U.S. Government Admits ‘5G Radiation Causes COVID-19’

a reply to: CriticalStinker



Well that the ancient chimpanzees off the herpes hook.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Regardless of what we know now it won't prevent some scientists to write reviews about the most seemingly crazy things

We know how COVID-19 spreads Asmodeus3 and its nothing to do with 5G.

But they cannot be excluded outright on the basis of our current understanding. They might be completely wrong but I wouldn't exclude their work because it seems not believable.

Sorry but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" if you could simply provide some of the tangible sorts ile entertain the notion..............but until such times.

The link I have used never claimed that 5G causes Covid-19 disease.

It's more of a strawman argument that you are making.

The paper I linked seems to be peer-reviewed in a good journal.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Are you talking about my link or the title of the thread?

Title of the thread clearly states 5G Radiation Causes COVID-19.

The publication you are going on about is spurious as feck and did not exactly receive what one would call positive reviews.

And the article you place so much faith in suggests 5G exacerbates the disease.

By somehow lowering our immunity, so i ask once again.

How can that be the case given the district fact that COVID-19 propagated and spread in the areas where the 5G signal was not even available at the time?

Why the publication is spurious?

I don't place faith in the publication. I have created a thread sometime ago discussing it.

Your question at the end is irrelevant as the paper does not claim that 5G causes Covid-19 disease.

Make sure you read what it was claimed in the paper.

If you reply the same way I will repeat the same thing.

Let's see if you get it this time.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why the publication is spurious?

Stab in the dark because it makes unfounded claims

Let's try this another way.

The paper claims 5G lowers our immune system where is your proof?

Given the fact that 5G is a communications medium that employs the use of....... non-ionising radiation, hence unable to affect our cells.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The link you used claims 5G lowers our immune system and allows COVID-19 to take a better hold.

As to peer-reviewed, by who and what was the response?

Looked to be rather negative in the extreme.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The link you used claims 5G lowers our immune system and allows COVID-19 to take a better hold.

As to peer-reviewed, by who and what was the response?

Looked to be rather negative in the extreme.

Yes, the link I used and have made a thread in the past is discussing the role of this type of radio-frequency radiation on the immune system of humans. Its main arguments is that it weakens the immune systems and hence exacerbates the disease. Not causing the disease.

I don't know who peer-reviewed this paper. It is published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research that publishes peer reviewed publications

The mission of the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science (JCTS) is to provide a forum for disseminating advances in clinical and translational science. JCTS, the official journal of the Association for Clinical and Translational Science and the Clinical Research Forum, is a fully Open Access journal publishing high-quality articles on research that spans the translational continuum, as well as education research that informs the development of the translational workforce. Topics of interest include investigations into how to best develop processes and people that translate discoveries into improved health. The Association for Clinical and Translational Science has partnered with the Clinical Research Forum (CRF) to support the growth and development of JCTS. The Journal's founding Editor is Arthur M. Feldman, MD, PhD.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why the publication is spurious?

Stab in the dark because it makes unfounded claims

Let's try this another way.

The paper claims 5G lowers our immune system where is your proof?

Given the fact that 5G is a communications medium that employs the use of....... non-ionising radiation, hence unable to affect our cells.

What claims are unfounded?
You don't seem to have read anything. It will actually take you days to do so give the length of the text.

The paper is a review of other peer-reviewed papers and adds upon existing knowledge before making its conclusions. Whether you accept them or not it's another case. Bit it has been published and has been accepted long time ago.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Triggered me? Are you aware this board is where people discuss and debate issues? No need for you to imply anyone is triggered because they don't walk in lockstep with your opinion.

No serious person would take Rubik seriously IMO.

You may have forgotten it but you presented the same arguments in a thread I made sometime ago....

Link? In context, please?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yes, the link I used and have made a thread in the past is discussing the role of this type of radio-frequency radiation in the immune system of humans. Its main arguments is that it weakens the immune systems and hence exacerbates the disease. Not causing the disease.

So explain how COVID-19 still spread like wildfire in areas where there was no 5G coms signal?

It's the same to a similar question you see.

I don't know who peer-reviewed this paper. It is published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research that publishes peer reviewed publications

It's pseudoscientific nonsense referenced on the likes of sites like "Beforeitsnews.com" if memory serves.

Anyhoo, my Kebabs arrived, munch time for me, have fun fttb.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Triggered me? Are you aware this board is where people discuss and debate issues? No need for you to imply anyone is triggered because they don't walk in lockstep with your opinion.

No serious person would take Rubik seriously IMO.

You may have forgotten it but you presented the same arguments in a thread I made sometime ago....

Link? In context, please?

I have made another thread sometime ago based on the same link I have used here. It is in the first page.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

What claims are unfounded?

That would be the ones that suggest 5G influences our immune systems.

See 1G, 3G, 4G have been doing the rounds for quite a while now with no sort of dangerous adverse health effect.

You seem to have problems with understanding simple words never mind reading Asmodeus3.

You do however seem to love the taste of your own doom porn.

Too late to be going around in circles with you any road, i canny teach pork or have the inclination to try this evening.

So on that note, night night, sleep tight, mind, and not let the nasty bad 5G bite.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yes, the link I used and have made a thread in the past is discussing the role of this type of radio-frequency radiation in the immune system of humans. Its main arguments is that it weakens the immune systems and hence exacerbates the disease. Not causing the disease.

So explain how COVID-19 still spread like wildfire in areas where there was no 5G coms signal?

It's the same to a similar question you see.

I don't know who peer-reviewed this paper. It is published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research that publishes peer reviewed publications

It's pseudoscientific nonsense referenced on the likes of sites like "Beforeitsnews.com" if memory serves.

Anyhoo, my Kebabs arrived, munch time for me, have fun fttb.

The article I have linked does not claim that 5G causes Covid-19 disease. For once more you are unable to understand it.

Your question is again irrelevant. You are going into cycles for once more. I don't need to explain anything as you deliberately misrepresenting what the paper claimed.

The virus can spread regardless of whether there is a 5G coverage. The paper claims the radiation can weaken the immune system and exacerbate the disease.

It is published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research that publishes peer reviewed publications.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

What claims are unfounded?

That would be the ones that suggest 5G influences our immune systems.

See 1G, 3G, 4G have been doing the rounds for quite a while now with no sort of dangerous adverse health effect.

You seem to have problems with understanding simple words never mind reading Asmodeus3.

You do however seem to love the taste of your own doom porn.

Too late to be going around in circles with you any road, i canny teach pork or have the inclination to try this evening.

So on that note, night night, sleep tight, mind, and not let the nasty bad 5G bite.

According to the authors this is not the case. They have backed up their claims well. These are not my claims by the way. You are mistaken it you think so.

One of the authors has a PhD in Biophysics from the University of California at Berkeley and the other is a Doctor with specialization in Radiology.

Your qualifications are?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The article I have linked dies not claim that 5G causes Covid-19 disease. For once more you are unable to understand it.

It "does" however claim to lower the immune system down to pseudoscientific unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your question is again irrelevant. You are going into cycles for once more. I don't need to explain anything as you deliberately misrepresenting what the paper claimed.

The question is perfectly relevant hence your refusal to address the simple conundrum.

The virus can spread regardless of whether there is a 5G coverage. The paper claims the radiation can weaken the immune system and exacerbate the disease.

Again i think you may mean "does" spread. LoL

And no matter what the paper claims non ionizing radiation cannot penetrate our cell walls and hence does not affect our immunity.

It is published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research that publishes peer reviewed publications.

Now whos going around is circles?

It's referenced by nutjobs on sites like "Beforeitsnews.com" and "Bitchute" which tells us everything thats is required.

Zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzz.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your qualifications are?

Not particularly relevant because I'm not the one making ludicrous claims about 5G nonsense spring to mind.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Triggered me? Are you aware this board is where people discuss and debate issues? No need for you to imply anyone is triggered because they don't walk in lockstep with your opinion.

No serious person would take Rubik seriously IMO.

You may have forgotten it but you presented the same arguments in a thread I made sometime ago....

Link? In context, please?

Again, I don't really know who she is. In your opinion she cannot be taken seriously. That's fine. But that is not a valid argument I am afraid. Unless you can show why her publication doesn't have any merits. There are two authors on this paper. The other one is a radiologist.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The article I have linked dies not claim that 5G causes Covid-19 disease. For once more you are unable to understand it.

It "does" however claim to lower the immune system down to pseudoscientific unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your question is again irrelevant. You are going into cycles for once more. I don't need to explain anything as you deliberately misrepresenting what the paper claimed.

The question is perfectly relevant hence your refusal to address the simple conundrum.

The virus can spread regardless of whether there is a 5G coverage. The paper claims the radiation can weaken the immune system and exacerbate the disease.

Again i think you may mean "does" spread. LoL

And no matter what the paper claims non ionizing radiation cannot penetrate our cell walls and hence does not affect our immunity.

It is published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research that publishes peer reviewed publications.

No whos going around is circles?

It's referenced by nutjobs on sites like "Beforeitsnews.com" and "Bitchute" which tells us everything thats is required.

Zzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzz.

No you are mistaken.

According to the authors this is not the case. They have backed up their claims well. These are not my claims by the way. You are mistaken if you think so.

The virus can spread regardless of whether there is a 5G coverage. The paper claims the radiation can weaken the immune system and exacerbate the disease. It's rather simple.

Read the conclusion

The paper is published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research that publishes peer reviewed publications. If you have any issues contact them.

The authors haven't claimed the penetration properties of ionising radiation. You are making the same false assumptions.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Your qualifications are?

Not particularly relevant because I'm not the one making ludicrous claims about 5G nonsense spring to mind.

So you say the two authors make ludicrous claims. But you haven't read the paper. You thought they have claimed 5G causes Covid-19 disease which is wrong as you have never read their paper.

Now you think they have claimed the same penetration properties of ionising radiation. You are still wrong as you haven't read the paper.

Twice now you have been wrong.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

NOTE: I am not a scientist. I am not medically educated.

I think referring to this, or rather, accepting this as evidentiary to the claim is inappropriate. If anything, this study is saying only that it is possible that 5G radiative energy and modulation can induce the production of components of a virus "like coronavirus" but it does not necessarily have to be a coronavirus.

It seems to indicate that "inductive" charges traveling around some cells (skin prominently mentioned) due to exposure to 5G signals might cause these viral components to be 'manufactured' within the cell as a byproduct of the signal interacting with the cells internal electrophysiological RNA and DNA protein assembly processes.

This study creates the only proof such a study is capable of producing... namely that such an effect could possibly produce a virus components "such as a those in coronavirus."

This is just my layman's analysis of the papers cited... none of which actually go beyond theoretical statistics regarding random production of protein strands which are subsets of viral organisms.

Were this a perfect word, the next step is actual experimental trials and observation... not more meta-analysis of other scientists utterances ...

This kind of 'research' is helpful in some sense, but speculation based upon statistical possibilities is not proof or evidence in and of itself. The real proof is in observational measurements of real cases... which I can't say I expect to surface ...just yet.


Once again, not being a specialist of any sort, I used my own reading of the study cited, my examination of that studies supporting documentation, and a meager comprehension of the jargon itself. Maybe I am wrong, but this is where it took me...

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: Asmodeus3

NOTE: I am not a scientist. I am not medically educated.

I think referring to this, or rather, accepting this as evidentiary to the claim is inappropriate. If anything, this study is saying only that it is possible that 5G radiative energy and modulation can induce the production of components of a virus "like coronavirus" but it does not necessarily have to be a coronavirus.

It seems to indicate that "inductive" charges traveling around some cells (skin prominently mentioned) due to exposure to 5G signals might cause these viral components to be 'manufactured' within the cell as a byproduct of the signal interacting with the cells internal electrophysiological RNA and DNA protein assembly processes.

This study creates the only proof such a study is capable of producing... namely that such an effect could possibly produce a virus components "such as a those in coronavirus."

This is just my layman's analysis of the papers cited... none of which actually go beyond theoretical statistics regarding random production of protein strands which are subsets of viral organisms.

Were this a perfect word, the next step is actual experimental trials and observation... not more meta-analysis of other scientists utterances ...

This kind of 'research' is helpful in some sense, but speculation based upon statistical possibilities is not proof or evidence in and of itself. The real proof is in observational measurements of real cases... which I can't say I expect to surface ...just yet.


Once again, not being a specialist of any sort, I used my own reading of the study cited, my examination of that studies supporting documentation, and a meager comprehension of the jargon itself. Maybe I am wrong, but this is where it took me...

Have you read the conclusion

Conclusion

There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and WCR exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by WCR exposure. Therefore, we propose a link between adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure from wireless devices and COVID-19.

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.

WCR exposure is a widespread, yet often neglected, environmental stressor that can produce a wide range of adverse bioeffects. For decades, independent research scientists worldwide have emphasized the health risks and cumulative damage caused by WCR [42,45]. The evidence presented here is consistent with a large body of established research. Healthcare workers and policymakers should consider WCR a potentially toxic environmental stressor. Methods for reducing WCR exposure should be provided to all patients and the general population