• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Would the Amega energy wand qualify for the MDC?

In case of constipation, insert-

No, I'd better not.

Well, that might actually be one of the things that this wand can actually do. Though, anyone who uses these magic stirring wands would likely go to their colon hydrotherapist or naturopath for that sort of thing already.
 
IF one slice has somehow become 'sweeter', there should also be a chemical change as well, that should be testable.
No way! Applicants will still say it tastes sweeter even if the evil measuring devices from dumb-ass scientists can't measure it.

I agree that the lemon thing is best for the test, but my protocol proposal is different: cut a lemon in half, use a coin flip to decide which half to wand, do wanding for however long, give both halves to taster, let taster decide which half is sweeter.
Wanding and tasting is done by people chosen by the applicant, everything else by people chosen by JREF. The taster is allowed to do anything he/she pleases to both halves, including simple tasting, cutting in smaller pieces, chemical analysis, whatever. However, there should be great care that the wander doesn't touch the lemon half, or manage to spill some chemical (sugar, saliva, whatever) on it.
 
I agree that the lemon thing is best for the test, but my protocol proposal is different: cut a lemon in half, use a coin flip to decide which half to wand, do wanding for however long, give both halves to taster, let taster decide which half is sweeter.

This would be the obvious way of testing it. Two halves, one randomly chosen for wanding by coin flip. Wanding happens in one room, lemon is taken into another room for tasting. To be completely rigorous, the person taking the lemons between rooms would have to be absent from both rooms during wanding and tasting.

everything else by people chosen by JREF.

Usual practice would be to have people in pairs, one from the JREF and one from the applicant, or at least to have observers so that both sides are represented at every stage.

However, there should be great care that the wander doesn't touch the lemon half, or manage to spill some chemical (sugar, saliva, whatever) on it.

Presumably simply covering the lemons in clingfilm or something similar during the wanding would prevent the most obvious ways of tampering. I don't recall seeing anything to suggest that would interfere.

Of course, all this is rather moot given that there doesn't seem to be any application in the first place.
 
This would be the obvious way of testing it. Two halves, one randomly chosen for wanding by coin flip. Wanding happens in one room, lemon is taken into another room for tasting. To be completely rigorous, the person taking the lemons between rooms would have to be absent from both rooms during wanding and tasting.



Usual practice would be to have people in pairs, one from the JREF and one from the applicant, or at least to have observers so that both sides are represented at every stage.



Presumably simply covering the lemons in clingfilm or something similar during the wanding would prevent the most obvious ways of tampering. I don't recall seeing anything to suggest that would interfere.

Of course, all this is rather moot given that there doesn't seem to be any application in the first place.

If this is an acceptable Challenge, I will try to find applicants for you. Magic wand supporters are all over the internet.
 
Probably yes. However, more information is needed.
  • what is the correct wanding technique? does the wand work if it is just near the patient, or does it require to be "wanded"? does the wand need to touch the patient?
  • does the wand work if it's inside an opaque box? does it work through clothes?
  • can a blindfolded person wand correctly?
  • will a blindfolded person feel the effects of the wand? will a person who is listening to music through headphones feel the effects?
  • how long does one need to be wanding in order for the patient to feel the effects?
And, well, an almost compulsory question: do you know of anyone who is considering to apply with this claim?

Personally, I like Ladewig's previously posted test idea.

"To be eligible for the JREF $1,000,000 challenge, all someone has to do is distinguish between a powerful, zero-point, energy-enhancing Amega Wand and an ordinary stick. That's all. The test could be done with a single test subject if the makers or users of the Amega Wand chose. It can be a sick person who has used the wand for years, it can be a sick person who has never used the wand, it can be a healthy who is sensitive enough to detect when the wand "clears the distortions inside our Bio energetic magnetic field." The testers will flip a coin and depending on the results, will wave a stick or an Amega Wand over the person. The test subject can ask to have it waved again as many times as he or she likes. The test subject can ask for the wand to be moved closer or farther. The test subject can ask for the wand to be moved faster or slower. The test subject can take as long as he or she likes to decide which wand is being waved.

Call it correctly 20 times in a row and walk away with $1,000,000 in cash and $10,000,000 of free publicity. Universities and research institutes the world over would purchase these wands to run their own tests. The whole thing could be done in a day if the testimonials claiming that results are immediate are to be believed. Even if it takes one whole day to notice the effects, that's less than three weeks for the entire test."
​

I say none of the Amega Wand supporters will be able to tell the difference between their magic wand and my flying broomstick. ;)
 
Personally, I like Ladewig's previously posted test idea.

"To be eligible for the JREF $1,000,000 challenge, all someone has to do is distinguish between a powerful, zero-point, energy-enhancing Amega Wand and an ordinary stick. That's all. The test could be done with a single test subject if the makers or users of the Amega Wand chose. It can be a sick person who has used the wand for years, it can be a sick person who has never used the wand, it can be a healthy who is sensitive enough to detect when the wand "clears the distortions inside our Bio energetic magnetic field." The testers will flip a coin and depending on the results, will wave a stick or an Amega Wand over the person. The test subject can ask to have it waved again as many times as he or she likes. The test subject can ask for the wand to be moved closer or farther. The test subject can ask for the wand to be moved faster or slower. The test subject can take as long as he or she likes to decide which wand is being waved.

Call it correctly 20 times in a row and walk away with $1,000,000 in cash and $10,000,000 of free publicity. Universities and research institutes the world over would purchase these wands to run their own tests. The whole thing could be done in a day if the testimonials claiming that results are immediate are to be believed. Even if it takes one whole day to notice the effects, that's less than three weeks for the entire test."
​

I say none of the Amega Wand supporters will be able to tell the difference between their magic wand and my flying broomstick. ;)

I would change that write-up to say that the claimants provide both the waver and the wavee. The rest of it still seems like appropriate challenge material to me.
 
Last edited:
While any wooish claim may qualify for the MDC, the chances of winning it are slim to none.

And Slim doesn't live here any more.
 
I would change that write-up to say that the claimants provide both the waver and the wavee. The rest of it still seems like appropriate challenge material to me.

Well the waver would be able to tell which is the Amega wand, so that would throw this one out, then. The secret sauce is the crystals, and I'm pretty sure someone said that if you shake the thing they rattle. So you'd have the expense of having to design a duplicate or emptying the crystals out, and then replacing them with (as Randi did in England) rat poison.

But I think any time you let the wander touch the thing, they're going to have a pretty good chance of knowing whether they've got their old trusty Amega or a No. 2 Mongol pencil.
 
Well the waver would be able to tell which is the Amega wand, so that would throw this one out, then.

Not necessarily. Given that the wand works through clothing, it would be a simple matter to wrap the Amega wand and the control wand in fabric in such a way that the wander does not know which is which.

Conversely, the test could be run even if the wander knows which wand is which. As long as the wandee is blindfolded and no communication takes place, allowing an experienced wander to wave both wands in an unblinded manner would still allow the wandee to detect the magical healing powers in a manner consistent with a fair and controlled test.
 
Not necessarily. Given that the wand works through clothing, it would be a simple matter to wrap the Amega wand and the control wand in fabric in such a way that the wander does not know which is which.

Conversely, the test could be run even if the wander knows which wand is which. As long as the wandee is blindfolded and no communication takes place, allowing an experienced wander to wave both wands in an unblinded manner would still allow the wandee to detect the magical healing powers in a manner consistent with a fair and controlled test.

I think I'd go with the part after "Conversely,...". Even in fabric, an experienced wander (wand-wielder?, wand-waver?, wizard?) should recognize their own wand by the heft. Unless you buy some Amega wands and take out the active ingredient, but in that case prepare for "residual homeopathic zero point energy from the removed quantum schmantum crystals" arguments.

I like to take the wand-wielders out of the equation. They're not promoting it as anyone needing any kind of mystical chi powers, after all. "Why anyone can do it!" " But wait! There's more!"
So the tests I'd like to see would involve phony versus "real" sticks, and having the patients identify which treatment was from an Amega Wand and which was from a laser pointer or pen barrel. Better if the "patient" is also a wand-peddler.

Randi's debunking of crystal power is the sort of simple test I have in mind. He had a crystal channeler doing her magical "lift the arm" bit, and a believer for a patient, and then took their potent crystal away and put it in a little black bag, mixed that little black bag in with a bunch of other little black bags in a larger bag, and had crystal lady pick them out one at a time and test them. She definitely had the "real deal" result on one bag. Of course that bag turned out to be rat poison and not the crystal. For the other bags of rat poison? No positive arm-lifting result. For the bag with the crystal? No positive arm-lifting result.

The look on her and her "patient's" face was wonderful. I'm at work. Can anyone re-link to that Randi vid?

Oh, and... off-subject, but pertinent.... Please see this week's SWIFT by Jeff on the Sniffex nonsense. People often criticized the constant attention given to diviners.

Since a lot of this "oh-don't-bother-they're-all-harmless" woo lays the groundwork for serious and dangerous scamming, though, it's important to take these people down when the opportunity arises. Enough people believed in dowsing that selling that Sniffex nonsense wasn't so hard, particularly to countries with more of a tradition of occultish beliefs.

If you get enough of the general population believing in this wanding nonsense, how long before someone's off trying to sell field hospital units of the military that they can save a fortune on drugs and logistics and just send corpsmen out with Teh StickTM?
 
Thanks for the link, Foolmewunz. There is no skeptic issue that arouses such anger in me as the story of how hundreds of people died because of these criminal frauds.

As for protocols, while I believe that an ersatz wand could be made heavy enough to fool an experienced wander, I don't want to get caught up in bickering about one point in one suggested protocol. I think we agree that if a claimant came forward, it would be relatively easy to design a simple and effective MDC protocol, and that's what I started the thread to determine.
 
Randi's debunking of crystal power is the sort of simple test I have in mind. He had a crystal channeler doing her magical "lift the arm" bit, and a believer for a patient, [...]

The look on her and her "patient's" face was wonderful. I'm at work. Can anyone re-link to that Randi vid?
Here it is
 

Yep. Love it when the crystal flimflammer says that all she can say is that RAT POISON must be good for Fiona!

Ladewig - yeah with that sort of bagging, I reckon you could disguise the feel of the wand. I guess they're rather thick felt or velveteen bags or the woman would've surely felt the hard/sharp edges of the crystal. I guess they're rather thick fabric. (And, yes... I didn't mean to get hung up on the minutiae, either.)
 
Shouldn't be too hard to knock out a half dozen "artificial" sticks (not enhanced with zero point point) that are the exact size, weight and feel as a "real" wanderful stick, for testing purposes (porpoises?). Wrap it in a nice little black bag and away we wand! I still think a wand-o-matic device will take any human error out of the equation too.:cool:
 
I still think a wand-o-matic device will take any human error out of the equation too.:cool:
Probably a bad idea:
In almost all documented cases, the wand chooses its wizard. This is due to the unique character of each wand, which must match that of the wizard, as the wizard may not be able to perform magic if his and his wand's characters conflict, or the magic may be sub-par to magic performed with the wizard's own wand.
From: http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Wand

What? Do you have a better source for information about magic wands? :p
 
I suggested to a distributor of the wand that they try a simple double-blind test, and they passed it on to some higher-ups in the organisation. One response, unsurprisingly, was [sic throughout]:

"I am personally not interested in pursuing the pain test as described in a more scientific manner because if we prove it is effective for pain then we have just entered the ring with drug companies ...a battle we are not yet prepared to take on. Growth has been beyond the Companies ability to sustain so doing the tests to satisfy a few scientists who would not likely be building an Amega business regardless of what the tests concluded...seems to me to be a less than effective use of time and resourses. Obviously you don't agree with this point of you...and you are definitely entitled to your point of you."​

Another response consisted of a rant about the shortcomings of science in general and conventional medicine in particular and concluded:

"if we take our attention off those who are benefitting all over the world from what we are doing and put them on a small number of sceptics, we will be wasting everyone's time and it would be a disservice to the general public."
​

So it seems unlikely the manufacturers would be interested in submitting their wand to the MDC.

Incidentally, this magic wand looks very similar to a fraudulent device that was sold in the 18th century, called Perkins Tractors - check them out on Google.

Plus ça change...
 
Incidentally, this magic wand looks very similar to a fraudulent device that was sold in the 18th century, called Perkins Tractors - check them out on Google.
I did, here's a link to the relevant article in Wikipedia. I hadn't heard of Perkins Tractors before.
Of course, such a blatant fraud was possible in the 18th century, but now, in the 21st century, nobody could possibly get away with anything like that.

By the way, I can travel through time. The spoiler below contains some information from the future. Don't read it or you'll create a paradox-induced vortex which will eat the entire Universe (and a few foreign countries).
This Starstic magic wand looks very similar to a fraudulent device that was sold in the 21st century, called Amega energy wand. Of course, such a blatant fraud was possible in the 21st century, but now, in the 24th century, nobody could possibly get away with anything like that.
 
If this is an acceptable Challenge, I will try to find applicants for you. Magic wand supporters are all over the internet.

You would not be finding applicants for me, since do not have any more to do with the challenge than you do. However, having spent some time here and taken part in such discussions before, I can't see any obvious problems with it. It's better than the pain test because it's much easier to have proper blinding as well as requiring fewer people.

Protocol:
Materials
2 rooms, separated that no direct communication is possible even when doors are opened.
1 magic stick.
1 Wander.
1 Taster.
3 Testers.
(Ideally 3 observers chosen by the applicants, but not strictly necessary)
20 lemons (plus a few extras, just in case).
1 roll of clingfilm/2 tea towels.
1 coin.
Labels, notepads, pens.
Video cameras (possibly plus people if the existing ones will be too busy).

Method
Room 1 contains the Wander, Tester 1 and Observer 1. They may not leave the room at any time during the test.
Room 2 contains the Tasters, Tester 3 and Observer 3. They may not leave the room at any time during the test.
For each trial, one lemon will be cut in half and wrapped in clingfilm/covered in a teatowel. (May depend on the applicants claim. Clingfilm seems the obvious choice since it is transparent, but since we know the stick works through clothes, covering with cloth may be closer to the actual claim.)
The halves will be labelled A and B. Sticky labels for clingfilm, maybe paper with safety pins for cloth.
The toss of a coin will determine which half is to be sticked in this trial. Heads - A, tails - B.
The Wander will be allowed 5 minutes in which to do their thing. The other lemon half will be kept well away from the chosen half to avoid accidental sticking, but will remain in plain sight.
When finished, the two lemon halves will be placed next to each other and Tester 2 and Observer 2 will be called into Room 1.
The two lemon halves will be placed on a tray, ensuring that the labels are still attached and clearly visible.
Tester 2 will carry them to Room 2, where the Taster, Tester 3 and Observer 3 are present.
The tray will be placed on a table and Tester 2 and Observer 2 will leave the room.
Tester 3 will unwrap/uncover the lemon halves and place their labels next to the correct half.
The Taster will be allowed 5 minutes in which to decide, using any method they choose, which lemon half has been sticked.
Tester 3 will record the result.
Tester 2 and Observer 2 will be called back into Room 2 to remove the lemon and associated materials. They will return to Room 1 to advise them to start the next trial, and will then leave the room until called on again.

Analysis
If the Taster chooses the correct half, the trial is a hit. Nothing else will constitute a hit. The Taster may not change their mind once Tester 2 has recorded the choice.
18 or more hits out of 20 will pass the test. 17 or less hits will fail. There are no other possibilities.


It's all pretty simple really. 5 people, 4 hours and 2 rooms are all that's needed, plus some cheap and easily acquired equipment. I say 18/20 because that's a standard that has been used before for binary tests, and although people often claim 100% accuracy, allowing them less eliminates at least one of the more obvious complaints that could be made afterwards.

The only real sticking (heh) point may be the covering of the lemons. Although it's clearly claimed to work through clothes, this is exactly the kind of thing people like to complain about (see VisionFromFeeling, for example). It may be possible to eliminate the need for this given some extra precautions such as short sleeves and a face mask to avoid things like sugar hidden up a sleeve or spitting. The obvious way to cheat would be sugar in a pocket. Perhaps the Wander could be required to put on a new pair of rubber gloves for each trial, and must keep their hands visible at all times once they are on.

Of course, it's not quite true when I say that I can't see any obvious problems with this. We still don't have an applicant.
 
I find no fault with your protocol. I do have one question. Does 18 out of 20 really satisfy the MDC requirement for the final test? Can you provide some examples or a citation?



ETA: I cannot find the 1 in 1,000,000 final test odds listed in any of the online MDC materials. Is that the right figure?
 
Last edited:
I find no fault with your protocol. I do have one question. Does 18 out of 20 really satisfy the MDC requirement for the final test? Can you provide some examples or a citation?
I didn't look for any citation, however the usual standard is p < 1E-03 for the preliminary test and p < 1E-06 for the final one. This can be used for some quick calculations and draw conclusions.

In the following table, x/y -> z means: the chances of getting x or more hits out of y tries is z*1E-06. Yes, it's an odd way of stating it, but it gives non-math-minded-people a quick way of checking what is good for what test. Namely:
  • The preliminary test requires a number below 1000.
  • The final test requires a number below 1.

17/20 -> 1288 (above 1000, so not good enough for preliminary or final test)
18/20 -> 201 (below 1000, so good enough for preliminary test, not for final).
20/20 -> 0.95 (below 1, so good enough for final test).

27/30 -> 4.2
28/30 -> 0.43

34/40 -> 4.18
35/40 -> 0.69
36/40 -> 0.093

ETA: I cannot find the 1 in 1,000,000 final test odds listed in any of the online MDC materials. Is that the right figure?
As far as I know, there's no official figure. Some time ago there was a thread discussing that. I'll summarize the 12 pages of that thread in one single paragraph:
There's no such thing as a standard claim, so there should be no such thing as standard odds. The criteria for success and failure should be discussed during protocol negotiations.​
To get a more precise idea, read that thread. And please, please, please: anyone willing to say that things should or shouldn't be that way, just bump the thread I linked to. This is not meant as a rant against Ladewig's (quite legitimate and reasonable) question, it's an attempt to avoid appending 12 off-topic pages to this thread.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom