CHOOSING EFFECTIVE EMF PROTECTION SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATED

We often find that people who are beginning to become aware of the problem of electromagnetic wave pollution are faced with difficult questions when it comes to choosing effective protection against the possible damage to their bodies caused by
electromagnetic waves.

There is a wide choice of more or less serious devices on the electromagnetic protection market.

To give you a clearer idea, we’ve put together this mini guide to help you find your way through the forest of existing protection products.

Here we list the criteria that are absolutely necessary for a protection product to be taken seriously in its claims.

LEARN SOME TIPS TO DETECT SERIOUS FROM FANTASY HEALTH CLAIMS WHEN CHOOSING YOUR EMF PROTECTION

Choosing an EMF protection should be handled with cautiousness: you must resolve several questions that are not always obvious.

Your first research on internet will probably make you “land” on 2 different angles, or “points of view”.

• On the one hand, of course, you’ll find numerous “official reports” asserting that “there’s no problem with the waves”: you may then wonder whether those who publish such results are completely free from any conflict of interest.
• On the other hand, you will find the version of those who “sell by fear” and will try to scare you out.

The truth is fortunately neither “all white nor all black”: it is between the two extremes that you will find the truth.

The fact is that we cannot completely erase the thousands of serious studies that have demonstrated the existence of numerous health risks.

But, you don’t want either to explore thousands of scientific pages: so, here, we shall give you some advices to make a “rational decision”.

We imagine when you visit a site, the first thing you will look at is there “Science page”:
all EMF protection distributors have a “science page”. And if you read their pages, in most cases, you will have the feeling that it is serious, they did experiments, and it proved their technology is probably the best. So, to illustrate this point, we shall pick up one brand, that we shall not name, and you will see how an apparently “scientific” approach can turn to just “mean nothing”.

So, let’s look at the arguments from this “MY PERFECT EMF PROTECTION COMPANY”: we found 9 links to 9 studies.

A first requirement seems to be missing: Don’t you think that a serious company involved in research on the effect of electromagnetic fields on humans should start by demonstrating that EMFs have an impact on certain parameters of your health and that their technology can normalize them? You will notice that most companies specialized in this field do not do this: they directly propose solutions without demonstrating their biological effectiveness in real conditions: isn’t this strange?

If a study is done to show you that protection is effective for your health, well, it should always start by analyzing WHAT THE BIOLOGICAL IMPACT of EMF is on your body and what the effect of their technology is on this anomaly, right?

Without these criteria you can disregard EMF protections that do not meet this minimum requirement.

The second important consideration is: what must be studied in experiments?

First of all, it should be noted that there is no device on the market that can be used to assess the potential damage of EMFs: meters, etc. only give you an instantaneous intensity measurement over a range of frequencies.

But intensity is not the main and real problem: many studies show that low intensities can be more harmful than high intensities.

A protection device must not interfere with the electromagnetic fields emitted by your communication devices: it forces them to work outside their normal operating conditions, which can lead to overheating and emission peaks.

Your only worry is your body. What changes occur in your body? Why do you get migraines? Why do you experience tinnitus? Why is your immune system exhausted? The answers can only be found by medical research, using existing accepted biological parameters.

Too many people focus their attention on the “intensity of EMF”, or the frequency etc…

Before going into these technical considerations, you must come back to the real topic:

YOUR HEALTH!

If you suffer in any way from EMF exposure, it means that the waves have an impact on your health: somewhere in your body damage is done. This damage will often be indicated by what we call a “BIOLOGICAL MARKER”: it means simply something in your body that can be measured, that will decrease or increase due to the exposure to EMFs. So, if one company claims to fix this problem, they should clarify what biological markers they think the EMF is affecting, and they must prove that using their technology, this biological marker is corrected.

This is really what you want to know: “to evaluate the quality of a protective device against the biological effects of EMFs”.

So, what are the common markers of EMF stress?

There are a LOT of them, and we won’t go into detail here, because that’s a separate topic. There are many markers and many disturbances, but basically, the main imbalances caused by EMFs have to do with homeostasis*, that is how your cells are no
longer able to balance all their functions, and in particular, their intracellular concentrations of minerals, free radicals, hormones. (intracellular calcium, nitric oxide, melatonin production, R.O.S, cortisol, DNA stress (SRE / HSP 70)), etc…

But, to repeat, these studies are only of value if these markers are analyzed and compared.

Such experiments are not easy, and most of the time must be performed under strict medical control, like in hospitals or universities.

The assessment of appropriate biomarkers of electromagnetic stress is performed using blood, saliva, urine samples, and should be performed with the support of medical experts.

All scientific studies must be controlled: this means that it is not enough to carry out an experiment, write down the conclusions and publish it on the Internet: there is a protocol for checking these studies.

Peer-reviewed publications are strongly recommended when the author has a conflict of interest. This means that if the author of the experiment earns money if the study concludes positively, the risk of “conflict of interest” is high and the credibility low. It is therefore important that independent researchers review the scientific publication, verifying that all conditions have been met so that the experiment itself, the results and their interpretation are consistent, reliable and that the conclusions are not misleading.

Here are the points to check when evaluating the credibility of the claims of any product, supplement, or drug: their experiments must target biological markers and the results must be “peer reviewed” and published in current scientific journals (by publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, etc…).

The main advantage of having “peer-reviewed” articles is that the experts who accept the publication of these articles verify that, in your protocols, the tools you used to make your point are currently accepted practices in official science.

This is where most manufacturers’ experiments fail: too often they try to show results that are misleading, such as visual charts, but do not represent real “scientific evidence”.

Now, if your real concern is your health and the health of others; of your loved ones and family, it is almost like for a new drug, a new medicament on the market: you need to check for evidences of efficacy of the technology you are looking at, and you are entitled to interrogate the manufacturer.

You can ask them, before making your purchase:

• Have you done research and experiments?
• Were these results published?
• Was it verified by “peers”?
• Who are the experts? Are they official experts, working in hospitals or universities?
• Where are the papers published? (in what scientific journal?)
• Do the experiments target real biological markers, what markers, and what do these markers show?
• Who are the laboratories who participated in the analysis?

If the Manufacturer is not in a position to clearly and nicely respond to all of these questions, it does not say their technology is good or bad, but it tells you, at least, that they don’t really know if their device is of any real use. The only way to make such claims is to back them up with serious scientific publications.

We hope this short overview will be helpful and make you hesitate the next time you decide to buy such equipment.

*homeostasis: any self-regulating process by which biological systems tend to maintain stability while adjusting to conditions that are optimal for survival. If homeostasis is successful, life continues; if unsuccessful, disaster or death ensues. The stability attained is actually a dynamic equilibrium, in which continuous change occurs yet relatively uniform conditions prevail.

STUDY #1 : TESTING PROTECTIVE INFLUENCE ON PHYSIOLOGICAL HUMAN PARAMETERS AGAINST WIRELESS ROUTER RADIATION

Commentary: If the results and statistical calculations are right, it demonstrates a statistically significant positive effect on several physical parameters of the 15 people tested with notable improvements in several of these parameters. At first glance, there is no general criticism to be made of this study.

STUDY #2 : CAPACITY TO REVERSE THE NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECT OF CELL PHONE USE

Commentary: here, the number of people being tested is only 3 people which is of absolutely no value, considering also that the placebo effect is not assessed or ruled out.

STUDY #3 : SPROUTS TEST

Commentary: we can visually see the negative impact of Wi-Fi on the plant’s germination, but there are no relevant conclusions that can be transposed, as the metabolism of the plant kingdom is totally different from that of humans: this study provides no information on human health.

STUDY #4 : CASE STUDY ON ONE FEMALE and MALE

Commentary: even if this study “looks good”, the first thing you can see is the number of people tested is 2, so no serious conclusions could ever be drawn on a 2 person study… For this reason, it must be disregarded.

STUDY #5 : ELECTRODERMAL ON 1 PP

Commentary: As with studies #2 and #4 there are not enough people being tested. No objective rational conclusion can be made from 1 person using the Voll electro-acupuncture technique that is operator-dependent: meaning, the relative pressure and angle to measure the acupuncture point can be very much influenced by the practitioner’s subjectivity. No serious conclusion can be made and this technique is currently not accepted by academics. It too must be discarded.

STUDY #6 : RECLAIMING MOTHERHOOD STUDY

Commentary: again, a study can only prove efficacy and through a repeatable effect using a statistically significant group size. Here, on just one person, it cannot be taken seriously.

STUDY #7 : LIVE BLOOD ANALYSIS

Commentary: This study looking at the ROULEAUX effect has concerns again with only 3 participants, which isn’t statistically significant.

What can also be said about this technique is that on any blood slide from any person there will be areas with red blood cells in stacks and areas where there is no stacking.

It is quite possible for the manufacturer to show only the images that support what they want to prove, because there is no currently accepted way of quantifying this rouleaux effect.

According to the American Society of Hematology : “The stacking of cells (rouleaux formation) facilitates the rate of red cell sedimentation, a phenomenon that may be seen on a peripheral smear. The appearance of rouleaux may be artificially caused by a poor preparation of the smear or by viewing the slide in a thickened area.

Source: Rouleaux formation | Blood | American Society of Hematology (ashpublications.org)

Everything therefore depends on the choice of images according to the zone of the slide observed.

STUDY #8 : GDV Camera

Commentary: Again, a study with 1 participant. As before, studies with only one participant cannot claim to be a serious scientific study by definition. It must be discarded.

STUDY #9 : HRV TEST

Again, a single test of 5 minutes on one subject which has absolutely no scientific value.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this “Pseudo-scientific file”, 8 out of 9 studies cannot be considered a real scientific demonstration of efficacy for any technology.

Most parameters used are not recognized by the scientific community and the number of participants does not allow any kind of statistical analysis.

*Reminder: In the context of a clinical trial, double-blind means that neither the patients nor the researchers know who is getting a placebo and who is getting the treatment. If researchers do know who’s getting the treatment but the participants do not, it’s called a single-blind trial.

Placebo-controlled refers to a control group receiving a placebo. This sets it apart from studies that simply give participants treatment and record the results.

Thus, a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial is considered to be the gold standard medical study involving human participants in which neither side knows who’s getting what treatment, and a placebo is given to those in a control group. This cannot be done with a single participant, in which case all such trials must be disregarded.

So, after this overview of the important parameters to check, we hope you’ll have a clearer picture of the questions to ask yourself before purchasing an effective protection system.