Table 1.

Some methodological defects that make provocation tests unsuitable for sham versus EMF exposure analysis in EHS-bearing patients.

1	Lack of precise inclusion criteria. No objective criteria based on molecular biomarkers and imaging techniques.	[62,125,127,128]
2	No clear consideration on medical anamnesis and degree of EHS severity.	[125,127]
3	No consideration for an association with MCS.	[9]
4	No consideration that EHS patients are intolerant to specific man-made waves frequencies.	[62,125,127,128]
5	Too short exposure duration.	[125,126]
6	Symptom recording made too early.	[125,127]
7	Endpoint criteria depending on subjective statements.	[62,122,123,124,125,126,127]
8	Possible EHS-associated psychological conditioning due to past suffering.	[129]
9	Possible abnormal EMF signal transmission in case of sham exposure.	[130]