Ask literally any biologist whether you should expect to be able to calculate the effects on an organism of some stimulus using only physical formulas.
Citation needed.
Seriously, the burden of proof is on you for such a statement.
And be precise, which modulations, which conditions, what effects.
"Certain" and "profound" are filler words in this situation. They mean nothing.
We know pretty precisely how much of a microwave radiation exposure will be absorbed in various kinds of living tissue. We know that the mechanism of absorption is via induced nanoampere currents. We know with certaintly that those nanoampere currents will all end up, finally, as heat.
We don't know all of the effects of the nanoampere currents produced by that absorption, otherwise. We do know that induced nanoampere currents can, under certain circumstances, have profound biological effects.
the only thing they can do is transfer some heat energy to you, orders of magnitude lower than your average light bulb in the office (certainly entirely incomparable to sunlight).
Also, consider that the net resulting incidence voltage from unpolarised sunlight amounts to near zero, whereas man-made RF is polarized.
We don't understand what causes many types of cancers so I don't get the chemistry-knows-all stance.
Radio waves are way way below this level of energy so for them to cause a non thermal effect would mean some new effect we have never seen before anywhere. No one is ruling it out completely but it is very unlikely with no plausible mechanism or data to back it up while UVA/UVB is well understood with respect to photon energy which is related to the ionizing threshold.
100% false. Practically everything that goes on in your body involves, one way or another, motion of ions in solution. Varying E-M fields induce electrical currents carried by such ions. Where and how matters.
It is always a grave mistake to confuse your entire lack of knowledge of a topic with certainty about it.
You need to do better than saying someone is wrong before proclaiming radical new information.
Here is what I found: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69561-3
None of the commenters seem to bother to discover that the science review in question looks at DNA-damage and oxidative-stress mediated through other pathways than direct ionization. As I said: its more about complex biology, than simple physics/chemistry. Its about the sum of parts, not the reductionism that plagues the field of RF and health.
Again there is no conclusive proof that RF exposure causes adverse non-thermal effects at cell phone power levels or even much higher power levels let alone being able to explain a mechanism that would cause those non-reproducible effects.
If you have better information please post it, one paper from a questionable journal using questionable methods is not enough.
Erm, our understanding of the mechanics of COVID vaccines has changed dramatically over the period since their introduction. Initially it was thought that they provided longterm immunity, now boosters. The manufacturer said that spike proteins would not escape the muscle. Pfizers own post marketing study shows that they spread thru out the body. In short, we do not have a deep understanding of the long term impacts, as evidenced by the unexpected drop in efficacy. It may be that so-called "leaky" vaccines such as the COVID vaccines, which do not produce neutralizing antibodies result in strains with worse potential lethality evolving, as is the what happened with Marek's disease in chickens. Initially, vaccine manufacturers and the CDC alike claimed that vaccines were producing neutralizing antibodies. Now 4 out of every 5 hospitalized cases of Covid in Canada have received their 1st, 2nd and third shots.
In short, I hope you were kidding saying that.
I don't remember that ever being said. Initially it was HOPED that it might provide longterm immunity - but the vaccines were launched into a world where we still didn't have a conclusive answer to the question "can you get covid twice". If anybody was saying that, they were speaking beyond their knowledge.
As for the unexpected drop in efficacy, that is at least in part due to the fact that the covid-19 we're exposed to today is not the same covid-19 that the vaccine was targeted against.
For the record, I agree with your overall point - mRNA vaccines were not and are not a well understood system with no potential for unknown effects. But neither is covid and given the two unknowns, the vaccine seems the safer choice.
Marek's doesn't make a good argument for vaccine skepticism because it represents a worst case arms race in which modern medicine was still by far the better choice. Also we aren't chickens and most diseases on average tend to become less damaging in order to spread better. Neither this average case nor the extreme case of Marek's are fate but the logical thing is to vaccinate and just keep swimming as it will obviously decrease mortality in the short and long term.
Moving on to the percentage of individuals in the hospitals in Canada being vaccinated.
You have entirely misunderstood the numbers if indeed your numbers are actually even accurate. Vaccination rate is very high in Canada around 90% with vulnerable groups being more like 95-98%.
Lets take this to the logical extreme. Imagine that out of one million people you are the only one unvaccinated and are hospitalized along with 100 vaccinated folks. Even in a world where vaccination decreased hospitalization by 99% you could accurately say that most of the people in the hospital were vaccinated as if that proved somehow that vaccines didn't work.
Indeed one expects with a successful vaccination campaign that eventually most of the people in the hospital are going to be vaccinated no matter how effective it is at keeping them out of it because almost all the vulnerable people are. In the last vaccine skeptic in the world universe you could instead look at which portion of each population is sick. In the vaccinated it would be 0.01% vs 100% of the unvaccinated giving the lie to the prior analysis.
Indeed the only reason to lean on that number is deliberate deception or utter failure to apprehend what the numbers mean.
Here’s a link from Pfizer themselves talking about the vaccine *preventing* COVID infection, not just severe symptoms. This is basic Google stuff. https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
Shall we move on to the talking heads from public health institutions and the politicians? I mean, examples abound and this would be a lay-up. Google is your friend here.
But how can you be unaware of these claims after two years of drama over them in the global public square? Vaccine mandate propositions were largely predicated on the inflated expectations of efficacy - people lost their livelihoods over this. We’re not talking about flippant one-off statements here, but the confidence and endorsement that moves government and corporate policy.
What is the authorative physics answer which proves this goes one way or another, applied to cell biology, in the human head?
Empirical evidence always helps, but in the discussion around science results etc. people always seem to forget that there's another important type of evidence, which is the mechanical understanding of a model/system.
You don't really need empirical evidence to know what happens when you throw a ball in the air inside a locked box. Technically the laws of physics could magically change and produce a different outcome, but using your understanding of the mechanics of the underlying system you can predict that the ball is going to fall inside the box with a very low error rate.
Still relevant since this applies to the new covid vaccines as well for example. People worrying about their potential negative effects are worrying for nothing, since even lacking long term empirical evidence we know how they work and have a deep mechanical understanding of mRNA vaccines, and they are not going to cause issues, period.