Title: Peer review
Product review: Many times in science an experiment appears to prove a hypothesis. The mechanism that is used to be certain that data and an experiment are really accurate is peer review. Nothing gets into the good scientific journals without it. There is no peer review of this data, and simply stating that Schwartz is "Harvard trained" doesn't cut the mustard. So is Deepak Chopra, who claims that cataracts can be reversed if you "brush your teeth, scrape your tongue, spit into a cup of water, and wash your eyes for a few minutes with this mixture". John Mack is a Harvard Medical School psychiatrist who writes about alien abductions. Sorry folks, it takes more than this book to "prove" that psychics are real.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
