Yes but why are you defining this as an extraordinary claim? The thread starter post of makes a good case (in my view) that EM interference would be expected by default. If you disagree with this you should address it instead of assuming that everyone shares your assumptions. This is what I mean about bias.

Someone else in the thread provides an excellent reasoning why such a low amount of energy is unlikely to make a difference.

I say it's an extraordinary claim because if it were true, it would imply fundamental changes in our understanding of how our bodies work, most people suffer no ill-effects, and I previously knew that double-blind studies could not corroborate the claims.

By definition, any claim that changes our understanding of anything is extraordinary, and it requires supporting evidence.