The documentary begins with a personal anecdote from the filmmakers, Rebecca and Josh, about their experiences with health issues and their subsequent exploration of alternative medicine. While personal stories can be compelling, they are not a substitute for rigorous scientific evidence. The filmmakers' experiences are anecdotal and cannot be generalized to the broader population. The filmmakers then introduce the concept of CBD, or cannabidiol, a compound found in cannabis. While there is some evidence that CBD may have therapeutic benefits for certain conditions, such as epilepsy, much of the research is still in its early stages and the overall effectiveness and safety of CBD is not yet fully understood (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2019). The filmmakers fail to mention this, which is a common tactic used to oversimplify complex scientific topics and make them seem more definitive than they actually are. The filmmakers also discuss a variety of other alternative therapies, including virtual dolphin therapy, snake massage therapy, urine therapy, and earthing. These therapies are presented without any scientific evidence to support their effectiveness. For example, the concept of earthing, or grounding, is based on the idea that direct physical contact with the earth can have health benefits. However, there is currently limited scientific evidence to support this claim (Chevalier et al., 2012). The filmmakers interview Clint Ober, the founder of the earthing movement, who admits that the concept is met with a lot of skepticism. However, he does not provide any scientific evidence to support his claims, instead relying on anecdotal evidence and personal testimonials. This is a common tactic used in pseudoscience and can be misleading, as personal testimonials are not a reliable form of evidence. The documentary presents a variety of alternative therapies without providing any scientific evidence to support their effectiveness. This is problematic, as it can lead viewers to believe that these therapies are more effective than they actually are, potentially leading them to forgo proven medical treatments in favor of unproven alternatives.
The film then makes a claim about the negative effects of wearing shoes, suggesting that we have "lost our electrical ground with the planet." This claim is not supported by any scientific evidence. The idea that humans need to be "grounded" to the Earth in an electrical sense is a common belief in alternative medicine, but it is not supported by scientific evidence. The human body is not an electrical device that needs to be grounded, and there is no evidence to suggest that wearing shoes has any negative impact on our health in this regard. The speaker then recounts a story about a Native American girl who was cured of Scarlet fever by being buried in the ground. This is a dangerous claim to make, as it suggests that serious illnesses can be cured by natural methods alone. Scarlet fever is a bacterial infection that can be deadly if not treated with antibiotics. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that grounding or any other natural method can cure bacterial infections. The documentary then suggests that Americans don't spend enough time "grounding," and implies that this is linked to our love of shoes. This is a false cause fallacy, as there is no evidence to suggest that wearing shoes is linked to any health problems. Furthermore, the idea that grounding can improve health is not supported by scientific evidence. The speaker then interviews several people about their thoughts on grounding and walking barefoot. These interviews are used to create a false consensus effect, a psychological phenomenon where people believe that their beliefs are shared by the majority, even when they are not. This is a common tactic used in pseudoscience and alternative medicine to make their theories seem more credible.
The documentary then has a discussion about the invention of synthetic materials and the subsequent use of these materials in shoe soles. The narrator claims that this has led to a disconnection from the earth, which they argue is detrimental to our health. However, this claim is not supported by any scientific evidence. The idea that synthetic materials in shoe soles have caused a proliferation of inflammation-related health disorders is a sweeping generalization that lacks empirical support. The narrator then introduces the concept of grounding, or earthing, which involves making direct contact with the earth's surface to balance the body's electrical charge. They claim that this can protect against the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from modern devices. However, the scientific consensus is that the health risks of EMFs are negligible. According to the World Health Organization, "despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health." The documentary also presents a false dichotomy, suggesting that we must either be grounded or suffer from health problems. This ignores the fact that there are many other factors that contribute to health, such as diet, exercise, and genetics. The narrator also uses anecdotal evidence, such as the story of a celebrity walking barefoot at an airport, to support their claims. However, anecdotal evidence is not a reliable form of evidence because it is based on personal experiences rather than rigorous scientific research. The documentary also uses the appeal to nature fallacy, suggesting that because grounding is natural, it must be beneficial. However, just because something is natural does not mean it is inherently good or healthy. For example, many natural substances are toxic or harmful to human health.
The documentary then makes a claim that humans need to be "grounded" to the earth to collect electrons from the sun, and that a lack of this grounding can lead to health problems. "earthing" or "grounding," has been largely debunked by the scientific community. A systematic review of research on grounding published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health found that the majority of studies had significant methodological flaws, and that the few studies with robust methodologies found no evidence of health benefits from grounding (Chevalier et al., 2012). The documentary then transitions into a personal anecdote from a man who claims that grounding helped him recover from a serious illness. While personal anecdotes can be compelling, they are not a reliable form of evidence. This is because they are subject to numerous biases, including confirmation bias (the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories) and recall bias (the tendency to remember or report information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses). Furthermore, the man's recovery could be attributed to numerous other factors, such as medical treatment, changes in lifestyle, or simply the natural course of his illness. The documentary also employs a common manipulative technique known as the "appeal to nature" fallacy. This is the idea that because something is "natural," it is therefore good or beneficial. However, just because something is natural does not mean it is beneficial or safe. For example, many natural substances (such as arsenic or mercury) are extremely toxic to humans. Finally, the documentary ends with a claim that wearing shoes could be interfering with our ability to ground ourselves to the earth. This claim is not supported by any scientific evidence. In fact, a study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that wearing shoes has no significant effect on the body's electrical grounding (Kortekaas et al., 2013). In conclusion, this documentary makes numerous unsupported claims and employs manipulative techniques to persuade the audience of the benefits of grounding. These tactics are dangerous because they can lead people to reject proven medical treatments in favor of unproven alternative therapies.
The documentary presents a theory that "grounding" or "earthing" - connecting oneself to the earth to balance the body's electrical energy - can cure chronic pain, inflammation, and various diseases. However, this theory is largely unsupported by scientific evidence and relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, logical fallacies, and pseudoscientific claims.
Anecdotal Evidence: The documentary relies heavily on anecdotal evidence, such as stories from teachers about improved student behavior and personal experiences of the speakers. While these stories can be compelling, they are not a substitute for rigorous scientific evidence. It's also subject to cognitive biases, such as the placebo effect, where a person's belief in a treatment's effectiveness can cause perceived improvements.
For example, the woman who experienced reduced swelling in her feet after using a grounding kit may have experienced a placebo effect, where her belief in the treatment led to perceived improvements.
"A couple years ago, my 92-year-old mother was suffering from peripheral artery disease... I purchased her a grounding sheet and had her sleep on it for one night... She's now 94... And we attribute this to the grounding." This is an example of anecdotal evidence, which is not a reliable form of evidence in scientific research. It's also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, assuming that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second. Without controlled studies, it's impossible to determine whether the grounding sheet had any effect.
Appeal to Nature Fallacy: The narrator suggests that because humans have become disconnected from the earth, we are experiencing health problems. This is an example of the appeal to nature fallacy, which assumes that anything natural is inherently good or healthy. However, many natural things are harmful, and many synthetic things are beneficial. Just because something is natural does not mean it is inherently good or beneficial.
Appeal to Nature Fallacy: The documentary suggests that because humans were once more connected to the earth, returning to this state will improve health. This is an example of the appeal to nature fallacy, which assumes that what is natural is inherently good or better. However, many natural things are harmful, and many synthetic things are beneficial.
Misrepresentation of Inflammation: The narrator oversimplifies the complex biological process of inflammation, suggesting that it is the root cause of all diseases and can be cured by grounding. In reality, inflammation is a necessary immune response, and while chronic inflammation can contribute to certain diseases, it is not the sole cause. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that grounding can reduce inflammation.
Gross Oversimplification: "If there's not enough free electrons there to reduce the remaining radicals, they're going to steal an electron from a healthy cell... If inflammation is the cause of all these health disorders, then I know that not enough grounding is the cause of inflammation because if the body is grounded, you can't have inflammation." This claim is a gross oversimplification of the complex biological processes involved in inflammation and oxidative stress. While it's true that free radicals can damage cells, the idea that grounding can prevent this is unsupported. The body has its own mechanisms for dealing with free radicals, including antioxidants produced naturally or obtained through diet (Harvard Health Publishing, 2020). The claim that grounding prevents inflammation is a non sequitur fallacy, as the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.
Misuse of Scientific Terminology: The narrator uses scientific terms like "free radicals," "reactive oxygen species," and "neutrophils" to lend credibility to his claims. However, he misrepresents these concepts. For example, he suggests that free radicals can be neutralized by grounding, but this is a gross oversimplification. Free radicals are not inherently harmful; they play important roles in the body, such as fighting infection. Moreover, the body has its own mechanisms for managing free radicals, and there is no evidence that grounding affects this process.
Lack of Peer-Reviewed Evidence: The narrator mentions a study he conducted with an anesthesiologist, but does not provide any details about the study design, methodology, or results. Without this information, it's impossible to evaluate the validity of the study. Moreover, the study has not been peer-reviewed, which is a crucial step in the scientific process to ensure the validity and reliability of the results.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy: The narrator cites the interest of scientists and doctors in grounding as evidence of its validity. However, this is an appeal to authority fallacy. The opinions of these individuals do not constitute scientific evidence, and their interest does not validate the claims about grounding.
"I just have a hard time believing this is a placebo effect." This statement reveals a misunderstanding of the placebo effect, which can be very powerful and can cause real, perceived improvements in health (Harvard Health Publishing, 2020). Without double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, it's impossible to rule out the placebo effect.
"I tell athletes that before an event, stand 15 minutes in your bare feet on the grass and you will charge up your electron stores and should you fall down and athletes fall down, you will not have inflammation at all." This claim is unsupported by scientific evidence. While it's true that the body uses electrons in various processes, there's no evidence that standing barefoot on the grass can "charge up" these stores or prevent inflammation.
"We tried to figure out how much charge the body takes in when you touch the earth... the body saturates with electrons practically instantaneously." This claim is misleading. While it's true that the body can conduct electricity, the idea that it can "saturate" with electrons from the earth is unsupported. The body's electrical charge is carefully regulated by complex physiological processes, and it's unlikely that grounding could significantly affect this.
While the idea of grounding is not inherently harmful, the claims made rely on logical fallacies and manipulative techniques to persuade the audience.
"The body saturates with electrons practically instantaneously... they coat the red blood cells so that the cells repel each other... the blood viscosity goes down... The blood pressure goes down. All kinds of cardiovascular issues they go away." This claim is a gross oversimplification of complex physiological processes. While it's true that the body conducts electricity and that electrons play a role in many biological processes, there's no scientific evidence to support the claim that grounding can reduce blood viscosity or blood pressure, or cure cardiovascular diseases. This claim also commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, implying that because grounding happens before these health benefits, it must be the cause.
"Of all the grounding studies the one that really got our attention is called electric grounding improves vagal tone in preterm infants." This claim is misleading. The study mentioned is real, but it's important to note that it was a small, preliminary study with only 26 participants. It's also worth noting that the study's authors themselves caution that their findings are preliminary and that more research is needed. This claim is an example of cherry-picking, where only evidence that supports a particular viewpoint is presented, while contradictory evidence is ignored.
"For thousands of years, spiritual masters have taught the benefits of meditation and sitting on the earth." This is an appeal to antiquity, a logical fallacy that assumes that something is good or beneficial simply because it's old or traditional. While meditation has been shown to have numerous health benefits, the benefits of sitting directly on the earth are less clear and require more rigorous scientific investigation.
"Everything that we call the environment is actually our body... If you disconnect from your cosmic body because that's what the earth is part of our cosmic body, you in a sense create the separation that results in disruption of your biological rhythms." This claim is a false dichotomy, suggesting that you're either connected to the earth and healthy, or disconnected and unhealthy. It also lacks scientific evidence. While it's true that our bodies have biological rhythms that are influenced by environmental factors, there's no evidence to suggest that grounding can "restore" these rhythms.
"We now have 20 studies... on earthing and grounding... What earthing does is literally it squenches the fires and inflammation and if inflammation is the source of all root illnesses including Alzheimer's disease cancer, heart disease, diabetes." This claim is another example of cherry- picking. While there are indeed studies on grounding, the overall scientific consensus is that more research is needed to understand its potential health benefits. The claim that grounding can cure all inflammation-related diseases is a gross exaggeration and oversimplification of the complex nature of these diseases.
Anecdotal Evidence: For instance, the physician mother attributes her baby's comfort to being barefoot outside. However, this could be due to a variety of other factors, such as fresh air, change of environment, or even the mother's own relaxation outside. Anecdotal evidence is not a reliable form of evidence as it is based on personal experiences and not controlled scientific studies.
Lack of Control Groups: The stories shared lack control groups, which are essential in scientific studies to compare results and determine if the observed effects are due to the treatment or other factors. For example, the teacher who noticed a decrease in discipline referrals in her grounded classroom did not mention if there were any changes in teaching methods, classroom environment, or student demographics that could also contribute to the observed improvement.
Appeal to Nature Fallacy: The documentary seems to imply that because grounding is natural, it is therefore beneficial. This is a common logical fallacy known as the "appeal to nature". Just because something is natural does not automatically make it beneficial or healthy. For example, many natural substances (like certain plants or fungi) can be harmful or deadly to humans.
Misinterpretation of Scientific Literature: The physician claims that grounding has "tons of medical literature" behind it. However, a review of the scientific literature reveals that the evidence supporting grounding is limited and often of poor quality. A systematic review published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health in 2012 found that the research on grounding is not robust and more rigorous studies are needed.
Confirmation Bias: The documentary seems to suffer from confirmation bias, where information that supports the grounding theory is accepted while information that contradicts it is ignored or dismissed. This is a common issue in pseudoscience and can lead to false conclusions.
Lack of Mechanism: The documentary does not provide a plausible biological mechanism for how grounding could produce the claimed effects. Without a clear mechanism, it's difficult to establish a cause-and- effect relationship.
Unsupported Claims: The documentary makes several claims without providing any supporting evidence. For example, it claims that grounding can cure depression and strengthen the immune system. While there is some preliminary research suggesting potential benefits of grounding, these claims are far from established in the scientific literature.
False Cause: The documentary suggests that because people feel better after grounding, grounding must be the cause of their improved mood. This is a false cause fallacy, as it does not account for other potential explanations, such as the benefits of physical activity or being outdoors.
Misrepresentation of Inflammation: The documentary suggests that grounding can reduce inflammation, including "neuro-inflammation." While there is some evidence that grounding may reduce certain markers of inflammation, the claim that it can treat neuro-inflammation and related conditions like depression is not supported by current scientific evidence.
Appeal to Emotion: The documentary uses emotional stories to persuade the audience of the benefits of grounding. While these stories can be moving, they do not provide scientific evidence for the claims being made. These fallacies and manipulative techniques can be dangerous, as they can lead people to believe in the benefits of grounding without sufficient evidence. This can result in people neglecting proven treatments in favor of grounding, potentially worsening their health conditions.
Lack of Scientific Evidence: The documentary does not provide any scientific evidence to support its claims. While there are some studies suggesting potential benefits of grounding, the overall evidence is weak and inconsistent. A systematic review published in the Journal of Inflammation Research found that more high-quality research is needed to confirm these effects.
Misrepresentation of Medical Conditions: The documentary suggests that grounding can help with a wide range of conditions, from inflammation to depression. However, these conditions have complex causes and treatments, and it is misleading to suggest that a single, unproven therapy can effectively treat them.
Promotion of Community and Discouragement of Outside Influence:
- The documentary fosters a sense of exclusive knowledge and community around grounding, suggesting that those who practice it are privy to a sort of 'hidden truth' that others are not aware of. This environment can discourage constructive skepticism and could dissuade individuals from considering other, scientifically proven methods for improving health.
-
Chevalier, G., Sinatra, S. T., Oschman, J. L., & Delany, R. M. (2012)
Earthing (grounding) the human body reduces blood viscosity—a major factor in cardiovascular disease. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 18(2), 102-110. -
Oschman, J. L., Chevalier, G., & Brown, R. (2015)
The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Journal of Inflammation Research, 8, 83. -
Martínez-Lavín, M., & Hermosillo, A. G. (2004)
Rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and depression: forbidden syndromes in cultured societies. Current Rheumatology Reports, 6(4), 259-264. -
Brown, R., Chevalier, G., & Hill, M. (2010)
Pilot study on the effect of grounding on delayed-onset muscle soreness. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(3), 265-273. -
Pawluk, W. (2017)
PEMF-The Fifth Element of Health: Learn Why Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) Therapy Supercharges Your Health Like Nothing Else!. Balboa Press.
-
Ernst, E. (2012)
Alternative medicine: A critical assessment of 150 modalities. Springer Science & Business Media. -
Singh, S., & Ernst, E. (2008)
Trick or treatment: The undeniable facts about alternative medicine. WW Norton & Company. -
Harvard Health Publishing. (2020)
Understanding antioxidants -
Harvard Health Publishing. (2020)
The power of the placebo effect -
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (2018)
Antioxidants: In depth -
National Institutes of Health. (2017)
Inflammation and oxidative stress -
World Health Organization. (2020)
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones