The 2015 Grounding Inflammation Review, Explained

The 2015 grounding inflammation review is a paper, not a clinical trial. It didn’t put grounding sheets on a group of patients and track their inflammation over weeks. It gathered up the existing small pilot studies on grounding and proposed a theory for why any of it might matter: the Earth’s surface carries a steady supply of free electrons, and skin contact with the ground, or with a conductive sheet wired to a grounded outlet, might let those electrons act as antioxidants inside the body.

What is the 2015 grounding inflammation review, exactly?

Its full title runs something like “The effects of grounding (earthing) on inflammation, the immune response, wound healing, and prevention and treatment of chronic inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.” The authors are James Oschman, Gaetan Chevalier and Richard Brown, and it ran in the Journal of Inflammation Research in 2015. It’s open access, which is a big reason it gets quoted on nearly every grounding brand’s site, including in our own The Science of Grounding Sheets: Every Study, Summarized roundup. If you’ve read one piece of “grounding science” anywhere online, there’s a good chance it was this one.

What does the review actually argue?

The central claim is that the Earth’s surface holds a near-limitless reservoir of free electrons, and that contact with the ground, or with a grounded conductive surface like a sheet, could transfer some of those electrons into the body. The authors argue those electrons might neutralize reactive oxygen species, better known as free radicals, the same way a dietary antioxidant would, and in doing so calm the low-grade inflammation linked to a long list of chronic conditions. That single mechanism is the theoretical backbone the entire grounding industry, us included, points back to when explaining why any of this might work.

Is it a study, or a theory?

It’s a review. The authors summarize existing, mostly small, pilot experiments, then build a hypothesis on top of them. That’s a different animal from a clinical trial, and the difference matters for how much weight you should put on it.

Feature	The 2015 review	A clinical trial
What it does	Gathers and interprets existing evidence	Tests a specific intervention on real participants
Control group	None, it isn’t an experiment	Ideally yes, often a sham-grounded group
Sample size	Not applicable	Typically 10 to 60 people in this niche
What it can show	A plausible mechanism	An observed effect, still usually small here
Peer review status	Peer reviewed as a review article	Peer reviewed as original research

What did the review get right?

Some credit where it’s due. The paper is upfront that it’s a hypothesis piece, and its internal language is more careful than the headline claims you’ll see repeated on marketing pages. It correctly notes that chronic low-grade inflammation is tied to a wide range of conditions, a point that’s well established in mainstream medicine and stands on its own, separate from any grounding claim. And it cites the underlying pilot work honestly as small and preliminary rather than definitive, including the Ghaly and Teplitz cortisol and sleep pilot we break down in The Grounding Cortisol Study, Explained, plus early work on blood viscosity and delayed-onset muscle soreness.

Where does it fall short?

No control group, because a review isn’t itself an experiment. Two of the three authors, Chevalier and Brown, have professional and commercial ties to the earthing industry, and that’s a fair conflict-of-interest concern, one we lay out in more detail in Earthing Debunked? A Fair Look at the Skeptics’ Arguments. The pilot studies it pools together are small on their own, sometimes drawing from overlapping groups of participants. And no large, independent, blinded human trial has directly measured inflammation markers with grounding versus a sham condition at a scale that mainstream medicine would call conclusive. The antioxidant-electron idea is testable in principle. It just hasn’t been tested at that scale yet.

Should this review change how you sleep?

Not on its own. The best-supported outcome from actual pilot data is still sleep quality and subjective relaxation, not inflammation, and we walk through the full evidence base in Do Grounding Sheets Work? What the Research Really Shows. If you’re reaching for a grounding sheet hoping it will calm inflammation tied to a diagnosed condition, talk to your doctor rather than treating this review as medical guidance. It’s reasonable to read this paper as an interesting hypothesis that deserves better-funded, independent follow-up. It’s not reasonable to read it as settled proof.

Frequently asked questions

Is the 2015 grounding inflammation review peer reviewed?

Yes, it ran in the Journal of Inflammation Research, but as a narrative review, not as a new clinical trial with its own participants and control group.

Who funded the 2015 grounding review?

The paper doesn’t disclose formal funding, but two of its three authors, Gaetan Chevalier and Richard Brown, have professional and commercial ties to the earthing industry. That’s worth knowing when you weigh how the evidence is framed.

Does grounding actually reduce inflammation?

No study has proven that in humans at a scale mainstream medicine would call conclusive. The 2015 paper proposes a mechanism for how it might happen. It doesn’t measure inflammation markers in a large human trial.

What’s the best-supported grounding benefit, if not inflammation?

Sleep and subjective relaxation, based mainly on the small Ghaly and Teplitz cortisol pilot, which is still an early, largely self-reported result rather than a definitive one.

Should I stop medication and rely on a grounding sheet instead?

No. Nothing in this review treats, cures or replaces medical care for an inflammatory or autoimmune condition. Talk to your doctor about any chronic condition before changing your treatment plan.