A good number of our customers are. They're searching and searching for something that works, and often they find Blushield is exactly what they’re looking for.
For example, I heard the story of a lady living in Canada that could not go into her house. Maybe the house was not electrically grounded properly. Whatever it was, she was sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation that was there. She couldn’t stand being in her own house!
Hopefully, you’re safe in your own home and not in an extreme situation like this. If you are, it’s good to know that this kind of technology exists to help you out.
Something else that you can look at is whether you have OTHER sensitivities. Mark Langdon, creator of Blushield, stated that food allergies or chemical intolerances are a sure sign of being electrically-hypersensitive.
Of course, this isn’t a black-or-white thing. It’s a scale or a bell curve, with some people being more sensitive than others. For whatever reason, it’s also going to depend on the device or frequencies in question.
Some people are more sensitive to cell phones.
Others to Wi-Fi.
Still others, only to the more powerful cell phone towers.
Or smart meters.
This is one of the reasons that EHS is difficult to diagnose.
This is also why some people can notice a significant difference, like H. Vercammen from Holland.
“I am electro hypersensitive and I have tried other portable devices, and also stones, but they didn’t work for me. With the Blushield, I feel more relaxed and balanced and it improves my ability to concentrate. What really fascinates me was the reaction of my horse and ponies when I first had the device on me. I put my horse in the meadow and was arranging her hay, but she kept a few meters distance and had this strange, investigating look in her eyes. Normally she starts to eat right away. Then she came towards me and put her nose to my pocket where I had the Blushield. She stood there for a few seconds before she started eating her hay. Then I put my two ponies in the meadow and they usually run away when I let them go, but they kept standing with me and also put their noses to my pocket. So clearly they feel the Blushield and find it pleasant. Horses are flight animals, so if they don’t trust something, their first instinct is to run away.”
While I can’t promise that Blushield will work for everyone (nothing ever seems to work for all people all the time), from my experience and the feedback we receive daily, I can definitely say it’s worth a shot.
Not quite…Mark told me that they estimated that the devices, through some complex mathematical equations and animal testing, are 93% effective.
Nothing in nature seems to be 100% efficient.
What does that mean for you? That means you probably still should not hold a cell phone up to your ear. It means you probably shouldn’t hold it close to your sensitive reproductive tissues. You should still seek to minimize your negative EMF exposure, but at the same time you’re much more protected, 93% more protected in fact. You don’t need to worry about it so much anymore.
He talks about the idea of a tipping point. Every person will be different as far as what they can handle. If you took your Blushield device and stood under some power lines or next to a smart meter, you’d be fine for a while. At some point, however, you likely would not be. (While I don’t recommend you run this as an experiment you could do that and time it, with and without the Blushield device, to see how long it takes for a sensory difference to your health.)
I hope I’ve hit a good balance of understanding the real consequences of negative EMF’s, which can be scary, and the positive side that comes when you know there’s something that can be done about it. The next email may be a bit of a bummer, but once again, it’s important to understand so that you can do your best to protect yourself. Keep an eye out for the next email…
The term conspiracy theory has likely been in use for more than a century, but in the past couple decades and especially these past few years, the term has become widely known. When someone first hears about how the manmade electromagnetic fields that now permeate our living spaces more than ever can cause harm to human bodies and other living organisms, but then find out that the government, tech industry and mainstream media claim they are completely harmless, many will wonder…
Are EMF dangers just another conspiracy theory?
First of all, since “conspiracy theory” is commonly used as an insult to dismiss a claim without investing energy into a thoroughly educated counter-argument, it’s important to examine what this term actually means. It’s fairly self-evident that in a modern context, it applies to the suspicion, based on evidence that “just doesn’t add up”, that the official narrative of any big event or big issue is purposely concealing or falsely reporting the truth of what happened, for the purpose of furthering an agenda. By “official narrative”, we mean the version of an event reported by the mainstream media, the government, or any other powerful organization capable of influencing a notable percentage of human minds.
When an individual who is concerned with knowing the true version of an event “theorizes” that groups of people or organizations are “conspiring” for a particular outcome, technically they could be referred to as a conspiracy theorist, and the term itself isn’t inherently insulting. Generally, when people make decisions together in secret (a conspiracy), it is because the potentially affected parties wouldn’t like or agree with the plan, if they knew about it. So to some extent, conspiracies always have ill intent. A sensible, discerning “conspiracy theorist” has seen evidence that arouses suspicion that something is being wrongly reported, and tries to investigate the matter more thoroughly to get to the bottom of it. Much like a detective, solving mysteries.
However, the term has been turned into a derogatory one, by those who don’t want to admit that conspiracies are actually possible and happen regularly. If you study history, you will find out that conspiracies exist, and even large scale conspiracies are possible if only a few people at the top know the truth and everyone further down the line just believes the lie and follows along. Why would our modern society be exempt from the conspiracies that groups of humans concerned with maintaining or increasing their power have been engaging in for all of documented history?
After the JFK assassination in 1963, a significant portion of the population questioned the official story of how it happened and who was involved. This mass suspicion was so concerning to the United States government at the time that the CIA wrote a 53-page document full of instructions on how to dismiss and debunk the questions brought up by these “conspiracy theorists”, to restore faith in the official story published by the Warren Report, to be used by influential voices such as journalists of large publications. This CIA document was not publicly available until a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request was filed over 10 years later. The JFK assassination is still widely questioned to this day.
A more refreshing title for sensible individuals that question official narratives would be a “truth seeker”. The pursuit of (sometimes hidden) truth has always been, and always will be, a vital task in any society. As long as any human engages in deception, truth seeking will be relevant and noble. However, discernment and open mindedness are of critical importance – just because someone has posited a conspiracy theory, that does not make it automatically true.
How To Be A Sensible, Discerning Truth Seeker
The stigma and distaste towards truth seekers in modern times can be seen all over social media by so-called “skeptics” who are busy defending official narratives. Part of this stigma is because of the many social media voices who postulate long conspiracy theories using alarming language, expressing a level of certainty without any solid evidence to back it up. These people aren’t exhibiting real truth seeking, and could be called “alarmists”. All over social media, you will see arguments between the alarmists and the skeptics. Both are totally convinced of their views, rarely open to new information or having a civilized debate.
Part of the problem is that the internet is an endless gauntlet of information, and it’s very difficult to determine what’s true and what’s completely made up. Which information is legitimate, and what is just smoke and mirrors? It’s actually extremely challenging and time consuming to verify information and come to an absolutely correct conclusion, and there is so much information available that no matter what someone is inclined to believe, they can find “information” to support their viewpoint. The most important quality to cultivate in the Age of Information is an open, curious, questioning mind. There are some things we will never be able to find out for sure, so maintaining an open mind is paramount.
This is where instinct and personal experience come in. There are many people who just know, instinctively or through personal experience, that EMF saturated environments are not healthy for them. They may feel it physically in their bodies as pain or impaired functioning, or their mental clarity or mood will worsen. They may get headaches on the side of their head they hold their phone up to while they’re using it, then the headache switches sides if they change ears (or subsides when the call is done). For those who consistently experience a decline in well-being and performance around EMFs, the studies and proof don’t even matter, because the end goal is to feel good and be healthy.
Overemphasis on hard truths and having absolute, definitive proof can keep you in a state of uncertainty and inaction. If you wait for a hundred definitive studies to be published that absolutely, without a doubt declare that something is harmful, instead of trusting your instincts and taking action in the meantime, you may end up with health issues from assuming that something is “safe until proven harmful”.
The tech industry takes advantage of this uncertainty – their declaration for many years now, no matter how many studies come out on the harm of EMFs, has been, “We don’t have enough information; more studies will need to be done.” In the meantime, while science is impotent because there’s “never enough” studies, the tech industry continues to roll out new technology, add more cell towers and sell the public on every kind of “smart” appliance imaginable. You can bet that if regulatory committees had strict safety requirements, where the product safety studies have to be completed and publicly reviewed before the product is ever on the market, these tech companies would shape up really quick.
Fact Checkers Don’t Help
A phenomenon that has risen up in response to the continuous increase of available (and conflicting) information is websites known as “fact checkers”. There are several popular ones in use right now, and they all insist they are completely neutral and unbiased, and claim to reliably get to the bottom of issues and clear up misinformation and “fake news”. Basically, they are claiming that among the mass of conflicting information on the internet, we can rely on them for the truth.
The inherent problem with fact checkers is that a lot of things can’t be easily verified with absolute certainty, and their commitment to labeling something True or False necessitates that they rush to a conclusion as soon as possible after a story hits public awareness. The truth is almost always more nuanced, and less available, than people would like it to be. Since they are in such haste to be the source of the ultimate truth, the appropriate depth of research cannot be done, and conclusions are premature and often skewed subconsciously towards the writer’s personal bias.
Critics of the popular fact checker websites claim that they are politically biased, and this is likely true to an extent. What is definitely true is that they are biased towards the official narrative – partially because it’s the most readily available version of the “truth”, and also because in mainstream society, having a view that conflicts with the official story tarnishes your credibility and reputation. It’s peer pressure, and for these writers to be seen by their colleagues as credible, they generally need to agree with the most popular version of an event (or slight variations that are socially acceptable).
This bias towards the official story can sometimes favor left-wing views, as for example, the left is more likely to believe that vaccines are safe and effective, and with the government making increasingly authoritarian laws. Sometimes it favors the right, who are more likely to accept pesticide use on crops and using genetically modified seeds, and are more likely to side with the telecommunications industry about cell phone radiation being harmless. So it’s not as much about taking political sides, and it is now widely believed that the mainstream left and the mainstream right are both distractions from larger prevailing issues that are still widely ignored.
Compilations of Studies on the Harms of EMFs
Contrary to the telecommunications industry’s constant pronouncement of “we don’t have enough definitive studies” to know whether EMFs are harmful, there are plenty of studies showing the harms of electromagnetic fields from various artificial sources of various frequencies and amplitudes. However, most people don’t know how to read and interpret studies, and mostly look to conventional news sources or government agencies to deliver the verdicts to them, which is absolutely not happening in an honest way, or at all.
The most condemning example to date is the government commissioned, 10-year long, $30 million dollar National Toxicology Program cell phone radiation study. It was done on rodents, because in scientific experiments, rodents are especially useful because they respond in very similar ways to external stimulus as humans, but you can see results much more quickly since their lifespans are shorter and therefore accelerated. The study, and the official peer review panel, unsurprisingly found “clear evidence” of certain types of cancers and DNA damage in a notable percentage of the rodents. The government agencies that commissioned the study initially seemed stunned and caught off guard at the results, and admitted needing to look more into this. A couple years later, their tune had changed. Now they state they are not concerned, because the study was done on rodents and the results can’t be accurately transferred to humans, which is a blatantly contradictory statement, as the study was specifically designed in the first place so that it could be clearly interpreted as relevant to humans!
A couple years ago, results from
another large, long-term study at the Ramazzini Institute in Italy were published that replicate the results of the NTP study. This study on over 2,400 rodents also found central and peripheral nervous system cancers (specifically gliomas and schwannomas) from exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Scientists aware of the results of both studies are strongly recommending that the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) reclassify radiofrequency radiation from “possible” to a “probable” human carcinogen.
Although these are the most obvious examples we know of, there are plenty more. Notably, independent studies tend to show a higher percentage of incriminating results against EMFs than industry- and government-funded studies. This shows that even scientific studies can be manipulated by the results that the funders most want to see, and the scientists themselves have only some control over how they design their studies and report their findings. A few studies show debatably positive effects (mainly anti-inflammatory effects due to suppression of immune response) of certain types of EMFs, which points out that the biological response to electromagnetics is complex and depends on many factors (such as frequency and duration of exposure), but it also shows that whether positive or negative, we are definitely affected by them.
There are several websites with compilations and summaries of EMF studies.
EMF Portal is a great resource, and is continually updated with new studies.
The Bioinitiative Report summarizes EMF studies in categories of their various affects on health.
23 studies have confirmed Dr. Martin Pall’s findings that one major mechanism of (mostly harmful) biological effects from EMFs is their action on the voltage-gated calcium channels in each of our cells, causing calcium channel flooding which can cause a myriad of health issues.
A recent article by Children’s Health Defense elaborates thoroughly on studies showing EMF harm, and how the FCC is ignoring and disregarding this information vital to the health of the world’s population.
Conclusion
Electromagnetic fields absolutely can and do have harmful effects on humans and other life forms. We think this is mainly because of their repetitive oscillating frequencies, which overstimulate our cells. Nature produces its own EMFs, but they are a constantly varying symphony of different frequencies at different amplitudes, never repeating themselves exactly.
Blushield devices also work this way, designed after the intricate patterns of nature. Our bodies have evolved with this type of stimulus, which is vastly different than the very new barrage of repetitive frequencies we are now exposed to almost anywhere we live.
Whether EMF dangers are a conspiracy theory depends on if government and industry have been purposely working together to promote EMF emitting devices as safe, and hide knowledge of harmful effects. From what we know about the FCC and how close of contact they have with industry (as detailed by
Harvard University’s Center for Ethics report, “Captured Agency”), this is an easily believable theory. If this is a conspiracy theory, it’s a pretty easy one to validate as being mostly or completely true.
Being a sensible, discerning truth seeker is a brave and noble act, and necessary for Americans who value their liberty. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” is a famous quote from the 1800’s that has been repeated so many times that no one knows exactly who said it first. When human societies allow pacification and unquestioned belief in authority seep into their peoples’ minds, this is just asking for large scale abuses of power to take advantage of a weak minded populace and steer their fate in a dangerous direction.
Let’s not let our minds weaken and allow America to fall from the liberty-minded values it was founded on, and into a dominating and authoritarian police state. Have eternal vigilance.
References & Recommended Reading:
Bioinitiative Report: A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation –
https://bioinitiative.org/
“The Conspiracy Myth” by Charles Eisenstein –
https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-conspiracy-myth/?_page=3
AND AN EMAIL TODAY:
I’ve covered lots of information about the dangers of most man-made EMF’s.
I feel it is important to let you know that it’s going to get worse…
You need to understand that industry funding is the only reason that the harmful effects of EMF’s aren’t front page news (just like has been done in other industries like tobacco, asbestos, plastics, and so on).
For example, Henry Lai found that wireless industry funded studies were only 30 percent likely to find a negative effect, as opposed to 70 percent of the independent studies which did find negative effects.
But I said it’s going to get worse.
And that’s with the rollout of 5G.
5G promises blazingly fast internet, and with it, the Internet of Things. Basically, your fridge will be connected, and know when you’re out of food so it can order more.
Do we really need this? Do we even want it?
No one is talking about the potential hazards.
Like that this would require far more antennas to transmit information. Every 250 feet!
This would require far more than the current cell phone towers, and there are already tons of those.
Just like before cell phones were rolled out, this has not been vetted for being safe. No long-term studies are being done!
This is crucial, because the worst effects may be very long term.
Fertility is dropping across the world. In many cases, despite advance technological medical treatments, many people are not able to conceive. This trend is going to continue.
Now, I’m not saying that EMF’s are the sole culprit in this, but they are one of them. Something we understand today, that we didn’t just a few decades ago, is the role of epigenetics. Unfortunately, some of the negative health effects of things such as EMF’s seem to have generational consequences.
In other words, the DNA damage you are getting today may not have a noticeable effect on you, but it could become deadly for your grandchildren.
The people behind wireless technologies haven’t looked at the long-term effects across a single human lifespan, let alone several.
I’m sorry, but this is what life on Earth for humans is like today. You can bury your head in the sand about it…or you can do something.
Yes, you should aim to limit your exposure, but with EMF’s you really can’t eliminate exposure altogether.
That’s where Blushield comes in. I’ve spent years looking at all sorts of devices, and I believe this is the best because it works in a completely different way than all the rest.
When they roll out the 5G network to full scale, it doesn’t seem to be a matter of IF anymore: more and more people will get sick. There will be plenty of subtle things like less energy and lack of clear thinking, an increased incidence of diagnoses like chronic fatigue with "unknown causes”.
This will also mean more diagnoses with cancer. It will happen over time.
With natural, coherent, intermittent frequencies, the human body can be protected from all this.
I don’t mean to make this sound scarier than it is. Simply put, it is important to face the reality of the situation. Only then can we make smart decisions, like Lyndal who slept better and had more energy once she started using Blushield:
“I've been using Blushield in my home for just over two months now, and I've already noticed a great improvement in my health in that short time. When I first plugged in the Blushield Cube for my home I felt less stressed, which I found quite surprising, really. The first night I had it on, I woke quite a few times, maybe just getting used to it, but every night since I've slept better than I've slept in years and for longer periods too, much longer. So that's quite wonderful. My energy is so much better, I'm more focused and less stressed, I just feel better, much better, and I don't go anywhere now without my portable Blushield. Once I didn't have it with me, and I felt quite unwell in a number of places that I can only imagine may have been Wi-Fi or EMF hotspots. So, I don't leave home without my portable now.”
The choice is yours.
Sincerely,
Brandon Amalani
P.S. I hope you’ve enjoyed and learned from this series that lays out the groundwork of the dangers of EMF’s and the benefits of Blushield. From now on I’ll only be emailing you intermittently with new things to share, whether that’s videos, new information, new products or special deals.
I WANT TO ADD THE WEBSITE FROM SKEPP.BE, BC OF SOME AMUSING REMARKS, SOME QUESTIONS THEY ASK THEMSELVES ARE RELEVANT.
https://skepp.be/nl/apparatuur/blushield
THE DUTCH WEBSITE IS:
