“And now that you have seen a really evil man, you will know how evil they can be and you will go after them to destroy them in order to protect yourself and the people you love. You won’t wait to argue about it. You know what they look like now and what they can do to people.”
James Bond’s French colleague, Mathis, From “Casino Royale”, by Ian Fleming , 1953
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY AS CANCER DRIVER
The cancer incidence rate in the United States is 442.4 per 100,000.
While the cancer incidence rate in Mexico is 86.3 per 100,000.
The cancer incidence rate in the Unites States is 412% greater, or more than five times what it is in Mexico, right across the border (442.4 per hundred thousand to 86.3 thousand).
More than five times greater? What gives?
Medical News Today says “Mexico has lower rates of risk factors like tobacco usage, alcohol consumption, UV exposure, and occupational risk compared to countries with high cancer rates, such as France.”
Let’s look at those in order.
“Tobacco usage”
CDC.gov: “In 2019, nearly 14 of every 100 U.S. adults aged 18 years or older (14.0%) currently* smoked cigarettes”.
Healthdata.org says “Tobacco control efforts have showed results: Mexico has seen declines in smoking prevalence at the national level. In 1990, 28% of Mexicans smoked, falling to 16% in 2017.”
Essay: Explain how a 14% increase in the smoking rate between Mexico and the United States (from 14% to 16%) drives a 412% increase in cancer in the U.S. versus Mexico.
Answer: Healthdata.org is a State propaganda organ, using conscious deception while maintaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
“Alcohol consumption”
Nationmaster.com: “All drinks - Mexico, 8.42, ranked 66th, United States, 9.44, ranked 57th, 12% more than Mexico.
Essay: Explain how and why Medical News Today stated that a 12% increase in alcohol consumption per capita led to an over five-fold increase in cancer in the U.S. vs. Mexico.
Answer: Medical News Today is a State propaganda organ, using conscious deception while maintaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
“UV Exposure”
If you’ve ever been to Mexico, you know what a gigantic, bald-faced lie that “lower UV exposure” is.
“Occupational risk”
Essay: Define “occupational risk”, and then explain how those unique occupations in Mexico, vs. the U.S., lead to a more than five-fold increase in cancer in the U.S. versus Mexico. Make sure to include what percentage of the Mexican population uniquely practice those occupations in Mexico, and not the U.S., and describe how that subset of the populace passes cancer on to those not practicing those unique professions.
Now that we’ve exposed the duplicity of Medical News Today and Healthdata.org via what was known in the old days as “fact checking”, let’s do some analysis on the real perpetrator, namely, the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation from what we euphemistically refer to as “technology”:
In the United States, internet penetration is 89.4%, social media penetration is 82%, and smartphone penetration is 88%.
In Mexico, internet penetration is 72%, social media penetration is 59%, and smartphone penetration is 60%.
Internet penetration in the Unites States is 24% higher than it is in Mexico.
Social media penetration in the United States is 39% higher than it is in Mexico.
Smartphone penetration is 47% higher in the United States than it is in Mexico.
If we add those three and average them, as “wireless technology exposure”, that’s 37%.
A 37% higher exposure to wireless technology in the United States vs. Mexico is concurrent with a 412% greater incidence of cancer. That’s an increase of cancer of 11% for every 1% increase in technology exposure.
The cancer incidence in India is 97.1 per 100,000.
The cancer incidence rate in the United States is 442.4 per 100,000.
The cancer rate in the Unites States is 355% greater, or well over four times that of India. What gives?
Quora.com: “India’s cancer rate could be under-reported because of a lack of medical infrastructure. Also, India has a young population”.
Where “cancer is under-reported” and “India has a young population” are bullshit plausible-deniability excuses, put forward because the propagandist at Quora understands that many or most readers will grasp any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of social responsibility.
It’s just like the example from Mexico that we looked at previously, where a whole other slew of bullshit plausible-deniability excuses were put forward at the local level to take your eye off the wider trend I’m elucidating here.
Now let’s do some analysis on the real perpetrator, namely, the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation from what we euphemistically refer to as “technology”:
India’s Internet penetration is 41%. India’s social media penetration is 50%. India’s smartphone penetration is 53%.
In the United States, internet penetration is 89.4%, social media penetration is 82%, and smartphone penetration is 88%.
The internet penetration in the United States is 118% greater, or more than double what it is in India (41% to 89.4%).
The social media penetration in the United States is 64% greater than it is in India (50% to 82%).
The smartphone penetration is 66% greater than it is in India (53% to 88%).
If we add those three and average them, as “technology exposure”, that’s 82.6%.
An 82% higher exposure to wireless technology in the United States vs. India is concurrent with a 355% greater incidence of cancer. That’s an increase of cancer of 4.3% for every 1% increase in technology exposure.
Now, cancer existed prior to the purportedly-harmless non-ionizing radiation that we euphemistically refer to as “wireless technology”. The microwave radiation carried by the oven in your kitchen and the towers up on the mountain where you live was giving people cancer long before the advent of Wi-Fi. And prior to that, people were getting cancer from high-tension power lines, and a host of other sources.
But wireless technology as a driver of cancer is a real thing, and I’m documenting it for the record here.
