The fact that the "new name" (IEI) seems to ignore/discredit the primary claims of the sufferers at the outset, and that a multi-billion (trillion?) dollar industry would somewhat prefer these people don't exist, I remain skeptical of recent studies. (A view no doubt also biased by personal experience.)

That older studies show the effect, and newer ones don't isn't a smoking gun, but it is a cause for skepticism.

At least, one thing almost all studies agree on is "more research is required".

You have the need for scepticism round the wrong way. Scepticism is needed when dealing with claims that some humans can detect radio frequencies, despite no single human that has been tested being able to demonstrate such a skill, and no proposed mechanism for how this should be possible.

But set that aside that for a moment. Consider that it's well-established that EMF can and does affect human tissue, and it's also well-established that some humans are extraordinarily sensitive and susceptible to harm from tiny doses of just about anything you can name (versus "normal" people who aren't).

Therefore, I have no idea why ordinarily intelligent people will readily believe EMF/RF hypersensitivity to be completely impossible.

For often-overlooked background in EMF research and health effects, here is a comprehensive list of 2300 (pre-70's) studies: https://www.emfanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Naval...

You might also consider US NTP's study on cellphone radiation.

> There has been research - these people don't exist.

OTOH, RF reception through dental fillings or bridgework is a bit more plausible.