SCENIHR, your life in their hands.
2015 SCENIHR report
From the document ‘Complaint to the European Commission concerning the 2015 SCENIHR opinion on potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.‘ (http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Complaint-to-the-European-Commission-SCENIHR-2015-08-31.pdf):
‘The experts behind the report blatantly fail in their main mission: to identify “potential health risks”. ‘
‘The SCENIHR report, as it stands, is a disservice and a threat to the health and well-being of the people of Europe. … the new SCENIHR 2015 report is made by a group of individuals who practically all have known ties to industry.‘
‘The above examples show that the SCENIHR report meets the criteria for scientific misconduct or fraud.’
From Dr Martin Pall’s document, ‘5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health!’ (https://einarflydal.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/pall-to-eu-on-5g-harm-march-2018.pdf)
‘Of these 22 reviews, 19 are found in the PubMed database, the most widely used medical database in the world, so there is no excuse for not discussing these 19, but only two of them were discussed. With regard to the eight different types of effects that I consider established non-thermal EMF effects, each of them were reviews in multiple studies described in Table 2 as follows: Cancer 12 reviews; Oxidative stress/free radicals 8 reviews ; Cellular DNA damage 10 reviews; Apoptosis/cell death 3 reviews; Lowered fertility 7 reviews; Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects 4 reviews; Calcium overload 4 reviews ; Endocrine effects 2 reviews.It is not clear why so many important reviews on effects are not found in SCENIHR 2015.
What is perhaps surprising, is that these reviews also document many other effects, none of which are clearly acknowledged by SCENIHR. These include stress responses; breakdown of the blood-brain barrier; fetal and neonatal effects; therapeutic effects; Alzheimer’s disease; increased nitric oxide; endometriosis; changes in protein levels (proteomics) and changes in gene expression; NF-kappaB elevation; increased suicide; changes in protein kinase activity including ERK and p32MAPK; mechanisms associated with oxidative stress including elevated NADPH/NADH oxidase increased lipid peroxidation and decreased enzymatic antioxidant activity, increased ornithine decarboxylase; and autism. It can be seen from this that the SCENIHR 2015 document seems to be systematically avoiding considering substantial bodies of evidence regarding a very large range of repeatedly reported EMF effects, each of which challenges the SCENIHR position that no effects are established.’
‘Of those 48 genuine cell phone studies, 23 fell into the time frame … How many of these 23 were reviewed and cited in SCENIHR 2015? The answer is four (17%)‘
‘One question that needs to be raised with regard to SCENIHR is why so many clearly important primary literature studies of cell phone radiation (perhaps the most important source of human microwave irradiation) are not discussed in SCENIHR 2015.’
‘Three specific issues regarding apparent cancer causation by EMFs need to be discussed here. Five of these reviews each review a body of evidence showing that cancer rates are higher on the side of the head where people use their cell phones and cordless phones, the ipsilateral side, as opposed to the opposite side of the head … What is strange about the SCENIHR 2015 document, is that it avoids discussing all of these data presented in these five reviews,’
‘They also ignored this study where these criteria were examined and where it was concluded that the majority of the Hill criteria argue that EMFs do cause cancer. This again, undercuts any claim that SCENIHR has carefully considered critically important findings with regard to EMF health effects.’
‘One of the more interesting studies not discussed by SCENIHR … is that 15, 30 or 60 minutes per day of cell phone radiation disrupts the structure of the rat testis and also produces high levels of oxidative stress as shown by measuring 5 different markers of oxidative stress. Such studies have been done for several decades, with oxidative stress having been shown in many different organs following EMF exposures.’
’13 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. … cellular DNA damage following EMF exposure is produced by the attacks by on the DNA by peroxynitrite derived free radicals. This study provides confirmation for that mechanism.’
’14 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. It looks at the impact of cell phone radiation on kidney structure of rats, … There was no recovery seen in the second group, showing that the kidney damage was effectively irreversible.’
’15 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. … . Rats exposed to over 15 minutes per day of cell phone radiation showed type 2 diabetes onset-like effects, with higher fasting glucose levels and higher serum insulin levels. This appears to be, therefore a study showing important hormone dysfunction. It should be noted that the same research group has found similar changes in people living near cell phone towers. Consequently, this is still another situation where findings in experimental animal studies appear to be directly applicable to humans.’
‘The SCENIHR 2015 document has 127 places in the 221 pages of text where the term “no effect” was found. The first two of these 127 places are used properly, to describe the null hypothesis. Each of the other 125 should not be there, with each of those 125 overstating the case and therefore, improperly supporting the industry propaganda case.‘
‘The problem with SCENIHR is that it lives in a totally fictional universe where none of those EMF effect reviews exist or at least none of them have any relevance to the SCENIHR world.’
Summary of Flaws in SCENIHR 2015 The first set of flaws, is that SCENIHR is perfectly willing to make statements which they know or should have known are false. The most egregious example of this is the Speit/Schwarz controversy described at the beginning of this chapter where there are seven clear falsehoods created by SCENIHR, each of which greatly strengthens the telecommunications industry propaganda positions. …There is a vast literature, both in the review literature and in the primary literature studies, that disagree strongly with the SCENIHR positions and are completely ignored by SCENIHR. …. The situation here is similar to an organization that has two sets of books, the fake books that are used in public and then a genuine set of books that includes all of the data that are too inconvenient to be included in the fake set of books.
‘… You can see from this, that the entire logical framework behind the SCENIHR 2015  document is completely bogus.’
Please will you forward this to your Westminster researcher. Thank you. I’ll be forwarding it to the Science and Technology/Health and Safety Committee members.