“5G” Hysteria Times Corona Hysteria Equals Hysteria Squared

By Peter Tocci

Introduction

In effect, “5G” (per se) opposition gives us this barrage of logic: “We know 2G-4G can kill almost all living things, so we must stop 5G, or we’ll be more dead.” The subject has been covered elsewhere and at length, so won’t be entirely repeated here.

The next ridiculous thing is demanding bans until FCC ensures safety before rollouts. But FCC hasn’t done this yet for any telecom/WiFi frequency. Why the special beef? These ‘noble’ protests condemn “5G” based heavily on the extreme threat of previous G’s, while not asking for bans on them.

To cover the contradiction, “5G” hysteria rather implies that we can live with 4G, proffering various ‘tips’ and ways to “reduce exposure,” allegedly protecting you, your family and community (but not the ecosystem), without recommending or doing the unthinkably sane: Quitting all wireless telecom/WiFi.

Is it a safe bet most “5G” opposers use 4G devices? If so, what’s that called.

But my previous material hasn’t included the alleged ‘Cronyvirus’ connection. Concocted Crony hysteria rings a bell similar to concocted “5G” hysteria. The two have now become ‘bedfellows’ in some minds. A major point is, there have been several hyped up virus-fear episodes before “5G” entered the scene.

Is the Crony connection inspiration for a new round of profitable “5G” bandwagonism — a new ploy added to previous ploys, omissions and inaccuracies that makes prior “5G” hysteria the irresponsible, misleading, dangerous outing it’s been – even from many EMF scientists?

Logically, the concern might be that anyone would proffer this distraction as worthy of consideration. But it is a useful basis for offering some key information.

Three main areas covered here are: 1) The nature of COVID-19 testing/confirmation; and 2) key “5G” facts and the alleged Cronyvirus connection. Facts strongly suggest that testing is highly suspect and that focus on the “5G”/Cronyvirus ‘correlation’/causation — even if it were provable — is, bottom line, waste-of-time squared.

The third area, for historical precedent/perspective, is a look at HIV/AIDS fraud, which Crony hysteria recalls.

Confirmed COVID Cases?

Update 12/3/20: A large “international consortium of scientists in life sciences” (22 authors) has submitted a Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020.

“This extensive review report has been officially submitted to Eurosurveillance editorial board on 27th November 2020 via their submission-portal, enclosed to this review report is a retraction request letter…” — a request that the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted, because:

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.

The review pertains only to the Euro version of the PCR test being used to diagnose and confirm COVID cases there, and is not ipso facto a condemnation of the CDC/FDA version, which is also being used internationally (although, one exception could be “The number of amplification cycles…”). But it is suggestive of the kind of science possibly underlying Cronyvirus hysteria, and especially behavior-control and lockdown devastations.

It seems, however, that if the flaws were corrected, the authors might approve of using PCR diagnostically, which is argued against below. PCR is fundamentally flawed — before we get to issues such as amplification cycles and  “…insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation.”

***

The COVID-19 “testing/confirming” issue bears (revised) examination. Exhaustive search has led to the following analysis.

The test recommended by CDC for COVID confirmation is called “Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction – “real time RT-PCR” (also called “RT-qPCR” or “qRT-PCR” for quantitative). “Reverse” is used for SARS-CoV-2 to convert its RNA to DNA before the “chain reaction” occurs.

PCR/RT-PCR was invented in 1985 by Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis (RIP) as a general research tool, not a diagnostic tool, and with HIV especially in mind. He has said as much in interviews. PCR ‘multiplies’ very small amounts of isolated DNA or reversed RNA (cDNA) for study and use.

(Interesting note on corporate reality: Even though Mullis figured this out on his own time in his car on the side of the road, Cetus, the California biotech company he was working for at the time, gave him a $10,000 bonus, after selling the patent to Hoffman-LaRoche for $300 million – the most money ever paid for a patent.)

I’ve said in a previous article that PCR isn’t suited for diagnosing infectious cases because, for one thing, it’s qualitative, not quantitative; meaning that it can’t give the ‘titer,’ or viral load, in the subject. Although this was inarguably true of the original, it’s ‘officially’ a different story with the ‘real-time’ version – depending on where you look.

While this comparison of PCR and real time PCR doesn’t mention the quantitative aspect, this CDC page claims the real-time version fits that bill. It says, “… real-time RT-PCR assays can give an accurate estimate of the quantity of virus present in a sample” (emphasis added).

I don’t trust the CDC for a minute, but I’m in no position to argue technically with the claim. However, official instructions for running the test are given on this FDA PDF, which says under Intended Use, “The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a real-time RT-PCR test intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the 2019-nCoV in upper and lower respiratory specimens…” (emphasis added)

According to the detailed process linked above, the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 can be extracted, purified, reversed and amplified.

For this writer, the problem has been finding any information on how we get from qualitative detection by RT-qPCR to virus quantity in a sample, and then finding, even a mention of the calculation or means by which patient viral load is determined (more below). Even ‘better,’ differences in the number of amplification cycles chosen can increase or decrease the number of ‘confirmed’ cases.

Based on research from 1990 -1995 (year of Mullis’ Nobel Prize), real-time PCR instruments became available in 1996. In December of that year, however, New York Native published an article about AIDS by market research analyst, publisher, investigative journalist and gay activist John Lauritsen, Has Provincetown Become Protease Town? He quotes Mullis as saying, “quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.”

Though a date/source of Mullis’ statement isn’t given, it’s rather hard to imagine him being unaware of developments in this area. Since no one had been trying to pass off PCR as quantitative until the real-time era, the quote suggests strongly that Mullis was referring to the new process.

The FDA PDF also says under Intended Use, “Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Therefore, symptoms are relied upon to ‘seal’ the COVID-19 diagnosis, yet they could have various causes. It’s unclear at this point how SARS-CoV-2 was tied to observed symptoms originally or even in subsequent cases without isolation and characterization of ‘virions’ – whole virus particles – and the subsequent application of Koch’s Postulates or a variant? That, in turn, would need to be peer reviewed. Search for this answer was futile for me. Anyone?

I say “variant,” because the Postulates pertained specifically to bacteriology, not virology, which could very well have different requirements. Even if it applies 100% to virus, the Koch procedure may not have been carried out, because handling the virus requires safety measures found only in biosafety labs of level 3 or 4. But this should be done in such a lab, then peer reviewed in another, to prove cause.

Nor does it seem proof is being sought or demonstrated for the new alleged ‘bizarre’ symptoms, such as “COVID toes” and headache. The latter has many causes, including wireless telecom radiation, now in much greater use during lockdown insanity.

We’re promised also that new symptoms will be added to the list as CDC finds them. Are we seeing develop a latter-day AIDS-style model – Acquired SARS-CoV-2 Syndrome — ASCV2S?

The recent announcement that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 don’t guarantee immunity sounds AIDS-like, and in this case, sounds like a springboard for continued tyranny. On the other hand, it also sounds like the current rationale for a new seasonal flu vaccine annually.

Now, it seems the entire genome of SARS-CoV-2 has been sequenced — more than once, apparently. Sequence (the order in which molecular building blocks called nucleotides appear in the links of the DNA chain) seems to be what gives various species their identifiability.

Also apparently, the virus itself has been isolated. This article discusses isolation of SARS-CoV-2 at Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto. “The isolated virus will help researchers in Canada and across the world develop better diagnostic testing, treatments and vaccines…” No mention of proving cause of COVID-19.

It is also claimed to have been isolated in South Africa, again with no mention of proving cause.

Isolation has apparently been achieved on two other verifiable occasions – Italy: No mention of proving cause; and Australia: The ability to rapidly identify, propagate, and internationally share our SARS-CoV-2 isolate is an important step in collaborative scientific efforts to deal effectively with this international public health emergency by developing better diagnostic procedures, vaccine candidates, and antiviral agents. Typical talk, no proof of cause mentioned.

Even the CDC, which seems to have the best one on isolation (but still needs independent professional review), mentions nothing about cause, but does provide locations where it has been stored for research access.

HIV/AIDS Science?

Cronyvirus wouldn’t be the first time, either, that Pharma-driven ‘science’ has proceeded with no proof, because there isn’t one science paper proving HIV/AIDS. This is told in detail in the book Fear of the Invisible (2008) by Janine Roberts.

Roberts reveals and documents a massive fraud exposed by high-level Government reviews in the 1990’s by the OSI – Office of Scientific Integrity (NIH) and ORI – Office of Research Integrity (HHS) of the four Gallo-Popovic papers (March 1984) cited innumerable times as proof. Even the Secret Service was involved to check for forged documents.

Publicized conclusions from the reviews focus on who ‘discovered’ HIV — Dr. Robert Gallo or Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute. A PR meeting was held to decide on a story that would become the official version. Roberts’ investigation, on the other hand, reveals absolute junk/scientific fraud concerning proof of cause.

Almost every time HIV is mentioned, we see it said, “HIV, the virus that causes AIDS…” Now we’re seeing, “SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus which causes COVID-19…”

Here’s Kary Mullis talking about missing HIV science. To my knowledge, this dimension was never publicized after the Government review, ostensibly to preserve the image of science (!) The book includes copies of a number of damning “HIV documents” including Robert Gallo’s scribble altering Abstracts just prior to publication. He was ‘politely retired’ from NIH.

Roberts reports that the original studies, which were so poorly documented they defied replication, were not even designed to prove cause. And I’ve read that to get money for AIDS research, one had to agree not to attempt replication/peer review, an unprecedented, appalling violation of scientific principle.

Nor is the foregoing all there is to the atrocities informing the HIV/AIDS debacle, having affected millions of lives. There was also controversy over the study said to ‘prove’ the efficacy of AZT – aborted midstream – as well as a scandal concerning Pharma (Burroughs-Wellcome) pricing.

Also brought into question in the book is the very validity of conventional virology (a little alliteration there :-); this continues today – on the ‘frontier’ of course.

There’s also an ongoing challenge to the scientific community about HIV/AIDS from the Perth Group in Australia.

Bent Wheel on the “5G” Bandwagon

International 5G specification has two parts: one for millimeter wave and another for all telecom/WiFi mid-/low-band frequencies currently in use (5Gmlb), often called sub-6 GHz (600 MHz -1900 MHz and WiFi at 2.45 and 5 GHz). This and bogus opposition rollout information are discussed in detail in What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”? (WDYM – see section 5G Rollouts).

Due to past irresponsible opposition from individuals, sites, groups and campaigns, folks routinely assume “5G” means the high frequency range, or millimeter wave radiation (5Gmmw).

Please be aware that WYDM was published in Jan/2020, and due to rapid technological changes, needed update in some particulars shortly thereafter 🙂 For example, frequencies planned for 5G. But the principles remain. This goes for other earlier articles cited here.

This FCC page (no date, one assumes it’s current) says, “The FCC has made auctioning high-band spectrum a priority. The FCC concluded its first 5G spectrum auction this year in the 28 GHz band, and its auction of 24 GHz spectrum is taking place right now. Later this year, the FCC will auction the upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz bands.” – Last accessed 5/28/20.

Thus, it’s almost certain that no mobile applications will use frequencies above 47 GHz. As frequency increases, transmission range decreases.

A ploy seen in a recent email notice: “[rollout continues] …despite THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed, independent studies that indicate 5G is harmful to your health” (no mention of planet). “Indicate” is an interesting word. No “thousands” of studies exist on 5G millimeter wave per se.

The thousands of studies, beginning many decades ago, as selected and collated in the BioInitiative Report are all about extremely-low frequency ELF-EMF and low-level radiofrequency/microwave or RF-EMF fields well below millimeter wave.

Evangelists rather consistently avoid clarifying this. But since ‘half’ of “5G” is (souped up) 4G, the ploy could be valid by accident.

What if evangelists suggested the wild notion that 2G-4G is a greater immediate threat than “5G” due to long-term exposure/cumulative effect, especially to the ecosystem, a fatal peril ill-served overall in “5G” hysteria.

What if they suggested that stopping all pre-5G, which would stop 5Gmmw — on the ground anyway — is what’s needed most? Could this provoke a measure of unpopularity, possibly reducing profit from events?

People have claimed harm when “5G” is turned on. Without special, expensive equipment, or technical specs registered with the permitting municipality, we can’t be certain what’s coming out of an antenna (although, a 5Gmmw phone would help). An example is given in WDYM in section Reports of Harm about a “mysterious” Sprint tower in the Cincinnati area.

Some people have shown as evidence, readouts from popular RF meters, which can’t even read 5Gmmw. So, what are they measuring? And what’s ‘causing’ harm? Most reports describe well known 2G-4G sensitivity symptoms.

With rare exception have we seen/heard reports of harm in large cities where it’s certain that 5Gmmw is involved. For example, Verizon’s ‘ultra broadband internet’ (not mobile) in Houston and Sacramento (in October 2018). And, among other big cities, there’s mobile 5Gmmw in Chicago, noted in WDYM.

Could it mean that some, if not most, harm is from 4G or 5Gmlb? There’s not a protest, ban, Crisis! or Stop 5G! campaign I’ve seen that emphasizes this critical situation, takes it into account, and presents the corresponding details. Localities have banned “5G” without even knowing what they banned (see Reports of Harm in WYDM).

An example of what can happen when chomping indiscriminately at the “5G” bandwagon bit: Dramatic concern over wide distribution of AT&T’s “5G”, when it’s not even millimeter wave.

As noted, “5G” hysteria and questionable assertions flow, even from scientists. As in “… multiple antenna elements act together to produce highly pulsed fields which are designed for 5G, to produce increased penetration. 5G will entail particularly powerful pulsations to be used, which may, therefore, be particularly hazardous.” Could this amount to the ‘more dead’ argument?

Increased penetration is very unlikely at commercial telecom power levels. Even the military’s painful Active Denial System – “high density (high power) at 95 GHz” penetrates only slightly into the skin, though it may have deeper bio-effects (search ‘ADS’ in WDYM).

No commercial 5Gmmw is painful 🙂 Not that it’s a good thing. 5Gmlb goes all the way through you and beyond, creating biological havoc on the way. This is apparently undeserving of crisis status?

There’s also talk of greatly increased power output. As in, “The reason the companies want so much power is because millimeter waves are easily blocked by objects and walls and require tremendous power to penetrate inside buildings…” There is/will be no need for this.

In truth, energy consumption is a huge concern for an industry under scrutiny for already being an overall energy hog. Industry has long been aware of this, and there’s a major power reduction effort.

Small-cell energy consumption is much lower than for macro cells. Moreover, new antennas operate on-demand, unlike macro towers, which bathe and penetrate everything 24/7.

Thus, more fixtures ‘handing off’ signals in succession to skirt objects also allows for less power in directed beams. But, many more small cells will be needed — in populous areas, not all across the nation (absent satellites), as opponents whinge — increasing power consumption. See 5G Rollouts in WYDM) Increasing power consumption for “penetration” is therefore not on the 5G table.

Signals can be sent to outside receivers, then brought in by wire. Witness this installation of Verizon’s “5G Ultra Wideband,” or “Verizon 5G Home Internet” (not mobile). Note upper left pic, receiver (transceiver?) outside home, and wire going in. It will be same for 5Gmmw higher-frequencies (above 47 GHz) targeted for special applications, such as “wireless mesh” (60GHz).

The 5Gmmw system is so ‘intelligent’ that if a beam is blocked, it will instantly be re-routed for avoidance. Not that all this is a good thing, either, but ‘making cases’ should be beneath us?

5G and Cronyvirus

We have ‘testimony’ from an alleged former Vodafone telecom expert about 5G creating Cronyvirus. For me, it’s a collection of gobbledegook including incorrect terminology and concept.

For example, he “…ran a telecoms company … that specialized in radio spectrum, this ability to take external signals from satellites into buildings. So that the frequency you experience …is the same in the building as it is outside of the building.” As if a building can alter frequency (and thanks be those were “external signals” from satellites).

We also hear that the industry first thought that mobile phones would be used “…on the road all the time…”, hence why they were called mobile :-)) but then – surprise – people started using them in buildings. “The signal wasn’t strong enough to penetrate buildings, and that’s called radio spectrum” (sic). Am I hearing this?

Except, mobile phones never have been operated via satellite. That’s why they’re called cellular phones. Yikes.

But it’s wavelength as much as power, that allows for penetration. This is the challenge with 5Gmmw transmission – short wave (millimeters) and range, easily blocked.

The ‘whistleblower’ asserts that 5G is “poisoning cells” and that cells attempt to rid themselves of these toxins in the form of a virus. Whereas, viruses are composed of genetic material inside a protein coat, not toxins. It’s reasonable, however, to suggest that toxic effects are officially blamed on viruses, because you can’t vaccinate against toxins.

In any case, in an email exchange to which I was privy, several prominent scientists agreed that the traditional toxicology model is inappropriate for microwave influences, which are akin to RF interference – like static in an FM radio – disturbing charged elements in biosystems.

There’s also an elaborate, detailed correlation (famously, is not causation) between the presence of “5G” in a community/area and higher-than-average COVID cases and deaths.

Minor matter: Chart One of the article depicts countries “…receiving 5G radiation from satellites,” but there isn’t a syllable or cite in the text to support that. I’m not sure anyone on the ‘outside’ has information about any satellites currently emitting “5G” telecom frequencies, if any?

Lacking ‘controlled’ demonstration that the same thing wouldn’t happen with a sharp increase in 4G radiation, there’s no data point for the claim. This is a possibility in Iran, though – big COVID outbreak, no “5G”, but 4G LTE. Even that must be specified, however, because there are several ‘levels,’ most recently “LTE Advanced.”

Similarly, we don’t know what the effect of “5G” (unspecified) would come to on its own, without prior (and long-term) presence of 2G-4G radiation.

Another critical point not covered in the correlation is the important distinction between 5Gmmw mobile and fixed-wireless services – as we saw above with Verizon’s internet setup.

If European “5G” rollouts are anything like the US scenario, though present in many cities, 5Gmmw mobile is a crapshoot to find. Coverage is not that widespread to be relating it in a causal way to COVID. And it should be understood that ‘we’ve got 5G’ is often mostly a brag.

For example, there are four “5G” providers in NYC: Verizon, Sprint, T-Moblie, and AT&T. We’ve already seen AT&T is fake. Verizon mobile is MMW, but read any article about it and you’ll see that it’s only in spots. Here’s a one to start (not much use below the map), and another (Chicago).

Moreover, very few existing 5Gmmw phones are in the general public’s hands. The “word” has been not to invest yet. Of course, providers counter by offering payment plans. But since 5G mmw is beam-formed, mostly only a few user/testers in separate locations will be exposed. Mobile 5Gmmw is virtually at a “demo” stage, far from the hyperbolic “bombarding and bathing” communities. That’s 2G-4G since the beginning.

In an article about Italy, Vodafone CEO Aldo Bisio said that in 2021 “…more than 100 cities and municipalities will have the gigabit speeds, and then it would take at least 4,5 years for 5G to reach the same coverage as the 4G nowadays.”

Will the “correlation” be prime fodder for future “5G” hysteria, as opposed to the common sense of “Wireless Technology Crisis,” which would include “5G” (whatever is meant)?

Does this site https://www.shareverified.com/en suggest we should believe the testing/confirmation, which is highly suspect? When what we should have done from the outset is proceed as we have done through all the worst – and worse – flu’s of the past, including Asian and Hong Kong (1.2 million dead each): Lead life as usual while protecting the most vulnerable.

It says, “You’re engaging right now in the biggest project of social collaboration the world has seen.” Make that social engineering, and you’ve got it.

There are more questions, but just that fact is part of why 5G/Corona hysteria = waste of time squared.

More to the point than the ‘explosive’ 5G/Crony ‘revelation’ (distraction?) dangled before us is that disrupted physiology and lowered immunity are consequent to multiple, long-term insults — getting into 3rd gear with the Industrial Revolution (Elite operation) — from our chemically toxic, industrial-ag, food-processed, overfed, undernourished, energetically life-negative (especially wireless), Earth-destroying, kid-poisoning, technomasturbating, pathological way of life.

Not to mention 125 years of weakened health via conventional medicine. But we don’t need 5G overdrive even for that. We just need common sense about the path we’re on, plus the integrity and stomach to take the right action: QUIT WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY. Period.

Do some folks pushing “5G” hysteria have an effect similar to that of conventional medicine – perpetuating the problem to create demand for their ministrations?

The main takeaways are 1) that most, if not all, telecom frequencies can have various ‘special’ appalling and intentional applications and effects (more below): and 2) no type or amount of human protection does anything for our source of life but worsen the threat.

The hysteria game seems to be appeasing those caring more about gadgetry and convenience than survival. Do we just need a “5G” scapegoat for our collective addiction and indulgence?

There is no proven safe exposure level of this radiation under any circumstances for all beings, especially in the long term; but even short exposure has deleterious effect. Here’s a very interesting example. Based on plain physics and biophysics, effects, felt or not, occur from all telecom/WiFi signals — even if you follow the magic ‘tips.’

It’s almost certain that overt symptomologies, especially serious chronic disease, are not being recognized as symptoms of ‘radiation sickness’. People claiming “5G” harm have no way of knowing their internal status or that they weren’t ‘due’ anyway.

Telecom microwave exposure history is partially addressed in Geneva Telecom Antenna Map Illustrates How the “Stop 5G!” Campaign Misleads Supporters

I have many times invoked the words of one of my favorite wireless-tech opponents, Barrie Trower:

I ask for any scientist(s) from industry / government to ‘humiliate’ me live ‘on-air’ with their expert knowledge by answering one question: ‘What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?’” – Barrie Trower, Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares? (Page 12).

Seven years or so, no takers.

(Reliance on power level alone for safe exposure is a convenience, not science. No need to understand the following terms, just that there are several other factors in play, including whether the signal is continuous or pulsed, the shape of the pulsations, the rise time, fall time and duration of the pulsations, the type and depth of modulation, the frequencies, and the bandwidth. Try to set a ‘safe’ exposure limit based on all that. So they keep it simple-y deadly.)

To no avail (zero response), Barrie’s request has been forwarded to several EMF scientists who’ve been wasting precious time with ‘appeal’ to corrupted/compromised organizations and officials (e.g., WHO and UN) for futile “safer”, “reduced”, “biologically based” exposure limits based on power level. Should they know better?

The request is hereby graciously extended to any “5G” or “5G”/Crony soap-boxer, and, in passing, an invitation to explain why he/she insists on wasting time on “5G” crisis, international campaigns, and futile ‘tips’ instead of getting to the point. And in most cases, why people haven’t been properly informed by these evangelists about what comprises 5G and how it operates.

We’ll look at one dubious recent example, and leave the rest to previous output – with the caveat that the issue and its technical details are complex and changing fast. Researching it is a bit tricky/frustrating, with even tech sites disagreeing with each other. Having said that, it’s a quite simple matter fundamentally: Quit it all or perish.

But most “5G” opposers, in favor of ‘much-worse-than-dangerous-enough’ and ‘more dead’ will have none of it – who, one suspects, use wireless devices, especially smartphones and WiFi – “safely” of course, Mother Earth.

Colloquially, it’s called shooting oneself in the foot — although the head might be more apropos. No, wait, ‘ecosystem’ is even better Bees, Birds and Mankind Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’: Effects of Wireless Communication Technologies [Note: ‘wireless’, no need for 5G wireless]

In the following video, intrepid reporter Richie Allen interacts with Trower, who’s admired, noted and quoted throughout my work. But here, he ‘disappoints,’ so to speak, as one who’s very familiar with the history of microwave technology, including military stealth weapon research beginning in the 1950’s.

Beginning at about 13:10, in re “5G,” Barrie talks about some testing done in 1977 for stealth weapon research, using, he says, the “very, very same frequencies you are getting …today.” Please listen to the end of his remarks, c. 17:26, before continuing.

Though Barrie mentions frequencies, he doesn’t specify. That’s a big ?? – even if he’s implying 5G millimeter wave (5Gmmw) – because effects can vary with different carrier frequencies within a defined range, and with the noted additional factors (FCC definition of commercial 5Gmmw was 24 GHz – 90 GHz).

Most importantly, there’s a 1981 W.H.O. document of which Barrie is also aware, reviewing a 1973 world symposium in Warsaw, covering all RF frequencies, including (telecom/WiFi) microwave, which includes millimeter wave. It’s excerpted and linked in WDYM in the section History of Official Awareness. It reveals that despite at least two decades’ official/scientific/military foreknowledge of serious harm, mobile-phone technology was implemented amid official lies and deception. BUT – watch out for that nasty “5G”.

Please see also the paragraph beginning Manifesto.

See this page for information on microwave mind-control, which uses frequencies not even in the same ‘galaxy’ as 5Gmmw, such as 1800 MHz and 900 MHz (dect phone). There’s no date on the post, but the page info in my browser says Modified: October 27, 2016. Please see this page for author information.

Mind-control is a small fraction of evidence, some also noted in WDYM, that a wide range of microwave frequencies entails multiple nefarious capabilities, such as a weapon, to cause illness, destroy life and so on – including surveillance and IoT. Keep in mind too that a lot of ‘smart’ tech in the field and in homes (e.g., utility meters. smart home appliances and gadgets), runs on current WiFi frequencies.

Conclusion

To focus on “5G” and 5G/Cronyvirus is posturing at best – and, in cases, playing a ‘noble’ role for popularity and profit.

Even if Coronavirus is much worse than claimed, it couldn’t hold a candle to the threat to life and liberty of wireless technology, 5Gmlb and 5Gmmw included. The control-system psychopaths may want 5Gmmw, but they could do (and are doing) quite well with a 4G system. Life can’t.

My keyboard is well worn from typing what can’t be said too often: Stopping/delaying 5G while allowing 4G or any wireless tech to continue, is relentless ecocide/suicide.

---

Peter Tocci is a retired massage therapist and wellness consultant with an abiding interest in exploring ‘managed’ history, nefarious covert agendas, and mainstream/mainstream-alternative news-media dereliction, distortion and suppression.

Image: Pixabay

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.