Q-Link and the science of techno-babble (Part II )

Classic

List

Threaded

3 messages Options

Benson, Sarah (Sen L. Allison)

Q-Link and the science of techno-babble (Part II )

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Maisch [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2004 10:41 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [emfacts] (Message#838) Q-Link and the science of techno-babble
(Part II )

Following is Alasdair Philip's reply to Iris Atzmon's message on the
Q-Link devices.

*******************

Iris
I am too busy doing the final organising for the
<http://www.leukaemiaconference.org>www.leukaemiaconference.org
event to respond to this just now.

Except to say I have extensively analysed and tested a standard
Q-link, both by wearing it for six months and then in the lab with
electronic instruments - finally destructively testing it and
forensically examining the bits and I believe it is of psychological
use only - a "linus blanket" for the wearer. Some owners that claim
it works miraculously well for them. Good for them, but I would
advise people not to spend their money on one without the 90 day
money-back guarantee that Clarus and their agents used to offer.

I believe the that the Ally is a complete con. The electronics
inside could never have worked even vaguely properly (the circuit
board and electronics components inside are connected wrongly) and
all it does (in my considered personal opinion) is to flash an small
LED to show it is "on" and "working". I have grave problems with the
Croft, et al, methodology. It was badly flawed. They weren't testing
what they thought they were - there were to many, too big,
confounders. I was told that one UK University Professor was
approached by the UK Q-link people and then he offered to run a
proper double-blind study but Clarus and the UK Agent did not proceed
after they heard about the rigorous scientific safeguards that would
be in place and the likely costs involved.

Alasdair

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Charles-3

Re: Q-Link and the science of techno-babble (Part II )

Hello Sarah,

I responded to the emfacts group concerning this message:
***************
Hello,

I do not agree.
The *scientists* who do all those tests are wrong.

Radiation (electrosmog) consists of two sorts of waves.

First, we have the transversal waves, which we can measure with contemporary
electronic meters, and which we can shield ourselves from.
Secondly, we have the longitudinal waves. Although Nikola Tesla described it
some 100 years ago, we are not able to measure them directly.
But they exist, and they can go right through shielding materials.
The existance of longitudinal waves is a very controversional theme, and as
is the case with many new items, it is made laughable.
However longitudinal waves do exist and play an important part in the
follow-up of electrosmog.

With electroacupuncture (also controversial) the working of longitudinal
waves can be made visible on humans.
Please look at http://www.milieuziektes.nl/Pagina164.html and the following
pages.

Products like the Q-Link and others have proven that they work as some kind
of resonator, which absorb longitudinal waves, and therefore may give help
to electrosensible persons.
Only electrosensitive people may judge the working of such devices.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus
***************

----- Original Message -----
From: "Benson, Sarah (Sen L. Allison)" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 10:33
Subject: [eSens] Q-Link and the science of techno-babble (Part II )

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Maisch [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 31 August 2004 10:41 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [emfacts] (Message#838) Q-Link and the science of techno-babble
> (Part II )
>
>
> Following is Alasdair Philip's reply to Iris Atzmon's message on the
> Q-Link devices.
>
> *******************
>
> Iris
> I am too busy doing the final organising for the
> <http://www.leukaemiaconference.org>www.leukaemiaconference.org
> event to respond to this just now.
>
> Except to say I have extensively analysed and tested a standard
> Q-link, both by wearing it for six months and then in the lab with
> electronic instruments - finally destructively testing it and
> forensically examining the bits and I believe it is of psychological
> use only - a "linus blanket" for the wearer. Some owners that claim
> it works miraculously well for them. Good for them, but I would
> advise people not to spend their money on one without the 90 day
> money-back guarantee that Clarus and their agents used to offer.
>
> I believe the that the Ally is a complete con. The electronics
> inside could never have worked even vaguely properly (the circuit
> board and electronics components inside are connected wrongly) and
> all it does (in my considered personal opinion) is to flash an small
> LED to show it is "on" and "working". I have grave problems with the
> Croft, et al, methodology. It was badly flawed. They weren't testing
> what they thought they were - there were to many, too big,
> confounders. I was told that one UK University Professor was
> approached by the UK Q-link people and then he offered to run a
> proper double-blind study but Clarus and the UK Agent did not proceed
> after they heard about the rigorous scientific safeguards that would
> be in place and the likely costs involved.
>
> Alasdair
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marc Martin

Re: Q-Link and the science of techno-babble (Part II )

Administrator

In reply to this post by Benson, Sarah (Sen L. Allison)

> Except to say I have extensively analysed and tested a standard
> Q-link, both by wearing it for six months and then in the lab with
> electronic instruments - finally destructively testing it and
> forensically examining the bits and I believe it is of psychological
> use only - a "linus blanket" for the wearer.

The Q-Link unfortunately doesn't seem to have good results in the
ES community. At least not that I've seen. I know of only one
person who says that the Q-Link works for them, but for the most part
people don't seem to experience anything from it. And that person
told me that you have to buy the more expensive model -- that the
all-plastic one isn't as good as the more expensive one. (I've only
tried the plastic one, and it certainly didn't do much for me)

Of course, the mistake that people sometimes make is that if the
Q-Link doesn't work, then none of the other EMF protection products
work either. This of course is untrue, but skeptics like to believe
that everything is a scam, so why should we bother them with the
facts? :-)

Marc