It shows what tends to happen in general in EMF research when the methodology is of better quality.

I know that is his point. Its also a different point.

The picture changes with emerging new, good quality, evidence emerges. That hasnt happened yet for EHS.

I have not been talking about the hypothesis, but about the research methodology.

2/2
..but to just stick to that study. There is abundant evidence that all such unblinded, self-reported, nimby studies are useless. To publish yet another one of these is just a contribution to research waste, not evidence.

if you read the criticisms of these reviews carefully, it will be clear these boils down to wanting to include low quality research (which is currently excluded), known to correlate to finding a risk.
Not the direction experts/professionals believe evidence synthesis should go.

1/2

Tuens out to be 0.4.

Luckily we regulate on adverse health effects, not random biological responses, or society would be unlivable...