I learned this lesson already in 1999. Large part of EHS activists accept and approve scientists’ opinion on EHS only when it agrees 100% with their own.
They, EHS activists, already know for sure that EHS is caused by EMF, that the scientific proof was already published in numerous peer-reviewed studies, that there are known bio-markers of EHS and that the diagnosis of EHS can be performed objectively. EHS activists know this all beyond any doubt and, if anyone does not agree 100% with this opinion then he/she is an enemy of the EHS sufferers.
The problem is that militant EHS activists, peddling such unproven claims, are extending suffering of the real EHS sufferers by weakening the arguments for scientific research.
I never understood why EHS activists go so strongly against the available scientific evidence and, this way, shoot their own foot. When EHS activists continuously and stubbornly claim that EHS is already proven, beyond any doubts, in published peer-reviewed science they “mock” themselves.
- They make it easy to dismiss their claims.
- They make it easy to dismiss the need for new research.
- They make it easy to be considered as psychologically affected.
- They shoot their own foot.
Published scientific evidence on the relation between EMF exposures and EHS symptoms is of poor quality, is unreliable, and it does not prove that EHS is, or is not, caused by EMF exposures.
To this conclusion I came in my recently published review of numerous to-date published EHS studies.
In my review I claim that EHS exists (I strongly believe so) but that we need better quality research to prove this belief. This was not enough for EHS activists. I did not agree with them 100% that the existence of EHS is “proven beyond all reasonable doubt”.
In response to my EHS review, Michael Bevington, Chair of Trustees, Electrosensitivity UK, London, UK, (http://www.es-uk.info/) has published a comment:
In this comment, Bevington cherry-picks quotes from my review, that fit his narrative, and omits what does not fit his narrative.
The comment-article begins with 2 sentences quoting some of the conclusions from my EHS review that understandably are well fitting EHS activists’ thinking:
“Leszczynski’s review [1] included two important conclusions. Firstly, the need for the WHO, ICNIRP, ICES and governmental organisations to revise their denial of the link between EHS and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) because the data is of insufficient quality for proof of the lack of causality. Secondly, instead of studying a nocebo effect, research should focus on finding “suitable biochemical and biophysical markers” for symptoms in each EHS individual.”
However, the third and fourth sentences of the comment-article go as 100% EHS activists mantra “permits”:
“However, the review also stated that “So far, scientists were unable to find causality link between symptoms experienced by sensitive persons and the exposures to EMF”. This comprehensive assertion does not seem to reflect all the scientific evidence.“
…and what scientific evidence is being used to claim definitive proof of causality link between EHS and EMF? Not surprisingly, among few others, it is also research from the group of Dominique Belpomme in France:
“Specific EHS symptoms were identified from 1932 in Eastern Europe and the USSR, usually among people occupationally exposed, such as radar, radio or electricity workers. As EHS spread into the general population with the use of cell phones, Wi-Fi and smart metres, specialist EHS centres assessed greater numbers, such as Professor Dominique Belpomme’s in Paris. In 2015 he published the first comprehensive study of objective molecular biomarkers including cerebral blood perfusion scans, showing that EHS is a multi-systemic EI like chemical sensitivity.”
…and further:
“In 2021 Belpomme led 32 international experts requesting that the WHO acknowledges EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and includes it in its International Classification of Diseases…”
Bevington completely and conveniently omits the fact that Belpomme’s studies were severely criticized in my EHS review. Belpomme’s studies do not show anything, do not prove anything. The data presented by Belpomme and co-workers is incomplete and conclusions are not based on presented data but on “wishful thinking“. Sorry to say it so harshly, but this is the fact. It is a very poor science.
This kind of scientific evidence, as provided by research of Belpomme’s group in France, is completely inadequate for classification of EHS as a “distinct neuropathological disorder“. It is not science, it is bamboozling.
EHS activists should understand that the objective scientific proof of EHS causality by EMF is still missing. In large part it is fault of poor scientific studies executed by scientists (for evidence see my EHS review). Continuous claims, against the knowledge from the peer-reviewed studies, that EHS has been already proven does not help EHS sufferers. Better science will but… it is being prevented, in part, because of the outlandish and false claims from the militant EHS activists.
Please, if you wish to resolve EHS issue scientifically, stop shooting your own foot… stop bamboozling…
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Historically, radiofrequency workers were studied by the Russians, who discovered symptoms for “radio wave sickness” decades ago. Today’s microwave radiation brings every person into range of exposures like only RF workers would get. This historical evidence must not be ignored.
Also, a person with EHS is simply a person who recognizes that RF exposures induce symptoms. Why is that so complicated? Some people with Microwave Sickness have blood sugar/diabetes results, Others have nervous system results, headaches, etc. I do not understand why the bulk of RF history (including military studies), science and awareness is ignored.
A cadre of science over decades reveal that RF is a general de-regulator of normal biological functions. The label of EHS/ Microwave Sickness is slapped on a sub-group of aware sufferers when in fact, many people with many illnesses and conditions may be experiencing harmful effects – and just not know that RF is a factor.
Why is historical evidence and science ignored, do you think, (other than the reason that industry owns the thoughts and media and habits of everyone?)
Ouch!
Data presented in this person’s studies is extremely poor. There are two options. Either the scientist is insufficiently knowledgeable or the person is sufficiently knowledgeable but chooses to mislead. I think the person in question is sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the poor value of own data. However, the person has chosen to mislead and to charge high consultation fees from desperate EHS sufferers.
Read also comment and link from ‘spatenpauli’. Yes, he is from pro-telecom website but links to French medical organization’s complaints about the questionable practices of the scientist in question are worrisome. It is good to know whom to defend…
To say someone is bamboozling (i.e., willfully fooling, cheating, or deceiving) others is a pretty strong accusation, and I’d suggest being more careful about the choice of words.
Yes Don, it is also my opinion that chemicals emissions from everyday household goods should be examined more closely. Some might have self-diagnosed EHS in error and might have instead some chemical sensitivity. Of course there might be also some co-effects in play…
Dariusz
Another aspect of electrosensitivity that is generally under-recognized now is the role of chemical emissions such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE’s) outgassing from items such as carpets, electrical equipment, etc., etc.
During the 1990’s the Swedish Union of Clerical and Technical Employees in Industry (SiF) instigated research into reports of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) in the modern information technology (IT) workplace with a possible link with chemical emissions from new electronic equipment. Unfortunately around 1994 all this was closed down because SiFs ongoing research was seen as a possible risk for Ericsson’s new wireless office place communications equipment. As a result, the Swedish government, pandering to Ericsson, succeeded in forcing the union to end its research initiative and remove all of SiF’s publications on the issue removed from the Internet and even SiF’s own library. Afterwords, the union shifted its emphasis to the “psychosocial work environment:, suggesting that all those hypersensitive employees identified by Sif investigations in the 1990’s were now considered as suffering from a psychosocial problem and not a workplace environmental pollutant. See:
https://www.emfacts.com/download/no_risk_Feb_7.pdf
However these documents are available on the Internet in honour of the brave women and men who worked to make the modern workplace a safer and healthy place. Also included is a pamphlet by the Swedish company Liberel which specialised in designing office places to reduce environmental hazards to workers and this company was directly involved in the SiF No Risk Project. It was Martin Andersson from Liberel who was the first to combine the necessity of reducing electromagnetic fields with the elimination of chemical emissions from office equipment.
https://www.emfacts.com/norisk/
Don Maisch
If you want an explanation of the mechanism of action of air electricity on skin then read this link. ES is caused by the proto onco proliferation of skin senors. Half of all peeps get cancer now. Half of cancers are skin cancers. ES is like cancer but not cancer. Skin examinations have shown this. Read the researches of O J Johansson on the mechanism of action. https://sites.google.com/view/esexplained
Dariusz why not instead start promoting testing that could lead to new and better understanding of the situation?
I have brought up blood zeta potential here before. Why isn’t anyone looking into this? It seems to me it would be an easy biomarker to target.
I show you an example why it should be studied:
“Effect of AC Electromagnetic Field on Zeta Potential of Calcium Carbonate”:
“Consequently, we found that treatment at a specific frequency drastically changes the zeta potential of the particles in addition to causing an inversion of polarity. ”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252694614_Effect_of_AC_Electromagnetic_Field_on_Zeta_Potential_of_Calcium_Carbonate
We already know from live microscopy that blood agglutination can be seen in EHS sufferers, but we need a scientifically rigorous test done to verify if there is a link here or not.
This seems to be the most simple biomarker to approach for investigation. Initial tests could even be done in vitro; no test subjects needed, except some living blood. From there you could investigate if there is an effect.
Maybe it is already seen in vitro, maybe not, but it is not expensive to look. Has anyone looked at this? If not, why not? And if not, why not take up the baton on this blog and run with it? Perhaps we could find out something interesting and new.
Dariusz, as biologist, computer scientist, and researcher with a PhD I fully agree with your statement. I find it challenging to bring people on a level so that they understand why the claims that Pall and Belpomme state have nothing to do with scientific proof. And I believe that the cause of EHS could even be physical trauma (like whiplashes, surgeries, C-sections, etc.), biological trauma (e.g virus infections), chemical trauma (e.g. solvent or mercury intoxication), or trauma related to overexposed to EMFs (e.g. being to close to the top an active basestation without protection or accidents with high high-voltage power lines). For all categories I have met people who had an event or can name a period of time where they had accidents, overexposure or intoxications and later are now electrosensitive some of them also EHS. For sure it is not only one trigger that brings the bodies’s well balanced systems out of control. After all, why does it matter that EMFs cause EHS? Evidence that they can increase pain in people should be enough for precaution and creating technology in a way that everybody has freedom of choice for a low EMF pollution, at least in their homes. Your thoughts about this Dariusz?