Public concerns have been described in a recent opinion piece (5) as representing only a small “pocket” of society whose opinions originate from beliefs in conspiracy theories or mere “perceptions” of health risks. Understandably, public awareness of the potential risks associated with radiofrequency exposure is limited to those who have taken the time to investigate the problem for themselves, because there is very little to no information being disseminated by industry or government regulatory bodies around the world. Nevertheless, so as to examine the claims made by the aforementioned opinion piece, two documented sources of public opinion expressed in Australia in 2019–2020 were investigated.

Past analyses of papers in the field of RF-EMF and health have shown that industry funded papers (as declared by authors) are less likely to report significant findings (14, 15). However, the opinion piece by de Vocht and Albers (5) used a different classification scheme for authorship, with confusing results. Researchers aligned with industry were labeled as “independent,” while reputable industry-independent scientists who speak against 5G were categorized under “activism” or labeled as “white hats.” This labeling seems to be skewed and missing critical analysis of the important issues, as described below.

So as to give a full account of the real level of expertise and the caliber of authors who have published within the 5G narrative, it is instructive to look at their publication history and research experience. This provides a more well-rounded analysis than critiquing each author on the basis of a recent paper, as was performed by de Vocht and Albers (5). A fuller appraisal of each author will assist the reader to decide how much weight and attention they should pay to the opinions that each has contributed toward the 5G narrative.

A detailed analysis of the background of each recent author was therefore conducted by investigating each according to (i) whether they come from a clinical, radiological or scientific research background; (ii) how much experience they have in their own field; (iii) the type of research work they have conducted investigating RF-EMF exposure and health (a scientist with first-hand experimental experience in biological or health effects, a theoretical physicist/engineer who conducts modeling, a researcher who uses the works of others to build new theory or methodologies, or an analyst who investigates the work of others and makes reasoned arguments from this analysis) and (iv) their level of experience in the field of RF-EMF and health (highly experienced, experienced or novice) based on the number of papers published and the number of years involved.

We based this investigation on the list of first authors presented by de Vocht and Albers (5). However, we also included other important first authors of review papers or reports that were missing from that analysis, or who have published since August, 2021. These authors are: (i) Dr. James Lin, a highly experienced radiological engineer and previous International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) member, who has published two recent papers (13, 17) that question the safety of 5G and challenge the underlying scientific basis of the updated 2020 ICNIRP guidelines; (ii) Professor Igor Belyaev, a giant in the field of experimental biophysics, who has recently published two papers on health risks from exposure to wireless signals and the invalid health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limits (18, 19); and (iii) Professor Fiorella Belpoggi who has conducted experimental work investigating cancer and toxicology in animals for over two decades, and was previously the director of research at the Italian Ramazzini Institute where evidence for cancer due to whole body RF-EMF exposures in rats was found. Belpoggi also wrote the 2020 European Parliament commissioned report (20) on the health effects of 5G, reviewing papers since 2016.

Our background search of the full list of authors (see Supplementary material 1) revealed that authors who have been warning of biological and health effects range from experienced doctors and analysts through to highly qualified experts. That is, while some are highly experienced in their own fields of health or public policy, they have only in the last few years been applying their expertise to the field of RF-EMF and health. Thus, they are classified as analysist's or researchers but not experts. For example, Di Ciaula is a highly experienced medical researcher in the area of gallbladder disease, who has recently applied his medical understanding so as to conduct a systematic review of the biological effects of millimeter waves (following the PRISMA guidelines closely). Di Ciaula is thus classified as an analyst rather than as an experienced RF-EMF researcher. Similarly, Frank, a highly experienced epidemiologist in his own field, has recently written a critique of the advice regarding 5G being given to policy makers by government and non-government agencies. Therefore, Frank is also classified as an RF-EMF analyst.

There are several authors warning of biological and health effects who are highly experienced in the area of RF-EMF and health (i.e., Belyaev, Belpoggi, Hardell, Lin, and Miller). These authors are bona fide authorities with two or more decades of experimental or epidemiological research experience, and hundreds of publications covering RF-EMF and health. Belyaev, Hardell, and Miller were all members of the previous World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group looking into the carcinogenic effects of RF-EMF, and Lin was a long-term member of ICNIRP. Prior to investigating RF-EMFs, Hardell investigated the links between other agents and cancer such as dioxins, PCBs and glyphosate, advocating for recognition of carcinogenicity, while government regulatory bodies and industry-linked scientists tried to discredit him. History seems to be repeating itself for Hardell today as he continues to advocate for recognition of the link between mobile phone use and brain tumors (21).

Overall, it is clear that these scientists are well-qualified to advocate for precaution regarding 5G because their opinions are based on discoveries that have arisen from their own rigorous research. As true experts they have earned the right to be heeded in their weighty statements of concern regarding health risks from RF-EMFs. It is inexplicable therefore, why two of these authorities, Hardell and Miller, were demoted by de Vocht et al. (5) as “white hats” and classified under “activism.” Such skewed labeling introduces doubt regarding the motives of sound scientists and detracts from their credentials as experts in this field. This unscrupulous “discredit the scientist” strategy has been used previously by the tobacco industry so as to demote the research of scientists presenting results showing health risks from smoking (22).

When background affiliations are being investigated, research projects linked with government or industry interests need to be noted. For example, the tobacco industry implemented strategies for suppressing evidence regarding health effects from smoking, which included: funding research that supported the industry position, setting up official “review” bodies who concluded that results were inconsistent, and funding central research centers that would supposedly be a focal point organization of the highest caliber to sponsor and foster quality, objective research … to effectively communicate research findings to a broad scientific community [(22), p. 202]. Similar patterns can be observed in the field of health effects of wireless radiation, as follows:

Such conflicts of interest make it unclear whose interests are being represented when a member of one these groups speaks into the 5G narrative. For example, when a WHO webpage on potential health risks from 5G informs that Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated (37), it is uncertain who is really speaking: ARPANSA, ICNIRP, ACMA,² or the telecommunications industry. Similar inter-relationships between government agencies, industry, ICNIRP, and WHO have been documented for other countries (29, 34). It appears that prestigious and supposedly independent health bodies along with the regulatory agencies advising on the 5G rollout have significant elements in that apparatus [that] appear to have been captured by vested interests [(38), p. 565].

So as to discern real from illusory independence therefore, clear categories of “Government/ICNIRP” and “Institution/industry” need to be available for classifying the affiliations of the author-spokespersons within the 5G narrative. When this system is used (see Supplementary material 1), we find that two of the researchers deemed to be “independent” in the opinion article by de Vocht and Albers (5) need to be reclassified, due to Telstra funding of Wood's laboratories (39, 40) (Institution/industry), and Karipidis' employment by ARPANSA and membership of ICNIRP (41) (Government/ICNIRP).

The authors speaking into the 5G narrative since 2018 have been classified using the above dimensions. Table 1 shows that these authors can be grouped into those who take a precautionary and risk assessment approach and those who do not.

Reviews or systematic reviews being authored by researchers with potential conflicts of interest may contain biases, and therefore may not be the gold standard reviews that are anticipated:

As an example, both Karipidis and Simkó reviews reported evidence for effects within the body of their papers: i.e., Eighty percent of the in vivo studies showed responses to exposure, while 58% of the in vitro studies demonstrated effects. The responses affected all biological endpoints studied [(53), p. 3,406]. However, Simkó et al. (who received funding from Deutsche Telekom Technik) gave a muted conclusion, merely suggesting that more research is needed, and Karipidis (with links to industry as shown above and in Supplementary material) concluded that there is no confirmed evidence of harm and health risks were not discussed. A published critique (63) of the Karipidis et al. review of 5G and health effects (56) [and by association, Wood's meta-analysis (57) because it used the same underlying data] describes in great detail how these papers suffered from multiple flaws, biases and inconsistent logic that invalidated findings and conclusions.

When the data in any study is being analyzed and communicated, it is important to distinguish “fact” (raw data) from “inference” (statements derived from data using scientific reasoning) and concluding opinions (that translate the results and analysis into real world implications). It is the final opinions that are the takeaways for the reader or the policy maker. Researchers can publish or publicly state opinions that construe their factual results as having less importance than the context may indeed warrant.

When conducting reviews, industry-linked researchers can also water down results. This is achieved by rejecting studies that show positive effects on the basis of the reviewers' opinion regarding supposed “methodological flaws” that are not clearly defined (64). Furthermore, unusual or unexpected results are dismissed as “inconsistent,” “not replicated,” or “possible artifacts of the testing process” rather than following them as possible leads for further investigation as is normally expected in research. Moreover, great emphasis is placed on inadequate dosimetry in otherwise sound papers, thus discrediting papers with positive results. Focusing on measurement accuracy of exposure levels rather than health effects was a strategy used by the tobacco industry (22).

When anomalous findings arise, scientists who are grounded in their data are expected to subsequently change their frameworks or directions. The historical content of the publications of scientists who recommend a precautionary approach reveals how they have been transparent about past inconsistencies in results. However, over time, based on converging results from their own data and that of others, these authors have become more convinced that there are serious biological or health related effects. On the other hand, inspection of both the primary and review papers of industry linked researchers reveals that most have not changed their conclusions for several decades (see Table 2).

The above analysis shows that:

The apparent controversy comprising the 5G narrative leads to several issues and related questions, yet to be answered.

Independent scientists have been stating concerns regarding health risks from all forms of wireless radiation for several decades. Now 5G has been included in those concerns. Rather than acknowledging potential harm, industry-linked author-spokespersons continue to give the impression that the science is uncertain, and harm is not confirmed. These defenders of the current standards are using an old trick, to stall new regulation by insisting that policy must be based on certainty. Such maintenance of doubt was part of the tobacco industry's disinformation campaign long after the wider scientific community reached consensus over the health threat posed by smoking … [(72), p. 1,036]. It is against similar obfuscation that authorities such as Hardell are speaking out (73). When two thirds of the published literature suggests biological interference and health effects from RF-EMF (64, 74), the scientific foundation for assessing the health risks of 5G is not equally weighted for and against, and the evidence is not inconclusive. Rather it is suggestive of real health risks. However, industry linked authors continue to repeat the “no conclusive evidence” mantra in order to obscure real health risks. The recent opinion piece repeats it: ... mixed results and conclusions not supporting increased risks (5). Sound safety and protection policy is always made in the face of uncertainty and is based on a risk assessment approach (59). The question remains as to what type of evidence will industry, ICNIRP, and related scientists acknowledge as adequate evidence of harm, or as sufficient impetus to change direction.

Some spokesperson-authors have claimed that precautionary messages can create undue anxiety in the public arena (75). However, a large Australian study has shown that information about precautionary measures did not increase the risk perception of RF-EMFs during mobile phone calls [(76), p. 1,005]. Furthermore, the results from that study suggest that risk education will not increase anxiety if it includes safety information plus incentives to use good phone hygiene practices. These results indicate that population-wide awareness and reduction of risk could coexist, and therefore, educating for precaution and risk reduction behaviors will not cause mass panic. Moreover, a precautionary approach does not need to be seen to be an impediment to economic development, because industry will find a way to implement safer technologies given the necessity.

Given the current climate of maintaining doubt, and the potential positives of adopting precautionary actions, questions remain regarding the future ability of science to effectively inform policy making: