[Skip to content]
 News Index
 Our researched articles
 Science (General)
   List of studies
   Basic guide to EMFs
   EMF guidance levels
   RF unit conversion
   Other resources
 ELF ("Power" EMFs)
   Electrical wiring
   Electrical appliances
 RF ("Microwave" EMFs)
   Mobile phones
   Cordless phones
   Mobile phone masts
   Other resources
   Childhood leukaemia
   Brain tumours
   Electromagnetic sensitivity
   Other health effects
   Reduce your exposure
   - Mobile phones
   - Phone masts
   - Powerlines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!

- Liability disclaimer -
- Privacy policy -
- Cookies policy -
© Copyright Powerwatch 2024

Alasdair's EMF Musings - View Comments

[Blog Index]

Q-link, Bio-Pro and other 'gizmos'

A few chat forums have recently started to debate the Q-link products (yet again).

My response (July 2006) was:
BioPro and Q-Link?

I wouldn't go near that stuff with a very long pole. We have had an example of products from both firms and believe that they are completely ineffective and lack any scientific basis that would suggest otherwise. Our FAQ at
chips FAQ was a generic criticism of these types of products, but it was all taken very specifically from a BioPro promotional site.
From: Catarina Sent: 19 July 2006 13:03
Subject: Q-;link
There is, however, research on Q-link which has been published in peer reviewed journals, see -

Croft RJ, Chandler JS, Burgess AP, Barry RJ, Williams JD, Clarke AR. Acute Mobile Phone Operation Affects Neural Function in Humans. Clin. Neurophysiol., 113, (2002), 1623

Croft RJ, Chandler JS, Burgess AP, Barry RJ, Williams JD. Can the Q Link Ally(R), a Form of Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT trade mark), Attenuate Acute Mobile Phone-Related Changes to Neural Function? J. Altern Complement Med, 8, (2002), 427-435

According to Adrian Burgess (who is now responsible for the Imperial College neurocognitive tetra research), they were very surprised when they found evidence that the Q-link ally did counteract the effect of the mobile phone on the EEG. - Catarina

From: Alasdair Philips Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2006

I was in dialogue with Q-link around the time the Croft paper was published and made direct contact with Rodney Croft in Australia. They had the Ally connected to a mains power supply and did not control for power-frequency ELECTRIC field EMFs - so the test was virtually worthless and would need to be repeated just using a battery run Ally. It would also need to be done with a dummy Ally - just flashing and with the rest of the gubbins inactivated, as a control to avoid a positive psychological response by people "thinking they are protected".

I also obtained (and still have) an Ally - although the LED flasher works (wow!), the main chip (a 28-pin AT28C64 memory chip) is completely incorrectly connected in such a way as it could never, even vaguely, work. I have detailed pictures of the circuit board and connections. It only contains standard electronic components and so no special "mineral and other elemental entities" to manifest the "Sympathetic Resonance Technology" wonders. I also measured the EMF output from the Ally - nothing significant at all - although I could pick up the fields from the current pulses flashing the LED.

The team concluded, after studying only 24 people: "This pilot study suggests that the addition of the QL to active MP-exposure does affect neural function in humans, altering both resting EEG patterns and the evoked neural response to auditory stimuli, and that there is a tendency for some MP-related changes to the EEG to be attenuated by the QL."

They would also have been likely to be attentuated by holding the wire from the power supply and doing away with the Ally altogether.

I did suggest to Clarus, their UK re-sellers and Rodney Croft that a larger study with proper controls be set up and carried out - but Clarus and their re-sellers and backers were not prepared to put up the money. Evidently this first study was done for very little money, which is why it is so small and ill-scienced.

About seven years ago I also wore a standard plastic encapsulated Q-link for 3-months and noticed no improvement in my electrosensitivity. I then tested it for EMF resonances in the ranges 1 Hz to 2.7 GHz and found none. I then dissected it under a microscope and tested the individual parts. The copper wire coil is not connected to anything - the ends are open circuit. The special "chip" in the centre is a standard 'zero-ohm' surface mount resistor link. There is a rather technical looking gold-plated printed circuit board - rather techno-pretty, if you like such things. I could find no trace of the special SRT material in my one. I think they may have an extra blob of something in recent years.

So, sorry, but I think both the Ally and the standard Q-link are pure Linus-blanket psychological props - nothing necessarily wrong with that - but I do get annoyed at the pseudo-scientific words they weave around the Q-link products. At least Q-Link (Clarus) offer a money-back guarantee - though many of their re-sellers fail to do this.

I think that, if sold at all, they should be sold as "comforters" and not scientific gadgets / wonder protectors. But then Clarus have and their re-sellers have made loads of money from Q-Link products - and if people really feel better wearing them, then, maybe, it is OK for them.

Good wishes for finding the truth behind things


Posted at: 24/07/2006 12:08:13 :: 8 Comments


Comment By Neil Jeffrey :: Posted at: 29/08/2006 04:49:58

Hi Alasdair ,
I recently came across powerwatch and am impressed . Pity we don't have an effective organisation here to get the message out in Australia.
The difficulty getting outside respected supportive information on Biopro Cell Phone Chips is hard to understand as they do indeed negate the energy drain or stress when using a Mobile phone , laptop , hair dryer , cordless phone. I and friends have experienced this many times , just as you can by doing a simple Kinesiology stress resistance test with an arm . I am sure you are familiar with what I am talking about. Test arm without phone , test arm with phone powered up and clearly see less resistance ( or energy loss ), test arm with phone powered up with Biopro chip attatched and very clearly see strong resistance ( or no energy loss , generally stronger ). Those meridian 2000 machine (FDA approved) stress tests on 7 body parts of about 17 people in Melbourne were authentic , they were volunteers from a conference of independent Biopro consultants. My friend attended and also participated initials GJ ( his readings are there for all to see on the meridian tests Australia ). Anyway I had to tell it as I see it , I don't believe Biopro are frauds , but it is hard to fathom the lack of peer review. Keep up the good work against the EMF pollution.
Neil Jeffrey

Comment By Alasdair :: Posted at: 01/09/2006 10:52:45

Hi Neil,

Thanks for your comments regarding Biopro. We cannot, and would not want to, negate your personal experiences with the chip. Unfortunately, having dissected the chip there is nothing in our opinion that could be capable of doing anything, and we are resigned to believing that energy changes are placebo-induced, at least until there is more evidence to suggest otherwise. The placebo is far more powerful than people normally seem to realise, for example see www.newscientist.com, and I think it is plausible that these results are not induced by the chip but by the person under examination believing the chip will work. Certainly, it would be nice to see double-blind experimentation to clarify this further.

I would be more than happy to look at well-researched papers on these devices, but until I see any I remain less than impressed with the chips.

Best Wishes,

Comment By John :: Posted at: 23/10/2006 00:20:14

Clarus states that there have been double-blind studys with Q-Link and placebos, and the results were great (can't remember the exact results). I wish they stated their sources so I could verify. They also claim (in a PDF document I found on Google) that Q-Link extends the life of batteries. Again, I wish they would have stated their sources. I've worn a Q-Link for about 3 weeks and am pleased with the results. Before, I would lie in bed for hours and fall asleep around 2:00am; now I fall asleep in under 15 minutes. I've also noticed less stress and I'm in an even better mood most of the time. If this is only a placebo, it's doing a really good job!!! Hey, I appreciate everyone's opinion here. Every product, (especially this kind of stuff) should have counter arguments. Rock on!

Comment By Alasdair :: Posted at: 06/11/2006 08:58:00

Thanks for the comments John, if you happen to get hold of the references for these studies that would be greatly appreciated.

Best Wishes,

Comment By DBRVNH :: Posted at: 31/01/2007 20:22:20

Hi, I notice several wanted to see the research, wise decision. Clarus contains the actual documents on their site, and these list the references, the doctors, and the individual testing in many cases. They can be found here:

Even if you don't feel any different, the FDA-registered Biomeridien Stress Testing documents that Q-Link is still constantly strengthening your resistance to the negative effects of stress. You can find that at the FDA - look for the Biomeridien Stress Test information.

Basically, an important point is this research (hope this isn't too long for here), and the very LAST sentence, not to mention the FDA approved biometric stimuli for Parkinson's disease over 25 years ago....
Effects of the QLink Pendant on Electrical Resistance of Acupuncture Points and
Associated Meridian Stress

Tyteeka Reye, ND, DScF, who is in private practice at the Acacia Whole Health Clinic in Denver, conducted an initial controlled pilot study with statistical analysis to assess the effects of wearing the QLink pendant on skin conductivity when subjects were exposed to EMF stressors of various household electrical appliances. The method employed here is skin conductivity measurements of the acupuncture points using a clinical diagnostic device designed for this purpose. The clinical data collected by Reye in the study was
independently submitted to Professor Michael Kundi, Ph.D., Head of the Department of Occupational and Social Hygiene at the Institute of Environmental Health, University of Vienna, to perform the final quantitative statistical analysis.

Health practitioners measure the stress associated with the acupuncture meridians by introducing a harmless, low-voltage electrical current at various acupuncture points and measuring the level of electrical current conducted through them. This diagnostic is based upon the work of the German physician R. Voll, who discovered in the 1950s that certain acupuncture points showed abnormal readings of electrical conductivity or resistance when subjects were reacting to a stressor, such as an allergen, placed nearby their body54. H. Motoyama has demonstrated that 70% of this so-called skin conductance
is associated with the internal body, and only 30% is due to the skin itself 55.

Extensive studies of these phenomena and the various devices used to test skin resistance have also been performed by William Tiller, Ph.D., at Stanford University56. Despite extensive scientific research, there is no consensus as to the understanding of this type of measurement, its perturbation by external agents, or its use as a diagnostic in medicine. Interestingly, the Office of Technology Assessment of the US Congress produced a report on the efficacy and safety of medical technologies, in which it is estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently in medical practice have been shown to
be efficacious by controlled trials57. In any case, the Voll method has become the basis of a diagnostic assessment known as EAV (Electroacupuncture according to Voll), variously referred to as electrodermal testing and meridian stress assessment (MSA). It is used worldwide by numerous health care practitioners.

There are a variety of different electrodermal testing devices on the global market, and some of these are FDA approved for meridian stress assessment as a form of galvanic skin response (GSR) biofeedback to electrical stimuli.

Empower the mind! Research! Rock on.
Best Wishes!

Comment By DBRVNH :: Posted at: 31/01/2007 20:28:02

Amended, Interestingly, the Office of Technology Assessment of the US Congress's report - on the efficacy and safety of medical technologies - that only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trials, ...I meant to CAPATLIZE ALL -
is not just on the subject matter at hand (qlink/SRT/biomed) it's on ALL procedures currently in medical practice. That's not alot of clinical controlled trials, according the the OTA report, and it seems that Q-LINK has as much or more! research and trials than the estimated average! Interesting.

Comment By DBRVNH :: Posted at: 31/01/2007 20:38:55

Adding one more document here: contains ALL the references clearly:
http://www.consumerhealthreviews.com/Articles/WhitePapers/White%0Paper.w_CV.pdf for those who really like to research!

Have Fun!

Comment By Grant Hamlin :: Posted at: 07/04/2007 10:51:54

Hi, its good to see scepticism is alive and well. My investigations into Q-link has revealed information sourced from your Powerwatch website, a report into
Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT) titled "Scientific Foundation and Summary of Biological and Clinical Studies. A White Paper. November 2001.
By Beverly Rubic. This report is available from; consumer health reviews.com
(bottom line of menu).
Featuring Double blind Placebo testing, the sixty page comprehensive report cites responses of the participants and scientific analysis on blood samples.
Now it's my turn to be the sceptic. How Alasdair contends to debunk the technology by ripping apart a Q-link and assessing it according to conventional
means ignores completely the context of the technology. Primarily, what methodology is used to assess molecular resonance technology.

As the author states; "Although the exact mechanism by which SRT interacts with the biofield is not fully understood, its very nature as a subtle energy field device requires that we focus on a field model of life rather than a conventional biochemical model in attempting to explain these results."

Hence it may be easy to discredit the new(ish) technology by applying conventional analysis.

Perhaps Alasdair does not know what he does not know.

Email: (optional)