What energy is that?

You're absolutely right ... but it draws my attention that this dubious article was allowed to be published in the National Library of Medicine's website.

 

You're absolutely right ... but it draws my attention that this dubious article was allowed to be published in the National Library of Medicine's website.

Peer-reviewed papers were published about the EM-drive. It's more about the methodology than actual scientific fact. It was never proof that the EM Drive is possible.

 

Though I tend to agree the article does not meet normal scientific standards, that is not a logical reason to at least consider it. Real science is about being open minded. There is though some known benefits to going barefoot. Young children need to go without shoes to allow the human foot and arch to form properly. Shoes act like a handicap and end up causing a lot of children to have foot and more importantly back and spine issues later in life. Shoes also tend to be a very attractive warm moist environment for bacterial growth. This is well known, it is the 'stinky feet' at the end of the day. That stink is bacterial growth. It is not a good thing. Your feet are trying to tell you something. Regardless of any scientific reasons, I personally have found going barefoot on the beach or in warm grass on a nice sunny summer day is very refreshing.

 

That would likely never happen. The guys that wrote the paper have a financial interest in the results.

True, and the pharmaceutical companies having studies of the Covid-19 vaccines of course have found it harmless. No conflict of interest on that one? Hmmm, makes you wander. I don't bring this up because of any personal opinions for or against vaccines. It is simply an observation. Any scientific study of significance requires funding and how do we know that the funding is not coming from a system engrained with conflicts of interest? The best we can do is have independent studies that have no interest in the outcome agreeing or disagreeing with the original data, but really, how often does that actually occur in the real world? The more independent confirmations we can get, the better.

 

True, and the pharmaceutical companies having studies of the Covid-19 vaccines of course have found it harmless. No conflict of interest on that one? Hmmm, makes you wander. I don't bring this up because of any personal opinions for or against vaccines. It is simply an observation. Any scientific study of significance requires funding and how do we know that the funding is not coming from a system engrained with conflicts of interest? The best we can do is have independent studies that have no interest in the outcome agreeing or disagreeing with the original data, but really, how often does that actually occur in the real world? The more independent confirmations we can get, the better.

Seems a straw-man argument at it's best about Covid-19 vaccines. There is little to no comparison between the two IMO.

I would say the company Covid-19 vaccine studies have been independently reviewed by just about every major nation on the planet governmental medical agency. They haven't found it harmless as there are restrictions in several countries about who and which vaccines are acceptable to the local general population. What they have found is that the vaccination risk is acceptable. I'm not a lover of Big Pharma but these are the time that they earn the billions in the bank.

 

Seems a straw-man argument at it's best about Covid-19 vaccines. There is little to no comparison between the two IMO.

I would say the company Covid-19 vaccine studies have been independently reviewed by just about every major nation on the planet governmental medical agency. They haven't found it harmless as there are restrictions in several countries about who and which vaccines are acceptable to the local general population. What they have found is that the vaccination risk is acceptable. I'm not a lover of Big Pharma but these are the time that they earn the billions in the bank.

Good balanced view. I like the fact that you brought in the fact that is has not been found harmless. I think you have to agree though that large sums of money is involved in this, which indicates it is not necessarily without bias and in this specific case is a dubious proposition indeed. I was not trying to say that the data is wrong, only that scientific data in general is not without bias, no matter how much we might think it is. There is a lot of money behind this one which is a dangerous precedent to set with trying to look at data in an unbiased viewpoint. There are lobbyist for big pharma involved in government decisions. Government decisions are not made by scientist, but by people that have an agenda, people that have something to gain or lose depending upon the interpretation of data. A lot of money is to be made or lost based on this information. So my skepticism over it remains present.
This is not the case for other scientific data like F=mA or Special or General Relativity. That is why I place my confidence more or physics, thermal dynamics, electronics, etc. than medical 'solutions' which are far more complex and incomplete when it comes to science. They are to much driven by other factors like money. As far as I can tell F=mA and other conclusions have no biased motives to drive themselves in any given direction.

 

Good balanced view. I like the fact that you brought in the fact that is has not been found harmless. I think you have to agree though that large sums of money is involved in this, which indicates it is not necessarily without bias and in this specific case is a dubious proposition indeed. I was not trying to say that the data is wrong, only that scientific data in general is not without bias, no matter how much we might think it is. There is a lot of money behind this one which is a dangerous precedent to set with trying to look at data in an unbiased viewpoint. There are lobbyist for big pharma involved in government decisions. Government decisions are not made by scientist, but by people that have an agenda, people that have something to gain or lose depending upon the interpretation of data. A lot of money is to be made or lost based on this information. So my skepticism over it remains present.
This is not the case for other scientific data like F=mA or Special or General Relativity. That is why I place my confidence more or physics, thermal dynamics, electronics, etc. than medical 'solutions' which are far more complex and incomplete when it comes to science. They are to much driven by other factors like money. As far as I can tell F=mA and other conclusions have no biased motives to drive themselves in any given direction.

The current evidence on the sick and dying being the unvaccinated validates the vaccine scientific data for me. As for Government decisions are not made by scientist, thank goodness for that because those scientist are advisers not leaders that are voted into office with a mandate to balance cold, hard facts with the reality of human existence in an ordered society. The vaccine money is a drop in bucket for really big Pharma. As a life long 'capitalist' I see nothing wrong in making money on decades of work.

https://theconversation.com/why-big-pharma-had-a-responsibility-to-profit-from-the-pandemic-160826

So drug companies are not wrong to have made a profit from the pandemic. What would have been wrong is if they had ignored the obvious and vast global social damage of COVID-19 and focused instead on the financial and potentially grave reputational risks of developing a vaccine for the world.

Instead, they acted in accordance with what corporate law requires – and what every corporation should be doing. It is acknowledging the contribution of every player in the organisation – shareholders, employees, suppliers, society – and rewarding them accordingly, whether that’s in financial or medical gain.

 

Though I tend to agree the article does not meet normal scientific standards, that is not a logical reason to at least consider it.

Actually it's a good reason not to consider it.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” - and that article did not provide that.

What if I claimed that adding sugar to your car's fuel gives you better fuel economy - I then claim that sugar is used in nature as an energy source and that big corporations don't won't you to know about it because it will eat into their profits.

I then do a few experiments that demonstrate that I can extract energy from sugar by burning it until it catches fire... I then conclude that it does exactly the same thing as petroleum would do when exposed to a flame, so they are equivalent.

I then claim every mechanic that disagrees is part of the conspiracy and everyone that listens to those mechanics is a "sheeple".

I then add something like "What's the harm in trying?" or "I'm just asking questions"

So... I have given a reason for why the conspiracy would work citing the use of it as energy in nature, and I positioned myself as someone just "asking questions".

Now back to the real world, most people know that adding sugar to your fuel is a very bad idea and will ruin your motor, but it does illustrate how some conspiracies can get off the ground.

It's easy to see bad science when you know that the hypothesis is wrong, and you are (rightfully) skeptical of the "proofs" that I have suggested.


Now keep that skeptical feeling and reread that paper

Regardless of any scientific reasons, I personally have found going barefoot on the beach or in warm grass on a nice sunny summer day is very refreshing.

I love going for a walk barefoot after a hot day when the sun has gone down, but the concrete path is still warm.

 

I can say without a doubt that walking barefoot in the grass is very theraputic for me!

 

The claims of improving vaguely defined malidies like...

Doing so surprisingly stabilizes the physiology, reduces inflammation, pain, and stress, improves sleep, blood flow, and lymphatic/venous return to the heart, and produces greater well-being.​

​

These are systemic, profound effects. People often report that after they start Earthing they feel and look healthier and younger. Those with pain report less pain.1 Even mood improves.2​

One of those papers that the author or advocates flip the scientific method and say, "prove the results are untrue". I'm not going to waste my time, I cannot prove anything is false until the author proves something is true. The laughable "zeta potential" change that is automatically determined to be good and causative without any proof or correlation studies. Zeta potential is capacitance test method use to measure qualities of dispersion or colloids (solids or liquid droplets dispersed in liquids). Of course the value of raw zeta potential will change of a subject is grounded vs floating but to claim a lower zeta potential number is some evidence of "better" health is a bizarre leap of "science". The rest of the correlations and claims are just as strange. Junk science for anyone bothering to read the article instead of just being fascinated by the title.

 

Coincidentally I come across this post the day after listening to this podcast:

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...e/research-bias-sort-it-out-science-87649867/

Thanks for posting this @cmartinez. I have been in the habit of giving information hosted from that URL the benefit of the doubt but this highlights the importance of thinking criticically about all information, no matter the source, before allowing it to become part of your mental diet.

 

I worked with a tanning system that applied a liquid solution electrostatically to the subject, who stood on the ‘grounding’ plate. Very uniform application. It was often speculated, and possibly implemented for medicinal use. All I can say about it was that the target market was 18-35 year old female, which improved my lifestyle.

 

I worked with a tanning system that applied a liquid solution electrostatically to the subject, who stood on the ‘grounding’ plate. Very uniform application. It was often speculated, and possibly implemented for medicinal use. All I can say about it was that the target market was 18-35 year old female, which improved my lifestyle.

 

These are systemic, profound effects. People often report that after they start Earthing they feel and look healthier and younger. Those with pain report less pain.1 Even mood improves.2

Clearly plagiarised from my study...

"These are systemic, profound effects. People often report that after they start putting sugar in their fuel they feel and look healthier and younger. Those with pain report less pain.[1] Even mood improves.[2]"

lol

 

This article raises a few red flags, at least to me. But the source seems respectable, and it's also an interesting read, nevertheless:

The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases​

I have a bridge I want to sell you- it's Golden, it's in California with a beautiful view...

 

I have a bridge I want to sell you- it's Golden, it's in California with a beautiful view...

and... and.. and... can I collect a toll after I buy it????

 

It has a large cult like following apparently...

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-02-04/the-earthing-movie-documentary-film-review/