Detection and evaluation of weak emissions biological effects of various devices and therapists via organisms and droplet evaporation method
Various devices sold on the market as well as the so called bioenergy therapists allegedly influence biological systems and / or water. In principle, the sources of these influences are immeasurable by standard technical methods (physical or chemical) developed up-to-now. However, there are many reports about biological effects of such emissions. Since the effects have no clear biological or biophysical explanation they are usually regarded as placebo or autosuggestion. Various devices that supposedly influence human health via (ultra)weak emissions are consequently regarded as fraudulent and the bioenergy therapists as impostors. But is it true? Perhaps at least some of devices and therapists have a true impact and it should not be their fault if science does not possess knowledge about certain fields and emissions. If science lacks theoretical explanations and consequently suitable devices, it does not mean that certain phenomena do not exist. After all, we still do not know what are dark matter and dark energy, since they are known only by their gravitational effects on cosmic scale. And yet they represent more than 96 % of the whole known universe. They offer a clear evidence that we live in an immense ocean of unknown matter and energy that only weakly interacts with our known 4 % energy-matter.
After only around 400 years of scientific development of our civilization it would be just very arrogant to think we know almost everything there is to be known. In harmony with Newton's "Hypotheses non fingo" (I contrive no hypotheses) and in line with his sound nominalistic methodology (giving preference to facts not to theories) it is not unscientific to start researching possible biological effects of (ultra)weak emissions as yet inaccessible to established measuring procedures.
The goal of this research project is
- to examine if and how human organism can be used as a detecting instrument for these emissions and
- to develop and examine if such radiations can be detected via specially developed detecting systems based on water.
If (ultra)weak emissions are expected to influence human organisms, the research should first seek provable effects on organisms. To be sure that we really detect some unusual (= conventionally unexpected) effects we should try to detect and evaluate them by
- some well researched and fully conventional, even standardized, measuring means,
- to take into account standards of clinical testing and
- do an appropriate analysis of results.
After many years of experimenting we found the measuring of some physiological parameters (skin conductance (SC), EEG, EKG, EMG, breathing parameters and temperature) of real value and importance.
As to the clinical tests, we decided to follow as much as possible the next four criteria:
Since many parameters are used simultaneously for the statistical analysis, we decided to use Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (Holm, 1979). Mostly, we perform 20 individual examinations per testing of a device: 10 for real exposure (T) and 10 for the sham one (C). We test various devices as to their different alleged capabilities like protecting organisms from non-ionising (NIR) Wi-Fi or mobile phone radiation, vitalizing influence or some other expected effect. Criteria for the evaluation of a true ultra-weak radiation from the tested device should in principle be achieved through only one significant difference, owing to Holm-Bonferroni correction. However, it is our estimation that for achieving higher certainty there should be at least three such differences.
- prospectiveness (general criteria for the efficiency of the device’s activity are determined in advance);
- placebo effect ruled out (none of the testees should know whether they are exposed to the device’s influence or not, preferably they should not even know what to expect);
- double-blind manner (neither the testees, nor the assistant working with them should know whether he/she was exposed to the real device or to the control one);
- randomization (the decisions about control and real tests are made randomly).