My personal belief is that these kinds of news articles happens when you mix together (1) some legitimate phenomenon for which it's difficult to measure (or not obvious what physical dimensions to measure) with (2) nutcases who love mysteries/conspiracies. Maybe they or people they know are really suffering as a result of some external stimulus and we don't have a good way to diagnose or treat them (or identify the stimulus). That's a tragedy and it would be great if someone could pursue it and identify it. But they're clearly nuts and we shouldn't entertain their speculation until/unless they can show objective evidence.
There's no evidence presented that links the waves with the sound he claims to hear or his claims that the dog's behavior is abnormal. But part of the problem there is that the filmmaker is choosing to strike (IMO) a very mysterious tone with the editing and score. If we wanted to be non-nutcases, we'd cut to the MD PhD human audiology expert or the physicist or someone who would be able to substantiate or refute the claims.
"Yes, I've sampled all kinds of places and this low frequency band is not normally so powerful."
"Yes, some humans can hear this band. We did a controlled test with the subject and he had abnormally good response at the low frequency range."
We didn't see anything of the sort. So either the filmmaker decided not to consult experts, decided to put that towards the end (), or consulted them and they refuted the claims.
() I'm not patient enough to get past the video where the nutcases debate the priorities while exploring the wilderness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPDILKQjJW8
(You'll need good headphones.)