Re: Has it been proven that "zapping" works?

Using my secret powers, I have determined a few things.

1. You can not solve one equation for two unknowns. Similarly, a test with two uncontrolled variables (say, for instance, unspecified nutritional protocools and an electronic device), can not yeild a unique result. The writing states that not all people responded to nutritional treatments alone, while others responded completely. With that statement in the setup, tweasing apart zapper effects from nutritional effects can not be done.

2. Nothing - n o t h i n g - was measured; no blood work, no cell cultures, no biopsies, no stool samples, not even barometric pressure. "... changes in health in this pilot trial was based upon subject reports of improvement." I think it is fair to say that subject reporting is, well, subjective. And, as I touched on in another post, the subject pool already was biased toward a positive report.

3. 4 and 5 year old children can not give informed consent to participate in amedical study. Also, they do not have the vocabulary or communication skills necessary for the detailed feedback required. That their parents would force them to participate in this study goes directly to #2 above.

4. Expert observers can see through a lot of junk, but not all junk. The very young and very old are predisposessed to please authority figures, and the very old have a particular bias toward medical professionals. Plus, real expert observers are rare. BTW, in a study based entirely upon interviews, interviewer gender is a gigantic variable.

The study is a first step, not the last word. However, controls of external variables known to have direct effects on the results were completely absent, raising questions about awareness. A controlled study, and I mean one in which every conceivable variable is controlled to the best extent possible, is extremely difficult to achieve.

"How are you feeling today?" is the most ambiguous, loaded, and scientifically irresponsible question you can ask a test subject. Everything affects how we think we feel, from paint colors in the interview room to weather to grandma's broken hip. Confusing emotional stress with physical symptoms is not just a classic problem, it is *the* problem in such research. The standard number is that 85% of experiments in the health fields have proceedural problems.

Please do not confuse curiosity, imagination, and skepticism with... naysaying? I understand why you resort to stereotyping in your response, but you are wrong about me.

ak
Tweet