No, the coronavirus didn't come from outer space. We promise.

[Truthseeker007]

Science doesn't use "common sense" because we research what we were not familiar with. If anything it uses "uncommon" sense.

It is exactly since evolution - which is the best tested science we have - underlies biology that we know that COVID-19 (or life, if that is what you refer to) did not come from space but evolved locally. I already linked to COVID-19 evolution. Evolution of life: https://www.nature.com/articles/nmicrobiol2016116 - life evolved in alkaline hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the the global ocean.

So you are saying life evolved on Earth from nothing. How can something come from nothing? I don't buy it. Did the Earth come from nothing also?lol! Your theories are as bad as the flat earthers.

 

[Truthseeker007]

What geo-engineering?

Radio waves do not affect the immune system.

This is all conspiracy theory.

Yours is all coincidental theory. Everything is not a coincidence.

Wrong!

Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health

Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, ce…

www.sciencedirect.com

Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism.

 

[Truthseeker007]

A planet's ocean - or even a planet - is not large (cosmological) scale. As comic Dara O'Briain says:

“Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”

[ https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/55...esn-t-know-everything-otherwise-it-d-stop-but ]

Well you said it yourself and why is it you think you know everything? I do great research down the rabbit hole. Most won't dive in the rabbit hole but only look at the mainstream angle. Everything is considered a conspiracy theory that don't go along with the "mainstream reality" a "Propaganda Machine" owned by 6 different corporations?

 

[Yevaud]

The concept of Panspermia is all fine and well, but expecting a space-borne pathogen to identically conform to known Earth variants is a bit much, yeah.

 

[Ed Aculeus]

We do know 99.9 % of the universe on large scale, i.e. cosmology describing the universe, we "know it all" in some sense which earlier generations did not (a 2 decades old knowledge). But specifically here we know that cells and all viruses share a common genetic machinery, that is the best tested observation of all of science with a factor 10^2000+ higher likelihood than several common ancestors. That is a promise, near as science can do.

On the other hand, it is pretty bold - and mistaken - to wave the strawman of not knowing everything as a reason to not know anything.

And we now know that marine plankton can survive on the outside of the ISS, perhaps for years. How does this not help the panspermia thesis? https://www.iflscience.com/space/marine-plankton-found-surface-international-space-station/

 

[dfjchem721]

The biggest mystery in this whole story is how T, who usually posts a well conceived and meaured response, came up with the odds of 10^2000+! (That is a very large number.)

Why not?! It seems likely the only thing that is infinite is numbers...... And probably the most infinitely unlikely event is panspermia (without a "space ship", that is).

 

[Truthseeker007]

What geo-engineering?

Radio waves do not affect the immune system.

This is all conspiracy theory.

Your a conspiracy theory. I don't know that you exist and you could just be a bot.

And guess what you are wrong:

Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health

Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, ce…

www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract

Repeated Wi-Fi studies show that Wi-Fi causes oxidative stress, sperm/testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects including EEG changes, apoptosis, cellular DNA damage, endocrine changes, and calcium overload. Each of these effects are also caused by exposures to other microwave frequency EMFs, with each such effect being documented in from 10 to 16 reviews. Therefore, each of these seven EMF effects are established effects of Wi-Fi and of other microwave frequency EMFs. Each of these seven is also produced by downstream effects of the main action of such EMFs, voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. While VGCC activation via EMF interaction with the VGCC voltage sensor seems to be the predominant mechanism of action of EMFs, other mechanisms appear to have minor roles. Minor roles include activation of other voltage-gated ion channels, calcium cyclotron resonance and the geomagnetic magnetoreception mechanism.

Five properties of non-thermal EMF effects are discussed. These are that pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, more active than are non-pulsed EMFs; artificial EMFs are polarized and such polarized EMFs are much more active than non-polarized EMFs; dose-response curves are non-linear and non-monotone; EMF effects are often cumulative; and EMFs may impact young people more than adults. These general findings and data presented earlier on Wi-Fi effects were used to assess the Foster and Moulder (F&M) review of Wi-Fi. The F&M study claimed that there were seven important studies of Wi-Fi that each showed no effect. However, none of these were Wi-Fi studies, with each differing from genuine Wi-Fi in three distinct ways. F&M could, at most conclude that there was no statistically significant evidence of an effect. The tiny numbers studied in each of these seven F&M-linked studies show that each of them lack power to make any substantive conclusions. In conclusion, there are seven repeatedly found Wi-Fi effects which have also been shown to be caused by other similar EMF exposures. Each of the seven should be considered, therefore, as established effects of Wi-Fi.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-00261R000200110002-0.pdf

Thus, the frequency spectrum to be studied is 30 MHz to 300 GHZ

Microwave radiation does not produce photochemical reactions. However, microwave energy is absorbed by biological systems and ultimately dissipates into tissue as heat and can cause cataracts of the eye, damage to internal organs, or upset the central nervous system.


Bio-medical effects of microwave radiation vary with the power and frequency of the radiation and the duration of exposure. The Soviets have reported physiological effects at levels as low as 1 microwatt/cm2 and below. However, most United States scientists would agree that, in most cases, detrimental health effects do not occur at levels below 1 mW/cm2

Serious health concerns
First, it’s important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.

Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:

• DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer)
• oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing)
• disruption of cell metabolism
• increased blood-brain barrier permeability
• melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks)
• disruption of brain glucose metabolism
• generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases)

As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners. The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people’s homes and workplaces–basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It’s no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.



Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin. This letter to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it’s generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer’s dimensions. But MMW’s violate this condition.

Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin’s upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G’s increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology

https://eluxemagazine.com/culture/articles/dangers-of-5g/

 

[Screenworks]

<<Spam post removed by moderator>>

Notice nobody responded to the first and only comment here worth responding to. What does that say about the author? And his supporters?

Sadly we see this all the time with poorly researched and written articles. Or articles with an agenda. Such as this one. I hope your effort here is fruitful, George.