Dariusz Leszczynski responds to comments of Maël Dieudonné on Leszczynski's review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS).

Reviews on environmental health · 2023 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 5750

This letter disputes comments claiming the EHS issue is settled and that biomarker research is unnecessary. The author argues that existing EHS research to date is scientifically and statistically poor and that using it to conclude there is no causal link bet…

Study snapshot

PublicationReviews on environmental health · 2023

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

While Dieudonné has praised thoroughness of Leszczynski's review of EHS studies, he was critical of the final conclusions. Leszczynski strongly disagrees with argumentation of Dieudonné that EHS issue is settled and that biomarker research is unnecessary because it is expensive and might produce false positives. Leszczynski's opinion is that his review has demonstrated how very poor scientifically and inadequate statistically is the to-date executed research on EHS. Dieudonné's approach of using such poor science to justify claim that EHS issue is settled and there is no causality link between EHS and EMF exposures, is completely unjustified and simply false.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionunclear

PopulationNot supplied

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)
individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields
biomarker research (discussion)
causality link between EHS and EMF exposures (discussion)

Limitations

Letter/commentary rather than original empirical study
No specific exposure characteristics (band, frequency, SAR, duration) reported in the abstract
No population/sample size or quantitative results reported

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": null,
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)",
    "individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields",
    "biomarker research (discussion)",
    "causality link between EHS and EMF exposures (discussion)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "This letter disputes comments claiming the EHS issue is settled and that biomarker research is unnecessary. The author argues that existing EHS research to date is scientifically and statistically poor and that using it to conclude there is no causal link between EHS and EMF exposures is unjustified.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Letter/commentary rather than original empirical study",
    "No specific exposure characteristics (band, frequency, SAR, duration) reported in the abstract",
    "No population/sample size or quantitative results reported"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic hypersensitivity",
    "EHS",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "biomarkers",
    "causality",
    "scientific evidence",
    "letter"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0034
PubMed: 35258236

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library