Linda testing BioProtect

Hi, Marc,
since I am the inventor of the BioProtect card I would like to comment on
Lindas statements.
I myself have been asked, to test other devices against electrosmog to
publish the results. I refused to do so, because selling myself such a product no
one would believe a negative result for any other product that I would find.

To compare the use of BioProtect with the use of heroin by an addicted person
clearly shows the intention of Linda.

It is true, using one of these devices against electrosmog is not a real
solution, because keeping away things you are allergic to will not automatically
heal the allergy. BioProtect does not mask the symptoms by suppressing the
natural reaction of the body as it is done through various drugs. It neutralizes
the biological negative information carried through the longitudinal waves. It
is similar to a catalyst that transforms a poisonous substance into other
harmless substances.

The geometrical structures that are used in BioProtect are known to mankind
since thousands of years and have been used because of their life supporting
quality. Linda seems to know better.

Growing plants with water that has been treated with BioProtect grow better,
especially when the seeds had undergone some stress before germinating. Plants
are completely innocent, they know it best. And interestingly enough, in some
cases these plants did not grow the way I expected them to grow. This gave me
the opportunity to discover some essential biological laws.

Some people who had problems with EMF and used BioProtect experienced relief
that lasted even for some time while exposing themselves to EMF without the
help of BioProtect.

I think, just using one way of looking at something is onesided and may lead
to interesting but false conclusions.

Dietrich Gruen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>I myself have been asked, to test other devices against electrosmog to
>publish the results. I refused to do so, because selling myself such a
>product no one would believe a negative result for any other product that
>I would find.

Yes, this is certainly a valid concern. However, Linda is not the inventor
of the Springlife Polarizer, and if she were to find something which
functioned as well or better, she would certainly be free to sell that
product as well. I've been aware of her website for many months, and in
that time she had stopped carrying one product and replaced it for another,
because she felt the newer product was superior to the old one.

Also, as I mentioned before, I have asked her to test other items for me,
and the Earthcalm Resonator (something she does not sell) was tested as
being "mostly beneficial". She also tested chia seeds (also something she
does not sell) as being beneficial. So her responses are not all negative
for competing products.

>To compare the use of BioProtect with the use of heroin by an addicted person
>clearly shows the intention of Linda.

Note that the heroin example was thought up by me, not Linda, as an
example. Linda has however published an article in the past on the
possibly false results of EAV testing, but in her example she used an ADD
child and the drug Ritalin.

>BioProtect does not mask the symptoms by suppressing the
>natural reaction of the body as it is done through various drugs. It
>neutralizes the biological negative information carried through the
>longitudinal waves. It is similar to a catalyst that transforms a
>poisonous substance into other harmless substances.

And yes, it is certainly possible that such a function would not
be taken into account by whatever method of testing she is using.
I've always felt that all test results should be given some skepticism,
because whatever method of testing is being used may be focusing
on one negative aspect but ignoring a possibly more important
positive aspect.

>I think, just using one way of looking at something is onesided and may lead
>to interesting but false conclusions.

I agree, but it is still interesting (to me) to look at the various
testing results for certain products. I was rather surprised, for
example, when Charles reported that the Springlife Polarizers caused
no change to any of his meters, when my body can quite clearly feel
*something* from these devices.

So ultimately, the best test is to try a product out and see what happens.
However, I am no longer sensitive enough to be able to perform such
testing, so I will have to let other more sensitive people report on what
happens to them.

Marc