Study Shows Direct Correlation Between 5G Networks and “Coronavirus” Outbreaks

That is what mainstream sources would tell you, certainly. However, Arthur provides a lot of evidence that this isn't in fact the truth. To understand how we have been misled, we need to look into the work of Dr. William E. Morton, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at Oregon Health Sciences University. Again, from Chapter 10 of Arthur Firstenberg's "Invisible Rainbow" book. I've bolded a few sentences that I thought were particularly relevant:

***
Because of the way it was discovered, and the lack of synthetic chemicals in the environment at that time, porphyria became known as a rare disease that was triggered in genetically susceptible people by certain drugs, such as sulfonal and barbiturates, which these patients had to avoid. It was not until another century had passed, in the early 1990s, that Dr. William E. Morton, professor of occupational and environmental medicine at Oregon Health Sciences University, realized that because ordinary synthetic chemicals were far more widespread in the modern environment than pharmaceuticals, they had to be the most common triggers of porphyric attacks. Morton proposed that the controversial disease called multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) was in most cases identical with one or more forms of porphyria. And when he began testing his MCS patients he found that, indeed, 90 percent of them were deficient in one or more porphyrin enzymes. He then investigated a number of their family trees, looking for the same trait, and succeeded in demonstrating a genetic basis for MCS—something no one had attempted before because MCS had never before been connected to a testable biological marker.3 Morton also found that most people with electrical sensitivity had porphyrin enzyme deficiencies, and that electrical and chemical sensitivities appeared to be manifestations of the same disease. Porphyria, Morton showed, is not the extremely rare illness it is currently thought to be, but has to affect at least five to ten percent of the world’s population.4

Morton was courageous, because the rare-disease world of por-phyria had come to be dominated by a handful of clinicians who controlled virtually all research and scholarship in their small, inbred field. They tended to diagnose porphyria only during acute attacks with severe neurological symptoms and to exclude cases of milder, smoldering illness. They generally would not make the diagnosis unless porphyrin excretion in urine or stool was at least five to ten times normal. “This makes no sense,” wrote Morton in 1995, “and would be analogous to restricting the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus to those who have ketoacidosis or restricting the diagnosis of coronary artery disease to those who have myocardial infarction.”5

The higher numbers reported by Morton agree with the numbers reported over a century ago—the proportion of the population that became ill when they took the sleeping medication sulfonal. They are consistent with the finding, in the 1960s, of “mauve factor,” a lavender-staining chemical, not only in the urine of patients diagnosed with porphyria, but in the urine of five to ten percent of the general population.6 Mauve factor was eventually identified as a breakdown product of porphobilinogen, one of the porphyrin precursors.7 Morton also found, in agreement with recent reports from England, the Netherlands, Germany, and Russia, that persistent neurological problems occur during the chronic, smoldering phase of every type of porphyria—even those types which were previously supposed to cause only skin lesions.8
***

Source: Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow . Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

Alright, well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I'd like to focus on the evidence he presented in his Invisible Rainbow book, which cites many experts regarding the matters he writes about.

 

Oy vey.

It's just a cavalcade of quacks and kooks with you.

 

No thank you. I'm not wasting my time with a bunch of ancient history nuttery cherry picked by a literal crazy person who wasted his life on an obsessive quest to try and deny the obvious fact that he suffered from a serious mental disorder.

I did my own research. For the last 20+ years I've exposed myself to huge doses of what Arthur Firstenberg insisted was going to give me porphyria and be massive a pain in my balls, but I just ran 6 miles on the trails in an hour, and I'm 52 and feeling like a million bucks.

BOOM!

Creasy Tvedt- 1

Arthur Firstenberg- crazy as a bedbug and living in a tinfoil-wrapped van down by the river

I win.

 

William is no longer around to defend himself, but I think the following excerpt from his obituary speaks for itself:
**
Dr. Morton worked at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) for nearly 50 years beginning in 1967 as an associate professor in the OHSU School of Medicine's Department of Public Health. Bill led the Department's Environmental Medicine Division, taught occupational medicine and ran an occupational medicine clinic for puzzling illnesses. He was a passionate advocate for patients with illnesses associated with handling toxic chemicals and electro-magnetic (EM) radiation. In disability determinations and liability lawsuits, Bill would testify in support of the patient and often in conflict with other OHSU physicians.

His research addressed cancer epidemiology and variation in mortality rates associated with race and ethnicity. Bill embraced controversial topics, such as links between electro-magnetic radiation and cancer incidence, and asthma associated with the manufacturing of athletic shoes. When the Oregon Masters of Public Health (MPH) program started, Bill took the lead teaching epidemiology and biostatistics and served on most of the MPH thesis committees.
**

As mentioned in the past, there are literally hundreds of studies linking EMFs to harmful. In case you missed it, Joel Moskowitz, a Scientific American Blogger had this to say on the matter, complete with an embedded link for the claim:
**
more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
**

Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

 

Arthur made it clear in his book that not everyone reacted to EMFs the same. He covers this in his third chapter, Electrical Sensitivity. I'd quote from it, but I doubt you'd read it, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

That's great, but he lost his license, because he, like Arthur, became obsessed with his delusional beliefs.

This is not a credible man.

 

I'm sure it was a very convenient justification for why Arthur's claims wouldn't stand up to actual scientific scrutiny.

You're right though, I won't read it.

Arthur is not a credible man either.

 

Yes, he did. Galileo suffered more severe repercussions when he went against the Inquisition, but he was still right.

 

I rest my case.

 

What case? If you think you have a case, make it before actual scientists that might be able to confirm this nonsense is real, and not a figment of deluded minds.

You're not making a case here, all you're doing is revealing how incredibly non-credible your sources are.

 

And every schmuck with a wacky idea and a persecution complex is Galileo?

 

My case that you're not going to read the evidence, so why bother presenting it? Never argue with someone who knows they're right

 

No. However, you can't deny that Galileo was falsely accused of spreading falsehoods and he's hardly the only person who's been persecuted simply for trying to reveal the truth.

 

Do you think there's a possibility that Arthur Firstenberg has a mental disorder, and his "EM hypersensitivity" is a psychosomatic condition?

Do you think that might be a possibility?

If I presented you with evidence that EM hypersensitivity is a mental disorder, would you read it, or would you ignore it, because you know you're right?

 

I'm not interested in the mainstream media's version of events with its paid experts, anonymous and otherwise. I like following the evidence even if it's against the interests of large industries, such as big telecom. I'm also not interested on focusing on attacking the messenger, as opposed to the evidence they present. Anyone adept at discussions knows that's the wrong way to go about things. It's the ad hominem path, which is great for derailing good discussions. If that is you're aim, then you're right on target.

Arthur is just one of hundreds of true experts regarding EMFs that are pointing out the dangers. You focus on him because he's written a book, but the fact of the matter is that there is an enormous network of EMF experts who are pointing out a massive amount of evidence that EMFs are harmful, particularly 5G and other radio frequencies. Joel Moskowitz, a blogger for Scientific American, points this out in his article We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe. The following passage makes it clear of the large group of scientists who have found evidence that RFR EMFs are harmful:
**
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“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.
**

 

If the people on your side are a minority then it is probably a conspiracy theory

 

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

I'm not focusing on Arthur because he wrote a book. I'm focusing on Arthur because you keep presenting him as an authority, repeatedly.

I realize that you're desperate for me to not look behind the curtain, but I always make it a point to check the sources.

Your sources so far have been- a unemployed homeless man who presents as a classic paranoid schizophrenic, a medical doctor who lost his license due to repeatedly and obsessively misdiagnosing his patients as having the same, vanishingly-rare disease, and an activist blogger from notoriously-loonie Berkeley, California.

The thing all these people share is a strong propensity for confirmation bias, or even a maniacal, obsessive yearning for it.

It would probably be better if you just cut out these clearly-biased, low-credibility middlemen, and went straight to the bias-confirming sources they've cherry picked. Maybe there's some valuable data there, maybe not.

In conclusion- based upon my observances of the sorts of sources you take seriously, I find that I just can't take you seriously.

"They laughed at Galileo."

Yes, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 

I believe he presents a lot of credible evidence, but it's not just his evidence. He did a lot of research and uncovered a lot of evidence that others have uncovered as well.

"more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF)"

Feel free to take a look at the list:
https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

 

And so does any dedicated conspiracy theorist

Doesn’t mean they are right

 

Only one way to find out- look at the evidence.

 

For the record, I'll accept that there's a possibility that non-ionizing EM/RF radiation could have a detrimental effect on human health. I think the science to prove it is far from conclusive, but I do realize that there are some studies that would seem to confirm the theory. Arthur Firstenberg has spent over 3 decades of his life obsessively cherry picking all that evidence, while just as obsessively ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. This is called "confirmation bias".

Like you yourself posited before, maybe some people aren't sensitive to the harmful effects of EM/RF radiation, while others are. Sorta like a peanut allergy maybe- some people puke their guts out just smelling peanuts, while others can eat PBJs all day long and be fine. I myself have about-constantly bathed myself in exceedingly-strong EM/RF fields for the last 30+ years of my life, and I'm not pukin'.

If that's the case, and given that the number of people who report as EM hypersensitive is vanishingly-small, maybe it's not something we need to get all excited about. Do we abolish all peanut farms to protect the peanut allergy people? Should we knock down all the cell phone towers to protect the few odd Arthur Firstenbergs in the world?

Are you willing to look at the evidence that points to the strong possibility that Arthur's condition is most probably a mental disorder, and not caused by an external factor such as EM/RF radiation?


Delusional Disorder and Types of Delusions: Symptoms ...
www.webmd.com › Schizophrenia › Guide
Dec 19, 2018 - Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a psychotic disorder. People who have it ...

Is EM hypersensitivity even a real thing? One way to find out- look at the evidence.

1. Sabine Regel; Sonja Negovetic; Martin Röösli; Veronica Berdiñas; Jürgen Schuderer; Anke Huss; Urs Lott; Niels Kuster; Peter Achermann (August 2006). "UMTS Base Station-like Exposure, Well-Being, and Cognitive Performance". Environ Health Perspect. 114 (: 1270–75. doi:10.1289/ehp.8934. PMC 1552030. PMID 16882538. Archived from the original on 2007-10-10.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b c J Rubin; G Hahn; BS Everitt; AJ Clear; Simon Wessely (2006). "Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study". British Medical Journal. 332 (7546): 886–89. doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55. PMC 1440612. PMID 16520326.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Wilén J, Johansson A, Kalezic N, Lyskov E, Sandström M (2006). "Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms". Bioelectromagnetics. 27 (3): 204–14. doi:10.1002/bem.20195. PMID 16304699.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Genuis SJ, Lipp CT (2012). "Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: fact or fiction?". Sci Total Environ (Review). 414: 103–12. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.11.008. PMID 22153604.

 

Over 500 studies "have found harmful biologic or health effects" according to Scientific American Blogger Joel Moskowitz:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

An appeal of 253 EMF scientists have signed an appeal "urgently calling upon the United Nations and its sub-organizations, the WHO and UNEP, and all U.N. Member States, for greater health protection on EMF exposure." :
https://emfscientist.org/

So yeah, I'd say it was a concern -.-