|«Latest ‹Forward News item: 7501 Back› Oldest»|
|Letter by Prof. Dominique Belpomme Addressed to Electrohypersensitive Persons|
|France||Created: 18 Apr 2018|
Why I filed a complaint! This sixth letter is addressed more specifically to all those who suffer from electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and to all the associations that, fortunately, have taken up their cause. From a scientific point of view, there is no doubt that electrohypersensitivity is an acquired condition of environmental origin and that, in one way or another, artificial electromagnetic fields (which are polarized and pulsed, unlike natural electromagnetic fields) are most likely involved. There are thousands of scientific articles and even several journals entirely devoted to this subject. No doubt, even if it is still hesitant about the truth of this cause and the individualization of EHS as a new pathological condition, we should recall that following the 2004 Prague Congress, the WHO formally recognized the existence of EHS as a deleterious health "condition". Since then, numerous scientific studies have come to confirm the harmfulness of electromagnetic fields on health and, as we have shown, the possibility that chemicals may also be involved in the genesis and/or manifestations of EHS, since multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) is a condition often associated with it, whether it be the cause or consequence.
Then why such opposition and controversy against those who suffer and doctors and researchers who try to understand the reason for this suffering and work to alleviate it?
Everyone knows the real reasons, which are not scientific, and it is not necessary here to dwell on them.
In the latest ARTAC newsletter, you will find the current state of our research on the subject, which shows that people with electrohypersensitivity present in 70-80% of cases, at the molecular level, oxidative stress. This confirms the results obtained recently by an Italian team.
However, the existence of such oxidative stress is incompatible with the assumption of ANSES [Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety] according to which EHS is caused by a nocebo effect, even if we can admit that, secondary to the genesis of EHS, such an effect may appear in the form of a sort of conditioned reflex.
Our work is therefore radically opposed to the conclusions of ANSES, which unfortunately are not scientifically founded, since ANSES has in fact decided not to recognize the effects of electromagnetic fields on health. Moreover, it is not for ANSES to present in an official report research hypotheses that have not been validated by the medical and scientific community.
Another important result of our research is to have proven that the administration of fermented papaya (Immun'Age) can improve the clinical symptomatology of patients and normalize the pulsometry measured by ultrasound tomosphygmography at the temporal lobes thanks in particular to an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effect.
There remains the problem of smart meters. As many know, ENEDIS has arranged for the National Medical Council to lodge a complaint against me. However, in defiance of the secrecy of the investigation, the content of this complaint was disclosed in the press. This allowed some unscrupulous media to write with disregard for any serious investigation of polemical and slanderous articles attacking my honor and the quality of my research.
I was thus obliged to lodge a complaint against some of these media on the one hand and against X on the other hand for violation of professional secrecy and concealment of violation of professional secrecy. However, outside the Council of the Order, only ENEDIS knew the content of the complaint against me.
The sick are there and their existence and suffering cannot be denied. It is in the name of the Hippocratic Oath that I have acted and will continue to act, in full ethical awareness, because beyond the barriers that are now erected to refuse to recognize EHS, there is the intangibility of scientific facts and the hope for a better world.
Prof. Dominique Belpomme
1. Hansson Mild K, Repacholi M, van Deventer E, Ravazzani P, eds. 2006. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Proceedings, International Workshop on EMF Hypersensitivity, Prague, Czech Republic, October 25-27, 2004. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO Press. p. 16.
2. Belpomme D, Campagnac C, Irigaray P. 2015. Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Rev. Environ. Health. 30: 251-271.
3. Irigaray P, Garrel C, Faure P, Belpomme D. Oxidative stress in electrohypersensitivity self-reporting patients: results of a prospective in vivo molecular analysis. Int J Mol Med. 2018.
(not yet on-line)
4. De Luca C, Thai JC, Raskovic D, Cesareo E, Caccamo D, Trukhanov A, et al. 2014, Metabolic and genetic screening of electromagnetic hypersensitive subjects as a feasible tool for diagnostics and intervention. Mediators Inflamm. 2014: 924184.
5. Dieudonné M. 2016. Does electromagnetic hypersensitivity originate from nocebo responses? Indications from a qualitative study. Bioelectromagnetics 37: 14-24.
6. ANSES. Pré-rapport d’expertise : Hypersensibilité électromagnétique ou intolérance environnementale idiopathique attribuée aux champs électromagnétiques. Juin 2016.
2018 : https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/AP2011SA0150Ra.pdf
(available for now only in French)
7. Irigaray P, Garrel C, Houssay C, Mantello P, Belpomme D. 2018. Beneficial effects of a fermented papaya preparation for the treatment of electrohypersensitivity self-reporting patients: results of a phase I-II clinical trial with special reference to cerebral pulsation measurement and oxidative stress analysis. Funct Foods Health Dis 8(2): 122-144.
Original articlce in French:
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Towards Better Health blog, Dominique Belpomme, 14 Apr 2018|
|«Latest ‹Forward News item: 7501 Back› Oldest»|