Is Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Real?

Is Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Real?
4.31 (86.24%) 93 votes

There have been at least 46 studies involving more than a thousand people to see if those suffering from electrosensitivity are deluding themselves.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“During the past decade, a wide range of symptoms have been reportedly triggered by exposure to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” that emanate from cell phones during use, including “headache, nausea, dizziness, [and] fatigue.” “[T]he…news media has been promoting [this as] a new medical condition, called electrosensitivity, or electromagnetic hypersensitivity.” These “stories have been…driven [in part] by…people who claim to have detected a clear link between their own poor health and exposure to a specific electrical device,” which “can have major implications for a person’s quality of life and…health” and stress, not to mention problems in job and social situations.

To see how common this was, they sat college students down onto two big electromagnetic coils, and then went through a symptom checklist asking how they felt under both strong and weak electromagnetic field conditions. And, they did report neurological symptoms: headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue, and irritability, plus visceral symptoms, such as palpitations, muscle tension, nausea—though more under the weak field condition, abdominal pain, shortness of breath, and a little heartburn. They could feel it in their skin: crawly, cold, sweaty, and itchy feelings, and their sensory organs registered blurred vision, ringing in their ears, dry mouth, a little stuffiness, along with some other symptoms. “40 students [in all] asked to rate their symptoms during ‘sham,’ ‘weak,’ and ‘strong’ exposure.” But, in reality, it was all a sham. They weren’t blasted with any fields­—period. The coils seemed to be “connected to an impressive electric power supply with coloured lights” and everything, but they weren’t even really connected to anything under any of the conditions.

The study was titled “Polluted places or polluted minds?”—suggesting that those who claim to be experiencing these symptoms may be just deluding themselves. Before jumping to conclusions, though, you want to study people who actually suffer from the disorder. Twenty men and women who claimed they were “sensitive to cell phones” were put to the test. They reported a variety of symptoms upon exposure to cell phone radiation: all sorts of pains and sensations, dizziness, breathing difficulties. So, researchers sat them down in a chair with various active cell phones strapped near their head. And, boy, could they feel them, experiencing a variety of symptoms, but, ironically, they felt a bit worse with just like a bean bag dummy phone next to their head. “Contrary to definite expectations…,none of [the so-called electrosensitive] could [even] distinguish whether the cellular phones were [turned] on or off.”

And, that’s what nearly all such studies have found: “no evidence” that the symptoms are anything but “psychological” in nature, noting that those who claim such hypersensitivity tend to exhibit more obsessive-compulsive, hostile, phobic, and paranoid traits. So, the researchers changed the name. What used to be called “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” in the medical literature is now called “Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields,” an acronym that sounds like something straight out of Old MacDonald’s Farm. “Despite the conviction of I-E-I-E—MF sufferers that their symptoms are triggered by exposure to electromagnetic fields, repeated experiments have been unable to replicate this phenomenon under controlled conditions.” And, we’re talking 46 studies involving more than a thousand people who say they have it. But, when put to the test, when you put all the studies together, not only did they find “no [significant] impact” on any of the symptoms, “there was no evidence that subjects were [even] able to detect [the fields].”

Not a single person, ever? Well, there was this one study in which “[t]wo participants showed extraordinary performance,” guessing when the cell phone was on up to 97 times out of a hundred. I mean if that was just chance, that would be like the odds of being struck by lightning four times in a single year. But, “they failed to replicate the result” a month later. And, in science, if you can’t replicate something, it doesn’t exist.

So, why does this notion of hypersensitivity persist? Well, there is now an entire industry profiting off of various gizmos claiming to protect people, and the media seem to love the hypersensitivity story; yet, “[w]hy don’t journalists mention the data?” The media have tended to claim “research into this area has been neglected. But, the research has been done”—dozens of studies that appear to have been “systematically ignored by almost every single journalist covering the issue.” Blind “provocation studies” published in the peer-reviewed academic literature, and they’re almost all negative. I mean, you could argue that the evidence is nearly unanimous.

“So why doesn’t the media ever mention the data?” Perhaps they “leave it out” on purpose. Perhaps they’re just “incompetent,” and never looked it up. Or, maybe, they’re just suckered in by the snake-oil salesmen selling “insulating paint” and protective “beekeeper hats.” “Not only do these lobbyists” also conveniently fail to mention the dozens of studies, “they…viciously attack anyone who even dares to mention the data, accusing them of…denying the reality of [people’s] symptoms.”

No, no one is saying they’re making them up; the science just suggests that whatever the symptoms, the cell phones don’t appear to be the cause. And, hey, if you want to go there, one could just as “fairly argue” that those who are trying to sell these poor people a bill of goods “are themselves hindering better understanding” of their customers’ suffering.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Lynn Greyling via PublicDomainPictures.net. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“During the past decade, a wide range of symptoms have been reportedly triggered by exposure to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields” that emanate from cell phones during use, including “headache, nausea, dizziness, [and] fatigue.” “[T]he…news media has been promoting [this as] a new medical condition, called electrosensitivity, or electromagnetic hypersensitivity.” These “stories have been…driven [in part] by…people who claim to have detected a clear link between their own poor health and exposure to a specific electrical device,” which “can have major implications for a person’s quality of life and…health” and stress, not to mention problems in job and social situations.

To see how common this was, they sat college students down onto two big electromagnetic coils, and then went through a symptom checklist asking how they felt under both strong and weak electromagnetic field conditions. And, they did report neurological symptoms: headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, fatigue, and irritability, plus visceral symptoms, such as palpitations, muscle tension, nausea—though more under the weak field condition, abdominal pain, shortness of breath, and a little heartburn. They could feel it in their skin: crawly, cold, sweaty, and itchy feelings, and their sensory organs registered blurred vision, ringing in their ears, dry mouth, a little stuffiness, along with some other symptoms. “40 students [in all] asked to rate their symptoms during ‘sham,’ ‘weak,’ and ‘strong’ exposure.” But, in reality, it was all a sham. They weren’t blasted with any fields­—period. The coils seemed to be “connected to an impressive electric power supply with coloured lights” and everything, but they weren’t even really connected to anything under any of the conditions.

The study was titled “Polluted places or polluted minds?”—suggesting that those who claim to be experiencing these symptoms may be just deluding themselves. Before jumping to conclusions, though, you want to study people who actually suffer from the disorder. Twenty men and women who claimed they were “sensitive to cell phones” were put to the test. They reported a variety of symptoms upon exposure to cell phone radiation: all sorts of pains and sensations, dizziness, breathing difficulties. So, researchers sat them down in a chair with various active cell phones strapped near their head. And, boy, could they feel them, experiencing a variety of symptoms, but, ironically, they felt a bit worse with just like a bean bag dummy phone next to their head. “Contrary to definite expectations…,none of [the so-called electrosensitive] could [even] distinguish whether the cellular phones were [turned] on or off.”

And, that’s what nearly all such studies have found: “no evidence” that the symptoms are anything but “psychological” in nature, noting that those who claim such hypersensitivity tend to exhibit more obsessive-compulsive, hostile, phobic, and paranoid traits. So, the researchers changed the name. What used to be called “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity” in the medical literature is now called “Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields,” an acronym that sounds like something straight out of Old MacDonald’s Farm. “Despite the conviction of I-E-I-E—MF sufferers that their symptoms are triggered by exposure to electromagnetic fields, repeated experiments have been unable to replicate this phenomenon under controlled conditions.” And, we’re talking 46 studies involving more than a thousand people who say they have it. But, when put to the test, when you put all the studies together, not only did they find “no [significant] impact” on any of the symptoms, “there was no evidence that subjects were [even] able to detect [the fields].”

Not a single person, ever? Well, there was this one study in which “[t]wo participants showed extraordinary performance,” guessing when the cell phone was on up to 97 times out of a hundred. I mean if that was just chance, that would be like the odds of being struck by lightning four times in a single year. But, “they failed to replicate the result” a month later. And, in science, if you can’t replicate something, it doesn’t exist.

So, why does this notion of hypersensitivity persist? Well, there is now an entire industry profiting off of various gizmos claiming to protect people, and the media seem to love the hypersensitivity story; yet, “[w]hy don’t journalists mention the data?” The media have tended to claim “research into this area has been neglected. But, the research has been done”—dozens of studies that appear to have been “systematically ignored by almost every single journalist covering the issue.” Blind “provocation studies” published in the peer-reviewed academic literature, and they’re almost all negative. I mean, you could argue that the evidence is nearly unanimous.

“So why doesn’t the media ever mention the data?” Perhaps they “leave it out” on purpose. Perhaps they’re just “incompetent,” and never looked it up. Or, maybe, they’re just suckered in by the snake-oil salesmen selling “insulating paint” and protective “beekeeper hats.” “Not only do these lobbyists” also conveniently fail to mention the dozens of studies, “they…viciously attack anyone who even dares to mention the data, accusing them of…denying the reality of [people’s] symptoms.”

No, no one is saying they’re making them up; the science just suggests that whatever the symptoms, the cell phones don’t appear to be the cause. And, hey, if you want to go there, one could just as “fairly argue” that those who are trying to sell these poor people a bill of goods “are themselves hindering better understanding” of their customers’ suffering.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: Lynn Greyling via PublicDomainPictures.net. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

This is part of an extended video series on the effects of cell phone and Bluetooth radiation. Here are the others, if you missed any:

What does this have to do with nutrition? Nothing. It’s just me responding to requests to use our research team to dig into other controversial areas, like mammograms, where there are multibillion dollar industries pressing on the scales, making it hard to disentangle the truth. We’re doing what we can. Too bad there aren’t other websites like this to offer objective, evidence-based analyses on all the important questions in life. If you want to support our work, please consider donating.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

261 responses to “Is Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Real?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

    1. To researchers studying this:

      I don’t find sensitivity to EMF’s however I always had wired cable.

      Then had to turn the wifi on for visiting guest and her laptop. After she left, I called cable company and said ‘turn my wi fi back off’. I BELIEVED IT WAS OFF. After a couple of months, I noticed then when I walked past the box, I could feel a thicker texture of energy that was wrapping around my legs, (box was on the floor). It was like a filmy substance that seemed to build up over time. I kept ignoring it, but the ‘feel’ was definitely there.

      I realized my wifi must still be on! I called the cable company and it was!

      So, there is something. As I said, though, I’m not bothered by anything like that but i’m a psychotherapist and very tuned in to energy – I was amazed at this little scientific experiment. It was a very tangible feel that, as I said, seemed to build and collect over time around the box.

      Just an offering for any researchers reading this.

  1. Well, I guess I would be considered to have “Electrosensitivity”. When I was a teenager, I accidentally grabbed a frayed electric cord plugged into a 115V A/C outlet and got a powerful electric shock! The point of the story being, the media should differentiate between “Electrosensitivity” and “Electro-magnetic Hypersensitivity, two entirely different things, the way I see it.

    BTW, I enjoy the Dr Greger team delving into such topics as this, even though not directly related to nutrition. As Dr Greger says, there aren’t many websites that produce objective evidence-based analyses of most controversial topics.

    1. My brother also had an episode of “electric-field sensitivity” when he was about 7 years old. After learning that he could make an electromagnet out of a nail, a length of wire and a battery, he applied the well established principle of “if some is good, more is better”. He took his wire wrapped nail and plugged it into a wall socket in his bedroom… oh, I guess I should mention that we lived in Germany at the time an so he was tapping in to 220 V AC instead of the 115 V AC here in the States.

      There was a HUGE blue-white flash that I saw reflect of the walls down the hallway in my room and the lights in our bedrooms went out as he’d just burned out the fuse on the circuit!

      Happily, the good Lord looks after fools, drunkards and Democrats and my brother walked away unharmed but much more educated about the need to carefully handle AC circuits

      1. Nancy, Actually, it was more surprising than painful. It must have been a low amperage dose I received. Evidently, it’s the combination of high voltage, A/C current, and high amperage that causes the most harm. And you don’t want the circuit to enter one hand and leave the other. Fortunately, the circuit was through my thumb and fingers on the same hand. Afterwards, I was taught that when working with electricity, use one hand only! (Or big thick insulated gloves :-)

  2. Interesting. It reminds me of all the anti-statin enthusiasts who unwaveringly attack these drugs and emphasise side effects from their use including muscle pain. Anybody who points out the evidence refuting their claims is accused of being a Big Pharma shill or being part of a world wide conspiracy to hide the facts and sell more statins.

    The internet and YouTube are full of the shrill claims of such people that statins cause muscle pain, premature death and a host of other adverse effects (AEs). In fact of course studies have shown fewer deaths and fewer serious adverse events (heart attacks, revascularisation surgery etc) with statin use compared to controls. With the less serious event of muscle pain, however, there seems to be wide acceptane that this is a real pheomenon and a genuinely common side effect of statin use . However, it seems that when people aren’t aware that they are taking statins, they do not report greater rates of muscle pain eg

    ‘These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded.’
    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31075-9/fulltext

      1. That study refers to the relative effectiveness of specific brand name statins versus comparator drugs. It doesn’t address the issue of the effectiveness of statin drugs in preventing premature deaths,heart attacks, surgery etc.

        For critical scientific reviews of the effectiveness of statins, I’d suggest something lik the UK’s NICE Clinical Guideline 181
        https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181

        and eg the Cochrane Reviews
        https://www.cochrane.org/CD004816/VASC_statins-primary-prevention-cardiovascular-disease
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109707031890

        1. >>That study refers to the relative effectiveness of specific brand name statins versus comparator drugs.

          That’s not what it said. It said:

          “Published pharmaceutical industry–sponsored trials are more likely than non-industry-sponsored trials to report results and conclusions that favor drug over placebo.”

          1. If you read the paper in full, you will note that it says

            ‘Only trials which compared one statin to another statin or one statin to another type of drug were included.’

            1. I suspect that most trials of statins compare different types of statins against placebos. But the point was that the results depended on who funded the study.

              1. Yes although a number of trials did compare statins against no drug treatment and others compared the effects of statin use against the effects of use of other drugs, dietary modification etc..

                As for results depending upon who funded the study, this has been a hot topic of debate for many years but this meta analysis of 183 randomised controlled trials found

                ‘Conclusions Our analysis shows that the findings obtained from industry sponsored statin trials seem similar in magnitude as those in non-industry sources. There are actual differences in the effectiveness of individual statins at various doses that explain previously observed discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored trials.’
                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4184241/

                National health authorities and medical associations all around the world that have reviewed the evidence, seem in agreement that statin use in appropriate target groups delivers benefits that significantly outweigh the adverse effects. For example, the UK’s clinical guidelines on this paid particular attention to the cost effectiveness of statin prescribing since approved drugs are heavily subsidised by the UK Government. If there were real doubts about the effectiveness of these drugs, the UK Government would be delighted to save the cash currently spent on subsidising statin use by withdrawing their approval status. .
                https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181

                1. So your claim that all the adverse effects were bogus was false. Agreed.
                  Yes although a number of trials did compare statins against no drug treatment and others compared the effects of statin use against the effects of use of other drugs, dietary modification etc..

                  As for results depending upon who funded the study, this has been a hot topic of debate for many years but this meta analysis of 183 randomised controlled trials found

                  ‘Conclusions Our analysis shows that the findings obtained from industry sponsored statin trials seem similar in magnitude as those in non-industry sources. There are actual differences in the effectiveness of individual statins at various doses that explain previously observed discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored trials.’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4184241/

                  National health authorities and medical associations all around the world that have reviewed the evidence, seem in agreement that statin use in appropriate target groups delivers benefits that significantly outweigh the adverse effects. For example, the UK’s clinical guidelines on this paid particular attention to the cost effectiveness of statin prescribing since approved drugs are heavily subsidised by the UK Government. If there were real doubts about the effectiveness of these drugs, the UK Government would be delighted to save the cash currently spent on subsidising statin use by withdrawing their approval status. .
                  https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181

                  1. “So your claim that all the adverse effects were bogus was false. Agreed.”

                    I never made any such claim.

                    You either just make stuff up or your reading comprehension is poor. It’s not clear which.

                    1. Here’s what you said:

                      “However, it seems that when people aren’t aware that they are taking statins, they do not report greater rates of muscle pain

                      ‘These analyses illustrate the so-called nocebo effect, with an excess rate of muscle-related AE reports only when patients and their doctors were aware that statin therapy was being used and not when its use was blinded.’ “

                    2. PCK

                      As I wrote, your reading comprehension is poor (or you just make stuff up as you go along).

                      First, I never wroe that all adverse effects are bogus. I posted a study which showed that people unaware they were taking statins reported the same levels of muscle pain as controls, whereas people who knew they were taking statins reported higher levels. This suggests a nocebo effect.

                      Second, the study Konrad cited analysed a large number of trials only some of ehich were blinded. Therefore it has no bearing on the nocenbo effect question.

    1. TG: I have no data to refute the clinical research you’ve sited. What I know is that biosynthesis of cholesterol and that of coenzyme Q10 share some steps and statins lower cholesterol synthesis by inhibiting the enzyme that catalyzes one of them, so the lower the cholesterol synthesis, the lower the coQ10 synthesis. CoQ10 is an intermediate in electron transport chain, which is the last stage of energy production. So, at least in theory, it’s possible that, muscles being the user of a lot of energy, could suffer when there’s no sufficient coQ10.

      1. Yes, George, and I have seen guidance that people taling statins should supplement with CoQ10.

        However, all I am doing is offering for people’s consideration the findings of a study that showed there were only reports of excess muscle pain in statin users who were aware that they were taking statins. People who were given statins but were not aware of it reported no more muscle pains than people not taking statins. That seems similar to some of the electromagnetic sensitivity studies reprted in this video. Both of which may suggest a nocebo effect is at work.

      1. I am not claiming anything PCK.

        I am sorry if you are offended by my posting references to studies with findings that are contrary to your opinions.

        Howeve, you seem not to read these studies that you post here that you somehow think contradict the studies I have posed and the statements about them that I have made. This latest one you posted here (an abstract) for example did indeed refer to creatine increase and described it as a serious adverse event (AE). However the abstract concluded

        ‘CONCLUSIONS:
        Statin therapy was associated with greater odds of AEs compared with placebo but with substantial clinical benefit. Similar rates of serious AEs were observed between statin and placebo.

        Let me just repeat that: ‘ Similar rates of serious AEs were observed between statin and placebo.’

        You are either deliberately misstating what the studies you cite report or you do not understand what you are reading.

        1. I am sorry if you are offended by my posting references to studies with findings that are contrary to your opinions.

          Howeve, you seem not to read these studies that you post here that you somehow think contradict the studies I have posed and the statements about them that I have made. This latest one you posted here (an abstract) for example did indeed refer to creatine increase and described it as a serious adverse event (AE). However the abstract concluded

          ‘CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy was associated with greater odds of AEs compared with placebo but with substantial clinical benefit. Similar rates of serious AEs were observed between statin and placebo.

          Let me just repeat that: ‘ Similar rates of serious AEs were observed between statin and placebo.’

          You are either deliberately misstating what the studies you cite report or you do not understand what you are reading.

          1. Agreed but the clear implication is that these were the ‘less serious’ AEs and that these were outweighed by ‘substantial clinical benefit’ of statin therapy

              1. You stated that the paper showed that statin users experienced higher rates of creatine increase than the controls. They didn’t.

                Clearly you didnt understand the abstract.

                1. As I have already explained to you, it’s entirely possible that we were looking at different papers: several have been quoted at various times in this discussion. This is why I asked you for a link.

                  Frankly, I’m not interested in wasting my time responding to your childish put-downs. If you’re interested in an intelligent discussion about the subject of this video then please continue. If you read the papers I linked to you might learn something: nobody will learn anything useful from your irritating attempts to ‘catch me out’. Your comments have been largely unpleasant and valueless.

                  1. PCK

                    You seem to have delusions of competency..

                    Your comments here are worthless (apart possibly from their entertainment value). Here are some reasons why

                    1. you misrepresent the contents of the video (eg based on a few papers etc)
                    2 you misrepresent the findings of studies you refer to in your posts (eg the claim that statin users experience higher rates of creatine increase)
                    3. you misrepresent what my posts have stated 9eg all statin adverse effects are bogus)
                    4. you misrepresent what your previous posts have said (in an attempt to obscure the gross errors they contained)

                    Whether you delliberately misrepresent things to suit some agenda of your own or whether you genuinely don’t understand the issues and how to read scientific studies, isn’t clear.

                    All I can say is that your posts shred your credibility. Intelligent people, when they find themselves in a hole, stop digging. You on the other hand dig even more furiously.

                    You wouldn’t possibly be connected with the EMF/EMR protection industry in some way would you?

                    1. You put so much energy into your brainless vitriol and your childish attempts to ‘catch me out’ but none at all into reading the research papers I linked to, let alone attempting to understand the points I was making. I appreciate that you don’t have the education to make sense of the science. However, this doesn’t excuse your unpleasantness, which I assume must stem from some general feeling of insecurity.

                      You seem to have delusions of competency..

                      Your comments here are worthless (apart possibly from their entertainment value). Here are some reasons why

                      1. you misrepresent the contents of the video (eg based on a few papers etc) 2 you misrepresent the findings of studies you refer to in your posts (eg the claim that statin users experience higher rates of creatine increase) 3. you misrepresent what my posts have stated 9eg all statin adverse effects are bogus) 4. you misrepresent what your previous posts have said (in an attempt to obscure the gross errors they contained)

                      Whether you delliberately misrepresent things to suit some agenda of your own or whether you genuinely don’t understand the issues and how to read scientific studies, isn’t clear.

                      All I can say is that your posts shred your credibility. Intelligent people, when they find themselves in a hole, stop digging. You on the other hand dig even more furiously.

                      You wouldn’t possibly be connected with the EMF/EMR protection industry in some way would you?

    2. I realize that my anecdotal report counts as a “dataset of one”, but I can report that after I was placed on a statin, in the following months I started experiencing muscle pains in the middle of the night that felt like someone was pinching my thigh muscles between a butter knife and my femur. The were regular, strong enough that I couldn’t sleep through the night. They caused me to make a non-routine appointment with my my cardiologist.

      As I was being in-processed, I told the nurse my symptoms and she asked if I was on a statin. My cardiologist’s response was to reduce the statin dosage and to have me add CoQ-10 supplements to my battery of pills. I followed his Rx, the pains subsided, but didn’t fully go away.

      Once I made the switch to being a WFPB vegan, my cholesterol levels plummeted to under 150. Under his guidance, I stopped the statin: the muscle pains disappeared. After my cardiologist later told me how I (as an ethical vegan) could add hard cheeses back into my diet, I went and found a vegan cardiologist who would really listen to me. I am off all but two meds (low-dose aspirin & a beta-blocker cuz of my ischemic heart), and have had no issues since.

      I fully acknowledge the reality of the no-cebo effect, but my experience supports the fact that there are some folks who do experience muscle pains from statins. I’m fortunate that adopting a WFPB diet has solved nearly all my heath issues

      1. Be warned, my comment does not relate to statins but to the topic of this video (if I’m not mistaken): electromagnetic sensitivity.
        Out of the blue, or so it seemed at the time, summer 2016, my pulse rate dropped to 37 and up to maximum 40 per minute. The blood pressure soared to 149 – 170 when not rested, which the physician explained as a compensation.This was not due to any minor changes in my life’s or health’s situation.

        My work involves many hours at the computer and I did sense strong headaches and some nausea – but I did not realize there might be a connection. After all, I’ve been working at that corner at home for so many years.
        My family physician referred me to a cardiologist who agreed with my feeling that I can handle the situation as long as no arrhythmia evolves.
        I do not have nor use a cellular phone or TV.
        This trying experience stayed with me for 1 year and two months, until September 2017.

        By June 2017 a family guest arrived from USA. Both she and her daughter, a medical physician, suffer from electromagnetic sensitivity. My guest had with her an ‘electrosmog’ meter. Going through my apartment I found out one by one that the house mobile phone, the Router and the Bluetooth I hardly knew of their existence, all caused the said meter to react horribly. Disconnecting those invaders, covering the computer with a protective screen and turning my place into an almost “sterile area” (term borrowed from Police manual…) – stopped the headaches and the nausea. In a couple of weeks my pulse rate returned slowly to normal (66-72 per minute) and it has stayed so for a full year, to this day and hopefully forever. Blood pressure, yes. it has also returned back to normal. around 119/76.
        Hearing people inform me that it is all Fata Morgana I pinch myself. Am I a mirage, Dr. Greger?
        I’ve purchased “How not to die” lately and was reading it daily, recommending to friends all along. Could it be that this issue awaits from your hands an in-depth wider research?

          1. Hi Corinna, thank you for sharing your story. Dr. Greger is not generally able to respond to comments personally. If you would like one of our Health Support Team volunteers to respond, please reply to this comment and let us know. Thank you!

            1. thanks Kate, indeed I would love to hear from you.
              Corinna Hasofferett

              https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B075XTDCNZ https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/קורינה_הסופרת Video blog: http://www.youtube.com/user/CorinnaHasoffereett also, with English subtitles: http://www.youtube.com/user/CorinnaHasofferett http://www.facebook.com/hasofferett.corinna Hebrew blog: http://www.corinna-hasofferett.com

              ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 7 בנוב׳ 2018 ב-16:54 מאת ‪Kate Porigow (NF Program Director)‬‏ :‬

    3. Okay, this is not a controlled study. About 20 years ago I was taking Lipitor with no adverse side effects. My insurance company switched me to the generic when it became available and I thought nothing of it. I soon started have a lot of tension headaches in rear part of head and down into neck. Ibuprofen releived them and I didn’t worry about it but mentioned the headaches to my MD at my next annual visit. He (not I) tentatively put 2 and 2 togther and insisted my insurance pay for the brand-name medication. Heaches ceased. He attributed it to impurities in the generic. Who knows. But I think muscle pain is a pretty well documented side-effect of some statins for a small number of patients. Whether the pain is worth the benifit and whether there even is an real benifit is another topic.

    1. Hi Konrad. Unfortunately I do not have the time to point out all the nuances of Minger’s review. However there are a few salient points to consider. First, she is best known as a paleo troll who has just enough sophistication to try to put an academic gloss on her attacks on science. The review to which you refer is more along those lines.

      The primary charge she makes is “cherry picking”. If one reads her selections of sources she uses to justify her positions we would be lead to believe she is just paranoid about someone getting into her cherry crop. (Not to stretch a metaphor too much.) The point is, she has found a catch phrase and is flogging it to death in spite of the fact that it is irrelevant since it is so misapplied.

      As a child she became a vegan after choking on a piece of meat, A few years latter she got sick from a b12 deficiency and went in a new fad direction. I think the psychology of an impressionable zealot is an appropriate basis for evaluating her work.

      Michael Greger only occasionally does an evaluation of ideological polemics like Minger’s. (e.g. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/dr-gundrys-the-plant-paradox-is-wrong/) I do not recall seeing a response from him to her since it scarcely is worth his time. However, I would suggest you check out this response by Garth Davis.
      http://proteinaholic.com/a-response-to-denise-minger-part-1/

      Another very good evaluation of Minger’s “work” if you have it time is http://plantpositive.com/display/Search?moduleId=19496100&searchQuery=Minger. He has several video presentations that I think you would find interesting and is pretty thorough. .

      1. “The review to which you refer is more along those lines. ”
        I know Denise Minger is incredible because she attacks science however it seems to me that this review is a little different.

        “The primary charge she makes is “cherry picking”. If one reads her selections of sources she uses to justify her positions we would be lead to believe she is just paranoid about someone getting into her cherry crop. (Not to stretch a metaphor too much.) The point is, she has found a catch phrase and is flogging it to death in spite of the fact that it is irrelevant since it is so misapplied. ”
        I wish Dr. Greger or somebody else indicate why her “cherry picking” charges about Dr. Greger are incorrect.

        ” However, I would suggest you check out this response by Garth Davis.”
        Unfortunately it is not a reply to “How Not to Die” review. I don’t understand why this one review is continously ignored.

      1. Greger publishes pieces on scientific studies and related evidence.

        Responding to opinion pieces by unqualified bloggers is hardly in-scope. he seems to restrict his reviews to studies and other papers published in the professional literature. In fact, I think he has only ever responded to one book by an MD via his video review of The Plant Paradox. If he hasn’t responded to other books by MDs or to a critical review of his book by an MD, I see no reason why he should spend his time responding to a piece by an unqualified blogger.

        But then you know this already since you have been told it before. Why do you keep on posting this? What is your real aim?

        1. My real aim is come at at the right time when Dr. Greger reads comments. For example I’ve noticed that Dr. Greger ocasionally reply to one of first comments. It is a reason why I writed this comment. I bet Dr. Greger appreciate this review.

            1. Sorry, it wasn’t a review of his book as such but a review of the ‘Uprooting the leading causes of death’ video.

              Harriet Hall, a retied US physician, wrote a critical review He didn’t respond to it. However, it is a fairly obvious hachet job since Hall’s prejudice against veganism shines through it and she appears not to acknowledge that Greger is actually about a WFPB approach to diet not about so-called ‘vegan’ diets.as such.

              Greger himself of course has criticised and still does criticise what are popularly called ‘vegetarian’ and ‘vegan’ diets
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04&t=863s

        2. >>If he hasn’t responded to other books by MDs or to a critical review of his book by an MD, I see no reason why he should spend his time responding to a piece by an unqualified blogger.

          I don’t think he would care if somebody were an MD or not, since, as he points out, this is more of an anti-qualification.

  3. Oh good. I’m happy to hear that my old-fashioned, no-bells-and-whistles cell phone — which I use only when I’m checking to see why a friend might not be at our meeting place — will do me no major harm.

    (Not sure if I’ll ever get around to buying one of those new-fangled “smart” phones.)

      1. I totally rely on a microwave oven; and an early generation smartphone that I frequently take into the kitchen to follow recipes. Am I a daredevil or what?

        1. I haven’t needed to follow a recipe for many years. If you don’t use a “smart” phone or a microwave oven, like I don’t, perhaps it is easier to remember how to cook. In order to know if your microwave oven has any affect on you physically, I suggest you unplug it for a month or two and heat food in a pot on the stove or in a toaster oven. Pay attention to any difference in how you feel and how your food digests, etc. After a month or two of avoidance, you can then use the microwave oven as before, pay attention to any difference. Once you know how it affects you, you can choose to use it with confidence or avoid it with confidence.

              1. Well, you caught me in a lie there, YR! I do have a microwave and I use it regularly. I should have said the tone of my comment was meant in total jest. To explain that better, it was not meant to make any statement about the merits (or lack thereof) of microwave or cell phone use. It wasn’t an effective joke and I apologize for that. I respect the concerns you and others have about possible dangers. If you’re interested in my take, it’s honestly not high among my concerns at this time, but what do I know?

                  1. I mean, I guess we could worry about bed mites too, if we were so inclined…right? :-)

                    YR, belay your concerns. I read some time ago that the way to defeat the bed creatures is to not make your bed.

                    They said that people started the bed-making tradition when in Old England they had thatched roofs and all manner of creatures would fall out of the thatch onto a bed so they started covering the bed to keep the falling stuff out.

                    However, this meant that dead skin cells + moisture gave the undercover creatures plenty to survive on before feasting on humans when they came to bed.

                    With better roofing, we are better off leaving our beds uncovered so the accumulated night moisture escapes and makes the bed uninhabitable for the bed creatures.

                    1. Oh were it that easy, Lonie! I’m sure you’re right about the not-making-the-bed bit, but I think it looks pretty gross to leave it unmade. Maybe if we talk nice-nice to the little dears, they’ll go away peacefully? To think the human body is a storehouse for all these critters is truly mind-boggling! And depressing as hell. :-(

                      From: https://www.getridofthings.com/get-rid-of-mites/

                      “The real source of people’s allergic reactions mites isn’t the presence of the mites, or even their bite, but the feces mites leave behind. Yes, the reason you’re sniffling so much may be caused by the inhalation of too much mite poop.” OMG, mite poop?

                      (I’ve read that if we keep our immune system in shape we shouldn’t be bothered by our little friends…too much.)

  4. Totally unscientific anecdotal observational evidence.. I use to do mobile MRI back in the day. The machine I worked on you would sit in the far field of the magnet. I mean with the door closed and behind the magnetic “shielding” any light metal like paper clips or pens would line up with the magnetic field like a compass. After a few weeks we all noticed our short term memory would degrade. Degrade to the point that we had to keep memo pads around to recall recent phone calls and easy patient info.. Go on vacation with a few weeks far from the magnet and no problem with the memory. Come back from vacation and the memory problem returned. It happened to all of us. Old, young, male and female… Weird, huh.. The company denied any problems but subsequent Mobil MRI units had more shielding (Faraday shield). No more memory problems or magnet pointing metal bits….
    mitch…

    1. I find it interesting that farmers know that “stray voltage” makes their cows sick. I heard this discussed about 30 years ago. It’s being going on for as long as barns have been connected to electric lines. Cows in pastures with cell phone towers also have problems. They are less likely to be able to carry their calves to term. Is the negative effect of emf on human sperm all imaginary also?

  5. The only people I ever knew who claimed to be sensitive to electromagnetic radiation also claimed that they may have just about everything they just read about somewhere. Psychosomatic illness can be very powerful, especially if a person intentionally goes searching for things to go wrong with their body.

    1. >>Psychosomatic illness can be very powerful, especially if a person intentionally goes searching for things to go wrong with their body.

      So cancer doesn’t exist because some people mistakenly think that they have it? I’m not getting your ‘argument’.

  6. Slightly off-topic but another intriguing recent report from ScienceDaily

    “We find a previously unnoticed common thread between believing in creationism and believing in conspiracy theories,” says Sebastian Dieguez of the University of Fribourg. “Although very different at first glance, both these belief systems are associated with a single and powerful cognitive bias named teleological thinking, which entails the perception of final causes and overriding purpose in naturally occurring events and entities.

    ‘The researchers are now in the process of assessing the effectiveness of ongoing attempts to educate kids and adolescents about the nature of conspiracy theories and other types of misinformation. They say what’s ultimately needed is a thorough understanding of the factors that contribute to a conspiracist mindset, which is relevant to many beliefs, including global warming denialism and vaccine rejection, and they are developing a general framework to help disentangle the relevant factors.

    The findings may help to explain how certain types of misinformation spread so easily aided by social media channels. “It’s possible that content framed in teleological terms are easier to process and spread faster than other types of information, and this could be tested on a much larger scale,” Dieguez says.’
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180820113047.htm

    There do seem to be a number of conspiracy theorists posting here but I am not sure if any of them are creationists.

    1. So…anyone who believes in the results of peer-reviewed science is a conspiracy theorist unless he agrees with your interpretation of the evidence. Whatever.

        1. No, but it’s what you implied. You don’t have the guts to address the science directly.

          I posted a series of links to peer-reviewed papers demonstrating very real effects of EMF. Your sneers are inappropriate.

          1. I wasn’t referring to you when I made that comment. There have been people here – eg in the last blog about salt – who have explicitly claimed that eg the current advice to reduce sodium consumption is the result of a conspiracy by Big Pharma. Describing such people as conspiracy theorists is a statement of fact, not a sneer.

            However, are you aslo claiming that there is some conspiracy at work here?

                1. I just wish that he wouldn’t beat about the bush and making wishy-washy comments like this..

                  Why doesn’t he just tell us what he really thinks?

    2. “There do seem to be a number of conspiracy theorists posting here but I am not sure if any of them are creationists.”
      – – – – —

      There he goes again.

        1. Are you seriosly suggesting that we do not have posters here on NF who allege that the current state of health and nutrition in the US, and various scientific position statements on eg blood cholesterol and saturated fat and salt consumption, are the result of conpiracies by the pharmaceutical industries (abetted by theUS government and the medical establishment). Then there are th people who have suggested tere are various alternative cancr cures which hve been suppressed by the cancer industry? thn there the people who make all sorts of allegations about the FDA. Sure, it’s a problem that the US Administraation keeps appointing people from the drug industry to run it – that’s like employing a fox to guard the henhouse – but som of the allegations that have been made were

          I even vaguely recall you making some suggestions about guidelines about blood pressure levels requiring medications beng possibly due to collusion by the pharmaceutical industry, the blood testing industry and Big Cocoa.

  7. Junk science: the Finnish study (partly supported by Nokia) didn’t use electrically sensitive subjects, didn’t test for the background microwave levels and didn’t test using normal phone output. The Hungarian study simply showed that the nocebo effect exists.

    I would be happy to look through the rest if anyone still believes that there’s anything of value.

  8. My husband was given statins over 10 years ago after a heart attack. He did suffer muscle soreness and pain until he lowered his dose (without his doctor’s consent) by half. The muscle soreness diminished, and now that he’s eating WFPB and his cholesterol level has dropped dramatically, he’s hoping to stop taking his statin drug.

  9. I am sure this emf sensitivity does exist. I am unable to have my cell phone next to my ear during conversations and have to have the speaker on and keep the phone away from my head. I feel a lot of heat in my ear and feel as if it being absorbed into my head even though the phone itself is not hot i definitly feel it and am afraid it will cause problems in my skull.

    1. Vimala,

      I get afraid of brain tumors when I talk on the cell phone for a long time and my friends like to be on the phone for an hour.

      I don’t feel like being afraid of brain tumors is a bad thing, because one of my young relatives who did get the condition of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity turned out to have a brain tumor.

      He would wear a foil cap trying to protect his brain and didn’t know that he had a tumor until he started going blind.

      He had 5 kids and died at 40, but people made fun of him, because of the Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, but it turned out that he had a brain tumor. Possibly from the technology exposure?

      1. My brother was an early adopter of cell phone technology. He had a great attitude about all things electronic. His love for his cell phone did not prevent a cancerous tumor from developing by the ear where he usually held his phone. Same thing happened to my friend’s younger brother. If it was psychogenic, why were they both loving their cell phones so much?

        1. Wow, SaraC — that’s horrible news! I hope your brother’s experience got some major news coverage.

          Probably didn’t though; the lamestream media has a tendency not to report important developments like this. (They’re nothing but quivering puppets.)

    2. I award Dr. Greger a D-, for this one, and not an F, but only because I very much agree with him on the degree of fraud and misinformation put out by manufacturers and purveyors of EMF protection devices. Although I greatly respect Dr. Greger’s background and expertise in the area of nutrition, he has no relevant background or expertise in the area of the biological effects of EMF.

      An important paper not included in Dr. Greger Sources section, by a very well respected scientist, Dr. Andrew Marino, who has published well over a 100 research papers in peer reviewed journals on EMF over the 40 years ( https://andrewamarino.com/journalarticles.html ):

      Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome. McCarty D.E. et al, Int J Neurosci., Vol. 121(12), pp 670-6, Dec 2011. https://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/lsustudy.pdf

      It describes a research study from Dr. Andrew Marino’s group, published in the International Journal of Neuroscience in 2011. You can also find two follow up publications by his group, in the same journal in 2012 and 2013:

      Response to Letter to the Editor Concerning “Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Evidence for a Novel Neurological Syndrome.” A.A. Marino, S. Carrubba & D.E. McCarty. Int. J. Neurosci. 122:402–403, 2012. https://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/177-IntJNeurosci2012.pdf

      Electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome revisited again. A.A. MARINO. Int. J. Neurosci. 123:593–594, 2013. [Download PDF]
      https://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/184-IntJNeurosci2013.pdf

      “ABSTRACT
      Objective: We sought direct evidence that acute exposure to environmental-strength electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could induce somatic reactions (EMF hypersensitivity). Methods: The subject, a female physician selfdiagnosed with EMF hypersensitivity, was exposed to an average (over the head) 60-Hz electric field of 300 V/m (comparable with typical environmental-strength EMFs) during controlled provocation and behavioral studies. Results: In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize un intentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 1 00 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05). The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off-on, on-off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject had no conscious perception of the field as judged by her inability to report its presence more often than in the sham control. Discussion: The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes. Conclusion: EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome."

      Although small – with only one electrosensitive subject – Marino's study, using a strict double blind controlled protocol – established that electrosensitive human beings do indeed exist in fact. After all, it only takes one white crow to disprove the "all crows are black" theory, and Marino's study does exactly that. Also, you'll find a number of OTHER studies on this subject included in reference section. The 2013 paper has more relevant references.

      His conclusion:
      "Our aim here was to concentrate on the previously unaddressed question whether acute exposure to weak EMF could produce real but not precisely predictable somatic effects mediated by nonpsychological processes. Within the limitations of the study, we concluded that we demonstrated the neurological syndrome in the subject we studied. The question of whether EMF hypersensitivity is a significant public-health problem was not addressed here. The EMF we employed was equivalent in strength and pulse structure to EMFs pervasively present in the environment (Levallois et al., 2002; Schreier et al., 2006), and our results were consistent with the possibility that environmental EMFs can directly trigger clinical symptoms. Nevertheless resolution of the public-health issue depends on a deeper understanding of how internal EMFs caused by environmental EMFs are related to physiological process and of the role of psychological factors and comorbidities in the exposed population in exacerbating the processes resulting in disease."

      I've also seen quite a few studies demonstrating both electrosensitivity as well as magnetosensitivity in animals, so on this basis alone, it would surprise me very much if at least some human beings did not have these kinds of sensory abilities as well. For example some people really do have a better sense of direction, and we do have magnetoreceptors (See this 2016 article from Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/maverick-scientist-thinks-he-has-discovered-magnetic-sixth-sense-humans )

      You can check out Dr. Marino's impressive research background and C.V. here, in his 2016 testimony on the Smart Meter issue before the Pennsylvania Utility Commission on pages 2-3 and in Exhibit 1, which lists his publications: http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/testimony-AAM_Report.pdf

      See also: Expert Report [on the human health risks of EMF and Smart Meters] of Andrew A. Marino, Ph.D. before the Pennsylvania Utility Commission, August 8, 2016. Dr. Marino has an impeccable and impressive scientific background in this area, with over a hundred publications in peer reviewed journals on the effects of man-made electromagnetic energy on animals and human beings. Exhibit 1 lists his qualifications and research publications. http://andrewamarino.com/PDFs/testimony-AAM_Report.pdf

      See pages 21 – 25 for Dr. Marino's testimony on the subject of electrosensitivity and on the experiments he conducted, and published in peer reviewed journals. His summation:

      "Q. What overall conclusion do you draw from this study?"

      A. That to a scientific certainty, the neurological syndrome known as electromagnetic sensitivity exists, as we showed using the scientific and diagnostic procedures I just described."

      1. I think that Greger has also noted that in science, it is important for studies to be replicated for them to be fully accepted..

        A single study by a single researcher on a single subject would not normally be regarded as conclusively establishing anything.

    3. I feel the exact same thing!
      You can show me any research that you want, and I love Dr. Greger and follow his advice, but that’s exactly how I feel when the cell phone is close to my head

  10. While I don’t suffer from this, I do have some strange electromagnetic phenomena going on. Often times when I am near an outlet, I’ll trip the circuit just by unplugging or plugging something into it. A few years ago, when I visited the Thomas Alva Edison Museum in Menlo Park, New Jersey, I put my hands on some kind of a device and the staff said they’ve never seen someone my age register so high. They’ve seen it in young kids, but never an adults. So, I’m not sure how to explain all this!

  11. I have an interest in the topic of EMFs and how they interact with living organisms. I have listened to many interviews over the last few years with individuals who claim to have experienced negative symptoms from exposure to EMFs. What I have learned is this: Many factors are involved in how EMFs affect living tissue. Diet, proximity, strength and length of exposure are some of the factors. Even the type of phone can make a difference. In some cases, harmful effects are not noticed until some time has passed.

    I just want to point out that just because a person cannot correctly determine if a cell phone is near them, does not necessarily mean no harm is being done. And, it does not necessarily prove that a person is mistaken about their hypersensitivity either.

    We don’t know all the factors that came into play on these tests. Apparently some foods or supplements can affect one’s sensitivity to harm from EMFs and thus influence their ability to detect their presence. Green tea polyphenols, melatonin and other substances have been shown to protect from EMFs harmful effects. We don’t know what the diet of these subjects was prior to the tests.

    And, we must realize that some harm may be occurring on an undetectable level and may be cumulative over time. In other words, a person’s perception of harm ( in the moment of exposure) is not necessarily the best way to determine if there is in fact harm being done.

    1. Yes, the veggies protecting people aspect interests me.

      We usually go into the blood-brain barrier arguments and I would like to know if my placebo green tea latte protects my blood-brain barrier when I talk on my cell phone or use my microwave.

      I just had a microwave oven fail. It went off mid-cooking a sweet potato, then, when I opened the door, it turned on and was running with the door open.

      The thing is, I just stood there trying to do the mental math because it was so confusing.

      Should I have started eating one of Dr. Greger’s frozen banana matcha ice cream approximator?

    2. Ginny Riker, I totally agree. Just because there’s no such thing as electrosensitivity doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as physiological harm from cell phones and WiFi. Just because I can’t feel the mercury seeping into my body when I eat tuna doesn’t mean that there’s no physiological harm from mercury.

      1. Correct. But it’s not even true that “there’s no such thing as electrosensitivity”. The junk research profiled in the video doesn’t demonstrate this at all – in fact, it doesn’t even attempt to test it.

      2. Julie

        Dr G has already done videos on the increased risk of brain cancer from mobile phone use and the effects on sperm quality.

        I think people may be misinterpreting what he is saying here in this particular video.

  12. 99.99999% of people are sensitive to electromagnetic waves. This is how.

    Only blind people could be said to be electromagnetically insensitive. Visible light (eletromagnetic wave) excites the vitamin A molecules of the eye, which is converted to an electro chemical signal and passed down the eye nerve. Your brain works in the dark.

    If you raise the light frequency to UV or beyond then the DNA bonds break.

    But are people sensitive to lower frequencies like microwaves? We know that light frequency and above yes, people are 100% sensitive. Thus the title of the video is false.

    1. The safety of microwave ovens have been argued to death too. I don’t own one myself; would rather cook food on top of the stove — you know, the “old-fashioned” way. Why should people be in such a rush all the time? All that stress can killya! And just because we can’t see the EMFs doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      1. This a an example of how electromagnetic waves affect the body:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinol#Vision

        “The change in shape of vitamin A after absorbing light in turn changes the configuration of the complex protein rhodopsin, the visual pigment used in low light levels.[citation needed] This represents the first step of the visual cycle. This is why eating foods rich in vitamin A is often said to allow an individual to see in the dark, although the effect they have on one’s vision is negligible. In fact, excess vitamin A intake can cause toxicity to the optic nerve and permanent vision loss. ”

        Notice that the effect of this electromagnetic wave in the body is not direct or simple, like for example just assuming that it just heats a surface.

        1. Panchito,

          Yes, people might not be sensitive enough to tell when they are exposed to it, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t affecting things like Vitamin A, Blood Brain Barrier, Cancer cells, gut microbiome, etc.

          Here is a gut microbiome: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12275-017-7208-7

          Rife frequencies can be killing all sorts of things, but each thing in the microbiome responds to a different frequency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0_kazbb_U

          Birds seem sensitive

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cEjCLMZ9sQ

          Bees are sensitive

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378088/

          Foxes catch prey by magnetism

          And for the conspiracy-oriented, the mass die-offs of animals also correlate with changes in the earth’s magnetic fields.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5UhOBH68mo

          NASA says that we have a crack in the earth’s Magnetic field with increasing solar winds.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVqWH5Qlg8Y

          I will say that 7500 birds falling out of the sky in Alaska and Arkansas and other places and bees dying off like crazy and all sorts of things like that might contribute to the feeling sensitive about being exposed to it, the same way people get paranoid about RoundUp and scents at a level probably above the genuine harm caused. I feel like I get sensitive to the concept of eating meat or dairy, where when I accidentally eat some, I get sick, probably placebo effect on top of the real change of gut microbiome good guy bad guy ratio or a sudden increase in heavy metals or something.

          I know that I am taking the broadest possible examples, but I am saying that people don’t understand these things fully.

          Dr. Philpott, from ages and ages ago did studies on static magnets and he said things like one side of them helped with cancer and the other pole caused the blood to spin in the opposite direction and increased cancer and things like that. I remember looking it up during one of the topics and static magnets affected the calcium channels or something like that, so some people might have conditions where that matters.

          1. I know that I have combined the information in a way to add to the confusion, but I did that on purpose.

            In some ways, all of the unknowns and all of the knowns and all of the lied about and all of the money people trying to spin things is part of the bigger equation in this issue.

            I am not someone who walks around paranoid about magnetic fields, but I do know that every other animal in the whole world is sensitive and humans aren’t? Becomes my question.

            Is it like when Dr. Lisle talks about stretch receptors and heavy people aren’t receptive to them and don’t have functioning ghrelin and can’t register the calories from fats, but you can find people who genuinely are sensitive.

            1. Deb, I tend to agree with you. Mankind has only scratched the surface in understanding the nature of electromagnetic radiation. Maxwell’s Equations were a tremendous breakthrough, but there is still so much to learn. When it comes to the complexity of the Universe, I tend to agree with Socrates: ” I don’t know much, but neither does anyone else!”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

        1. AH…..I see what you mean! Why, I meant an electric stove, silly! :-)

          (Although I used to love making s’mores while camping out as a kid. They were really delicious, as I recall. Hmmm….)

      2. @YR said:
        The safety of microwave ovens have been argued to death too. I don’t own one myself; would rather cook food on top of the stove — you know, the “old-fashioned” way. Why should people be in such a rush all the time? All that stress can killya! And just because we can’t see the EMFs doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
        ——————————————————————————————————————-
        I tend to agree. I have a microwave that hasn’t been turned on for years. And migratory birds, for instance, navigate their migrations via magnetic sensitivity.

        Like you I have a flip phone that I receive or make a call on, on average maybe once per day. But in the next few months I’ll have been delivered 12 new “Media Machine” Intelligent phones. I suppose I’ll convert one of them to my daily driver and retire my flip phone. The rest will be used for their recording capabilities and will never have a sim card installed.

        In re: the highly sensitives, there are many stories out there of people who have various sensitivities and when they move to an isolated place to live, their symptoms go away. My own personal experience has been that I was sensitive to various ag chemicals and my state was doing a “spray-the-world” program to get rid of the boll weevil. Once they stopped, my sensitivities went away.

        Sure it could have been a placebo type effect based on my long-term disdain for over-use of chemicals. I acknowledge that.

        But I also think sensitivities may be real in some people (synesthetes for example?) and that all we lack are the proper testing procedures to verify the condition.

        1. Lonie,

          There are people allergic to water, sunlight and their own tears and those effects are tangible.

          I can use MSG and say, I can’t tell when it has been used in a salad bar, but if I eat too much MSG, I projectile vomit.

          It doesn’t happen if I eat small portions.

          If I eat every bit of food at a Chinese restaurant it happens. If I eat 1/4 of a plate, it doesn’t happen.

          I pass out if I eat too many non-organic green grapes. I never understood why it might happen, but I met someone else who had it happen and his reaction was from the chemical they used to elongate the grapes for shipping and I figured that was a good enough explanation and switched to only organic.

          I say it because people are sensitive to so many things and that makes these issues so complicated.

          1. “I pass out if I eat too many non-organic green grapes.”

            Deb, you actually faint dead away? Like on the floor? I’ve never fainted in my life…it must be scary.

            1. Yes, I hit my head on the floor or refrigerator or wall.

              At Yosemite and in D.C. I hit my head on the concrete.

              It only happened with green grapes.

              Dr would look at me when my mother brought me and shrug. BP was a little low. Blood Sugar was fine.

        2. There most definitely are very sensitive people/empaths walking among us. My daughter, for instance.

          My main phone is a landline, and computer a desktop. They’re as high-tech as I care to be at this stage of my life. My brother is a Luddite, it seems. Wants nothing to do with computers of any sort.

          So many in the younger generation are always hunched over their little toy-toys (smartphones) and try to avoid eye contact when they meet you on the street. Every time I visit Manhattan (very rarely) I’m amazed at how many people are always talking into those things — texting away, etc. The sidewalks are clogged with them, and yes, they bump into you. And later in the evening they take them to bed with them! What a world we live in!

  13. Good report Thank You.

    I also listened to the video on cell phones and brain cancer.
    I think I agree that the risk of brain cancer is less than the positive effects of communication,
    like the time I fell off my bike and broke my humorous.

    I heard a report that men who keep cell phones in their pants pocket have less sperm.
    Can you please review that. Thank you.

    1. like the time I fell off my bike and broke my humorous.
      ————————————————————————-
      What did you mean by broken humorous? Meaning you could not laugh at the situation of falling off your bike?

      Or is that a euphemism for funny bone?

      Bet if someone caught that on a cell phone and posted it, others would have certainly found your situation to be humorous. ‘-)

      1. I thought maybe I was spelling humorous wrongly. but what was broken was the anatomic neck of the humorous where it enters the shoulder socket.

        1. but what was broken was the anatomic neck of the humorous where it enters the shoulder socket.
          ————————————————————————————————————————–
          heh, over hear we call that the humerus bone. You Brits and your ous spellings. ‘-)

  14. Does NF plan on actually covering the topic of RF effects on health, or is this it? Usually Greger indicates at the end if there are more videos to come, but does not mention any plans here.

    Consider an analogously disingenuous video appearing on a nutrition website: “Is animal product hypersensitivity real?” In which a few studies (never detailed as to funding or pertinent design specifics) are mentioned with people claiming to be sensitive to animal product consumption who are tested with e.g. conventional hot dogs and veggie dogs; if it turns out subjective self-reporting by these subjects of feelings of adverse effects were not consistent with consumption of the conventional hot dogs, then we disingenuously imply that self-reporting of poor health due to consumption of hot dogs is psychosomatic response.

    Would this website consider this a valid treatment on the subject? No, of course not. We have thousands of studies representing a vast range of investigative strategies and forms of study, targets of interest, from basic science to applied research, from the molecular to epidemiological levels, all combined with relevant critique of the known history of animal ag/product industry bias in that field of research.

    Suppose some individuals do report hypersensitivity to animal product consumption in the same way. Whether they could “sense” it in some way or not, how relevant would that question be to the broader question of the health impacts of animal product consumption as observed in myriad other direct and objective ways? How questionable would it be for a self-professed health website to focus only on that particular angle as if that paints even a hint of an honest picture of the topic.

    Also it is incredibly odd that the video actually brings up the concept of industry bias… from beekeeper hat salesmen as if that is the only relevant bias at hand here. Yet not a single mention of the telecommunications industry behemoth or any possible influence that could have had on the studies you are reporting on, despite there already being a clear history of industry influence on study outcomes of the past?

    I have been following NF for over five years now. While I take all the information I consume with a grain of salt, it is nice to come to trust certain sources as being reliably accurate. However as NF delves into certain topics besides nutrition, either the skill set and background knowledge, or the integrity with which the topics are covered, is notably lacking.

    Please try to cover non-nutrition topics with the same depth and integrity, or stick to nutrition studies that you cover genuinely. With videos like these, credibility of the site really falters to anyone who has already investigated the topic and knows what a bizarrely superficial and misleading treatment this was.

    Also please consider providing a thorough treatment of this topic in particular. With ever increasing number of wireless consumer products, cell phone usage, and the rolling out of (the intentionally untested for safety, per FCC spokesman) 5G, more people are looking for information on the topic of RF effects on health and deserve an in-depth, accurate, and relevant report on the topic. A few sources to start with:

    https://www.saferemr.com/

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355#bib83

    https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5g-wireless-technology-is-5g-harmful-to.html

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuUmZtWE5oQ0tBUG8/view

    https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Naval-MRI-Glaser-Report-1976.pdf

  15. Well hey, distracting the public with fake epidemics is a good way to avoid all the real issues. And it’s not like the media can report findings on meat, dairy, eggs, palm oil, Monsanto, etc… who would sponsor them let alone protect them from the lawsuits. And if the stuff gets them ratings…
    Think of all the people eating steak tonight worrying about electricmagnetic fields – a convenient situation for a great number of people.

    The mind is a powerful thing. As someone who has suffered with crippling OCD, I can tell you I’ve actually been able to feel things touch me if they were just near me but were a foot away and I actually felt people spit on me when they didn’t to the point where just a t or p sound or something ON TV with no one else in the room, I would feel like I got spit on and physically feel it. That’s just a small example of the many tricks an OCD mind has played on me, it’s under control now.

    1. The mind is a powerful thing. As someone who has suffered with crippling OCD, I can tell you I’ve actually been able to feel things touch me if they were just near me but were a foot away and I actually felt people spit on me when they didn’t to the point where just a t or p sound or something ON TV with no one else in the room, I would feel like I got spit on and physically feel it. That’s just a small example of the many tricks an OCD mind has played on me, it’s under control now.
      ——————————————————————————————————————————————
      That is one amazing story. Happy for you that you’ve got it under control. Hoping too that in time you will phase out of it.

      I think I’ve done that with my own chemical sensitivity. Can’t say if it has been through supplementation and diet or just a natural change. The only thing I can attest to for sure is that it hasn’t been due to drugs… legal or otherwise.

      1. I am very disappointed with this video. The tin foil in the beginning of this video is very mocking and degrading. The “tin foil hat people” is a mocking comment used to put people down, so the tin foil is a play off of that. I am surprised you started your video with that. You covered this subject with only using the cell phone as the source. There are many sources of EMF that are stronger and a better example that people are exposed to.

      2. Thanks Lonie. Yeah, no drugs here either. I only ever found one prescription medication that did anything for OCD and it didn’t do much, once I got off of it all the symptoms flared up again anyway, so the only real way to correct that kind of brain chemistry is through exposure and response therapy. I’ve also found nutrition and lifestyle to play a huge role as well.

        1. S

          I applaud you for walking through it.

          There was a good Ted Talk on nutrition and mental health. She gave micronutrients and Dr. Greger obviously does Whole Foods and that is even more powerful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dqXHHCc5lA

          I am going to tell you, I came from abuse and zero nutrition and was not clinically OCD, but boy I could be single-focused in a negative enough way that I could pass for it sometimes. I got so suicidal once I started my hormones. I remember as a young person, nobody believed that I was being abused and then nobody believed that I had started doing things like drinking laundry detergent and I ended up drinking antifreeze. It is a long, long, long time ago, but I feel like God walked me straight out of it and it is like that is a whole lifetime ago and a different person. It feels like I am happy most of the time, but maybe from all of the stuff I took in, and all of the junk food, I injured my brain and went from a mentally negative, but strong cognitive more emotional illness to thinking positive 99% of the time, not depressed ever, but having a sensation like my brain exploded. The funny thing is, my friends had no problem with the depressed person with a strong mind, but they couldn’t handle Pollyanna with a broken brain.
          Nutrition has helped. I think there has been brain plasticity, which is what I have been aiming for with my OCD nutritional pursuit. Feels like I now have an understanding of multiple types of brain issues. Plus, I am a Christian, so I forgave and helped take care of the person and had a great ending to that story. Life is good in a complicated way. Anyway, I just do understand how scary mental struggles are. My co-worker is more OCD than I am and he helped when my brain exploded. It feels almost back together after drinking FiJi water and getting off aluminum. Who knows.

          1. Thanks, Deb! Same to you!! Wow, sounds like you’ve had it hard and came a long way, that’s amazing. I’m so glad that story had a happy ending for you, that’s incredible.
            I’m a Christian too and I totally hear you.

            Were you drinking things like antifreeze out of depression or was it a compulsion?

            Yeah it’s amazing how helpful nutrition has been. I remember being so anxious some mornings and drinking my WFPB smoothie and suddenly my brain feeling entirely differently and eased (an unexpected occurrence so I never believed it to be placebo). Green tea helps me a lot as well due to the brain wave alteration. And yeah, once coming out of mental illness so bad, I have the same experience… it feels so long ago like you were a different person.

  16. I am one of those idiopathic sensitives that experiences numbing Tinnitus. I prefer the first part of the word idiopathic, that is to say “idiot” for idiot. I am certainly no idiot and my hypersensitive feelings from radio frequency electromagnetic radiation (RFER) are extremely real to me.

    I have been exposed to nearly 10 years of RFER thanks to 6 cell towers installed on the top of my building which makes them about 60 to 100 feet from my apartment. In the past 3 years I have been, unknowingly to myself, exposed to a hands-free telephone with base, not to be confused with a cell phone.

    Due to the configuration of the apartments (all bachelors), sleeping areas are opposite each other. Thus my neighbour had a hands-free telephone almost directly opposite my bed and living area, placing it about 3 feet distant from my head. It is about that same time that I began to experience Tinnitus, and not a psychologically induced paranoia in the form of idiopathic reactions.

    I was successful in convincing my neighbour to get rid of the telephone as she too was having Tinnitus issues. Furthermore, her and I also experienced irritated throats, stomach issues, night sweats, etc. I gave her a corded telephone and the very day she replaced the hands-free, my Tinnitus went down nearly 75% or more. My throat issue is also receding and I have less sweating.

    The Tinnitus continues but from time to time will nearly totally disappear for a few days at a time. There are other times when the severity increases. I have no explanation as to why the intensity of the Tinnitus increases nor diminishes. I can only speculate that the cell tower owner increases the signal strength as demand flares up or lessens, and that other occupants in the building may be using wireless devices such as cell phones, cordless telephones, WiFi printers and computes and a myriad of other wireless devices.

    The studies quoted by Dr Greger appear to have subjects tested for only a very short time lapse. My exposure was 3 years with the hands-free telephone and nearly 10 years from the cell towers. How about that Dr. Greger.

    I know, I know, you are a doctor that uses “scientific” data to present information. But nearly all medical discoveries and “data” begin with idiopathic conditions. So the question that bears asking is : “Who is the idiot?”

    1. Tinnitus is an extremely common symptom, and is almost certainly a result of your exposure to the microwaves. I would strongly suggest creating a Faraday cage in your apartment if there is no chance of leaving.

      Michel Gregor is good at sifting through articles on nutrition, but clueless when it comes to an area such as EMF sensitivity.

      >> you are a doctor that uses “scientific” data to present information.
      Doctors know nothing about EMF, so his MD is no more relevant than a degree in history. There are hundreds of good quality peer-reviewed studies – from people with expertise in the field, not a random GP You Tube presenter – showing a serious effect from microwaves. The examples he cited are poorly designed and show nothing.

      1. PCK- we love good quality studies here. Can you share links to a couple of the hundreds of peer reviewed studies you’re referring to?

        1. Building off of Ryan’s point, in response to PCK, Dr. Greger being an M.D doesn’t make him an EMF expert and I’m sure he wouldn’t claim to be, but his education on the scientific process certainly makes him an expert at recognizing relevant studies and flawed studies and differentiating between a good and bad study.

            1. “I would add that being an MD doesn’t make Dr. Greger an expert in nutrition either, but he certainly has become one.” It’s true, and Dr. Greger is the first one to point that out. He explains in “How Not To Die” how medical training is severely lacking in education on nutrition.

          1. >>his education on the scientific process certainly makes him an expert at recognizing relevant studies and flawed studies and differentiating between a good and bad study.

            It doesn’t. There is typically nothing in a medical course which involves even reading original scientific research, let alone being able to judge good or bad research. It’s a process of rote-learning material from textbooks.

            Michel Gregor is a doctor, not a scientist. I agree with his stance on plant-based nutrition. However, this video is shoddy – he has taken a few very poor quality studies and over-interpreted them.

            1. PCK, I said nothing about how his medical training having anything to do with his insight into scientific literature. I simply said his education, he is clearly educated in the field outside of his medical training which is very easy to recognize when you view his work. It seems more like you disagree with what’s being cited here and so you’re concluding that Dr. Greger is inept in whatever regard suits this particular circumstance to deem it unreliable or untrue.
              The reason you agree with his stance on plant-based nutrition is due to the fact that he does in fact recognize good and real science and is brilliant at doing so and from there makes conclusions based upon the best available evidence.
              Am I saying you have to agree with every single thing Dr. Greger has to say? No, not at all. But to shout “unqualified!” the moment you don’t agree with something, is unjustified.

              1. To add on to my last comment, again, it’s incredibly clear that Dr. Greger is a brilliant man with a scientific mind extremely capable of interpreting scientific literature and understanding the scientific process. But the best scientific evidence available might be missing a plethora of facts. I’m not saying that is so in this case, my point is just that it’s unjustifiable to try to discredit a man (not that you could) based on a disagreement and seems awfully defensive of you.

              2. Michel Gregor has done a wonderful job promoting a plant-based diet. I have been a vegan for about the last 25 years and strongly support this.

                However, the biophysical effects of EMF are a different area of study, and not one which he understands very well. If you take the trouble to look through the papers which he used as the basis for this video you will see that they are poorly-conducted and don’t warrant the conclusions he claims for them. I have already posted my comments on the papers: if you disagree with my analysis please tell me why.

                1. Well your analaays isnt really a concern of mine, I’m not arguing one way or another on EMF, I’m just stating that Dr. Greger is very qualified to review studies and decipher the good from the bad and if you think these studies aren’t worthy of report, claiming it’s due to some inadequacy is not justified. And as I briefly saw TG point out below, he’s not saying there’s nothing to EMF but that the evidence does not support the claims to sensitivities to it.

                  1. Is your ‘argument’ that my analysis – which you have apparently not even read – must be wrong because Michel Gregor is a GP? I really can’t be bothered to discuss science with people who think at that level of idiocy.

                    I was attempting to explain to TG, without much success, that the reason the studies produces a false negative is because they all had the same design flaw. I explained what the design flaw was, and how it was corrected in a later paper. Why don’t you read what I posted?

                    1. Umm, wow, PCK. Ok first of all, I wasn’t arguing to begin with and I’ve repeated myself multiple times that I was not addressing your argument with EMF one way or the other because I’m not interested in debating as I don’t care that much, but I DID however repeat several times the point I was making which I will not repeat again. Please go back and read my comments, they had nothing to do about EMF. The fact that you haven’t gotten what I meant either makes it incredibly ironic that you should be the one accusing ME of idiocy, or you’re so blindly passionate about what you feel you need to defend that you’re not even reading or comprehending what others are saying, I think it’s the second one because I don’t like to go around calling people idiots and I don’t think you are one, just being irrational out of something you’re passionate about.
                      The studies presented here seemed very clear to me and worthy of being presented, no offense to you but I trust my own thinking, Dr. Greger and based on my experience with people on these boards, TG, when it comes down to the science.

                      I didn’t read what you posted on EMF because I don’t care (not a dig, I just don’t have that much interest on the subject), I only called you out on you trying to disqualify Dr. Greger as a means to win some kind of argument about EMF.

                    2. I wasn’t ‘trying to insult Dr Gregor as a means to win some kind of argument’. I was pointing out flaws in the papers which Gregor cited. If you can’t be bothered to keep up with the thread please stay out of the discussion rather than jumping to conclusions.

    2. Tara- you’re getting really defensive about this which probably means you missed the point of the video. Nobody is calling you an idiot and idiopathic conditions have nothing to do with someone being stupid either. Idiopathic simply means that they don’t know what causes the symptoms, not that the condition doesn’t exist or that the symptoms aren’t real. Dr. Greger isn’t belittling your struggles here

      1. He is promoting a few pieces of extremely poor quality research, not analyzing them properly, and implying that they show that electrosensitivity is psychological. He is belittling both sufferers and also the many researchers who have been working in this field for decades. He is completely out of his depth.

        1. He is quoting 46 studies with more than 1000 people who claim to have it, so that side of the picture deserves to be told.

          Also, he is saying that there might be something going on, which is not being looked at, rather than calling the people claiming to have the issue idiots.

          I had an almost-relative through marriage a few times removed, who would have called himself one and he had a brain tumor, which wasn’t found because nobody was looking. I will say that the sensitivity may not have been his imagination, even if he couldn’t point to whether a cell phone was on or not. The fact that he had a tumor in his brain and was covering his brain with a foil hat. The whole point is that he was getting a foil hat and he was missing a brain tumor.

          1. Deb, you certainly have a lot of interesting friends and relatives! :-)

            (BTW, did you see where I asked you — up the hill a bit — about your passing out?)

        2. PCK

          You critciise Dr G’s understanding of the studies yet you yourself were previously unable to understand the conclusions of a short abstract of a study.
          You claimed that it showed statin users had higher rates of creatine kinase increase (whereas the abstract said in black and white that serious adverse effects including that one were similar in both statin and placebo groups)

          As for ‘a few pieces of extremely poor quality research’ …… to quote the video …… ” we’re talking 46 studies involving more than a thousand people who say they have it. But, when put to the test, when you put all the studies together, not only did they find “no [significant] impact” on any of the symptoms, “there was no evidence that subjects were [even] able to detect [the fields].”

          Interestingly the video itself also quotes from a paper in one of the professional journals

          “Not only do these lobbyists” also conveniently fail to mention the dozens of studies, “they…viciously attack anyone who even dares to mention the data, accusing them of…denying the reality of [people’s] symptoms.”

          You might be said to be viciously attacking Greger for daring to mention these studies and accusing him of denying the reality of people’s symptoms.

          1. >>You claimed that it showed statin users had higher rates of creatine kinase increase (whereas the abstract said in black and white that serious adverse effects including that one were similar in both statin and placebo groups)

            It said that AE rates were higher in statin users. What are you confused by?

            >>As for ‘a few pieces of extremely poor quality research’ …… to quote the video …… ” we’re talking 46 studies involving more than a thousand people who say they have it. But, when put to the test, when you put all the studies together, not only did they find “no [significant] impact” on any of the symptoms, “there was no evidence that subjects were [even] able to detect [the fields].”

            No, nor would one expect to find anything from bundling in 46 studies, most of which are garbage anyway. These studies don’t demonstrate that EHS doesn’t exist, they show that not everyone who claims to have EHS actually has it. Obviously, if you test 19 people who aren’t affected by EMF along with 1 who is, the results of the 19 will drown out the 1. It would be like trying to demonstrate that hypothyroidism exists by taking the average T4 of 20 people, 19 of whom wrongly thought that they were hypothyroid. Finding one person in a million who is affected physiologically by EMFs is enough to show that the effect is real.

            Another, much more serious problem with these studies is that they are not testing the right thing. Typically they use either a steady microwave source or one which is modulated in intensity using a modulator. But the EMF effects are caused by sharp cut-offs, as this study shows:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784

            In any case, if the effect is a nocebo one, why is it measurable in animals?

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27362544
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26511840
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23720885
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26396154
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18827438

            >>You might be said to be viciously attacking Greger for daring to mention these studies and accusing him of denying the reality of people’s symptoms.

            As usual, your empty speculation is way off. I am attacking Gregor because I have studied this subject in depth for many years and know that his conclusions are wrong. Moreover, unlike him, have qualifications in this area.

            1. “It said that AE rates were higher in statin users. What are you confused by?”
              But that wasn’t your claim. You said creatine increase rates were higher in statin users. They weren’t.

              “No, nor would one expect to find anything from bundling in 46 studies, most of which are garbage anyway …”
              Again, that is not what you claimed. You wrote that the video was based on ‘a few pieces of extremely poor quality research’. 46 isn’t a few.

              In any case, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the point of this video given your remark ‘Finding one person in a million who is affected physiologically by EMFs is enough to show that the effect is real.’
              Greger has posted enough stuff on this website that emphasises that EMFs can have harmful effects on human health/physiology to make it abundantly clear that that is not what he is arguing, eg
              https://nutritionfacts.org/video/cell-phone-brain-tumor-risk/
              https://nutritionfacts.org/video/do-cell-phones-lower-sperm-counts/

              1. At this stage I have no idea which study you are refering to. If you post a link to it I will have another look. In any case, there is plenty of evidence that statins do increase creatine kinase levels.

                >>Again, that is not what you claimed. You wrote that the video was based on ‘a few pieces of extremely poor quality research’. 46 isn’t a few.
                None of these studies was mentioned in his video, and I doubt that he looked at them. His video was based on a couple of other studies, which were also garbage.

                >>In any case, you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the point of this video given your remark ‘Finding one person in a million who is affected physiologically by EMFs is enough to show that the effect is real.’

                I haven’t misunderstood the point of the video, ‘fundamentally’ or otherwise. The point was to claim that people who have EHS are reacting entirely to the nocebo effect, and this point was not backed up by the evidence he presented.

                1. You wrote “Finding one person in a million who is affected physiologically by EMFs is enough to show that the effect is real.’’

                  Many people appear to be affected physiologically by EMFs. Greger’s other videos on this broad topic have made this point on multiple occasions. That has no bearing on whether electromagnetichypersensitivity is real. That is the point you do not/cannot/will not understand.

                  1. >>That has no bearing on whether electromagnetichypersensitivity is real. That is the point you do not/cannot/will not understand.

                    Nor did I suggest that it was. I said that the experiments which Gregor quoted didn’t prove its nonexistence because they were flawed. I explained why they were flawed.

                    This will be far too technical for you. However, other members of the forum may be interested to see this paper which came out of Italy recently. It explains which polymorphisms are linked to people with EHS. As one would expect, they are ones which involve oxidative stress, notably glutathione-(GSH) and GSH-peroxidase/S-transferase. This ties in with the rat experiments I linked to above, which show that anti-oxidants reduce the physiological effects of microwave radiation.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4000647/

                    This finding also shows how to identify EHS people – the one thing which the papers which Gregor cited completely failed to do.

                    1. ‘. I said that the experiments which Gregor quoted didn’t prove its nonexistence’

                      It baffles me why you keep claiming to have some special or superior scientific knowledge on this (or any other matter).

                      Anybody with even a nodding acquaintanceship with science knows that it is pretty much impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything. The experiments Greger cites therefore weren’t attempting to do that. They were attempting to demnstrate that the phenomenon is real. They failed.to uncover any evidence that it is. Hence the question posed in the video title.

                      To repeat, what the great majority of studies on this subject do is fail to discover any evidence that this is a real phenomenon – which is what the viddeo is about. You seem incapable of understanding that..

                    2. Incidentally, the other part of yor point entirely misses the point also.

                      Can’t you grasp the idea that the fact that EMF has real physiological effects is not the same thing as demonstrating that electromagnetichypersensitivity is real?

    3. Tara,

      Dr. Greger has done videos with cell phones affecting things.

      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effects-of-cell-phones-and-bluetooth-on-nerve-function/

      Dr. Greger, I turn to you right now and say that this video needed more teaching because it has to not contradict all the other cell phone studies and I am not saying that you intended to do that.

      I am saying that you acknowledge brain tumors, brain function issues, nerve function issues, sperm motility issues.

      People maybe don’t understand the whole science enough to understand the difference between this one and those.

      And by people, I mean me.

      I am not going to throw you under the bus.

      I am going to say the real effects from things like cell phones make it so that maybe some people are being affected, even if it takes more than one exposure to see the real harm.

      AND, YES, other people will get sick just that they held the cell phone too close to their head for an hour, and they will get sick by placebo effect, at first, then maybe get a brain tumor in a while, but maybe the cancer cells, which were already there might get a little stronger or not be able to divide (according to the tumor treating fields theory.)

      Yes, what you are hearing is that I came away more confused than ever and I think my blood-brain barrier just sprung a leak or something.

    4. I only know one person who told me she was electrically sensitive. When she visited her friend’s home out the country, she usually felt great. One time, she felt sort of weird and bothered by something, she didn’t know what. Turns out, they had gotten some electronic pest repellers for their garage which was close to the house, connected with a breeze way. When they unplugged the devices she felt normal again and was able to enjoy her visit. She didn’t know that there were such things. She could also discern if someone who entered the house had their cell phone turned on or not. It’s easy to believe other people are nuts when we don’t understand everything. She told me the strongest field she ever experienced was when she was near the White House in Washington DC. Amazing the creative minds of the the electrically challenged.

      1. Sara,

        That is a cool story.

        That would be the type of thing they would need to have demonstrated.

        They had 1000 people who thought they had it, but weren’t really sensitive.

        I will not be surprised at all if some people really are sensitive.

        I will also not be surprised if the people are the lowest tech living without cell phones might be the ones who tested sensitive.

        I say it, because of things like grounding studies and because when I was younger, i backpacked for a Summer and artificial lights are jarring and television or computers or loud noises all become disturbing. Almost like drinking something with artificial flavorings or artificial sweeteners after years of drinking high quality water.

        I can feel such a big difference in energy and frequency in nature versus the city and I don’t think it is placebo effect.

        1. Good point Deb. Maybe we’re desensitized and when we’re not, we notice it more… Interesting thought. Similar to the things you were mentioning, after getting away from unnatural chemical crap, I could no longer stand the smell of artificial fragrance, even body sprays that used to smell good to me started to smell like horrible poison. Febreez and all that is disgusting.

          1. Yes, I have the same thing.

            Isn’t it strange?

            Things I used to love smell and taste like poison now.

            I got the blue light blocking glasses even though the blue light from computers and television and neon and blue LED didn’t seem to bother me.

            Then, two houses on my street got into the type of Christmas Lights competition that was more like fingernails down a blackboard. There was nothing whimsical or colorful or fanciful or peaceful or beautiful about it. They matched each other light for light one with all blue LED and one with all yellow LED and I got a headache every time I looked at it. Placebo effect? I am not sure, but it caused me to get rid of the blue LED’s in the house I inherited and I put in the closest to natural light and I also got blue light blocking reading glasses for my computer and to watch television at night.

            I thought it would help me to sleep, but, obviously not, but it helped tremendously with eye strain and perceived stress.

            1. “Blue light from digital devices and the sun transforms vital molecules in the eye’s retina into cell killers, according to optical chemistry research at The University of Toledo.

              The process outlined in the study, which was recently published in the journal Scientific Reports, leads to age-related macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness in the United States.

              “We are being exposed to blue light continuously, and the eye’s cornea and lens cannot block or reflect it,” Dr. Ajith Karunarathne, assistant professor in the UT Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, said. “It’s no secret that blue light harms our vision by damaging the eye’s retina. Our experiments explain how this happens, and we hope this leads to therapies that slow macular degeneration, such as a new kind of eye drop.”
              https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180808093907.htm

              1. Wow, thanks Tom.

                I have to watch my eyes. My great-grandmother went blind.

                I don’t know if she ever got to see me with her eyes.

                She was a funny woman.

                She had glass eyes and when she laughed too hard, she would wipe away the tears and shoot the glass eyes across the room.

                I remember crawling around the floor to wrangle the glass eyes, but it would just make her laugh harder and do it again.

                Her son had one glass eye, too, but he didn’t have the same sense of humor.

                  1. My understanding is that glass eyes are provided for cosmetic reasons (ie wearers look more ‘normal’ and less disfigured to sighted people).

                    However, I speculate that they may also prevent further disfigurement – in that, if there is a hole where the eye was, other tissue may expand into that space or other tissue that was previously supported by the eye apparatus may drop somewhat without that support.

            2. Yikes, Deb, that sounds horrible! People suck.

              I have the blue light filtering screen on my computer and it has helped my eyes tremendously with strain, not sure it has any impact on sleep at all, if so I didn’t notice it.

  17. If anyone is interested, there IS a way to detect EM fields as a lowly human. Biohackers, “grinders,” who have inserted magnets under the skin of their finger-tips can learn to detect when electrical wires are live just by holding a finger over the wire. They don’t even have to touch it

    1. Biohackers, “grinders,” who have inserted magnets under the skin of their finger-tips can learn to detect when electrical wires are live just by holding a finger over the wire. They don’t even have to touch it
      ——————————————————————————————————
      Very interesting Ryan. And your comment triggered a thought about the amount of iron in one’s body. Wondering if the levels of iron and perhaps even the type of iron has anything to do with how an individual is affected by EMF

    1. Suzanne, if you click on the links he provides in the sources under the video, you get to PubMed and at the bottom of the abstract, there is a link for the full text.

      Sometimes, you get lucky and it is free.

      Not all the time.

  18. Hello,
    Dr. Gregor, do you know of studies about EMFs, electro-magnetic fields causing medical issues? Such as what comes off a ‘smart meter’ that the electric company installs on homes, etc.

  19. Generally I have a very high regard for your work,
    However in this instance, with the greatest of respect Sir, I believe that you have contradicted yourself in this video – please let me explain…

    The importance of good study design – or a lack thereof…
    For years you have been beating the war drum (and rightly so) that the results of clinical trials are limited, and can only be, to the quality and rigor of the planning and design of the studies themselves (for example comparing the health efficacy of a product against candies, etc.).
    Let me give you the example of the (now old) Samsung S4 mini – it’s a great phone, so long as you don’t turn the bluetooth on. Maybe there’s something defective about this particular device/unit; that it’s not protected properly, or there’s some other problem. I am not aware of issues being experienced with bluetooth from any other devices, however from this particular unit even when the subject is blind-folded and someone else turns the bluetooth on and off – the subject is able to hover their hand above it and can, with accuracy (so long a little time is given between samples for the sensation in the hand to dissipate), respond as to whether the bluetooth is turned on or not. The important point – if you chose any other device and tried this the test subject would just be guessing, however with this particular device there’s no ambiguity.
    A different example is the Blackview BV8000pro – great phone, built like a brick (which is good)… just don’t hold it to your head talking for 2-3 hours, you’re going to end up with a splitting head-ache. Talk on it for an hour, however, and it’s not a problem.
    Now tell me, how do you design an experiment where different models have different impacts upon people (and not all people) sometimes requiring extensive exposure?
    When the trials discussed in this video are thought through, even briefly, it becomes fairly obvious that they were poorly designed trials failing to take into consideration the multitude of variability that make this matter complex.

    Why do I say that you’ve contradicted yourself?
    Because for several years you have been emphasising the importance of study design.
    Why have you failed to note in your video the somewhat obvious deficiencies in the study’s conducted to date?
    I’m sure that there is a lot of unwarranted hysteria and psudo-science surrounding such subjects, but there is also real information such as that already presented by yourself:
    https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effects-of-cell-phones-and-bluetooth-on-nerve-function/
    https://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-cell-phone-radiation-cause-cancer/
    https://nutritionfacts.org/video/cell-phone-brain-tumor-risk/

    In summary:
    [Based upon solely the contents of the video] it presents as if you rushed into the making of this video without fully and appropriately considering the subject matter or the information to hand.

    This doesn’t in any way lessen my respect for your other work.

    Regards

  20. Cell phones are a source of concentrated microwave radiation.

    It would be interesting to do a comparison between microwave oven radiation and cell phone radiation.

    My microwave oven can boil water in a minute.

    Compare that to a weaker source (the cell phone) run for hours and days repeatedly.

    I’ve also seen photos of a woman that always kept her phone in her bra showing a darkened burned spot on her skin. I know that’s a sample size of one and could be fake. But it didn’t seem fake.

    The first study you show seemed like something that the cell phone industry might run. That was troubling to see as the lead to the video.

  21. I really appreciate Dr. Greger’s adherence to the principles of sound research. And I’m far from knowing anything about the effects or claimed effects of elctrosensitivity so am not trying to make any claims either way. But based on the short summary in this video it seems that there was some rather strange logic involved in the studies reported. If the only goal was to study whether people could perceive the source of the effect or not I guess the studies were sound. But that also seems kind of irrelevant; the primary question being whether or not there really is any effect. And that seems like it could be pretty independent of whether or not people properly perceive the source of the effect. E.g. should we gauge the safety of Co-60 by whether people can detect whether or not we slipped a chunk in their wallet or purse ?

    1. Dr. Greger has done videos on the effects of Cell phones and Laptops and EMF’s, so I am thinking this one was about particular groups who claim to be so sensitive that they can detect it, but you are right, the fact that there are effects makes this topic complicated.

      I was looking up biological mechanisms, which EMF’s do effect.

      The Mtor pathway is one. Nitric Oxide is one. Wound healing is one. Blood Brain Barrier. Yes, Lonie mentioned Iron and I think that was what the guy who researched static magnets said (and people can clean toilets with magnets would be my mind trying to figure out if he was right.) Calcium Channels…..

      I just found the logic a research team was investigating on parallels between autism and EMF exposure.

      “Autism spectrum conditions (ASCs) are defined behaviorally, but they also involve multileveled disturbances of underlying biology that find striking parallels in the physiological impacts of electromagnetic frequency and radiofrequency radiation exposures (EMF/RFR)………………………….”

      “Part II of this paper documents how behaviors in ASCs may emerge from alterations of electrophysiological oscillatory synchronization, how EMF/RFR could contribute to these by de-tuning the organism, and policy implications of these vulnerabilities. It details evidence for mitochondrial dysfunction, immune system dysregulation, neuroinflammation and brain blood flow alterations, altered electrophysiology, disruption of electromagnetic signaling, synchrony, and sensory processing, de-tuning of the brain and organism, with autistic behaviors as emergent properties emanating from this pathophysiology. Changes in brain and autonomic nervous system electrophysiological function and sensory processing predominate, seizures are common, and sleep disruption is close to universal. All of these phenomena also occur with EMF/RFR exposure that can add to system overload (‘allostatic load’) in ASCs by increasing risk, and can worsen challenging biological problems and symptoms; conversely, reducing exposure might ameliorate symptoms of ASCs by reducing obstruction of physiological repair. Various vital but vulnerable mechanisms such as calcium channels may be disrupted by environmental agents, various genes associated with autism or the interaction of both. “

      1. There are researchers who link it to multi-chemical sensitivity and they did find biological things in common. They are using the word “autoimmune”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326

        “We report here our preliminary data, based on 727 evaluable of 839 enrolled cases: 521 (71.6%) were diagnosed with EHS, 52 (7.2%) with MCS, and 154 (21.2%) with both EHS and MCS. Two out of three patients with EHS and/or MCS were female; mean age (years) was 47. As inflammation appears to be a key process resulting from electromagnetic field (EMF) and/or chemical effects on tissues, and histamine release is potentially a major mediator of inflammation, we systematically measured histamine in the blood of patients. Near 40% had a increase in histaminemia (especially when both conditions were present), indicating a chronic inflammatory response can be detected in these patients. Oxidative stress is part of inflammation and is a key contributor to damage and response. Nitrotyrosin, a marker of both peroxynitrite (ONOO°-) production and opening of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), was increased in 28% the cases. Protein S100B, another marker of BBB opening was increased in 15%. Circulating autoantibodies against O-myelin were detected in 23%, indicating EHS and MCS may be associated with autoimmune response. Confirming animal experiments showing the increase of Hsp27 and/or Hsp70 chaperone proteins under the influence of EMF, we found increased Hsp27 and/or Hsp70 in 33% of the patients. As most patients reported chronic insomnia and fatigue, we determined the 24 h urine 6-hydroxymelatonin sulfate (6-OHMS)/creatinin ratio and found it was decreased (<0.8) in all investigated cases.

        Finally, considering the self-reported symptoms of EHS and MCS, we serially measured the brain blood flow (BBF) in the temporal lobes of each case with pulsed cerebral ultrasound computed tomosphygmography. Both disorders were associated with hypoperfusion in the capsulothalamic area, suggesting that the inflammatory process involve the limbic system and the thalamus. Our data strongly suggest that EHS and MCS can be objectively characterized and routinely diagnosed by commercially available simple tests.

        Both disorders appear to involve inflammation-related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulothalamic hypoperfusion and BBB opening, and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability; suggesting a risk of chronic neurodegenerative disease. Finally the common co-occurrence of EHS and MCS strongly suggests a common pathological mechanism."

      2. Yes, thanks for the info. Postulating a mechanism that leads to a clearly measurable effect, although not always possible, would certainly seem to be the gold standard for these kinds of studies, and that would generate results that would seem to be reasonably trustworthy.

  22. Dear Dr. Gregor, You totally trust the veracity of researchers who misinformed the subjects of the experiment as to what really was happening? Do you always believe people who conspire to deceive? I don’t.

    1. Grasping straws now, aren’t we? Maybe, just maybe, you really cannot feel EMFs and if you were to be put under a double blind test it is extremely likely that’s exactly what would be the result.

  23. There’s a Navy report from 1972 of symptoms attributed to electromagnetic radiation at some govt website. The document is named “US NAVY doc re microwave emf.pdf” and lists pages and pages of effects known even at that time – before widespread wifi, cellphone, “smart” meters and G5. My theory is that this report was presented to a group of old guys sitting around a conference table, smoking cigars, and they chuckled to themselves, dismissed the presenter and started making plans for implementing all manner of EMR. They could have chosen a frequency other than that of microwave, but since they chose microwave, we are all being slowly cooked.

    1. Interesting conjecture but what are the actual facts?

      Armed forces the world over are usually well aware of the hazards of electromagnetic radiation and have policies and manuals that addess the issues. i don’t think the USN is any different, There are usually at least three sets of policy guidance/manuals on this: HERP, HERO and HERF. Googl ’em if you are interested.

  24. I’m somewhat irritated that the EMF blog has been hijacked to talk about statins. What’s the point of leaving a comment when it will be drowned out by off topic chatter. Besides people’s opinions are still just people’s opinions. If some people do suffer side effects from whatever, the effect is very real and can prove dangerous for that person…regardless of what naysayers or supporters have to say about the subject.

    1. *Round of applause for Charmaine!*

      It’s interesting to see who hijacked the thread in order to discuss statins, too. Right at the beginning, in fact. :-)

      P.S. to Deb: Twice I had asked about your “passing out” after eating unorganic green grapes. If you scroll up the hill (screen), you’ll see what I mean.

      1. Yes, I hit my head on the floor or refrigerator or wall.

        At Yosemite and in D.C. I hit my head on the concrete.

        It only happened with green grapes.

        Nope, I retract that. It might have happened a few times at salad bars. Hasn’t happened in 30 years.

        Dr would look at me when my mother brought me and shrug. BP was a little low. Blood Sugar was fine.

    2. The site encourages off-topic comments.

      In any case, you appear not to understand that thre is a difference between actual side effects from statins or mobie phone radiation and side-effects ascribed to statins and to mobile phone rdiation when the people concerned weren’t actually taking statins or being exposed to cell phone radiation in the first place. Which is kind of the whole point of the video.

      1. We could use the ol’ “six degrees of separation theory” excuse for just about anything, couldn’t we!

        Nice attempt at damage control. Now go back and stand in your corner. :-)

        1. Clearly these are points you don’t understand either – I would have thought that you of all people could simply have intuited them.

          Or shall we just blame Mercury in retrograde again? ;)

          1. Clearly, you like to begin your put-downs with “clearly.” I’ve noticed it several times.

            (Go back in your corner, you hijacker you!)

            1. YR,

              You make me laugh, but I have to say.

              Leave Tom alone. :-)

              Clearly, he isn’t the only one who hijacks the site.

              Compared to many of us, he brings valid discussion points.

              I like his links.

              1. As far as the creationism and conspiracy theory, I need to know which conspiracy theory was used.

                What the Health – would be a conspiracy theory, which almost no Christians have probably ever even heard of.

                I could do the political ones because my conservative friends read Boy Clinton and were waiting for William Casey to die before it happened and my liberal friends listen to WNPR and are oriented around the conspiracy that Trump and Putin are doing the exact same things the conservatives believed that the Clintons were doing.

                How about the conspiracies of who shot Kennedy? My secular not religious at all friends and relatives think it was organized crime and many in the black community think the government killed Martin Luther King Jr.

                I think about conspiracy after conspiracy and can’t think of any of them, which were ever discussed in the Christian communities I was in.

                They were into reading scripture and worshiping God and were too busy feeding the poor and going into prisons and going to church all week to be into any of it.

                  1. YR,

                    You genuinely make me laugh and I am going to say that nothing at all surprises me is my belief system about conspiracy theories.

                    I think I don’t make my mind up about them if I don’t have to and if user people who might be either in something which looks like one, I politely back up, because one way or another they are generally about money or power.

                1. The thing is, it isn’t a conspiracy theory if it is true, but there is so much deception out there that it is hard to tell what is true.

                  There has always been corruption with money and power.

                  If you have ever been in business or if you were ever in leadership, you will have probably seen it.

                  We stood against it, but we would have organized crime in business wanting their ring to be kissed and wanting blackmail money. The ones who were involved got in trouble and that was a business story and I had a friend in school whose father was involved in political corruption and that is a real thing, too.

                  When we end up with the government doing things like the Tuskegee experiment and when there is genuine organized crime and a drug culture and money laundering and scams everywhere, I am just saying that my friends whose relatives really are organized crime, who have done hits on people tend to think people who aren’t conspiracy theorist are naive.

                  I am thinking that both Clinton and Trump would think the same thing perhaps a version of “You can’t handle the truth” from A Few Good Men.

                  Those are realities.

                  I don’t feel like acknowledging abuse of power as a reality is being a conspiracy theorist.

                  When I was in school, pot was illegal and 90% of the kids had access to it. Was there an adult somewhere on the outside actually intentionally selling it to the kids? Or did it just manifest itself? Somebody somewhere was making money and that is where conspiracy theories come from.

                  1. I am not saying the study isn’t valid.

                    I haven’t looked at it yet.

                    I will say that I lived out in California where producers were trying to get my writing friends to watch kiddie porn and take drugs and sleep with underage people and where one of the people I saw every day killed his wife with an ax and burnt his house down with his daughter alive in it and shot himself, after having tried to get someone to write a script with a theme of a husband trying to hire someone to kill his wife. Years ago and his sons are still alive and he was fired from a work where the director forced people to take drugs, and that part is on the extra footage of the DVD, of the movie, and the man who killed his family is in a book on the making it, but the whole script part isn’t in either source. I read his script version of it, and had left CA, long before the whole thing happened.

                    Yes, I am not actively pursuing conspiracy oriented topics. Reality is corrupt enough without adding to it. I believe in serial killers and in political and business and religious and organized crime and disorganized individual and organized individual crime versions of corruption and also believe that some of us just want to live peaceful lives and really don’t want to know any of it.

                    1. And I laugh because my tiny run-ins with organized crime and corrupt business and teen-aged and adult pot smokers and people who killed people over a card hand or a desire to kill someone all are anecdotal and I know that you don’t believe in anecdotal evidence and I respect that, but I chalk enough anecdotal evidence up to something called, living long enough to have a lot of experience.

                    2. There’s a whole lot of stuff people don’t or care to know about. Yet. “Truth” will be revealed some day, of that I’m sure.

              1. You copy and paste text you’ve found online ‘clearly’. What you can’t do is to synthesize facts or understand logical arguments.

      2. Tom,

        That is a valid point and it is actually on-topic, because of that study being included in the video.

        It is a helpful valid point.

        1. TG must be very grateful to have you in his cheering section, Deb. :-)

          Thanks for finally replying to my grape question. That’s really, really, weird….never heard of anybody fainting from eating a green unorganic grape before! Have you been written up somewhere? If not, why not? Organic green grapes are okay, though, I assume. (?)

          I like the black or red seedless grapes best myself. Although they’re listed as one of the Dirty Dozen, I admit I do not buy them organic; I let them soak in a solution of baking soda and white vinegar for a while and just hope for the best.

          1. No, my doctor couldn’t figure out the fainting. It was a customer through work 30-something years ago who heard about it and he had a chemical sensitivity to the chemical used to flatten green grapes.

            Green grapes were one of the only fruits I ate when I was younger.

            His answer seemed good enough, but it was probably 30 years before I tried organic green grapes and I never fainted again, but used to joke that I was allergic to fruit and salad bars and meat, but was not allergic to junk food at all.

            1. I never even knew there were chemicals on green grapes or that they used MSG on Chinese food or Salad bars. I just would either faint from some things or would projectile vomit and I don’t use that term loosely.

              I haven’t been sick like the flu for so long, but the flu had nothing on that.

              When I lived out in CA, I threw up every time I ate meat or Chinese or Thai food or Mongolian or whatever that was.

              That was where I decided MSG was one.

              I never figured out the meat, but I vividly remember the exact bushes outside the exact restaurant where I threw up so violently that I never ate meat ever agsin.

              Yes, after that, I became a moral vegetarian, but back then I ate meat with every meal.
              Now, I think I am closer to a moral vegsn, because they keep the animals pregnant, but back then, it just was a mystery.

              1. The only reason I figured the MSG out was that the college had a food court across the street and it is where I started drinking Lattes instead of coffee and most of the establishments had a bottle with handwritten MSG on it which they would sprinkle on the food.

                I would end up sick often enough that I blamed those bottles, because half the time I would skip breakfast, so it was either the latte or the MSG or something else.

                1. “I just would either faint from some things or would projectile vomit and I don’t use that term loosely.”
                  – – – – – – – –

                  Wow, Deb, just wow! You’d faint OR projectile vomit? You are indeed a most unusual character. :-)

      3. The ‘whole point of the video’ from your point of view is to try to upset people by writing brainless put-downs and sneers and by cutting and pasting nonsense you have found on Google searches which you believe backs up your ignorant opinions. I presume that you are now retired, and being an online troll is your full-time occupation.

  25. I am a strong supporter of the wonderful, science-backed research and commentary the Dr. Gerger brings us. He has put many, many of us on the track to better health. I also appreciate the disciplined scientific approach used to nutrition and health. I believe this video on EMF doesn’t meet his usual high standards, however. All the of the studies he cited were in fact very good, controlled studies. They investigated whether there was an immediate effect of EMF, based on self-reported (not-so-scientific) results. The self-reporting is fine, sometimes it’s all we have. The “immediate” effects are not so fine. There may be immediate effects from EMF exposure. As the results of these studies show, however, there doesn’t appear to be. What about long-term effects from exposure. Kids having phones on their bodies and close by at night, continuously for many years. Not so easy to test for, as we know. But I don’t think results from studies on immediate exposure negates the possibility that there may be some long-term effect from the EMF’s. If we wanted to show that cigarettes have no detrimental effects, according to the EMF research presented, all we need to do is have some people smoke some cigarettes and see if they get lung cancer during the experiment. No lung cancer, they must be safe?
    In years of following Dr. Greger, this is the first time I recall I had problems with the science and conclusions.

    1. Why don’t you look at all his other videos on the effects of EMF/EMR/mobile phones/laptops etc on human health?

      Are you sure that you aren’t just misunderstanding what he is saying here?

    2. >> All the of the studies he cited were in fact very good, controlled studies.

      They were not good studies, they were very poor studies. Please see my other comments.

      But you are right, there are (many) long-term effects. But these effects didn’t even measure the short-term effects properly.

  26. Doctor Greger, I appreciate in general your videos when obviously you know what you are talking about BUT in relation to electronics and the types of radiation produced by mobile phones, their towers, G5 and pulse radiation obviously you know very little so please shut up your mouth until you have properly researched the issue.

  27. Hi, can someone from the NF team please explain why my comment containing reasonable critique of the video plus several citations for discussion was removed? As a long time viewer (and past supporter), censorship such as this is only further diminishing the credibility of the site.

    1. Hi Petri,

      Sorry about that. We would never censor criticism to the content as long as it is respectfully communicated (no profanity, hate speech). I believe your comment was automatically flagged due to the amount of links you included along with the length of the comment, which are often spam. Your comment was, of course, wrongfully flagged since it is not spam and I have approved it. It can be found here: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/is-electromagnetic-hypersensitivity-real/#comment-538081

      1. While you’re at it, perhaps you could remove this video before it damages Dr Gregor’s reputation still further. There are dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing very real effects of EMF in both humans and animals. As I explained in other comments, EMF causes oxidative stress through its effects on voltage-gated calcium channels, and is linked to specific polymorphisms. It’s just as real as anything else that he discusses. For reasons that I don’t understand, he has taken a couple of extremely poorly-conducted studies and used them as a basis of a rather nasty hatchet-job.

  28. Thank you for this video. I would be very interested in any scientific results regarding use of electromagnetic therapy, or what is known as PEMF therapy, on people to allegedly cure generalized pain and inflammation, as well as depression, weight loss, and a variety of other diseases. For instance, the BEMER device. Thanks.

  29. I am going to laugh my head off reading all these comments.

    Dr. Greger are you bored from not having enough time on the road so you are going to bring up Smoking Pot and then follow it up with EMF’s and do a “hypersensitivity isn’t real” like this up to rile up the audience?

    Laughing at Tom taking on the conspiracy theorist creationists.

    YR, I haven’t been going all the way through the Kreb’s Cycle of the comments this week is the answer.

    As far as me talking about the man who killed his wife and daughter and self, I want to apologize, I can’t edit it, but it isn’t an appropriate topic for this community. He was a real person trying to make it in the film industry. He had two adorable very young sons when I was out there. I got caught up in the topic of conspiracy theories, because I can list a whole list of names of people I am 6 degrees of separation who were murdered or killed someone or killed themselves and Tom, I know people who got murdered over a watch and over a poker pot, which was less than $20. I am related by marriage a few times removed to someone who killed a girl out of perversion as a teenager. His family was so devastated as was the community. To me, I don’t dismiss conspiracy theories as fast as you do, because corruption is such a big part of the human drama.

    The person I knew who was in California is someone I have a mini-conspiracy theory about because the movie he was fired from was being led by a famous person who forced people to take drugs to be a part of it – on the bus, off the bus thing. Do I know whether he went home on drugs that day? No. I wasn’t even in California anymore and not one person has suggested it, but he didn’t seem to be into drugs during the years I saw him with his kids and I honestly ponder if he “got on the bus” with everybody else, and that process of trying to make sense of tragedies probably does lend itself to conspiracy theories.

    The truth is I will never know the answer why he did it.

    To me, I am so aware of political corruption and business corruption and what happens when money is involved that I don’t discount things, but that is different than actually believing the stories.

    I mentioned the JFK and MLK Jr and the truth is, there are so many problems with the official stories that I have a nebulous sense that the various conspiracy theories at least attempt to explain things, which just don’t make sense.

    That being said, I know nobody proved anything, so I don’t just “believe” the conspiracy theories either and, yes, I am a creationist.

    1. If I were still RC I might take me sinnin’ bod to a pedo priest and confess my mortal sin: “Bless me father, for I have sinned. I’m thinking I might be a conspiracy theorist.”

      Oh the gravity of it all! Would that pedophile priest ever be horrified, huh? :-)

  30. I would agree with you.. but! A mobile telephony company built a cell mast right outside my house. For six months I felt really ill, but could not understand what was wrong with me. I did not even know the cell mast was there, because… well, I never thought about EMF at all. I never paid any attention to it. Then my neighbour asked me if I had been suffering from headaches, muscle pain, etc – because he had, and he had connected it to the cell mast. I did not believe him, until I did some research of my own. Then I was convinced. What convinced me even further, was that at one stage the mast was disabled. All our symptoms disappeared. Then one day I started feeling really ill. I phoned my neighbour, he did readings, the mast was still off. I could not understand why I felt so bad. After three terrible days, I asked him to come round with his EMF meter.. and he found that my portable phone had started to malfunction and was emitting very high EMF. We switched it off, and the headache disappeared. A week later, the cell mast went back on, and the headaches came back. Yes, I agree, the symptoms are very random and extremely vague, but they are real. A few days of EMF, and I am ready to climb the walls with pain. I now live in my garage, while we are busy with a court case to get the mast taken down.

    1. It’s extremely likely that your health effects are a direct effect of the microwave exposure you are being subjected to. You may need to move.

  31. There seems to be a nasty element of ‘gotcha!’ about this post. It took me around three months to become EMF sensitive, but it has now become disabling. I did not choose this condition, and I did not even know about EMF sensitivity until I was trying to find some reason for my severe and chronic symptoms of headache and muscle pain. I have read widely, and when you see sneering posts like this, it makes you despair even further. So.. if I have not developed intolerance to EMF, what is wrong with me then? That’s the thing. Not a single doctor, expert, scientist, or physician, has been able to identify any other cause of my symptoms.. which, by the way, have been confirmed by medical tests.

    1. You are right to be angry: Michel Gregor has done a very poor job here. He profiled two extremely badly-designed experiments, neither of which demonstrate that EHS is not real. Please see my other comments and links to other research for details. There is overwhelming evidence that EHS exists: we understand its causes (primarily an increase in oxidative stress caused by the microwaves effect on voltage-gated calcium channels). We also understand how to reduce the effects (see the links I posted).

  32. There is a paper on the nocebo effect here that people may want to read
    :
    https://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/assets/fmhs/som/psychmed/petrie/docs/2013-nocebo-review.pdf

    Interestingly, the researchers that authored the paper also observed

    ‘The perception that one is particularly sensitive to electromagnetic fields such as those involved in mobile phone technology is associated with poorer general health and the experience of a greater number of other medically unexplained symptoms and syndromes.63 One common response to perceived exposure to
    electromagnetic fields in those who perceive themselves to be sensitive is a ‘mobile phone headache.’ These headaches and other associated symptoms, however, are more likely to be the result of the expectation of symptoms after exposure to a mobile phone, as no significant differences have been identified in frequency, type or location of headaches in participants who are exposed to real or sham electromagnetic fields.64 Under double blind conditions, symptoms commonly reported by people who perceive themselves to be ‘electrosensitive’ have not been found to be caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields.65 66’

    1. What’s so sad is that you probably believe that you are making an intelligent contribution to this discussion with your brainless cut-and-paste comments. Do share with us why you think that this article by somebody working in a completely unrelated area of science somehow ‘proves’ that nobody is able to detect EMF.

  33. Electromagnetic intolerance sounded like made up crap to me. Interesting to see it put to the test. We just watched a show about a couple people who make this claim and looked like they were just ocd.

  34. It is very sad to see such non-scientific rubbish put forward as “scientific evidence”. Dr. James Rubin, and his research on EHS, via “provocation studies” is flawed and has been de-bunked. Dr. James Rubin is a trained psychiatrist, not a biologist or physiologist.. Much of the research on those provocation studies was heavily funded by the telecom industry with the specific agenda to create doubt about the harmful effects of RFR.

    The premise of Dr. Rubin’s provocation studies is that an ehs person would be able to feel when wifi is on and then when it is turned off, and then back on, and then off, and on, and off, etc, throughout many hours of a day, which is ridiculous. A large number of ehs subjects were not able to last the day and had to leave the study. The premise itself is flawed, which nullifies the entire study. Once the ehs person is exposed and expresses feelings of harm, that internal harm has been done, and is not undone simply by turning off the wifi signal, but must take time, like any injury, to heal.

    If the scientific studies of biological effects are important to this site, then look at Dr. Martin Pall’s research on the Voltage Gated Calcium Channels which focuses on specific, detailed, and unimpeachable data that indicates serious changes in the metabolic functions of cells with wireless exposure, not this psycho babble meant to mislead the unsuspecting public.

      1. Maybe read her comment more clearly. You seem to have a habit of spitting out unpleasant comments without bothering to read or understand what the other person has written. I don’t think you would be very good company in real life – you seem like a nasty, narcissistic little man with a lot of anger issues.

    1. You are correct. I am also surprised that Michel Gregor has been so uncritical of these extremely poor-quality studies. Unfortunately, he does tend to take things at face value with little or no analysis. He’s a good man, but he’s no scientist.

      The title of his video suggests that these experiments demonstrated that EHS is not real. However, the protocol of the experiments was almost laughable: all that they demonstrated was that not everyone who thinks that he or she has EHS actually has the disease. People who most probably were EHS sensitive were grouped in with people who were not, hence diluting any statistical effect. It would be like testing one person with hypothyroidism by testing him with 19 other people who thought they had hypothyroidism, but didn’t. The average level of T4 for the entire group would be normal. But this experiment wouldn’t (obviously) prove that hypothyroidism doesn’t exist.

  35. Unfortunately Dr. Greger’s video is misleading. Although it is true the electrosensitive people don’t necessarily know when they are being exposed, it is undeniable that there is an effect. There are plenty of rigorous studies that show physiological effects from EMF exposure. I’ve listed just a few below.

    Aalto, S., Haarala, C., Brück, A., Sipilä, H., Hämäläinen, H., & Rinne, J. O. (2006). Mobile phone affects cerebral blood flow in humans. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 26(7), 885-890.

    Haarala, C., Aalto, S., Hautzel, H., Julkunen, L., Rinne, J. O., Laine, M., … & Hämäläinen, H. (2003). Effects of a 902 MHz mobile phone on cerebral blood flow in humans: a PET study. Neuroreport, 14(16), 2019-2023.

    Huber, R., Treyer, V., Borbely, A. A., Schuderer, J., Gottselig, J. M., Landolt, H. P., … & Achermann, P. (2002). Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG. Journal of sleep research, 11(4), 289-295.

    Heuser, G., & Heuser, S. A. (2017). Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields. Reviews on environmental health, 32(3), 291-299.

    1. You are absolutely correct. The mistake which Gregor makes is to confuse the question ‘can some people detect EMFs?’ with the question ‘can random people detect EMFs?’

        1. Obviously not good ones. Or rather, the positive results from those who actually are EMF sensitive would have been drowned in the noise of those who weren’t.

          It would be like testing people who thought they had cancer, finding that they didn’t, and then concluding that cancer doesn’t exist.

  36. While psychologically they can’t tell when it’s causing them issues. Doesn’t mean it isn’t causing any harm. I mean I could breath in loads of fumes, and not really feel anything, par maybe light headed and then get cancer. There is lots of data that shows mobile phones can cause cancer, at least older mobile phones. There is also some data which suggests WiFi could cause cancer too. So people not being able to notice, might be a Red Herring. I’m sure if people walked round the edge of Chernobyl they wouldn’t feel anything, but I guarantee that it would cause horrible affects to them later. Not being able to feel a threat, doesn’t mean that mobile phones, or high electric fields are safe. So my suggestion would be look at the effects of electricity and radiation. This is where the belief comes from, and it’s not insane to worry about this. I think it’s rational to worry about a threat that you can’t see. While I know there is loads of people selling magical thinking or stones which do nothing. If you had Equipment that measured high levels of radiation or large electric fields, then I think that wouldn’t be irrational. Sometimes people like to believe the idea that ignorance is better for ones mental health, but me, I prefer a practical solution. A way in which to measure that which someone knows can be dangerous, so they feel in control of their lives. If you show studies which prove the safe levels, have a meter which detects high levels, then people with this issue would know, and knowing, is better then hoping. So the issue is knowing but feeling powerless.

    1. So again the issue is knowing but feeling powerless.

      In the sense knowing high electric fields and radiation cause issues, but not knowing if you’re in an area with these dangerous levels. You can know how warm it is using a thermometer. So giving these people a way to measure the electric fields and radiation levels would probably help them over come the issues they have.

      1. Stephen,

        I agree with you.

        The fact that people are aware of danger with exposure and maybe don’t understand how much danger and they don’t trust the money-makers or the government to be straight up with them or to run fair studies and they feel powerless to stop it.

        Those realities would affect these studies so much.

        For instance, if they did a study and said we put a little bit of poison in one of the punch bowls, but not enough for you to taste it, you would get results similar, because being afraid makes you think you might taste it.

        Some people take B-17 with no fear at all and others are afraid of cyano B-12 and it may even make those people sick with real cortisol and blood pressure going up and they would say that they are sensitive and might not test sensitive, but are sensitive out of fear.

        Versus the two people who were highly accurate and really are sensitive.

      2. Stephen,

        I agree 100% that knowing what’s affecting you and testing is essential.

        You can easily measure EMF’s with a host of fairly inexpensive devices.(https://www.google.com/search?q=emf+radiation+meters&oq=emf+radiation+meters&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l2.11247j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

        As to overcoming the issues…. it’s hard to say if it would actually make their concerns escalate as one finds “excess” levels within their home,
        or have one relax and accept that the EMF’s are not the causal agent.

        Dr. Alan Kadish moderator for Dr. Greger http://www.Centerofhealth.com

  37. I had the thought that if The old psych studues, which Dr Lisle quotes are true, 65% of the people might fail a study where there is no right answer out of trying to please the authority figure.

    I can use an example from my brothers high school science class. The teacher told them to plot a curve of the answer in the lab and my brother was the only one in any of the classes who got the right answer, because the answer was a straight line and people thought they were wrong and every high school student always changed their straight line to a curve to please the teacher.

    My brother lost his book the first week, but somehow already understood science and he got questions right on the final which the teacher hasn’t gotten to yet and got 100 on every test and a zero on every homework assignment.

  38. if my brother ever goes WFPB he would help me wit LJ the science more than anyone.

    I remember buying “A Brief History of Time” video when it first came out and I watched the beginning and my brother walked in the room, heard Mr Hawkings theory and said, “Deb, don’t listen to that man, he didn’t take time into account. his theory is wrong.” He said it after 5 seconds thinking time.

    He was a flannel shirt and concert t-shirts guy who everybody would underestimate, but I watched the rest of the video and he was right.

  39. Dr. Greger cherry picks just like all others purporting to know whats best for optimum health. The Electromagnetic sensitivity article proves that Dr. Greger sways the discussion in his direction. Dr. Joseph Mercola is on the other end of the spectrum issuing EMF warnings constantly. Slanker Omega 3/grassfeed meats indicate that animal products are part of a healthy dietwhen the Omega 6 to 3 ratio is at or close to 1:1. I have to decifer what’s true and what’s not. Dr. Greger’s salt limiting is wrong. Most of Dr. Greger’s comparison compares low quality food. Himalayan salt is healthy. Table salt is not. I ingest salt and have a Blood Pressure typically of 117/78. The wrong salt =high blood pressure.

  40. unbeliavable dear michael..this time. u r always so sjhort, targeted, good videos.. i dont see if so many comments 248 u might read, sorry, im isrtaely ready to be tested.. i suffer so muxh and can distinguish so much between cellphone on and off plud other electrical devices.. the shielding equipment is not money, its life saving cant describe how much!! sorry for this video, causing a true human danger a bad name of non scientific. its impossible,

  41. After researching on my new cell phone for one week with data – I am 60 yrs old – I was left with intense pain in between my thumb and forefinger and the metacarpal bone in there was very painful to touch, I had burning pain going up my arms. I ignored the symptoms – and than woke up one morning with BOTH arms in severe pain, carpal tunnel in both wrists – took awhile to get all of that to settle down and believe me I hold the cell phone as little as possible. I was informed by a Functional Medical doctor that I AM indeed hypersensitive to EMFs but I never knew how that affected my body!
    After 3 1/2 years of detoxing from heavy metals – with mercury being the worst offender – my hair analysis tests showed me just about cleared of all heavy metals and also my nutrition was right on track with what was showing on my daily tracker – so my deficiencies on my tracker actually matched the hair analysis.
    So – I had to ask myself why was I still having such extreme reactions = I started a diary and yes, it all corresponded to EMFs.
    I bought myself an EMF meter – don’t forget there are 3 types of EMF offenders – and I went around my small apartment and removed what I thought to be offenders – 2 large power bars and at night I unplugged everything that was not necessary. WITHIN ONE DAY of removing these 2 powerbars = I NO LONGER HAD A HYPERBLADDER – I could sleep naked again (yeah me!!) wow – what an eye opener.
    There IS hypersensitivity – many people are being affected – the problem is we don’t know how and it looks like it may be different for many – although there may be similarities.
    SO – what does it take to do a SCIENTIFIC STUDY that will be respected by the community? With a background in different energy modalities – I came up with a phrase that addresses EMF toxicity – when repeated by a number of people – these 10 words created a physiological response immediately. Dr. Gregor – how do I make this into a scientific study – we are being affected!!! In Canada we will be going to 5G within the year – half of us have not learned to live with the affects of 4G adding more devices/ power will be more than overwhelming!
    How to make this into a scientific study?

  42. What a load of crock! Dr Greger I expect much better from you.
    We don’t feel an xray but it certainly effects us, and with repeated exposure effects us even more.
    Just because the participants in the experiments could not detect the electro sensations does not mean it was not effecting them then or in the longer term.

    This is like saying after a great meal if you don’t feel better straight away, and all symptoms are gone, the meal was not effective.
    I am very surprised so much money has been spent on these tests.
    Were they paid for by the mobile companies who want to profit by people trusting everything is OK???
    Dr Gregor please take another look at this.

  43. You’re missing the point. Dr. G is not saying that EM does not have deleterious effects. He is saying that people that say that they can feel EM are full of baloney.

    Dr. Ben

  44. Electromagnetic field exposure in levels and types which differ from naturally occurring electromagnetic field exposure harms everyone, whether people can “feel” it or not. See The Bioinitiative Report (https://www.bioinitiative.org/).

    But like in everything, there are probably individuals who are more resistant to their negative effects and individuals who get sick faster or more noticeably. While I have tremendous respect for Dr. Greger, I think this video doesn’t tell the whole story. The following is some more recent research (from 2017 and 2018) supporting the existence of electrohypersensitivity:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28678737
    Functional brain MRI in patients complaining of electrohypersensitivity after long term exposure to electromagnetic fields.
    Heuser G1, Heuser SA1

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30015864
    Oxidative stress in electrohypersensitivity self‑reporting patients: Results of a prospective in vivo investigation with comprehensive molecular analysis.
    Irigaray P1, Caccamo D2, Belpomme D1.
    “The present study reports for the first time, to the best of our knowledge, that overall ~80% of EHS self‑reporting patients present with one, two or three detectable oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood, meaning that these patients‑as is the case for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease or other pathological conditions‑present with a true objective new pathological disorder.”

  45. Maybe electrosensitivity occurs as damage to nerve endings after repeated exposure. Are there any theories that support this type of thought process?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This