Vaccine coercion/bribery

[1DOWN4UP]

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G - PubMed

In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A connection between wireless communications including 5G and Covid-19. This from YOUR U.S. Gov't.

 

[Route 45]

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G - PubMed

In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A connection between wireless communications including 5G and Covid-19. This from YOUR U.S. Gov't.

5G? From YOUR GOVT? Holy hell! You don't even know what PubMed is, do you?

Finding a Paper on PubMed Does Not Mean the Paper Is Any Good

As more and more people “do their own research,” some end up consulting a website called PubMed. An argument I have encountered is that if a scientific paper is listed on PubMed, it must mean this is an all-around good and trustworthy paper. Alas, if only it were so simple... PubMed can be...

www.mcgill.ca

I've never seen so many Dunning Kruger University graduates with BS degrees in Virology in one place.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Your the Dr.,I am not.I just posted something I read at the Nat. Library of Medicine. I will take your word for it.

PubMed® comprises more than 33 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

 

[BR8818]

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G - PubMed

In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A connection between wireless communications including 5G and Covid-19. This from YOUR U.S. Gov't.

The connection might be for Microsoft patent WO2020-060606

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[wtburnette]

FDA Says It Now Needs 75 Years To Fully Release Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Data​

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Well, yeah. Just think of how quickly those lovely jab profits will fly away if the truth is revealed and people can sue them? Especially when kids have been jabbed who didn't need the F'n vaccines in the first place. Yep, this could be pretty bad if they had to release the truth while we're all still alive.

 

[drillsgt]

5G? From YOUR GOVT? Holy hell! You don't even know what PubMed is, do you?

Finding a Paper on PubMed Does Not Mean the Paper Is Any Good

As more and more people “do their own research,” some end up consulting a website called PubMed. An argument I have encountered is that if a scientific paper is listed on PubMed, it must mean this is an all-around good and trustworthy paper. Alas, if only it were so simple... PubMed can be...

www.mcgill.ca

I've never seen so many Dunning Kruger University graduates with BS degrees in Virology in one place.

Did you even look at the original paper or just rush to google to find some article you can use to dismiss PubMed written by some masters degree jackleg?

 

[buckwacker]

Did you even look at the original paper or just rush to google to find some article you can use to dismiss PubMed written by some masters degree jackleg?

The funny thing is, I wouldn't have to go that far back through his post history to find him criticizing others for that very thing.

 

[oze]

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G - PubMed

In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A connection between wireless communications including 5G and Covid-19. This from YOUR U.S. Gov't.

As a retired RF engineer, wireless ("cellular" to us dinosaurs) communication buttered my bread for the last 20 years of my career at AT&T/Lucent Technologies/Alcatel-Lucent, and so this talk of 5G-caused illnesses interests me. So I read the entire article. My initial reaction is that it confuses me. It seems to want to blame 5G specifically for the exacerbation of Covid-19 symptoms, but the bulk of the article seems focused on all wireless communication radiation (WCR), as it calls it. Even the title of the paper seems to me to be misleading: Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G. I don't know if it is intentionally misleading, but the paper itself discusses 5G-specific radiation and "WCR" making Covid-19 symptoms worse, while the title soundis more like the paper discusses WCR causing Covid-19.

I won't even try to rebut the entire article, as I am not qualified to do so, but more importantly (to me) do not feel that it deserves the effort. But the article doesn't seem to be warning of the dangers of 5G specifically, nor even all of just "WCR", a term that the authors seem to have coined themselves. The paper goes on at great length to point out what they claim as dangers from exposure to all of RF, at pretty much all levels of exposure. While I was doing RF performance optimization, a large part of my job required me to spend hours in the huts wherein the transmitters blasting out 40-60 watts of RF in the 800MHz band were located. Also, back in the AMPS (analog or "1G", if you will) days, Class 1 mobiles themselves transmitted in more than 2 watts of RF (modern smart phone transmission power is measured in milliwatts). So far, 30 years later, I am fine. But someone should do a study of how long-term exposure to RF causes exorbitant weight gain.

So, this article, in my opinion, stretches credulity. As one of my professors once said, the word "impossible" should not exist in an engineer's dictionary. But "asymptotically approaching impossible" is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Route 45]

Did you even look at the original paper or just rush to google to find some article you can use to dismiss PubMed written by some masters degree jackleg?

Yes I did. And came to the same conclusion that someone who obviously knows what he is talking about came to:

As a retired RF engineer, wireless ("cellular" to us dinosaurs) communication buttered my bread for the last 20 years of my career at AT&T/Lucent Technologies/Alcatel-Lucent, and so this talk of 5G-caused illnesses interests me. So I read the entire article. My initial reaction is that it confuses me. It seems to want to blame 5G specifically for the exacerbation of Covid-19 symptoms, but the bulk of the article seems focused on all wireless communication radiation (WCR), as it calls it. Even the title of the paper seems to me to be misleading: Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G. I don't know if it is intentionally misleading, but the paper itself discusses 5G-specific radiation and "WCR" making Covid-19 symptoms worse, while the title soundis more like the paper discusses WCR causing Covid-19.

I won't even try to rebut the entire article, as I am not qualified to do so, but more importantly (to me) do not feel that it deserves the effort. But the article doesn't seem to be warning of the dangers of 5G specifically, nor even all of just "WCR", a term that the authors seem to have coined themselves. The paper goes on at great length to point out what they claim as dangers from exposure to all of RF, at pretty much all levels of exposure. While I was doing RF performance optimization, a large part of my job required me to spend hours in the huts wherein the transmitters blasting out 40-60 watts of RF in the 800MHz band were located. Also, back in the AMPS (analog or "1G", if you will) days, Class 1 mobiles themselves transmitted in more than 2 watts of RF (modern smart phone transmission power is measured in milliwatts). So far, 30 years later, I am fine. But someone should do a study of how long-term exposure to RF causes exorbitant weight gain.

So, this article, in my opinion, stretches credulity. As one of my professors once said, the word "impossible" should not exist in an engineer's dictionary. But "asymptotically approaching impossible" is perfectly acceptable.

5G

 

[drillsgt]

Yes I did. And came to the same conclusion that someone who obviously knows what he is talking about came to:


View attachment 170810

5G

Yeah, you really read through the entire dry 15 pages with tables and references, lol. So you're claiming victory because some 'engineer' says he doesn't agree with it while even admitting he's not qualified to judge the merits of the article, okay. For one thing this is a literature review so it's only purpose and really the only thing this type of research can do is to synthesize information and make comparisons which they do and it's well cited as you would expect a lit review to be. If you had read it you would know that in the end they say that the current level of evidence doesn't prove any linkage or causation so i'm not sure what you are railing about. They also spend a fair bit of time outlining potential criticisms and limitations of the project. As much as people talked about this 5G stuff it was a pretty novel project to actually take a look at it.

 

[BugI02]

I'd say unreliable is indicated when a source has fabricated information in the past. CNN has. NPR has. But then so have many right wing sites. But you're right, it seems that when the news is agreeable to the person, it's reliable.

If they cite sources, and you can verify those sources independently, you can probably rely on the reporting. It doesn't matter if the source is some jackleg with a do-it-yourself WordPress. What matters is if you can verify the information. Some Jackleg can get it right. Also, some well staffed professional news media can outright lie and fabricate.

I wish I could like this post multiple times. The environment we find ourselves in, vis a vis news and information, requires evaluating second and often third tier sources. Every revered news source today was once a broadsheet or its days equivalent of a podcast. New sources should not be rejected out of hand

 

[ancjr]

Big media is basically the same as The National Enquirer and The Jerry Springer Show, but with the polish and financial resources to make it appear legitimate.

 

[JCSR]

 

[jamil]

As a retired RF engineer, wireless ("cellular" to us dinosaurs) communication buttered my bread for the last 20 years of my career at AT&T/Lucent Technologies/Alcatel-Lucent, and so this talk of 5G-caused illnesses interests me. So I read the entire article. My initial reaction is that it confuses me. It seems to want to blame 5G specifically for the exacerbation of Covid-19 symptoms, but the bulk of the article seems focused on all wireless communication radiation (WCR), as it calls it. Even the title of the paper seems to me to be misleading: Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G. I don't know if it is intentionally misleading, but the paper itself discusses 5G-specific radiation and "WCR" making Covid-19 symptoms worse, while the title soundis more like the paper discusses WCR causing Covid-19.

I won't even try to rebut the entire article, as I am not qualified to do so, but more importantly (to me) do not feel that it deserves the effort. But the article doesn't seem to be warning of the dangers of 5G specifically, nor even all of just "WCR", a term that the authors seem to have coined themselves. The paper goes on at great length to point out what they claim as dangers from exposure to all of RF, at pretty much all levels of exposure. While I was doing RF performance optimization, a large part of my job required me to spend hours in the huts wherein the transmitters blasting out 40-60 watts of RF in the 800MHz band were located. Also, back in the AMPS (analog or "1G", if you will) days, Class 1 mobiles themselves transmitted in more than 2 watts of RF (modern smart phone transmission power is measured in milliwatts). So far, 30 years later, I am fine. But someone should do a study of how long-term exposure to RF causes exorbitant weight gain.

So, this article, in my opinion, stretches credulity. As one of my professors once said, the word "impossible" should not exist in an engineer's dictionary. But "asymptotically approaching impossible" is perfectly acceptable.

Hell. I gave it a thumbs up just for “asymptotically approaching impossible.”

I’ve always looked at it more as possibilities being limited by cost vs tolerances.

 

[jamil]

I wish I could like this post multiple times. The environment we find ourselves in, vis a vis news and information, requires evaluating second and often third tier sources. Every revered news source today was once a broadsheet or its days equivalent of a podcast. New sources should not be rejected out of hand

I agree. I don’t care a lot for GWP. I’ve caught them making **** up. But they do get some things right. If I find a source that usually passes fact checking, I’m probably not gonna fact check them as much as I would GWP. Another factor, do they have a reason to lie?

The answer to that is usually YES! Ideological confirmation, narrative control, partisanship, click bait, are all reasons to lie. So if a source reports something that is uncharacteristically taking a different side, like the Daily Beast’s headline, “Jussie Smollett got totally nailed by his cross examination,” they’re probably telling the truth.

 

[JettaKnight]

Hell. I gave it a thumbs up just for “asymptotically approaching impossible.”

IKR. My father in law often says that - usually when playing poker.

 

[Route 45]

So you're claiming victory...

Victory on an internet forum? Is that like pissing your pants in a dark suit?

If you had read it you would know that in the end they say that the current level of evidence doesn't prove any linkage or causation...

I did read it. Really DGAF if you believe me or not. I don't see your name on my paychecks.

The article was posted as proof of some hairbrained 5G conspiracy "from your government," when in reality, the article doesn't say anything of the sort. Unless, of course, the article was posted to debunk a link between Covid and 5G by showing no evidence or causation. But I'm fairly sure that's not the case.

A connection between wireless communications including 5G and Covid-19. This from YOUR U.S. Gov't.

Yep. Double sure that it's not the case.

...i'm not sure what you are railing about

5G conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Tombs]

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G - PubMed

In short, WCR has become a ubiquitous environmental stressor that we propose may have contributed to adverse health outcomes of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and increased the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we recommend that all people, particularly those suffering from...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A connection between wireless communications including 5G and Covid-19. This from YOUR U.S. Gov't.

I'd wager this is intentionally pushed disinfo bait.

Radio frequencies can't do this. Audio signals could make you fairly ill if tuned in just right, but you'd know.

All radio can do is cook you. The higher the frequency the less penetration it has in soft tissue. With the frequency that 5G operates at, I'm not even sure if it could penetrate your skin enough to give you a sun tan, like older lower frequency cell frequencies could.

But if it was powerful enough to give you a sun tan at any significant distance, there's no way in hell you'd be able to tune in a radio station on your radio.

I don't see people losing their mind over wifi internet, when wifi is almost exactly the same frequency as your microwave, just at a lower power.

 

[drillsgt]

Victory on an internet forum? Is that like pissing your pants in a dark suit?

View attachment 170828


I did read it. Really DGAF if you believe me or not. I don't see your name on my paychecks.

The article was posted as proof of some hairbrained 5G conspiracy "from your government," when in reality, the article doesn't say anything of the sort. Unless, of course, the article was posted to debunk a link between Covid and 5G by showing no evidence or causation. But I'm fairly sure that's not the case.


Yep. Double sure that it's not the case.


5G conspiracy nonsense.

You're the one that posted some sort of silly triumphant giant gif after your post, next you'll be ending your post with 'nuff said'.