WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates

Abstract

WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how “no hazards” conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards (WHO SR 3) Nordhagen E, Flydal E. WHO to build neglect of RF-EMF exposure hazards on flawed EHC reviews? Case study demonstrates how “no hazards” conclusion is drawn from data showing hazards. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2024. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0089. Abstract We examined one of the first published of the several systematic reviews being part of WHO’s renewed initiative to assess the evidence of associations between man-made radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) and adverse health effects in humans. The examined review addresses experimental studies of pregnancy and birth outcomes in non-human mammals. The review claims that the analyzed data did not provide conclusions certain enough to inform decisions at a regulatory level. Our objective was to assess the quality of this systematic review and evaluate the relevance of its conclusions to pregnant women and their offspring. The quality and relevance were checked on the review’s own premises: e.g., we did not question the selection of papers, nor the chosen statistical methods. While the WHO systematic review presents itself as thorough, scientific, and relevant to human health, we identified numerous issues rendering the WHO review irrelevant and severely flawed. All flaws found skew the results in support of the review’s conclusion that there is no conclusive evidence for nonthermal effects. We show that the underlying data, when relevant studies are cited correctly, support the opposite conclusion: There are clear indications of detrimental nonthermal effects from RF- EMF exposure. The many identified flaws uncover a pattern of systematic skewedness aiming for uncertainty hidden behind complex scientific rigor. The skewed methodology and low quality of this review is highly concerning, as it threatens to undermine the trustworthiness and professionalism of the WHO in the area of human health hazards from man-made RF-EMF. Conclusions The rigorous protocol and extensive analyses presented in EHC2023 and its protocol, convey an impression of serious science, credibility, and reliability. However, we have shown that this is not the case. We found EHC2023 to be a massive work with a rigorous and complex protocol and extensive and complex statistical analyses. A consequence of the complexity is that it can be assumed that no average reader – not even professionals – will check the results of the review, if not for other reasons, because of the major effort needed. Thereby, scientific exchange, debate and control is impeded and reduced to a matter of trust. We had the opportunity to spend time on an in-depth analysis of representative parts of EHC2023 to assess its quality based to the extent possible on the review’s own premises – that is, independent of our opinion about the professional premises chosen. We cannot prove that the flaws and omissions are deliberately added to reach wanted conclusions, as we have next to no information about the authors, neither of the process behind the authoring EHC2023 or its protocol. Anyhow, and whatever the cause, the EHC2023 review is clearly of such a low quality, also when evaluated within the thermal only tradition, that its conclusions are without scientific value. Our findings show that the conclusion of EHC2023 is not well-founded, and therefore the final conclusions of EHC2023 that no conclusion can be drawn that are (EHC2023, p. 31) “certain enough to inform decisions at a regulatory level” cannot be trusted. The errors, flaws and omissions are grave enough to render EHC2023 unscientific and unethical, and it should therefore be retracted. As it now stands, the conclusion of ECH2023 stands out as what appears to be a manufactured argument for current regulations being adequate to protect the health of human mothers and their offspring. Manipulating and skewing research results in order to manufacture a wanted conclusion is a well-known strategy to avoid stricter regulations [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Further investigations and better sources would be needed to prove such an assault on humanity to be the case as to EHC2023. EHC2023 is just one of several studies commissioned by the same organization (WHO EHC no. 137) and states clearly that consistency has been assured in the protocols for these studies. Our analysis of EHC2023 may in this view be seen as a case study of the results of the entire WHO EHC undertaking: Since many of our concerns are related to core elements of the protocol, there are good reasons also to question the quality of all present and forthcoming results being part of the WHO EHC undertaking unless a thorough revision of its course is made. Open access paper: degruyter.com

AI evidence extraction

Main findings

This paper critiques a WHO-commissioned systematic review of experimental RF-EMF exposure studies on pregnancy and birth outcomes in non-human mammals. The authors report identifying numerous methodological and reporting issues that they argue bias the WHO review toward uncertainty and a "no conclusive evidence" framing. They state that, when relevant studies are cited correctly, the underlying data indicate detrimental nonthermal effects from RF-EMF exposure and that the WHO review's conclusions are not trustworthy.

Outcomes measured

• Pregnancy outcomes
• Birth outcomes
• Nonthermal effects (as interpreted from underlying experimental animal studies)

Limitations

• Assesses the WHO systematic review "on the review’s own premises" and does not re-evaluate paper selection or statistical methods.
• Focuses on an in-depth analysis of "representative parts" of the WHO review rather than a full re-analysis of all included studies.
• Does not provide detailed quantitative re-analyses in the abstract (e.g., effect sizes or pooled estimates).
• Cannot determine whether the alleged flaws/omissions were deliberate due to limited information about authors and processes behind the WHO review.

Suggested hubs

• who-icnirp (0.95)
  The paper directly critiques a WHO-commissioned systematic review and its implications for WHO hazard assessment and regulation.

{
    "publication_year": 2024,
    "study_type": "review",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "RF",
        "source": "man-made RF-EMF",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": "Non-human mammals (pregnancy and birth outcomes) as discussed in a WHO systematic review; relevance to pregnant women and offspring is evaluated conceptually.",
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Pregnancy outcomes",
        "Birth outcomes",
        "Nonthermal effects (as interpreted from underlying experimental animal studies)"
    ],
    "main_findings": "This paper critiques a WHO-commissioned systematic review of experimental RF-EMF exposure studies on pregnancy and birth outcomes in non-human mammals. The authors report identifying numerous methodological and reporting issues that they argue bias the WHO review toward uncertainty and a \"no conclusive evidence\" framing. They state that, when relevant studies are cited correctly, the underlying data indicate detrimental nonthermal effects from RF-EMF exposure and that the WHO review's conclusions are not trustworthy.",
    "effect_direction": "harm",
    "limitations": [
        "Assesses the WHO systematic review \"on the review’s own premises\" and does not re-evaluate paper selection or statistical methods.",
        "Focuses on an in-depth analysis of \"representative parts\" of the WHO review rather than a full re-analysis of all included studies.",
        "Does not provide detailed quantitative re-analyses in the abstract (e.g., effect sizes or pooled estimates).",
        "Cannot determine whether the alleged flaws/omissions were deliberate due to limited information about authors and processes behind the WHO review."
    ],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7199999999999999733546474089962430298328399658203125,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "stance": "concern",
    "stance_confidence": 0.90000000000000002220446049250313080847263336181640625,
    "summary": "This article presents a critical appraisal of a WHO-commissioned systematic review on RF-EMF exposure and pregnancy/birth outcomes in non-human mammals. The authors argue the WHO review is severely flawed and methodologically skewed toward uncertainty and a \"no hazards\" interpretation. They report that correct citation and interpretation of the underlying data instead indicate detrimental nonthermal effects, and they call the WHO review's conclusions untrustworthy.",
    "key_points": [
        "The paper evaluates the quality and relevance of a WHO systematic review addressing experimental animal studies of RF-EMF exposure and pregnancy/birth outcomes.",
        "The authors state they did not challenge the WHO review’s study selection or statistical methods, but assessed quality on the review’s own premises.",
        "They report finding numerous issues that they argue render the WHO review irrelevant and severely flawed.",
        "They claim the identified flaws systematically skew results toward concluding there is no conclusive evidence for nonthermal effects.",
        "They state that, when relevant studies are cited correctly, the underlying data indicate detrimental nonthermal effects from RF-EMF exposure.",
        "They argue the complexity of the WHO review impedes independent checking and scientific debate.",
        "They conclude the WHO review’s regulatory-level uncertainty conclusion cannot be trusted and suggest it should be retracted."
    ],
    "categories": [
        "Systematic Review Critique",
        "RF-EMF Health Effects",
        "Pregnancy & Reproductive Outcomes",
        "Policy & Regulation"
    ],
    "tags": [
        "World Health Organization",
        "Systematic Review Critique",
        "RF-EMF",
        "Nonthermal Effects",
        "Pregnancy Outcomes",
        "Birth Outcomes",
        "Animal Studies",
        "Research Bias",
        "Methodological Flaws",
        "Regulatory Decision-Making",
        "Evidence Assessment",
        "Retraction Call"
    ],
    "keywords": [
        "WHO",
        "EHC2023",
        "RF-EMF",
        "radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation",
        "systematic review",
        "pregnancy",
        "birth outcomes",
        "non-human mammals",
        "nonthermal effects",
        "methodology"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": [
        {
            "slug": "who-icnirp",
            "weight": 0.9499999999999999555910790149937383830547332763671875,
            "reason": "The paper directly critiques a WHO-commissioned systematic review and its implications for WHO hazard assessment and regulation."
        }
    ],
    "social": {
        "tweet": "A 2024 critique in Reviews on Environmental Health argues a WHO-commissioned RF-EMF systematic review on animal pregnancy/birth outcomes is methodologically flawed and biased toward uncertainty, and claims the underlying data indicate detrimental nonthermal effects.",
        "facebook": "A new paper critiques a WHO-commissioned systematic review on RF-EMF exposure and pregnancy/birth outcomes in non-human mammals, arguing the review is severely flawed and that correct interpretation of the underlying data indicates detrimental nonthermal effects.",
        "linkedin": "This 2024 article provides a methodological critique of a WHO-commissioned systematic review on RF-EMF exposure and pregnancy/birth outcomes in non-human mammals, alleging systematic flaws that bias conclusions toward uncertainty and arguing the underlying data indicate detrimental nonthermal effects."
    }
}

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.