"The results showed that the protected cells enjoyed much higher post exposure viability compared with cells which do not have the benefit of the Harmoniser. Furthermore it did not seem to matter that the water in the Harmoniser had been imploded more than a year prior to the study, or that the Harmoniser had itself been previously exposed to ambient radiation. This study therefore confirmed the results of a previous study and leads us to conclude that the device lives up to its protective claims"
What part of the above quote, which is repeated on the CIR site as an endorsement, conveys the message that "The second Harmoniser results were not very strong.."?
Furthermore, the data is misrepresented at this statement, in my opinion, in order to give this positive result for your customer. Here is the table of data quoted with this statement (as an example of the deplorable reporting standards throughout this "study"
As an example, the very first table in the summary section at the start of the report states:
Cell Numbers Viable (%) Non-Viable Total
Protected by Harmoniser 433 (72.8%) 162 595
Mu metal shielded* 384 (60.9%) 246 630
*standardised to same vol. as protected cells
1. Why was it necessary to standardise the samples to the same volume?
2. HOW was this "standardisation performed?
3. Why do the numbers, for either category, not match those presented in "Table 1. Summarised results"
Here is the raw count as per Table 1.
Cell Numbers Viable (%) Non-Viable Total
Protected by Harmoniser 500 (71.1%) 203 703
Mu metal shielded* 346 (71.2%) 140 486
* (My annotation) As stated in the first line of the Discussion section:
"An examination of the four controls (1-4) suggests that the cells least perturbed, i.e. encased in triple skinned mu-metal..."
At this point I withold my judgement on the above in anticipation of you explaining the discrepancies between the results shown and your summation of same. Certainly 71.1% compared to 71.2% does NOT support your statement,
""The results showed that the protected cells enjoyed much higher post exposure viability compared with cells which do not have the benefit of the Harmoniser."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I have said elsewhere, that we advertise this product at all is marginal to us, and of no impact on our activities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While you may claim to have no financial interest in the sale of the product, you certainly should have an interest in your "studies" being used to advertise it,
http://www.implosionresearch.com/cir1/testimonials.pdf
"The Mobile Phone Personal Harmoniser has a significantly protective effect against exposure to electromagnetic fields and radiations from mobile phones."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me that the reason for introducing the Harmoniser work was simply to brand me as a fraud, rather than as a researcher. Then later to criticise its methodology as typical of our published work.
You have yet to show us cause to think otherwise. Would you care to address the data misrepresentation in this second "experiment"?
The taske ohome message is that we do not reject anything simply because it seems counterintuitive, but giv these devices a fair trial in a scientific scenario where no one else is prepared to do so for fear of being branded a nutcase. We have no axe to grind either way re the Harmoniser or any other of the devices which pop up from time to time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the point Mr.Coghill. Your studies are NOT fair trials. My criticism so far has been on the sloppiness in your reports which misrepresent and obfuscate the results of your studies.
The unfounded conclusions of which are then quoted as endorsments of products that what you have already admitted to be no better than talismans or placebos.
I await clarification of the data, before getting properly stuck in to this report.
I fully expect you to continue to to ignore this - but don't expect me to give up.
