@sunnyod
It is nice to see someone deliver on information and support on why they believe what they do, in looking at the links however...
Reading the study I find it still lacks in a control standard I would believe would be needed to gather any real results that are reliable...
-No of participants 8
-No of control groups 2
-Peer review time limit of 10 business days
-Peer review is classed as single blind IE we have no information on the reviewers or their impartiality here or their understanding of the subject they are reviewing, it is very easy to present a paper that is very convincing if there is a general lack of understanding on the subject matter by the reader,
-The company from which these papers were passed to for peer review also have a chequered history, in 2013 a sting was set up with deliberate false and intentionally flawed paper was submitted to them which they failed to realise and subsequently published it, this actually got their membership of the OASPA terminated and it wasn't for a couple more yrs until they provided proof that they had taken adequate steps to stop this happening again did they get their membership reestablished, I also add that this company also is a small entity in the scope of things having only approx 50 employees, now this on its own does not mean the review and publication of 'grounding' is in anyway a hoax or scam but all together as a combined list as above it does raise some serious questions on the whole subject matter.
What I would like to see is these papers been presented to larger organisations who allow extensive peer review periods to allow repeat experimentation and confirmation of results, also open peer identity so we have full transparency of reviewers, their field of knowledge and their credibility.
Any credible study of this would be done with hundreds if not thousands of subjects with a 3 point control method to rule out coincidence or subconscious influence that could easily occur in the above study.
What needs to be realised is that this kind of market place is worth millions and sometimes billions to certain people, groups and companies and it is not unheard of to see orchestrated scams been pulled, the recent incident with one of the world's most respected medical journal publishers Lancet and the New England Medical Journal regarding a study on hydroxychloroquine use for treatment of covid 19 hit the world last year as both groups retracted the papers and demonstrates the lengths some people go to for recognition, financial support or political motivation.