EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


Ever since the first 5G-equipped cruise ships docked in Japan with cases of Covid-19, those of us who were alert to the fact that some people are adversely affected by wireless radiation were wondering if these facts were linked.

That suspicion was reinforced when it was reported that Wuhan had turned on its 5G systems at around the same time that the Covid-19 outbreak there first came to global attention.

And finally, a New York doctor made a video where he was saying that the official protocol for Covid-19 patients didn't work because the "pneumonia" wasn't like normal pneumonia where the lungs were filling up - the lungs were remaining dry but the blood oxygenation was still deficient. Not pneumonia then but pneumonitis - a recognised symptom of radiation exposure.

So what to make of it all?

Here is a video made by an independent researcher/tech-nerd who had nothing better to do during the early lockdowns - could 5G account for the more general incidence of "Covid-19":

(15 minutes)


Like / Dislike this video here.

And here is a very recent presentation that draws attention to a PubMed article that does draw a link - albeit not necessarily totally direct and utterly conclusive:

(7 minutes)


So I repeat - what to make of it all?

Covid-19 symptoms are generic to many ailments - radiation, flu, common cold, "flu-like" (so called because they are like flu but don't appear to be caused by a recognised flu virus) and so on.

The only way that people knew if they "had Covid" was through the test.

So if that test was flawed and gave lots of false positives, then in the early days we would be seeing "Covid" all over the place even where there was none.

And we know from the WHO themselves that if you are testing for disease X in a largely disease X free population, what you are in effect doing is testing the test, and what you will get is an estimate of the number of false positive test results where no disease X exists! So for example, even if your test is 99% accurate (and there are good reasons to believe that the PCR-Test was never accurate or even specified to a repeatable standard) you will still get 100 "cases" in every 10000 tests conducted. This is simple mathematics.

So Scottie could well have been looking at a far bigger and more widespread "Covid-19" distribution than was in actual fact the case.

All of which brings us back to reality - there is too much that we don't know about the true incidence of Covid-19 because the testing regime was (and almost certainly still is) unfit for purpose, and that makes it impossible to draw conclusions about possible causes.

All possible causes perhaps except one - that the whole exercise was a gigantic hoax - we can't prove the exact nature of the Covid-19 hoax but we can say with a huge degree of confidence that it was deliberately and vexatiously planned by the WHO (and associates) who being very clever people would have / should have known that the PCR Test was completely unfit for purpose.