We want to be clear upfront we disagree with Dariusz Leszczynski’s conclusion that there are no established diagnostic criteria for EHS. While his paper highlights challenges and calls for more research, the reality is that the science on EHS diagnosis isn’t just ongoing it’s historic. Scientists like Magda Havas, researchers in Russia, and many others have been documenting diagnostic methods for EHS for years.
That’s why we’re sharing this post: to highlight the strong, objective evidence showing that EHS can be diagnosed, and to push back against the idea that EHS lacks clinical legitimacy.
Pilot questionnaire survey shows the lack of diagnostic criteria for electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a viewpoint
By Dariusz Leszczynski
Published in mHealth, Vol. 11 (July 30, 2025)
🔗 Read the full article: Pilot questionnaire survey shows the lack of diagnostic criteria for electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a viewpoint – Leszczynski – mHealth
EM Radiation Research Trust – Summary of the EHS Article
In his recent article titled “Pilot questionnaire survey shows the lack of diagnostic criteria for electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a viewpoint,” Dariusz Leszczynski argues that the absence of standardised diagnostic guidelines makes EHS difficult to recognise within mainstream medicine.
He conducted an online survey that drew a limited response, and based on this small dataset, concluded that diagnostic protocols are lacking and more research is needed.
While the article touches on legitimate concerns about medical system gaps, it fails to acknowledge the growing body of scientific work that already addresses these very issues. This includes measurable biological responses to EMF exposure and decades of clinical observations from around the world.
EM Radiation Research Trust Response
We welcome the publication of this article, which rightly identifies a critical gap in how the medical system responds to Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS). However, it’s important to challenge the implication that the lack of standardised diagnostic criteria equates to a lack of objective scientific basis or clinical legitimacy for EHS.
Objective Evidence Exists
Research by scientists such as Dr. Magda Havas has consistently shown that individuals with EHS can exhibit measurable physiological changes in response to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure including alterations in heart rate variability, blood sugar levels, and skin conductance. These findings dispute the notion that EHS is purely psychosomatic.
Likewise, Michael Bevington’s book Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity published by ElectroSensitivity UK (ES-UK) includes over 1,800 scientific references and is an invaluable tool for clinicians and policy professionals seeking to understand the breadth of existing evidence.
Testimony from the Front Lines of Medicine
In a compelling letter published by ES-UK – a UK General Practitioner (GP) affirms:
“I have seen patients in my clinic who clearly and repeatedly react to electromagnetic fields. These are intelligent, articulate individuals who can pinpoint sources of exposure and describe a consistent, reproducible pattern of symptoms… This is not a mental illness; it is a real and present biological reaction.”
The GP stresses the lack of medical education on this subject and the urgent need for the NHS and professional bodies to recognise EHS as a legitimate and diagnosable condition.
🔗 https://radiationresearch.org/electro-sensitivity-a-very-real-illness/
Global Leadership in Diagnosis: Russia’s Example
The EM Radiation Research Trust has hosted international experts who are far ahead of the West in developing diagnostic frameworks:
- January 2010, London – Professor Oleg Grigoriev of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection presented the “Health and EMF Exposure: Protocol for Diagnostics and Therapy.” This included diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approaches based on nervous system biomarkers, inflammation indicators, and measurable biological changes.
📄 Download the 2010 presentation https://radiationresearch.org/dr-oleg-grigoriev-2010-presentation/
- June 2015, London – Professor Grigoriev returned with colleague Dr. Victoria Alekseeva for a seminar entitled “Electromagnetic Pollution and Central Nervous System Reactions.” Watch the presentation here: ▶️ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82zlghOKN24
Photo featuring Eileen O’Connor, Professor Oleg Grigoriev, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe, Dr Isaac Jamieson, Dr. Victoria Alekseeva, Mike Bell and Brian Stein
These events demonstrate that diagnostic protocols for EHS already exist, and have for years. Western medicine is simply lagging behind.
The Scope of the Public Health Crisis – EHS is not rare and it’s growing:
- 804,000 people in the UK (1.2%) are severely affected
- 2.4 million (3.6%) have moderate symptoms
- 3.35 million (5%) exhibit early or mild symptoms
Globally, this translates to:
- 96 million severely affected
- 288 million moderately affected
- Over 400 million in early stages
Moreover, recent ES-UK research suggests that 100% of the population may be subconsciously sensitive to EMFs, with 80% showing signs of chronic inflammation a core biomarker of long-term EMF stress. EHS may represent just the tip of a broader biological iceberg.
Avoidance is the Only Protection and It’s Disappearing
Currently, the only effective management for EHS is avoiding exposure. But as 5G, smart meters, and wireless infrastructure continue to expand, safe zones are vanishing. For the severely affected, this means social exclusion, physical debilitation, and psychological trauma.
Conclusion: Action Is Urgent and Necessary
This is not just a medical issue it’s a matter of environmental justice and public health ethics. We call for:
- ✅ The Precautionary Principle in public health and urban planning
- ✅ Recognition of lived experience and validation of EHS sufferers
- ✅ Investment in independent diagnostic research and treatment development
- ✅ Public awareness and safer technology standards
The EM Radiation Research Trust remains committed to advancing dialogue, research, and advocacy to end the silence around EHS and protect those affected. The science is clear: EHS is real, diagnosable, and deserves immediate attention.
