Talk:Foc.us

Not-So-Convincing Article

I never heard of foc.us, but I know this article is a bunch of BS. The writers here have no clue to whether it does work for a more representative sample of people. But rather they use angry people on reddit. This article fails to lead anyone to most definitely conclude that this article is accurate. This article lacks reliable and representative observations or experimentations. Other than saying that this article is just a combination of amgry reviews put together and personal interpretations, I have nothing much else to say. If this is RationalWiki at its best, I won't be surprised. --HealableMarrow4 (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Then provide the proof positive we crave. Also, Drink! Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 12:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I made my attempt to refine information regarding scientific context, such as comparing foc.us with the investigation of tDCS in science, and remove ambiguity. If my edit is undone, please elaborate more on the scientific investigation on tDCS and foc.us and not only on the consumer's opinions on it. The article should, in my opinion, state facts relating to the differences between foc.us and the tDCS used in science and medicine. It should not focus on how foc.us has not been studied in extent by the scientific community because most arguments rooting from it is unreliable.--HealableMarrow4 (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)