I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
I'm a paragraph. Click here to add your own text and edit me. It's easy.
Conspiracy Archive
The 5G Conspiracy Theory
The Resitance
Not a claim, but more a collection of people making claims to the harm of EMF.
Section still in progress.
But they're providing help against the harm
There have been a number of products and people coming out of the woodwork selling their products amongst the confusion and hysteria around the anti-5G conspiracy theories.
On of the most transparent of these are Purelywave which sell crystals to help protect you from EMR.
Now healing crystals and this kind of woo don't work. But let's put that aside and assume they did. Is a necklace going to protect your head from radiowaves when you take a call and put it to your head?
Their own video makes it look like it reflect back or blocks the radiation, so logically it has to be inbetween you and the source.
Assume it works, their necklace application still wouldn't work. Doesn't stop them from exploiting people's anxiety over radiowaves to sell their snake oil.
Have a look on their website.
Energy healing and Reiki
Moon magic and crystals
Their website reads like a stoned hippie trying to be deep about the world around them while knowing absolutely nothing about how it actually works.
I'm quite grumpy in this one because they've been promoting this on my Facebook for weeks now and I'm tired of seeing it, especially when I see people saying they're going to buy this nonsense.
"To make them even more powerful, add some crystals to your moon magic rituals! Our recommendations are these beautiful Orgonite Pyramids and our Water Droplet Rose Quartz Necklace that you can fuel with full moon energies and then wear it on yourself for the rest of the month."
The next is a sponsored post by
Here's another sponsored post. That means he's paid to promote this post over Facebook.
So let's figure out what the motivation might be for this. Let's follow the link at the bottom.
What a suprise. He sells EMF protection. EMF protection pendants and phone tags.
This is from someone who claims to be all about the science. Would someone who is all about the science sell astrology products?
I originally replied with a big long thread which he has since deleted when I questioned his astrology and pendant scientific legitimacy.
He went on to claim all health institutions have vested interests and are corrupt, but wouldn't accept any conflict of interest on his part selling EMF protection pendants while promoting EMF harm on Facebook.
When debating him and looking on his website it was crystal clear that Powerwatch was his only source, and he hasn't read or evaluated the studies he was sharing as gospel. Whenever anyone would share extracts proving the opposite he would just accuse them of cherry-picking. You cannot cherry pick when examining someone elses evidence.
Let's get specific for a moment. He claims:
"1,670 peer-review, published studies showing the dangers of human-created EMFs."
You can go through this list yourself and see all of the extracts that don't support this. That makes his claim false.
Study #1 - "Despite the improved exposure assessment approach used in this study, no clear associations were identified. However, the results obtained for recent exposure to RF electric and magnetic fields are suggestive of a potential role in brain tumor promotion/progression and should be further investigated."
Study #2 - Is a meta analysis of different studies. "Ever use of wireless phones was not significantly associated with risk of adult glioma, but there could be increased risk in long-term users."
Study #3 - This evaluated electrical field strengths in Sweden. "The total mean level in the apartment fell from 3,810.8 to 78.8 µW/m2". This is well within the established safety levels. Who is the primary author? Lennart Hardell. He's an advocate for EMF harm and is a contributor to the Bio Initative report. EMF harm isn't part of this study, either. It's asserted that that's the case but they aren't studying that.
Study #4 - This simply aimed to evaluate EMF exposure by location and ultimate found that EMF exposure was highest in urban areas.
Study #5 - Is a study where scientists exposed rats to EMF radiation. It's worth noting that strength of the signal is not mentioned, only the frequency. "A total of 900-MHz EMF applied in middle and late adolescence may cause changes in the morphology and biochemistry of the rat ovarium."
OK, so if your initial claim was "1,670 peer-review, published studies showing the dangers of human-created EMFs", then we have a problem. Let's take out studies which show no or little risk. That removes study 1, 2 and 4. If we remove studies where the harm through EMF is asserted but not part of the study, we can remove 3. If we remove studies which aren't done on humans, or studies which don't specific the intensity of the radiowaves tested, we can remove 5.
None of these studies prove the harm of EMF on humans within the estabslished safety levels. So again, I don't think he's read them. You also can't claim to be scientific when you sell EMF pendants and astrology products.
Even if we kept all of these studies and say all 1670 are proof, then how flakey is your concept of proof? "no clear associations were identified", "electric and magnetic fields are suggestive of a potential role in brain tumor promotion", "not significantly associated with risk of adult glioma, but there could be increased risk", a study which doesn't study harm by EMF but actually studies the levels of EMF radiation present, a study which doesn't study harm at all, and a study where the vital information (electrical or magnetic field strength) is missing.
That is just the first 5 studies. No cherry-picking here. And here's the thing. If I present evidence for something and some of that information is wrong or doesn't support what I say it does, calling that out isn't cherry-picking. If your argument is predecated on a body of information, then the body of information has to be correct. To imply cherry-pickiung from examining evidence you're simply moving the goalposts which isn't scientific or logically consistent.
Since writing this, he has since responded.
