Arguments for a functional impairment recognition of electrohypersensitivity

[Alcune considerazioni di Marine Richard, il primo caso di EHS riconosciuta da un tribunale francese come invalidità, e la risposta del prof. Olle Johansson.]

3 March 2016 – “Mobilfunk Newsletter – EMF Omega News”

Please, find below a very important message from Ms Marine Richard in France, the lady who is the first person with the functional impairment electrohypersensitivity to be recognized by a French tribunal and given monetary disability support.

Further down you also find my reply to her.

Olle Johansson, associate professor
The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden

Från: Marine Richard
Skickat: den 2 mars 2016 18:40
Till: Olle Johansson


Thank you very much for your interest and concern about electrohypersensitivity.

As a person with EHS, as an activist and as the first ‘case’ of EHS recognized by a French tribunal as impaired I wish to tell you a word about this important question : what is the best strategy to help people with EHS (and fast !) ? Impairment of disease ?

In my opinion, it is important to see three different aspects :

1/ the environment is polluted by EMFs and all beings on earth are impacted. No scientific doubt on this point.

2/ people with EHS GET sick in a specific environment, different from one person to an other. So it is at the moment impossible to establish a simple ‘systematic cause>systematic consequence’ scheme. We would lose time if we fight on this aspect at the political level as the lobbies use this difference of sensitivity to create a doubt. Time we don’t have as so many people are suffering !!!

Each person with EMF sensitivities develops a specific nervous response to specific EMFs, at a specific moment probably because of several different factors (nervous over-excitability, high exposure, exposure to chemicals, PTSD, genetic factors – we don’t know the cocktail yet because it has never been studied). Considering that, it is impossible to prove EHS is a disease. But it is easy to prove that the symptoms appear and disappear depending on the environment. For example, a very easy way to test me (only me as we all are different) : we discovered that if I touch the skin of a person who is using the metallic trackpad of a computer plugged with electric power (and a bad earthing), I can feel a strange sensation in my hand, if you unplug the computer, my strange sensation stops. This test is 100% sure. But only on me ! We tested it several times. People without MY EMF sensitivity can’t feel the difference. So we can say that I have an immediate reaction to EMFs. In the example of the trackpad, it doesn’t cause me a disability. But it simply proves that I do have a reaction to the changes of the environment. If it is so for me why not for other people with different frequencies and more serious symptoms ? As a consequence, EHS can be an impairment. Nobody can tell us the contrary.

3/ EHS as an intolerance is reversible, there are ways to use neuroplasticity to go back to the sensitivity one had before EHS appeared. There are cases of full recovery or real improvement. But it doesn’t work with everyone, it takes time in a protected zone and it doesn’t change the fact that the environment IS toxic when it is polluted by EMFs. People with EHS and ‘normal’ people with a consciousness should be able to choose the environment they live in. If EHS is recognized as an impairment, the states will have no other choice but to create protected areas where we would be able to live, impaired and not impaired, all together with bees, robins and tomato plants also physically stressed by EMFs (as proved by the research)!

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Be happy !

Marine Richard (France)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Från: Olle Johansson
Skickat: den 2 mars 2016 22:06
Till: Marine Richard

I am very, very impressed by your elegant summary, it is so right-to-the-point. If everyone could see what you have learnt – the very hard way – then they would only argue for a functional impairment recognition of electrohypersensitivity, and an immediate clean-up of the environment, as well as an immediate economic reimbursement for all cases of electrohypersensitivity.

As you point out, an impairment is – by definition – not defined by someone else or proven by certain tests. The impairment is always individual, personal, and private, and develops when in contact with an inferior environment. [N.B. Remember that functional impairments are only based upon each individual’s impaired accessability to – and contact with – an inferior environment (cf. the UN), thus, there is actually no need for any “recognition” in local laws (cf. the UN).]

Accessibility measures are key issues for allowing electrohypersensitive persons, and others with functional impairments, to gain/regain their rightful independence. If such measures are allowed, then full recovery or real improvement will come. As you point out, it doesn’t – however – work for everyone, it takes time in a protected zone, and it doesn’t change the fact that the environment IS toxic when it is polluted by EMFs. Also, always remember that inaccessibility and discrimination are prohibited by law, so society must act.

I have always said that we should make it easy for us – by making sure to connect to all the UN texts, realize that it’s the whole environment that must be accessability-adapted, and do not forget that such accessibility measures actually are 100% positive for everyone to share! People with functional impairments should have full access to the entire society, not just a small part of it. The human rights for all of us, regardless of functional impairments, are that we should live an equal life in a society based on equality. It’s that simple.(I have never heard anyone voluntarily wanting to give up their human rights, so be sure not to have any country forcing it’s citizens to it; it would be extremely shameful.)

I agree, it is impossible to prove electrohypersensitivity to be a disease … since the sick and ill ‘patient’, with the ‘disease’, is the environment, not the person.
Olle Johansson, associate professor

The Experimental Dermatology Unit
Department of Neuroscience
Karolinska Institute
171 77 Stockholm
Sweden

Source/Fonte:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mobilfunk_newsletter/4swWB0vsHZk

Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn0Email this to someone