“Russian Health Disinformation?” Dr. Mike’s Dangerous Dismissal of Wireless Radiation Risks
Mikhail “Mike” Oskarovich Varshavski, better known as Dr. Mike, has built a massive online following with medical-themed videos, comedic shorts, and self-branded content. Born in Saransk, Russia, Dr. Mike immigrated to the U.S. as a child and is now a family medicine physician with an enormous platform—13+ million subscribers on YouTube alone.
Yet, some critics allege that Dr. Mike’s repeated insistence that “non-ionizing RF radiation is harmless” could itself be a form of misinformation—wittingly or unwittingly overshadowing legitimate scientific findings about non-thermal hazards. In an era when “Russian disinformation” is a frequent headline, tying his Russian background to potential misinformation about wireless health is deliberately provocative. But it underscores the irony: a popular, Russian-born doctor in America is pushing a dangerously incomplete narrative about non-ionizing radiation. Whether intentionally or not, the result could be a public health disservice.
Objective: This post dissects Dr. Mike’s flawed approach and shows how RF Safe founder John Coates, EHT v. FCC lawsuit results, the NTP and Ramazzini studies, and brand-new research from 2024 debunks the notion that Non-Ionizing RFR is safe.
In no way are we alleging Dr. Mike is acting as a state-sponsored propagandist. However, in the same way some worry about “Russian disinformation” infiltrating social media, medical disinformation—especially about electromagnetic fields (EMFs)—can be equally harmful. If a mainstream influencer uses outdated or cherry-picked research, countless viewers might conclude that “Bluetooth headphones are definitely safe” or “ionizing is the only real hazard.”
Key Problem: A large audience + oversimplified “no evidence of hazard” messaging = millions lulled into ignoring subtle but potentially carcinogenic, non-thermal effects of everyday EMF exposures.
Dr. Mike’s Dangerous Dismissal of Wireless Radiation Risks
Dr. Mike Varshavski, a family physician and popular YouTuber, recently dismissed concerns about the health risks of non-ionizing RF radiation (like Bluetooth or cellphone signals) in his video, “How Unhealthy Are Your AirPods? | Bluetooth & EMF.”
Dr. Mike’s central claim? That non-ionizing radiation is safe because it lacks the energy to break DNA bonds like ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays). He implies that FCC guidelines, which are based on thermal limits, make Bluetooth headphones essentially risk-free. However, these reassurances ignore decades of rigorous research—much of it from Russia, which has long maintained some of the strictest EMF safety standards in the world.
In fact, leading Russian scientists, like Dr. Oleg Grigoriev, Chair of the Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, have directly contradicted the narrative espoused by figures like Dr. Mike. Grigoriev accuses Western regulatory bodies of being captured by corporate interests, using outdated thermal-only guidelines to avoid costly safety upgrades.
This blog examines how Russia’s scientific legacy in EMF safety dismantles Dr. Mike’s claims, underscores the real risks of RF exposure, and highlights the need for updated safety standards to protect public health—especially children’s health..
Russia’s Precautionary Legacy: Strict EMF Standards
Historically, Soviet Russia (and subsequently Russia) maintained some of the world’s strictest regulations on radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) exposures. In fact, microwave ovens were reportedly restricted from widespread consumer use in the USSR until much later than in the West, partly due to stringent safety concerns about “microwave energy.” While the exact dates can vary based on local regulations, it’s commonly said that commercial sale of microwave ovens in the USSR didn’t become standard until the late 1970s or early 1980s—much later than in the U.S. or parts of Europe.
A History of Caution
For over 130 years, Russian scientists have been at the forefront of studying biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Unlike the U.S., which has often deferred to industry-backed narratives, Russia has historically adopted the precautionary principle, setting stricter exposure limits than most Western nations.
Abstract We analyzed the key stages in the scientific history for electromagnetic field bio-medical effects researches in Russia over 130 years. Has been proven the continuity of scientific knowledge about EMF biological effects and it transmission from one generation of scientists to the next because to exist of scientific schools, the systematic research and national
- Soviet-Era Policies: During the mid-20th century, the USSR strictly regulated occupational and public exposure to microwave and RF radiation, even delaying the commercial release of microwave ovens until safety concerns were addressed in the late 1970s.
- Low Exposure Limits: Russian safety standards often limit RF exposure to levels 10–100 times lower than FCC or ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines.
Why Russia’s Legacy Matters Today
Russia’s ongoing commitment to conservative EMF guidelines challenges the Western “thermal-only” paradigm, which assumes non-ionizing radiation is harmless unless it causes measurable heating. This outdated logic, still used by the FCC, ignores non-thermal biological effects like DNA damage, oxidative stress, and disrupted bioelectric communication.
Dr. Oleg Grigoriev’s Critique of Western “Science” on Wireless Safety
Dr. Oleg Grigoriev, a global expert on RF radiation, has harshly criticized Western regulatory bodies and the World Health Organization (WHO) for ignoring non-thermal effects.
WHO’s Flawed Cancer Review
Unveiling the Controversy: WHO’s Systematic Reviews on Wireless Radiation and Health
The World Health Organization (WHO) is under scrutiny for its approach to assessing the health risks associated with wireless radiation, specifically radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). The organization’s systematic reviews, intended to form the basis of the Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for RF-EMF, have sparked significant debate within the scientific community. Critics argue that the reviews
In 2024, Grigoriev condemned a WHO-commissioned review (Karipidis et al., 2024) that downplayed RF radiation’s carcinogenic potential. He accused the WHO of:
- Using biased researchers with no real expertise in electromagnetic biology.
- Ignoring decades of evidence, including case-control studies linking cellphone use to gliomas and acoustic neuromas.
- Protecting corporate interests by maintaining thermal-only exposure limits.
The ICNIRP Problem
Grigoriev’s critique aligns with findings from Microwave News, which has documented how ICNIRP—a self-selected, industry-linked group—dominates global EMF safety guidelines. These guidelines serve corporate interests by excluding non-thermal effects, ensuring minimal regulatory disruption.
Dr. Mike’s Flawed Claims in Context
In his video, Dr. Mike made several claims that don’t hold up under scrutiny:
- Ionizing vs. Non-Ionizing: He implies non-ionizing RF can’t harm DNA because it lacks ionizing energy.
Counterpoint: Non-thermal pathways, like oxidative stress and bioelectric interference, can cause biological damage without breaking DNA directly. - “FCC Guidelines Are Safe”: He references FCC exposure limits as evidence Bluetooth devices are harmless.
Counterpoint: A 2021 federal court ruled these guidelines “arbitrary and capricious,” failing to consider non-thermal effects or modern science. - Rats Are Not People: Dr. Mike dismisses findings from rodent studies, claiming they can’t be generalized to humans.
Counterpoint: A January 2024 study found striking morphological similarities between rat gliomas and human gliomas, directly challenging this assertion.
Groundbreaking January 2024 Study: Rat Tumors and Human Gliomas
A landmark study published in January 2024 analyzed tumor samples from the Ramazzini Institute’s RF-exposed rats. It found:
- Morphological similarities between rat gliomas and low-grade human gliomas.
- Shared genetic alterations in tumor pathways implicated in human cancers.
Why Animal Studies Are Standard in Carcinogen Identification
Chemicals like asbestos, diesel fumes, etc., were first labeled carcinogenic after robust rodent data. If rodent tumors share morphological and some genetic parallels with human tumors, that’s a strong predictor of human risk. The new 2024 morphological data, comparing rat gliomas to human low-grade gliomas, directly addresses Dr. Mike’s “lack of direct correlation” argument.
Strengthening the Relevance to Human Health
While rats in the study didn’t exhibit certain common IDH1 or IDH2 mutations found in some human gliomas, they did show alternative genetic disruptions also implicated in tumorigenesis. This confirms that we cannot dismiss rodent results as irrelevant; at least some of the same molecular hallmarks appear in both.
Significance: This directly counters the argument that rodent studies lack human relevance. If RF exposure causes rat tumors with human-like characteristics, dismissing the findings is irresponsible.
EHT v. FCC: A Court Battle Exposes Outdated Guidelines
In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC’s RF guidelines (set in 1996) were grossly outdated. The court highlighted:
- Ignored Evidence: The FCC failed to consider thousands of pages of research on non-thermal effects.
- Vulnerable Populations: Guidelines don’t account for children’s thinner skulls and greater absorption of RF energy.
Dr. Mike’s reliance on FCC standards as proof of safety is deeply flawed—these standards were deemed inadequate by a federal court.
In Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit Court concluded the FCC’s stance on RF safety was “arbitrary and capricious.” This was a direct result of ignoring:
- Thousands of pages of scientific evidence on non-thermal effects.
- Potential unique risks to children and pregnant women.
- The findings from NTP and Ramazzini that Dr. Mike waves away.
Key Takeaway: Dr. Mike’s repeated references to “FCC guidelines prove it’s safe” are flawed, since a federal court found those guidelines incomplete and out-of-date. This is not a minor legal footnote—it’s a major blow to the “non-ionizing means no harm” narrative.
NTP and Ramazzini Studies: Cancer Links in Rats
National Toxicology Program (NTP)
The NTP’s $30 million study found clear evidence of:
- Malignant brain tumors (gliomas)
- Heart schwannomas
Ramazzini Institute (RI)
Replicating the NTP study at lower, environmental RF levels, the RI confirmed:
- Schwannomas in male rats.
- Increased malignant tumor rates.
Together, these studies demonstrate RF radiation’s carcinogenic potential, even at levels once considered “safe.”
With NTP halting further RF research under questionable circumstances, these rodent studies remain definitive. The new January 17, 2024 morphological/gene profiling data buttress them even more, bridging the gap from “just animals” to actual human tumor behavior.
Children and Pregnancy: The Most Vulnerable
Why Kids Are at Higher Risk
- Thinner skulls: Allow deeper RF penetration.
- Developing brains: More sensitive to bioelectric disruptions.
Pregnancy
Given Dr. Mike’s massive youth following, it’s critical to highlight:
- Children’s Tissue Composition: Higher fluid content and thinner cranial bones allow deeper RF penetration.
- Embryonic Development: As per ceLLM and older embryological studies, development is extremely bioelectric-dependent. Subtle signals can disrupt normal patterns, raising the risk of developmental defects or other anomalies.
- Lack of Safeguards: Current guidelines don’t specifically address pregnant women or kids, even though they are biologically more vulnerable.
Ignoring these factors and painting a rosy picture about non-ionizing RF may lead families to maintain or increase exposures that eventually have serious consequences.
Non-Ionizing Radiation: Beyond Dr. Mike’s “Thermal or Nothing” Logic
The FCC’s Thermal Thresholds Are Outdated
The 1996-based rules revolve around SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) and short-term heating. Dozens of non-thermal lines of evidence have emerged since. This is precisely why the D.C. Circuit demanded the FCC reevaluate: ignoring new data is “arbitrary.”
Pulsed Exposures and Oxidative Mechanisms
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi operate in pulsed bursts. Research (though incomplete) suggests these pulses may harm cells more than continuous waves. Dr. Mike’s video doesn’t delve into pulsed waveforms or micro-bursts of high amplitude that can disrupt bioelectric signals. A phone call to local towers might have higher power, but it’s also not pulsing in quite the same manner as a device continuously re-checking connectivity every second.
Regulatory Capture and Western Misinformation
Dr. Grigoriev and other experts argue that Western regulators prioritize corporate profits over public health:
- ICNIRP’s Industry Ties: Ensure guidelines exclude non-thermal effects.
- WHO’s Complicity: Continues to rely on ICNIRP’s biased science.
The Path Forward: Demanding Updated Policies
Updating FCC Guidelines
- Incorporate non-thermal effects.
- Protect vulnerable populations (e.g., kids, pregnant women).
The D.C. Circuit demanded new explanations for ignoring non-thermal science. We must insist the FCC:
- Revisit thermal thresholds with the NTP, Ramazzini, and morphological data in mind.
- Adopt precautionary levels for kids, pregnant women, and heavy device users.
- Factor in pulsed signals and the synergy of multiple devices per household.
Restarting NTP Cancer Research
Funding for RF-cancer studies must be restored.
After the NTP found “clear evidence” of carcinogenicity, shockingly, further funding was halted. This must change. We need more advanced rodent + human epidemiological synergy, building on the morphological breakthroughs from January 17, 2024.
Forcing the FDA to Honor Public Law 90-602
The FDA is mandated by a 1968 law to minimize “unnecessary electronic product radiation,” yet has done little to incorporate these major findings. Encouraging public activism to hold the FDA accountable could drive a reevaluation of phone safety standards, labeling, etc.
Revisiting Section 704 of the 1996 Telecom Act
Localities remain blocked from citing health concerns to deny towers if the tower meets archaic FCC thermal-based rules. That must be amended so communities can protect children from potential hazards discovered by NTP, RI, and new morphological analyses.
Why Dr. Mike Needs to Rethink His Stance
Dr. Mike’s dismissal of wireless radiation risks relies on outdated science and ignores mounting evidence:
- Russian experts, like Grigoriev, highlight the dangers of ignoring non-thermal effects.
- NTP, Ramazzini, and 2024 studies confirm RF radiation’s potential to cause human-like tumors.
- The EHT v. FCC ruling exposes how U.S. guidelines fail to protect public health.
Call to Action: Let’s demand better science and stronger policies to safeguard our children. If Russia, with its history of strict EMF standards, recognizes these risks, why can’t the U.S.?
“Russian Disinformation”? Why Dr. Mike’s Russian Heritage Connected to Health Misinformation Is Controversial
Let’s be clear: Dr. Mike’s birthplace in Saransk does not inherently prove any alignment with malicious “Russian disinformation.” However, in an era when disinformation often flows from or is associated with certain foreign state-linked narratives, one might see parallels:
- Simplistic or outdated claims can mislead millions, akin to how sophisticated disinformation manipulates public discourse.
- The question is not whether Dr. Mike is knowingly spreading “Kremlin-approved propaganda,” but whether his “non-ionizing is benign” stance inadvertently functions as a form of public health misinformation.
Ethical Note: We do not accuse Dr. Mike of espionage or direct coordination with any government. The rhetorical tie to “Russian disinformation” in the headline is meant to highlight how dangerously incomplete his stance is—especially given how uncritical acceptance of his message might endanger public health.
Raising the Alarm—We Must Not Underestimate RF Dangers
Dr. Mike says, “Rats aren’t people. Non-ionizing can’t break DNA. Bluetooth is probably safe.” That’s an oversimplification proven incomplete by:
- Landmark 2024 morphological study linking rat and human tumor parallels.
- EHT v. FCC (2021) exposing the FCC’s outdated stance.
- NTP and Ramazzini data showing rats develop heart schwannomas and gliomas under exposure levels once deemed “safe.”
Rather than dismissing these findings as overblown or irrelevant, we should treat them as compelling reasons for immediate policy reform, resumed research funding, and caution among consumers—especially families. The public deserves transparency, not an oversimplified blanket reassurance.
Final Call: Encourage Dr. Mike—and all medical influencers with large audiences—to revisit the body of scientific literature on non-thermal hazards. Leveraging his platform responsibly means updating one’s viewpoint in light of new morphological and genetic data. Instead of defaulting to “no consistent pattern,” we should embrace the growing consensus that chronic low-level RF might indeed pose real health threats. This is not scaremongering; it’s recognizing how many “safe” technologies throughout history (e.g., lead paint, asbestos, DDT) were ultimately revealed to be more dangerous than initially believed.
Thus, whether or not Dr. Mike’s heritage ties into broader concerns about “Russian disinformation,” the end result is the same: misleading or incomplete statements about the safety of non-ionizing radiation risk overshadow the urgent need to protect the public, especially children, from emerging data that demand precaution and more rigorous oversight. We can ill afford to wait for conclusive human catastrophe before adjusting safety standards. The science is here—let’s act on it.
Electromagnetic Field Bio-Medical Effects Researches in Russia over 130 Years: The Main Stages of the Scientific Knowledge Grows
Abstract We analyzed the key stages in the scientific history for electromagnetic field bio-medical effects researches in Russia over 130 years. Has been proven the continuity of scientific knowledge about EMF biological effects and it transmission from one generation of scientists to the next because to exist of scientific schools, the systematic research and national
Russian National Committee for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Chairman Rebuts WHO Review
WHO Is Wrong About Health Risk From Cellphone Use Says Russian Expert Dr. Oleg A. Grigoriev, a renowned global expert on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, has publicly criticized a WHO-commissioned review for downplaying the cancer risks linked to cellphone use. In a scathing statement, Grigoriev lambasted the Karipidis et al. (2024) review, which
How Russia and Sweden are Leading the Revolution in School Tech Health
Digital Detox Kids: Introduction Welcome to our latest blog post! Today, we’re diving into a topic that’s sparking conversations around the globe: the recent cell phone bans in Russian and Swedish schools. This groundbreaking decision is not just about technology use; it’s a bold step towards protecting our children’s health and wellbeing in the digital
Unseen Ties: Are Wireless EMFs Fueling the Rise in Autism, ADHD, Gender Dysphoria, and Youth Violence?
Are Wireless EMFs Fueling Autism, ADHD, Gender Dysphoria, and School Shootings? Today, America grieves in the wake of yet another tragic school shooting—this time at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin. Three are dead, including the suspected juvenile shooter, and six are injured. As the nation struggles to understand how a child could commit
The Great RF Radiation Betrayal: How the WHO, ICNIRP, and Captured Regulators Endanger Public Health and Our Children’s Future
We stand at a pivotal moment in public health history, one that may define how we protect—or fail to protect—future generations from a pervasive yet largely ignored threat: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). For decades, powerful industry interests, regulatory agencies, and even global health authorities have clung to an outdated, “thermal-only” model of safety. This framework
Why the Old Wireless Safety Guidelines No Longer Hold Up—And What the FCC’s 2021 Court Loss Means for You”
For decades, the official story has been simple: As long as your phone or Wi-Fi device doesn’t noticeably heat your tissues, you’re safe from any biological harm. That’s the line we’ve all been told—by industry, regulators, and even some health agencies. But this narrative has reached its breaking point, and it’s crucial that we, as
New Research Links 5G Radiation to Brain Changes in Rats: Connecting the Dots with U.S. Studies on ADHD and Autism
Recent research from Russian scientists at Tomsk State University (TSU) has brought new attention to the potential health effects of 5G wireless radiation. Their study found that controlled exposure to 5G radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) resulted in changes to the brain tissue of laboratory rats. This finding adds to a growing body of international
