how relevant is EMF to ME/CFS?

[keenly]

if you asked a jury whether a horseless carriage powered by lamp oil could drive at 100 mph, you'd have been laughed of the courtroom. If juries could decide science, we would have had modern biology 2000 years ago - just get a jury together and they could correctly decide all scientific questions. The glyphosphate trial had a sympathetic plaintiff, an unsympathetic defendant, scientific jury selection and the finest actor/lawyers an eight figure payoff can buy.

"You say there's no evidence of a causal relationship between EMF and symptoms, but if you watch this episode (a real eye opener), it becomes clear that corruption of science is rampant at the NIH"​

The conclusion "EMF causes any specific disease" does not follow from the condition "a government agency is fully or partly corrupt". There is zero, none, not a mite of connection between the two. If you believe that X government agency is corrupt, something that is possible in all human enterprise, one can at most conclude that "statements of government agency X are not, by themselves, enough to trust conclusion Y."

Regarding EMF, you don't specify what type of EMF and how much.
Do you mean that all EMF is the same, or that it is all equally harmful?
When you state EMF, do you mean the EMF from the
-- Earth's magnetic field, which we are exposed to 24/7/365?
-- UV-A?
-- UV-B?
Cosmic rays, as you can be exposed to if living above 14,000 feet or by working as airline on-board crew?
Gamma from carrying a lump of radium in your pocket?
Permanent magnets in a Prius?
Massive current used by a subway train?
or, the big one ...

standing in sight of the giant nuclear furnace we call the Sun?

Earths natural magnetic field is VITAL for our health. The sun is VITAL for your health. nnEMF causes cacium to flood into the mitochondria. Not good for you at all.
Read this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Body-Electric-Robert-Becker/dp/0688069711

Study this

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Pall-Letter-to-CalLegis-FINAL-8-7-17.pdf

We evolved to be in contact with earths natural magnetic field, under the sun with 1 part blue, 1 part red during the day.
What has changed in the last 2 decades?

 

[Wishful]

Keenly, when you state that something is vital or absolutely devastating, you should provide definitive peer-reviewed evidence to support those claims (a non-peer-reviewed book on amazon doesn't count). Otherwise, you should say that 'some people believe', which is the actual case. There are plenty of people who would disagree with your absolute claims, and provide strong evidence to the contrary.

 

[percyval577]

I am currently not able to recall my judgement at this interesting article, especially the first three columns!

Vajrala, Claycomb et al 2008. "Effects of oscillatory Electric fields on Internal Membranes: An Analytical Model."

 

[Wishful]

Impressive work, of potential use for studying cells. For effects of EMF on cells, it's less useful. I'm not sure how a 1V/cm field strength compares to exposure from a distant transmitter. Is it similar to a nearby cellphone? Is it similar to the field inside a microwave oven on high? Also there can be a big difference between a cell hold in position between metal plates and many cells jiggling around freely, so what is a significant effect on that single experimental cell may not be statistically significant on an actual body.

It's certainly not proof that normal levels of EMF's have significant biological effects on living organisms.

 

[keenly]

More evidence
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed...wMlmaars6Fp3M6R71UKjDSzggV35mylbJ0WPiTj_Uns18

 

[frozenborderline]

Quackwatch will also be biased however. I suspect it has a strong bais towards the mainstream positions on things. There are hundreds of studies suggesting harmful effects of nnEMF. Many of these are very recent studies. There are also hunderds of studies saying that nnEMFs have no effect. I do not think it is settled science at all, which seems to be the mainstream position on this.

I think the thing to do in these situations where there’s not a ton of evidence is to apply what Nassim Taleb calls the “precautionary principle” to not assume these hints are safe. There has to be a principle that allows for caution with novel tech while waiting for the longitudinal evidence to build up. It’s not scientific to assume new technology is necessarily safe before there are long term studies. We see this error a lot in terms of toxic chemicals, mutagenic stuff, and even toxic drugs/contrast agents , approved by fda and considered safe until we years later see the toxic effects. I’m not saying there’s a mechanism for emf sensitivity or toxicity I’m just saying it’s not unscientific to wait, and in fact I think any empiricist or skeptic should be able to recognize that novelty = less long term quality evidence of safety. This is not technophobic and is epistemologically sound position. *drops mic*. In the meantime what do the EMF believers think are good strategies to slightly limit exposure if u have to use sometimes

 

[frozenborderline]

Correction, Nassim Taleb didn’t invent the precautionary principle lol. He has written about it in regard to GMOs.

But it’s worth noting that it’s enshrined into law in the EU.

The main criticism of the precautionary principle is that it could hurt innovation if applied but I don’t consider that a valid criticism in the least. Of course if u applied it broadly enough, it could lead one to never create technology , never have an industrial revolution, etc. but since it’s a principle of risk /cost/benefit calculation, and inherently a statistical argument, it’s not a binary principle, not all or nothing. Everyone who refers to the peer reviewed science on this ought to consider that there was once peer reviewed science showing PCBs were safe, atrazine was safe, and all manner of toxins and radiation. If regulatory agencies and scientists were excellent at risk calculation there would be few historical examples of large scale environmental toxicity , drug recalls after they caused mass birth defects, etc.

Statistics is more important field to this argument than science and I see no evidence that most skeptics or scientists are particularly stats-literate nor that they are good at being agnostic (ironically, as the atheist Nietzsche pointed out, most atheists aren’t atheistic *enough* and most skeptics aren’t skeptical enough or toward their skepticism) on important matters. Furthermore I don’t see why heuristics that have served society well for awhile shouldn’t be relied on when there’s no body of evidence to suggest the calculability of risks. Heuristics are for when we don’t have evidence and need a simplified rule to figure things out. Folk knowledge is sometimes later validated by sophisticated statistical arguments as in this case. Incidentally there’s probably heuristics for when we should rely on heuristics—they don’t always work!! But this particular heuristic is a very simple application of enforced agnosticism on important matters.
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

 

[sb4]

In the meantime what do the EMF believers think are good strategies to slightly limit exposure if u have to use sometimes

I agree with what you say RE using caution and long term studies before implementing potentialy harmful technologies.

Well I know you don't have the money but for anyone else reading I bought 2 meters (back when I had money from working) that where about £100 each. To put it simply one reads the electric and magnetic fields put out from appliances connected to the mains/etc (so you can think of this as wired); the other reads "wireless" EMFs with a certain range of frequencies (so phonetowers wifi etc).

You don't really need these to do basic mitigation however. All I would recommend would be to keep a reasonable distance from anything powered through the mains. For example, my computers magnetic field drops off into background levels at just over an arms lenght away.

Second thing to do is either turn wifi off and used wired. Or if you have to have wifi, keep the router far away from you and also the computer reciever far away from you. The further the computer wifi reciever is from the router the harder it will pump out EMF in order to be heard however. Keep phone on standby when not in use, etc.

 

[frozenborderline]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/


https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Martin_Pall

 

[frozenborderline]

I agree with what you say RE using caution and long term studies before implementing potentialy harmful technologies.

Well I know you don't have the money but for anyone else reading I bought 2 meters (back when I had money from working) that where about £100 each. To put it simply one reads the electric and magnetic fields put out from appliances connected to the mains/etc (so you can think of this as wired); the other reads "wireless" EMFs with a certain range of frequencies (so phonetowers wifi etc).

You don't really need these to do basic mitigation however. All I would recommend would be to keep a reasonable distance from anything powered through the mains. For example, my computers magnetic field drops off into background levels at just over an arms lenght away.

Second thing to do is either turn wifi off and used wired. Or if you have to have wifi, keep the router far away from you and also the computer reciever far away from you. The further the computer wifi reciever is from the router the harder it will pump out EMF in order to be heard however. Keep phone on standby when not in use, etc.

How much of what jack kruse says ian nonsense and does he recommend any kind of shielding? I remember haidut saying that the cold thermogenesis thing was mostly bad if you are sick—something that may help already healthy ppl —are his books clearly written ?

 

[frozenborderline]

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21774
Here’s something on this subject published in nature , which is one of the most reputable journals

 

[sb4]

How much of what jack kruse says ian nonsense and does he recommend any kind of shielding? I remember haidut saying that the cold thermogenesis thing was mostly bad if you are sick—something that may help already healthy ppl —are his books clearly written ?

I think Kruse is right about a lot of things but I am not sure how right. As in, things that he says are a major deal might be a minor deal. I'm not smart enough yet to form a solid opinion however.

As far EMF his advice is to move away from it, last I checked. Of course turning off your devices. Problem is, there are only a few places you can move to get away, you need to be rich to do so, and those few places will probably have 5g masts soon anyway.

CT helped me in some ways harmed me in others. I gave it a real good go and never adapted. I think it can massively help people with some conditions, including some with CFS. I think a big problem is that I feel that my parasympathetic is super low, and one of the ways CT works is getting into parasympathetic heat burning thyroid mode. I was constantly shivering, miserable, and my sypathetic dominant symptoms got worse.

He has only released one book last I checked, which is pretty basic info and not worth it IMO. His blogs are the polar opposite. Very detailed, very confusing, and written in a style that is not conducive to learning. Listen to him on podcasts is where he is at his most understandable, so I would recommend this.

 

[frozenborderline]

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm