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

The "EM sensitivity" is psychosomatic.

They've done tests, and it's basically all in their minds.

 

I like to see the tests you're referring to.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.20690

https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bem.20195

 

Agreed. Fortunately, many EMF scientists and medical doctors are urging the United Nations and others to pay more attention to this issue:
https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

http://www.5gappeal.eu/the-5g-appeal/

 

They've been studying it for over 20 years, and they've yet to even confirm the existence of the condition, let alone prove any actual health issues supposedly associated with it.

 

The good news though, there's plenty of pseudoscientific quackery gadgets available that will protect you against the imaginary electromagnetic death rays.

 

False. From 5gspaceappeal.org, just one of the appeals out there on 5G:
**
5G—the 5th generation of wireless technology—must not be built on Earth or in Space. The notion that radio frequency radiation, commonly known as radio waves, is somehow not real radiation and is harmless, was disproven by the 1970s in laboratories all over the world, and the harm to humans, animals and plants has since been confirmed in over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies. If 5G is built, radiation levels will increase 10- to 100-fold, virtually overnight, everywhere. There will literally be no place on Earth to hide from it.

The effects of levels of radio frequency radiation already existing now on the health of the population and the environment, as reflected in quality of life; high rates of cancer, neurological disease, heart disease and diabetes, even in children; plummeting populations of birds, bees and butterflies; and unhealthy forests, can be seen and felt everywhere.

We urge governments and the public to read the Appeal carefully, and to act accordingly.
**

Source: https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/about

 

They've been whipping up the hysteria about this since before 1G even existed. It started with "Power lines cause cancer!", and then it was cellphones, and then it was cell towers, and then it was WiFi, and then 1G, and then 2G, and then 3G, etc... etc....

While cancer rates were falling and falling the entire time.

 

"Those dangded 1.2 gigawatt rays comin' off that cell tower over yonder gave me the sweet blood diebeetus!"

Said the fat guy eating the entire Costco sheet cake.

 

There is more than once cause to cancer. Perhaps the elimination of a fair amount of air pollution helped. However, there is a clear link between radio waves and cancer. A small taste of the evidence can be found in Chapter 13 of Arthur Firstenberg's book "The Invisible Rainbow", "Cancer and the Starvation of Life":
**
ON FEBRUARY 24, 2011, Italy’s Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of Cardinal Roberto Tucci, former president of Vatican Radio’s management committee, for creating a public nuisance by polluting the environment with radio waves. The Vatican’s broadcasts to the world, transmitted in forty languages, emanate from fifty-eight powerful radio towers occupying over one thousand acres of land, surrounded by suburban communities. And for decades, residents in those communities had been screaming that the transmissions were destroying their health as well as causing an epidemic of childhood leukemia. At the request of the Public Prosecutor’s office in Rome, which was considering bringing charges against the Vatican for negligent homicide, Judge Zaira Secchi ordered an official investigation by the National Cancer Institute of Milan. The results, released November 13, 2010, were shocking. Between 1997 and 2003, children aged one to fourteen who lived between six and twelve kilometers (3.7 to 7.5 miles) from Vatican Radio’s antenna farm developed leukemia, lymphoma, or myeloma at eight times the rate of children who lived further away. And adults who lived between six and twelve kilometers from the antennas died of leukemia at almost seven times the rate of adults who lived further away.
**

Source: Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow . Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

I'll take spurious correlations for 1,000, Alex.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

Dude's a kook.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Firstenberg

Allergic' to Electronics: Man Sues Neighbor Over Gadget Use ...
abcnews.go.com › Technology › story › id=10240343
Mar 29, 2010 - The Santa Fe man, 59, said, intellectually, he has no problem with technology. It's just that, physically, he can barely tolerate it, he said.

 

How quick some are to judge. Judge first, investigate later (if ever) type deal.

From the Wikipedia article:
**
Since 1996, Firstenberg has argued in numerous publications that wireless technology is dangerous[7] and that "the telecommunications industry has suppressed damaging evidence about its technology since at least 1927."[8]

In 1997, the Cellular Phone Taskforce was the lead petitioner in a challenge to the Federal Communications Commission's RF radiation exposure limits, which was joined by dozens of other parties including the Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned About the Federal Communications Commission Radio Frequency Health and Safety Rules ("AHA").[9] The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled for the FCC. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was supported by an amicus curiae brief written by Senators Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords, was denied.[10]
**

He led quite a group. Yes, his petition failed, but the battle is far from over. Considering the damage that RFR is doing, one can only hope it that it doesn't drag on too much longer.

 

That poor man clearly suffers from a mental illness, and he wasted his life tilting at a non-existent windmill. His is a sad story of obsession, insanity, and failure.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/when-science-is-lost-in-a-legal-maze.html

Even if he and his small band of kooks proved their case(they won't), nobody would give up their cell phones, wifi, etc...

People would give away their kidneys before they gave up their cell phones.

 

Look, I have and use a cell phone myself. Since reading about the harms, I almost always have it on airplane mode when I'm travelling and it's in my pocket, but when I'm at home, I frequently have it in normal mode. I almost never put it to my head, instead using speaker phone or wired earphones.

I can't say that I think that Arthur was right in suing his neighbour for using her cell phone and wi fi and I'm not surprised that he lost that particular case. But that doesn't discount all the work he's put into uncovering the damage that EMFs (Electro Magnetic Frequencies) can do, in particular RFs (Radio Frequencies).

And there's also no denying that in at least one place, a court case against RFs -did- win, as mentioned in post #60.

 

The fact that he took his poor neighbor to court over his mania demonstrates that he was a man in the grips of a serious mental illness.

Lots of pseudoscience cases win in court. Courtrooms are terrible places to adjudicate the difference between real science, and tinfoil hat kookery.

Reversing the legacy of junk science in the courtroom ...
www.sciencemag.org › news › 2016/03 › reversing-legacy-junk-scien...
Mar 7, 2016 - Forensic scientists have often overstated the strength of evidence from tire tracks, fingerprints, bullet marks, and bite marks. Matthew Rakola ...

Junk Science in the Courtroom - ValpoScholar - Valparaiso ...
scholar.valpo.edu › cgi › viewcontent
PDF
In court, scientific facts can remain perpetually in play. Tort lawyers suggest that this makes the legal system more faithful to the scientific ideal. Science issues no ...
by PW Huber - ‎2011 - ‎Cited by 110 - ‎Related articles

Junk Science in the Courtroom - Scientific American
www.scientificamerican.com › article › junk-science-in-the-courtroom
Junk Science in the Courtroom. By Peter W. Huber.

KEEPING JUNK SCIENCE OUT OF THE COURTROOM
biotech.law.lsu.edu › IEEE › ieee29
Keeping Junk Science Out of the Courtroom. Charles Walter and Edward P. Richards, 17 IEEE Engineering In Medicine And Biology Magazine (July-August 199 ...

A wake-up call on the junk science infesting our courtrooms ...
www.washingtonpost.com › opinions › 2016/09/19
Sep 20, 2016 - Harry T. Edwards is a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Jennifer L. Mnookin is dean of the UCLA School of Law.

 

Thank you. That makes sense. But, in other arguments, I've seen the 'correlation is not causation' meme sprung, and though it's the right one here, I've seen it where, technically, it's true, but if you are a detective, and Joe blow is nearby on separate murders, 100 of them, correlation is a lead you want to check out.
So, in such cases, correlation isn't necessarily causation, but it could be.

But on 5G, it doesn't make sense insofar as causing viruses

I don't think we even know the collective effect 5G will have on the population. I'm highly suspicions. Mighty short waves in that system, we're well up into the gigahertz range.

All the pro 5G arguments are in defense of cell towers, that there is no evidence living near them has any adverse effects. But many of the 'studies' were done in the 80s.

The 80s? What was a carrier wave frequency in the 80s? I know it wasn't 25 gigahertz, like it is today.

I'm not thinking about cell towers, I'm thinking about children who put cellphones within an inch of their brains. 25 - 39 Ghz?

What are the effects on microbial life? life which is necessary, going up the chain of life, for all life to sustain in a eco system?

topple one, then a domino effect. Do we know?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view

https://emfscientist.org/

 

How many of those "junk science" articles are about EMF? I see a few about vaccines, granted, there's plenty of that going around.

You can't assume, therefore, all science in the courtroom is junk. The very magazine you reference also has something to say about 5G, and it's not good.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

 

Try actually responding to the article in ScientificAmerican, Yours is not a rebuttal, and you know it. Morever, I asked a question, I did not make a declaration. I asked the question because a legitimate source is asking that question.

 

Asking a question isn't confirmation of anything.

I have no problem with anybody asking the question. The potential for 5G to do harm is a legitimate concern that should be researched.

What I do have a problem with is the claim that the harm has already been proven, and in a court of law nonetheless.

Get back to me when there's a solid scientific consensus or any sort of legit confirmation.

EM hypersensitivity doesn't exist as anything other than a mental disorder.

 

As far as I know, no one is arguing that 5G causes viruses. Some believe that Cov 2 doesn't really exist and that other things are causing Covid 19. Personally, I think the whole argument can be circumvented to some extent- it has to do with additive factors. So, let's say the Cov 2 virus is real- why is it so virulent? Is it really because it has figured out how to attack the body in a way that few viruses have before, or are there other things at work? Based on the study that air polllution greatly increases the lethality of Covid 19, it makes sense that 5G could as well. The paper in the OP provides evidence that this may well be the case.

 

Well, I'm glad we can agree on that much at least.

It's difficult to prove anything. Creationists would say that the theory of evolution hasn't yet been proven. Facing this, we have to look at where the preponderance of evidence lies. On that point, Scientific American Blogger Joel Moskowitz is quite clear:
**
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.

**

 

The preponderance of evidence lies with evolution.

Let me know when it's real scientists that are clear, and not just a psychologist blogger from Berkeley.

Let me know when there's solid proof, and a scientific consensus. Until then, the believers in EM hypersensitivity and cell phones causing diabetes are in Camp Kooky with the evolutionists.

 

What was the crux of the OP then? That notion that 5G somehow amplifies the virility or lethality of the COVID?

Some strains of flu are just more virulent than others. The Spanish Flu was crazy virulent, and that happened before cell phones and wifi even existed.

As I pointed out in the second post in this thread, population density pretty obviously accounts for the higher rates of infection in the densely-populated areas where 5G networks exists, because that's where the 5G customers live.

"Additive factors" are fun, but looking for them is a pointless goose chase when the obvious culprit has already been caught.