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:

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.

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

  1. Regarding Ken Foster’s tweet: Does the work of D Panagopoulos, et al, call into question the review of Karapidis and Wood? I don’t think they even acknowledged Panagopoulos’s decades of detailed work and collaborations with other highly regarded experts in this field. One of his recent papers, also a review:

  2. Dariusz, I’m just trying to clearly understand your position and criticism. You say you do believe there is some (sufficient or insufficient?) evidence that emf’s associated with wireless communications activate VGCC’s and increase calcium traffic to cells. Would you say that for scientists like you, who are in the field of researching how emf’s affect health, that this is a generally agreed upon position? A consensus? Next you qualify that you believe the “smoking gun of importance is still missing”. Which smoking gun is that? Is it the smoking gun of evidence that VGCC disruption causes or is a factor in AD? Is there a smoking gun for VGCC disruption and other disease states that is a generally recognized scientific/medical mechanism?

  3. Ken Foster tweeted:
    Recent (2021) very careful review on effects of EMF on calcium movements into and out of cells (Rad Res. 195:101-103 (2021) DOI: 10.1667/RADE-20-00101.1)
    Demolishes Pall’s “VGCC” hypothesis: “…studies have not validated that RF affects Ca2+ transport into or out of cells.”

  4. My post was about something else… Palls incorrect science claims.
    What you ask about, there is some evidence, but smoking gun of importance is still missing…

  5. Dariusz, I always do my best to read carefully, but thanks for the directive. I asked if you believe or do not believe there is consistent evidence…?

  6. It is not about beliefs. It is about evidence. Please, read carefully before you comment.

  7. Dariusz, you say that, “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.”
    Do you not believe that there is consistent evidence that EMF’s, especially those fields particular to wireless communications, activate VGCC and/or increase calcium traffic to cells?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.