While I am not involved with the cellular area of Qualcomm, I am familiar with the publishing policies of Nature and Science as a reader of both for the last ten years. Neither journal shies away from controversy. We have only the author's say-so as to why their papers were rejected. To me Occams Razor suggests bad science as a better explanation than conspiracy. I sent the following to Stewart Fist:
|When presented to 'Science' magazine for publication the study was |rejected on the grounds that publication "would cause a panic".
Proof please. More likely Nature and Science rejected it because it was badly done science.
His response: |I don't offer proof. I am a journalist, and I just report what I was told |in interviews with the scientists involved. So there's been no confirmation or checking of the science involved, or why the papers were rejected by both an American and British science journal. /pbp