3 ms·
Thank you! Finally an actual critique instead of a knee-jerk downvote. Belpomme is the main figure of ARTAC, yes, but its by no means a "one-man organisation".
by Gnarl 11y ago
Thank you! Finally an actual critique instead of a knee-jerk downvote.
Belpomme is the main figure of ARTAC, yes, but its by no means a "one-man organisation". Look him up on PubMed for published work and please reply back if you consider that to be pseudoscience also.
Correct that numerous studies have failed to show statistical significance. However, I argue they are the result of poor understanding of the condition, by exposing all subjects to same frequency and expecting same reaction. It was shown by Rea et al. (1991) that individuals react to different frequencies and once their particular frequency was identified, they would react with 100% certainty under double-blind, randomized conditions. Reference here: http://aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html http://aehf.com/articles/em_sensitive.html If you honestly examine the Rea study, I think you'll agree it is quite robust.
- cmdrfred 11y agoTLDR: "Correct that numerous studies have failed to show statistical significance." and that's from a proponent.
- Gnarl 11y ago"TLDR"?? Wow. If you read studies the same way and don't go beyond the first sentence of the abstract, then no wonder you've failed to spot the methodological problems in said EHS studies! You can test for anything in a way that won't find a statistically significant effect. Say you wanted to study whether self-reported "food allergy" exists or not and you exposed all your subjects to only strawberries. Only some of your subjects would react to specifically strawberries and you could conclude that "food allergy" doesn't exist. Same problem with the negative EHS studies because they expose all to the same frequency and only with a very short exposure. Now please read the Rea et al. study referenced above, it explains it all very well.