Reply To: Corona from effects of 5G?
So nice to see a little discussion on this important topic. Unfortunately we are witnessing an unprecedented level of censorship on the discussion around the safety of 5G technology and any possible relation between its use and the novel coronavirus.
However, it remains an unusual coincidence that some areas with a high level of implementation of 5G technology – Whuhan, Switzerland and New York City have also experienced a high number of deaths attributed to the novel coronavirus.
Here is a good website for checking 5G availability worldwide: https://www.speedtest.net/ookla-5g-map
There are many theories surrounding this issue, but I would like to bring some of the relevant discussion from the scientific and industry literature.
Firstly, we must consider what role the 60 millimeter wave radiation aspect of the 5G technology present in the environment could have in the situation. How can radiation make us sick?
We have “Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions” published in the journal Toxicology Letters in 2020 by Ronald N. Kostoffa, Paul Herouxb, Michael Aschnerc, and Aristides Tsatsakis.
This article presents evidence that “adverse systemic affects” are possible from 5G technology, over and above the recognised skin and eye issues. A study conducted in Russia on 60hz frequencies in 1977 found damage to the “heart, liver, kidney, spleen tissue as well, and blood and bone marrow properties.” This russian study was classified by the U.S. government, and declassified in 2012.
A wide range of ecological validity issues to existing research on the safety of wireless technology are also raised in “Adverse…” There are simply no experiments that accurately reflect the current situation.
The IEEE Access journal – an industry publication – in their article: “Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?” carefully tests current levels of exposure under 4G networks, and comes out with a warning about the level of radiation exposure involved in 5G infrastructure:
In the case of 5G infrastructure “.. it may be suspected that even the ambient PFD (Power Flux Densities) which a person is exposed to in most situations throughout the day may fall under the category of ‘Severe Concern’ according to the Building Biology Standard, ‘Far above normal’ according to the AMA standards, and may be higher than the precautionary action level recommended by the BioInitiative Guidelines.”
“If 5G networks are deployed without careful analysis of expected exposure levels, almost all people in the area of coverage may be exposed to dangerous levels of PFD, the outcomes of which, in the near future, may turn out to be calamitous.”
As Matrix Practitioners we understand the importance of frequency harmonics in healing and pathogenesis, but for those working in the traditional cellular biology framework of chemical signalling it is handy to note that there is a proposed pathway for electromagnetic fields to weaken the immune system, increasing the risk for opportunistic infections.
If you are interested in the cell biology here, see “Electromagnetic fields may act via calcineurin inhibition to suppress immunity, thereby increasing risk for opportunistic infection: Conceivable mechanisms of action,” published in Medical Hypotheses, by P.R. Doyon and O. Johansson in 2017.
However, we do not know specifically what sort of illness would result from the current levels of wireless radiation exposure, because there have been no studies exactly simulating the current real-life situation.
It is interesting to note that one area where high levels of radiation are routinely used is in Radiation Therapy for cancer. One side effect of treatment that doctors have investigated in great detail is radiation peunomitis, a side effect of over-treatment.
According to the 2006 paper “Radiation Pneumonitis and Fibrosis: Mechanisms Underlying its Pathogenesis and implications for future research”, published in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology:
“The early radiation clinical syndrome consists of nonspecific respiratory symptoms, such as low-grade fever, mild cough, or mild dyspnea, which usually resolve after common doses of corticosteroids and antibiotics.”
Symptom onset is in the 12 weeks after radiation treatment, and late stage of radiation pneumonitis includes fibrosis of the lungs and the condition can be fatal. There is enough of a resemblance here between the symptoms of the novel coronavirus and those of radiation pneumonitis to at least warrant caution with the technology and further research.
This paper also makes the interesting point: “It is beyond any doubt that the incidence of radiation pneumopathy increases with concurrent drug administration.”
In particular here, they are speaking about the addition of chemotherapy to a radiation treatment. However there may be other avenues which, like chemotherapy, are contributing to a toxicity within the human body and increasing the effects of radiation exposure in the environment.
It is important to include in our understanding of the real-life situation the implementation of a nation-wide mandatory vaccine policy within china in 2019.
Although vaccination is a commonly established practice to strengthen the immune system, it is important to recognise that our current supply of vaccines has been found to contain significant contamination with micro and nano particulate matter, of a metallic nature.
“New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro and Nanocontamination” published in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination in 2016 opens up a range of questions about the health effects of these contaminants.
The study concludes: “the analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case.”
That is what I have to share on the 5G issue relating to illness. I should mention that I was alerted to these references by Mark Steele in a hearing of the International Tribunal of Natural Justice broadcast on Youtube. I have done my own reading of the material he mentions, and cannot support or verify his statements of opinions, but the research stands for itself.
The issue of the isolation of the virus, and debate surrounding its origins is worthy of further investigation, but there is a widely divergent understanding of what actually a virus is, going back to the work of Rudolf Steiner and the exosome theory of viruses. This is a very interesting area of exploration, but one I cannot address fully yet. Perhaps Dr. Roth can enlighten us with his understanding on this one.
Thanks for reading! It is an honour to have the opportunity to share with the group here.
Nadya Bell, RMT