Martin Pall’s claims on EMF, VGCC and Alzheimer’s lack scientific evidence of proof or even likelihood

On March 11, 2022, Current Alzheimer’s Research has published Martin L. Pall’s review on Alzheimer’s and EMF: “Low intensity electromagnetic fields act via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation to cause very early onset Alzheimer’s disease: 18 distinct types of evidence”.

On April 25, 2022, Norman Akbar has published a news piece in Neuroscience News, about Pall’s claims: “Could Pulsed Electronically Generated Electromagnetic Fields Cause Alzheimer’s?“

Pall’s review is a typical Pall’s writing in style and in content. Akbar’s article is a news story written by a journalist who is blindly relying on claims, many of them unfounded and false, presented in Pall’s review.

I have skimmed through paper of Pall dealing with Alzheimer’s. It is typical article by Pall. Lots of claims but very little of evidence to support them.

For example, the most important study linking base station radiation exposures with Alzheimer’s is a single rat study. From this is a very long way to claim human effects. Pall simply misleads.

The most important piece of the “evidence”, Pall is presenting time and again, is that EMFs, all of them, no matter what kind of EMF, all activate VGCC and increase calcium traffic to cells.

Firstly, calcium is indeed a very important signaling molecule and by shutting down calcium transport we can shut down all cell physiology.

So, when Pall claims that calcium blockers can inhibit Alzheimer’s, it is a possibility.

However, when Pall begins to claim that EMF-induced calcium traffic can be blocked by calcium blockers things begin to be uncertain because there can be two types of reaction within a cell. Giving to control cell calcium blocker will inhibit numerous physiological processes, including processes that may contribute to the development of Alzheimer’s. Giving calcium blocker to cell exposed to EMF will also inhibit numerous physiological processes. But it is not known whether the EMF has induced calcium traffic that calcium blocker will inhibit or whether it is calcium traffic normally occurring without EMF impact.

This is the problem with all science writings by Martin L. Pall. He is retired. He does not perform experiments. He can’t test his own hypotheses experimentally. He can’t perform experiment designed specifically to prove own hypotheses. He uses evidence gathered by others in experiments that were designed for another purposes. Hence, this evidence is good to formulate hypothesis, but it is insufficient to claim that the hypothesis is proven or even likely, but this is what Pall, incorrectly, claims.

There is a big scientific problem with the claim of EMF stimulation of VGCC. Pall claims that all types of EMF do it. Respected scientists strongly disagree because each different type of EMF has own specific way of affecting biological matter. In my blog, I have posted opinions of several scientists critical of Pall’s claims concerning EMFs activation of VGCC:

• Henry Lai: cautionary words on “calcium hypothesis” in the science of EMF
• Sounding alarm for activists: To be seriously considered you need to present real science, not ‘fake science’
• Is really VGCC the main mechanism for all EMF effects? – by Leendert Vriens
• Yet another “nail to the coffin” of the EMF non-thermal effects acting through VGCC
• Cautionary words on Martin Pall’s claim that VGCC is the sole target and mechanism for all EMF effects
• Professor Martin L. Pall does not know the basics about millimeter waves
• Guest Blog from George L. Carlo, stemming from the blog on Martin L. Pall, with commentary from Dariusz Leszczynski
• Compilation of blog posts on incompetence and harm caused by Martin Pall
• Pall, Firstenberg and the ‘silent enablers’ are responsible for the current 5G storm
• Debunking Martin L. Pall’s “bad science 2021”; part 1/3
• Debunking Martin L. Pall’s “bad science 2021”; part 2/3
• Debunking Martin L. Pall’s “bad science 2021”; part 3/3
• Nothing personal but… shoddy science makes another physicist to advise Martin L. Pall
• If claims by Dimitris J. Panagopoulos are confirmed, Martin L. Pall committed scientific misconduct and his articles published since 2017 should be urgently retracted by the journals

Pall’s writings contain both some bits of correct science and some bits of incorrect science. The incorrect pieces of science in Pall’s articles invalidate Pall’s claims and conclusions.

However, apart from the interpretation of science and posting hypotheses, what every scientist has right to do, Pall presents his interpretations and untested hypotheses as ultimately correct science. Pall’s bombastic claims and forecasts are just this, bombastic claims and incorrect forecasts. According to one of these forecasts we all, human race, will become infertile in a year or two from now.

In my opinion Pall lives in own fantasy land and activists and journalists, who do not have sufficiently deep scientific knowledge are easily mislead by him. Simple fact that his reviews are published is not enough to claim that his opinions are correct. Peer-review process is very imperfect, as a long time journal editor I can vouch for it. There is plenty of rubbish science published as peer-reviewed articles. It is a big problem

Any scientific expert, well versed in molecular biology/cell biology and in physics of EMF will easily poke holes in Pall’s logic.