Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"No Scientific Basis"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognised medical diagnosis."

What does this mean? It looks like ambiguous wording just to satisfy a skeptical POV. Are we claiming that there is no justification available to support EHS or that EHS does not follow from science? I can't make sense of the latter. Assuming the studies cited in the article are accurate, why would EHS as a condition need to correlate clearly with those who identify as having EHS?

Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you read any of the many references in the lead (which is not how we do things in most article, but ..._) or did you stop at the first sentence? Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I read the article before posting. How is this relevant? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Because your question implies that the article doesn't give a background on why EHS has no scientific basis, and that you stopped at the first sentence. The article goes on to explain why there is no basis, with sources. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not imply this. I questioned the semantics of the phrase and gave two interpretations, both of which would describe EHS as being insufficiently justified by science. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Could we change "EHS has no scientific basis.." to "EHS does not have a scientific basis.."? This would indicate EHS has not been supported by the evidence, but not that it defies scientific coherence. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the difference between the two statements. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that was too subtle then. Why not replace the term "basis" with "validity"? That way the statement does not exclude the scenario whereby EHS is simply not yet qualified to be scientific. Is that fair? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're making a distinction with no obvious difference. Acroterion (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The distinction is not trivial. The tone of the article is given by the introduction, which clearly suggests that science has issued a judgment against EHS when this is simply not true.

According to the article, EHS has well over 46 studies to its name because those with the claimed sensitivity reported symptoms, not because some trendy political/cultural/social movement demanded research investment into this. If 4% of people who were prescribed a particular pharmaceutical medication reported these symptoms (outside a clinical trial), science would seriously entertain a causal relationship.

The 46 studies mentioned contain a grand total of 1175 participants, averaging 26 per study. These are very meager sample sizes. Combine this with the vast scope of study that is relevant to the search for an EHS medical condition (informed by common-sense variables and variables discovered along the course of experiment), and it stands to reason that these studies have no ability to make subdivisions of EHS profile types or discriminate the testing between them. It's a start; but I don't see how it's anything more than that.

Some key variables such as duration of exposure, frequencies of exposure, manner of exposure, existing psychiatric conditions, and sensitivity type could all be tested over a range of values and controlled for to obtain a basic resolution of profile types. However, once again, even coarse granularity is impossible with sample sizes that are so.. incredibly.. small! (And in the event someone brings up systemic review, the abstract of the 2011 review admits to following the same tact of non-discrimination that the individual studies had by observing only the one-to-one relationship between IEI-EMF participant groups and testing.) When a case can be made that the estimated prevalence figures of EHS accounted for in multiple large-scale surveys (4-7 percent) make more of a scientific argument than the studies themselves, is that not a strong indication that science is uncommitted to a judgment about EHS? I think the tone of the article should reflect this.

Also, I would ask that someone please respond with more than a glib response to my concern so I have some idea what people take issue with rather than allowing me to guess what they are displeased with. Thank you! Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In medical jargon, EHS is a way of saying somebody has light psychosis. Like pornography addiction and Morgellons, EHS is the nocebo effect at work. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If the nocebo effect can occur whether the anticipated negative consequences are real or not, how would we use the nocebo effect to explain findings? I left this part out because I didn't understand its evidentiary value. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, listen: EHS patients cannot detect if a WiFi router is turned on or off. If you hide 5 working WiFi routers in their house, they will only worry that they are sick if they discover these routers through normal means. You could even put a hidden, working 5G antenna on they roof, and they will only worry about being sick if you tell them about it in plain speak. Their sickness only exists in so far they themselves believe they are exposed to harmful electromagnetic radiation. It's not a matter of real radiation, but only a matter of believing in that. It's not the reality that bothers them, it is their own ideation which creates their sickness. Some of them might have real-life diseases they don't know about, but these diseases are not caused by WiFi, microwave ovens and 5G. E.g. vegans who exhaust their vitamin B12 reserves will feel sick and attribute that to electromagnetic radiation. Since they really believe that veganism can do no harm, so it must be the 5G antenna. Tell them that Monsanto has secretly installed a 5G antenna on their roof, and you have ruined their lives. Such people often consult with quacks, who will reinforce their delusions. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a different tack if people don't mind.

It strikes me as overkill for the second line of the article to read "EHS has no scientific basis.." while science is continuously investigating the basis for it. EHS is poorly understood and consistently reported. Essentially every study of EHS that sets out to find a causal explanation prioritizes the search for EMF-induced changes. So it is apparent that science has not disregarded a basis for EHS, unlike what a reasonable interpretation of the underlined phrase suggests.

A quick search on Google Scholar yields many scientific studies/reviews whose conclusions do not discriminate against a basis for EHS. For brevity's sake, I'll use one example. The following is a critical review published two years ago in the Environmental Health Journal:

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0

Three hypotheses were explored:

"(1) the electromagnetic hypothesis, attributing EHS to EMF exposure;

(2) the cognitive hypothesis, assuming that EHS results from false beliefs in EMF harmfulness, promoting nocebo responses to perceived EMF exposure;

(3) the attributive hypothesis, conceiving EHS as a coping strategy for pre-existing conditions."

The conclusion states: "No hypothesis proves totally satisfying. Avenues of research are suggested to help decide between them and reach a better understanding of EHS." Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If there isn't event a plausible hypothesis we're way off there being a scientific basis. Wikipedia needs to call out nonsense as nonsense, and so what we have is fine. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

How did you arrive at there being no plausible hypothesis behind EHS as a medical condition? Did you take this from the review I cited? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It strikes me as overkill for the second line of the article to read "EHS has no scientific basis.." while science is continuously investigating the basis for it. By that reasoning, if I am looking for a job, it means it is "overkill" to say I don't have a job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your bringing analogy into the discussion. This helps me communicate my point.

In that case, it is overkill to say "your employment has no basis". That would be making a statement about your employability, not just your employment status. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Reasoned Inquiry: Okay, this is going nowhere. Do produce WP:RS for your claims or be gone from this talk page. Dieudonné claims that none of the three hypotheses explain 100% of the variation, but this is normalcy within empirical science. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The part of Dieudonné's paper that supports my claim is in: "Avenues of research are suggested to help decide between them..", meaning none of the hypotheses were rejected and no options outside the list were considered. I have linked 7 more sources that show a clear scientific regard for a basis of EHS (included with quotes) plus an International Report:

------

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120303388

"This review of the literature included numerous self-reported neurologic and neuropsychiatric symptoms which have a temporal relationship to EMF exposures. Further studies suggest that EMF exposure may be associated with changes in cerebral blood flow which correspond to abnormalities on PET scan of the brain."

-------

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969711012733

"► Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) research has generated conflicting outcomes.

► Recent evidence suggests pathophysiological change in some individuals with EHS. "

-------

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2012.712586

"Thus, it could be possible to distinguish “genuine” electromagnetic hypersensitive individuals from those who suffer from other conditions."

-------

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/abs/cognitive-and-neurobiological-alterations-in-electromagnetic-hypersensitive-patients-results-of-a-casecontrol-study/63E8AE20E0BEBA063B6ADC1F52CDF92D

"These results demonstrate significant cognitive and neurobiological alterations pointing to a higher genuine individual vulnerability of electromagnetic hypersensitive patients."

-------

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.10138

"evidence could be found for the existence of a subgroup of people with significantly increased electrosensibility (hypersensibility) who as a group could be differentiated from the general population"

-------

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mi/2014/924184/

"We hypothesized that SRI, not being merely psychogenic, may share organic determinants of impaired detoxification of common physic-chemical stressors."

"Further developments must necessarily include a more objective and standardized classification of individual electromagnetic sensitivity scores, to conclusively assess the proposed parameters as a distinctive and specific panel of disease biomarkers for EHS."

-------

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51525452_Electromagnetic_Hypersensitivity_Evidence_for_a_Novel_Neurological_Syndrome

"EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome"

-------

Perhaps most importantly, a "Scientific Consensus International Report" was published last year that rebuked the evidence and methods contained in provocation studies of EHS while supporting a potential basis for the condition. There is a lot here, but the report does not mince words.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8304862/

I hope anyone who still wants to dismiss this issue out of hand could kindly explain why absolutely none of this is worth their time. ..Thanks! Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing "important" about stuff in junk journals. Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

All of them are junk journals? Even the International Journal of Molecular Science? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

MDPI innit. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That journal has a good impact score and h-factor. You can verify this here. All but 3 of the journals I referenced in the sources have a good impact score or better than good. What is your actual contention? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I meant h-index*, excuse me. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It's a disreputable publisher eschewed by most reputable scientists and many libraries. Come back when you've got something decent. Alexbrn (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Just for clarification, your source for that is the Wikipedia page of MDPI, correct? I don't see anything on that page that would verify your statement. Are you most reputable scientists and many libraries? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

They are looking for a basis because they do not have it yet. It's really very simple, and you are grasping at straws. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

MDPI is not a totally rogue publisher, but it isn't WP:MEDRS-compliant either. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Questionable, yup. So for anything WP:EXCEPTIONAL of no use. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you see as extraordinary about my claim? I don't see the objection.

Is everyone aware that my claim is not a commentary about the evidence collected in support of EHS? If there were 0 studies (or only 10 studies) concerning the causal link of EMF on EHS patients, then putting "EHS has no scientific basis.." on the second line of this article would make no sense. This is because the phrase would wrongly communicate that science has struck a serious blow against a basis for the condition.

My claim recognizes the fact that science has done no such thing. It is supported by my sources, and it is supported in conjunction with the sources of this article.

You can see this from what is publicly accessible of the article's systematic reviews:

------------

[2]: "At present, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that people with IEI-EMF experience unusual physiological reactions as a result of exposure to EMF. This supports suggestions that EMF is not the main cause of their ill health."

Note the two qualifiers, "at present" and "reliable" in the first statement. The following statement then uses this conclusion to support the idea that EMF is not the main cause of these symptoms. "Main" means anything upward of 50% (but likely not considerably much higher due to the availability of better words than "main"). These statements do not object to an underlying condition associated with EHS, but rather conclude that other causes feature more prominently in the IEI-EMF population.

------------

[3]: "Surveys showed that a substantial part of EHS individuals believes to be able to perceive low level RF-EMF under everyday conditions immediately. However, the meta-analysis of the provocation studies provides strong evidence that this is not the case for the large majority under double-blind conditions in a laboratory."

EHS is not signified by the immediate perception of EMF, which the review's conclusion tells us! In fact, it only links this perceived ability to "a substantial part of EHS individuals". Linguistically, "a substantial part of EHS individuals" does not connote "a clear majority". Furthermore, the conclusion only gives us that EHS patients are very poor at detecting immediate interactions with EMF anyway! This review KNOWS its conclusion has no bearing on a basis for an underlying condition.

------------

This is not my analysis of the reviews. This is a reasonable reading of their conclusions as it pertains to my claim. I see nothing about my claim that is radical. If you disagree, then I believe you are likely misunderstanding my claim. Please be open to that or tell me your objection. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Since I'm new to this, what does this change? The Perennial Services page grades MDPI as yellow, which seems sufficient considering the context that IJMS has a robust reputation. If I am reliably there for my spouse, the time I spend around my friends shouldn't affect my reputation with him. I don't see a reason why a journal should be judged by the publisher's role with other journals unless this comes at the expense of the publisher's general reputation (like having bad company around as friends). So I'm unclear about the specific doubts of source reliability you find problematic here.

Also, do you see any issues with the other sources I provided? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS requirements are above normal WP:RS requirements. Also WP:EXCEPTIONAL requirements are far above WP:RS requirements. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

So am I correct in understanding that you do not have specific doubts of my sources meeting WP:MEDRS requirements and that you do not have an explanation for qualifying my claim as WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you are not. Primary sources and weak journals are not WP:MEDRS, and for exceptional claims very good sources are needed. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources account for 4 of my 9 sources. I'll ditch the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th sources. That's no problem.

As far as the remainder of your comment goes, you have offered no specific points of criticism. You again mention bad journals, despite that two of my sources, "Environmental Research" and "Science of the Total Environment", are already cited in the article. You also continue to bring up exceptional claims without elaborating on what this has to do with my claim.

If you have any other specific issues with my claim, I'd be happy to know them. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Your "claim" appears to be that EHS has a "scientific basis". That's exceptional because it would turn accepted wisdom on its head. If you have an actual edit to propose, make the proposal. Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is my proposition:

"EHS has no scientific basis.." should be changed to "EHS has no established scientific basis..". After much deliberation, this appears to be by far the most objective way to eliminate the ambiguity of the phrase without losing the central message that EHS is not given by its scientific understanding. Also, I assert that nothing important is being left out with this modification.

I invite specific criticisms. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, we won't water down its fringeness. See WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

How does my edit qualify as fringe? Science is continuously studying EHS and has established no scientific basis. This is a fact given by the article. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You either abide by WP:PSCI or you're out. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I just asked you a question about that because I haven't a clue what your objection is. Why are you implying I don't want to abide by WP:PSCI?

All I'm doing is following up with you so I can address your specific issues. Is this a problem for you? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone actually see a particular problem with my edit? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

this appears to be by far the most objective way to eliminate the ambiguity...—it appears to you, you have convinced no one else. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

20 k of discussion over more than 2 weeks, multiple editors commenting with no support for Reasoned Inquiry's position (and include me as being fine with the existing wording)... WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Not at all. This is a discussion; not a popularity contest. Has the latter kept you here? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You could receive a topic ban if you insist. WP:AE is just around the corner. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

On what grounds? Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That's because no genuine debate had been forthcoming. I can't engage an opposition if editors are unwilling to offer it. I have been given stonewalling-like responses for 2 weeks. If my position is in the extreme minority for a reason, that should avail itself. Otherwise, this is what discussion is for.

As it stands, the central message in response to my position is the seemingly contradictory assertion that "EHS has no established scientific basis" advances non-science to the position of science. No explanation to this central theme is on offer. If we've reached grounds to end the discussion, then I would note that this serves as a precedent to give any majority in a discussion reliable leverage to claim a vocal minority is attempting to keep a dead debate alive. This is not my intent. I'm simply lacking what I believe to be reasonable considerations and asking for them. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As I have told you, this is not a debate championships society. Reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Reasoned Inquiry. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diagnosis

I would like to know, why the Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association was reverted from the DIAGNOSIS chapter. Petenka (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I support the revert. That document is WP:FRINGE and not in accordance with known science. Also, if this is a "Guideline of the Austrian Medical Association", why can't I find it on their web site? ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please explain how a nocebo phenomenon can be a 'pseudoscientific claim'

Acroterion Please explain how a nocebo phenomenon can be a pseudoscientific claim. My understanding of nocebo phenomena is that I see the mobile phone and therefore start feeling nauseous. This is in no way related to the scientific method, and so is not a pseudoscientific claim (per the definition of pseudoscience we have). You say it is sourced, in which case please show a source that calls it a "pseudoscientific claim". My Googling for 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity "pseudoscientific claim"' leads to Google saying there aren't many great matches for your search. Banedon (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Try ["electromagnetic hypersensitivity" + "pseudoscience"] and you'll get some decent hits. This topic is swimming in unsupported scientific and medical claims, so I'm not sure there's reason to disagree with the reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not the objection. The objection is that EHS is not a pseudoscientific claim. If you are using only "pseudoscience", you are disputing something I didn't say. Banedon (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to alternatives, and the sources aren't unanimous on "nocebo" either, nor are they unanimous about whether it's a phobia or psychiatric condition. "Pseudomedical" might be a better term, but that's not really sourceable. Using the example of Morgellon's, that's described as "self-diagnosed, scientifically unsubstantiated", which might work here. But I wouldn't leave it entirely unqualified as your edit did. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

How would you phrase the first sentence to capture the reliably sourced idea that proponents of EHS are engaging in pseudoscience? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Just delete the word 'pseudoscientific'. I don't see how you can say proponents of EHS are engaging in pseudoscience, either. If the nocebo/psychiatric explanation is correct, then they're genuinely suffering (in the same way people experiencing improved health thanks to the placebo effect are not engaging in pseudoscience). If you are going to call something pseudoscientific, then call "electromagnetic fields of everyday strength can cause headaches" pseudoscientific. Banedon (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're both right in different ways that are not compatible with eachother in their current form. A patient's experience of electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a nocebo effect, but it is not directly referred to like this in the literature.

That being said, since electromagnetic hypersensitivity is more of a belief on the part of the patient (like with Chronic Lyme disease), calling it 'pseudoscientific' in the introductory sentence doesn't really fit the context of the sentence. Given the context of the rest of the paragraph, this is probably unnecessary. What is pseudoscientific is individuals explanations to why the disorder arises, but the actual syndrome itself is not.

Falsehood =/= Pseudoscience although they are similar. Pseudoscience has more to do with constructing a mirage that a scientific method was used in order to bolster a claim -- experience of the symptoms does not relate to that. It might be worth adding that label later in the paragraph with something along the lines of "Physiological explanations for the experience of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have been classified as pseudoscience". See the difference? AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you put it better than I did. I have no objections to the lede now. Banedon (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Updating this article?

Curious why much of this information and sourcing appears biased versus neutral? It would be great to have a section on the scientific community's active ongoing debate about it. To inform readers of the most up to date situation of the scientific community investigating this. Notable researchers in this debate are Maël Dieudonné , Belpomme D, Leszczynski D. The recent (2020-2023) articles indicate responses to each other and suggest this to be a "hot topic" in the environmental health community. Also researchers are looking to develop systematic diagnostic criteria it appears. All of this suggests this is not a purely fringe topic anymore, but an area of legitimate growing scientific research.

I'm new to wiki editing, so unsure how to capture this correctly, but thought I'd share for those interested in editing it. Lorirb (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A tiny minority of doctors claiming something that the vast majority say isn’t real, and can’t be proved, the the sufferers can’t accurately identify when they are suffering the “effects” of, is in no way a hot topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.234.210 (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased and needs an update. I was curious (after watching Better Call Saul) and read a research abstract before seeing this Wikipedia page and was surprised to see such a bias here. --not signed in, 30 August, 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19C:4081:8CA0:C8D5:3A23:18BC:C1AB (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Our allegiance is to the scientific and medical consensus, we do not have to pamper supposedly majority beliefs. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)