Proof and provocation studies
Human sensitivity to electro-magnetic exposure is well established and proved convincingly and consistently in many studies. Similarly, animals and plants convincingly and consistently show sensitivity to electro-magnetic exposure at non-thermal levels. The best studies are objective cellular and sub-conscious studies.
Some areas of studies proving sensitivity to non-thermal electro-magnetic exposure.
- 1. Symptoms in the general population near to cellphone towers. About 80% of these studies show a clear relationship between typical ES symptoms and proximity to a cellphone tower or radio or TV tower.
2. Symptoms in the general population near to power-lines. Since 1979 it has been established that living near power-lines is linked with cancers and typical ES symptoms. In 2001 the WHO's IARC therefore classified power-lines as a possible cancer agent.
3. Symptoms in the general population near to microwave transmitters. It has been established that a microwave transmitter at non-thermal levels can affect subconscious and objective Heart Rate Variability in a proportion of the general population.
4. Symptoms in the general population near to MRI scanners. It has been established that working and moving near MRI scanners produces typical ES symptoms from the electric fields induced in the human body when moving through a strong magnetic field.
5. Symptoms in the general population close to microwave transmitters, as in cellphones and cordless phones, and tablets. It has been established that a microwave transmitter at non-thermal levels can cause cancers, other tumours and neurological effects in a proportion of the general population. The WHO's IARC therefore classified non-thermal microwave and radio frequency radiation as a possible cancer agent in 2011.
6. Symptoms in people especially sensitive to specific frequencies of electro-magnetic fields in the ELF, Radio Frequency and Microwave wavelengths. The group of these symptoms now known as Electromagnetic Sensitivity or IEI-EMF in a small proportion of the general population was discovered in 1932 and described in detail by the 1960s. It has been studied since 1973, and accepted since 2005 as a real and often disabling condition, by the World Health Organisation.
Brain scans proof of EHS
Failure of some conscious subjective studies.
Some recent subjective conscious studies have failed or been designed to fail. Most failed to screen their subjects for only people who are especially sensitive. Most depended on a linear dose-response hypothesis which has been long disproved. Most assumed that only especially sensitive people have ES symptoms despite the fact that it has long been established that their is no correlation between symptoms and special sensitivity, and that any member of the general public can experience these symptoms.
The flawed psychological hypothesis for non-thermal sensitivity has been rejected by the World Health Organization, ICNIRP, IARC and the majority of international scientists. The consistency and convincing nature of the vast majority of studies which have proved the existence of non-thermal sensitivity has made the psychological hypothesis untenable. Modern medicine sees sensitivity and hyper-sensitivity to environmental toxins as increasingly common in a proportion of the general population with a genetic susceptibility.
The flawed psychological hypothesis requires that for all medical non-thermal uses of electro-magnetic exposure, now very common for therapeutic purposes in hospitals and clinics around the world, patients would have to read the mass-media before being able to experience any benefit from the procedure.
The flawed psychological hypothesis requires that combatants in non-thermal warfare, along with pets, other animals, insects and plants, would also have to read newspapers or watch TV to develop the supposed phobia of electro-magnetic exposure.
Provocation studies with Live Blood Analysis:
Evidence for WiFi making people sick:
Evidence for effects on the brain:
Evidence from Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes, Heart effects, Live Blood analysis:
Need for a new to approach based on molecular studies and not conscious provocation studies:
An Open Letter of 2018 to the leaders of the WHO and other groups expresses the view that:
- Research funding and reviewing agencies should re-consider their stance on the importance of the research on EHS/IEI-EMF. Research should continue but the approach should change. The dominant study protocol till now, provocation studies, need to be replaced with studies examining molecular level physiology changes. Continuation of the research using provocation studies will not provide reliable scientific answers concerning EHS/IEI-EMF. Continuation of research using provocation studies approach is simply a waste of time and scarce resources.
- "The end of the road for EHS (IEI-EMF) provocation studies”
- "The Question: is EHS caused by EMF? The answer to the question whether EMF might cause EHS is - yes."
- "There is no scientific reason why the EMF could not cause EHS in some part of the human population. There is a well-known, and scientifically well-established, phenomenon of the individual sensitivity (Foray N et al.: 2012). Individual sensitivity means that, because of the genetic and the epigenetic differences between people, different persons have different sensitivity to the same exposing factor (radiation or chemicals).
- "all of the to-date executed EHS provocation studies provide unreliable results because of several drawbacks in the design and execution of the experiments."
- "The provocation approach needs to be replaced. It is a high time to stop research efforts focused on provocation tests, being of low sensitivity and producing subjective data, and move on to the physiology-based research. Physiological studies, examining the molecular level responses of human tissues and organs to EMF exposures, will provide the evidence of individual sensitivity and basis for further research (Leszczynski D. 2014,)."
Dariusz Leszczynski: “Open Letter on the Electromagnetic Hyper-Sensitivity Research” (Between a Rock and a Hard Place, February 4 2018)
Dariusz Leszczynski: "BRIEF REPORT on the EHS provocation studies" (Between a Rock and a Hard Place, February 11 2018)
Dariusz Leszczynski: 77 EHS Provocation Studies: "TABLE to the BRIEF REPORT on the EHS provocation studies" (Between a Rock and a Hard Place, February 11 2018)
Failure of psychological provocation tests:
Some psychiatrists still refer to the 'junk' science (where conclusions are drawn which are not supported by the evidence or the evidence is disputed) from the cellphone industry's and government's MTHR programme of studies in England which seemed to always disprove any 'consistent' or 'convincing' evidence of harm. Studies such as those from King’s College London Institute of Psychiatry (2005) and Essex University (2007) were allegedly of low quality and likely produced a negative outcome for the following reasons:
Both failed to replicate studies over the last 60 years showing that real physical electrosensitivity definitely exists.
Both failed to screen their subjects before the start, as to whether they had real EHS, or were self-diagnosed, perhaps inaccurately.
The King’s study had high radiation in ‘sham’ mode and took place in an unshielded environment, invalidating the whole study.
The Essex study rejected some EHS most seriously affected, skewing the (wrongly) averaged findings downwards from the required 80%, which in part they otherwise almost achieved.
Both failed to accept the nonlinear nature of quantum biology, thus accepting invalidated dose-response assumptions. It has been established since Frölhich’s work in 1967 that coherence arising from frequency and signal attributes can have precedence over intensity in electro-biological inter-reactions.
Both allowed sham after positive signals, an invalid sequence in environmental tests.
Both wrongly defined EHS as only an ability to guess whether radiation is present, rather than identify it as a physical intolerance which stops when the toxic exposure stops, as required by the international Nordic ICD- 10 definition of El-Allergy. Both denied EHS intolerance can be consciously asymptomatic and assumed that humans are merely conscious measuring meters, as though humans can always say exactly when ionizing radiation is harming them, or if an hour in the sun will definitely give them sunburn, or whether a given foodstuff is present even before an intolerance reaction begins.
Both failed to employ sufficient objective physical markers, such as cerebral blood diffusion scans, ECG and protein expression, used by major international centres which diagnose hundreds of people with EHS.
Crucially, both Essex and King’s deliberately failed to record each subject’s assessment individually, as required by the WHO’s definition of EHS as an individual or idiopathic condition. Instead both averaged the results so that the results for those who were actually EHS were lost among those subjects who were not EHS, since there was no prior screening using real physical symptoms.
Both were funded by MTHR, and thus by pro-wireless industry and government."
ES-UK Newsletter: Summer 2016 (vol.14, no.2, p.22-23)
Further comments on these two failed studies:
- "It is hardly surprising that the Rubin [King's] study did not find significant differences between the “sham” and “real” exposure conditions, as the “sham” exposure was exposing participants quite highly. It would have been so easy to have had a further test with the phone completely “turned off”."
- "We found some serious problems with the way that the results from this study [Essex] were collected, analysed and presented."
Alasdair and Jean Philips: "Electrical Hypersensitivity" (Ch.8, Appendices 2 and 3; 2016)
- "The study ('Essex' = Eltiti et al. 2007a) required 66 individuals per group for a power 0.90 to detect a difference between real and sham exposure responses. The authors tested only 44 sensitive individuals under double-blind conditions, which reduced the power to about 0.7. We question the appropriateness of publishing such definite conclusions based on such data, especially with a high-profile media briefing.
Despite limitations, this study of Eltiti et al. (2007a) has produced positive results that support claims that EHS people can be affected by microwave transmissions from mobile phone base stations."
Cohen A et al.: "Sensitivity to Mobile Phone Base Station Signals" (Environ Health Perspectives, 2008)
(i) some confirm real EHS
(ii) some do not
(iii) other studies show objective ways of confirming real EHS
(i) Some provocation and ecological measurement studies have confirmed the existence of real EHS:
Rea WJ et al, 1991; Leitgeb N et al, 2003; Huttunen P et al, 2009; Huttunen P et al, 2011; McCarty DE et al, 2011; Havas M, 2013; Koteles F et al, 2013; Raz-Steinkrycer LS et al, 2022.
(ii) Other provocation studies have failed to screen subjects first for whether they were EHS, or 'lost' individual EHS subjects by averaging all results, or not allowed for heightened reactions by sensitive subjects, etc. The failure of a study to confirm a condition cannot mean that the condition does not exist.
(iii) Other studies have shown that it is possible to diagnose EHS using objective markers, thus making provocation studies irrelevant.
More accurate provocation tests:
There are numerous studies with more accurate provocation test results which avoid many of the faults listed above.
- In particular there are now many studies showing specific symptoms of electromagnetic intolerance around cellphone towers and similar wireless base stations.
- There are also many studies over several decades confirming sensitivity, both conscious and subconscious, to low-level geomagnetic events, invalidating the negative conclusions of studies like those detailed above.
- It is now established that sensitivity to low-level electromagnetic energy is not purely a Nocebo effect, since many unaware adults along with children, animals and plants display this sensitivity without prior conditioning or knowledge about cellphones or towers.
- In addition it has long been established that individuals can react to low-level microwave energy with microwave hearing and molecular changes, including cell membrane depolarization, protein expression, ROS, etc, as well as cardiac responses, cerebral blood perfusion changes, and histamine degranulation.
Since 2008 the majority medical scientific viewpoint has been to accept that the weight of evidence has established that some people are more sensitive than others to low-level electromagnetic energy. Research is now seeking ways to prevent such unwanted and adverse reactions.
Back to: Science about ES - individual studies