Originally published May 18 2015
MSM attacks alternative medicine after science links cell phone radiation to cancer
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
(NaturalNews) The censorship savages are at it again, viciously tearing apart a New York Times Style writer who in a recent column dared to question the safety of so-called "wearable tech," which includes things like smartphones and the new Apple Watch. After warning the public that radiation from these devices may cause cancer, Nick Bilton became a primary target of the status quo gatekeepers, many of whom have called for his removal from the paper.
In a piece entitled "The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech" (this piece was originally titled "Could Wearable Computers Be As Harmful As Cigarettes?"), Bilton stressed that low-level radiation like the kind emitted from wearable tech devices has been scientifically shown to cause brain tumors, cancer, disturbed blood rhythms and other health problems "if held too close to the body for extended periods."
Bilton cites a report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a panel of the World Health Organization (WHO), as a significant piece of evidence supporting the association between cellphones and cancer. Natural News has cited this same report, which is backed by dozens of scientists from many different countries who all agree that evidence is mounting to show that wireless technologies cause brain damage and may trigger the growth of cancerous tumors.
"After dissecting dozens of peer-reviewed studies on cellphone safety, the panel concluded in 2011 that cellphones were 'possibly carcinogenic' and that the devices could be as harmful as certain dry-cleaning chemicals and pesticides," wrote Bilton, adding the caveat that the findings showed a "possible" rather than definitive connection.
Red herrings, character assassination and guilt by association: the only "defense" the establishment has against inconvenient truths like cellphone radiation causing cancer
Fair enough. Except that bringing these facts to the public's attention, especially through a widely circulated source like The New York Times, immediately placed Bilton on the short list of targets to be silenced. Immediately after his story's publishing, establishment sites like Gawker, The Verge, Popular Science and others lambasted Bilton and questioned his integrity over simply drawing attention to published research on the issue.
Instead of directly addressing the various claims made in Bilton's article, which include the findings of a European study in which professor of oncology and cancer epidemiology Dr. Lennart Hardell determined that talking on mobile or cordless phones for extended periods of time triples the risk of a certain kind of brain cancer, assassin writers like Leah Finnegan from Gawker resorted to their typical red herring tactics of shutting down the argument without actually having one.
Not once does Finnegan actually refute the claim that cellphones cause cancer in her long-winded nag fest condemning Bilton's article. Like the mainstream media has been doing with the vaccine issue as of late, Finnegan instead resorts to character assassination, red herrings and other distractions to try to destroy Bilton's reputation through his associations, in this case pointing out a reference he makes to research by holistic medicine practitioner Dr. Joseph Mercola.
"While Bilton cites evidence from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and a 'longitudinal study conducted by a group of European researchers' that suggests a link between cellphone usage and cancer, one of his star sources is a man named Dr. Joseph Mercola, a Shorty Award-nominated physician of alternative medicine," she wrote.
Oh burrrrn. She really got Bilton on that one (or not). Only a fool would be distracted by this inconsequential red herring, which attempts to discredit Bilton simply because he references a prominent doctor whose work is largely rejected by the establishment -- and unsurprisingly so, as much of Dr. Mercola's groundbreaking work directly contradicts the establishment's lies.
Bilton brings up some valid points about the potential dangers of wearable tech, and he cites multiple scientific research studies to support these points. This is what any good journalist does (while posing journalists like Finnegan, on the other hand, have nothing other than whining and name-calling in their pseudo-journalistic playbook).
You can read Bilton's piece on the dangers of wearable tech here:
NYTimes.com.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
http://www.themonitordaily.com
http://tktk.gawker.com
http://www.theverge.com
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml