There are various forms of scientific misconduct. One of these is:
Misappropriation of Ideas – taking the intellectual property of others, perhaps as a result of reviewing someone else’s article or manuscript, or grant application and proceeding with the idea as your own.
Stealing someones ideas and presenting them as own is one of the most serious forms of misconduct. The only more serious form of misconduct than this is the falsification of data.
As presented below, this is not the case of two scientific teams working on the same issue and simultaneously coming to the same conclusion.This is, apparently, one scientist stealing from the other.
On July 12, 2021, Reviews on Environmental Health has published “Comments on Pall’s “Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics”,” authored by
The author presents the evidence of scientific misconduct committed by Martin L Pall when he misappropriated Panagopoulous‘ ideas as his own and published accounts of it in own peer-reviewed articles.
[ BRHP comment: if interested in Martin L. Pall’s wheelings and dealings, at the bottom of this blog are links to posts describing Pall‘s “science” and scaremongering ]
Panagopoulos concludes that:
“We hope the Rev Environ Health journal will protect authorship and science by publishing these comments and retracting Pall’s insulting, misinforming, and misleading paper.“
The big question is: will the journal, Reviews on Environmental Health and its editors,, investigate Panagopoulous’ claims and, if misconduct happen to be confirmed, act appropriately and inform editors of other journals that published Pall’s articles?
Of course, expeditiousness of acting by the Editors is of paramount importance for limiting the “damage” to the science integrity.
Few quotes from this short and interesting article, that show Pall‘s ‘wheeling and dealing‘:
“…Pall (2021)  speaks of a “mechanism” by which Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) exert forces on the channel sensors of voltage-gated ion channels on cell membranes causing “activation” of these channels, and claims this is his discovery! This is already published since 2000 in multiple publications by Panagopoulos et al, and it is widely known as “ion forced-oscillation mechanism” or “ion forced-vibration mechanism” [2-7, and more]. It describes in detail how polarized and coherent (man-made) EMFs force mobile ions in cells to oscillate on parallel lines and in phase with the applied oscillating EMF, and how the oscillating ions inside the channels exert Coulomb forces on the fixed charges of the S4 channel sensors of voltage-gated ion channels causing their irregular gating (dysfunction rather than “activation”) [2-7]...”
“…Pall not only knows our mechanism, but he praised it until 2017, not claiming that it is his contribution. Then, he stopped referring to it, and now talks about a “VGCC activation mechanism” as if it is his own discovery! This, of course, is untrue, and against any ethical and scientific principle…”
[DL comment – note the very unusual, for science papers, use of the exclamation mark]
“…He refers to Panagopoulos et al  for the effect of polarization, but not for the
mechanism which he presents as his own. He speaks of “coherence of polarity” (a nonexisting term) instead of polarization, and of “electronically generated EMFs” instead of man-made EMFs to differentiate from Panagopoulos et al , and “explains” how “coherent electronically generated EMFs” are more bioactive than natural EMFs as if this is another discovery his own! All these “new discoveries” are already thoroughly described and shown by equations in [3-4,7] where it is explained that man-made EMFs are produced by electric/electronic circuits and for this they are totally polarized and coherent…”
“…In his effort to present our mechanism as his own under the new title “VGCC activation mechanism” he now claims that the irregular gating of the voltage channels occurs not by forces exerted by the oscillating ions on the sensors, but by direct forces from the applied EMFs which are “amplified” by the membranes …”
“…If Pall thinks that his “direct” forces on the channel sensors make a new mechanism he should provide equations and numerical calculations on these forces, showing how they work…”
“…He writes that microwaves produce “deeply penetrating” non-thermal effects in living tissues by their magnetic parts, while the electric parts are absorbed in the skin. But in high frequencies (radio-waves/microwaves/mm-waves) the electric and the magnetic parts of a wave are completely tied with each other, and if the electric part is absorbed the whole electromagnetic wave disappears. Only in the low frequencies the electric and magnetic components are not strongly interconnected and measured separately. This is basic in electromagnetism. Thus, any “deeply penetrating effects” are obviously not due to the high frequency carrier wave, but due to the coexisting ELF components which are very penetrating. These facts are again explained by the ion forced-oscillation mechanism [2-7]…”
“…In his attempt to show that his descriptions make a different “mechanism”, Pall refers to several Russian studies, claiming that they report “non-thermal effects” of “non-pulsed mmwave exposures”. Two Russian reviews he refers to and can be found in English, are Pakhomov et al 1998 , and Betskii and Lebedeva 2004 (referenced in ). In several studies reviewed in  there were low frequency components of pulsing, or modulation, which Pall did not report. Whether he did that purposely or because he did not notice that, it shows that his descriptions of scientific studies are unreliable and misinforming. In the rest of the studies in , and in the Betskii and Lebedeva (2004) review, there is no information on possible existence of low frequencies. Thus, their presence is not excluded…”
…and Dimitris J. Panagopoulos concludes his Letter to the Editor:
“…The above major ethical and scientific issues and many more are the case in Pall . We hope the Rev Environ Health journal will protect authorship and science by publishing these comments and retracting Pall’s insulting, misinforming, and misleading paper.” [compilation of posts]
Other blogs on Martin L. Pall:
- Cautionary words on Martin Pall’s claim that VGCC is the sole target and mechanism for all EMF effects [compilation of posts]
- Nothing personal but… shoddy science makes another physicist to advise Martin L. Pall
- Debunking Martin L. Pall’s “bad science 2021”; part 3/3
- Debunking Martin L. Pall’s “bad science 2021”; part 2/3
- Debunking Martin L. Pall’s “bad science 2021”; part 1/3
- Guest Blog from George L. Carlo, stemming from the blog on Martin L. Pall, with commentary from Dariusz Leszczynski
- Professor Martin L. Pall does not know the basics about millimeter waves
The two scientists aren’t presenting the same mechanism of interaction between EMFs and voltage gated ion channels.
Martin Pall’s hypothesis for microwave and lower frequency EMF (introduced in 2013) is that electric component of the EMF acts directly on the voltage sensor. His reasoning is that the force exerted on the voltage sensor by the electric component of an EMF is around 6 million times stronger than the force exerted by the same electric field acting on free ions on either side of the cell’s membrane.
Dimitris Panagopoulos’ hypothesis (introduced in 2000) is that EMFs act indirectly on the voltage sensor by forcing free ions on either side of the cell’s membrane to oscillate. He then says that because man made EMFs are polarised that therefore a coherent oscillations will be induced in a large number of such ions whose combined action will trigger the voltage sensor to open the ion gate.
There is thus a significant difference in the two proposed hypothetical biophysical mechanisms. I tend to think that the hypothetical mechanism that was proposed by Panagopoulos is more plausible than the hypothetical mechanism that was proposed by Pall.
You can hear Pall’s explanation of his reasoning in this YouTube video:
Panagopoulos explains his hypothetical mechanism in this YouTube video:
Wow! You are the champion. 🤣
“I guess it is a rhetorical question.
If you need answers, ask Panagopoulos.”
My reply is:
You guessed incorrectly because I didn’t ask a question. I made a statement.
I guess it is a rhetorical question.
If you need answers, ask Panagopoulos.
I have by now read several papers of Martin Pall and the papers of Dimitris J. Panagopoulos.
To my best understanding of the physics related to man-made EMFs and my understanding of the cellular dynamics related to voltage gated ion channels, it is my opinion that Dr Panagopoulos’ scientific explanation that the EMFs don’t directly act on the charged sensor but on the free ions on either side of the cell’s membrane (which in turn act on the voltage sensor) is more likely to be the biophysical mechanism by which man made EMFs can cause the activation of the VGCCs.
However, based on my limited understanding of cellular biochemistry, it is my opinion that Dr Pall has a more thorough scientific explanation of how excess calcium ions inside a cell leads to diseases.
Dr Pall has referred to the papers of Dimitris J. Panagopoulos in a number of his own papers.. I don’t see why the latter scientist would have any concerns.
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
I read the papers of both individuals. I don’t see an issue.
Pingback: CANCER - nejtil5g.dk % %
There is clear contradiction in your comment.
You say that both scientists developed science and both contributed… But then you say that you don’t know enough to contribute to this debate.
Question, how do you know that both scientists really contributed when you, admittedly, do not have enough scientific knowledge to understand issue?
I hear such self contradictory opinions from activists. They say that my explanations are not good but Pall’s are the good and correct ones… when at the same time the activist expressing such opinion has no scientific knowledge to judge which scientific opinion is correct. They, like you, just decide that better science is this that fits their own, activist, opinion.
I looked on a paper by each of the two scientists, my impression is that each of them did a significant and serious work on this mechanism contributing to progress on its evaluation. The proper citation of previous work is a separate issue and important one, I do not know enough to contribute to it.
Hi, indeed I do not know enough to pass judgment on the two scientists, this is why I did not do so and did write nothing about ethics. The mechanism is interesting.
Ouch – another reason to not cite Pall. And the blind believers will continue to believe him.
Sorry, but you try to justify Pall’s actions that are from science ethics and from science theory indefensible. His science is incorrect. He doesn’t know enough about EMF. His ethics and morals are condemnable as it comes clearly from the Letter to the Editor. Activists are blind to defend such immoral, unethical, pseudo-scientist.
Your so-called angle is simply ridiculous. If thief steals part of property then there is angle to it- it is good because two persons have something?
Completely unacceptable defense of Pall by completely blinded and misguided activists is a shame.
This is not the case of two teams working on the same issue and simultaneously coming to the same conclusion.
This is one scientist stealing from the other.
Hello, I think there is another angle to this. There are two serious scientists presenting the same mechanism of interaction between radio frequency radiation and the living tissue. This creates an interesting degree of credibility of this mechanism. I wish them both to settle their differences, it is a good practice that different groups work on a same subject.