Air Doctor Reviews

The Air doctor Review – 4 Key Factors Model was previously introduced. An extensive survey was conducted using that model and sent to many key manufacturers of air purifiers. Except for one, nobody else replied. It is puzzling to say the least that they ignore air purifier users. Why don’t they make them for us? Is it not us who are most likely to purchase an air purifier? We are disappointed by the muted response, but we will not stop our efforts to create an information database that allows all users and potential users to be well-informed about air purifiers in order to make informed decisions.

Japanese company 'Kiyou Jochugiku' launches “Air Doctor” a med-device to  protect from Airborne disease, Health News, ET HealthWorld

In addition to our last post, Scientific Peer Review has been added as the fifth factor in our air purifier model review. It is unlikely that it will draw any attention in the near future but it is necessary. First, it may motivate someone to produce the first scientific peer review for an Air Purifier Technology technology.

More importantly, the absence of peer review by scientists is a significant stumbling block to the air purification industry. It has not been able to attract key participants and interested parties such as the scientific community (indoor quality specialists, academics, and environmentalists) and activists. It hasn’t been approved by government agencies such as the US EPA or NIOSH, nor the medical community that deals with allergies and other conditions related to indoor pollution.

All air purification technology is lacking this feature

There isn’t one air purifier review that contains a peer review. This problem isn’t limited to the ionic purifier industry. This problem also affects other technologies in the industry such as HEPA, photo-catalytic oxygenation, and others.

This is why no one in the industry of air purification has taken this into consideration. Instead, the industry focuses on convincing consumers. Advertising is a huge expense. Advertising is a waste of money that could be better spent. They are blind to the fact the consumer base would grow exponentially if there was only one peer review.

It’s a simple decision. The scientific peer review is an integral part of air doctor Reviews. It is the ultimate goal of the air purifier industry. The multimillion-dollar business is highly competitive and it may be possible to have the same leadership power as the person who gets it first.

The most surprising thing about a scientific peer-review is the fact that no one has ever considered it worth the effort. Since that would negate the independence that is key to a scientific peer-review, it is understandable why no manufacturer of air purifiers has requested one.

It is puzzling that no researcher or scientist, even the most qualified in indoor air quality and environmental sciences, thinks it is worthwhile to review an air purifier. The recognition of being the first to publish a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a multimillion-dollar industry will surely make one stand out and allow for funding opportunities. We know that funding for initial research is not an issue, as the US NIOSH has confirmed that they are willing to finance a peer review that is professional-prepared and meets all the required parameters.

The fact that no researcher or scientist is willing to undertake the search for an independent scientific peer review raises the million-dollar question: Is the air purification industry a fraud on consumers? Or are scientists merely comparing it to the search for the Holy Grail, which is a truth that cannot be found?

These questions are difficult to answer, so we delve deeper with our 5-Key Factors model. We are intrigued by the reticence manufacturers show to answer our survey questions using this model.

The Air Purifier Review – 5-Key Factors Model is summarized as follows:

(1) Safety in relation to the reactive agent(2) Safety in relation to unintentional side-products

(3) Efficacy – The reactive agents work in the laboratory

(4) Efficiency – The reactive agents work in real life

(5) Scientific Peer Review

Each of these factors had been explained in detail previously. We hope manufacturers will be more transparent. We are their customers. It’s absurd for them to ignore us.