EMF/RF/5G/IOUT/ Why Citizens, Scientists and Researchers Are Sounding the Alarm about JAMA and Grimes

By Patricia Burke

As noted in, EMF/RF/5G/IOUT David Grimes, “Science For Sale,” And How Democrats Continue To Fail On Wireless Science, Health, And Environment, a kerfuffle has arisen regarding the American Medical Association’s Journal publishing an article by an industry shill.

Joel Moskowitz asks “Why did JAMA Oncology publish a paper written by a Telecom industry spokesperson?”

“The title [ ] ‘Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review,’ is misleading because this is not a literature review. Rather, this is an opinion piece written by David Grimes, a science writer and physicist who has served as a paid spokesperson for the telecommunications industry.”  “[ ] distrust in government [ ]may be attributable to a history of governmental failure to regulate environmental toxins and protect public and environmental health instead of industry profits.”

As reported by The DisInformation Chronicle and The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity,

“Of course, this is not Grimes’ first blunder out of physics and into an area of science where he has no qualifications or research experience. When evidence began leaking from court cases against Monsanto that the company had lied about the dangers of the pesticide glyphosate, Grimes took to Twitter to berate famed consumer advocate Erin Brockovich.

[ ] In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’ Since that finding, a horde of respected scientists have begun documenting the assault on IARC by apologists for the agrichemical industry such as Grimes. In the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, dozens of scientists signed a statement that found criticisms of IARC’s findings on glyphosate to be ‘unfair and unconstructive’ [ ] . “Such interference does not bode well for the free flow of scientific information that informs and protects the public from risks of cancer.” – Disinformation Chronicle

AMA History: “Scientific Advancement, Standards for Medical Education, Medical Ethics, Improved Public Health”

According to the American Medical Association,

“An 1845 resolution to the New York Medical Association by Dr. Nathan S. Davis, calling for a national medical convention, led to the establishment of the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1847. Scientific advancement, standards for medical education, launching a program of medical ethics, improved public health — these were the goals of the AMA.”

In 1873, the AMA Judicial Council founded to deal with medical ethical and constitutional controversies.

In 1883, the Journal of the American Medical Association is first published. In 1960, the journal obtained the title, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association.

1999, JAMA Fires its Editor

In January of 1999, JAMA fired its long-time editor George Lundberg. In a press release announcing Lundberg’s departure, AMA executive E. Ratcliffe Anderson ”stated that the editor had threatened the journal’s “integrity” by “inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine,[ ]” according to Constance Holden reporting for Science. Org.

“The feisty editor, who presided over JAMA for 17 years, has been at odds with AMA brass over the years, tackling such issues as the perils of smoking and injuries from boxing before the association took public stands on them.” The paper in question by Kinsey Institute for Sex Research pertained to the attitudes of college students towards sex.

What JAMA Says Matters

In 2020, according to Journal Citation Reports,  JAMA had a 2020 impact factor of 56.272, ranking it 3rd out of 169 journals in the category “Medicine, General & Internal.”

“The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index [] that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal [ ] . As a journal-level metric, it is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field; journals with higher impact factor values are given status of being more important, or carry more prestige in their respective fields.” – Wikipedia

The public and independent researchers have every reason to cry foul about the Grimes article.  It is about integrity.

Environmental Health Trust and Others Give JAMA and the AMA the Opportunity to Restore Integrity and Fulfill Their Mission, Because Industry Apologists are Professional Liars, and Only Corrupted, Captured Agencies Promote Mercenary Science

Environmental Health Trust sent a letter to the editor of JAMA Oncology calling for a retraction of an inaccurate review authored by the paid wireless industry spokesperson.

SOURCE

Our scientific understanding of electromagnetic radiation is in a paradigm shift.

The ionizing versus non-ionizing model is no longer relevant to understanding the health effects of RFR.

Just because RFR is non-ionizing does not mean that it cannot cause, promote or play a role in the development of cancer. Research has found adverse health effects from RFR including increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, and damage to the nervous system (Belpomme et al., 2018; Miller et., 2019, Schuermann et al., 2021).

Grimes inaccurately states that reviews “do not support claims of genotoxic effects” footnoting an outdated review (Verschaeve, 2005) which is well superseded by the Lai, 2021 review which documents in vitro and in vivo experimental evidence reporting that RFR and non ionizing electromagnetic radiation can in fact lead to genotoxic effects including DNA strand breaks, micronucleus formation, and chromosomal structural changes. [ ]

Grimes inaccurately refers to the NTP study as a “preprint” and omits the full findings. After an unprecedented three day peer review, the final NTP reports not only designated the elevated tumors in male rats as “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity,  but in addition, the NTP found significant increases in DNA damage (Smith-Roe et al., 2020) as well as the induction of cardiomyopathy of the right ventricle in male and female rats  (NTP, 2018a; 2018b). Analysis of the NTP data according to current risk assessment guidelines concluded that U.S. government FCC limits should be strengthened by 200 to 400 times to protect children (Uche & Naidenko, 2021). []

Grimes states without reference “nor does any ostensible animal or epidemiological evidence come close to meeting Bradford Hill criteria or similar for causation” but he omits publications which conclude that Bradford Hill criteria is met (Carlberg and Hardell 2017, Peleg et al 2018).

A review article is supposed to present the current state of science on this issue, however Grimes’ review summarily dismisses the latest research indicating carcinogenic effects with unfounded criticisms. His presentation is not an objective and balanced reflection of the current state of scientific knowledge.

This along with a number of identified errors merit an investigation and retraction of the article in its current form.  If not, then corrections must be made and a counter article should be commissioned to overcome the bias and glaring omissions in Grimes’ supposed review.- EHT

Other Independent, Expert, Non-Industry Commentaries Regarding Grimes

• The Journal of Scientific Practice and Integrity, Experts Blast David Robert Grimes for His Failure to Understand Science and Love of Self-Citation, January 18, 2022
• Disinformation Chronicle “Experts Blast David Robert Grimes for His Failure to Understand Science and Love of Self-Citation,” January 18, 2022
• Microwave News “Four Reasons Why David Grimes’s RF-Cancer Review Must Be Retracted”  Open Letter to Editor-in-Chief, AMA Journals  PDF of Slesin’s 4 Page Letter  and  Grimes Not Affiliated with University of Oxford
• Dr. Joel Moskowitz,  “Why did JAMA Oncology publish a paper written by a Telecom industry spokesperson?” Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, January 18, 2022
• Kent Chamberlin. Letter to Dr. Mary Disis, JAMA Oncology Editor. January 5, 2022
• Environmental Health Trust Letter to Jama Oncology Calling for a Retraction 

In 1999, the AMA fired its editor for “inappropriately and inexcusably interjecting JAMA into a major political debate that has nothing to do with science or medicine.”

The question of RF safety has everything to do with science and medicine, as well as environmental issues.

As the airline/5G debacle is indicating, the national and international community is wisely and resonsibly questioning the “science” informing policy making in the United States.

“We were not aware that the power of the antennas in the United States have been doubled compared to what’s going on elsewhere. We were not aware that the antenna themselves have been put into a vertical position rather than a slight slanting position, which then taken together compromise not only the radio altimeter systems but the flight control systems on the fly by wire aircraft.”  “I need to be as candid as I normally am, and say this is one of the most delinquent, utterly irresponsible issue subjects, call it what you like, I’ve seen in my aviation career.”- Emirates Airlines president Tim Clark

For JAMA, this is a test of the emergency broadcast system, because, along with the FCC, what they are broadcasting is junk science. Regarding integrity, we are getting nowhere fast.

Adblock test (Why?)