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

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

It's not my claim. That's another strawman.
The evidence the two scientists have given suggest it has an effect on weakening the human immune system. It's not that difficult to understand. The links you have given prove nothing.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's not my claim. That's another strawman.
The evidence the two scientists have given suggest it has an effect on weakening the human immune system. It's not that difficult to understand. The links you have given prove nothing.

You created the thread so you are "hosting" the claim here on ATS, so it is "your" claim.

The authors of the study are an adjunct professor in the mind-body medicine department at Saybrook University and a radiologist not currently affiliated with an academic institution. They proposed a hypothesis that exposure to "wireless communications radiation," including 5G, may have increased the severity of COVID-19 infections.

However, the authors of the paper state outright that "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage." They go on to say, "Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation. Clearly COVID-19 occurs in regions with little wireless communication. Furthermore, the relative morbidity caused by (wireless communications radiation) exposure in COVID-19 is unknown."

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's not my claim. That's another strawman.
The evidence the two scientists have given suggest it has an effect on weakening the human immune system. It's not that difficult to understand. The links you have given prove nothing.

You created the thread so you are "hosting" the claim here on ATS.

The authors of the study are an adjunct professor in the mind-body medicine department at Saybrook University and a radiologist not currently affiliated with an academic institution. They proposed a hypothesis that exposure to "wireless communications radiation," including 5G, may have increased the severity of COVID-19 infections.

However, the authors of the paper state outright that "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage." They go on to say, "Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation. Clearly COVID-19 occurs in regions with little wireless communication. Furthermore, the relative morbidity caused by (wireless communications radiation) exposure in COVID-19 is unknown."

I see you started reading the paper!
That's good.

That was the aim of the thread i.e to start a discussion. The claims made are not mine but worth examining.

Yes, there is no proof of causation but there is evidence, according to the authors, of a possible weakening of the immune system given in mechanisms 1-6

My stance on matters is well known. I am against a number of ideologies such as the vaccine ideology, the climate change ideology and the transgender ideology. These are usually entertained by the left and some left wing and green activists who are at odds with science and common sense.

Here I sit using 5G and I still haven't gotten it.

a reply to: ketsuko

You've probably got the placebo version.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see you started reading the paper!
That's good.

Your sarcasm aside, I read the paper at the beginning of the thread and thought it was a load of hogwash, which is why I posted the links to 5G and how the myths of it's connection to covid was incorrect.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I see you started reading the paper!
That's good.

Your sarcasm aside, I read the paper at the beginning of the thread and thought it was a load of hogwash, which is why I posted the links to 5G and how the myths of it's connection to covid was incorrect.

Your opinion without any evidence other than calling the paper outdated and others have joined to call them conspiracy theorists.

So nothing much.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your opinion without any evidence other than calling the paper outdated and others have joined to call them conspiracy theorists.

I posted the evidence further back in the thread as have others, you just refused to read it and keep your blinkers on.

So nothing much.

I could say the same about your posts....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your opinion without any evidence other than calling the paper outdated and others have joined to call them conspiracy theorists.

I posted the evidence further back in the thread as have others, you just refused to read it and keep your blinkers on.

So nothing much.

I could say the same about your posts....

What you posted proves nothing against the paper I have posted.

First of all, you haven't understood what the authors say.

In addition you made a comment about the paper being outdated. That's not a valid argument. The time it was written has nothing to do with its validity or relevance. Its the quality that is important.

I am not the one who has called papers outdated or the scientists who have written them conspiracy theorists.

So no, not really. You have lost this argument too.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Interesting that you think anyone and any source that has a different opinion to you and presents counter arguments is a "strawman".

Give it a rest.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Interesting that you think anyone and any source that has a different opinion to you and presents counter arguments is a "strawman".

Give it a rest.

Guess what?! That's another strawman!

a reply to: Asmodeus3

See what I mean?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What you posted proves noting against the paper I have posted.

First of all, you haven't understood what the authors say.

In addition you make a comment about the paper being outdated. That's not a valid argument. The time it was written has nothing to do with its validity or relevance. Its the quality that it is important.

I am not the one who has called papers outdated or the scientists who have written them conspiracy theorists.

So no, not really. You have lost this argument too.

I see you love to claim people have "lost" the argument as a way to try to shut down the thread, it doesn't work like that. You've posted outdated claims that have been shown by multiple posters to be incorrect, it's the facts that "win" here and facts show you're incorrect and that the information you posted was incorrect.

This is all the proof needed to show your assumption is incorrect.

the authors of the paper state outright that "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage." They go on to say, "Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation.

a reply to: Kurokage

This says it all, really:

images.app.goo.gl...

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What you posted proves noting against the paper I have posted.

First of all, you haven't understood what the authors say.

In addition you make a comment about the paper being outdated. That's not a valid argument. The time it was written has nothing to do with its validity or relevance. Its the quality that it is important.

I am not the one who has called papers outdated or the scientists who have written them conspiracy theorists.

So no, not really. You have lost this argument too.

I see you love to claim people have "lost" the argument as a way to try to shut down the thread, it doesn't work like that. You've posted outdated claims that have been shown by multiple posters to be incorrect, it's the facts that "win" here and facts show you're incorrect and that the information you posted was incorrect.

This is all the proof needed to show your assumption is incorrect.

the authors of the paper state outright that "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage." They go on to say, "Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation.

Nobody has claimed they have proved causation. Not even themselves. However they have shown and you can see it in their conclusion

Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Kurokage

This says it all, really:

images.app.goo.gl...

That is just so right....
The authors themselves state "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage." shows the OPs interpretation is incorrect but they can't let it go....

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Kurokage

This says it all, really:

images.app.goo.gl...

That is just so right....
The authors themselves state "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage." shows the OPs interpretation is incorrect but they can't let it go....

Nobody has claimed what you have just said. They have argued there is evidence to suggest that...
They haven't claimed they have proven causation.
You have confused matters again.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobody has claimed what you have just said. They have argued there is evidence to suggest that...
They haven't claimed they have proven causation.
You have confused matters again.

See, you can't let it go, can you?
You argument has been show to be incorrect but you just keep going, digging that hole for yourself deeper and deeper.
The one confusing matters here, is you!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Nobody has claimed what you have just said. They have argued there is evidence to suggest that...
They haven't claimed they have proven causation.
You have confused matters again.

See, you can't let it go, can you?
You argument has been show to be incorrect but you just keep going, digging that hole for yourself deeper and deeper.
The one confusing matters here is you.

My argument hadn't been incorrect as I haven't made any incorrect claims.

You haven't shown anything other then stating that the paper is outdated and another member accused the scientists of being conspiracy theorists.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I refer the Honorable Gentleman to my previous response:

www.google.com...






Which doesn't seem to work but you get the idea.