In recent weeks there has been a lot of debate about the recently published review of studies that examined the potential effect of wireless radiation on the development of brain cancer in humans. This review is part of a series of systematic reviews commissioned by the WHO EMF Project. These reviews will be used as the scientific basis for the Environmental Health Criteria evaluation of the impact of wireless radiation on human health. It is necessary to remind everyone that these systematic reviews are not the ‘last word’ but are only a ‘raw material’ for the group of scientists who will use them for the preparation of the Environmental Health Criteria.
The way how the systematic reviews were conceived is, in my opinion, biased and should be considered questionable by any fair-minded scientist or policymaker.
The WHO EMF Project has announced a call for the preparation of systematic reviews and asked the scientific community to participate. The scientists were to organize themselves into teams of experts. Such teams were organized without (?) the participation of the WHO EMF Project and were to be independent of any vested interests – just pure science and expertise.
Teams self-organized and self-proposed readiness to prepare systematic reviews for the WHO EMF Project. WHO EMF Project selected, from all applying teams, the ones that were commissioned to prepare systematic reviews. Who selected the final cut-making teams and what were the criteria for taking certain teams and rejecting other teams nobody knows because the WHO EMF Project was very secretive.
WHO EMF Project was secretive when selecting teams to prepare systematic reviews and, the WHO EMF Project was equally secretive when selecting the scientists to group that will prepare the final version of the Environmental Health Criteria using these systematic reviews as a starting point of deliberations.
The secretiveness of the WHO EMF Project, to the point of paranoia, is not good for anything and for anybody. The explanation of the WHO EMF Projects that the secretiveness was to protect from lobbying is unacceptable.
Full Article here:
