Polio, too. Modern cleanliness matches the trends of transmission and contagion reduction better than introduction of vaccines.

The only vaccine that was historically effective was cow pox as a salve for small pox. A great medical leap that could have been exploited properly but really wasn't.

Of course. There's another 18 months at $10,000 per month to suck out of your family.

No offense to your friend - just what I went through with a relative.

The target of modern chemotherapy is to use compounds that are just a little bit more deadly to cancer tissues than to surrounding healthy tissue.

So....probably.

I offer my condolences for your loss and I see why you remain convinced.

But, despite my own misfortunes including a miscarriage, I have read dozens and dozens of studies about EMF including weapons of war and medicine. If you really want me to, i can tell you how to modify an iPhone to actually kill someone.

CAN you make it dangerous? Yes. Just like you can make a car, a house lamp, or a knife dangerous. But in general, cell phones and 3-300ghz signals as used in civil infrastructure is not dangerous. I await the information that changes my outlook.

Dr Fauci says mrna vaxes are safe and ivermectin is a danger. Based on studies he totally saw this one time, like, for real.

I know you're not being dishonest as per my tongue in cheek humor, but you haven't offered anything but a video and "trust me, dawg". The studies i provided are counter to what you've presented as read in the past. Seriously, go be well.

I hope you take the time to read the information I provided when you find the time. Just accepting every claim without discernment will destroy MAGA. Be well.

Without context, those numbers mean nothing and they are such small emissions that they are meaningless.

Minimum needed from cell phones is 0.000002 nanowatts? Minimum needed for what? Im pretty sure that's single electron levels of energy, there.

Then, id have to ask: what kind of heart exposure was measured? Direct tissue (petridish) or insitu? If insitu, what was the methodology? Were these models? Surveys? Data dredges?

The surveys I gave you showed directed emissions millions of times more powerful than your numbers and showed little effect at extreme and near constant exposure.

I will review that video and scrub for citations. There seems to be no citation list for it anywhere - not on his website nor as a collection at the end of the video. Upon searching for the citation list so I could prepare in advance of watching the video, I notice several red flags on his website: Almost no activity in four years, seeming paytriot scheme on his website, and number stretching in a two year old article that is his second most recent post (which is also telling you to buy his stuff) - "20,000,000 uw". That's 20 milliwatts. Milliwatts are an everyday measurement used in energy measurement for both wired and wireless transmissions - there's no reason to multiple it by a million to give you nanowatts unless you are trying to create a scary sounding number.

I'll leave you with two citations in return for my homework assignment (i picked up two from this thread! This actually makes me happy!). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf and https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr596_508.pdf

These were long term studies on 2G and 3G signals. (Remember that when they studies started, 3G was The Devil! like 4G and now 5G became) What they showed is that if you expose rats and mice to a cell phones maximum transmission power for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off 9 hours a day for your entire life (including in-utero), you have an uptick in cancers. This is at a power level of 1.5 watts per kilogram in rats and 2.5 watts per kilogram in mice. And, in order for the uptick to be statistically relevant to the control population, you need to do the same cycle of use at 4x the power a cell phone can legally transmit at.

Basically, these studies say that if you are 200 pounds, you will need a cell phone strapped to your head that's transmitting at least 135 watts. 4.5 hours per day. For your entire life. All for a small increase in cancer risk. On the plus side, you won't miss leg days now that you'd have to carry a car battery at about 20 pounds to run this contraption for 4.5 hours every day.

Studies like these are what goes into the fear mongering about the wireless spectrum and they attempt to invoke the precautionary principle - which is dangerous bullshit designed to put all the power into the hands of our elite overlords. The problem is that instead of any nuance about relative risks, transmission strength versus distance, or that sort of thing, the message is always "cell phones cause cancer! It's proved!"

I'll lay out how I evaluate evidence.

Your film "297 birds die in Holland after experiment with 5G technology.mp4" for instance is basically laying the claim that "2 weeks ago" at "The Hague" in Holland "in a park" where it was "due to an experimental antenna with 5G". 297 birds died in a park and nearby ducks were 'acting weirdly' by 'sticking their heads underwater' and 'flying away'.

The film then claims that the birds died from heart failure without signs of viral or bacterial infections, which means, per the film, it could only be the 5G test.

My assumption is that this film is not trying to mislead and is a production on harms of 5G that's presented without bias, despite not knowing who, where or what of the information contained therein.

Since it contained no information, I had to go find the information I could on it, and isolated this to an incident in October of 2018 in Huygens Park near the Hague. (My apologies to any Dutch. I can't spell anything properly from your language)

Here is what I can ascertain:

1. The test of 5G was run for a single day in June of 2018 via a temporary tower. This tower was not in place when the birds fell to their deaths in October approximately 10 weeks later.
2. Ducks stick their heads under water when foraging.
3. Starlings are known to drop out of the sky. They panic easily and can stress themselves into a heart attack and/or hitting buildings. Here's some in the UK for a count of 75. Here's in Arkansas for a count of 4,000. Both in 2010, long before 5G or any tests of 5G. There's also the possibility that someone poisoned a flock of annoying starlings.
4. Self Information conclusive: If a duck is 'flying away' in a panic, it may have a predator it's trying to escape from. A hawk or eagle nearby would explain why the Starlings were in a panic (I do not know what is natural in the Netherlands, so this may be an erroneous conclusion within that environment)
5. Subnote that the video makes technical errors. For example, it says that the 5G wavelength test was at 7Ghz, and then says that it means it oscillates 'a billion times per second'.

This makes me disregard this particular file as any evidence of harmful 5G. Yes, there is more provided and I'm digging through it.

Please point me to those you reference.

I will. But I have over a hundred papers and articles in my own collection from which I draw knowledge from. For, against, and neutral on continued utilization of EMF.

I have started chugging through it and I already notice issues. Pall I have researched many times over the years and he keeps getting it juuuuust wrong enough to make me think he's a plant. For instance, in your own literature, he specifies non-microwave radiation as harmful, but both cites literature and puts diagrams in about microwave damages as being the same thing. 5G can operate at microwave bands, but generally doesn't because no one wants to use that band for anything - its too cluttered and becomes useless in rainfall. Its not where you go for reliable signals.

For reference, in the EU they are using 3.6ghz and 26 Ghz bands and in the US, they are using something like 26-40Ghz bands.

Many of the claims I see as I skim these documents would require fine tuning to achieve. E.g. sweat duct transmission shaping. Each person's ducts are different sizes based on a whole host of factors (genetics, womb stress, growth stress, direct environmental damage like smoke or fire). You would need to tune each cell phone to transmit exclusively into a tight set of bands to create that resonance, and you'd be lucky if it worked on all members of one nuclear family, much less on a large swath of the population.

To see what I mean, get an old analog radio and try to tune it to an FM source 100 miles away. You can do it, but it's messy. Constant static pulses and even a temperature change in the radio will ruin the tuning.

Then I see things like 'shares bands with military crowd control weapon'. Great. An emotional scare tactic. I could also say 'Don't use a light bulb. That electricity is the same they use in personal control weapons (tazers).' Or maybe... 'don't drink water, don't you know that use that stuff in engine coolant?'

Exactly.

Sun is bad. Just stay indoors and keep going.

But those studies are at exposure levels exeeding what you'd get staring into a microwave oven while directly in front of it for most of your life.

E.g. Water is poisonous to you, but not at levels you will encounter in any sane scenario.

How do "digital signals" differ from "those found in nature"? I ask in earnest because a microwave oven is an analog source of 2.4 ghz radiation running at 750-1500 watts and is quite damaging and a wifi router is a digital source operating at a threshold of about a quarter of a watt. How would the wifi router's digital nature make up 749 watts of energy to be on par with it's destructive capacity?

I think wireless=bad is a psyop to break people from the internet so that the elite can regain control of the message and put people to sleep. I hear it each time the government pays the cell companies to add a +1 to their "G". 3G was supposed to enslave us. Then 4G. Now 5G.

I say this for multiple reasons: First and foremost, we are awash in an 'electronic fog' (to steal your wording) just about 12/7. All of the same bands we use for things like radio, wifi or phone-gs are broadcast through us every time we step into sunlight.

Second and equally suspicious, we all - as in every single one of us - have the ability to go citizen science on this claim. Buy a hamster and put it right next to your wifi router. The hamster will die of old age before it dies of being near the router. Yet no one has noticed this affect in our companion critters in the 50 years of wirless phone, sat phone, cell phone, and wifi evolution - and the first iterations of these things were much more powerful broadcasters than we use now.

Third, the inverse square law. If a wifi router can damage you if you leave your hand on top of it, it can't have enough energy to damage you at your normal distance from it. Think of it like a camp fire. Stick your cup of coffee right into the flames and you'll have boiling coffee in no time. A foot above the flames and you still get it pretty hot but maybe not to a boil. Three feet and it'll get warm, but not hot. And a fire is a huge energy source in comparison to a router or phone. As a comparison closer to the technology the eye-searingly blue LEDs installed into your wifi router have a higher wattage than the transmitter itself in most cases.

Get the "mobile" package and you can both get cheaper service tier (with a download limit) and you can pause the service.

Whete can we download these files?

This is an abuse of language. Studies since around 2005 started calling cigarettes "nicotine". 2005 was when vapes (nicotine, glycol, and flavoring only) started to get big and all of the machinery had to start addressing the work around to their laws oj smoking.

If the world doesn't need us, then we don't need them and should tarriff as much as every other country.

It's only supposed to be archivable for records acts. Hillary (should have) gotten in trouble for wiping her server with a cloth and not having any records to turn over for official recordskeeping.

However, official recordakeeping rules have a time delay of iirc 1 year, so that things can be marked secret and etc.

Interesting. But that would allow the uniparty to charge anyone with anything.

'Oh, we have no evidence because the J6er owned a personal shredder, therefore this crime was committed.'

Noem is a corrupt rino. She needs to be dropped.

Who adds the horrible music to these things?

Usury is interest. In the past, it wasn't a percentage, it was a fee. Think of a pawn shop. Old style pawn shops, you take a ring worth $100, pay $125 to get it back. You take in a TV worth $25 and pay $50 to get it back. This is obviously a fee based system and, likely, the fee is based on the pawn shop's needs.

Then come the greedy who whisper to the ignorant people who pawned the TV that they are paying ONE HUNDRED PERCENT INTEREST (gasp gasp!) and they convince the people to elect them and they pass a law. No loans above 25%, not even with fees!

Now the pawn shop charges 25% on all items and disallows the things like TVs that are too cheap to pay their bills. Slowly, the pawn shops go out of business because most people don't have jewelry hanging around. But the elected official who "retired" from JP Morgan that passed the law to "help" the little people? He un-retires after his stint of insider trading for Congress and his bank is making money because now loans are small every day transactions because the pawn shops started evaporating and people must turn to banks for any kind of loan. And those loans, big or small, are compound interest at a "savings" of only 5%.

We are broken, thinking that compounding percentages is how we MUST loan money. No. A fee is how we must loan money. The fee drives commerce. The interest drives bank's fat bottom lines.