While I would dispute the motives Wessely attributes to people who claim to have mcs and electromagnetic sensitivities, these conditions do not exist. There are numerous studies that back this statement.
Why do I mention the above? Not to necessarily get into a debate about MCS and EMS but to show that since these conditions are not recognized by medical science, this puts less credibility on Martin Pall and is possibly why his letter was rejected.
It seems people, IMHO, are way too quick to find any criticism of Wessley. When we pick on everything Wessely does, it's like the boy who cried wolf. People will dismiss any of our points. We need to prioritize our criticism and maybe this topic is one of those priorities, I don't know. I am not a defender of Wessely s work but at what point do we start getting diminishing returns when we criticize him?
Can we access Wessely's full paper? I would feel more comfortable about expressing my opinions after getting as much information as possible. My opinions are flexible depending on what data is available.
If anyone is interested in some of the science the following is a good source of information. I will add more if/when I have the energy.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...-health-effects-of-electromagnetic-radiation/
Barb
And the point is….?
What is it exactly these researchers set out to show/prove/disprove beyond their oh so limited study guidelines in & of themselves? In an undefined x- environment with a buttload of y-variables they know not of, z doesn’t happen (the way they think it should transpire, if, in fact, z ever did transpire in the manner the ill tried, apparently without success, to get someone, anyone, donning a labcoat, to believe). So, if z doesn’t transpire via the aforementioned set, but if so, sorta maybe, well, ding,
questionable. Anyone else hear “Neener!”
a systematic review
Can we assume “Meta-analysis” by the words “systematic review”? And the qualifications of said analysts are? Which countries were represented? What protocols were observed across the board and verified by who in order to validate this review as “systematic”?
Psychosomatic Medicine
The focus of the journal is clear via its title. Just sayin’.
31 double blind studies
And the 31 studies were financed by? And the protocols were? And they were all replicas? And the study sample patients trucked in from where? A newspaper ad? Which newspapers? Online ad? The possibilities boggle the mind. How samples were recruited and with what words and tone? Were they paid? How much? Did any have EMF already? Yes? No? How did researcher bias as studies took place affect contributing subjects’ verbal and physical responses? The size of each study? Who specifically set the protocols for- then observed and ensured compliance with- each and every study? WHAT was asked of the subjects? For the love of….
double blind
By this juncture in the paragraph, I’m smelling a rat. Call me crazy, but “Double-blind is a hyphenated compound considered a single word…” Please, please, Herr researchers, have exercised more astute attention to detail in the actual studies than this, this… wicky dealie, ‘K, thx.
24 of the studies found no effect
Studies don’t stand up in lab coats. People do. Paging Dr. Study… to the ER STAT.
Patients couldn’t tell the difference.
Sorry, WHAT ptns? The ones who think they already HAVE the condition? How precise is the knowledge regarding each subjects’ overall health, genetic background, race, gender, age, and all other variables that can serve as factors regarding sensitivity to a real or sham substance? Really, who has time or inclination to show up to get potentially EMFed?
some study subjects
Again, protocols. What info. specifically was solicited from study subjects? And that “some” is so precise I want to stick a needle in my eye so I’d never have to see the word again.
on subsequent
IN
trials by the same researchers
No, really? I mean,
rilly? The
same researchers. Just, no.
Use.
different. researchers. My god, someone had to say that aloud.
difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms
WHAT? Let’s break this down:
difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to EMF can trigger these symptoms… "difficult" via YOUR STUDY. Hello, variables? QED: Unless EMF sensitivity presents in the sole chosen acceptable way in order to validate or invalidate both its existence AND trigger point in subjects, wail, heck, Doc Faustus, that thang don’ be. How “trigger” at all correlates to the conclusion EMF exposure is not “triggered” in and of the thing itself under any other circumstances/places/times/genetic heritages/… why not add
Solar System OriginationPoints here… because researchers, what? Waved some under a nostril? What,
please, makes this real Science?
There is too much.... (don't curse, now) left. Here. Floundering. Too many words, lines, lacks but I’ve lost interest in this delicious NAÏVETÉ.
I have CFS & I got it how I got it. It’s not in my head. You have CFS. You got it how you got it. It’s not in your head. Call it M.E. Whatever. One diagnosis I will not accept is Sheeple. Nor should you, out there, if you have EMF.
It’s morning in America, in still so many ways, as I reach for a Xanax then head to bed. Cue the clapping & jeering.
And I
don’t even know what EMF stands for. >note to self: Googleacronymlater.