Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Electronic Reactions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Electronic Reactions

    The only Scientific study, published in very reputable Journals, which has ever come close to providing evidence (though unwittingly) for "Homeopathic Medicines not being mere dilutions", was performed in 1924 and published in Lancet and British Medical Journal in 1925. I have obtained full copies of these detailed papers and studied them.
    Why nothing ever came of this research is difficult to explain. Had it been followed up seriously, the mystery of Homeopathy's mechanism would certainly have been solved. I hope this discussion will lead to some answers to this question. The first, and main, conclusion of this Scientific work in 1924, performed by a team including physicists and led by an eminent British Scientist, Sir Thomas Horder (later Lord Horder), was as follows :-

    (1) That certain substances, when placed in proper relation to the emanometer of Boyd, produce beyond all reasonable doubt, changes in the abdominal wall of a person, of a kind which may be detected by percussion of the abdomen.

    The "certain substances" referred to above were blood and sputum samples initially, but mainly Homeopathic medicines later on. After resolving experimental setup problems, 100% success rates were obtained during experimentation. Horder's team did not object to the use of Homeopathic medicines as samples as long as it was understood that these experiments were in no way providing supporting evidence for Homeopathy or its principles.

    After studying this work carefully, I am convinced that pure research by a physicist or biophysicist is the best way forwards in research into the mechanism of transmission of Homeopathic medicines.

    HISTORY :

    It was an American medical doctor, Dr Abrams, who discovered the "electronic reactions" or "emanations" from living tissue. He built some electronic devices able to detect it. Scottish Dr Boyd, starting with Abrams "Reflexophone", built his own version, called the "emanometer", and spent years experimenting with it. But, it was Boyd's emanometer that was the only successfully Scientifically-tested device of this kind. After Boyd's death, his sons were unable to make the emanometer work properly.
    German medical doctor Voll later developed a device on the same principle which measured fluctuating "emanations" at Chinese acupuncture points on the body which he claimed were related to disease states. He developed a treatment strategy. Scimmel did more work on these lines but failed to Scientifically prove any therapeutic effect for his device. None of Voll's nor Schimmel's work has been accepted as Scientific because they failed to adequately explain what these subtle emanations are.

    THE PROBLEM

    Boyd's emanometer needs more research by a physicist or biophysicist. Why are Medical doctors inventing and testing electronic equipment? (That is what they did 80 years ago.) At some stage, the electronics of this medical device should have been passed over to Physics for research.

    First, Science needs to know exactly what these emanations are. And Medical Science wants research into their Medical applications.

    Taking on the emanometer would initially appear to be difficult for a physicist, the obstacle being the "medical component" of using a person as the measuring instrument, but this obstacle would soon be separated/eliminated. The "emanometer" itself is so simple, there is hardly any need for a circuit diagram.

    I hope there is a physicist out there who may be interested in discussing this further, or who could answer a few questions I have. If so, I will post more details about this work.

    There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to make a simplified Boyd's emanometer that works. We have so much going for us. E.g., electronic hand-held boat compasses, about 30 new (or much less on e-bay) are at least a million times more sensitive than anything Boyd had to work with in the 1920's.

    More appropriate would be optical sensors or UV detectors, because the consensus of opinion seems to be that these emanations (emr) operate in the 200-600nm wavelength range ( UV and visible light, I believe). Abrams thought they were radio waves, but how could he know.

    Wouldn't you like to actually accomplish something productive?

    I am not answering your points except to say that ERA practitioners/electronicists were all just quacks using an Oscilloclast invented by Abrams, nothing to do with the reflexophone or emanometer mentioned in this discussion.

    Abrams cashed in by making devices which would supposedly pump emanations back into people to cure them - complete nonsense but his original reflexophone cannot be ignored by Science. [reply]

    First Emanometer

    I intend to make an emanometer and here is the first design. Make or find a wooden box of dimensions at least 12" or 30cm square. Line it inside with at least 1/2" thickness of copper sheeting (or similar screening material). The top of the box is open, but has a copper-lined cover that fits over it during testing. The specimen (powder or solution in a test tube) is put on a test tube tripod to keep it upright, in the box. The only other object placed in the box is the detector head or probe of an EMR Detector (see below), facing the specimen.

    A hole must be drilled into one side of the box to take the insulated lead of the detector head, for connection to the EMR Detector.

    That's it. The distance between specimen and detector head can be varied during testing, remembering to fix the cover on firmly to even block out light.

    So now comes the hard part. Which EMR detectors? The consensus of opinion seems to suggest the "emanations" (EMR) from the sample to be about in the 200-600nm wavelength (UV and visible light)..and Hahnemann suggested this too.

    Abrams & others thought it was in the radio frequency range, but how could they know? I already have a sensitive instrument for checking for radio wave frequencies.

    In first testing, we need a very sensitive visible light or UV detector. We could test for magnetic fields using a hand-held electronic boat compass, about 30 new or much cheaper on e-bay, at least a million times more sensitive than anything Boyd had to work with.

    Much more to do on the detectors, that's where the physicists come in.


    Second Emanometer

    So, the new design of the emanometer could be a copper tube of internal diameter about 6mm for the photocathode to slip into. The thickness of the copper of the tube should be at least 1/2-1 inch. The tube should be about 9" long (so that it can hold and further screen the photocathode it encloses. The copper tube should be sealed at the other end.

    Expt 1 : Two pinches of lactose sugar (what pills are made of) into the tube, slip photocathode in, seal it in, and switch on. No photons.

    Shake the lactose out of tube. Crush two high-potency Hom medicine pills with a spoon and drop powder into the copper tube, slip photocathode in again and seal, and measure again. Hey presto! Photons. Our first milestone...or dream. See more on that website using search :

    Channel Photomultiplier Operation

    The site I am referring to is first on the search list. We probably wouldn't need such a fancy photomultiplier - an older one would probably do the job just as well.

    Anyone got a photomultipler? I have found a guy who would be able to supply copper tubing to this approx specification. But we need to find the photomultiplier first to know the diameter of the photocathode. [reply] [Complain about

    [ 23. June 2003, 11:18: Message edited by: Timokay ]

  • #2
    First Reply

    Hi Timokay,

    I hope you are still reading / interested in this idea.

    I too am interested in it.

    I am an electronic engineer and also practice homeopathy as hobby.


    Have you actually seen an emanometer ?

    can you post its picture ?

    Do reply,

    Regards,

    Devidas

    Comment


    • #3
      Guess

      how much money the multi billion dollar pharmaceutical industry is prepared to pay to world famous scientists to destroy , dispute and disprove any "proof" you may come up with.

      Comment


      • #4
        The multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry will stand in line to support anybody who makes a breakthrough in this area. Even as it is, homeopathic remedies are a billion dollar industry. Just imagine the profit potential if it could be vindicated scientifically.

        Hey, what happened to my old friend Timokay?

        Hans
        You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MRC_Hans
          The multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry will stand in line to support anybody who makes a breakthrough in this area. Even as it is, homeopathic remedies are a billion dollar industry. Just imagine the profit potential if it could be vindicated scientifically.

          Hey, what happened to my old friend Timokay?

          Hans
          OR

          It can also be hijecked by multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry, if it could be vindicated scientifically. They have been made more resourceful & powerful--so can hijeck for adding more billions, merge it with them & make it expensive & allopathic to common people. Just look at previous experiances of substances vindicated scientifically...many ayurvedic preparations etc.
          Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
          Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kayveeh
            OR

            It can also be hijecked by multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry, if it could be vindicated scientifically. They have been made more resourceful & powerful--so can hijeck for adding more billions, merge it with them & make it expensive & allopathic to common people. Just look at previous experiances of substances vindicated scientifically...many ayurvedic preparations etc.
            Hijacked? Does somebody own homeopathy? Anybody can make it and use it if they will, the full descriptions have been public for a century or more.

            Now, why do you think the pharmaceutical industry has NOT marketed any of these extremely easy to produce and profitable drugs?

            Hans
            You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by MRC_Hans
              Hijacked? Does somebody own homeopathy? Anybody can make it and use it if they will, the full descriptions have been public for a century or more.

              Now, why do you think the pharmaceutical industry has NOT marketed any of these extremely easy to produce and profitable drugs?

              Hans
              Don't you know about petroleum wars/interest. Previously those areas were least cared.

              Because they codn't yet know it.
              Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
              Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

              Comment


              • #8
                Petroleum? What has that to do with the subject?

                Who couldn't know? Hahnemann's writings have been around for over a century and a half. ANYBODY who cares can know about homeopathy.

                Hans
                You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have pictures of this machine, but it seems the reply window does not accept them
                  Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    anyone willing to look at them shall have to provide an email address.
                    if you are fearful of hacking, make a temporary address.
                    Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Qoute from Hans
                      Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
                      Hijacked? Does somebody own homeopathy? Anybody can make it and use it if they will, the full descriptions have been public for a century or more.

                      Now, why do you think the pharmaceutical industry has NOT marketed any of these extremely easy to produce and profitable drugs?

                      because it does not make enough money.
                      the process of manufacture is quite involved and the returns very little in comparison.
                      moreover, these remedies are no aspirins that suppress a symptom and thus if wrongly prescribed cause problems for the user.
                      The pharmaboys are too much afraid to be sued.
                      cost/effect ratio is therefore not interesting enough.
                      Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        oh btw, this is what i found on the net by one of our orthodox brethren

                        In search of evidence-based bullshit:

                        http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/theory/index.html

                        In search of evidence-based bullshit:

                        Monday morning is not the best time to be told to 'bridge the quality chasm' and 'identify your value stream'. I was having the misfortune of starting my week with a talk that introduced new health-service management ideas based on psychological sounding ideas such as 'lean thinking' and 'connected leadership'.
                        Now, I've got no problem with things sounding like bullshit, as long as they work. After all, medicine is one of the few places where you can get away with calling the practice of squirting cold water in the ear 'vestibular caloric stimulation'.
                        No-one minds that much, because it's been very well researched and is known to have a profound, albeit temporary, effect on a number of neurological conditions.
                        So if I wanted to find out whether any of these new management techniques made an organisation more efficient, the first thing I'd do is find out what the research says.
                        In health and medicine, the 'gold standard' for finding our whether an intervention has an effect is the randomised controlled trial or RCT.
                        It's a simple but powerful idea. You get a group of people you want to study. You measure them at the beginning. You randomly assign them to two groups. One gets the intervention, the other doesn't. You measure them at the end. If your intervention has worked, one group should be different when compared to the others.
                        Of course, it gets a bit more complex in places. Making the comparison fair and deciding what should be measured can be tricky, but it's still a useful tool.
                        After my traumatic Monday morning experience I went to see what randomized controlled trials had been done on management techniques.
                        To my surprise, I found none. Not a single RCT in any of the business psychology literature.
                        Now, this may be because I know little about organisational psychology, and literature searches are as much about knowing the key words as knowing what you want. So maybe RCTs are called something completely different, or I'm just looking in the wrong places.
                        So, if you know of any RCTs done on leadership and management techniques, please let me know, I'd be fascinated to find out.
                        I could completely wrong, but if I'm not, I want to know why are there no randomised-controlled trials in organisational psychology?
                        And as a corollary, are we spending millions on organisational interventions to supposedly help patients that have been tested no further than the pseudoscience we reject for every other area of medicine?
                        UPDATE: Some interesting comments from organisational psychologist Stefan Shipman:

                        It may be that the complexity lies in that organizational research is always secondary to doing business. I can remember in some of my early research that I attempted to implement a new human resources program in one department. The program was successful in its early stages and was (despite my suggestions) implemented company wide.
                        I think your post absolutely speaks to the frustration of all organizational psychologists because the zeal of organizations to find "new" ways of doing business that are hopefully more effective. This zeal often reduces the "completeness" of research. As organizational psychologists we accept the conditions under which real world research can be done. We encourage the assignment of conditions but accept that some ideas or programs might "leak" into other parts of the organization.


                        Vaughan.

                        Do not accept or reject anything before you have investigated it and that on its own merits.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X