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., Competing Interests: When background affiliations are being investigated, research projects linked with government or industry interests need to be noted. For example, the tobacco industry implemented strategies for suppressing evidence regarding health effects from smoking, which included: funding research that supported the industry position, setting up official “review” bodies who concluded that results were inconsistent, and funding central research centers that would supposedly be a focal point organization of the highest caliber to sponsor and foster quality, objective research … to effectively communicate research findings to a broad scientific community [(22), p. 202]. Similar patterns can be observed in the field of health effects of wireless radiation, as follows: Researchers working at university institutions with laboratories funded by, or in partnership with telecommunication industries seem unable to maintain both their jobs and their independence from these industries. For example, after Dr. Bruce Hocking, former Chief Medical Officer for the Australian telecommunications company Telstra, published on neurological changes in his patients from exposure to their mobile phones (25), he was made redundant. Similarly, after Fred Hollows found that Telstra linesmen exposed to microwaves were three times more likely to develop cataracts (26), Telstra complained to Hollows' university. Hollows received no further funding to conduct follow-up studies (27).The international advisory body, ICNIRP, has members with a history of industry affiliations (28). This creates an inherent industry-bias within ICNIRP members, which has been noted by the Ethical Council at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm (29) and by the Court of Turin where evidence provided by ICNIRP was deemed biased and not reliable (30).Government advisory agencies are unable to make independent statements about health and exposures, because they are expected to support government plans for comprehensive internet of things (IoT) and smart cities, which are dependent on wireless technologies (31, 32). Moreover, Australia's advisory agency ARPANSA is not permitted to make changes to the RF standard to protect health and the environment if it would prejudice the departments of Defense or National Security (33). The need to support these two agencies most likely creates pressure on ARPANSA not to oppose further wireless technology rollouts or lower exposure limits to improve public safety.Members of government advisory agencies are also members or associates of industry-linked ICNIRP (34); e.g., Karipidis, an ARPANSA researcher, is also a member of ICNIRP.The supposedly independent international advisory body, the WHO International EMF project is strongly influenced by industry in the form of the International Telecommunications Union and ICNIRP [(35), p. 5–6].Government regulatory agencies and advisory bodies may derive their income from industry via RF spectrum sales. For example, in Australia in 2021, $700,000 p.a. of the funding for the government's advisory agency ARPANSA came from revenue from spectrum licenses collected by the self-regulated industry-friendly Australian Communications Media Authority (ACMA). Then, of the money received by ARPANSA that year, a portion went to the WHO EMF project and to ICNIRP (36). ARPANSA state publicly that they take advice from the WHO and from ICNIRP, as if these are independent bodies advising ARPANSA. However, ARPANSA supports the WHO EMF financially and contributes to the WHO EMF project reports (35). Overall, several of the same people appear in all three committees (WHO EMF, ICNIRP and ARPANSA) and money flows from one group to another. Minuted evidence of ARPANSA's strategy to maintain this interdependence between ARPANSA, ICNIRP, research institutions, and the WHO EMF project is given in Supplementary material 3.Such conflicts of interest make it unclear whose interests are being represented when a member of one these groups speaks into the 5G narrative. For example, when a WHO webpage on potential health risks from 5G informs that Provided that the overall exposure remains below international guidelines, no consequences for public health are anticipated (37), it is uncertain who is really speaking: ARPANSA, ICNIRP, ACMA,2 or the telecommunications industry. Similar inter-relationships between government agencies, industry, ICNIRP, and WHO have been documented for other countries (29, 34). It appears that prestigious and supposedly independent health bodies along with the regulatory agencies advising on the 5G rollout have significant elements in that apparatus [that] appear to have been captured by vested interests [(38), p. 565]. So as to discern real from illusory independence therefore, clear categories of “Government/ICNIRP” and “Institution/industry” need to be available for classifying the affiliations of the author-spokespersons within the 5G narrative. When this system is used (see Supplementary material 1), we find that two of the researchers deemed to be “independent” in the opinion article by de Vocht and Albers (5) need to be reclassified, due to Telstra funding of Wood's laboratories (39, 40) (Institution/industry), and Karipidis' employment by ARPANSA and membership of ICNIRP (41) (Government/ICNIRP). 2.4.1 Hidden industry influences via co-authorshipIt is also instructive to look at the coauthors of each of the main author-spokespersons. Supplementary material 4 lists the authors and co-authors and their links with industry. Wood, a coauthor of Karipidis, has published with several authors closely linked to industry. Kenneth Foster has co-authored with Bushberg, Simkó, and Wood, and has several papers funded by the wireless industry. Foster was mentored by the ex-German biophysicist Herman Schwan, who modeled effects using macro biophysics, but did not incorporate the developing biological or quantum perspectives and was thus unable to let go of his “thermal only” position (see Supplementary material 1). Schwan's position along with industry interests are still influencing today's 5G narrative, via the influence of Foster as co-author on many publications.The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Weller and McCredden.)