Frank de Vocht
@frankdv.bsky.social
220 followers 190 following 210 posts

24-hr butler to a little girl and a little boy. Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health in spare time. Tweets are my own.

Public Health 37%
Environmental science 19%
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

frankdv.bsky.social
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" in the world of electromagnetic #radiation (#EMF).....

frankdv.bsky.social
This is, by a mile, the dumbest response to the Parliamentary inquiry about a UK 'digital ID'.
The UK activist 'EM Radiation Research Trust' seems to think its some device emitting radiation rather than, well a number, so raises issues of public health 🤪:
radiationresearch.org/rrt-responds...
RRT Responds to Today’s Alarming Digital ID Headlines – Radiation Research
radiationresearch.org

frankdv.bsky.social
#Causal #inference using Directed Acyclic Graphs ( #DAG); originally known as ADGs 🤔

frankdv.bsky.social
Artist unknown (to me), but this encapsulates electromagnetic radiation #EMF and #health activism so well (as i am sure it does for many other fields):

frankdv.bsky.social
This is quite disingenuously desperate from ICBE-EMF:
ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10....

..I hope someone involved from #WHO and/or the (#RF #EMF #mobilephones) reviews has the time and stamina to respond to this.
The WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of radiofrequency radiation provide no assurance of safety - Environmental Health
The World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned 12 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) on health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The health outcomes selected for those reviews (cancer, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cognitive impairment, birth outcomes, male fertility, oxidative stress, and heat-related effects) were based on a WHO-conducted international survey. The SR of the studies of cancer in laboratory animal studies was the only one that did not include a MA, because those authors considered it inappropriate due to methodological differences among the available studies, including differences in exposure characteristics (carrier frequency, modulation, polarization), experimental parameters (hours/day of exposure, duration of exposure, exposure systems), and different biological models. MAs in all the other SRs suffered from relatively few primary studies available for each MA (sometimes due to excessive subgrouping), exclusion of relevant studies, weaknesses in many of the included primary studies, lack of a framework for analyzing complex processes such as those involved in cognitive functions, and/or high between-study heterogeneity. Due to serious methodological flaws and weaknesses in the conduct of the reviews and MAs on health effects of RF-EMF exposure, the WHO-commissioned SRs cannot be used as proof of safety of cell phones and other wireless communication devices. However, the animal cancer SR, which was rated as “high certainty of evidence” for heart schwannomas and “moderate certainty of evidence” for brain gliomas, provided quantitative information that could be used to set exposure limits based on reducing cancer risk. The multiple and significant dose-related adverse effects found in the SRs on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcome should also serve as the basis for policy decisions to lower exposure limits and reduce human reproductive risks. The report of harmful effects (e.g., cancer, reproductive toxicity, etc.) at doses below the adverse health effect threshold claimed by ICNIRP demonstrates that current exposure limits to RF-EMF, which were established by applying arbitrary uncertainty factors to their putative adverse threshold dose, lack scientific credibility.
ehjournal.biomedcentral.com

frankdv.bsky.social
This is an incorrect inference. There is no direct comparison of co-created vs non-co-created lifestyle interventions. The added value of co-creation is not investigated and remains unknown (although probably beneficial)

frankdv.bsky.social
The government on #gambling harms
peterstefanovic.bsky.social
'I do think there's a case for gambling firms to pay more,' said the chancellor when asked if she would consider increasing the taxes gambling firms pay

'They should pay their fair share of taxes, and we'll make sure that that happens'

Reposted by Frank de Vocht

peterstefanovic.bsky.social
'I do think there's a case for gambling firms to pay more,' said the chancellor when asked if she would consider increasing the taxes gambling firms pay

'They should pay their fair share of taxes, and we'll make sure that that happens'

frankdv.bsky.social
Known lack of funding, a temporary blip, or the way the scores are derived..but no, the DailyMail and ideologically driven "thinktank" Civitas, supported by the morons at the Campaign for Real Education, believe it has to be 'cause #woke:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...

Yay #Bristol Uni though
Britain's 'wokest' universities named and shamed
Oxford and Cambridge, once crowned the top two in terms of pushing contentiously progressive ideologies on students, came joint-fourth in The Times Good University Guide 2026.
www.dailymail.co.uk

frankdv.bsky.social
We (with many authors), published an eletter to the journal #Science outlining how the linear-no threshold #LNT model for #radiation protection is based on #epidemiology, radiobiological evidence, and societal considerations; not on hereditary #genetic analyses.

www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation
www.science.org

frankdv.bsky.social
Malhotra is a dangerous fool (and a Dr. That is possible).
jonathanstea.bsky.social
Anti-science movements (e.g., anti-vaccine, anti-psychiatry) reflect failed and harmful ideologies: They’re not about any one person.

But, for example, if you feel offended by being labeled an anti-vaxxer, then perhaps try not regularly parroting anti-vaccine propaganda.

Reposted by Frank de Vocht

jonathanstea.bsky.social
Anti-science movements (e.g., anti-vaccine, anti-psychiatry) reflect failed and harmful ideologies: They’re not about any one person.

But, for example, if you feel offended by being labeled an anti-vaxxer, then perhaps try not regularly parroting anti-vaccine propaganda.

frankdv.bsky.social
Not much, kind of as expected based on lots of literature around #cellphones (including #RF exposure itself).
With the exception of better attention and less annoying and distracted kids during school hours......which seems a good enough reason to consider a ban here 🤷‍♂️

Reposted by Frank de Vocht

frankdv.bsky.social
Mevissen et al does indeed have some really awkward decisions.

I was paraphrasing 😁

frankdv.bsky.social
This is why all these shitty opinion pieces, "reviews" etc are published. They will then show up in LLM results. Very MAHA.

frankdv.bsky.social
Useful overview, discussion, and reflectikns on the #WHO reviews on #RF #EMF and relevant outcomes.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti...

Several EMF activist organisations also producing reviews should have a look at this in terms of thoroughness and robustness, and consider their approaches.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the WHO assessment of health effects of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, an introduction
www.sciencedirect.com

Reposted by Frank de Vocht