COVID-19 disease linked to radio-frequency radiation including 5G

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you stop inferring people do not understand (which you do in every thread) and also my opinion is just as valid as yours unless you have qualifications in virology or ionizing radiation.
I do not need to write a rebuttal to the paper, as this is a forum and I am responding to a thread....

The paper infers that the Immune System is somehow reduced because of the 5G network making the effects of covid more pronounced even though it is titled "Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G" which must then be incorrect and if the authors can't even title their paper correctly then.....
Also if the effects described in the paper were true, you are would be more likely to get a foodborne illness before any Coronavirus and would make you susepatable to other cornaviruses, which just isn't being seen.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Can you stop inferring people do not understand (which you do in every thread) and also my opinion is just as valid as yours unless you have qualifications in virology or ionizing radiation.
I do not need to write a rebuttal to the paper, as this is a forum and I am responding to a thread....

The paper infers that the Immune System is somehow reduced because of the 5G network making the effects of covid more pronounced even though it is titled "Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G" which must then be incorrect and if the authors can't even title their paper correctly then.....
Also if the effects described in the paper were true, you are would be more likely to get a foodborne illness before any Coronavirus and would make you susepatable to other cornaviruses, which just isn't being seen.

You are making some conclusions out of nowhere and you call the conclusions of the paper incorrect without reading the paper and assessing/evaluating the results and methodology. In addition you claim that the authors can't even title the paper properly.

Prove what you are claiming then.

And the last statement you made is just your personal opinion. It may be the case that this type of radiation weakens the immune system. You don't need to have an epidemic or a pandemic to assess this.

The opinions different members have are not as valid as you claimed. Some opinions are qualified and some other opinions unqualified.

Likewise the opinions of the authors are qualified but your attempt to refute them has failed due to lack of any proper assessment and evidence given.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So ... you presumably have a source that backs your position up?

About what?

There is plenty of research in this area and a new piece came out a few weeks ago

www.sciencedirect.com...


Title

Immunotoxicity of radiofrequency radiation

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Asmodeus3

All of which is rendered mute by the simple fact that we can isolate and sequence the virus behind covid, and can trace its liniage back pre 5g.

Plus my home town was hit hard and it barely has 3g.

Sorry I’m late to the party…

It’s not saying that covid and 5G have a common genesis or that 5G causes covid. It’s clearly saying that 5G and to a lessor extent other radio frequency traffic may be exacerbating covid; by effecting our immune systems and coagulation among other things. Ergo removing sufferers from a ‘radio rich’ environment may help.

Only detailed stats correlating covid to areas rich with radio waves, particularly 5G and comparing those to areas with very low radio traffic and cross-reffing that with covid pathologies will tell us more.

Of course simply saying ‘I know places with bad signal/no 5G and there was still plenty of covid’ doesn’t cut it as a debunking of this theory. A nuanced study may find useful correlations that defy the initial layman’s reflex dismissal.

a reply to: McGinty

The thing there McGinty is there are obviously going to be more cases of COVID-19 in highly populated areas down to the manner in which the virus spreads.

And those same areas will tend to be the same places where extensive 3/4/5G coverage exists because of the number of people who reside there.

a reply to: andy06shake

Absolutely right! That’s why the research needs to be nuanced. Broad strokes can often miss something that redefines everything.

a reply to: McGinty

Im all for studies McGinty.

But.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

And we would have seen that evidence long before now if our communication frequencies did indeed affect or exasperate viruses and/or diseases in any sort of significant manner far as i can establish.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: McGinty

The thing there McGinty is there are obviously going to be more cases of COVID-19 in highly populated areas down to the manner in which the virus spreads.

And those same areas will tend to be the same places with extensive 3/4/5G coverage because of the amount of people who reside there.

You are getting somewhere finally as you have discussed one of the main factors on how a disease can spread and this is high population density.

How else can it spread? How and why disease is caused? Maybe when they have a population that is more susceptible to disease and/or elderly. Underlying health issues, poor diet, exposure to chemicals, smoking, use of recreational drugs, exposure to certain types of radiation

a reply to: Asmodeus3

How else can it spread?

We know how COVID-19 is spread.

Through close contact with people who have the virus.

And when someone who had the virus breathes, speaks, coughs or sneezes near you.

How and why disease is caused?

Well that's nature petri dish responsible there far as i can establish.

Edit: That's my "UNCHARTED: Legacy of Thieves Collection" finished installing so im away to see what that looks like on the PC compared to the old PS4.

Have fun everyone im out for a few hours.

An atser in other words, some around here are like thread wallpaper.

You present your thread well, thanks for the read and I hope to see more of yours here soon.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

How else can it spread?

We know how COVID-19 is spread.

Through close contact with people who have the virus.

And when someone who had the virus breathes, speaks, coughs or sneezes near you.

How and why disease is caused?

Well that's nature petri dish responsible there far as i can establish.

Yes but not everyone who has the virus develops disease (I have been asymptomatic) and asymptomatic individuals may not even be able to transmit the virus.

Strong immune systems it's the answer.

Weakened immune system though are a different story. Factors that can weaken the immune system can exacerbate the disease we are talking about. And that applies to a number of diseases.
Having an additional cofactor isn't far fetched.

I created another thread sometime ago where the origin of the virus was discussed. It's either zoonosis or a lab-leak. The latter isn't a conspiracy theory but a real possibility discussed by many scientists.

originally posted by: Dalamax
Andrew just likes to argue. Quite an obtuse character, who entertains some strange ideas.

An atser in other words, some around here are like thread wallpaper.

You present your thread well, thanks for the read and I hope to see more of yours here soon.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Thanks and have a look at the threads I have created. You will find them interesting and entertaining. Just click in my profile.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Nothin


As referred-to by Derrick Broze, in the last vid, of my previous post : here is the article from
The-Nation : How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation

Here is an interpretation by Scientists-for-Wired-Technology : ( They don't dig wireless. )
SCIENTISTS FOR WIRED TECHNOLOGY : How Big Wireless Convinced Us Cell Phones and Wi-Fi are Safe

... A March 2018 investigation for The Nation by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie showed how the scope of this public health issue has been inadequately reported by the press and underappreciated by the public. Hertsgaard and Dowie reported that the Telecom industry has employed public relations tactics, first pioneered by Big Tobacco in the 1960s and developed by fossil-fuel companies in the 1980s, to influence both the public’s understanding of wireless technologies and regulatory debates.

The wireless industry has “war-gamed” science by playing offense as well as defense, actively sponsoring studies that result in published findings supportive of the industry while aiming to discredit competing research that raises questions about the safety of cellular devices and other wireless technologies. [On “war-gaming,” see, for example, a 1994 Motorola memo, now published online.] When studies have linked wireless radiation to cancer or genetic damage, industry spokespeople have pointed out that the findings are disputed by other researchers. This strategy has proven effective, Hertsgaard and Dowie reported, because “the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, even as it fends off government regulations and lawsuits that might pinch profits,” as Hertsgaard and Dowie concluded. ...

... Meanwhile, the wireless industry has obstructed a full and fair understanding of the current science, aided by government agencies that have prioritized commercial interests over human health and news organizations that have failed to inform the public about what the scientific community really thinks. In other words, this public-health experiment has been conducted without the informed consent of its subjects, even as the industry keeps its thumb on the scale.

The stakes of this public-health experiment continue to rise with the increasing prevalence of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies as well as the development of the “Internet of Things” and anticipated extreme-density 4G and 5G wireless networks.

Multiple studies, including one published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in October 2017, have correlated long-term exposure to cell phone radiation with the risk for glioma (a type of brain tumor), meningioma, DNA damage, and other health risks.

In May 2017, the California Department of Public Health released safety guidelines in response to possible health impacts from cell phone radiation. Yet this information was withheld from the public for seven years, and only released after litigation.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has clear recommendations to reduce children’s exposure to cell phone radiation—yet pregnant women continue to use wireless devices on their abdomens and children are given cell phones as toys.

The wireless industry claims to be in compliance with health and safety regulations and opposes mandatory disclaimers about keeping phones at a safe distance. Yet they also oppose updating cell phone radiation testing methods in ways that would accurately represent real-life use. ...

... Phonegate
As the Environmental Health Trust and Marc Arazi have reported, recent scientific research and court rulings from France underscore these concerns about wireless technology radiation. Under court order, the National Frequency Agency of France (ANFR) recently disclosed that nine out of ten cell phones exceed government radiation safety limits when tested in the way they are actually used, next to the human body.

As the Environmental Health Trust reported, French activists coined the term “PhoneGate” because of parallels to the 2015 Volkswagen emissions scandal (referred to informally as “Dieselgate”) in which Volkswagen cars “passed” diesel emission tests in the lab, but actually had higher emissions when driven on real roads.

In the same way, cell phones “passed” laboratory radiation tests when the “specific absorption rate” (SAR), which indicates how much radiation the body absorbs, was measured at a distance of 15 mm (slightly more than half an inch). However, the way people actually carry and use cell phones (for example, tucked into a jeans pocket or bra, or held in contact with the ear) results in higher levels of absorbed radiation than those found in lab tests.

The French data was also corroborated by a 2017 independent investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) which tested cell phones and found SAR values that surpassed US and Canadian allowable standards when the phones were tested in body contact positions. These findings were replicated by the US Federal Communications Commission, which concluded that radiation levels reach as high as 300 percent of the limit for safe exposure. ...

What do ya know ?
Another multi-billion dollar industry, built on lies and scams, and they get pats on the back, instead of jail-time.
Who would have thunk it ?

Hey !

That's some very pertinent info there !!

Another industry build on farts, rather than Science™ !

Science™ ain't what it used to be, which was called science.

Folks : please keep your Cell-Phones™ at least half an inch away from your body.

Remember all of those old thermographic vids and pictures, showing how someone holding a Cell-Phone™ stuck up against their, had the heat raise several degrees in the skull ?

They're hard to find now, it seems ...




Electromagnetic Fields and Leakage of the Blood Brain Barrier: Dr. Leif Salford , taken from this article : Neurosurgeon Shows How Low Levels of Radiation Such As Wi-Fi, Smart Meters And Cell Phones Cause The Blood Brain Barrier To Leak

Neurosurgeon and researcher Dr. Leif Salford has conducted many studies on radio frequency radiation and its effects on the brain. Dr. Salford called the potential implications of some of his research "terrifying." Some of the most concerning conclusions result from the fact that the weakest exposure levels to wireless radiation caused the greatest effect in causing the blood brain barrier to leak.

Since he began his line of research in 1988, Dr. Leif Salford and his colleagues at Lund University Hospital in Sweden has exposed over 1,600 experimental animals to low-level radiation. Their results were consistent and worrisome: radiation, including that from cell phones, caused the blood-brain barrier--the brain's first line of
defense against infections and toxic chemicals--to leak. ...

Neurosurgeon: 'Your Cell Phone Is Not Necessarily a Safe Device'

Carefully friend. You don’t have access to a supporting paper, by unrelated investigators, perhaps?

I think it is what he’s really asking for.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not unless they exceed the exposure limits established by unnamed international bodies.

a reply to: Kurokage

Dude. That question is locked and loaded. I bet you have your reply all typed and ready to copy/paste.

Your failure to get a reply is because your asking for a choice to be made instead of inviting discussion.

Nice to see your enjoying life again

a reply to: andy06shake

a reply to: Dalamax

Some may argue, myself included, that it is you who entertains the strange notions and ideas.

As to what i like, well that would be facts, proof, and evidence of the tangible sort that support the claims made instead of quasi-scientific reports hyperbole, and conjecture.

a reply to: Dalamax

Dude. That question is locked and loaded. I bet you have your reply all typed and ready to copy/paste.

Your failure to get a reply is because your asking for a choice to be made instead of inviting discussion.

Which one?

And we did eventually manage to prize a reply from the fellow, after dancing around for a few pages, you would notice that if you kept on reading.

Nice to see your enjoying life again

Hard to enjoy someone else's, as too nice, its certainly better than the alternative.

Any road probably best to stay on the topic of the thread and discuss of the thread which is "COVID-19 disease linked to radio-frequency radiation including 5G"

See the part in the title where is clearly states "linked to radio-frequency radiation including 5G"?

There is another wee telltale sign, i think you may find as to the author's feelings on the matter.