Electrosensibilité: des marqueurs qui n’éteignent pas la polémiqueLe 11 janvier 2016 par Romain Loury
Electrosensitivity: markers that do not extinguish the controversy
Posted in Reviews on Environmental Health, the study of the Association for Cancer Therapeutics Research (ARTAC), chaired by Dominique Belpomme, is claimed by its authors as the first to describe blood markers electrohypersensitivity the waves.
Hope for patients who suffer from a lack of medical face listening to an evil whose physiological mechanisms remain unknown, and without detailed biomarkers to date. In short, without an official explanation suffering long (and again) taken for a psychosomatic ill or psychiatric.
Conducted on 727 patients with EHS or multiple chemical sensitivity, the study affirms the existence of blood markers previously identified in studies in animals: higher histamine levels in 40% of patients, nitrotyrosine in 28% of S100B protein in 15% , anti-O-myelin antibodies in 23%, and chaperone proteins hps27 and hsp30 in 33%. Brain imaging tests also suggest inflammation in parts of the brain, the limbic system and the thalamus.
Evidence of the disease
Contacted by JDLE Philippe Irigaray, director of scientific research at the ARTAC and co-author of the study indicates that histamine elevation of markers, nitrotyrosine or S100B was found in 71.8% of patients and 75 electrohypersensitive % of those with multiple chemical sensitivity.
According to the authors, both diseases involving inflammation, oxidative stress, autoimmune response and blood brain permeability, are two forms of the disease related to the same mechanism. "Our study shows that there are real factors [ biological] the origin of this disease, that these are real sick, and it is not a psychological disease, "commented Philippe Irigaray.
It is also an important step for associations: in a statement, Etienne Cendrier, spokesman Robin des Toits, believes that these results are "likely to settle the artificial scientific controversy that only serves the economic interests of short- industrial term at the expense of public health. "
Yet, and this is an understatement, Dominique Belpomme, whistleblower very supported by the electro associations, is not a man to make scientific consensus. Or if he does, it's usually against him in his favor. This does not prevent, defying critics raise sacred hare, notably in 2007 during the case of pesticide chlordecone in the French Antilles.
The lack of controls
It does not say that the methodology is highly appreciated by the scientific community. Its major flaw: the absence of controls, ie healthy individuals. Without it difficult to say to what extent the figures are far from normal.
Contacted by JDLE, the Yves Drean, Rennes researcher at Irset  and a specialist in cellular effect of waves, believes that "the study does not present statistics", and that "it is not so not very informative. "Especially that "many markers are nonspecific, eg histamine characteristic of allergies, or chaperone proteins in certain cancers."
However, Yves Le Drean judge that "the study is interesting from a biological point of view, even if it says nothing about the relations of cause and effect. We know very well that these people have health problems, but it is not known why they have them, and if the waves are responsible. And this study does not show that the waves are responsible. "
New track for challenge studies?
"These are just the raw results of a population," he added. Despite its flaws, the study opens interesting avenues of research. Especially with the so-called studies "provocative": they are to install electro patients in a closed room and then to expose or not to wave. For now, most of these studies have been inconclusive, people failing to know or not exposed. For Yves Le Drean, "it would be interesting to replicate by measuring changes in these blood markers."
The failure of provocation studies is one of the main reasons of scientific skepticism vis-à-vis the EHS and a source of anger for associations. "Maybe it's not the only waves can -be it's something most waves: it really is a mystery, and it is very problematic for those people who are suffering. They do not have more psychiatric problems than the general population: their evil is real, "Judge Yves Le Drean.
What about the toxicity of the air? "In the short term, studies show that there is not much to fear. But in the long term, the question is not lifted, "said the researcher Rennes. Dominique Belpomme "advances too in its conclusions": "the worst, we may be facing poisonous in very small doses, with possible effects cocktail" with other agents, he said.
Among other work on the air, this study will be on the menu of a group of experts of the National Health Security Agency for Food, Environment and Labour (Anses), which is preparing for the end of year a report on the issue of EHS, have we learned from a source close to the matter.
 The nitrotyrosine and S100B are markers permeability of the blood-brain barrier, which separates the blood system of the brain. According to some work, contradicted by others, it would be weakened in electro.
 Health Research Institute, Environment and Labour (Irset) is under the supervision of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), University Rennes 1, the school of public health (EHESP) and the University Hospital of Rennes.