The UN and the WHO – Owned by the Wireless Industry?
Through the ubiquitous wireless connectivity promised by the Internet of Things (IoT) humanity and every living thing is turned into a wireless “transmitter.”
As this is currently being done without full consent of the population, across the globe – it raises concerns from a health perspective, and a human rights perspective.
Governments rapidly rolling out 5G tell us that exposure guidelines backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) ensure we are all safe within “set limits” and, that they readily support the wireless IoT for the purpose of developing a data-driven future epitomised by the smart city, a “vision” of a new society propelled by the UN’s politics of “climate change” and “sustainability”.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has already achieved a data-driven society. However, the CCP is technologically suppressing individual ideas, voices and social groups to align all minds and actions to the “goals” of the Chinese authorities.
Not surprisingly, “China now plays a significant role in shaping the IoT.” Spurred by China, the UK governments are already introducing facial recognition technologies, configuring internet censorship legislation and for their own benefit have even planned to overhaul the Human Rights Act, which allows citizens to hold the government to account.
The world is changing rapidly, and unfortunately technological advancements favour unprecedented opportunities for a totalitarian government system to emerge. The late social theorist Paul Virilio, once said that “Totalitarianism is latent in technology”.
Clearly he has a point.
One World – Under “wireless”
The United Nations (UN) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) seek to shape the IoT, and governments, in accordance with a globalist “one world” view and conceive of the worlds nations as finally dissolving into a centralised global order.
Technology is presenting opportunities to change society rapidly.
Governments around the world are responsive to UN technological and environmental policies aligned with the UN’s concept of “sustainability” and these are driving 5G expansion, and datafication anticipating an increasingly automated technological society heavily dependent on the wireless networks.
The UN wishes to conform the whole of society to live in an environment high in radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and subordinate to “sustainability” doctrines, while the WHO is focused on digital health solutions and conforming nations to its “pandemic preparedness” and “technological solutions” doctrines.
Both organisations neglect widespread concerns concerning potential health impacts from RFR – even though it is widely accepted that children, the elderly and people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) are highly vulnerable to RFR.
Not all people are treated equally in this globalist “one world” view of health and human rights.
Many of us assume that United Nations and the World Health Organisation are defenders of our liberties and welfare. However, first and foremost they are a “forum” for members to influence policy.
Therefore, it is more accurate to say that these organisations allow industries and political organisations to steer political outcomes that affect our liberties and welfare, through their memberships, donations, and funding.
From this perspective the wireless industry has great influence on the UN and WHO (if not carte blanche to shape politics to their advantage), as we will see.
Workhorses of the wireless industry
Both the UN and the WHO are invested in technological empowerment and at the same time are affecting our liberties and welfare by reforming policies and engineering social behaviours to the tune of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and “Digital Health (DH)”.
These are far reaching projects that rely first and foremost on expansive digital infrastructure and wireless networks.
The SDG and DH projects are sustained through the development of the Internet of Things (IoT), a project which electronically connects physical devices, vehicles, manufactured goods, and other physical objects in society – and the natural world – across the expanse of the earth to wireless networks facilitating the sharing and collection of data.
The UN and the WHO are very dependent on the wireless industry – to a phenomenal degree – as are their stakeholders and members. All are invested in SDGs and DH expecting significant profits and are guiding the political agendas of the UN and WHO into the wireless “smart” future.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres is even “An engineer who has taught telecommunications so what better leader to facilitate a wireless agenda and sustain the wireless industry into the future.
With the UN and WHO so dependent on wireless technology, and their stakeholders so invested in it too, can they be relied on to protect health and human rights? Or are they biased, and “bought” by investing so deeply in the promise of the IoT and the 5G infrastructure?
The UN and WHO are aligned in pursuing increased powers. They encourage an authoritarian data-driven future – a surveillance economy (like China’s), and at any cost it would seem.
They do not want to acknowledge the harm that rapid technological and social transformations will cause – the economic consequences and divides – nor the health impacts. In fact, as the “pandemic” shows, catastrophe spurs technological agendas, especially when technology is always offered as part of “the solution”.
The pandemic 5G roll out was an example of “seizing opportunity in a crisis”, increasing the power of the wireless industry manifold, as well as accelerating the IoT.
Both the UN and the WHO are deeply invested in the wireless industry – but how deep is deep?
The Wireless Health Agenda
Following its inception after the Second World War, the UN incorporated the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as a specialist agency for advancing wireless telecommunications internationally.
The ITU is “…committed to connecting the world” and helping the UN with ICT (Information and Communications Technology) aspects of Agenda 2030, promoting universal internet access, and assisting other digital goals.
As a result, Europe embraces the “Digital Decade“, and the “global community” follows suit with parallel objectives of “digital transformation” for sustaining wireless technologies into the “smart” future.
Nothing helped kickstart the IoT more than the “pandemic”, during which the ITU announced that:
“Smart sustainable cities worldwide are fully leveraging information and communication technologies (ICTs) to enhance the digital health and wellbeing of their inhabitants. These cities are utilizing digital infrastructure to deliver vital health information, track health trends, and locate essential health resources.” Source.
It is within this “post-pandemic” digitally “interconnected” smart world that WHO advances its “Digital Health” goals, pursuing these objectives in partnership with the European Commission (EC) which tables laws for adoption in the European Union.
The WHO’s “One Health” exemplifies the widening reach of WHO’s anticipated technological forays, and is described as “an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and ecosystems.
It uses the close, interdependent links among these fields to create new surveillance and disease control methods….The C0VID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the need for a global framework for improved surveillance and a more holistic, integrated system.”
The language emphasises treating the “whole” not just a part. It all feeds back into a “power grab” called the “Pandemic Treaty” which emphasises control over the whole population, with “…no public debate on the ramifications of such far-reaching encroachments on national autonomy, state sovereignty, and human rights”. Source.
Wireless technology has arguably encouraged WHO’s agenda of enhanced global surveillance. Smart phone’s were made for tracking us (accommodating GPS, AI tools and sensors). Our data a political and economic currency.
WHO and the UN want everyone to have a smart phone as a citizen of “the global community” – preferably as surveilled and as compliant as Chinese Communist society is, thanks to AI and 5G.
According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
“At least seventy-five out of 176 countries globally are actively using AI technologies for surveillance purposes…[and]…Liberal democracies are major users of AI surveillance…The most important factor determining whether governments will deploy this technology for repressive purposes is the quality of their governance.”
As the UN and WHO model their appetite for “global change” on China’s technological social and economic “gains” – espousing smart cities and digital monitoring of the population – we’d be advised to keep a close eye on developments.
Smart Phones For Health
The WHO is promoting health markets that sustain mobile phone use as a health measure. Many would argue that promoting exposure to radiofrequency radiation doesn’t seem like something the WHO should be doing. Yet the WHO facilitates the “datafication” of health and supports wireless technology markets to achieve it.
WIreless technology is hailed as the future of “healthcare.” The WHO incentivises the public to invest in wireless devices, like smart phones, to optimise health. According to the WHO, the “Public Digital Health Technology (PDH) team engages with a variety of stakeholders in digital health…to…provide support to countries to adopt and scale quality digital health technologies.”
Digital Health has long been in the pipeline. We know because WHO states that the “Be He@lthy, Be Mobile (BHBM) initiative was set up by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Telecommunication union (ITU) in 2012.”
The use of a mobile phone to access digital health treatments (apps, text messages, etc) is called “MHealth”. According to the ITU, “This technology, coupled with the fact that the wellness and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) mobile health market is projected to garner revenue of US$23 billion in 2017 means that there are exciting business opportunities for the 8 focus countries during the initiative.” Source.
WHO and the ITU couldn’t wait for 5G’s implementation. We all know when it arrived – throughout the WHO’s “pandemic” along with a truckload of other necessary technologies to advance Digital Health, and promote data surveillance.
The WHO’s commitment to 5G and smart phones
The WHO stated in 2020 that, “5G is expected to increase performance and a wide range of new applications, including strengthening e-Health (telemedicine, remote surveillance, telesurgery).” Source.
According to the WHO:
“The use of mobile and wireless technologies has the potential to transform the face of health service delivery across the globe.
There are reportedly more than seven billion mobile telephone subscriptions across the world, over 70 percent of which are in low- or middle- income countries.
In many places, people are more likely to have access to a mobile telephone than to clean water.” Wireless needs are catered for, above essentials like clean water?!?
WHO promotes wireless wearables
The WHO is promoting studies advocating (wireless) mHealth and wearable health technologies (mobile phones are also considered “wearable health technologies”) which are advertised as “improving personal health.”
They typically use radiofrequency (RF) transmitters meaning that “wearable health devices” expose the user to radiofrequency radiation, at very close range.
Though they may initially reduce the workload of clinicians, wearable health technologies may expose problems that don’t exist, having a negative effect on health and wellbeing.
Doctors already recognise they can give false positives, worsen health anxieties – and can in some users feasibly become part of a cycle of “digital addiction” (for users feel compelled to share their personal health tracking data on social media).
The WHO’s motivation for promoting “digital health” is arguably for the collection of health data to influence policies. Data is the currency of our times, providing stakeholders in the health market (and third parties) with insights that can be exploited and can quickly add up to profits.
Under the influence
For a long time it has been questioned whether the WHO is impartial and objective concerning wireless radiation research, especially when the scientific literature increasingly shows a range of bio-effects and non-thermal health impacts from radiofrequency radiation.
Is the WHO to be trusted, or is it vulnerable, and open to manipulation from the powerful wireless industry which can benefit from the dampening public concerns about wireless radiation?
It was observed in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that “WHO has a funding problem [and] reliance on voluntary donations exposes WHO to the undue influence of contributors.” Is it outside influence, inner influences, or both that leave the WHO vulnerable to conflicts of interest in the shaping of its scientific information and recommendations for health?
The WHO’s conflicts of interest (including in the assessment of potential harms from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and radiofrequency radiation) have been widely condemned.
Many scientists see how deeply the wireless industry influences the WHO. But what can they do?
Many scientists consider it a big problem for health that the WHO hasn’t acted to support the precautionary principle with regards international roll outs of 5G. Concerns about 5G are ignored (by the EU, the UN for example), even when 438 medical scientists and doctors urgently request a moratorium “until proper scientific evaluation of potential negative consequences [of 5G] has been conducted.” Source. The scientists have been requesting this since 2017.
Oncologist Lennart Hardell is clear about the issues. He informs us that:
“In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.
RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation.”
People are largely uninformed about the health risks of 24/7 exposure to 5G, a new technology that is still underpinned by 4G LTE networks and brings new radiofrequency modulations and millimetre waves into the environment, something of an experiment on humanity with total disregard for those most vulnerable to RFR impacts, like children and the electrohypersensitive – a huge section of the population.
Some agencies remind us that millimetre waves are used in airport scanners, and are therefore not a health risk, however, people pass through an airport scanner for a few seconds, so there is no comparison to longer exposures of the population to 5G. Studies already suggest public health is at risk.
Managing the public mind
Extensive control of health information regarding RF exposure is a priority of the wireless industry. This creates a filter system for suppressing certain findings, pointing the public towards a reassuring “safety” narrative, where the public largely believe continuous exposure is harmless.
A private NGO called the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP), which has “formal relations” with WHO, influences the scientific reviews of the WHO concerning RF health matters. ICNIRP’s views influence government agencies and sustains the view in the media that wireless radiation isn’t harmful.
ICNIRP, which describes itself as “independent and non-profit” produces RF exposure guidelines that are adopted by governments globally. Microwave News reported that in the 2020 RF Guidelines ICNIRP reported that there is no evidence for cancer.
However, the U.S. National Toxicology Program found “clear evidence” that exposure to RFR can lead to cancer. Source.
The guidelines crafted by the “industry loyal NGO” set the tone of public policy on radiofrequency exposure levels. ICNIRP promotes the opinion that, other than thermal health effects there is only “suggestive, but unconvincing evidence” of biological and non-thermal health effects.
ICNIRP rejects the view that bio-effects are a concern.
ICNIRP’s perspectives on existing research are used by governments, not in the sense of RF exposure “guidelines”, but as a “gospel” that has become empowered to such a degree that it is utilised to approve roll outs of wireless technology and to influence public expectations to the point of suggesting that 5G is safe.
The population, as a result, is misinformed about the potential risks because of ICNIRPs scientific biases that omit biological findings that are very significant.
It’s a veritable boon to the wireless industry, promoting information that ultimately sustains a plethora of economic gains for the industry.
What about the WHO and its commitment to the global community’s health?
This is taken from a very long document. Read the rest here safetechinternational.org
Header image: Reuters / Erik de Castro
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.