5G Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory???

                                                5G Coronavirus Conspiracy Theory??? 

The 5G technology, originally introduced by China, is in use by nearly 40 countries worldwide. The two main conspiracy theories linking 5G networks to Corona Virus are the 5G cellular signals created the deadly disease and the Corona Virus was manufactured by 5G cellular companies to distract the public from other, more heinous diseases spread by its networks. I myself, am laughing too hard that I might fall off my chair.

Based on harms we already know 4G and WiFi etc. causes health problems in the long term, the suspicion is that 5G's radiation type makes the body less able to fight off the virus, especially given the correlation between areas of 5G implementation and CV outbreaks. (I would like to see more data about the latter though.) We know for the fact that 5G is Millimeter Waves, 3 and 4G are lower-end Microwaves. Millimeter Waves are more dangerous to humans than lower end Microwaves. Wuhan 5G rollout at the same time as Coronavirus Outbreak is suspicious.

There are no health studies of 5G safety except Wuhan's coincidental Coronavirus Outbreak. 5G signals themselves don't make the disease—the virus does. However, I have reams of evidence regarding the damage that non-ionizing cell-phone, WiFi, and similar radiation is slowly doing to our health. It definitely causes single- and double-strand DNA breaks, even though it's not strong enough to cause heating.

 Whether or not 5G radiation would reduce a person's resistance to the virus, I do not know; but given other things that we do know, it would not surprise me. Different frequency ranges have different effects on the body, and 5G's frequency range appears to be particularly harmful. I'm waiting to see more data, but don't expect unbiased test results to come from an industry that has so much to gain or lose based on those results.

Right now, 5G is being pushed by many investment houses, including bloomberglive.com/?s=5g: There is plenty from which COVID-19 is distracting, but 5G is not one of them. That said, do we really "need" 5G to keep up with China? Will making the internet "faster" than it matters if it will cause the majority of people to be replaced by AI (so the elite can profit more)? "Universal basic income" is pushed by Globalists like Andrew Yang (ex-POTUS hopeful) & Silicon valley types because they know what's coming:

"What if everyone, no matter what age, economic status, location, or household size, was guaranteed a minimum income? Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Tesla's Elon Musk, among other Silicon Valley giants, believe this idea, called universal basic income, will provide greater economic security--especially for those whose jobs could be lost to the automation and artificial intelligence technologies sweeping the world." inc.com/kaitlyn-wang/mark-z.... It does seem that COVID-19 is being used as an excuse to implement many of the Left's agendas. For example, now "Tlaib Proposes Universal Basic Income for All, Including Illegals in Wake of Coronavirus:" theconservativeopinion.com/... (there are many Leftist agendas like this being pushed through "because of" the CCP Virus).

Also, just because celebs mix things up doesn't mean 5G is "safe." An excerpt from the ScientificAmerican blog linked at the bottom: "' Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.'
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals. The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior." blogs.scientificamerican.co...