Re: Re: Shielding devices - What are the $20-30 helpful ones?

[Guest guest]

Myself, family and friends have had excellent results with diode products from

www.energpolarit.com

Extremely reasonable in price ... ** and I have no connection with this

company at all ... except as a customer.

Marty

bbin37 <netfarer2@...> wrote:

>

> It seems to me that all these different pendants, filters and

> neutralizers seem to work with different sets of frequencies,

> and it is just pot luck whether you find filter X happens to

> match your particular range of " good " frequencies (or, more

> seriously, makes some of the " bad " ones worse).

That's my take on them as well, Ian. The makers of these devices have

seen there is an effect from the action of something where some folk

get a good response so they sell them. Unfortunately, it seems they

either don't really know the specifics of the action and can't tailor

them because of that, or if they claim they do know it is frequently

stated in proprietary terminology and paradigms that can't be readily

tested by others in more generally understood contexts. I think a lot

of this comes from being on the cutting edge of research into subtler

energies, but some is probably marketing propaganda. And if most

customers have a positive or neutral experience with the devices in

question, there might not be enough motivation to understand the

devices further so they can be altered to individual needs. And who

wants to discuss or define accurate principles around a trade secret

so it can be studied further? Protecting the money stream from a

potential threat usually wins out over altruism here. As an possible

example, I have tried to get a reply from Unified Technologies

Management Company, makers of the Quantum Home/Pro/Byte products,

about the possibility of tailoring their products with no success.

I've also invited them to dialog on this list but I haven't seen any

response here yet. Whatever their reasons are, they haven't even

given a courtesy reply. We're on our own in experimenting with these

at this stage.

> Maybe they were all developed by testing different people.

>

> I suppose the ideal would be if someone could actually measure

> you and find out which frequencies you are susceptible to, then

> produce a treatment which was tailored to you individually. I

> think some machines CLAIM to have used this approach - but can't

> say that I have heard of it actually being successful. One attempt

> we saw was Prof Cyril 's measurement of " imprinted frequencies "

> in a hand held water bottle. This didn't help Sue, but she was

> undergoing other treatment at the time and, when she was

> re-measured, the sensitive frequencies had changed!

When I visited the EHC-D I was tested for the frequencies I was

hindered and helped by. They imprinted a couple of vials of water

with a helpful frequency and these did help clear me somewhat but it

wasn't a cure. And the helpful effect didn't last long, probably

because the frequency imprints were erased afterwards during air

travel. And these frequencies have shifted for me depending on my

health and environment.

>

> Has anyone seen any success with methods like this, or is it a pipe

> dream?

>

> Ian

The scientific research of frequency imprinting into water and some

other polar liquids like alcohol is well documented. These research

results tend to be dismissed for reasons similar to those used to

dismiss ES.

-Beau

[Guest guest]

Hello,

do you use Windows?

98 ?

XP Home ?

XP Professional ?

Sometimes they crash.

Most of the time you don't know why.

It happens mostly on times you do not expect it, and you need it the most.

But your computer is a very simple machne.

Very simple indeed.

A lot of computer nerds and whizzkids know how they work and can be handled.

Most scientists would like to compare a compter with our body.

But our body is very complicated.

Most of the engineers and physicians do not have the faintest idea waht

makes it tick.

And our body is certainly not crashproof.

On my website one can see, that I can measure a lot of frequency fields

around the body, mainly in the MHz region.

The company Brijot has constructed a video scanner, which detects everything

that does not have the body frequency of 90 GHz !

(So they detect weapons concealed under clothing)

An Australian scientist talks about photon chemistry.

An Austrian building biologist sets people on a frequency generator in order

to find frequencies they may react onto.

In the Bioreonance machines there are modules, that do send very quickly a

large number of frequencies through the body.

When they encounter a response, those frequencies may be used in the

therapy.

The scientists use for tests a fixed frequency, f.i. 900 MHz.

But the praxis is quite different.

We do have a mix of all sorts of high frequency signals, pulsed as well as

unpulsed.

And those signals are not equally in strenght.

The resulting waves may be quite different, and nobody does know how they

look like.

And they may trigger quite different reactions in our body.

With bioresonance it is known that people with metal parts in their body

should not be treated, because the metal will resonate.

We all do have*heavy metals* in our body.

They are *heavy* indeed.

I think that they resonate with all those high frequencies around us.

When you succeed in getting them out of your body, the resistance to

electrosensitivity improves.

(See my message about the ionic foot spa)

With everybody the heavy metals are stored in a different place, so the

reactions will be different to electrosmog.

And we have the matter of longitudinal waves.

I believe that they are farther reaching than normal transversal waves.

Given the fact that electrosensitive people feel very subtle signals, I

found that they also feel them at greater distances.

So the burden is twice as what one may expect.

Technicians boast always that it is impossible, because those signals are so

and so milliWatt, and those signals are regarded as weak.

They are wrong!

Some scientists speak about *biological windows.*

So the resulting waves of a bundle of signals may trigger your complaints,

when they enter such a biological window.

And this biological window may be different for each person.

So the matter is complex and complicated.

Most of the *things* that we talk about do have in common, that they work

with longitudinal waves.

Most of those companies do not know that and came to their findings one way

or the other, emperically.

Because they do not know how and why they work, they are not going to

explain anything.

They just cannot.

In their advertisements they tell a lot of mumbo-jumbo.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: Shielding devices - What are the $20-30 helpful ones?

>

>>

>> It seems to me that all these different pendants, filters and

>> neutralizers seem to work with different sets of frequencies,

>> and it is just pot luck whether you find filter X happens to

>> match your particular range of " good " frequencies (or, more

>> seriously, makes some of the " bad " ones worse).

>

> That's my take on them as well, Ian. The makers of these devices have

> seen there is an effect from the action of something where some folk

> get a good response so they sell them. Unfortunately, it seems they

> either don't really know the specifics of the action and can't tailor

> them because of that, or if they claim they do know it is frequently

> stated in proprietary terminology and paradigms that can't be readily

> tested by others in more generally understood contexts. I think a lot

> of this comes from being on the cutting edge of research into subtler

> energies, but some is probably marketing propaganda. And if most

> customers have a positive or neutral experience with the devices in

> question, there might not be enough motivation to understand the

> devices further so they can be altered to individual needs. And who

> wants to discuss or define accurate principles around a trade secret

> so it can be studied further? Protecting the money stream from a

> potential threat usually wins out over altruism here. As an possible

> example, I have tried to get a reply from Unified Technologies

> Management Company, makers of the Quantum Home/Pro/Byte products,

> about the possibility of tailoring their products with no success.

> I've also invited them to dialog on this list but I haven't seen any

> response here yet. Whatever their reasons are, they haven't even

> given a courtesy reply. We're on our own in experimenting with these

> at this stage.

>

>

>> Maybe they were all developed by testing different people.

>>

>> I suppose the ideal would be if someone could actually measure

>> you and find out which frequencies you are susceptible to, then

>> produce a treatment which was tailored to you individually. I

>> think some machines CLAIM to have used this approach - but can't

>> say that I have heard of it actually being successful. One attempt

>> we saw was Prof Cyril 's measurement of " imprinted frequencies "

>> in a hand held water bottle. This didn't help Sue, but she was

>> undergoing other treatment at the time and, when she was

>> re-measured, the sensitive frequencies had changed!

>

> When I visited the EHC-D I was tested for the frequencies I was

> hindered and helped by. They imprinted a couple of vials of water

> with a helpful frequency and these did help clear me somewhat but it

> wasn't a cure. And the helpful effect didn't last long, probably

> because the frequency imprints were erased afterwards during air

> travel. And these frequencies have shifted for me depending on my

> health and environment.

>

>>

>> Has anyone seen any success with methods like this, or is it a pipe

>> dream?

>>

>> Ian

>

> The scientific research of frequency imprinting into water and some

> other polar liquids like alcohol is well documented. These research

> results tend to be dismissed for reasons similar to those used to

> dismiss ES.

>

> -Beau

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It may be possible, that you had some results with those products, although

it may be placebo effects.

(Imagining things may also help electrosensibles)

But on their website they tell a lot of mumbo-jumbo.

They also placed two *Kirlian* images.

They obviously have never seen a real Kirlian Photography.

Because those images are certainly NOT representing a Kirlian Aura

Photography.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: Re: Shielding devices - What are the $20-30 helpful

ones?

> Myself, family and friends have had excellent results with diode products

> from www.energpolarit.com

>

> Extremely reasonable in price ... ** and I have no connection with this

> company at all ... except as a customer.

>

> Marty

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry Beau, what is the EHC-D?

Ian

_____

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of

bbin37

When I visited the EHC-D I was tested for the frequencies I was

hindered and helped by. They imprinted a couple of vials of water

with a helpful frequency and these did help clear me somewhat but it

wasn't a cure. And the helpful effect didn't last long, probably

because the frequency imprints were erased afterwards during air

travel. And these frequencies have shifted for me depending on my

health and environment.

The scientific research of frequency imprinting into water and some

other polar liquids like alcohol is well documented. These research

results tend to be dismissed for reasons similar to those used to

dismiss ES.

-Beau

[Guest guest]

In einer eMail vom 15.02.2006 20:04:03 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit schreibt

netfarer2@...:

> In , " Ian Kemp " <ianandsue.kemp@...> wrote:

> >

> >It seems to me that all these different pendants, filters and

> >neutralizers seem to work with different sets of frequencies,

> >and it is just pot luck whether you find filter X happens to

> >match your particular range of " good " frequencies (or, more

> >seriously, makes some of the " bad " ones worse).

>

>

As the inventor of one of these devices I only can agree on this idea. This

is the reason why a device that works for mobile phone frequenzies up to a

distance of 15 m, will work for the 50 Hz frequenzies and the higher frequenzies

hidden in this 50 Hz current only up to a distance of 30 cm. This also implies

that the closer to the source of elektrosmog you put such a device the

better it will help. It is a matter of resonance. So this explains also, why a

patient of mine wo was higly electrosensitive could only be helped after the

bioprotect card was fixed to the nearby mobile phone base station; wearing it on

her body has had some effect but was not sufficient.

If people suffering from ES would follow these laws of resonance, things

would be easier.

Another law of resonance is, that biological organisms seem to actively

attract the longitudinal waves, that are the real cause of the electrosmog.

These

devices do this also and as long as they are stronger, the body is protected.

So you can imagine how complex this whole business can become, if the body has

different sensitivity for different frequenzies and the device in

consideration has different resonance qualities for different frequencies. And

then with

time the sensitivity of the body may even change.

Dietrich