Again, effects of what you are talking about? Authors didn't provide any sensible information that could be used to figure out what exactly they studied.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
Yes, I deny garbage. This paper is a garbage and I carefully pointed out why exactly.
The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects
There is no such separate and special thing as "biological effects". Biology works on the same physical principles as all other things in the world. It is in no way special.
If you want to introduce some additional effect or principle, in addition to physical one, in biology or medicine, then you have to describe its exact mechanism on the lowest possible level and prove it on this level, prove it with a simple, replicateable and clean experiment, that EM wave of RF could interact with a matter in some new, unknown way. And only then, you will be able to bring some ground for your baseless statement about "biological effects".
Without that, any "study" you could bring will be nothing more than bullshit. Not any different from a study about "we give a drink to one group from a random puddle, and other group from a tap and get different results" without providing full chemical analysis of water from puddle and from tap and describing exact mechanisms that gave results observed. That's not a science, it is a mockery of science and sanity. "Study" you brought here is nothing more than senseless torture of mice for the sake of getting publication score.
You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed
I do. Review is not a replication. Review is not a discovery of a new way of RF interaction with a matter.
And it is a pattern already, when scientists fall to writing reviews of multiple studies, then it is a clear sign that they know shit about things they review.
It is not a coincidence that biology and medicine are infamous for a very high rate of "review studies", much higher than in all other areas together. You will not find "review studies" in optics or reology. You will not find "review studies" in thermodynamics or chemistry. Because there are no any need for them.
Also, "review studies" is known for dismissing all studies that does not fit reviewer point. So, I wouldn't be amased at all, if there is another 100 studies (probably of same garbage quality as 100 reviewed) that show complete opposite results.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings.
There is no any findings. And the worst thing is that they don't need them. Current, completely broken state of biology and medicine is perfectly fine for making careers and acquiring funding, so nothing will change in observable future.
And then, people like you, pointing to that garbage, proclaim "its science!", just like that Fauci bastard, without even understanding how real science looks like. And no, publication in scientific journal does not make science from garbage.
But the same effects are shown over and over again.
But somehow new, undiscovered way of RF interaction with a matter didn't pop up yet . If you think it is normal, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Again, effects of what you are talking about? Authors didn't provide any senseless information that could be used to figure out what exactly they studied.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
Yes, I deny garbage. This paper is a garbage and I carefully pointed out why exactly.
The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects
There is no such separate and special thing as "biological effects". Biology works on the same physical principles as all other things in the world. It is in no way special.
If you want to introduce some additional effect or principle, in addition to physical one, in biology or medicine, then you have to describe its exact mechanism on the lowest possible level and prove it on this level, prove it with a simple, replicateable and clean experiment, that EM wave of RF could interact with a matter in some new, unknown way. And only then, you will be able to bring some ground for your baseless statement about "biological effects".
Without that, any "study" you could bring will be nothing more than bullshit. Not any different from a study about "we give a drink to one group from a random puddle, and other group from a tap and get different results" without providing full chemical analysis of water from puddle and from tap and describing exact mechanisms that gave results observed. That's not a science, it is a mockery of science and sanity. "Study" you brought here is nothing more than senseless torture of mice for the sake of getting publication score.
You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed
I do. Review is not a replication. Review is not a discovery of a new way of RF interaction with a matter.
And it is a pattern already, when scientists fall to writing reviews of multiple studies, then it is a clear sign that they know shit about things they review.
It is not a coincidence that biology and medicine are infamous for a very high rate of "review studies", much higher than in all other areas together. You will not find "review studies" in optics or reology. You will not find "review studies" in thermodynamics or chemistry. Because there are no any need for them.
Also, "review studies" is known for dismissing all studies that does not fit reviewer point. So, I wouldn't be amased at all, if there is another 100 studies (probably of same garbage quality as 100 reviewed) that show complete opposite results.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings.
There is no any findings. And the worst thing is that they don't need them. Current, completely broken state of biology and medicine is perfectly fine for making careers and acquiring funding, so nothing will change in observable future.
And then, people like you, pointing to that garbage, proclaim "its science!", just like that Fauci bastard, without even understanding how real science looks like. And no, publication in scientific journal does not make science from garbage.
But the same effects are shown over and over again.
But somehow new, undiscovered way of RF interaction with a matter didn't pop up yet . If you think it is normal, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Again, effects of what you are talking about? Authors didn't provide any senseless information that could be used to figure out what exactly they studied.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
Yes, I deny garbage. This paper is a garbage and I carefully pointed out why exactly.
The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects
There is no such separate and special thing as "biological effects". Biology works on the same physical principles as all other things in the world. It is in no way special.
If you want to introduce some additional effect or principle, in addition to physical one, in biology or medicine, then you have to describe its exact mechanism on the lowest possible level and prove it on this level and prove it with a simple, replicateable and clean experiment, that EM wave of RF could interact with a matter in some new, unknown way. And only then, you will be able to bring some ground for your baseless statement about "biological effects".
Without that, any "study" you could bring will be nothing more than bullshit. Not any different from a study about "we give a drink to one group from a random puddle, and other group from a tap and get different results" without providing full chemical analysis of water from puddle and from tap and describing exact mechanisms that gave results observed. That's not a science, it is a mockery of science and sanity. "Study" you brought here is nothing more than senseless torture of mice for the sake of getting publication score.
You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed
I do. Review is not a replication. Review is not a discovery of a new way of RF interaction with a matter.
And it is a pattern already, when scientists fall to writing reviews of multiple studies, then it is a clear sign that they know shit about things they review.
It is not a coincidence that biology and medicine are infamous for a very high rate of "review studies", much higher than in all other areas together. You will not find "review studies" in optics or reology. You will not find "review studies" in thermodynamics or chemistry. Because there are no any need for them.
Also, "review studies" is known for dismissing all studies that does not fit reviewer point. So, I wouldn't be amased at all, if there is another 100 studies (probably of same garbage quality as 100 reviewed) that show complete opposite results.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings.
There is no any findings. And the worst thing is that they don't need them. Current, completely broken state of biology and medicine is perfectly fine for making careers and acquiring funding, so nothing will change in observable future.
And then, people like you, pointing to that garbage, proclaim "its science!", just like that Fauci bastard, without even understanding how real science looks like. And no, publication in scientific journal does not make science from garbage.
But the same effects are shown over and over again.
But somehow new, undiscovered way of RF interaction with a matter didn't pop up yet . If you think it is normal, then I have a bridge to sell you.