George Carlo on EHS
Dear Steve:I received a mail from Andre Fauteax's today suggesting you are interested in feedback on your EHS fact sheet. Here are some points for your consideration.
- It is not true that we don't understand the condition. We do understand it quite well. Attached is an interview -- on page 12 -- from a couple of years ago with folks from the UK. The most important aspect of the commentary is the mechanism of harm discussion. With an outcome like EHS where there are multiple manifestations, the most important determinant of causation is not epidemiological data because that tool is not precise enough to handle a multiple manifestation outcome like EHS. The most important aspect for determining cause and effect in the case of EHS is the biological mechanism of harm. By looking at the condition from the 'mechanism outward' -- as opposed to from 'observed symptoms inward' -- there is scientific logic that explains the diversity of manifestations and lays the groundwork for effective intervention.
- While it is true that exposure to EMR is not likely the primary 'cause' of the underlying EHS pathology, there is no doubt that in those who suffer from the condition, EMR is a primary 'trigger' of the debilitating symptoms. However, it is important to keep a few things in mind about EMR:
- All EMR is not the same and the biological sequelae from different types of EMR are different as well. So, some forms of EMR are more efficient in triggering certain symptoms than others. This is another reason why the condition remains a moving target and very difficult for mainstream medicine to not only pick up but figure out how to treat.
- In our experience, it is the Information Carrying Radio Waves -- we call them ICRW -- that contain the wave forms that trigger sympathetic stress cascades. This means that most problematic for those who suffer from EHS are waves, pushed by power so that there is penetration into the body, that have modulation overlays of time, code, voice or data. Other forms of EMR are usually less efficient triggers of symptoms. Thus, some people are more or less triggered by dirty electricity and powerline-derived fields for example. Also, other forms of ambient fields like loud noises and bright lights are triggers for some people.
- This non-conformity in response also means that studies which use simulated signals -- such as those used in the majority of the published challenge studies which are used to support the contention of nocebo effect, psychosomatic triggering or the absence of cause and effect -- are measuring exposures that are not likely to trigger the symptoms. They see 'no effect' because they do not have an exposure pattern that is capable of 'causing the effect'. Thus, the majority of the published studies are of limited or no value in determining the causal chain and the medical intervention paths forward.
- There are efficient screening tools to define whether or not frank 'EHS' is present. These include the laboratory metrics discussed in the article above that require blood or urine samples, as well as precisely targeted HRV assessment, and precise queries designed to define present 'adaptive capacity'. With these data in hand, efficient corrective intervention protocols customized to the individual can be defined and followed. EHS need not be a figurative 'life sentence of debilitation'. It can be managed to the point where a good quality of life can be maintained even in a world awash in wireless signals.
- Most important in managing this condition in those who suffer from it, is communicating with treating physicians in the currency that allows them to effectively intervene to help their patients. That means a focus on laboratory and other indicators, differential diagnosis tools, and corrective intervention. For clinicians, understanding the culprits in causation is not always necessary so long as pathways to treatment are evident. So, my suggestion is to have two fact sheets: one for patients suffering from the condition and one for clinicians who will be called upon to treat the condition. The content and focus of each of these will be different but that type of specificity is well worth the effort toward controlling this emerging public health problem.Hope this helps.George________________
Dr. George L. CarloWashington, D.C.Hello,Steve would appreciate any criticism of this fact sheet from scientists please:AndréObjet: FW: Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Fact Sheet [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]Date: May 10 mai 2015−4To: 'André Fauteux' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Andre, I am wondering whether you can share this email with scientists that you are in contact with for their considered feedback. I am a public representative of the EMERG group who also happens to be EHS. The Electromagnetic Energy Reference Group (EMERG) has been established by ARPANSA to enable input from the community and other stakeholders on issues relating to Electromagnetic Energy and health. I will be attending a bi-annual committee meeting on the 20th of May to present to the attendees on the topic of EHS. I would appreciate any constructive criticism of the fact sheet linked below which I intend to raise at the next meeting. From initial glance it appears that the authorities are trying to pin the condition to another environmental causes.
Anyone who does provide feedback should advise whether they are happy to have their name and title mentioned as the source of the comment or whether they wish to remain anonymous.