Categorized | Featured Articles

Trying To Find Scientific Critique On Heartmath And Gci?

Ok way back the wingmakers.com site launched, it’s a site that incorporates philosophy and mythology with a bunch of wild ideas that contradicts the current norms and beliefs. Many debunked the site, and shouted hoax. Recently 2 new sites launced glcoherence.org and heartmath.org, they follow the general theme of the first site however takes a “scientific approach”. The creator of wingmakers, Mark Hempel, is connected to these new sites as a board member of glcoherence and actively endorses heartmath. Does the outlandish ideas of wingmakers discredit these orginizations, or do these scientific claims actually verify their philosophies.
Now, I tried looking for a response of the scientific community on heartmath and the global coherence initiative, however I couldn’t find any articles that discredit, critique or even offer a peer review, although it is all over spirituality focused forums and they spam “peer-reviewed” on most of their pages.
In most and any scientific claims or theories you’ll find other orginizations that are not affiliated with it, to offer their own findings either validating or discredting them, however I can’t find any. And with claims and theories as big as these why isnt there any or even a little media coverage?
Can anyone that is familiar with this topic link to a scientific review of their claims or comment on them or just offer your view on this. Do you think that they’re just hoaxing everyone to sell their music, books, courses and heartmath devices? Or does it actually hold some truth?

No Responses to “Trying To Find Scientific Critique On Heartmath And Gci?”

  1. Tropos says:

    Rather than following the evidence it sounds like Doc Childre been convinced of a conclusion first. And is now trying to figure out what he can to confirm the assumptions. If the premise is still the same, and goes untested, then it doesn’t matter what the label of the site is.
    Many pseudoscience proponents use the term “science” to contrive a sense of accuracy without applying any strict methodology. Do they have any relevant peer-reviewed studies on any real science journals? Or are they just taking other peer-reviewed studies and claiming that they support their conclusion when they don’t?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

Powered by Yahoo! Answers