Answer to Böhmert et al.

Environ Health

Max Weber Center, Institut des Sciences de l'Homme, 14 avenue Berthelot, F-69007, Lyon, France.

Published: November 2020

I thank Böhmert et al. for their commentary of my review, although their criticisms suggest a misunderstanding of its aims and scope. It does not discuss their comprehensive model per se, but as the latest formulation of a hypothesis that was put forward almost 15 years ago, and only as regards its ability to explain EHS symptoms as they are known to occur. While the authors reassert the strengths of their model, they do not properly address the limitations pointed out in my review, pertaining to: (1) the lack of proven explanations for the origins of beliefs in EMF harmfulness; (2) the realism of experimental studies of EHS; (3) the existence of situations contradicting predictions of their model. Thus, while it seems promising, its applicability to EHS remains to be properly demonstrated. A diversification of the methods used to study EHS seems the only way forward.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7687738PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00676-wDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

answer böhmert
4
böhmert böhmert
4
böhmert commentary
4
commentary review
4
review criticisms
4
criticisms misunderstanding
4
misunderstanding aims
4
aims scope
4
scope discuss
4
discuss comprehensive
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!