Laura Koniver's Earthing Gig


DISCLAIMER: I have no financial interest in this topic. I only wrote this because I think what Laura Koniver is doing is wrong and I don't approve of her marketing gimmicks. I am not paid by or any other party. This article was entirely my initiative; nobody asked me to write it. Accuracy is important to me, so if you see any errors in this article please inform me via the contact page.

Also see this important exposé of Laura Koniver's fake claims:

I spent almost $200 on gadgets from Laura Koniver ("Intuition Physician") which she advertised as providing grounding. Tests show that what she sold me do not ground properly and I have been unable to verify her claims around hypersensitivity, "pureground" cord, and other claims for which she doesn't seem to have any credible, scientific studies, and her theory, in what she has no background in, contradicts a Noble Prize Winner, without providing any proof!

I wrote to her about it and in a lot of back and forth I realized Laura Koniver was twisting the facts which confirmed my early "funny" feeling about her over-priced gadgets which turned out to not even work properly as explained herein.

My impression is that Laura has discovered a market segment which is lucrative because grounding can help a lot of people, and to take away market share from Earthing company, she's tried to distinguish her products, by slightly modifying e.g., a cable, which is supposed to help hypersensitive people etc., but in my opinion, these are unfounded claims because

a) she has no scientific studies to back her claims

b) her pure-ground (PureGround) cord doesn't discharge voltage from the body sufficiently

c) there's no evidence that I could find, that her pure-ground (PureGround) cord brings electrons into the body which is a key point of grounding.

LATEST UPDATE -- Calling out Laura's fake claims --

From Reza Ganjavi to Laura Koniver 10 April 2021 [a month has passed and no answer from Laura :-) ]

Hi Laura

Sorry it took me a while to locate the references you mentioned and get expert opinion on it. By the way, regarding your recommendation that I take a physics course in college, I already have 3 university degrees (with high honors) and I don't have time to become a physicist but I rely on experts like friends with PhD and Masters in Physics and EE. A couple of good friends are PhDs in physics and one of my best friends is a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Cornell.

I wouldn't recommend you to take a EE or physics course, because you never will, and because you're pretending to be an expert but in reality you're not. It's the story of the blind leading blind, in my opinion, and I'm afraid you may be misleading people, despite their placebo effect and whatever fake reviews you may have lined up. It's a classic story of 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'.

My experts are of the opinion that you're bluffing and you have no depth in what you're talking about. You may have been misled but it seems at the very best you do not understand the subject and are parroting what is eventually profitable for you, and at worst, you're pushing arguments, that again, are profitable for you.

I'll give you feedback on one of your twisted claims (that's enough, since it has not been the only time you twist arguments to apparently color/cover the facts to apparently suit your business/marketing/revenye ambitions.)

Laura Koniver: "figure 8.2 on page 313 of. Putten, Anton F. P. van. 2019. Electronic measurement systems: theory and practice. walks you through an example of EMF from a lamp going through a human grounded with a 10k resistor, calculating at 1.4mV"

Expert read that debunks Laura Koniver's non-expert (or poorly advised) assertions: The set up presented on Figure 8.2 on page 313 is similar to and a simplified version of the set up of Roger Applewhite ("The Effectiveness of a Conductive Patch and a Conductive Bed Pad in Reducing Induced Human Body Voltage Via the Application of Earth Ground"). There is no mention if the current measured across the grounding resistor flows through the body or at the surface of the body. Also, note that the coupling between the lamp and the body is due to electromagnetic radiations only and for that reason it is purely capacitive (the coupling capacitance being estimated to be 2 pF). This current is what is technically called a "displacement current" and it is a current with no electric charge in it. It will induce an electric potential AT THE SURFACE OF THE BODY, NOT INSIDE. So the current through the grounding resistor is necessary to cancel the voltage created by the electromagnetic radiations, just as in the case of Applewhite.

Therefore, your statement about Putten's example is not supported by the example presented on page 313 of Putten. Applewhite's paper gives a more detailed analysis of a similar example. Importantly, Applewhite showed that the shape of the AC current flowing through the grounding resistor is the same as that of the voltage induced on the body by incoming EMFs with all their specific distortions. That is a strong indication that this current has for function to cancel the voltage induced on the body.

Laura, now there are several examples of how you have apparently manipulated and distorted facts, and according to experts I talk to you show no real understanding of electricity.

I'm happy to hear your comments as long as they're straightforward. As you can tell by now, maybe you can impress others with your apparent misrepresentations but twisting arguments with me will not get you far.


Reza Ganjavi, MBA

Earlier Article:


To Laura Koniver, and LessEMF website:

Hi Laura. You wrote: "Scientists agree — grounding through a standard ground cord allows AC current to travel into the human body."

Can you name which scientistS say this, or even one scientist?

The reference you cited LessEMF does not provide any scientist as a source of that information.

Hi folks at Lessemf, can you provide your source for the statement (which Laura modified it to her liking and commercial purposes):

'For example, LessEMF states here that “Grounding {through a standard ground cord} will make a {body voltage} meter read zero, but in reality, the electric field is now traveling through your body to get to ground. Less EMF does NOT suggest grounding your body to remove Body Voltage. The true and best way to mitigate body voltage, is to locate the sources and shield the electric fields. Each source will need to be shielded directly.”'

This idea is contradictory to the findings of the Noble Prize winner Richard Feynman:

"Feynman said that when the body potential is the same as the Earth's electric potential (and thus grounded), it becomes an extension of the Earth's gigantic electric system. The Earth's potential thus becomes the 'working agent that cancels, reduces, or pushes away electric fields from the body.'

Therefore, the fundamental assumption of Laura Koniver is outright false (not surprising given she has no credentials in physics or electrical engineering) (neither do I but I do not make claims against ideas of gods of physics, and I don't make money from any such claims, but Laura does.)

Also, I have asked Laura to provide a single credible study that supports her theories but she's failed to do so, and I could not find any such studies on her internet places.

Thanks & Regards

Reza Ganjavi, MBA


I am hypersensitive/electrosensitive. After destroying Laura Koniver's cords I bought, which didn't work, I tried's normal earthing cable and they absolutely work, and I absolutely had no problem with them despite being hypersensitive/electrosensitive. Therefore her claim that her PureGround cord is "absolutely crucial for electrosensitive people", is completely bogus and nothing but a marketing gimmick, in my opinion.

For EMF topics see my site:



1) the cord actually has a very high resistance to electrons flow (possibly an open circuit) making electron flow very small or inexistant and

2) it offers much less protection from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) when compared to the standard Earthing® cord used successfully in research and by consumers worldwide for more than 15 years.


She states that she does NOT take any item back. Even if it's returned the next day. Her excuse is "medical hygiene" -- how unhygienic a grounding cord can get? :-) I guess some people would floss their teeth with it ;-)

But she was willing to take back the cords I found to not work, so her "strict medical hygiene standards" must not be so strict. That conversation went downhill (see end of this page), and I realized in that email thread that she's twisting facts about Earthing Institute / Earthing Company which is the original, authentic Earthing company which Laura reportedly was hoping to get a job there at some point!

Also note that she also does NOT guarantee her products. Says a lot about the quality of her products. Her excuse is that she can't afford it and she didn't miss an opportunity to throw a "dart" at which makes the original products that work. She's apparently very jealous about them.


Mind you, Earthing and its health effects was discovered by Mr. Clint Ober whose pioneering work have helped thousands of people. To be clear, I am not paid by the Earthing Company or the Earthing Institute to write this. It is fully my own initiative because I am fed up with Laura Koniver's apparently baseless claims and twisting of facts (I'll bring examples herein).

The Earthing Company and Earthing Institute have done a lot of credible scientific studies and their products work.

I am hypersensitive and EMF sensitive, and I can assure you Earthing Company's products are not at all what Laura disparages them to be. I have had absolutely no problems, despite my sensitivities, with Earthing Company products.

As for her cables, her purported "super cable" has a lot of issues. It didn't even pass a basic grounding test I did!!

Here's Earthing Institute's article exposing Laura Koniver's bogus claims:

She color-coats her communication with love and peace and flowers but behind it, in my opinion, she's driven by love for money. She seems like a very smart marketer by having positioned and distinguished her products with the right purported competitive advantage, except that in my opinion and based on my experience, they don't work. The experts I spoke with said she grossly misunderstands certain concepts of electrical engineering. But that these have been pointed out to her but she maintains her stance, I believe, because of love for money.

Her rebuttal to Earthing Institute's exposé seems wishy-washy and lacks substance and logical strength. See below for details.

So to celebrate my realization that I feel scammed, that I spent $200 on things that don't even seem to work. I destroyed her "pure ground" cords on camera. That's a $108 worth of Laura Koniver's lousy cables...

2 cables that I destroyed cost $108. I paid about $200 for mine because they included two gadgets which are now useless but I don't care. I'd rather not have anything to do with Laura Koniver's fabrications.

Adios, into the trash can! And her pad and wristband are also useless for me because her over-priced cables don't work.


I do not trust Laura's customer reviews.I have a sense that some of them may have been written by herself. It's not often that customer reviews including bashing of a competitor product (or rather, is for a product that is competing with but doesn't have credible scientific studies behind it). I also don't trust her social media engagement including comments written on her videos which she responds to. It seems fake to me. Just my hunch.


I called out the fact that her so called scientific claims are unsubstantiated. The Earthing Institute did a good job of exposing them. Her response was that

Hi Reza! Actually the misinformation is on the part of the Earthing Institute folks, and they privately admitted that their own ground testers are faulty.

I wrote her back: "I looked into this. You're mixing things up (intentionally it seems). They did have an issue with a tester product and recalled and replaced it -- this doesn't change the other disturbing, unsubstantiated claims you're making, which they call out, which you call "misinformation" and to substantiate your claim of "misinformation" you refer to a fault product they had. Apples and oranges.



I used the gadgets I bought and they made me feel awful. Laura wrote me: "I don't like that it is worsening your sleep, that's the part that I don't like to hear." I stopped using her gadgets and picked them up a long time later after I dug into the whole topic deeply, and ran tests and realized her cables are not even working and she has no properly designed scientific studies or proof that they work, and Earthing Institute has clearly demonstrated that they do not even work. That's when I felt scammed!

I wrote to her and she said she'll take her super expensive cables back and replace them with normal cables but I also wanted her to refund the difference in the cost, which she agreed to, but then she changed her story and the conversation downgraded to oblivion (see below).

My goal was simply to get her to agree to a clear statement in writing, but that was impossible.

After some back and forths I wrote on Mar 5, 2021,

So your offer is:

"I’m happy to give you a refund on a returned product"

Full refund of cost of each cable is: 54x2 = 108.

"or happy to send you a replacement"

Plus price difference of standard to your fake supercable.


She replied immediately saying:

Sounds good!


Then she wrote back contradicting herself. Once I read her response the second time, I realized I can't trust her and decided not to move forward:

So your terms keep changing. After you wrote AGREED to my clearly stated line (reprinted verbatim below), you changed your line again. Just like your twisted argument about the "misinformation" you think they wrote about you which you have not been able to debunk because you're running a <> shop. I can't trust you.

We're done with this discussion. I don't need your refund or your replacement.

But the drama continued. She had written "cord return" whereas I had told her there were two cords not one. So I wanted to make this very clear:

You just contradicted your earlier twisted arguments. We're talking 2 cords not one.

After you wrote that you agree, you added a twist to it. I can't trust you.

Let's make this very clear here:

If I send you the TWO cables I got from you, you will send me $108 right? Is this clear enough?

And she gave me another twisted argument :-) My response:

"I did not agree to your ad lib that you wanted both an exchange plus a refund"

There was never such an ad lib or any form of such want.

My statements were very clear but you continue to be unclear, and I think intentionally. I wait for you to answer my last email where I made it very clear with a yes or no answer.

Oh I see, you did reply again, to my very clear statement, with mambo jumbo - seems to be your style to dodge the issue and at the end when it comes to paying me you'll also make up a story.

I take it from your answer below that your previous I AGREE was just bullshit.

Fact is, the options that she agreed to, included doing a replacement plus the difference of the cost for each cable, but I clearly stated that was not the option I selected. When she said I agree, I said I chose option 1 (refund of both cables). So that clearly means I chose refund. But the she replied saying I wanted both refund and exchange (not true); she referred to ONE instead of TWO cables, and also contradicted her own "I agree".

So since she was being very slippery I decided one last shot:

since you like to dodge things, here's a very clear question

If I send you the TWO cables I got from you, you will send me $108 right?

Yes or No ?

OF COURSE she didn't give me a Yes or No answer to a very clear question that would not leave any wiggle room for her to later say it was a misunderstanding. So the deal was off! She tried to cover it up by going blah blah about whether the return instructions were clear or not ... Lol :-)

End of an enervating exchange which I only got engaged in out of principle. And she did exactly what I suspected she'd do: don't commit. Therefore, I am sure if I had sent the two cables back, she'd give me refund for one since she said "cord" that would be the excuse she'd use or some other twisted excuse.

I destroyed the cables instead since they don't work :-)

I then asked her:

"to provide any studies done on your theories / super cable? Also can you provide any reference to all these "people" you talk about who suffered with the normal cable but then were fine with your cable? I haven't seen any names or concrete reference. If I don't hear back I assume you don't have any studies, and those "people" are in your imagination... I saw your Youtube videos - these don't constitute proper studies - they're extremely subjective - and they can easily be manipulated intentionally or unintentionally. "

But I did get straight answers from the Earthing Institute's Dr. Gaétan Chevalier, Ph.D., Director, Earthing Institute.

I had considered legal action, and reporting her to consumer agencies and FCC, but I decided against all that because I just don't want to waste any more time on this topic, or her.


FTC (Federal Trade Commission) sent a warning letter to Koniver on 1 June 2020 titled “Unsubstantiated claims for coronavirus prevention and treatment”. They said that they have determined that Koniver is unlawfully advertising products that purportedly prevent or treat Coronavirus (COVID-19), per FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq. She was given 48 hours to contact Reid Tepfer at The letter was signed by Dama Brown, Southwest Regional Director at FTC.