RE:Re: Follow-up - SOC Entry Effects

[Guest guest]

Thanks Dr. Kohler. I do not think your suggested experimental design

would change the results. In my case, I did the evaluations without

doing any testing, only calibration between assessments.

One reason I do not think there would be a difference is that in my

case, looking at the Proton Pressure value for myself, I had 38

straight sessions with proton pressure above 82. With the change in

SOC, my Proton Pressure yielded a 65. That is a statistically

significant change. Resistance ranged from 40-72 over the 38

sessions, and is now 84. Resonant Frequencies were 10,000-17,000 and

moved to around 100 and over 20,000 by the SOC changes. I have also

looked at other clients where I had past results, changed their SOC

values and saw results beyond that expected from natural variation. I

also did some subspace testing with a few clients that I was concerned

with and saw significant change.

Your recommended design also presents the difficulty of mitigating the

through-time effects when waiting over a three-day period. A

statistical control chart could be used in this case. In my design I

also repeated the study for some specific SOC entries to watch for

" testing " changes, which I did not see, but that seems like one way to

control for the testing effect. I think a repeated measures design is

probably best to evaluate this.

So, I have still concluded that the VARHOPE values have a large

contribution from the SOC entries. At this time, I do not have any

way to interpret them and consider them meaningless for now, and am

hoping someone will give some insight.

What I would really like to know is what algorithms are being used to

generate the VARHOPE numbers? I do not think it is just the SOC

score, but the values within the SOC panel. I know someone must know

this.

If you have some thoughts into what this means, I would love to hear them.

Regards,

> It would be better not to conclude anything until you have run the same

> person in series with recalibration three days apart for each SOC

> condition you wish to compare. Then after you have done this with about

> thirty people, and you partial out the treatment effects that occur with

> calibration, then the data will speak to your questions. The

results you

> report here do not mean what you think they mean. WGK

>

> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:02:06 -0000 " mvpetrovich " <qx@m...>

> writes:

>

>

> In my previous posts I discussed the problem with SOC inflation of

> reactivity scores in nutritional and toxicity measures.

>

> I ran some tests today looking at the VARHOPE panel. I ran several

> combinations of SOC scores by exiting the program, entering new names

> and SOC entries, and recalibrating. What I found was quite

> disturbing. I was not prepared for the SOC numbers to influence the

> VARHOPE scores.

>

> Here are some examples:

> 1) SOC=99 using 10 for responsibility, and 40 for weight, modifying an

> existing record.

> V,O,R,H,O,P,E,PROT/ELEC, RES FREQ

> 94,85,95,71,82,64/70,107

>

> 2) Using original SOC entries with an SOC=30.

> 74,94,74,95,70,88/52,17126

>

> 3) No SOC entries, using only the 10 for responsibility, SOC=1.

> 53,94,61,56,68,66,71,20907

>

> 4) New entry, 10 for responsibility, 50 for weight, SOC=101

> 89,94,49,84,68,68/64,103

>

> 5) Repeat Trial #1

> 97,77,74,76,86,72/60,100

>

> 6) Repeat Trial #2

> 75,73,56,91,69,86/51,10190

>

> One of the questions that was answered is why some people have very

> high proton pressure values (above 8). It seems this is simply a

> function of SOC entries. The other problem I found was low resistance

> readings for some SOC entries, with the problem eliminated by changing

> the SOC. And lastly, there is a dramatic effect on the Resonant

> Frequency, going from around 100, to over 10,000.

>

> I was somewhat depressed after looking at these differences. I was

> originally giving some value to these VARHOPE numbers, but must now

> conclude they have no meaning. I had assumed that the VARHOPE

> measurements were simply electrical measures established during

> calibration. Now, I must conclude that they are predominately

> measures derived from the SOC entries.

>

> I understand that there is equipment out there that does not have this

> problem, and I might consider that in the future, but in the meantime,

> I hope this gets addressed in the Clasp software, and in the future,

> at least give us the option to ignore the SOC.

>

> Regards,

>

[Guest guest]

HMMMM....

Well, I find that not changing the SOC, (unless there has been some big shift in habits)

still gives me different readings in the VARHOPE...

I do not find the readings stay the same and sometimes they are very different from the last score

Plus all the other programs are right on target with where the client is that day...

I have a lot of TRUST for the process because of my first personal experience..I have never questioned the work because it is so effective for myself and my clients.

And, I do not have much doubt about my ability to join consciousness with my client or the ability of the software to read the energy...

Do I think this is a perfect program...no

And, it is very effective as is:)

I do wish it were Mac compatible!)

Blessings,

Lela

Thanks Dr. Kohler. I do not think your suggested experimental design

would change the results. In my case, I did the evaluations without

doing any testing, only calibration between assessments.

One reason I do not think there would be a difference is that in my

case, looking at the Proton Pressure value for myself, I had 38

straight sessions with proton pressure above 82. With the change in

SOC, my Proton Pressure yielded a 65. That is a statistically

significant change. Resistance ranged from 40-72 over the 38

sessions, and is now 84. Resonant Frequencies were 10,000-17,000 and

moved to around 100 and over 20,000 by the SOC changes. I have also

looked at other clients where I had past results, changed their SOC

values and saw results beyond that expected from natural variation. I

also did some subspace testing with a few clients that I was concerned

with and saw significant change.

Your recommended design also presents the difficulty of mitigating the

through-time effects when waiting over a three-day period. A

statistical control chart could be used in this case. In my design I

also repeated the study for some specific SOC entries to watch for

" testing " changes, which I did not see, but that seems like one way to

control for the testing effect. I think a repeated measures design is

probably best to evaluate this.

So, I have still concluded that the VARHOPE values have a large

contribution from the SOC entries. At this time, I do not have any

way to interpret them and consider them meaningless for now, and am

hoping someone will give some insight.

What I would really like to know is what algorithms are being used to

generate the VARHOPE numbers? I do not think it is just the SOC

score, but the values within the SOC panel. I know someone must know

this.

If you have some thoughts into what this means, I would love to hear them.

Regards,

> It would be better not to conclude anything until you have run the same

> person in series with recalibration three days apart for each SOC

> condition you wish to compare. Then after you have done this with about

> thirty people, and you partial out the treatment effects that occur with

> calibration, then the data will speak to your questions. The

results you

> report here do not mean what you think they mean. WGK

>

> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:02:06 -0000 " mvpetrovich " <qx@m...>

> writes:

>

>

> In my previous posts I discussed the problem with SOC inflation of

> reactivity scores in nutritional and toxicity measures.

>

> I ran some tests today looking at the VARHOPE panel. I ran several

> combinations of SOC scores by exiting the program, entering new names

> and SOC entries, and recalibrating. What I found was quite

> disturbing. I was not prepared for the SOC numbers to influence the

> VARHOPE scores.

>

> Here are some examples:

> 1) SOC=99 using 10 for responsibility, and 40 for weight, modifying an

> existing record.

> V,O,R,H,O,P,E,PROT/ELEC, RES FREQ

> 94,85,95,71,82,64/70,107

>

> 2) Using original SOC entries with an SOC=30.

> 74,94,74,95,70,88/52,17126

>

> 3) No SOC entries, using only the 10 for responsibility, SOC=1.

> 53,94,61,56,68,66,71,20907

>

> 4) New entry, 10 for responsibility, 50 for weight, SOC=101

> 89,94,49,84,68,68/64,103

>

> 5) Repeat Trial #1

> 97,77,74,76,86,72/60,100

>

> 6) Repeat Trial #2

> 75,73,56,91,69,86/51,10190

>

> One of the questions that was answered is why some people have very

> high proton pressure values (above 8). It seems this is simply a

> function of SOC entries. The other problem I found was low resistance

> readings for some SOC entries, with the problem eliminated by changing

> the SOC. And lastly, there is a dramatic effect on the Resonant

> Frequency, going from around 100, to over 10,000.

>

> I was somewhat depressed after looking at these differences. I was

> originally giving some value to these VARHOPE numbers, but must now

> conclude they have no meaning. I had assumed that the VARHOPE

> measurements were simply electrical measures established during

> calibration. Now, I must conclude that they are predominately

> measures derived from the SOC entries.

>

> I understand that there is equipment out there that does not have this

> problem, and I might consider that in the future, but in the meantime,

> I hope this gets addressed in the Clasp software, and in the future,

> at least give us the option to ignore the SOC.

>

> Regards,

>

.............................................

[Guest guest]

i realized the factt that the soc scores have an incredible effect and no extra studies were needed.or expiremental designs. I had a crack cocaine addict and put the numbers in.. that he was using drugs so many times per day...etc. he had numbers in the 5 and 6oos and 3 or 400 items in red. the next time in.. he wanted to be tested without putting any info in in regards to drug use. his scores were in the 170 range. with around 50 items in red.

>From: "mvpetrovich" <qx@...>

>Reply-qxci-english

>qxci-english

>Subject: RE:Re: Follow-up - SOC Entry Effects

>Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:10:07 -0000

>

>

>

>Thanks Dr. Kohler. I do not think your suggested experimental design

>would change the results. In my case, I did the evaluations without

>doing any testing, only calibration between assessments.

>

>One reason I do not think there would be a difference is that in my

>case, looking at the Proton Pressure value for myself, I had 38

>straight sessions with proton pressure above 82. With the change in

>SOC, my Proton Pressure yielded a 65. That is a statistically

>significant change. Resistance ranged from 40-72 over the 38

>sessions, and is now 84. Resonant Frequencies were 10,000-17,000 and

>moved to around 100 and over 20,000 by the SOC changes. I have also

>looked at other clients where I had past results, changed their SOC

>values and saw results beyond that expected from natural variation. I

>also did some subspace testing with a few clients that I was concerned

>with and saw significant change.

>

>Your recommended design also presents the difficulty of mitigating the

>through-time effects when waiting over a three-day period. A

>statistical control chart could be used in this case. In my design I

>also repeated the study for some specific SOC entries to watch for

>"testing" changes, which I did not see, but that seems like one way to

>control for the testing effect. I think a repeated measures design is

>probably best to evaluate this.

>

>So, I have still concluded that the VARHOPE values have a large

>contribution from the SOC entries. At this time, I do not have any

>way to interpret them and consider them meaningless for now, and am

>hoping someone will give some insight.

>

>What I would really like to know is what algorithms are being used to

>generate the VARHOPE numbers? I do not think it is just the SOC

>score, but the values within the SOC panel. I know someone must know

>this.

>

>If you have some thoughts into what this means, I would love to hear them.

>

>Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

> > It would be better not to conclude anything until you have run the same

> > person in series with recalibration three days apart for each SOC

> > condition you wish to compare. Then after you have done this with about

> > thirty people, and you partial out the treatment effects that occur with

> > calibration, then the data will speak to your questions. The

>results you

> > report here do not mean what you think they mean. WGK

> >

> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:02:06 -0000 "mvpetrovich" <qx@m...>

> > writes:

> >

> >

> > In my previous posts I discussed the problem with SOC inflation of

> > reactivity scores in nutritional and toxicity measures.

> >

> > I ran some tests today looking at the VARHOPE panel. I ran several

> > combinations of SOC scores by exiting the program, entering new names

> > and SOC entries, and recalibrating. What I found was quite

> > disturbing. I was not prepared for the SOC numbers to influence the

> > VARHOPE scores.

> >

> > Here are some examples:

> > 1) SOC=99 using 10 for responsibility, and 40 for weight, modifying an

> > existing record.

> > V,O,R,H,O,P,E,PROT/ELEC, RES FREQ

> > 94,85,95,71,82,64/70,107

> >

> > 2) Using original SOC entries with an SOC=30.

> > 74,94,74,95,70,88/52,17126

> >

> > 3) No SOC entries, using only the 10 for responsibility, SOC=1.

> > 53,94,61,56,68,66,71,20907

> >

> > 4) New entry, 10 for responsibility, 50 for weight, SOC=101

> > 89,94,49,84,68,68/64,103

> >

> > 5) Repeat Trial #1

> > 97,77,74,76,86,72/60,100

> >

> > 6) Repeat Trial #2

> > 75,73,56,91,69,86/51,10190

> >

> > One of the questions that was answered is why some people have very

> > high proton pressure values (above 8). It seems this is simply a

> > function of SOC entries. The other problem I found was low resistance

> > readings for some SOC entries, with the problem eliminated by changing

> > the SOC. And lastly, there is a dramatic effect on the Resonant

> > Frequency, going from around 100, to over 10,000.

> >

> > I was somewhat depressed after looking at these differences. I was

> > originally giving some value to these VARHOPE numbers, but must now

> > conclude they have no meaning. I had assumed that the VARHOPE

> > measurements were simply electrical measures established during

> > calibration. Now, I must conclude that they are predominately

> > measures derived from the SOC entries.

> >

> > I understand that there is equipment out there that does not have this

> > problem, and I might consider that in the future, but in the meantime,

> > I hope this gets addressed in the Clasp software, and in the future,

> > at least give us the option to ignore the SOC.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

hey you people, why not contact QX Ltd. and ask the developer to answer your ?????????

RE:Re: Follow-up - SOC Entry Effects >Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:10:07 -0000 > > > >Thanks Dr. Kohler. I do not think your suggested experimental design >would change the results. In my case, I did the evaluations without >doing any testing, only calibration between assessments. > >One reason I do not think there would be a difference is that in my >case, looking at the Proton Pressure value for myself, I had 38 >straight sessions with proton pressure above 82. With the change in >SOC, my Proton Pressure yielded a 65. That is a statistically >significant change. Resistance ranged from 40-72 over the 38 >sessions, and is now 84. Resonant Frequencies were 10,000-17,000 and >moved to around 100 and over 20,000 by the SOC changes. I have also >looked at other clients where I had past results, changed their SOC >values and saw results beyond that expected from natural variation. I >also did some subspace testing with a few clients that I was concerned >with and saw significant change. > >Your recommended design also presents the difficulty of mitigating the >through-time effects when waiting over a three-day period. A >statistical control chart could be used in this case. In my design I >also repeated the study for some specific SOC entries to watch for >"testing" changes, which I did not see, but that seems like one way to >control for the testing effect. I think a repeated measures design is >probably best to evaluate this. > >So, I have still concluded that the VARHOPE values have a large >contribution from the SOC entries. At this time, I do not have any >way to interpret them and consider them meaningless for now, and am >hoping someone will give some insight. > >What I would really like to know is what algorithms are being used to >generate the VARHOPE numbers? I do not think it is just the SOC >score, but the values within the SOC panel. I know someone must know >this. > >If you have some thoughts into what this means, I would love to hear them. > >Regards, > > > > > > > It would be better not to conclude anything until you have run the same > > person in series with recalibration three days apart for each SOC > > condition you wish to compare. Then after you have done this with about > > thirty people, and you partial out the treatment effects that occur with > > calibration, then the data will speak to your questions. The >results you > > report here do not mean what you think they mean. WGK > > > > On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:02:06 -0000 "mvpetrovich" <qx@m...> > > writes: > > > > > > In my previous posts I discussed the problem with SOC inflation of > > reactivity scores in nutritional and toxicity measures. > > > > I ran some tests today looking at the VARHOPE panel. I ran several > > combinations of SOC scores by exiting the program, entering new names > > and SOC entries, and recalibrating. What I found was quite > > disturbing. I was not prepared for the SOC numbers to influence the > > VARHOPE scores. > > > > Here are some examples: > > 1) SOC=99 using 10 for responsibility, and 40 for weight, modifying an > > existing record. > > V,O,R,H,O,P,E,PROT/ELEC, RES FREQ > > 94,85,95,71,82,64/70,107 > > > > 2) Using original SOC entries with an SOC=30. > > 74,94,74,95,70,88/52,17126 > > > > 3) No SOC entries, using only the 10 for responsibility, SOC=1. > > 53,94,61,56,68,66,71,20907 > > > > 4) New entry, 10 for responsibility, 50 for weight, SOC=101 > > 89,94,49,84,68,68/64,103 > > > > 5) Repeat Trial #1 > > 97,77,74,76,86,72/60,100 > > > > 6) Repeat Trial #2 > > 75,73,56,91,69,86/51,10190 > > > > One of the questions that was answered is why some people have very > > high proton pressure values (above 8). It seems this is simply a > > function of SOC entries. The other problem I found was low resistance > > readings for some SOC entries, with the problem eliminated by changing > > the SOC. And lastly, there is a dramatic effect on the Resonant > > Frequency, going from around 100, to over 10,000. > > > > I was somewhat depressed after looking at these differences. I was > > originally giving some value to these VARHOPE numbers, but must now > > conclude they have no meaning. I had assumed that the VARHOPE > > measurements were simply electrical measures established during > > calibration. Now, I must conclude that they are predominately > > measures derived from the SOC entries. > > > > I understand that there is equipment out there that does not have this > > problem, and I might consider that in the future, but in the meantime, > > I hope this gets addressed in the Clasp software, and in the future, > > at least give us the option to ignore the SOC. > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > ............................................