Someone give this guy a BS Buster badge!
It then comes down to a question of credibility. I’d place the US government paper above one paid for by who knows what interests.
I’m really getting weary of the tactics here.
Citing an academic research project funded by The author gratefully acknowledges infertility clinics in the North, Middle and South Governorates of Jordan for their support and help in data collection. under the auspices of the Middle Eastern Fertility Society seems pretty up front and reasonable to me.
The paper you seem to be prioritising seems a Chinese authored library item by PLA Institute for Technology of Family Planning and Healthy Birth and Care, 202nd Hospital of PLA, Shenyang, Liaoning 110003, China. that is hosted on the NCBI library. Or is it the one from the Western Journal of Medicine, neither of which are US government papers.
Tactics? Seems there is a difference of opinion as there sometimes is.
He’s got one already
Shhh! (I think it’s two, actually - but why not start a collection?)
The only reason I’m aware of the issue is a link to that paper from the US government’s National Institutes of Health. To me, that link alone is enough to lend credibility to the paper.
A search on Google or Google Scholar, with the words:
microwave impacts on male fertility
yields page after page of hits suggesting concern. Those indicating otherwise are a vanishingly small minority.
The tactic in question is a form of cherry-picking. Pretending, as it does, that the exception is the norm, cherry-picking is calculated to deceive.
Thanks to all those who have shared an opinion on the issues, and especially for taking the time to post links and references. While it might not solve every issue, it is useful to understand the source of information and hopefully we can all keep an open mind to each other’s views (and if possible be open to change if you find new information).
We also had a similar conversation a while back regarding RF radiation and cancer that may be of interest to the topic.
Like many libraries, they contain a wide range of information with contrary views. Most libraries also acknowledge that information stored are not necessarily the views of the library or underlying organisation.
There is a significant amount of contrary information available on the internet and within research papers about the potential risks of mobile phones (which includes frequencies around the 5G spectrum). There however appears to be consensus amongst the experts (like ARPANSA, the US Government Cancer Institute and similar expert organisations around the world) based on best information available today, that the health risks associated with mobile (cell) phone use are low or insignificant
If there was new information which identified and confirmed significant health risks, these organisations would be the first to communicate this information through their media channels, websites and factsheets.
There also also various opinions, hypotheses and such like about potential health risks of 5G, just like previous mobile phone generations. The hypothetical health risks associated with previous generations has also not come into fruition, and there is no reason why the same would not apply to 5G.
Any new technology should he rightfully questioned, but it should also be discussed rationally and based on facts. Where subject matter is technical, one needs to rely on the experts to provide information which addresses such matters. This is the case with 5G.
Just to be clear about the purpose of PubMed - the site upon which that paper is published and which is indeed operated by the US government:
PubMed comprises more than 29 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
It’s a library, not a publisher or a research facility. It is true that any research that receives funding from the US government is now required to be published (other than the super-secret stuff), but most papers on PubMed do not even fall into that category.