Martin Röösli has to be commended for his fairness and openness. Unlike Emilie van Deventer, who lectured me on virtue of patience, Martin Röösli has provided me with not secret link to PROSPERO database (search: RF-EMF) where protocols for all RF-EMF systematic reviews are listed in their fullness.
Below is link to pdf file of 13 projects that review evidence on RF-EMF. Apparently 10 of these are the current WHO systematic reviews.
Titles, authors and links to full protocols are provided.
List of 13 records of RF-EMF systematic reviews on PROSPERO
Thank you Martin!
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This is comment from Victor Leach, keeper of the ORSAA database in Australia:
Paper 1 has authors who appear to have not published in RF before that I can see (no papers in ORSAA database) – Also appears to be mostly Italians (Children’s mental health)
Paper 2 First Author Marino C is industry funded however other authors are Effect researchers – All Italian (Cancerogenic effects – in vivo)
Paper 3 Only second author appears to have published a paper on RF (effect) Gobba – All Italian (Cancer risks – Occupational Workers)
Paper 4 Mix of effect and no effect authors – has ICNIRP representation with Wood A. McNamee is another author (no effect), Marino is on list (industry). Again, a lot of Italian researchers (Male Fertility)
Paper 5 Mix of effect and no effect authors – has ICNIRP representation with Wood A. McNamee is another author (no effect), Marino is on list (industry). Again, a lot of Italian researchers (Pregnancy outcomes)
Paper 6 Mix of nationalities (many Germans) some like Schmid G have been funded by industry. There are some authors who do not appear to have published in RF space. Verbeek J has published with ICNIRP scientists and Deventer (WHO) (Oxidative Stress)
Paper 7 First author Pophof is connected with German Radiation Protection Authority who host ICNIRP, mix of nationalities (many Germans) some like Schmid G have been funded by industry. There are some authors who do not appear to have published in RF space, Danker-Hopfe has been funded by Industry. Some Effect and No Effect scientists in this list. (Cognitive function)
Paper 8 Has ICNIRP stamped all over it. Karipidis (ICNIRP and ARPANSA), Roosli (ICNIRP), Blettner (received funding from Industry), WHO and German Radiation Protection Authority (Cancer risk)
Paper 9 Lead author Roosli (ICNIRP), Dongus S has published with Roosli and other ICNIRP scientists and has received funding from Industry. Some of the other authors don’t appear to have published research in the RF space (at least there are no other papers in the ORSAA database with their names). (Symptoms from working population and public)
Paper 10 same as paper 8 but lead author is Bosch-Capblanch with Dongus and Roosli (ICNIRP) as contributing authors (self-reported symptoms)
Paper 11 Very few authors appear to have published in the RF space except for Calderon (who has received industry funding) and Feytching (who has received funding from industry and a member of ICNIRP) (Male Fertility)
Paper 12 Mevissen M Lead author (has published a number of papers and received funding from Industry) Wood A (ICNIRP and has received funding from industry), McNamee J – No effects scientist from Canada – look at some feedback to Canada safety code 6 on this character. (Cancer studies in animals)
Paper 13 Identical to paper 11 – same authors, ICNRIP and Industry funded researchers. (Reproductive outcomes)
Overall, many papers have an ICNIRP representative and/or a researcher who received industry funding. Several groups have representatives from radiation protection authorities – agencies that are suggested by some to be captured by industry. Overall, a poor state of affairs where WHO has not learned from the previous EHC project complaint because once again we see ICNIRP still has its fingers in the pie. Independent research groups including ORSAA were rejected likely because they would challenge the WHO EMF project and ICNIRP narrative. This is dodgy science at its very best. No representation again of countries that have lower RF standards than ICNIRP or research groups who do not agree with ICNIRP or WHO. Conflicts of interest cannot be easily dismissed with this line up. With a large contingent of Italian and German researchers one wonders who is still pulling the WHO strings. You would think by now with this pandemic raging worldwide that long-term public health is an important matter and industry bias should just have one voice in the decision making process. The increase in cancers like brain GBM and thyroid tumours, particularly children’s brain tumours is the result of changes to our modern environment and must be watched carefully and not be dominated by industry apologists who work hand in hand with captured government agencies. This is a very sad state of affairs for humanity and the environment.
That is odd… the missing review. I am aware of it but last night, at the conference, I just posted list extracted from database… Need to check it.
In relation to the number of papers for each study type in my comment below – this relates to all papers investigating RF Genotoxicity with no filtering. By restricting to in vitro mammals/human studies only as per the authors systematic review protocol the balance of evidence is further skewed towards “no effect”.
The authors have a section relating to “risk of bias” in their proposal but bias is already established by the heavily restricted protocol. The exclusion of very important in vivo and epidemiological studies demonstrates this. A sad state of affairs where science is being manipulated to provide ICNIRP and IARC a clean bill of health.
There is a study that is missing off the list.
Genotoxicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: Protocol for a systematic review of in vitro studies.
Authors: Stefani Romeo, Olga Zeni, Anna Sannino, Susanna Lagorio, Mauro Biffoni and Maria Rosaria Scarfì
Many of the author’s listed have a relationship with industry based on past funding, have published papers looking at RF exposure and genotoxicity, with the clear majority of their papers finding no statistically significant evidence for RF induced DNA damage. By selecting the protocol that they have the outcome is all but assured to be another case of no confirmed evidence of DNA damage.
I suspect that they have purposefully avoided in vivo and epidemiological studies in their review protocol because both study types provide overwhelming evidence of DNA damage – particularly DNA base oxidative damage. A case of controlling the outcome by restricting the protocol to a set of studies that generally show more no effect outcomes than effects.
There are 201 in vitro papers that I am aware of (includes non English papers).
90 (45%) Effect papers vs 111 (55%) No Effect papers
There are 131 in vivo papers
101 (77%) Effect papers vs 30 (23%) No Effect papers
There are 32 Epidemiological papers
27 (84%) Effect papers vs 5 (16%) No Effect papers
In vitro studies do suffer limitations and lack the complexity that in vivo models provide. Some of the issues with the in vitro genotoxic studies include:
Mostly acute exposures are performed – which give no insight into long term chronic exposure effects and can be confounded by cell adaptive responses ( this results in cases where we see less damage in exposed vs control)
Often use cell lines, particularly cancer cells which are more robust and resilient to environmental insults
Exposures performed by industry funded studies tend to be at a high SAR level, avoiding low non thermal exposures
Often use simulated signals that do not represent a typical mobile phone exposure which has multiple frequencies and variable intensities.
Thank you, Dariusz. Have a good weekend, Q.
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 6:51 AM BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place wrote:
> dariuszleszczynski posted: “Martin Röösli has to be commended for his > fairness and openness. Unlike Emilie van Deventer, who lectured me on > virtue of patience, Martin Röösli has provided me with not secret link to > PROSPERO database where protocols for all RF-EMF systematic reviews a” >