Time to cut to the chase, to get back on the global scene with this from Arthur Firstenberg:

This is my first newsletter since June 18. Coincidentally, SpaceX also had problems with its launches and did not send any Starlink satellites into space during that time. The launch of 57 satellites on Friday, August 7, 2020 was SpaceX’s first such launch since June 13.

THE CURRENT SITUATION IN SPACE SpaceX The launch of 57 more satellites by SpaceX in the early morning of Friday, August 7, at 1:12 AM EDT, has brought the number of SpaceX’s “Starlink” satellites orbiting in the Earth’s ionosphere up to 595. Although this was the first launch since June 13, SpaceX has not been idle during this time. It has built additional ground stations and has received permission from the Federal Communications Commission to operate (so far) 40 ground stations, scattered throughout the United States. It has signed up customers to begin “beta testing” of the satellites that are already in orbit. Beta testing will occur initially, says SpaceX, with customers who live between 44 and 52 degrees latitude in the northern U.S. and southern Canada. SpaceX plans to begin the testing sometime in September. As I reported in a previous newsletter, SpaceX’s launch of April 22, which brought the number of its satellites up to 420, was accompanied by reports of heart palpitations from far and wide, including from yours truly. I again felt strong heart palpitations that began early in the morning on August 7. Actually I began to experience a feeling of oppression Thursday night about two hours before the launch time. Please contact me if you have been having heart palpitations since Friday’s launch. OneWeb OneWeb, which is based in the UK, and which had declared bankruptcy in March, has been bailed out to the tune of one billion dollars by the UK government and Indian telecommunications company Bharti Global. And on May 26, 2020, OneWeb applied to the FCC for permission to compete on an equal footing with SpaceX by launching 47,844 satellites into the ionosphere. Although OneWeb’s offices are in the UK, none of its Directors live there. Its CEO, Adrián Steckel, is Mexican, and the rest of its Directors live in the U.S., Germany, Israel and Mexico. Its major stockholders are Qualcomm (Singapore), SoftBank Group (Japan), and 1110 Ventures (U.S.). Amazon On July 29, 2020, the FCC granted Amazon’s application to launch 3,236 satellites into the ionosphere. Like the satellites of SpaceX and OneWeb, Amazon’s satellites will operate at millimeter wave frequencies and use phased array technology to cover the Earth with focused beams of radiation enabling customers to access the Internet from anywhere on Earth, on land or ocean. The satellites of SpaceX, OneWeb and Amazon alone, if they are all launched, will total, together, about 92,000 satellites. If you add in Iridium and Globalstar, which are already operating small constellations, and the plans of Facebook, Link, Canadian companies Kepler and Telesat, the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, Russia’s Roscosmos, and other competitors, there could soon be 100,000 satellites orbiting in the ionosphere. “But will you wake for pity’s sake”* The out-of-control satellite industry is one of the stupidest things humankind has ever created. It treats the life-giving envelope of our atmosphere as if we don’t depend on it. It poses an immediate threat to life on Earth, in so many ways. The 100,000 planned 5G satellites, each with a designed lifespan of 5 to 10 years, must be constantly de-orbited and replaced. This means that at least 10,000 satellites will have to be launched every year, forever into the future. If an average of 50 satellites can be launched on each rocket, that’s 200 rocket launches per year, just to maintain the satellites used for cell phones and Internet. And it means the de-orbiting of 10,000 worn out satellites per year, burning them up in the atmosphere and turning them into toxic dust and smoke. And that’s not counting the ever-increasing numbers of weather, research, tracking, monitoring, surveillance, military, and other kinds of satellites and missiles being launched in what will soon be a parade of rockets burning prodigious quantities of fossil fuels, punching holes in our atmosphere on a daily basis, and treating the source of all life as Earth’s largest garbage pit. Martin Ross of the Aerospace Corporation and other researchers have been modeling the effects of daily rocket launches on ozone and global temperatures. Rocket exhaust, depending on the type of fuel used, may contain chlorine and/or oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen, and/or aluminum, all of which destroy ozone. SpaceX’s kerosene-fueled rockets deposit enormous amounts of black soot into the stratosphere, where it accumulates, absorbing solar radiation and warming the stratosphere. The warming of the stratosphere accelerates the chemical reactions that destroy ozone. Most rockets are launched from the northern hemisphere. And the winter and spring of 2020 saw the largest and longest-lasting Arctic ozone hole in history. Ozone-watchers did not know what caused it, but they were not communicating with the scientists who are studying rocket exhaust. Our world is full of specialists, deaf and blind to other specialties, collectively asleep and marching toward oblivion. Atmospheric physicists do not study astronomy. Astronomers do not study electricity. Electricians do not study biology. Medical doctors do not study acupuncture. Doctors of oriental medicine do not study atmospheric physics. But the universe is not fragmented, it is a whole, and our culture has forgotten what that is, to its peril and to the peril of everything alive. The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the electric circuitry of the biosphere and everything in it, including the fine-tuned circuitry of every human, every animal, every tree, and every fish. If we do not immediately stop the destruction of our fragile blanket of electrified air, upon which we depend for growth, healing, and life itself, climate change and ozone destruction may not matter. Beta testing begins in September. NATIONAL MEETING ABOUT SATELLITES, AUGUST 13 On Thursday, August 13, 2020, from 7 to 9 PM EDT (2300 to 0100 UTC), Americans for Responsible Technology will host a meeting about the 5G satellites on Zoom that will be simulcast on Facebook. In the first hour, four presenters will speak for 15 minutes each: Ben Levi, technology consultant, will summarize the current satellite situation. Where are we now, and what is forecast over the next few years? Joe Sandri has a law degree and has training and experience in radiofrequency engineering. He will describe how the satellites work. How will a typical 5G transmission use the satellites? What kinds of earth stations will be required? Arthur Firstenberg will talk about the impact of the satellites on people and the environment. How will the electrical environment of the earth be altered by constant transmission of 5G signals? Julian Gresser, attorney, will address what is being done legally to stop this. What right does the FCC or any other agency have to authorize the use of space for private commercial interests? What are the legal and ethical principles involved? The second hour of the meeting will consist of a discussion among the presenters, followed by questions from the online audience, which will include members of the press. Attend by Zoom (limited space). Participants must register in advance: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZwkdeqoqjIiGNx6dqXjti7HrZHqle3LNwrH Watch on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/1176845649355076 CORONAVIRUS’S HIDDEN THREAT When SpaceX begins its beta testing in the northern United States and southern Canada later this summer, the single biggest obstacle to recognizing its effects on humans will be COVID-19. Because no matter how many people sicken or die in that part of the world, it will be blamed on the coronavirus. As I pointed out in a previous newsletter, the pandemic began with 5G. 5G came to Wuhan shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. 5G came to New York City streetlamps shortly before the outbreak of COVID-19 there. COVID-19 deprives the blood of oxygen, while radio waves deprive the cells of oxygen. COVID-19, alone, is just a respiratory virus like the common cold. But together with 5G, it is deadly. To deal with COVID-19 effectively, society must first recognize the harm done to the body by radio waves. 5G is radio waves on steroids.

This worker’s death was not caused by hot weather, as was reported by the media Instead of acknowledging the harm from radio waves, society is tearing its fabric apart by instituting measures that are protecting no one and are instead sickening and killing people. I will mention just one of those measures here: facial masks. As a person who went to medical school, I was shocked when I read Neil Orr’s study, published in 1981 in the Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. Dr. Orr was a surgeon in the Severalls Surgical Unit in Colchester. And for six months, from March through August 1980, the surgeons and staff in that unit decided to see what would happen if they did not wear masks during surgeries. They wore no masks for six months, and compared the rate of surgical wound infections from March through August 1980 with the rate of wound infections from March through August of the previous four years. And they discovered, to their amazement, that when nobody wore masks during surgeries, the rate of wound infections was less than half what it was when everyone wore masks. Their conclusion: “It would appear that minimum contamination can best be achieved by not wearing a mask at all” and that wearing a mask during surgery “is a standard procedure that could be abandoned.” I was so amazed that I scoured the medical literature, sure that this was a fluke and that newer studies must show the utility of masks in preventing the spread of disease. But to my surprise the medical literature for the past forty-five years has been consistent: masks are useless in preventing the spread of disease and, if anything, are unsanitary objects that themselves spread bacteria and viruses.

Ritter et al., in 1975, found that “the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.”

Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. “Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.”

Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. “No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,” they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.

In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.

A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that “The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.”

Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that “surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.”

Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.

Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that “no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.”

Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. “Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,” wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.

Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries. Surgical site infections occurred in 11.5% of the Mask group, and in only 9.0% of the No Mask group.

Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found “no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.” Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.

Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that “none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.”

Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that “there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.”

Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that “there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that facemasks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.”

Schools in China are now prohibiting students from wearing masks while exercising. Why? Because it was killing them. It was depriving them of oxygen and it was killing them. At least three children died during Physical Education classes -- two of them while running on their school’s track while wearing a mask. And a 26-year-old man suffered a collapsed lung after running two and a half miles while wearing a mask. Mandating masks has not kept death rates down anywhere. The 20 U.S. states that have never ordered people to wear face masks indoors and out have dramatically lower COVID-19 death rates than the 30 states that have mandated masks. Most of the no-mask states have COVID-19 death rates below 20 per 100,000 population, and none have a death rate higher than 55. All 13 states that have death rates higher 55 are states that have required the wearing of masks in all public places. It has not protected them. “We are living in an atmosphere of permanent illness, of meaningless separation,” writes Benjamin Cherry in the Summer 2020 issue of New View magazine. A separation that is destroying lives, souls, and nature. _____________ * from Christopher Fry, A Sleep of Prisoners, 1951. Arthur Firstenberg August 11, 2020