Scientists Accuse World Health Organization of Covering-Up Cell Phone Cancer Epidemic

A consortium of the world’s top scientists has issued a bombshell report exposing how the World Health Organization (WHO) has covered up the fact that cell phone exposure is causing brain cancer diagnoses to soar.

The International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) claims that methodological weaknesses and potential industry bias have compromised the WHO’s assessment of the brain cancer risks for cell phone exposure, potentially misleading the public and regulators about the true risks posed by the wireless devices.

The controversy centres on a series of twelve systematic reviews commissioned by the WHO. These reviews are intended to form the bedrock of a forthcoming WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph, a document that governments worldwide will use to set safety standards and regulatory policies for radiofrequency (RF) radiation. This type of non-ionizing radiation is emitted by cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, cell towers and other wireless infrastructure.

Unlike the powerful ionizing radiation from X-rays or nuclear materials, which can directly damage DNA, RF radiation was long thought to be harmless at low levels, capable only of heating tissue at very high exposures. The ICBE-EMF report, published in the journal Environmental Health, contends that this outdated assumption is at the heart of the problem.

The ICBE-EMF’s central critique involves the methodology used in eleven of the twelve WHO reviews. The scientists argue that the authors relied heavily on a process called meta-analysis, which involves mathematically combining the results of many different studies to produce a single, overarching conclusion. While powerful when used correctly, the ICBE-EMF found that the WHO reviews applied this technique inappropriately, lumping together studies with vastly different exposure conditions and quality levels. This approach, they say, can obscure important findings and dilute evidence of harm.

Leading experts from organizations like the Cochrane Collaboration, a globally respected arbiter of health research quality, generally warn against using meta-analyses when the included studies are too few or too dissimilar. In such cases, a narrative summary is preferred. The ICBE-EMF points out that only one of the twelve WHO reviews followed this best-practice advice. Compounding these methodological concerns are questions of bias. The ICBE-EMF published a supplemental document detailing what it describes as the significant ties between many of the WHO review authors and the wireless industry, as well as their affiliation with the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a body whose safety limits have been adopted globally.

Evidence of harm ignored

Despite the identified flaws, the ICBE-EMF report notes that the WHO’s own reviews still uncovered troubling evidence. One systematic review, which appropriately avoided a flawed meta-analysis, concluded with high certainty that cell phone radiation exposure causes two types of cancer in animals: malignant gliomas in the brain and malignant schwannomas in the heart. The review explicitly noted that human studies had previously found both of these same tumour types. Another WHO-backed review found that RF radiation exposure was linked to reduced male fertility.

“The study links maternal cell phone use during pregnancy to an increased risk of behavioural problems in children,” said Brighteon. “Furthermore, the electromagnetic radiation from cell phones is compared to microwave radiation and is linked to an increased cancer risk.”

The ICBE-EMF scientists argue that these findings within the WHO’s own data are being glossed over. Instead of highlighting these potential risks, the overall tenor of the WHO’s effort has been to downplay concerns, a stance the ICBE-EMF attributes to the deeply ingrained “thermal-only paradigm.” This decades-old doctrine, which forms the basis for current U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) safety standards, assumes that RF radiation is harmless unless it delivers enough energy to heat body tissue.

A growing body of peer-reviewed science, including a 2022 paper from the ICBE-EMF, has refuted this, showing biological harm can occur at much lower, non-thermal levels.

A call for accountability and precaution

The ICBE-EMF is demanding that the WHO recommission the reviews, this time requiring authors to follow established best practices and to fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest. They are urging regulatory authorities internationally to consider the current WHO-recommended safe exposure limits as potentially too high to protect the public fully. Specifically, they call for heightened protections for vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, children, and people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity.

The scientists argue that until a thorough and independent review of the evidence is completed, a precautionary approach is not just wise but necessary. They insist that the burden of proof must shift; instead of the public having to prove that wireless radiation is dangerous, the industry should be required to demonstrate conclusively that it is safe.

yogaesoteric
October 26, 2025