'The Science™' on Blind Calves and Non-Ionising Radiation

Call me a cynic, but 'the Science™' is struggling to 'splain' things 10-15 years ago, although questions remain about NIR (which changes the body's pH value) and the lipid nanoparticles

Please find part one—in which we discussed the blinding of livestock by cell phone radiation—here:

Cell Phone Radiation Rendered 30 Calves Blind in Switzerland

In this second part, we’ll look at two things: first, a few quotes and insights from a small ‘association of those affected by electro smog’, followed by the one paper Prof. Michael Hässig co-authored in 2014 about this topic.

As always, translations, emphases, [and snark] mine.

---

A Message by Prof. Michael Hässig

A professor of veterinary medicine at the U of Zurich, Mr. Hässig co-founded a federal registry (called NUNIS) in 2013, as per this press release. It was apparently a one-off effort connected to the below-discussed paper, discontinued after a year, and shut down in 2018 (as per this website).

One of the core problems with NUNIS appears to have been very low engagement of farmers, as the Bauernzeitung (in a now scrubbed article) discussed in 2015:

In 2013, the Vetsuisse Faculty of the University of Zurich set up the ‘Livestock and non-ionising radiation’ reporting office on behalf of the Federal Office for the Environment. This was because various reports of health problems in farm animals were received, which farmers attributed to electrosmog or stray currents. Only a few cases were reported to the reporting centre. According to the Vetsuisse Faculty of the University of Zurich, less than one per mille of Swiss farms came forward. A total of 44 questionnaires were analysed…

In 33 cases, electrosmog, in seven cases stray currents (leakage currents) and in four cases both electrosmog and stray currents were cited as the suspected cause…

The survey leads to the conclusion that health problems caused by electrosmog or stray currents are rare [see, like modRNA poison/death juice side effects: case closed].

I found these lines on this website whose author also left the following comment:

I do not agree with the last sentence. A reported case does not mean that the assumption that electrosmog or stray currents are the cause of health problems in livestock is actually true. In my opinion, the correct conclusion should be that only a few Swiss farmers would think that electrosmog or stray currents were the cause of health problems in their animals. Whether a causal connection exists in a single case has yet to be clarified. The need for this is questionable due to the weak response to the reporting office, as the affected livestock farmers may have been misled solely by the horror stories spread by anti-mobile phone associations in the media and on their websites, for example.

The report of the ‘Nunis’ reporting centre has not yet been published by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment.

It may also be that, esp. if you’re running a medium-sized livestock farm, you simply don’t really care because most (male) calves don’t stay long enough before they’re off to the slaughterhouse. Jus’ sayin’.

A Follow-Up Study (2005)

I found some more information about the original case and what followed thereafter on this website. I’m providing a few choice excerpts about the follow-up study:

In the (cross-sectional) study with slaughter calves [see what I meant with the comment about farmers possibly not caring too much], 253 randomly selected calves between three and six months old of both sexes and different breeds were examined for cataracts. 81 out of 253 calves suffered from cataracts.

One in three animals was found to have an eye disease.

Gigaherz [sic] asked various practising country vets about this and found that in the past, i.e. in the pre-mobile phone age, there was no such thing to this extent.

Known causes such as BVD viruses could be ruled out. Genetic investigations are underway. It was therefore suspected that electromagnetic fields could be the cause.

In order to verify this assumption, the exposure of the cows during pregnancy and the exposure of the calves at birth was determined. This was possible because both the coordinates and times of the animals' whereabouts and the coordinates of all mobile phone base stations are recorded centrally by the Federal Office of Communications [BAKOM].

Here, it shall be noted that, of course, cell phone companies, associated manufacturers, and otherwise interested parties contributed financially to this study.

In order to question the statistical significance, the Dürrenberger Institute [that conducted the study and is financed by these interests] divided the calves born blind into slightly, moderately or severely blind...

In addition to the 172 normal calves, however, there were 72 so-called moderately and slightly blind calves.

If one takes the mean values from columns 1 to 3, it is easy to recognise a rapid increase in the severity of calf blindness with radiation field strength.

A whole series of analyses have now been carried out and several statistically significant correlations between the variables have been established.

It is obvious that the latter does not suit the mobile phone operators, i.e., Dr. Gregor Dürrenbereger’s financial backers, in their strategy of trivialisation.

On their behalf, Dürrenberger writes:

‘The significant association between exposure from the nearest base station during the first trimester of gestation and severe [this is the key word here] eye cataracts is based on 9 cases. This is a very small number for epidemiological statements. Purely random accumulations can hardly be distinguished from systematic ones. A generalisation of the findings is therefore risky.This problem exists in all studies with a small number of cases. The only remedy is a large sample.’

You do recognise that the ‘issue’ with these ‘revelations™’ by ‘the Science™’ is—that this is an old trick. Imagine, if you will, an argument about Sars-Cov-2 that goes like this:

‘The significant association between viral exposure and severe disease is based on [enter your preferred small number]. This is a very small number for epidemiological statements.’

But I digress from the blind calves.

What is highly interesting about Dürrenberger’s commentary is that he suddenly reduces the 81 cases of cataracts to the 9 serious ones and attempts to construct an insufficient statistical correlation from this. And further [Dürrenberger writes]

‘If you look at the 9 cases, there is one “outlier” with a field strength of just over 8V/m. All other values are below 2 V/m. The maximum value in the comparison group with 244 animals is just under 6 V/m. The “outlier” is suspicious: the simulated field strength of 8.2 V/m refers to the nearest cell tower. If this value is compared with the total value of all base stations in the vicinity of the farm, the latter is lower (7.2 V/m). This is implausible and could indicate simulation problems.’ [note that simulation or modelling—much like with the ‘Climate Catastrophe™’—trumps observations and empirical data: these 81 blind calves do exist]

Whether it is a simulation or calculation error is irrelevant here. With a total of 253 calculations, a single questionable result no longer has any influence. The error rate is less than 0.4%

Far more important is the realisation that all other cases of calf blindness were below 2V/m.

‘The “outlier” influences the statistics: if it is excluded from the analysis, the significance disappears’, says Gregor Dürrenberger.

It really doesn't work like that:

We have 81 blind calves out of 253 irradiated calves. If Gregor Dürrenberger now wants to divide these into moderately or severely blind for understandable reasons in favour of his financial backers, we simply don’t buy it. Especially not if he only wants to include the 9 severely blind people in his statistical analyses and exclude one outlier due to an alleged calculation error.

Because an effect is an effect. Women do not get pregnant easily, moderately or heavily. An effect is an effect. Full stop.

The fact is: every third calf is born with cataracts at electric field strengths between 0.1 and 2V/m. Whereby the nice Swiss limit value, which is supposed to protect 10 times better than abroad, is 5V/m for mixed systems.

There was no non-exposed control group.

Do you recognise ‘the Science™’ yet for what it was well before Covid?

Finally, the Paper by Hässig et al. (2014)

Irrespective of the conventional and fully expectable attempts to obfuscate the issue, here is Prof. Hässig on the effects of non-ionising radiation on livestock.

Entitled ‘Influence of non ionizing radiation of base stations on the activity of redox proteins in bovines’, Michael Hässig and colleagues did one (!) study that appeared in BMC Vet Res. (2014) Jun 19;10:136; doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-10-136.

From its abstract:

The influence of electromagnetic fields on the health of humans and animals is still an intensively discussed and scientifically investigated issue (Prakt Tierarzt 11:15-20, 2003; Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft 17:326-332, 2004; J Toxicol Environment Health, Part B 12:572–597, 2009). We are surrounded by numerous electromagnetic fields of variable strength, coming from electronic equipment and its power cords, from high-voltage power lines and from antennas for radio, television and mobile communication. Particularly the latter cause’s [sic] controversy, as everyone likes to have good mobile reception at anytime and anywhere, whereas nobody wants to have such a basestation antenna in their proximity.

Results

In this experiment, the NIR [non-ionising radiation] has resulted in changes in the enzyme activities. Certain enzymes were disabled, others enabled by NIR. Furthermore, individual behavior patterns were observed. While certain cows reacted to NIR, others did not react at all, or even inversely.

Conclusion

The present results coincide with the information from the literature, according to which NIR leads to changes in redox proteins, and that there are individuals who are sensitive to radiation and others that are not [well, hello unnatural selection by farmers…]. However, the latter could not be distinctly attributed […who don’t know what to do]—there are cows that react clearly with one enzyme while they do not react with another enzyme at all, or even the inverse. The study approach of testing ten cows each ten times during three phases has proven to be appropriate. Future studies should however set the post-exposure phase later on

So, there’s one paper featuring 10 cows. That’s it. That’s apparently all ‘the Science™’ that was done.

Here is the discussion (references omitted):

In this study, NIR has resulted in significant changes in the activities of the investigated redox enzymes…

It can be concluded with great probability that the exposure to non-ionizing radiation (NIR) has led to a significant increase of GSH-PX activity and is in accordance with earlier findings by Hässig et al. A seasonal time trend can be ruled out by the short alterations in the summary evaluation. The SOD showed a significant reduction in activity. However, whether this change of enzyme activity is reversible or irreversible could not be determined conclusively on the basis of this data. The enzyme activities remained more or less unchanged during the post exposure period. To confirm this, the measurements of post-exposure must take place later.

If, at this point, you’re wondering whether GSH-PX are important, well, here’s what Wikipedia has to say about it (I kept the links but omitted the references):

It has been shown that low levels of glutathione peroxidase as measured in the serum may be a contributing factor to vitiligo. Lower plasma glutathione peroxide levels were also observed in patients with type 2 diabetes with macroalbuminuria and this was correlated to the stage of diabetic nephropathy. In one study, the activity of glutathione peroxidase along with other antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase and catalase was not associated with coronary heart disease risk in women. Glutathione peroxidase activity was found to be much lower in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. One study has suggested that glutathione peroxidase and superoxide dismutase polymorphisms play a role in the development of celiac disease.

To me, it looks like quite important, esp. as, if there are problems with GSH-PX, they apparently work like a catalyst for several (autoimmune) diseases.

No significant change in the Catalase activity could be determined between pre-exposure and exposure. However, a significant decrease of the Catalase activity is visible between exposure and post-exposure. A possible explanation for the different behavior of the measured enzymes is their respective up and down regulation of the pH… [so, cell phone radiation changes the body’s pH values: that doesn’t sound like a good idea]

A temporal trend can definitely be excluded based on the aggregated Rf-values of Catalase, GSH-PX and the inverse Rf-values of SOD. It can be said with great probability that the exposure to non-ionizing radiation (NIR) has led to a significant change in the overall activity of the three measured redox enzymes.

Confounders may be largely excluded. The cows were in a barn with low background radiation. The NIR exposure has been standardized under controlled conditions. Because the experiment was conducted in the winter, the animals spent most of the time in their cubicles in the barn and were fed uniformly. They were cared for by the usual staff and at the usual times. Ambient conditions such as stable temperature and humidity were largely constant. The cows were healthy during the entire trial period, apart from two cases of mastitis. Mastitis can lead to alterations in redox enzymes due to the higher production of free radicals. Collecting blood from the tail vein is also a low-stress method: most of the cows remained undisturbed during blood collection.

The test sequence and the study approach, ten cows during three phases to be sampled, has proved useful. Only the post-exposure period should be extended in future trials, to allow more specific statements regarding reversibility. Even if a significant difference between the exposure and the post-exposure phase was found in the comprehensive evaluation of all three enzymes, it must be remembered that catalase in the individual evaluation was the only enzyme, of which the activity has dropped significantly between the exposure and the post-exposure phase.

Catalase, of course, is ‘is a very important enzyme in protecting the cell from oxidative damage by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Catalase has one of the highest turnover numbers of all enzymes; one catalase molecule can convert millions of hydrogen peroxide molecules to water and oxygen each second’.

It is often heard in connection with the possible influence of NIR on the health of humans and animals, that there are radiation-sensitive, as well as non-radiation-sensitive individuals. In humans, this phenomenon was studied already [8]. This controversial assertion could not be demonstrated in this experiment. Although there were trends in cows, which reacted with all three appropriate enzymes (Maya, Regula, Vreni), as well as one cow, which responded inversely with all three enzymes (Gremsli). A correlation between breed, age, reproductive status, and diseases with NIR sensitivity was not found (Tables 2 and 3). The other six cows showed no consistent pattern of response. Regarding NIR sensitivity, a reliable statement cannot be made. More animals should be investigated to find a definite answer to this question. This could be the subject of a future study.

Humans and animals interact constantly with the living and non-living environment, during which the individual tries to maintain its homeostasis. This happens for example when heat exposure through cooling mechanisms is controlled for temperature homeostasis. For NIR exposure it is similar: the cow tries to counteract NIS exposure, which affects their redox status, by regulating enzyme activity, to ensure homeostasis of the pH in the body. If the individual is able to hold the values to regulate within the physiological limits, the individual is not ill. If the regulatory functions of the body are overwhelmed, the individual gets ill. In our case, a range for GSH-PX of 82.29 to 297.59 U/l was measured. The changes of GSH-PX in our study are within the physiological range, as specified in the literature (Smith [10]; 25 to 500 U/l). Useful values for comparison of SOD and catalase were not found. Thus, influences of NIR are detectable in the presented study but no outliner could be determined for GSH-PX in non-physiological areas at any time. Further studies on bovines have to be blinded and even more standardized by means of breed and gestation synchronization. For such a study much more money must be available than for the presented one.

---

Bottom Lines

So, there we have it: survival of the fittest, it would seem, and I suspect that humans and cows aren’t that different in this regard.

The thing that makes me quite wary are the way NIR is increasing in wavelength and bandwidth, as well as the question of what are the human body’s limits?

If the individual is able to hold the values to regulate [homeostasis] within the physiological limits, the individual is not ill. If the regulatory functions of the body are overwhelmed, the individual gets ill.

I suspect that by upping the ante from 1G through 5G (with 6G coming soon, I fear), we’re not only conducting a planetary experiment—but there’s also no control group.

Since NIM extends worldwide, it would be interesting if these issues about up/down-regulation of enzymes also apply to other living organisms, such as plants and other animals.

As per Wikipedia’s entry on Catalase, we learn, for instance, that ‘catalase deficiency in mice may increase the likelihood of developing obesity, fatty liver, and type 2 diabetes’.

Further down, there are these lines:

Catalase has been shown to interact with the ABL2 and Abl genes. Infection with the murine leukemia virus causes catalase activity to decline in the lungs, heart and kidneys of mice. Conversely, dietary fish oil increased catalase activity in the heart, and kidneys of mice.

Catalase deficiency speeds up aging and, due to white blood cells fending off esp. bacteria with peroxide, also decreases one’s body’s capabilities to defend against bacterial virulence and certain fungal infections.

As always, there’s no easy conclusion to be drawn, yet it seems quite certain that lower exposure to NIR is better for your metabolic and overall health.

There’s no way of knowing, empirically speaking, if and by how much cell phone radiation down-regulates the body’s immune system and hence increases its susceptibility for a wide variety of illnesses despite an over-abundance of food, hygiene, and sanitation.

In the worst case, it appears likely that NIR counteracts part of the improvements (esp. due to food availability, hygiene, and sanitation) achieve in the 20th century.

Just by how much, well, that’s anyone’s guess.

My gut feeling is that those who live in more polluted areas and are exposed to more toxins will suffer comparatively higher levels of disease.

If you’re up for it, let’s ponder the consequences of the roll-out of 5G (itself bandwidth no longer useful to the military) networks at around the same time Sars-Cov-2 became (was made) notorious and the many health-related issues that appeared in close temporal association with 5G and the release of the modRNA poison/death juice.

I have no idea what the possible implications would be if and how, say, NIR affects the enzymes controlling the body’s pH values: after all, the lipid nanoparticles in the modRNA poison/death juices are cationic (positively charged).

Do you, dear reader, have any insights into this notion?