Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.

The many different voices speaking into the current narrative surrounding the health effects of 5G technologies necessitate an exploration of the background of the various published author-spokespersons and their potential motives. This has been attempted recently by de Vocht and Albers. However, that opinion piece used a narrow investigative lens, resulting in an undermining of both the rationality of the concerned general public and the motives of specific researchers. At the same time, biases, conflicts of interest, and flaws found in "independent" reviews were not considered. To address these oversights, an evidence-based appraisal of public opinion and the scientific caliber of authors involved in the 5G health discussion is warranted. Subsequently, this review article presents an analysis of the available Australian data representing public voices, while also conducting a broader investigation of the level of expertise of recent author-spokespersons based on their experience as scientists, particularly in the area of health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. This review thus attempts to more clearly illustrate for the reader the caliber and motives of the voices speaking into the 5G narrative. The article concludes with a set of questions that need to be answered to enable scientists to advise policy makers more effectively on matters of 5G and public health.

The European Union prioritises economics over health in the rollout of radiofrequency technologies.

The fifth generation of radiofrequency communication, 5G, is currently being rolled out worldwide. Since September 2017, the EU 5G Appeal has been sent six times to the EU, requesting a moratorium on the rollout of 5G. This article reviews the 5G Appeal and the EU's subsequent replies, including the extensive cover letter sent to the EU in September 2021, requesting stricter guidelines for exposures to radiofrequency radiation (RFR). The Appeal notes the EU's internal conflict between its approach to a wireless technology-led future, and the need to protect the health and safety of its citizens. It critiques the reliance of the EU on the current guidelines given by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that consider only heating and no other health relevant biological effects from RFR. To counteract the ICNIRP position, the 2021 cover letter briefly presented recent research from the EU's own expert groups, from a large collection of European and other international studies, and from previous reviews of the effects of RFR on humans and the environment. The 5G Appeal asserts that the majority of scientific evidence points to biological effects, many with the potential for harm, occurring below the ICNIRP public limits. Evidence to establish this position is drawn from studies showing changes to neurotransmitters and receptors, damage to cells, proteins, DNA, sperm, the immune system, and human health, including cancer. The 2021 Appeal goes on to warn that 5G signals are likely to additionally alter the behaviour of oxygen and water molecules at the quantum level, unfold proteins, damage skin, and cause harm to insects, birds, frogs, plants and animals. Altogether, this evidence establishes a high priority for the European Union towards (i) replacing the current flawed guidelines with protective thresholds, and (ii) placing a moratorium on 5G deployment so as to (iii) allow industry-independent scientists the time needed to propose new health-protective guidelines. This 2021 Appeal's relevance becomes even more pressing in the context of the EU plans to roll out the sixth generation of wireless technologies, 6G, further adding to the known risks of RFR technology for humans and the environment. This all leads to an important question: Do EU decision makers have the right to ignore EU´s own directives by prioritising economic gain over human and environmental health?

Wireless technology is an environmental stressor requiring new understanding and approaches in health care.

Electromagnetic signals from everyday wireless technologies are an ever-present environmental stressor, affecting biological systems. In this article, we substantiate this statement based on the weight of evidence from papers collated within the ORSAA database (ODEB), focusing on the biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and radiation. More specifically, the experiments investigating exposures from real-world devices and the epidemiology studies examining the effects of living near mobile phone base stations were extracted from ODEB and the number of papers showing effects was compared with the number showing no effects. The results showed that two-thirds of the experimental and epidemiological papers found significant biological effects. The breadth of biological and health categories where effects have been found was subsequently explored, revealing hundreds of papers showing fundamental biological processes that are impacted, such as protein damage, biochemical changes and oxidative stress. This understanding is targeted toward health professionals and policy makers who have not been exposed to this issue during training. To inform this readership, some of the major biological effect categories and plausible mechanisms of action from the reviewed literature are described. Also presented are a set of best practice guidelines for treating patients affected by electromagnetic exposures and for using technology safely in health care settings. In conclusion, there is an extensive evidence base revealing that significant stress to human biological systems is being imposed by exposure to everyday wireless communication devices and supporting infrastructure. This evidence is compelling enough to warrant an update in medical education and practice.

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant crop systems in the United States. Economics of herbicide resistance management practices in a 5 year field-scale study.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, growers have often relied on glyphosate-only weed control programs. As a result, multiple weeds have evolved resistance to glyphosate. A 5 year study including 156 growers from Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, North Carolina and Mississippi in the United States was conducted to compare crop yields and net returns between grower standard weed management programs (SPs) and programs containing best management practices (BMPs) recommended by university weed scientists. The BMPs were designed to prevent or mitigate/manage evolved herbicide resistance. RESULTS: Weed management costs were greater for the BMP approach in most situations, but crop yields often increased sufficiently for net returns similar to those of the less expensive SPs. This response was similar across all years, geographical regions, states, crops and tillage systems. CONCLUSIONS: Herbicide use strategies that include a diversity of herbicide mechanisms of action will increase the long-term sustainability of glyphosate-based weed management strategies. Growers can adopt herbicide resistance BMPs with confidence that net returns will not be negatively affected in the short term and contribute to resistance management in the long term.

A comparison of the pharmacokinetics of the anticancer MET inhibitor foretinib free base tablet formulation to bisphosphate salt capsule formulation in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This phase I, open-label, randomized, 2-part crossover study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of single doses of the anticancer MET inhibitor foretinib (formerly known as GSK1363089, EXEL-2880 and XL-880) free base tablet formulation compared to a bisphosphate salt capsule formulation (Part 1), and assessed the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of the bisphosphate salt capsule administered 3 times a week in cancer patients (Part 2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Part 1, patients were randomized in a crossover manner to receive a single oral dose of foretinib formulated as a bisphosphate salt capsule (240 mg; 183 mg free base equivalent) followed one week later by a single dose of a free base tablet (180 mg), or vice versa where the treatment sequence was reversed. In Part 2, patients self-administered oral doses of bisphosphate salt capsules (200 mg) 3 times a week until disease progression. RESULTS: Twelve patients with solid tumors were enrolled and completed Part 1, and 10 patients continued into Part 2. Most AEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most common drug-related AEs were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. The least-squares (LS) mean total area under the curve was 3144 and 3514 ng*h/mL for the free base tablet and bisphosphate salt capsule, respectively, with a ratio of 0.89 (90% confidence interval, CI: 0.69, 1.16). The LS mean maximal concentration (Cmax) was 81.6 and 98.5 ng/mL for the free base and bisphosphate salt, respectively, with a ratio of 0.83 (90% confidence interval, CI: 0.67, 1.02). The time to reach Cmax was ∼4 h for both formulations. The pharmacokinetics of foretinib were not clinically different between the 2 formulations. Of the 10 patients assessed for efficacy, 3 patients achieved stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Foretinib was well tolerated as single doses of both the free base and bisphosphate salt formulations. The pharmacokinetics and relative bioavailability of the 2 formulations were not clinically different. The bisphosphate salt formulation was well tolerated on a 3-times a week dosing schedule, and reached steady-state plasma concentration after 2 weeks.