The Q-Link pendant, a simple-looking device designed to be worn as a neck-lace, is one of several products made by Clarus Products International based on its proprietary 'Sympathetic Resonance Technology' (SRT). Integral to SRT is the 'biofield'-the idea that the living body is surrounded by a complex energy field made up of intracellular EM signalling and other subtle energies that help to keep the body in a state of equilibrium by triggering homeostasis in response to changes in the environment.
As Clarus puts it, "The biofield is something you've probably already noticed: a vital force that animates our bodies and powers our daily lives. When our biofield is out of balance, we're out of balance."
Although the precise technical details are a company secret, Clarus claims that SRT is an "array of proprietarily iden-tified frequencies" that support and enhance the efficiency and performance of the human biofield. It's said to work like a series of optimally vibrating tuning forks that constantly resonate with, tune, enhance and support the body's own normal healthy frequencies.
The Q-Link pendant is one of a number of so-called 'passive' SRT products that "clarify and support the wearer's biofield through a subtle, direct inter-action with the wearer". Containing a copper induc-tion coil and a "resonating wafer", there's no power source, as it's supposedly powered by the person wearing it. Other passive products are Q-Link bracelets, belt-buckles and the new Q-Link Mini, a compact device you can wear anywhere on your body.
The company also makes a range of 'active' SRT products intended to be placed about your home or at work to enhance the surrounding area.
Not surprisingly, Q-Link products are an easy target for so-called quack-busters, who claim that the technology is nothing but nonsense. But a handful of scientists have bothered to test the products-and come up with some interesting results.
Much of the research on Q-Link has been detailed in a review by Dr Beverly Rubik, a biophysicist and founder of the Institute for Frontier Science in Oakland, CA. Her published report summarizes several biological and clinical studies of Q-Link and reveals that, unlike many miraculous-sounding products on the market, the technology does indeed have scientific research to back it up (J Altern Complement Med, 2002; 8: 823-56).
In a randomized, double-blind controlled trial-considered the 'gold standard' for scientific evaluation-microbiologist Dr Robert Young invest-igated the effects of the Q-Link pendant on the blood of 16 volunteers. Half were given a real Q-Link pendant to wear while the other half were given an identical-looking sham device-and no one knew who was wearing what. All 16 volunteers were then exposed to normal everyday EMF pollution associated with mobile phones, fluorescent lighting, computers, power lines, and other office and work-related equipment. After the participants had worn the pendants for three days, live and dry blood analyses were carried out on each participant; the findings were then compared with blood samples taken before they started wearing the pendants.
The results showed that, in all eight of those wearing the genuine pendant, there were significant differences in the 'before' and 'after' blood samples-all indicating better health. Blood cells became "more normal in appearance and form", and problems such as platelet clumping, colloidal and crystal deposits, and microbes were reduced. In contrast, there was little or no difference in the blood samples of those wearing the sham pendants. What's more, while those in the sham group reported few or no improvements in their physical or mental health, those wearing the real Q-Link pendants consistently reported feeling increased levels of energy.
Another double-blind study-this time by Dr William Tiller, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University and Dr Norman Shealy, President of the Holos Institutes of Health-tested the effects of the Q-Link pendant on human electro-encephalographic (EEG), or brainwave, responses in 27 men and women, in a trial lasting one year.
According to the EEGs, the active Q-Link-compared with a non-activated Q-Link and a sham placebo device-increased brainwave activity in all brain regions. Moreover, the active Q-Link was able to maintain a non-stressed EEG during a brief (10-minute) exposure to a digital clock-considered a low-level EMF stressor.
"This suggests that it might be particularly beneficial for extremely sensitive persons who experience clinical symptoms with such exposure," the authors concluded.
Yet another double-blind study used applied kinesiology (AK), a chiropractic diagnostic and treatment modality, to test the Q-Link on muscle weakness and other chronic symptoms related to EMF pollution and found that, compared with a sham control, the Q-Link pendant "improves muscle strength in EMF-sensitive subjects that show patterns of muscle weakness when exposed to EMF sources". Also, wearing a Q-Link for four months while receiving chiropractic and AK therapy reduced patients' symptoms due to chronic EMF stressors.
Perhaps the most intriguing research in Rubik's review, however, involved the other, 'active' type of Q-Link technology that was designed to improve the spaces in which the user lives, works or other-wise occupies. This was put to the test in a special-needs school, where teachers had to complete a daily report on each pupil's progress and behaviour. On alternate weeks for one month, mains-powered Q-Link devices or identical fake devices were placed throughout the school. Neither the teachers nor pupils knew when the real Q-Link devices were in operation; indeed, most were unaware that an experiment was even ongoing.
At the end of the study, the results showed that, when the Q-Link was active, overall "maladaptive behaviour" decreased by 38 per cent, hyperactivity by 24 per cent and emotional outbursts by 58 per cent, whereas attention improved by 48 per cent.
Although these findings are highly promising, more studies are needed to confirm the results, particularly as the trials have involved only small numbers of people. It should also be noted that William Tiller, who carried out the Q-Link and EEG study, was involved in the development of Q-Link and, thus, may not be an entirely unbiased researcher.
Other than Rubik's review, there appears to be only one other published study of SRT-a controlled (but not double-blind) trial-suggesting that an active SRT device may offer protection against the brainwave effects of mobile phones (J Altern Complement Med, 2002; 8: 427-35).
However, what seems strange is that, since 2002, no other SRT studies have been published.
Yet, a number of unpublished studies can be found on the Q-Link website (see www.qlinkproducts.com), confirming that research is still being carried out.
Just last year, a placebo-controlled study showed significant improvements in the performance of high-school distance runners while wearing a Q-Link. Another recent study reported increases in strength and energy among golfers wearing a Q-Link, although the study did not include a control group.
Exactly how the Q-Link operates still remains a mystery. Yet, based on the research so far, as well as the glowing testimonials of users, it certainly appears to work. In fact, if it doesn't work for you, Clarus says it's happy to give you your money back.
WDDTY VOL. 21 ISSUE 12