>>2496209 (pb)
Cute... "peer reviewed study." I guess you haven't been keeping up on the scandals involving paid-for results research and outright faked research papers, where no actual research was done and the published, peer-reviewed studies were completely fabricated. The whole "peer-reviewed research" scam has been thoroughly outed. Your agenda is clear from your choice of words.
Here's an article which received fairly high exposure through several news outlets, but I'm choosing to link to Activist Post in preference to Forbes, Fortune, Reuters, Newsweek, etc. A simple search using a substantial portion of the title will reveal several other news outlets covering the same story in similar ways, using even most of the same words.
<https://www.activistpost.com/2018/08/exposure-5g-towers-cause-excessive-sweating-new-prescription-excessive-armpit-sweating-approved-fda-5g-rollout.html>
The article has links to several studies as well as to several information clearinghouses on this topic. There are many studies, whether or not their peer-review structure will satisfy your requirements or not is up to you to decide. The links are in the above-linked article. If that isn't enough for you, do your own research. The studies are out there. The tone of your comment came across as mocking, implying there has not been even a single peer-reviewed study which found ANY negative health effects of 5G.
If that is your belief, I encourage you to educate yourself moar.