protect public health, have abandoned post-discovery research, leaving the public in the dark.
Meanwhile, TheraBionic demonstrates that sub-thermal RFR can act powerfully on cancer cells—proof that radiofrequency fields have potent biological effects beyond heating.

A Public Health Crossroads

We stand at a crossroads similar to the 1950s with cigarettes or the early 1970s with leaded gasoline: do we take decisive steps now, or do we let corporate influence prolong a preventable crisis?

Children are increasingly exposed from infancy, in schools, and at home.
Localities are gagged by Section 704, unable to regulate tower placement based on health concerns.
The FDA is shirking its 1968 mandate to minimize unnecessary radiation exposures.
The FCC clings to rules from an era when smartphones didn’t exist.

The Stakes for Our Future

Health: The potential wave of neurological conditions, reproductive issues, and cancers could dwarf what we’ve seen with earlier environmental hazards.
Medical Advancements: By continuing to treat RF purely as a heating phenomenon, we’re forsaking the chance to harness non-thermal frequencies for healing.
Ethics and Democracy: A system that stifles science while gagging local governance is fundamentally undemocratic. In a free society, information should guide policy, not corporate pressure.

Final Call to Action

Reinstate and Expand the NTP Research: Full steam ahead on the next phase, to confirm or refine initial findings.
Update FCC and FDA Guidelines: Incorporate non-thermal mechanisms, require disclaimers, and enforce precautionary measures.
Repeal or Amend Section 704: Allow municipalities to consider health and environment when siting new wireless infrastructure.
Fund Independent Research: Public or fee-based mechanisms to ensure unbiased investigation of RFR effects and potential medical therapies.
Educate the Public: Official campaigns on safer device usage and the real possibility of harm at sub-thermal intensities.

As with seatbelts, tobacco, or asbestos, we have a moral and scientific obligation to act on the signals of harm rather than dismiss them. If nothing else, the thousands of studies, from fetal impact to wildlife disruption, beg a more cautious approach to adopting and expanding wireless technologies. It’s not about condemning cell phones—it’s about using them safely and responsibly, guided by honest research and transparent regulations.

We can no longer feign ignorance. The duty to protect public health—and to explore life-saving medical breakthroughs through RF therapy—is staring us in the face. Let’s remember Jimmy Gonzalez’s plea as more than a warning; let it be a catalyst to do what’s right, ensuring that technology serves the public good instead of jeopardizing it.

References & Further Reading

(Below is only a small subset of the extensive references and studies on RF radiation and its health effects. For a more detailed bibliography, consult the user-provided list or the BioInitiative Report.)

National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2018–2019). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Rats Exposed to Whole-Body Radio-Frequency Radiation (900 MHz). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html
Ramazzini Institute (Falcioni et al.). (2018). Report of Final Results Regarding Brain and Heart Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats Exposed from Prenatal Life until Natural Death to Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Field Representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM Base Station Environmental Emission. Environmental Research, 165, 496–503.
Interphone Study Group. (2010). Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(3), 675–694.
Hardell, L. & Carlberg, M. (2015). Mobile phone and cordless phone use and the risk for glioma – Analysis of pooled case-control studies in Sweden, 1997–2003 and 2007–2009. PathoPhysiology, 22(1), 1–13.
CERENAT (Coureau et al.). (2014). Mobile phone use and brain tumours in the CERENAT case-control study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 71(7), 514–522.
BioInitiative Report. (2012, updated 2020). A comprehensive review of over 3,800 studies on electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their health implications. http://www.bioinitiative.org
TheraBionic. (FDA approval details on low-level RF therapy for advanced liver cancer).
Public Law 90-602. (1968). “An Act to Amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the protection of the public health from radiation emissions from electronic products,” codified at 21 USC 360ii.
Section 704, Telecom Act (1996). Federal preemption preventing localities from denying cell tower permits on health or environmental grounds if towers meet outdated FCC guidelines.
New Genetic Profiling of Rat Gliomas (Ramazzini & NIEHS Collaboration, January 17, 2024). Genetic profiling of rat gliomas and cardiac schwannomas from life-time radiofrequency radiation exposure study using a targeted next-generation sequencing gene panel.

https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/when-evidence-of-cancer-isnt-enough-unmasking-the-suppression-of-cell-phone-radiation-research.html