The state of the evidence: what reviews and meta-analyses show

This subtopic concerns the *state of the evidence*, not the existence of the effect itself. Review works and critical evaluations of the literature on the influence of the SR on organisms agree on one thing: the majority of available studies are correlational, conducted on small samples and often not replicated. Robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are lacking, as is a generally accepted physical-biological mechanism that would explain the observed associations.

It is therefore honest to say that the current state of knowledge does not allow one to claim or to refute a causal influence of the SR on human health — the burden of proof remains unmet. Claims that are presented in the popular sphere as "proven" therefore have no support in the quality of the existing evidence. Stating a weak and ambiguous state of the evidence is in accordance with scientific integrity; jumping past it toward certainties (in either direction) is not.