Eisspeedway

Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity


World Health Organization Recognizes EHS as a Medical Diagnosis

The Entry appears very biased and ignores contradicting data.

Reading it would suggest that there is absolutely no professional opinion which accepts ElectroMagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) as a legitimate medical diagnosis. That is not true.

The World Health Organization recognizes EHS as a real disorder of which there is little hard knowledge, probably because of the unwillingness to research subjects which would offend the massive corporate interests invested in electromagnetic generation and EM products such as wireless transmission of telephone, radio and television signals. Bubba of the North Country (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Bubba of the North Country[reply]

Huh? The WHO is cited extensively. Remember they say "EHS is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms .... The collection of symptoms is not part of any recognized syndrome." Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bubba of the North Country: What is the specific change you would like made to the article, and what specific WHO source would you like to use as a reference? GoingBatty (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose some reference to the fact the the World Health Organization (no flash in the pan source when it comes to medical science) has accepted EMH as a real diagnosis.
Although I would not discourage anyone from making a literature search of WHO reports, I think the following is an appropriate start: https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/electromagnetic-hypersensitivity.
Bubba of the North Country (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC) Bubba of the North Country[reply]
@Bubba of the North Country: The WHO article says symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure., and Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis[.], i.e. the WHO does not accept EMH as a real diagnosis. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy states that evidence should come primarily from secondary sources. I would like to post evidence from a secondary source. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599).  The author summarizes the most common symptoms following EMF exposure from 22 epidemiological studies.  Some of the most common symptoms were among the most common reported by EHS sufferers in Roosli (2004), as referenced in the existing Wikipedia article.  These included sleep disturbances, headache, fatigue, concentration dysfunction, and dizziness. Bokidam (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article link is: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891061815000599 Bokidam (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As reflected in this article, Martin Pall is WP:FRINGE and not a reliable source. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy a fringe source? The article was published in this journal. Bokidam (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is also contained on PubMed at:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26300312/ Bokidam (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To cite The Guardian as a source for Pall's article as a fringe source seems contrary to Wikipedia principles. From the The Guardian Wikipedia page: "The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion". Citing what may be a politically biased source to criticize a publication from PubMed seems unjustified. Bokidam (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Learned my lesson, I won't endeavor to add information to Wikipedia entries. Please feel free to delete anything I have added. I should have known that I must leave Wikipedia to all you "smart people". I won't disturb you folks anymore. 74.32.184.152 (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have received no reply to my arguments that the Pall article is not a fringe source I will be seeking a third opinion. Bokidam (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already 7 people have weighed in, by my count. I agree that it's WP:FRINGE and should not be added. DFlhb (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Pall article departs from mainstream views on EHS, WP-FRINGE states:
"... all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately."
"Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience but part of the scientific process."
"For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter."
In his article, Pall states that neuropsychiatric symptoms (e.g., fatigue, headache, insomnia, lack of concentration) attributed to microwave EMF has been disputed largely due to lack of a mechanism for generating these symptoms. He proposes that EMFs may activate voltage-gated calcium channels and cites 26 studies where EMF effects were blocked or greatly lowered by calcium channel blockers.
So Pall does relate an alternative view to mainstream views by providing a theoretical argument for EMF sensitivity based on numerous sources. This is complemented by the findings from the earlier mentioned 22 epidemiological studies showing similar symptoms of people exposed to microwave EMFs to those reported by EHS sufferers. 73.147.27.182 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above post is mine. Bokidam (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no argument against my last post regarding inclusion of the Pall study as a minority view, I plan to post an edit to the EHS page based on this evidence.  However, I would not post the melatonin evidence from my original edit, since a direct link between EHS and melatonin has not been shown.
Additionally, the first paragraph of the EHS page is based on a reference from 2005. Since I will be posting evidence for an electromagnetic basis for EHS from 2016, I plan to remove the term "pseudoscientific", as well as the statement "has no scientific basis".  Also, I plan to remove the sentence "There is no scientific basis to link such symptoms to electromagnetic field exposure" from the Signs and symptoms section, since this is based on the 2005 reference from the first paragraph.
Finally, I plan to post a reference to an Australian mathematician who received compensation in 2013 based on EHS complaints.  This was in my original post. Bokidam (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DFlhb that Pall is FRINGE and shouldn't be cited. Your comment saying that The Guardian shouldn't be used to support the statement that Pall is a FRINGE runs contrary to WP:BIASED (and I don't see why a political bias toward Labour or the Tories would affect the reliability of their statement that Pall is FRINGE) – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 07:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah don't want Pall - he is not taken seriously by scientists so Wikipedia shouldn't be using this stuff. Bon courage (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC):::::::::::::I was attempting to make the case that although Pall may be a fringe source, WP FRINGE guidelines allow minority views outside of the mainstream, and that Pall's study is one that should be included based on those guidelines.[reply]
As for other scientists not taking Pall seriously, his work is referenced in several publications.Hardell abd Nyberg (2020) published a comment in Molecular and Clinical Oncology criticizing the EU for not favorably responding to an appeal by over 260 scientists and medical doctors requesting time to research health risks associated with 5G technology.  In the comment, the authors cited Pall as demonstrating that a large number of peer-reviewed studies had been conducted that showed evidence of harmful effects of RF radiation below ICNIRP limits.
Other researchers have seriously referenced Pall's voltage-gated calcium channel explanation for EMF effects and the existence of neuropsychiatric symptoms.These include: Georgiou and Margaritis (2021), Belyaev et al. (2015), Stein (2021), Koh and Moochhala (2018), and Lai and Levitt (2023). Bokidam (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On EMHS, Pall claimed in 2019 that wireless networks would make all human beings sterile if they were not switched off within two years. This claim is not taken seriously by anybody. Any sources on fringe topics needs to be WP:FRIND. At this point consensus is settled and you need to drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched online and was unable to find anything about Pall saying wireless networks would make all people sterile if not switched off within two years. Can you provide a link or other way to see this?
The Wikipedia entry for Pall states that "He is a specialist in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, and the effects of low-intensity microwave frequency electromagnetic fields (MWV-EMF) on the human body."  The entry cites only one source, Kenneth Foster, a bioengineer from the University of Pennsylvania, as being critical of Pall's work.
The Hardell and Nyberg comment is from a peer-reviewed journal and is contained in PubMed. In the comment, they reference the 5G appeal submitted by Nyberg and Hardell themselves in which over 230 scientists and medical doctors from over 40 countries refer to numerous scientific publications that have shown EMF effects of "learning and memory deficits ... neurological disorders".  A Pall document containing evidence from reviews for neurological/neuropsychiatric effects from EMF is posted on the 5G appeal site.  Surely this is a sufficient endorsement from at least part of the scientific community of Pall's work. Bokidam (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the evidence the committee heard was from witnesses who had stated their support for a moratorium on the rollout of 5G.

They included retired American professor Martin Pall, who in 2019 claimed that wireless networks would make all human beings sterile if they were not switched off within two years.[1]

Wikipedia is not going be include fringe crap, you need to drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just two examples, of the more extreme, scaremongering comments in Pall’s [2019] lecture in Mainz:

in 2 years from now, if wireless networks will not be switched off immediately, people will become sterile and reproduction of human kind will cease

in 5 – 7 years from now human brains will degenerate to the degree that normal functioning of human brain will cease[2]

In addition to this Pall has been called out for unethical publication practices and a lack of understanding of basic physics by multiple people. WP:DROPTHESTICK, we're not going to include misinformation by a known quack. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pall's article was published in a journal on PubMed that meets Wikipedia standards. You are not only refuting Pall, but the journal in which it was published.  You are also discrediting the studies included in Pall's review, without critiquing their validity.  Other research databases have hosted Pall's article, including ResearchGate, ScienceDirect, Europe PMC, and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.  Pall's article has also been cited by 33 other articles (as listed on PubMed).  Do you mean to discredit all of these sources in addition to Pall?
Rubin is the sole first author of secondary sources that are cited on Wikipedia that failed to find clear evidence for EHS being caused by electromagnetic radiation.  Lack of significant effects does not mean there are no effects.  The experimental conditions may not have been sufficient to reveal effects.  A clear difference between the studies reviewed by Rubin and those reviewed by Pall is that the Pall epidemiological studies examined effects over long-term exposure, whereas the Rubin studies were conducted over very short periods of exposure time in controlled conditions.  And many of the studies reviewed by Pall revealed a dose-response relationship.  For instance, the closer to a mobile phone base station, the greater the frequency of reported symptoms.  So Pall's reviewed studies may actually be revealing symptoms suffered by those in real-world conditions who are chronically exposed to EMF. Bokidam (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I do not receive any feedback to my most recent reply, I plan to post the Pall article evidence on the Wiki EHS page. Bokidam (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors have already told you that Pall's articles are WP:FRINGE and shouldn't be cited. That a research database has hosted an article does not mean the article is reliable, especially for medical information. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 20:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spandidos, MDPI, and a Russian journal are not WP:BESTSOURCES. Advocating high-quality water for detox, tai chi, and qigong is a paragon of quackery. Are those papers even indexed for MEDLINE? See why at WP:MEDRS.
Hardell and Nyberg (2020) is not indexed for MEDLINE. Belyaev et al. (2015) has been retracted. Belyaev et al. (2016) is ridden with the same pro-quackery claims as Belyaev et al. (2015). Stein (2021), and Koh and Moochhala (2018) are not even indexed for PubMed, let alone MEDLINE. Georgiou and Margaritis (2021) is indexed for MEDLINE, but it is from MDPI, so meh. That leaves Lai and Levitt (2023) as the only credible paper, and it is not a systematic review (hint: it lacks numbers and it lacks statistics for its claims), so it fails WP:MEDRS. Lai and Levitt did read a lot of papers, but there is no mathematical argument made for accepting their claims. So, whether they are right or wrong is unquantifiable.
If somebody wants to practice on their own detox through water bereft of carbon dioxide, tai chi, and qigong: it's a free country. When these are advocated as medical therapies against disease, they are the mark of the quack. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you are denying the well known fact that reproduction of human kind ceased about two years ago?[3][Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

update this article to reflect peer reviewed data

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122007010#:~:text=Electrohypersensitivity%20is%20a%20neurological%20disorder,brain%20electromagnetic%20fields%20tolerance%20threshold.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139347/ 50.250.62.37 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Those articles are WP:FRINGE and fail WP:MEDRS. See French Wikipedia's article on co-author Dominique Belpomme. Experts have responded to the above Environmental Research article and conclude "Symptom reports in EHS are unrelated to actual electromagnetic field exposure."
The MDPI article is in a special issue entitled "Environmental Sensitivity Illnesses: Mechanisms and Molecular Signatures". Basically, this issue seems to be quite fringe and not a reliable source of information. The lack of critical comments in the review reports do not bode well for the issue's peer review process. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Won't be able to trust Wikipedia after seeing this. People are suffering and dieing from this condition and it needs to studied more seriously and energy exposure better regulated. You're using an old claim that people "can't detect EMFs." Well ofcourse they can't, they are not claiming to have super powers. They are adverse effects that happen with prolonged exposure. The studies that are referenced were done with both bias and lack of knowledge on how the condition progresses. There are plenty of studies that prove these adverse effects but you'll only listen to the "experts" that deny it. Atleast have the entry tell both sides of the story with access to all the studies that have been done. Let people make up their own mind. 2603:9001:A200:17D5:FD89:BCE:9F22:7B87 (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't tell both sides of the story because of WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity