No. These actually do it mechanically, so it's fine.

WiFi obly does it in RFK's fantasies, so that's why banning it's fine.

Don't forget the heroes who voted for Jill Stein. Because if you didn't then you lOvE gEnOcIdE

Hi, I would like to introduce you to Rupert Murdoch, the ruler of Newscorp and now Fox.

He tried to make sure most of his children wouldn't have any voting rights because they were too moderate compared to himself and his favorite son..

Fox is now its own separate entity, but it's still the Murdoch family on the board of it.

TL;DR: The reason the anglosphere, primarily the US, is so fucked, is actually an ozzie. Though he's been an American citizen for some 4 decades now.

What a terrible shame on his family to have this guy be one of the last representatives of the Kennedy name.

Eh, agreed on some level, though it's actually also good proof of karma, which we all need. Shouldn't have lobotomized Rosemary, you sick fucks.

Agreed that there's no such thing as "wasted" research. But there is no medicine to take out of the quack medicine. They're quacks because they refuse to accept results of research on emotional grounds and just keep squawking the same things their minds are made up about.

Focusing on problems that are fairly settled now because a 70+ year old heard they were mysterious and a problem at the age of six is so inefficient as to be regressive. Yes we should continue to research... everything but we should do so on the foundation of all the research available in , not on vaguely remembered tabloid scares from decades ago.

Well, this arrow, here, is WiFi.

And this line is the blood—brain, barrier.

When the arrow comes to the line, it goes through it. See?

And other things can go through the hole. Like woke.

I will not be taking questions. Thank you.

Would love to see these tens of thousands of studies that show the danger

I think that you're actually putting too much stock into these people. They are just nasty people being nasty as far as they can. Any planning is superficial.

Nah, he'd think his blood was blue not because of the royalty thing but because blue is actually the natural color of blood and it's just built up toxins that turn it red. That's why the royals had blue blood, not because they were just inherently better, but because they took better care of themselves unlike the peasantry.

Don't mention blood near him, we'll have to listen to a lecture on RH negative blood and lizard people.

This but unironically. Flash drives and patience. We can function just fine.

Oh please..."at a distance of 13cm" from a high powered transmitter. They saw a statistical difference of a minute effect, in a small animal. And if you actually look at the data, they did the statistics incorrectly.

There are researchers at U of Toronto using microwaves to break down the blood brain barrier to get cancer drugs into the brain. It's not easy, and what they have shown is that even when they can do it, the barrier can repeatedly repair itself.

People who leave scientific links on the internet without understanding them are just as bad as RFK Jr.

Just pointing out two things that many people don't know about statistics and that I think are helpful when judging a larger body of scientific literature and listening to non-experts like RFK Jr.

First, the term "statistically significant" does not mean "big" or "meaningful". It means "unlikely due to chance", where "unlikely" is defined by the researcher, typically as a low-ish threshold like "with a probability of at most 5%". This is also the threshold that researchers use when they compute a 95% confidence interval, like in the paragraph quoted above.

Second, with a 5% threshold, studies investigating the same phenomenon (like the effect of radio waves on rabbits) have a 5% chance to find a statistically significant effect even if that effect does not exist. As a consequence, scientists don't regard it as proof of a phenomenon, when one study (or even several) out of a large number of studies finds something to be statistically significant. Instead, they require that this finding is replicated in independent replication studies (ideally ones that were conducted with a pre-registered protocol and a much larger sample).

Relevant xkcd, because of course there is one:

Image source: xkcd (no. 882)