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

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So how did 5G exacerbate the disease in areas where it was not turned on or in place?

As to understanding, well i understand that you cannot get something or have it exacerbated from something else that is not there, so there is that.

The scientists are not the only ones that are "difficult to follow sometimes" as i think you may tick that box yourself.

We have discussed already the various factors earlier.

Smoking, drinking, diabetes, cancer, obesity, underlying health issues, malnutrition.

If we assume that exposure to this type of radiation can weaken an immune system then the absence of this type of radiation is one less factor in weakening the immune system. Is rather simple.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You're like an evil duracell bunny, you keep going and going...
It doesn't matter how many times you try to refute it, the paper is wrong, even to the point where the writters themselves state that they can't come to a conclussion that 5g is linked.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

So how did 5G exacerbate the disease in areas where it was not turned on or in place?

As to understanding, well i understand that you cannot get something or have it exacerbated from something else that is not there, so there is that.

The scientists are not the only ones that are "difficult to follow sometimes" as i think you may tick that box yourself.

Think of those places as control groups.

Was it worse in areas with 5G, or without? I personally am having difficulty struggling with densification. Not sure what densification entails precisely.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You're like an evil duracell bunny, you keep going and going...
It doesn't matter how many times you try to refute it, the paper is wrong, even to the point where the writters themselves state that they can't come to a conclussion that 5g is linked.

I don't think you understand how research is conducted, what the authors have claimed and what their conclusions are. It's rather obvious.
What you describe at the end isn't a self-refutation as you have called it but rather than an acknowledgement that they haven't proved causation.

It's really that simple.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

"It's really they simple."

Yes, they probably are.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

"It's really they simple."

Yes, they probably are.

Thanks for this. I am writing really fast. But I am sure you follow the conversation.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's definitely you my friend who doesn't understand the research and you keep clinging to it.
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.

What about that can't you grasp?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's definitely you my friend who doesn't understand the research and you keep clinging to it.
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.

What about that can't you grasp?

And yet you are making the same argument which is shown to be incorrect. Neither myself nor the authors have ever claimed that they proved causation. They have shown a link between radio-frequency radiation from wireless communications and possible weakening of the immune system which could exacerbate the disease.

You need to understand the basis first as yet you wrongly think they have self-refuted themselves and you for further to claim that they have made themselves claims that 5G causes Covid 19 disease. Plenty of confusion in your arguments.

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.

The OP is bringing the discussion, written by qualified peeps. What does his qualifications have to do with their work?

The ability to dissect the paper and the time required to form a conclusive argument that can be defended varies with training I suppose.

I’m guessing that near total, or even complete, ignorance of the subject and the urge to disparage actual findings take a hold of some who cannot, or will not, entertain to be educated.

Don’t play the player play the ball.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are still going yet the authors themselves state "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage."

Nature of the beast Chief.

a reply to: ChiefD

a reply to: Dalamax

The OP is bringing the discussion, written by qualified peeps. What does his qualifications have to do with their work?

You obviously haven't read the thread, the OP has when shown their link is proven incorrect has then asked what the qualifications are of the questioner and has also used this tactic in other threads. Which shows the OP is trying to belittle the questioner.

Is linked to what? The premise is that 5G weakens the immune system and in this way is a contributing factor to corona virus susceptibility.

So your correct. The authors stated that their paper doesn’t link 5G and one particular virus out of the millions that come into contact with humans.

Why do you keep harping on about a position that is specifically made irrelevant by the Authors in their own paper?

Did the words used, in the article, not convey that idea?

Just curious.

a reply to: Kurokage

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You are still going yet the authors themselves state "none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage."

Nobody has claimed prove of causation/linkage.
However they have shown there is evidence of linking radio-frequency wireless communications with weakening of the immune system. There is a difference between evidence and proof of causation.

You are making the mistake of repeating the statement. If they think they are refuting themselves they wouldn't have written that paper in the first place.

Dude. Your tolerance is commendable

a reply to: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Dalamax
Is linked to what? The premise is that 5G weakens the immune system and in this way is a contributing factor to corona virus susceptibility.

So your correct. The authors stated that their paper doesn’t link 5G and one particular virus out of the millions that come into contact with humans.

Why do you keep harping on about a position that is specifically made irrelevant by the Authors in their own paper?

Did the words used, in the article, not convey that idea?

Just curious.

a reply to: Kurokage

He doesn't have any evidence to show and he is making the same mistake again and again.

Nobody has claimed that 5G is causing Covid-19 disease or that there is proof of causation. All they have shown in the paper is that they think there is good evidence that this type of radiation could weaken the immune system which in turn could exacerbate the disease.

Then he goes and repeats his argument which is getting refuted again and again....

originally posted by: Dalamax
Dude. Your tolerance is commendable

a reply to: Asmodeus3

If you see my posts here and in other threads you will see that I might be new here but I am not irrelevant with debates.

You need to have patience to go about this. And I have plenty that's why I have won all arguments.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Dalamax

The OP is bringing the discussion, written by qualified peeps. What does his qualifications have to do with their work?

You obviously haven't read the thread, the OP has when shown their link is proven incorrect has then asked what the qualifications are of the questioner and has also used this tactic in other threads. Which shows the OP is trying to belittle the questioner.

Incorrect. The OP is trying to quantify the substance of the questioner. I can only assume so as to be better able to engage in meaningful conversation.

If that makes you feel small I don’t believe I can help you using this medium.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again, I posted comments from YOUR link which in the end the authors had to state....

"none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage."

a reply to: Dalamax

Incorrect. The OP is trying to quantify the substance of the questioner. I can only assume so as to be better able to engage in meaningful conversation.

If that makes you feel small I don’t believe I can help you using this medium.

The OP has asked this question about qualifications in other threads to other members too. It is there attempt try to discredit the member who has proven there argument wrong. The poster posted a link that showed the OPs data was incorrect. A very sad tactic.