By Nicolas Desjardins, PhD in Natural Medicine · DBA(c) · Master’s in Neuroscience (in progress), designer of the Q-Technology system. Nicolas Desjardins is not a medical doctor. October 2026.
Lire cet article en français : Trois objets contre les ondes dans ton tiroir
The short answer. EMF hygiene, for us, is a maintenance habit: knowing what surrounds you (phone, chargers, screens) and checking on your own body what it changes in a test. No patch, sticker or bracelet shows you that, and a field meter measures a field, not your body. Our critics are clear: for the WHO, there is no evidence that low-level electromagnetic fields are harmful to health; for radiofrequency fields, ICNIRP recognizes only one substantiated effect, heating of tissue, above a threshold. The Q-Technology circuit blocks nothing, removes nothing, and it is blind to Wi-Fi, 5G and Bluetooth. We don’t sell you a promise: we show you a test, on you, with your phone in your pocket, then put down, then with the circuit.
EMF gadgets: what you bought, and what nobody showed you
A patch stuck on the back of your phone, a sticker on your router, a bracelet on your wrist. Maybe you have already cut a patch open and found a metallic sticker. The worst part isn’t the money. It’s still not having an answer: does all this equipment around you do anything to you, yes or no? Everyone claims everything, and nobody shows you anything.
Did whoever sold them to you ever show you a test, on you? That’s where we start. If you’ve already tried magnetic insoles, you already know the story: tested against a sham insole, they did no better (what the Mayo Clinic trials found).
EMF: who disagrees with us DOCUMENTED
We cite them ourselves.
- The WHO writes that there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health, while acknowledging gaps in knowledge about biological effects.
- ICNIRP, which publishes the international exposure guidelines, recognizes only one substantiated effect of radiofrequency fields relevant to health and safety: heating of exposed tissue. Below the thermal threshold, it considers adverse health effects unlikely. In other words, non-thermal effects are not established.
- Blind tests. A systematic review gathered 31 experiments on 725 people who described themselves as hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields: 24 found no evidence of a biophysical hypersensitivity, and the meta-analyses showed no better ability to detect the fields in these people than in controls (Rubin et al., 2005). The update, covering 46 studies and 1,175 volunteers who described themselves as hypersensitive, found no robust evidence that exposure triggers the symptoms reported; it did, however, support the role of the nocebo effect (Rubin et al., 2010). We go through these studies in our article on electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
On the other side, a commentary published in The Lancet Planetary Health highlights the sharp rise in exposure to human-made electromagnetic fields and calls for its impact to be assessed (Bandara and Carpenter, 2018). It is a commentary, not a study: it raises the question, it doesn’t settle it.
What to remember: the question is still open, but blind tests have not found what sellers of EMF gadgets promise. Talking about EMF hygiene without lying means accepting the same filter: blinding, and the body.
Four questions to ask anyone selling you a gadget that claims to stop waves
- The schematic? Ours: a coil, a capacitor, a resistor. A passive resonant circuit, no battery, no electrode.
- What doesn’t it pick up? Not Wi-Fi, not 5G, not Bluetooth. Those signals are outside its band: the circuit is blind to them.
- Who disagrees with you? ICNIRP, the WHO, Rubin et al. (2005 and 2010).
- What would prove you wrong? A blind test that could no longer tell the circuit from a dummy.
Can’t get all four answers? Keep your money. Got all four? Ask for a test anyway.
The mechanism, and what we don’t know yet. Think of a crystal radio: a radio with no battery that only picks up the station it is tuned to. Our circuit is tuned to a precise band. It picks up the ambient electromagnetic energy in that band (chargers, power supplies, screens) and returns a coherent signature. The passive circuit and the pick-up are established; the returned signature is still to be characterized (no bench session to date); its action on the nervous system is a hypothesis; the cellular level is unknown.
EMF hygiene: the proof happens on the body
We promise you nothing for your health. We show you what can be seen.
The EMF test is the tenth test of the 120-second demo, and it is also done during the Test Posture Parfaite: fifteen minutes, €33, with a certified tester, no equipment. What you see, on yourself:
- The reference arm. The tester pushes on your wrist, arm extended out to the side, right then left, to pick your stronger arm.
- Phone at rest. Your phone is in your other hand, with no call in progress. The tester pushes on your stronger arm: it holds.
- Phone ringing. Someone calls you, you don’t answer. Same push, same spot. Your arm holds, or it gives way.
- Phone ringing, with the circuit. Same test again. You watch whether it holds. You can ask for the comparison without knowing which circuit is in place.
The rest of the test follows: the tilts of the pelvis and shoulders on three planes, in centimeters; neck rotation, scored out of 7 on each side; strength and stability tests, holding or giving way. If it shows nothing, the test is refunded.
What we observe OBSERVATION: our testers regularly see an arm that held, with the phone at rest, give way while it rings. The phone stays the same, in the same hand: what changes is the incoming signal. The ringtone and the vibration may also play a part, and this test alone doesn’t prove it’s the field: it shows what your body does, not why. No published figures to date. A better hold observed in the EMF test means that and nothing more: a test that holds or gives way, in front of you.
Functional assessment, non-medical · Before/after protocol · Observations from internal tests · Individual results vary · Not a medical claim.
Our hypothesis HYPOTHESIS: the circuit is a tolerance aid. It may help the body counterbalance the load the test reveals, whatever its cause. It removes nothing and blocks nothing: it gives the nervous system a coherent, stable reference. That is our explanation, and it may be wrong.
Support, not cure. While you wear the circuit, the effect is there. Take it off, and you’re back where you started, like glasses: you wear them, you see; you take them off, you don’t.
FAQ
Does the circuit block waves?
No. It blocks nothing, stops nothing and removes nothing: it’s designed as a tolerance aid, not as a shield. What your body does with or without it, the test shows you.
Does it react to Wi-Fi, 5G or Bluetooth?
No. Those signals are outside its band: the circuit is blind to them.
Are electromagnetic fields dangerous?
The question is still debated: a commentary calls for assessing the impact of human-made exposure, which has risen sharply (Bandara and Carpenter, 2018), and ICNIRP and the WHO find no established harmful effect at everyday levels. The EMF test doesn’t settle that question: it observes a functional test, on you.
Is it a placebo?
Several tests have been run blind, with a dummy circuit. During your test, you can ask to redo the comparison without knowing which circuit is in place. And watch what depends less on the push: your posture in centimeters, your neck rotation scored out of 7.
Why not measure the circuit with a field meter?
Because a meter measures a field, not what your body does with it. The proof happens on the body.
How long does the effect last?
As long as you wear it. Take the circuit off and the effect goes: it is a support, not a cure. Functional assessment, non-medical · Individual results vary.
Don’t take anyone’s word for it, ours included. Ask to see a test: book your Test Posture Parfaite, refunded if it shows nothing.
Sources
- Rubin GJ, Das Munshi J, Wessely S. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: a systematic review of provocation studies. Psychosom Med. 2005;67(2):224-232. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000155664.13300.64
- Rubin GJ, Nieto-Hernandez R, Wessely S. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (formerly ‘electromagnetic hypersensitivity’): An updated systematic review of provocation studies. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.20536
- Bandara P, Carpenter DO. Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. [Comment] Lancet Planet Health. 2018;2(12):e512-e514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3
- World Health Organization. Radiation: Electromagnetic fields (Q&A), 4 August 2016: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/radiation-electromagnetic-fields
- ICNIRP. RF EMF (100 kHz-300 GHz): https://www.icnirp.org/en/frequencies/radiofrequency/index.html
