I learned this lesson already in 1999. Large part of EHS activists accept and approve scientists’ opinion on EHS only when it agrees 100% with their own.
They, EHS activists, already know for sure that EHS is caused by EMF, that the scientific proof was already published in numerous peer-reviewed studies, that there are known bio-markers of EHS and that the diagnosis of EHS can be performed objectively. EHS activists know this all beyond any doubt and, if anyone does not agree 100% with this opinion then he/she is an enemy of the EHS sufferers.
The problem is that militant EHS activists, peddling such unproven claims, are extending suffering of the real EHS sufferers by weakening the arguments for scientific research.
I never understood why EHS activists go so strongly against the available scientific evidence and, this way, shoot their own foot. When EHS activists continuously and stubbornly claim that EHS is already proven, beyond any doubts, in published peer-reviewed science they “mock” themselves.
- They make it easy to dismiss their claims.
- They make it easy to dismiss the need for new research.
- They make it easy to be considered as psychologically affected.
- They shoot their own foot.
Published scientific evidence on the relation between EMF exposures and EHS symptoms is of poor quality, is unreliable, and it does not prove that EHS is, or is not, caused by EMF exposures.
To this conclusion I came in my recently published review of numerous to-date published EHS studies.
In my review I claim that EHS exists (I strongly believe so) but that we need better quality research to prove this belief. This was not enough for EHS activists. I did not agree with them 100% that the existence of EHS is “proven beyond all reasonable doubt”.
In response to my EHS review, Michael Bevington, Chair of Trustees, Electrosensitivity UK, London, UK, (http://www.es-uk.info/) has published a comment:
In this comment, Bevington cherry-picks quotes from my review, that fit his narrative, and omits what does not fit his narrative.
The comment-article begins with 2 sentences quoting some of the conclusions from my EHS review that understandably are well fitting EHS activists’ thinking:
“Leszczynski’s review [1] included two important conclusions. Firstly, the need for the WHO, ICNIRP, ICES and governmental organisations to revise their denial of the link between EHS and electromagnetic fields (EMFs) because the data is of insufficient quality for proof of the lack of causality. Secondly, instead of studying a nocebo effect, research should focus on finding “suitable biochemical and biophysical markers” for symptoms in each EHS individual.”
However, the third and fourth sentences of the comment-article go as 100% EHS activists mantra “permits”:
“However, the review also stated that “So far, scientists were unable to find causality link between symptoms experienced by sensitive persons and the exposures to EMF”. This comprehensive assertion does not seem to reflect all the scientific evidence.“
…and what scientific evidence is being used to claim definitive proof of causality link between EHS and EMF? Not surprisingly, among few others, it is also research from the group of Dominique Belpomme in France:
“Specific EHS symptoms were identified from 1932 in Eastern Europe and the USSR, usually among people occupationally exposed, such as radar, radio or electricity workers. As EHS spread into the general population with the use of cell phones, Wi-Fi and smart metres, specialist EHS centres assessed greater numbers, such as Professor Dominique Belpomme’s in Paris. In 2015 he published the first comprehensive study of objective molecular biomarkers including cerebral blood perfusion scans, showing that EHS is a multi-systemic EI like chemical sensitivity.”
…and further:
“In 2021 Belpomme led 32 international experts requesting that the WHO acknowledges EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and includes it in its International Classification of Diseases…”
Bevington completely and conveniently omits the fact that Belpomme’s studies were severely criticized in my EHS review. Belpomme’s studies do not show anything, do not prove anything. The data presented by Belpomme and co-workers is incomplete and conclusions are not based on presented data but on “wishful thinking“. Sorry to say it so harshly, but this is the fact. It is a very poor science.
This kind of scientific evidence, as provided by research of Belpomme’s group in France, is completely inadequate for classification of EHS as a “distinct neuropathological disorder“. It is not science, it is bamboozling.
EHS activists should understand that the objective scientific proof of EHS causality by EMF is still missing. In large part it is fault of poor scientific studies executed by scientists (for evidence see my EHS review). Continuous claims, against the knowledge from the peer-reviewed studies, that EHS has been already proven does not help EHS sufferers. Better science will but… it is being prevented, in part, because of the outlandish and false claims from the militant EHS activists.
Please, if you wish to resolve EHS issue scientifically, stop shooting your own foot… stop bamboozling…
