In order to respond to all the questions and remarks that were posted in response to my message of yesterday, I am going to paste in what people said, and then respond (In italics, that may or may not come through.) - Shivani Marc said: All I did was report my reaction to these filters, and now I've got a bunch of people harrasing me for it. One would think that we could have a free exchange of ideas and information, and then we would all be better off for it. But instead, now I've got people threatening me with lawsuits for having a negative reaction to a product. If all Marc had done was to report his reaction to using the filters, that would be fine by me, however, he stated inaccurately that the filters create high frequencies. I am certainly not threatening anyone with a lawsuit. I simply reported that Dave Stetzer is fed up with people maligning his product and may decide to sue those who continue to do so. (One party, for instance, is saying that the filters, which are UL tested and listed, may explode. This is absurd, but this fellow wants to scare people who have the filters into getting ridof them and using his own products instead.) If a product is designed specifically to reduce high frequencies and you state publically that it increases them, you are maligning the product. If it is not in fact true that the filters create high frequencies, then that is indeed slander. All that is just logical fact. Marc said: If I'm getting sharp pains in my head almost immediately after plugging something into my power outlet, then I think that I can safely state that there is something being generated that were not there before. That statement in itself is logical, but it does not follow that what is now there must be high frequencies. In fact, what is there is a slightly increased magnetic field. It seems likely that is what you are reacting to. Experimentation could be done to determine that. If you do this, I'd be very interested in what you discover. Marc said: You've said before that these filters remove the RF noise in the waveform. Well, in order to do that, they are obviously alterating the original waveform, correct? The true original waveform was clean 60Hz. For a technical explanation of how the filters work you must contact Dr. Graham or Dave Stetzer. Dave is going to draw a diagram to help people understand the process that occurs. Marc said: And what about the studies done in schools where they did the surveys to see if people's health were doing better or worse after the installation, and a significant portion of these people reported that they were doing worse? What is your explanation for that? Did you note in the conclusio that it happened to be flu season and a lot of the people were getting the flu? That was a very short term study. Marc said: I don't take the stand that the filters create RF. This is good news. Marc said: I do take the stand that the filters give me a headache. You are certainly free to say that you get a headache when using the filters. (You yourself have said that no one thing seems to work for everyone who tries it?) Marc said: I also take the stand that I don't see how these filters would help ES folks who are having trouble tolerating driving a car, being in an airport, being in a shopping mall, being in a grocery store, walking under power lines, being in an internet cafe, standing next to someone using a cellphone, etc. Perhaps you could explain? The filters were designed for a specific purpose, to reduce the high frequency pollution in the circuits they are plugged into. They do that very well, and that is all that they are supposed to do. They are not a miracle, they are a highly efficient tool, that does one job and does it well. Cara wrote: It isn't necessary to attack one another here. I definitely agree. Personally, I was not attacking anyone, just alerting Marc to the fact that he is legally responsible if he maligns someone's product without proof. In fact, I invited him to send the proof ASAP if he had any. Marc wrote: the company's own research has shown that some people have no reaction to them, and some have an adverse reaction. The study you are referring to was not “the company's own research,” but done by an independent researcher, Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University. It is “spinning” the conclusions of the research to say that anyone reacted adversely. Some of the people in the school in Canada reported that during the time the filters were installed (which they were unaware of) they felt less well than usual. In any group of people being used for a study, some will always be less well than usual. Flu season was probably the biggest factor in this case, but there are myriad reasons for fluctuations in individual wellness, such as weather, emotional stress, eating something inappropriate, etcetera. When studies are done to determine the effects of something, the researcher looks at the overall picture. There are specific statistical ranges researchers use to judge positive and negative results. The study you are referring to had positive results that actually surprised the researcher considerably, as by her own admission she had not expected them. In order to determine whether the people who felt less well during the time the filters were plugged in were less well because of the filters, further research would have to be done. Marc said: you should have some awareness of what the rest of the solution should be -- detoxification & nutrition. Have you done anything in these areas for your ES? Yes, a great deal. I would be happy to share this with anyone who is sincerely interested, not just looking for something to criticize me for. If your motivation is genuine interest, just let me know. Marc said: I've been reading some articles by Shivani, and it appears that before she was threatening people with lawsuits, she's written several articles on electrical pollution, and raising awareness in the public. As I said, I am not threatening you, but alerting you. (How many “ people” are you, anyway? And how many lawsuits are you expecting?You do exaggerate, you know? ) My husband and I know someone who repeatedly maligned a product - thinking he was right, but not having looked into it enough - who got hit with a lawsuit when he persisted in the defamation though the company had warned him to desist, and he ended up bankrupt. As I also said, I don't think you realized that what you were saying was both false and slanderous, but that wouldn't help you legally. I do not work for Dave or for Dr. Graham, by the way, or represent them. I was just sharing information in hopes of preventing a legal hassle, and to let list readers know that the filters do not create any frequencies whatsoever. Marc wrote: One of the articles pretty much answered my earlier question about the effectiveness of these filters outside the home: "Arjuna is now so electrically sensitive that even the arcing in a car's electrical system affects her and prevents her from driving. She is essentially homebound as the electrical pollution in most public places affects her severely". This is just as I suspected. These filter don't appear to help you much in getting out into the real world. So for the hundreds of dollars you spend on these filters, you still get to be homebound. As I also already said, the filters just do what they are designed to do. For the money I spent and the remediation we did, I got total relief from the terrifying cardiac events I had been experiencing, I was able to sleep again, and I AM ALIVE. I definitely got my money's worth. Marc said: as I'm sure you must realize, there are dozens of EMF protection devices on the market. What have you tried besides these 37 filters? Several things, and I am trying some new ones now, that were sent to me from Canada and Australia. Again, if you are asking out of sincere interest I will be glad to discuss this. It seems to me you are being sarcastic, but I know (all too well) that people read “tone” into Web communications where none was intended, so I am not sure just what your attitude is. I do not know whether Marc will be glad to hear it or not, but my recovery seems to continue. …. Some of what Marc quotes about me was written some time ago. In 2002 I could barely walk across a room, and sat curled in a fetal position literally unable to bear opening my eyes when my husband drove me to various health practitioners looking for help and answers. I could barely walk across a room. We did not know if I would live another day ordie at any moment. My husband only told me later that he used to come and look at me while I was asleep to see if I was still breathing. Now I can shovel snow for over an hour without tiring, drive a car on errands, be in public places enough to do errands and attend events… I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Marc has an attitude about the Graham Stetzer filters, that causes him to misinterpret the research results and fail to mention the utterly amazing results that are occurring in homesand schools where they have been installed. I would like to share a bit with the list members regarding those results. - In a school that had 37 kids with asthma, who frequently needed nebulizer treatments from the school nurse, the nurse wrote the school board at the end of the year after the filters were installed to tell them that now only3 of those children still had asthma, and she had not given a single nebulizer treatment since the installment. She listed many other health improvements she had noted, also. - In that same school, one of the teachers was suffering terribly from MS, and was going to have to quit teaching. She was only able to be there Monday through Wednesday, as she got worse every day she was there. This woman literally screamed at Dave when he was installing the filters, about what a waste of money this was for the school. Soon she was knocking on Dave's door to apologize and thank him, as all her MS symptoms had disappeared. People with MS have responded particularly well to using the filters. Dr. Havas is now doing a study with MS patients. She has videoed one man shoveling snow and dancing on his sidewalk who could not even walk before. - When diabetics install the filters they need to closely monitor their blood glucose, as their need for insulin usually drops immediately. Some will no longer be diabetic at all. - Cattle recover their health (if RF was the problem) and give much more milk when the electrical pollution is removed from their environment - 20 lbs. per day per cow more milk! - Chicks hatched with/without electrical pollution show a marked difference in % hatched, and those exposed to RF have many more deformities. To see a list of health conditions caused by RF, see www.electricalpollution.com. To read more about the research done by Dr. Havas and others, click on “research” at www.stetzerelectric.com. I would like to be just another list member here, not treated as if I were an attacker that must be fought. I am not attacking anyone here. My intention is to promote the sharing of accurate information, and “demote” the sharing of inaccurate information, so that electrical pollution and other forms of EMR can be dealt with in the best way possible. I realize that I am sometimes very blunt and forthright, just stating facts without thinking of the state of the person I am addressing. From Marc's reaction it seems that he had gotten “sensitized” by havingseveral GS filter fans question his reaction to the filters, so that when I came alongand objected to his inaccurate statement about the filters creating frequencieshe thought he heard me say things I did not say. I myself have been similarly “sensitized” by all that Dave and some of us have been put through by the utility companies and PSCs (The politics involved stink to high heaven.) and now just lately there has also been a company and a group maligning the filters, so that when someone sent me Marc's remarks I did not happen to be in a sweet and diplomatic state myself. I just spoke what was on my mind and put forth the facts, like Spock. Having spent the last several years studying and experimenting regarding electrical pollution, I have quite a bit of useful information to share, and I know that other list members do too. I request that we move forward with better “listening” to each other, as it certainly would not promote our welfare to get caught up in squabbles. There is so much to learn and so much to be done. Let's focus on that. Regards, Shivani Arjuna Small [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Administrator
|
Thanks for your reply, Shivani!
While there may have been some sarcasm in my replies to you, I *am* interested in what you have tried and what worked and what didn't. Also, I am interested in knowing what types of detox/nutrition things you've tried which have made a difference. I don't really have an "attitude" about the Graham Stetzer filters -- I myself had a huge improvement from using filters from quantumproducts.com, but I keep finding myself searching for devices which don't have to be plugged in, so that I can benefit from them when out & about. For me, the Springlife Polarizers have best satisfied me in this area, but they do have their shortcomings for certain types of radiation (notably florescent lighting). For this, I have to fall back onto the quantum products. I've tried many other types of portable products, but my reaction to them is all over the place. Marc |
In reply to this post by SArjuna
First here is a definition of slander. Let's all get on the same page. Slander is a subcategory of defamation. The basic elements of a claim of slander include; (1) a defamatory statement; (2) published to third parties; and (3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false. 1) #3 would be very tough if not impossible to prove in this case. You would have to be an engineer in this field to meet #3. Also there are also conditions limiting what publishing means. And posting something in a newsgroup may not be considered publishing. 2) " but this fellow wants to scare people who have the filters into getting rid of them and using his own products instead " Who are you talking about? Marc? Someone else? Be specific! 3) Are you affiliated with any of the sites you mentioned or to the people in anyway who are selling these products? If so you are ethicly bound to reveal that. 4) The strength of this group is that we can discuss treatments, third party products, etc without censorship or pressure from commercial interests. The standard disclaimer is that individual results will vary. Those of us with ES understand that. What works for one person may not work for another. 5) If you feel there are areas you can educate people in this group on that is fine. Attempts at coercion may violate the usage rules of this group. 5) There is not enough time in our lives to be distracted from the one common goal of members of this group. And that is to get better!! Is that your goal? To get better or help a loved one get better? I am unclear on you status as someone with ES. Thanks, Alan --- In [hidden email], SArjuna@a... wrote: > > In order to respond to all the questions and remarks that were posted in > response to my message of yesterday, I am going to paste in what people > said, and then respond (In italics, that may or may not come through.) - > Shivani > > Marc said: > All I did was report my reaction to these filters, and > now I've got a bunch of people harrasing me for it. > One would think that we could have a free exchange of ideas > and information, and then we would all be better off > for it. But instead, now I've got people threatening > me with lawsuits for having a negative reaction to a > product. > > If all Marc had done was to report his reaction to using the > that would be fine by me, however, he stated inaccurately that the filters > create high frequencies. > I am certainly not threatening anyone with a lawsuit. I simply > reported that Dave Stetzer is fed up with people maligning his product and may decide > to sue those who continue to do so. (One party, for instance, is saying > that the filters, which are UL tested and listed, may explode. This is absurd, > but this fellow wants to scare people who have the filters into getting rid of > them and using his own products instead.) If a product is designed > specifically to reduce high frequencies and you state publically that it increases > them, you are maligning the product. If it is not in fact true that the filters > create high frequencies, then that is indeed slander. > All that is just logical fact. > > Marc said: > If I'm getting sharp pains in my head almost immediately > after plugging something into my power outlet, then I > think that I can safely state that there is something > being generated that were not there before. > > That statement in itself is logical, but it does not follow > now there must be high frequencies. In fact, what is there is a slightly > increased magnetic field. It seems likely that is what you are reacting to. > Experimentation could be done to determine that. If you do this, I'd be > very interested in what you discover. > > Marc said: > You've said before that these filters remove the RF > noise in the waveform. Well, in order to do that, > they are obviously alterating the original waveform, > correct? > > The true original waveform was clean 60Hz. > For a technical explanation of how the filters work you must > Graham or Dave Stetzer. Dave is going to draw a diagram to help people > understand the process that occurs. > > > Marc said: > And what about the studies done in schools where > they did the surveys to see if people's health > were doing better or worse after the installation, > and a significant portion of these people reported > that they were doing worse? What is your > explanation for that? > > Did you note in the conclusio that it happened to be flu season > lot of the people were getting the flu? That was a very short term study. > > > Marc said: > I don't take the stand that the filters create RF. > > This is good news. > > > Marc said: > I do take the stand that the filters give me a headache. > > You are certainly free to say that you get a headache when > filters. (You yourself have said that no one thing seems to work for everyone > who tries it?) > > Marc said: > I also take the stand that I don't see how these filters would > help ES folks who are having trouble tolerating driving > a car, being in an airport, being in a shopping mall, being > in a grocery store, walking under power lines, being in > an internet cafe, standing next to someone using a cellphone, > etc. Perhaps you could explain? > > The filters were designed for a specific purpose, to reduce the > frequency pollution in the circuits they are plugged into. They do that very > well, and that is all that they are supposed to do. They are not a miracle, > they are a highly efficient tool, that does one job and does it well. > > > Cara wrote: > It isn't necessary to attack one another here. > > I definitely agree. Personally, I was not attacking anyone, just > alerting Marc to the fact that he is legally responsible if he maligns someone's > product without proof. In fact, I invited him to send the proof ASAP if he had > any. > > > Marc wrote: > the company's > own research has shown that some people have no reaction > to them, and some have an adverse reaction. > The study you are referring to was not âthe company's own research,â > but done by an independent researcher, Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University. > It is âspinningâ the conclusions of the research to say that anyone > reacted adversely. Some of the people in the school in Canada reported that > during the time the filters were installed (which they were unaware of) they felt > less well than usual. In any group of people being used for a study, some > will always be less well than usual. Flu season was probably the biggest > factor in this case, but there are myriad reasons for fluctuations in individual > wellness, such as weather, emotional stress, eating something inappropriate, > etcetera. When studies are done to determine the effects of something, the > researcher looks at the overall picture. There are specific statistical ranges > researchers use to judge positive and negative results. The study you are > referring to had positive results that actually surprised the researcher > considerably, as by her own admission she had not expected them. > In order to determine whether the people who felt less well during the > time the filters were plugged in were less well because of the filters, further > research would have to be done. > > Marc said: > you should > have some awareness of what the rest of the solution should be -- > detoxification & nutrition. Have you done anything > in these areas for your ES? > > Yes, a great deal. I would be happy to share this with anyone who is > sincerely interested, not just looking for something to criticize me for. If > your motivation is genuine interest, just let me know. > > > Marc said: > I've been reading some articles by Shivani, and it appears that > before she was threatening people with lawsuits, she's written > several articles on electrical pollution, and raising awareness > in the public. > > As I said, I am not threatening you, but alerting you. (How > peopleâ are you, anyway? And how many lawsuits are you expecting? You do > exaggerate, you know? ) > My husband and I know someone who repeatedly maligned a product - > thinking he was right, but not having looked into it enough - who got hit with a > lawsuit when he persisted in the defamation though the company had warned him > to desist, and he ended up bankrupt. As I also said, I don't think you > realized that what you were saying was both false and slanderous, but that wouldn't > help you legally. > I do not work for Dave or for Dr. Graham, by the way, or represent them. > I was just sharing information in hopes of preventing a legal hassle, and > to let list readers know that the filters do not create any frequencies > whatsoever. > > > Marc wrote: > One of the articles pretty much answered my earlier question > about the effectiveness of these filters outside the home: > > "Arjuna is now so electrically sensitive that even the > arcing in a car's electrical system affects her and > prevents her from driving. She is essentially homebound > as the electrical pollution in most public places affects > her severely". > > This is just as I suspected. These filter don't appear to > help you much in getting out into the real world. So for > the hundreds of dollars you spend on these filters, you > still get to be homebound. > > As I also already said, the filters just do what they are > do. For the money I spent and the remediation we did, I got total relief from > the terrifying cardiac events I had been experiencing, I was able to sleep > again, and I AM ALIVE. I definitely got my money's worth. > > > Marc said: > as I'm sure you must realize, there are dozens > of EMF protection devices on the market. What have > you tried besides these 37 filters? > > Several things, and I am trying some new ones now, that were sent to me > from Canada and Australia. Again, if you are asking out of sincere interest > I will be glad to discuss this. It seems to me you are being sarcastic, but > I know (all too well) that people read âtoneâ into Web communications where > none was intended, so I am not sure just what your attitude is. > > I do not know whether Marc will be glad to hear it or not, but my > recovery seems to continue. â¦. Some of what Marc quotes about me was written some > time ago. In 2002 I could barely walk across a room, and sat curled in a > fetal position literally unable to bear opening my eyes when my husband drove me > to various health practitioners looking for help and answers. I could > barely walk across a room. We did not know if I would live another day or die at > any moment. My husband only told me later that he used to come and look at me > while I was asleep to see if I was still breathing. Now I can shovel snow > for over an hour without tiring, drive a car on errands, be in public places > enough to do errands and attend events⦠> > I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Marc has an attitude about the > Graham Stetzer filters, that causes him to misinterpret the research results > and fail to mention the utterly amazing results that are occurring in homes and > schools where they have been installed. I would like to share a bit with > the list members regarding those results. > - In a school that had 37 kids with asthma, who frequently needed > nebulizer treatments from the school nurse, the nurse wrote the school board at the > end of the year after the filters were installed to tell them that now only 3 > of those children still had asthma, and she had not given a single nebulizer > treatment since the installment. She listed many other health improvements > she had noted, also. > - In that same school, one of the teachers was suffering terribly from > MS, and was going to have to quit teaching. She was only able to be there > Monday through Wednesday, as she got worse every day she was there. This woman > literally screamed at Dave when he was installing the filters, about what a > waste of money this was for the school. Soon she was knocking on Dave's door > to apologize and thank him, as all her MS symptoms had disappeared. People > with MS have responded particularly well to using the filters. Dr. Havas is > now doing a study with MS patients. She has videoed one man shoveling snow > and dancing on his sidewalk who could not even walk before. > - When diabetics install the filters they need to closely monitor their > blood glucose, as their need for insulin usually drops immediately. Some > will no longer be diabetic at all. > - Cattle recover their health (if RF was the problem) and give much more > milk when the electrical pollution is removed from their environment - 20 > lbs. per day per cow more milk! > - Chicks hatched with/without electrical pollution show a marked > difference in % hatched, and those exposed to RF have many more deformities. > To see a list of health conditions caused by RF, see > www.electricalpollution.com. To read more about the research done by Dr. Havas and others, > click on âresearchâ at www.stetzerelectric.com. > > I would like to be just another list member here, not treated as if I > were an attacker that must be fought. I am not attacking anyone here. My > intention is to promote the sharing of accurate information, and âdemoteâ the > sharing of inaccurate information, so that electrical pollution and other forms > of EMR can be dealt with in the best way possible. > I realize that I am sometimes very blunt and forthright, just stating > facts without thinking of the state of the person I am addressing. from Marc's > reaction it seems that he had gotten âsensitizedâ by having several GS > filter fans question his reaction to the filters, so that when I came along and > objected to his inaccurate statement about the filters creating frequencies he > thought he heard me say things I did not say. > I myself have been similarly âsensitizedâ by all that Dave and some of > us have been put through by the utility companies and PSCs (The politics > involved stink to high heaven.) and now just lately there has also been a company > and a group maligning the filters, so that when someone sent me Marc's remarks > I did not happen to be in a sweet and diplomatic state myself. I just spoke > what was on my mind and put forth the facts, like Spock. > > Having spent the last several years studying and experimenting regarding > electrical pollution, I have quite a bit of useful information to share, and > I know that other list members do too. I request that we move forward > with better âlisteningâ to each other, as it certainly would not promote our > welfare to get caught up in squabbles. There is so much to learn and so much to > be done. Let's focus on that. > > Regards, > Shivani Arjuna Small > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Marc, As you know, I like the Quantum Power strip and Quantum Byte software myself, but so far my husband's reaction to the Quantum Pro has been to get a very bad headache -- not unlike your reaction to the Graham Stetzer filters. I didn't return the product to the manufacturer, though; it's still sitting in my kitchen waiting to be returned to active duty. I am wondering if, as my husband gradually improves (from nutritional supplements, "detox") he might be able to benefit from using the Quantum Pro... Does anyone have any experience with this? Testing the Quantum Pro at different stages of recovery, with varying results? Thanks, Cara --- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote: I myself had a huge improvement from using > filters from quantumproducts.com. |
Administrator
|
> As you know, I like the Quantum Power strip and Quantum Byte software
> myself, but so far my husband's reaction to the Quantum Pro has been > to get a very bad headache -- not unlike your reaction to the Graham > Stetzer filters. Well, there are different kinds of headaches... :-) Is it a headache that comes on slowly, and also might be accompanied by nausea and fatigue? Or is the kind of headache that comes on quickly, and seems like it's coming from some source of irritation? (or is it none of the above?) Frankly, I think the Quantum Pro is overkill for most situations. In my house, just one or two of the power strips placed in different parts of the house seemed plenty (and I don't even use these anymore). I used to use the Quantum Pro at work, but even now I just use a power strip. Marc |
Immediate, splitting headache, as soon as I turned on the Quantum Pro at the lowest setting. I left it on for 30 minutes just to be sure, and the effect was debilitating - my husband ended up miserable in bed for hours trying to recover. The slow kind of headache is just background noise for us, unfortunately. I think my husband barely notices those any more. :-( Cara --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote: > > As you know, I like the Quantum Power strip and Quantum Byte software > > myself, but so far my husband's reaction to the Quantum Pro has been > > to get a very bad headache -- not unlike your reaction to the Graham > > Stetzer filters. > > Well, there are different kinds of headaches... :-) > > Is it a headache that comes on slowly, and also might be accompanied > by nausea and fatigue? Or is the kind of headache that comes on > quickly, and seems like it's coming from some source of irritation? > > (or is it none of the above?) > > Frankly, I think the Quantum Pro is overkill for most situations. > In my house, just one or two of the power strips placed in > different parts of the house seemed plenty (and I don't even > use these anymore). I used to use the Quantum Pro at work, > but even now I just use a power strip. > > Marc |
Administrator
|
> Immediate, splitting headache, as soon as I turned on the Quantum Pro
> at the lowest setting. Okay, that's the same reaction I had to the Graham-Stetzer filters. :-) I think I'd return it and get my money back. What is his reaction to the Quantum power strip? Marc |
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by carazzz
> Does anyone have any experience with
> this? Testing the Quantum Pro at different stages of recovery, with > varying results? Now, to answer your original question. The way I used the Quantum Products initially was very close to ideal, in that I just happened to purchase the weakest of their products first (the Quantum Companion), then bought stronger ones (power strips), then finally the Quantum Pro. So even before I started using the Quantum Pro, I had essentially been "ramping up" my tolerance for this energy. And then when I started using the Quantum Pro, I had to start a low settings and only have it on for a couple hours, as it would provoke detox-like symptoms (fatigue, nausea, etc.). I eventually just used this at work, as my cats will not tolerate any household EMF remediation solutions. It seemed to be ideally suited for work, as it seems to have a long range of effectiveness and is good for really nasty environments. However, as time went on, I really found that I wanted solutions that didn't tie me to a power outlet, and I also found that the Quantum Products were never 100% effective against everything, even after you had fully adjusted to them. So I now just use minimal (as needed) Quantum Products to supplement whatever shortcomings the portable Springlife Polarizers have. Marc |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
Honestly Marc, I don't know the answer to that yet. We're a little skittish about changing any setup that works (or that isn't actively/violently a problem ) so I am still working up the nerve to install the Quantum Power strip at my husband's desk. We haven't modified that particular setup since we first grounded his office electrical outlets, which as I mentioned before was noticeably helpful... I've got the Quantum Power plugged into the bedroom, but there usually isn't anything attached to it there -- only a DVD player occasionally, for an hour or so at a time. So that's not much of a test. But, I think the time has come. I'll plug the Quantum Power strip into the office outlet and plug all the computer equipment into it tonight... We'll see what happens. Cara --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote: What is his reaction to the Quantum power strip? |
Administrator
|
> Honestly Marc, I don't know the answer to that yet.
Yeah, it really can take time to come to a good conclusion about anything. You have to look for short term effects, long term effects, and possibly attributing a reaction to one thing, when something else is responsible. For example, I've been taking the PCA-Rx mercury detox spray for over a month, but I'm still unclear about whether I should continue taking it. It's obviously provoking a detox, but one must consider whether or not incorporating it into my daily routine is a step forwards or a step backwards from the daily routine I already had. And the stuff has such a strong, long-lasting effect on me, that I'm only taking 1 spray every 3 days (well below the recommended amount) Marc |
In reply to this post by carazzz
Cara, I had a difficult time with the Quantum Home unit and had to return it. I do have some minor positive results with the Quantum Power strip. From previous commentary, I'd say I'm much more ES overall than Marc or yourself, more along the level of what your husband is at. I did write Quantum Products a letter about the possibility of tailoring a unit to the user's specific needs but they never responded. Beau --- In [hidden email], "Cara" <cara_evangelista@h...> wrote: > > Honestly Marc, I don't know the answer to that yet. We're a little > skittish about changing any setup that works (or that isn't > actively/violently a problem ) so I am still working up the nerve to > install the Quantum Power strip at my husband's desk. We haven't > modified that particular setup since we first grounded his office > electrical outlets, which as I mentioned before was noticeably > helpful... > > I've got the Quantum Power plugged into the bedroom, but there > usually isn't anything attached to it there -- only a DVD player > occasionally, for an hour or so at a time. So that's not much of a > test. > > But, I think the time has come. I'll plug the Quantum Power strip > into the office outlet and plug all the computer equipment into it > tonight... We'll see what happens. > > Cara > > --- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@u...> wrote: > > What is his reaction to the Quantum power strip? |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |