A Drunken Madman

Or, "Moron. QLink?!?"

So as I've already reported, Sydney's Daily Telegraph has today published a questionably-motivated piece of puffery on the QLink mini, written (or more likely simply boilerplated) by 'technology reporter' Stephen Fenech - brother of QLink endorsing "athlete" Mario Fenech.

Not that I want to imply that there's anything untoward going on here, of course.

Did you read that in a sarcastic tone? Good.

So anyway, I asked Stephen Fenech, on Twitter, if he could give me some scientific peer-reviewed evidence to support his assertions

[sound of crickets]

Heloooo?? Stephen? Looks like he's hiding.

This being the case, I figured I'd take a look at the evidence presented by QLink themselves in their "scientific studies" link. Here goes.

---

The first "study" offered is "SRT™ and the effects of EMF on Human Brain Cells [Sept. 2002]".

This is a pilot study, so not a fully-blinded, well controlled, large-sample study. Already one mark against it. The discussion calls out issues with the control (page 15) and mentions that it may be due to power source. Bad control is bad. The study was also single-blind. This is another no-no. This means that the subjects were unaware of whether they had QLink or control, but the experimenters were. And the experimenters did the gathering and analysis of results.

Oh dear.

Adding to this oh dear feeling is is a line at the foot of the study which reads:


OK. Who are they? Well it turns out that Clarus are the manufacturers of QLink.

Oh dear oh dear.

Funding Bias is a well-studied effect these days. This study has small samples, poor blinding, an inconsistent control and a clear funding issue.  It also does not appear to have been peer-reviewed or published anywhere reputable. Google Scholar finds the study only on scientificcommons.org. The single-blinding alone is enough to knock this out of the "clear support for the hypothesis" running.

Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.

All told, a black mark. No points.

---

The second "paper" is entitled "Effects of Q-Link® Pendant on the Blood and Biological Terrain [Apr 2001]"

My major problem with this study is that it's a live blood analysis. This consists of an experimenter gazing into a microscope at slides of a subject's blood, and interpreting what they see.

Rather like looking into a crystal ball.

There are no details on blinding, though it claims to be double-blind. There is no detail on what the "inactive QLink" control actually entails, since as far as Ben Goldacre could make out, all QLink pendants are inactive. The attached pictures are low-detail, and I'm buggered if I can see a difference in the "live" slides. There's also no detail on how the "dried" samples were handled during drying.

The analysis is necessarily subjective and is not, in my opinion, valid in any way. There are many places in which bias could have not simply crept in but marched in wearing a kilt and playing a trombone, and this is not to mention the quack status of the technique itself. The "study" is just five pages long, of which about half is low resolution imagery.

Nil points to Dr Robert Young and QLink

---

The third study is  "Effects of Q-Link® Pendant on Skin Conductivity Changes and Stress [March 2000]"

This one is an acupuncture study. I kid you not. A methodology that's been shown to have no measurable effect beyond that of a placebo (a toothpick twisted on the skin, if you were wondering). And they're using it to... what?

Well, the PDF is graph-heavy and detail-light, but it looks like they applied a skin galvanometer to so-called "acupuncture points", then blew a hairdryer (which they call the "applied stressor") in the subjects' faces. They then compared "had a qlink" to "didn't have a qlink" and drew their conclusions. No, seriously. That's what they did. Oh, and they used an electrical muscle stimulator, but that's less hilarious.

Of course, the word "blind" does not even appear in the paper, so I can only assume that this "experiment" was unblinded, and that both experimenter and subject were aware of the presence, and presumably the purported function, of the pendant.

Big fat fail. Zero.

---

The fourth study offered is "University of Vienna Analysis of Skin Conductivity [April 2001]".

A slight digression. Do you know what an e-meter is? An e-meter is a device used by Scientology Auditors to measure reactions during auditing sessions. It is a low-sensitivity skin galvanometer.

That is, it measures skin conductivity.

Before I've even opened the 78kb PDF I'm sighing at this "study".

And on opening it, it's worse. Not even single blinding. REALLY, University of Vienna? Are you not embarrassed, as an institution, to have this nonsense out on the web?

Immediate fail. This one is discounted immediately due to the total lack of blinding.

---

Fifth "paper". "Effects of Q-Link Pendant on Human EEG Responses [April 2000]"

The PDF is just 6kb in size. No, seriously. 6Kb. And I might as well post the whole thing right here, because, well... it's funny. (links mine)

From Today's Telegraph:

The Qlink Mini employs patented Sympathetic Resonance Technology (SRT) which can maintain the strength of naturally occurring protective energy systems within our bodies.

OK, if you can't smell the bullshit already, then your nose is broken.

The product, QLink Mini, is basically a small shiny sticker which you put on your mobile phone to shield you against harmful "electromagnetic rays".

Let's just forget for a moment that those electromagnetic rays are what makes your phone work and that blocking them would make it unusable as, well, a phone, and look at the product itself, shall we?

Ben Goldacre has already taken on the QLink here. Skepdic also has a page.

It is, of course, nonsense. It contains nothing more than a small resistor [NOTE: a zero-ohm resistor!] unattached to anything. Qlink's global advertising claims research from Stanford, Penn State and Wollongong University. Interestingly, the AU distributor doesn't mention Wollongong Uni, presumably because it's too easy to check up on the empty claim when the University is just down the road.

This is just ridiculous.

What's more ridiculous, it sells for AU$48

What's more ridiculous, it comes as a pendant for $148

What's more ridiculous, there's a gold pendant version for $1598

No, seriously. Over $1500 for a $0.002 resistor on a chain. Which doesn't do anything

So this is just another sympathetic* magic product, like PowerBalance, for which ridicule should be deployed. If you've bought one, you're a sucker. If you know someone who's bought one, they're a sucker. If you see one, point and laugh.

Oh, and Stephen Fenech, your byline is on this undisguised piece of quack advertising You're a sucker and a shill and don't deserve the title "technology writer". If your byline is on this without your consent, get it removed. If you actually 'wrote' it, you're a snake oil salesman peddling bullshit.

UPDATE 1:39pm Sydney Time

So, it turns out that QLink is endorsed, presumably for a fee, by Mario Fenech. Mario Fenech is Stephen Fenech's brother.

Downesy is all over this on twitter. It also appears that Stephen himself has been defending the product on twitter, so the byline is consensual.

Basically, Stephen, you've done a very silly thing. As a technology correspondent, you should be aware that the internet knows things and the internet doesn't like it when someone is trying to pull the wool over its eyes.

UPDATE 1:54pm

QLink and Fenech Bros reported to ACCC via Scamwatch.gov.au

UPDATE 2:05pm

I would just like to mention that there IS proven technology that can block electromagnetic waves from your phone. It's called a Faraday Cage, and to use this you'd have to enclose your entire phone inside one, rendering it useless for telecommunications, as it would stop the radio signal it uses to communicate. It's also not very portable.

UPDATE 2:50pm [redacted due to stupid math on my part, and repetition of someone else's mistake] Q-LInk claims to have been working this technology for 20 years. yada yada

UPDATE 5-11, 11:39am

Letter to the Editor submitted on the telegraph website:

Regarding Stephen Fenech's thinly-disguised advertorial for QLink, Telegraph, 4-11-10

Given that Fenech's brother is a paid endorser of Q-Link, and given that Q-Link is a product with no scientific plausibility whatsoever, and given that it's been panned by actual scientists worldwide as nonsense, will we be expecting the Telegraph to have an empty desk in the technology section shortly?

Shilling a quack product in which one's brother has an interest is hardly the pinnacle of journalistic ethics now, is it?

UPDATE 11:50am

Cameron Reilly and Downesy note that Fenech has shilled for Q-Link before (8/3/2004 and 14/12/2005)

UPDATE lunchtime

reportscams@services.nsw.gov.au - emailed. QLink has a Sydney office. I'll also be forwarding to VIC authorities

UPDATE 2:35pm

Crikey awards Fenech and the Tele a Wankley Award

UPDATE 4:25pm

@HappySinger reports that the Telegraph have pulled the story. I, of course, have a copy saved which I'm sending to the press council. HappySinger has it twitpic'd here. The internet never forgets.

More coverage from Crikey

Dan's Data has coverage here and here

Tim Lambert's Deltoid has it here

YAS has it here

Coverage from The Vine

* it even uses the buzzphrase "sympathetic resonance technology". Will the quackery never end?