Response to EM Radiation Research Trust’s criticisms of my mHealth article

EM Radiation Research Trust (EM RR Trust), an EHS activist organization, has commented on my recent article in their Facebook post.

Up front, as I mentioned in my numerous articles and blogs, individual sensitivity to EMF, including EHS, exists; however, scientific proof of it is lacking due to inadequate research.

As expected, whenever a scientist points out that science has not yet proven the existence of EHS, EHS activists claim that the scientist is either biased or simply stupid. This attitude is seen in both EM RR Trust’s post and in the few comments posted by 2 PM Helsinki time on July 21, 2025.

EM RR Trust, as well as other activist organizations, numerous individual activists, and sufferers of EHS like to claim that EHS has been proven and diagnosis is possible… only some big conspiracy prevents it from being taken into practical use.

I disagree. Research on EHS has been done. Attempts to prove the existence of EHS and diagnosis of EHS have been done… but research is insufficient to prove anything because of, in my opinion, the inadequacy of study design and methods used. I wrote about it in my articles and blogs.

EM RR Trust’s Facebook post begins with this sentence:

“We want to be clear upfront we disagree with Dariusz Leszczynski’s conclusion that there are no established diagnostic criteria for EHS.”

This unsurprising statement is followed by some references to a couple of research studies and conference presentations.

Dear activists, sorry to say, this is not enough for proof of the existence of EHS and for the existence of diagnostic methods for EHS.

About the insufficiency of the to-date performed EHS research to prove that EHS is causally linked with EMF exposures, I wrote already in my review of EHS research and will not repeat the whole story here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34229366/

The diagnostic methods of EHS mentioned by the EM RR Trust indicate the lack of understanding of how the test discovered by scientists in a research study becomes an approved clinical diagnostic method.

None of the so-called diagnostic methods mentioned in the EM RR Trust’s post or the methods described in several published studies has gone through this rigorous process of becoming an approved clinical testing method. [By the way, I was astonished that EM RR Trust omitted completely the research of Dominique Belpomme. Of course, Belpomme’s research is of poor quality, and his results are neither proven to be caused by EMF nor have his diagnostic methods ever been rigorously tested in an independent clinical setting. I criticized Belpomme’s research many times, including comments in my article published in mHealth as well as in another article.]

To become approved for use as a diagnostic method in clinical testing, the observation made by scientist(s) and published in peer peer-reviewed journal must go through the rigorous process. This process is to ensure safety, efficacy, compliance, and seamless integration into the already existing workflows. Here is a general procedure:

1. Literature Review and Feasibility Study:
   1. Review existing research and data on the diagnostic method.
   2. Assess the scientific validity, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and clinical relevance.
2. Regulatory and Compliance Considerations:
   1. Identify applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., FDA approval, CE marking, local health authority guidelines).
   2. Prepare necessary documentation for regulatory submission.
3. Validation and Verification:
   1. Conduct validation studies to confirm performance metrics in the clinical setting.
   2. Perform verification to ensure the method meets predefined specifications.
4. Ethical Approval:
   1. Obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee if required for human studies.
5. Pilot Testing:
   1. Implement the method on a small scale within the clinical environment.
   2. Collect data on performance, usability, and workflow integration.
6. Training and Education:
   1. Train laboratory staff, clinicians, and relevant personnel on the new method.
   2. Develop SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) and training materials.
7. Quality Control and Assurance:
   1. Establish quality control measures to monitor ongoing performance.
   2. Implement procedures for troubleshooting and maintenance.
8. Full-Scale Implementation:
   1. Roll out the diagnostic method across the designated clinical areas.
   2. Ensure continuous monitoring and documentation.
9. Post-Implementation Evaluation:
   1. Collect feedback and performance data.
   2. Make necessary adjustments for optimization.
10. Reporting and Documentation:
    1. Maintain detailed records for regulatory compliance and accreditation.
    2. Publish findings if appropriate to contribute to scientific knowledge.

None of the above-listed procedures and steps has been fulfilled for any of the proposed EHS testing methods. 

… and I repeat: NONE.

That is why we need better research than this done to date, with a clear aim at finding physiological events that trigger EHS symptoms and ways to mitigate them in a clinical setting.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place – Dariusz Leszczynski