Thread by @drg1985

So last night I ended up testifying to a national legislature about the potential health effects of radiofrequency radiation and 5G. And things went chaotic quickly🥴 - a little thread story about the joys of dealing with the more 'fringe' elements... (1/n)

So firstly, scientific consensus is overwhelming that radiofrequency light like 5G is not dangerous. I've written on why before, but at public events like this, there's always some activist fringe groups - question is how out of hand will it get? 2/n blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/d…

After formal preamble, health effects sections starts well enough, with a good talk outlining why the scientific consensus is what it is. But then, the more outlandish take the floor - including one very well-known fringe group, who don't particularly like me alas.. (3/n)

Now I'm really not precious about titles, but I've noticed when dealing with pseudoscientists they're very keen to demote me to "Mr Grimes" or just "Grimes" - like clockwork, this one immediately does both. All her chosen experts are PhD, I'm now just Elon Musk's ladyfriend 4/n

She continues, I'll paraphrase: "All world expert bodies are lying or incompetent, but her fringe sources have it all figured out. Everyone else is a big telecom shill - Especially YOU. WiFi is killing trees, frying kids, and causing whatever you're having yourself" 5/n

At one point, there's a scary picture of apparent 5G damage at 900Mhz. The reality that's not within a country mile of 5G but actually corresponds to the frequency Walkie talkies operate at doesn't impede her one bit - I almost admire how impervious she is to facts 6/n

Next, brief interlude for someone's written testimony: 5G was invented in 1970s China, smuggled to the USA with Trump to cause COVID. Something about @BillGates too, I zoned out. The record keeper had to read this with a straight face, for which she deserves an award 7/n

Here's another guy, an epidemiologist who's never heard of Bradford Hill criteria or even apparently the concept of causality, because he puts *this* graph up to say "cell phones reduce pay because the 1980s". Oh, and he *promises* they cause cancer. Spoiler: They don't. 8/n

I'm last up - there's been so much ranting that I make a concerted effort to stay to time, pointing out scientific consensus, where misconceptions occur, and why. I also refute others claims, & point to the conspiracy narrative inherent in much of the testimony is telling 9/10

Suddenly, an anti-5G activist calls me a "fucking idiot" (I don't dispute this tbh) -a senator mishears it, thinks it aimed at her, & a ruckus ensues before the chair sheepishly clarifies I was the target, & footage will be reviewed to see who said it. I just shrug & laugh 10/n

A senator demands to know if I'm familiar w/ a professor they're quoting on 5G danger. I say sure - he's a business professor, about as qualified to comment on radiobiology as I am to opine on investment portfolios. This doesn't go down well, please dont ask me about stocks 11/n

The 5G activists, however, have began flood posting the teams chat of the call, accusing me of being in the pocket of big telecom. They demand to know who's paying me (no one) - here's my impression of "big telecom" btw, for the record 12/n

By now it's all gotten a bit chaotic - the poor chair and his team are having to police the testifiers. I'm well used to it, so I zone out and pour a whiskey. It is, after all 3am. I feel bad, because chair's team feel they need to apologise to me for other people's issues 13/n

The absolute best one was that they shared this MAD conspiracy theory in the chat: That because I got CRUK funding... I must be in cahoots with... some dude? Btw, the actual paper I thanked NVIDIA on is... one simulating cancer stuff (h/t @dbasanta) 14/n nature.com/articles/s4141…

Long story short, by the time it was over it was 4am by time, and I was wide awake. Even though I *know* what these groups are like, it's always bizarre to watch their carry-on - there is no reasoning with them alas. But there is a good ending to this story of sorts 15/n

..these folks thrive on fringe papers, & I recognised some they used as ones @jamesheathers & I had submitted detailed complaints about last year. After the call I checked - and found the one claiming RF caused ADHD just got retracted. About time 16/n jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…

Anyway, there's about another 8 in that pile we'll get retracted for data fakery & bad science yet, but I haven't slept yet so I'm going to bed. Moral of the story: scientific consensus views >> fringe narratives, no matter how passionately they're held! 17/17, n =17

Postscript: A surprising amount of fringe folks have PhDs or MDs. But the only authority a scientist ever has is dependent on them reflecting the evidence base: if they embrace fringe positions then qualification, education, and prestige mean zero: they're not doing science.