Abstract
Clinical research aiming at objectively identifying and characterizing diseases via clinical observations and biological and radiological findings is a critical initial research step when establishing objective diagnostic criteria and treatments. Failure to first define such diagnostic criteria may lead research on pathogenesis and etiology to serious confounding biases and erroneous medical interpretations. This is particularly the case for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and more particularly for the so-called “provocation tests”, which do not investigate the causal origin of EHS but rather the EHS-associated particular environmental intolerance state with hypersensitivity to man-made electromagnetic fields (EMF). However, because those tests depend on multiple EMF-associated physical and biological parameters and have been conducted in patients without having first defined EHS objectively and/or endpoints adequately, they cannot presently be considered to be valid pathogenesis research methodologies. Consequently, the negative results obtained by these tests do not preclude a role of EMF exposure as a symptomatic trigger in EHS patients. Moreover, there is no proof that EHS symptoms or EHS itself are caused by psychosomatic or nocebo effects. This international consensus report pleads for the acknowledgement of EHS as a distinct neuropathological disorder and for its inclusion in the WHO International Classification of Diseases.
Highlights
Two of us—referred below as members of a “French research team”—recently published scientific evidence that electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a distinct and objectively characterized neurologic pathological disorder, which can be diagnosed and treated using molecular biomarkers and imaging techniques [1]
Using different imaging techniques, including ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography (UCTS) [49,50], transcranial Doppler of the middle cerebral arteries [1] and functional magnetic resonance imaging [47], it was shown that EHS is associated with brain neurovascular dysfunction, even with potentially neuronal lesions, primarily involving the temporal lobes—most the limbic system as well as other parts of the brain [47,49,50]. These data, which have been recently analyzed in a review of EHS-associated pathophysiological mechanisms [68], show the path to follow if we want to learn more about EHS and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), understand their pathophysiological molecular signature, and—most of all—if we want to determine efficient treatment and prevention methods based on rigorous scientific data
As far as research on EHS is concerned, it appears today that there is a gap between scientists who practice medical research aimed at objectively defining EHS as a pathological disorder and those who believe that provocation tests, either in the laboratory or in humans, are best to support causality for electromagnetic fields (EMF)-related environmental intolerance and etiology
Summary
Two of us—referred below as members of a “French research team”—recently published scientific evidence that electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is a distinct and objectively characterized neurologic pathological disorder, which can be diagnosed and treated using molecular biomarkers and imaging techniques [1]. 2021, 22, 7321 called “public health research”, mainly consisting of comparative epidemiological studies in addition to experimental toxico-biologic data, to assess the causes and consequences of diseases at population level. Sci. 2021, 22, 7321 called “public health research”, mainly consisting of comparative epidemiological studies in addition to experimental toxico-biologic data, to assess the causes and consequences of diseases at population level In this scientific consensus report, first, we emphasize how different these two complementary medical research domains are, and second, we explain why confusing the objective of these two different research approaches leads to scientifically unfounded claims, as is presently the case for environmental sensitivity illnesses, more for EHS
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
