http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/acm.2010.0687

Just because nobody has truly figured out why it works, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. Scientists risk making themselves into “pseudo-scientists,” as the author of this rude and condescending post has done for himself, by refusing to investigate causal mechanisms that they “know” can’t be true. They dismiss them without trial, to the detriment of millions, and the detriment of science itself.

Medical fallacies have blinded scientists and physicians to beneficial treatments in hundreds of cases down through the centuries, and extending right to the present day. Probably the current most egregious case is chronic fatigue syndrome, which, though it has real and lasting physiological effects and has recently finally been investigated for viral and bacterial causes, is still dismissed by many scientists as a form of neurasthenia to be classified as a psychiatric condition. These knowlegable, trained scientists decline to investigate what they dismiss as “anecdotal evidence” time after time because of what they think they know to be true, that has later been proven to be false.

For generations, scientists and doctors believed peptic ulcers were caused by acid in the diet, compounded possibly by stress. When Helicobacter pylori was rediscovered in 1982 (having been suspected nearly a century earlier) by Warren and Marshall, and implicated as a causative factor for ulcers, their hypothesis was poorly received. It was not widely believed for another 15 years, despite real evidence that, again, was dismissed as “anecdotal evidence.” In 2005 Warren and Marshall were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work on H. pylori and PUD. Doctors now know that their prescribed low-acid diets actually caused more harm than good. Gee, who woulda thunk it? But you couldn’t have told them that previously.

For many decades, the human appendix was thought to be a vestigial structure that has lost all or most of its original function through the process of evolution. It was removed as a “precaution” in thousands of other surgeries over decades. Evidence now indicates that the appendix acts as a lymphatic organ and is rich in infection-fighting lymphoid cells. Many doctors still don’t believe it. Why are we not surprised?

Similar story for constipation and bowel disease that was treated, to MUCH ill effect, for generations with soft food diets because physicians “knew” that the bowels got bound up with too much fiber. What they “knew” was ridiculous and is now known to be so, but you couldn’t have told them then.

I can go on and on, and I haven’t even ventured outside of medicine to talk about the “scientists” who dismiss other kinds of truths as fiction when they are later proven to be true. It happens over and over and over again.

Here’s what I know. Three years ago, in my mid-fifties, I was headed for hip-replacement surgery and planning to sell our house and move to a house with only one floor because of the never-ending pain in my left hip. Couldn’t sleep at night. Couldn’t climb stairs. Knees also shot, having injured my ACLs in both knees in two different sports. I lived on aspirin and rub-on arthritis gels, and had done so for three years. ONE DAY after trying earthing, my pain was almost gone. Within a week it was gone for good. It has never returned. I am now able to work out, walk, climb as many stairs as I want, bike, etc. Earthing is the only thing that changed in my life, at least until I felt well enough to exercise regularly. Earthing cures nothing. It only reduces inflammation, so there may still be a date when that hip replacement surgery is needed. But I believe this will be a distant future. My doctor is absolutely amazed, and so am I.

If the pseudoscientists (yes, they make themselves so, therefore I will call them that) who are so sure that this doesn’t work because of what they “know,” would get off their ridiculous high horses and actually figure out WHY it works, as opposed to why it “can’t work,” they would be much more credible. Until then, they should shut up. You are hurting many people who could have pain relief as I have had.

The real reason for all of this was that I was not moving around. At 75 I thought I was active but apparently I needed more. So the getting up and down on the floor playing with the dog and walking the dog was what I needed.

I like to go to the Jersey shore in the summer. I feel energized. I walk barefoot on the beach and deep breath the ocean air. Earthing? NO! The walking and breathing are what makes me feel good.

Get outside, exercise, deep breath it’s free.

I notice a type in my last entry. I meant to write, “earthing affects EEG?” but the spellchecker changed it to “earthing affects reg?”.

I’ll check again in a few days and see if you have had time to respond.
J

My relationship with Earthing? Never heard of it until someone lent us the book about 10 days ago and I read it. As I mentioned, I’m a practicing Family Physician, and there are a great many more people in pain and suffering than we docs can take good care of, both for financial/access-to-care reasons and because of the gaps in collective medical knowledge. I have a few patients who still have high blood pressure despite being on five BP meds, for example; I also have patients who are allergic to all the pain meds we can find to try. So if there is something else that might help and is unlikely to do harm, I don’t act as if the burden of proof is on the discoverer or rediscoverer–especially if it’s free. “Should I encourage my patients to try walking on wet sand barefoot, or is that a waste of their precious time?” That’s my relationship so far.

OK, now for the studies. In your link called “summarized here,” one is called 2.41. It is randomized and double blind and shows a change in left hemispheric EEG. I’m not suggesting that the review article proves that earthing will, say, prevent seizures, but do you think it doesn’t show that earthing affects reg?

Then there’s 2.4.3. It sounds like it may be only single-blinded—can’t tell—but in addition to subjective results, it measures creatine kinase and WBC counts—things that are real measures of muscle breakdown and inflammation in my world, and ought to be relevant to delayed onset muscle soreness. Any objections there?

In 2.4.5, another double-blinded study, grounding appeared to affect TSH, as well as urinary calcium excretion. Whether or not it is a strong or prolonged enough effect to protect one from osteoporosis, of course, remains to be seen; but lots of patients have TSH fluctuations (over periods of months) that I can’t explain using the current cutting edge of MD-style endocrinology. And prolonged low TSH definitely causes osteoporosis.

Relevance of wild animals in the wild (i.e. in grounded state, not in zoos with insulated-floor cages) not giving static electric shocks or not getting autoimmune diseases—merely that if true, it would help me and my patients visualize the concepts involved, even if we aren’t electroscientists.

Anecdotal evidence is only anecdotal, but in many parts of M.D. medicine that’s about all we’ve got. (I have to prescribe meds for patients who are nothing like the people in those meds’ studies, for example; “this drug is safe and effective for six months in 60 year olds; you’re 75 and have been on it for 12 months and it seems to be still helping you; I guess I can refill it.”) Please do note that I asked only for the negative evidence, since the book was full of the other part; where huge well-designed studies of relevant clinical endpoints are lacking, at least I need to listen to people with all different experiences before deciding what tentative recommendations to make. I love science—just can’t get enough of it!

About the straw man—sorry, I guess I misinterpreted daedalus2u.

About the naturalistic fallacy—OK, you’re entitled to your opinion. Some folks think the burden of proof should be on those who want to expose people to factors with which we did not co-evolve, since we survived evolution so far. (Not too popular with biotech companies…) But I can benefit from your reply about the specific studies above, even if we never agree on this past part.

Again, thank you for your time.
J

To answer your questions:
1 – I gave a link to the studies I critiques. You claim there are good studies – Please provide specific references and I would be happy to evaluate them.

2 – What is the relevance of this question? How exactly would you test this?

3 – Animals gets autoimmune diseases. Again – not sure how we would test “wild animals in the wild” and why that would matter.

4 – Anecdotal evidence not relevant

5 – Who said there are no relevant charges inside tissue. This is a straw man.

6 – there is a difference, but earthing is a clear example of the naturalistic fallacy, in my opinion.

The questions seem like a diversion from the fact that the promoters of earthing have the burden of proof that their concepts are correct and the evidence supports their claims. They have not met this burden – not even close.