Super Baby Album

Rarely does the ionic air purifier industry escape criticism. “No scientific peer review” has been a frequent barb posted on influenza, air quality and indoor pollution blogs.

Mr. John Moore, a researcher at Cornell University and firm believer of the peer review system, made some surprising revelations.

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 seem to be wasting funds chasing up the wrong road.

Critics of the ionic air purifier demand the gold standard. So do the authorities as well. How do we know? 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.

It is definitely not a question of funding. It is not outright rejection by the governing bodies. 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.

In our view, with the advancements in ionic air purifier technologies, manufacturers see the advantages of tapping on the prestige of official funding. It should take just one successful scientific peer review to make all the difference? Ideally, it should 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 – 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.

Encouragingly, we now know that a scientific peer review that is acceptable by any authority must include the 2 safety aspects in our 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.

Comments are closed.