werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (09/12/85)
Rather than answer each request individually by mail (this one
was returned by Bellcore anyway):
Subject: Re: Stoll's experiment
To: mwg at PHILABS/CMCL2/BELLCORE
Cc: werner
--------
Yes and no.
I gave 30 seconds to rest before the sugar cube and 15 seconds after.
Of ten medical students, 9 had no effect, 1 could go either way (tiredness,
perhaps). Anyway, 1/10 is less than 95%.
No attempt was made to make this double-blind, since the protocol
distinctly called for otherwise, and I didn't want to be accused of changing
the rules too much.
Two alternate conclusions can be drawn.
1. Kinesiology is wrong
or 2. Medical students are all selected from the other 5%.
(The latter explanation actually would explain a lot of things.)
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
"The proper delivery of medical care is to do as much Nothing as possible"wws@whuxlm.UUCP (Stoll W William) (09/14/85)
[Disclaimer: I am not Walt Stoll] > > Subject: Re: Stoll's experiment > To: mwg at PHILABS/CMCL2/BELLCORE > Cc: werner > -------- > > Two alternate conclusions can be drawn. > 1. Kinesiology is wrong > or 2. Medical students are all selected from the other 5%. > (The latter explanation actually would explain a lot of things.) > 3. Experiment conducted incorrectly. I've witnessed this experiment a lot (well, five) times, and everyone (self included) had a reaction. One guy's reaction was incredible (he was 5'10" and 250 pounds) -- his arm went from tree trunk to willow branch. The last few I watched had an extra twist -- a tiny piece of a special vitamin was given the person after they had exhibited their sugar reaction, and the test was rerun. Their resistance always returned to the pre-sugar level (maybe this substance should be marketed as a "cure" for sugar?). Anyway, this extra test helped convince me that "fatigue" resulting from the first test was not a factor. Perhaps Walt will comment on the method Steve used... Bill Stoll, ..!whuxlm!wws
wws@whuxlm.UUCP (Stoll W William) (09/14/85)
> > Perhaps Walt will comment on the method Steve used... > Oops, I meant Craig, not Steve (can't tell them apart from here :-) ) Bill Stoll, ..!whuxlm!wws
wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) (09/15/85)
In article <1911@aecom.UUCP>, werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > Rather than answer each request individually by mail > > Subject: Re: Stoll's experiment > -------- > Yes and no. > I gave 30 seconds to rest before the sugar cube and 15 seconds after. > Of ten medical students, 9 had no effect, 1 could go either way (tiredness, > perhaps). Anyway, 1/10 is less than 95%. > No attempt was made to make this double-blind, since the protocol > distinctly called for otherwise, and I didn't want to be accused of changing > the rules too much. > > Two alternate conclusions can be drawn. > 1. Kinesiology is wrong > or 2. Medical students are all selected from the other 5%. > (The latter explanation actually would explain a lot of things.) > -- > Craig Werner > !philabs!aecom!werner > "The proper delivery of medical care is to do as much Nothing as possible" No one would seriously start to do an experiment before finding out how to do it. Part of the problem here is that Applied Kinesiology still has not been taken quite seriously by those who are dabbling in it. Another part is that, to my knowledge, no one has placed on the net the resources to do the sugar Applied Kinesiology test (arm strength) properly. I want to extend my sympathy to Craig Werner, as well as anyone else out there, who has tried to do this test. When I first started to do it I did the same thing he did. It looks SO simple but, so does a fundiscopic exam (looking at the retina with an ophthalmoscope) until one tries it. You need to look at two references if you want to prove anything with this test (either the sensitivity of the person to sugar--or the validity of the test): "YOUR BODY DOESN'T LIE" by Dr. John Diamond (avail. paperback) "LIGHT, RADIATION & YOU" by Dr. John Ott, Pub: Devin-Adair (paper Unless you are convinced enough that the thing is worth looking into, you will probably give up when you see how complex this "situation" can be. An even better example to test than sugar, however, is cigarettes. About 5% of the population has no reaction to sugar. ALL smokers have a weakening reaction to cigarettes. The smoker must not have had a cigarette for about 30 minutes. All they have to do is hold their cigarette in the hand on the side not being tested (yes, Jane, holding a pencil, or other similarly sized object, has been thought of). The % loss is directly proportional to the hazard cigarettes is to that person. This reminds me of some comments on the net about some obvious alternative reasons for the observed weakness shown after exposure to the substance being tested. PLEASE REMEMBER, the people working with this new concept are PhDs, MDs, DOs, DCs; not your average non-scientific types. Something as obvious as tiring the muscle could not possibly have been ignored to the point where a whole new science was built on that false basis. Come on! "Gimmee a break!" Actually, the reason I always add a third part to the test (using a substance that contains at least all 48+ nutrients utilized in the Krebs Cycle) is to counteract that very first excuse the patient gives to try to shore up their crumbling paradigm. All people who lost strength with the sugar are tested again immediately with this substance. Unless the person has a family history of diabetes, alcoholism, hypoglycemia or EXTREME obesity, their strength comes back immediately (sometimes stronger than the first time). This has been extremely effective, for me, to force the patient to seriously look at what is happening. You can rest assured that many minds, at least as good as ours, have spent many thousands of hours working out the bugs in Applied (& Behavioral) Kinesiology. Their reputations and careers are at stake. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS DIFFICULT TO LEARN IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR DISREGARDING IT. -- cbosgd!ukma!wws(Walt Stoll) YOU Walt Stoll, MD, ABFP Founder & Medical Director ARE MORE Holistic Medical Centre 1412 North Broadway Lexington, Kentucky 40505 THAN YOU THINK (606) 233-4273
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/24/85)
> I've witnessed this experiment a lot (well, five) times, > and everyone (self included) had a reaction. One guy's reaction > was incredible (he was 5'10" and 250 pounds) -- his arm went from > tree trunk to willow branch. The last few I watched had an extra > twist -- a tiny piece of a special vitamin was given the person > after they had exhibited their sugar reaction, and the test was > rerun. Their resistance always returned to the pre-sugar level > (maybe this substance should be marketed as a "cure" for sugar?). > Anyway, this extra test helped convince me that "fatigue" resulting > from the first test was not a factor. [apologies for the copious include] Having recently started working out, I can say that a few minutes or even seconds of rest can make up for a lot of fatigue. You really need much better controls than that to rule out fatigue and a placebo effect. I think I'll try it next time I work out & report the results. How much sugar should I use? Do you do anything to rule out the possibility that the body is merely preparing for food & redistributing blood to the internal organs? Maybe I should try the test with dextrose and other "healthy" sugars as well.