At the time that the magazine sticking your finger in the soil? | SAKSYNT
Tags: Charlotte Haug earthing research Health magazine VOF hpv Iver Mysterud grounding Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 38 Comments This fall, I wrote a blog post called "HPV vaccine: Reply to Charlotte Haug and all uncertain parentage". This was a pretty extensive blog post that dealt with the most ...
In the fall, I wrote a blog post called "HPV vaccine: Reply to Charlotte Haug and all uncertain parentage". This was a pretty extensive blog post that explores most of Charlotte Haug's assertions and arguments against the HPV vaccine in an article she had published in New Scientist.
Charlotte Haug is editor of the "Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association", hereinafter abbreviated journal, which made her article, which I and many of my opinion was highly misleading, extra sensational. But one thing is blogging about the case, a very different thing is to get a rebuttal published in the same journal that Haug itself is the editor. I therefore wrote a highly abbreviated version of the blog post that I submitted that comment on this journal, according their strict guidelines on length, form and references.
The comment went through the usual process of approvals in this journal, and what you see above was the author proofs that I received and I approved. Everything was ready for printing food still life in the next issue of the Journal would be made available in November 2011, when I suddenly got an email with refund:
After this comment was accepted for publication, we became food still life aware that a blog post with the same content already published. In accordance with our practice for duplicate publication, we would not have to publish your comment.
I complained about this decision when the submitted comment is a completely food still life different text than my original blog post, just a fraction food still life of the length and without any concurrent sentences. The comment is in my view an original text, though its arguments are also found in a previously published blog post worded in other ways. But the comment was not reported.
But then something happens strange. In the latest issue of the Journal to print a comment by Iver Mysterud who writes that "Physical contact with the soil is important for your health." The text is compelling option in its form, with strange assertions that "The skin is a good semiconductor," and references food still life mostly to alternative journals as "Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine."
It is a strange article to put on the pressure in a scientific medical journal with the bad sources referred to. Mysterud as it appears to build their entire argument on one single source. food still life He writes:
Here he refers to a review, again published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, food still life named "The Biologic Effects of Grounding the Human Body During Sleep as Measured by Cortisol Levels and Subjective Reporting of Sleep, Pain, and Stress," food still life which shows only one published study. This is a study that took 12 people with sleep problems food still life and let them sleep while they were grounded via a mat they lay. This meant the researchers made a difference food still life in the stress hormone cortisol. The problem is that the experiment had no control, and thus of course no randomisation or blinding. The study is not replicated. Ergo we know nothing about it actually only Hawthorne effect in practice, meaning that people who participate in a study will experience a placebo effect of that fact alone, or a real stress-reducing food still life effect food still life of grounding.
The rest of source citations for presentations, lectures, or articles that are not published in any scientific food still life journal. It is also interesting that two of his references in practice to the same article, the one time that only scientific study in a review, and the second time to study alone.
Impressive. Until we check what these matches are. If you do a search on "earthing" in PubMed, but restricts food still life the search to clinical trials will be - tada - 0 hits. If one restricts to randomized controlled trials are also 0 hits. The same whether you are searching in the reviews. All 22 articles are just "guesses" from various quarters, where they discuss the idea of "earthing" and comes with its observations on possible health effects.
So there is no good published food still life research that underpins it Mysterud claims. Still considering this journal to be good enough to be published. I am embarrassed food still life for them. Do they really not stricter requirements for publication in the journal?
But that's not all. I googled food still life namely for the sake of a sentence from the text, and then I discover that a similar text by the same author was published in an over one year old edition of "
Tags: Charlotte Haug earthing research Health magazine VOF hpv Iver Mysterud grounding Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association 38 Comments This fall, I wrote a blog post called "HPV vaccine: Reply to Charlotte Haug and all uncertain parentage". This was a pretty extensive blog post that dealt with the most ...
In the fall, I wrote a blog post called "HPV vaccine: Reply to Charlotte Haug and all uncertain parentage". This was a pretty extensive blog post that explores most of Charlotte Haug's assertions and arguments against the HPV vaccine in an article she had published in New Scientist.
Charlotte Haug is editor of the "Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association", hereinafter abbreviated journal, which made her article, which I and many of my opinion was highly misleading, extra sensational. But one thing is blogging about the case, a very different thing is to get a rebuttal published in the same journal that Haug itself is the editor. I therefore wrote a highly abbreviated version of the blog post that I submitted that comment on this journal, according their strict guidelines on length, form and references.
The comment went through the usual process of approvals in this journal, and what you see above was the author proofs that I received and I approved. Everything was ready for printing food still life in the next issue of the Journal would be made available in November 2011, when I suddenly got an email with refund:
After this comment was accepted for publication, we became food still life aware that a blog post with the same content already published. In accordance with our practice for duplicate publication, we would not have to publish your comment.
I complained about this decision when the submitted comment is a completely food still life different text than my original blog post, just a fraction food still life of the length and without any concurrent sentences. The comment is in my view an original text, though its arguments are also found in a previously published blog post worded in other ways. But the comment was not reported.
But then something happens strange. In the latest issue of the Journal to print a comment by Iver Mysterud who writes that "Physical contact with the soil is important for your health." The text is compelling option in its form, with strange assertions that "The skin is a good semiconductor," and references food still life mostly to alternative journals as "Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine."
It is a strange article to put on the pressure in a scientific medical journal with the bad sources referred to. Mysterud as it appears to build their entire argument on one single source. food still life He writes:
Here he refers to a review, again published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, food still life named "The Biologic Effects of Grounding the Human Body During Sleep as Measured by Cortisol Levels and Subjective Reporting of Sleep, Pain, and Stress," food still life which shows only one published study. This is a study that took 12 people with sleep problems food still life and let them sleep while they were grounded via a mat they lay. This meant the researchers made a difference food still life in the stress hormone cortisol. The problem is that the experiment had no control, and thus of course no randomisation or blinding. The study is not replicated. Ergo we know nothing about it actually only Hawthorne effect in practice, meaning that people who participate in a study will experience a placebo effect of that fact alone, or a real stress-reducing food still life effect food still life of grounding.
The rest of source citations for presentations, lectures, or articles that are not published in any scientific food still life journal. It is also interesting that two of his references in practice to the same article, the one time that only scientific study in a review, and the second time to study alone.
Impressive. Until we check what these matches are. If you do a search on "earthing" in PubMed, but restricts food still life the search to clinical trials will be - tada - 0 hits. If one restricts to randomized controlled trials are also 0 hits. The same whether you are searching in the reviews. All 22 articles are just "guesses" from various quarters, where they discuss the idea of "earthing" and comes with its observations on possible health effects.
So there is no good published food still life research that underpins it Mysterud claims. Still considering this journal to be good enough to be published. I am embarrassed food still life for them. Do they really not stricter requirements for publication in the journal?
But that's not all. I googled food still life namely for the sake of a sentence from the text, and then I discover that a similar text by the same author was published in an over one year old edition of "
No comments:
Post a Comment