A Review of the Lifewave Research Database
By Robert J. Burtis at the WorldWide Scam Network
Introduction
If the research presented by Lifewave and Dr. David Schmidt
is going to be credible and valid, it must adhere strictly to the requirements
and protocols of established modern scientific research.
In a book published by the National Academy of
Sciences entitled, “On Being A Scientist: Responsible
Conduct In Research”, it states:
Experimental
Techniques and the Treatment of Data
One goal of methods is to facilitate the
independent verification of scientific observations. Thus, many experimental
techniques-such as statistical tests of significance, double-blind trials, or
proper phrasing of questions on surveys-have been designed to minimize the
influence of individual bias in research. By adhering to these techniques,
researchers produce results that others can more easily reproduce, which
promotes the acceptance of those results into the scientific consensus.
If research in a given area does not use generally
accepted methods, other scientists will be less likely to accept the results…
…researchers have to be extremely clear, both
to themselves and to others, about the methods being used to gather and analyze
data. Other scientists will be judging not only the validity of the data but
also the validity and accuracy of the methods used to derive those data.
Conducting unorthodox research and presenting
results achieved through the use of non-standard equipment, experimental
machines, and foreign technology fails all of these standards. If Lifewave is
serious about its technology and its patches, it must adhere to the same
rigorous standards that are applied to every other new product and science. They
are not allowed a pass just because they are a “new technology” and they are
not permitted to determine efficacy and results through the use of equipment
not currently accepted and in use by the established scientific community. In
fact, Lifewave must be held to a higher standard, because of the extraordinary
claims being made:
Basic Logic
First, it is
important to understand that the strength of a conclusion is a function both of
the quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori
probability of the claim being supported.
Moreover, the standard for accepting implausible claims should be much
higher than the standard for plausible ones. Extraordinary claims demand
extraordinary proof.
If Lifewave cannot rise to meet the existing
and generally accepted scientific standards, they should not be the least bit
surprised if the scientific establishment, the Internet community, the
commercial markets and the consumer reject their research and dismiss Dr. David
Schmidt’s inventions, theories and claims as fraudulent.
The
Lifewave Research Protocols
Just before the Lifewave Las Vegas Convention
one year ago, it was announced that several studies were well underway which
would prove the efficacy of their patches, and that they would be released in
just a few months.
“Learn about this research at the conference.
These papers will not be not available on our web site for up to 6 month due to
peer review publication requirements."
"There are just under 40 studies completed, being written up for
publication, or in the process of being completed."
This was prior to the Las Vegas Convention
in September of 2005. Over 40 studies had been completed, and yet more than a
year later, 29 of them remain unavailable and NONE of these studies have been published
in a legitimate peer reviewed publication.
Then it was announced that NEW studies would be released very soon which would prove Dr. David
Schmidt’s claims for once and for all. The obvious question here is, why not
just release the other 29 studies mentioned in 2005?
There are currently eleven studies posted
under the heading of “Clinical & Research Studies” on Lifewave’s corporate
web site. Most of them are not dated, so it is difficult to determine exactly
when the studies were done, and some are presented anonymously, so there is no
way to know which researchers actually did each study. Also missing are the
specific protocols under which the studies were performed and a detailed
cataloguing of the results obtained. Publishing their research without this
vital information damages the credibility of the studies right from the start.
Nevertheless, we shall endeavor to review
each of them according to the standards for legitimate scientific research
previously described.
1.
Effect of Novel Nanoscale Energy Patches on Spectral and Nonlinear
Dynamic Features of Heart Rate Variability
Signals in Healthy Individuals during Rest and Exercise
PRO: Dr. Nazeran is a respected specialist
in his field and his research is very detailed and precise.
CON: The study is more than 18 months old,
Dr. Nazeran is on Lifewave’s “Advisory Council”, he is a friend and associate
of Dr. Emily Haltiwanger, the research is based upon a statistically
insignificant volunteer base, and the conclusions are not meaningful.
This is an old study from a year and a half
ago and it fails on several levels.
The opening abstract itself establishes the
premise and purpose of the research:
Abstract – LifeWave energy patches are novel
nanoscale semiconducting biomolecular antennas, that when placed in the
oscillating bioelectromagnetic field of the body, resonate at frequencies in
unison with certain biomolecules in the cells and signal specific metabolic
pathways to accelerate fat metabolism. As a consequence of accelerated fat
burning more cellular energy becomes readily available to support all bodily
energy-consuming functions.
That Lifewave patches work is a given aspect of the
study; the rest of the research is simply an attempt to prove what they claim
in the abstract. The work is not objective, nor is it independent or impartial,
as the researcher, Dr. Homer Nazeran, is a member of the Lifewave Advisory
Council and he is a research associate of Dr. Emily Haltiwanger at Texas University.
The study itself addresses an obscure aspect of
patch efficacy that we have never seen mentioned as a benefit or effect of Lifewave
patch use, and involves a statistically insignificant number of ten volunteers.
Dr. Nazeran’s own conclusion states that:
Based on these preliminary observations it could be
concluded that both during both rest and after 5 min of exercise, the Energy
patches enhanced the relaxation level as they reduced the LF/HF... These exciting preliminary
results warrant comprehensive investigations to study the effects of these
Energy patches under different physical and health conditions in a large number
of subjects within different age groups.
This study is old news that was revealed as having
little value more than a year ago. It has even less value today.
2. LifeWave Products Pure Energy Patches 60-Subject Test Final Report
By Fenestra Research
PRO: Fenestra Research is an outside
research organization and they used a larger volunteer sample in their study.
CON: This is outdated research done in
December of 2005. Their testing consists of one test, test subjects are
monitored by telephone twice weekly, and the results are skewed. The test
summaries are presented anonymously with no detailed protocol or results
database.
At
first glance, this undated anonymous study gives the appearance of a serious independent
third-party research group using a database of 60 volunteers. Their seventeen
page report actually consists of only three pages that actually pertain to
Lifewave patches, followed by fourteen pages describing their standard lab
research parameters associated with their “Optimal
Wellness Test” and ending
with the statement that:
A long term 6 month study is being planned
for the 2005 at the end of the first quarter to study the effects of drinking
Glacia Nova Pure Glacial Water.
What that has to do with Lifewave patches remains a
mystery.
Further investigation reveals that Fenestra Research
apparently consists of ONE individual, Dr. Melonie Montgomery, who uses the “Bioanalyzer
Technology” she has invented. This technology features the Optimal Wellness Test (a urine and saliva test):
The OWT was able to identify and measure 34
clinical markers in human physiology to a very high degree of accuracy, and
conclude the level of “wellness” exhibited by individual clients with specific
recommendations for improving areas of concern.
Dr. Montgomery received her education in “Holistic
Medicine” from the Clayton College of Natural Health. She owns several Internet
domains, including FENESTRARESEARCH.COM, OPTIMALWELLNESSTEST.COM, and
EQUUSLAB.COM where she explains that:
The Optimal Equine Analysis developed by “The World Leader
In Wellness Technology” Fenestra Research Labs is the first of its kind to
measure how close an individual horse is to wellness.
Apparently, the “Optimal
Wellness Test” she invented for humans
works just as well on horses.
Fenestra Research endorsements show up frequently on
web sites for various New Age MLM products, nutraceuticals, and a variety of exotic specialty waters.
And Dr. Montgomery is quick to remind us that:
It is important to
understand that while the research is double blind and un-biased, Melonie and
Fenestra Research are 100% on your team. Reports are written to highlight
product benefits.
Her web pages link to a variety of other commercial product
and services web sites. Fenestra Research - by their own definition - is not
impartial or objective. The Optimal Wellness Test is
not recognized by the scientific establishment and therefore the results have
little value or credibility. Dr. Montgomery also appears to have a professional
relationship with Lifewave affiliate Lisa Tully, who is also a member of the
Lifewave Advisory Council.
Fenestra Research is not
independent, is not impartial, and performs only one test of their own design
which is judged by their own standards.
3. Summary
of IceWave Clinical Research Study – Infrared Imaging
PRO: They do provide a few detailed results.
CON: This is another old study completed in May of 2005. The study is
conducted by Dr. Dean Clark (who is a member of the Lifewave Health and Science
Council Members and the Lifewave Advisory Council) and Dr. Steven Haltiwanger
(who is a paid employee, Lifewave proponent, business affiliate and personal
friend of Dr. David Schmidt). There is no control group, no published
protocols, and no independent supervision.
This is another study attempting to demonstrate the results
promised by Dr. David Schmidt. It cannot be construed to be a “clinical
research study” because there is no research! The study consists of 36
volunteers who put on the patches while Lifewave employees presiding over this
high school science experiment simply take before and after photos with an infrared
camera.
If there are any serious research protocols, they are not
mentioned, and there is no control group of any kind. It’s all good fun and the
pictures are pretty, but the results have no credibility in the world of true
professional research.
4. Patch
Permeability
PRO:
This eleven page study is done professionally with excellent attention to
detail and specific information describing what tests were done and how they
were conducted, along with extensive photography and scientific graphing. It
was also signed by the researcher. This is the way all of the research should
be done. The conclusions are credible – Lifewave patches are definitely
nontransdermal. Well done!
CON: The
one study that effectively and professionally conducts its research and makes
its case pertains to an aspect of the patches that is of the least interest and
concern.
Virtually no one is charging that
Lifewave patches are transdermal. Certainly professional
sports organizations will need assurances that there is no transfer of
performance-enhancing substances when using the patches, but they needn’t
worry, since the patches offer nothing more than a placebo effect to begin
with.
Nevertheless, Lifewave actually secured
a legitimate outside agency to perform a series of tests using real science
according to generally accepted standards.
Two more obvious questions arise at
this point:
1. Why didn’t Dr. David Schmidt retain
the services of Fenestra Research to test the patches for permeability?
2. Why didn’t Dr. David Schmidt retain
the services of MVA Scientific Consultants
to test the patches against the many claims made for Dr. Schmidt’s
nanotechnology energy resonant transfer inventions?
Answers? Fenestra Research would have zero credibility with the relevant
regulatory agencies and MVA Scientific Consultants would expose Lifewave
patches as a fraud.
5. Investigative Study of
Long Term Effects of Life Wave® Patches Using Electro Meridian Analysis System®
(EMAS)
PRO: There
is an unusually long and thorough description of the study protocol.
CON:
It’s an old study released in September of 2005, utilizing an acupuncture
device that exists far outside of the general medical establishment, performed
by a researcher immersed in fringe health sciences, using a statistically
insignificant number of people, to arrive at a “more study is needed”
conclusion.
The author of this study is E. Reenah
McGill who has a number of educational degrees including a Master's
Degree In Oriental Medicine from Emperor's College
of Traditional Oriental Medicine,
licensed by the State of California
as an acupuncturist, and licensed by the State of New
Mexico as a Doctor of Oriental Medicine. Dr. McGill
is nationally certified as a National Diplomate in Acupuncture and Herbololgy
and Oriental Medicine.
Dr. McGill works
out of the “Healing Energy Center” in California where she offers
acupuncture, past life regression, mental massage, herbology, auricular
therapy, and the SCENAR “Self Controlled Energetic Neuro Adaptive Regulator Healing” device.
If Dr. David Schmidt and Lifewave were seriously looking for
a third party researcher that could be both objective and impartial, they came
to the wrong place. Dr. McGill may be a wonderful doctor and a talented
acupuncturist, but her life’s work is centered around alternative medicine and
oriental philosophies.
This “Long Term” study spans a total of seven weeks
involving a total of seven volunteers. Each participant acted as their own
control and maintained a daily “energy log”. Once a week their Meridian
energy was measured using the Electro Meridian Analysis
System® (EMAS) which was then compared to their “perceived” energy. The report
also notes that, “This study did not use a control group”.
In the first paragraph of her report,
Dr. McGill states that, “Further study… is recommended”, and on page 6 says
that,
”Further study with larger groups is recommended to support and
expand these results. As this technology becomes more widely used and
recognized validation is needed.”
No argument there! The purpose of this
report and the other ten “studies” was to provide such validation.
This particular study also exemplifies
the problems with all of the so-called “Clinical & Research Studies”
presented by Dr. David Schmidt and Lifewave as the proof people have been
asking for in regards to their nanotechnology resonant energy transfer nontransdermal
patches. The researches are always trained in fringe science and alternative
medicine fields, the studies use statistically insignificant numbers of
volunteers, results are recorded by the participants themselves and checked
against measurements made by non-standard equipment, there are no double-blind
protocols, and often no control group at all.
6. BioCoherence and Lifewave Energy
Enhancement Patches Utilizing Bionetic-Feedback Assessment
PRO:
None – the report is unavailable
CON: The
TITLE of the report indicates its reliance upon non-standard and unproven
scientific methodology, and the involvement of Lifewave’s top corporate doctor,
Steven Haltiwanger, taints the report with bias and essentially nullifies any
results obtained. Which we cannot review in any case, since the report is not
there.
7. Responsiveness of Horses
to Biofrequency Modulation after Acupuncture Palpation
PRO: J.
Lauren DeRock is a respected veterinarian.
CON: This
one page report is old news, released in December of 2005. The author is a
Lifewave sales affiliate, company promoter, and a fringe science veterinarian.
This respected veterinarian could
hardly be considered independent, objective or impartial. The study is poorly
designed, involving 135 horses, only seven of which were given a placebo patch.
Pain levels in the horses was determined through the use of Dr. DeRock’s own
acupuncture diagnostic technique. There are no independent controls,
observations, or standards at any point.
Professional research protocols do not
permit one individual to arbitrarily design a study involving 135 horses, with
128 horses using the patch and seven using the placebo, and then to measure and
determine the results achieved based on a unique non-standard diagnostic
technique she developed and only she uses and understands.
8. Responsiveness of Subjects to the
LifeWave Patch during Aerobic and Muscular Endurance Activity.
PRO:
None
CON: An
old study and biased report with statistically insignificant results that even
Dr. Haltiwanger had to dismiss as inadequate.
This report is biased from the very
start:
The
LifeWave patch is a nontransdermal patent pending patch intended to enhance
athletic performance.
The results are presented as having:
“…demonstrated insignificant statistical
data.”
“As with the aerobic portion of this study,
the push-up segment also demonstrated insignificant statistical data.”
And Lifewave’s very own Dr. Haltiwanger
says:
Note from Dr.
Steve Haltiwanger- This is an early study on the LifeWave patches.
We have since
determined that at least 20 minutes of aerobic activity is needed to
demonstrate the
increased production of ATP from fat. This study did not have the
participants exercise long enough.
Why Dr. David Schmidt decided to
include this non-study that was even rejected by his friend and Lifewave
associate Dr. Haltiwanger, is unfathomable.
9. A double blind placebo controlled
study of the LifeWave technology as it relates to the improvement of strength
endurance in high performance college athletics
PRO:
None
CON:
This “study” was exposed as a sham more than a year ago.
Troy University has stated that:
“…we have no relationship with Lifewave
and have done no research for Lifewave. Our attorney has notified them to cease
all references to Troy University
or we will peruse legal action. Coach Shaughnessy does not represent Lifewave
on behalf of Troy University.”
“The statement that we have requested
that they post on their website and on those of their affiliates is as follows:
“Lifewave is not endorsed, represented or supported by Troy University,
its employees, or coaches. Troy University has not conducted any official
research on the effectiveness of Lifewave products and, therefore any reports
to the contrary are incorrect.”
The “studies” they claim
were conducted were done illegally and without the permission or approval
of the college's IRB (Institutional Review Board), which by law must approve
all experimentation on human subjects.
Troy University is also Warren Hanchey’s alma mater and it is safe to
assume that Mr. Hanchey made arrangements with Coach Richard Shaughnessy that enabled Lifewave to bypass the
legal requirements for such a study and to involve students in their testing without
their parent’s knowledge or the approval of the Troy University administration.
By once again publishing these
studies on their web site, Lifewave has exposed itself to possible legal
actions from Troy University.
10. LifeWave Strength Test
PRO:
None
CON:
Another illegal study done without the permission or approval of the Morehouse College's IRB (Institutional Review Board) or their administration.
This “study” was also exposed more than
a year ago and a Morehouse College administrator has issued the following statement:
“I will be getting a cease
and desist letter immediately.”
The testing was biased, unscientific, and done without the
knowledge or approval of the Institutional Review
Board or the Morehouse College
administration, and without any independent oversight or review.
11. LifeWave
Energy Patches Measured with Auramed Biopulsar Reflexograph
PRO:
Pretty colors…
CON:
This is another old report, done in December of 2005. The Auramed Biopulsar Reflexograph is a New
Age experimental machine designed to read human auras, and the “research” was
done with ONE volunteer.
As stated at the outset, Lifewave
patches make extraordinary claims and require extraordinary proof. Unproven
technology and non-standard measuring equipment cannot be used to verify Dr.
David Schmidt’s claims, if they are to have any credibility. These nanotechnology
patches must be tested using existing generally accepted equipment according to
universally recognized protocols and standards of research.
Summation
We were told that Lifewave would be releasing a great deal
of NEW research to support their claims for their
nanotechnology patches.
In reality, of eleven documents currently posted on the
Lifewave web site, one study is not available at all and the other ten are all
old research and studies completed prior to 2006.
Two of these studies have been exposed as illegal and
unauthorized frauds. The others either contain statistically insignificant data
and results, or are fatally flawed by lack of proper protocol and independent
controls, done by biased researchers and skewed by incomplete data and
analysis.
Conclusion
The research presented does nothing to validate Dr. David
Schmidt’s theories, technology, or inventions. Affiliates and customers should
be embarrassed that after five years on the market, all that Lifewave has to
offer as their very best research are outdated, unprofessional and incomplete studies
such as these.
Robert J. Burtis
The WorldWide Scam Network
http://worldwidescam.com
![[Picture]](dot_clear.gif){kind=small}