Pseudoscience

Pseudo-Science really gets under my skin! I've talked before about how frustrated and angry it makes me feel when I see my friends being taken in by quackery. I have so few friends here in Austin, that the subset who I respect is a very small group indeed. And I have such a hard time respecting people that fall for quackery, especially really transparent quackery.


What set my off is this device called the Q-Link. It's just a few components of shiny copper wire (WHICH AREN'T EVEN CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER), which will "reinforce your biofield" "like a tuning fork", so that harmful influences like evil EMF rays, and stress, don't disrupt it [your biofield]. Disruption of a biofield will result in sickness and low energy levels.
(note a critical claim- that such a field , which extends outside the body, is what influences your health and energy levels- NOT the other way around.)

Important points to note:

1. IT IS $87!!!!!!!!!!


2. Clarus, maker of the Q-link, also makes a $250 (!!!) portable alarm clock which is "The only electronic clock in the world that does not drain your energy while you sleep or work." (for this to be a valid point, I'm going to assume you agree with me that this is a ludicrous claim and a ludicrous price. If you don't, then we really don't even have enough common ground to talk about this.) This is not proof that the q-link is quackery, but it should raise a warning flag.


3. The Q-Link, and all the other products on their site, have this same testimonial next to the product description:
   

   “I feel this technology, which has been shown to have biological effects on the cellular level, allows us to enhance the functioning of human physiology in ways so profound as to be capable of facilitating a complete transformation of who we think we are, and what we are capable of knowing and accomplishing.”
   - Robert Teifeld, Ph.D.
   Biomedical Researcher
   

   
   That paragraph says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If you read the words, he says, "I think this makes me better". But he uses a lot of big words, and he is a Ph.D. Incidentally, if you google for Robert Tiefeld, the ONLY pages that come up are selling the Q-Link. Can you really be a respected scientist and doctor these days without having your name appear ANYwhere else on the internet? Not proof, but not a good sign, either.



4. A very important part of their claim is that this produces measurable scientific results. However, NOwhere on their site do the offer a theory as to how. They are extremely proud of their collected body of scientific research, but an examination of that research shows that NOBODY is claiming that it works through any effect science has been able to observe. The study that looks the most impressive is the top listed one, showing the Q-Link to produce a measurable improvement (whatever that means) in EEG readings. However, if you read it, they were testing the "Q-Link
   Ally", a little black box that...
   
   

   is powered by a 9V D.C. source. It is argued by the
   developer that this EMF acts as a carrier wave for subatomic ‘information’, and that this information assists in strengthening an organism’s resilience to stressors. However, there are a number of elements to the above theory that are not verifiable (some because critical details have not been made available by the developer, and others because science does not have the requisite tools at present).

   
   
   So, the inventor's only theory about how their invention works is not verifiable because they would not explain it to the researchers they commissioned to study it, and because no one themselves included can measure anything about it using any tools or devices.
   
   Let me reiterate: WITHOUT knowing how or why it works, they invented a complex electronic device that produces drastic positive health effects on any humans in a 40 ft. radius. The unlikeliness of that can NOT be overstated.
   
   The other study on their "scientific proof page" which deals with EEGs is a 1 page PDF which literally just names two guys, gives their credentials, and says they did a study which agrees with Clarus's claims. No citation, no title, no references, no methodology. Why even list this? And why make it a PDF? And, if you're willing to post something this lean on your site, why say that the study on how it makes babies more resistant to dangerous chemicals is "unavailable at this time"?



5. The other type of test they loudly proclaim is the blood test. They don't claim that their devices alters the amount or proportion of any chemicals in your blood, only that it will make it more organized. Cells laid out more prettily, with smoother edges, less clumping, etc. The only measurements are subjective opinions based on visual appeal. But an important part of the study is their claim that the "after" pictures are what "healthy blood" should "look like".
   
   So, my point: how do they know what blood is supposed to look like? If their modern fancy device is the only thing capable of restoring your blood to this healthy state, then who showed them healthy blood beforehand? See what I'm getting at? Note that they very strongly claim that ALL SORTS of things cause this unhealthy blood- not just cell phones and CRTs, but stress, and poor diet, and insufficient sleep. So it's not just from old pre-cell phone country doctors. Where did they get their baseline?



6. The marketing on what it can protect you from is all over the place. Okay, an electrical device can protect you from the harmful influence of other electrical devices. But the same device protects you from stress, which produces the same symptoms through the same mechanism? And the marketing on the practical effects is incredibly vague. It helps you sleep better, makes you 5 times better at golf, produces an immediate improvement in skill at all sports, increases the orderliness of your blood, increases self confidence, gives you better stamina, and in an amazing testimony, cured a boy of epilepsy.
   
   But, and here's what's truly amazing- a device which has THAT DRAMATIC an effect, which is that reliable, that proveable, which is over a decade old- Has not been lauded by every newspaper and TV channel on earth. If this thing has SUCH a dramatic effect on something that is SUCH a dramatic problem, why hasn't anybody reputable, or really famous, started touting it as the next great thing? I think it's a pretty safe assumption that Clarus trotted out their biggest guns for their marketing material. It's not like Tiger Woods and Stephen Hawking also swear by them, but there was no room on their front page for a quote.

So, okay, it's obvious that I'm pretty skeptical. And of course if I am, then the die-hard skeptics are too (pause for external links:)
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/qlink_if_you_wa.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/091302.html (zip down about halfway through the page, there's a picture of the q-link on the right)

But all that is a trivial aside. Okay, I think this is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. But here's my real problem: How do I maintain respect for someone who swallows this stuff without a pause? I don't insist that all of my friends believe all of and only the things I do; that would be crazy. But most of the issues I disagree with people on, I can at least see how they would believe it. But -and I want to reiterate that I do NOT mean to offend anyone- with something this stupid, how do I not think the person who fell for it is stupid too?

Or, to take it from another angle- if I can't look past the large and ridiculous looking pendant on my friend's chest, how do I explain how stupid this thing is, without calling him stupid as well?

And in another post, I'll discuss how it's good (even preferrable!) to have blind belief ("the faith of a child", "doubting Thomas") in Christianity, but dangerous to have it in anything else.