Friday, June 18, 2021

Utility Earth Radiation (UPDATE)

 by Jim West (please share and cite)

For months I have tested a abandoned house attic scenario to safely sleep above UER (Utility Earth Radiation). See the history of this long investigation.

Each improvement would follow with the body thankfully accepting this improvement with disease reduction, e.g., swollen ankles disappearing, no muscle cramps, etc. Then some symptoms, like RLS (restless leg syndrome), would slowly return as new toxic horizons became perceivable. This discovery process is a journey, like peeling back onion layers (of toxicity).

I had long suspected that one block to progress is the metal structure of the building, metal roof and siding. While metal is a shield, it is also a reflector. I recognized that the building is an inverted metal cup laying over an earthen bed of UER. The cup would then reflect and intensify UER.

With increasing symptoms and warm weather arriving, I finally took action. I slept not in the attic, but outside and upon the metal roof, allowing it to shield me from the UER while removing any reflections from the building and its roof. 

Major improvement. My sore back disappeared. I could wake up and get up with a sit-up, using my stomach muscles, which was not easy previously. I would usually have to turn over on my side or stomach and use a pushup action.

Sleep was clean and deep. No jaw cramp at the transition into sleep.

All this without the usual shielding, that is, the EMF hazmat suit! This low level of EMF symptoms was unprecedented during the last seven years. However, there remained RLS for a few minutes before falling asleep.

On the third day, I used the hazmat suit, and not very carefully... yet all was perfect. A new level of healing through natural sleep has been found. Deep sleep is necessary to avoid health disaster, to refresh the body/mind and to creatively solve problems. 

Now with this new information, new plans are being considered: Lay down large format aluminum foil over the floor underlayment? Remove aluminum siding, but what about encroaching 5G? Etc.


Disclaimer: The author is not an authority or professional. For medical advice, see a trusted professional without delay. All statements are hypotheses for discussion. Constructive criticism is welcome.

Fair Use Act Disclaimer: This site is for discussion purposes only. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research.

Intellectual Property Rights: The intellectual property aggregated and redistributed in this site is for educational use only and is considered protected by standards of fair use. Intellectual property owners have been cited where possible. Original material produced for this site is copyright Jim West / harvoa 2020, All rights reserved.

Please support this work by sharing, buying books, or donating.


  1. ¡Dear Jim West !:

    I am a follower of your blog, sorry to bother you by the following question.

    There is a criticism of the psychiatrist Visser- advised by virologists surely against Lanka, in this case to his control experiments.

    Could you tell me what you think of this review.

    The link: http: //

    Rafael granados.Madrid,spain.


    1. So... I feel that Lanka does not need to address sequencing or any other aspect of virology (other than the missing toxicology).

      Yet he does display his knowledge of virus tech because he spent a big part of his life learning that tech in a university. Unlike most people, he can argue and challenge virology within its terminology. So he gets into it.

      Personally, I like the succinct 'missing toxicology' argument, and wouldn't bother with the rest. Keep the burden on the virologist and do not give them handles.

    2. I don't know why people like Visser bother to write anything. They are so irrational. He criticizes Lanka for not doing "empirical" studies to prove his assertions.

      Nobody needs to do a study to disprove virology, rather we only need to wait for a valid virological study!

      We don't need to claim anything, because the burden of proof is on the virologists.

      As Lanka has stated, virologists do not control for toxicity (in the lab or environmental), and thus all virological studies are MOOT.

      visser also critizes Lanka for his intention to review "fundamental studies".

      Visser seems to think this is impossible because there are presently 40,000 COVID virus studies.

      But those 40,000 are not "fundamental studies", so Visser is blowing in the wind.

      Is Visser just hoping to get a pat on the back from the Medical industry for his efforts?

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. ¡Dear Jim !:

    Thank you for your reply, I have also sent Visser's "criticism" to the Lanka collaborators in the Enmmanuel Project.

    Unfortunately I do not have the email from Lanka to bring it to your attention.

    I think that Visser does not write these articles without the collaboration of "orthodox virologists" .... don't worry that he will surely criticize you too, how he has criticized "heterodox" virologists like Pieter borger for attacking drosten and company.

    best regards.

    Rafael Granados,Madrid.spain

  4. Thanks for the info, and looking forward to any updates.


Utility Earth Radiation (UPDATE)

  by Jim West   (please share and cite) For months I have tested a abandoned house attic scenario to safely sleep above UER (Utility Earth R...