Infowars - com

<p>The Washington Post recently reported on dozens of 'electrosensitive' people who moved to a remote West Virginia town with no cell service to avoid symptoms they attribute to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. This article aims to review the claim that electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) is a federally recognized condition causing various health symptoms.</p>
<p>Electromagnetic sensitivity, also known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity or microwave syndrome, is a condition where individuals report adverse health effects from exposure to EMF. Symptoms can include heart arrhythmia, headaches, eye problems, burning skin, brain fog, memory issues, and fatigue. The article mentions that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created a protected area in West Virginia, dubbed the National Radio Quiet Zone, to shield the Green Bank Telescope from RF-EMF interference.</p>
<p>The claim that EMS is a federally recognized condition is not entirely accurate. While some studies suggest a prevalence of perceived EMS, the scientific community generally agrees that more research is needed to establish a causal link between EMF exposure and these symptoms. A 2020 peer-reviewed study reported a 'high prevalence of perceived EMF sensitivity' in various countries, but this does not equate to a recognized medical condition.</p>
<p>The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) has called electrosensitivity a 'humanitarian crisis,' emphasizing that symptoms can vary and affect multiple body systems. However, the scientific consensus remains that the evidence is insufficient to conclusively link EMF exposure to these symptoms.</p>
<p>The article also mentions that many people and organizations are mobilizing for change to accommodate those with EMS. Children's Health Defense (CHD) and a coalition of nonprofits have submitted comments to the FCC, advocating for the recognition of EMS as a disability and prioritizing fiber internet over wireless when feasible.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while there is some evidence of perceived EMS, the scientific community does not fully recognize it as a condition caused by EMF exposure. More research is needed to establish a definitive link between EMF and the reported symptoms. The claim that EMS is a federally recognized condition is not supported by current scientific consensus.</p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024001983">2020 Study on EMF Sensitivity</a>&nbsp;</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.icbe-emf.org/">International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Electromagnetic Sensitivity and Its Impact on Modern Life

claim-review-electromagnetic-sensitivity-and-its-impact-on-modern-life-478654fc3608

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>In a recent article published on The Exposé, Dr. Vernon Coleman makes several claims about the impact of Net Zero policies and the definition of 'far right'. This claim review will examine these claims and provide a thorough analysis based on reliable scientific sources.</p>
<h2>Claim 1: Net Zero Policies Will Lead to No Holidays, No Television, No Football, No Heating, No Hot Food, and Nothing Much of Anything Else</h2>
<p>The claim that Net Zero policies will lead to a complete shutdown of modern conveniences is exaggerated and misleading. Net Zero policies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, not to eliminate all modern conveniences. According to the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-climate-action-towards-net-zero/uk-climate-action-towards-net-zero">UK Government's Net Zero Strategy</a>, the goal is to transition to cleaner energy sources and improve energy efficiency, not to eliminate all energy use.</p>
<p>A study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0796-5">Nature Climate Change</a> found that achieving Net Zero is possible without sacrificing modern conveniences, but it will require significant changes in energy production and consumption. The study also found that the benefits of achieving Net Zero, such as improved air quality and reduced health costs, outweigh the costs of transitioning to cleaner energy sources.</p>
<h2>Claim 2: The 'Far Right' Includes Anyone Who Isn't a Supporter of the Current Left-Wing Government or the Democrats in the US</h2>
<p>The claim that the 'far right' includes anyone who isn't a supporter of the current left-wing government or the Democrats in the US is misleading and oversimplified. The term 'far right' is typically used to describe political ideologies that are further to the right on the political spectrum than mainstream conservatism. According to the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/far-right">Encyclopedia Britannica</a>, far-right ideologies are characterized by extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and opposition to immigration and multiculturalism.</p>
<p>A study published in the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1354068818780078">European Journal of Political Research</a> found that support for far-right parties is driven by a combination of economic insecurity, cultural backlash, and political disillusionment. The study also found that far-right parties tend to attract voters who are dissatisfied with mainstream politics and feel marginalized by globalization and multiculturalism.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claims made in the article about the impact of Net Zero policies and the definition of 'far right' are exaggerated and misleading. While Net Zero policies will require significant changes in energy production and consumption, they will not lead to a complete shutdown of modern conveniences. Additionally, the definition of 'far right' is more complex and nuanced than simply including anyone who isn't a supporter of the current left-wing government or the Democrats in the US.</p>
<p>Based on the evidence presented, the claim rating for this article is 2 out of 5.</p>

Claim Review: The Impact of Net Zero Policies and the Definition of 'Far Right'

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that the Rockefeller Foundation is responsible for the destruction of global agriculture and is now pushing for a radical change in the food system under the guise of sustainability has been circulating in various media outlets. This claim review will examine the evidence and provide a thorough analysis of the situation.</p>
<h2>The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation in Agriculture</h2>
<p>The Rockefeller Foundation has indeed played a significant role in shaping modern agriculture. In the 1950s, the foundation funded the development of vertical integration, leading to the creation of agribusiness. This model prioritized corporate interests over those of farmers, contributing to the decline of family farms.</p>
<p>The foundation also supported the Green Revolution in Mexico and India in the 1960s, which introduced high-yielding varieties of seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides. While this increased agricultural productivity, it also led to environmental degradation and the displacement of traditional farming practices.</p>
<h2>The Push for Sustainability</h2>
<p>The Rockefeller Foundation's recent report, 'True Cost of Food: Measuring What Matters to Transform the US Food System', advocates for a radical change in the food system to make it more sustainable. The report argues that the current system has hidden costs, such as environmental degradation and health impacts, that need to be addressed.</p>
<p>However, the report has been criticized for its vague language and the lack of farmer representation in its creation. Some have interpreted this as an attempt to blame farmers for the problems in the food system, rather than the corporate interests that have driven its development.</p>
<h2>The Role of Other Actors</h2>
<p>It is important to note that the Rockefeller Foundation is not the only actor involved in the push for sustainability in agriculture. The World Economic Forum, the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, and the United Nations have all been involved in initiatives aimed at transforming the food system.</p>
<p>For example, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a project funded by the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, has been criticized for promoting GMO seeds and pesticides at the expense of traditional farming practices. However, the failure of AGRA cannot be attributed solely to the Rockefeller Foundation.</p>
<h2>The Complexity of the Food System</h2>
<p>The food system is complex and influenced by a multitude of factors, including economic policies, trade agreements, and consumer demand. Blaming a single actor, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, for its problems is an oversimplification.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the push for sustainability is not inherently malicious. While there are valid concerns about the implementation of certain policies, the goal of creating a more sustainable and equitable food system is a worthy one.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that the Rockefeller Foundation is responsible for the destruction of global agriculture and is now pushing for a radical change in the food system under the guise of sustainability is exaggerated and misleading. While the foundation has played a significant role in shaping modern agriculture, the blame for its negative impacts is shared among multiple actors. The push for sustainability, while potentially problematic in its implementation, is not inherently malicious.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5795250/">The Green Revolution and its impact on agriculture, food production and security</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030691921830154X">The role of the Rockefeller Foundation in the Green Revolution</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/the-great-reset-food-systems-summit/">The Great Reset and the Food Systems Summit</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jul/30/bill-gates-agra-africa-green-revolution">Bill Gates and the push for a new Green Revolution in Africa</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: The Rockefeller Foundation and the Destruction of Global Agriculture

<h2>Claim Review: Parasites and Modern Medicine</h2>
<p>The claim that parasites have killed more humans than all wars combined and that modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat them effectively is a bold statement that warrants a thorough examination. This article will delve into the veracity of this claim, providing evidence and context to help readers understand the truth behind these assertions.</p>
<h3>Parasites and Human Mortality</h3>
<p>Parasites, such as protozoa, helminths, and ectoparasites, have indeed been a significant cause of human morbidity and mortality throughout history. Diseases like malaria, caused by the Plasmodium parasite, have been particularly devastating. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), malaria alone caused an estimated 627,000 deaths in 2020. However, comparing the total number of deaths from parasitic infections to those from all wars combined is a complex and potentially misleading comparison.</p>
<p>Historical data on war-related deaths is challenging to compile accurately, but estimates suggest that tens of millions of people have died in wars throughout history. For example, World War II alone resulted in an estimated 70-85 million deaths. Comparing this to the cumulative deaths from parasitic infections over centuries is not straightforward, and such a comparison lacks context and precision.</p>
<h3>Modern Medicine and Parasite Treatment</h3>
<p>The claim that modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat parasitic infections effectively is also problematic. While it is true that some parasitic infections can be challenging to diagnose and treat, significant advancements have been made in the field of parasitology. Modern diagnostic techniques, such as molecular testing and advanced imaging, have improved the detection of parasitic infections. Additionally, a range of effective treatments, including antiparasitic medications, are available to combat these infections.</p>
<p>For instance, the use of artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) has been instrumental in reducing malaria-related deaths. The WHO reports that the widespread use of ACTs has contributed to a significant decline in malaria mortality rates. Similarly, treatments for other parasitic infections, such as praziquantel for schistosomiasis and albendazole for intestinal worms, have proven effective.</p>
<h3>Misinformation and Fearmongering</h3>
<p>The article in question employs sensational language and makes unsubstantiated claims, which can contribute to misinformation and fearmongering. For example, the assertion that parasites coat themselves in heavy metal toxins to hide from the immune system lacks scientific evidence. While some parasites may have evolved mechanisms to evade the immune system, the specific claim about heavy metal toxins is not supported by peer-reviewed research.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the article suggests that avoiding vaccines, which often contain mercury and aluminum, is a strategy for fighting parasites. This is a dangerous and misleading statement. Vaccines are a crucial public health measure that has saved countless lives by preventing infectious diseases. The presence of trace amounts of metals in vaccines is well-studied and regulated to ensure safety.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that parasites have killed more humans than all wars combined and that modern medicine fails to diagnose and treat them effectively is largely unsubstantiated and misleading. While parasitic infections are a significant health concern, modern medicine has made significant strides in diagnosing and treating these conditions. It is essential to rely on evidence-based information and avoid sensational claims that can contribute to misinformation and fearmongering.</p>
<p>For more information on parasitic infections and their treatment, please refer to reliable sources such as the World Health Organization and peer-reviewed scientific literature.</p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria">World Health Organization: Malaria</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1713/">Artemisinin-based combination therapies for malaria</a>&nbsp;</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/index.html">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Parasites</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Parasites and Modern Medicine

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that four organizations of the pandemic-vaccine industry are seeking to raise $123 billion and that the money will be coming from the public has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis and context to help readers understand the truth behind it.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim states that the World Health Organisation (WHO), GAVI, the International Development Association (IDA), and the Pandemic Fund are seeking to raise a total of $123 billion. The money is expected to come from various sources, including national governments and private funders, ultimately impacting taxpayers.</p>
<h2>Breakdown of the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim is based on the following breakdown:</p>
<ul>
  <li>WHO wants to raise $11.1 billion.</li>
  <li>GAVI seeks $11.9 billion.</li>
  <li>IDA aims to raise $100 billion.</li>
  <li>The Pandemic Fund wants $2 billion.</li>
</ul>
<p>These figures add up to $123 billion.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we need to consider the sources of funding and the transparency of these organizations.</p>
<h3>World Health Organisation (WHO)</h3>
<p>WHO is seeking $11.1 billion for its work over the next four years. According to Devex, WHO expects $4 billion in membership dues, leaving $7.1 billion to be fundraised from governments and the private sector. WHO's funding sources include national governments, private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, and other non-state actors.</p>
<p>WHO's financial transparency has been a concern. The most recent audited financial statements published relate to the year ended December 2021. This lack of up-to-date financial reporting raises questions about accountability and transparency.</p>
<h3>GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance</h3>
<p>GAVI is asking for $9 billion in new pledges for the period 2026-2030, out of a total need of $11.9 billion. GAVI's funding comes from a mix of public and private sources, with the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation being a significant contributor.</p>
<p>GAVI's impact on global vaccine distribution is substantial, but its financial operations and profit margins are not fully transparent. The organization's spending on fundraising and management expenses raises questions about its efficiency and accountability.</p>
<h3>International Development Association (IDA)</h3>
<p>IDA hopes to raise $100 billion through a new cycle of funding. IDA's funds are primarily used for poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation. The organization's strategic directions for the latest funding round emphasize resilience, human capital, and climate adaptation.</p>
<p>IDA's funding comes from contributions from member countries, with top funders including Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The organization's focus on global agendas under the auspices of poverty alleviation raises concerns about the effectiveness and transparency of its spending.</p>
<h3>The Pandemic Fund</h3>
<p>The Pandemic Fund wants to raise $2 billion for its work. The fund is a World Bank partnership with a consortium of donor countries, foundations, and civil society organizations. Its founding financial contributors include various countries and private foundations like the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.</p>
<p>The Pandemic Fund's focus on strengthening pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response is crucial, but the lack of transparency in its financial operations and the involvement of private foundations raise questions about accountability and the potential for conflicts of interest.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that four organizations are seeking $123 billion for pandemic-vaccine schemes is partially true. However, the claim lacks context and transparency regarding the sources of funding and the specific uses of the money. The involvement of private foundations and the lack of up-to-date financial reporting by some organizations raise concerns about accountability and potential conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>While it is true that the money will ultimately come from taxpayers, the claim exaggerates the direct impact on individual taxpayers. The funding for these organizations comes from a mix of public and private sources, and the specific allocation of funds is not fully disclosed.</p>
<p>It is essential for these organizations to provide more transparency and accountability in their financial operations to build public trust and ensure that the money is used effectively and efficiently.</p>
<p>For further reading on the involvement of private foundations in global health, see the following study:</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.17104/1611-8944_2014_3_323">The Rockefeller Foundation and the Transition from the League of Nations to the UN (1939–1946)</a> by Ludovic Tournès, published in the Journal of Modern European History.</p>

Claim Review: Electromagnetic Sensitivity and Its Impact on Modern Life

Reviewed by
Remedia Ai

Electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) is a federally recognized condition in which people experience adverse health effects due to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, causing symptoms such as heart arrhythmia, headaches, eye problems, burning skin, brain fog, memory issues, and fatigue.

Who is claiming:

View all this data in real-time using one of our extensions

Chrome

Firefox Android

Content you might like:

Claim Electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) is a federally recognized condition in which people experience adverse health effects due to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, causing symptoms such as heart arrhythmia, headaches, eye problems, burning skin, brain fog, memory issues, and fatigue.
Claim RatingMostly False	Claim DateOctober 5, 2024

Claim Review: Electromagnetic Sensitivity and Its Impact on Modern Life

Reviewed byRemedia Ai

Electromagnetic sensitivity (EMS) is a federally recognized condition in which people experience adverse health effects due to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, causing symptoms such as heart arrhythmia, headaches, eye problems, burning skin, brain fog, memory issues, and fatigue.

Who is claiming:

View all this data in real-time using one of our extensions

Chrome

Firefox Android

Content you might like:

Reviewed by
Remedia Ai