Asthma Home Cures

It seems the in thing to criticise the ionic air purifier industry. “No scientific peer review” has been a frequent barb posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore who is a researcher at New York’s Cornell University may surprise believers of the peer review system.

He says:

• “a lust for profit has led to too many journals,…all too easy to find…poor-quality work”

• “not everything in the peer-reviewed literature is correct. Indeed, some of it is downright bad science”

• “the peer review system…it’s the least-bad system that can be devised”.

Members of the public, warns Mr. Moore, must not regard every scientific peer review as the “gold standard” as “even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.” It is instructive that “professional scientists…know that scientific truth evolves on the basis of a mounting consensus, not through an isolated paper that adopts a maverick position, even if it has been peer-reviewed.”

These nuggets of wisdom from an “insider” like Mr. Moore is of great value to all industries, including the ionic air purifier industry, that are constantly lambasted by critics.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard. So do the authorities as well. How did we find that out? We just wrote to them. The US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) responded thus:

“NIOSH is not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of ion generators/ionic air purifiers against viruses. NIOSH does not have any studies planned to evaluate these devices nor do we have a policy on their use.”

But it was encouraging that the NIOSH has not pronounced final judgment as they also said:

“NIOSH provides support for investigator initiated research. Should someone want to conduct such studies they may apply for funding by mechanisms available and described under “Funding Opportunities” at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/oep/. Proposals are funded annually based on availability of funds, relevance of the proposed work to the NIOSH mission, and the quality of the science proposed.”

At our Ezine article (accessible via The Ionic Air Purifier Blog Ezine widget), we have reproduced the NIOSH’s exacting parameters of a scientific peer review.

Funding shortage is definitely not the problem. It is not rejection, overt or otherwise, by the governing bodies. Why aren’t there any scientific peer reviews of the ionic air purifier after all these decades? We would sure love to hear from someone in the ionic air purifier industry.

In our view, with the advancements in ionic air purifier technologies, manufacturers see the advantages of tapping on the prestige of official funding. It may take just one high profile and successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? Of course, the ideal should be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” of peer reviews in validating the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.

Ionic Air Purifier – What Can Users Do Until Scientific Reviews Abound?

Meanwhile, users looking for the ideal ionic air purifier can look to our Ionic Air Purifier Review – 4 Key Factors Model.

It is encouraging that we now know that a scientific peer review to be acceptable to any authority, it must cover the 2 safety aspects in our 4 Key Factors Model.

In the words of NIOSH: “…a scientifically valid study would need to be designed to test whether ion generators are effective in killing viruses to the extent that a hazard no longer remains, and that such technology does not by itself generate new hazards of its own, e.g., ozone or oxidized by-products. The design of such a study would be challenging.”

Sign up at the Ionic Air Purifier Blog to follow our ongoing research.

Bookmark It