Posted 14 April 2018

WAVEEX is a small plastic chip, which its manufacturers and peddlers claim can be attached to cell phones and other mobile devices to reduce harmful radiation.

We recently highlighted an article, published in GroundUp, titled How a journalist took an ethical stand and risked her job, about how the journalist Natasha Bolognesi refused to edit a bogus article for Natural Medicine Magazine, and the subsequent repercussions.  

The article by Professor George Claassen, a highly credible journalist, resulted in a posting of a comment to the article by Wolfgang Vogl, the CEO of WAVEEX, defending the claims of the product and “[I]n parallel our lawyers together with the Austrian Embassy in South Africa is preparing law suits against Classen [sic], Bolognesi and the GroundUp”.

We think that the science supporting these claims is useless, for many reasons. In addition, we agree with the USA Federal Trade Commission position titled “Cell Phone Radiation Scams” and published on their Consumer Information website.

[quote]While health studies about any relationship between the emissions from cell phones and health problems are ongoing, recent reports from the World Health Organization will no doubt convince scam artists that there’s a fast buck to be made. Scam artists follow the headlines to promote products that play off the news – and prey on concerned people.[/quote]

[quote]If you’re looking for ways to limit your exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from your cell phone, know that, according to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from these electromagnetic emissions. In fact, products that block only the earpiece – or another small portion of the phone – are totally ineffective because the entire phone emits electromagnetic waves. What’s more, these shields may interfere with the phone’s signal, cause it to draw even more power to communicate with the base station, and possibly emit more radiation.[/quote]

Furthermore, the Austrian Cochrane* review concluded that the evidence for WAVEEX is inadequate:

[note note_color=”#fcfbfb”]

Waveex: The evidence is missing

Extensive research into a large database of medical publications has not found a single study on labels such as Waveex or other similar products.

On the manufacturer side of Waveex itself two works are mentioned, which examined the supposedly positive effect of the sticker on the human body. None, however, was published in a recognized scientific journal. This means that a countercheck of the work by other scientists, as is standard in the science of quality assurance, is lacking. Both investigations were commissioned by the manufacturer of Waveex.


The study has several other shortcomings. So it is incomprehensible whether the subjects actually felt less stress on one of the two phones than the other. 


However, this work does not even meet the most rudimentary demands for scientifically correct work. It can therefore not be used as evidence of efficacy. 


Waveex health claims not studied

According to the manufacturer, the Waveex sticker does not want to shield the mobile phone radiation, but rather “smoothes out” alleged “magnetic field peaks” caused by cell phone calls. In addition to lowering the level of stress, the company Waveex claims the following effects in the brain: “The hormone and protein production normalizes, the protection of DNA builds up again, the proteins begin to repair the damaged DNA.”

Of course, for none of these allegations do you find any evidence or studies that would have investigated this.


The studies in detail

There is only one piece of work – in fact, an expert report on behalf of the manufacturer – that has examined the Waveex sticker on people [1] . For ten people phoned first 15 minutes, then 15 minutes without Waveex, and on another day in reverse order first without, then with Waveex. The sticker was covered in such a way that telephonists and test leaders did not know when with and without a phone call. It was also unknown on which day which order (with / without or without / with Waveex) was on it.

During the “telephone call” – a tape recorder was called – the study management determined the so-called heart rate variability of the telephonists. This indicates how much the pulse rate changes within a certain period of time, for example from low to high and then back to low. Those skilled in the art interpret high heart rate variability as the ability of the heart to adapt to different situations such as exercise and rest.

Too small experimental groups without statement

However, the main problem with the study was that the trial team did not directly compare whether heart rate variability with Waveex differs from that without Waveex. A meaningful statement is not possible.

In addition, only ten people were examined; With such a small number of participants, every result can also be based on chance. In addition, the work was not published in a peer-reviewed journal, so there is a lack of the usual peer review in science.

It is abundantly clear from this Cochrane study – Cochrane is the benchmark of studies to determine the veracity of scientific findings – that WAAVEX does NOT do what the manufacturers claim and that it is unreliable to make those claims. 


* checks the truth content of media and advertising contributions and supports readers, patients, doctors and decision-makers in the health care system when critically questioning health claims. The online service is a project of Cochrane Austria at the Danube University Krems in cooperation with the Schaffler-Verlag (The Austrian Healthcare – ÖKZ, QUALITAS).

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.