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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The paper I have provided has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's a research paper and is not outdated as you are trying to claim.

I see you never read the links, as the first one is a link to the International Commision on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection and explains 5G.
There were only 2 links to information on how the myth/conspiracy spread.

I don't think this should be discounted. While the world was in lock down installation of the network was probably spreading faster than a virus could. Even on cruise boats where they were testing the satellite network. When astronouts went into space above the Van Allen Belts viruses that were dormant in their bodies became active. Now all human space travel is below the Van Allen Belts. We have a planet that sheilds us from radiation but now we are filling the inner biodome of the Earth with all kinds of electromagnetic radiation. Also it is directed right at your body now with cell phones and communication towers.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Science says non-ionizing radiation is not dangerous to humans Asmodeus3.

That's just a fact.

But choose to accept or reject whatever you please.

My bet is you prefer the taste of conspiracy to the actual fact of the matter.

There is not conspiracy by the way. These are two very well qualified scientists. In contrast you are not a scientist to suggest that they are conspiracy theorists or that I will choose conspiracies over reality. What are your qualifications by the way?

You can see the threads I have created.
I don't entertain conspiracy theories.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The paper I have provided has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's a research paper and is not outdated as you are trying to claim.

I see you never read the links, as the first one is a link to the International Commision on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection and explains 5G.
There were only 2 links to information on how the myth/conspiracy spread.

The paper has 141 citations.

It's better if you read at least part of the paper provided in my opening page rather than labelling two well qualified scientists as conspiracy theorists. This is how someone looses an argument. And what are your qualifications by the way?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The paper I have provided has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's a research paper and is not outdated as you are trying to claim.

I see you never read the links, as the first one is a link to the International Commision on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection and explains 5G.
There were only 2 links to information on how the myth/conspiracy spread.

The paper has 141 citations.

It's better if you read at least part of the paper provided in my opening page rather than labelling two well qualified scientists as conspiracy theorists. This is how someone looses an argument. And what are your qualifications by the way?

But many of them were merely explaining technologies or technical terms, or were of unrelated studies. They didn't back up the premise.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Science says non-ionizing radiation is not dangerous to humans Asmodeus3.

That's just a fact.

But choose to accept or reject whatever you please.

My bet is you prefer the taste of conspiracy to the actual fact of the matter.

There is not conspiracy by the way. These are two very well qualified scientists. In contrast you are not a scientist to suggest that they are conspiracy theorists or that I will choose conspiracies over reality. What are your qualifications by the way?

You can see the threads I have created.
I don't entertain conspiracy theories.

And what of those here who actually are scientists?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't entertain conspiracy theories.

Then why are you on a conspiracy website?

I love how you ask anyone proving you wrong what their qualifcations are but have refused to give your own??
You should maybe look for new scientists to post about as your old ones aren't up to scratch.

a reply to: DevotedResearcher

Good luck with your ""alternative facts"" if you don't like science.

As to Dr. Lee Merritt is she not a big David Icke fan?

Is this the same person?

www.npr.org...

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Piecing together what has made people sick is a work in progress.

Personally, I agree with researchers who have noted that there was/is no virus; that was and is a scam to make the plandemic, not pandemic, work.

The disease called COVID apparently is NOT a respiratory disease; rather, it is low oxygen in the blood due to the inability of the red blood cells to bind to oxygen and distribute oxygen to the organs in the body. I've heard Dr. Larry Palevsky describe COVID as a "non-lung disorder." It is a poisoning, not a viral infection.

Bottom line is that we are being lied to with impunity by the mainstream media and government.

Yeah, because obviously you're a doctor, epidemiologist, subject matter expert, whatever (SARCASM).
Just stop already. Why is it that every time there is a thread like this, a whole bunch of randos come out and start acting like they're suddenly experts? Thanks so much Dr. google (SARCASM).

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I love how you ask anyone proving you wrong what their qualifcations are but have refused to give your own??
You should maybe look for new scientists to post about as your old ones aren't up to scratch.

Nobody has proven me wrong here. All you have done with other members is calling scientists as conspiracy theorists. That's not proven me wrong or proven the work by these scientists wrong. If anything, calling scientists as conspiracy theorists, it's a good guide to loose an argument without doing much.

The paper I have linked doesn't discuss the origin of the virus but a possible cofactor on the progress and severity of the disease.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I love how you ask anyone proving you wrong what their qualifcations are but have refused to give your own??
You should maybe look for new scientists to post about as your old ones aren't up to scratch.

This isn't necessarily a conspiracy site.
You can discuss about anything without involving conspiracies. From politics to sports to science.
So no you are not correct.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobody has proven me wrong here. All you have done with other members is calling scientists as conspiracy theorists. That's not proven me wrong or proven the work by these scientists wrong. If anything, calling scientists as conspiracy theorists, it's a good guide to loose an argument without doing much.

The paper I have linked doesn't discuss the origin of the virus but a possible cofactor on the progress and severity of the disease.

This idea of 5G causing covid or having links to it is old hat, and was proven incorrect years ago.

This isn't necessarily a conspiracy site.
You can discuss about anything without involving conspiracies. From politics to sports to science.
So no you are not correct.

What planet are you on? ATS is a known and well renowned conspiracy website.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The paper I have provided has nothing to do with conspiracy theories. It's a research paper and is not outdated as you are trying to claim.

I see you never read the links, as the first one is a link to the International Commision on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection and explains 5G.
There were only 2 links to information on how the myth/conspiracy spread.

The paper has 141 citations.

It's better if you read at least part of the paper provided in my opening page rather than labelling two well qualified scientists as conspiracy theorists. This is how someone looses an argument. And what are your qualifications by the way?

But many of them were merely explaining technologies or technical terms, or were of unrelated studies. They didn't back up the premise.

I assume you have read the paper and concluded they haven't backed up their claims?

They have 141 references in their paper so they have backed up their claims well. So not you are not correct.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobody has proven me wrong here. All you have done with other members is calling scientists as conspiracy theorists. That's not proven me wrong or proven the work by these scientists wrong. If anything, calling scientists as conspiracy theorists, it's a good guide to loose an argument without doing much.

The paper I have linked doesn't discuss the origin of the virus but a possible cofactor on the progress and severity of the disease.

This idea of 5G causing covid or having links to it is old hat, and was proven incorrect years ago.

Strawman!

Nobody has claimed it is causing Covid

Try again please

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Nobody has proven me wrong here

The paper I have linked doesn't discuss the origin of the virus but a possible cofactor on the progress and severity of the disease.

And it would seem even you are not 100% sure

a reply to: andy06shake

All whistleblowers are smeared by the mainstream, which is controlled by the Deep State.

I'm a conspiracy realist and so is Dr. Lee Merritt.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your claims that it has effects on covid is incorrect and as stated previously with links from the ICNNIRP shows that the Radio frequency used can not do what you claim.

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Nobody has proven me wrong here

The paper I have linked doesn't discuss the origin of the virus but a possible cofactor on the progress and severity of the disease.

And it would seem even you are not 100% sure

Of course not and so do those who have written the paper. They consider it as a possible cofactor. It's a research paper by the way and not the Bible where everything is standard and unchanged.

Yes you don't have to be absolute to support a point and science doesn't deal with absolute statements. Anything can be proven or disproven in the presence of new evidence.