So, the New York Times is all in a tizzy because RT is getting a million views a day on YouTube, which is more than their own pathetic lying videos? Surprise, surprise.
RT does indeed amplify American voices of dissent, who are frozen out of the New York Times and other Billionaire Mass Media.
Without the hundreds of dissenting blogs and websites (like, for example, Postflaviana), who would ever suspect that fracking releases dangerous chemicals into groundwater, or that CH4 from fracking could be a major contributor to Global Warming, or that vaccines are probably linked to autism, or that GMO food is an untested science experiment? Certainly the New York Times will never discuss these questions, except to dismiss them with contempt.
Now, it is linking 5G signals to brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease — claims that lack scientific support.
Pall's paper is published in Environmental Research, a peer reviewed journal with an impact factor in the top 10 percentile for its category. Whereas, the New York Times is NOT a scientific journal, NOT peer reviewed, and IMO should not even be considered a reputable source.RT America taps the ranks of existing anti-cellular activists to wage its 5G campaign. Some have railed for decades against cellphones, power lines and other everyday sources of electromagnetic waves. Much of their work appears not in reputable science journals but little-known reports, publications and self-published tracts, at times with copious notes of dubious significance. They tend to cite each other’s research.
This is only a contradiction if you assume that Putin has editorial control over RT America.Yet even as RT America, the cat’s paw of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has been doing its best to stoke the fears of American viewers, Mr. Putin, on Feb. 20, ordered the launch of Russian 5G networks in a tone evoking optimism rather than doom."