Some, chosen ones (not me), have just received message from the WHO informing that the deadline for applications for Task Group experts, to prepare the final version of the Environmental Health Criteria for the RF-EMF, has been extended. The WHO’s message was as follows:
________________________
*** THE DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION SUBMISSION HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 15 DECEMBER 2021 ***
The World Health Organization (WHO) is seeking experts to serve as members of the Task Group on Radiofrequency Fields and Health Risks that will contribute to the development of a WHO monograph on Radiofrequency fields.
Experts interested to respond to the Call for Experts are invited to visit https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/call-for-experts-who-task-group-on-radiofrequency-fields-and-health-risks. This Call for experts provides information about the Task group, the expert profiles being sought, and the application and selection processes.
Please note that the closing date for this Call has been extended to 15 December 2021.
___________________
The reasons for this unexpected 2-week extension for the deadline were not specified. The reasons can be of two types:
- WHO did not receive sufficient number of applications
- WHO did not receive enough applications from the desired experts
Knowing how upset are very many scientists that were excluded from the systematic reviews process it is easy to imagine that many of them have/will apply for the Task Group. So, the first reason for deadline extension seems unlikely.
However, similarly as with the systematic reviews, the experts rejected from systematic reviews might be again considered as “undesired” by the WHO. Hence, the likely reason for the extension might be not the sheer number of applicants but the low number of the “desired” applicants.
To know a bit more about the systematic reviews process, please, see my report from BioEM2021 in Ghent, where I posted some info and commented on the reliability and transparency, or rather lack of it.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Loosely related, but pertinent, here is an article with a quick history of how lead was found to be toxic (at least by the early 1920s), but this knowledge was “managed” by the gas and car industry back when lead was a magic ingredient that, added to gasoline, made engines run more quietly and efficiently. Over the years, concerns voiced by public health experts were ignored, as the government Public Health Service got cozy with industry. Studies linking lead to low IQ and developmental problems were called “fraudulent.” Fast forward, it was 1996 before lead was outlawed as a gasoline additive. And the beat goes on. “A Century of Tragedy” at https://theconversation.com/a-century-of-tragedy-how-the-car-and-gas-industry-knew-about-the-health-risks-of-leaded-fuel-but-sold-it-for-100-years-anyway-173395
Why is Emilie Van Deventer, a doctor of electrical engineering, the head of of the World Health Organization’s International EMF Project in the first place? The EMF Project “provides information on the health impact of EMF exposure and guidance to national authorities on radiation protection programmes.” Shouldn’t someone in that position be trained at the very least in biology, medicine, and epidemiology? Obviously, here is the crux of the problem which underlies all of the undeniable conflicts of interest in the panels and the omitted papers which are just superfluous at this point. The whole things is a sham. Period. One can only deduce that the World Health Organization’s focus here is not on health. It’s insulting, offensive and criminal. Surely they know better and they know how to do better. They have no intention to protect us.
The world UNHEALTH organization.