{"id":9545,"date":"2025-05-15T10:26:51","date_gmt":"2025-05-15T09:26:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esc-info.eu\/?p=9545"},"modified":"2025-12-22T12:36:09","modified_gmt":"2025-12-22T11:36:09","slug":"which-way-to-go-ehs-a-disability-or-an-environmental-disease","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esc-info.eu\/de\/which-way-to-go-ehs-a-disability-or-an-environmental-disease\/","title":{"rendered":"Which way to go? EHS: a disability or an environmental disease?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

How should the EHS community perceive EHS? In our struggle for recognition of EHS, we not only run into perceptions of EHS from the outside world. Also within the EHS community itself, we face several different views on the condition, ranging from disability to disease.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question then naturally arises on which position to focus. And whether we should try to bridge differences in views so that together we can adequately fight the battle for recognition? ESC concludes that the only way forward is to go both ways.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debate outside the EHS community<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Many scientists agree that EHS is a real physical problem<\/a> that occurs as a result of EMF exposure. They are investigating what actually goes wrong in the body and what biomarkers can be found to diagnose EHS. Multiple systems appear to be affected. Numerous studies provide evidence of this. However, EHS is not yet officially acknowledged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mainstream medicine wrongly dismisses EHS as a psychological problem. It is important for health authorities to know that the many times repeated provocation studies<\/a> that led to this verdict have been severely criticised. ESC recommends not to participate in these studies because wrong methods are used, meaning that these studies can never prove EHS. Neither for wireless fields nor for electric fields.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The debate inside the EHS community<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Because of the lack of conclusive scientific understanding, the EHS community itself is also looking for a clear position on how best to characterise EHS. There are different opinions within the EHS community itself and from supporting scientists on whether EHS is a disease or a disability, both in various variants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This internal debate does not provide conclusive answers, possibly leading to divisions over which activities are best to focus on. The truth is that there is no real contradiction between the different opinions. After all, every illness has limiting effects, medically and socially.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ESC\u2019s chairman Rob van der Boom concludes:
\u201cEHS is a physical response to man-made toxic EMFs in the environment that prevents people from leading a normal life. Getting EHS recognised means recognising both aspects, disease and disability. We need to work at the same time in both directions.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opportunities for ESC to act on<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> There is a lot of news with important opportunities for ESC to act on. And yes, ESC will take both directions. Maybe you would like to join yourself. Read about recent developments:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s get WHO to recognise EHS as an environmental disease<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Doctors, health authorities and governments need to start recognising EHS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can help by getting EHS recognised in the International Classification of Diseases. Read about this in Let’s get WHO to Recognise EHS!<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compliance in Europe to the UN Convention on Disabilities<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

EHS is also often socially disabling. Society needs to recognise that. All European countries have ratified the UN convention on disability. And must comply with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n