[Masts] Blood boil

Betreff: Blood boil

Von: Mast Sanity

Datum: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:43:21 +0100

This really is getting too much!

Enough to make your blood boil!

Goldacre really on the attack with all guns blazing!!

Updated with lobby feedback - A thought experiment for the

electrosensitivity lobby July 24th, 2007 by Ben Goldacre in powerwatch -

alasdair philips, electromagnetism, bad science | The electrosensitivity

lobby are famously selective about the evidence they quote. They simply

ignore the large body of data finding that electrosensitivity symptoms are

not worsened by e-m waves, and they selectively quote only data which

supports their hypothesis, in a pattern which can be seen throughout the

internet.

I fear this may mislead their readers, and so here is a modest proposal.

On Wednesday, the results of yet another provocation study will be

published. Even before its publication, this is already a famous study. It

has been discussed on the internet among the electrosensitivity community as

a valid study. There has been much written about the methodology, and

prominent memebrs of the campaign have discussed their experience in it.

Most famously, the results of one subject have already been described as

positive in the recent and spectacularly flawed Panorama program on Wi-Fi.

So my question is to all the campaigning groups, Pow£rwatch, Ala$dair

Philips (who sells these but hates this), Electrosensitivity, Rod Read,

George Carlo, Panorama, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Independent, and

more.

Will you commit, here and now, before the study is published, to cover these

results, regardless of whether they support your hypothesis or not?

And most crucially, will you make your criticisms of the methodology - will

you decide if you think the methods represented a fair test or not - here

and now, today, before the results are known?

It is a modest proposal, and would make for an interesting experiment. I

look forward to reading posts discussing the methodology on each of your

respective websites, some time between now and Wednesday morning.

www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/EHS/pages/phase%202_1.htm

Update:

My personal prediction is that tomorrow, although there have been well over

30 negative provocation studies already - and god knows how many

electrosensitivity scare stories - tomorrow will bring a new era in proper

news coverage of provocations studies. The results of this research will be

discussed in the media, and the electrosensitivity lobby such as Ala£dair

Philips will not be able to deny its existence. At best there will be a

sensible discussion of the methodology, instead of the results simply being

swept under the carpet.

This will be an absolute first for the coverage of this subject, and I think

the joyous outpouring of mockery that surrounded the ludicrous Panorama

documentary on the subject is in no small part responsible. To me this is a

classic example of overstretch: when the claims of aggressive lobbyists

become too prominent, and are covered too widely, they cease to fall beneath

the radar: eventually they are assessed not just by favoured, friendly,

credulous correspondents, but also by the wider community of journalists,

which contains a fair few clear thinkers.

I do not expect Panorama to cover this story in their ½following up previous

stories… slot.

Nothing from Rod Read of Electrosensitivity sadly.

A cracking press release from ½Mast Sanity½, who I often forget to mention,

because theyre so rabid, but that of course is quite wrong:

www.badscience.net/?p=466#comment-15012

Alasdair Philips of Pow£rwatch (bespoke detectors and beekeeper hats

available at very reasonable prices, and cheap for the BBC) says:

Although we have been involved before the project began and helped design

the exposure system for the experiments, we cannot possibly comment on the

methodology or anything else until we read the full paper tomorrow. The

analysis of the results will be key, and we have no early insights into

what, if anything, that will show.

He would say no more, although I sent him details of the exposure as

described by the team publicly already, but he has personally assured me in

an email that they will be covering this research on their website, whether

it supports their hypoth£sis or not. This is a first, as they have routinely

ignored provocation studies that went against their hypothesis in the past.

Meanwhile George ½Andrew Goldacre… Carlo has also very kindly replied:

Here are my thoughts:

1. Based on what we have learned from our clinical experiences and the

symptoms reported by patients in our registry, a key to the integrity of the

Essex study is in how a sensitive person is defined at the outset. We

believe that the pathology of these sensitivities is cell membrane based,

but that the same pathology is present in conditions including multiple

chemical sensitivities, alcoholism, drug addiction, and neuro-behavioral

syndromes like ADHD and Autism. In addition, there appears to be a familial

predisposition component that involves inability to clear metals from the

system through methylation and an inability to adapt to oxidative stress.

Thus, the definition of patients selected in the Essex study is a key point.

And, in the analyses, it would be important to categorize the patients on

the severity scale in terms of these other conditions that have similar

underlying pathology. The point is that there is a continuum we are seeing

in terms of severity of effects, and the level of hypersensitivity to the

various types of EMR also scales along that continuum. Thus, without either

controlling for these other conditions statistically or through subject

category restriction, it is likely that associations that are present would

not be identifiedS..false negative findings because of imprecision in the

measurement of the dependent variables. That is one of the main difficulty

with the majority of provocation studies that have been done. Measurement

imprecision.

2. The other key is that depending on the severity of the

hypersensitivitySand that in large part is related to the points raised

aboveS.different EMR effect windows will have varying effects on the

persons being provoked with EMR. Thus, the EMR that is used in the exposure

scenario needs to be precisely defined as well. We know, for example, that

ELF operates through a field intensity dependent mechanism that exerts

direct magnetic effect on tissue (including disruption of gap-junction

intercellular communication) and thus the ensuing pathology. But there is a

threshold for ELF effects. RF has two different pathology mechanism

components: raw microwaves or RFR act through thermal mechanisms dependent

on field intensity Ð there is a thermal effects threshold; microwaves that

carry information from wireless devices act through a biological mechanism

that is triggered as a protective cellular response Ð for this response,

there is no threshold. Thus, in the Essex study, the provocation exposures

need to be defined along these effect windows, otherwise there is a likely

bias also toward false negative findings because of the lack of precison in

the measurement of the independent variables. For example, from what they

define, the question of base station ‘on or off is key. For the effect

windows of ELF and raw microwaves, ‘on or off would have an effect if there

was adequate field intensity to provoke the mechanistic pathways Ð in other

words to go above the threshold. However, for the information carrying radio

waves, there would have to be talking on the signal or there would be no

biological protective pathway triggered. It is the modulation associated

with the carried information that we now know triggers the non-thermal

effect pathways. So, without talking on the signal, the biological pathway

would not be triggered. The result in the study would be a false-negative

finding.

3. Overall, the electrohypersensitivity response is dependent then on the

severity of the patients cellular pathology Ð and that from all sources

including the conditions detailed in Number 1 above. The observed response

is also dependent on the mechanism that the EMR exposure provocation likely

will act through. At this point, we dont know how they defined the patients

recruited other than sensitive or not. We dont know what the exposure

provocations actually were in terms of EMR effect windows and the likely

pathological pathways triggered by the provocations.

In short, there is not enough information given in their explanation to

really know whether it was fair or not.

Hope this helps.

George

___________________

Dr. George L. Carlo

Science and Public Policy Institute

1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Ð 7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20004

www.sppionline.org

202-756-7744

This is excellent, and very good of him to take the time (although one might

argue that all that ½cellular… stuff is a bit of a smokescreen on the simple

issue of ½do the signals elicit the symptoms?…).

However, in the ½Mast Sanity… press release he is more up front:

As Dr Carlo, Safe Wireless Initiative and former Chairman of the US $28

million research programme into mobile phone research, says:

… Because of the imprecisions in the Essex study [4],[5], findings of ‘no

effect are likely to be false negatives in that the study was not designed

well enough to pick up all of the effects among the participants. … … Any

findings of ‘effect are likely underestimates of the true risk for the same

reasons of imprecision in the study design. …

Well fair enough.

All in all, this genuinely represents a new era in popular discourse on the

issue of electrosensitivity.

Bravo to all. Looking forward to the paper tomorrow morning.

del.icio.us Digg it reddit Google StumbleUpon Slashdot It!

28 Responses

1.

Ithika said,

July 24, 2007 at 9:03 am

Good luck with thatS

2.

Ben Goldacre said,

July 24, 2007 at 9:06 am

well, ive emailed rod read, alasdair philips, and george carlo. im hoping

theyll get back to me during today. its a pretty reasonable suggestion.

media characters especially welcome to post their plans before the results

are published too. its an interesting experiment in publication bias.

3.

shpalman said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:01 am

Where is it going to appear?

4.

Ambrielle said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:56 am

At best, youll get a positive response from the quacks, who will then

proceed to ignore negative results after the study comes out.

5.

Ambrielle said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:58 am

^^Sorry, negative in terms of their interests.

6.

pseudomonas said,

July 24, 2007 at 11:25 am

What, if any, are *your* criticisms of the methodology?

7.

Karellen said,

July 24, 2007 at 11:31 am

Interesting. Do you have a link to the methodology used?

I was under the impression that generally the methodology and results for a

given study were published in the same paper, kind of implying that the

methodology is not revealed until the results are.

If it doesnt quite work that way, how does it work?

8.

Ben Goldacre said,

July 24, 2007 at 11:48 am

v briefly: this is known

more is about on the net elsewhere

http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/EHS/pages/phase%202_1.htm

9.

Kells said,

July 24, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Good plan Ben - I like it. They will ignore you and when the results

disagree with them they will bluster their way round them. just like the

Observer did with its rubbish ½clarification… on autism when faced with the

truth.

10.

bootboy said,

July 24, 2007 at 2:38 pm

But what if it turns out that the results are positive?

Will we get bad-science branded tinfoil hats?

11.

dbhb said,

July 24, 2007 at 3:03 pm

I predict that, if they answer at all, they will dismiss the research

methodology as inadequate, for one reason or another, just to be ‘on the

safe side.

12.

le canard noir said,

July 24, 2007 at 3:14 pm

You would think that they would comment as anyone with half a brain could

make this a win win scenario. Make sure you get some legit crit in first

(and there is undoubtedly lots of scope) and away you go - positive result,

winner, negative result, told you so.

I have a nasty feeling that their expectations are high for this one. But I

would not be so sure.

13.

Zoomin said,

July 24, 2007 at 4:25 pm

On a bit of a side note, i saw this article on the Imperial College website

that mentions increased chances of infections developing in people who are

exposed to intense electrical fields. I know its not the same thing as

those who claim to feel worse the moment a field is switched on, but i

thought it was interesting nevertheless.

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/ne

ws_20-7-2007-15-52-57?newsid=14854

14.

raygirvan said,

July 24, 2007 at 4:46 pm

I know its not the same thing as those who claim to feel worse the moment a

field is switched on Its also about electrostatic charge - big static

fields that make airborne guck stick to you the way VDU screens get dusty -

not electromagnetic radiation.

15.

johnmccrae said,

July 24, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Do you intend to reference Jonathan Swift by saying ½a modest proposal…, as

his modest proposal was far from it. Anyway, lets wish that these

electro-sensitivity people would follow your adviceS but lets not count on

it.

16.

Ben Goldacre said,

July 24, 2007 at 8:46 pm

press release just in.

good to see ½Mast Sanity… wading in with their mast sanity.

Mast Sanity Press Release 24th July 2007 MTHR Essex University Study The

results of the Industry and Government funded Mobile Telecommunications and

Health Research Programme (MTHR) study … to investigate whether emissions

from mobile phone base stations can elicit a variety of symptoms in those

exposed to them … [1] run by Professor of Psychology Elaine Fox at the

University of Essex [2] is to be published on Wednesday 25th July at the

Science Media Centre.

Firstly we should state that we dont know why this research is being done

by psychologists as there is already evidence showing changes in the

important mast cells in human skin upon exposure to microwaves [3] .

This Essex study will not be able to give us any insights into the long term

effects such as cancer and genetic damage as has been highlighted in other

research and so we think is just tinkering at the edges.

In doing this research one is subjecting the volunteers to harm. As such

this research is unethical. We know of at least one person who had to stop

doing it because it made him so unwell. Lab tests have already identified

disruptions to the immune system, surely if this were a drug we would not go

on to do further tests on human subjects as there is already enough

evidence?

Some subjects of the study were sent summaries showing 90-100% ability to

identify the 3G(UTMS) and 2G (GSM) signals from the SHAM (No signal)

conditions without prior knowledge of which was which. Additionally,

physical markers such as anxiety was 2-4 times higher, tension and arousal

1.5 times higher, discomfort 4-6 times higher and fatigue 3.5 - 5.5 times

higher under the 2G and 3G signals. Clearly these individuals experienced

real effects, not psychological problems.

Yet being unable to complete the study has led to the exclusion of these

individuals from the results, we believe.

As Dr Carlo, Safe Wireless Initiative and former Chairman of the US $28

million research programme into mobile phone research, says:

… Because of the imprecisions in the Essex study [4],[5], findings of ‘no

effect are likely to be false negatives in that the study was not designed

well enough to pick up all of the effects among the participants. … … Any

findings of ‘effect are likely underestimates of the true risk for the same

reasons of imprecision in the study design. … We also do not know how much

of a part has been played by the so-called ‘Wessely School of psychiatry in

separate earlier comparable studies with sufferers from farm Organophosphate

Poisoning, Gulf War Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME / CFS) [6] .

In each case the researchers conclusion was that each condition was just a

case of unfounded mental anxiety, which would be relieved by their form of

psychotherapy and exercise. This in spite in every case findings of physical

evidence of nerve system damage. In the case of electrosensitivity studies

undertaken in Sweden are able to pinpoint the sort of damage that sufferers

endure [7] .

Mast Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says ½Isnt it time that the

Government woke up to the reality of electrosensitivity instead of

attempting to persuade sufferers that it is all in their minds?… ½History

has shown that many now commonly accepted physical conditions were initially

dismissed as psychological, with the patients subjected to all kinds of

tests and quack remedies.… ½Electrosensitivity has been recognised by medics

in Sweden since 2000, and its government calculates 3.1 per cent of its

population - 200,000 people - suffer from the condition. In fact this figure

has more recently been revised upwards to nearer 9%. That is an awful lot of

people.… ½This study has been such a waste of money. The World Health

Organisation already recognise electrosensitivity [8] . Why was the money

not used to translate the 1500-subject Russian long-term epidemiological

studies into English?… Mast Sanity reiterate their call on the Government to

stop talking and start doing something. The UK should adopt the

Precautionary Principle and halt the roll-out and proliferation of microwave

transmitters of all types. If the new Brown Government is serious about

protecting public health then they will readily accept our recent request

for urgent talks and take action. Too many lives have been blighted or

completely ruined already.

END .

The Mast Sanity Press Office can be contacted on 08704 867 807 .

Notes and References:

[1] http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/EHS/pages/MTHR%20press%20release.htm

[2] EMH Lab:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/EHS/pages/emh%20lab%20launch1.htm

Professor Fox Profile:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/psychology/psy/PEOPLE/fox/foxResearch.html

[3] http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/olle_johansson.pdf

[4] Previous electrosensitivity studies:

http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/Travesty.htm

[5] The electrosensitive volunteers degree of electrical sensitivity and

sensitivity to other environmental factors such as chemicals and heavy

metals combined with imprecise measurements has invalidated the results from

many previous so-called ½provocation… studies (see [4] above) . With only 56

electrosensitive volunteers the sample in the Essex study is certainly not

large enough to even out the degree of sensitivity.

Electrosensitive people are not all sensitive to the same frequency ranges,

so the use of only two ranges for 2G/GSM and 3G/UMTS, might not trigger a

response in some genuinely electrosensitive volunteers. Also multiple

research studies have found that using empty ½carrier… signals without

speech or data does not trigger the ½biological pathway… that a non-empty

signal does. The Essex study appears to use ½scaled… signal strengths, which

are unlikely to be realistic.

[6] Previous ½psychological… studies:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmhealth/503/503w

e79.htm

[7] Physical evidence of electrosensitivity (Search on ½You mention mast

cells in the skin…) http://www.feb.se/ARTICLES/OlleJ.html

[8] The World Health Authority recognises that EHS … symptoms are certainly

real and can vary widely in their severity ½. The WHO urges that

Governmentsshould provide appropriately targeted and balanced information

about potential health hazards of electromagnetic field to EHS individuals,

health-care professionals and employers. Ref: Fact sheet NÂ°296 December

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296

Contact List:

Please contact any of the following scientists for comment:

Roger Coghill

Admin: Joanne Strange

jo@cogreslab.co.uk

Dr Grahame Blackwell

Alasdair Philips

Powerwatch

Barry Trower

Ex government scientist and author of the TETRA Report for the Police

Federation

Dr med. Gerd Oberfeld

Salzburg Public Health Dept

Austria +43 06 62

Prof Olle Johansson

Karolinska Institute

Sweden +468 524

Dr George Carlo

Chairman,

Science & Public Policy Institute,

Washington, USA

Secretary Personal Mob

Voice mail: (202) 756-

Also you can contact the following Electrosensitive people:- Phil Watts

(took part in the Essex study) 01782 599 Andy Davidson (took part in the

Essex study) 01273 678 Karen Wren (applied to take part in Essex study)

01333 Brian Stein 01807 0 The Mast Sanity Press Office can be contacted on

08704 .

(Please See Attached Version in PDF/Acrobat format) Yours faithfully, Mast

Sanity Press Office

17.

bootboy said,

July 24, 2007 at 9:54 pm

You know, something makes me think that mast sanity have already arrived at

their conclusion and arent really interested in evidence.

18.

Ben Goldacre said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:06 pm

dude. i cant imagine what leads you to that impression. they look pretty

open minded to me.

19.

simongates said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Well, we should all be happy if the study shows that electrosensitivity is

real because they have told us what a load of rubbish it is, so we can

safely ignore that result.

20.

simongates said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:15 pm

I dont understand the repeated references by George Carlo and Mast Sanity

to ½imprecise measurements…. The subjects (in the ½electrosensitive… group

obviously) claim to have electrosensitivity. In the test they will have

symptoms or they will not. The question is whether there is an association

between their symptoms and the presence of electromagnetic radiation.

If nobody gets any symptoms at all obviously the experiment wont be able to

test the association. Probably the researchers have built into their design

something demonstarting that symptoms occur when sufferers know they are

being exposed to radiation.

21.

bootboy said,

July 24, 2007 at 10:37 pm

½Mast Sanity Spokesperson Yasmin Skelt says ½Isnt it time that the

Government woke up to the reality of electrosensitivity instead of

attempting to persuade sufferers that it is all in their minds?…… What makes

them so insultingly dismissive of people with mental illnesses and

psychological problems? Illnesses of the mind are very real and personally,

I cant think of too many pathogens that I wouldnt welcome into my body

before Id have something seriously wrong in my mind.

22.

dbhb said,

July 24, 2007 at 11:05 pm

Do I win a monkey?

23.

le canard noir said,

July 24, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Dr George $arlo also has a nice line products to compete with the likes of

Pow£rwatch.

http://www.mybiopro.com/BIOPROventionProgram.aspx?ID=internalbalance

A nice range of magic boxes to neutralise EMF in the home:

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=1166&ID=internalbalance

Some qlink pendant rip offs:

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=842&ID=internalbalance

and the compulsory vitamins.

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=1094&ID=internalbalance

It would be rather a shame if the electrosensitivity evidence started coming

back negative.

24.

jodyaberdein said,

July 24, 2007 at 11:18 pm

Sorry to be impatient. I was ready to sit back and watch this all pan out

when someone mentioned mast cells, and then ‘unethical cropped up as well.

I dropped Mast Sanity a line telling them my interest had been piqued:

was reading with interest your press release regarding the expected ‘Essex

Study results on electrosensitivity, having found them posted on Ben

Goldacres site:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=466

In this release you state ‘In doing this research one is subjecting the

volunteers to harm, and that therefore it is unethical. I wonder if you

could elaborate on why you consider it prima facie to be unethical, perhaps

with comparison to other large modern intervention trials? I am particularly

interested for example in whether you consider it to be unethical to persist

in studying the use of treatments which we know certainly cause some harm,

particularly I would be grateful if you could comment on trials of say

aspirin, statins and immunosupressant drugs.

I was also interested to note your comments on Rajkovic et al.: ‘evidence

showing changes in the important mast cells in human skin. I wonder if you

could provide clarification on which mammalian species the biopsies in the

studies given in the linked pdf were from. Certainly from my reading of Int

J Rad Biol 81, 7:491 it sould seem the authors were studying Wistar rats. I

wonder if you would care to elaborate on the implications of the statistical

testing results in this study, and the lack of randomization or blinding

protocol?

(needless to say all the numbers came back as NS). Ill let you know of any

response I get if it doesnt come direct here.

25.

jodyaberdein said,

July 24, 2007 at 11:23 pm

PS oops, actually there were 2/10 significant results overall from the

fishing trip. Could go on about multiple measures and defined end points but

itd be much better to wait for the reply.

26.

Dr Aust said,

July 25, 2007 at 12:34 am

Good digging, Le Canard.

For anyone interested, check the following verbals from the site - refers to

one of the cheapest of BIOPROs products, the US$ 34.95 BIOPRO Cell Chip:

http://www.mybiopro.com/BioProTemplate.aspx?ItemID=1450&ID=internalbalance

½Day in and day out, you may be exposing yourself to more stress than you

thought by simply using your Cell Phone, PDA or Bluetooth headset, etc.

Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted from these devices has been linked

to various stress-induced problems and illnesses and could very well be

compromising your health and well being. As a leader in the field of

bioenergetics, BIOPRO has introduced the BIOPRO Cell ChipTM, the most

advanced dual action technology designed to significantly address this

newest source of stress in our daily lives.

BIOPROs Cell Chip combines the benefits of two powerful, innovative and

scientifically substantiated technologies: BIOPROs patented noise field

nano-technology MRET (Molecular Resonance Effect Technology), and its

proprietary subtle energy innovation ERT (Energy Resonance Technology).

Individually and collectively, these cutting-edge technologies offer a

groundbreaking and effective way to deal with the cumulative stress

associated with living in todays electronic environment.… Not immediately

clear what you are supposed to do with the ½Cell Chip…. I wondered if you

were supposed to swallow it so that your body would repel the evil rays, but

since they sell it in multi-packs I think you must be meant to stick one to

each of your evil EMF emitting devices.

My scientific bullsh*t detector was ringing at the combination of

½nano-technology… with ½Molecular Resonance Effect Technology…, and the

following site about the latter speaks for itself:

http://www.honeycombtechnology.com/mret.html

This woeful (Woo-full?) site uses the classic ½bogus science… trick of

dragging in the names of some eminent real scientists, here Alfred Gilman

and (the late) Marty Rodbell, who won the Nobel Prize in 1994 for their

discovery of GTP-binding proteins (G proteins) and their role in signal

tranduction.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1994/

Needless to say their work had nothing whatsoever to do with ½resonance

effects…, or ½magic water….

27.

Jut said,

July 25, 2007 at 7:16 am

heh sounds like the excuses are flooding out from the EMS lobby before the

paper is even released.

Unfortunatly Ben I believe your prediction is either sarcasm or over

optimistic, I doubt this will see coverage in many national papers, if any.

28.

Despard said,

July 25, 2007 at 9:05 am

Cant find it on PubMed. Which journal?