There is good science on YouTube although you definitely have to be extra cautious about trusting it and science by its nature can be wrong sometimes.
I don't like video, and I don't trust "experts". All kinds of presumably smart people say stupid shit that doesn't mean much, Ben Carson is a good example. He's allegedly a good brain surgeon, but every time he opens his mouth, something retarded falls out. Is there any evidence for her claims, or is she just making noise? Is brain cancer increasing? Finger cancer? Anything??
You're misusing "expert" there. Its one thing to speak with regards to what your expertise actually is (for instance, with Carson if he's speaking about actually performing brain surgery then sure he'd qualify, but all his political-based stuff including most of it related to healthcare, certainly doesn't, its always stupid shit that he obviously is not an expert in/at). Hell wasn't he picked to head up some housing commission before getting shitcanned because he had some extravagant renovations done while demonizing poor people that struggle to afford rent?
From what I can tell, she could qualify as an expert on this topic. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with her conclusions, but I also don't totally agree with some of the people saying we'd know by now as the cancer rates would show it. It wasn't until the 2000s that most people had access to cell phones, and wasn't until the 2010s that people had smartphones (which would seem to have increased rates of cell phone use, as well as older phones have extended antenna and things like that). I'm also not sure how 4G and 5G would compare, or expected to compare in radiation levels. It can take decades to show the increased cancer rates as it can take that long for the cumulative affects to manifest.
So this isn't a bullshit way of using an expert like say the dishonest assholes that made the shitty "Loose Change" documentary using finance "experts" to discuss building engineering. Or more recently the motherfucker that tried making it seem like he was one of the doctors from Stanford, spreading misinformation about the pandemic (the guy is associated with Stanford but he's like a history professor or some shit and had absolutely nothing to do with the Stanford medical department).
Certainly claims need data that holds up to scrutiny no matter your expertise. She seems to be suggesting that the industry is acting like tobacco companies by manipulating the science (i.e. funding counter-research, shutting out other funding, trying to bury negative studies, paying scientists in order to bias them). Which the telecom industry can be very scummy but I'm not sure its necessarily that they're trying to cover up some major health risk due to increased radiation levels from using cell phones, and there's been other situations (the Wakefield study that led to the idiocy about mercury and vaccines and autism) where there's a good reason why you need to scrutinize how the sciences is being done.
Which, she's right there's definitely issues with...forget the term "corporate capture" or something like that, where we end up with people from the corporations in positions where they're tasked with regulating those companies, which leads to serious conflicts of interest. To a certain extent you need people that know the market, but there can certainly be problems (and you can tell). Which, a lot of people expected the previous FCC chair, Wheeler, to be that way as he was head of one of the telecom industry groups, but he listened to the people and saw how clearly telecoms had been f'ing people and tried to do something about it. The current chair is a fucking industry stooge (he was formerly a lawyer for Verizon) and is incredibly corrupt.
And sometimes, even experts in the field can be simply wrong. I recall some person, think maybe a professor at Berkeley, who is an expert in the field getting tripped up by the term "High Fructose Corn Syrup" where he assumed that meant it had higher fructose than normal sucrose (table sugar) even though the ratio is fairly close (about 50/50 fructose/glucose). To be fair to him, it is a little odd to call something High ____ when it its like 50/50 with something else.
Facebook
Twitter