User talk:WCarp

January 2017

Hello, I'm Acroterion. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone saying something on YouTube doesn't negate the sourced material in the body of the article, which is summarized in the lead paragraph. Changes like that need discussion first, and you need to provide a source for your assertion about France. In both cases the topic should be raised on the discussion page first, not dropped into the article lead. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James and other people claim that the article on Electrohypersensitivity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity) is neutral. It's not at all - rather scientifically flawed, as such informations as the EUROPAEM EU doctors guidelines and facts about disability recognisition in several countries and existing diagnoses on EHS keeps being deleted by certain users. That's clear vandalism. You can see my sandbox here where I have made my edit on Electrohypersensitivity that is a handicap and a diagnosis in certain countries because EMFs are of course dangerous according to up to 25,000 studies according to the Swedish Professor Olle Johansson from Karolinska. They clearly write outdated content that relates to Electrophobia and not EHS, which is why the article needs a thorough edit, please look here:

Here is the correct and UPDATED article on EHS/Electrohypersensitivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leksijensen/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leksijensen (talk • contribs) 12:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no scientific support for a causal relationship between symptoms and electromagnetic fields"

"A number of studies have been conducted where EHS individuals were exposed to EMF similar to those that they attributed to the cause of their symptoms. The aim was to elicit symptoms under controlled laboratory conditions.

The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals. Well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.

There are also some indications that these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself."

Source: Word Health Organization[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also as Kolbasz pointed out elsewhere,[2] "EHS is emphatically not a recognized diagnosis in Sweden: [3] "Today there is no scientific support for a causal relationship between symptoms and electromagnetic fields. [...] With reference to the current research situation, the National Board of Health and Welfare is of the opinion that there is no evidence that EHS is a disease. [...] EHS is therefore not a medical diagnosis." The TL:DR of the rest is that disability grants to support organizations etc. are based on symptoms only with no judgement as to their cause." --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to start off by saying that trying to navigate your system of communication to try to do it correctly is challenging to a newcomer. My objection to your article about EHS is that "EHS has no scientific basis and is not a recognised medical diagnosis." when there is evidence otherwise. In a message to me it states that the information I provided was pseudoscientific material. You have ignored Dr. Martin Pall's information I provided in the youtube.com video, and etc. and if you do a search you will find much supporting documentation that EHS is real! As for the study sited, where it says, "The majority of studies indicate that EHS individuals cannot detect EMF exposure any more accurately than non-EHS individuals." indicates that some studies did find otherwise! There can be problems with studies such as how they are conducted, for instance how long and at what levels of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) were the people subjected to? Also what type and frequencies were used? Were the frequencies modulated? Also, who funded the studies? It's interesting how influence of the funding source can cause the published outcome to be different than the data suggests.

Interestingly, at: http://emfsafetynetwork.org/safety-precautions/electrical-sensitivity/, it says, "Vested industry interests are trying to control the public’s perception of EHS on Wikipedia by calling EHS pseudoscience, which is false, and harmful to people and the doctors trying to help them." As I am a person who can feel when I am in the presence of a Wi-Fi without question (but not immediately) and after reading much other documentation concerning people who have a sensitivity to EMFs and talking to a relative who also is sensitive to EMFs, I can state categorically that your article about EHS is significantly flawed. I happen to have a degree in biomedical electronics and am able to understand how EMFs can effect not only human beings but other living creatures, surprisingly better than many medical doctors, if I may say so. The Environmental Health Center-Dallas' website at: http://www.ehcd.com/emf-sensitivity-recognition-treatment/ states, "The Environmental Health Center-Dallas is one of the only clinics in the world to both recognize and treat Electromagnetic Field Sensitivity. Let EHC-D reduce and remove your symptoms of EMF."

There was a time when people thought that the world was flat. Overtime though, there was evidence that the world was in reality, round. The people who consistently resist the mounting evidence that EHS is real and also that EMFs do not cause any biological harm to cells are like those who probably resisted acknowledging the fact that the world was round. Because people do not drop dead or normally have an immediately acute condition when in the presence of EMFs, then some people tend to dismiss that there is such a condition. (I did read of one person having an immediate reaction when they held a cell phone to their ear.) See the information presented concerning many studies dating back into the 1990s showing that even low levels of EMFs cause biological effects here: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf. There is no question whether biological effects do negative affect our health. Concerning EHS and EMFs, you may be interested in reading articles here: https://iervn.com/ http://www.electricsense.com/4043/electrical-sensitivity-research-diagnosis-and-treatment/ http://microwavenews.com/ (Dr. Mercola'a 2011 article) http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/16/raising-awareness-about-electromagnetic-pollution.aspx WCarp (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources meet the requirements set forth in WP:MEDRS. This has been explained to you before.[4] You need to find some place other than Wikipedia to publish your fringe theories. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]