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:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    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:
    502
    Likes Received:
    31
    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:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    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:
    502
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I notice you completely ignored the article from Scientific American from 2018 that I quoted. Why is that?
     

Share This Page