Thursday, 1 March 2018

Formal Complaint to the EU concerning EMFs, by Diana Kordas

Editor's note:

Below, you'll find an introductory email from Diana Kordas, and following this, her complaint to the European Union about the health issues posed by wireless technologies within Europe. There's a link to a downloadable version of this at the bottom of this post, for anybody who would like to make a similar complaint under their own name to the EU, or to any other organisation or individual.

My grateful thanks to Diana for allowing me to post her complaint here.

My husband and I have just sent this letter to the EU to complain that wireless technologies are destroying nature and violate our basic rights. We sent it both as an email and as a registered letter. A copy was sent also to the Council of Europe, asking them to take this up on behalf of EU citizens. It may not do any good, but it will be interesting to see if the EU responds and what it says.
Obviously the EU does not want to hear from its citizens. I called the freephone number to check the address of the Commission, and the robotic young man on the other end of the line declined to tell me. He insisted that I had to use email. This is funny, because on previous occasions when I rang up to ask for specific email addresses (for Nicola Notaro, Xavier Prats-Monne) they wouldn't give those to me either. When I told the young man I insisted on writing a letter, he wanted to know what it was about before he would tell me the address. "A complaint," I said. "We have a complaint form," he said. "It's on email," I said. "A letter is a legal document." Then he told me he wouldn't tell me the address if I wouldn't tell him what my letter was about. At that point I reminded him that my taxes pay the salaries of the bureaucrats I wished to write to--and his own as well. He conceded with poor grace and gave me an address, which I wrote down. It was the wrong address. The right street, but the wrong number, and the wrong post code. Obviously he hoped that my letter would go astray. It won't. I found it on the internet. This is democracy, EU-style.
Speaking of democracy in the EU, I don't think there will be any report from the Eklipse web conference. It was promised for 10 days to 2 weeks from the end of the conference, but it hasn't appeared, and they will not answer my emails asking when it will be out. I think too many people asked for cell towers to be kept out of nature parks, the precautionary principle to be applied, and a moratorium on 5G. That wasn't the result they wanted, so either there will be no report, or it will come out at some future date when it is no longer newsworthy.
Democracy in the EU being dead in all but name, I doubt that writing to the EU Commission is going to change much. I hope I'm wrong about that.
Best wishes,

Formal Complaint to the European Union

To the Commissioner for Health, Dr. Vytenis Andriukaitis (

To the Director-General for the Directorate of Health and Food Safety, Mr. Xavier Prats Monne (

To the Director-General for the Directorate of the Environment, Mr. Nicola Notaro (

European Commission, Rue de la Loi 130, 1049 Brussels, Belgium

Executive Summary

Non-ionizing radiation from cell towers, antennas and other wireless infrastructure has been classified as a Group 2B potential carcinogen to humans by the WHO/IARC, ELF-EMF in 2002, and RF-EMF in 2011.  In addition to its potential as a carcinogen, non-ionizing radiation has been shown to have numerous harmful effects on all carbon-based life forms.  It harms both man and nature.

EU legislation promotes wireless technologies which harm both man and the environment.  In doing so, it compels both human beings and nature to be subjected to a Group 2B carcinogen.  This is a violation of the EU’s guarantees to personal liberty and a safe and healthy environment, as well as a violation of the Nuremberg Code. No other agent classified as Group 2B has ever been forced upon whole populations once it has been so classified by the WHO/IARC.

Wireless technologies must be stopped.  Safe wired technologies that do not pose a danger to health and biodiversity must be promoted in their place.  No one should be compelled to be exposed to a Group 2B carcinogen against his will.

Part I. Introduction

I am writing to formally complain that Articles 3, 6, 24, 35, 37 and 38 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000), as well as the Nuremberg Code (1947), are being violated by the European Union’s policies to promote wireless technologies within its member states, to the detriment of the environment and the health, well-being and freedom of European Union (EU) citizens.

The European Union’s promotion of wireless technologies contradicts its responsibilities to protect human health and the environment, as set out above.  The policy areas of the Digital Single Market include common wireless broadband targets, plans to foster 5G wireless, and the WiFi4EU initiative. The Digital Agenda 2020 expands and elaborates on these policies. Wireless communications do not protect or preserve the quality of the environment, and they do not protect human health.  Instead, they degrade and damage both.

The EU’s policies of allowing and promoting wireless technologies compel citizens to be exposed to a Group 2B carcinogen everywhere they go, in direct violation of their human rights to a safe environment.  At the same time, all of nature is compelled to suffer the adverse effects of man-made non-ionizing radiation, leading to immense loss of biodiversity with consequent risks for all the benefits of a healthy environment, including food security.

Part II.  Wireless Technology Harms the Environment

In theory, the EU provides very strong environmental protections with a strong precautionary approach, well recognized by the courts and elucidated in Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle.


In practice, the EU is failing to protect the environment from the effects of non-ionizing radiation.  Scientific evidence shows both that great harm is already being done to the environment by radiation from wireless technology, and that permanent environmental damage will occur without immediate precautionary action, as required by Article 174 of EC Treaty.

The now invalid opinion of the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks/SCENIHR (validity is statutorily limited to one year of issuance by Directive 2001/95/EC, Article 13(2)) is widely cited by public health officers to justify inaction.  However, the SCENIHR committees have never taken into account the damage that radiation from wireless technology does to the environment. 

It is very clear that, despite Natura 2000, EU LIFE+ and other programs, the environment in the EU is suffering badly.  Birdlife International is alarmed because one in eight bird species worldwide (including birds that were once common or numerous) is now threatened with extinction. The case is much worse in the EU, where 18% (nearly one in five) of bird species are now threatened, according to the latest International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, and published on the EU’s own website.

The IUCN report on Europe makes grim reading: freshwater species, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates are all in trouble. The report states, “Rates of biodiversity loss in the EU are worrying.”

“The State of Nature in the EU” report (2015), also published on the EU website is similarly grim. The conservation status of species other than birds is poor, with only 23% favorable, 17% unknown, and a whopping 60% unfavorable, of which 42% are unfavorable-inadequate and 18% are unfavorable-bad.  Conservation status trends are not good either: only 4% favorable but improving, 20% stable, 14% unknown and 22% deteriorating.  The effects of EMR are not taken into account in the report, but they should be, because radiofrequency radiation (RFR-EMF) from cell tower base stations, radio and TV antennae is also a form of pollution. Since the EU does not even keep cell towers and wireless infrastructure out of nature areas, it is hardly surprising that freshwater species, insects, amphibians and birds are faring badly—insects in particular have declined 65-70% over recent decades.  This decline mirrors in reverse the rise of wireless technologies. The insect decline has become so obvious that stories like this are appearing in tabloid journals such as The Sun and The Daily Mail: “Where HAVE all the insects gone? Experts warn windscreens free of dead flies, gnats, moths and wasps signal an alarming decline in bugs”.


The recent topic on Electromagnetic Radiation: Effects on Invertebrates, Vertebrates and Plants at the EU’s own EKLIPSE Mechanism, requested by the UK charity Buglife, reviewed 97 recent studies on the effects of EMR on wildlife, firmly establishing the principle that EMR has detrimental effects on plant, animal and insect life.  The committee’s assessment was extremely conservative, ignored the results of many peer-reviewed, well-conducted and well-regarded studies, and covered only a small part of the large body of scientific literature available on the subject, but there can now be no question that EMR affects the environment. The findings of the EKLIPSE committee, limited as they are, provide ample evidence to trigger the precautionary principle with regard to the environment. It does not matter that knowledge gaps exist, or that we do not fully understand the mechanisms by which EMR damages living things.  It is enough that dangerous effects from electromagnetic radiation have in fact been formally identified.  The precautionary principle must be enacted at once to protect the natural world, or we will lose the biodiversity that makes this continent unique. In destroying the web of life around us, we destroy ourselves.

The need for precautionary action to protect the environment, as discussed in Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle and required by Article 191 of the Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (, states:  “2. Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.” If the alarming decline in biodiversity in the EU is not enough to trigger the precautionary principle with regard to wireless communications, one can only conclude that the EU is not truly committed to protecting the environment within its borders.

RF radiation as an environmental pollutant is finally beginning to get the recognition deserves. Not only was the topic requested by Buglife, UK, from the EU EKLIPSE Mechanism, but it has also been recognized as one of the global conservation challenges for 2018 (Sutherland, WJ et. al, “A 2018 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biodiversity”) in a report prepared by scientists from many major nature NGOs.

The EU’s 2020 Biodiversity Strategy is to reverse the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems services in the EU by 2020.  Specifically: 1) “By 2020, 50% more species assessed (i.e., 78% of bird species) under the Birds Directive show secure or improved status” and 2) “100% more habitats assessments and 50% more species assessments under the Habitats Directive show a favorable or improved conservation status.” It will be impossible to achieve these targets while simultaneously promoting the Digital Agenda 2020 and the WiFi4EU Initiative. Scientists have been warning that RF radiation harms nature for many years. It is, in fact, a pollutant, and it should be recognized as such. The EU should have taken action long before now.

In recognizing the harmful effects of RF radiation, the EU should also recognize that there may be no biologically safe limits with respect to the natural world.  The United States and Europe employ ICNIRP-based standards, but other countries, such as Russia and India, employ much lower standards.  Biodiversity loss does not appear to be significantly less in countries with lower radiation levels because the frequencies employed in wireless communications, and not the power levels, are the agents for biological effects in living organisms.  Put simply, it is the frequencies themselves which are the poison.  This is why it is urgent to, at the very least, remove all cell towers and wireless communications infrastructure from nature reserves and Natura 2000 areas.

The EU has made halting climate change a high priority, as noted in Article 191 of the Consolidated TEU/TEFU: “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change”.  Wireless technology is a very energy intensive technology, using over 10 times the energy of efficient wired networks ( It takes far more energy to send a communication signal through the air than it does to send it on a wire or through a fiber optic cable.  Fiber optic is the most energy efficient and fastest communication technology.  While data centers needed for cloud computing are certainly energy consumptive, a recent study showed 90% of the energy use was actually related to accessing those centers using wireless technology (  The EU should halt all promotion of wireless technologies because they worsen climate change and damage the environment.  The EU should only promote wired technologies because they are energy-efficient and do not harm wildlife.

Promoting a wireless digital agenda does not make economic sense, either. In the “State of Nature in the EU” report of 2016, the benefits from the Natura 2000 network alone are estimated at 200-300 billion euros per year. The alleged economic benefits of 5G, as stated in the EU document “5G for Europe: An Action Plan” are: “Worldwide 5G revenues should reach the equivalent of 225 billion euros in 2025. Another source indicates that the benefits of 5G introduction across four key industrial sectors may reach 114 billion euros per year.”  In other words, the economic benefits of 5G are worth approximately one-half to one-third of the economic benefits of the Natura 2000 network, which may be sacrificed if wireless technologies continue to devastate nature. In any case, the value of nature to the EU cannot be summed up in purely monetary terms. To attempt to put a price tag on it is to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

To sum up, wireless technologies result in a serious loss of biodiversity, harm the environment, threaten food production, increase climate change and bring less than one half of the added value to the EU economy of the Natura 2000 networks alone.  Yet the EU persists in an agenda that undermines its own biodiversity targets and threatens human health and well-bring.

Part III.  Electromagnetic radiation from wireless infrastructure and devices compels exposure to a Group 2B carcinogen

The WHO/IARC has classified extremely low electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) and radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as Group 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans, the former in 2002 and the latter in 2011.   Additional evidence of carcinogenicity is now available, including The United States National Toxicology Program reports finding that radiofrequency radiation at non-thermal levels breaks DNA and causes certain types of cancer. A new study from the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy, which is due to be published this month, confirms the findings of the NTP study concerning the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF (see Dr. Anthony Miller, a senior epidemiologist with IARC during the 2011 classification recently said in a conference presentation that radiofrequency radiation should be re-classified as a Group 1 human carcinogen  (see and

As Dr. Magda Havas explains in “When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer?” one of the main reasons why ELF-EMF and RF-EMF were initially classified as 2B and not 2A was that, at the time, scientists could not identify a biologically plausible mechanism to explain how these RF waves caused cancer. However, Havas says, “We now have a plausible mechanism to support a carcinogenic effect of NIR [Non-Ionizing Radiation]. This mechanism involves production of free radicals…"

Many leading scientists now say that the science clearly supports reclassification of ELF-EMF and RF-EMF as Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) and possibly even reclassification as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans).  The EU must therefore take action to prevent or minimize environmental exposure to ELF-EMF and RF-EMF.

The SCENIHR assessment, adopted in January 2015 is over 3 years old and thus is invalid, as stated in Directive 2001/95/EC Article 13(2). Furthermore, there are serious questions about the objectivity of SCENIHR’s analysis.

ICNIRP and SCENIHR cannot be regarded as qualified unbiased expert bodies ( Both entities have membership with substantial industry ties.  Asking them about the safety of exposure to wireless radiation is akin to asking tobacco industry experts about the safety of exposure to cigarette smoke. To this day, tobacco companies still have not admitted it is a public health hazard.  It took far too long, and many people died as a result of the delay, but we finally stopped listening to them.  It is now time to stop listening to the wireless industry and industry-affiliated experts about the safety of wireless.

More importantly, governments have known that RF-EMF is hazardous to human health for decades.  The US government recently declassified a document by the Naval Research Medical Institute which documents the biological effects on human health from 2,300 studies completed prior to 1971. ( Similar research had been conducted by the UK government as well as by other governments around the world.  In 1996, the German government commissioned a report based on 878 Russian health studies on EMF.  The results so horrified them that they buried the report 
(  A number of early government reports on the harmful effects of ELF-EMF and RF-EMF are available at and include reports to the US Defense Intelligence Agency and to NASA.

The fact is that governments have known that ELF-EMF and RF-EMF are harmful to biological systems for a long time. They knew this long before the first cell phone was ever placed on the market, so it is a mystery why this technology was ever licensed in the first place. RF-EMF has also been used in the development of weapons, notably crowd-control weapons used by the US and Israeli governments such as the Active Denial System, which was developed by the US Air Forces Research Laboratory and Raytheon. It employs the same millimeter-wave spectrum as 5G to heat the water in the skin and cause penetrating pain. The possibility that wireless infrastructure currently used for mobile communications could become a weapon to be used against EU populations at a future date is a terrifying prospect.

The 2015 SCENIHR opinion does admit that RF radiation has two effects on human beings.  It finds that there is some evidence of DNA spindle disturbances and mitotic spindle disruption, and it finds evidence that RF exposure “may affect brain activities during wake and sleep.” Both are serious effects.  Sleep deprivation is a common form of torture, and lack of sleep inhibits the production of melatonin, a natural anti-oxidant vital to protecting the body against disease. The WHO/IARC classifies shiftwork that involves circadian disruption as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans.  In finding that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields disrupt sleep, the SCENIHR committee elevates the risk of exposure to RF-EMF to Group 2A.

The SCENIHR committee’s now-outdated conclusion that ELF-EMF and RF-EMF between 0 Hz and 300 GHz is “safe” is nonsense.  However much the SCENIHR committee denies that there are health effects from non-ionizing radiation, neither they, nor the EU itself, can deny the WHO/IARC classifications of ELF-EMF and RF-EMF as Group 2B carcinogens.

It may be argued that a classification of Group 2B is not sufficiently serious to worry about.  This is emphatically not so, The Group 2B classification includes such agents as gasoline engine exhaust, heavy residual oil fuels, lead, the potent insecticide parathion, and occupational exposures to dry-cleaning chemicals, bitumen, chemicals used in printing processes and the combustion of various poisonous substances encountered by firefighters. No one would consider imposing these agents on entire populations, nor is there any historical precedent for this.  Would the EU mandate that we should all inhale gasoline engine exhaust twenty-four hours a day, or that we should all drink water from lead pipes, or compel everyone to eat vegetables sprayed with parathion?  No. The Group 2B classification is a warning to avoid exposure where possible, and to limit exposure when avoidance is not possible.  It is not an invitation to compel exposure to an agent designated as Group 2B, and there is not one single instance of any substance so designated being forced upon the population at large. Uniquely among the IARC’s list of Group 2B carcinogens, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are not controlled, not discouraged, not limited, but ubiquitously promoted within the EU, at the expense of the EU taxpayer from whom all EU funds ultimately derive.

The EU’s policy of allowing and promoting wireless technologies across its member states, with programs like WiFi4EU, the Digital Agenda 2020 and the push for 5G, compels everyone, and all of nature, to be exposed to a 2B carcinogen everywhere they go, without the means or possibility of avoiding exposure even if they choose not to use wireless devices.

Part IV.  5G will make the situation much worse

The current situation is this: the countryside is full of cell towers, so a simple walk in the country results in exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Cell towers are often placed very close to people’s homes, yet those people have no right to object provided it is not on their own land or building.  Towns and cities are irradiated not only by the cell towers, but also by Wi-Fi in parks, public squares, playgrounds, public buildings, libraries, offices, restaurants, cafes and shops.

There is Wi-Fi in most state and private schools. There is Wi-Fi on public buses, including school buses, Wi-Fi on ferries, Wi-Fi in airports, and, increasingly, Wi-Fi on airplanes.  Most businesses and many homes have Wi-Fi.  The WiFi4EU Initiative and Digital Agenda 2020 will ensure that even more dangerous radiofrequency radiation is unleashed on an unsuspecting and vulnerable public. Everywhere, one is surrounded by people using mobile devices and emitting harmful radiation. Thus, no one can choose not to be irradiated.  There is no place to hide, either for people or the natural world.

5G will make this situation much worse.  Small cells will be placed on lamp-posts all over towns and cities, very near to people’s houses, exposing the people in those houses to RF-EMF whether they want it or not.  Since it has been found that the microwaves 5G employs go farther and penetrate further than expected (they can easily go through trees and windows) there will be no way to keep these microwaves out of one’s personal environment.  In addition, the introduction of 5G does not mean that 2G, 3G and 4G systems will be abandoned. 2G, 3G and 4G systems will continue to operate, so people and nature will be irradiated by two or more frequencies of RF-EMF at the same time.

5G is the true Orwellian nightmare. At the moment, people can at least avoid using wireless devices and Wi-Fi in their homes.  The invention of “smart” devices that connect with basic services such as water and electricity has only one endpoint: to compel the public to buy and use “smart” devices in their homes; these devices will communicate with “smart” meters, and service will be denied to those who refuse to comply.  Thus not even one’s home will be free of RF-EMF, as one will have no choice in the matter.  Everyone will be compelled to live with a 2B carcinogen all day, every day.

What will be true for a person’s home will also be true for his vehicle.  New cars are all fitted with V2V communications, and the Wi-Fi is always on.  It cannot be turned off or disabled.  If it becomes compulsory to retro-fit older cars with V2V equipment to keep them on the roads, no one will be able to escape RF-EMF in his vehicle, either.

At the moment, no one is compelled to own or use a wireless device, but the imposition of “smart” meters and V2V equipment compels further exposure to a Group 2B carcinogen.  If, in future (and this is already starting to happen in many places) it becomes compulsory to own a wireless device such as a smart phone in order to do such simple things as buy a ticket for public transport, buy time on a parking meter, access one’s bank account or pay for goods and services, then one will be compelled to carry a device that emits RF-EMF on or near the body in order to accomplish everyday tasks of life.  Even Orwell couldn’t have imagined a technology so invasive or pervasive—and it is not even safe. 5G legislation will compel everyone to constant exposure to a 2B carcinogen at levels the WHO/IARC could not possibly have foreseen or imagined when it made its original assessment of RF-EMF as a Group 2B carcinogen.

Part V. Violation of fundamental rights and the Nuremberg Code

In its promotion of wireless technologies, the EU is violating fundamental rights.  It is also violating the Nuremberg Code ( The Nuremberg Code states that the voluntary consent of the human subject is “absolutely essential” and that he or she must be able to make “an understanding and enlightened decision”. The subject must be protected against “even the remote possibilities of injury, disability or death”. Also, “During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible”.

Why does the EU’s promotion of wireless technologies violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the EU Charter and the Nuremberg Code?

1. People can (at least for now) choose not to use a mobile device, but nobody, and no living creature, can choose not to be irradiated by cell towers, antennas and public Wi-Fi.

2. Wireless infrastructure and devices were never tested for biological effects, on man or nature before wireless systems were implemented and wireless devices were sold. From the moment the first cell tower was erected, man and nature have been subjected to a massive experiment to which they were not asked to consent, and from the effects of which there is no protection.

3. The placement of cell towers and wireless infrastructure on public lands and buildings compels everyone and every living creature to be exposed to RF-EMF. 5G will compel everyone to have RF-EMF in their homes and cars as well.

4. This experiment in human and environmental health has continued through four generations of wireless technology, 5G is already being implemented in some places, and there are plans for another technology called Li-Fi. Each succeeding generation of wireless technology, while using non-ionizing radiation, moves closer to the ionizing end of the spectrum.  None of these frequencies have been tested for biological effects even though governments have known for decades that non-ionizing radiation is dangerous.  

The EU is criminally negligent for ignoring all the evidence and expert testimony showing environmental and public health damage and for not implementing the precautionary principle as required under EU law. The EU is criminally liable for compelling EU citizens and nature to be exposed to a Group 2B carcinogen through its continued promotion of wireless technologies. The EU will be liable for mass crimes against humanity and nature if it continues to promote wireless technologies to the detriment of human health and the environment.

Furthermore, a reduction in radiation levels to “safer” standards is unacceptable for two reasons.  The frequencies themselves, and not the power levels, are the agents for biological harm. Even at lower thresholds, people will still be subjected to non-ionizing radiation against their will and without their consent.  Second, there may be no biologically safe standard for nature.

Let us review the articles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights that are being violated.

1. If I cannot avoid, and cannot go where I wish or need to go without fear of harm or effects from RF radiation, I am neither free nor secure.  (Article 6)

2. If a pregnant woman cannot leave her home without exposing herself or her unborn child to RF radiation, and if a child cannot ride the school bus or go to school or the playground without being subjected to Wi-Fi, nor be in any public place without being exposed to RF radiation, the child’s right to care and protection are not being ensured. Nor are the child’s rights ensured when he or she is allowed to own and use wireless devices or is subjected to Wi-Fi at school or in the home. (Article 24)

3. If RF radiation from cell towers, Wi-Fi and mobile devices makes me sick, if I develop cancer or any other health problem as a result of constant and unavoidable exposure to RF radiation, where is the “high level of human health protection” that the EU promises me? (Article 35)

4. If the environment is full of man-made RF radiation, how is this an “improvement of the quality of the environment”, especially when all of nature is affected?  How is the quality of anyone’s environment improved when birds, butterflies and bees disappear, when trees and plants die off, and aquatic life goes extinct? Food supplies will diminish, as will the number of edible crops, if pollinators such as bees, wasps and butterflies are driven extinct by man-made RF radiation, or if RF radiation affects crop yields. (Article 37)

5. When the EU actively promotes wireless technology, when it allows dangerous RF-emitting devices to be sold on the open market and then fails to make the manufacturers of such devices display clear warning labels on their products, how is the consumer being protected? When the EU and its member states enable telecoms providers to erect cell towers all over the countryside, on public land, including near people’s homes, or throughout cities where people live in close proximity to the base stations, booster and Wi-Fi masts, whose rights are being protected?  Is it the right of the consumer or the right of the telecoms provider?  Surely it is the latter, especially when the citizens have no right to demand that these health hazards be removed. If the right of telecoms companies to erect infrastructure which powers the devices they sell exceeds the right of citizens to refuse them, the consumer is not being protected.  It is not enough to say that I have the right not to buy or use a wireless device if I do not also have the right to refuse the infrastructure that is integral to the operation of the device. The EU’s policies on wireless technologies, including the provisions of the Digital Single Market, the WiFi4EU Initiative, and the Digital Agenda 2020, place the interests of telecoms providers over the rights and health of EU citizens who will be paying for this infrastructure with their tax money. (Article 38)

Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union is essentially a restatement of the Nuremberg Code.  Article 3 states that, in the case of a medical or biological experiment, the person(s) involved must give free and informed consent.  Who was ever informed?  Who was ever asked to consent?  I was never publicly and officially informed, by the EU or by any country in which I have lived, of the potential dangers of wireless communications.  There was never, at any point, a government-sponsored public debate on the advisability of allowing wireless communications.  There was never a referendum, nor any opportunity to vote on this. No one was ever asked to sign a consent form. Had I been asked, I would not have given consent.  But I was not asked, nor was anyone else.

Ownership and use of mobile phones and other mobile devices does not imply informed consent. The majority of the population remains ignorant of the deleterious effects of the radiation from base stations and Wi-Fi, about which neither any government body, nor the telecommunications industry, nor the mainstream media, informs them.  The information is available only to those who make the effort to look it up; it is not, for all practical purposes, in the public arena. Furthermore, mobile devices are deliberately designed to be addictive through the use of a technique called “persuasive design”. The addicted consumer is hardly likely to seek information that his device may be harming him. (See “Ex-Google and Facebook employees launch a campaign to warn about the addictive dangers of the technologies they helped build” at

Wireless technology is, in effect, a massive biological experiment. And it is an experiment.  Something which has not been tried before, which is tried for the first time, is by definition an experiment.  This is the first time that these frequencies have been used, outside of a laboratory, on a massive scale, without the effects on the human body or nature being pre-determined.  By the time of 3G—around 2010—background radiation levels had reached one quintillion times (1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times) the natural radiation levels of the earth. Now they are even higher.  RF radiation from wireless technology affects all life.  Wherever man-made radiofrequency radiation is present in the environment, it passes through and affects every carbon-based life form, including the human body.

Unlike a pharmaceutical drug, wireless communications were never tested for health or environmental effects before being released on the market—despite a plethora of early research showing harmful biological effects.  If they were a medicine, they would never have been licensed, or they would have long ago been withdrawn.  In pharmaceutical research and development, laboratory animals developing cancer is enough to stop development of a medicine, regardless of the millions of euros already invested.  Any pharmaceutical company continuing the development and marketing of such a substance would face dire legal consequences. With wireless technologies, laboratory experiments such as the National Toxicology Program’s study have clearly shown that RF radiation causes cancer in animal models.  However, rather than halt wireless deployment and further development, governments and technology companies try to argue that these laboratory results do not necessarily imply harm to human beings.

Where is the precautionary behavior here that governments insist on from the manufacturers of medicines? Actually, it can be argued that the issue of safety for wireless radiation is even more worrying than for a pharmaceutical; a pharmaceutical will be consumed by a small proportion of the public--those who are ill—while wireless radiation is consumed (or absorbed) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year by everyone!

Instead telecoms companies—service providers and manufacturers of wireless devices—have been allowed to conduct a decades-long series of experiments, using a series of ascending frequencies, without ever being asked to supply any evidence that their products do not harm human beings or the environment.  They have been, and continue to be, allowed to continue this massive biological experiment in the face of ever-mounting evidence of harm.  This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Part VI.  I do not consent

Let me make my position on this matter clear: I have never given consent for the biological experiment which is mobile technology to proceed.  I do not consent, now, to the frequencies used for 2G, 3G, and 4G, 4G+ or 4.5G mobile communications.  I do not consent to Wi-Fi, and I certainly do not consent to the WiFi4EU Initiative, the policies of the Digital Single Market, or the Digital Agenda 2020. I will not give my consent for the frequencies to be used for 5G mobile communications.  I will not give my consent for Li-Fi, another type of wireless technology, which may be implemented in the future. I have never wished, and I do not wish now, to participate in these experiments. 

Article 3 prohibits making “the human body and its parts a source of financial gain” as part of a medical or biological experiment.   My body and its parts are being used as a source of financial gain for the entire mobile communications industry.  I am irradiated; they profit.  The telecoms industry is the fastest-growing and most profitable sector of the stock market, and their profits derive from a massive biological experiment using human bodies and the environment throughout Europe and all over the world as laboratory subjects.  I do not consent to this either.

Nor do I consent to governments profiting from the irradiation of my body, which is what happens every time a government licenses bandwidths to mobile communications operators or leases public land for the erection of cell phone base stations and public buildings for Wi-Fi masts. Governments make billions of euros every year from leasing public land for these purposes, and even more from licensing bandwidths. Governments also are using my body to make money.

Under the Nuremberg Code, I have the right to bring this experiment to an end. In this document, I am exercising that right.  I do not feel that it is possible for me to continue because the risk of harm to myself, to those I care about, and to nature is too great.

The European Union has been warned repeatedly about the dangers of radiofrequency radiation, particularly with reference to the telecommunications industry.  There have been the Vienna Resolution (1999), the Salzburg Resolution (2000), the Freiburger Appeal (2002), the Bamburger Appeal (2002), the Catania Resolution (2002), the Lichtenfelser Appeal (2005), the Benevento Resolution (2006), the London Resolution (2007), the Venice Resolution (2008), the Porto Alegre Resolution (2009) ,  Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe (2011), the International EMF Scientists’ Appeal (2015) , the Madrid International Scientific Declaration (2017) , the Nicosia Declaration (2017) and the Reykjavik Appeal (2017). There has been an appeal from scientists calling for a moratorium on 5G in Europe (2017). There have been discussions in the European Parliament, and the EU parliament itself has said that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation standards are obsolete and do not protect the public.  Euro MPs have read the Bioinitiative Report. The WHO/IARC has classified ELF-EMF and RF-EMF as Group 2B.  Now leading scientists are calling for the WHO/IARC classification of RF-EMF to be upgraded to Group 1, carcinogenic to humans.  Yet still wireless technologies are expanding throughout Europe and are being actively promoted by the EU, while wireless infrastructures are paid for with taxpayers’ money. This must stop.

RF radiation from wireless communications—both the infrastructure and the devices—is not safe. Articles 3, 6, 24, 35, 37 and 38 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the Nuremberg Code, are being violated. Since RF radiation was classified a Group 2B carcinogen in 2011, millions of new base stations have been erected and 4G, 4G+ and 4.5G have been introduced across the EU. Wi-Fi hotspots have multiplied exponentially.  Now the EU, through its plans for the Digital Single Market, the WiFi4EU Initiative, and the Digital Agenda 2020 proposes to make RF radiation both ubiquitous and compulsory throughout the EU, using public money.

I demand that this massive biological experiment cease. I demand that all cell towers and public Wi-Fi infrastructure be taken down. I demand that wireless communications be discontinued in favor of safe wired communications. Modern fiber optics provide excellent, fast, affordable means of communication without endangering the health of EU citizens or our environment.  I have a right to be protected.  Everyone has that right.  I demand that protection, for myself and for the millions of EU citizens, adults and children, whose informed consent was never sought or given. I demand that right for nature also, which was never given a voice in this matter.

Furthermore, I hereby notify and warn the EU that if it does not recognize its statutory obligation to protect the health of EU citizens and their environment, and if it continues to compel its citizens and their environment to be exposed to man-made RF radiation, it will be legally liable when mass casualties, mass extinctions and mass degradation of the environment occur as a result of its promotion of wireless technologies. To that end I intend to publish both this letter and the EU’s response to this letter.

Your answer to this letter should be sent to the email addresses listed below:


EU Wireless Complaint (Word format)

Friday, 2 February 2018

UK Future Telecoms Review - my comments

By Dave Ashton

The UK Government has recently called for evidence, as part of its review of "options that could be pursued to deliver the Government’s objectives for the telecoms sector".

It invited responses to a number of question from all interested parties, including the public. These can be found in the link below. However, I decided not to follow the suggested script, and instead used this consultation as an opportunity to tell the Government what I believe to be some home truths about microwave-emitting wireless technologies, and to say where I believe some of the blame lies for the unfolding health crisis in which we all find ourselves.

I deliberately decided against adding numerous scientific references at the bottom of my response, and instead told it as I think it is. Looking at my written evidence afterwards, I realise that many things are missing (apart from one or two typos, which were unfortunately present!), but hopefully submissions from other people will plug the gaps that I left.

I don't know if any of these responses will be made public, so in case they aren't, I though I'd publish mine here (a
fter having fixed one or two typos first!).

Future Telecoms Infrastructure Review Call for Evidence

You sometimes hear it said - mainly by pious politicians - that the first job of any Government is to protect its citizens.

This is a laudable aim, but, concerning harmful microwave-emitting technologies such as cellular communications, wi-fi, and smart meters etc., the rhetoric sadly lags far behind the reality. Every person in this country is already exposed to layer upon layer of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation from a staggering array of sources, and the very last thing that any of us needs is yet more electrosmog, the harmful effects of which are abundantly clear to many of us, but not - tragically - to the Government, which is pressing full steam ahead with plans to remove the last remaining mobile "not spots", and to further pollute the environment with 5G radiation.

It wants our homes to be integrated with a "smart grid" and the "internet of things", via microwave emitting "smart meters". We must, all of us, be exposed to this Group 2B Possible Carcinogen 24 hours a day it seems. Except, possibly, some Government ministers; it would be interesting to know how many of these have had smart meters installed...

We must drive on "smart" roads, soon in internet-connected driverless cars, being wi-fried by the ubiquitous mobile phone masts and other radiation-emitting infrastructure that we pass by on our way, or else we must travel on planes, trains and buses, and be irradiated at point blank range by Wi-Fi routers.

Our shops, banks, restaurants and bars, places of leisure, public places, even national parks, must all be immersed in a perpetual fog of microwave radiation. How could it possibly be otherwise?

Similarly, our children must be exposed to Wi-Fi radiation in schools - an unbelievably reckless biological experiment, perpetrated on the innocent, by those whose irresponsibility defies words and comprehension. What would Orwell or Huxley have made of our current dystopian reality? Or what does France make of it, having recently banned toddlers under three from being exposed to Wi-Fi radiation in nurseries and public places, and having restricted the exposure of older children to Wi-Fi? This enlightened country also has a complete ban on mobile phones in schools coming into force later this year.

Even in the supposed places of healing - GP surgeries, hospitals, and other NHS premises - we must obviously be exposed to radiation from within (through wireless "health" wearables, implantables, Wi-Fi, and other microwave-emitting wireless technologies), as well as from without - as anybody who has glanced up at the festoons of mobile phone and Tetra antennas adorning many hospital roofs will know.

Our Government paternalistically assures us that the allowable radiation exposure levels in this country are well within established international norms, and are sanctioned by worthy organisations such as the (now defunct) Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) and Public Health England (PHE), and based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP), and the advice of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The trouble is, as has been well documented, all of these apparently worthy bodies are actually rotten to the core, riven with conflicts of interest that should exclude them from having any say in our radiation exposure levels. They are beholden to business, military and telecommunications interests, and by their own admittance, their suggested radiation levels only protect against acute, short term exposures that result in thermal effects, and do nothing to protect any of us against long term non-thermal effects, which have been so extensively documented in the non-industry scientific literature.

In reality, each of us isn't just exposed to a single source of radiation for a finite and short period, at a particular frequency, and comprised of a particular pulse, modulation, and intensity. Rather, we are immersed in radiation from a multitude of sources, consisting of differing frequencies, pulses and modulations. These will interact in ways that nobody really understands - both with other sources of radiation, and also other environmental toxins such as air pollution.

Whilst the radiation from wireless technologies - mobile phones, DECT cordless phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, Bluetooth devices, wearables, implantables, mobile phone masts, tv and radio transmitters, radar installations etc. - is currently classified as a Group 2B Possible Carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), many scientists are now calling for this classification to be tightened to Group 2A Probable Carcinogen, or even to Group 1 Human Carcinogen.

These include the 236 experts on the biological effects of this radiation who have now signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which has been sent to the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, and to all UN member states, such as the UK. These experts note that:

"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life."

In addition, Dr Lennart Hardell, whose studies on the link between mobile phone radiation and cancer informed IARC's 2011 Group 2B classification of radiofrequency (RF) radiation, has gone much further, suggesting that the radiation from mobile phones etc. is a known human carcinogen. For example, in a recent paper - Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation - he and Michael Carlberg say:

"The nine Bradford Hill viewpoints on association or causation regarding RF radiation and glioma risk seem to be fulfilled in this review. Based on that we conclude that glioma is caused by RF radiation. Revision of current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation is needed".

The UK, which follows ICNIRP's guidelines, has among the highest allowable non-ionising electromagnetic radiation exposure levels in the world. A number of other countries have chosen to implement precautionary exposure levels at far below the ICNIRP guidelines. Ironically, these include countries that are perceived to be lacking the democratic credentials of the West, such as China and Russia.

Precautionary and biologically-based radiation exposure levels have been proposed by the BioInitiative Group, but sadly there seems little prospect of these being adopted by the UK Government, which seems to be determined to facilitate the rollout of wireless technologies such as 5G in the face of the non-conflicted scientific evidence, and arguably also the evidence before our eyes (have you noticed how sick most people look, and actually are, these days...?).

So-called "electrosensitive" people, such as myself, are among the first to warn the authorities that we are embarked on a catastrophic course, based on our first-hand experience of being harmed by the ubiquitous electrosmog. Adding insult to injury, we then have to endure the platitudes of paid-for psychologists, who through their flawed provocation tests, seek to portray our incapacitating symptoms as being all of the mind - a sort of irrational fear of modern technologies which they term the "nocebo effect" - oblivious to the fact that prior to the onset of our severe reaction to harmful radiation, many of us were enthusiastic early adopters of the technologies that we are now supposed to fear, and some of us actually worked in the technology sector.

I wrote earlier about conflicts of interest being rife in the organisations which are supposed to protect us.

The Head of Physical Dosimetry Department at Public Health England is a chartered engineer. He is also an Investigator into the "health impact of low dose non-ionising and ionising radiation" at the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU).

His responsibility here is working within one of the research areas: Theme 3: Health impact of low dose non-ionising and ionising radiation, part of which includes Project 2 - Electromagnetic fields. The work of this project is described thus: "The SCAMP cohort study is investigating whether children’s use of mobile phones and/or other wireless technologies that use radio waves (e.g. tablets, laptops) might affect their neurocognitive or behavioural development (e.g. attention and memory)".

He also dutifully turns up at Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) meetings from time to time, to give reassurances that non-ionising EMR is still safe, and that no recent science has shown otherwise.

(This despite the fact that recent and highly reputable science HAS shown otherwise - such as the $25m US National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiation and cancer, which, in its partial results, showed that exposure to 2G cellular radiation led to cancer and DNA damage in some of the test animals. The draft final results of this study are expected on February 2nd 2018).

He is also a member of the "Scientific Expert Group" at ICNIRP, the private, self-elected, industry and military-friendly "non-thermal effects don't exist" organisation, whose non-protective radiation exposure guidelines we follow in the UK.

It would be a remarkable thing indeed if he were to say one thing (i.e. non-thermal effects of non-ionising radiation don't exist) whilst wearing an ICNIRP hat, and then say something different when wearing any one of his other hats - PHE, COMARE, or NIHR HPRU. As Sarah Starkey noted in a recent critique of the now defunct Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) - of which he was, naturally enough, Secretary:

"PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields (in the 2012 'Report of the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields'). Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest. Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up".

We are living through an extraordinary period in the history of this country.

The Government is failing to protect its citizens through the implementation of the Precautionary Principle. Instead, it is facilitating the unchecked proliferation of wireless technologies which have never been shown to be safe, but which HAVE been shown to be otherwise, and is relying on the advice of conflicted individuals and organisations when setting the radiation exposure levels - in defiance of all of the warnings from concerned scientists and health professionals.

Also, the Government and its agencies are failing to warn UK citizens of the risk of non-thermal, long term exposure to this radiation. Every one of us has a fundamental right to know, which is not being honoured.

As with Big Tobacco before it, only on a much greater scale, the tech and telecoms industry is making as much hay as it can while the sun shines, and this is allowed by a Government which is asleep on the job, and by "health and protection" organisations which are more concerned with protecting business and military interests than they are with protecting people.

For example, buried away in mobile phone manuals, and deep in the phone itself, are warnings that a separation distance must be maintained between the device and the user, in order to protect against thermal effects, which is all that our utterly ineffective radiation exposure levels protect against.

Where are the warnings from Public Health England not to hold a phone to the head or keep it in a pocket or bra? In the US, Berkeley City has been fighting a legal action bought by the CTIA, the telecoms trade body, against a Right to Know ordinance, which advises consumers at point of sale of the somewhat precautionary information that's already available from the authorities - for those who know where to find it. Having lost every stage of this legal action so far, the CTIA has now pursued it right up to the Supreme Court.

If the CTIA loses again, then it seems likely that other US states will follow Berkeley's lead. Will the UK? Will purchasers of Wi-Fi routers, mobile phones, wireless wearables, and other microwave emitting devices be advised at point of sale that these devices emit a Group 2B carcinogen and so may promote cancer, and that if people continue to use them pressed against the head, or keep them in a pocket or bra, that even the protection against acute, thermal effects offered by the current radiation exposure levels will be negated?

Will people who have smart meters installed in their homes and workplaces be warned? Will people who have a 5G small cell installed outside their home be told of the known risks? Or how about the parents of children in schools equipped with Wi-Fi?

Will people be given a choice about whether or not they agree to be irradiated by microwave radiation originating from outside their homes? And if not, why not?

I understand that my words will have no impact on this consultation, but that doesn't matter. I will have added my warnings to the Government about its irresponsible and immoral course of action, as so many others will have done before me, and as so many will do after me.

The truth is the truth, and in the long run, none of the conflicted attempts by vested interests to sow confusion and bury the science will work. This radiation is inherently harmful, and it would benefit us all to recognise this as soon as possible, and to start work on undoing the harm, and develop safer alternatives.

I hope that I will see the day when those who are responsible for this unfolding disaster are held to account for the crimes against humanity, and all other life forms, that they have wilfully committed.

Call for evidence document

Saturday, 20 January 2018

Liver flushes, and my EHS journey

By Elizabeth Wells, D.NN, MA, PhD

A couple of days ago I had my hair professionally coloured in a hair salon for the first time in over ten years. This doesn’t sound like a significant milestone unless you are au fait with the conditions of Electrosensitivity (ES or EHS) and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, which often go hand-in-hand.

For the previous ten years I had to have my hair cut at home so as not to come into proximity with people in the same room whose hair was being dyed, bleached and sprayed with various chemicals. The last time that happened I remember vividly having to run out of the salon with my gown still on, nauseated and panicking, just to breathe some fresh air.

Incredibly these days it’s not something I spend much time worrying about, since I am so much less sensitive thanks to all the health interventions I’ve been practising over the last couple of years. I’m not daft, I don’t willingly expose myself to chemicals and toxins if I can help it; I’m still recovering from severe adrenal fatigue, Candida infection and low immune function, but I am fully confident that the upward trend of recovery is going to continue.

A little bit about my journey. I was never a well child; I was always ill with chronic coughs and bronchitis and viruses, not to mention the severe run-in with whooping cough at the age of four, during which time I could keep so little down my arms and legs turned stick-thin.

As I grew up I developed mysterious digestive problems which I later found out were Candida-related (I don’t really believe in the diagnosis of ‘Candida’ anymore as a sui generis disease; many people with other co-infections have symptoms of Candida, which is no coincidence, but that’s another story for another time).

So I went on a severe diet, cutting out all sugar, and later dairy and gluten, which at that time in the early 90s was a bit of a nightmare since no food companies catered for this aberration.

I also had horrendous periods, hormonal problems, mood swings and pain. I was also cold all the time.

I saw a Chinese herbalist, who I remained with for 15 years, and luckily he helped carry me through some difficult years. I managed my set of perplexing symptoms throughout my twenties, but at the same time I was doing untold added damage to myself, over-exercising during the day and by night going out to parties and clubs, taking drugs and smoking. It was fun at the time, but by my late twenties I was beginning to feel burnt-out, often not sleeping for entire nights before having to get up for work.

Right about the time I met my partner, in 2005, I also developed debilitating fatigue. I’d walk down the hill to work and then found I couldn’t physically walk back up it later. I had horrendous lactic acid build-up in my joints so that any physical exercise left me with pain; mental stress also caused my legs to ache for hours as if I had flu.

Then I noticed that I would feel worse working on any kind of computer — my eyes would go red and feel sore, my nose would stream as if in the early stages of a cold. My legs would ache for hours afterwards in a kind of stress response.

A similar thing happened when I used a mobile phone: the side of my face next to the phone would get hot, itchy, and develop an angry-looking red colour. I would feel as if I had been ‘fried’. For most EHS sufferers this is a common picture, but of course at the beginning you have no idea what’s going on, and people just think you’re crazy.

I was lucky enough to have a sympathetic GP who signed me off work for six months with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and he also referred me to the ME/CFS clinic in Oxford. I remember taking all the research I’d done into EHS, since by this stage I’d read the work of Martin Pall on oxidative stress and the effects of EMFs on cellular calcium.

As a researcher myself (OK Humanities not Sciences, but still…) I expected to have a lively and engaging discussion with the CFS consultant about all these connections, but he flatly refused to look at any of it or engage with me on that level at all. He said ‘we don’t look at things that way’, and I remember looking at this so-called expert, and thinking ‘What way? You mean with an open and enquiring mind?’ and I was astounded.

I remember then and there making a decision that I was never going to go down the allopathic route again; there was too much investment in keeping these research silos separate and pursuing a narrow agenda based on mitigating symptoms using outdated protocols.

These days ME/CFS research has moved on a bit, but in my opinion they’re still looking through the wrong end of the telescope (i.e. at genetics rather than the far-more significant epigenetics and environmental signals, which start in the womb).

To fast-forward a bit, I re-trained as a nutritionist and made some good progress by myself.

I had some significant tests done privately: I had some blood tests done by Acumen to show how my blood cells were reacting to EMFs, and found that the original trigger for the EHS symptoms was indeed heavy metals and toxins such as petrol by-products. When exposed to EMFs the cellular channels became leaky and allowed the concentration of intra-cellular toxins to increase.

So I embarked on an intensive metals-clearing programme, which cost a bomb but was very enlightening. For about six months I felt absolutely incredible. I went back to work and everything was great, but then over time, all the symptoms came back one by one, and I felt pretty defeated.

I had a hair mineral test done which showed significant adrenal and thyroid stress and deficiencies in various minerals which were important for chelating metals such as mercury. I took minerals for months, plus select vitamins; I did coffee enemas and ate very clean, and made some progress again, enough to continue working part-time, although both the CFS and the EHS/MCS symptoms persisted. I still had to use an Ethernet-enabled set-up at work and wear a silver protective head net and use grounding equipment. We had the same set-up at home.

Meanwhile I became convinced I had to eradicate the Candida and the only way to do that was to pursue a no-carb diet, which was one of the hardest things I have ever done, and a complete waste of time and energy! My Candida symptoms lessened a little, but not significantly, and I was hungry ALL the time, miserable, moody and cold. My periods also stopped for six months and I became convinced I had entered early menopause (I was 35). I did that stupid diet for five years, and then abandoned it in frustration.

In 2010 I was made redundant at work, and we moved from London to Manchester. My partner and I were in our late 30s and decided we had to see if we could have a baby. I got pregnant straight away, after embracing Matt Stone’s Eat for Heat protocol (see

The pregnancy was not as bad as it can be for some women, but it wasn’t smooth sailing and I’d begun to realise that whilst I could carry a baby, I wasn’t really healthy enough to support it.

After many complications and surgery requiring a lengthy stay in hospital, as well as endless rounds of IV antibiotics, my health collapsed again and the symptoms of major adrenal fatigue reared its head.

I couldn’t sleep, I became extremely anxious and tearful and felt permanently wired and exhausted. On top of that we moved to the Netherlands, my partner’s health began to decline, and I had a new baby to take care of. It wasn’t a good time for any of us.

By 2016 we were back in London. By this time a kind and knowledgeable private doctor had put me on hydrocortisone medication to stabilise my failing adrenals, which had now given up producing cortisol on their own.

I was surviving but had little quality of life and I was always angry, snapping at my son and desperately worried about our future (my partner at this stage had also developed adrenal fatigue and had been signed off work; my son was showing the early signs of Candida overgrowth and behavioural stress).

I wasn’t working much — I worked seasonally as an A-level examiner and that work was hard on my ES, since it was all marking on-screen. The rest of the time I spent desperately researching my conditions, trying to work out why I couldn’t seem to get better.

I would lie awake at night feeling sheer terror about what I’d passed on to my son, my partner’s ill-health, our terrible financial situation, and sometimes wishing I wouldn’t wake up in the morning.

I remember it was a chance remark by someone on a Candida health forum which sparked my curiosity about liver flushes. I’d heard of liver flushing before, but been put off it by my lecturer at nutrition college who had told us it was a scam (it isn’t, and I can address why it isn’t in another post).

The original post on the forum thread said something along the lines of ‘Candida only lives in a toxic body; it’s there as the safest way to protect you from the poisonous by-products of your own poor digestion. Clean up the shit pile and the flies will leave.’

Her advice was that you could never ‘get rid’ of Candida (or heavy metals or parasites) unless you flushed out the ‘stones’ of hardened bile in the liver that gave sanctuary to these pathogens and metals. These toxins are literally trapped in the liver, wrapped up in little bile parcels and plugging the ducts.

Why do we make these stones in the first place? Because our toxic environment starts off in the womb — toxins from the environment, from poor digestion (‘leaky gut’ and fermentation/putrefaction is a common denominator in most people with ES/MCS/Candida), from pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics, vaccines and the Pill.

Add to that stress, poor diet, the wrong fats, dehydration, mineral deficiencies, refined sugar and not enough prebiotic fibre, then bile becomes thick and sticky. Once stones begin to block the liver ducts then it becomes even harder for the liver and gallbladder to release enough fresh bile to digest your food, leading to more putrefaction and dysbiosis at gut level. And so the cycle continues.

The liver becomes less able to detoxify the blood of heavy metals, chemicals and other toxins and so they begin to be stored in the fat and in cell membranes. It cannot deconjugate hormones properly either, leading people to experience blood sugar swings, insulin resistance and oestrogen dominance. It cannot convert sufficient T4 to T3 (thyroid hormone) to release into the blood.

Bile acids also keep the intestines at the right pH to prevent the wrong kind of gut bacteria causing overgrowth (Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth, or SIBO) as well as providing a nourishing environment to sustain the production of ‘feel-good’ neurotransmitters such as dopamine and serotonin. And over time the lack of proper digestive secretions causes such massive quantities of toxic by-products (endotoxins) that these further slow the metabolism, causing someone to retain metals rather than eliminate them.

It was one of those classic light-bulb moments; I didn’t need much further encouragement. I immediately purchased a copy of the seminal liver flushing text, Andreas Moritz’s The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush and joined the active Facebook group (whose admins have between them amassed a total of approx. 300 flushes); it is called Liver and Gallbladder Flush for Optimal Health and has over 16,000 members).

I painstakingly followed the protocol, which includes drinking apple juice or taking apple cider vinegar/malic acid for six days to soften the bile stones and then on the seventh day, partially fasting so as to conserve as much bile as possible for the actual flush.

On the evening of that day you consume two doses of Epsom salt (to dilate the liver ducts) and then before bedtime, you blend approx. 120-150ml olive oil (can be any polyunsaturated oil really - I use light olive oil because it’s more tasteless) with the juice of a couple of red/pink grapefruits. The oil causes a massive contraction of bile, and the juice speeds the oil on its way, hopefully taking the stones from your cystic and hepatic ducts with it. Then you lie down on your back or right side with a hot water bottle on your liver area and try to sleep. In the morning the Epsom salt moves your bowels and you will hopefully see anything from a few to a hundred ‘stones’ in the lavatory.

Moritz advises that you repeat the cleanse once a month until you release no more stones, but many members of the forum have found that more frequent cleansing than that is helpful, and it can take many flushes before symptoms abate or cease altogether.

Even though I’ve done 38 flushes, I feel that I am still at the beginning of my flushing journey. Because my liver has been so congested for so many years, many of my flushes have been unproductive and I’ve had to take extra measures to help the flush along.

When you embark on the process, you also have to see the long term picture and realise that your symptoms of toxicity will come and go; as the stones exit, new ones fall down and take their place and your old symptoms can return (sometimes even new symptoms can come along, but these will usually be temporary and often go away after the next flush).

So if you do start flushing it is best to mentally commit yourself to doing a significant number of flushes (say at least 10 to 20) before reassessing if you want to continue.

There are lots of my symptoms that still persist, but I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that I will continue to heal, as the trend is positive. Here is a short list of symptoms that have either completely or partially healed since I started my liver flushing journey back in May 2016:

  • No more PMS
  • Food cravings gone
  • Major fatigue crashes gone
  • Greater physical energy and stamina
  • ES symptoms significantly improved: can now talk on a mobile phone and use Ethernet-enabled computer (I still use a blue light filter on all my devices); less joint cracking/joint stiffness/coldness after using devices
  • Significantly less body inflammation, i.e. back ache/gynae issues
  • Multiple Chemical Sensitivity much better
  • Improved allergies and intolerances (can now eat oats which used to give me joint pain)
  • Have been able to cut down hydrocortisone medication by about 40% which is majorly significant for me. I no longer need it to sleep at night and I have been able to halve my afternoon dose. This shows my adrenal dysfunction is healing and cortisol is normalising.

Most of all I now have hope that my body will heal and recover. This is the most important thing. I had spent years going round and round in circles and had really given up thinking anything would help me. Now I can go about my day sometimes feeling almost normal, and not being afraid of my future; this is an amazing and liberating feeling.