Betreff: Essex Study

Von: Mast Sanity

Datum: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 22:49:01 +0100

Dr George Carlo has released the following comments as his reaction to the
Essex EHS study in absence of the results findings:
 
He has suggested that we circulate these comments widely prior to the release
of the study at 10.30am in London, UK on 25.7.07.
 
 
 
'The following comments relate to the interpretation of the results of the
Essex study.
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 was 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 identified.....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 and bias toward the null.
2.  The other key is that depending on the severity of the
hypersensitivity...and that in large part is related to the points raised
above....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 -- 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 -- for this response,
there is no threshold.  Thus, in the Essex study, the provocation exposures
would have needed 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 --
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 -- 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 don't believe that a precise enough
definition of the conditions in the patients recruited to allow for proper
controlling.  We don't believe that the exposure provocations were defined
well enough in terms of EMR effect windows and the likely pathological
pathways triggered by the provocations. 
Because of the imprecision in the measurements in the Essex study, any
findings showing 'no effect' are likely false negative or the result of the
study not being able to pick up the real underlying pathology.  Any finding
showing an 'effect' is likely an underestimation of the actual effect
because the study is biased toward the null or 'no effect' finding.'
___________________
Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004
www.sppionline.org 
202-756-7744