…post has been updated…
There is ongoing review and assessment of the science on EMF and health. The review process relies on the so-called systematic reviews.
Systematic reviews are generally considered, whether rightly or wrongly, to be one of the most reliable forms of evidence in research. They claim to follow rigorous methods to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of multiple studies on a specific research question. By using predefined criteria, systematic reviews aim to reduce bias and provide an unbiased synthesis of the available evidence.
However, the reliability of systematic reviews largely depends on the quality of the included studies and the rigor of the review process. Factors such as the selection and inclusion criteria, the search strategy, the use of multiple reviewers, and the assessment of study quality can impact the reliability of the review. Also, the expertise and the opinions of the scientific team preparing systematic review’s protocol and performing the review might introduce quality bias and bias of own opinions into the process. It is therefore important to critically evaluate the methodology and transparency of any systematic review before considering its findings.
Furthermore, as research evolves over time, new evidence may emerge that could affect the validity and conclusions of a systematic review. Therefore, it’s always a good idea to keep up with the latest research and consider multiple sources of evidence when making decisions or drawing conclusions.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Blind trust by some, and forceful peddling of the blind trust by others, in the reliability, bordering with infallibility, of the ongoing WHO evaluation of science on EMF and health.
You must be thinking of something in particular, or some things. What inspired this comment?
Well stated. Agree with you.