Justine Hansen, one of the readers of my blog, after seeing my post on “Warning signs of a Cult…” dealing with ICNIRP, has pointed me to text written some 20 years ago by Neil Cherry…

It feels that the same “ICNIRP game” is being played for a long time and that we all are still being plaid. How long we have still to go before eyes open?

Dr Neil Cherry’s assessment of “The ICNIRP Game” nearly 20 years ago:

ICNIRP is playing its own game and setting its own rules. It is the game that is played by national authorities which, as a team, they feel very comfortable with it. The name of the team is “The Consensus of Science”. However, it involves quite a small and very select team that includes national experts who come from national authorities who subscribe to the rules of the ICNIRP game.

In the ICNIRP game the first rule is that there is only a tissue heating effect from RF/MW exposure. You must agree with this rule to play the ICNIRP game. As a consequence of this rule, in the ICNIRP game, all other biological effects are not real and any epidemiological study that shows an effect with non-thermal exposure, must be faulty and will be rejected. In other words, if you break this rule you are out of the game. In this game it is fine to change the rules about acceptable significant, what is evidence, and criteria for how a biological effect is established. In this game a study does not provide evidence until it has been exactly replicated.

Sounds familiar?

I, myself [DL], have been interacting with ICNIRP members and ICNIRP as organization starting from 1997 and my experience agrees with the opinion of Neil Cherry.

https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10182/3933/90_m4_EMR_ICNIRP_critique_09-02.pdf [p30]

Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Dariusz Leszczynski