Woman claims She Is "Allergic" To Wi-Fi Signals Given Compensation By French Court

[Powerogue]

How can she possibly claim benefits in an allergy or other medical condition that cannot be demonstrated to exist by a doctor?

Well in that case, I have an allergy where I can't be away from electromagnetic signals for too long, so I need the highest speed wi-fi installed in my house money can buy. Look, I have this completely legitimate doctor's note inside my jacket! *scribble scribble*



Whoops, wrong one.

[Daerio]

Well, studies to date have found that people claiming to suffer from it can't actually tell when an EM field is applied, and that the same proportion report symptoms when a field is applied as when they're lied to.

So your entire argument is based on causation, when the condition itself is not.

"I consider her explanation for the condition ridiculous, so it must not exist." (?)

[Garnier Fructis]

So your entire argument is based on causation, when the condition itself is not.

It doesn't exist in the way she claims. It exists in the sense that it's a bad version of the placebo effect. It's real in the sense that a sugar pill is real.

[darkwarrior42]

So your entire argument is based on causation, when the condition itself is not.

The entire point of the condition is that they suffer from being exposed to man-made electromagnetic waves.

If they can't tell whether or not they're actually being exposed, and exhibit the same symptoms when lied to, that's fairly strong evidence in favor of the issue being psychological, rather than physiological.

But hey, we can't prove the negative with 100% certainty, so I suppose we have no choice but to assume they're 100% correct and give them whatever they want >.>

[Daerio]

It doesn't exist in the way she claims. It exists in the sense that it's a bad version of the placebo effect. It's real in the sense that a sugar pill is real.

You're very much outside the area of science and inside the area of medicine and biology with this statement. Do you have any sort of experience or expertise on these subjects? Or even better, evidence?

The entire point of the condition is that they suffer from being exposed to man-made electromagnetic waves.

No, that's YOUR entire point.

It's very much NOT the point.

---

Honestly, this reminds me a bit of people who have Photodermatitis. I can imagine all the same people arguing how ridiculous it is for someone to be allergic to light. After all, it's everywhere. And people with the condition often have a very hard time figuring out what's causing it, at first.

[dextersmith]

She won based on what evidence? Hope she's caught using Wi-Fi. Her stupidity causes me anguish so I'd like to sue.

- - - Updated - - -

The perfect outcome would be to protect her by locking her up in a lead box.

[Kalis]

How can she possibly claim benefits in an allergy or other medical condition that cannot be demonstrated to exist by a doctor?

The decision wasn't made based on her self-diagnosed medical condition.

Unsurprisingly the French legal system doesn't take much notice of why someone who is an ex-radio producer thinks they are ill, they base their decision on whether the symptoms she is exhibiting warrant a disability allowance, which they did.

[Garnier Fructis]

You're very much outside the area of science and inside the area of medicine and biology with this statement. Do you have any sort of experience or expertise on these subjects? Or even better, evidence?

I have eyes and a bachelor's degree in physics. The first allows me to read that double blind studies have shown these people can't tell if there's an applied EM field or not, and the second tells me a few things: one, she's being hit with photons of much higher energy all the time. Second, and more importantly, radio photons can't ionize anything. So at best, they impart some energy to a molecule but otherwise don't do anything. But then we come right back to point number one, which is that other forms of radiation that she's constantly being exposed to should be doing what she's claiming radio photons do, in spades.

So no, it's almost assuredly not caused by EM radiation. Hence the first statement. The other two come from the observation that apparently we can induce these symptoms in people by just lying to them, which strongly suggests that it's a mental thing.

[the game]

You're very much outside the area of science and inside the area of medicine and biology with this statement. Do you have any sort of experience or expertise on these subjects? Or even better, evidence?



No, that's YOUR entire point.

It's very much NOT the point.

---

Honestly, this reminds me a bit of people who have Photodermatitis. I can imagine all the same people arguing how ridiculous it is for someone to be allergic to light. After all, it's everywhere. And people with the condition often have a very hard time figuring out what's causing it, at first.

Where's the evidence that you have professional experience in this field. If they can't say it doesnt' exist because they aren't doctors/scientists who study it then you can't say the contrary without evidence

[Daerio]

I have eyes and a bachelor's degree in physics.

So no, it's almost assuredly not caused by EM radiation. Hence the first statement.

So, it almost assuredly doesn't exist?

That really just isn't how things work.

Thanks for your professional opinion.

[Garnier Fructis]

So, it almost assuredly doesn't exist?

That really just isn't how things work.

Thanks for your professional opinion.

It's amazing how you can construe "not caused by X" as "doesn't exist".

[Barnabas]

Lack of evidence showing it isn't happening is why they award her $900 per month. If France wants the $900 per month back then prove it's bullshit.

[Daerio]

It's amazing how you can construe "not caused by X" as "doesn't exist".

Yes, it IS amazing how you guys continue to do this.

Read post 42 if you're confused.

[Garnier Fructis]

Yes, it IS amazing how you guys continue to do this.

Read post 42 if you're confused.

You either intentionally misconstrued what I wrote to make a point, or you're that terrible at reading comprehension. Either way, this is ridiculous.

[R0ninX3ph]

Yes, it IS amazing how you guys continue to do this.

Read post 42 if you're confused.

Im not sure anyone is trying to claim her symptoms arent real (whether they are caused by EM radiation or some kind of psychological source) just more the claims they are caused by WiFi are false.

[Kalis]

Lack of evidence showing it isn't happening is why they award her $900 per month. If France wants the $900 per month back then prove it's bullshit.

Proving it doesn't exist won't get France their money back, they aren't paying her the allowance due to her claiming to have EHS, they're paying it because she is displaying symptoms that make her unable to work - it wouldn't matter if she went to court and said she didn't know why she got the symptoms, the EHS is irrelevant.

[Garnier Fructis]

As far as what you're implying, I argued that it doesn't exist in the sense that she claims it. That isn't saying the symptoms aren't there.

It would be like if I argued that vaccines causing autism are full of shit and was subsequently met with the response "You don't think autism exists?"

[Barnabas]

Proving it doesn't exist won't get France their money back, they aren't paying her the allowance due to her claiming to have EHS, they're paying it because she is displaying symptoms that make her unable to work - it wouldn't matter if she went to court and said she didn't know why she got the symptoms, the EHS is irrelevant.

Well the people that think she is in the wrong should since it's their word against hers. Of course it wouldn't get france it's money back. It would cost much more than $900 per month to prove her condition doesn't exist. So $900 and her living in the ditch on some countryside road is the cheaper solution. Sure there are better things to complain about like real first world problems.

[Kalis]

Well the people that think she is in the wrong should since it's their word against hers. Of course it wouldn't get france it's money back. It would cost much more than $900 per month to prove her condition doesn't exist. So $900 and her living in the ditch on some countryside road is the cheaper solution. Sure there are better things to complain about like real first world problems.

Autism and vaccinations mentioned above are a good example.

Someone whose child had autism would qualify for payments due to the autism, the fact the parents think it's caused by vaccines is neither here nor there. The legal system isn't interested in self-diagnosis by unqualified people, they only care about whether the symptoms exist and if those symptoms warrant a payment.

[Charge me Doctor]

That sounds rigged as fuck. "Um, we don't think that she actually have a decease, but we are going to pay her anyways, because symptoms"