From the journal Reviews on Environmental Health.
Published online by De Gruyter -10july2024.
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”.
by Else K. Nordhagen and Einar Flydal.
(LVsA – View below extracts from this highly critical paper)
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.
Introduction
In this paper, we present a thorough analysis of the quality, validity and conclusion of the first report of a series of reviews from a renewed World Health Organization (WHO) initiative to assess the evidence of associations between (human made) radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMF) and adverse health effects in the general and working population….
More than half the studies included in EHC2023 are irrelevant for humans protected by IEEE/ICES and ICNIRP guidelines, making the results irrelevant…..
The Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment of EHC2023 is highly biased towards thermal studies
….The authors of EHC2023 assume that the higher effect sizes found in HC papers are caused by the authors exaggerating their findings. This assumption is set forward without any foundation, and could just as well be that the newer, nonthermal studies used modern methods more apt at detecting nonthermal effects. Thus, the assumption seems a reflection of the SAR-based tradition of which the entire EHC undertaking is rooted, questioning the existence of nonthermal effects.
Our in-depth analysis of the “fetal weight” meta-analysis reveals misciting and miscalculation behind the pooled effect size.
As mentioned above, we chose, for practical reasons, the “fetal weight” endpoint for an in-depth analysis. This endpoint meta-analysis is riddled with errors and flaws having significant impacts on the calculated effect size, and is strongly miscommunicating significant risks reported. For details see Supplementary File Section D.
We identified the following flaws:
- Errors in the reproduction of data from the studies reviewed:……
- Undocumented use of variations in equations affecting confidence interval (CI) values:…..
- “Cherry picking” of experiments from which data are gathered:…..
We found, in total nine studies (27 %) cited erroneously or with unjustified divergences, and “cherry picking” experiments from 12 studies (36 %). In some cases, several flaws applied to the same study. In total we found flawed handling of 19 (58 %) of the 33 nonthermal studies analyzed in EHC2023 for the fetal weight endpoint.
Misreporting of significant detrimental effects found in reviewed papers due to choice of endpoints not used in modern, nonthermal studies
….Of the 28 papers, eight report no effects found. Of the remaining 20 papers, significant results are reported in 13 papers (65 %) but omitted in EHC2023 Table 3 (A very few of these omitted effects are superficially mentioned elsewhere in EHC2023)……
The severe findings unreported are mostly physiological changes, such as changes in biochemical parameters common to all mammalian offspring (enzymes, free radicals, blood values, gene damage) and effects on cell structures (brain, nerves). Hence, all these effects should be expected to appear in all mammal offspring – rats, mice and humans alike – and can be detrimental. Therefore, they are highly relevant to the assessment of health risks. Allegedly, these endpoints are not reported in Table 3,…..
Using biochemical parameters as endpoints is part of modern approaches to assess health risks from subthermal exposure. Since such effects are relevant to all mammals, they offer better assessments also as to human health risks when experiments are carried out on animals. By disregarding findings at such endpoints and downgrading such modern approaches in their RoB assessment, the authors of EHC2023 favor old, irrelevant studies. Also, by their endpoints chosen, they effectively eliminate the huge majority of modern research observing physiological changes clearly caused from subthermal exposures [8].
Hence, EHC2023 Table 3 conveys a false impression of few and uncertain findings of detrimental effects, in stark contrast to the multitude of significant detrimental effects reported in the papers reviewed.
Relevant correlated factors not taken into account
In any causal or correlation analysis, not taking significant, widely known and accepted correlating factors into account means making the result uncertain and highly questionable. Our checks of the EHC2023 meta-analyses of both “fetal weight” and “brain weight” endpoints revealed such errors, making the resulting analyses in EHC2023 on the effects of RF-EMF too simple and shallow:
It Is alarming that the two single endpoints in EHC2023 that we checked, are so “saturated” with serious flaws, rendering the meta-analyses useless, although both endpoints should have been rather simple to evaluate……
Sub-group analyses of non-thermal effects not made, although prescribed in protocol
…..EHC2023 refers (ibid) to this important omission as “a slight deviation from the protocol”, a comment that reflects the authors’ bias due to “thermal thinking”. In fact, many of the reviewed papers find significant variation in effects from subthermal exposures with varying frequency, duration and/or modulation…….
When addressing regulatory bodies, EHC2023 downplays hazards it identified
….From just this section, the readers are led to believe that no change in regulation is needed, since, no conclusions can be drawn from the reviewed papers. Only endpoints with no or very small and uncertain effect sizes found are mentioned, and even those findings are downplayed. The moderate and large effect sizes found in EHC2023 are not mentioned:
For example, in the category named “Delayed effects on the offspring health”. It is clearly stated in EHC2023 (p. 39) that most of these five endpoints show moderate to large detrimental effect size. Due to their relevance with respect to human offspring, these findings are of utmost relevance as to the aim of the systematic review. Still, when advising regulators, the authors do not mention these findings – nor do they mention the need for precautionary measures. This amounts to what seem an act of irresponsibility, even when evaluated on the review’s own premises…
EHC2023 claims the effects found stem from the thermal studies. But when corrected, the strongest effects are in the nonthermal
… To demonstrate the consequences of the many flaws revealed by our examination of the EHC2023 “fetal weight” meta-analysis, we did a stepwise recalculation of the pooled effect size and confidence interval (CI) using correct and relevant data from the relevant studies….
…It seems unavoidable to conclude that the EHC2023 claim cited at the beginning of this subsection is not just misleading, but truly false, due to the significant errors and flaws in how the experiments and their data have been handled. In addition, the claim is also bewildering and obfuscating by suppressing that effects from nonthermal studies are significant and strong when data are correctly reported and just criteria and calculation methods are used…
Discussion: how may all the flaws in EHC2023 be explained?
….However, EHC2023’s many flaws strip the study of legitimacy and the results of any credibility or trustworthiness, even when evaluated on the premises of the so-called “thermal only tradition”.
On the top of this, the authors of EHC2023 falsely claim that all effects found be caused by results of experiments with thermal exposure conditions and therefore, falsely inferring that realistic conditions are harmless.
A substantial part of the flaws may well be explained as resulting from all the authors of the review belonging to the “the thermal only tradition”:
The WHO EHC undertaking is organized by a group of 21 experts selected by WHO’s office “The International EMF Project” (TIEP). All but three of these experts are either affiliated with the guidelines issuing foundation ICNIRP [9] or connected through co-authorships linked to a tiny self-referencing network of authors mainly affiliated with ICNIRP and IEEE/ICES or both [10]. Both ICNIRP and IEEE/ICES defend exposure limits based on tissue overheating as sufficient for EMF protection, the thermal only tradition. ICNIRP is closely connected to TIEP. IEEE/ICES issues guidelines for RF-EMF used in USA, in co-ordination with ICNIRP.
The 21 experts selected the authors for the protocol and EHC2023. All these experts are proponents of the thermal only view.
On the other hand, the outright false and systematic skewed selection of data from the reviewed studies, and the omissions of clearly relevant findings of hazard relevant to humans, cannot be explained as a result of confirmation bias or a blindfolding thermal only tradition. And, as the EHC2023 is a thoroughly done analysis, not a hastily made report, they are not chance errors, as they all skew the result towards a thermal only conclusion and are essential for getting such a result. Hence, the flaws seem the results of a highly intentional act……
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.
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 to 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.
Corresponding author:
- Else K. Nordhagen, PhD ICT, Retired Researchers, John Brandts vei 65B, 0860 Oslo, Norway, E-mail: elsenordhagen(@)gmail.com
- Else K. Nordhagen and Einar Flydal contributed equally to this work.
Nordhagen, Else K. and Flydal, Einar. “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. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2024-0089
Source De Gruyter 10july2024 – 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 — Download article (PDF) —
- Nordhagen, Else K. and Flydal, Einar
- Summary -WHO to build neglect of RF EMF -EHC2023-137 -July2024
- Supplementary file -WHO to build neglect of RF EMF -EHC2023-137 -July2024
