Also isn't 5G service nearly universal now (at least in major metro US areas)? So you'd see a continuous and constant increase in "people getting sick" forever afterwards? Or do people get "immunity to 5G" over time?
It depends on what is meant by getting sick. Some possible effects can accumulate slowly over time, so not be noticed quickly (cancerous issues eg). In my own case, I have constant tinnitus (ringing - sometimes very loud - in my ears) that I did not have a decade ago. I also sleep less soundly. There may of course be other explanations for such things or they may be described as inevitable consequences of aging and thus not systematically examined (and thus not likely to be understood by doctors).
I have significant health concerns about 5G, entirely unrelated to any hypothesised effects on Covid (beyond the fact that 5G transmitters were installed in my area during Covid lockdowns). My concerns reflect the environmental health research, not alleged Covid research, and pre-date the Covid era. The research is systematically ignored (unsurprisingly, in view of its commercial implications) by the telecommunications industries and by governments.
Before 2020 I would have dismissed the idea out of hand, but not any more. I'm keeping an active mind about the idea, but on the other hand Leader's particular contentions aren't convincing for most of the reasons brought up in this article.
For those interested in (or those unaware of) research and concerns on human health of electromagnetic field (EMF) effects, a paper by Martin Pall a few years ago (and pre-Covid) may be of interest. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2015-0001/html The paper was written in response to a Canadian 'expert' report, and includes references to many scientific studies. This kind of work is rarely discussed, especially in western countries, awash with EMFs of various kinds. The concerns multiplied significantly with the onset of 5G, and have not abated. For example, this later (pre-Covid) paper surveyed some concerns: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29655646/ Interested people can also find links of various kinds to health issues associated with EMFs (including the ways in which telcos and governments react to them) at https://mdsafetech.org/problems/industry-influence-in-science/
Some of the published research requires an institutional license or payment to download, but a large and comprehensive download is available without charge from https://einarflydal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf It was written by Martin Pall, perhaps the best informed researcher about 5G and its health effects, and sent to EU authorities (pre-Covid).
Thanks Jessica. I do not know of compelling evidence that Covid ‘was’ 5G or was ‘caused’ by 5G, as probed by your article. The main link imho is that those ‘rolling out’ 5G took advantage of distracted, or frightened, people being terrorised by authorities to choose a convenient time to do so. I think the health issues associated with 5G are a different problem from the power (and/or health) issues associated with Covid. And yes, of course they urgently need to be addressed.
Wifi has health implications, which is why I mostly rely on Ethernet connections when possible. (Yes, I realise it’s in widespread use, including schools.) My home modem has Ethernet ports, which are easy to use to connect my computer and my TV services. My iPhone 12 phone allows me to not use 5G routinely, which is why I bought it. Later models do not allow it to be switched off. I trust telco companies about the same amount as I trust Pharma companies when they advise that their products are safe and effective.
"As required by the W.H.O., a PCR recombined sequence of RNA was computer generated from a patient fluid sample and labelled as the spike protein of a ‘novel coronavirus’. "
Is that an admission that the WHO directed people to make shit up? PCR is an amplification technique. What does "a PCR recombined sequence" mean? Since when does PCR recombine anything? Does it mean they amplified some random crap until they had enough to work with and re-arranged it until it shared a few sequences with existing viruses, or with the stuff Moderna had been playing with? Is that why, early on, it was sometimes said to be man-made, because it came from the DOD's drug company? Does "computer-generated" mean they used software to speed up the heavy lifting, or that the software itself invented the sequence? Why are people pushing allegedly scientific ideas so sloppy about their terminology and so glib about their assumptions?
If there in fact was a "novel coronavirus," which would be really cool for everyone who was there for Johns Hopkins' rehearsal of it in 2019, then what was the control for this patient fluid sample that allowed that determination? What were they comparing it to? "Novel" compared to what? Human coronaviruses aren't that different from each other, which is why crossover immunity between them is possible. Why would anyone assume that a <3% variation on existing coronaviruses, that produced the exact same symptoms as the other 200 viruses that cause common colds, was something worth setting the world on fire about? Unless setting the world on fire was the whole point. Doesn't the way an otherwise faceless, impersonal, slow-moving bureaucracy like the WHO chomped like a bass on a lame cold virus suggest it was expecting the news?
(I ask all those things assuming the premise of the ideas' promoters. I don't think that there was a new virus in 2020 and I'm pretty much over viruses being disease-causing agents and maybe even real.)
The rehearsals and proof-of-concept exercises pre-dated 2019 by quite a bit, and there were other such exercises in 2019 that were not as high-profile or Elites-Focused/Front-Facing as Event 201.
Also isn't 5G service nearly universal now (at least in major metro US areas)? So you'd see a continuous and constant increase in "people getting sick" forever afterwards? Or do people get "immunity to 5G" over time?
It depends on what is meant by getting sick. Some possible effects can accumulate slowly over time, so not be noticed quickly (cancerous issues eg). In my own case, I have constant tinnitus (ringing - sometimes very loud - in my ears) that I did not have a decade ago. I also sleep less soundly. There may of course be other explanations for such things or they may be described as inevitable consequences of aging and thus not systematically examined (and thus not likely to be understood by doctors).
I have significant health concerns about 5G, entirely unrelated to any hypothesised effects on Covid (beyond the fact that 5G transmitters were installed in my area during Covid lockdowns). My concerns reflect the environmental health research, not alleged Covid research, and pre-date the Covid era. The research is systematically ignored (unsurprisingly, in view of its commercial implications) by the telecommunications industries and by governments.
Before 2020 I would have dismissed the idea out of hand, but not any more. I'm keeping an active mind about the idea, but on the other hand Leader's particular contentions aren't convincing for most of the reasons brought up in this article.
For those interested in (or those unaware of) research and concerns on human health of electromagnetic field (EMF) effects, a paper by Martin Pall a few years ago (and pre-Covid) may be of interest. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2015-0001/html The paper was written in response to a Canadian 'expert' report, and includes references to many scientific studies. This kind of work is rarely discussed, especially in western countries, awash with EMFs of various kinds. The concerns multiplied significantly with the onset of 5G, and have not abated. For example, this later (pre-Covid) paper surveyed some concerns: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29655646/ Interested people can also find links of various kinds to health issues associated with EMFs (including the ways in which telcos and governments react to them) at https://mdsafetech.org/problems/industry-influence-in-science/
Some of the published research requires an institutional license or payment to download, but a large and comprehensive download is available without charge from https://einarflydal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf It was written by Martin Pall, perhaps the best informed researcher about 5G and its health effects, and sent to EU authorities (pre-Covid).
Thanks, Barry.
I think it's all worth close examination/study. The focus of my article is on the theory that activation of 5G networks in certain places "was" COVID.
Thanks Jessica. I do not know of compelling evidence that Covid ‘was’ 5G or was ‘caused’ by 5G, as probed by your article. The main link imho is that those ‘rolling out’ 5G took advantage of distracted, or frightened, people being terrorised by authorities to choose a convenient time to do so. I think the health issues associated with 5G are a different problem from the power (and/or health) issues associated with Covid. And yes, of course they urgently need to be addressed.
Not sure what to think about these "wave theories".
Keep being open to there might be a health effekt (Like switching of wifi and putting phone in flight modus during the nights.).
Here in Norway covid was a non event i.e. nobody was sick so no explanation is needed.
Wifi has health implications, which is why I mostly rely on Ethernet connections when possible. (Yes, I realise it’s in widespread use, including schools.) My home modem has Ethernet ports, which are easy to use to connect my computer and my TV services. My iPhone 12 phone allows me to not use 5G routinely, which is why I bought it. Later models do not allow it to be switched off. I trust telco companies about the same amount as I trust Pharma companies when they advise that their products are safe and effective.
"As required by the W.H.O., a PCR recombined sequence of RNA was computer generated from a patient fluid sample and labelled as the spike protein of a ‘novel coronavirus’. "
Is that an admission that the WHO directed people to make shit up? PCR is an amplification technique. What does "a PCR recombined sequence" mean? Since when does PCR recombine anything? Does it mean they amplified some random crap until they had enough to work with and re-arranged it until it shared a few sequences with existing viruses, or with the stuff Moderna had been playing with? Is that why, early on, it was sometimes said to be man-made, because it came from the DOD's drug company? Does "computer-generated" mean they used software to speed up the heavy lifting, or that the software itself invented the sequence? Why are people pushing allegedly scientific ideas so sloppy about their terminology and so glib about their assumptions?
If there in fact was a "novel coronavirus," which would be really cool for everyone who was there for Johns Hopkins' rehearsal of it in 2019, then what was the control for this patient fluid sample that allowed that determination? What were they comparing it to? "Novel" compared to what? Human coronaviruses aren't that different from each other, which is why crossover immunity between them is possible. Why would anyone assume that a <3% variation on existing coronaviruses, that produced the exact same symptoms as the other 200 viruses that cause common colds, was something worth setting the world on fire about? Unless setting the world on fire was the whole point. Doesn't the way an otherwise faceless, impersonal, slow-moving bureaucracy like the WHO chomped like a bass on a lame cold virus suggest it was expecting the news?
(I ask all those things assuming the premise of the ideas' promoters. I don't think that there was a new virus in 2020 and I'm pretty much over viruses being disease-causing agents and maybe even real.)
The rehearsals and proof-of-concept exercises pre-dated 2019 by quite a bit, and there were other such exercises in 2019 that were not as high-profile or Elites-Focused/Front-Facing as Event 201.
They were killing ferrets with mRNA around 2003, I think.