The TABD TRÅD presents opinions from Arthur Firstenberg and Henry Lai as well as refers some of the Dariusz Leszczynski BRHP blog posts.
What TABT TRÅD forgets to mention is that Dariusz Leszczynski does not dismiss entirely Pall’s calcium-hypothesis but considers it as one of the several possible, remaining to be proven, mechanisms. However, Leszczynski strongly criticizes the way the calcium-hypothesis is being presented at the activists meetings as well as the accompanying, scientifically unsupported, scaremongering about the effects of 5G by Martin Pall.
The only solution to this scientific controversy is to present calcium-hypothesis and 5G opinions by Martin Pall at some well established scientific conference, e.g. the BioEM conference organized by scientific societies BEMS and EBEA, where scientific peers can debate and evaluate it. So far, Pall has presented this hypothesis and 5G opinions solely to the activists audiences who do not have know-how to debate its validity.
TABD TRÅD blog, translated with Google:
Scientists criticize scientific argument behind parliamentary 5G criticism
NEWS / RESEARCH: Has research identified an exact mechanism that explains the impact of mobile radiation on human cells? American activist guru claims he has the answer. But in research circles, Martin L. Pall’s ideas shatter.
GERMAN KLAUS BUCHNER, who sits in the green parliamentary group and is himself a physics professor at the Technical University of Munich, is probably the European Parliament’s foremost 5G critic.
On October 1, he held a 5G critical press conference in Brussels with the participation of both research, politics and environmental activism, and later he formulated a number of critical issues and asked them to the European Commission.
Among other things, Klaus Buchner would like to know if the European Science Committee SCENIHR provided an independent and balanced assessment of radiation science when a major report was prepared in 2015 under heavy criticism from other researchers.
But another of these issues is subject to criticism. Not from scientists who deny that there are problems with the 5G rollout. The criticism belongs to 5G-critical researchers. The conflict is about an alleged biomechanism:
Klaus Buchner’s second question to the Commission
“How does the Commission assess the well-documented reaction chain – EMF; calcium channel activation; excess free radical production; damage to DNA; observed increase in glioblastoma and other relevant brain tumors (4) – in its policy on 5G? “
The controversy about the calcium mechanism
Klaus Buchner and two other members of the Green Parliament Group invited retired US professor of biochemistry and medicine, Martin L. Pall, to the press conference on October 1, and it is from Martin L. Pall that the theory of calcium channel activation comes from.
But that theory is controversial.
Only at the end of a long working life at Washington State University did Martin L. Pall go into the research on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. In 2013, he published a controversial report claiming to be able to point to the underlying cause of findings such as oxidative stress and DNA damage in cells with which there is broad agreement, and which has been seen especially in many animal studies and in cell culture studies.
The biological effects are triggered by the calcium channels of the cell membranes, believes Martin L. Pall. Electromagnetic fields such as radiation from cell phones open them up so that increased amounts of calcium penetrate the cells and from there the chain reaction starts, which can possibly lead to cancer or other disorders.
A message for activists
Arthur Firstenberg, who for many decades has been a private scientist and popular science writer and is now an activist for the signature collection 5G Space Appeal, calls Pall’s theory harmful.
“The non-scientific activists believe in Martin Pall, but talented scientists do not,” Arthur Firstenberg told TABT TRÅD.
A wrong theory is in circulation, he believes. And that may discredit other arguments against 5G:
“So I think Martin is hurting the movement because he is so active and travels all over the world with his message. Many or even most activists currently believe in his calcium theory ”.
In a longer review of 28 studies, Arthur Firstenberg in a blog post refutes that a single research reference supports the idea of activating voltage-controlled calcium channels.
Arthur Firstenberg also believes that the mathematics of physical properties exclude the possibility of Pall’s alleged mechanism.
Quite a huge scandal
Arthur Firstenberg is far from alone with his criticism.
Polish-Finnish radiation expert Dariusz Leszczynski, who is a biochemist just like Martin L. Pall, has in 2019 carried out an entire general attack on Martin L. Pall in his blog universe, while the American has toured in both the US and Europe and lectured on calcium theory and on alleged effects of 5G radiation.
Dariusz Leszczynski also calls Martin L. Pall’s lecture campaign, which is also about the harmful effects of 5G, “a scientific scandal of enormous proportions“.
Dariusz Leszczynski notes that since Martin L. Pall began producing reports on the effects of mobile radiation in 2013, he has not presented his works in any scientific assembly. Only to activists.
He also notes that Pall bases his reports solely on the research of others and has never conducted a biochemical trial himself.
“Pall is spreading heresy, and someone has to point it out. Activists should rethink what evidence they present and trust. Erroneous and exaggerated statements are too easy to refute,” he writes in a blog comment on June 28.
“In the industry they are not stupid“.
Pall defends himself
In the same blog universe, Dariusz Leszczynski has given Martin L. Pall room to defend himself on multiple occasions.
He calls the attacks on his theory loosely asserted and uses as a pervasive argument that so-called calcium blockers, which are a widespread drug type, show efficacy in the scientific experiments he refers to.
“Dariusz Leszczynski seems to have forgotten that science is not a matter of loose opinions, but rather of what is evidence. He was present during one of my presentations in Finland last week and failed to raise questions about the presentation, although he had plenty of opportunity,” writes Martin L. Pall, among other things, in his long response.
Others to the rescue
There are also scholars who support Martin L. Pall, but the discussions show that his calcium theory is at best considered a probable theory and not a proven mechanism. That the theory is directly demonstrated is similar to a widespread view in activist circles, as Arthur Firstenberg regrettably notes.
A life sciences scientist who partially defends Martin L. Pall is Henry Lai, who in the 90s came under public scrutiny for controversial findings of cell DNA breaks that were exposed to radio waves in experiments.
Directly asked if he has a relationship with Martin L. Pall, Henry Lai replies to TABT TRÅD that he met Martin L. Pall once in his life.
He disagrees, first and foremost, with Martin L. Pall’s assumption that, in that case, voltage-activated calcium channels must be the only reason why cellular impact is a pervasive finding in many mobile radiation studies. Nor does he believe that Martin L. Pall has demonstrated the mechanism convincingly.
But he is not dismissive of the mechanism.
“Studies from the ’90s have shown that electromagnetic fields can depolarize nerve fibers. We do not know whether they can depolarize cell membranes, but that is a possibility,” says Henry Lai.
He also believes that studies showing the relationship between radiation and free radicals in cell life may support Martin L. Pall’s theory of the role of calcium channels.
“The question then is how big a role it can play. Good research never exaggerates a fact, and good research doesn’t just dismiss claims bluntly,” Henry Lai tells TABT TRÅD.
TABT TRÅD has sought to obtain a comment from Klaus Buchner, a Member of the European Parliament, elected for the green German central party ÖDP (Ecological Democratic Party). He did not respond to a written request.
TABT TRÅD has also previously tried to get a comment from Martin L. Pall on the calcium theory. He doesn’t have the answer.