|To:||WRAGG, William <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Jeremy.firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com|
The devil’s in the algebraic model.
British politicians must not continue to support the deployment of 5G in ignorance of the facts, which is largely the current state of affairs. The information below is extremely important and all Members of Parliament should be aware of it.
This email covers how variables and the algebraic model have lead to a complete misrepresentation of the facts relating to the harmful biological effects of RF radiation exposure, which has enabled the telecommunications industry to perpetuate its deceptive, long-term strategy, summed up by the phrase ‘doubt is our product’.
ETHICAL RESEARCH VARIABLES
Research into RF radiation biological effects can involve many variables, such as:
1. Cell-type (in vitro). In the Reflex study, at the low-frequency exposure levels used, the white blood cells were seemingly unaffected whereas the fibroblast cells, neural stem cells, embryonic stem cells and granulosa cells all showed signs of damage. This demonstrated cell-type variability in relation to the specific radio frequencies used.
2. Authentic device RF frequencies/simulated RF frequencies. Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos: ”Studies which are made using simulated signals, 50% they found effects 50% don’t find effects, but studies with real exposures from mobile phones and other devices, 98% they do find effects. Why? Because the exposure is unpredictable, is varying all the time, and the living organisms, they cannot adapt to this.”
3. Use of specific frequency/frequencies. Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos: ‘Additionally, our results show again that GSM 900 MHz radiation is slightly more bioactive than DCS 1800 MHz radiation, at the same exposure durations and under equal radiation intensities, as shown in our previous experiments.’
4. Use of specific power density. Abdel Hameed; A.Awad; A. Awad, Turki M. Habeebullah: ‘The harmful biological effects start occurring in the brain at SARs (specific absorption rate) as low as 0.001 W/kg; increase in calcium efflux in human neuroblastoma cells after exposure to RFR at 0.005 W/kg; increase in permeability of blood-brain barrier in mice at SAR level of 0.0004–0.008 W/Kg’
5. Duration, including whether exposure was constant or intermittent. Further variables.
Independent funding vs industry funding. Dr Maisch: ‘A survey conducted by the New York based publication Microwave News in 2006 consisted of examining papers on microwave effects on DNA that were published in peer-reviewed journals since 1990. A total of 85 papers on the topic were identified. 43 of the papers reported finding a biological effect and 42 did not. Of the 42 no-effect papers, 32 were identified as having been funded by either the U.S. Air Force or industry. With the 43 papers that reported effects, only 3 were identified as being funded by Air Force or industry.‘
UNETHICAL RESEARCH VARIABLES
In my letter on 5G risks, I wrote ‘or you can feign replication of an experiment that shows harm by strategically introducing variables designed to negate the findings of the original experiment’. Here’s an example:
Dr Susan Pocket: ‘Basically, whenever a piece of science inimical to industry or Air Force interests appeared, contractors were hired to discredit it by apparently repeating the experiments, but actually changing critical factors to produce more funder-friendly results. Dr Allan Frey describes one such attempt as follows:
“After my colleagues and I published in 1975, that exposure to very weak microwave radiation opens the regulatory interface known as the blood brain barrier (BBB), a critical protection for the brain, the Brooks AFB group selected a contractor to supposedly replicate our experiment. For 2 years, this contractor presented data at scientific conferences stating that microwave radiation had no effect on the BBB. After much pressure from the scientific community, he finally revealed that he had not, in fact, replicated our work. We had injected dye into the femoral vein of lab rats after exposure to microwaves and observed the dye in the brain within 5 min. The Brooks contractor had stuck a needle into the animals’ bellies and sprayed the dye onto their intestines. Thus it is no surprise that when he looked at the brain 5 min later, he did not see any dye; the dye had yet to make it into the circulatory system.” ‘
VARIABLES AND THE ALGEBRAIC MODEL
Dr Susan Pocket: Adoption of an algebraic model of evidence assessment: Once approximately equal numbers of papers had been installed in the scientific literature concluding that sub-thermal levels of microwaves on the one hand do, but on the other hand do not, have harmful biological effects, the narrative was promulgated in official circles that “weight of evidence” is the important thing to consider in such matters. The implicit model behind this narrative involves an unstated presumption that each negative study (i.e., each study that does not find any effect of low intensity microwaves) cancels out one positive study (i.e., one study that does find an effect of low intensity microwaves); with an algebraic sum of zero indicating no effect. Any inconvenient remainder is then dealt with by impugning the validity and/or the significance of particularly convincing postive studies’
So if, for instance, we look at variables in the Reflex study findings (cited in my email, ‘Wireless radiation’), we see that fibroblast cells experienced DNA damage at the specific, low level radio frequencies they were exposed to whilst white blood cells did not appear to experience DNA damage after exposure to the same low frequencies. In terms of variability, the biological functions of these two cells-types vary immensely, which obviously influences outcome… and makes science interesting.
However, in the current algebraic model, if, say, there were ten studies on fibroblasts which all demonstrated DNA damage and ten studies on white blood cells which all demonstrated no perceived DNA damage, the negative result would cancel out the positive result on the basis of ‘weight of evidence’, without accounting for the variables. In such a context, the model is illogical and misrepresentative of the science… moreover, in concealing proven RF radiation biological effects, the model endangers humans and other biological lifeforms.
The utilization of the algebraic model is the method by which ‘doubt is our product’ is sustained, despite overwhelming evidence that there isn’t any doubt. Research studies going back decades have repeatedly demonstrated that exposure to RF radiation can cause many different forms of biological harm.
Following on from this email will be the critique of a recent ICNIRP draft: ‘It is our opinion that safety can only be assessed biologically and that the whole structure that ICNIRP proposes is deeply flawed.’
I will be forwarding the email in line with previous emails. Please could you forward it to your Wesminster researcher.