Hello, > ...I agree with Suresh that at this time, there > is no scientific evidence that links RF with > any kind of bodily harm. > Please note that there is scientific evidence to link chronic exposure to RF result in chromosome instability*1, however there is no diagnostic test to attribute a disease as the end state.
> My point is that we should not dismiss the > physician who thought that he may have > found something, as some kind of > conspiracist. > Thank you. I am your everyday engineer who has had to cope with after-effects of powerful EMF and hence self-taught biology. If not for medical experts (cancer biology in academia) express confidence in my analysis connecting post-exposure to RF biology to likely disease outcome, I know better than to make a fool of myself. As I have said before, this group has the clue to dig for truth and not be satisfied with pseudo concepts. Regards, Suresh On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Sabri Berisha <sa...@cluecentral.net> wrote: > ----- On Nov 4, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: > > Hi, > > >> The fact that we haven't been able to identify a factual relationship, > >> does not mean that there isn't any. > > > > just wow > > > > and, for all we know, the back side of the moon is green cheese > > I don't think you got the message buried within my message. True science > is open to change, based on learning new facts. Like I said initially, I > agree with Suresh that at this time, there is no scientific evidence that > links RF with any kind of bodily harm. > > The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the > notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that > at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful > consequences. > > My point is that we should not dismiss the physician who thought that he > may have found something, as some kind of conspiracist. That's not how > scientific progress is achieved. > > Thanks, > > Sabri > > >
