Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Joe]

There's lots. Start here:
link:s://:.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radio-frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male-rats

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded there is clear evidence that male rats exposed to high levels of radio frequency radiation (RFR) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones developed cancerous heart tumors, according to final reports released today.

Oh but wait, the radiation is "non ionizing".... so it can't cause cancer. Isn't that what you said?

Like I said before, there's no question on whether or not mobile phone radiation causes cancer. The question is more the levels of radiation.

In the testing referred to above, the exposure was high. So we know for a fact high exposure causes cancer.

In fact, this study raised more questions than it answered, and the results were so inconsistent (why only male rats were affected, and not female rats or mice? why was the average life span actually LONGER for the affected rats?) that they are more likely a false positive, ie due to random chance. Read the following article.

link:s://skepticalinquirer.org/2018/07/cell-phone-radiation-and-cancer/

And look at the overall incidence of cancer over the last few decades; if phones caused cancer, you would expect the numbers of people with cancer to correlate with the massive increase in phone use, but there is no correlation at all.



Strange, eh?

[Joe]

Somewhere back in your posts, you suggested I use a "fake news" detector. Again Joe, that's relying on what a central source says.

Stop basing your knowledge on what you're told. Do your own research, from a variety of sources (not centralized sources), including your own experience.

You mean like the government site with the results of the NTP study which you directed me to? You seem quite happy to reference 'centralized' sites when it suits your agenda, rather hypocritical, don't you think?

So it's better to go to sites like infowars or Icke for your information? Yeah, that makes sense. Again this is your paranoia working; 'they' are all in it together and any 'centralist' site cannot be trusted. 

That includes Wikipedia, CNN, Foxnews, BBC, ABC, New York Times, Telegraph, all government websites worldwide, most scientific bodies (since most scientists are funded by governments), etc etc. They are all in cahoots and conspiring against us!

And yes, we should be cautious about claims made by companies who have vested interests. The 'big pharma' conspiracy theory is not implausible. But for the whole system to be biased and broken, as you say, that would mean that there are no independent journalists, professional bodies, watchdogs, etc. At least, none with any power to change anything, which is complete nonsense and not at all how the world works, when you look at the bigger picture.

If you're referring specifically to newsguard, they are independent and funded by donations.

link:s://:.newsguardtech.com/about/why-should-you-trust-us/

Why should I trust David Icke or Alex Jones, or some teenager in his mum's basement?

[The General]

2. The relevance of false positives (80% inaccurate).

Are you implying that the 5G towers are somehow causing false positives or negative with the Chinese coronavirus tests?


The number one cause of cancer is.......


Randomness. 

[RouletteGhost]

Additives in the foods are a major cause of cancer

What else? Vitamin D deficiency

Vitamin D activates T cells that attack cancer cells. We don’t get enough. It’s important to supplement.

5g is a crackpot theory

And yes it’s likely the Wuhan virus was a lab mistake. Not a weapon. Not created. Just a release mistake. Like the pandemic of 1977

[Steve]

Steve, I've tried to post a reply but I'm getting the follow error message :

There are no swear words in my post, so could you give me a list of what the 'forbidden' words are?

I assume you figured this out. They'e mostly spam words, probably related to pharmaceuticals, because a lot of spam promotes drugs.

[Steve]

In fact, this study raised more questions than it answered, and the results were so inconsistent (why only male rats were affected, and not female rats or mice? why was the average life span actually LONGER for the affected rats?) that they are more likely a false positive, ie due to random chance. Read the following article.

You asked for proof that mobile phone radiation causes cancer. There's heaps of evidence. I referred to one study on a government website. If you still have doubts, do more research.

Who knows why the average lifespan was longer for specific rats. Maybe those particular rats had better genes, and would have lived longer regardless. There are lots of variables not considered in typical testing - both known and unknown variables.

The peer review panel (Actions from Peer Review 2018) voted to label the cell phone cardiac schwannoma association as demonstrating “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity and the glioma association as showing “some evidence.” (These reports are all online at the NTP website at ntp.niehs.nih.gov.)

An example of things not considered are different DNA resonates at different frequencies. Different species and even individual animals will respond differently to different frequencies. But you can generalize as to which frequency ranges or types of radiation will have particular effects, within certain tolerances. It is not an exact science, because every life form is unique. Blasting some test animal is very vague and limited testing. It's not so practical to test a very wide ranges of species, specific animals etc with different frequencies, because there are so many variables. At least this study was quite conclusive, despite the limitations.

I do not trust the FDA because they've constantly proven to be FULL OF SHIT.

Consider the countless drugs they've first approved, then recalled. So first they assure us they're safe, then suddenly they're deadly.

In 2017 alone, manufacturers recalled 4,402 drug and device products, according to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Of those recalls, the FDA classified 139 as Class I. Class I recalled products have the potential to cause serious harm or death.

- link:s://:.drugwatch.com/fda/recalls/

Do your own research on how pathetic the FDA are. They are more about business and control than safety.

The research I give more weight to is from independent researchers.

A good example of FDA corruption is in this documentary from Netflix:

link:s://youtu.be/_ot6W_7hvrM

It's not "conspiracy theory". It's just fact that big business puts profit before health and safety. Is it really so hard to believe?

Also see this - watch the whole thing:

link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=OBm2NSMeMhk

And look at the overall incidence of cancer over the last few decades; if phones caused cancer, you would expect the numbers of people with cancer to correlate with the massive increase in phone use, but there is no correlation at all.

Strange, eh?

Your chart's Y-axis (for the green bars) shows subscriptions. How many people have mobile phones, but barely use them? I might use mine once every few days. So number of subscriptions is not a reliable indicator.

link:s://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/what-cancer/cancer-australia-statistics

And here we see a steadily increasing rate of cancer:


Mobile phone radiation is one cause of cancer. I don't have any doubt about it. But the mechanism that actually causes cancer from the radiation is not being understood. I believe it's ultimately caused by a disruption in the energy field of the body, which in turn affects DNA (DNA corruption), and then some new cells grow abnormally, causing more messed up cells to grow (aka cancer).

But radiation is not the only thing that causes cancer. Lots of things do. Read back my explanation with the sand ring and wind as an example. Anything that disrupts the natural energy flow has the capacity to cause cancer, or at the very least ill health.

You mean like the government site with the results of the NTP study which you directed me to? You seem quite happy to reference 'centralized' sites when it suits your agenda, rather hypocritical, don't you think?

As I said before, don't rely on one source. Don't put words into my mouth.

So it's better to go to sites like infowars or Icke for your information? Yeah, that makes sense. Again this is your paranoia working; 'they' are all in it together and any 'centralist' site cannot be trusted.

Again, no single source should be trusted. You can call this paranoia somehow, but it's common sense. It's also common sense to be especially skeptical of any source that has ties to any group that has a vested interest, or cause for bias. Like for example a pharmaceutical company testing it's own new drugs, with billions at stake. Yet that's how new drugs get approved by the FDA. And because the system is stupid and broken, countless drugs get recalled when its discovered they cause problems, like death. Do your research on drug recall statistics. But it doesn't end there. Joe, maybe you think drug companies doing their own testing is the best policy, and that it doesn't possibly make corruption easier, right?

That includes Wikipedia, CNN, Foxnews, BBC, ABC, New York Times, Telegraph, all government websites worldwide, most scientific bodies (since most scientists are funded by governments), etc etc. They are all in cahoots and conspiring against us!

No Joe. the truth is it's a mixed tangled web of genuine conspiracies (aka rich people who care more about profit than safety), ignorant reporters, conspiracy nuts, genuine and balanced researchers, and more. It's a big mixed soup of everything combined. And the only way to know the truth is consider all sources, all sides, and not lock yourself into one way of thinking.

You are locked into one side it seems: whatever the governments say. Whatever the UN says. Whatever the World Health Organisation says. There are good and bad people in almost every organization. It's all part of the mixed soup of shit, everywhere. You need to balance out your knowledge by looking at the other side. You may have, briefly. But you made the mistake of discounting everything people like David Icke say, just because he gets some things wrong, and comes across like a nutter.

We are on the same side Joe. Look at the bigger picture.

And yes, we should be cautious about claims made by companies who have vested interests. The 'big pharma' conspiracy theory is not implausible

Why not implausible? Because where billions is at stake, and bad policies exist, expect corruption. Now apply that same logic to banking, where TRILLIONS is involved, and even worse policies.

I'm not a pessimistic person. I'm just realistic. My "conspiracy theories" aren't mere theories. They are facts, based on clear facts such as ACTUAL LAW AND POLICIES. These aren't theories. I do have "theories" about other things though, which are based on fact. And as my knowledge improves, my theories naturally evolve too.

But for the whole system to be biased and broken, as you say, that would mean that there are no independent journalists, professional bodies, watchdogs, etc. At least, none with any power to change anything, which is complete nonsense and not at all how the world works, when you look at the bigger picture.

No, because again it's all a big tangled mess of information. There are people with different motives, different understanding, different opinions, different agendas, different morals, and so on. The truth is black and white. But finding the truth is very difficult because of the mess of information.

[Steve]

Joe, does the source of your chart reveal TYPE of cancers? Because the main type of cancer is lung, and the changes in amount of people smoking is very significant. That's why the rate of cancer in your chart probably declined.

It would not be accurate to combine lung cancer statistics with cellular towers. Doing so would be very misleading.

For example, here's the rate of thyroid cancers, and we see an incline from 1990, where there became more mobile phone towers:


link:s://:.cancer.org/latest-news/4-essential-cancer-charts-for-2016.html

And I think we're off topic with the cancer thing. I dont believe mobile phone radiation is the primary cause of cancers. Smoking appears to take #1 spot. There are countless other things that can lead to DNA damage.

My whole point about mobile phone radiation is that it probably does adversely affect the immune system. And when it comes to 5G, the same frequencies are used in military weaponry, for crowd control, to affect water in our bodies. It also has the capability of reducing oxygen in our blood, and a range of other issues. Do you want this radiation everywhere? I sure don't.

So the radiation is one issue. Another big issue is law and policy changes, finance, new technology, vaccines etc after all this coronavirus crap.

[Steve]

Are you implying that the 5G towers are somehow causing false positives or negative with the Chinese coronavirus tests?

Not at all.

The number one cause of cancer is.......
Randomness. 

No, it's all cause and effect. Even trng and prng are cause and effect.

[Mortagon]

5 Ways Melatonin Helps Prevent Cancer
link:s://thetruthaboutcancer.com/5-ways-melatonin-prevents-cancer/

[Mortagon]

Resonance - Beings of Frequency - Microwaves and Brain Function
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=p42Oj8hV6L0

[Mortagon]

OUT OF SHADOWS OFFICIAL
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=MY8Nfzcn1qQ

[Mortagon]

Anthony Patch
link:s://:.youtube.com/channel/UCMQgRqqyR5xGI_PeiZRVr9A/videos

[Mortagon]

Children Abuse and The Elite: Sex Trade and Adrenochrome
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=XIAgnIK7NM8

[Mortagon]

The Cabal, Deep State and QAnon E1 The End of the World
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=1KNNXGw28rE

[Mortagon]

Jeffrey Epstein: The Game of the Global Elite [Full Investigative Documentary]
link:s://:.youtube.com/watch?v=7-c-ZOMyLs8&t=178s