return to Viewpoints
“The ‘Nocebo’ effect or Electrophobia is irrelevant to real EHS”
Eletrosensitivity and Electrophobia (IEI-EMF) are different conditions
Some pro-wireless activists, like the minority group influential in the WHO and the ICNIRP, like to pretend that all instances of EHS are actually psychological. They invalidly hypothesise that EHS symptoms not caused by EM exposure, but are instead caused by Electrophobia, the fear of electromagnetic exposure, induced by a ‘Nocebo’ effect, whereby fear induces symptoms. This deliberate confusion of two distinct conditions is invalid.
Electrosensitivity is where a real electromagnetic exposure causes real or physical symptoms. This has been established convincingly and consistently in the medical literature since the 1960s. It is most easily shown in the peer-reviewed studies on areas like:
Electrophobia or the ‘Nocebo’ effect (IEI-EMF)
Electrophobia is a psychological phenomenon caused by fear of the harm from electromagnetic exposure. Just as sham pills as well as real medicines may help some people to recover from illness (the ‘Placebo’ effect), so some people can experience painful symptoms when they expect harm, whether the event is sham or real (the ‘Nocebo’ effect). Any fear, whether of fire, heights, poisons, wild animals, drugs or medical procedures, can have similar effects, while advertising would not work unless humans could be consciously or subconsciously conditioned or persuaded. Some similar ‘Nocebo’ effects used to be called ‘mass psychogenic illness’ or ‘hysteria’, but they typically affected large numbers of people simultaneously, not the individuals usually affected by EHS where a particular human body reaches overload as regards its autonomic nervous system from a particular additional EM exposure.
The ‘Nocebo’ effect: requires previous conditioning
This ‘Nocebo’ effect has always existed, of course. An expectation of harm has always been able to harm some people. Those who regard horror films as visual jokes do not experience the same intensity of fear as those who internalise their involvement with the characters.
The ‘Nocebo’ effect cannot apply if there is no previous conditioning
In all cases of the ‘Nocebo’ effect, prior cognitive conditioning is required. If someone does not know that a situation or substance is supposed to cause harm, whether true or not, they cannot attribute their subsequent symptoms to their prior knowledge. The ‘Nocebo’ effect, therefore, cannot explain all the real symptoms from toxic environmental exposures like electromagnetic radiation if the subject has not been warned beforehand. If they are ignorant of the danger, as most EHS sufferers originally were, then the ‘Nocebo’ effect can have no part in their symptoms. The ‘Nocebo’ effect comes into play only after they have experienced harm or been told of harm.
The 'Nocebo' effect is not caused by warnings of the established dangers of EMF
The 'Nocebo' effect requires precautionary information. However, "precautionary information does not lead to increased nocebo responses".
Likewise precautionary warnings about the established dangers of EMFs do not increase anxiety, although anxious people are more likely to experience a 'Nocebo' response and anxiety is an established specific symptom of real Electromagnetic Sensitivity.
The difficulty of measuring the ‘Nocebo’ effect after experience of harm and conditioning
It is difficult or impossible to measure the Nocebo effect in comparison with a real harmful exposure.
The ‘Nocebo’ effect is irrelevant to four categories of real EHS symptoms
A significant proportion of cases of electrosensitivity symptoms are logically irrelevant to the ‘Nocebo’ effect. Since the ‘Nocebo’ effect cannot provide an explanation in these cases, it shows that the ‘Nocebo’ effect is irrelevant to many real EHS symptoms. Four relevant categories are as follows.
The ‘Nocebo’ effect, or Electrophobia, is therefore essentially a separate condition as regards EHS symptoms. Nevertheless there is a capacity for overlap for both non-sensitives and sensitives, both of whom can be influenced or conditioned by sham and real testing situations. These tests on their own, however, are unable to prove the actual original cause of their sensitivity.
The ‘Nocebo’ effect can be cured with CBT, but Electrosenstivity requires medical intervention or EM avoidance
Like any result of cognitive conditioning, people with electrophobia can be cured by cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). This does not work for people with electrosensitivity, since this needs either total EM avoidance, to allow the body to repair itself naturally, or the re-adjustment to the autonomic nervous system, mitochondrial support, nerve damage rectification such as for demyelination, DNA damage repair, blood-brain barrier enhancement etc. Established medical protocols for treating EHS, like the Austrian Medical Association, follow the latter approach, not CBT.
Screening needed for real EHS subjects
What is needed is objective, subconscious, measurements to screen who is actually EHS. Most subjective conscious provocation tests have been unscreened so prove nothing.
“One appalling example is the Hillert 2008 study that had symptom group (often claimed to be EHS) where more than 50% used a mobile phone in everyday life over 40 minutes a day and used it on average more than the “non symptom group”. So from the start up the study showed the opposite of what is claimed: the more you use a mobile phone the more you have symptoms as headache.” (Mona Nilsson, July 19 2015). The need to differentiate between real EHS sufferers and those affected by a ‘Nocebo’ effect is similarly evident in food studies. Here up to 20% of the population claim certain intolerances, perhaps partly through the ‘Nocebo’ effect, yet medical tests show that many of them are not real, although some 2% are genuine and actually caused by a real exposure to the food. Testing for and diagnosis of EHS is now relatively straightforward. As the classification published by the international Nordic Council of Ministers in 2000, like any environmental toxin, sensitivity can be shown when symptoms occur only from real exposure but cease when the exposure stops. In addition a range of molecular and biological markers can differentiate those who have real EHS (see reports on the international expert conference on EHS in Brussels in May 2015).
The ‘Nocebo’ effect theory requires epigenetic effects for established molecular, cellular, neural and DNA changes caused by EM exposure
If all electromagnetic sensitivity symptoms are not real but the result of the ‘Nocebo’ effect, then all other established EM exposure results, such as oxidative stress, DNA breaks, melatonin reduction, microwave hearing, cardiovascular effects, blood-brain barrier leakage etc are also the result of the ‘Nocebo’ effect. This is possible if fear can cause epigenetic effects and such epigenetic effects can have an immediate effect down to the molecular and cellular level, but there are no studies so far in the medical and scientific literature to show that this is the case for EHS symptoms.
Griesz-Brisson M: “Electrosensitivity from a neurological point of view” (Neuroepidemiology, (2013) 41: 223–316; no.227, p.275):
The history of psychology and psychiatry is littered with conditions now understood as physiological but once claimed to be psychological.
Electrosensitivity has never been one of these, since the medical literature from the 1930s onward has always included a physiological basis.
Nevertheless some of the industry cliques, like the WHO and ICNIRP, have tried to pretend that they are not aware of the medical literature and do not understand the physiological nature of EHS and Electrical Intolerance in comparison with the psychological conditioning required for Electrophobia or a nocebo effect.
Professor Martin L. Pall: "Explaining 'unexplained illnesses'” (2007, pp. 203-206) lists several illnesses once given vague psychological explanations such as “hysteria” or “repressed emotions”:
Professor Pamela Reed Gibson: "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity — A Survival Guide" (2nd ed., 2006) lists other diseases falsely “psychologized”: