Hardell and Nilsson made a ‘rookie mistake’ and didn’t prove that 5G caused ill health symptoms

Three things up-front.

1. In my opinion, individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, called with different names: microwave disease or electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) or, as I have begun to call it, individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (IS-EMF), exists and needs to be researched more and better than it has been done to-date [Leszczynski D. Wireless radiation and health: making the case for proteomics research of individual sensitivity. Front Public Health. 2025 Jan 10;12:1543818. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1543818.].
2. I am strongly critical of the reliability of provocation studies used as a research tool to prove sensitivity to wireless radiation [Leszczynski D. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev Environ Health. 2021 Jul 6;37(3):423-450. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0038], as quoted from this reference:

“…There are a number of drawbacks in the design of all of the to-date executed EHS studies that were not mentioned, but that will prevent making any far-reaching conclusions on the existence and on the causes of the EHS. The drawbacks [as proposed by D. Leszczynski] are as follows:

Drawback #1: It is not known whether the volunteers are indeed suffering of EHS. This means that the experimental groups of self-diagnosed EHS persons might be contaminated by the misdiagnosed EHS persons. In extreme cases, it might happen that none of the self-diagnosed EHS volunteers is indeed an EHS sufferer. They might experience non-specific symptoms caused by non-EMF environmental exposures.

Drawback #2: There are two types of selection bias in the to-date executed EHS studies. The first one is introduced by the scientists who exclude persons with any pre-existing health problems. Scientists do not know whether pre-existing health problems might predispose a person to develop EHS. Exclusion of persons with pre-existing health problems is incorrect at this discovery stage. Persons with pre-existing health problems should be included, though they could/should be analyzed separately. The second selection bias is introduced by the volunteers who either fail to volunteer or who initially agree to participate in a study but later withdraw their consent because of either becoming afraid of potential health risk from exposures or because of their distrust in the scientific team.

Drawback #3: Psychological methods of inquiry, used in psychological provocation studies, were not examined and not proven for their suitability to detect EHS. Assuming that the EHS exists, none of the experimental methods of psychology, used in the to-date executed psychological provocation studies, has been demonstrated to be able to detect physiological outcomes of the EHS stemming from the exposures to EMF. Furthermore, all psychological provocation studies were designed to examine acute occurrences of EHS symptoms and might be unsuitable to detect delayed or chronic EHS symptoms.

Drawback #4: Conclusions of the provocation studies performed using psychology methods might be affected and/or even invalidated because of the existence of the placebo and nocebo phenomena. Placebo and nocebo indicate the ability of the human mind to affect physiology of human body [256, 257]. There is a well-known phenomenon among medical students of the “medical students’ disease”. It is a condition frequently reported in medical students, who perceive themselves to be experiencing the symptoms of a disease that they are currently studying. The condition is associated with the fear of contracting the disease in question. The same is likely happening when researchers show to study subjects’ films presenting dangers of EMF exposures. It is obvious and expected that some persons will afterwards “experience” some of the symptoms presented in the film. Furthermore, volunteers participating in such studies have pre-conceived opinions on EMF and health. Thus, claims that news media reports cause a rise in the occurrence of EHS is incorrect. Also, the responses of the self-diagnosed EHS persons given during the provocation experiments are likely influenced by their pre-existing opinions about EHS. Thus, the data collected in the psychological provocation studies is not only unobjective, but it is affected by the pre-existing opinions…”

3. I think that only a combination of provocation experiment and biochemical examination of effects of exposure in human volunteers will prove the existence of IS-EMF, by providing objective data showing the difference in response to electromagnetic fields in different persons, as detailed in my published articles [Leszczynski D. Wireless radiation and health: making the case for proteomics research of individual sensitivity. Front Public Health. 2025 Jan 10;12:1543818. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1543818.; Leszczynski D, de Vocht F. Editorial: Individual sensitivity to wireless radiation. Front Public Health. 2025 Dec 5;13:1744897. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1744897].

******************

I was recently asked for my opinion on the study on the effects of 5G antennas on health:

Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson. Summary of seven Swedish case reports on the microwave syndrome associated with 5G radiofrequency radiation. Rev Environ Health. 2024 Jun 19;40(1):147-157. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2024-0017. Print 2025 Mar 26.

It is a study that combines seven case studies conducted and published by Lennart Hardell, a retired professor of epidemiology, and Mona Nilsson, BSc, an activist/journalist.

The seven case-studies were combined to make the evidence of effect stronger. Unfortunately, combining together of seven-poor quality studies does not make the evidence any stronger. I am surprised that Lennart Hardell, an experienced scientist, has made such a ‘rookie’ mistake in executing this research, looking like a badly done provocation study.

The problems with all seven studies and their pooled analysis:

1. The authors observed over 40 different symptoms in examined cases, and they called them ‘automatically’ and without any further justification, as obvious symptoms of the microwave disease. However, all of these symptoms could be caused by a variety of other ailments. First that comes to mind is heightened stress and worry. So, the examined persons had health complaints, but… what caused them?
2. None of the health complaints were confirmed by clinical examination. Why? Hardell is MD…
3. Symptoms appeared, but at the same time persons knew that they were exposed to 5G. No experimental blinding to prove that 5G was the cause.
4. Symptoms vanished or decreased in severity when persons left the place where symptoms were severe and went to a place where exposure to 5G was lower. Persons knew, and expected (?), to get better in less exposed places. Again, no experimental blinding to prove that 5G was the cause.
5. I don’t comment on measurements of 5G as I am not an expert in this.

In Summary, there is no certainty what caused symptoms of ill health. It might be that the symptoms were caused by 5G… but also, maybe, by stress or by any number of other stimuli. Hardell and Nilsson didn’t prove anything. Especially, Hardell and Nilsson, contrary to the claims in their conclusions, did not prove that 5G radiation was the cause of the symptoms because the design of the studies was exceedingly poor and naïve. People knew when they were exposed and when the exposures were lower. Maybe 5G, maybe not 5G. Classical error from the lack of blinding!

Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Dariusz Leszczynski