Expert Physicians, Surgeons and Scientists Call for FDA to Retract “Biased” Anonymous Report of Cancer Impacts of Cell Phones

FDA Website Lists Cherry Picked Science Claiming Scientific Consensus of Cell Phone and 5G Safety  

Experts in the field of bioelectromagnetics are calling for the FDA to retract their recently released report on cell phone radiation and cancer due to “numerous scientific errors.” They are countering the FDA’s assertion that there is “scientific consensus” that cell phone radiation and 5G are safe.  Scientists expert in the relevant fields of study who are calling for the report’s withdrawal include Beatrice Golumb, MD PhD, Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, Hillel Baldwin, MD, Fellow American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Ronald Melnick PhD, former National Institutes of Health Scientist, David Carpenter MD, former Dean of Public Health at Albany, Dr. Anthony Miller, Professor Emeritus of University of Toronto and World Health Organization Senior Advisor, Samuel Milham MD, former Head of the Chronic Disease Epidemiology Section, Washington State Department of Health and Dr. Devra Davis, President of Environmental Health Trust and Fellow American College of Epidemiology, Prof. Tom Butler, University College, Cork, Ireland, in addition to other independent expert scientists around the world who have conducted research on cell phones and wireless radiation. 

 

The FDA report entitled “Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer, was released on February 10, 2020 in conjunction with a major rewrites of key agency website pages; Do Cell Phones Pose a Health Hazard?, Children and Teens and Cell Phones, Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety,  Radio Frequency Radiation and Cell Phones, Reducing Radio Frequency Exposure from Cell Phones.

“I find it shocking that the FDA would casually dismiss the carcinogenicity findings from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studies on cell phone radiation in experimental animals, when it was the FDA that requested those studies in the first place ‘to provide the basis to assess the risk to human health,’ and when an expert peer-review panel carefully reviewed the design and conduct of those studies and then concluded that the results provided “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity,” stated Ronald Melnick PhD who led the design of the $30M NTP study. Melnick sent a letter to the FDA documenting the scientific inaccuracies in their review. 

 

“When I worked as a wildlife biologist for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for 17 years, I collaborated with the late Dr. Ted Litovitz in 2000.  Dr. Litovitz and his colleagues studied the impacts of low-level, non-thermal radiation from the standard 915 MHz cell phone frequency on chicken embryos.  In their laboratory studies, control/non-treated embryos suffered no effects, but some of the treated/irradiated embryos died — at levels as low as 1/10,000 the normal level of cell phone radiation exposure to humans.  This was an eye-opener!” stated Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D.; retired Senior Wildlife Biologist, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Wash. DC HQ Office (17 years) and now senior Lecturer and Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University who issued a statement  on the “over 500 scientific, peer-reviewed papers addressing impacts of non-ionizing, non-thermal radiation on laboratory animals — many of the studies directly applicable to human health and safety.” He concluded, The current FDA statement is irresponsible, unfounded, and sets a dangerous precedent — especially in this age of “fake news” and “alternative facts.”  It needs to be corrected or retracted.” Read Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D.’s statement on the FDA Report here. 

“The FDA review omits an evaluation of the science on wireless radiation impacts to trees and wildlife. Electromagnetic radiation is a form of environmental pollution which may hurt wildlife. I have co-published research entitled “Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations” finding harm to trees near base stations (cell antennas) in a long term field monitoring study in two cities, “ stated biologist Alfonso Balmori, BSc who sent a statement to the FDA. 

Letters which have been sent to the FDA include:

• • Letter calling for a retraction signed by several scientists. 
  • Ronald Melnick PhD’s letter to the FDA on the National Toxicology Program study
  • Albert Manville PhD, retired Senior Wildlife Biologist, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Wash. DC HQ Office (17 years); Senior Lecturer, Johns Hopkins University 
  • Prof. Tom Butler of the University College in Cork, Ireland’s letter to the FDA 
  • Igor Belyaev, PhD, Dr. Sc. Head, Department of Radiobiology of the Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center of the Slovak Academy of Science letter to the FDA  
  • Paul Heroux PhD, McGill University  
  • Alfonso Balmori, BSc statement to the FDA

In addition to these letters. Scientists submitted statements that are posted below.

Click here for a PDF of all letters and statements.

Environmental Health Trust has released videos of Ronald Melnick PhD, former National Institutes of Health Scientist, Devra Davis PhD, president of Environmental Health Trust, and a video of Igor Belyaev, PhD, Dr.Sc. Head, Department of Radiobiology of the Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center of the Slovak Academy of Science, Steven Sinatra  MD, cardiologist and Hillel Baldwin MD, a neurosurgeon in Tucson, Arizona providing expert commentary on the FDA report. 

“Radiofrequency is an established carcinogen. Cell phones held close to the head will substantially increase the risk of a type of brain cancer—glioblastoma,” stated Dr. Anthony B. Miller, Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto and former Director of the Epidemiology Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Miller also served as a Senior Epidemiologist, International Agency for Research on Cancer and published a major research review in 2018, concluding that “based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARC’s current categorization of RFR as a Possible Human Carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1). Miller recommends people use safer wired technology rather than wireless technology, “We should do all we can to reduce exposure.” 

 

“This astonishing report from an agency charged with protecting public health should be retracted.   It does not meet minimum standards of scientific reporting or review, as it takes a skewed look at science, lists neither authors nor reviewers. It ignores the recent Yale study supported by the American Cancer Society linking cell phone use to thyroid cancer. It does not consider that antiquated phone test methods do not protect anyone from microwave radiation emitted by phones or other devices. It ignores repeated calls from the American Academy of Pediatrics and numerous experts in the field of child health to take into account the unique vulnerability of children, pregnant women and young adults. No reference is made to a growing body of research showing brain damage and headache and replicated research showing memory damage in teens after just one year of cell phone use,” stated  Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President of the Environmental Health Trust. 

Igor Belyaev, PhD, Dr.Sc. Head, Department of Radiobiology of the Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center of the Slovak Academy of Science, declared,“This inadequate FDA review is not in line with the majority of the scientific community on the issue of RF EMF health effects. The NTP findings along with recent replicated animal studies from Germany (Lerchl et al., 2015), supplemented other animal studies and provided compelling evidence for carcinogenicity of cellphone exposure in animals.”  Belyaev sent a letter to the FDA regarding extensive scientific evidence supporting his comments. 

“FDA is pushing red herrings to avoid the inevitable conclusion that electromagnetic fields have important carcinogenic effects on animals below thermal levels, stated Paul Héroux, PhD, Professor of Toxicology and Health Effects of Electromagnetism at McGill University Medicine and Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Center. Read the full comments of Paul Héroux, PhD on the FDA Report.

“The US FDA “literature review” conclusion that there are no connections between cell phones and cancer is not valid, as it is contradicted, at least, by the classification, by IARC-WHO, of cell phone-emitted EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). The numerous research studies IARC reviewed to base the Group 2B classification also included a study of mine (cited in the IARC-WHO 2013 report;pages 101,103,121), which advances the free radical pair mechanism of non thermal induction of carcinogenic oxidative stress by exposure to low-intensity RF radiation, “ stated Christos D. Georgiou, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry Biology Department University of Patras, Greece. 

 

Prof. Tom Butler of the University College in Cork, Ireland sent a letter to the FDA documenting how “this review fails to meet the basic criteria set for valid and reliable scientific research” stating, “ The FDA seems unaware of, or is it simply ignoring, the overwhelming body of scientific evidence on non-thermal effects, and not just the carcinogenicity, of non-ionizing ionizing radiofrequency radiation (RFR).” 

 

Prof. Suleyman Dasdag, Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul,Turkey, also noted: “Mobile phones are not as innocent as they seem. In my studies to date, I have found that wireless radiofrequency (RF) does not affect every organ in the same way and very different parameters are important in the emergence of effects. In our two studies on RF and the brain in 2015 and our study published this year, we found that RFs may affect key molecules.  In addition, we observed in our brain study that RF radiation can affect the death of brain cells. I also want cell phones not to cause brain tumors, but our studies and the published studies we have reviewed are in the direction that the risk will increase even more after 5G.” 

 

Martin L. Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University who has published extensively on how EMFS activate Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels which can lead to tumor promotion, disputed the report’s conclusions that cellphones are safe, noting that,  “EMFs produce double strand DNA breaks which cause cancer via chromosomal rearrangements, copy number mutations and gene-amplification.  EMFs also cause oxidized bases including 8-OHdG, which produce transition and transversion mutations such that when these occur in oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes, these mutations have important roles in causing cancer.”

 

“This report is pure nonsense! It is as though the author didn’t read any of the literature they cite,“ stated David O. Carpenter MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, 

University at Albany who has repeatedly documented adverse effects over 4 decades of published research. 

 

“Radiofrequency radiation should be regarded as a human carcinogen causing glioma, ”stated  Lennart Hardell MD, an advisor to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, who has published several studies finding associations between cancer and people who use cell phones regularly. He referred to one of his published research reviews concluding that radiofrequency is a carcinogen. 

 

“The latest report by the National Toxicology Program is a game changer. We also should not ignore case series reports on cancer in military workers with whole body exposure to  RF/MW, stated Professor Elihu D. Richter MD, MPH at the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Department at the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine. 

 

“Due to the recent results described in many peer reviewed scientific papers published in the international literature showing significant human health risks (including cancer) at levels of EMF exposures well below the available recommended limits (e.g., ICNIRP, FCC/IEEE/ANSI).  We believe that the Precautionary Principle should be urgently adopted and the population should be fully informed on the best ways to reduce their exposure and health impacts, “ stated Alvaro de Salles, Ph. D. Professor at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil whose research studies have found children are more exposed to RF from cell phones. 

 

“The FDA’s position is totally incomprehensible especially since the findings of the Phonegate scandal have revealed the deception by cell phone manufacturers who have knowingly overexposed all cell phone users to excessive radiation for decades,” stated Dr. Marc Arazi of Phonegate Association. 

 

“Mankind is being forced to participate in a giant “experiment” without protocol, without collection of data and without adequate evaluation of  the cocktail of EMF humankind is exposed to every day. The engineering community needs to recognize the fact that there is a difference between experimental exposure and continuous exposure to multiple frequencies and modulations. The FDA  as well as ICNIRP have failed to investigate this to assure public safety, ” stated Marko S. Markov PhD, author of major medical textbooks in bioelectromagnetics. 

 

“Tissue heating is certainly not the only effect caused by radiofrequency radiation.,”  stated Hiie Hinrikus, PhD, DSc, Professor Emeritus Centre for Biomedical Engineering at the Tallinn University of Technology who has published several research studies on microwave radiation.  “Hundreds of studies performed by independent researchers have convincingly approved biological effects caused by low-level radiofrequency radiation in animals and humans at constant temperature. The reason is coherent nature of radiofrequency radiation. During billions years, living nature has been adapted to natural solar radiation, radiofrequency radiation is in principle different from solar radiation. Sun emits irregular incoherent radiation in wide frequency spectrum whereas technical radiofrequency sources emit regular coherent single-frequency radiation. The impact of irregular random and regular coherent electromagnetic radiation on living systems is different. Irregular radiation causes random forces and movement in tissues and can create only tissue heating. Coherent radiation causes regular forces and synchronous movement affecting simultaneously large amounts of molecules and cells in tissues. Therefore, the impact of radiofrequency radiation is much stronger than the heating effect only. This is convincingly approved also in microwave chemistry.”

 

“This FDA report shows how the USA has dropped the ball when it comes to protecting the environment. The FDA report ignores impacts to bees, ignores impacts to birds and ignores impacts to trees. It is only focused on cancer. So exactly who is watching out for the environment? The cold hard reality is that no federal agency is reviewing the published research that has found “wireless” emissions harm animals and the environment. Now in regards to humans, if you take the time to read the FDA report, you will find it only focused on cancer, not other adverse health effects. The American people deserve a fully transparent review that looks at the totality of science in a systematic way. Why is this FDA report anonymous? What scientists or consultants did the analysis, and who were the peer reviewers making the evaluation? The National Toxicology Program three day peer review found cell phone radiation to be associated with cancer and the expert evaluation of the study was videotaped and fully transparent,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust.   

 

Scarato notes that “Scientists have repeatedly written to FDA asking for its research reviews. They have received no response to their inquiry, so it is highly unusual that the FDA would release a document like this—which is not even a systematic review—amidst legal actions against the FCC.”

 

Overview of FDA Website Changes

 

At the same time they issued their literature review, the FDA also scrubbed their website claiming that this biased report focusing solely on cancer also exonerates phone radiation from having any other health impacts. 

 

The FDA states, “The scientific evidence indicates radio frequency (RF) exposures that are at or below current U.S. safety limits do not cause health problems. There is no established health benefit from reducing an individual’s RF exposure from cell phones.” 

“This statement runs contrary to independent conclusions reached by Swiss and French authorities, who have issued guidance to reduce exposures especially to children and pregnant women, “ stated Davis.