ReviewFrontiers in public health2023
Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields on Cardiac Activity at Rest: A Systematic Review of Healthy Human Studies.Bioelectromagnetics · 2025Pooled it
- Exposure to 5G Radiofrequency and Physiological Effects in Healthy Young Adults: Insights Into Heart Rate Variability and Salivary Stress Biomarkers.Bioelectromagnetics · 2026Article
- A scoping review and evidence map of radiofrequency field exposure and genotoxicity: assessingFrontiers in public health · 2025Article
- U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Epidemiological criteria for causation applied to human health harms from RF-EMF exposure: Bradford Hill revisited.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Microwave radiofrequencies, 5G, 6G, graphene nanomaterials: Technologies used in neurological warfare.Surgical neurology international · 2024Review
- Commentary: Understanding the public voices and researchers speaking into the 5G narrative.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The many different voices speaking into the current narrative surrounding the health effects of 5G technologies necessitate an exploration of the background of the various published author-spokespersons and their potential motives. This has been attempted recently by de Vocht and Albers. However, that opinion piece used a narrow investigative lens, resulting in an undermining of both the rationality of the concerned general public and the motives of specific researchers. At the same time, biases, conflicts of interest, and flaws found in "independent" reviews were not considered. To address these oversights, an evidence-based appraisal of public opinion and the scientific caliber of authors involved in the 5G health discussion is warranted. Subsequently, this review article presents an analysis of the available Australian data representing public voices, while also conducting a broader investigation of the level of expertise of recent author-spokespersons based on their experience as scientists, particularly in the area of health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. This review thus attempts to more clearly illustrate for the reader the caliber and motives of the voices speaking into the 5G narrative. The article concludes with a set of questions that need to be answered to enable scientists to advise policy makers more effectively on matters of 5G and public health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.