Study Shows Direct Correlation Between 5G Networks and “Coronavirus” Outbreaks

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Theories' started by phoenyx, May 1, 2020.

  1. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As has been recently demonstrated, the WHO is a farce. Emotional appeals to corrupt, quasi-scientific political organizations do not impress me.

    How about some predictions? That's what real science does, it makes predictions.How damaging in 5G going to be? What do Joel Moskowitz's team of scientists predict?

    I remember the fearmongers predicting cell phones and cell phone towers would lead to "A huge explosion in brain tumors over the next decade!"

    Yeah, that was over 30 years ago, and there's only been a slight increase in the rates of brain tumors, and that can be attributed to improved diagnostic technology.

    Been there, done that. You may think the latest 5G fear-mongering is unique, but it's not even almost. "Power lines and cell phones are going to give everybody tons of cancer!" has been a thing for 30 years now. Billions(with a B) of dollars was spent studying the "power lines cancer!" fearmongering, and it turned out to be a very, very expensive nothingburger.

    Like I demonstrated before, cancer rates have been dropping over the last 30 years. That's the whole reason with the cell tower/phone scaremongers are now blaming the cell towers for killing the bees, because their cancer predictions were such a bust, they had to go find some other victim of the deadly Firstenberg Rays.

    So, what are the predictions? Where's 5G going to lead to? Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies… Rivers and seas boiling… Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!”?Or are the scaremongers going to do their usual Texas Sharpshooter thing, where they'll wait ten years, and then go and draw their bullseyes around whatever bullet holes they see, and and say "See? Our aim is dead accurate!"? Exactly like they're doing with the bees now.


    Oh, and have you given any thought the the hypothesis that Arthur Firstenberg and his EM hypersensitivity ilk may be suffering from mental disorders, or is your mind completely closed to all evidence which conflicts with your desire to believe that Arthur is a modern-day Galileo?

    Could you explain to me how you could(or maybe did) rule out mental illness to explain Arthur's EM hypersensitivity?

    Let me know if you plan on continuing to completely ignore all that, so I can stop wasting my time leading horses to water.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
  2. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ironically, we agree that the WHO is corrupt. My go to article on the WHO:
    Politics and Corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO) | Global Research


    That and peer reviews and repeatable results.

    I think I should be clear that they're not Joel's team of scientists. 253 EMF scientists have signed an appeal calilng on the UN, the WHO and others to implement greater health protection on EMF exposure, but there's no indication that they're all working together, other than that they all signed the appeal. As to what evidence they have uncovered, you'd have to look at the individual papers that they've written. I've tried a few but I'm not a scientist, so a lot of it goes by me.

    From an article in Scientific American published in 2018:
    **
    A few epidemiology studies have reported higher rates of tumors inside the skull among people who use cell phones heavily for 10 years or more. Of particular concern are benign Schwann cell tumors called acoustic neuromas, which affect nerve cells connecting the inner ear with structures inside the brain. These growths can in some instances progress to malignant cancer with time.
    **

    Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/

    I think you're just not reading the right sources. Also, I think Arthur Firstenberg's book makes a very compelling case that there is evidence that EMFs play a role in many diseases, not just cancer.


    I focus on the evidence and leave the speculations on the mental health of those doing the hard work for little pay up to people like you.

    If you can ever explain to me how you can rule out that EMFs are harmless, I'll consider it.
     
  3. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Oh, sorry. I lost track of this oh-so-fun thread.

    I haven't ruled out that EMF's are harmless. Matter of fact, I think there's a very high probability that they are indeed, for all intents and purposes, harmless.

    I believe I've made it quite clear that I accept the possibility that there may be health risks associated with EMF and RF, but, at the same time, I don't believe they do pose all that much of a risk, because the dire predictions made by people like Arthur Firstenberg just haven't panned out. When people tell me what's going to happen as a result of X, and then those things don't happen, I start to doubt the reality of X, and I start to question the credibility of the people who made the predictions.

    I also take it one step further after that. Not only do I doubt the credibility of the "experts" who made the false predictions, I also make it a point to investigate their motives for making their failed predictions.That's not speculation, that's called "investigation".

    In Arthur's case, his motivation is clearly and obviously his mania. Arthur is a man caught in a confirmation bias trap of his own making. He refuses to accept anything that doesn't confirm his preconceived conclusions. He's not a man who will allow himself to learn from his mistakes. His failed predictions are just rejected, and forgotten. He also refuses to put his own personal claims to the test, because he's afraid of possible falsification.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2020
  4. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I notice you completely ignored the article from Scientific American from 2018 that I quoted. Why is that?
     
  5. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    It can be, but not here.
     
  6. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    What i worry is the food chain. Is 5g harmful to little critters? Bug, bees, etc.? If so, there's a chain reaction, not a quick one, but one never the less. I think the freq of 5g is what 25gigahertz? That's way up into the microwave arena. The issue is is power, how much power are in these signals when it reaches you? I'd like to see nano-amps but I don't know. Our guts are filled with microorganisms that we need for health, the microbiome, or something lke that. I'd like to see some studies on this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  7. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28

    As to the range of 5G Networks:
    **
    The frequency bands for 5G networks come in two sets. Frequency range 1 (FR1) is from 450 MHz to 6 GHz, which includes the LTE frequency range. Frequency range 2 (FR2) is from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz. The sub-6 GHz range is the name for FR1 and the millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum is the name for FR2.
    **

    Source: https://www.5gamericas.org/wp-conte...vanced-Antenna-Systems-for-5G-White-Paper.pdf


    As to the health effects, there is already a lot of evidence that RFR (Radio Frequency Radiation) has harmful effects on life:
    **
    The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

    The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

    Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

    Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits.
    **

    Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  8. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OOooOooweee! I lost track of this thread again.

    Have they turned the intensity of the 5G rays down from 11? Is that why the COVID deaths are trending downward?

    What's Arthur Firstenberg been up to? Is he still living in a tinfoil-wrapped hollow tree, or has he gotten his kooky pills dosages sorted out?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2020
  9. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where's here? The Milky Way?
     
  10. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,742
    Likes Received:
    1,848
    Trophy Points:
    113
  11. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    \

    My comment was to the last line of the post to which I replied.
     
  12. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Perhaps that's for the best. I'd rather not waste time responding much to someone who's not taking my efforts seriously.
     
  13. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, no. You have my full and undivided attention now, and I put my serious hat on.

    Please continue.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2020
  14. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What harmful effects resulting from RFR exposure have been found? Please be specific.

    Have these harmful effects intensified, and become more widespread, as RFR emissions have increased by many, many orders of magnitude over the last few decades?

    For example, if RFR exposure causes brain tumors, how severely has the number of brain tumors exploded over the last 30 years?

    Doubled?

    Quadrupled?

    Octofrappled?
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2020
  15. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Sure. I'll let researcher Alicja Bortkiewicz explain:
    **
    Health effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF EMF)
    Alicja BORTKIEWICZ1
    Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer


    Recent technological development made the natural electromagnetic environment affected by man-made sources of EMF. People are exposed to man-made EMF both in their occupational environments and in everyday life. Most common technology-related EMF include radiofrequency (RF) EMF, i.e. radiowaves and microwaves (100 kHz–300 GHz), and power frequency EMF (50, 60 Hz). RF-emitting devices are extensively used in industry (welding machines, induction heaters), telecommunication (TV and radio broadcast stations), medicine (NMR, diathermy), and in everyday life (microwave ovens, mobile phones and 5G—the newest generation of mobile communication)1).

    The possible adverse health effects of exposure to RF EMF are a source of great concern not only among mobile phone users and people living in the vicinity of the base stations, but also among governmental and non-governmental organisations responsible for public health. Although EMF exposures related to mobile phone use are well within the current safety standards, it should be noted that these standards have been based solely on the expected thermal effects of EMF, disregarding any possible non-thermal effects. Numerous studies are currently undertaken to explain the possible health effects of weak, “non-thermal” radiofrequency electromagnetic fields2).

    The best evidence on the possible health effects of EMF exposure can provide an epidemiologic studies. The studies performed thus far were intended mostly for assessment of EMF exposure-related risk of developing various cancers, especially to explain the relationship between intracranial cancer and mobile phone using. It is worth noting that the findings of older studies does not yield definite evidence for an increased cancer risk in association with exposures to micro- and radiofrequency EMF3, 4). It should, however, be remembered that these were retrospective studies and it was difficult to assess exposure levels or control the confounders. Moreover, carcinogenesis is an extremely slow process and mobile phones have not been in common use longer than 20 years. However, already at the beginning of the 21st century, some authors reported positive results5,6,7).

    In 2011 yr, an International Agency of Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) as possibly carcinogenic to humans (group 2B)8). In 2015 yr was published by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks − SCENIHR9) report on the effects of exposure to EMF on frequencies in ranges already used in mobile telephony. According to this report, an epidemiological studies on mobile phone RF EMF exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors and for other cancers of the head and neck region, however some studies raised questions regarding increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in heavy users of mobile phones. Since then new data was published, also meta-analyses, indicating that longterm (over 10 yr) use of mobile phone increases the risk of intracranial tumors, most of all glioma, especially in the case of ipsilateral exposure10,11,12,13,14).

    Due to this data, an IARC advisory committee has recommended to reassess the cancer risks associated with RF radiation15). This should be a “high priority,” according to the panel’s report, which was issued on April 2019. A number of scientists argued that IARC should upgrade RF to a “probable” cancer agent [Group 2A] or simply “carcinogenic to humans” [Group 1].

    Apart from the carcinogenic activity of RF EMF, subjective ailments caused by both hand-held telephones and base stations are also taken into account. However, up to now only few epidemiological studies on non-carcinogenic effects of radio- and microwave EMF exposures have been reported on. The first data on headaches caused by exposure to micro- and radio-wave frequency EMF appeared over 20 years ago, but the exposure to EMF at these frequencies was not then widespread16). Questionnaire studies on subjective effects reported by mobile phone users in Sweden, Norway, England, USA, New Zealand, Australia, and Poland revealed that the most frequent complaint was feeling of warmth around the ear and headaches17). In addition to headaches, mobile phone users complained of fatigue and general malaise, muscle pain, nausea, sleep disturbances, short-term memory loss17).

    The general opinion seems to be considerably concerned about not only hand held devices, but also the base stations. Hypohtesizing about possible adverse effects at the present state of our knowledge is encumbered with a high degree of uncertainty. Exposure of base stations is characterised by low EMF intensities and very long time (24h/day for many years), therefore precise exposure assessment creates problems18, 19). Evaluation of the long-term relationship of exposure to EMF emitted by base stations with subjective symptoms requires better methodological observational studies than the majority of publications published so far. In 2017, the results of a large cohort study, conducted in a Dutch population of 14,829 people aged 31–65 yr, were published20). The authors found a relationship between the overall number of reported subjective complaints and the perception of exposure, while the lack of relationship between the occurrence of ailments and the exposure estimated using the geospatial model. Authors suggested that “there is a need for more multidisciplinary studies that consider the role of both actual environmental exposures and perception in relation to self-reported health outcomes”.

    Conclusion
    The problem of health effects of RF EMF has not been definitively resolved, but due to the results of previous research on possible health effect of RF EMF, it seems necessary to use precautionary principles and ALARA (As Low as Reasonably Achievable) principles, when the new sources of electromagnetic emissions will be planned and installed.


    **

    Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6685799/

    Further reading:
    https://www.saferemr.com/2020/02/will-scientific-american-clear-up.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2020
  16. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I concur. This is the exact conclusion I've come to myself.
    None of it has been proven.

    Why should I believe it if they can't definitively prove it?

    Which means my simple questions weren't answered.
    You have no answers, do you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2020 at 8:06 AM
  17. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    5,869
    Likes Received:
    7,532
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  18. phoenyx

    phoenyx Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I think it may depend on how we're defining proof, but let's say you're right for the moment.

    Technically, the theory of evolution hasn't been proven either. Tobacco smoking wasn't proven to be a health hazard until way after most people strongly suspected it was. I guess what it comes down to is how averse you are to being a guinea pig.
     

Share This Page