Why was the Study “5G Technology and Induction of Coronavirus in Skin Cells” removed from PubMed?

Now, a month later, with the study still missing, PubMed has additionally issued a Retraction Notice that reads:

“This article has been retracted at the request of the [PubMed] Editor. After a thorough investigation the Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article as it showed evidence of substantial manipulation of the peer review”.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32746604/

However, this study serves as as a good example of the importance of quality EMF training, so for those of you who are still curious, the article in question can be read in its original 8-page form at Science Integrity Digest, or downloaded here:

Here are some statements excerpted from the study and examined more closely (words in red denote my emphasis):

In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells.

DNA is built from charged electrons and atoms and has an inductor-like structure. Inductors interact with external electromagnetic waves, move and produce some extra waves within the cells.

5G Technology and Induction of Coronavirus in Skin Cells (Fioranelli et all, June 2020)

As an Electrical Engineer, I had issues with the information in this study that simply did not stand up to the scrutiny of physics.  Those of you who have taken the EMF Consultant Certification training course will recall the great extent our training is based on an informed (knowledgeable) scrutiny of facts when evaluating “too good to be true” EMF products, especial those espousing pseudo scientific marketing claims. 

I’d like to add here, that the same necessity applies to research studies, due to the general lack of knowledge regarding EMF behavior according to the laws of engineering physics. In fact, given the large amount of inaccurate EMF information posing as education on the web, the growing importance of trained discernment applies to all statements pertaining to EMF generally.

Looking at studies is particularly good exercise in this type of discernment as we set out to evaluate their merit, by seeing how the statements stack up against the laws of science and physics.

Interestingly, by contrast to the PubMed retraction, which ostensibly erased all trace of the study to protect the uneducated public, we find a very different handling of another similar retracted study in an IEEE (Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers) Journal – Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We? (Naren et al, January 2020). The retraction notice is stated but instead of deleting the study it is left online, giving credit to its engineer readers to be able to discern its merit for themselves as EMF-knowledgeable individuals.

With decades of experience working to make the use of EMF safer, I land on the side of the vital need to educate ALL EMF-technology users in order to give ALL consumers the same ability to make informed decisions. All it takes is some quality EMF training by a qualified experienced instructor.

So, without knowing the details of why PubMed objected to the peer review process used for this study,  I would like to offer my own review, and take this opportunity to create a training exercise in evaluating research studies. Let’s take a closer look at this particular study of 5G and its relationship to Coronavirus, and discuss the unsupported claims.

Recognizing Fact from Theory or Conjecture

One of the main reasons for my issues with this study is that the statements illustrated in our quote above, are put forward as physics engineering facts with regard to the electrical characteristics of a coil of wire (inductor) and its similarity to a double helix strand of DNA, which is the basis of this theory, are at best hypothesis and conjecture and at worst are disinformation and “bad science”. 

In any case these statements are not based on actual laws of physics, nor on engineering or scientific facts, which I’ll outline briefly here:

A coil of wire will, and is intended to, conduct electricity and the flowing electromagnetic current will create a magnetic field; or conversely, if placed in a varying magnetic field, will produce an electrical current and an electric field.

In contrast to this behavior, which behaves according to laws of physics, a DNA double helix, which looks like a coil of wire, has no such conductive properties to interact with a magnetic field.

Identifying a Study’s Statements as Hypothesis and Theory

Hypothesis is a theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that, if true, would explain certain facts or phenomena of physics and science.  In other words, a hypothesis is an expression of original thinking of a study’s researchers.  If a scientific hypothesis survives experimental testing it the becomes a scientific theory.

Identifying a Study’s Conclusions as Conjecture and Speculation

Conjecture is an opinion that has been formed by speculating (conjecturing) on incomplete evidence. This study gives us many classic examples of conjuncture posing as fact.

In this case, contrary to their claim, the diameter of a human skin cell is far smaller (0.04 mm) than the smallest millimeter wave wave-length (1 mm, 300GHz, which is the smallest millimeter wave on the EMF Spectrum, and the maximum frequency that FCC is mandated to regulate up to). So by their own statement, the external waves used, or potentially used, by 5G are in fact not good candidates for constructing “virus-like structures” within cells.

Misstatements (including misinformation and disinformation) regarding EMF are always obvious to an EMF-Expertly trained students.

When it comes to discerning statements from misstatements, look for authentic citations. Here we find no citation of study or evidence for the creation of an actual “virus like structure”, let alone any actual virus of any kind, using the suggested mechanisms. EMF-Expertly trained students automatically look for the citations for unusual statements put forth in any study.

This study, and the agitation raised in the collective mind of an uninformed simply trusting public, by its conjecture (based on misstatements about its relationship between 5G and CoVid) underscores the vital importance of obtaining accurate, trustworthy and qualified EMF Detection and Protection Training.

As responsible, conscious consumers of wireless technologies, and even as bystanders merely exposed to them, we must learn and understand EMF behavior correctly by obtaining proper EMF (wireless) training right from the start. In this way we can increase our ability to authentically protect ourselves, and sharpen our powers of discernment when presented with inauthentic conjecture that is published as though it were fact – even by seemingly reputable authors in respected journals and online sources.