Correlation Between 5G and the COVID-19 Infection Rate

This study by a Spanish biologist documents the incredibly high correlation between the presence of 5G networks and the COVID-19 infection rate.  I do not understand the reason for this correlation, but there is an undeniable correlation.  It seems that 5G may make some people more vulnerable to the disease.  Please have a look at this study.

Published by markskidmore

Mark Skidmore is Professor of Economics at Michigan State University where he holds the Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy. His research focuses on topics in public finance, regional economics, and the economics of natural disasters. Mark created the Lighthouse Economics website and blog to share economic research and information relevant for navigating tumultuous times.

2 thoughts on “Correlation Between 5G and the COVID-19 Infection Rate

  1. Dr. Skidmore,

    The paper is self-published and self-financed. There is no mention of peer-review and the data analysis is preliminary. The reliance on publicly available information and the lack of consideration of other causal factors limits the overall power of the article.

    My criticism out of the way, I can now say that this analysis is compelling. The relationship between 5G (3 and 26-28 GHz) and incidence of illness correlated to COVID19 symptoms is very clear. The amount of information in the role of EMF and biology is no longer in question. Nations and regions that limit or do not have 5G, do not have the same incidence of disease.

    The MHz and GHz bands can affect humans, birds and multiple other living organisms. Microwaves (1-100 GHz) have been know for 40 years to cause cancer, affect the immune system and the central nervous system. Low levels of EMF produce a stress response in organisms.

    The fact that a lone researcher at a major university had to self-publish this article indicates the lack of support in academic and industry for publishing this type of information.

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

    1. Xavier, Thanks for your informed comment! I agree with you that the paper is not peer reviewed and appears to be self-financed. And yes the analysis is basic and does not take consider other potential causal factors. Having said that, I thought the data were very compelling and worth sharing. I hope to explore this as part of my own research agenda.

Leave a Reply to markskidmore Cancel reply

%d bloggers like this: