By your argument, since scientific findings are always subject to revision in light of future data, they can never be used for decisionmaking.
That is a very surprising misinterpretation of what I wrote. I think I see where you got confused; the bit with the swans, right? I should have picked a better example, that's my error. The point, of course, is that science has no means to disprove the existence of anything. It is decidedly anti-science (I'll even go as far as to call it pseudoscience) to make an unscientific claim and call it science.
In this specific case, there is no scientific basis for the claim that EHS is bullshit. However, you are completely justified in believing EHS is bullshit given the information we have. That belief, however, has no basis in science as it is not a claim that science can make. (I'm repeating myself.) This isn't terribly complicated.
You wrote: "you can't give pseudoscience an inch." I agree. The difference, of course, is that I think that applies universally, regardless of the subject matter. I find it reprehensible that someone would promote anti-science in the name of science, which is precisely what happens when you give weight to unscientific claims by calling them science.