…just published
“Editorial: Individual sensitivity to wireless radiation” by Dariusz Leszczynski and Frank de Vocht.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1744897
Important summary quote:
“…EHS is not unique because there are numerous health ailments that diagnosis is based solely on patients’ subjective descriptions of symptoms. Examples are, the study of pain and, in analogy to EHS that of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS). Currently efforts are being made to use biomarkers, genetics and epigenetics in the future developing objective tests for pain (1), and recently a blood test for epigenetic markers of ME/CFS has been proposed, albeit based on preliminary data from a small patient group (2). Similar efforts to objectively identify specific biomarkers would be beneficial in the study of EHS as well (3).
Yet, whatever the cause, perceived sensitivity to EMF remains to disproportionally impact the lives of some individuals. In practice it may therefore be prudent for society to try and make amendments, within reason, where family, friends, colleagues or staff identify as suffering from EHS.
Current hypotheses on electromagnetic hypersensitivity constitute vague and sometimes contradictory definitions of outcome (symptoms), exposure metrics (electromagnetic fields), and latencies, and are sometimes constructed post-hoc. Symptoms reported by individuals are diverse, subjective, and can be biased. Measuring wrong exposure characteristics or using incorrect latencies between exposure and effects can mask any effects that might be there. The impacts of these factors is compounded by measurement error and misclassification in symptoms and exposure, in part because exposure patterns have changed dramatically over time. These issues make comparisons across different studies difficult, if not impossible. Future research in this area must therefore be based on clearly defined and causal hypotheses that are measurable with respect to exposures and effects. They must also prioritize precise measurement of exposures and outcomes. Only then can results from different studies be compared and the evidence base expanded. The effects of wireless radiation are not fully understood, and caution is needed to avoid unsupported claims based on imprecise data.”