6 ms·

If you think this is just bunk, and you'd like a laugh, read the FAQs on the website [1]... My favourite: >Does the device remove the EMF from the environment

If you think this is just bunk, and you'd like a laugh, read the FAQs on the website [1]... My favourite: >Does the device remove the EMF from the environment? If so can I use a meter to measure EMF? >>The 'electro magnetic meter' can only measure the intensity of radiation which is not changed by our technology nor does it change the quality of connection and speed of data transfer. Well, that's convenient, isn't it? >>Our device harmonises all harmful frequencies into life affirming frequencies - it doesn't block - it transmutes. I note there is no mention of which frequencies are 'harmful' and which are 'life affirming' - which would be even more useful given the frequency range of a WiFi or Cellular device, so you'd know which is which... >> The only methods that we know can measure the difference between imbalanced radiation (without protection) and balanced radiation (with protection) These positive test results can be found on our website - please look for 'Case Study ' under Science and Research tab. The Case Study starts with this paragraph: >>In our civilization is emerging new science based on knowledge, whereas the official (old) science is based on information. We get information through our senses which are dual and deliver us an inverted picture of the truth and consequently, information is the opposite of knowledge so that all the old scientific concepts are therefore the upside down of the true concepts. Do people actually believe this nonsense? It sounds like the kind of thing that Russell Brand was wittering about a couple of years ago - that your senses are the only way to interface with reality, and if you can't sense it it's not there, etc... Which can be disproved in seconds, even by a 10-year old child. I find it profoundly depressing when this kind of bamboozlement of the gullible is done in the form of sciency language. And it always seems to be done with a big price tag at the end of it. [1] https://5gbioshield.com/frequently-asked-questions/ https://5gbioshield.com/frequently-asked-questions/

hoppla 6y ago
If it interferes with radio transmissions, an fcc (or equivalent for your country) complaint is in order?
- Faaak 6y ago
  It does not; it's a sticker on an USB stick
  - gambiting 6y ago
    So I wonder about legality of it - devices that interfere with wireless communications are illegal....so what about a device that says that it does, but in fact it does not? I guess the description is crafted in such a way that it doesn't actually say it interferes, just that it "harmonizes" the fields, whatever that means.
    - profmonocle 6y ago
      I assume there's no law in the UK against "harmonising all harmful frequencies into life affirming frequencies" since that's not a real thing. Laws against false advertising on the other hand...
      - trent_lott 6y ago
        It's does absorb the field and change its shape. Not very extensively, but such is life.
    - matthewheath 6y ago
      It may potentially be illegal, given that "deliberate interference" is a criminal offence contrary to section 68 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. [0] ~~~ (1) A person commits an offence if he uses apparatus for the purpose of interfering with wireless telegraphy. (2) This section applies— (a) whether or not the apparatus in question is wireless telegraphy apparatus; ... ~~~ Obviously, the "purpose" of the person using the anti-5G USB stick would need to be established. Given the law doesn't mention anything about having any effect on wireless telegraphy, presumably as long as mens rea is established the offence is made out. There are also other potential offences around consumer misselling, false advertising, etc. --- [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/part/3/crossheading/deliberate-interference http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/part/3/crosshead...
ben_w 6y ago
> Do people actually believe this nonsense? It sounds like the kind of thing that Russell Brand was wittering about a couple of years ago Probably. My mum was a New-Age type, so I grew up with homeopathic pills explicitly labelled as “sodium chloride”, “silicon dioxide”, and “titanium dioxide”, while being told my brother and I were “typical” for our astrological star signs. She was big on dowsing with wands and pendulums and thought crystals had personalities and could jump out of your hand. When I was young she expressed sadness that my older brother no longer believed in chakras, and the last time she met my (now ex) girlfriend, she expressed sadness to her that I didn’t believe in Orgone energy. She was also taking Bach flower remedies for memory right up until she got Alzheimer’s.
- inscartwheelies 6y ago
  Table salt, sand, and food-grade white pigment respectively. Also: Sorry you went through that decline at the end. :'(
  - acqq 6y ago
    > table salt, sand, and food-grade white pigment But it's often not in dangerous quantities, because homeopathy believes that the less of something is present somewhere it works better, and it's called "dynamization" or "potentization" by the producers, diluting the material sometimes to the point that in thousands of sold pills, counted together, there can't be more than one single molecule! The process then practically guarantees that there aren't dangerous substances in the pill or "solution". Heh. The "less potent" pills or solutions can actually have some amounts of the stuff named on them, beware of those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions "24X 12C 10−24 Has a 60% probability of containing one molecule of original material if one mole of the original substance was used." "26X 13C 10−26 If pure water were used as the diluent, no molecules of the original solution remain in the water." Edit: regarding the 5G issue, an article where about Glastonbury Town Council report, where the 5G USB "solution" was mentioned by "Non-Councillor Advisory Committee Member" (I have no idea what that means): https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/health/5g-coronavirus-bioshield-glastonbury-report-4152435 https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/health/5g-coronavirus-bi...
bambataa 6y ago
> Do people actually believe this nonsense? Yes. I have moved past thinking we need to protect people from this kind of thing. If they believe it, let them buy it. The only harm their ignorance is doing is to themselves. They might even get some kind of placebo reassurance from it.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  I'm not advocating for eradicating stupid ideas to protect fools; but sometimes fools do very stupid things, and they don't just hurt themselves. See: the 5G arsons in the UK.
  - bambataa 6y ago
    Well, prosecute them for arson. If they want to spend hundreds of pounds on a stick that's their business. All we can try and do is contain stupidity.
- ragebol 6y ago
  > The only harm their ignorance is doing is to themselves. Is it? People might hurt their kids etc by not vaccinating them. And if enough people believe this nonsense, they are very prone to voting for other idiots, which should have an effect on all of us.
- simonh 6y ago
  The problem is this came up because this device was recommended at a town council meeting. The representative even argued for the town getting a device to protect the whole area, so this is far beyond just a private issue. Also there have been several cases of these people damaging or destroying 5G equipment, which is infrastructure the public rely on and ultimately pay for (through fees, regulatory costs, etc).
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    In fairness, there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G other than "it's a witch" or whatever the new theory is. I think these people have a vague anxiety that new technologies do not further their interests, because every time a new one comes out it is used to depress wages or surveil people. They don't know enough about technology to formulate a sane objection, so they latch on to "5G is evil black magic." Remember, for a lot of people in the world most technologies are magic. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-...
rmrfstar 6y ago
I thought this was going to be a small 5G jammer. In 2013 someone was jamming GPS signals near the London Stock Exchange's data center [1]. The Economist's expert believes it was a truck driver evading employer tracking. My best guess is it was high frequency traders being shady. [1] https://www.economist.com/international/2013/07/27/out-of-sight https://www.economist.com/international/2013/07/27/out-of-si...
- simonh 6y ago
  Of course a 5G jammer would do so by emitting even more powerful 5G frequency signals, but I don't suppose that would occur to anyone believing this rubbish.
rasz 6y ago
>Do people actually believe this nonsense? people shove pebbles into their vaginas, of course they believe in 5G usb tr^^transmuter
partyboat1586 6y ago
>your senses are the only way to interface with reality This is technically true. >and if you can't sense it it's not there This is where it gets crazy. What I find interesting about this is that you never actually have direct access to your senses. For example things in the corners of your vision are fabricated by your mind based on assumptions. See optical illusions. So anyone suggesting that things outside of your senses are not real should first accept that your senses as presented to your conscious mind are not even necessarily 'real'. In fact your entire reality is fabricated by your mind which is making an internal model of the external world at all times (except when you are sleeping). You only ever see the model never the material world directly. This is why science is so important. By observing things in controlled environments over and over from many perspectives we can build a more accurate picture of the material world than our senses would normally allow. In addition through the process of replication we can find a model of reality that we can all agree on. Your senses in the most raw form your body will allow are usually only useful for tasks you evolved to do. Things like reading social cues, catching moving objects and sensing immediate danger. When people take these senses and intuitions and apply them to complicated things derived from science like electromagnetic radiation (e.g 5G) they break down. But people keep doing it because it feels right, it feels natural. And it is natural just not useful.
- titzer 6y ago
  For sure these people are quacks, but if you're curious to take the next turn down the rabbit hole, let me seed you. Even the concept of senses and reality are concepts in your mind and consequences of the model you have accepted as reality. So the problem recurses on itself, too. Can you directly experience your mind? Is the feeling of your mind delivered to you through a sense you haven't realized is a sense yet? Can you trust that sense? Total radical skepticism lies below that. But it's only logical. You can't escape that tarpit at the bottom. Or maybe it's the screen isn't there for anything to be projected onto? So we have to rebuild from what we can sense, sure. What is repeatable. We must develop an axiom that what is repeatable is real. That what we can understand, the system, the model, the prediction, is real. We believe the planets and stars are real because we can draw maps and pass them between us and furthermore make predictions about where the stars and planets will go based on our mathematical models. But even our models tell us that the world is too huge of a system to compute even the slightest more than the tiniest fraction of a smidgen of it all. We don't even have computers big enough to fold proteins. Yet they do. And what we don't have models for--we can't predict. Is it unreal, then? Where did our axiom go? What is real and isn't? I'm not so sure it's logic that decides that, after all. Because you gotta have faith that them there proteins are getting folded right, because you can't. fucking. check it!
soonoutoftime 6y ago
> It sounds like the kind of thing that Russell Brand was wittering about a couple of years ago - that your senses are the only way to interface with reality, and if you can't sense it it's not there, Can you post a source for this? I listened to a few bits of Brand over the years, and on this subject he'd say that there's a lot more reality out there, but humans are simply unaware of it due to our limited human senses. Nothing non obvious or controversial.

hoppla 6y ago

If it interferes with radio transmissions, an fcc (or equivalent for your country) complaint is in order?

Faaak 6y ago
It does not; it's a sticker on an USB stick
- gambiting 6y ago
  So I wonder about legality of it - devices that interfere with wireless communications are illegal....so what about a device that says that it does, but in fact it does not? I guess the description is crafted in such a way that it doesn't actually say it interferes, just that it "harmonizes" the fields, whatever that means.
  - profmonocle 6y ago
    I assume there's no law in the UK against "harmonising all harmful frequencies into life affirming frequencies" since that's not a real thing. Laws against false advertising on the other hand...
    - trent_lott 6y ago
      It's does absorb the field and change its shape. Not very extensively, but such is life.
  - matthewheath 6y ago
    It may potentially be illegal, given that "deliberate interference" is a criminal offence contrary to section 68 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. [0] ~~~ (1) A person commits an offence if he uses apparatus for the purpose of interfering with wireless telegraphy. (2) This section applies— (a) whether or not the apparatus in question is wireless telegraphy apparatus; ... ~~~ Obviously, the "purpose" of the person using the anti-5G USB stick would need to be established. Given the law doesn't mention anything about having any effect on wireless telegraphy, presumably as long as mens rea is established the offence is made out. There are also other potential offences around consumer misselling, false advertising, etc. --- [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/part/3/crossheading/deliberate-interference http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/part/3/crosshead...

ben_w 6y ago

> Do people actually believe this nonsense? It sounds like the kind of thing that Russell Brand was wittering about a couple of years ago Probably. My mum was a New-Age type, so I grew up with homeopathic pills explicitly labelled as “sodium chloride”, “silicon dioxide”, and “titanium dioxide”, while being told my brother and I were “typical” for our astrological star signs. She was big on dowsing with wands and pendulums and thought crystals had personalities and could jump out of your hand. When I was young she expressed sadness that my older brother no longer believed in chakras, and the last time she met my (now ex) girlfriend, she expressed sadness to her that I didn’t believe in Orgone energy. She was also taking Bach flower remedies for memory right up until she got Alzheimer’s.

inscartwheelies 6y ago
Table salt, sand, and food-grade white pigment respectively. Also: Sorry you went through that decline at the end. :'(
- acqq 6y ago
  > table salt, sand, and food-grade white pigment But it's often not in dangerous quantities, because homeopathy believes that the less of something is present somewhere it works better, and it's called "dynamization" or "potentization" by the producers, diluting the material sometimes to the point that in thousands of sold pills, counted together, there can't be more than one single molecule! The process then practically guarantees that there aren't dangerous substances in the pill or "solution". Heh. The "less potent" pills or solutions can actually have some amounts of the stuff named on them, beware of those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_dilutions "24X 12C 10−24 Has a 60% probability of containing one molecule of original material if one mole of the original substance was used." "26X 13C 10−26 If pure water were used as the diluent, no molecules of the original solution remain in the water." Edit: regarding the 5G issue, an article where about Glastonbury Town Council report, where the 5G USB "solution" was mentioned by "Non-Councillor Advisory Committee Member" (I have no idea what that means): https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/health/5g-coronavirus-bioshield-glastonbury-report-4152435 https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/health/5g-coronavirus-bi...

bambataa 6y ago

> Do people actually believe this nonsense? Yes. I have moved past thinking we need to protect people from this kind of thing. If they believe it, let them buy it. The only harm their ignorance is doing is to themselves. They might even get some kind of placebo reassurance from it.

microcolonel 6y ago
I'm not advocating for eradicating stupid ideas to protect fools; but sometimes fools do very stupid things, and they don't just hurt themselves. See: the 5G arsons in the UK.
- bambataa 6y ago
  Well, prosecute them for arson. If they want to spend hundreds of pounds on a stick that's their business. All we can try and do is contain stupidity.
ragebol 6y ago
> The only harm their ignorance is doing is to themselves. Is it? People might hurt their kids etc by not vaccinating them. And if enough people believe this nonsense, they are very prone to voting for other idiots, which should have an effect on all of us.
simonh 6y ago
The problem is this came up because this device was recommended at a town council meeting. The representative even argued for the town getting a device to protect the whole area, so this is far beyond just a private issue. Also there have been several cases of these people damaging or destroying 5G equipment, which is infrastructure the public rely on and ultimately pay for (through fees, regulatory costs, etc).
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  In fairness, there are reasons [1] to be skeptical of 5G other than "it's a witch" or whatever the new theory is. I think these people have a vague anxiety that new technologies do not further their interests, because every time a new one comes out it is used to depress wages or surveil people. They don't know enough about technology to formulate a sane objection, so they latch on to "5G is evil black magic." Remember, for a lot of people in the world most technologies are magic. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-...

rmrfstar 6y ago

I thought this was going to be a small 5G jammer. In 2013 someone was jamming GPS signals near the London Stock Exchange's data center [1]. The Economist's expert believes it was a truck driver evading employer tracking. My best guess is it was high frequency traders being shady. [1] https://www.economist.com/international/2013/07/27/out-of-sight https://www.economist.com/international/2013/07/27/out-of-si...

simonh 6y ago
Of course a 5G jammer would do so by emitting even more powerful 5G frequency signals, but I don't suppose that would occur to anyone believing this rubbish.

rasz 6y ago

>Do people actually believe this nonsense? people shove pebbles into their vaginas, of course they believe in 5G usb tr^^transmuter

partyboat1586 6y ago

>your senses are the only way to interface with reality This is technically true. >and if you can't sense it it's not there This is where it gets crazy. What I find interesting about this is that you never actually have direct access to your senses. For example things in the corners of your vision are fabricated by your mind based on assumptions. See optical illusions. So anyone suggesting that things outside of your senses are not real should first accept that your senses as presented to your conscious mind are not even necessarily 'real'. In fact your entire reality is fabricated by your mind which is making an internal model of the external world at all times (except when you are sleeping). You only ever see the model never the material world directly. This is why science is so important. By observing things in controlled environments over and over from many perspectives we can build a more accurate picture of the material world than our senses would normally allow. In addition through the process of replication we can find a model of reality that we can all agree on. Your senses in the most raw form your body will allow are usually only useful for tasks you evolved to do. Things like reading social cues, catching moving objects and sensing immediate danger. When people take these senses and intuitions and apply them to complicated things derived from science like electromagnetic radiation (e.g 5G) they break down. But people keep doing it because it feels right, it feels natural. And it is natural just not useful.

titzer 6y ago
For sure these people are quacks, but if you're curious to take the next turn down the rabbit hole, let me seed you. Even the concept of senses and reality are concepts in your mind and consequences of the model you have accepted as reality. So the problem recurses on itself, too. Can you directly experience your mind? Is the feeling of your mind delivered to you through a sense you haven't realized is a sense yet? Can you trust that sense? Total radical skepticism lies below that. But it's only logical. You can't escape that tarpit at the bottom. Or maybe it's the screen isn't there for anything to be projected onto? So we have to rebuild from what we can sense, sure. What is repeatable. We must develop an axiom that what is repeatable is real. That what we can understand, the system, the model, the prediction, is real. We believe the planets and stars are real because we can draw maps and pass them between us and furthermore make predictions about where the stars and planets will go based on our mathematical models. But even our models tell us that the world is too huge of a system to compute even the slightest more than the tiniest fraction of a smidgen of it all. We don't even have computers big enough to fold proteins. Yet they do. And what we don't have models for--we can't predict. Is it unreal, then? Where did our axiom go? What is real and isn't? I'm not so sure it's logic that decides that, after all. Because you gotta have faith that them there proteins are getting folded right, because you can't. fucking. check it!

soonoutoftime 6y ago

> It sounds like the kind of thing that Russell Brand was wittering about a couple of years ago - that your senses are the only way to interface with reality, and if you can't sense it it's not there, Can you post a source for this? I listened to a few bits of Brand over the years, and on this subject he'd say that there's a lot more reality out there, but humans are simply unaware of it due to our limited human senses. Nothing non obvious or controversial.