Electrosmog in the clear with scientists?
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Electrohypersensitivity
--------
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1992315,00.html
Informant: Mark G.
--------
The Rubin study was MTHR. They released a literature review (published in the American Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine) http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/2/224
then their provocation study published in the BMJ. (see also discussion at the end) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/886
which features in WHO's "factsheet" on EHS: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/print.html
Rubin's team concluded that since the sensitive people reacted to everything equally but differently from the control group, the response to "sham" shows it's all psychological.
What they assumed was that the standard MTHR mobile phone dummy fields were too low in "sham" condition. The mobile unit in fact produces equal signals in all modes, it just runs to a "load" rather than the antenna. Powerwatch also has some critique of this
This is criticised by Frans in Don's blog: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=436
Rubin's boss is Simon Wessely, but let's not be prejudiced. It's just that Wesseley's agenda on MCS, ME on GWS and on EHS is that "idiopathic environmental intolerance" can be wished away with cognitive behavioural therapy. The most disturbing fact about the Wessely approach is that he has been funded by insurance companies, which is ideal in the case of GWS. Martin Walker ("Skewed") tells some disturbing accounts of the effects on people's lives and health of misinterpreting ME (a subject on which you should look up the Countess of Mar as a protagonist vs Wessely).
Here's my reply to the Guardian, should they wish to file it away or use it:
Andy
Dear Sir
With reference to Technology Guardian "Electrosmog in the clear with scientists" (18 January) your article is over-conclusive. There is a real difficulty with provocation testing - ie subjecting a person who claims to be electro-sensitive (ES) to double-blind exposure in controlled conditions.
First, there are two few studies, even those interpreted as "best" by the Rubin team, that truly replicate each other without introducing fresh variables in what is in all probability a complex biological interaction. Any "sham" testing should achieve a natural EM environment, since ES people show sensitivity to extremely small changes, and this is rarely achieved. The Kings college researchers assumed that extraneous fields were simply too small to affect their results, and this has been challenged.
Second, testing for responses takes very little account of "lag time", ie it assumes an instantaneous response in the course of a 40 minute changing EM environment, and this is far from often the case.
Third, introducing placebo and nocebo advances us nowhere. If the mind affects the body in this way, there is a fair chance that at least part of that neurological communication itself involves endogenous electromagnetic communication.
The human body is highly energetic, not a bag of chemicals. There is abundant scientific research showing that EM fields can alter the skin (mast cell activity and conductance), the blood (red cell flocculation and leukocyte balance), blood pressure, gene expression and EEG rhythms. It seems hardly conclusive to compare provocation studies and psychiatric analysis with the physiological indicators, especially when an increasing number of people are developing a quite unexpected sensitivity. The HPA report on hypersensitivity and EM fields (Irvine, 2006) itself identified the most effective remedies of ES as being removal of EMF sources.
If CBT works for some people, it no more proves the cause of ES to be psychological than that aspirin proves the cause of pain to be chemical.
yours
End
He is a wessley protege at kings college couple of links outlining his involvement the recent work he has done was funded by the MTHR I think
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/ppro/experts/expert/720/printversion
http://internal.iop.kcl.ac.uk/ipublic/staff/profile/external.aspx?go=10361
Alasdair brought this up with me in a recent meeting we had and the sham signal in the study was done in a way that they could still have the phone switched on, so they placed a dummy load across the antenna output to limit the amount of RF going out of the antenna when the experiment was conducted. As a radio ham the notion of placing a dummy load to contain RF is laughable as RF seems to be predisposed to leak out and spread "through" everything in its path at every opportunity, at best the dummy load may have reduced the output by 90 % but that is not the same as zero output to truly be a sham exposure, this makes the study very "amateurish" if I may say so!!
panayis zambellis luton uk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
--------
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1992315,00.html
Informant: Mark G.
--------
The Rubin study was MTHR. They released a literature review (published in the American Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine) http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/2/224
then their provocation study published in the BMJ. (see also discussion at the end) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/886
which features in WHO's "factsheet" on EHS: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/print.html
Rubin's team concluded that since the sensitive people reacted to everything equally but differently from the control group, the response to "sham" shows it's all psychological.
What they assumed was that the standard MTHR mobile phone dummy fields were too low in "sham" condition. The mobile unit in fact produces equal signals in all modes, it just runs to a "load" rather than the antenna. Powerwatch also has some critique of this
This is criticised by Frans in Don's blog: http://www.emfacts.com/weblog/?p=436
Rubin's boss is Simon Wessely, but let's not be prejudiced. It's just that Wesseley's agenda on MCS, ME on GWS and on EHS is that "idiopathic environmental intolerance" can be wished away with cognitive behavioural therapy. The most disturbing fact about the Wessely approach is that he has been funded by insurance companies, which is ideal in the case of GWS. Martin Walker ("Skewed") tells some disturbing accounts of the effects on people's lives and health of misinterpreting ME (a subject on which you should look up the Countess of Mar as a protagonist vs Wessely).
Here's my reply to the Guardian, should they wish to file it away or use it:
Andy
Dear Sir
With reference to Technology Guardian "Electrosmog in the clear with scientists" (18 January) your article is over-conclusive. There is a real difficulty with provocation testing - ie subjecting a person who claims to be electro-sensitive (ES) to double-blind exposure in controlled conditions.
First, there are two few studies, even those interpreted as "best" by the Rubin team, that truly replicate each other without introducing fresh variables in what is in all probability a complex biological interaction. Any "sham" testing should achieve a natural EM environment, since ES people show sensitivity to extremely small changes, and this is rarely achieved. The Kings college researchers assumed that extraneous fields were simply too small to affect their results, and this has been challenged.
Second, testing for responses takes very little account of "lag time", ie it assumes an instantaneous response in the course of a 40 minute changing EM environment, and this is far from often the case.
Third, introducing placebo and nocebo advances us nowhere. If the mind affects the body in this way, there is a fair chance that at least part of that neurological communication itself involves endogenous electromagnetic communication.
The human body is highly energetic, not a bag of chemicals. There is abundant scientific research showing that EM fields can alter the skin (mast cell activity and conductance), the blood (red cell flocculation and leukocyte balance), blood pressure, gene expression and EEG rhythms. It seems hardly conclusive to compare provocation studies and psychiatric analysis with the physiological indicators, especially when an increasing number of people are developing a quite unexpected sensitivity. The HPA report on hypersensitivity and EM fields (Irvine, 2006) itself identified the most effective remedies of ES as being removal of EMF sources.
If CBT works for some people, it no more proves the cause of ES to be psychological than that aspirin proves the cause of pain to be chemical.
yours
End
He is a wessley protege at kings college couple of links outlining his involvement the recent work he has done was funded by the MTHR I think
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/ppro/experts/expert/720/printversion
http://internal.iop.kcl.ac.uk/ipublic/staff/profile/external.aspx?go=10361
Alasdair brought this up with me in a recent meeting we had and the sham signal in the study was done in a way that they could still have the phone switched on, so they placed a dummy load across the antenna output to limit the amount of RF going out of the antenna when the experiment was conducted. As a radio ham the notion of placing a dummy load to contain RF is laughable as RF seems to be predisposed to leak out and spread "through" everything in its path at every opportunity, at best the dummy load may have reduced the output by 90 % but that is not the same as zero output to truly be a sham exposure, this makes the study very "amateurish" if I may say so!!
panayis zambellis luton uk
From Mast Sanity/Mast Network
rudkla - 18. Jan, 11:25
