Woman who claimed she was 'allergic to Wi-Fi' gets disability allowance from French court

[Arachno 1D]

My term is a laymans for the many covered by the spectrum of the physiological world and is not in any way disrespectful nor lacks understanding, its the way you have incorrectly interpreted I infered something I didnt using the term in the conversation thats the problem.

I clearly cited there is no foundation for the condition and indeed there is no empirical proof of it at this time that it exists other than an unfounded belief ergo she would get more beneficial help seeing a psychiatrist than receiving limited funding,

[Dick Montage]

I clearly cited there is no foundation for the condition and indeed there is no empirical proof of it at this time

And there was a time that we labeled dyspraxia as being a clumsy oaf...   "No proof that it exists" does not equate to "proof that it doesn't exist".

This lady (giving her the benefit of the doubt as such a court would) suffers symptoms based around a belief that they are caused by something that currently is without empirical proof.  Either way, she suffers and thus the court has found that this can be accepted as a disability (not citing what the cause is) which could be eased by methods that would be at a cost.

[DefyTheOutcome]

Why isn't this fraudster being required to prove her claim?

 

Given the French tendency to put rules and laws on everything and the fact that it was a court that granted her disability, I am going to suppose that she came with a medical expertise and a truckload of prescriptions backing her claim.

Furthermore, there have been some pretty extreme and bizarre allergies cases for some people so I am willing to believe that some people are much more sensitive to electromagnetic waves than other people and that more studies are needed.

After that, 800 Euros per month for 3 years, that is not much money to live in France and the prospect of living in a barn without electricity far away from everything does not sound that good.

 

[Dick Montage]

Why isn't this fraudster being required to prove her claim?

Explain to me, without personal bias or assumption, how she is a fraudster? 

[123456789A]

I am allergic to Bluetooth. That should at least get me free dental care.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I am allergic to Bluetooth. That should at least get me free dental care.

I'm sure they'll remove all your blue teeth for free!

[neufuse Veteran]

she's sensitive to Wifi but no to UHF, VHF, microwave communications, sat com from space, and RF emissions from basically everything else including natural ones from space and the earth? amazing..................

[neufuse Veteran]

Explain to me, without personal bias or assumption, how she is a fraudster? 

because they've already done blind studies that have proven this whole wifi allergy is a myth... and there are already tons of RF signals in the wild that aren't from wifi or cell phones in similar frequency ranges and strangely those have zero effect on said people...

[MikeChipshop Member]

she's sensitive to Wifi but no to UHF, VHF, microwave communications, sat com from space, and RF emissions from basically everything else including natural ones from space and the earth? amazing..................

Thing is, it's a mental disability. Even if this woman saw all the studies in the world, disproving her illness, she'd more than likely still become ill. She needs years of therapy.

[Dick Montage]

because they've already done blind studies that have proven this whole wifi allergy is a myth...

That's great.  There are also studies that show that it's not a myth...  Moreover, I have experienced it with my own eyes.  I used to work with someone who suffered, and we did all we could to accommodate him (without it being to the firms detriment).  We also used to "test" him (unofficially) and we never once, in 4 years got one past him.  I genuinely believe he suffered physically manifested issues that were brought on by specific em sources.

and there are already tons of RF signals in the wild that aren't from wifi or cell phones in similar frequency ranges and strangely those have zero effect on said people...

Actually not true.  There are studies that show those who live under electricity pylons suffer issues.  Because one person has an issue with one source does not imply that all people who have similar issues only attribute it to similar sources. 

Does any of the above alleviate her suffering from what she believes is causing her issues?  THAT is what the benefit is given towards, the fact she suffers from ailments (medically proven) and believes this to be the source.

[HawkMan]

she's sensitive to Wifi but no to UHF, VHF, microwave communications, sat com from space, and RF emissions from basically everything else including natural ones from space and the earth? amazing..................

Read the article... or any of the replies..

[FloatingFatMan]

Explain to me, without personal bias or assumption, how she is a fraudster? 

There is no scientific basis for her claim, therefore the claim that she is allergic to EM radiation is fraudulent.  Her "reaction", either real or imaginary, has nothing to do with anything going on in the EM spectrum. If you don't provide accurate information when claiming disability, that is usually classed as fraud.

If it were possible to have a biological reaction to EM wavelengths, then it would have been proven by the many control experiments carried on these people, yet the only time they "felt" anything was when they were told a transmitter was on, even when it wasn't.

[neufuse Veteran]

Read the article... or any of the replies..

 

I did read the article... she claims exposure to wifi, televisions, etc... BUT UHF and VHF are broadcast all over the world, it's nearly impossible not to be around a signal from one of them.... and everyone is begin hit by RF from space all the time from sat's... yes at lower power but it's still there... even if she lives in the middle of no where you still usually can find a signal from at least one RF source.. if she was truly that sensitive she'd be wrapped in a faraday cage all day

 

I'm also not talking about the ruling but what she is perceiving just to be clear

[HawkMan]

 

There is no scientific basis for her claim, therefore the claim that she is allergic to EM radiation is fraudulent.  Her "reaction", either real or imaginary, has nothing to do with anything going on in the EM spectrum. If you don't provide accurate information when claiming disability, that is usually classed as fraud.

If it were possible to have a biological reaction to EM wavelengths, then it would have been proven by the many control experiments carried on these people, yet the only time they "felt" anything was when they were told a transmitter was on, even when it wasn't.

yeah... read the article. she was not given disability because of her allergy to WiFi, but because of her actual illness/symptoms. 

[HawkMan]

 

I did read the article... she claims exposure to wifi, televisions, etc... BUT UHF and VHF are broadcast all over the world, it's nearly impossible not to be around a signal from one of them.... and everyone is begin hit by RF from space all the time from sat's... yes at lower power but it's still there... even if she lives in the middle of no where you still usually can find a signal from at least one RF source.. if she was truly that sensitive she'd be wrapped in a faraday cage all day

 

I'm also not talking about the ruling but what she is perceiving just to be clear

What she's perceiving is a mental disability, much like people who can't feel their limbs and have an unbreakable desire to cut them off and other mental issues. if they can be cured it's years and years, and in most cases it can't be cured. it doesn't matter if it's not real. her actual illness and symptoms are real, they're just not caused by physical elements, at least not the ones she thinks. 

[Dick Montage]

There is no scientific basis for her claim, therefore the claim that she is allergic to EM radiation is fraudulent.  Her "reaction", either real or imaginary, has nothing to do with anything going on in the EM spectrum. If you don't provide accurate information when claiming disability, that is usually classed as fraud.

Well obviously you know more than the court that have agreed her disability allowance...  Either that or they have agreed it based upon the fact that she suffers, and she believes it's due to the issue she cites, and THAT is what they recognise as a debilitating problem.

However, "no scientific basis" is not what defines her as fraudulent!

If it were possible to have a biological reaction to EM wavelengths, then it would have been proven by the many control experiments carried on these people, yet the only time they "felt" anything was when they were told a transmitter was on, even when it wasn't.

Except there are also many documented as well as witnessed examples that suggest to the contrary - including my own personal experience... 

[neufuse Veteran]

What she's perceiving is a mental disability, much like people who can't feel their limbs and have an unbreakable desire to cut them off and other mental issues. if they can be cured it's years and years, and in most cases it can't be cured. it doesn't matter if it's not real. her actual illness and symptoms are real, they're just not caused by physical elements, at least not the ones she thinks. 

yes, I agree with you on the mental disability part, but I'm just talking about the EMF part and if it's actually affecting her or not in reality

[FloatingFatMan]

Except there are also many documented as well as witnessed examples that suggest to the contrary - including my own personal experience... 

Peer reviewed and verified under lab conditions? I doubt it.  If so, proof please.

[FloatingFatMan]

yeah... read the article. she was not given disability because of her allergy to WiFi, but because of her actual illness/symptoms. 

The ruling and the stated reason for her "illness" are two different issues IMO.  Is she ill? Possibly; but has it actually been verified that she really does have these symptoms? Can they even be verified?  Hell, I suffer from almost constant excruciating back pain, but there's no way a doctor can verify I have pain other than taking my word for it. I don't believe I should receive disability just on the basis of my word alone, and therefore, I don't even attempt claim it.

Drop that unproven claim and it becomes just another case of a sick person claiming disability based on her word alone, and therefore is no longer newsworthy.

[TAZMINATOR]

I'm allergic to poor grammar and stupidity... I wonder if I'll have a good case for Disability Benefit in France also...

[Lamp0]

It's not the wifi... it's the chem-trails!!!!

[Dick Montage]

Peer reviewed and verified under lab conditions? I doubt it.  If so, proof please.

Ah I knew you'd come back with that - and yet you speak of such claims discrediting and have not offered "proof"... 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrical-sensitivity-definition-epidemiology-and-management

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235218/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.21893/abstract;jsessionid=721BF2C610DA0CEF13198A9757D25C1B.f04t02

There are many more that could be listed that SUGGEST that any of the studies given so far are inconclusive and/or flawed.

As such, there is currently not enough "proof" to inequivocally say either way.

Moreover, you're already losing a battle as her claims have been accepted by a court - argue all you wish, but thy have found in her favour.

So again, without personal bias or opinion - how is she a fraud?

[MikeChipshop Member]

Moreover, you're already losing a battle as her claims have been accepted by a court - argue all you wish, but thy have found in her favour.

They actually found in favour of her suffering from symptoms that made it difficult for her to work.
They didn't find that she suffered from an allergy to WiFi. 

[vcfan]

That's great.  There are also studies that show that it's not a myth...  Moreover, I have experienced it with my own eyes.  I used to work with someone who suffered, and we did all we could to accommodate him (without it being to the firms detriment).  We also used to "test" him (unofficially) and we never once, in 4 years got one past him.  I genuinely believe he suffered physically manifested issues that were brought on by specific em sources.

what if he had a metal disc or plate embedded in him from a past surgery. that could potentially cause discomfort from es or em sources.

[FloatingFatMan]

Ah I knew you'd come back with that - and yet you speak of such claims discrediting and have not offered "proof"... 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrical-sensitivity-definition-epidemiology-and-management

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235218/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.21893/abstract;jsessionid=721BF2C610DA0CEF13198A9757D25C1B.f04t02

There are many more that could be listed that SUGGEST that any of the studies given so far are inconclusive and/or flawed.

As such, there is currently not enough "proof" to inequivocally say either way.

Moreover, you're already losing a battle as her claims have been accepted by a court - argue all you wish, but thy have found in her favour.

So again, without personal bias or opinion - how is she a fraud?

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ems.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs296/en/

And there's much much more.  I also base it on having read up on it a couple of years ago, and I also applied Occam's Razor.

There are 3 possiblities here:

1. EMS is real and she has it
2. She has some other psychological condition that causes her to exhibit symptoms
3. She's a fraud.

#1 gets tossed out immediately as there is no scientific evidence for the reality of EMS.
Of #2 and #3, whilst it's possible that she does have some other psychological condition, Occam's Razor tells us to use the simplest option when faced with 2 equal choices, and there are literally millions of dishonest people out there happy to rip off the government with fraudulent benefit claims.

Ergo, whilst I have no actual proof she's defrauding, Occam's Razor leads me to choose option 3 as the most likely cause.