see below ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Hedley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:55 AM Subject: Re: Chromas and humus Was Electronic homeopathy for plants.
> Dear Glen, > What was the qualitative difference between the radionically potentised > preparations and the hand succussing? It would be hard to put it up as a > valid test if both doses were not derived from the same substance. > One batch of preps could vary very markedly from those prepared at a > different time. They were developed from the same base essence > Were the symptom pictures the same at both times? The essence used was known to develop a dramatic onesided effect in humans We had three people trial the difference The effect of the hand done one was so dramatic on one subject that they needed the antidote within minutes. The box produced one had not such effect. I may have used the box incorrectly however I did follow the instructions. AS I say I need to do more such trials before anything really conclusive. We have just got onto other things lately. > You may be right that your manually potentised preps are better than > radionically prepared preps, I am not saying better I am say 'act differently' but somehow it is important to compare apples > with apples and that it is the same parameters that are being tested. > An agronomist friend of mine claims that before you can visually see a > difference in a pasture there would have to be at least 25% difference to be > able to see it. > I have looked at the problem of chromas as a measurement indicator, however > much of the skill with this type of qualitative analysis is in the > evaluation. Different viewers will put different interpretations on the > chromas. Quality such as that one substance was better than another cannot > be ascertained without first setting the parameters that indicate quality. > Could we do it by comparison of Brix levels, and would that be an overall > comparison of quality? Certainly of effect. > The problems of how to set up an experiment so the results can be > considered valid are a biometricians nightmare. > A trial could never be considered conclusive if it was based only on one > experiment on one plant. > Maybe what is needed is the same sort of dedication shown by Lili Kolisko > or Maria Thun of trying to test for the effects of substance and forces. > that would require the financial support of those who have the most to > gain.Would the New Zealand Biodynamic Association be prepared to support you > in a long term evaluation project. They have not been so far so, no reason to believe they would in the future. They are not interested in any form of homeopathic or radionic research here. Ostriches mate. To date BD researchers - unless they come from Europe - do not rate as having any valid reason for even being members of the Assn, and definitely not to be listened too. They would rather bumble along believing the half cooked ideas of their ideologs, and recant their errors every few years, than listen to experience. So be it. NZ Demeter growers are the lowest priority for us to supply to, Strange really. Maybe the Ozzie BDA would be interested it seems you have a much livelier open minded group going on there. Who knows we maybe able to fund such a project in the near future ourselves. We have a significant research budget allocated this year. re acceptance of radionics. put the proof on paper and get the research through a official channel. I have been amazed at the doors flinging open to us since we have the Hortresearch documents on our warmth spray. We now exist. The industry was happy to loose $110 million last spring, and still not invest in a $10 bottle of our product - on the market and advertised for 5 years - to do a trial for themselves. Go figure. I have learnt my lesson. cheers Glen A
