Grounding

[Gifter]

Earthing (Grounding) the Human Body Reduces Blood Viscosity—a Major Factor in Cardiovascular Disease

Earthing: Health Implications of Reconnecting the Human Body to the Earth's Surface Electrons

Emotional Stress, Heart Rate Variability, Grounding, and Improved Autonomic Tone: Clinical Applications

The neuromodulative role of earthing

Earthing the Human Body Influences Physiologic Processes

Chronic Disease: Are We Missing Something? (Editorial)

Pilot Study on the Effect of Grounding on Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness

The Effect Of Earthing On Human Physiology, Part 1

The Effect Of Earthing On Human Physiology, Part 2

The Effectiveness of a Conductive Patch and a Conductive Bed Pad in Reducing Induced Human Body Voltage Via the Application of Earth Ground

Medical Thermography Case Studies

Grounding The Human Body to Neutralize Bioelectrical Stress From Static Electricity and EMFs

 

[braineclipse]

Clint Ober has paid for 12 studies himself at a cost of around $1M each (if I recall correctly), I think you pay the man a great dis-service, he made his money in TV networks, so is not researching this for the money that I can tell.

Seeing how you jumped in before looking in any depth, perhaps you may like to have a read into it, and then give a more informed opinion, rather than a muscle memory response?

Or, you know, just go quiet...

This is all covered and much more in the videos. Sorry to clutter the thread with it but it's harder for BrainEclipse to deny when the images and data are in front of his nose, but I say it is a poor show to essentially claim that it is nonsense without even looking into it.

Argue the point, not the poster...

Sorry to sidestep the topic for a second, but what exactly was it about my posts here that makes you respond like this?

If you wish do discuss these things without people disagreeing with you I'm sure there are forums around that let you do that.

Look at the studies.

Guineapig generation in the context of interactive electrical proliferation, plastic proliferation (ie - shielding, which started around the 60's when as it happens only 5% of doctor visits were for inflammatory problems, now 50years later it is around 95%), obliteration of natural fats/foods etc etc. It wasn't claiming that it hasn't been better or worse historically, it was contextual. Do you really think I haven't looked into history?!

I'm not being drawn into your paradigm of 'if it's not double blind I don't buy it', sorry, but it's not required for me. This is a new area of research anyway and the studies will follow. I'm giving you a peak into something new, yet as old as time...

I will look at the studies, I normally do when people post them.

I did think you had looked into history, that was why your description of us as "the guineapig generation" surprised me and why I asked the question. In my experience when people describe a generation they compare that generation to history, and normally it's not about one very narrow subject unless specifically mentioned. Your statement seemed to me like a generalization, not specific to this topic.

I thought you had agreed in a previous thread that double blind placebo controlled studies were a good way to separate truth from fiction when it was possible to complete such trials. Maybe my memory fails me. I at least remember me asking you for what you think are better alternatives and me not getting an answer I found satisfactory.

I'm glad you agree this is a new area of research, maybe not completely new in terms of time since it was thought up as a theory, but new in terms of there not being a lot of solid research out there. Like for other areas of research that means that I remain sceptical, when/if sufficient evidence is presented I will believe it.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

One more for the cycling enthusiasts;

[video=youtube_share;icZIZ5UUoOE]http://youtu.be/icZIZ5UUoOE[/video]

8 secs in 'the earthing technology played a vital roll in all 8 TDF victories'.......................................................................mmmmmmm

i think 'other' technology 'won' Discovery those TDF's

 

[Gifter]

Sorry to sidestep the topic for a second, but what exactly was it about my posts here that makes you respond like this?

If you wish do discuss these things without people disagreeing with you I'm sure there are forums around that let you do that.



I will look at the studies, I normally do when people post them.

I did think you had looked into history, that was why your description of us as "the guineapig generation" surprised me and why I asked the question. In my experience when people describe a generation they compare that generation to history, and normally it's not about one very narrow subject unless specifically mentioned. Your statement seemed to me like a generalization, not specific to this topic.

I thought you had agreed in a previous thread that double blind placebo controlled studies were a good way to separate truth from fiction when it was possible to complete such trials. Maybe my memory fails me. I at least remember me asking you for what you think are better alternatives and me not getting an answer I found satisfactory.

I'm glad you agree this is a new area of research, maybe not completely new in terms of time since it was thought up as a theory, but new in terms of there not being a lot of solid research out there. Like for other areas of research that means that I remain sceptical, when/if sufficient evidence is presented I will believe it.

Sorry Brain, I was being inflammatory as I'd forgotten you are actually a decent chap to discuss stuff with.

But, you keep returning to the golden nugget of intimating that if there is 'no double blind, then it is likely bogus', which irritated me somewhat, especially given that the main researcher for this has thrown in a considerable amount of his own wealth to propel studies to where they are now, yet you suggested it was a money making scam.

The thing with grounding is that when you look at the physics and chemistry it is pretty basic stuff (certainly nothing like trying to articulate the urea cycle and my belief concerning NPN Potassium Nitrate), or do you not agree that the earth has a surplus of negative ions?

You are kind of right about the guineapig generation, much worse things have happened compared to how it seems to be now, but in those times we did not face the sheer tidal wave of biological hazards we do now, as we look back on history we see some things which stand out, maybe in the future as people look back to now they will not see the major events (like agent orange), but if they look a little deeper they may see a mass of inter-related issues, you're right though I didn't articulate myself well.

I like people disagreeing with me, as it gets the post count up on the thread, gets it more views, and if there is a cogent counter it gets me researching in much more detail than I otherwise would.

 

[jts1882]

....or do you not agree that the earth has a surplus of negative ions?

Why would this be true? The earth will be largely neutral or the world would be very different. The peer-reviewed article your grounding doctor was involved in totally misrepresented the geophysical articles cited. How those articles passed peer review is beyond me given the pseudo scientific reference to negative charge (the journal was ranked very low within the field). The scale and magnitude of the known charge gradients are totally different from anything needed to fit the grounding theory.

 

[Gifter]

Why would this be true? The earth will be largely neutral or the world would be very different. The peer-reviewed article your grounding doctor was involved in totally misrepresented the geophysical articles cited. How those articles passed peer review is beyond me given the pseudo scientific reference to negative charge (the journal was ranked very low within the field). The scale and magnitude of the known charge gradients are totally different from anything needed to fit the grounding theory.

Largely neutral yes, but with a small (relatively, but massive relational to man) negative ion surplus.

Why don't you instead explain why this is not so?

This seems to explain why it is not up for dispute (hence passing peer review) quite efficiently;

"Air, a mixture of gases, is largely composed of nitrogen and oxygen. It is generally considered as insulator, and would be an excellent one if all the oxygen and nitrogen molecules were in the neutral state. However, the air is actually composed of varying quantities of neutral molecules and positive and negative ions. As the number of ions in the air is increased, the air becomes a progressively better conductor. In general, gradually more ions are found the higher we ascend until, at about a height of fourty to fifty miles, a region called the ionosphere is reached. Here, there are sufficient numbers of ions to reflect radio waves. The ionosphere, although conductive, can be considered as a whole as being uncharged. This is due to the number of positive ions being equal to the number of negative ions plus electrons that are distributed in layers varying in height and in degree of ionization. In contrast, the earth has a surplus of electrons and is actually about 300,000 to 400,000 volts negative with respect to the ionosphere. This potential difference together with the total conductive qualities of the atmosphere are sufficient to cause the earth to continually lose electrons to the ionosphere. The entire earth's surface and the ionosphere may be considered to be oppositely-charged plates of a vast capacitor with the air between them acting as a rather inferior insulator, for it leaks continuously. In addition to the presence of ions, which make the atmosphere slightly conductive, various meteorological processes called precipitation or hydrologic cycle, contribute to the leakage rate of this earth capacitor."

Wonder why people who live on the second floor (or +) of buildings are 40% more likely to suffer from a stroke than those living on 1st Floors...

I hope you have a strong come back, as it will aid my understanding by researching further.

Off tangent slightly, Ion Channel's look interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_channel - and are something you have good knowledge of no doubt), wonder what effect environmental negative and positive ions have on those and free radicals? perhaps you have thoughts which we can work (pronounced argue) from. Think we may get into the myelin sheath and all sorts of other cool stuff for folks to (hopefully) realise they may have some control over beyond reaching for a 'pseudo pasteur scientific' pill (see what I did there?!), who knows eh.

I look forward to this becoming part of your belief structure, as you have shown Omega3 focus to now be (when at first you were adamant that just cutting back on Omega6 was all that should be required), without ever once admitting you were wrong, so I won't hold my breath to hear you admit you are wrong.

I'm away for a long weekend, but expect something to get my teeth stuck into upon my return.

Go large brother...

 

[Gifter]

Cursory glance at Ion Channels - "There are over 300 types of ion channels in a living cell. Ion channels may be classified by the nature of their gating, the species of ions passing through those gates, the number of gates (pores) and localization of proteins.
Further heterogeneity of ion channels arises when channels with different constitutive subunits give rise to a specific kind of current. Absence or mutation of one or more of the contributing types of channel subunits can result in loss of function and, potentially, underlie neurologic diseases."

 

[jts1882]

You are doing your word association again. You have demonstrated that you are not interested in learning about the science because you look for words that seem similar and draw wild conclusions that back what you believed in the first place. You never deal with mechanism, which is the essence of science, but do google searches for words and post random abstracts that contain the words you are interested in. Sensible theories have to involve the laws of physics at one level and biological mechanism at another.

Have you ever heard of an electric field? The fields involved with ion channels are over nanometers, the fields involved with the ionosphere are over a thousand kilometers. 400,000 volts over 1000 km is 400mV/m or 400pV/nm. Voltage gated ion channels respond to electric fields changes of the order of 10mV across a 5nm membrane or 2mV/nm. The ionosphere field is 6-7 orders of magnitude too small to have a significant effect. Random changes in ion channel activity due to thermal noise will be far bigger.

Not that either have any relevance to your grounding theory, which is on a different scale from both. If they are doing real experiments on grounding, it should be easy to measure the electrical current flowing during the grounding and present that as evidence that grounding is occurring. Then they could try and establish some causal relationship with the biological effect (assuming there is one they can measure). At the moment there is no established biological effect and no mechanism within the laws of physics or biology.

 

[Gifter]

You are doing your word association again. You have demonstrated that you are not interested in learning about the science because you look for words that seem similar and draw wild conclusions that back what you believed in the first place. You never deal with mechanism, which is the essence of science, but do google searches for words and post random abstracts that contain the words you are interested in. Sensible theories have to involve the laws of physics at one level and biological mechanism at another.

Have you ever heard of an electric field? The fields involved with ion channels are over nanometers, the fields involved with the ionosphere are over a thousand kilometers. 400,000 volts over 1000 km is 400mV/m or 400pV/nm. Voltage gated ion channels respond to electric fields changes of the order of 10mV across a 5nm membrane or 2mV/nm. The ionosphere field is 6-7 orders of magnitude too small to have a significant effect. Random changes in ion channel activity due to thermal noise will be far bigger.

Not that either have any relevance to your grounding theory, which is on a different scale from both. If they are doing real experiments on grounding, it should be easy to measure the electrical current flowing during the grounding and present that as evidence that grounding is occurring. Then they could try and establish some causal relationship with the biological effect (assuming there is one they can measure). At the moment there is no established biological effect and no mechanism within the laws of physics or biology.

Got to say I was expecting something much, much better than that, much better.

SHOW US HOW THE EARTH DOES NOT HAVE SURPLUS NEGATIVE IONS and why the world would be much different if it did... as you stated matter of factly before. If you post up or provide links I'll go away and study it, but won't hold my breath.

Get your facts out science guru, back your brick up. You rocked up to this thread stating how you knew better and that peer review should have picked this stuff apart, well, tell us why?

I've highlighted the scientific mechanism which shows that the earth does have this surplus (which begins to explain why grounding is producing these positive results in studies), now confound it, instead of taking that and twisting my post into something it was not (the ionosphere passage was merely to demonstrate the mechanism which shows why we can see the surplus Anions), thinking you will appear to have the upper hand in debate when you are really contributing jack brick (others might not see through it but I do).

How do you explain away the blood cell analysis? Very curious about that? Because to my crude eyes the blood looks a lot healthier after 40minutes of grounding, must be because of pseudo-placebo-double-blind-free-study or something?

The first two videos clearly show grounding in effect, perhaps in you took the time to watch them you would see that is covered in post 1 of this thread. The following studies are showing causality to biological malfunction (by excess positive ions, crudely so far as stated already because it costs a lot and the field is new to scientific research, yet ancient at the same time), the mechanisms are in place from time immemorial, sad that your science is so slow to pick it up and a guy from a TV networking background actually picks up the gauntlet and runs with it, says a lot about 'mechanistic science' IMO.

 

[Gifter]

PS. JTS are you able to say 'I was wrong' regarding Omega3? As it has a big bearing on how seriously I take any discussion with you. I would bet all the money in my bank savings account that you've reflected on your own diet, probably even bought some Omega3 supplements, it's OK to admit it you know.

 

[Spursalot]

This thread is full of amusement..

 

[jts1882]

PS. JTS are you able to say 'I was wrong' regarding Omega3? As it has a big bearing on how seriously I take any discussion with you. I would bet all the money in my bank savings account that you've reflected on your own diet, probably even bought some Omega3 supplements, it's OK to admit it you know.

I said wasn't wrong and you can repeat the lie as often as you want, it won't change things. You didn't understand what I said or are deliberately misinterpreting it. Everyone knows omega-3s are essential, that is why the are categorized as essential fatty acids, but they are available in a standard diet. Humans survived for a million years and were quite successful without buy supplements on the internet. It was your promotion of them as a cure for various diseases that I criticised and the idea that diet could overcome homeostatic and regulatory mechanisms that have evolved over hundreds of millions of years, along with the crackpot theories to explain it.

I don't buy supplements. They are unnecessary and a waste of money. You only need supplements if you don't eat a sensible diet, unless you have a particular health problem. But if you eat a crackpot diet supplements might become necessary.

 

[jts1882]

Get your facts out science guru, back your brick up.

So now you get abusive. How can I explain it to you if you don't have basic grasp of physics or chemistry or biology. Your theories on grounding contradict the basic laws of physics. As I pointed out you have to start by understanding about charge and electric fields. As you are unwilling to learn, there's nothing I can say that will satisfy you. By learn, I mean study the basic principles, not google word matches.

My guess if the blood cell analysis is a fraud and not done in a controlled way. The description actually gives a clue to the lack of the control.


Edit: I don't know why I bother, but just look at the numbers ...

Calculations show that the negative charge on the Earth's surface due to the earth's electric field is the equivalent of 100 million (1e8 ) electrons per square metre.

The ion current through a single ion channel is of the order of 10 million ions per second (1e7/s). A single cell can have hundreds of ions channels and the human body must have a huge number of ions channels. The brain has something like 1e12 neurons, each with say 100 channels (=1e14).

So for a person standing on a one square metre piece of Earth there is one electron for every 100,000 ion channels in the human body. The whole charge on that piece of earth due the the Earth's electric field could pass through a single ion channel in 10s.

Or consider the charges on a single cell. Because there is a potential difference across the cell membrane, there are more negative charges on the outside. Calculations show this is also around 100 million negative ions, i.e. each cell has approximately the same charge as 1 square metre of earth. The human body has approximately 10 million million cells. That means the combined cell surfaces in the body have as much charge as 10 million million square meters (or 10 million km2) of earth's surface due to the Earth's field. That is the surface area of China.

So with those numbers how can you create any rational mechanism involving the Earth's field for why grounding would work. The numbers just don't add up.

 

[Gifter]

So now you get abusive. How can I explain it to you if you don't have basic grasp of physics or chemistry or biology. Your theories on grounding contradict the basic laws of physics. As I pointed out you have to start by understanding about charge and electric fields. As you are unwilling to learn, there's nothing I can say that will satisfy you. By learn, I mean study the basic principles, not google word matches.

My guess if the blood cell analysis is a fraud and not done in a controlled way. The description actually gives a clue to the lack of the control.


Edit: I don't know why I bother, but just look at the numbers ...

Calculations show that the negative charge on the Earth's surface due to the earth's electric field is the equivalent of 100 million (1e8 ) electrons per square metre.

The ion current through a single ion channel is of the order of 10 million ions per second (1e7/s). A single cell can have hundreds of ions channels and the human body must have a huge number of ions channels. The brain has something like 1e12 neurons, each with say 100 channels (=1e14).

So for a person standing on a one square metre piece of Earth there is one electron for every 100,000 ion channels in the human body. The whole charge on that piece of earth due the the Earth's electric field could pass through a single ion channel in 10s.

Or consider the charges on a single cell. Because there is a potential difference across the cell membrane, there are more negative charges on the outside. Calculations show this is also around 100 million negative ions, i.e. each cell has approximately the same charge as 1 square metre of earth. The human body has approximately 10 million million cells. That means the combined cell surfaces in the body have as much charge as 10 million million square meters (or 10 million km2) of earth's surface due to the Earth's field. That is the surface area of China.

So with those numbers how can you create any rational mechanism involving the Earth's field for why grounding would work. The numbers just don't add up.

Thanks JTS.

That makes some sense, but now you have flip-flopped completely and you are saying in fact you have looked into it and found there is a surplus as I said, so now the focus changes.

Sorry if you took offence, but 'back your brick up' and 'science guru' are hardly real digs are they? Especially as you keep lacing your retorts with petty mundane digs.

Now the focus I propose to you is, with an electrical field, such as the ionosphere/earth (as that is the focus which proved the surplus), is the ionosphere's potential increased as it saturates in postive ions? what happens to the draw we have seen exhibited? Does it increase and therefore draw more negative ions from the earth? I would say this 'basic science' you keep talking about confirms that would be the case, yes?

So, in place of the ionosphere we put man, who is consistently interacting with gadgets (and, ever more, ambient EMF's), which as shown in the second video of the thead pass through up to 20V into (or through if grounded) the person holding it, this increases the potential of the person massively and therefore the grounding potential to the earth, it's pretty basic science to me. Whether it is the full/only benefit of what is happening I don't know, but it is clearly one which you have even now agreed makes some scientific sense, and has potential for validity by proxy.

Sad swipe, to suggest tampering with experimental results by a Doctor is it not? Would you be prepared to make that accusation to the Doctor directly?

Anyway, I'm going to be doing some research and buy some electrical/ion measurement tools, I'm looking forward to measuring alkaline foot baths when done in an earthed bowl, realised I can also ground/earth by putting my feet on the taps whilst in the bath... Dr Mercola (who you probably loath! or you are wet behind the ears in your field if not) says on the video this is the biggest medical breakthrough in the past 10years, my thoughts are, 'sounds good', 'can I take this on?'

But I am thankful for the breakdown, it is no doubt correct in and of itself (otherwise I will be back to critique it further). I'd rather you desisted on the 'you must learn' stuff, my physics teacher wrote on my last report '******* could do anything he put his mind to, clearly though he has chosen not to put his mind to Physics', which I thought was just a supportive dig (as I failed all my O Levels) until I did an IQ test many years later and found that he was right (my long term memory is poor, the creative side pretty darn good though). So I'd rather you didn't pull a 'Listen Little Man' because I don't subscribe to that brick.

 

[Gifter]

Like this one better;

"Only one thing matters: live a good, happy life. Do your heart's bidding, even when it leads you on paths that timid souls would avoid. Even when life is a torment, don't let it harden you."

I hear 'ya Wilhelm

 

[spursman17]

Gifter you really are a loon.

From your posts over the past few months it's actually quite worrying.

People are not out to get you. The government are not trying to kill you and medical professionals are not in a ring to exclude the general public for breakthrough medicine.

Nearly every bit of information you have posted over the few months is by unproven tests OR tests that were completed under unfair conditions making it void and unrecognized by the medical profession. It's like the 'natural alternative cancer remedies' you posted a while back. The so called 'doctor' advertising the products was himself selling the cure on an alternative site. The stats and 'findings' usually tend to favour the portrayers argument and can be twisted to give the impression their view holds value.

Truth is any findings or research by respectable institute is done under strict test environments and is shared by these professionals across the globe. These medical professionals go in to the profession to save people’s lives.

Either way you are going to die some day fella. Enjoy your life and quit all this 'trying to be cleverer' that the mass population. You're actually changing your lifestyle to follow these beliefs... madness.

As for this 'radiation argument' it's true some people are sensitive to it but the amount of people are minimal. I have watched documentries on the effects of these waves in the enviornment and they are safe and are far lower than what can damage you.

 

[ArcspacE]

Either way you are going to die some day fella. Enjoy your life and quit all this 'trying to be cleverer' that the mass population. You're actually changing your lifestyle to follow these beliefs... madness.

Biggest irony of this - he probably spends a fortune monthly to sustain this 'alternative' industry which is set againt the capitalist supremacists in the first place (lol) - while those fudging charlatans are making a killing in the process

 

[ArcspacE]

Sad swipe, to suggest tampering with experimental results by a Doctor is it not? Would you be prepared to make that accusation to the Doctor directly?

You have factually suggested in numerous of your previous posts virtually all 'mainstream' doctors are liars intentioanlly concealing apparently existing cancer remedies and purposefully refusing to utilise 'alternative remedies' to heal patients.

My father is one - couldn't possibly tell you what I think of that acquisation because of obvious forum reasons - but put it this way, you wouldn't be able to suggest that to his face. I've seen first hand a good part of his career and some your theories are quite frankly preposterous.

That's quite an accusation in itself and yet you're trying to stand up for someone above who's out to line up his pockets from mindless anti-conspiracy loons

 

[jts1882]

Thanks JTS.

That makes some sense, but now you have flip-flopped completely and you are saying in fact you have looked into it and found there is a surplus as I said, so now the focus changes.

Seriously, did you read my post. I said nothing of the sort. Its well known the Earth has an electric field, but at the scale relevant to human physiology the field strength is extremely small, as the numbers I gave prove.

You jump from the existence of a field on the scale of a 1000km and the existence of ion channels and electric fields over a few nm to proof of your grounding occurring, which is on a scale orders of magnitude from either. In doing so you ignore the laws of physics and biology.

Now the focus I propose to you is, with an electrical field, such as the ionosphere/earth (as that is the focus which proved the surplus), is the ionosphere's potential increased as it saturates in postive ions? what happens to the draw we have seen exhibited? Does it increase and therefore draw more negative ions from the earth? I would say this 'basic science' you keep talking about confirms that would be the case, yes?

So, in place of the ionosphere we put man, who is consistently interacting with gadgets (and, ever more, ambient EMF's), which as shown in the second video of the thead pass through up to 20V into (or through if grounded) the person holding it, this increases the potential of the person massively and therefore the grounding potential to the earth, it's pretty basic science to me. Whether it is the full/only benefit of what is happening I don't know, but it is clearly one which you have even now agreed makes some scientific sense, and has potential for validity by proxy.

is the ionosphere's potential increased as it saturates in postive ions?
Does it increase and therefore draw more negative ions from the earth?
this increases the potential of the person massively and therefore the grounding potential to the earth


These phrases have no meaning. This "pretty basic science" to you is nonsense and clearly demonstrates you have no understanding of electric fields.

Sad swipe, to suggest tampering with experimental results by a Doctor is it not? Would you be prepared to make that accusation to the Doctor directly?

Not really. There are a lot of charlatan doctors who make all sorts of claims. Here the observation doesn't even need tampering. As I hinted at, the blood cell pictures can be generated by the way he described what he did, which is why you have to do experiments in a controlled way. The photos also don't seem to be from the articles listed (I only check a few, though) so the claim they are peer-reviewed in questionable.

Anyway, I'm going to be doing some research and buy some electrical/ion measurement tools, I'm looking forward to measuring alkaline foot baths when done in an earthed bowl, realised I can also ground/earth by putting my feet on the taps whilst in the bath... Dr Mercola (who you probably loath! or you are wet behind the ears in your field if not) says on the video this is the biggest medical breakthrough in the past 10years, my thoughts are, 'sounds good', 'can I take this on?'

But I am thankful for the breakdown, it is no doubt correct in and of itself (otherwise I will be back to critique it further). I'd rather you desisted on the 'you must learn' stuff, my physics teacher wrote on my last report '******* could do anything he put his mind to, clearly though he has chosen not to put his mind to Physics', which I thought was just a supportive dig (as I failed all my O Levels) until I did an IQ test many years later and found that he was right (my long term memory is poor, the creative side pretty darn good though). So I'd rather you didn't pull a 'Listen Little Man' because I don't subscribe to that brick.

I'd rather you desisted on the 'you must learn' stuff,

I'd rather you stop posting scientific nonsense but its not going to happen, is it? I've actually backed up what I've claimed with numbers and reference to those quaint things scientists call theories and laws, that have been developed by thousands of scientists over hundreds of years. You respond with your own theories that have no connection with the existing science.

And sorry, "I failed all my O Levels" but the "the creative side pretty darn good" is not going to convince me that your theories on electric fields should supersede those of Faraday and Maxwell. But I'm glad that you have found some cartoons. They might suit that creative side better than science.

 

[davieb]

Ive been sleeping grounded now for a number of months. Sleep alot better and more energy in the morning. Im also doing castor oil packs (twice a week) and hot cold shower therapy. Feel ALOT better. Also taking a teaspoon of baking soda before gym/football match and endurance has peaked.

Im reading a book at the minute Earthing. The most important health discovery ever? Worth a read! Im also training to run the marathon with barefoot trainers next year.