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

originally posted by: TheBorg
First off, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!

Secondly, 5G has shown NO illness-causing effects in people, unless they are exposed to intense doses of it, from sitting directly in FRONT of the signal dish atop the tower for a 24 hr period. By the time the radio waves come into contact with anyone, they are virtually harmless. This sounds to me like someone that doesn't like 5G made an article trying to manufacture another reason for people to stand against it.

This is MY OPINION ONLY!

TheBorg :-D

Yes : Big-Daddy-Government is looking out for us, and They would never allow us to be exposed to anything poisonous, like Radiation, Glyphosate, or toxic injections ...

History Of The Anti-Wireless Movement

... Cell phones are effectively radioactive devices. The idea that they are not radioactive comes from a mistaken distinction that the medical community made a century ago, which most people persist in believing despite a century of research showing that distinction to be little more than a fantasy. It is a fantasy that says that (a) only radiation above a certain frequency is energetic enough to remove electrons from molecules to form ions, (b) this causes genetic mutations which are the cause of cancer, and (c) radiation is harmless if it does not cause cancer.

The most obvious of those fictions is that radiation has no effects besides cancer. Whereas in fact radiation acts directly on the electrons in our mitochondria, slowing metabolism, making us hypoxic, and causing diabetes, heart disease and, yes, cancer. Radiation also acts directly on all the electric transmission lines in our bodies, including our nerves, our blood vessels, our heart’s pacemaker, and yes — even though western medicine doesn’t recognize their existence — our acupuncture meridians. ...

The Most Dangerous Technology Ever Invented Part Two

The selling of cell phones is, and always has been, based on lies and deception. The biggest lie is that they are “low power” devices and that this makes them safe.

That is a double lie. It is a lie because they are not low power. If you put a cell phone — any cell phone — in your hand or next to your body, you are being blasted by more microwave radiation from your phone than you are getting from any cell tower, and by ten billion times as much microwave radiation as you are getting from the sun, the Milky Way, or any other natural sources.

The exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission reflect this reality: cell towers are permitted to expose your body at a specific absorption rate of 0.08 watts per kilogram, while cell phones are allowed to expose your brain at a specific absorption rate of 1.6 watts per kilogram, which is twenty times higher.

And it is a lie because low power devices are not any safer than high power devices. The reason for this is that electromagnetic fields are not toxins in the ordinary sense, and the rule in toxicology that a lower dose is a safer dose does not apply to microwave radiation. As Allan Frey wrote in 1990:

“Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to living beings like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater the dose, the greater the effect — a dose-response relationship. Rather, living beings are electrochemical systems that use low frequency EMFs in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous system function. To model how EMFs affect living beings, one might compare them to the radio we use to listen to music…

If you impose on the radio an appropriately tuned EMF or harmonic, even if it is very weak, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we impose a very weak EMF signal on a living being, it has the possibility of interfering with normal function if it is properly tuned. That is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a toxicological model.” ...

Posted previously.

a reply to: quickflash

Hi.

Am sure your intentions are good.

Unfortunately : there are subjects that we question, where the vast wealth of info, is in the below-part of the iceberg.
Out of view.

This thread was bombarded, because there were weak spots.

My suggestion : is to have back-up info ready, when starting a thread.
If you would have researched around here, you may have come across Asmodeus3's previous thread, that they mentioned earlier in this thread.


That thread was also bombarded, until finally, on page 17, Asmodeus3, ItIsNowAgain, and myself, finally laid an undeniable and unassailable litany of info, to indicate that 5G™, and indeed any amount of Radiation™, has been proven Safe™.
That effectively ended the thread.

This was my last comment in that thread :

a reply to: Asmodeus3
This is the kind of info one needs to have in one's pocket, at the beginning of the thread, to lay-on all of the naysayers that think that if the Government doesn't say anything, then it must all be safe.

LMFAO, this place is getting to be too much

originally posted by: vonclod
LMFAO, this place is getting to be too much

Agreed.

The evidence for 5G, and previous EMFs causing damage to all forms of life, continues to accumulate.

Make your own minds up.

Cell phone radiation / 5G causes DNA damage with Cecelia Doucette

The US government + the FDA commissioned a $30 million study on cellular technology decades ago. In their final report, they determined CLEAR evidence of cancerous tumors + DNA damage. Watch Cecelia Doucette on #CHDTV

5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity

12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body
Way back in 2002, RF researcher Arthur Firstenberg published an analysis of 5G long before the technology was approved. He explained how, due to 5G EM pulses being extremely short and delivered in bursts, they actually replicate inside the body – and end up creating tiny new 5G antennas internally. Firstenberg wrote:

“… when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body …”

“These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors … They become significant when either the power or the phase of the wave changes rapidly enough … This means that the reassurance we are being given – that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body – is not true.”

This echoes a previous point made – that 5G penetration is a serious danger.

13. 5G Danger: Insurance Companies Refuse to Underwrite Big Wireless. What Do They Know?
Insurance companies (the most famous of which is Lloyds of London) have made headlines by refusing to insure Big Wireless (the telecommunication corporate conglomerate) against wi-fi and 5G-related illnesses and claims:

“Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer. Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 [now 9 – Ed.] years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness.”

All links for claims, listed at the bottom of the page, in the link to Global-Research.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quickflash
Link:

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I have already made an entire thread about this topic using exactly the same publication here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, you're a muppet as well then...

The study has been retracted due to manipulation of the peer reviewed data..

Did you not read that bit?

This has been debunked soooo many times now...

come on, you're claims were silly before.. now you're just dredging up old stories to recycle!

PA

a reply to: cooperton

That's #in intense

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: quickflash
Link:

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I have already made an entire thread about this topic using exactly the same publication here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, you're a muppet as well then...

The study has been retracted due to manipulation of the peer reviewed data..

Did you not read that bit?

This has been debunked soooo many times now...

come on, you're claims were silly before.. now you're just dredging up old stories to recycle!

PA

You are mistaken as the study I have linked hadn't been retracted as far as I know.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It has been published in a reasonably good journal that where the publications are peer-reviewed. The Journal of Clinical and Translational Research.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Conclusion

There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and WCR exposure.

The problem with that kind of argument is it does nothing to prove anything. Correlation does not imply causation, and around and around we go.

Never says it does but there must some correlation before anything else is established.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The attempt was to examine whether this type of radio frequency could weaken the immune system and hence exacerbate some diseases. In tis case COVID-19. Definitely an interesting paper to read and that's why it is published on a peer reviewed journal.

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Asmodeus3


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.

I had the same opinion of Rubik I have in this one. I'm not sure what your point is. I provided sources to expose Rubik as I recall. No credibility there.

You asked me to prove one of Rubik's papers false which of course is a tactic used when someone is struggling in a debate. I continue to find anything Rubik is involved in as being highly questionable.

Why would a Radiologist be credible on this topic?

A final comment.

You may think that the paper is not great or the authors are not great enough. But the paper did make it on the journal and the questions posed are legitimate.

If you want to expose the junk out there it's better if you start with the publications that are written by Pfizer, Moderna, and the rest of the saviours of humanity that write the papers and retrospectively find authors to put their names on them.

I'm not the only one uncomfortable with Rubik. See quotes below from the document you linked.

Although not peer reviewed, one of us (Rubik) investigated the effect of 4G LTE mobile phone radiation on the peripheral blood of ten human subjects, each of whom had been exposed to cell phone radiation for two consecutive 45-min intervals [51].

Dear Dr. Rubik,

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.

For your guidance, reviewers’ comments are appended below.

If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Also, please ensure that the track changes function is switched on when implementing the revisions. This enables the reviewers to rapidly verify all changes made.

Your revision is due by Jun 11, 2021.

Page 5, left, first paragraph. Rubik 2014 does not look like a peer reviewed paper. Please refer only to peer review publications, specifically for scientific findings.

“Although not peer reviewed, one of us (Rubik) investigated the effect of 4G LTE

Anyhow, it is clear that much of Rubik's work is not actually peer-reviewed. Those were just mentions of that I found with a fast search. I kind of doubt that 5G poses any true risk or it would be mainstream news and the courts would be full of lawsuits.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I'm not the only one uncomfortable with Rubik. See quotes below from the document you linked.

Although not peer reviewed, one of us (Rubik) investigated the effect of 4G LTE mobile phone radiation on the peripheral blood of ten human subjects, each of whom had been exposed to cell phone radiation for two consecutive 45-min intervals [51].

Dear Dr. Rubik,

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.

For your guidance, reviewers’ comments are appended below.

If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Also, please ensure that the track changes function is switched on when implementing the revisions. This enables the reviewers to rapidly verify all changes made.

Your revision is due by Jun 11, 2021.

Page 5, left, first paragraph. Rubik 2014 does not look like a peer reviewed paper. Please refer only to peer review publications, specifically for scientific findings.

“Although not peer reviewed, one of us (Rubik) investigated the effect of 4G LTE

Anyhow, it is clear that much of Rubik's work is not actually peer-reviewed. Those were just mentions of that I found with a fast search. I kind of doubt that 5G poses any true risk or it would be mainstream news and the courts would be full of lawsuits.

I am of the idea that the Journal it was published holds peer-reviewed publications. It says so unless something has changed. I have read many of the comments attached and some are critical some other are not. The purpose of my old thread was to see if there is any connection there between these frequencies and ill health. Still is an interesting topic for further research as I don't think the exposure to radiation can be excluded just because this type of radiation doesn't have the penetration properties as the other types of ionising radiation.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I have to say, the papers you cite are not something we should casually dismiss as without merit or meaning.

It is clear that any scientist should be able to appreciate the nature of the assertions and their statistical significance. It asserts very well that the idea of viral assembly induced by electromagnetic signals can be a potential source of viral infection. I will also support the idea that the body of 'amplified' information being crafted by people who already demonstrated untrustworthiness, is hardly scientific or thorough - and may represent a more insidious kind of bias, "science" bias.

Legitimacy is a subjective thing where bias exists. It works both ways. Some are angry, and some are devastated about how this COVID event was USED... not only "how" ... but by whom. That emotional response makes us very eager to elicit affirmation - it is a 'human' thing - and while I can't say this rises to the level of "evidence," this paper is still circumstantially relevant to me. (If for no other reason than to enumerate how difficult it is to 'control' a science narrative.)

Reconciliation of this matter in history may never include what any of us would consider 'just' or 'fair.' Then again, it very well may, in the final analysis. But I try to be certain that the argument is solid and devoid of weaknesses.

Much respect to you Asmodeus3.

I might have some old not-English papers on this #5GCov19CircuitBoards stuff somewhere in a hard drive in goat poo in lead in the shaft of an abandoned Moon elevator in New England in the "eagle and the lamb" plane. #MarvelGrapheneNovel.
More evidence, more proof.

Here's a great documentary, to add-on the already overwhelming evidence that not only is 5G™, nor any other form of Radiation™, ever safe for living creatures : but it's also a DARPA™ frickin Bio-Weapon™.

THE 5G APOCALYPSE - THE EXTINCTION EVENT

Here's a great article, for the learning-impaired :

Source : Global-Research : 5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity

The 5G danger can’t be overstated...
1. 5G Danger: Hijacking Your Sweat Duct Antennae ...
2. 5G Danger: 5G Amplifies EMF Damage via VGCCs ...
3. 5G Danger: Pulsed Wave Far More Damaging than Continuous Wave Radiation ...
4. 5G Danger: 5G Promotes Deep EMF Penetration ...
5. 5G Danger: 5G is a Weapons System Disguised as a Consumer Convenience ...

(From 5. 5G Danger: 5G is a Weapons System Disguised as a Consumer Convenience : Mark Steele has been very outspoken against 5G and has now been widely interviewed, including by Project Camelot and also by Sacha Stone in his documentary 5G Apocalypse: The Extinction Event. Steele claims that although widespread reports state that 5G is operating in the 24-100 GHz range, it is actually sub-gigahertz (meaning under the GHz threshold, so still measured in MHz). He says 5G is a weapons system like long-range radar, phased array radar and directed energy (DEW was used in 9/11 and various fires like the Paradise fires). He claims that when you examine 5G hardware, it has a dielectric lens which is proof it is a weapons system. Autonomous vehicles can use 5G to shine in mirrors of other drivers (which is so strong and damaging it is equivalent to assault). Mark talks about how 5G is powerful enough to kill babies in wombs. He states:

“5G is a weapons system, nothing more, nothing less. It’s got nothing to do with telecommunications for humans. 5G is a machine to machine connection for autonomous vehicles.”

Source : Global-Research : 5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity

6. 5G Danger: LA Firefighters Develop Ailments After Being Too Close to Towers ...
7. 5G Danger: Same Frequencies as used for Crowd Dispersal ...
8. 5G Danger: Mutagenic (Causing DNA Damage) and Carcinogenic (Causing Cancer)? ...
9. 5G Danger: Phased Array Densification
10. 5G Danger: Killing All the Insects? ...
11. 5G Danger: Space-Based 5G ...
12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body ...
13. 5G Danger: Insurance Companies Refuse to Underwrite Big Wireless. What Do They Know? ...

Conclusion: 5G Grid Part of Larger Command, Control, Surveillance and Artificial Intelligence (AI) Agenda

Here is Global-Research's list of sources, for that article :
Sources:

*freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com...

*www.youtube.com...

*www.youtube.com...

*www.emfacts.com...

*emfsafetynetwork.org...

*www.youtube.com...

*s3.amazonaws.com...

*www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

*www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

*www.youtube.com...

*everydayconcerned.net... -all-uk-residents-on-5g-led-street-lights-rollout-in-gateshead/

*www.youtube.com...

*thetruthrevolution.net...

*jnlwp.defense.gov...

*mdsafetech.org...

*www.powerwatch.org.uk...

*www.youtube.com... (stockholm)

*emrabc.ca...

*www.nature.com...

*freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com...

*www.5gspaceappeal.org...

*www.cellphonetaskforce.org...

*principia-scientific.org...


But ...
But ...
But ...

Big-Daddy-Government™ would never leave us protected , ... Would they ... ?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

From what I could glean there was an issue with citing papers that were not reviewed. I'm sure there are some things in that worthy of merit, I'm just not buying the whole 5G doom porn thing.

Big-Daddy-Government™ loves you, and is always protecting you.

The BS™ is so thick, the lies so pernicious, and the Gatekeeping™ so omnipresent : that Space-Busters made a series of 5 mini-docs about how the whole 5G™ Bioweapon™/Control-Mechanism™, is related to all of the Covid™ Nonsensical fiasco.

SPACEBUSTERS "IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON CORONAVIRUS 5G KUNG FLU"
One of THE BEST awakening video series that exists on the internet, MUCH of this content gets repurposed all throughout various truther sites and posts. They also draw from sources I have found to be exceptionally valuable through independant research, such as Dr. Tom Cowan (one of my favorites).
This is simply a MUST WATCH for anyone who has not seen it, and a GREAT starting point for sheeple who are starting to awaken.

Excellent way to Set the Stage for How much we DO NOT KNOW and How much of what we know is WRONG
Note: This 5 part series from Spacebusters was the foundation of truth for my own awakening. An EXCELLENT series explaining and debunking some of the most importance lies oused against us: 'What your momma should have told you but never knew herself' 'What you need to know about Coronavirus, "Pandemics", 5G, 60 ghz millimetre waves and vaccines'
SpaceBusters Channel: www.bitchute.com...

SPACEBUSTERS: IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON CORONAVIRUS 5G KUNG FLU (PART 1)

Part 2.

Part 3.

Part 4.

Part 5.

But it's probably harmless, otherwise the News™ would tell us !!

a reply to: quickflash

2.9.2023

fyi:

The HHS-CDC-NIH Director/Executives testified before Congress yesterday, and admitted their COVID-19 actions were not only incompetent, but borderline criminal. At least that's what I get from this very informative summary of their testimonies, in this post by ATS member "Thoughtful1"...

HERE: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: vonclod
LMFAO, this place is getting to be too much

Agreed.

The evidence for 5G, and previous EMFs causing damage to all forms of life, continues to accumulate.

Make your own minds up.

Cell phone radiation / 5G causes DNA damage with Cecelia Doucette

The US government + the FDA commissioned a $30 million study on cellular technology decades ago. In their final report, they determined CLEAR evidence of cancerous tumors + DNA damage. Watch Cecelia Doucette on #CHDTV

5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity

12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body
Way back in 2002, RF researcher Arthur Firstenberg published an analysis of 5G long before the technology was approved. He explained how, due to 5G EM pulses being extremely short and delivered in bursts, they actually replicate inside the body – and end up creating tiny new 5G antennas internally. Firstenberg wrote:

“… when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body …”

“These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors … They become significant when either the power or the phase of the wave changes rapidly enough … This means that the reassurance we are being given – that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body – is not true.”

This echoes a previous point made – that 5G penetration is a serious danger.

13. 5G Danger: Insurance Companies Refuse to Underwrite Big Wireless. What Do They Know?
Insurance companies (the most famous of which is Lloyds of London) have made headlines by refusing to insure Big Wireless (the telecommunication corporate conglomerate) against wi-fi and 5G-related illnesses and claims:

“Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer. Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 [now 9 – Ed.] years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness.”

All links for claims, listed at the bottom of the page, in the link to Global-Research.

Do I think 5g is good..no, it's probably not, but covid??? smgdh.