Lots of Attennas

I was recently working on a piece about 5G communications and came across a small gem of a book written by Susan Pockett, a researcher from New Zealand. It is called “Electrosmog” (2021) and if you are at all interested in the 5G “discussion” you can download it here

In Chapter 4 of the book Susan discusses the strategies used by Telecom Corporations and their pet PR/lobby group soldiers to shut down opposing voices in the debate about public safety of EMF’s (Electromagnetic Forces/Fields).

This piece is about those strategies and not just Telecom corporations. You can insert Pesticides, Big oil, GMO, Climate change, War, Tobacco, or Pharmaceuticals into the subject line and the strategy looks just the same. Whenever questions are raised about …(Pick a subject)… these same strategies are trotted out to shut down any and all forms of dissent.

An entire world of flim-flam and illusion has been manufactured to try and shut down all dissenting arguments. Susan Pockett is having none of it. Neither are we.

Another very worthwhile book on the same subject is called Trust us We’re Experts, [How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future,]  written by Sheldon Rampton and John  Stauber. I had just finished reading it for a third time when I came across Electrosmog. The two fit very well with each other.

What follows is an additional section to our piece last February headed Propaganda 101 and how it is used as a weapon against the public. If we cannot tell the difference between propaganda and reality we are likely to vote for the wrong people, and we dont want that to happen now do we?

In Chapter 4 of Electrosmog Susan Pockett discusses these strategies and has written them into her very own ‘Playbook’ …SLIMED, which help us to remember them. (Its called a mnemonic, the M is silent as in rhubarb)

We have taken the liberty of borrowing Susans SLIMED as a base for this piece, while extending its scope to cover modern science in general, not just electromagnetic radiation..

The S.L.I.M.E.D. Playbook looks like this…are we sitting comfortably?


S is for Sneer

One of the very first tools to come out of the Slimed playbook, is a sneering, patronizing, unsophisticated method which tries to win a scientific argument by just putting down the opposition as “ill-informed” or just plain “stupid”.

We must believe that only Experts with PHD’s can grasp “these highly complex subjects” as they are way beyond the range of ordinary human beings to understand.

This stems from a really unpleasant, and far too common tendency for some people to want to seize and enjoy every moment of feeling superior over others.  More often than not, these feelings of superiority are completely misplaced, but it is easy to see how Hitler managed to enlist so many people into believing they were all members of the  master race.

As ordinary members of the public we are not supposed to have opinions on these ‘Highly Complex Subjects” …they are for Experts only…even the politicians cannot grasp these complex subjects so they have to rely on experts too…so they gather groups of experts together to “advise them” Stuff that. I can read, and I can comprehend and I must certainly do not need an “Expert”to tell me how I must think about Abortion, War, GMO or 5G. I can study the science too, and if I can do it I fully expect a Government minister in charge of these affairs to learn about it. A health minister who cannot be bothered to study public health is an Oxygen Bandit in my opinion.

Problem One

These complex subjects, like electromagnetic radiation, herbicides, vaccines, pesticides, weather manipulation, chemical pollution have a real and long-lasting effect on every man woman and child on this planet. They also have a very real and long-lasting effect on every living thing on this planet and the environment in which we all live. Somehow we have been bamboozled into accepting that it is we, the public, that has to prove the lack of safety of these products and not the manufacturers who make the profits.

Problem Two

Our politicians are all too happy to emply teams of scientific advisors, but all too often these advisors are somehow ‘involved’ inside the industries in question. That involvement may just be a 7-figure salary, but it can also be a $Billion grant for an entire college wing or research facility, with all the razzamatazz, glory and ballyhoo that entails. It isn’t always money that motivates people, they were often born with plenty of that anyway, but power and prestige are pretty good motivators on the way to the top of the heap.

Problem three

Is that of democracy, where is it?

Experts are very often appointed by people that have something to gain from their expert testimony. {Politicians already have a political standpoint they wish to get across, they will not be appointing any experts that go against that position} No elections are necessary, no scrutinization of their credentials, no background checks to see if they have a couple of $million in shares in the corporation that steers their careers. Nada! Leading us to …

Problem Four.

Accountability. There isn’t any.

“Experts” sit in Committees or stand in front of TV cameras trotting out statistics and techno-blurb, but who holds them to account when their numbers and theories don’t stack up? Who holds the experts to account that had us all locked up like criminals for weeks on end so that we did not infect each other with a disease that had a 0.07% chance of harming us.

Science that could possibly reach into the lives of every living thing on this planet MUST be open to examination by ANYONE and everyone.  Scientists are just a small section of society. They may have a great deal of knowledge about the newly patented radioactive widget that is seeking FDA approval, but what do they know about the other million issues out there. Scientists live in silos, in this case our ‘Experts” live in a Quantum Widgetry silo so will know next to nothing about phytoplankton or the breeding cycles of Sticklebacks. Scientists are ordinary human beings, who may have a few more diplomas than the rest, but they are not gods. A PhD does not bestow supernatural powers. Maybe scientists should, like doctors, swear an oath like “First Do No Harm”?

Within science we find genius and ignorance, or love and hate just like any other segment of society. We find scientists that live for years in remote areas studying the life of apes, or the effect of water erosion on mountain ranges. We have other scientists that manipulate genes or atoms and produce corn that cannot be killed by Round – Up (which will kill everything else on the farm, including the Farmer if he isnt very careful, BUT not the corn) Pure Genius!  We have others who create atomic bombs which can ONLY ever be used to kill and maim people. First do no harm?

Calling yourself a scientist is absolutely NO guarantee that you are a nice person, but you might be called upon to advise a nations government on something that could affect the entire population.

How certain are we that our governments only select the Good Guys?

An extension of the Sneer tactic is its logical progression to downright nasty. The trading of insults instead of ideas.  Maybe the terms ‘Flat Earther’ or ‘Tin foil hat wearer’, and “Conspiracy Theorist” ring a bell with you.



L is for Lie


Telling lies is the ‘Go To’ strategy for creating confusion and more importantly, doubt. With doubt in the equation the liars have now bought enough time for their backers to carry on Business as Usual, for a couple of years with all the CEO bonuses, shareholder dividends and share buybacks that can be grabbed in those 2 years.

In terms of “Scientific Proof” the direct way to accomplish a strategy based on lies is simply to pay people enough money to ensure they deliver the scientific proof that you want. Its worth noting here that science is very rarely proven, it is always open to debate, until the next development comes along and makes the old “Proof” obsolete, and puts a new proof in its place.

On the issue of being paid to write “Scientific Proof” to order, bear in mind that scientists are just human beings with a diploma. Once human beings have settled down into a nice comfy 6 or 7 – figure salary and a lifestyle with Cadillac, the pool and the Country Club, the last place they want to find themselves is back in a bedsitting room with a bicycle and an 18 Inch black and white TV. Both the lie and die are now cast.

Now let us take an independent (non-industry funded) published and peer reviewed study that clearly shows “The Product” in this case our new patented Radioactive Widget, is unsafe, and ineffective.

Clearly damaging to us, the manufacturers, both our reputation and our bottom line. So, it becomes necessary to shut down this argument quickly and to do that we need a study that proves beyond doubt that the first study is rubbish.

An alternative study is whistled up by ‘Industry Friendly’ scientists claiming they have repeated the experiments from the first study and found no such evidence of harm or damage.

We have now succeeded in installing the doubt, while buying ourselves enough time to get the product FDA/EPA/FCC approved and on the market (and making it very much harder to be removed).

Surely not! This sort of thing cannot happen among gentlemen scientists can it?

Try this example from Susan Pocketts book…

So, for 2 years largely unpaid people trying to highlight safety issues for the public benefit were blindsided by people whose primary motivation was making money. Typically, pro-industry research papers are funded by the industry concerned (whether its tobacco, Telecom, Pharma or Agribiz). Statistically these papers prove to be twice as likely to report “No Harmful effects” as papers that are written by independent researchers. The simple relationship at play here is blindingly obvious to most people, it’s the age-old science of follow the money.

Who could expect a manufacturer of radioactive widgets to admit his own product damaged unborn babies?

Nobody is who! Once upon a time there were ethics and scruples, but vast sums of money have simply washed them both down the plughole of history, and now we must view everything as suspect. I wish it wasn’t so, but it is!

So why then do we allow Radioactive Widget makers to go into production based on safety evidence and data produced by Radioactive Widget makers?

You may think that the FDA, EPA, CDC, et al, with their billion-dollar budgets do all of that work for us, but they don’t, the vast majority of the safety data and analysis is already done for them…in this case, by the Radioactive Widget makers.

There is also the small matter of the sheer numbers of Radioactive Widget makers that sit on the panels of the FDA, EPA, CDC. It’s a very steep slope on the playing fields of science.


A lot of the flexibility in the definition of Right and Wrong comes from an unwritten (and signature free) so called Honour Code which expects the “unfettered and disinterested pursuit of the scientific truth without hinderance from culture, religions, politics and economics”. In short there is an expectation of honesty and integrity but it is just an expectation, nothing more. Business is all done on a nod and a wink, while ‘accountability’ is a dirty word among Gentlemen.

Let me quote a piece from Trust Us We’re Experts…(p200)


A few notes on the subject…

  1. Designing studies to deliver the outcomes the funders of that study require may not be a lie exactly but it stretches the Honour Code pretty thin.
  2. Research Studies and papers have a section which requires researchers to declare any conflicts of interest. Peer reviewers need no such declaration and often remain anonymous. Peer reviewers can reject a research paper without so much as stating their name. The lie in this case is the idea that most people have, that there is an ongoing “meaningful discussion of science” when it is no such thing. Its an Industry funded hijacking of the scientific process for profits.
  3. Just imagine…Peer reviewers do not even lie about their conflicts of interest anymore, why bother when you don’t have to disclose them.
  4. Editors of publishing journals have discretion over what is published or not. Cases exist where papers with an unfavourable report on “The Product” never see the light of day.
  5. How do you peer review a paper that doesn’t exist on paper?

A final word from the British Medical Journal (1997) on the peer review process…

“The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits. “We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient.”

Richard Smith, “Peer Review: Reform or Revolution?” British Medical Journal, no. 315 (1997), pp. 759-760.


I is for Ignore

This is the flipside of the coin:

Tell a lie often enough and people will start to believe it”.

In this case,

Ignore something often enough and people will not get the chance to believe it.

Issues can be ignored completely by simply answering any questions asked with an answer to another question altogether. A famous UK comedy duo, the Two Ronnies,  made famous a sketch from Mastermind in which the chosen specialised subject was “Answering the questions before the last question”. A very good illustration of answering the wrong question.

Another doozle way of doing it is Cherry Picking. Faced with a growing number of papers that say your Radioactive Widget is causing harm to babies in the womb you simply employ the methods in the last section and have the journals filled with papers that either say your widget is as safe as houses or pick holes in the conflicting papers and start telling lies about the researchers that wrote them. All you need to do now is print off a whole stack of the new Pro-Widget papers and, ignoring all the bad stuff, get yourself invited onto the BBC to state your case…you have all the freshly made proof you need.

Industry, when questioned by authority, has little choice but to admit that it has been ignoring things. This short video shows a US Senator questioning two industry giants on the amount of research they have done to prove to the public that their products are safe.

Every year that Round Up stays in production adds billions to the value of Monsanto shares…while destroying another few thousand hectares of farmland around the world.


The effect of all this destruction? Well so far the EPA and US government have managed to ignore it almost completely. When questioned about these issues the EPA responds with denial, smoke-screen and evasion rather than a tangible solution to these problems. Meanwhile both Glyphosate, Vinyl Chloride and more recently the “Forever Chemical” PFOS are produced in vast quantities and splashed all over the planet with the mindlessness of sharks in a feeding frenzy.

Two years ago the world was bombarded with propaganda that was quite explicit in stating that Ivermectin was a dangerous drug/horse de-wormer and that people who took it would have all manner of problems, as well as it having no benefits whatsoever to Covid sufferers. Within all this ballyhoo there was not one single suggestion of an alternative treatment (Pre the mRNA Gene therapy which they still insist on calling a vaccine).

The overwhelming body of evidence (197 Trials in total)  that Ivermectin actually did have significant benefits was ignored completely. https://dangerousglobe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/IVM-Trials-Main-Database.pdf


  M is for Minimise

We are not going to take liberties with this section, Susan Pockett has done such a good job that most of what follows in this section refers to the specific subject of Electrosmog.

What do we do when reports get published that show beyond all reasonable doubt clear evidence of biological harm?

Susan quotes two studies here…

  • The $25,000,000 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the US Department of Health that clearly demonstrates that radiofrequency fields cause cancer in rats.
  • A similar study by the Ramazzini Institute in Italy which fully confirms the NTP study.

A 19-man peer review of the NTP study (National Toxicology Program 2019) concluded that the studies findings provided “Clear Evidence” that RF causes…

  • Schwannomas (malignant tumours of the Schwann cells that sheath all myelinated nerves) in the hearts of male rats.
  • Less clear evidence that RF causes gliomas in the brain.
  • Pheochromocytomas in the adrenal gland.
  • … and tumours of the prostate and pancreas.


For good measure the Ramazzini study ( Falcioni et al 2018) agrees with those findings.


The 2018 response to these reports from the agency trusted with protecting the public from such damage, ICNIRP (The clue is in the name – International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection ) was pretty quick. They released a non-peer Reviewed note (ICNIRP 2018) that simply minimised the importance of both papers.

In 2019, the contents of that note were refuted (Melnick 2019). It seemed the issue wasn’t going to go away quietly.

A 2018 report to ministers of the New Zealand Government provided a textbook example of the ‘Minimise’ Playbook in action. In that document ICNIRP states…“Animal Studies do not suggest an effect of RF fields on cancer”.

There are two clear signs in that statement of their intention to bamboozle the public into thinking that Black is indeed White.

Firstly they say there is no ‘Suggestion” that RF fields can cause cancer. The two reports that ICNIRP are responding to go way beyond SUGGESTING it, they have actually demonstrated it.

Secondly, the ICNIRP statement “do not suggest an effect of RF fields on cancer”. which could be taken to mean that existing cancers were unaffected by RF fields. It might seem like splitting hairs but not in a courtroom setting, where words have very specific meanings. The two studies claim and can demonstrate that RF causes cancer. The studies were not studying RF effects on existing cancer.

The early studies showed that cancer free Rats were shown to produce cancers after being irradiated by RF fields…and that is Black, not White.

The New Zealand report minimises the initial NTP study and makes no mention of the Italian study, although it was included in the report material.

It also ignores the rebuttal of the ICNIRP note (Melnick 2019) based on the grounds that a Cut Off date had been established for rebuttals and that was decided to be the 7th September 2018…..the date the Melnick rebuttal was published.

Why does this feel like a middle finger toward the scientists trying to bring life threatening cancers to the attention of health authorities?


 E is for ethics.

Ethics are shy elusive creatures which, early in the 21st century, have been put high on the endangered species list. Ethics are especially vulnerable to applications of money, status, and the dangling carrot of unlimited power.

“Everyone has their price” we are told as though it its some kind of law of human nature. Most people recognise this quote but conveniently forget it came out of the mouth and mind of a murderous drug gangster called Pablo Escobar. This is how the world is supposed to spin? Is Escobar now our role model?


 E is also for “Expert”

 Albert Einstein is quoted as saying …“If you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself.”


The Expert playbook is less about expertise than about who is paying the salaries and funding research studies and projects, and who has their name over the front door of that new Hospital Research Wing.

This in turn is made much harder to understand after some of these experts also have passed through the Revolving door that exists in almost every interface between Industry and Government

Most of the regulatory agencies that exist in the US and Europe have now been populated by “Experts” that have arrived from the same corporate entities that are subject of the regulation process. In the US, the alphabet agencies like the FDA, EPA FCC, CDC and a slew of others are now populated to the extent that the regulation of both Government and Industry is now worthless, and in safety terms, downright dangerous. The term for this is Captured Agency.

One of the principle aims of these agencies is to convince our politicians that they do not need to do the heavy lifting and learn all about the science that they plan to somehow legislate. “Science has become so complex and complicated in the 21st Century that it is essential to draft in committees of chosen experts to advise and steer governments on the correct path”.

Enter the experts, the majority of whom are employed by Industry.

In 1994 and 1995, researchers led by David Blumenthal at the Massachusetts General Hospital surveyed more than 3,000 academic researchers involved in the life sciences and found that 64 percent of their respondents reported having some sort of financial relationship with industry.

David Blumenthal et al., “Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 277, no. 15 (April 16, 1997).


The events of the past 3 years with such “Expert” committees steering government policies around the world with regard to Covid 19 and its management bear testament to the abominable inputs from experts and politicians alike. On a daily basis, the contradictory testimony of them has kept the public ill-informed to the extent that few have a clue anymore as to what is fact and what is fiction.

Experts have given us:-

To mask or not to mask that is the question.

Vaccines are superior to Natural Immunity

Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are on the shelf, readily available to help control the disease, safe as houses and a few days later have been withdrawn as potentially lethal Horse medication.

Computer models from “expert” Computer modeller Ferguson of the Imperial College London showed that “tens of millions are in imminent danger of dying from Covid 19” unless we lock ourselves indoors, shut schools and businesses, destroy the economy and only come out of our houses to clap for the NHS on a weekly basis.

We could go on, but experts have warned me about my rising blood pressure.


 D is for Distraction


“Ladies and Gentlemen, please notice how my hands never leave my wrists’.

Distraction can take many forms, the best of which convinces the observer that there is nothing going on. Of course, if that fails the fall-back position is that there is something going on, but it is completely different and totally disconnected to whatever it is that you thought was going on.

Remember, you can be convinced that a lady was just sawn in half, because you saw somebody saw through the box that you saw the lady step into. You also saw that man on the telly rubbing cutlery which turned into plasticine, you saw it with your own eyes…it must be true.

But we also know that in all these cases we were watching an illusionist at work. Skilled and highly effective at what they do, after all they have to make a living out of it, in the same way that pickpockets operate. By diverting your attention for those brief few moments that it takes to replace the truth your eyes just witnessed with a truth they wanted to witness.

If your eyes can be bamboozled in this way, so can your ears and your mind. Let me introduce the “Doctor Fox Lecture” This was a lecture in front of three distinguished panels of experts which included highly qualified educators and educational administrators, psychiatrists, sociologists and social workers.

The lecture was delivered by an actor, and the title was ‘Mathematical Game Theory, as Applied to Physical Education’ and it was quite deliberately filled with nonsense, double talk and gobbledegook peppered with contradictory statements.

After the talk the audience was required to fill in a questionnaire. Not one came forward and declared it a hoax while most were complimentary on the speakers delivery and expertise.

Remember this example when you see it stated that we, the Great Unwashed,  lack the brains or the insight to digest something complex  and see it for what it is. Remember it when you are next told that you must be a Doctor before you can discuss  vaccination, of a meteorologist, before you can discuss climate change.

And also spare a thought for the bamboozled “Experts” who had the wool pulled over their eyes. It was done by expert bamboozlers, and there are millions of those working in the advertising, PR and lobbying industries that make a vast amount of money on a daily basis out of making you and I believe gobbledegook.

You want distractions? Here you go, in the last 5 years I offer you Brexit, Covid19, (and all its spin off industries), Ukraine war, Wokeness, Syria, WW3, The Great Reset, Taiwan and China, the 4th Industrial Revolution, Yemen, Highly Toxic rail accidents (that go largely unnoticed) Climate Change, Transhumanism (and the insistence that we now must accept women with penises and a dozen different (a)genders into the primary school teaching curricula.)

All of these things did not just happen along. They were planned, created and executed, and many of them executed very badly.

Making your mind try and focus on all these issues at the same time is the ultimate distraction, and for some people, it quite literally “Blows their Minds”.

Do not let yours be one of them.

The truth will always come out.

Another great site by the Dangerous Globe

Another great site by the Dangerous Globe

A free to use, comprehensive and independent search engine which is about to become your favourite. https://thereal.news

TheReal.News is a search engine that has had the spin removed. We use sites that we have studied for some time and monitored for integrity and we don’t use sites that we have seen which either spin or lie their way to the front page. Everybody is biased in some way or they aren’t breathing, but Bias and Bollocks are not the same thing.

People that tell the truth are quite easy to find because they cite references and sources to back up what they say. The opposite is also true.

Please spread the word
Tony Broomfield
Co-Founder of the Dangerous Globe and The Real News. https://dangerousglobe.com https://thereal.news
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments