This work continues a previous article that placed oxidative and nitrosative stress, and glutathione as the master antioxidant, at the center of clinical reasoning about tinnitus. Here we widen the focus to what we consider the central neurophysiological aspect of the symptom, namely central gain and the generation of a phantom sound (auditory perception without an external source), and we propose a specific thesis: that polarized and coherent electromagnetic fields (EMF) of anthropogenic origin can act as an exogenous neural and cerebral stimulus capable of amplifying the central gain response in vulnerable patients. Unlike natural, unpolarized fields, artificial EMF impose coherent oscillatory forces on voltage-gated ion channels and on excitable tissues. We argue that the most relevant operative exposure in the home environment is not far-field radiofrequency (RF) but near-field extremely low-frequency (ELF) fields and dirty electricity (high-frequency harmonics and transients riding on the 50/60 Hz mains). We present an observational clinical case: a 70-year-old woman with catastrophic tinnitus according to the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), audiometric thresholds of up to 100 dB, and household exposure to dirty electricity averaging 1,820 mV (compared with a recommended value below 100 mV) from air-conditioning compressors in a ground-floor apartment, in whom management of the exposure was accompanied by progressive and significant improvement. We discuss why the scientific evidence lends solidity and mechanistic plausibility to this observation, and we critically examine the COSMOS study as an example of the design limitations and the lack of a broader research framework that have held the field back. We explicitly distinguish what has been demonstrated from what is proposed: the chain polarized EMF → stimulation of excitable tissue → amplification of central gain in human tinnitus is put forward as the authors' original hypothesis, supported by links that are individually documented.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Valdes et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: