- Re: To walter Archived Message
Posted by walter
on May 16, 2020, 10:00 am, in reply to "To walter"
|
Hi Adamski I didn't challenge 1) though he won't get many donations for pointing out that virologists exist too. See 3) for a caveat. 2) My point was not that hospitals are not busy, but (sorry if it was unclear to you) was that he hasn't actually debunked it. 3) Heat shmeet  Our bodies will be subject to NO heat from 5G. The concern is NOT about heat effects, which are well known but virtually never happen (another minor caveat available on request) as the signal strengths are at least tightly controlled. The debate that people are trying to have is about non-thermal effects, which arise at lower levels and which are due to the interaction between (the electrically complex) signals with (even more complex) living biological matter. The take home point; the pretence that the only effects from non-ionizing radiation are heat (thermal) effects is a breathtaking lie perpetuated by the telecommunications industry, governments, councils and scientists who are in key positions because they do perpetuate it. And myriads of debunkers and bloggers further down the chain of accountability, who do a main job in deceiving people in a convincing manner, at no risk to anyone responsible for th lie. Thermal effects can only arise from signals at a very high energy level, which is possible only when there is a serious malfunction and the equipment transmits at level that is way out of range. When people complain of effects from masts, the industry loves to send people out to check the signal strengths and pronounce them within ' safety guidelines' (more below). They are never outwith guideline, essentially. The guidelines being the problem - being designed to forestall thermal effects. If there were thermal effects they would be sudden - anything else is classed as long term even headaches. The guidelines (known as ICNIRP (*) ) expressly state on the first page I believe that they do not cover any long term effects like cancer (which happens to be one of people's commonest concerns, with good reason), but sudden effects like shocks and burns. So when officials, councils etc. reply that the (eg) phone mast is safe because it transmits within the safety guidelines they are stonewalling the question. As these guidelines are international, this is replicated across every country with mobile telecoms to bypass local and national democracy. It must surely be the most stonewalled question in history. Sorry, that's a lot to say about what isn't the concern! As regards what IS the concern this reply to Rippon was probably my most serious attempt to communicate the picture without posting screeds of studies: https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1585058352.html I don't want to rake over our Mikovics discussion again [https://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1588887506.html] but saying a study on coronaviruses doesn't support a conclusion on a particular coronavirus is not correct. There have been other studies, of which Mikovics is doubtless aware. You may have missed this thread where they were given: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m810/rr-0 Whether he knew of this other evidence or not, Gande was being disingenuous in pulling out a neutral study and claiming Mikovics was therefore cherry picking. She is entitled to refer to one example in a video. Also she had a mechanistic theory why this might be the case (that animal blood contains coronaviruses, and flu vaccines contain animal blood) and was partly talking about that. Cheers (*) ICNIRP=International Committee for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection |