I have recently published an opinion article presenting the need for a new approach in research on sensitivity to electromagnetic fields:
To my surprise and delight, Professor Alexander Lerchl has analyzed my opinion article using ChatGPT, and… Professor Alexander Lerchl stated that he agrees with the AI analysis…
The German language text, posted by Alexander, is available from this link: https://izgmf.de/scripts/forum/index.php?id=74750
The English translation (by Google) is here (emphasis added DL):
Alexander Lerchl, Thursday, June 5, 2025, 1:55 PM, posted:
ChatGPT’s analysis of the article corresponds quite well with my assessment. Here is the text:
The article *”Wireless radiation and health: making the case for proteomics research of individual sensitivity”* by Dariusz Leszczynski (2025) is an **opinion piece** that advocates the application of modern molecular biological methods – especially proteomics – to investigate individual sensitivity to wireless radiation (e.g., from mobile communications or Wi-Fi). Here is a structured assessment:
**Positive points**
- **Scientifically based appeal**
Leszczynski plausibly argues that current research designs (especially psychological provocation studies) are unsuitable for detecting subtle biological effects in radiation-sensitive individuals.
- **Classification of Individual Sensitivity**
The author compares the controversial electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) with other recognized environmental sensitivities (e.g., UV sensitivity, chemical sensitivity, allergic reactions) and emphasizes the inter-individual nature of biological reactions – a well-documented point.
- **Call for *omics*-based methods**
The idea of using proteomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics to find biological markers of sensitivity is fundamentally sensible and modern. Such methods could provide more objective data than surveys or simple blood parameters.
- **Criticism of Previous Studies**
The author rightly identifies the methodological weaknesses of many EHS studies, such as a lack of diagnostic standards, placebo/nocebo effects, or inadequate blinding procedures.
**To be viewed critically**
- **Speculative nature**
The central thesis that there are individual sensitivities to non-ionizing radiation **remains unsubstantiated**. The argument is largely based on analogies and the definition of “health” based on subjective perception (WHO). This is not scientific proof of causality. (DL: I have never claimed that EHS or sensitivity are proven… just the opposite, I claim that the existence of sensitivity is logical but not yet scientifically proven; see below)
- **Lack of differentiation between plausible and proven**
Leszczynski claims that it is “logical” that there are sensitive individuals and that wireless radiation therefore causes “health effects.” However, this is **not a proven scientific statement**, but rather an interpretation based on subjective experience.
- **Conflicts of interest possible**
The author receives financial support from the *Finnish Electrosensitivity Foundation*. Although he openly declares this, it could influence the weighting of the studies presented.
- **Isolated Exaggerations**
The statement that the lack of proteomic studies on mobile phone radiation is “astonishing” ignores the fact that there are good reasons (e.g., the lack of clear effects so far) for prioritizing other research questions.
**Conclusion**
The article is **not scientific proof** of any harmful effects of wireless radiation or the existence of EHS as a clearly definable medical condition. However, it is a **plausible and well-founded call** to reorient research and make it more methodologically sophisticated, particularly through the use of proteomics to investigate individual responses.
If read as what it is—a well-founded *plea for better research*, not as an evidence-based risk assessment—then it is certainly justified. However, decisions about health risks and protective measures should be based on consensus data and not just on theoretical considerations.
Final comments from Dariusz Leszczynski:
In all my writings about sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, I have stated that it is both logical and per analogiam that sensitivity to EMF exists, but that the final proof of the phenomenon is still missing. I have pointed out that the proof is missing because the design and methods of the studies to date have been inadequate to detect physiological manifestations of individual sensitivity. Therefore, my opinion article, as well as all other articles written by me on sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, aims at redirecting research from psychological methodology to modern physiological methods.
I am delighted that Professor Alexander Lerchl and ChatGPT agree with my opinion.
***************
Dariusz Leszczynski’s published peer-reviewed articles on sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, including the so-called EHS: