The Push for Universal Wearables — A MAHA Controversy

Wearables offer the illusion of health at the cost of privacy, autonomy, and biology. Here's how.

By Christof Plothe DO

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), recently declared in a congressional hearing:

“My vision is that every American is wearing a wearable within four years.”

The statement sent shockwaves through the health freedom community, raising alarms about surveillance, data exploitation, and the erosion of bodily autonomy.¹

Kennedy later clarified that he did not mean to endorse mandates but rather to promote accessibility. Even so, the reality is that insurance companies are arguably already making wearables de facto mandatory by tying premium discounts to fitness tracking.²

The question isn’t whether wearables can be useful—it’s whether we’re sleepwalking into a dystopia where our bodies are monetized, hacked, and manipulated.

Yuval Noah Harari has argued that humans are becoming "hackable animals" as technology enables the decoding and manipulation of human emotions, behaviors, and decisions.³ This aligns with calls by the World Economic Forum (WEF) for the general microchipping of children to monitor health and education, raising ethical debates about privacy and autonomy.⁴

Let’s delve into this important topic, starting with some essential context.

What Are Wearables?

Wearables are smart electronic devices worn on the body, designed to collect real-time biometric data. They include:

• Health monitors (e.g. continuous glucose monitors, heart rate sensors)

• Fitness trackers (e.g. Fitbit, Apple Watch)

• Medical devices (e.g. ECG monitors, fall-detection wearables for seniors)

• Hearing aids & smart glasses (enhanced with AI and Bluetooth)

The global wearable market is projected to reach $186 billion by 2030,⁵ driven by corporate and government incentives. The stated benefits are numerous: by delivering real-time information on your body’s status, they can prevent serious health crises or mitigate them, they can help optimize your fitness routine, or offer an enriched, personalized experience.

It all sounds great - until you dig deeper.

The Dark Side of Wearables

The benefits of wearables come at considerable cost, not just to personal sovereignty but, ironically, to one’s own health and wellbeing. There are three key areas of concern:

1. Wearables leave you open to unchecked surveillance and data exploitation

Wearables don’t just track steps—they harvest data about your:

• heart rate variability (stress levels)

• sleep patterns (predicting mental health issues)

• blood glucose (dietary habits)

• geolocation (movement tracking)

This data is sold to insurers, employers, and data brokers.⁶ In court cases, Fitbit data has been subpoenaed in divorce and criminal trials.

2. Wearables leave you vulnerable to hacking and manipulation

Wearables expose users to a range of risks that are far from trivial. For example:

• Medical blackmail. Hackers could access insulin pump data and threaten diabetic users.

• Behavioral nudging. AI-driven wearables could manipulate mood via haptic feedback.⁷

• Insurance penalties: Missed workouts? Higher premiums.

The safety of wearable medical devices, including patient monitors, is a growing concern as cybersecurity vulnerabilities can expose patients to risks such as unauthorized access or data breaches.

For example, the FDA recently warned about vulnerabilities in Contec CMS8000 and Epsimed MN-120 patient monitors, which could allow hackers to remotely control devices or exfiltrate sensitive patient data⁸. While no injuries have been reported in this case, past incidents—such as the hacking of pacemakers by researchers to demonstrate vulnerabilities—highlight the potential dangers. Manufacturers and healthcare providers must prioritize cybersecurity to protect patients from exploitation.

3. Electromagnetic radiation (EMF) risks

Wearables emit Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and 5G millimeter waves—often in direct contact with skin. Studies link chronic EMF exposure to:

• Oxidative stress & DNA damage⁹

• Disrupted circadian rhythms¹⁰

• Increased cancer risk¹¹

When researchers reviewed dozens of animal, cell, and human studies on RFR (from mobile phones, Wi-Fi, and radar) and oxidative stress they found:

1. In Vitro (Lab) Studies

• Sperm is in trouble! Human sperm exposed to 900-1800 MHz (standard mobile frequencies) showed reduced motility, increased DNA damage, and oxidative stress.¹²¹³

• Brain cells are under fire! Neurons exposed to RF radiation had higher ROS (reactive oxygen species) and DNA breaks.¹⁴

• Some studies found no effect unless combined with chemical stressors¹⁵ but the synergy of toxins remains a huge weak point in general in all studies addressing the consequences of EMF.

2. Animal Studies (In Vivo)

• Rat brains take a hit. Long-term RF exposure led to lipid peroxidation (cell membrane damage) and protein oxidation in rat brains.¹⁶

• Liver & kidney stress. Rats exposed to 1800 MHz showed increased oxidative markers.¹⁷

• Antioxidants to the rescue? Melatonin, vitamin C, and garlic extract reduced damage in some studies.¹⁸¹⁹

3. Human & Occupational Data

• Radar technicians at risk. Workers exposed to radar microwaves had higher oxidative damage markers.²⁰

• Saliva tells a story. One study found no oxidative changes after short phone calls²¹, but another saw increased lipid peroxidation in blood²².

• Yet, the FCC’s safety standards are 25 years old and ignore long-term exposure.

4. The "Internet of Bodies" & Transhumanism

The WEF openly promotes "a fusion of physical, digital, and biological identity". The next phase?

• Implantable microchips - these are already used in Sweden for payments

• Neural lace brain interfaces - think Elon Musk’s Neuralink

• AI-driven health scores determining social credit access.

Informed Consent? A Joke

Most wearable users don’t realize just how much they are surrendering in terms of their health and sovereignty:

• Data is shared with third parties by default²³

• Opting out means losing insurance discounts²⁴

• There are currently no long-term safety studies on 24/7 wearable EMF exposure. In other words, no one knows what this is doing to people.

The Future: Resistance or Submission?

MAHA’s vision aligns with Big Tech and Pharma’s profit motives, not health freedom. If we don’t push back, we risk:

• a cashless society tied to biometric compliance

• AI-driven social credit systems

• a permanent underclass of "uninsurable" citizens

What Can You Do?

• Demand HIPAA-level privacy for wearable data

• Reject insurance-mandated tracking

• Support wired alternatives (e.g. non-Bluetooth medical devices)

• Demand that devices can shield EMF towards the body

• Demand that devices can activate and deactivate wireless communication

• Demand that data be exchanged via cable

• Demand control over data distribution

• Demand anti hacking security

• Advocate for updated EMF safety standards

Dear MAHA movement, please ensure all these points are implemented.

The historic chance for change is of vital importance, not just to America but the world.

Final Thoughts

Wearables could be tools for empowerment—but in a surveillance capitalist system, they’re more likely to become digital shackles. The choice isn’t between Luddism and transhumanism—it’s between autonomy and control.

I and my colleagues see significant changes in patients' daily lives when wearables are introduced, with inflammation markers rising and their muscle stiffness increasing, rendering them less and less mobile. Whilst some advantages, such as insulin pumps, empower people to lead a better life, they also take away their own choices for their health. Whilst in Diabetes Type 1, the advantages are undeniable, in Diabetes Type 2, people are cut off from their power to reverse the disease in the first place.

We find the use of a few days beneficial, as it gives people empowering information. We also advise people to use a tuning fork several times a day on their bones to help them get out of resonance with the constant bombardment of EMF. We also demonstrate the amount of high frequencies measured using EMF meters so they can make an informed decision.

When used, all the points above should be discussed, as a constant proinflammatory state via oxidative stress is a significant burden for the body and can lead to more severe problems later on.

---

If you want more facts about health-promoting and disease-causing factors of our modern life, feel free to subscribe to Christof’s Substack:

1. Children’s Health Defense. (2025). Every American wearing a wearable is not a vision we share. https://childrenshealthdefense.org

2. Lyons-Weiler, J. (2025). Wearable medical devices: A rational guide for activists and regulators. Popular Rationalism

3. Harari, Y. N. (2018). 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Jonathan Cape.

4. World Economic Forum. (2018). Here are 5 ways digital technology is changing childhood.

5. Grand View Research. (2023). Wearable technology market size report.

6. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.

7. World Economic Forum. (2024). The Internet of Bodies: A framework for governance.

8. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Cybersecurity vulnerabilities in Medtronic implantable cardiac devices: FDA safety communication.

9. Yakymenko, I., et al. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine.

10. Havas, M. (2017). When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? Environmental Research.

11. National Toxicology Program, 2018.

12. Agarwal, A., Desai, N. R., Makker, K., Varghese, A., Eagles, R., Sabanegh, E., & Sharma, R. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study. Fertility and Sterility, 92(4), 1318–1325.

13. De Iuliis, G. N., Newey, R. J., King, B. V., & Aitken, R. J. (2009). Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro.

14. Xu, S., Zhong, M., Zhang, L., Yu, Z., Zhang, W., Wang, Y., ... & Chen, C. (2010). Exposure to 1800 MHz radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA in primary cultured neurons. Brain Research, 1311, 189–196.

15. Luukkonen, J., Hakulinen, P., Mäki-Paakkanen, J., Juutilainen, J., & Naarala, J. (2010). Enhancement of chemically induced reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells by 872 MHz radiofrequency radiation. *Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis, 662*(1–2), 54–58.

16. Dasdag, S., Akdag, M. Z., Kizil, G., Kizil, M., Cakir, D. U., & Yokus, B. (2012). Effect of 900 MHz radio frequency radiation on beta amyloid protein, protein carbonyl, and malondialdehyde in the brain. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(1), 67–74.

17. Ozgur, E., Guler, G., & Seyhan, N. (2010). Mobile phone radiation-induced free radical damage in the liver is inhibited by the antioxidants N-acetyl cysteine and epigallocatechin-gallate. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 86(11), 935–945.

18. Ilhan, A., Gurel, A., Armutcu, F., Kamisli, S., Iraz, M., Akyol, O., & Ozen, S. (2004). Ginkgo biloba prevents mobile phone-induced oxidative stress in rat brain. Clinica Chimica Acta, 340(1–2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cccn.2003.10.012

19. Guney, M., Ozguner, F., Oral, B., Karahan, N., & Mungan, T. (2007). 900 MHz radiofrequency-induced histopathologic changes and oxidative stress in rat endometrium: Protection by vitamins E and C. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 23(7), 411–420.

20. Peraica, M., Marjanović, A., Flajs, D., Domijan, A. M., Gajski, G., & Garaj-Vrhovac, V. (2008). Oxidative stress in workers occupationally exposed to microwave radiation. Toxicology Letters, 180(1), 38–39.

21. Khalil, A. M., Khadra, K. M., Aljaberi, A. M., Gagaa, M. H., & Issa, H. S. (2014). Assessment of oxidant/antioxidant status in saliva of cell phone users. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 33(2), 92–97.

22. Moustafa, Y. M., Moustafa, R. M., Belacy, A., Abou-El-Ela, S. H., & Fadel, M. A. (2001). Effects of acute exposure to the radiofrequency fields of cellular phones on plasma lipid peroxide and antioxidase activities in human erythrocytes. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 26(4), 605–608.

23. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 2022.

24. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2024.