In the late 1990s, with the rise of cell phones, people were worried that the RF energy from the phones and towers, while low, might cause physiological problems. The first paper specifically concerns this topic. Note that it says "It was concluded that, although hazards from exposure to high-level (thermal) RF fields were established, no known health hazards were associated with exposure to RF sources emitting fields too low to cause a significant temperature rise in tissue."
The second paper is because starting even by the late 1980s there was a concern that the background 50Hz/60Hz EMF from power lines might be causing a problem. There was a 1979 epidemiological association between power lines and childhood leukemia. See http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-f... for more details. This second paper presents a hypothesis for how that mechanism might work, should it exist.
The third paper rings warning bells. For example, it references clinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00805337 but the research protocol was never explained in the submission, and no research results were ever published there. It was also registered at about the time the paper you pointed to would have been submitted, so it feels like it was added because it was required by the publisher, and not because it was a well-run clinical trial.
Also, frequencies like 10456.383 Hz are incredibly precise; to the point of unbelievability. They don't show a plot of the signal as a function of frequency, they don't have information about reproducibility, and they don't describe control, since surely they should have RF interference from the environment, and feedback effects from the equipment itself.
In any case, the last 4 papers all list B. Pasche as a co-author, and from the conflict of interest section in one of the papers it says "Boris Pasche and Alexandre Barbault have filed applications for patent protection and hold patents related to electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies as they relate to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. They hold stocks in TheraBionic."
Thus, they aren't really independent confirmations of some observed effects, are they? Why did you list them all?
The second paper is because starting even by the late 1980s there was a concern that the background 50Hz/60Hz EMF from power lines might be causing a problem. There was a 1979 epidemiological association between power lines and childhood leukemia. See http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-f... for more details. This second paper presents a hypothesis for how that mechanism might work, should it exist.
The third paper rings warning bells. For example, it references clinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00805337 but the research protocol was never explained in the submission, and no research results were ever published there. It was also registered at about the time the paper you pointed to would have been submitted, so it feels like it was added because it was required by the publisher, and not because it was a well-run clinical trial.
Also, frequencies like 10456.383 Hz are incredibly precise; to the point of unbelievability. They don't show a plot of the signal as a function of frequency, they don't have information about reproducibility, and they don't describe control, since surely they should have RF interference from the environment, and feedback effects from the equipment itself.
In any case, the last 4 papers all list B. Pasche as a co-author, and from the conflict of interest section in one of the papers it says "Boris Pasche and Alexandre Barbault have filed applications for patent protection and hold patents related to electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies as they relate to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. They hold stocks in TheraBionic."
Thus, they aren't really independent confirmations of some observed effects, are they? Why did you list them all?