Bioelectromagnetics

[EHocking]

Queried data errors in second Harmoniser report.

We do not appear to have ever published the second harmonmiser report on our website, having been given permission only for the first one, as far as I have been able to ascertain.

Who cares if it has not been published on your site? You're obviously well aware of the "experiment" under discussion, since on the 07-09-2004 you wrote, "I am still trying to find the original version of this second Harmioniser report you quoted which is somewhere in our files, so apologise for the delay."

It would be helpful if you could point me to the data which has presumably been made public from another source, so I can take a closer look at it. It may be that these so called errors are nothing to do with us.

Odd sort of backpedalling to be pulling at this late juncture Mr.Coghill, as even back in February (and through to July) you seemed quite cogniscent of the studies. To whit:

I thought the later study was already on our website, or on the website of the Implosion people. I will have a look, and ask permission if I can release this (I can see no reason why not, but some of our work is not released thorugh the request of clients).
Please forgive me tonight but we are installing a new Polaris Q shortly and there are things I must do pre-installation.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
06-02-2004 10:25 PM

As for this criticism about our two Harmoniser studies being an n=1 sample, we blind-counted hundreds if not thousands of viable versus non-viable cells from one culture. Though it would have increased the statistical power to repeat the isolation and culture a number of times this was not within our gift. Many blood tests are based on one single culture isolate (maybe from a few BD vacutainers but still one drawing), and the patient does not have to give the sample three times on separate days.
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
Last edited by cogreslab on 06-03-2004 at 10:18 PM
06-03-2004 09:58 PM

Ain't search functions a b*tch?

But, to remind you, we were discussing your papers that YOU referred us to at www.implosionresearch.com .
Being;

http://207.201.140.104/cir1/coghill.htm
(1999 "experiment hosted on your site: http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/harmoniser.htm )
http://207.201.140.104/cir1/coghill 2.htm
(2000 "experiment")

However, to be honest, in this thread I have been concentrating on issues which imho are far more important , taking the view that Hock's

The name is MR.Hocking to you - I'll answer to EHocking. I've remained polite to this point in addressing you by your name, I'd appreciate the same consideration.

..question owes more to a determination to pick on trivail points rather than to address the main issues I have raised here, e.g.

... snip diversion...
MR.Coghill, the very fact that your experimental method is being discussed and criticised is the point. This is also at your invitation:

To EHocking:
You said: I am endeavouring to put together a coherent summary of all the errors and inconsistencies in his report and present it here for critique.

That's fine by me. I welcome any serious critical comments on our work. That's how science should work. We don't expect an easy time coming to this forum!
__________________
RW Coghill MA (Cantab.) C Biol. MI Biol. MA (Environ Mgt)
06-03-2004 01:40 PM

I am not the only one to have pointed out the errors in both your method and your misrepresentation/misinterpretation of the data in your own experiments - I merely brought up the two Harmoniser experiments because they are relatively basic protocols which you (or you lab) do not appear to have the skills or rigour to be able to a. devise properly, b. carry out with rigour c. report in a comprehensible manner and/or d. represent in a manner that is not biased towards your commissioning customer.

You may find this "nitpicking" trivial, but the fact is, if you are unable to perform such basic and simple experiments in your own £1Million laboratory, how do you expect us to trust in your ability to correctly analyse more complicated issues and experimental data?

Especially when analysing issues in which you readily admit you have little scientfic knowledge or experience in.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Hans!

No, I have not abandoned this site. Finally found some time to return to this forum after my Serbian visit, the preparation of six posters for the Childhood Leukaemia Conference in London 6-10 September, and and the organisation and delivery of a conference at the RSM last Saturday on Electrosensitivity in Human Beings. the website for the childhood leukaemia conference is www.leukaemiaconference.org where you can see all the papers. At least one day was devoted to possible EMF causes for the disorder.

OK let's start on the electromagnetics course. Were you not going to set up a separate site for this, Hans/Prag? You might note that one of the prizewinning posters at the Conference (from Elizabeth Ainsbury at Bristol Univ was about the question of elliptical fields. Maybe we could start by a closer look at this issue?

Oh, HI! See you're back. I note you complaint in a later post that I have long holidays. Did you think I was waiting on stand-by for whenever you deigned to return? Actually, I have a job and a private life, too. So I have only checked in on this thread occasionally to look for activity.

But, I'll look into it. No, I did not plan to set up en entire new site for your convinience, I suggested a seperate thread, right here on the JREF. A thread that was dedicated as a turorial, to avoid it becoming bogged down in debate and the odd mudslinging.

No, we should not start with a closer look at elliptical fields; you do not build towers from the roof down. As long as you don't have the basic concepts there is no reason to bother with the fineries.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Stop churning out BS, Hans, and tell me where you found the queried stats so I can look into the issue.

*snip*

Roger, once and for all: GET THE NAMES STRAIGHT!

You keep mixing up names, you have been doing it all the time. Not only is it rather impolite, but it does notadd to your credibility as a researcher that you cannot bother to notice who posted what.

Hans

 

[cogreslab]

Hans It is surely allowed here to answer more than one poster in one message? The names are irrelevant, since you all except me hide behind anonymity like cowards.

As for what you have claimed are arithmetical errors the only data we have published ourselves quite a few years ago on this Harmoniser thing are mathematically correct, and we have a number of other unpublished studies in our files which I have never released. By not saying where i can find these other versions you make it impossible for me to investigate. I will give you one more chance before ignoring this trivial distraction.

How about getting uptodate instead and critiquing the six posters we presented at the Childhood Leukaemia Conference instead, on which you are strangely silent so far? Or discussing any other of the solid evidence presented there by other speakers for the things I have been saying?

As for your continued statement that I do not know the basics of electromagnetics, so far your claims of how electric fields work are in total contrast with the NRPB, the WHO and most other scientists I know who are working in this field. I am agog for this "turorial" - maybe we should call it a "furorial" to depict your continuingly emotional and aggressive posts? I suggest we have a few house rules on your thread like omitting the word "liar" and all other emotional and denigrating language of the kind I have been subjected to on this thread. Teachers don't normally slag off their pupils.

I have never had any objection to running the dialogue you proposed through the Randi system, btw. I have no more time today, since I have other work to do.

If addressing the issue of elliptical electric fields seems too advanced a start, may I next suggest we start with your definition of an electric field? And that we confine it to ELF fields.

 

[BillHoyt]

The names are irrelevant, since you all except me hide behind anonymity like cowards.

One has to pause here and note the similarity with his attitude toward the facts.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans It is surely allowed here to answer more than one poster in one message?

Has anybody said it wasn't?

The names are irrelevant, since you all except me hide behind anonymity like cowards.

You know where to find me (but you didn't bother to try before writing that I was British).

As for what you have claimed are arithmetical errors the only data we have published ourselves quite a few years ago on this Harmoniser thing are mathematically correct,

Still talking to me? I have not claimed your arithmetic was in error. I have pointed out the fact (and it is a fact) that your STATISTICAL methods were invalid. There is a difference, you know.

and we have a number of other unpublished studies in our files which I have never released. By not saying where i can find these other versions you make it impossible for me to investigate. I will give you one more chance before ignoring this trivial distraction.

Are you asking ME to point you to files in YOUR system??? What are you on?

How about getting uptodate instead and critiquing the six posters we presented at the Childhood Leukaemia Conference instead, on which you are strangely silent so far?

Roger, unlike you, I take great care to try and avoid making statments or claims i am not qualified to make. I am qualified in electronics, and statistics, and a number of other engieering subjects. I am not qualified in leukaemia. I leave commenting on leukaemia papers to people so qualified.

*snip*

As for your continued statement that I do not know the basics of electromagnetics, so far your claims of how electric fields work are in total contrast with the NRPB, the WHO and most other scientists I know who are working in this field.

Only because you don't understand it.

I am agog for this "turorial" - maybe we should call it a "furorial" to depict your continuingly emotional and aggressive posts? I suggest we have a few house rules on your thread like omitting the word "liar" and all other emotional and denigrating language of the kind I have been subjected to on this thread. Teachers don't normally slag off their pupils.

Roger, I call a spade a spade, and a liar a liar. Live with it. After all, you have published lies about me on your website. I just checked, they are still there.

I have never had any objection to running the dialogue you proposed through the Randi system, btw. I have no more time today, since I have other work to do.

Ditto.

If addressing the issue of elliptical electric fields seems too advanced a start, may I next suggest we start with your definition of an electric field? And that we confine it to ELF fields. [/B]

ELF? You may not. We start with DC . And it won't be MY definition, it will be THE definition.

I will start a thread as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I am at present VERY busy.

Hans

 

[uruk]

I don't know if this relevent to this thread or to anyone"s interest
but I found this link concerning experimentation with biological materials and extremely high magnetic fields.
here it is:
http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/researchpages/cme/quasi-2d/homepagevalleslab.html

Maybe it might have data on the long term affects of magnetic fields on biological tissues.

Concerning the electrical properties of DNA. The atoms that make up the DNA strand are connected via covalent bonds, right?
If the valence shells of the atoms are connected it would seem that the DNA strand would essentialy act as a conductor or a wire.
The DNA molecules are mostly carbon which is a semiconductor, so that would mean it would be a poor conductor.

If you unravel the double helix you would end up with two parallel linear semiconductors. Is there any data on the electrical conductance or internal capacitance of DNA? That would seem to be the first step in determing if DNA would acts as a resonnator or at least a frequency filter. I know there is electro-phoresis (sp?) Chromosomes will migrate across a plate of augar when subject to an electrical charge. (don't know if that's relevent)

Anyhoo, That's my two cents. If it is irrelevent; then ignore.

 

[Anders]

Concerning the electrical properties of DNA. The atoms that make up the DNA strand are connected via covalent bonds, right?
If the valence shells of the atoms are connected it would seem that the DNA strand would essentialy act as a conductor or a wire.
The DNA molecules are mostly carbon which is a semiconductor, so that would mean it would be a poor conductor.

There has to be free electrons or ions if current is to be transferred. Not that much free ions in the cytosol. And definitely no free electrons.

If you unravel the double helix you would end up with two parallel linear semiconductors. Is there any data on the electrical conductance or internal capacitance of DNA? That would seem to be the first step in determing if DNA would acts as a resonnator or at least a frequency filter. I know there is electro-phoresis (sp?) Chromosomes will migrate across a plate of augar when subject to an electrical charge. (don't know if that's relevent)

Anyhoo, That's my two cents. If it is irrelevent; then ignore.

Well the dna molecule is charged, that’s correct, but if it has a capacitance? I would say no, it hasn’t, just because the dna molecule is so small, so even if it had some capacitance it would be immeasurable small.

No question is too irrelevant!

And there is a point. Electrical workers that work on high voltage lines, during operation, do get damaged cells in their arms and hands. But the fields they are working at are so large that it has no relevance to for instance electric fields on the ground from high-voltage lines.

DNA moves in a gel because it’s a little charged, not because it is a conductor, which it isn’t.

 

[cogreslab]

OK lets start with DC. There is a wealth of literature reporting DC effects on cells, tissues, and organs, as well as on human beings. In the UK e.g. Colin McCaig has published a few papers, but may be we should start with the pure physics?

Hans, If I have published lies about you on our website I will be the first to correct that: could you give me a clue about the false statements?

 

[Anders]

There has been a study in the connection between cancer and cell/mobile phone use. Conclusion: There is not such connection.

Heres the public report:
http://www.ssi.se/downloadDoc.asp?document=http://www.ssi.se/ssi_rapporter/pdf/ssi_rapp_2002_16.pdf

But, well, some people will still say that it's a clear connection, well, well, well....

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK lets start with DC. There is a wealth of literature reporting DC effects on cells, tissues, and organs, as well as on human beings. In the UK e.g. Colin McCaig has published a few papers, but may be we should start with the pure physics?

Hans, If I have published lies about you on our website I will be the first to correct that: could you give me a clue about the false statements?

First, the lies:

Here :

(Emphasis mine, comments in italic)

Hans Egebo (aka MRC Hans) is a self-professed electronics engineer and a member of the UK Skeptics. His profession implies that he is therefore also a member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers ("IEE"),

I'm not a memeber of the UK skeptics (or any other skeptic organisation), and I'm not a member of the IEE. I'm not even British. Not that I'd mind being a member of those organisations, but you use it to imply that I have vested interests.

Probably the most glaring of all Hans Egebo's errors is his denial that whereas magnetic fields are only present when an electrical or electronic device is in use, electric fields are present all the time the appliance/instrument of interest is connected to the mains.

I (and others) have tried to explain the real connection to you, repeatedly.

Another false plank in Hans Egebo's attack on me is his mistruth about E-fields and B-fields at extremely low frequencies

Point out the mistruth, please.

The idea as Hans Erebro suggests, that this is simply electric current is ludicrous

Again you take things out of context.

Hans Egebo has an unusual definition of electric and magnetic fields, regarding them simply as forces rather than fields.

Incorrect. They are forces. I have not said they did not form fields. What I said was that you were wrong when you termed them energies.

I could go on. Now, I did consider demanding that you remeoved the article before we continue, but I figure it mostly exposes your own ignorance of the subject at hand, and thus actually supports my position.

Edited to add: And it shows that your claim that I hide behind anonymity is false, since you evidently know my name, although you do not always bother to spell it right.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK lets start with DC. There is a wealth of literature reporting DC effects on cells, tissues, and organs, as well as on human beings. In the UK e.g. Colin McCaig has published a few papers, but may be we should start with the pure physics?

*snip*

Deliberate or not, this is a(nother) diversion.

I do not deny, and I have not noticed anybody here denying, that electric currents and elctromagnetic fields and energies have or can have an influence on human bodies, no do I deny that these things may cause diseases.

The subject of this debate, as far as I'm concerned, is the validity of Mr. Coghill's research, and the unfounded claims of Mr. Coghill about the various devices he sells and promotes via his website.

My main claim is that you, Roger, are not qualified, neither to conduct research, nor to evaluate the research of others in the field of electromagnetics, subsequently bioelectromagnetics.

I base this claim on the glaring mistakes you have made about electromagnetic subjects, and your evident sketchy understanding of the area. We have also noticed that you do not appear to know how to make a stastistical analysis.

My secondary claim is that most, very probably all of the devices you promote and/or sell are without any documented effect and that your claims about their effects are lies.

I base this claim on your failure to present any valid evidence for those effects.

The research reports from various third parties may be interesting, but they do not pertain to this debate. Even in the case that one might support some thesis of yours, it will not vindicate YOUR research methods.

I have promised to make a tutorial and I will, of course, keep that promise, but I am presently contemplating the approach. I don't think a simple step by step introduction into electromagnetics is worthwhile, for two reasons:

- Such introductions are already widely available, and you could simply go to your local library and pick one up to study at leisure.

- Based on current experience, I have to say that I fear you will simple skip and pick, focusing on the parts that seem to support your presumptions and ignore the rest.

So, perhaps a session of questions and answers will be better. What do you think?

Hans

 

[Prester John]

I had a look through the posters, i only found 3 from Mr Coghill,

An investigation into the effects of high dilution quinones on peripheral blood leukaemic lymphocyte metabolism.

Roger Coghill and Rebecca Baghurst


Results
This work is ongoing at present using PBLs from cancer patients other than those diagnosed with leukaemia in order to prove and gain experience of the sensitivity of the assay systems and appropriate dose levels. The Chart below contains an example of the calculated vs. observed effect of added quinone on RPMI 1640 nutrient concentration.



Investigation into the responsive emission of melatonin from lymphocytes challenged by the mitogen PHA: is this compromised by exposure to ELF EM Fields?

Roger Coghill,

Results
The results will be assessed by statistical software, and any differences in post exposure melatonin levels reported.


and...

ELF electric fields: the missing metric in childhood leukaemia epidemiology?

Which is a discussion poster, with no new science in it.



Interesting.

 

[EHocking]

...As for what you have claimed are arithmetical errors the only data we have published ourselves quite a few years ago on this Harmoniser thing are mathematically correct, and we have a number of other unpublished studies in our files which I have never released. By not saying where i can find these other versions you make it impossible for me to investigate. I will give you one more chance before ignoring this trivial distraction.
...

You've been ignoring this since February (see my post of the 15th Sept).

But just to be clear, here are the articles you quoted to us in this Forum:

www.implosionresearch.com .

http://207.201.140.104/cir1/coghill.htm
(1999 "experiment hosted on your site: http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/harmoniser.htm )

http://207.201.140.104/cir1/coghill 2.htm
(2000 "experiment")

 

[EHocking]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cogreslab
...As for what you have claimed are arithmetical errors the only data we have published ourselves quite a few years ago on this Harmoniser thing are mathematically correct, and we have a number of other unpublished studies in our files which I have never released. By not saying where i can find these other versions you make it impossible for me to investigate. I will give you one more chance before ignoring this trivial distraction.
...
You've been ignoring this since February (see my post of the 15th Sept).

But just to be clear, here are the articles you quoted to us in this Forum:

www.implosionresearch.com .

http://207.201.140.104/cir1/coghill.htm
(1999 "experiment hosted on your site: http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/harmoniser.htm )

http://207.201.140.104/cir1/coghill 2.htm
(2000 "experiment")

You claim in another thread that you have answered my questions regarding your Harmoniser experiments.



Don't seem to see them anywhere.....?

P.S. Oh, and it is not mere arithmetical errors - it is data misrepresentation, compounded by misinterpretation that I was discussing. *You* say it was mere arithmetical error....

 

[cogreslab]

Sweden is not typical of the entire industrialised world, Anders!

 

[cogreslab]

Hans you seem to be ducking out of your promise by putting up the smokescreen of challenging my credientials, an ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the original purpose of my starting this thread, namely to discuss bioelectromagnetics. If you want to pursue ad hom attacks why not start a fresh site some where else and let others get on with the more important issues of bioelectromagnetics.

 

[cogreslab]

PJ there were three others from our lab: Chris Conners and Rebecca Baghurst were the authors.

 

[steenkh]

Sweden is not typical of the entire industrialised world, Anders!

My unqualified guess would be that Sweden probably had more mobile phone users, and earlier than most other countries, so any statistical trends would show up there sooner and with more confidence.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans you seem to be ducking out of your promise

I have stated specifically that I will keep my promise, and I have asked for your cooperation in finding a suitable approach to a tutorial, how is that ducking out?

by putting up the smokescreen of challenging my credientials,

Nonsense, I have been challenging your credentials for months. What ARE your credentials, Roger?

an ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the original purpose of my starting this thread, namely to discuss bioelectromagnetics.

To point out that you are no qualified to make the statements you make is not an ad hominem fallacy. The question of your qualifications is highly relevant to this debate.

If you want to pursue ad hom attacks why not start a fresh site some where else and let others get on with the more important issues of bioelectromagnetics.

Who is ducking out now?

Since you do not comment my documentation of your lies, I take it that you admit them?

Hans