Mostly true, although I’ll point out that some toxic substances like lead do accumulate in the body.
That said, even if it wasn’t all pseudoscientific gibberish, using some kind of field to rip heavy metals or any other “toxin” out of the body sounds like the worst way to remove them I can imagine. Being perforated with millions of tiny holes isn’t likely to improve somebody’s health.
I remember a Niven story where, in one scene, a character stepped into a teleportation booth (trusting it to take him somewhere safe and survivable) and the booth did its thing, but he was still right there, and then he started feeling young again because the booth had somehow teleported all the age-accumulated cruft out of his body and it was no longer a drag on him.
So, this BS is Niven’s fault.
Not really. His worked.
Scalar in that use means scaling factor, i.e. mathematical adjustment to a value.
Scalar does mean something in science. For measurements they are counterpoints to vectors. Vectors are directional quantities like Velocity. Scalars are directionless like mass.
However, if referring to energy fields and mystical health treatments, it’s a bunch of gibberish.
It might help you with your humor.
Someone told me about this, and i started to google. I came across this forum, then lots of claims/testimonials, and this, which is intriguing.
One pdf from CIA site and one report in a neurology journal.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000500240008-9
Well, that’s. . . interesting. If you read the longer paper (which is still only four pages) it appears the principal effect of the scalar waves is to stimulate the uptake of noradrenaline (aka norepinephrine) into cells. And by the way, the experiment was on cells in a petri dish, not in a human body. And the length of exposure was 30 minutes.
I am not a biochemist but I believe if the cells take in adrenaline, they’re going to be stimulated whether you using scalar waves or not. You could also scare the hell out of someone and get pretty much the same effect.
Cite: the effects of stimulated adrenaline production on Mr. Chekhov and Captain Kirk in Star Trek, Season 2, Episode 12, The Deadly Years.
It’s an odd paper, not peer reviewed, and undated. I see that a paper much like it was published by another set of authors in the International Journal of Applied Research (IJAR) - also undated. IJAR is listed as a predatory journal here. Wiki:
Predatory publishing, also write-only publishing [1][2] or deceptive publishing,[3] is an exploitative academic publishing business model, where the journal or publisher prioritizes self-interest at the expense of scholarship. It is characterized by misleading information, deviates from the standard peer review process, is highly non-transparent, and often utilizes aggressive solicitation practices.[4]
The experimental design appeared to consist of buying a so-called Tesla Watch from the ELF Cocoon International and allegedly conducting tests on it in an unknown laboratory. I see that the author of the paper located on the CIA website, Dr Glen Rein, appears to have a Linked In profile. He appears to have eclectic and somewhat vague interests:
Consulting in biomedical research and alternative medicine
Lecturing at international conferences.
Original research in water science, energy medicine and consciousness science
I’m seeing a lot of red flags and you-tube videos.
Wasn’t that one of the characters in “Buckaroo Banzai”?
And according to his LinkedIn profile before his “Original out-of-box research in energy medicine and mind-brain interactions” he was the Sr. Principle (sic) Scientist/Director at Estee Lauder.
Dude, if you’re going to list working for a cosmetics company in the middle of all your incredible research, at least spell your title correctly.
He is a scientist, goddammit. He only uses language for the purpose of describing his research and for occasional interactions with those pesky human things. Grammatical accuracy is for Liberal Arts professors who wear jackets with suede elbow patches and no tape on the bridge of their glasses.
It says a lot about his market that he thinks that having Estee Lauder as a keynote of his CV is impressive rather than damning.
Well, it does have the advantage of being the one part that I’d actually believe.
Maybe…if he said he sold it door-to-door.
To be fair, the 2012 article in the Journal of Neurology Research seems to be a little better. It’s a case study of an autistic toddler with a history of seizures. Sitting her in front of a light show (aka scalar therapy) appears to have mitigated her symptoms. So we have 1 example of a success, written up by physicians in schools of alternative medicine.
I am neither a physician nor a medical scientist. I don’t find the story implausible on its face, though I’m skeptical of the purported causal mechanism:
The mitigation of seizure disorder through the use of the EES may be due to its apparent effect on neuronal function or through its effect on blood circulation or other cellular effects. The in vitro finding of the effect of scalar fields on oradrenaline uptake could explain a change in seizure threshold, for example. These mechanisms along with other possible mechanisms should be tested because of their potential for treatment in seizures and other related diseases.
Anyway, the authors note that, “It remains to be seen if scalar field therapy will achieve similar outcomes in other children and whether the effect is long-standing.” The study lasted 60 days as far as I can tell. I would be interested in a follow up interview with the patient’s family, conducted by someone with a frame of mind more attunded to banal explanations.
Bumping this one for a semi-serious question.
What would happen if I started marketing a piece of “add-on” technology that claimed to improve the operation of the OP device? Lets say it takes the output of the device and “aligns” it to improve and increase the effect(s) stated by the original device? Can the inventor of the original device sue me? On what grounds? I could claim that I’m not stealing his device any more than a custom tire maker is infringing on General Motors. Would he have to show how his device worked in a court of law in order to stop me from “stealing” his invention?
Depends on what you mean by “add-on”. If it was a separate device you sold to their existing customers, claiming that it “enhanced” the performance of the device, I think you’d be okay. You’re not using their technology yourself, and not costing them any sales, since the customers would need to have bought their device first.
If you tired to market your add-on with a copy of their device sold as a package, then you might get sued for infringement.
Is the intent to make them prove their claims?
You could make your own device that looks different, but you claim it does the same thing only better. Then get caught up in the legal confrontation of who has to prove what about who’s claims.
Patent infringement? How? My device is completely different.
Stolen technology? Prove it.
False claims about performance? As measured how?
But it could be that claimng yours is better is a claim you have to justify.
Well, lets say that my device only works as an attachment of the other device and we state that it works on the same principle as the original device. Does the other guy have grounds to sue? Does he have to explain his devices operating principle?
That would depend on how broadly their patent claims were written. If the patent examiner had trouble finding similar systems, the claims could be quite broad, and encompass many possible ways of doing the thing they’re saying it does.
In such a case, you’d be best off to argue that their patent is invalid because it can’t produce the result they claim it does. The patent would be invalid for lack of utility. They’d have to show some evidence that it does work to defend the patent.
Of course, this puts you in the position of claiming your device is also crap, but maybe that’s what you wanted to do all along?