A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on
Abstract
A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks (Response to Karipidis et al. 2024) Hardell L, Nilsson M. A Critical Analysis of the World Health Organization (WHO) Systematic Review 2024 on Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks. Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics. 9 (2025): 09-26. doi: 10.26502/jcsct.5079261. Abstract Radiofrequency (RF) radiation was in 2011 classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the WHO. Currently the WHO undertakes a systematic review of human studies on the cancer risks. In a publication by Karipidis et al (2024), commissioned by the WHO, it was argued that based on all available studies there would be “moderate certanity evidence” that mobile phone use “likely does not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, and salivary gland tumours in adults, or of paediatric brain tumours.” However, the authors have overlooked results showing increased risks for brain tumours in the most exposed groups, the most exposed part of the head, and longest latency time from first exposure to tumour diagnosis. The authors also claimed that there would be “moderate certainty evidence” that transmitters and mobile phone base stations do not increase the risk of pediatric leukaemia. These conclusions are based on selective inclusion of very few and low exposure studies. This WHO evaluation is contradicted by scientific results that show increased risks of cancer from exposure to RF-radiation from mobile and cordless phones, transmitters, and base stations. Other scientists have concluded, after reviewing the available evidence, that RF-radiation may increase the risk of cancer. This article analysis the Karipidis et al review and highlights several errors, omissions, and conflicts of interests that may explain the conclusions of no cancer risk. The flawed evaluation of scientific facts should lead to retraction of the article. Conclusion The Karipidis group’s conclusions on no cancer risks from use of mobile and cordless phones, or exposure to RF radiation from transmitters and base stations, are based on several errors in their interpretation of scientific results, omission of facts contradicting the conclusions and inherent conflicts of interest. Further, most of the results on which the authors base their conclusions are based on very low exposure levels not representative for the public’s exposure today and the authors have excluded or ignored results based on highest exposure categories. The conclusions by the authors of various grades of “certainty” that RF-EMF exposures do not cause cancer are unscientific and unjustified in view of the available scientific evidence. Evaluations of health risks from RF radiation should be performed by scientists without ties to ICNIRP or industry. Industrial direct or indirect ties may compromise objective and sound scientific evaluation. The serious scientific malpractice by Karipidis et al [1] with fatally flawed evaluation of radiofrequency radiation and cancer risks, as outlined in this review, should lead to retraction of the article.
AI evidence extraction
Main findings
This article critiques a WHO-commissioned systematic review (Karipidis et al., 2024) that reported “moderate certainty” evidence that mobile phone use likely does not increase risks of several tumours and that base stations/transmitters do not increase risk of paediatric leukaemia. The authors argue the WHO-commissioned review selectively included low-exposure studies and overlooked findings of increased risks in highest exposure groups, most exposed head regions, and with longer latency, and they call for retraction due to alleged errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest.
Outcomes measured
- Cancer risk
- Brain tumours (glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma)
- Pituitary tumours
- Salivary gland tumours
- Paediatric brain tumours
- Paediatric leukaemia
Limitations
- This is a critical commentary/review of another review rather than original epidemiologic or experimental data.
- No quantitative synthesis, effect sizes, or study selection details are provided in the abstract.
- Claims about errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest are asserted in the abstract without supporting documentation shown here.
Suggested hubs
-
who-icnirp
(0.95) The article critiques a WHO-commissioned review and discusses ICNIRP ties and conflicts of interest.
-
cell-phones
(0.85) Mobile and cordless phone use and tumour risks are central to the critique.
View raw extracted JSON
{
"publication_year": null,
"study_type": "review",
"exposure": {
"band": "RF",
"source": "mobile phone, cordless phone, transmitters, base stations",
"frequency_mhz": null,
"sar_wkg": null,
"duration": null
},
"population": null,
"sample_size": null,
"outcomes": [
"Cancer risk",
"Brain tumours (glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma)",
"Pituitary tumours",
"Salivary gland tumours",
"Paediatric brain tumours",
"Paediatric leukaemia"
],
"main_findings": "This article critiques a WHO-commissioned systematic review (Karipidis et al., 2024) that reported “moderate certainty” evidence that mobile phone use likely does not increase risks of several tumours and that base stations/transmitters do not increase risk of paediatric leukaemia. The authors argue the WHO-commissioned review selectively included low-exposure studies and overlooked findings of increased risks in highest exposure groups, most exposed head regions, and with longer latency, and they call for retraction due to alleged errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest.",
"effect_direction": "harm",
"limitations": [
"This is a critical commentary/review of another review rather than original epidemiologic or experimental data.",
"No quantitative synthesis, effect sizes, or study selection details are provided in the abstract.",
"Claims about errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest are asserted in the abstract without supporting documentation shown here."
],
"evidence_strength": "low",
"confidence": 0.7399999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375,
"peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
"stance": "concern",
"stance_confidence": 0.85999999999999998667732370449812151491641998291015625,
"summary": "This paper is a critical analysis of a WHO-commissioned systematic review (Karipidis et al., 2024) on radiofrequency radiation exposure and cancer risks. It argues that the WHO-commissioned review’s conclusions of no increased cancer risk are based on selective inclusion of low-exposure studies and omission of findings showing increased risks in the most exposed groups and with longer latency. The authors also allege errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest and state the reviewed article should be retracted.",
"key_points": [
"The paper responds to Karipidis et al. (2024), a WHO-commissioned systematic review on RF exposure and cancer risks.",
"Karipidis et al. are described as concluding “moderate certainty” evidence that mobile phone use likely does not increase risk of several tumours in adults or paediatric brain tumours.",
"The authors argue that increased risks reported in highest exposure categories, most exposed head regions, and longest latency periods were overlooked or ignored.",
"The paper disputes the conclusion that transmitters/base stations do not increase risk of paediatric leukaemia, citing selective inclusion of few low-exposure studies.",
"It states that other scientific results and reviews have concluded RF radiation may increase cancer risk.",
"The authors claim the WHO-commissioned review contains errors, omissions, and conflicts of interest that may explain conclusions of no risk.",
"The paper calls for evaluations to be performed by scientists without ties to ICNIRP or industry and suggests retraction of the Karipidis et al. article."
],
"categories": [
"RF-EMF",
"Cancer",
"Epidemiology",
"Policy & Risk Assessment"
],
"tags": [
"Radiofrequency Radiation",
"Cancer Risk",
"WHO Systematic Review",
"IARC Classification",
"Mobile Phones",
"Cordless Phones",
"Base Stations",
"Transmitters",
"Brain Tumours",
"Paediatric Leukaemia",
"Conflict Of Interest",
"Evidence Appraisal",
"Retraction Request"
],
"keywords": [
"radiofrequency",
"RF-EMF",
"WHO",
"systematic review",
"Karipidis",
"cancer",
"glioma",
"meningioma",
"acoustic neuroma",
"base stations",
"mobile phones",
"cordless phones"
],
"suggested_hubs": [
{
"slug": "who-icnirp",
"weight": 0.9499999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
"reason": "The article critiques a WHO-commissioned review and discusses ICNIRP ties and conflicts of interest."
},
{
"slug": "cell-phones",
"weight": 0.84999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375,
"reason": "Mobile and cordless phone use and tumour risks are central to the critique."
}
],
"social": {
"tweet": "Critical analysis argues a WHO-commissioned 2024 review on RF exposure and cancer overlooked higher-exposure and longer-latency findings, and raises concerns about errors and conflicts of interest.",
"facebook": "This paper critiques a WHO-commissioned 2024 systematic review on radiofrequency radiation and cancer, arguing it selectively relied on low-exposure studies and overlooked findings in the highest exposure and longest latency groups, and it raises concerns about errors and conflicts of interest.",
"linkedin": "A critical commentary on a WHO-commissioned 2024 systematic review of RF-EMF and cancer risk, disputing conclusions of no increased risk and alleging selective inclusion, omissions, and conflicts of interest."
}
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.
Comments
Log in to comment.
No comments yet.