Comments on: Patrick Holford and Q-Link: Boyd’s Galvanic Batteries with a C21 Update?

By: LeeT

LeeT — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:38:18 +0000

Ahhh, yess “charismatic and articulate”. Holford and his friends remind me of a Calvino novel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nonexistent_Knight

Also, don’t FORGET he likes rabbits:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/apr/01/lifeandhealth.healthandwellbeing

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:28:21 +0000

We should be skeptical-better- discerning- concerning bad scientific method,jumping to illegitimate conclusions,etc-but at the same time,recognize our limitations and the possibilities-sureness-that even what we yet
understand,we don’t fully understand. Not to mention-when it comes to modelling-we give sense to observations within the paradigms with which we approach it. Such paradigms themselves are not free from subjectivity.(Would that some people,such as Richard Dawkins!)would better realize this! As it respects scientific method,I think a healthy ‘discernment’,coupled with a healthy inquisitive mind that asks ‘what if?’in humility-is a far more healthy and productive approach to science than a bare skepticism.Just a thought to ponder.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:06:22 +0000

Hi chaps. No,all I’ve done is read some stuff on the internet etc on the Q-link,and see some of what has been purported to have been said by various scientists in observation of testable effects. I mean,obviously controlled experiments would be necessary,but I think it’s wise not to write it off as mere snake oil-on this basis. I find it interesting. I’ve forgotten my quantum physics and particle physics…but unless you chaps are already aware-you would see that there’s a lot of modelling to explain things-and those models throw up new questions,possibilities,anomalies that impact the model for reevaluation etc. So it is in energy physics,and always has been. We ‘start’with Newton with classical physics,then quantum theory for new conditions etc… If the people at CERN find their Higgs Boson-as yet a purely hypothetical particle that is nonetheless predicted by the current particle physics models-the model will perhaps be vindicated(for the present!). If not,things will have to be rethought. All of which is to say that there is perhaps more to energy physics in this material realm than meets the ‘eye’. The claim re the Q-link is that objects have an ‘energy field’associated with them-in the case of humans a ‘biofield’. This is what powers the Q-link externally by induction,for clarification and amplification,feedback and resonant superposition. It’s not going to have any inherent capacities. I thought ‘hmm,new age clap-trap?’ concerning ‘biofields’but perhaps not… There DO seem to be some anecdotal scientific observations concerning the beneficial impact,in various ways,on human biology amongst other things…interestingly,it’s claimed the guy who ‘discovered’some benefits to these things came from a physics background I think. He was purportedly trying to find ways to increase the efficiency of electrical systems with resonance effects,when he accidentally found them to be benefitting plant growth,or the like…my university had a human radiation effects department looking into radiation effects on the human system. I wouldn’t be suprised to find that there were some effects-in a more subtle way,as well.

By: jdc325

jdc325 — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:47:20 +0000

“subtle energies”
So subtle, they aren’t even noticeable?

Ben Goldacre’s piece on the qlink revealed this:
“in the sunshine, some of the nation’s cheekiest electronics geeks examined the QLink. We chucked probes at it, and tried to detect any “frequencies” emitted, with no joy.”

According to Richard Dawkins in his intro to John Diamond’s Snake Oil: “Alternative medicine is defined as that set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests.” I think the qlink is in the second of these categories and has never been tested as a medical device. Given that there is zero evidence that it is effective, there seems little need to wonder about the supposed mechanism. Still, when anyone has looked at the purported mechanism of action for the qlink they have found nothing – no evidence of a working circuit, no evidence of it emitting frequencies, nothing.

In keeping with the spirit of LeeT’s sign-off, I would like to say that I have always found Patrick Holford to be charismatic and articulate.

By: LeeT

LeeT — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:00:55 +0000

This really is the most amazing thing I have seen from Mr Holford.

Firstly he promotes an expensive piece of jewellery which supposedly can protect the wearer from the evils of modern life. He claims research has been done, but never clarifies what kind of research. He then suddenly stops endorsing it. Why????

Can Phil or one of Holford’s admirers please provide an explanation? If no one does so we might just get the impression ex-professor Holford is making things up as he goes along.

Still, we must make it clear he is VERY nice man.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:43:33 +0000

I’m limited in responding via mobile phone. And I’m ignorant of this Holford chap you mention. Seems a fair point you made. I’m fairly ignorant of what you’re about,too…but from your general content,tone and language etc, I get the indication you derive some part of your identity from a superior sense of your ability to objectively appraise. I’m not arguing with you! Just pointing out some information for you to objectively consider. I won’t feel defeated if you’re ultimately correct,or else victorious and vindicated!..I picked up that information myself when I was looking into it on the internet etc to try for my M.E. It’ll be evident with a quick search. Apparently golfers seem to be the sportspeople who are most involved en masse. A bit of a more subjective situation,I know-but there are others,too…and-concerning the bigger picture- I can’t resist pointing you to the ‘dose of Spurgeon’ article 3 or so down on the pyromaniacs blog-and my first comment under ‘Philip’ there. Apologies for the lack of link on account of doing this on my mobile-but if curiosity wins out it won’t matter ;) Kind regards.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:12:35 +0000

I read the rest of the article and I don't see any reason to modify what I said. I'm not endorsing it without a legitimate critical eye,but I'm just pointing out to you as someone with a physics degree that that argument 'nothing is connected'is-by itself-redundant,because the claim is that electromagnetic induction is the order of the day,as I described. The hypothesis concerning subtle energies is just that-and I don't think people count it other-but just are aware of some anomalies etc which cannot be fully accounted for in energy models in physics...As to the basis for such hypothesizing-there seem to be Imperial College and Stamford individuals-among others-that have noted positive observations. Re 'uneducated'testimonials,my point was-assuming they're not fake-are the parallel scientific observations would seem to lend support to their credibility-if they come from those who were cynical, there is less likely to be a placebo effect. And we can't just assume all these sportsmen who attest to its benefits are so subjective concerning the analysis of their performance that what they say can be written off as wishful thinking...one's critical abilities are as much impaired by a subjective cynicism and lack of information, as by a gullible naivety. Admin edit: you've got a reference to support that last couple of sentences? You also seem to be overlooking the fact that QLink is so dubious that even though Patrick Holford endorsed it and proclaimed himself impressed by the scientific support for it, he is now complaining to people who mention it because he no longer sells it and thinks that that is tantamount to a disavowal: cf the Counterknowledge link. This discussion of fundamental attribution error and Giants Shoulders is in the miniblog but seems relevant here.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:06:13 +0000

The fact that there seem to be many testimonials for health benefits etc from both those who are at least initially cynical,and from those dispassionate scientists who tell of observable,testable benefits in various cases is surely interesting,and needs looking at more closely. Of course,it helps to cut through any mystery religion new-age slants that may be given to these things such that they are then readily written off. Just a thought. Admin edit: testimonials really don't mean much in the face of a test that demonstrates that the gadget/technique does nothing/can not do what it is said to do. It's rather like therapeutic touch in that respect.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:48:57 +0000

I only read the first half of the article,so I may have overlooked something,but I understand their claims are hypothesizing concerning some observations with ‘subtle energy effects’. There are apparently some anomalies that do not fit into the energy model of just plain electromagnetic,nuclear weak and strong,gravity. Some people (I understand they include quantum physicists,materials scientists)hypothesize about there staple energies being a possible explanation for some observable benefits in (for just one application-and not the originally intended)the observable,biological realm…as to there not being a complete circuit,there doesn’t need to be,if indeed these fields exist. Induction takes care of that. The claim is that a crystal oscillates in the natural field emitted by the object(in this case a human being) which produces a current with its own field, which is clarified…and then is induced in the copper wire for amplification. There is then a resonant,clarifying feedback to the source. Or something like that!

Admin edit: read the rest of the article and you will discover that nothing is connected, so…

By: 93rd Skeptic’s Circle: A mystical reading with Master Woo « City of Skeptics

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:34:00 +0000

[...] Watch has a nice long article on the Q-Link and other woo. Modern snake oil, more of what’s coming. More stupid ideas about [...]