The Critical Importance of Molecular Biomarkers and Imaging in the Study of Electrohypersensitivity. A Scientific Consensus International Report
, George L. Carlo 3, Philippe Irigaray 1,2, David O. Carpenter 2,4,5, Lennart Hardell 2,6, Michael Kundi 7, Igor Belyaev 2,8, Magda Havas 2,9, Franz Adlkofer 10, Gunnar Heuser 11, Anthony B. Miller 12, Daniela Caccamo 13, Chiara De Luca 14, Lebrecht von Klitzing 15, Martin L. Pall 16, Priyanka Bandara 17, Yael Stein 18,19, Cindy Sage 20, Morando Soffritti 21,22, Devra Davis 23, Joel M. Moskowitz 24, S. M. J. Mortazavi 25,26, Hanns Moshammer 7,28, Gerard Ledoigt 2, Robert Turner 29,30, add
Show full author list
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Reviewer's comments
The paper ¨The critical importance of molecular biomarkers and imaging in the study of electrohypersensitivity. A scientific consensus international report" by Dominique Belpomme and a large international group is very well written and I have nothing to add or criticize. I fully agree with current statements of this group. The paper should be published.
Minor comments
Row 293 per se should be in italics. It is latin.
Row 355. In addition….. I letter should be capital after the full stop.
Maybe the repetition of the clinical symptoms would improve the manuscript. I would need the consensus of the clinical picture. The authors should make their decision whether they want to meet my suggestion.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The paper ¨The critical importance of molecular biomarkers and imaging in the study of electrohypersensitivity. A scientific consensus international report" by Dominique Belpomme and a large international group is very well written and I have nothing to add or criticize. I fully agree with current statements of this group. The paper should be published.
Response: Thank you for your comment stating that the paper is well written and that it should be published.
Point 1: Row 293 per se should be in italics. It is latin.
Response 1: Row 293 per se in italics. The change is done
Point 2: Row 355. In addition….. I letter should be capital after the full stop.
Response 2: Row 355 in with a Capital I. The change is done
Point 3: Maybe the repetition of the clinical symptoms would improve the manuscript. I would need the consensus of the clinical picture. The authors should make their decision whether they want to meet my suggestion.
Response 3: We agree that the repetition of the clinical symptoms would improve the manuscript. However this was not the main objective of the paper and we hope a consensus meeting on clinical and biological picture can be held on this topic in Geneva as early as possible. Thus we prefer not to discuss that point in the manuscript at this moment.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript by D Belpomme et al. deals with a so-called 'controversial illness', electrohypersensitivity. The message is clear and stresses out the importance of following the right path of medical research; distinguishing clinical and public health research; separation of causality and pathogenesis etc.
The manuscript will provide thoughtful insights into tackling with problems of this disease and also of other controversial illnesses.
This reviewer would like to point out several issues which need to be clarified.
1. Repetitiveness.
It seems almost same or very similar messages are repeatedly written in the manuscript. More concise version could be tried?
2. The classification of the manuscript.
For the reviewer, it is more like a position paper (or an opinion paper) rather than a review, but the editorial office would decide on this point.
3. Introduction of the criticisms (2).
Line 292: it would be kind for the readers, if the content of criticisms in reference 2 was introduced in this article.
4. Scientific support for Figure 1.
It is advisable to add scientific evidences (references)in Figure 1, so that the readers could easily understand the reality (rightness?) of the model. This reviewer supposes that there are various evidence levels for each step.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
The manuscript by D Belpomme et al. deals with a so-called 'controversial illness', electrohypersensitivity. The message is clear and stresses out the importance of following the right path of medical research; distinguishing clinical and public health research; separation of causality and pathogenesis etc.
The manuscript will provide thoughtful insights into tackling with problems of this disease and also of other controversial illnesses.
Response: Thank you for your general consideration about the paper which should provide thoughtful insights into tackling with problems of this disease.
This reviewer would like to point out several issues which need to be clarified.
We tried to respond as follows to your comments:
Point 1: Repetitiveness.
It seems almost same or very similar messages are repeatedly written in the manuscript. More concise version could be tried?
Response 1: We agree that similar messages could have been repeatedly provided. However since (as indicated) the paper deals with a so called controversial illness; we have tolerated such repetitions for pedagogic reasons, and moreover because this is a consensus manuscript.
Point 2: The classification of the manuscript.
For the reviewer, it is more like a position paper (or an opinion paper) rather than a review, but the editorial office would decide on this point.
Response 2: We also agree with reviewer 2 that the paper is a rigorous scientific reinterpretation of the present available scientific literature, which provided an incorrect interpretation of the disease. So we would like this manuscript to be published as a critical review, not as an opinion or position one.
Point 3: Introduction of the criticisms (2).
Line 292: it would be kind for the readers, if the content of criticisms in reference 2 was introduced in this article.
Response 3: Line 292: We have included the content of the most important criticisms of Dariusz Leszczynski (ref 2).
Point 4: Scientific support for Figure 1.
It is advisable to add scientific evidences (references) in Figure 1, so that the readers could easily understand the reality (rightness?) of the model. This reviewer supposes that there are various evidence levels for each step.
Response 4: As suggested, we have added scientific references that support the different step of the so far proposed model.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I think the authors respond to my comments properly.
