The "Mark" of the Beast: Cancer Link to Cell Phones

The debate surrounding the impact of mobile phone radiation on human health has recently been reignited by the ruling in an Italian court that a man's brain tumour was directly caused by his heavy phone usage. The Daily Mail gives the following report:

A court has ruled that mobile phones can give you cancer in a landmark case that could open the gates for other victims to take legal action. Businessman Innocente Marcolini, 60, was diagnosed with a brain tumour after using his mobile phone at work for up to six hours a day for 12 years. Italy's Supreme Court found that there was a 'causal link' between his phone use and his illness...

Oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis Angelo Gino Levis and neurosurgeon Dr Giuseppe Grasso gave evidence supporting Mr Marcolini's claim. They argued that mobile and cordless phones emit electromagnetic radiation causing damage to cells and increasing the risk of tumours. But they added that many tumours don't appear for 15 years making short-term studies on mobile phone use redundant...

 

(See here for the full article)


As I note in my book Unveiling the Apocalypse, the most high-profile long term study into the effects of mobile phone use on human health had concluded that there were no adverse side-effects due to  prolonged exposure to the microwave raditation from cell phones. The authors of the Danish report of 2006 - the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, reissued similar findings in October 2011, which seems to have been timed in order to quell the fears raised by the decision of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to elevate the status of cell phone radiation to "possibly carciogenic" in May during the same year.  The position of the Danish report has been upheld and accepted by the wider scientific community ever since the intial study was published in 2006. Yet these finding were called into question at the time by Dr. George Carlo, the former head of the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program, which was commissioned to research the health implications of heavy, long term mobile phone use by the Celluar Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) in 1993. When the WTR came back with findings to suggest that there was indeed such a link to cancer development in long term mobile phone users, the CTIA attempted to shut down the WTR and discredit the work of Dr. Carlo. Carlo claimed the authors of the Danish report had approached him while he was still head of the WTR and conducting research for the CTIA, with an offer to manipulate the results of the report to show the cell phone industry in a favourable light. While Carlo rejected this approach, it seems that the CTIA did not.
Now evidence has emerged to support Dr Carlo's claims that the results of the 2006 Danish study (which naturally extends to the findings of the report issued by the same team in 2011) were indeed manipulated in order to debunk to link between cell phone use and the development of certain types of cancer. The same article from The Daily Mail quoted above, mentions how the findings of the Danish reports have been called into question by Prof. Denis Henshaw of Bristol University, who notes that the study was biased:

Denis Henshaw, Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects, Bristol University said the [Danish] study was 'worthless', and the researchers themselves admitted non-users may have been misclassified which would bias the findings.

He said: 'This seriously flawed study misleads the public and decision makers about the safety of mobile phone use.'

Professor Henshaw has previously advocated cigarette-style warnings on mobile phone packets and urges more independent research.

He said: 'Vast numbers of people are using mobile phones and they could be a time bomb of health problems - not just brain tumours, but also fertility, which would be a serious public health issue. The health effects of smoking alcohol and air pollution are well known and well talked about, and it's entirely reasonable we should be openly discussing the evidence for this, but it is not happening. We want to close the door before the horse has bolted.'

(Op. cit.)

So it appears that the true extent of the long term impact of mobile phone use is being systematically buried by the cell phone industry, with little or no independent research being conducted by reputable scientists.
Given that cell phones (which many economicists believe will eventually supplant the use of credit and debit cards, and ultimately cash itself) meet all the criteria of the "mark" of the Beast prophesied in the Book of Revelation to the letter (argued at some length in my book and blog posts such as RFID Implants versus Cell Phones as the "Mark" of the Beast), the possiblity of a future cancer epidemic related to mobile phone use appears to be reflected in a passage of the Apocalypse detailing how those that bear the mark of the Beast are inflicted with terrible sores:

"Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.”
So the first angel went and poured out his bowl on the earth, and harmful and painful sores came upon the people who bore the mark of the beast and worshiped its image."
(Rev 16:1-2)

Many readers find the most troubling aspect of equating the use of cell phones with the mark of the Beast to be the implication that otherwise innocent individuals could be duped into accepting the number of the Beast, thus inadvertently putting their very souls in jeopardy. Yet the idea that accepting the mark of the Beast automatically and irreversibly condemns the recipient to eternal punishment in hell is a distinctly Protestant belief, and should be held separately from Catholic teaching. The idea that accepting the mark of the Beast would have an everlasting effect on the person's soul is actually based on the Protestant mentality of "once saved, always saved", which in turn is derived from the Reformers' cornerstone teaching of sola fides - justification through faith alone. Yet Catholicism emphasises the fact that good works, as well as faith, is necessary for salvation, and that the wounded nature of humanity means that we have to engage in a constant struggle against sin and frequently require the sacrament of confession - which forgives all sin perpetrated by the truly penitent individual. So for Catholics, even the theoretical concept of an extremely grave matter such as intentionally and knowingly accepting the mark of the Beast could be forgiven in confession if the person was truly contrite. And in order for a Catholic to intentionally and knowingly accept the mark of the Beast, the Church would have to explicitly define what the "mark" actually is. No matter what form this prophecy takes, the Church would still have to formally identify what the "mark" of the Beast was before it would become fact and therefore confessible as a sin (so I certainly wouldn't suggest confessing using a cell phone as a sin to a priest just yet - you might get a strange look). Think of the material on this subject as the "case for the prosecution". But in the meantime, it would definitely be a good idea to limit cell phone use for health and social reasons.