Electrosensitivity 



How do you treat ES?


Recognising ES



          back to: How do you treat ES?


Overview on ES and EHS:

1. The basic test for all sensitiviy to, or intolerance of, environment toxins, is very simple: reduce or eliminate the toxic source, and the impairments or symptoms will be reduced or eliminated. Therefore doctors diagnosing Electrosensitivity include questioning a patient to establish likely exposure occurring during or before the impairments or symptoms.


This can now be easily tested with a personal EM recorder and a diary of the specific Electrosensitivity symptoms caused by a high or changed EM exposure:


This study concluded that: 
“RF-EMF exposure was associated either positively or negatively with NSPS in some but not all of the selected self-declared electrohypersensitive persons.”
The seven participants, who were not diagnosed for EHS using the standard objective tests but claimed sensitivity, wore personal exposure meters and kept a diary of specific symptoms every six hours.

Four showed “statistically significant correlations between perceived and actual exposure to wireless internet (WiFi - rate of change and number of peaks above threshold) and base stations for mobile telecommunications (GSM + UMTS downlink, rate of change)” and their symptom scores. “In two persons a higher EMF exposure was associated with higher symptom scores, and in two other persons it was associated with lower scores.”

In addition to confirming the existence of people with EHS, the study also confirmed what has been known for a long time, that:

  • (a) time-weighted average power density, as used for 6-minute heating guidelines like ICNIRP, (uW/m2) is irrelevant and not significantly correlated for biological effects like EHS,
  • (b) rate of change metric (RCM) can be more important than measurement of a constant exposure,
  • (c) only one of the seven subjects suffered from Electrophobia or the nocebo effect, and not real EHS: “In one participant increases in the perception of being exposed to downlink and WiFi were both related to increased symptom reporting, but perceived and actual exposure were not correlated.”
  • (d) individual or idiographic results, and not statistically averaged or nomothetic results, are essential for studying cases of EHS,
  • (e) the most common specific EHS symptoms, as established since 1932, are headaches and fatigue, along with tinnitus, light-headedness, unsettled feeling and muscle ache.​


2. Brain scans can show blood perfusion in different areas of the brain. In people with ES some areas of the brain have changed blood perfusion. See Professor Belpomme's techniques under Science about ES. 


3. Heart rate variability patterns relate to ES in some instances. See Dr Havas' studies under Science about ES.


4. Many other objective markers are being researched which appear to relate to ES, such as cortisol levels, lymphocyte tests, microcirculation, and other proteins and neurological markers relating to the environmental bioregulation of the autonomic nervous system.


NB:

(a) Some people who show that they are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation by producing the objective reactions listed above (1-4), do not have conscious sensitivity symptoms. Other people, who do experience conscious sensitivity symptoms, do not necessarily show all the above objective markers. This key factor was established in 2002 and has been confirmed since then.


(b) ES reactions are non-linear. This was established in by McCarty et al (2011). Therefore all provocation studies based on the assumption of linearity are flawed. This rules out the hypothesis that ES is a psychological condition. This was also ruled out by the WHO in 2007 when it was stated that ES is "not a known psychological condition".


RECORDING EM INJURIES:

IDC-10 Code: 

  • ICD-10-CM Code W90
  • W90.0 Exposure to radiofrequency: Exposure to other nonionizing radiation
  • W90.1 Exposure to infrared radiation
  • W90.2 Exposure to laser radiation
  • W90.8 Exposure to other nonionizing radiation


RESOURCES FOR DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT:



Videos:


Critiques by Dariusz Leszczynski:


In 2020 Leszczynski authored a strong critique of the conclusions by Prof. Belpomme et al. on EHS and MCS. It focused on a variety of aspects, such as the mechanisms by which patients presented at Prof. Belpomme's Paris clinic, controls, data not included in the published articles and reports by people with EHS of their EHS symptoms. Critics noted that it did not relate Prof Belpomme's findings to other studies showing similar physiological effects from EMFs.

In 2019-20 Leszczynski also attacked Prof. Pall (October 8 2019) and Arthur Firstenberg (April 8 2020), allegedly stating that they "have made claims that are not science based, that are based on misrepresentation of science and are nothing less but conspiracy theories", and apparently implying that such people are "a band of wackos". Again, it was noted that some of his claims were not overtly related to a contextual analysis of the totality of the available literature, and the language employed was unusual for most scientific discourse. 


In 2013 Leszczynski proposed his Round-Table Initiative on Cell Phones & Health, between the ICNIRP and the Bioinitiative groups of thermalists and athermalists respectively. However, his attempt at a consensus between these two diametrically opposed viewpoints, which seemingly cannot be held together at the same time, was rejected by both sides.



2015 INTERNATIONAL EXPERT CONFERENCE ON EHS AND MCS:


5th Paris Appeal EHS-MCS Conference, Brussels 2015

​All videos

1. 2015 Brussels Declaration on EHS and MCS:

    May 18 2015:

2.  Videos: