Click the arrows below to navigatefioranelli
Link to the published article before it was withdrawn: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32668870/
Does A Newly Published Study Prove The 5G-COVID19 Connection?
A newly published editorial posits that there exists a connection between millimeter waves used by 5G technology and COVID-19. Is this the smoking gun or something else entirely?
A recently published editorial has caused controversy as supporters claim it proves a connection between 5G and COVID-19, and detractors allege pseudoscience. The editorial, “5G Technology and induction of coronavirus in skin cells,” was published in the Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents and published on the PubMed research database.
Websites interested in promoting the 5G-COVID-19 connection promoted the editorial – usually by referring to it as a study. For example, Infowars went with the all-caps headline, “NIH ADMITS 5G CAN ACTUALLY CREATE CORONAVIRUS WITHIN HUMAN CELLS.” Meanwhile, those with an interest in dismissing research about the dangers of 5G (and other taboo topics) raced to attack the editorial and label anyone considering such heresy a conspiracy theorist. ExtremeTech jumped in with “PubMed Leaps Into Pseudoscience, Links 5G, Coronavirus.” I don’t recommend wasting your time with either of these pieces.
The main theory – and let’s be clear, it is a theory – is that 5G millimeter waves can be “absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells.” The researchers go on to describe a mechanism they believe could trigger a coronavirus within human cells. As noted above, the premise has been controversial.
Since first being published the editorial has been removed from the journal’s website; however, an archive exists. PubMed also now lists the paper as “Withdrawn,” with the Abstract stating, “Ahead of Print article withdrawn by publisher.”
Before we get into the specifics and dissect how credible the theory is, I should acknowledge that I have written and produced a documentary exploring the dangers of 5G technology. I have also spent a considerable amount of time researching the alleged connection between COVID-19 and 5G. Ultimately, I have not found a strong enough evidence to draw such a conclusion. Regardless, upon discovering this publication I approached it with an open mind. Here’s what I found:
The researchers describe the structure of DNA as “inductor-like” and divided into linear, toroid and round inductors. These inductors, the researchers write, act as “an electronic device within a cell” and interact with external electromagnetic waves. When the wave passes through a cell and nucleus membrane, it activates “an extra magnetic field within the DNA.” The shape of the waves “are similar to shapes of hexagonal and pentagonal bases of their DNA source.” The waves cause holes in “liquids within the nucleus” and in response “some extra hexagonal and pentagonal bases are produced.”
The researchers state, “These bases could join to each other and form virus-like structures such as Coronavirus. To produce these viruses within a cell, it is necessary that the wavelength of external waves be shorter than the size of the cell. Thus 5G millimeter waves could be good candidates for applying in constructing virus-like structures such as Coronaviruses (COVID-19) within cells.”
The researchers claim that “decreasing the wavelength” waves from 5G towers could have “more effect on evolutions of DNAs within cells.” This happens because the “dermatologic cell membranes” act as antennas. They state that one of these antennas could only “take waves” which are not larger than the cell. Therefore, they conclude, “in the next generation of mobile technology, emitted waves of towers will have more effects on biological cells.”
I completely agree with that conclusion. However, understanding the dangers and concerns around 5G does not require one to ascribe to the now withdrawn editorial. This crux of the theory is that COVID-19 could be a “virus-like structure” created within cells as a response to 5G millimeter waves. You will note in the paragraph above the entire theory hangs on the idea that the base could join to each other and then proceed to form “virus-like structures.” The editorial largely appears to depend on several such assumptions.
The researchers go on to frame their arguments and present equations to prove the probability of this reaction. In between equations, another assumption is presented:
“We should then calculate magnetic energies and magnetic fields. We assume that a DNA acts like an inductor and thus, we write the following equation for its magnetic fields….”
As mentioned above, the paper was withdrawn by the journal and delisted on PubMed. Some will present this as evidence of censorship of truthful information the establishment would rather you not see. This is a valid concern, as the world of scientific research is not beyond corruption and state/corporate influence. However, once again, assumptions are not evidence. Censorship alone does not prove a paper, video, article, study, etc., is factual. Sometimes, bad research is actually removed because it is bad research. I think this is one of those times.
Besides basing the editorial on assumptions, the paper itself is crude. Grammar and syntax are clumsy at times. For example, the researchers note the obvious with, “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is the main problem this year involving the entire world.” Other sentences are also obvious and awkward. “To date, many scientists have tried to find a method to cure this disease; however, without success.”
It’s hard to see how this piece was published on a peer-reviewed journal and then accepted onto PubMed. The journal is indexed on PubMed, a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM). It is this connection to the NIH which led to some social media users and alternative media pundits claiming the NIH had admitted 5G caused COVID-19. To make this clear, that is not what happened.
Elisabeth Bik, a Dutch microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant who runs the blog Scientific Integrity Digest, described some of the weaknesses of the editorial.
“How did the authors prove this extraordinary claim? Well, they don’t. The paper does not include any experiments. It is listed as an Editorial, and it includes a lot of clunky cartoons and impressive formulas, but there is no proof. It is just a wacko hypothesis,” she writes.
Bik also notes various issues with the journal publishing the editorial. For example, their website notes most papers do not have a link to the full text or a PDF. There does not appear to be a way to read many of the papers listed. The Editorial Board is not searchable and some of the Editors appear to be dead. These include, “S. Pestka, USA,” who is likely Sidney Pestka, a biochemist/geneticist who died in 2016. Bik also found that G. Bonadonna died in 2015 and V. Bocci died in 2019. Finally, JW Mier, was implicated in a research misconduct case.
Bik ends her review of the editorial by calling for the journal to be banned from PubMed She calls the publication of the editorial “a serious problem” because it shows PubMed can be “used and misused by all kinds of people to support their conspiracy theories.”
The Last American Vagabond has contacted lead author Massimo Fioranelli to provide the researchers an opportunity to comment on the criticisms of their editorial. We will provide updates as they happen.
While I agree with the overall sentiment that the paper is lacking in evidence and heaving in assumptions, I do not agree with the “conspiracy theorist” label. TLAV readers will be familiar with the ways in which this pejorative is used to demean and diminish an individual’s credibility. I know for a fact that my legitimate questions about the safety of 5G have me labeled as a conspiracy theorist or tinfoil hat enthusiast by a certain crowd. My fear is that the legitimate concerns around 5G are being drowned out by the pursuit of a link between 5G and COVID-19.
The editorial was not without merit. The researchers are spot on when they state “it has been known that some waves in 5G technology have direct effects on the skin cells.” As far back at the 1970s it has been known by the Russian and American governments that millimeter waves have a variety of impacts on wildlife, humans, and the environment. Organizations like the Environmental Health Trust, 5G Crisis with Americans for Responsible Technology, and other groups do a great job documenting the available credible research on the dangers of 5G and electromagnetic frequencies in general. In fact, credible research on the dangers of 5G was published as recent as May 2020.
The researchers acknowledge these dangers, stating “many researchers have considered the effects of 5G technology on human health. For example, it has been shown that 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.” These are true statements and the wider scientific community desperately needs to recognize this.
Another interesting aspect of the editorial’s theory is the potential connection between what the researchers describe and what has been proposed by independent researchers like Dr. Andrew Kaufman. What the editorial describes as “virus-like structures” sound similar to what Kaufman has described in the form of exosomes. Exosomes are defined as “membrane-bound extracellular vesicles” which are produced in certain cells. Kaufman and other researchers propose that the body is not being attacked by an external virus, but rather, the body is experiencing exosomes excreting from cells. It is believed that these exosomes are a response to external, environmental stimuli. In the editorial, the researchers claim that this stimuli is millimeter waves for 5G technology. The importance of this point will depend on your view of the editorial and Kaufman’s work.
Finally, the theory that millimeter waves, or electromagnetic frequencies in general can cause a reaction is not unheard-of. In fact, it’s not even entirely outlandish to propose that exposure to EMFs could create a viral reaction. In 1997, a peer reviewed study was published entitled, “Exposure to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field induces activation of the Epstein-Barr virus genome in latently infected human lymphoid cells.” As it sounds, the researchers found that exposing a human lymphoid cell infected by the EBV genome to a 50 Hz EMF “resulted in an increased number of cells expressing the virus early antigens.” The researchers conclude that this is “additional evidence that DNA can be modulated by a magnetic field.”
Clearly, there is a need for more research on how DNA is affected by electromagnetic frequencies and fields. The editorial’s weak points should not take away from efforts to understand how our bodies and genetic material itself is altered by exposure to technologies which are now ubiquitous in modern life.
Overall, the editorial does not qualify as a debate-ending smoking gun which will cause a mass awakening. Instead, it seems to be yet another divisive topic which will be used by smug and dogmatic believers in the Scientific establishment to malign so-called “conspiracy theorists.” At the same time, the editorial’s removal will only further entrench the idea into the heads of true believers who take it as confirmation that the 5G-COVID-19 theory is correct and thus is being silenced by the predator class. As usual, it appears the truth is much more nuanced.
Also see Derrick’s recent video covering this study, “So About That 5G-COVID19 ‘Study’….”
Read the complete article here: https://www.naturalblaze.com/2020/07/does-a-newly-published-study-prove-the-5g-covid19-connection.html