"Stop global roll out of 5G networks until safety is confirmed", urges "expert"


This seems to be widely doing the rounds quite widely:

Other sites covering it include https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...id-john-william-frank-edinburgh-b1789027.html , https://scitechdaily.com/expert-stop-global-roll-out-of-5g-networks-until-safety-is-confirmed/ , etc., but there seems to be extensive copy-pasta involved across the multiple sites. Many of the sources identify themselves as just "BMJ".

Some are referencing: “Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?” 19 January 2021, Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.
DOI: 10.1136/jech-2019-213595

Edit: Strike this paragraph <<<
However, two DOI resolvers (including https://dx.doi.org/ ) responded DOI not found - and it's not listed as a recent article at https://jech.bmj.com/ which seems highly suspicious, and even makes me feel there's a nonzero chance it's a complete fabrication from whole cloth.

It appears there's a backdoor to get BMJ papers that aren't officially out yet, and it can be found at https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595

Not that it matters, the expert's expertise seems to be lumbar, not EM: https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/J.-Frank/20434501
Last edited:


Senior Member.
It appears there's a backdoor to get BMJ papers that aren't officially out yet, and it can be found at https://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/04/jech-2019-213595

Electromagnetic fields, 5G and health: what about the precautionary principle?​

  1. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3912-4214John William Frank
New fifth generation (5G) telecommunications systems, now being rolled out globally, have become the subject of a fierce controversy. Some health protection agencies and their scientific advisory committees have concluded that there is no conclusive scientific evidence of harm. Several recent reviews by independent scientists, however, suggest that there is significant uncertainty on this question, with rapidly emerging evidence of potentially harmful biological effects from radio frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures, at the levels 5G roll-out will entail. This essay identifies four relevant sources of scientific uncertainty and concern: (1) lack of clarity about precisely what technology is included in 5G; (2) a rapidly accumulating body of laboratory studies documenting disruptive in vitro and in vivo effects of RF-EMFs—but one with many gaps in it; (3) an almost total lack (as yet) of high-quality epidemiological studies of adverse human health effects from 5G EMF exposure specifically, but rapidly emerging epidemiological evidence of such effects from past generations of RF-EMF exposure; (4) persistent allegations that some national telecommunications regulatory authorities do not base their RF-EMF safety policies on the latest science, related to unmanaged conflicts of interest. The author, an experienced epidemiologist, concludes that one cannot dismiss the growing health concerns about RF-EMFs, especially in an era when higher population levels of exposure are occurring widely, due to the spatially dense transmitters which 5G systems require. Based on the precautionary principle, the author echoes the calls of others for a moratorium on the further roll-out of 5G systems globally, pending more conclusive research on their safety.

I emphasized the scare words that cover up the total lack of evidence by hinting that the doomsday evidence breakthrough is just around the corner. Note also that this is an "essay", and not peer-reviewed science.
Not that it matters, the expert's expertise seems to be lumbar, not EM: https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/J.-Frank/20434501
He's also retired.
He has been Professor (now Emeritus) at the University of Toronto, at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, since 1983;

Here's why the essay involves a conspiracy theory: every major agency has given 5G a clean bill of health, but it's worded as "not converged around a strong warning":
International health protection agencies and their scientific advisory bodies have published several reviews over the last decade, of varying scientific quality, of the research evidence regarding potential adverse biological and health effects of RF-EMFs.5 12–15 These reviews—by Health Protection England,12 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),13 an Expert European Union (EU) Committee14 and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)15—have, with one exception, not converged around a strong warning about such effects. IARC is the outlier in this respect, having determined in 2011 that EMFs are ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’.13 Meanwhile, independent radiation and health scientists have published serious concerns about the current roll-out of 5G transmission systems.

"Possibly carcinogenic" is a very mild warning; equivalent "if you overdose rats with it, some become cancer". The list of "possibly carcinogenic" substances is very long.
Particularly striking is a 2018 study from Israel documenting the capacity of the sweat ducts in human skin to act as ‘helical antennae’ receptive to 5G frequencies of RF-EMF.

There's a discussion of this starting here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...rom-a-heavily-biased-source.11193/post-237993
The referenced study is from 2008, I don't think that counts as "rapidly emerging" even if it meant anything.

We could debunk specific evidence, but the fact that the author resorts to doom-saying instead of hard evidence is enough for me to dismiss this.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
P Claim: NASA tried to stop Spielberg's 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' Quotes Debunked 21
Mick West Crazy Contrails from LAX Ground Stop Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
deirdre Claim:Republicans block bill to stop terrorists from buying guns General Discussion 9
Trailspotter A new way to stop the gridlock in the skies General Discussion 0
Critical Thinker foreignpolicy.com: The Pentagon Has a Plan to Stop the Zombie Apocalypse. Seriously. General Discussion 4
Mick West Debunked: IPCC warns not to stop chemtrails, aka 'solar radiation management' Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Mick West Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Contrails and Chemtrails 19
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
Mick West Explained: Podesta 14 + Fish [Promotional Tweet for UN Global Sustainability Goals] Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West WTC7: Is AE911's (and NIST's) Focus on A2001 Justified if it Was Not "Key" in NIST's Global Model? 9/11 181
Cantonear1968 A Former AGW (Man-made global warming) Denier Escaping The Rabbit Hole 3
skephu Debunked: Decline in Global Relative Humidity [It's Increasing] Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Mick West Debunked: AnonSec's NASA Hack, Global Hawk Hijack, Evidence of Chemtrails [Public Domain Data] General Discussion 32
Van Wigington Debate Mentioned in this radio segment, Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 30, 2016 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Mick West Debunked: English Young Father Assaulted by Muslim Mob in Baildon, UK [White Youths] General Discussion 12
M Difference between the impact of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols and Contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Pete Tar Debunked: Most recent NASA study shows ice growth in Antartica Science and Pseudoscience 15
skephu Debunked: Massive US Senate Document On National And Global Weather Modification Contrails and Chemtrails 33
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
Auldy Claim: Satellites show global warming pause continues by CFACT Science and Pseudoscience 13
Gabriel Incertis Claim: MOREGELLON'S Is Patent US 6245531 And It Is Not A Disease Health and Quackery 6
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Pete Tar "Global Warming: Can Earth EXPLODE ?" Science and Pseudoscience 21
KC-10FE Stanford Paper on Global Warming Contrails and Chemtrails 2
G Talking with Global Warming Deniers - Some Tips Practical Debunking 0
TWCobra Max Bliss performs seamless 180 U-Turn on global warming. Contrails and Chemtrails 13
CapnPegleg Debunked: 10 Signs The Global Elite Are Losing Control Conspiracy Theories 11
moderateGOP Debunking Global Research TV Conspiracy Theories 64
Christian Svensson Chemtrails Global Skywatch facebook discussion Contrails and Chemtrails 49
Mick West Debunked: Global Dimming vs. Global Brightening, as evidence for Geoengineering or Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 66
Oxymoron Geoengineering to fight Global Warming General Discussion 5
David Fraser Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 340
Belfrey Global Skywatch: Sampling Chemtrails In the Sky with Swiss Filmmaker Matthias Hancke Contrails and Chemtrails 69
Cairenn Global Research People Debunked 1
Jay Reynolds Global Skywatch Conference Call with Dane Wigington, Nov 2012 Contrails and Chemtrails 110
George B Debunk Global Warming can reduce the number of Persistent Contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Charlie Primero Want a Global Criminal Enterprise? Google Can Help. General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: ArtificialClouds.com claims silver iodide causes chemtrails/global warming! Contrails and Chemtrails 125
cheeple Global Economic Collapse coming and the Gold/silver rule Conspiracy Theories 32
Juror No. 8 Anthropogenic global warming = Eugenics version 2.0? Science and Pseudoscience 21
Related Articles

Related Articles