We are pleased to let you know that we are applying for permission to appeal the judgment received on March 8th.

The government stated repeatedly over the course of the Court Hearing that its “opinion” is that 5G is safe; this opinion has been arrived at apparently without scrutinising the position of ICNIRP, upon which the government itself relies. ICNIRP does not say that 5G is safe; not only does it leave many questions as to safety unanswered, but it also specifically sets out members of the public who are excluded from its notion of protection.

Meanwhile, yet another report has been recently declassified, this from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington DC. It seeks to identify the likely causes of “Havana Syndrome”.

“Havana syndrome is a series of debilitating symptoms that first affected U.S. intelligence officers and embassy staffers stationed in Havana, Cuba, in late 2016. In the following year, American diplomats in different parts of the world reported similar symptoms”. https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_havana_syndrome/article.htm

The National Intelligence paper is called “Anomalous Health Incidents, Analysis of Potential Causal Mechanisms” and is much redacted but lists six findings, three of which are:

  • The signs and symptoms of AHIs are genuine and compelling 
  • A subset of AHIs have [sic] a unique combination of core characteristics that cannot be explained by known environmental or medical conditions and could be due to external stimuli
  • Electromagnetic energy, particularly pulsed signals in the radiofrequency range, plausibly explains the core characteristics, although information gaps exist


Also recently released, this paper further corroborates Professor Tom Butler’s expert testimony that we presented to the Court: “Wireless technologies, non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and children: Identifying and reducing health risks“.


Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director University of California, Berkeley, highlights an extremely important fact in his March 28th report: https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5g-wireless-technology-is-5g-harmful-to.html

There are only 3 out of 38,000 studies which research biological and health effects of “real-life” 5G using millimeter waves“.

He explains “real-life” millimetre wave 5G utilises modulated frequencies which are likely more biologically potent than unmodulated frequencies, so the Karipidis et al review of unmodulated frequency research presented to the court by the government, is of limited relevance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33727687/

The Karipidis paper has been severely criticised by Belyaev et al for its inaccurate reporting of the source science and for using a line of reasoning supportive of industry interests. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-022-00497-8

“…This line of reasoning parallels that used previously by scientists working for the tobacco industry, whose studies repeatedly arrived at conclusions suggesting no clear determination of harm could be made. This was part of a broader strategy of manufacturing doubt about the potential negative health effects of their product, as summarised by Gilbert.

It is deeply frustrating that the Belyaev et al rebuttal could not be submitted to the court due to the limitations set by the directions to the Court regarding contested science. The paper rebuttal paints a clear picture of the distortions which are being used to prop up the industry-influenced ICNIRP guidelines.

The biased selections and assessments that have been uncovered in the Karipidis review create an unbalanced view of the science, and skew the final conclusion towards uncertainty. In contrast, when appraising all relevant findings, the evidence found in our review points to risks not fully considered by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) or the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) in their respective RF guidelines and RF standards. These guidelines do not reflect the current state of scientific knowledge and are based on acute heating protection only, which is purely for regulatory convenience. The gulf between thermal and non-thermal evaluative frameworks has previously been discussed.”

This Redmayne et al February 2023 paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/7/5267 states:

Many significant sources conclude there is insufficient research to assure safety even from the heat perspective.” 

and concludes:

“…surface radiofrequency exposure assessments including mmW radiation are insufficient to ensure safety… Without research on the impact of near-field 5G, this global step is an experiment at the population level. Bearing this in mind, there is a vital and urgent need for targeted research and for a re-evaluation of the scientific relevance of the current RF human exposure standardsbasic approach and assumptions”.

The stated opinion of the government that 5G is safe is not based on positive knowledge as is clear. Such knowledge is as yet unavailable; it is an opinion made in the absence of supporting facts because 5G has barely been researched.

Thank you for your continued support and encouragement, for which we are so very grateful.

AA5G Team