UPDATE: Read also this Compilation of blog posts on incompetence and harm caused by Martin Pall
It is difficult, when surfing internet, to not to stumble on many outlandish ‘fake science‘ opinions disseminated by Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus from the Washington State University. Reading this stuff is like reading propaganda from some ‘guru of a doomsday sect‘.
While proposing scientific hypotheses around the importance of calcium fluxes is what scientists do, Martin Pall goes further, far further, into and beyond the twilight zone…
Because, who in their right mind, and with straight face, can listen and accept and seriously disseminate such musings (this, one of many similar, is a quote from blog that disseminates Pall’s “fake science” https://fourfoldhealing.com/blogs/news/massive-predicted-effects-of-5g):
“…[Martin Pall’s] six worst nightmares is that 5G will produce widespread in most cases universal or near-universal impact of the following types (and each of these needs to be considered in detail, based on the available evidence):
- A rapid and irreversible crash in human reproduction to close to zero, based mainly but not solely on the impacts on male reproduction.
- A rapid (albeit somewhat slower than in 1) crash in our collective brain function produced by massive impacts on human brain structure and function.
- Very early-onset Alzheimer’s dementia also caused by the human brain impact seen in 2.
- Autism and ADHD caused primarily by perinatal 4G/5G exposures
- Massive deterioration in the human gene pool, caused by the DNA effects in human sperm and possibly also on human eggs.
- Widespread sudden cardiac death in all age ranges caused by the EMF impacts on the pacemaker cells in the sino-atrial node of the heart.
According to Pall’s ‘fake science‘ musings, the 5G is already responsible for:
- suicides of ambulance staff in UK
- fires in South Korea
- outbreak of coronavirus in Wuhan
- …and many other “effects”
But when Pall was asked to elaborate and justify some of these claims he could not… and here are quotes from a recent news story:
On suicides of ambulance staff:
“…One of Pall’s claims that elicited audible gasps from the crowd was when he shared that a British ambulance company had started using 5G on one ambulance and, shortly after, three ambulance crew members died by suicide.
But look into the case and you’ll find that the three men who did in fact die over 11 days in November appear to have lived half-an-hour to an hour-and-a-half away from each other. What’s more, the 5G “connected ambulance” being tested in the region is still in the works, with only a series of demonstrations so far showing that ultrasounds could be done remotely in the field. While Pall couched his comments by saying he couldn’t say for sure if 5G was to blame for the deaths (leaving out any mention of previous mental health issues or the men’s apparently toxic work environment), he said he believed it “could” have contributed…”
On fires in South Korea:
“…Pall also claimed that 5G services that were turned on about two days before the South Korean Goseong Fire of 2019 somehow contributed to its severity. The cause of that fire is still unknown but appears to have been a high-voltage power line that fell due to wind. (Wildfires are also getting worse globally due to climate change and forest management practices….”
What is more, the schedule of Pall’s ‘doomsday’ was predicted already in 2018, when he stated that the deterioration of human kind will happen within 5 – 7 years…
So, be ready, years 2023-2025 are fast approaching (sarcasm).
While the validity of the VGCC and calcium-fluxes hypothesis proposed by Pall can be debated scientifically, it is clear that the rest of Pall’s claims is a haphazard collection of “effects”, happening right now around the world, coincidentally at the time when the 5G deployment just begun.
Martin Pall is missing one, very important quality that is of paramount importance for a real scientist.
Martin Pall does not understand that correlation does not automatically mean causation.
Martin Pall does not understand that molecular signals in cells can cause large variety of effects but not all of them are happening at the same time. Thus generation of e.g. free radicals does not automatically mean that every effect they might cause will happen simultaneously. Claim of free radical causing particular effect at the particular time needs experimental proof – not guilty until proven guilty.
Martin Pall should remember that not everything that is happening now is caused, or even remotely linked, with 5G, no matter how ‘flashy‘ it would look in a lecture slide.
Pingback: Martin Pall’s claims on EMF, VGCC and Alzheimer’s lack scientific evidence of proof or even likelihood | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: Debunking Martin L. Pall’s “bad science 2021”; part 3/3 | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: Pall, Firstenberg and the ‘silent enablers’ are responsible for the current 5G storm | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Pingback: Compilation of blog posts on incompetence and harm caused by Martin Pall | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
1. Your blog was edited and promotional link was deleted.
2. If you want to know what this blog is about, read blog posts. There are many since onset in 2009.
3. Comments are not for promoting products.
It’s important to know if the creator of this blog is a supporter of 5G activation or a critical thinker who wants to explore the ins and outs of the effect, once in action, of 5G.
Clearly, you don’t read my blog. You do not know my past. You do not have arguments to discuss merits. Enjoy you doomsday sect echo chamber.
Telecoms must be feeling the heat from public pushback! 55,000 satellites to orbit Earth ruining the night sky, almost 1,000,000 small cell antenna out side children’s bedroom windows pumping radiation in to their brains… Personally attacking a decorated scientist means desperation. How much industry money are you taking to publish such garbage?
Pall’s article seems to have been mistaken about the ambulance, though I haven’t checked myself. I see a lot of people are sharing similar fears about Korea’s fires and so on. I think that in any mistakes could be problematic in a court of law, such as if the ambulance were not 5G, or if the birds were not exposed to 5G, as this would be exposed and used against Pall. In some cases, there may be a correlation to wireless, even if not 5G, but this would hardly in court if mistated. I notice many people get truth and mistakes mixed up and thus credibility gets diminished.
Yet, I find that your opinions go too far in dismissing the predictions, especially given that there are many studies demonstrating harm at the cellular level and in animal experiments.
Where you live, perhaps you are safer, perhaps everyone isn’t so oddly ill at all ages and perhaps there are not so many children who seem to have greater struggles that one must consider if one or several agents are the cause. In the USA there is likely to be another toxin amplified as well, for the USA is rather lax in regulating pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and pollution – even lead in the water. Also, in the US the exposures are quite powerful, and I personally have trouble dismissing how so many have gotten ill and how this seems tied to proximity to such exposures. There are industrial-strength routers in schools with one-to-one wireless laptops for children, plus personal cellphones beyond FCC levels, there are small cell towers with even higher levels, and so on ad infinitum.
At the same time, the Russians found with long term studies of workplace exposures that in the initial few years there was no effect or a positive effect where the stress enhanced the individual’s abilities, but this was followed very shortly after these few years by stages where health deteriorated from bad to worse. I think if you wish to make a critique as you are angry about credibility of the science being ruined, I would stick carefully with the issues related to incorrect examples, or examples that need to be fixed. I don’t think that the predictions have so much at fault, and they could be near right, depending on personal exposures.
As a non-scientist activist, I want to second Cogniterra’s suggestion.
I looked on the link you posted,
It presents correctly a possibility that there is a third hidden factor which causes both the correlated effects. This is exactly what I wrote. However there are many studies on radio frequency exposure and cancer in which such a third factor is hard even to imagine such as military units using radar and having atypically high cancer occurrence while very similar units without radar from the same army and serving nearby have normal cancer occurrence. In such studies causation of cancer by the radiation exposure is the most likely explanation of the correlation.
Both concerned scientists and concerned citizens need to be on board to garner recognition for the need for precaution. With such a complex science, it is hard for even well-meaning lay people to understand much of it, or to judge who is speaking accurately, as witnessed by some of the responses in this blog. Scientists and activists need to work together to raise awareness among the public, in the face of so much confusion perpetrated by the industry and the agencies and organizations it influences.
I wonder sometimes if we need an online course to better educate activists and limit their often misbegotten claims–one taught at their level, and with a focus on the most important and science-based information to pass on to the public. Not too complex, but enough to speak credibly at the local level.
I witnessed such an in-person course for wireless precaution advocates once, which had its value, although even there, the scientist/teacher was putting forth some of his own hypotheses as facts. But with a good teacher or two, and a consensus-built curriculum, it could do a world of good.
Perhaps it could use something like an online MOOC platform like Coursera or EdX that is international. They and their university partners have hosted other advocacy-based courses (4-6 weekly sessions, with short, one-topic videos and reading assignments) for free public participation. Why not something on “Cell phones and Wireless: Are They Safe?”
With google you will find many examples. One of them here: https://towardsdatascience.com/why-correlation-does-not-imply-causation-5b99790df07e
Good Science starts with good observations, unfortunatly there are many scientists who choose to wear blinkers.
Dear Dariusz, can you please elaborate on “correlation does not automatically mean causation”? I think that in the case of radiation exposure and health effects, when correlated, there are three possibilities: 1. Radiation exposure causes the health effects, this seem plausible. 2. The health effects cause the previous radiation exposure, does not sound reasonable. 3. There is some third factor causing both the health effects and the radiation exposure, this is in principle possible but in many studies seems unlikely. So I think that in this case of radiation exposure and health effects, correlation does usually mean causation unless it is possible to think about the third factor which causes both radiation exposure and the correlated health effects.
Voltaire wrote the following in the 1760’s: “Common sense is no longer common any more”
The statement applies to many politicians and some scientists at all times.
You clearly do not understand what fact in science means… Recognition for what, writing fairy tales or fantasy books?
I think someone has to say what people are thinking. Just because science can’t yet prove these things doesn’t mean they aren’t correct. We know for a fact that people are getting sick from smart meters and 4G technology–yet science and the “experts” say it couldn’t be so. Bravo for Dr. Pall having the guts to push the envelope and maybe get some recognition for what is really happening to people.