How to Disappear EHS

How to Disappear EHS

You don't need to be a statistician to understand the very basic ways in which researchers may knowingly or unknowingly skew results to please those who pay their salaries. Paradoxically however some pre-knowledge of the likely results is essential if the scope of the study is to be adequately defined at the outset. If one knows the result one wants and already has an idea of the factors involved, then the scope of the investigation can be 'tuned' so as to limit the study to produce the required results.

By selecting a cohort that is not representative of The General Population, the whole basis of the study is compromised. For example, within the group who claim to be electromagnetically (hyper) sensitive, there will naturally be variations in types of exposure (electric, magnetic, electromagnetic, photo) and the degree to which they are affected. Each person's exposure and sensitivity profile is unique. If the researchers aren't too fussy about who they recruit into the study group then it may include some who only think they are ES/EHS or for any number of reasons might like to be considered sensitive. The effect will be to reduce the differences between the study and control groups.

Conversely, if amongst the control group there are people who are ES/EHS but do not realise it, then this too will have the effect of minimising the differences between the two groups thus pointing towards no effect. Of course the bigger question of where to recruit controls is a mute point now that everyone is exposed to uncontrolled man-made electromagnetic radiation.

Another way results can be skewed is simply in their interpretation. Thereafter, a call for more studies further perpetuates the status quo and buys the perpetrators more time. With UK mobile phone revenues alone of over a billion pounds a month and much more worldwide, a couple of million pounds spent financing a study that will, in a number of years, find no adverse effects, is money well spent.

Self selection on the part of the affected group will prevent the severely ES, i.e. the EHS and those also light sensitive from attending. People will also and quite naturally, tend to stay away from studies they do not trust.

Some of the reasons why people may choose not to participate in a 'scientific search for the truth'

1. They are too unwell to attend.

2. They cannot afford to attend.

3. They must subject themselves to the investigators protocol which they believe and/or may actually put them in some danger.

4. They fear they may be unable to adequately control or escape the environment around them.

5. They may take days to recover from either the travelling to/from or the study exposure itself.

6. They fear they may be too unwell to return home and be trapped in a hostile environment.

7. They may not trust the impartiality of the researchers, the study design or the impact of their condition being represented fairly.

8. They do not trust the motives of the researchers or the purposes for which the results will be used.

9. They may be made unwell by the testing procedure, the equipment used or the environment in which the study takes place.

10. They do not believe confounding variables will be adequately controlled for. For example the environment in which the study takes place may itself be contaminated by EMR and/or chemicals, the controls may be contaminated for example by mobile or cordless phone use prior to attending the study, a mobile mast or Wi-Fi installation nearby or the Facilities themselves may make the results confounding.

11. The journey to the study and the environment in which it takes place may make the EHS more sensitive and less able to cope.

12. Some EHS suffer delayed onset or increased latency, only developing symptoms after they have left the study environment.

13. Some EHS may react instantly whereas others may take hours, minutes or days to react to the same stimulus. For the slow reactors, a study conducted over a short period of time may inadequately reflect their condition. For the fast reactors, they may rapidly become overwhelmed by the study's exposure protocol.

14. People disabled by EHS, like other disabled people are vulnerable. By necessity, many lead isolated and very private lives and the cost to them of their personal vulnerability being more widely known in the present climate of denial and obfuscation is seen as a risk they would rather not take.

Has there ever been a scientific or medical study into the adverse effects of pulsed digital mobile phone radiation or other forms Electrosmog that involved the EHS (who live with its effects every day) in its definition?

Would that be 'un-scientific'?

-----


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Great points Richard. I know I sure as hell wouldn't participate in a study for many of the reasons you listed. My sensitivity shows up as cumulative too, so they could expose me to wi-fi for ten minutes and say "how are you feeling?" and I probably couldn't point to much. A vague feeling of "pressure" in the air is all I could say. But if I were close to it for days it would be pretty obvious, but I doubt many studies have the funding to runan experiment for days like that. And then the very strongly ES people would never in a million years consent to something like that which could harm their health severely. So you just get "normal" people who appear to beunimpacted participating in most of these things.

Alexa

--- In [hidden email], "Richard Love" <richardx21@...> wrote:

A nice summary Richard. I believe that some of the flaws you identify in
typical surveys showed up in particular in a major study done at the
University of Essex a few years back. People had to travel to the site,
which mitigated against severely EHS people for your reasons 1, 5, 6 and 11.
The study consisted of "blinded" short term (acute) exposures, which may
give false negatives for your reasons 12 and 13. However, some people
reacted severely in the early stages of exposure and could not complete the
study, so were not counted - your points 9, 10 and 13.

It would be quite a challenge to design a proper experimental protocol,
particularly for any trial that could include acutely ES people.

Ian

_____

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Richard Love
Sent: 13 December 2009 18:37
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [eSens] How to Disappear EHS




How to Disappear EHS

You don't need to be a statistician to understand the very basic ways in
which researchers may knowingly or unknowingly skew results to please those
who pay their salaries. Paradoxically however some pre-knowledge of the
likely results is essential if the scope of the study is to be adequately
defined at the outset. If one knows the result one wants and already has an
idea of the factors involved, then the scope of the investigation can be
'tuned' so as to limit the study to produce the required results.

By selecting a cohort that is not representative of The General Population,
the whole basis of the study is compromised. For example, within the group
who claim to be electromagnetically (hyper) sensitive, there will naturally
be variations in types of exposure (electric, magnetic, electromagnetic,
photo) and the degree to which they are affected. Each person's exposure and
sensitivity profile is unique. If the researchers aren't too fussy about who
they recruit into the study group then it may include some who only think
they are ES/EHS or for any number of reasons might like to be considered
sensitive. The effect will be to reduce the differences between the study
and control groups.

Conversely, if amongst the control group there are people who are ES/EHS but
do not realise it, then this too will have the effect of minimising the
differences between the two groups thus pointing towards no effect. Of
course the bigger question of where to recruit controls is a mute point now
that everyone is exposed to uncontrolled man-made electromagnetic radiation.

Another way results can be skewed is simply in their interpretation.
Thereafter, a call for more studies further perpetuates the status quo and
buys the perpetrators more time. With UK mobile phone revenues alone of over
a billion pounds a month and much more worldwide, a couple of million pounds
spent financing a study that will, in a number of years, find no adverse
effects, is money well spent.

Self selection on the part of the affected group will prevent the severely
ES, i.e. the EHS and those also light sensitive from attending. People will
also and quite naturally, tend to stay away from studies they do not trust.

Some of the reasons why people may choose not to participate in a
'scientific search for the truth'

1. They are too unwell to attend.

2. They cannot afford to attend.

3. They must subject themselves to the investigators protocol which they
believe and/or may actually put them in some danger.

4. They fear they may be unable to adequately control or escape the
environment around them.

5. They may take days to recover from either the travelling to/from or the
study exposure itself.

6. They fear they may be too unwell to return home and be trapped in a
hostile environment.

7. They may not trust the impartiality of the researchers, the study design
or the impact of their condition being represented fairly.

8. They do not trust the motives of the researchers or the purposes for
which the results will be used.

9. They may be made unwell by the testing procedure, the equipment used or
the environment in which the study takes place.

10. They do not believe confounding variables will be adequately controlled
for. For example the environment in which the study takes place may itself
be contaminated by EMR and/or chemicals, the controls may be contaminated
for example by mobile or cordless phone use prior to attending the study, a
mobile mast or Wi-Fi installation nearby or the Facilities themselves may
make the results confounding.

11. The journey to the study and the environment in which it takes place may
make the EHS more sensitive and less able to cope.

12. Some EHS suffer delayed onset or increased latency, only developing
symptoms after they have left the study environment.

13. Some EHS may react instantly whereas others may take hours, minutes or
days to react to the same stimulus. For the slow reactors, a study conducted
over a short period of time may inadequately reflect their condition. For
the fast reactors, they may rapidly become overwhelmed by the study's
exposure protocol.

14. People disabled by EHS, like other disabled people are vulnerable. By
necessity, many lead isolated and very private lives and the cost to them of
their personal vulnerability being more widely known in the present climate
of denial and obfuscation is seen as a risk they would rather not take.

Has there ever been a scientific or medical study into the adverse effects
of pulsed digital mobile phone radiation or other forms Electrosmog that
involved the EHS (who live with its effects every day) in its definition?

Would that be 'un-scientific'?

-----

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]