I am very uncomfortable with this paper to be called scientific research. It certainly appears the author had extensive life experiences, but does not demonstrate any of the data he collected.
> If you are a medical professional and have been trained in a “civilised” country you probably know next to nothing about the primate Homo sapiens and how they survive in the wild.
Starting off by insulting an entire population and making assumptions about what they do or do not know is odd. The disrespect continues on how an entire medical field "do not know that nature has provided". The author continues on to further disrespect by moving medical professionals in to "so called civilised people", and makes medical conclusions of "suffer[ing] unnecessarily from musculoskeletal problems".
And, this is just in the first paragraph. The second paragraph goes into the author's background how he lived amongst tribal people, commanded a platoon of African soldiers, and organized expeditions to meet native peoples and study their sleeping and resting postures.
> I tried to carry out surveys to collect evidence but they were meaningless
The author collected evidence, and the evidence was meaningless (alternative hypothesis false?) so... he discarded it? Would it not make sense to attach it and explain why it was meaningless?
One of the conclusions is
> Forest dwellers and nomads suffer fewer musculoskeletal lesions
but then...
> Arabs in the Sahara will sit in the position shown
How is the Arabs in the Sahara backing up forest dwellers conclusion?
NIH publishing this is odd. At least it was not written by ChatGPT.
He has a hypothesis - modern sleep devices are not as good for the spine as the bare ground.
He suggested a reason why - pressing against the ground during sleep acts as therapy.
He has data - life experience,
pictures, and demonstrations.
Maybe it doesn't pattern match as science to you, but the raw science is all there. A few hundred years ago, this is how most science was conducted - by individuals with specific bones to pick.
Is it conclusive? No. Is it worth being part of the conversation? Absolutely!
Remember that the NIH does not publish (edit: to be clearer this is the National Library of Medicine which falls under the umbrella of the NIH, and its URL), it just organizes articles like a local library but on a much larger scale. It's a common misconception. This article was published by the British Medical Journal as an interesting anecdote from a physical therapist. The NIH makes things available for searching but does not endorse anything that they have available.
> If you are a medical professional and have been trained in a “civilised” country you probably know next to nothing about the primate Homo sapiens and how they survive in the wild.
Starting off by insulting an entire population and making assumptions about what they do or do not know is odd. The disrespect continues on how an entire medical field "do not know that nature has provided". The author continues on to further disrespect by moving medical professionals in to "so called civilised people", and makes medical conclusions of "suffer[ing] unnecessarily from musculoskeletal problems".
And, this is just in the first paragraph. The second paragraph goes into the author's background how he lived amongst tribal people, commanded a platoon of African soldiers, and organized expeditions to meet native peoples and study their sleeping and resting postures.
> I tried to carry out surveys to collect evidence but they were meaningless
The author collected evidence, and the evidence was meaningless (alternative hypothesis false?) so... he discarded it? Would it not make sense to attach it and explain why it was meaningless?
One of the conclusions is
> Forest dwellers and nomads suffer fewer musculoskeletal lesions
but then...
> Arabs in the Sahara will sit in the position shown
How is the Arabs in the Sahara backing up forest dwellers conclusion?
NIH publishing this is odd. At least it was not written by ChatGPT.