by Nathan Barnard
Globally conversations are covid centred. The virus has become the ubiquitous focus of global interaction, narratives and life, as Covid-19 has saturated and invaded every area of life. However, the global narrative espoused by governments and institutions does not challenge the status quo or the quagmire of lies regurgitated by the media in an attempt to control the population while demonising alternative views. Opinions such as the Wuhan lab theory and the link between covid-19 and 5G.
At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, anyone propagating the Wuhan lab theory was called a conspiracy theorist, even when Yan et al. (2020)  and Sorensen et al. (2020) refuted the natural origins theory by showing that the SARS-CoV-2 genome suggests sophisticated laboratory modifications had taken place. Additionally, Yan et al. (2020) showed in their research’ SARS-CoV-2 Is an unrestricted bioweapon: A truth revealed through uncovering a large-scale, organised scientific fraud’ that the virus could have been synthetically altered as a bioweapon at the Wuhan lab. Now both papers do not advocate that it was intentionally leaked but instead focus on the scientific evidence that a) refutes the natural origins theory and b) its origin was through scientific manipulation in the attempt to create a biological weapon.
However, any alternative view that challenged the status quo was vilified and bereted as a mere conspiracy theory within the media, government, and academia.  Thus anyone espousing or supporting such divergent views were locked out of conversations. Accordingly, through applying the label ‘conspiracy theorist’ to a person, one instantly and strategically excludes that person or narrative from engaging within social discourse, regardless of the legitimacy or truth of the conspiratorial-related utterance. Such exclusionary act symbolically strips the claimant from engaging as a credible and rational interlocutor within social discourse,  thus alienating them from any rational dialogue. Therefore the labelling of ‘conspiracy theory/ist’ when applied, elicits a controlling, discriminative and isolating response that opens the narrative and the interlocutor’s competence to bias attack, a response Cahill (2003) attributes to unconscious paradigm structures that traverse all aspects of society that support and espouse unconscious bias.
Moreover, the controlling mechanism that propagates unconscious bias is reinforced through powerful linguistic and semiotic practices that delegitimise ‘conspiracy theorists’ and prevent them from engaging as equals in social discourse.  Consequently, conspiracy theorists’ become outsiders, as they are judged and stigmatised as espousers of irrational and divergent thought – in essence, they have become the isolated societal leper.
However, governments worldwide now accept that the Wuhan lab theory is not a conspiracy but the most valid causation of the virus’ genesis.
The Wuhan lab leak is now the most likely origin of the coronavirus pandemic because Beijing tried to cover it up, MPs were told today. Harvard scientist Dr Alina Chan told the Science and Technology Select Committee that it is ‘reasonable’ to believe that Covid was genetically engineered in China … Dr Chan told MPs: ‘I think the lab origin is more likely than not. Right now, it’s not safe for people who know about the origin of the pandemic to come forward.
However, governments acceptance of such views has not vindicated those who espoused the Wuhan lab theory as fact. On the contrary, most people continue, through their unconscious bias that has been reinforced through powerful, government-sanctioned, linguistic and semiotic practices, to relegate alternative thoughts as mere conspiratorial – even within academia, a supposed space for critical discourse.
British Professor Angus Dalgleish and his colleagues, Dr Sorensen and Dr Susrud, research ‘A reconstructed historical aetiology of the SARS-Coronavirus-2 spike’ while concluded that the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not naturally occur but rather was genetically altered and thus supports instead the Wuhan Lab theory has faced discrimination by his peers.
Dr Tarlinton, an associate professor of veterinary virology at the University of Nottingham, asserted that Dalgleish and Sorrensen’s theory was ‘magical thinking’, highlights the stigma attached to holding alternative and challenging views. Furthermore, the Lancet published a statment made by 27 scientists stating:
We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.
However, in a UK parliamentary review, Lord Ridley slammed the Lancet for lack of transparency due to Dr Daszak’s links with the Wuhan laboratory and their role in orchestrating the letter quoted above.
In the grilling with MPs, Dr Horton insisted he did not know about the scientist’s connections to the lab’s so-called ‘bat woman’ Shi Zhengli – who did experimental research on coronaviruses coming from thousands of samples from the animal – until after the letter was published.
But he admitted that his opinion on the theory has now changed, calling it a ‘valid hypothesis that requires investigation’.
The wealth of evidence now available supporting the Wuhan Lab theory is overwhelming. Consequently, the suppression of information and the lack of transparency to inform people of the origins of the virus by governments and institutions continues to, not only, discriminate persons who seek to speak out, but also perpetuate the inscription of the lab theory as mere conspiratorial. Furthermore, while being inexcusable, the inaction continues to utilise the powerful linguistic and semiotic practices to control the populous to conform. An action tantamount to Stalinist Russia rather than a democratic society.
Alongside the release of information that proves the Wuhan Lab theory, new research has been conducted that clearly shows the link between coronavirus disease and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G, thus refuting the claims that such views are conspiratorial.
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the most appropriate model of disease causation is the epidemiological triad that consists of three interactive factors: 1) pathology – the agent, 2) the environment, and 3) the health of the person/host. Globally extensive research has been conducted into the risk factors associated with contracting Covid-19. However, this research has negated exploring environmental conditions.
Rubik and Brown (2021) astutely evidence the causal link between higher mortality rates of people contracting covid-19 within areas with 5G against those who live in areas without 5G. But why is this so, and should we be concerned?
There is a wealth of peer-reviewed literature available, going back to before World War II, on the biological effects of Wireless Communication Radiation (WCR). Research evidencing the negative impact WCR’s have on our health.
Organisms are electrochemical beings. Consequently, Low-level WCR from the plethora of devices we now have, such as mobile phones, Wi-Fi and smart meters, may disrupt the regulation of numerous physiological functions. The adverse effects from low-level WCR exposure are well documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals that can cause an increased risk of developing cancer,  changes to the reproductive system, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage, learning and memory, neurological disorders, increased free radical production, and endocrine changes. Mankind, due to earths low-level natural radiofrequency, cannot adapt to or combat heightened levels of unnatural radiation from the many technologies we use and rely upon.
Scientific peer-reviewed literature attests to the many dangers of even low levels of exposure to WCR, including 5G. The Soviet and Eastern European literature from 1960-1970 evident significant risks to our biology from levels more than 1000 times BELOW, 1 mW/cm2 – the guideline for maximum public exposure in the US. Additionally, European studies showed that exposure to levels below 0.001 mW/cm2 to be detrimental.
Furthermore, exposure to as little as 0.0005 to 0.001 mW/cm2 has been shown to reduce sperm levels and fragment DNA. Such exposure is evident in using an internet-connected laptop computer.  Furthermore, exposure to mobile phone base stations of levels 0.000006 – 0.00001 mW/cm2 produced significant changes to human stress hormones. Likewise, human exposure to mobile phone radiation at a rate of 0.00001 – 0.00005 mW/cm2 is linked to neurological problems, sleep and concentration problems, similar to microwave sickness.  In addition, animal studies showed that animals placed near a WCR at a rate of 0.000168 – 0.001053 mW/cm2 showed a progressive decrease in the number of newborns that resulted in infertility.
The adverse effects of WCR on a person’s health are well documented, which the above examples are more than concerning. However, what is especially concerning is that the studies clearly evident the adverse effects are produced at much lower levels than that is permitted. Furthermore, a report published by the US Naval Medical Research Institute in 1972 referenced 3700 biological effects of WCR.  More recent studies conducted by Di Ciaula (2018), Russell (2018), and Belpomme et al. (2018), to mention a few, outline the dangers of WCR and 5G upon mankind. Thus, why are we allowing the pervasive use of such technology?
What is alarming is that current research shows that due to the adverse effects of WCR and its ability to reduce the effectiveness of a person’s immune system, it assists in the transmission and spread of Covid-19. Furthermore, the greater the exposure to WCR, the greater the propensity to die from the virus.
Rubik and Brown (2021) study concluded stating:
Evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic 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 dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.
For those who may refute Rubik and Brown’s research, Tsaing and Havas (2021) research concur with Rubik and Brown’s findings. Likewise, Tsaing and Havas state that while 5G did not cause covid-19, it contributes significantly to its spread and high mortality rates.
Within this article, we see overwhelming evidence within academic literature that refutes the claim that both the Wuhan lab theory and 5G are correlated to covid-19 morbidity rates and are thus not conspiratorial views. But instead, they are academically proven theories. Additionally, refuting such claims shows the lack of transparency within the government and its agenda to control the people and the narratives.
Furthermore, we see how that even when some media outlets inform people of the truth is of little effect due to the psychological programming that people are bombarded with that draws on subconscious paradigm structures and bias and utilises powerful linguistic and semiotic practices.
The reality is, the truth is out there. It is available for people to find if they seek it out. But, if the government and media are espousing lies regarding the origins of the virus and 5G what else are they not informing people?
While within this article, I have endeavoured to reveal certain trust and refute the lies espoused by various institutions, organisations, and governments. There is a greater truth that people must grasp.
Humanity is going through a series of events that will ultimately decide a person’s eternal destiny. Many today sound the alarm regarding the communist takedown of society. However, the reality is that the New World Order is nothing more than what the Bible refers to as the Beast system of the antichrist – a system that is the antithesis of God. However, while society today advocates for many gods or no god and argues the devil is not real, the reality is that such thoughts are not only fictional but are also perilous.
The reality is, there is only one true God which the Bible reveals who He is and His character to us. However, the devil, the father of lies, seeks to prevent anyone from knowing who God is and the truth of our existence.
We all have a choice. We either believe the lies or seek to know the truth. The reality is that all religions are false. Truth is only found in the one true God, YHVH, who sent His son Jesus – Yeshua to pay the price for humanities sin so that they could be reconciled and know God. Now you might say, is not Christianity a religion? It has become that to some, but to followers of Messiah – Jesus, it is a way of life, a relationship and faith. Belief in God is not about religion. That is a lie. It is about a personal relationship with the creator – our heavenly Father.
Time is short. Soon we will witness further Biblical events unfolding. The question is will you seek out the most critical truth. A truth that has eternal consequences, or will you dismiss what I say as mere religious chatter?
I pray that you will seek out the truth. That you will find it before it is too late.
For those reading who are believers of God and followers of the Messiah, are you living a life that brings honour to God? Does your life emulate that of Messiah? Furthermore, what are you doing to inform others of the days we are living? Are you ready for Messiah’s return?
May the LORD bless and keep you!
 Yan, L., Kang, S., Guan, J., and Hu, S. (2020). Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4028830
 Sorensen, B., Dalgleish, A., & Susrud, A., (2020). The evidence which suggests that this is no naturally evolved virus: A reconstructed historical aetiology of the SARS-CoV-2 spike. Semantic Scholar, available from https://www.minervanett.no/files/2020/07/13/TheEvidenceNoNaturalEvol.pdf
 Yan, L., Kang, S., Guan, J., and Hu, S. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 Is an unrestricted bioweapon: A truth revealed through uncovering a large-scale, organised scientific fraud. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4073131
 Imhoff, R. and Lamberty, P. (2020). A bioweapon or a hoax? The link between distinct conspiracy beliefs about coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak and pandemic behaviour. Social psychological and personality science, 11(8). Pp. 1110-1118. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1948550620934692
 Ahmed, W., Vidal-Alaball, J., Downing, J., and Segui, F.L. (2020). Dangerous Messages or Satire? Analysing the
Conspiracy Theory Linking 5G to COVID-19 through Social Network Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, https://doi.org/10.2196/19458
 Fenster, M. (1999). Conspiracy theories: Secrecy and power in American culture. University of Minnesota Press.
 Husting, G., & Orr, M. (2007).
 Cahill, SE (2003). Transversing intra-,inter-,and transpersonal communication: The larcenous leads of Peter M. Hall. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 26, 5-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(02)26006-8
 Cahill, (2003).
 Husting and Orr (2007)
 Boswell, J.(May 28, 2021). EXCLUSIVE: COVID-19 ‘has NO credible natural ancestor’ and WAS created by Chinese scientists who then tried to cover their tracks with ‘retro-engineering’ to make it seem like it naturally arose from bats, explosive new study claims. Mail online, available from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629563/Chinese-scientists-created-COVID-19-lab-tried-cover-tracks-new-study-claims.html
 Sorensen, B., Dalgleish, A., & Susrud, A., (2021). A reconstructed historical aetiology of the SARS-Coronavirus-2 spike. Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics Discovery.
 Boswell, J. (May 28, 2021).
 Rubik, B., & Brown, R.R. (2021). Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure
to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G. journal of clinical and Translational Research, 7(5)., pp. 666-681.
 Bortkiewicz, A., Gadzicka, E., & Szymczak, W. (2017). Mobile Phone Use and Risk for Intracranial Tumors and Salivary Gland Tumors A Meta-analysis. International Journal Occupational Med Environmental Health,30. pp.27-43.
 Asghari, A,. Khaki, A.A., Rajabzadeh, A., & Khaki, A. (2016). A Review on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and the Reproductive System. Electron Physician, 8(7). pp. 2655-62. https://doi.org/10.19082/2655
 Zhang, J., Sumich, A., Wang, G.Y. (2017). Acute Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Emitted by Mobile Phone on Brain Function. Bioelectromagnetics, 38(5), pp. 329-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.22052
 Pall, M.L. (2016). Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. J Chem Neuroanat, 75(Pt B), pp.43-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.08.001
 Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2016). Oxidative Mechanisms of Biological Activity of Low-intensity Radiofrequency Radiation. Electromagn Biol Med., 35(2), pp.186-202 https://doi.org/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557
 Sangün, Ö., Dündar, B., Çömlekçi, S., & Büyükgebiz, A. (2016). The Effects of Electromagnetic Field on the Endocrine System in Children and Adolescents. Pediatr Endocrinol Rev., 13(2), pp.531-45.
 Rubik and Brown.
 Avendano, C., Mata, A., Sanchez, S.C.A., & Doncei, G.F. (2012). Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet through Wi-Fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm DNA Fragmentation. Fertil Steril, 97(1), pp.39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.012
 Buchner, K., & Eger, H. (2011). Changes of Clinically Important Neurotransmitters under the Influence of Modulated RF Fields a Long-term Study Under Real-life Conditions Umwelt Medizin Gesellschaft, 24(1), pp. 44-57.
 Navarro, E.A., Segura, J., Portoles, M., & Gomez-Perretta, C. (2003). The Microwave Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Spain. Electromagn Biol Med., 22(2-3), pp.161-9
 Hutter, H.P., Moshammer, H., Wallner, P., & Kundi, M. (2006). Subjective Symptoms, Sleeping Problems, and Cognitive Performance in Subjects Living Near Mobile Phone Base Stations. Occup Environ Med., 63(5), pp.307-13. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2005.020784
 Magras, I.N., & Xenos, T.D. (1997). RF Radiation-induced Changes in the Prenatal Development of Mice. Bioelectromagnetics, 18(6), pp.455-61.
 Glaser ZR. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation, Research Report. Project MF12.524.015-00043, Report No. 2. Bethesda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute; 1972. p. 1-103.
 Glaser ZR, Brown PF, Brown MS. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (Effects) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio Frequency Radiation: Compilation and Integration of Report and Seven Supplements. Bethesda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute; 1976. p. 1-178.
 Belpomme, D., Hardell, L., Belyaev, I., & Burgio, E.(2018). Carpenter DO. Thermal and Non-thermal Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-ionizing Radiation: An International Perspective (Review). Environ Pollut, 242, pp. 643-58 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019
 Rubik & Brown (2021).
 Tsaing, A., & Havas, M. (2021). COVID-19 Attributed Cases and Deaths are Statistically Higher in States and Counties with 5th Generation Millimeter Wave Wireless Telecommunications in the United States. ESMED, 9(4), pp.2-32. https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v9i4.2371