Saturday, 27 March 2010

My electrosenstivity showed up in late 2004 after a boat trip where I'd spent the day on the deck close to the mobile phone antennas, the radar and GSM probably, and the night also not far from them. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, a journey I made by boat in order not to add to greenhouse gases by taking the plane. I'd already been given a lovely present of a wireless phone on the bedside table, an electric transformer under the bed, mobile phone antennas very close and the terminal of some electrical wiring, to mention only the most powerful sources of electromagnetic radiation.
At the time I could no longer even walk beside a river (the friction of the water molecules releases atoms and creates an electrical field), my legs felt like cotton wool and I felt as if I was going to fall over.
When I was exposed to electromagnetic fields, all sorts of symptoms could appear: inflammation of the thyroid and severe pains (I suffer from the auto-immune Hashimoto's disease); feeling dizzy, falling sensations, poor coordination between brain and legs; sensations of electrocution of the brain followed by suffocation; problems with my metabolism; heart problems, digestive problems; problems with my sight; joint pains; stabbing pains in my muscles; cramps; sleeping problems; exhaustion; being unable to stand stress, heat, noise, light; difficulty in remembering, concentrating and following through my thoughts and speaking; skin conditions; severe pain in the jaws and teeth; depression - to mention only the mentionable ones.
And as if that wasn't enough, whether exposed to EMFs or not, I entered a charmed world: thickening features, falling hair, silhouette like a pink hippopotamus .....
In 2005 I put my health in the hands of the medical profession. When I found out they could do nothing I decided in 2006 to take charge of it myself. My first research foray led me to a forum "L'appart" that specialized in a gluten free and dairy-free diet. This diet did me a lot of good. Later that year an article in the magazine BioContact, distributed free in health shops, put me on the trail of poisoning from dental mercury so criticized by the late and regretted Dr Mellet. In fact I had many amalgam fillings, some of them overlaid with gold crowns. Gold and mercury can easily exchange their electrons, and the galvanization that this caused in my mouth greatly aggravated my numerous symptoms. I only understood this much later when the last crown was removed. . . In December 2006 I realised for sure that I was also electrosensitive when I went to visit one of my children who lived in a high-rise apartment block, on the 16th floor. It was obvious that the 6 relay antennas sited on its roof were very effective in filling the coffers of the Office Public de l'Habitat (formerly the Public Office of Social Housing), to the detriment of the health of its tenants. . In the face of all this I decided to create a healthier environment for myself.
Like many people who are EHS (Electro-Hyper-Sensitive), I had to confine myself in my home, which I'd fitted out with protection from hyperlan radiation (high-speed Internet at 5.4 GHz) and from LF radiation: Faraday cage and shielding of the mains electricity with earthing, among other things. If I chose to leave it, I had to wear garments that protected me against EMFs. In spite of these precautions, every trip resulted in a great deal of pain that was sometimes hardly bearable. If I tried to have some sort of social life I had to turn up with an HF EMF meter so that those present could see with their own eyes that their mobile phones were emitting powerful radiation, and I could hope that they would turn them off. It is worth remembering that Dr Maschi, who was rudely attacked by his colleagues, was already in 1965 warning about the health hazards from artificial electromagnetic wavelengths especially in low frequencies.
During the same period I had my dental fillings and crowns removed and followed a two-year chelation treatment to eliminate the heavy metals.
On the "L'appart" forum I met other people affected by heavy metals and EMFs and we set up another forum specifically for the topic of detoxification from these metals, the forum Melodie (Information and support for heavy metal detoxification)
Through our intense collective efforts we discovered some clues to other therapeutic approaches. One thing was obvious, that our immune systems were very weak, for instance several of us had Lyme's disease.
The most important discovery that our investigations and experiments as "forumers" revealed was probably the work of the American researcher Dr Hulda Clark. She describes how through using an audio oscillator she discovered that the root causes of all illness are environmental pollution and parasites (viruses, bacteria, moulds, amoebas, worms, etc). To restore health she developed a protocol that consists first of all in eliminating all parasites (certain ones block secretions from the organs) and cleaning out the cleansing organs: kidneys, intestines and liver. In fact the fourth liver cleanse removed a quarter litre of gallstones from my liver and cured my electrosenstivity. These cleanses are completely painless and can get rid of gallstones larger than a walnut.
However I still had problems with hypoglycemia and with painful joints, and a severe lack of magnesium. Continuing my research, I discovered that I had chronic candidiasis, a condition described in detail by Dr P-G Besson in his book "Je me sens mal, mais je ne sais pas pourquoi" (I Feel Bad but I Don't Know Why). Eliminating sugar from my diet completed my return to feeling well.
Chinese medicine has established a connection between the Hashimoto thyroid condition and chronic candidiasis. This system attributes auto-immune diseases to chronic candidiasis, since Candida albicans perforates the intestinal walls in order to feed itself from the lymph and the blood. I cherish the hope that eventually, once the Candida albicans has regained its place as common yeast, I will be able to say goodbye to my Hashimoto thyroid condition, which is supposedly incurable. In my case my thyroid, thanks to my gluten- and dairy-free diet (see the work of Dr Seignalet, "L'alimentation ou la troisième médecine" (Nutrition or the Third Type of Medicine) has not changed much and my antibodies are steadily decreasing. After several years of this condition this gland often just about disappears.
After thinking about this painful history and at its almost miraculous outcome, this is my understanding of the facts. This is just a hypothesis, mostly inspired by the work of Dr Hulda Clark. . Candida albicans is electrosensitive, so artificial electromagnetic fields constitute a stress for it. When I seat myself in front of my computer screen I soon start feeling itches in my back, one of the symptoms of chronic candidiasis. . It is a mould and therefore produces substances that are poisonous for the human body, feeding almost exclusively on sugar. Before the fourth cleanse my liver could no longer eliminate these substances. Dr Clark's theory was that the gallstones compress the cavities in the liver that detoxify the organism. Once these cavities that eliminate the Candida toxins had been unclogged by the fourth cleanse, my liver was once again capable of doing its cleaning job.
In a similar way, Dr Clark points out that the "universal allergy", that is to say chemosensitivity, can be cured by cleansing the liver of its numerous gallstones. It is a fact that 75% of people who are chemosensitive are also electrosensitive.
To treat chronic candidiasis it is essential to rebalance the ph of the body (since fungus grows in an acid environment) and to starve the Candida albicans to death by following a diet without any added sugar. This can take up to a year, and afterwards a strict diet must be adhered to. The growth of Candida is stimulated by, among other things, antibiotics, cortisone, chemotherapy, vaccines and fast foods, and by the pollution of the body by heavy metals and electromagnetic fields. In fact the graphs that indicate mercury poisoning, EMF pollution, Lyme's disease and chronic candidiasis are all more or less the same.
Unfortunately doctors do not receive nay training in environmental diseases. As soon as they come up against one of them they readily label it "psychosomatic" - it makes things so much easier! Tomorrow they'll tell us it's "genetic" but that won't make the diseases any better.
So when will they stop just trying to suppress symptoms, and take an interest in finding the cause of our diseases: pollution and parasites, poor eating habits, ineffective cleansing organs or whatever? .
Without the Internet and the Melodie forum [Fr], it would have been impossible for me to treat myself successfully.

Friday, 5 March 2010

ME now known as CFS, originally Yuppy Flu was its first name so called due to sufferers being early mobile phone users CFS symptoms and ES are closely linked. Why can't the Medics connect on this are we all turning into robots!

4 March 2010

Editor's Choice
Let’s proceed with caution
Fiona Godlee, editor, BMJ
The lively response to last month’s editorial on chronic fatigue syndrome (BMJ 2010;340:c738, doi:10.1136/bmj.c738) brings home the inadequacy of our current understanding of this condition, or group of conditions. The responses from patients, carers, and clinicians remind us that we remain largely in the dark about its causes and prognosis, there are no accepted diagnostic tests, and treatment options are limited ( Sufferers must also deal with social and (if they are doctors) professional stigmatisation, as dermatologist Stephanie Munn experienced (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1179).
Little wonder if many who live or work with chronic fatigue syndrome leapt at the news last October that scientists in Nevada had found a "highly significant association" between the condition and a newly discovered retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus (XMRV). The case-control study published in Science was trumpeted, especially by the authors, as having found the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome, with promises of a diagnostic test and treatments to follow.
As an epidemiologist, Cathie Sudlow’s initial response was sceptical, quickly confirmed when she saw that the paper lacked basic methodological information (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1260). "Where were the details of the characteristics and selection procedures for the cases and controls, or of blinding of researchers to the case-control status of the samples? Where was the discussion of the potential role of bias and confounding?"
She and others sent electronic letters to the journal. Four months on, these have yet to appear. Meanwhile, and sadly for those whose hopes had been raised, the study has been refuted by three further case-control studies, one of them in the BMJ (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1018). Myra McClure and Simon Wessely point out that claims of association between retroviruses and diseases often fail to withstand the test of time (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1099).
The paper by Van Kuppeveld and colleagues is an unusual paper for the BMJ to publish. As our research highlights page explains, we would usually reject a small case-control study examining the prevalence of a virus in 20 year old blood samples. Instead we fast tracked it. We did this because it’s about an important and debilitating syndrome that’s often seen by generalists and because we felt it added to an important and highly controversial debate. We and our reviewers also thought it was well done.
So yes, let’s have more research into chronic fatigue syndrome, but let’s make sure it’s good enough research.
We’re all under pressure to innovate, so we need to ensure as far as possible that innovation brings improvement. This may not be the case with the new edition of America’s (and hence the world’s) Diagnostic Criteria for Psychiatric Disorders. Three years in the drafting, DSM-V is now out for consultation with a view to publication in 2013.
Our editorialist cries caution (doi:10.1136/bmj.c1168). DSM-IV was unwittingly responsible, says Allen Frances, for three "epidemics" of overdiagnosis. Rates of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, and childhood bipolar disorders shot up when it was published, fuelled not only by DSM-IVs more inclusive diagnostic criteria but by zealous marketing of drugs to doctors and the public.
Now DSM-V threatens worse. It widens the criteria for several existing diagnoses and creates five new ones: binge eating, mixed anxiety depression, minor neurocognitive problems, risk of psychosis, and temper dysregulation. This could "expand the territory of mental disorder and thin the ranks of the normal," exposing vast numbers of new "patients" to avoidable harm.
Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c1266

Monday, 1 March 2010

Are We Expecting Too Much of Ofcom?

Extract from Ofcom’s official website: What is Ofcom? Ofcom is the communications regulator. We regulate the TV and radio sectors, fixed line telecoms and mobiles, plus the airwaves over which wireless devices operate.
We make sure that people in the UK get the best from their communications services and are protected from scams and sharp practices, while ensuring that competition can thrive. Ofcom operates under the Communications Act 2003. This detailed Act of Parliament spells out exactly what Ofcom should do. The Act says that Ofcom’s general duties should be to further the interests of citizens and of consumers. Meeting these two duties is at the heart of everything we do. Accountable to Parliament, we are involved in advising and setting some of the more technical aspects of policy, implementing and enforcing the law. Independent of Government, our decisions and advice are not swayed by party politics, which allows us to act solely in the interest of citizens and consumers.

1.8 We are asking stakeholders to consider the following questions when responding to this consultation:
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not grant the request to vary the five Wireless Telegraphy Third Generation Mobile Licences by increasing the permitted maximum in-band EIRP to 68dBm as soon as practicable? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.
Are there any reasonable grounds why Ofcom should not also apply the increased permitted maximum in-band EIRP to future 2 GHz MSS/CGC licences? If so, please explain your reasoning for this.

Such a request for information seems like a straightforward, honourable and reasonable position to take. Participation by ‘stakeholders’ - those who have something to gain or lose, is granted to all comers, for free. On the face of it, the consultative processes may seem like democracy in action.

But there is another interpretation: Yet more of our ‘inalienable’ right to unpolluted living space is about to be taken from us, and those with the power to do it are granting us the opportunity to express our opinion, to ‘get it off our chest’, as it were.
There are a number of reasons why consultation ‘rights’ might be granted:
• It makes the organisation asking appear fair and reasonable.
• It defuses opposition and protest.
• It divides and conquers (views flow into organisations, decisions flow out).
• It allows people with little or no power to believe they have some influence.
• It allows a gullible public to believe their rights are being treated with respect.
• It allows the recipients to ‘weigh the evidence’ according to their criteria.
The organisation offering the ‘consultation’ naturally cannot promise any particular action in response to concerns expressed as they do not know in advance what those views will be. They are nevertheless often the sole arbiter of which views are represented and what weight is given to them - they also control what data is published and when.
• The consultative process relies on those being consulted believing that their views may have a beneficial influence.
• Consultation takes the anger, force and motivation out of opposition. It provides a wall against which to throw sand.
• It provides insight into detail, strength of feeling and likely opposition.
• It buys time during which implementation plans can be fine-tuned to minimize the cost of adverse reactions.
• It provides apparent legitimacy for the chosen course of action.

Anything you get for free has got to be of questionable value. Being given the opportunity to express ones views, to defend one’s rights, by those who have the power to remove them, is a free opportunity that does not come without cost. After a suitable delay, expect a statement to the effect of: “All stakeholders have been given the opportunity to express their views and all submissions received by the deadline have been considered.”

Freely handing over one’s thoughts is a matter of trust. For many, Ofcom, particularly by its continued slavish adherence to the ICNIRP standard and its enthusiastic support for digital roll-outs, has failed to demonstrate that it is an official branch of this government that warrants the trust of those made ill by the technologies they promote.

Submissions which fall broadly in favour of the published plan may suggest additional business opportunities and will surely point to advantages of the plan which may be promoted to those less convinced by its benefits. Submissions broadly against the plan allow arguments to be identified and counter-arguments to be developed, disseminated and practiced.

Ofcom are not there to protect the public’s health. There is nothing in their statement about safety and deciding on ‘citizen’s best interests’ covers a multitude of sins. Delivering willing and reassured consumers to the incredibly powerful and influential telecommunications industry seems a plausible explanation. But why should such an outrageous thing be allowed to happen, especially regardless of the consequences suffered by some people? Never mind the billions of pounds/dollars/euros/yen that smooth the process, Governments cannot achieve sufficient intelligence information to counter terrorism without the support of the telecommunications companies. Our collective security is unfortunately now dependent on a dangerous and unequal alliance between Government and Very Very Big Business.

But people will say things like:
“If we don’t tell Ofcom our views when they do ask, how will they know what we want? Ofcom will say we don’t care and go ahead anyway.”
What is the point of telling Ofcom our views if we are not convinced Ofcom or the Governments ‘technology partners’ will not simply use our input to legitimize their actions? Is the mobile mast power upgrade a ‘done-deal’ and is public consultation merely ‘window dressing’? Why should the disenfranchised have any influence now when they have had precious little before?

If these words are representative of wider feelings, they may resonate with EMF Refugees across the world. Perhaps others will be inspired to share their otherwise private submissions with a wider and perhaps more receptive audience.

Does Ofcom deserve our respect and trust? Do we believe in its objectives? Do we support what it says it stands for? Do we feel our elected officials and unelected representatives who nonetheless speak and act on our behalf and with our authority, do we believe them to be smart, well-informed and influential enough to do us justice and safeguard our wellbeing?

1. Sufferers of EHS are reeling under the onslaught of wireless-radiation that by Ofcom’s authority they are now subjected to, everywhere they go. Unprecedented in the history of the planet, never before has so widespread, constant and untested wireless technology been unleashed on the whole ecosystem without adequate oversight and controls.

2. The UK Government, through Ofcom, has allowed, indeed encouraged everyone’s forced participation in the biggest uncontrolled biological experiment since the Nazi’s. Ordinary people who are unable to tolerate even the present level of these now ubiquitous emissions are losing their jobs, their homes, their opportunities - their lives. They have no access to medical and dental care, their ability to travel is curtailed, they are forced into isolation. Their rights are quietly being stripped from them. They have become outcasts and refugees in their own homelands. In short, like the polar bears, wolves and the American Indians, they are quietly having their habitats taken from them under official sanction. It is already a scandal. It is obscene that this intolerable situation is being promoted under official acquiescence. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate this process and should not be allowed. The people at Ofcom should be ashamed to be associated with enabling such a power increase.

3. Mobile phone radiation was not safety tested before it was let loose on the public. It is now impossible to conduct case controlled studies into its biological effects. There are now no un-irradiated individuals, animals or plants, let alone bees. Increasing the power of mobile phone base stations will further accelerate the damage being done and should not be allowed.
1. Mobile phone base station emissions in our collective environment do not exist in isolation. They are part of the cacophony of digital signals to which we are now all subjected. Until it is known why they and other forms of man-made digitally pulsed microwave radiation makes some people sick, allowing an increase in radiated power is dangerous, irresponsible and should not be allowed.
3. Incredibly, Ofcom does not know how much digitally pulsed microwave radiation is emitted from all the transmitters on the masts to which it, on the Government’s behalf, grants licences. Ofcom does not ask the operators and the operators are not obliged to provide information on the number of individual transmitters or their antenna gain in any particular direction. Even if Ofcom did know, because each licence application is considered in isolation, they have no idea of the total emissions from any given mast, rooftop or other installed facility.
5. Even if Ofcom conducts measurements, it is clear to those adversely affected that in the digital realm, gross power levels are an inadequate metric for assessing biological effects. Indeed Ofcom do not appear empowered to consider biological effects, deferring to other equally complicit organisations such as ICNIRP, the UK’s Health Protection Agency - HPA and The World Health Organisation - WHO to cover their ignorance, lack of remit and lack of influence.
7. Even if Ofcom had all of the information believed lacking, they have no way of factoring in all the other exposures to which people are subjected as they go about their normal daily business. Digital Terrestrial TV - DTV, Digital Audio Broadcasts - DAB, satellites, airborne radar and HAPS to name but a few. Wireless alarm systems, leakage from microwave ovens - the list goes on and on, never mind those ignorant or foolhardy enough hold mobile phones to their heads. Where is precaution in any of this? Until more is known about the now undeniable adverse biological effects of pulsed digital microwave radiation and other forms of man-made electromagnetic radiation, increased signal strengths from mobile phone base stations should not be allowed.
9. This Government and Ofcom are subservient to, and slavishly compromised by the ICNIRP standards which allow blanket exposure based on gross analogue power levels, taking into no account the non-thermal effects of digital signals. Increased levels of digitally pulsed mobile phone base station microwave emissions should not be allowed.
11. Britain, like the rest of the world has allowed itself to be swept up on a wave of technological advantage with scant regard for the health consequences. Ofcom have been instrumental in that process. A public health tsunami of unimaginable consequence is building.
So if you wish to participate in Ofcom’s ‘consultation’ and share your thoughts with them, go right ahead.

A similar ‘consultation process’ was enacted in Sweden in 2000. It took years for all the data to eventually surface, and then only because a few enlightened dedicated people made it happen.

If you want to know how others might feel about an increase in licensed mobile phone base station power, you have only to consult Black On White, the testimony of over 400 Swedish people whose lives have been destroyed by electromagnetic radiation.

It is available as a free download from As for being out of date, it is even more relevant now than it was in 2000.

Ofcom have given us the spur on which to collect our thoughts. Please use this opportunity to share them with the rest of the world who are watching from the wilderness.