It is my firm belief that some sub-population of people is more sensitive to EMF than the rest of us. Knowledge about environmental hazards and simple logic make me that certain.
However, currently and for many past years, persons claiming to be sensitive to EMF were mistreated. Their symptoms were trivialized. Their claims of EMF as sensitizing agent were trivialized too.
After years of neglect, in 2004 the WHO finally decided to recognize the symptoms, and the suffering, as real but… not really linked with EMF exposures.
That was it. That was the maximum what the WHO dared to do.
The WHO, the ICNIRP, the ICES, the radiation protection authorities in numerous countries do nothing about the sensitivity to EMF. They just blindly follow whatever science reviews made by ICNIRP and ICES decide.
This is wrong and a new thinking and new actions are needed.
Unfortunately, those that consider sensitivity to EMF as a real ailment, when doing scientific research, do it very poorly. Is it for the lack of funding or is it for the lack of ideas and knowledge, the result is scientific data of very poor quality that should be, rightly, dismissed as such. Not because of bias but because of poor science.
What is needed, and urgently, is new science approach and new quality scientific data on EMF sensitivity.
In my recently published review article, I have demonstrated that the to-date published peer-reviewed science on sensitivity to EMF is of such low quality that it is insufficient to scientifically claim that sensitivity to EMF is neither proven nor or dis-proven.
In my opinion, the EMF sensitivity science, executed to-date, is of too poor quality to be the basis for any public health policies.
New research approach is needed and I have proposed a combination of human provocation studies and examination of molecular level responses in EMF exposed people.
Both, provocation studies and molecular studies, when examining responses of people to EMF exposures, will provide proof that EMF sensitivity exists and will show what the potential molecular targets of EMF exposures are.
In preparation for such provocation/molecular studies we need also to look at what has not been sufficiently and thoroughly looked at – the physician-diagnosed EMF sensitivity.
Yes, we do not have reliable diagnostic tools to diagnose sensitivity to EMF. However, numerous physicians have examined various physiological parameters in persons complaining of EMF sensitivity. Gathering together, in a single database, of all these physiological tests and parameters might help in determining the most efficient ways to test molecular targets of EMF responses in EMF sensitive and EMF non-sensitive persons. We need to gather in one place all of this dispersed knowledge.
This is why I called on physician-diagnosed EHS persons to contact me. I would like, with the help of the EHS persons and their physicians, to set up database of what is the “hidden” and “dispersed” knowledge about EHS.
Following in-depth analyses, this database will provide information for the peer-reviewed scientific publication presenting as much as possible of information on EHS as possible, information that is currently not readily available for the scientists and for the radiation and health protection authorities.
All of the EHS persons and all of their physicians will be invited to co-author this future publication. It means that all of them, as co-authors, will be able to comment, in a meaningful scientific way, on the manuscript’s content, on the interpretation of the data and on the final conclusions.
I will contact all persons volunteering for this project, EHS persons and their physicians, with an e-mail containing number of specific questions. This will be the start of the project.
I sincerely hope, and expect, that the publication of the peer-reviewed manuscript will take place in 2022.
If you are physician-diagnosed EHS person, or if you know of such person(s), and you are interested in taking part in my project, please, contact me via my website or via DM on my twitter @blogBRHP .
Please, remember, the success of this project depends on you – EHS persons and your physicians. The more of you join this project the more information will be collected the more robust conclusions this project will generate and the more attention these robust conclusions will get from the radiation safety and health authorities.
BRHP - Between a Rock and a Hard Place 
Pingback: Grant awarded – Leszczynski’s EHS project has started, and is looking for additional volunteers - Safe Tech International
Pingback: Grant awarded – Leszczynski’s EHS project has started, and is looking for additional volunteers | BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Overblown. Incorrect. Scaremongering. Waste of effort. The ‘other side’ is not a bunch of undereducated persons
The WHO File: Denial is a Big River That Flows Through Geneva | by Karl Muller | Medium
The case of Dr Emilie van Deventer, microwave engineer and
facilitator of the greatest genocide the world has ever seen.
AND NOW YOU CANNOT SAY YOU DID NOT KNOW:
The petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless technology which the FCC ignored, including evidence of already existing widespread sickness.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-wins-case-fcc-safety-guidelines-5g-wireless/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=5c611af3-b4e4-4114-988f-7137a2749a72
Really liked the concept of EHS PROJECT. What I suggest is that the project should be something like open source and the incoming data and resources be updated on a common platform at regular intervals and interested Health Care Professionals (and patients) should have the opportunity of interacting with each other thru’ the same portal or alternative messaging channels (e.g. Instagram / Email/ Twitter/ etc.)
As a Physician (Intensivist), I’ve been contacted by EHS patients quite a number of times and apart from prevention, different solutions work for individual patients. Overall prevention / mitigation really helps, but some supplements and lifestyle modifications that work for one might not be that helpful for others.
It will be nice to follow inputs from across the globe on EHS and it’s management that works.
We already have very consistent evidence of changes in the EEG (brainwaves) caused by RF radiation – even in the low dose range. Strong individual differences have also been discovered. Dariusz, don’t you think it makes sense to focus further on this phenomenon. It seems to me that it is an easy way to prove EHS.
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09553002.2021.1969055?journalCode=irab20
The initiative for gathering scattered information about EHS is commendable, needed and let us hope that it will succeed for the benefit of a lot of people abandoned b the official medicine. But you the researchers should pay attention to a serious problem that you are going to encounter: distrust.
For too many years people who had been observing over and over that so-called “non-ionizing radiation” made them ill have been abused by the medical establishment and the health authorities. Do not expect much of an enthousiastic and widespread collaborative attitude on their part now. Skepticism and detachment can be a defense mechanism to face hardship and injustice.
Suffers of EHS (and multiple chemical sensitivity and other mistreated illnesses of a possible environmental origin) are filling the ranks of conspiracy groups, becoming negationist themselves for instance by denying the severity and even the reality of the pandemic. One does not need to share their views to understand and excuse them.
Scientists working in all these fields should refrain from taking these “alternative” alignments as a proof that the claims of EHS people lack a scientific base and are “all-in-the-mind”, as certain supposed scientific groups promote. Knowing this world the misleading move is going to happen: unscientific claims from anti-radiation extremists (5G caused the coronavirus) have been and will be used one way or another for discrediting the stories of persons where the wireless technologies appear much involved in causing health complaints. Beware for divertion schemes from interested parties.
This is very surprising. This WILL be appealed, of course. There’s not a PEEP about this in the Mainstream Media.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/chd-wins-case-fcc-safety-guidelines-5g-wireless/
Pingback: EHS - elektromagnetisk hypersensitivitet - nejtil5g.dk
This is a great initiative. Perhaps you know of retired Prof. Ville Valtonen in Finland. He is one of the few doctors here that I know of that has openly spoken about EHS. He has said, repeatedly, that EHS, mold, and MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity), are all tied together. I don’t know if he would be willing to participate in this effort, but perhaps it’s worth a try since I believe you are in Finland also(?).
To be sure that I don’t forget, please, send me message via BRHP
I will keep my response short enough to say just that this is great news Dariusz. As you say, the existing literature is so generally poor that conclusions confirming either the null hypothesis or a positive hypothesis are not scientifically justifiable.
The possibility that there is genuine high quality research including actual biological markers should be music to the EHS community’s ears. I hope you get a really strong takeup.
Dariusz, please feel free to get in touch