5 ms·
Did you read some of those PubMed articles? Some of them have comments that really question the validity of their findings. For example: I see Pall has written
by nulld3v 3y ago
Did you read some of those PubMed articles? Some of them have comments that really question the validity of their findings.
For example: I see Pall has written a bunch and this one in particular has quite a few "sus" comments: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29573716/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29573716/
The article is a meta study but there are several comments from the authors of the original studies indicating that they believe Pall did not interpret their study correctly.
- FollowingTheDao 3y agoI never said there were no poor researchers, or any unanswered questions. I am merely pointing out the fact that the science is nowhere near settled. But one thing you can’t do is deny my experience of electromagnetic, hyper sensitivity syndrome. And you also can’t deny my genetics.
- fock 3y agoCiting yourself > First, they are only concerned about thermal changes and it is well know now that RF-EMFs have non-thermal effects on biology(1). > Second, the SAR levels were set using non-pulsed EMFs, and that makes a difference in the biology of RF-EMFs effects(2). Ah, the science is nowhere settled. I would recommend you start using the appropriate verbs in the future instead of making factual statements!
- FollowingTheDao 3y agoThose bits of the science are settled.
- fock 3y agothat is a lie, when these mechanisms defy both quantum mechanics and anything we know about chemistry.