Comments on: 5G: Harmful effects of a new technology

By: P

Tue, 31 Mar 2020 02:58:30 +0000

The same reason why doctors continue to vaccinate and not question their superiors.
In Australia MD’s face 10 yrs imprisonment if the question the safety of vaccines.
In UK they face losing their license to practice.
Look up Dr Vernon Coleman’s website

By: Tina

Tina — Mon, 23 Sep 2019 21:22:22 +0000

This sounds slightly hysterical to me. 5G will affect the people who install it just as much as the rest of us. Why would someone install things that will kill them.

By: Sarah J

Sarah J — Fri, 06 Jul 2018 04:52:23 +0000

So may I ask why people are not protesting in the streets? Why do we allow big business to destroy us..for profit ? Or is this simply another ploy for population control ?! God help us all !

By: Jim Loomis

Jim Loomis — Thu, 24 May 2018 17:10:00 +0000

Did you know that programmers, paid for by the large communication companies, etc, have prevented me from pulling up on my computer anything relating to 5G?
I WAS able to put it into my Verizon Cell phone BUT cannot get it to come up on my HP Computer.
The file is: 5G: Harmful effects of a new technology / The Crazz Files
By Jon Rappoport

By: The Shorttech

The Shorttech — Thu, 10 May 2018 09:44:36 +0000

Right. If technology is advancing, the consequences should be taken in serious consideration. Employment will also go down eventually.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:27:01 +0000

Thanks Jon for covering the 5G dangers; keep doing so. This page has a load of useful contacts to email various US Health and Safety agencies* to register concern. Please use them and forward on to others!

http://www.parentsforsafetechnology.org/stop-5g-spectrum-frontiers.html

——
*Actual ‘health’ and ‘safety’ may not resemble the picture on the box

By: petergrafstrm

petergrafstrm — Mon, 02 Apr 2018 15:47:05 +0000

Sure, with a fully developed nanotech-robot assortment only the fantasy would be the limit. But I know these cybernetic applications have been running for over fifty years, so it works without nanorobots. Of course the technique has gone through phases and now may have more capacity. In 1994 an american engineer was interviewed by Walter Bowart and said the Cia obtained a new type of electronic implants and started using them around 1988/89. The year when many people began to complain about being subjected to mindcontrol and other weird harassments. Those implants were incapsulated in a material which mimics bone when xray-ed so they are invisible for xray screening when inserted in and among the vertebrae. Or near the scull.

By: bleak's-blog

bleak's-blog — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 23:27:37 +0000

@petergrafstrm I concede that a bunch of nanotubes in a human body will not a nanoradio make and that a lengthy antenna would be needed. I didn’t think of that and your logic is sound. Howevah… what is the goal of nanotech if not to create microscopic smart machines that could be programmed to *assemble* into a radio including a transmitter, receiver, and body-length antenna?

Bill Gates is working on nanotech vaccines (hmmmmmmmm). Ray Kurzweil is working on nanotech as well and that is probably an understatement. I would guess that nanoradios are something that has crossed both their minds.

Transhumanists; can’t live with em; pass the GMO radio soy nuts.

“We are the Borg! Resistance is futile!”

https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/bill-gates-funds-covert-vaccine-nanotechnology
https://singularityhub.com/2016/04/19/ray-kurzweil-predicts-three-technologies-will-define-our-future/

By: petergrafstrm

petergrafstrm — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 10:04:29 +0000

I got this argument about nanoradio by somebody before and looked up the references he offered. I found that in all cases the nanoradio used an antenna of several cm’s. Just like conventional implants. This was expected since the laws of physics makes it unavoidable when the nanoradio is to have remote communication. If it only needs to have microscopic reach it needs less antenna length. When they leave out such details you should be suspicious.
The efficiency of an antenna is dependent on the third power of
Size/wavelength or worse and useful wavelengths for remote communication from inside the body are at least several cm’s
But appart from antenna, the power is a problem. Tiny nanosized objects are likely to have very little power. Normal implants, such as for example for rfid may be powered from an external transmitter, but that requires an efficient coupling so we’re back to the dilemma with a macroscopic antenna. In conclusion forget about nanotech when seeking explanations for remote communication with the brain.

By: bleak's-blog

bleak's-blog — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 03:04:00 +0000

What are radios but receivers made of circuits. What is nanotech but tiny machines/circuits. Why implant when they can force us to inhale? It doen’t take a rocket scientist (I just had to) to see the implications and patterns. I see them anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoradio

Hey, I’m just sayin, OK? Concur all ya’ll want to with each other but I know that a lot of people have been workin 24/7 for a lot of years on “stuff” and we don’t have a clue what they are workin on, do we. Isn’t that what this article is all about, inventions? Biotech used for ill purposes in this case, but inventions nevertheless.

Nanotech manufacturing has been around hard since 1997. See Zyvex Corp founded by Altsys software founder Jim Von Ehr in Dallas (Plano actually, a suburb). I’ve been following them since Aldus Freehand bit the dust and was subsumed by Adobe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Von_Ehr_II

Someone who’s opinion I trust told me that I give some people too much credit and I told him he doesn’t give some of them enough. Know your enemies and you won’t be the victims of a surprise attack. That is somewhere in the Art of War I know it is. Well… we’ve been attacked now for 10,000 years. Do ya think that maybe we’re losing the war because of ignorance and naivete? I do.