Penny Mordaunt's Conspiratorial Advice to MPs

A closer look at her "facts" on 5G and their source

Last month, "Conspiracy Theories: A Guide for Members of Parliament and Candidates”  was published by the Antisemitism Trust with the help of the All Party Parliamentary Group Antisemitism, having been commissioned by Penny Mordaunt MP.  I am astounded that a leaflet purporting to be serious and of help to MPs, is actually so very misleading. As regards misleading content, I will confine myself to an area I know something about, radio-frequency radiation (RFR) and 5G.  But first I will look at the “conspiracy theory” concept and the way this phrase is currently used.

My Oxford dictionary defines a conspiracy theory as “a belief that some covert, but influential organisation is responsible for an unexplained event”. However this MPs’ guide goes much further, adding that a common thread shared by the theories is, “a secret cabal that seeks world domination” and that most “are rooted in antisemitism.” As Freddie Sayers has commented, “if one definition of “conspiracy theory” is imagining connections where there are none, this parliamentary guide could be described as somewhat… conspiratorial.”

Applying the term “conspiracy theory” to scientific issues such as vaccines, climate, 5G or the existence of viruses, as this guide does, most certainly muddies the waters. Science is never 100% certain, but is only ever the most likely version of any tested hypothesis. Preferring one scientific explanation over another does not make you a conspiracy theorist. Yet Penny Mordaunt herself has described colleagues with minority views, as such, in the House of Commons.

In those cases, Mordaunt used this term to belittle and ridicule a colleague. The effect of this was to discredit their arguments, but without engaging with them. It also represents an attempt to uphold one single Government narrative, which risks mutating into Government propaganda, while necessarily diverging from reality. In other words, scientific and other debate is silenced and progress is hindered.

Coming to the various areas covered in the parliamentary guide, in the 5G section we find that “conspiracy theories” are described as falsehoods, while “facts” are “true”.  Science is never as clear cut. In fact, claiming to know “the truth” is the hallmark of a cult. (Steven Hassan: Combatting Cult Mind Control). Again this leaflet betrays its conspiratorial, even cult-like qualities.

Clearly, it is of utmost importance that MPs have access to good independent scientific information. In the case of the 5G section of the guide, the information came from Full Fact and is, in my opinion, highly misleading.

Let’s start by looking at this claim by Full Fact , "There is no evidence that 5G technology is harmful to human health”. This statement is clearly false, if we are to believe this article summarising the eight real-life 5G case studies carried out in 2023 and 2024 by Professor Lennart Hardell, in which he describes the microwave syndrome symptoms caused by nearby mobile phone base stations.

The following statement in the guide, is described as a conspiracy theory, “symptoms include nosebleeds, an irregular heartbeat and memory loss, but is actually true, as these are symptoms of microwave syndrome  described by oncologist, Professor Lennart Hardell.

The central statement on 5G in the guide reads,

 "5G conspiracy theories raise concerns that the impact of 5G has not been sufficiently tested to prove it is safe.”

If you compare this with the following statements from experienced experts in the field, below, you may question whether the statement above is actually false, as claimed.

1. The European Parliament’s Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) states (P. 153), "The literature contains no adequate studies by which to exclude the risk that tumours and adverse effects on reproduction and development may occur upon exposure to 5G MMW, or to exclude the possibility of some synergistic interactions between 5G and other frequencies that are already being used ….."

2. Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health, University of California, Berkeley, states, "Hardly any research has been published on the biological or health effects of 5G."

3. Professor Lennart Hardell, an oncologist from the Environment and Cancer Research Foundation, Sweden states (Jan. 2024):  "No studies showing the safety of the new characteristics of RF-radiation from 5G was performed before the roll-out (of 5G) and is still today missing."

4. Professor John Frank, Edinburgh University, retired Chair of Public Health Research and Policy says, "These (5G) systems are too newly deployed to have been extensively studied, especially by the highest-quality epidemiological study designs for establishing evidence of causation: prospective cohort studies.”

5. The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) says (2022), "These (safety exposure) limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies,” and "we note our concern about the worldwide deployment of 5G communication networks for faster transfer of large amounts of data, but with no adequate health effects studies demonstrating the safety of high frequency millimetre waves."

6.  James Lin, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Bioengineering, Physiology and Biophysics at the University of Chicago says (2023), "Moreover, for millimetre-wave radiation from 5G mobile communications, there are no adequate human health effects studies in the published literature." https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10121536

[N.B. With regard to the above statements, some refer to millimetre wave 5G from 26Ghz upwards and not yet widely deployed, but others such as Hardell refer to the presently deployed 5G at 3.5 GHz.]

How, therefore, can this parliamentary guide maintain that it is false to say that 5G has not been sufficiently tested to prove it is safe? This is a ludicrous claim. Should MPs actually be trusting Full Fact?   Full Fact is funded primarily by Big Tech and staffed to a large extent by former public sector workers or ex-reporters from left-wing media. Where is the scientific expertise?  It is surely most concerning, that legislators are relying on such information.

Given that the leaflet’s information about 5G is so obviously wrong, I am left wondering (conspiratorially) if the Government is deliberately trying to hide something from the public. My theory is backed up by the following example:

In 2020, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee conducted the Broadband and Road to 5G Inquiry. 147 pieces of written evidence were submitted and 78 of these concerned  the health risks of radio-frequency radiation. Although the vast majority were carefully written submissions, citing robust evidence, the committee had added a “conspiracy-theory” warning above every one of them.

More shockingly, in the 62-page Inquiry Report, these 78 submissions were completely ignored. Instead of summarising their content, this statement was made in Section 73, ‘Instead of a compelling consumer case for 5G, misinformation has taken root, as our sub-committee on online harms and disinformation has explored. The spread of false information linking 5G to the COVID-19 outbreak led to attacks on workers and infrastructure . . .’  This comment bears no relation whatsoever to the evidence submitted on the health harms of 5G and yet it was the only reference in the final report to health effects.

It is interesting that the evidence, that this inquiry ignored, came from several sufferers of electromagnetic hypersensitivity,  several health professionals, telephone engineers and well-educated members of the public and that it was deemed acceptable to ignore these. However, to ignore the submissions of Professor Olle Johansson, Associate Professor at the Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, David Gee, Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Pollution Research and Policy, Brunel University, London and previously Senior Adviser to the European Environment Agency or even Mr E. Peel, former Telecommunications Strategy Engineer seems inexcusable. These people were highly qualified, experienced and expert professionals.

The implication here is that anyone at all, who is aware that there are potentially severe health risks from radio-frequency radiation, is a "conspiracy theorist.” Can our parliamentarians be so stupid that they do not know the difference between serious scientific research and unsubstantiated, outlandish theories? Of course they are not. I must therefore conclude that they wish to sweep this evidence under the carpet.

On the 20^th May, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP commented on GB News, in connection with various scandals such as the infected blood scandal,

“What puzzles me is why the ministers and civil servants want to cover up. We need to get better about being honest with our voters about what is going on.  (There is) arrogance…. Those of us who are in office should always be thinking, “ Is my constituent right? Have we got it wrong? And not the other way around.”

I agree wholeheartedly. Presently, citizens do not believe politicians, because they are not transparent, they say whatever is expedient and do not listen to voters. Trust has been lost and in turn, conspiratorial thinking is the result.

If the Government had listened to voters on the subject of 5G, they would by now have instigated an independent expert commission to investigate the health effects of radio-frequency radiation, including 5G, as New Hampshire did and as President Macron is now doing with regard to the effects of screen-time on children.

And finally, I believe we should ditch the phrase “conspiracy theory” altogether. It has lost any meaning in these turbulent times and is simply being used to insult and silence others and give the impression that they are deluded. Time will tell who is deluded.