MAKIA FREEMAN: “The Wireless Radiation-COVID Connection”

A new study from January 2021 analyzes the close similarities and effects that EMF radiation and COVID have on the human body. While the study doesn’t prove causation, it shows a preponderence of evidence that wireless radiation effects could easily be called ‘COVID.’

The wireless radiation-COVID connection cannot be ignored if one is truly committed to discovering the underlying medical causes of whatever this COVID thing is. I have dedicated most of my articles to exposing the scamdemic, the fake death count, the fake numbers, the fake PCR test, the fake vaccine, the non-existent virus and more. However, I am writing this to bring some focus back to what could be a major factor in causing the genuine and legitimate illness some people have experienced from what is called COVID. Early on in the pandemic I talked about the 5G-coronavirus connection. Now, I’d like to broaden the focus to EMF (Electromagnetic Fields or Frequencies) and RFR (Radio Frequency Radiation) in general, both of which are forms of non-ionizing radiation. A study this year from January 2021 entitled “Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Telecommunications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves” analyzes this theme and finds some compelling evidence to support the radiation-COVID connection.

Uncovering the Wireless Radiation-COVID Connection

A hallmark of Operation Coronavirus has been the invention of an entirely new disease (COVID-19) with such broad and vague symptoms that virtually anything, but especially the common cold, flu and pneumonia, could be reclassified and recategorized as this new disease. My April 2020 article pointed out how it was crucial to avoid the trap of thinking COVID was some new thing, when there was not 1 disease and not 1 cause. That being said, it is beyond coincidence that many COVID symptoms match up with many effects of radiation exposure. The authors of the study state they have examined “a large body of peer reviewed literature, since before World War II, on the biological effects of wireless radiation that impact many aspects of our health” and that from this research they were able to discover “intersections between the pathophysiology of COVID-19 and detrimental bioeffects of wireless radiation exposure.” Pathophysiology is defined as “a convergence of pathology with physiology” and is the study of the “disordered physiological processes that cause, result from, or are otherwise associated with a disease or injury.” In simple English, the study found that many of the so-called effects or symptoms blamed on COVID are identical or remarkably similar to ones caused by wireless radiation.

Hypoxia and Hypoxemia

Let’s start with these 2 terms, hypoxia and hypoxemia, which both refer to conditions of under-oxygenation in the body. In the article Masks Cause Damage: Study Reveals Mask-Hypoxia-Blood Clot Connection, I highlighted how wearing masks limits oxygen intake which can then lead to potentially fatal blood clots. This study also found very similar effects between EMF/RFR and COVID when analyzing the blood:

“Two recent studies documented the formation of erythrocyte aggregates (Havas, 2013) and erythrocyte aggregates and echinocyte formation upon human exposure to 4G-LTE smart phone radiation (microwaves) (Rubik, 2014) … Exposure to radiation from a cell phone for two consecutive 45-minute periods caused two types of effects: initially increased stickiness of peripheral red blood cells and rouleaux formation (rolls of stacked red blood cells) and subsequently formation of echinocytes (spiky red blood cells). Similar red blood cell changes have been described in peripheral blood of COVID-19 patients (Lakhdari et al., 2020). Rouleaux formation is observed in 1/3 of COVID-19 patients, whereas spherocytes and echinocytes have been observed at variable levels. Rouleaux formation impedes the microcirculation. These blood changes may also impede oxygen transport, contributing to hypoxia, and increase the risk of thrombosis (Wagner et al., 2013) and therefore stroke, which can manifest in COVID … In short, both RFR exposure and COVID-19 can cause deleterious effects on red blood cells and reduced hemoglobin levels contributing to hypoxia in COVID.”

The tendency for blood to coagulate (thicken) in dangerous ways accompanies both EMF and COVID, and has been pointed out by doctors such as Dr. Robert Young who speaks of the corona effect. Coincidentally (or not), the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine (one of the COVID vaccines which is not a mRNA vaccine) is being suspended by 20+ nations due to its apparent tendency to cause blood clots. Hmmm…

Oxidative Stress

Next, the study found that that oxidative stress was another indicator of a radiation-COVID connection. It defines oxidative stress as a “condition reflecting an imbalance between an increased production of ROS [Reactive Oxygen Species] and an inability of the organism to detoxify the ROS or to repair the damage they cause to biomolecules and tissue”:

“Immune dysregulation … has been identified in the cytokine storm accompanying severe COVID-19 infections and generates oxidative stress (Cecchini and Cecchini, 2020). Oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction may further perpetuate the cytokine storm, worsening tissue damage, and increasing the risk of severe illness and death. Similarly low-level RFR generates ROS in cells that cause oxidative damage. In fact, oxidative stress is considered as one of the primary mechanisms in which RFR exposure causes cellular damage. Among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies investigating oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, 93 studies confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems (Yakymenko et al., 2015) … Oxidative stress is also an accepted mechanism causing endothelial damage (Higashi et al., 2009). This may manifest in patients with severe COVID-19 in addition to increasing the risk for blood clot formation and worsening hypoxemia (Cecchini and Cecchini, 2020).”

Immune Dysregulation, Calcium Levels, Heart Disease and More

The study proceeds to look at all the ways that COVID elicits the same kind of response as EMF radiation, including the immune response, intracellular calcium levels, heart disease and arrythmias. In all cases, there is strong evidence of a radiation-COVID connection:

“In short, COVID-19 can lead to immune dysregulation as well as cytokine storm. By comparison, exposure to low-level RFR as observed in animal studies can also compromise the immune system, with chronic daily exposure producing immunosuppression or immune dysregulation including hyperactivation … cardiac arrhythmias are more commonly encountered in critically ill patients with COVID … regarding RFR exposure bioeffects, in 1969 Christopher Dodge of the Biosciences Division, U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington DC, reviewed 54papers and reported that RFR can adversely affects all major systems of the body, including impeding blood circulation; altering blood pressure and heart rate;affecting electrocardiograph readings; and causing chest pain and heart palpitations (Dodge, 1969). In the 1970s Glaser reviewed more than 2000 publications on RFR exposure bioeffects and concluded that microwave radiation can alter the ECG (electrocardiogram), cause chest pain, hypercoagulation, thrombosis, and hypertension in addition to myocardial infarction (Glaser, 1971; 1976).”

The study also specifically mentions 5G:

“Most recently, Bandara and Weller (2017) present evidence that people who live near radar installations (millimeter waves: 5G frequencies) have a greater risk of developing cancer and experiencing heart attacks. Similarly, those occupationally exposed have a greater risk of coronary heart disease. Microwave radiation affects the heart, and some people are more vulnerable if they have an underlying heart abnormality (Cleary, 1969). In short, both COVID–19 and RFR exposure can affect the heart and cardiovascular system, directly and/or indirectly.”

The Conclusion of the Study

The point of the study was not to prove causation, but rather to show there is some kind of radiation-COVID connection that needs to be further investigated. The authors write that:

“evidence from the literature summarized here suggests a connection between several adverse health effects of RFR exposure and the clinical course of COVID-19. The evidence indicates that RFR may weaken the host, exacerbate COVID-19 disease, and thereby worsen the pandemic. This evidence presented here does not claim causation. Clearly COVID-19 occurs in regions with little wireless communication. In addition, the relative morbidity caused by RFR exposure in COVID-19 is unknown. The question of causation could be investigated in controlled laboratory experiments.”

Here is their conclusion:

“We conclude that RFR and, in particular, 5G, which involves 4G infrastructure densification, has exacerbated COVID-19 prevalence and severity by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune system dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) augmenting intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders. In short, RFR is a ubiquitous environmental stressor that contributes to adverse health outcomes of COVID-19. We invoke the Precautionary Principle and strongly recommend a moratorium on 5G wireless infrastructure…”

This study is not the first to make the connection between 5G/RFR and COVID. As I covered in my article 5G Induces Coronaviruses: New Study Models Millimeter Wave Influence on DNA, there have been other attempts analyzing this, although that study was later retracted.

Final Thoughts on the Radiation-COVID Connection

It’s always going to be more sexy and spectacular to sell a story of a killer virus rather than explain that each individual is responsible for their own state of health according to how well they cultivate, much like a farmer, their own inner bio-terrain. It’s always going to be more preferable for Big Gov and the Corporatocracy to blame an invisible enemy rather than admit that, in their unbridled quest for domination and control, their poisoning of the environment – even if by unseen frequencies in the airwaves – is contributing to major disease and sickness in the population. It’s just too easy and convenient for the dark forces that rule this world to blame it all on a virus, especially when the alleged effects of a coronavirus so closely mimic the effects of EMF radiation. The COVID op is a chance for us to wake up to a broader picture of reality, particularly in terms of understanding health, disease, viruses, radiation and the worldwide conspiracy.


* * * * *


Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles, author of the book Cancer: The Lies, the Truth and the Solutions and senior researcher at













~via The Freedom Articles

RYAN CRISTIAN: “‘Scientists Say’ We Should Have Lithium In Our Water To Reduce Suicide”

This is an excerpt of The Daily Wrap Up 8/7.



~via The Last American Vagabond

DERRICK BROZE: “#FluorideTrial August 2020 Update”

Derrick Broze breaks down the latest on the #FluorideTrial #FluorideLawsuit



~via The Conscious Resistance

DERRICK BROZE: “Another New Study Points to the Dangers of Geoengineering the Climate”

“Geoengineering is a field of research investigating methods to deliberately manipulate the climate in an attempt to fight climate change. Coincidentally, this dangerous science has been funded in part by none other than Bill Gates. Prominent geoengineering researcher Ken Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoengineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft. If this field of research poses such a grave danger to the planet why are technocrats like Bill Gates funding these efforts? Are these efforts related to Gates’ eugenics agenda? We leave that determination up to the reader.”

~Derrick Broze


A new study from Massachusetts Institute of Technology is adding to the growing list of concerns around the controversial science of geoengineering. Researchers have found that geoengineering techniques could significantly change extratropical storms and introduce changes to the climate.

Geoengineering is a field of research investigating methods to deliberately manipulate the climate in an attempt to fight climate change. One of these methods is known as solar radiation management (SRM). Proposals for SRM suggest that scientists might be able to replicate the results seen from volcano eruptions. MIT reports:

“How can the world combat the continued rise in global temperatures? How about shading the Earth from a portion of the sun’s heat by injecting the stratosphere with reflective aerosols? After all, volcanoes do essentially the same thing, albeit in short, dramatic bursts: When a Vesuvius erupts, it blasts fine ash into the atmosphere, where the particles can linger as a kind of cloud cover, reflecting solar radiation back into space and temporarily cooling the planet.”

Researchers have proposed using planes, balloons, or blimps to spray various aerosols into the atmosphere in the hopes of reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet. This type of geoengineering is extremely controversial and previous studies have linked the technology to potentially dangerous outcomes for various parts of the planet.

Now a research team lead by Charles Gertler, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS), has found that “solar geoengineering will not simply reverse climate change. Instead, it has the potential itself to induce novel changes in climate.” Gertler and his team have published the results in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Specifically, Gertler’s team found that solar geoengineering could alter what are known as extratropical storm tracks. MIT describes storm tracks as “the zones in the middle and high latitudes where storms form year-round and are steered by the jet stream across the oceans and land.” These storm tracks help create extratropical cyclones, and the strength of the storm tracks determine the severity and frequency of storms known as “nor’easters.” A nor’easter is a storm along the East Coast of North America in which the winds over the coastal area are typically from the northeast.

The researchers used a scenario of solar geoengineering known to climate scientists as experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). This project provides various geoengineering scenarios for scientists to run to determine various climate effects. G1 assumes an ideal scenario in which geoengineering blocks enough solar radiation to act as a counterbalance with the warming that would occur if carbon dioxide concentration quadruples.

The team found that the strength of storm tracks in both the northern and southern hemispheres weakened significantly in response to geoengineering. This would mean less powerful storms in the winter, but the researchers say the weaker storm tracks could “lead to stagnant conditions, particularly in summer, and less wind to clear away air pollution.” These changes in wind could also affect circulation of ocean water and the stability of ice sheets.

“A weakened storm track, in both hemispheres, would mean weaker winter storms but also lead to more stagnant weather, which could affect heat waves,” Gertler says. “Across all seasons, this could affect ventilation of air pollution. It also may contribute to a weakening of the hydrological cycle, with regional reductions in rainfall. These are not good changes, compared to a baseline climate that we are used to.”

Gertler further stated that his work indicates that “solar geoengineering is not reversing climate change, but is substituting one unprecedented climate state for another.” In the conclusion to their study the researchers note that “there likely exist other consequences of solar geoengineering that the simulations studied here are unable to simulate.”

Previous Studies Also Show Danger

The concerns surrounding geoengineering are widely known to anyone following the research. Claims that geoengineering could be employed without significantly altering the planet or without making things worse were rebuffed by a number of experts.

Alan Robock, a climate and aerosols expert at Rutgers University who previously conducted research for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has said that researchers claiming that there will be no significant effect do not take into account the reality that geoengineering may have additional side effects, like warming certain parts of the atmosphere, changing atmospheric circulation, or affecting the ozone layer.

“I do not agree that ’no area will be significantly worse off under a solar geo-engineering scenario’,” Robock has said. “Worse as compared to what? If we rapidly begin mitigation now, that is rapidly reduce our CO2 emissions to zero by switching our power to wind and solar, we will be much better off than a business-as-usual future, or one with geoengineering.”

Interestingly, Robock has previously stated that he believes the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may already be using geoengineering techniques as a weapon of war. In 2015, while speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Jose, California, Robock stated he was phoned by two men claiming to be from the CIA, asking whether or not it was possible for hostile governments to use geoengineering, or mass manipulation of the weather, against the United States.

The public and scientific community should examine all of the available evidence which currently shows geoengineering might lead to potential loss of blue skies, lower crop yields, and increases in land and water temperature.

According to a study published in Nature, geoengineering could lead to lower crop yields. This study is not the first to point out the dangers of beginning geoengineering programs. According to a 2013 study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, if geoengineering programs were started and then suddenly halted, the planet could see an immediate rise in temperatures, particularly over land.

Another study published in February 2015 by an international committee of scientists stated that geoengineering techniques are not a viable alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat the effects of climate change. The committee report called for further research and understanding of various geoengineering techniques, including carbon dioxide removal schemes and solar-radiation management (SRM), before implementation. The scientists found that SRM techniques are likely to present “serious known and possible unknown environmental, social, and political risks, including the possibility of being deployed unilaterally.”

In October 2018, the United Nations IPCC issued a report that essentially called for climate engineering as the “last ditch” option to save humanity from environmental disaster. This option is one step closer to reality now that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is scheduled to receive $4 million in funding. The more geoengineering becomes a reality the more that calls are being made for a global governance framework to guide these programs. It’s becoming apparent that calls for geoengineering will serve as a gateway to global government.

Coincidentally, this dangerous science has been funded in part by none other than Bill Gates. As TLAV previously reported, since 2007 Gates had given $4.5 million to study geoengineering methods for altering the stratosphere to reflect solar energy, techniques to filter carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, and brightening ocean clouds. Geoengineering is the deliberate mass scale manipulation of the weather for the stated purpose of reducing heating on the planet.

The Guardian previously noted that Gates gives “an undisclosed sum” to geoengineering proponent and Harvard professor David Keith. Gates also owns majority stake in Keith’s geoengineering company, Carbon Engineering. Prominent geoengineering researcher Ken Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoengineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

If this field of research poses such a grave danger to the planet why are technocrats like Bill Gates funding these efforts? Are these efforts related to Gates’ eugenics agenda? We leave that determination up to the reader.


Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.


See source article for reference links


~via The Last American Vagabond

DERRICK BROZE: “#FluorideTrial Week 2 Recap, What’s Next?”



~via The Conscious Resistance