ELECTROSENSITIVITY FROM A NEUROLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW
100 Harley Street, United Kingdom
The entity of electrosensitivity is still a new and a widely controversial topic in medicine. However, we cannot deny that we are increasingly confronted by patients with a variety of symptoms in the presence of cellphone transmitter masts, computers, cellphones and the like.
22 electrosensitive patients were tested and treated in a standardised way. The results were audited. Hair and urine was tested for essential elements (Mg, Se, Zn etc) and toxic heavy metals (Hg, Cd, Pb, etc.), blood was tested for genetic detoxification enzymes (Glutathion S-Transferase M1 and T1 und N-Acethyltransferase), blood was tested in the MELISA Test for hypersensitivity to heavy metals, EEG and brain mapping was performed as a baseline and in the presence of a cellphone held to the ear (but not talking), blood pressure and pulse were measured every 5 minutes with an automated blood pressure machine. Subjective symptoms were recoded in a questionnaire.
There was a deficit in essential elements in 81.8% and an overload of toxic elements in 86.4% in the hair, genetic polymorphysm for GST T1 in 27.3%, GST M1 in 68.0%, GST T1 and M1 in 23% and NAT in 40.9%, hypersensitivity to heavy metals Ni59.1%, Au23.1%, Hg15.4%, Pd7.7%, Ag7.7%, Mo7.7%. There was evidence of EEG, ECG and blood pressure changes during and after exposure to electromagnetic fields induced by a mobile phone.
The audit provided evidence that in electrosensitive patients there is a deficiency in essential elements and an overload in toxic elements, genetic polymorphysms and hypersensitivities against heavy metals. The EEG/brain mapping showed that the brain reacts promptly in a paradoxical way and the cardio-vascular parameter changes (heart rate and rhythm, and blood pressure) were protracted in time. The questionnaire showed that the subjective symptoms started during exposure and continued after exposure stop.
back to: Symptoms
Griesz-Brisson M (2013) “Electrosensitivity from a neurological point of view” Neuroepidemiology 41: 223–316; no.227, p.275.