EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.

Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with non-specific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities are causal or contributing environmental stressors that deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by all other members of the health care community. It seems necessary now to take "new exposures" like electromagnetic fields (EMF) into account. Physicians are increasingly confronted with health problems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical observations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently neglected. New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose exposure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of these technologies. Common electromagnetic field or EMF sources: Radio-frequency radiation (RF) (3 MHz to 300 GHz) is emitted from radio and TV broadcast antennas, Wi-Fi access points, routers, and clients (e.g. smartphones, tablets), cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, and Bluetooth devices. Extremely low frequency electric (ELF EF) and magnetic fields (ELF MF) (3 Hz to 3 kHz) are emitted from electrical wiring, lamps, and appliances. Very low frequency electric (VLF EF) and magnetic fields (VLF MF) (3 kHz to 3 MHz) are emitted, due to harmonic voltage and current distortions, from electrical wiring, lamps (e.g. compact fluorescent lamps), and electronic devices. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer's disease, and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI), but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains the environment. In the beginning, EHS symptoms occur only occasionally, but over time they may increase in frequency and severity. Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, a lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive medical history, which should include all symptoms and their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in the context of EMF exposures, is the key to making the diagnosis. The EMF exposure is usually assessed by EMF measurements at home and at work. Certain types of EMF exposure can be assessed by asking about common EMF sources. It is very important to take the individual susceptibility into account. The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of high EMF exposure at home and at the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessibility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many examples have shown that such measures can prove effective. To increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other environmental factors that contribute to the total body burden should also be addressed. Anything that supports homeostasis will increase a person's resilience against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can change and why the range of symptoms reported in the context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the adverse effects of peroxynitrite - as has been increasingly used in the treatment of multisystem illnesses - works best. This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention.

EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2015 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.

Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with unspecific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activities are causal or contributing environmental stressors that deserve attention by the general practitioner as well as by all other members of the health care community. It seems certainly necessary now to take "new exposures" like electromagnetic field (EMF) into account. Physicians are increasingly confronted with health problems from unidentified causes. Studies, empirical observations, and patient reports clearly indicate interactions between EMF exposure and health problems. Individual susceptibility and environmental factors are frequently neglected. New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society. For instance, the issue of so-called non-thermal effects and potential long-term effects of low-dose exposure were scarcely investigated prior to the introduction of these technologies. Common EMF sources include Wi-Fi access points, routers and clients, cordless and mobile phones including their base stations, Bluetooth devices, ELF magnetic fields from net currents, ELF electric fields from electric lamps and wiring close to the bed and office desk. On the one hand, there is strong evidence that long-term-exposure to certain EMF exposures is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer's disease and male infertility. On the other hand, the emerging electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) is more and more recognized by health authorities, disability administrators and case workers, politicians, as well as courts of law. We recommend treating EHS clinically as part of the group of chronic multisystem illnesses (CMI) leading to a functional impairment (EHS), but still recognizing that the underlying cause remains the environment. In the beginning, EHS symptoms often occur only occasionally, but over time they may increase in frequency and severity. Common EHS symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleeping problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue and flu-like symptoms. A comprehensive medical history, which should include all symptoms and their occurrences in spatial and temporal terms and in the context of EMF exposures, is the key to the diagnosis. The EMF exposure can be assessed by asking for typical sources like Wi-Fi access points, routers and clients, cordless and mobile phones and measurements at home and at work. It is very important to take the individual susceptibility into account. The primary method of treatment should mainly focus on the prevention or reduction of EMF exposure, that is, reducing or eliminating all sources of EMF at home and in the workplace. The reduction of EMF exposure should also be extended to public spaces such as schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries to enable persons with EHS an unhindered use (accessibility measure). If a detrimental EMF exposure is reduced sufficiently, the body has a chance to recover and EHS symptoms will be reduced or even disappear. Many examples have shown that such measures can prove effective. Also the survival rate of children with leukemia depends on ELF magnetic field exposure at home. To increase the effectiveness of the treatment, the broad range of other environmental factors that contribute to the total body burden should also be addressed. Anything that supports a balanced homeostasis will increase a person's resilience against disease and thus against the adverse effects of EMF exposure. There is increasing evidence that EMF exposure has a major impact on the oxidative and nitrosative regulation capacity in affected individuals. This concept also may explain why the level of susceptibility to EMF can change and why the number of symptoms reported in the context of EMF exposures is so large. Based on our current understanding, a treatment approach that minimizes the adverse effects of peroxynitrite - as has been increasingly used in the treatment of multisystem disorders - works best. This EMF Guideline gives an overview of the current knowledge regarding EMF-related health risks and provides concepts for the diagnosis and treatment and accessibility measures of EHS to improve and restore individual health outcomes as well as for the development of strategies for prevention.

Influence of mitochondrion-toxic agents on the cardiovascular system.

Cardiovascular disease may be induced or worsened by mitochondrion-toxic agents. Mitochondrion-toxic agents may be classified as those with or without a clinical effect, those which induce cardiac disease only in humans or animals or both, as prescribed drugs, illicit drugs, exotoxins, or nutritiants, as those which affect the heart exclusively or also other organs, as those which are effective only in patients with a mitochondrial disorder or cardiac disease or also in healthy subjects, or as solid, liquid, or volatile agents. In humans, cardiotoxic agents due to mitochondrial dysfunction include anthracyclines (particularly doxorubicin), mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, fluorouracil, imatinib, bortezomib, trastuzumab, arsenic trioxide, cyclosporine-A, zidovudine, lamotrigine, glycosides, lidocain, isoproterenol, nitroprusside, pivalic acid, alcohol, cocaine, pesticides, cadmium, mycotoxins, cyanotoxins, meat meal, or carbon monoxide. Even more agents exhibit cardiac abnormalities due to mitochondrion-toxicity only in animals or tissue cultures. The mitochondrion-toxic effect results from impairment of the respiratory chain, the oxidative phosphorylation, the Krebs cycle, or the ß-oxidation, from decrease of the mitochondrion-membrane potential, from increased oxidative stress, reduced anti-oxidative capacity, or from induction of apoptosis. Cardiac abnormalities induced via these mechanisms include cardiomyopathy, myocarditis, coronary heart disease, arrhythmias, heart failure, or Takotsubo syndrome. Discontinuation of the cardiotoxic agent results in complete recovery in the majority of the cases. Antioxidants and nutritiants may be of additional help. Particularly coenzyme-Q, riboflavin, vitamin-E, vitamin-C, L-carnitine, vitamin-D, thiamin, folic acid, omega-3 fatty acids, and D-ribose may alleviate mitochondrial cardiotoxic effects.

LTT-MELISA is clinically relevant for detecting and monitoring metal sensitivity.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic low-level metal exposure may result in metal sensitization and undesirable side-effects. The main sources of metal exposure are from the environment or from corrosion of dental metal alloys. Affected patients are routinely diagnosed with the epicutaneous (patch) test. However, such testing may induce false-positive (irritative) reactions and may in itself sensitize or exacerbate symptoms. Alternatively, MELISA (Memory Lymphocyte ImmunoStimulation Assay), an optimized lymphocyte transformation test (LTT), can be used. In this study we analyzed the overall frequency and distribution of metal sensitization among symptomatic, metal-exposed patients. In addition, we determined the reproducibility of the assay and assessed its clinical relevance for detecting and monitoring hypersensitivity to metals. METHODS: To analyze the frequency and distribution of metal sensitization, blood from 700 consecutive patients was tested against a total of 26 metals in the validated LTT-MELISA. For reproducibility testing, 391 single metal tests from 63 patients were performed in parallel. Finally, to assess clinical relevance, 14 patients with known metal exposure showing local (dry mouth, Oral Lichen Planus, Burning Mouth Syndrome, eczema) and/or systemic (chronic infections, fatigue, autoimmune disorders, central nervous system disturbances, depression) effects were tested in LTT-MELISA. In 7 cases testing was repeated following removal of the allergy-causing metals or, in 2 additional cases, without therapeutic intervention. RESULTS: Of the 700 patients tested, 74.6% responded to >/= 1 metal in LTT-MELISA, with a subgroup of 17.9% responding to >/= 3 metals. Reactivity was most frequent to nickel (68.2%), followed by cadmium (23.7%), gold (17.8%), palladium (12.7%), inorganic mercury (11.4%), molybdenum (10.8%), beryllium (9.7%), titanium dioxide (4.2%), lead (3.7%), and platinum (3.4%). Reproducibility was 94.9%, with most discordant results in a low-positive range. Removal of the alloys or prostheses containing allergenic metals resulted in remarkable clinical improvement correlating with a significant reduction or complete normalization of specific lymphocyte reactivity. In contrast, both LTT-MELISA reactivity and clinical symptoms remained unchanged in follow-up samples from the 2 patients who did not remove the source of metal exposure. CONCLUSION: The optimized LTT-MELISA test is a clinically useful and reliable tool for identifying and monitoring metal sensitization in symptomatic metal-exposed individuals.