|
Post Time: 25/11/2007 18:02:04 |
KeiraN
Total Forum Posts: 16 |
Hello,
I have a couple of questions.
1) I heard about the above dLAN through Patrick Holford can anybody say whether these are recommended?
2) Who is Patrick Holford? Is he a respected person?
Thanks |
|
Post Time: 26/11/2007 10:05:53 |
Sarahp
Total Forum Posts: 48 |
Hi Keira
dLANs are great devices. I personally use one at home, and we use one at work with a laptop. As to specific models/makes, we have tested a couple of different models, with only minor differences. The dLAN is a great product - which particular make/model you go for should depend on the price you can get, and the reviews of the various products. We don't have the manpower or the time to test all the models (and by the time we did, it would be out of date!).
Patrick Holford. We have mixed things to say about him - not just our own opinions, but others we know of as well. He is a writer on complementary health issues and has recommended various "gadgets" that we do not agree with (such as Q-Link) - but we feel this is probably due to ignorance of the science, rather than any financial or other interest. If you check sites such as www.badscience.org - he is a regular feature on there, and not in a good way. We do not necessarily agree with Ben Goldacre on many things (we have ourselves been a target of his), so this may not mean a great deal.
That's who Patrick Holford is (in a small part), and as to whether he is respected - he is by some, and isn't by others. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful on this!
Best wishes
Sarah |
|
Post Time: 26/11/2007 10:25:36 |
KeiraN
Total Forum Posts: 16 |
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for that. I'm now keen to know why you don't agree with the Q-link? As I've put that on my Christmas list.
Thanks Keira |
|
Post Time: 26/11/2007 11:07:37 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
Hi Keira
I tested a Q-link classic SRT2 'every which way' a few years ago (including wearing it first for three months - it did nothing for my ES symptoms). At that time they advertised it with a super quantum microchip in the centre (little black thing) - I see that is not there anymore in the SRT3 Q-link. Anyway I tested it for resonances and fields and changes in energy levels (nothing found) and then I dissected it. I found the coil of thin copper wire was not connected to anything at either end. The black'chip' turned out to be a standard 'zero ohm link' electronic component worth less than 1 penny and doing nothing at all (it is just a short-circuit). I found nothing else of any value, including no sign of the SRT "cell".
Later I was sent a the Q-link "Ally" to test (which I still have). It contained a standard computer memory chip that could never work as the printed circuit board had been made "back to front" and all the connections were wrong! The LED did flash from a cheap 555 timer chip which did work inside the Ally. I believe that the Australian test results are due to them running it from a mains power supply and the electric fields that generated, not the supposd 'Ally fields'. Clarus would not fund the Australian researchers (verbal information when I discussed their research with them) to do a proper double-blind study (with some people using dummy Q-link Ally's).
Sorry, but I would only get one if you like the aesthetics as a piece of plastic jewelry. It is not a technological or scientific device in any normally accepted sense, whatever they claim. It may have some new-age SRT substance in it, but I didn't find any and it didn't work for me. When a reputable UK bio-effects researcher, whom I know very well, offered to do a proper study, Clarus first accepted and then refused when he explained that it would have to be "double-blind" (I was told this by him and do not have paperwork to prove this).
However, none of the Clarus research reports on their website are "double-blind". The Q-link probably will have a positive placebo effect with most people who believe that it will work. That is my view, for what it is worth.
Alasdair
|
|
Post Time: 04/12/2007 09:42:50 |
KeiraN
Total Forum Posts: 16 |
Hi,
Sorry for the late reply but thanks very much for your responses. Could you suggest something other then theQ-link then which could protect you against EMF's and microwaves which could be worn as a peive of jewelry?
Thanks Keira |
|
Post Time: 04/12/2007 09:46:03 |
Sarahp
Total Forum Posts: 48 |
the simple answer is no. None of the items we've tested affect EMFs - they claim to do all sorts of things, but none affect the EMFs directly. It is possible that some *may* affect the way the body reacts, but this is not measurable, and I'd be extremely sceptical of any device that claims to make EMFs "safe" or to "protect" you from them.
I'm also going to mention this again to Alasdair because I know he's working on something that may be of interest. |
|
Post Time: 04/12/2007 11:10:33 |
alasdairP
Total Forum Posts: 173 |
We are working on an "active noise-field" protection device, but it won't be jewelry, but consists of a light coil of wire that will probably be worn around the neck (we are testing alternative ways - it may be possible to have it in a cigarette sized box to be carried in a pocket). This is fed with low-frequency electromagnetic noise and has the effect of de-sensitising you.
Not an ideal answer, but various scientific papers (Google search for Litovitz and EMX technology) have shown that it seems to help. Our version is different from, and does not infringe the patents of, Litovitz/EMX/Exradia. At present their technology is only available in two types of replacement baterry for Nokia mobile phones. Our version is not intended to protect you from mobile phone use - which we disapprove of and do not want to encourage - but is intended to help protect you from the effects of the electrosmog that now surrounds us all.
Alasdair Philips
|
|
Post Time: 04/12/2007 13:58:25 |
KeiraN
Total Forum Posts: 16 |
Many thanks for that, keep me posted when your product comes out. Keira |
