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:
This research was funded by Clarus Products International, LLC, San Rafael, CA, USA
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)
EMF, EEG Brainwaves and the QLink Pendant
Dr William Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University and Dr. Norman Shealy, Holos Institute
of Health, Founder American Holistic Medical Association and Board Certified Neurosurgeon,
conducted a joint scientific study to explore the effects of EMF on human brain waves (EEGs). It
is clear that people have different tolerance levels to EMF. With this in mind, this EEG study was
conducted to interpret the effects of EMF on humans and to determine the potential benefits of
the QLink Pendant in aiding people to resist EMF. This double blind study involved 30 subjects
and was conducted over the course of one year.
Conclusions
"This research showed significant indication of the QLink Pendant achieving a reduction of the
effect of EMF on changes to brain wave patterns. The QLink has shown a capability to help
prevent or diminish anomalous electrical activity in the brain caused by EMF sensitivity.
Prior to these tests using the QLink, there had been no known approach for individuals that
allowed them to resist the effects of EMF on brain functions. These tests show the QLink's
capability for helping to regulate these effects."
These conclusions are congruent with the experiences of QLink users, who report enhanced
mental performance, including increased ability to think and concentrate. The objective facts and
conclusions of this study, as well as the subjective experiences of QLink users, indicate the
QLink's ability to strengthen resilience and resistance to an electromagnetic (EMF) stressor on
brain functions.
No, seriously. That's *it*.
That's all. No methods, no discussion, no statistical analysis,
just a bald assertion from two "holistic" doctors.
Seriously, this one gets minus points from the science panel.
Paper number six. "
Application of Results Conducted (at Bart Cummings and John Morish Stables) to the Horse Racing Industry"
No date next to this one on the site, though it seems to have been carried out in 2001. Again, this is live blood analysis, the scrying of the quackery world, and the word "blind" appears only in a reference to a Tiller study. Tiller you may remember from the "paper" above.
Poor QLink. Still can't get a hit.
Paper seven: "
Effects of Q-Link ClearWave on Anxiety Levels within the Classroom [June 2001]"
Another "
Holos University" study, and it's tempting just to discount the study from that point onwards, but let's be good and soldier on. Again we have a mention of active vs. inactive QLinks without any detail on what actually differs between the two. Since there's no described mechanism, how can anyone possibly know what's active or inactive? The results were gathered via subject survey. Not a great objective measure, but perhaps about as valid as it can get given the shaky foundations of the study itself. There's no real detail on the blinding, which states that subjects only used the devices when in the classroom. How were the devices handled outside these times? We're not told. How were they monitored when in the possession of the kids? We're not told.
The study's results differ between "trait" and "state" scores, once being significant, the other not being so, though both control and QLink groups experienced a decrease in scores (1.9 and 3.0 averages respectively in a scale that ranges in score from 20 to 60). The numbers are a bit odd, with a very big disparity between the confidence levels of the two types, and as the experimenters themselves note:
Do such decreases have a meaningful impact on the student’s well being (social validity) and, if so, in which
dimensions (academic, interpersonal, emotional, biological…)?
Probably not.
Paper eight, and we're nearing the end, folks: "
Effects of Q-Link® Pendant on Muscle Weakness and other Chronic Symptoms Attributed to EMF exposures [May 1998] #1"
OK, let's get started and...
oh fucking hell, what, really?
A study by a
chiropractor using
Applied Kinesiology as the method of data-gathering?
Fucking seriously?
No, that's what it is. An unblinded, subjectively-measured, 20-patient case study on a non-existent condition (
EMF sensitivity) conducted, again, with a "control" of no known specification by a practitioner of a dubious and potentially dangerous form of so-called energy medicine.
The word "blind" does not appear in the study, and the endpoints were patient self-reports.
This is the worst failure yet. MINUS two points.
And oh, what the hell. The last "study": "Effects of Q-Link Pendant on Muscle Weakness Patterns in the body [August 1997]"
An 11kb PDF,. again outlining in hardly any detail yet another study using Applied Kinesiology as a methodology, conducted by another chiropractor and gabbling about "acupuncture imbalances".
I've fallen through the rabbit hole and woken up in fucking Narnia. Minus ten for repeating the previous absurdity.
So there we go. Nine slabs o'bullshit. Minus thirteen points on the "is this even valid" scale.
None of these studies can be rightfully regarded as either strong, valid or positive evidence for the efficacy of QLink, though that won't stop the distributors touting them as scientific support.
So, I've reported them to the ACCC via
http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/
Others have reported Fenech to his own editors, rival newspapers and Media Watch for gross idiocy in trying this on while the internet was awake.
Let's see where that all ends up, shall we?
[update:
Chrys Stevenson has added
an analysis at Gladly The Cross-eyed Bear
]
posted @ Thursday, November 4, 2010 6:18 PM