Re: Follow-up - SQC Entry Effects

[Guest guest]

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@...> writes:

In my previous posts I discussed the problem with SOC inflation ofreactivity scores in nutritional and toxicity measures.I ran some tests today looking at the VARHOPE panel. I ran severalcombinations of SOC scores by exiting the program, entering new namesand SOC entries, and recalibrating. What I found was quitedisturbing. I was not prepared for the SOC numbers to influence theVARHOPE scores.Here are some examples:1) SOC=99 using 10 for responsibility, and 40 for weight, modifying anexisting record.V,O,R,H,O,P,E,PROT/ELEC, RES FREQ94,85,95,71,82,64/70,1072) Using original SOC entries with an SOC=30.74,94,74,95,70,88/52,171263) No SOC entries, using only the 10 for responsibility, SOC=1.53,94,61,56,68,66,71,209074) New entry, 10 for responsibility, 50 for weight, SOC=10189,94,49,84,68,68/64,1035) Repeat Trial #197,77,74,76,86,72/60,1006) Repeat Trial #275,73,56,91,69,86/51,10190One of the questions that was answered is why some people have veryhigh proton pressure values (above 8). It seems this is simply afunction of SOC entries. The other problem I found was low resistancereadings for some SOC entries, with the problem eliminated by changingthe SOC. And lastly, there is a dramatic effect on the ResonantFrequency, going from around 100, to over 10,000.I was somewhat depressed after looking at these differences. I wasoriginally giving some value to these VARHOPE numbers, but must nowconclude they have no meaning. I had assumed that the VARHOPEmeasurements were simply electrical measures established duringcalibration. Now, I must conclude that they are predominatelymeasures derived from the SOC entries.I understand that there is equipment out there that does not have thisproblem, 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]

Hi

I am totally aware that I may have miss read this email but if you are testing different people (changed names) then the VARHOPE results will be different as you are testing different people.

I do place value in the VARHOPE scores and when discussing their meaning with the clients I often get positive feedback from the client in relation to these readings.

I am happy for someone to tell me that I have misread the email.............

Regards to all

Adrienne

mvpetrovich <qx@...> wrote:

In my previous posts I discussed the problem with SOC inflation ofreactivity scores in nutritional and toxicity measures.I ran some tests today looking at the VARHOPE panel. I ran severalcombinations of SOC scores by exiting the program, entering new namesand SOC entries, and recalibrating. What I found was quitedisturbing. I was not prepared for the SOC numbers to influence theVARHOPE scores.Here are some examples:1) SOC=99 using 10 for responsibility, and 40 for weight, modifying anexisting record.V,O,R,H,O,P,E,PROT/ELEC, RES FREQ94,85,95,71,82,64/70,1072) Using original SOC entries with an SOC=30.74,94,74,95,70,88/52,171263) No SOC entries, using only the 10 for responsibility, SOC=1.53,94,61,56,68,66,71,209074) New entry, 10 for responsibility, 50 for weight,

SOC=10189,94,49,84,68,68/64,1035) Repeat Trial #197,77,74,76,86,72/60,1006) Repeat Trial #275,73,56,91,69,86/51,10190One of the questions that was answered is why some people have veryhigh proton pressure values (above 8). It seems this is simply afunction of SOC entries. The other problem I found was low resistancereadings for some SOC entries, with the problem eliminated by changingthe SOC. And lastly, there is a dramatic effect on the ResonantFrequency, going from around 100, to over 10,000.I was somewhat depressed after looking at these differences. I wasoriginally giving some value to these VARHOPE numbers, but must nowconclude they have no meaning. I had assumed that the VARHOPEmeasurements were simply electrical measures established duringcalibration. Now, I must conclude that they are predominatelymeasures derived from the SOC entries.I understand

that there is equipment out there that does not have thisproblem, 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]

Francisco,

Please ask Bill to address this issue so we all get some clarity on the use

of the SOC panel.

Thank you.

Phil

Follow-up - SQC Entry Effects

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]

Hello Adrienne,

No, what I did was retest myself using different SOC values. I also

have experimented with a few clients. Changing the SOC panel entries

will change the VARHOPE values, dramatically.

In my own case, I struggled over several months trying to figure out

how to reduce my pH, expressed in Proton Pressure always around 8.5,

and raise my resistance, generally around 60. Once I changed my SOC

entries, these problems were (possibly) fixed, at least as a

measurement. My resistance and pH scores are normal now. But, now of

course, I have no way to tell what is really correct.

I could be just missing something, and I have been hoping someone

might provide more insight. In the meantime, I have ceased discussion

of the VARHOPE scores with clients, since I no longer trust them.

The only other possibility is that the SOC panel entries might have a

high correlation to specific issues and the VARHOPE scores simply

represent a probability assessment, with a small electrical component.

That is the only reason I can think of as to why Dr. would

have programmed it this way. The VARHOPE scores ARE NOT simply

electrical readings.

Regards,

> Hi

>

> I am totally aware that I may have miss read this email but if you

are testing different people (changed names) then the VARHOPE results

will be different as you are testing different people.

>

> I do place value in the VARHOPE scores and when discussing their

meaning with the clients I often get positive feedback from the client

in relation to these readings.

>

> I am happy for someone to tell me that I have misread the

email.............

>

>

> Regards to all

> Adrienne