I get what you are trying to communicate but I'm afraid that the target audience, which obviously suffers from Dunning-Kruger, won't appreciate your sentiments.

Furthermore, you make some bold claims (like e.g. lack of influence of low frequency electromagnetic radiation on living organisms) for which there is literally no solid ground -- beyond immediate, visible physiological effects, which there, indeed, seem to be none, we simply don't know.

Also, when you look at e.g. Chomsky vs. Everett where the vested interests and inability to admit error play a huge part, it's not hard to see why to a layman academia seems corrupt and consensual status quo raises questions and doubts. And rightfully so.

All in all, yours is a noble, albeit a rather simplistic, attempt at countering all the pseudoscientific speculation. But perhaps you should heed your own advice and stay in your lane as articles like these only make the matters worse, because they paint scientists as butthurt, petty individuals who think that they are beyond criticism, unless one has ten Nobels.