The term “peer reviewed” is used generally as a term for “fact-checked; in-depth scientific research by recognized academics, to make a research result trustworthy”. Since I am blogging about the health hazards of wireless radiation, about electromagnetic radiation/fields, I learned by intensive reading scientific papers, articles and reviews, that both each other opposing parties in science in the field of electromagnetic radiation, claim to have researches, that prove the true facts of their research and the wrong of the other. In this specific EMF field case there is a group that researched the biological effects, the non-thermal effects, and there is another group, that studies the thermal effects.
These two each other opposing research groups should be subject of an independent study, funded by all world countries [WHO could have been an option, but WHO is not neutral either, and entangled in a liaison with ICNIRP], to find out which group is creating phantom results.
The facts about the biological effects, collected already during several centuries, are overwhelmingly convincing, indeed peer reviewed, but the industry, related with EMF, the telecom industry, has the capital, even for paying universities, researches there, influencing and manipulating researches, promising students a three times higher salary when cooperating, paying scientists, who lecture at universities, paying groups who create the guidelines……., with other words: to play with the facts, and twist non-science into science. See article. Corrupted science creates phantom results, phantom evidence. All claims that 5G is safe are based on phantom evidence: there is not any scientific research result that shows that 5G is safe. One could expect therefore, that 5G is easy to be stopped.
The pro 5G “movement” bases their conclusions on the research of ICNIRP. The power of ICNIRP is a totalitarian power and infiltrated everywhere. If “peer review” exists, where are the so-called peer reviewed papers that prove that ICNIRP is right? And if these exist: who are their reviewers?
This article is created to search for the meaning of “peer review”, the value of “peer review”, if it can be controlled, checked, is it possible to commit fraud? Does the term “peer review” offer the guarantee-label for the quality of a scientist who shows peer review papers? I have tried to find answers for you on all questions.
How to recognize peer-reviewed (refereed) journals
The Angelo State University website offers students —and also those who do not study at a university, but at home, are students, and their private study makes it possible to try at least to unveil the frauds among the scientists, or to comment perfectly on a newspaper article, or a tweet on Twitter, which contains false information, because they have learned to understand the difference between correct and incorrect—, so, this information on the ASU university website offers all of us information about the term “peer review” here. Interesting in this article is that “peer review” is obviously not an absolute guarantee that the paper is indeed totally peer reviewed, and even may contain falsehoods. Interesting is also, as is shown later in this blog post, that what is published by a scientist, next to peer review papers on PubMed, ResearchGate, Nature Science, etc., so also in the social media, in articles in digital magazines or newspapers, or a personal blog, even when named “academic blog”, is in fact verifying the term peer review, or not.
I found in Wikipedia:
Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has claimed that peer review is “ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant; Several studies have shown that peer review is biased against the provincial and those from low- and middle-income countries; Many journals take months and even years to publish and the process wastes researchers’ time. As for the cost, the Research Information Network estimated the global cost of peer review at £1.9 billion in 2008.”
Note: Also PubMed refers to Richard Smith, in its extended article about “peer review” on PubMed.
Investigating facts, or: fact-checking
Time and again we, who oppose 5G because of the possible dangers created by this new type of radiation, are downplayed by the overwhelming pressure of the pro 5G group, where of course also the telecom industry itself is part of, plus all media, universities, scientists, that are related with this multi trillion dollars industry. The total of individuals that work directly or indirectly in this industry, is a hardly to beat well armed army.
Yes, the group that opposes 5G has based its arguments on thousands of peer reviewed scientific publications. Among those who try to downplay their arguments is a group with the name ICNIRP, scientists who belong to this group are presented on the ICNIRP website with a personal profile, thoroughly screened by ICNIRP before being invited to join the team, and there are scientists that are not so well screened, generally, like for instance, as an example that shows to be very interesting within the context of the title of this blog post: Frank de Vocht, but who must have been screened by ICNIRP, and found “harmless” for their views on wireless radiation, and the continuation of their totalitarian power on EMF guidelines via almost all world countries: otherwise they would not have used his research “Static magnetic field effects on human subjects related to magnetic resonance imaging systems” by Donald W. Chakeres, and Frank de Vocht, for their International Review Journal: “Progress in Biophysics & Molecular Biology”, see link. There is another name listed: Dariusz Leszczynski. Such a remarkable coincidence, both De Vocht and Leszczynski have a similar kind of blogging and tweeting, and are comrades. This will become clear in the following chapter. Their victims are those who do not share the same opinion, as already explained in my former post about Twitter. Leszczynski is sometimes contra 5G, and on other moments pro 5G. In case one starts to distrust him in the Stop 5G movement: he writes articles against ICNIRP in his blog. These articles are opinions, mostly without any source or data, and when commenting on this, or other issues, he claims that he himself, because of his studies and profession, is correct. The ICNIRP article:
Static Magnetic Fields – 2005
Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Volume 87, Issues 2–3, February–April 2005 / ICNIRP’s CONCLUSIONS: These studies did not demonstrate any clinically relevant adverse effects on neuro-cognitive testing or vital sign changes. One short-term memory, one sensory, and one cognitive-motor test demonstrated adverse effects, but the significance is not clear.
Over 100 peer-review publications
On his Bristol University profile Frank de Vocht claims to have
over 100 peer-review publications broadly covering the areas of public health, exposure measurements and assessment, and radiation, environmental and occupational epidemiology. He has contributed to book chapters on epidemiology, exposure assessment and the effects of electromagnetic fields on humans. His work is funded by NIHR, the European Union and several charities, and he specializes in epidemiology of lifestyle, environmental, and occupational risk factors. His current research interests are two-fold: the evaluation of natural experiments in public health, specifically in the context of alcohol policies, and secondly the effects of ionising and non-ionizing radiation on human health. – end quote-
I have checked Frank de Vocht’s PubMed profile and there are indeed over 100 publications, but I cannot find any link to any kind of peer review.
PubMed writes the same as what Richard Smith, MD, writes: it is not a guarantee that all publications are peer reviewed, and if, possibly not totally. PubMed even mentions Richard Smith. See PubMed.
Why did I search for facts? Well, he wants us, who want to stop 5G, to show the exact papers to confirm what we state, because he has other information.
He has, in his The Fun Police blog, made “fun“, together with Dariusz Leszczynski, out of a serious article written by the respected and honourable Dr. Magda Havas, an icon in the scientific research field of electromagnetic radiation, an article that she published on her website: ‘Is there an association between covid-19 cases/deaths and 5G in the United States?’.
He demands facts. Who can offer all the facts, now, in the research of Covid-19? Nobody. All is one big new puzzle and we do not know how the final picture looks like. All contributions in order to find puzzle pieces and trying to put them on the right place, are so welcome. She does. Tries. Does not claim to have found the cause of the pandemic outbreak. Leszczynski and De Vocht demand facts, well, I do also. The term scientist is totally meaningless without the proof via facts. too many fake scientists are playing a crucial role nowadays, and are cause of the abyssal catastrophe we are in. So: I demand facts. I even mailed him, Frank de Vocht, to ask for a link to his over 100 peer review papers, and for a link to his CV as well, because there is not any CV to be found. His answer: papers that are published on PubMed are peer reviewed. No word about a CV. I sent another email, (see the complete correspondence in this PDF), and his answer was:
I find this quite an inappropriate and rude email to send to someone to be honest. Before sending these kind of emails I suggest you first familiarise yourself with how pubmed, peer-reviewed journals, and the academic publication system works. All the information you are looking for is available on the internet, and I will not be using my time creating some CV in a format specially for you. Especially because I have no idea who you are nor do I think we have ever met. – end quote-
When you have read the article about Magda Havas you will understand that I am amazed by the words “inappropriate”, “rude”, in his email to me, as an answer on an honest question. About his accusations into my direction concerning PubMed, I may conclude here that he is not informed himself about the so-called peer reviews on PubMed, and if, he assumes obviously that probably nobody will ask difficult questions, and if, like I did, he uses sneaky ways to attack the one who dares to ask, with I guess the hope the attacked one will stop asking more, and is silenced. He also names Arthur Firstenberg, and Dr. Martin L. Pall in his blog article about Magda Havas, and categorizes them as
………two of the main culprits that resulted, amongst other misunderstandings of the scientific evidence, also fuelled the flames of this conspiracy…… – end quote-
I understand of course that he tries to harm the respect of the Stop 5G activists for both Arthur Firstenberg and Dr. Martin L. Pall, but when taking in mind how he, Frank de Vocht, writes about 5G, about electromagnetic radiation in general, as a scientist and a human being, he will not succeed in that, ever: on his public profiles De Vocht writes that he studied non-ionizing radiation: I found 3 results out of the 111 publications. There are 9 search results out of 111, for electromagnetic radiation, which include also 2 of the 3 former mentioned results, so in fact there are not more than 7 results, and there is 1 search result for ionizing radiation. The most of his publications on PubMed are about alcoholism, and related issues.
Two articles about 5G
In the following two articles Frank de Vocht shows his flawed knowledge about 5G.
Article 1: I quote from an article that checks the facts of a Stop 5G article published in 2019, and declares, the article “inaccurate”, together with, what appear to be, two ICNIRP members, but this is not visible in the article:
Brussels halted 5G rollout in 2019 to study its radiation emissions, not because any negative health effects had been demonstrated
Published: 11 Jun 2020
In: Health Feedback
Reviews by: Frank de Vocht, Rodney Croft (ICNIRP chair, from May 2020, the article is from June 11, 2020, ) and Isabelle Lagroye (ICNIRP so-called Scientific Expert Group member).
Frank de Vocht, Lecturer, University of Bristol, in the article:
The quote, “the results of independent evidence is overwhelmingly suggesting that 5G does pose a major threat”, is clearly nonsense. For a starter, it directly contradicts the activists’ own claim that 5G is untested and should therefore not be rolled out.
On a more scientific basis. The frequencies used for 5G consist of (1) the same frequencies used for 3G and 4G, but with much lower power outlet density (i.e., lower exposure to people), so if anything it would reduce the health risk if there was one, and (2) higher frequency millimeter waves which do not penetrate the human body beyond a couple of millimeters. For the latter, much less data is available (contradicting the quote above), but what data there is and what we know about the properties of such radiation more generally suggest it is highly unlikely to increase health risks. Possible, but not probable, exceptions to this are skin and eye cancer, which the millimeter waves do “hit”. It would be good to monitor trends. – end quote-
Article 2: Concerns over Bristol’s 5G roll out
By Ellie Pipe,
Published: Jul 2, 2019
Bristol24/7 contacted Dr Frank De Vocht, a reader in epidemiology and public health at the University of Bristol, who has researched the potential impact of 5G, for answers.
He said: “Based on the available data of all studies in humans and animals (and mechanistic data) there are some, but not very strong, indications that high exposure to 1/2/3/4G may possibly cause certain types of cancer.
“On balance, looking at all the evidence, it seems possible but not likely.”
De Vocht went on to say that “claims about 5G being ‘the new asbestos’ or ‘new tobacco’ are simply incorrect”, explaining: “For the additional 5G millimetre waves bit that is the concern, no studies in humans have been done. What we do know about this type of radiation is that it is very unlikely this will add to any excess health risks, such as cancer, at the expected levels of exposure (for example, it does not penetrate deeper than the skin).
“Having said that, although the scientific and public health case to invoke the precautionary principle as a reason for stopping the roll out is weak, there can be an issue for electro-hypersensitive individuals in the community.
“It does not matter here whether this is really the effect of exposure to electromagnetic radiation or not, but the added stress of the roll out and – perception of – added exposure alone can result in real health effects.
“Moreover, it seems to me that it is up to communities themselves to have some say in what they want their own environment to look like.”
In a statement, Vodafone said: “The frequencies proposed for 5G are covered by existing international and national exposure guidelines and regulations for radio-frequency electromagnetic fields.
“These international guidelines are based on extensive reviews of published scientific research and apply in the same way to 5G as they do to existing 2G, 3G and 4G technologies and other radio-frequencies such as radio and TV transmissions.” – end quote-
More about Frank de Vocht
—Frank de Vocht worked also at:
WHO – IARC
Note: WHO and ICNIRP are in a conflict of interest with each other. Read: ICNIRP
—Website Microwave News, editor Dr. Louis Slesin
Articles tagged with “Frank de Vocht”
—Twitter – some tweets published by Frank de Vocht:
01. “#Populists don’t like #experts
02. I’ll be one of the speakers at this webinar next week.
03. A nice paper on #electrohypersensitivity #EHS
For thought: “it is scientifically impossible to disprove the existence of a risk…: this residual uncertainty … contributes to many controversies in #environmentalhealth, as it can always justify a precautionary approach”
04. My 3yr old asked my today “daddy, how is #gravity made?”
05. 5G vs 4G. Same data usage, less radiation.
06. So does #alcohol.
So does #5G cause alcohol misuse, or does alcohol consumption cause 5G? Or is this possibly just nonsense? #causalinference
07. Pseudoscience and COVID-19 — we’ve had enough already
08. I have had a closer look at the #5GCoronavirus (#5G #Covid_19) analysis done by Havas. https://twitter.com/frankdevocht/status/1254683544611414018
09. No, there is no connection.
And yes, you just showed a map of urbanisation….
10. @BekiLangford and I are developing a #research proposal to study #wellbeing and #health of people with #electrohypersensitivity (#electrosensitivity) in the UK, and we would very much like to develop the study with people in the #EHS community.
11. Brussels halted 5G rollout in 2019 to study its radiation emissions, not because any negative health effects had been demonstrated
12. I dont think they are. ICNIRP just dont find the evidence for longterm non-thermal effects very convincing
13. No independent assessment of course, but promising nonetheless:
“The highest level from #5G signals specifically was 0.039% of the maximum set out in the international guidelines”
- My comment on 01: Indeed!
- My comment on 04: Probably his 3 year old meant: graffiti, if not: his answer shows again ignorance about a field he claims to have studied: EMF. Also Earth radiates EMF, and boosts gravity. 5G is going to change that, because of 5G, millions of 5G antennas, radiating millimetre waves, 4G-LTE cell towers radiating microwaves, plus the 5G satellites (man-made EMF) that are radiating earth from the ionosphere, and overpowering the natural EMF of earth by man-made EMF, in a cocktail of radiation that has not been studied. 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law. Since all this is already difficult to explain to students, and to not professionals, real professionals in the field of EMF, how could one explain this to a 3 year old toddler? “Daddy cannot explain this, darling” would have been an honest answer, because he indeed does not know. It is excellent to be honest, and children can learn to become an honest person as well, by the exemplary role of the parents, and that we can not know all, not even if one is a scientist, not even if he has thousand, a million, peer review publications.
- My comment on 05: Martin Röösli is a member of ICNIRP!
- My comment on 06: ?
- My comment on 07, 08, 09: Science is about putting all puzzle pieces together. Leaving one puzzle piece out, because one is biased, one believes that something cannot be part of the studied issue by assumption, not by proof, cannot be categorized as a scientific research, but as a self-fulfilling prophecy, a belief, or a wishful thinking, and not science. Of course the industry wishes that 5G is NOT in the puzzle Covid-19! 5G is economic security, capital. Since the total picture does not exist, for as long the puzzle is not ready, and as long the picture even when complete, but in fact just obviously complete, as long it is not explaining all the puzzle parts into the smallest details, the puzzle is not ready. When the puzzle is indeed in all its facets ready, and the 5G puzzle parts are indeed out, because they do not fit after all, only then 5G is proved not to be related with Covid-19. Science is not so far yet. Frank de Vocht belongs to the wishful thinkers that 5G is not related with Covid-19. If, he loses the claim on the peer review of his over 100 publications, then he loses, if he has not already lost it, his integrity, and his job.
- My comment on 10: I sincerely hope that nobody with EHS is willing to become the victim of a research to which also Frank de Vocht contributes. It might be obvious why I hope this. If not: read the total article again.
- All other tweets are quite clear and do not need a comment.
Frank de Vocht is, according to his Twitter profile, 24-hr butler to a toddler, but has, despite being occupied for 24-hr per day, obviously lots of time to tweet, and uses even his Twitter timeline to ask for support to hit a person, who likes to fact check his words. He even made a screenshot of a detail of her email, and published it (picture). Link to the tweet: https://twitter.com/frankdevocht/status/1273287104060153861 Link to the PDF with the emails of both Antoinette Janssen, the author of this blog article, and Frank de Vocht.
Why Frank de Vocht needs to boost his imago, by adding “over 100 peer review publications” to his Bristol University profile, and in “about”, in his blog?
Answer: If he would be honest to himself, he would admit that it does not fit to claim the term “peer review”, with the intention to boost his imago, while he damages his imago everywhere himself, where he writes in a by himself searched and found low level vocabulary, bluffing about what he names facts, but which are not facts but statements that unveil his poor knowledge about extremely complex fields in science: electromagnetic radiation, non-thermal effects, thermal effects. He shows to need much more reading in-depth studies about the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation,
- before deciding to judge about professionals in this field,
- before downplaying the so many effects of electromagnetic radiation and the differences between all the “G”‘s, where thousands really peer reviewed publications are very clear about: the threat they create for human health, for all life beings on earth, and
- before creating information in articles, which is, of course, false, because it is based on his poor knowledge, but most likely: his ignorance.
A real scientist writes truth, also about his skills, his researches, and does not bluff that he studied ionizing radiation, while there is just 1 publication to be found on PubMed, and in which he is just the last mentioned in an “et al”.