What we don't know yet

The case against grounding, stated as clearly as we can put it.

Almost none of the research is sham-controlled

If you know you are being treated, you report feeling better. This is one of the most robust findings in all of human research, and it is strongest for exactly the outcomes grounding studies measure: sleep, pain, mood, energy. Most grounding studies did not attempt a sham control. Expectation is doing an unknown amount of the work.

The samples are very small

Most of the literature sits between eight and sixty participants. One widely cited pilot had four people in each group. A finding in twelve people is a hypothesis wearing a lab coat.

Almost nothing has been independently replicated

This is the single biggest gap in the field, and the question we would most like answered.

Nobody has studied long-term use

The longest study runs 31 days. Nobody has followed grounded sleepers for a year. We sell a product people may use for years, and we cannot tell you what that does, because nobody knows.

Markers are not outcomes

A number moving in a blood sample is not a person feeling better. The history of medicine contains a long list of interventions that improved a measurement and did nothing for the patient.

If this makes you more sceptical about what we sell, that is a reasonable outcome. We would rather sell to someone who understood the evidence and bought anyway.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.