Rarely does the ionic air purifier industry escape criticism. “No scientific peer review exists” has been a frequent barb posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.
Mr. John Moore, a trained researcher at Cornell University, New York, may yet surprise these supporters 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”.
The general public, warns Mr. Moore, must never over-rate every scientific peer review as the “gold standard” as “even reviewed literature can be cherry-picked to support any argument.” It is enlightening 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 a boon to all industries, including the ionic air purifier industry, that have fallen short on the burden of proof.
Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard, nothing less. So do the authorities as well. How did we discover that? We simply asked. 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.
It is not for lack of funding. Neither is it outright rejection by the authorities. Why then isn’t there any scientific peer review of the ionic air purifier after all these decades? It would be great to hear from someone in the ionic air purifier industry.
It is our view that with the advancements in ionic air purifier technologies, manufacturers should tap on the prestige of official funding. It may take just one high profile and successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? The ideal state would be Mr. Moore’s “mounting consensus” in the scientific community in validating the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of the ionic air purifier.
Ionic Air Purifier – Without Scientific Reviews, Do We Just Ignore It?
For the time being, users hunting for the ideal ionic air purifier can vote at The Ionic Air Purifier Blog for 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.
For NIOSH said: “…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.
No Comments so far ↓
Like gas stations in rural Texas after 10 pm, comments are closed.