Q-Link if you want

I received an email from reader JS asking me about the QLink – a magic pendant you wear around your next to protect against Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and other things. Its makers claim it tunes your being for optimal living:

The Q-Link’s fundamental technology can be understood by imagining a tuning fork that vibrates at a certain pitch. Similarly, the Q-Link’s Sympathetic Resonant Technology™ (SRT™) is tuned to optimize the human energy system through resonance. As it interacts with your biofield, it leads to a rebalancing and restoration according to your individual needs.

According to Randi, this is “the same old crap, pseudoscience and quackery at a high price” (starting at $129).  Sure sounds like it. But what does the QLink actually do? From how the QLink works:

Scientists have long puzzled over force field phenomena that do not fit the four known forces: electromagnetic, gravity, weak and strong forces. These force field (sic) that do not fall into the classical four are sometimes labeled "subtle energies." They are called "subtle" because they cannot be observed or measured by any known instrumentation.

Hum, if they cannot be observed or measured by any known instrument, what reason do we have to suppose they even exist?

Funnily enough, I have actually tried one of these devices. About five years ago, someone bought me one of these things and insisted I wear it. It was supposed to make me feel less tired when sitting in front of a computer screen. I can honestly say I noticed no difference. In fact, I couldn’t tell if I had it on or if I had forgotten to wear it that day. Of course, an anecdote, with just one subject, means nothing. What you need is studies, right? Well QLink have ten impressive-looking studies posted to their website. Impressive-looking, until you look at them a little closer.

The QLink Studies

Two of the “studies” (# 3 and # 7) are just brief descriptions with no link to any actual study, and so cannot be evaluated at all. #7 is stated to be an ongoing study with no results listed. Study 1 is not even a study of the QLink necklace, but is a pilot study of another device from the same manufacturer. (This device is different from the QLink in that it has a 9 volt power supply.) Two of the studies are stated to be single-blind, three appear to have no blinding at all and in one the blinding is unknown. Considering the lack of scientific plausibility for this product, and the subjectivity of some of the metrics, I would suggest that only double-blind experiments would have any validity.

Of the four claimed double-blind studies, Study 6 only consists of four paragraphs. These do not give enough information to evaluate the study at all. As far as I can tell this “paper” has not been peer reviewed, published or replicated.

Study 9 appears to have been carried out by a Chiropractor on 20 patients who are undergoing Applied Kinesiology treatment: a pseudoscientific system of muscle-testing and therapy.

Study 2 purports to be double-blind study on live and dried blood microscopy, showing “significant improvements in blood morphology”. (There were 16 samples.) This experiment was carried out by Dr Robert Young, who is also author of Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain: a book that claims much modern disease is caused simply by eating foods that make our bodies too acidic – a claim not widely supported by scientists. The study does not show any improvements in any metric experienced by anyone.

Study 8 claims to be a double-blind study on 184 subjects, analyzing the effects of the QLink on anxiety. This was carried out by David Eichler, who has a PhD in “Energy Medicine” at the Holos University: a “Seminary… that amplifies the research dealing with spiritually based holistic healing”. The data are not published in enough detail to evaluate the study.

That these three studies are by testers who are known to use or support pseudoscientific procedures, does not, in and of itself, invalidate the tests. It does mean that peer review and independent replication are especially important in these cases. As far as I can tell none of these three papers have been peer reviewed, published or replicated, and until they are I suggest they are of little value in evaluating if the QLink works or not. In fact it appears that none of the ten studies have been published or replicated (except that un-blinded Study 5 replicates un-blinded Study 4 – pretty useless.)

So does the thing do anything? Well, Randi has offered the manufacturers his million dollars if they were to win his challenge. Randi notes “for some reason they haven’t responded”. Of course, if the QLink really did something it would be a snip for the manufacturers to distinguish a real QLink from a dummy. Clearly, the burden of proof is upon the makers of the QLink to show, through independent replicated studies, that it works. Until such time as there are such studies, I would suggest there is no more reason to think the QLink works than there is to believe titanium necklaces improve your sporting abilities. That is to say, no reason at all.

Comments

[TSK]

: Funnily enough, I have actually tried one of
: these devices. About five years ago, someone
: bought me one of these things and insisted I
: wear it.

How humiliating, my sincere condolences. Why didn't you tell her in your usual diplomatic tones to hit the road ?

[Rockstar]

Probably so the credulous would not accuse him of being "close-minded" for not trying it.

[BronzeDog]

Sometimes I wish I could be as undiplomatic in meatspace as I'm capable of in cyberspace. Unfortunately, propaganda-gossip straw men spread far faster by word of mouth than online, where I can post links to my actual arguments.

One thing I'd be tempted to point out: Even if I tried the device and felt better, it wouldn't mean anything. Unblinded, uncontrolled studies of infinitesimal size (1) are meaningless.

[andrew]

I just stumbled on this website. Thank the rays of starshine that...beat on our...ionic auras for that. My wife and I stumbled on a commercial for this q-link thing. We looked at each other then laughed out loud. It looked like a SNL sketch. They were so serious about it. Then I found out how much do ray me they were charging for it...wow. Can I advertise my...uh, let's see...MY SUPER STATIC SLIPPER, THAT ENCOURAGES BLOOD FLOW AND REDUCES THE EFFECTS OF GOUT. AFTER ONE HOUR OF USING THE STATIC SLIPPER, MY AUNT MILLIE (WHO HASN'T WALKED FURTHER THAN THE CAN IN 10 YEARS) WANTED TO GO OUT DANCING! ONLY $99 DOLLARS

Thanks for the laughs!

[Ralph Wheeldon]

Don't dismiss the placebo effect of this device. The human brain is capable of so many wonderful things to those who believe in something. Unfortunately some people need to spend a lot of money before they believe something will work. "That'll never work it's too cheap". I think it's a nice piece of costume jewellery for the price of a couple of good steak dinners. Also there's nothing wrong with a good conversation piece to strike up a conversation with a potential future partner. (nudge nudge wink wink - if you know what I mean )

[BronzeDog]

You completely misunderstand the placebo effect. It has nothing to do with some mystical, majikul power of positive thinking: It's coincidental recovery mixed with the psychological tricks of confirmation bias, regressive fallacy, and all that:

The placebo effect doesn't make people better. It only helps them think the glass is half full instead of half empty, even though the contents are the same.

[Ant]

"The placebo effect doesn't make people better. It only helps them think the glass is half full instead of half empty, even though the contents are the same."

Yeah, but since thought & attitude influences life MASSIVELY, it is silly of you to say that alteration of viewpoint can't make people better. I was always taught that thought creates reality, whether thru manipulation of matter, or throuhg simply thinking something and then going and acting upon it...

Placebo has plenty to do with how people think and with what attitude people approach a situation.

I believe the Q link works, that is enough for me.

I suppose you guys think all religions are wrong too? Faith factor doesn't come into play?

If we spend all our days looking for the wrong in things, and disproving what might work for many people whether it is placebo or not, then the glass is definately half empty.

How boring.

[BronzeDog]

Yeah, but since thought & attitude influences life MASSIVELY, it is silly of you to say that alteration of viewpoint can't make people better. I was always taught that thought creates reality, whether thru manipulation of matter, or throuhg simply thinking something and then going and acting upon it...

Evidence, please. Well, maybe you should first try and state it in a way that we can conduct an experiment. In my experience, subjective universes have a hard time with falsifiability.

I believe the Q link works, that is enough for me.

Faith won't get you far in a scientific conversation.

If we spend all our days looking for the wrong in things, and disproving what might work for many people whether it is placebo or not, then the glass is definately half empty.

1. Science works by trying to disprove. The closest science can get to "proving" a hypothesis to be true is to repeatedly try and fail to disprove it. Because of this process, we now have 70+ year life expectancies, cures and vaccines for lots of diseases, and, of course, the computer you're using right now. Scientists came up with lots of hypotheses, and tested them. They threw out the ones that didn't pass their appropriate tests.

2. This isn't about us trying to disprove the Q-Link. This is about Q-Link's failure to prove their convictions. They're the ones making the claims and making money off those claims. They should have conducted proper tests before marketing. Would you buy a car that's been through crash tests that demonstrate its safety, or would you rather have an untested car that makes you feel safe?

3. While you're feeling good about your half-full glass, the empty half could be eating up brain cells, or your liver, or something else you wouldn't want eaten up. Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. Maybe you'd like to show me otherwise?

4. Once again: The placebo effect doesn't "work" for anyone. It's spontaneous recovery (disease going its course, natural healing) combined with psychological tricks that help people ignore problems. Physically, it's exactly the same as doing nothing. At least with real medicine, you get real, verifiable effects PLUS spontaneous recovery PLUS those psychological tricks. Giving someone a placebo for a real problem is only giving them permission to run away from the problem and hope luck solves it.

How boring.

I'm sorry if expanding our understanding of the universe doesn't have enough explosions and partial nudity for your tastes. Some of us happen to like subtle scripts. Even moreso when something truly unexpected happens. Can you show us something unexpected, such as the Q-Link working under properly controlled and double-blinded conditions?

[Mavrik]

Well some interesting discussions here, just came across the site and thought I'd add my 10 cents.

I bought a Q Link for my wife - who suffers from severe Chronic Fatigue (M.E.) - for the last 4 years!

She is probably one of the biggest sceptics I know, as she has tried almost every medical treatment under the sun to cure her condition, with little success. So I told her very little about the Q Link but insisted she wear it for a few weeks and see how she felt.

Well the improvement in her condition has been greater than I ever could of hoped for. She now has more energy, less fatigue, better sleep and more focus.

Dismiss this in any way you please, placebo effect, lack of science to prove it, not enough figures shown in the research, price too high, people just out to make money etc. Whatever you say it will not change the fact that this little device has helped my wife get better and able to have her life back again - and at 23 she really needed her life back.

[BronzeDog]

I dismiss it as an anecdote. You aren't supposed to form conclusions based on an uncontrolled, unblinded study of one.

Without controls or blinding, we don't know anything, especially with vague evaluation criteria like "more energy," "less fatigue," "better sleep," and "better focus." How'd you measure those? Did you measure them under controlled and blinded conditions? If not, even a negative result could be rationalized into an allegedly positive one. I've seen it happen.

Whatever you say it will not change the fact that this little device has helped my wife get better and able to have her life back again - and at 23 she really needed her life back.

How do you know she is better? She might just be using it as a psychological crutch. If we were talking about a more serious problem, I'd be much more worried that you might be giving her a subconscious excuse to ignore a problem that could be getting worse.

My initial suspicion is that the whole problem might have been psychological in the first place, and the Q-link is just an easy psychological bypass.

[BronzeDog]

Additional suspicion: She might have had some sort of lifestyle change at roughly the same time which might have helped her.

Example: I tend to have more energy when my schedule forces me to wake up early. There are lots of possible factors you're not telling us anything about. There are probably lots of factors you probably aren't even aware of. Why do you think double-blind control studies of large groups are the gold standard?

[Mavrik]

Fair comment - and not at all surprising. i guess there will always be the scientists versus everyone else. But you seem to be missing the big picture, the thing worked - no matter how or why or if there is scientific evidence to back it up or even if it was only physchological.

If we had to do everything in life by scientific studies no one would leave their homes without testing the toxin levels in the air first or go for a swim without testing the pH levels in the water!

[BronzeDog]

But you seem to be missing the big picture, the thing worked - no matter how or why or if there is scientific evidence to back it up or even if it was only physchological.

You're the one missing the big picture. And my point. You're commiting the post hoc fallacy. I remember a JREF forum goer who described it quite well: He had a dog who barked at thunderstorms. Why? Apparently the dog seemed to think that it scared away the thunderstorm. It barked, and then (eventually) the storm went away.

Well, you're barking at a thunderstorm AND mocking me for suggesting that there are other explanations for why it went away. Additionally you don't seem to care that there are other explanations: You'll just keep on barking.

If we had to do everything in life by scientific studies no one would leave their homes without testing the toxin levels in the air first or go for a swim without testing the pH levels in the water!

Now you're just mixing in the absurd with a straw man.

1. It's the quacks who are the ones with the toxin scares.

2. I'm not suggesting you apply scientific studies to tiny things like swimming pool pH. I just think that a company making medical claims about a device should be able to back them up.

[Skeptico]

Mavrik:

With respect, you need to read "It">http://hokum-balderdash.blogspot.com/2006/01/it-works-because-i-tried-it-and-got.html">"It works because I tried it and got well".

[Mavrik]

Skeptico:

I have just the article as you suggested, thank you. Whilst I understand the argument I still think that the fact the treatments worked - despite the fact it was only a subconcious trigger for the body to do it's thing - is a good thing.

[Mavrik]

Bronze Dog:

It was certainly not my intention to mock you and I take on board that the reactions could of been for a completley different reason - ie. the body fixing it's self.

But what I'm asking is that should it really matter that the Q Link was simply a mental 'trigger' for the body to pull it's self together and get better? Surely if the outcome is what was intended then that is all I really care about, as to how or why it happended does not really concern me.

Can you understand my view point?

I clearly understand your view and a need for factual/scientific data to prove this occurance - which is fair enough. I'm sure some day they will prove or disprove the theory, either way it will have already done it's job for me and my wife.

Thanks for the debate - I'm off to kayak some waterfalls and test out the theory of gravity instead!

[BronzeDog]

Surely if the outcome is what was intended then that is all I really care about, as to how or why it happended does not really concern me.

That's the part of your attitude that really burns me. You openly admit you don't care about learning.

Can you understand my view point?

No. It looks defeatist and slothful.

I clearly understand your view and a need for factual/scientific data to prove this occurance - which is fair enough. I'm sure some day they will prove or disprove the theory, either way it will have already done it's job for me and my wife.

1. They should have proven it before marketing the product.

2. Since they haven't proven it, there's no reason to believe that it's done anything.

A Jewish wise old man was asked by the Moslim ruler what religion would be the true one. Raising a Christian girl the Jewish man was afraid to give an answer which would endanger his life. Instead of answering that question he told a parable ABOUT A RING to the sultan:

A long time ago there lived a man in the East who owned a ring of unimaginable value. This ring was an opal and had the power to make - who ever wore it - beloved by God and men, IF IT WAS WORN IN THIS BELIEF. When the owner of this ring was dying he ordered two duplicates, because he had 3 sons, and each one received a ring.

The sultan reminded the Jewish man for a straight answer to his question about religions. But the old wise man told him, that the truth will come out, when the real ring proves its power!

The 3 sons in the meantime are still not nice with each other, so maybe none of them believes in the real strength of the ring.

The whole story is part of a drama written by the German author Gotthold Ephraim Lessing "Nathan der Weise".

The key is : " IF THE RING IS WORN IN THIS BELIEF! " So karry your Q-link jewel around your neck and believe in its power!

[BronzeDog]

Sorry, but I have yet to see any evidence that belief affects reality, like in your little story.

There's a guy who'll pay a million dollars for such evidence.

[Ron]

Glass Half Full or Glass Half Empty - I thought about trying the Q-Link until I found out what it cost retail. I'm going to pass, but for those still feeling the need to strap one on, ebay has them for a little as $79.00 with free shipping.

Good luck

[BronzeDog]

Of course, the Q-Link is all empty. At least that's the null hypothesis I'm sticking with until I see evidence to the contrary. No, testimonials don't count. If you don't know why, you need to browse through the Skeptic's Dictionary or something.

If you do try the Q-Link, don't trust in your objectivity: There are lots of ways people fool themselves, and it's hubris to think you're immune.

[Katya]

I have two points, as a newcomer: Do you believe that something is necessarily untrue just because it is unproved? With every new discovery, someone's beliefs, including skepics', tend to be disproved (Copernicus, famously). I respect skepticism as long as it includes opnenness to possibility. I guess with the offer of the reward, you are encouraging this idea. Your written description at top is very good, I think. The only thing is, and this is point # 2, maybe word-of-mouth popularity (as opposed to advertising alone) lends a bit of credence, though admittedly not proof. Wouldn't people tell each other if it's a scam? This is the only skeptical site I found, by the way! Maybe there's something to it - I just hope the studies get done, just as I hope we can find out definitively about string theory and the unified filed and telepathy, etc. Good luck!

[BronzeDog]

Do you believe that something is necessarily untrue just because it is unproved?

No, we just believe it's unproven. I wouldn't bet money, much less my health on something unproven.

With every new discovery, someone's beliefs, including skepics', tend to be disproved

Yup. That's how science works.

I respect skepticism as long as it includes opnenness to possibility.

Genuine skepticism is open-minded to evidence, like I am.

...point # 2, maybe word-of-mouth popularity (as opposed to advertising alone) lends a bit of credence, though admittedly not proof.

And often, popularity and common belief are wrong. That might be a starting point in deciding what to investigate, but I prefer the result of the investigation over fallable public belief.

Wouldn't people tell each other if it's a scam?

The problem is that humans easily fool themselves with the placebo effect, the regressive fallacy, yadda, yadda. Another problem is that people don't want to appear foolish: It's often hard to admit you've been duped.

Maybe there's something to it - I just hope the studies get done, just as I hope we can find out definitively about string theory and the unified filed and telepathy, etc. Good luck!

Of course, I think a company should perform appropriate studies before it begins marketing, especially with medical claims. But if someone studies Q-Link and finds that it works, it'd be great. Same for string theory, telepathy, and so forth. The universe is already quite nifty, and those things would help contribute.

But, as I've once said, there is no correlation between niftiness and plausibility.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Katya

Re: Do you believe that something is necessarily untrue just because it is unproved?

No. In fact, nothing is really “proven” – it’s just that some things are backed by enormous amounts of evidence, while some are backed by none.

The thing is, you have to have a reason to suppose something is true, and with this Q-Link I don’t see any reason to suppose it works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, so it is up to the makers of the Q-link to provide evidence it works. As far as I can see, they haven’t.

Read The appeal to “science doesn’t know everything” for more on this.

Re: With every new discovery, someone's beliefs, including skepics', tend to be disproved (Copernicus, famously).

True, but this is an appeal to “science was wrong before”. It does not follow that science should not be applied to evaluate claims, or that unscientific claims are likely to be true.

Re: I respect skepticism as long as it includes opnenness to possibility.

Agreed. But remember that you also have to be open to the possibility that the thing is not true. If you are not open to that, you would be closed-minded. Please read the appeal to be open-minded for more on this.

Re: I guess with the offer of the reward, you are encouraging this idea. Your written description at top is very good, I think. The only thing is, and this is point # 2, maybe word-of-mouth popularity (as opposed to advertising alone) lends a bit of credence, though admittedly not proof.

It’s what we call anecdotes. They’re unreliable because people easily fool themselves – that’s why we need double-blind tests to tell if new therapies work or not.

Re: Wouldn't people tell each other if it's a scam?

Not if they had been fooled into thinking it works when it doesn’t.

Re: This is the only skeptical site I found, by the way! Maybe there's something to it - I just hope the studies get done

Nothing’s stopping the manufacturers from implementing a proper test. Why do you think it is that they don’t?

[Rockstar Ryan]

Do you believe that something is necessarily untrue just because it is unproved?

My take on this goes something like this:

Pretend someone believes the Q thingy works just because it's not been proven wrong. By that logic, you also have to believe that magic gnomes live in my ass and deposit dollar bills in my pocket. Why? Because it hasn't been proven wrong.

The point? Some people who believe in this Q thingy would scoff at my ass gnomes. Why not? They have the same amount of evidence! If you want anecdotes, there are hundreds of happy ass gnome customers I can line up.

[Donna Haugen]

Hi,

I bought the Qlink for my niece 15,who sits on the computer everyday for hours, she would get bad headaches, since wearing the Q, she hasn't had one headache and won't take it off.

I had mine on in the ocean, and I have severe montion sickness, forgetting I had the Q on, we were caught for 4 hours in 10' seas, I never got sick! I realized it must be the Q and now I wear it when I fly, float, etc. and it works. Also, works for my daughter and husband for motion sickness, I don't know what that's about, but?

[BronzeDog]

Placebo effect, and possibly dozens of other possible alternate causes. That's why double-blind control studies exist: To filter out those alternate causes.