Now you're talking about induced electric fields, which would be unaffected by grounding. An alternating magnetic field would induce a voltage across the body, which you could measure head to toe or left hand to right hand or whatever, but that wouldn't be affected by changing the potential to ground, which would be a separate measurement. BTW, the '1-6V' limitation is meaningless, since induced voltage can vary from zero to whatever the magnetic field can manage, which might be kilovolts or more.
No, magnetically induced voltage wouldn't change the number of electrons in the body, it would just impose a force on them. Moving electrons in one direction is what causes a voltage difference (more in one direction than in the other).
Nope, charge on a body, negative or positive, does not affect magnetic induction. Take a wire connected to a voltmeter and move a magnet past it, and you'll see a voltage induced. Now repeat with the wire also connected to a different voltage with respect to earth ground. It doesn't matter whether the wire is megavolts positive or negative respect to ground, the voltage induced across the wire (or human body) doesn't change. So no, grounding does not protect you from induced voltage.
No, the EMFs are not increasing body voltage; they're altering the electric potential across those tiny channels. As with the wire in the example above, grounding won't affect that. The channels or the cells are effectively tiny wires which a changing magnetic field can induce voltage in.
Thank you for your detailed response. I'm certainly not an expert, so I really appreciate the debate. Let me this time back my assertions with scientific literature and let me know if and where my arguments are flowed. Let me also not go through each point, but instead to focus on the possible mechanism of action of grounding:
0. EDIT: I'm just adding this study I just found in order to put all the info together.
This study demonstrates that you can give electrons from an electric current to a bacteria, and that these electrons will be used as a source of energy by the mitochondria.
They find that the electrons given from the electric current reduce NAD+ into NADH, and NADH is known to in turn reduce oxidized glutathione. So, here we have a plausible pathway to actually take electrons from the earth and give them to free radicals, via glutathione.
Could you pleases explain why this process is not possible in humans? What's the difference?:
(...) This work demonstrates that cathodic electrons enter the electron transport chain of S. oneidensis when oxygen is used as the terminal electron acceptor. (...) The possibility of these cathode-derived electrons entering the cellular electron transport chain (ETC) was investigated (...) the interaction of cathodic electrons with the cellular electron transport chain, specifically in protein components that interact with protons (i.e., the bc1 complex and complex I), is supported by this work (Table 1). Combined with evidence from electron transport chain inhibitor studies (Fig. 2 and 3) and ATP quantification (Fig. 4), these data strongly suggest the generation of proton motive force and subsequent utilization for cellular processes under aerobic and cathodic conditions.(...)
1. Low and high frequency EMFs causes free radicals in the tissues, and because free radicals are positive ions (they lack an electron in the valence orbit), this means that EMFs cause oxidation of tissues, or in electric terms, we can say that EMFs induce an excess of positive charges:
(...) Exposure to EMF has been observed to cause increased free radical production in the cellular environment. (...) EMF disrupts the chemical structures of tissue since a high degree electromagnetic energy absorption can change the electric current in the body . (...) Although non-thermal effects do not raise the body temperature sufficiently to impair the structure of tissues, their effects can still be seen as an increase in free radical production in tissues . EMFs, no matter where they occur in the frequency spectrum, are reported to causes a rise in levels of oxygen free radicals in an experimental environment in plants and humans (...) Excessive elevation in ROS levels is an important cause of oxidative damage in lipids and proteins and nucleic acids (...)Low frequency (0–300 Hz) and RF (10 MHz–300 GHz) EMF has also been reported to alter the permeability of the blood–brain barrier (...)
2. Given the point 1, there's no doubt that tissues are affected by EMFs, so the effect of 50 Hz Ac EMFs is not only limited to the skin as you pose.
3. The Earth has a negative voltage compared to us because it has more negative charges:
(...) Earth's surface possesses a limitless and continuously renewed supply of free or mobile electrons. The surface of the planet is electrically conductive (except in limited ultradry areas such as deserts), and its negative potential is maintained (i.e., its electron supply replenished) by the global atmospheric electrical circuit [1, 2].(...)
4. The whole body is a conductor.
5. When a conductor touches a charged surface, electrons are going to move from the pole of lower electrical potential to the point of highest potential (this is basic electricity I guess...). For example, if you connect a neutral copper wire to the negative pole of a battery in an open circuit, the wire will equalize to the same potential of the negative pole, and for this to happen electrons will move from the negative pole to the wire until the whole copper wire is charged at the same potential.
6. Given the point 5, If the body touches the ground, electrons will flow from the ground to the wire. Individual electrons obviously move very slowly, but the charge they represent as a whole will move at the speed of light.
7. Now, I think that taking the above points into consideration, it makes sense to hypothesize that when grounded, positive charges of the body can get neutralized by the electrons coming from the earth, meaning that free radicals can be neutralized.
8. Ok, you say this is not possible. Please let's going to analyze the study where grounding increases the negative charges of the RBCs:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22757749/#:~:text=Results: Earthing or grounding increased,reduces blood viscosity and clumping
The red blood cells have, like all cells, a given membrane potential, that is determined mainly by the number of charges of the lipids in the membrane. When you apply a free radical such as H2O2 to the medium containing RBCs, this free radical will oxidize the lipids of the membrane, literally stealing electrons from them, making the membrane less electronegative:
(...) These studies have shown that hydrogen peroxide causes a stiffening of the membrane and reduction in elasticity but these mechanical changes are believed to arise mainly from oxidation-driven formation of haemoglobin–spectrin complexes  with only a limited effect on the membrane lipid bilayer itself. The imposed rigidity of the cytoskeleton means that any reduction in cross-sectional area of the membrane lipids that arises due to the partial lipid oxidation (...) Exposure of the cells to 0.4 mM hydrogen peroxide caused ψd to decrease by 13 (± 8)% at the centre of the cell and 8 (± 5)% at the edge (...)
This makes RBCs to repel less from each other, and cause clumping of RBCs. This can be calculated as the Z potential of RBCs, and when grounding, the negative charges of the RBCs membrane increases 2.7 folds.
Don't you think that this phenomenom could easily be explained by the earth giving negative charges to RBCs when grounding?
How else could you explain this?
9. Finally, I understand that AC EMFs just move the body charges back and forth. But this process disrupts many molecules leading to the creation of positive charges or free radicals as stated above.
Ok, sorry for the long message and thank you again for the debate!