The Earthing Movie

[Zero999]

I just saw a YouTube advert for this and thought I'd click the link for a laugh. I'm pretty annoyed that YouTube allow advertising medical misinformation, especially given they delete so many videos which they believe to be misinformation, which is often not the case. I've seen the videos doing the following which have been removed for supposedly spreading medical misinformation: exploring studies into potential new treatments, side effects of certain medical interventions and some governments' polices on which medical products are approved or banned. None of the aforementioned were egregious as claiming that earthing the body relieves inflammation.

https://www.gaia.com/video/the-earthing-movie-long-version?utm_source=youtube+paid&utm_medium=cpv&utm_campaign=tr-earthingmovie-s0-english&utm_content=open_broad&utm_term=earthing-2m&utm_platcamp=y2001_youtube_yt_acq_mof_alt-health1-vac&utm_rainbow=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvL-oBhCxARIsAHkOiu2MPTCT1ozb-l5Igd8eCQ-yTSQ085mJNgU-rOHCEOntmhQhOHlke1caAgzFEALw_wcB

The Earthing Movie: The Remarkable Science of Grounding reveals the scientific phenomenon of how we can heal our bodies by doing the simplest thing that a person can do… standing barefoot on the earth.

The film reveals that the answer to America’s biggest health crisis may literally be right under our feet. Earthing, also known as “grounding”, means connecting to the Earth. As the film reveals, the surface of planet Earth is negatively charged and when this negative charge is connected to human skin, it reduces inflammation and contributes to other positive health effects.

This is a must watch documentary as it reveals the science of 'grounding' while calling us to connect to the Earth, heal our bodies, and become healthier beings.

I haven't signed up to watch the film and have no intention of doing so. The short clip shown in the advert and the above quote from their website are bad enough. I just wanted to vent my frustration at YouTube for accepting money to push this bollocks, when they censor legitimate medical and public health debate.

[MK14]

I've only fairly rapidly skimmed through the movie (if that is the right one).

The thing is, because of concepts like the placebo effect, meditation (perhaps?, when sitting down, outside, barefoot, quietly, to supposedly to get grounded/earthed) like stuff, hence possible stress reduction, could be the real issues involves, in any possible improvement.

[SiliconWizard]

Yes, any alleged benefit probably just comes from the placebo effect, most likely as with homeopathy.
I'm not against using the placebo effect. The problem with it is that it requires us to *believe* the treatment is actually known to be effective, and so relies on... lying. I don't know how we could solve this placebo effect conundrum and use it *ethically*. Maybe we can't.

As you said, it's hard to understand what YT's criterions are on what is acceptable placebo and what isn't. I'm willing to bet that it has something to do with the amount of money that is involved, and whether the particular bullshit is on the current "radar" or not. Apparently, "earthing" is not on the general radar at the moment, so it can leak all over the place with no censorship. The reason is quite simple IMO, if it's not on the radar, YT will have no problem relaying it; if it is on the radar, they'll get into trouble so they choose to censor.

[Infraviolet]

We shouldn't want Youtube to censor this sort of cr*p. It is cr*p, utter cr*p, but it is always better to tear cr*p apart with reasoned debate against the substance of its claims, rather than resort to the dirty tactics of censorship and cancel culture. Better to make a mockery of the cr*p which is being pushed, because when something is censored people will find a way to find it anyway, and the fact it has been censored will convince people it is worth listening to*.

*because with so many things which are true being censored in this manner, for example all the professors with genuine empirical expertise warning against lockdown diktats, the impression goes around that "if it wasn't true they wouldn't feel the need to censor it". But once that impression gets out then crap which has been censored gets made to look more plausible by association simply because it joins true content in the category of "this has been censored".

I wish YouTube would be more like Rumble in regards to censorship, that is to say not doing it. There's a fine point to be made by standing up for the rights of all content to be shared freely, and simply letting cr*p perish in the sunlight of open debate. I just wish Rumble actually had content on it beside things produced by people who were being censored elsewhere, it's noble and righteous to host it, but if Rumble wants to be a proper competitor to YouTube it needs to grow in variety of content to also include the kinds of content which aren't controversial** enough to get censored anywhere. And they need to get videos to play when you start them, not hang around for 20 seconds with no sign of response before beginning.

**I mean controversial simply as a matter of being about topics which people get in to arguments about, not "controversial" in the modern meaning of trying to imply something is wrong

[Zero999]

We shouldn't want Youtube to censor this sort of cr*p. It is cr*p, utter cr*p, but it is always better to tear cr*p apart with reasoned debate against the substance of its claims, rather than resort to the dirty tactics of censorship and cancel culture. Better to make a mockery of the cr*p which is being pushed, because when something is censored people will find a way to find it anyway, and the fact it has been censored will convince people it is worth listening to*.

*because with so many things which are true being censored in this manner, for example all the professors with genuine empirical expertise warning against lockdown diktats, the impression goes around that "if it wasn't true they wouldn't feel the need to censor it". But once that impression gets out then crap which has been censored gets made to look more plausible by association simply because it joins true content in the category of "this has been censored".

I wish YouTube would be more like Rumble in regards to censorship, that is to say not doing it. There's a fine point to be made by standing up for the rights of all content to be shared freely, and simply letting cr*p perish in the sunlight of open debate. I just wish Rumble actually had content on it beside things produced by people who were being censored elsewhere, it's noble and righteous to host it, but if Rumble wants to be a proper competitor to YouTube it needs to grow in variety of content to also include the kinds of content which aren't controversial** enough to get censored anywhere. And they need to get videos to play when you start them, not hang around for 20 seconds with no sign of response before beginning.

**I mean controversial simply as a matter of being about topics which people get in to arguments about, not "controversial" in the modern meaning of trying to imply something is wrong

I strongly agree, but I deliberately avoided mentioning specifics because it often turns a thread into a heated debate, which gets locked.

It's true, medical misinformation can be genuinely harmful. A person who believes a quack's claim they have a cure for cancer and take that, rather than a proven theraphy might die because of it, but people will believe what they want to. I'd be in favour of YouTube adopting community notes, like Twitter, rather than censorship.

[switchabl]

Yes, any alleged benefit probably just comes from the placebo effect, most likely as with homeopathy.
I'm not against using the placebo effect. The problem with it is that it requires us to *believe* the treatment is actually known to be effective, and so relies on... lying. I don't know how we could solve this placebo effect conundrum and use it *ethically*. Maybe we can't.

Actually... that's where things get weird: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83148-6

[Zero999]

Yes, any alleged benefit probably just comes from the placebo effect, most likely as with homeopathy.
I'm not against using the placebo effect. The problem with it is that it requires us to *believe* the treatment is actually known to be effective, and so relies on... lying. I don't know how we could solve this placebo effect conundrum and use it *ethically*. Maybe we can't.

Actually... that's where things get weird: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83148-6

It's hardly surprising.

This is why faith/religion is associated with a positive effect of the mental health for many people. I'm not religious myself, but do have some sort of spiritual side, quite likely because I know it's good for me, even though I can't bring myself to believe in God, or anything like that. Note I don't want to discuss theism vs atheism here, just that often believing in something positive, even though there's no evidence to support it, can be a good thing.

[SiliconWizard]

Yes, any alleged benefit probably just comes from the placebo effect, most likely as with homeopathy.
I'm not against using the placebo effect. The problem with it is that it requires us to *believe* the treatment is actually known to be effective, and so relies on... lying. I don't know how we could solve this placebo effect conundrum and use it *ethically*. Maybe we can't.

Actually... that's where things get weird: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83148-6

Yeah, the article points out methodological issues. One key thing seems to be that, while people are aware of the product they take is just "sugar pills", they are still being told that it may have a benefit / it has been known to have a benefit for others. So, ultimately we're still pretty much back to the same root principle. The placebo effect will work if your brain is tricked in some way - it doesn't need to be tricked on a rational level, which is why the placebo effect has been proven on animals too. Actually, just taking some pill that looks like a drug, even if you rationally know it contains nothing, will trick your brain.

So ultimately, my point was that for the placebo effect to be effective, someone still needs to lie to someone else on some level, whatever the level the lie is at. Just because you tell someone "this is just a placebo" doesn't mean that it won't work as such, which is pretty much what this article is saying as far as I can tell. Again, my point was about the ethical use of placebo, and it's still a question I for one have no answer to.

But if we consider that leveraging the placebo effect is ethical, then it follows that I don't see why we should ban Earthing, homeopathy and everything else related.

[switchabl]

I am not sure this should be considered a methodological problem rather than just part of the protocol. But it sure would be interesting to see if it is actually necessary or not. The reliance on self-reporting and potential self-selection bias seem a bit more worrying to me. Still, quite fascinating.

It does seem like it would solve the problem of informed consent. Unless what you are being told about placebo is factually wrong or misleading, you can make a meaningful choice whether "tricking your brain" is something you want to try. This is very different from the scenario where your doctor is lying to you about the contents of the pill.

I think that you could apply the same approach to "earthing" or homeopathy. But then you cannot tell people that "surface of planet Earth is negatively charged and when this negative charge is connected to human skin, it reduces inflammation". You have to tell them that this claim is essentially bogus. And that you should still see a real doctor about serious conditions (or about other more effective treatments if you are a doctor). And then you can maybe tell them that it might still have positive effects because of placebo/getting out into the fresh air/...

And there might be other ethical considerations besides consent. For example if you are charging a lot of money for what are essentially still sugar pills, from someone who is potentially desperate to try anything by now.

[Psi]

Everything is fine so long as it is clear that X is 'based in known science', or X is 'not based in known science'.

The issue occurs when things that are not based in known science are presented as based in known science to deceive people into thinking there is more evidence behind them than there really it.

It's totally fine to have all manner of pseudo science and we shouldn't try to stop it, so long it's being presented as such.
Everyone is free to decide if they believe it is true, which usually means they believe it will eventually be explained or discovered by science as true sometime in the future. But they take the risk of being wrong, which is their risk to take.

[Nominal Animal]

Biologically, 'grounding' is utter bullshit.  Psychologically, it is a powerful tool and can really help with certain common difficult mental ailments.

For example, a common exercise to alleviate anxiety (especially when associated with depression) is to focus on the present, on the sensorium, and simply observe; and to avoid conscious thinking.  It shares many aspects with meditation, obviously.

'Grounding' can be taken as a wider application, combining a psychological narrative to help mentally 'connect' one to their surroundings, with associated mythology that helps shift the overall mental state to a more productive, calm, 'grounded' (as in 'externally supported, not alone'), positive one.  It is pure psychology, but uses scents and tactile sensorium to bypass the conscious part of the human mind.  In my opinion, it belongs to the same class of 'tricks' as optical illusions and sleight of hand, except with very useful results.

It is sad, but absolutely expected, to see people take the core idea and run hog wild with it.  It is what humans always do, when they think they found something useful.

[thm_w]

So ultimately, my point was that for the placebo effect to be effective, someone still needs to lie to someone else on some level, whatever the level the lie is at. Just because you tell someone "this is just a placebo" doesn't mean that it won't work as such, which is pretty much what this article is saying as far as I can tell. Again, my point was about the ethical use of placebo, and it's still a question I for one have no answer to.

Doctors are already doing it: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/06/half-german-doctors-prescribe-placebos

Its tough, because even the most common drugs can have side effects and dangers (eg aspirin). So if you immediately prescribe every person that walks through the door with a drug relevant to the request, you can be doing more harm than good. Placebo is 100% safe in comparison.

IMO if the complaint is not so serious, if requested you can prescribe a placebo as a first attempt along lifestyle changes, monitor and maybe it works well enough, and if it doesn't come back and try a real drug.

I guess if that still ethically bothers you, replace placebo with multivitamin.

https://sci-hub.se/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20013484/

[SiliconWizard]

So ultimately, my point was that for the placebo effect to be effective, someone still needs to lie to someone else on some level, whatever the level the lie is at. Just because you tell someone "this is just a placebo" doesn't mean that it won't work as such, which is pretty much what this article is saying as far as I can tell. Again, my point was about the ethical use of placebo, and it's still a question I for one have no answer to.

Doctors are already doing it: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/06/half-german-doctors-prescribe-placebos

Its tough, because even the most common drugs can have side effects and dangers (eg aspirin). So if you immediately prescribe every person that walks through the door with a drug relevant to the request, you can be doing more harm than good. Placebo is 100% safe in comparison.

IMO if the complaint is not so serious, if requested you can prescribe a placebo as a first attempt along lifestyle changes, monitor and maybe it works well enough, and if it doesn't come back and try a real drug.

I guess if that still ethically bothers you, replace placebo with multivitamin.

https://sci-hub.se/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20013484/

Yep - agree with the points above.

I am personally not particularly "bothered" by using placebos for the reasons you expose here (and yes, this is commonly used routinely by physicians). The question is more like a fundamental one, and one correlated question I raised was that if this kind of use doesn't cause any particular ethical problem, why would we ban some uses of it and not others, what are exactly our criterions, are those criterions *always* really rational, and so on, ...

I took the example of homeopathy (but you could use Earthing also, or whatever). Actually, if you read a bit about the history of homeopathy, this appears to be what the point of its "inventor" exactly was: first do no harm for the minor ailments, and sure he made up this whole BS around it to make the placebo effect potentially stronger. I don't think it was ever meant to cure cancer (for instance), which is often the counter-argument we hear about banning homeopathy altogether. Although even so, one may argue that the placebo effect probably still has its place with cancer treatment on some level, even if it's (probably) not going to cure it. So on the surface, I guess you could say that using placebos is all fine and dandy until its apparent effectiveness in some cases could make some patients think that they don't need anything else to be cured. That's the usual argument.

So, that's just actually more questions than answers here. I'm again not saying I'm against, but it's more of a rhetorical or philosophical question if you will. Indeed, the placebo effect relies on lies (to others / to oneself). So the underlying question is, whenever is it ethical to use lies to achieve some goal? (Your answer may be: as long as it does no harm, but I don't think it's quite satisfying as an answer to a pretty uh, deep question overall.)

[TimFox]

When thinking about the placebo effect and related topics, I am reminded of a project I was on, involving cardiac monitoring.
Not being educated on medical and biological stuff, I did some reading about the interesting electrochemical relaxation oscillator that governed the heartbeat, and what could go wrong (arrhythmia) after surface damage to the heart muscle screws up the circuitry.
I learned that while respiration could be controlled directly by nervous activity originating in the brain (holding your breath), evolution had not given us that direct control over the heart (a good thing);  changes in heart timing respond to chemical signals through the bloodstream.
I didn't get as far as how that indirect control system responds to mental activity.
(Careful technical language varies with different sciences:  we had a cardiologist consultant who crossed out all of my references to "pulse", as in electronic waveform, and replaced them with "impulse", since he only used pulse in the cardiac sense.)

[Infraviolet]

To add to my Reply #3, just noticed that EEVblog is running Rumble and Bitchute channels mirroring the Youtube videos. Well done. That's what we need for making Youtube competitors worthwhile, enough of YT's content mirrored on them to bulk up the amount of things they can offer. If YT ever decides that it is against the guidance of some government or another to host electronics vids (because if people know about electronics they might fix things, and if they can fix things then  corporations who want planned obsolescence and prop up political parties might lose profit), there'll be a safe refuge where the censorship doesn't reach.

[helius]

Not being educated on medical and biological stuff, I did some reading about the interesting electrochemical relaxation oscillator that governed the heartbeat, and what could go wrong (arrhythmia) after surface damage to the heart muscle screws up the circuitry.
I learned that while respiration could be controlled directly by nervous activity originating in the brain (holding your breath), evolution had not given us that direct control over the heart (a good thing);  changes in heart timing respond to chemical signals through the bloodstream.

The heart rate goes down when you inhale and up when you exhale. I think this is one of the vagus nerve functions. You can also lower the heart rate/bp by tapping on the vagus nerve's superior ganglion.

[tggzzz]

It is very important to have spirituality inside in order to stay mentally healthy.

No, it is not.

You are new here, and are probably not aware of how anything resembling religion is stomped on speedily and hard.