Cargando…

Answer to Böhmert et al

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Dieudonné, Maël
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7687738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33239027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00676-w
_version_ 1783613585611554816
author Dieudonné, Maël
author_facet Dieudonné, Maël
author_sort Dieudonné, Maël
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7687738
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76877382020-11-30 Answer to Böhmert et al Dieudonné, Maël Environ Health Letter to the Editor Response 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. BioMed Central 2020-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7687738/ /pubmed/33239027 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00676-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Letter to the Editor Response
Dieudonné, Maël
Answer to Böhmert et al
title Answer to Böhmert et al
title_full Answer to Böhmert et al
title_fullStr Answer to Böhmert et al
title_full_unstemmed Answer to Böhmert et al
title_short Answer to Böhmert et al
title_sort answer to böhmert et al
topic Letter to the Editor Response
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7687738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33239027
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00676-w
work_keys_str_mv AT dieudonnemael answertobohmertetal