A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions

From Abracadabra to Zombies

reader comments: bioharmonics

3 Jan 2000
Dear Mr. Carroll,

Although we encourage free speech and the right to opinions voiced in well researched articles on the internet, we feel that the link to BioHarmonics on your website is highly inappropriate. You have had a link to bioharmonics.com on a page entitled "Suggestions for future entries in the Skeptic's Dictionary" for over two years now. After pursuing the articles posted in the Skeptic's Dictionary, we have found that they tend to be biased against energy healing research of various types. Our link placement on your site suggests to visitors that we are being investigated for some kind of quackery or other fraudulent behavior which is not the case. Since we have not once been contacted by you, we feel that you are intentionally misleading the public and that your actions should at the very least create skepticism about your intentions. You have had plenty of time to research BioHarmonics and write your article. Yet, you have not initiated contact with us to date, nor have you ever given any indication that you are actually planning to do anything other than sully our reputation by placing the link on your page. Therefore, we ask that you remove the link from your site. Thank you.
Wishing you wellness,
Linda Townsend
BioHarmonics Researcher and Consultant
Cornerstone Enterprises International, SA

reply: Your wish is my command. Bioharmonics and the BioHarmonizer have been removed from the "future entries" page and now have a place in the SD itself along with other pseudoscientific New Age quack theories and devices.

By the way, the page listing "Suggestions for future entries" is just that: a page of suggestions. Readers suggest the sites and I post them on this page if they seem like the kind of thing I might some day write an entry for. The list keeps getting longer instead of shorter. Periodically, I thin the list, as when I actually write an entry on a suggested topic or remove items I deem inappropriate. Because the material to write about is infinite and my time finite I often will let a suggestion sit for years until someone, such as yourself, motivates me to investigate it at a time when I have a few hours to spare.

update: Dec 2007: the bioharmonics.com page no longer exists.


4 Jan 2000 
Thank you for taking the time to write your article. Criticisms of scientific reports are considered part of the refining process and actually improve the final results. When the website was reconstructed recently, the case studies were not uploaded. We are working on updating them and adding new case studies as well. I am also in the process of preparing a book on BioHarmonics as well.

In your message you stated ". . . motivates me to investigate it at a time when I have a few hours to spare." I am most interested in being interviewed by you when you find the time. A respected investigative reporter usually spends time and effort in deriving at the truth. I personally had to devote several years of research and documentation for my articles.

Bottom line is anyone can go the BioHarmonics website and make their own decision regarding the information presented there. Any hack can pick apart a few published articles but responsible writers have higher ethics. What investment beyond a few hours writing time have you really made in preparing your article with its recommendations? Have all the articles in "The Skeptics Dictionary" been based on this lack of commitment?

Wishing you wellness,
Linda Townsend
BioHarmonics Researcher and Consultant

reply: My investment includes a few decades of studying, observing, reading, investigating, discussing, etc., numerous claims regarding paranormal, supernatural, occult and quasi-metaphysical New Age claims. I've also researched many pseudoscientific theories over the past thirty years. Your work bears all the marks of pseudoscience on its sleeve. Any critical thinker with a good grasp of scientific methodologies and theories would notice almost immediately that your work is not scientific and offers little hope of being based on anything other than metaphysical claptrap garbed in jargon to make it appear reasonably informed.

In case you are wondering what I am referring to, I mean:

  1. You are unclear regarding basic concepts. You give no clear definition of 'bioenergy'.

  2. You show you do not understand biochemistry by your writing, viz., "if bioenergy and biochemistry have a mutual influence on each other, correcting bioenergy irregularities may also effect balancing the biochemistry." Bioenergy (as understood by biochemists) can't influence biochemistry any more than nuclear power plants can influence nuclear physics.

  3. You show you do not understand that empirical and metaphysical concepts are different types. Your claims about layers of bioenergy and the connection with chi have no empirical basis.

  4. Your thinking is metaphorical, not scientific. Your comparisons of the body to a piano regarding harmony and the body to a magnet regarding "bipolarity" have no basis in fact.

  5. The machine you are selling, which allegedly harmonizes bioenergy, has many analogues in the history of pseudoscience. You posit an undetectable energy, declare it is defective, claim you have what can set it aright, then offer a device that is impossible to monitor except by subjective validation. (Are your case studies going to be reports of people who say they used the machine and boy do they feel better now?)

Finally, I am having difficulty in understanding why you keep baiting me. I could go on for a few more hours as to why I don't feel a need to spend any extensive time studying your work to be reasonably assured that it is worthless. 

Why would you want to be interviewed by a hack who you know will rip you to shreds?


8 Jan 2000
Just a quick note to tell you that I have been enjoying your site for the last few years and I applaud your informative and well-crafted dissections of various pseudoscience claims.

I was prompted to write after reading your article on Linda Townsend's BioHarmonics. Visiting her site I not only found the annoying, buttonless pop-up window (a feature usually reserved for seedy adult web sites) but looking at the source I noticed that she has included META keyword tags listing nearly every type of cancer known to man, and maybe some that aren't. She even includes the terms 'dog cancer' and 'canine cancer' along with the names of some well-known cancer research centers. All in an obvious attempt to get her site listed on search engines to snare unsuspecting individuals seeking help or information.

All in all, it's a truly shameless attempt to take advantage of people's misfortunes and ignorance. At least I did find her email address so now I can share with her all the wonderful, unsolicited email I receive regarding miracle cures or sure-fire profit making opportunities that will help her continue her noble efforts.

Keep up the excellent work,
Mike Hall

reply: You're right. Here is what she has in her meta tag: <META HTTP-EQUIV="keywords" CONTENT="cancer, breast cancer, skin cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, american cancer society, ovarian cancer, cancer diagnosis, cervical cancer, cancer treatment, liver cancer, bone cancer, testicular cancer, national cancer institute, pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, prostrate cancer, cancer research, brain cancer, throat cancer, kidney cancer, oral cancer, breast cancer prevention, mouth cancer, esophageal cancer, uterine cancer, bowel cancer, prostate cancer treatment, cancer statistics, inflammatory breast cancer, pancreas cancer, canadian cancer society, rectal cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, penis cancer, breast cancer treatment, www.cancer.org, lung cancer picture, cancer cure, cancer society, www.cancer.com, cancer center, type of cancer, breast cancer symptom, cancer picture, cancer support, colon cancer symptom, tongue cancer, alternative cancer treatment, small cell lung cancer, skin cancer picture, cancer symptom, cancer drug, lung cancer symptom, gastric cancer, esophagus cancer, testicle cancer, bone marrow cancer, ovarian cancer symptom, breast cancer picture, lymph node cancer, cancer medicine, cancer diet, cancer information, small cell cancer, metastatic breast cancer, cancer cause, md anderson cancer center, lip cancer, male breast cancer, canine cancer, american cancer association, cervix cancer, cancer prevention, dog cancer, cancer genetics, fox chase cancer center, neck cancer, dana farber cancer institute, american cancer, melanoma cancer, cancer cell, squamous cell cancer, disease, lyme disease, sexually transmitted disease, center for disease control, heart disease, crohn's disease, parkinson's disease, liver disease, grave disease, fifth disease, parkinsons disease, alzheimer's disease, mad cow diseeae, crohns disease, lymes disease, skin disease, kidney disease, huntington's disease, thyroid disease, hodgkins disease, lime disease, alzheimers disease, eye disease, genetic disease, lung disease, meniere's disease, autoimmune disease, fifths disease, infectious disease, gum disease"

(It was not easy to find this, but for those who are interested it is in the source for http://www.bioharmonics.com/topframe.htm, which is set for infinite looping, so I do not advise going directly to that site.)


Ms. Townsend replies:
10 Jan 2000

Dear Mr. Carroll,

Thank you for your observation [that 'bioenergy' is not clearly defined]. I will need to give a clear definition on my website. In brief, "bio" means means "of living things" and "energy" has many meanings "inherent power", "power in action", "expression of force", etc. Basically my term "bioenergy" is energy that is inherent to living things. The term is accurate, even if it has been also used as scientific term to describe something completely different.

reply: Your definition may be accurate, but it still is not clear. What do you mean by 'inherent'? What are the essential characteristics of this energy that distinguish it from other forms of energy? How is this energy detected and measured? How does 'bioenergy', in your sense, differ from élan vital, chi or prana?

[You write]

You show you do not understand biochemistry by your  writing, viz., "if bioenergy and biochemistry have a  mutual influence on each other, correcting bioenergy  irregularities may also effect balancing the  biochemistry." Bioenergy (as understood by biochemists)  can't influence biochemistry any more than nuclear power  plants can influence nuclear physics.

Put a plant in total darkness, it cannot thrive by the nutrients in the soil alone. God forbid that a child try to grow in total darkness, but I imagine it would be the same result. Why? Every scientist recognizes that certain biochemical reactions only can occur with the energy called light -- and not all "light" is in our visual spectrum. Dogs hear sounds we cannot. I have met people who can also hear beyond the typical range for humans. Existence of something does become unreal just cause we cannot detect it, just deniable.

reply: I think you mean, in your last sentence, that the existence of something does not depend upon our ability to detect it. I agree. However, that is a philosophical issue. We are here discussing an empirical matter. The fact is that we can detect areas of the electromagnetic spectrum that are not detectable by the senses without help from sonar, radar, the spectrometer, etc. If this energy you posit exists outside the range of our most sophisticated equipment, how do you know it exists? You are making claims for a very powerful effect from this energy, yet the energy itself is undetectable. This sounds like faith, not science. 

Bioenergy is expressed in frequencies and harmonics of magnetic, electricity and light energies working together just at the outer boundaries of our ranges for physical detection. If the body/bioenergy field lacks these energies, illness will result.

reply: How do you know these things? What evidence is there for either of these claims? If these harmonics are at the outer boundary of our range of physical detection (by which I assume you mean detection using sophisticated scientific equipment), then they are detectable. If so, why are you the only one who has detected them? I don't imagine you even have access to the kind of equipment necessary to detect energy at the boundaries of detection.

Furthermore, what is the basis for your claim that there is a causal relationship between these boundary energies and illness? And if there is a causal relationship, you have no way of knowing which is the cause, which the effect. How do you know that it is not illness which causes disharmony (assuming for the moment that these boundary energies and their harmonics exist)?

You like musical analogies, so here is one for you. If I hit the G string on my guitar and send out sound with various harmonics, you will have no effect on my G string by altering the harmonics with another instrument.

Every chemical reaction has an "electromagnetic" basis and every atom has movement, at least that was what I understood from my basic chemistry. Sunlight contains light in spectrums beyond technology's detection less then a century ago but technology is always behind human imagination. Someone had to see something that made him search beyond what he accepted to be absolute. That is "the stuff" that makes discoveries.

reply: It is also the stuff of quackery and nonsense. You seem to think that you have carte blanche to furnish the universe with whatever entities you wish on the ground that scientific knowledge has increased over time. 

[You write]

Your claims  about layers of bioenergy and the connection with chi have no empirical basis.

That is true at this time but as technology advances, I am positive that someday soon devices will be produced that will give the empirical evidence you are seeking.

reply: On what do you ground this hope? And, until then, shouldn't you be a bit more cautious of making grandiose claims regarding the health benefits of your Harmonizer? By the way, how could you invent the Harmonizer if you don't have the technology to detect these energies? If you can create them or affect them, you must be able to detect them. You should be writing a scientific paper and getting ready to receive your Nobel Prize.

[You write]

Are your case studies going to be reports of people who  say they used the machine and boy do they feel better  now?

Not exactly. For instance, one Florida man has interstitial fibrosis of the lungs. This is caused by breathing in mineral dusts even though he wore a mask, when he worked in a steel mill in Pennsylvania. One year before we met, he was told he had three years left and was put on the lung transplant list. After doing some research on his own he found that a lung transplant would not improve his quality of life and most likely only give him additional 3 to 5 years of suffering. He approached me when the specialists told him in August that he would not have two more years but barely 6 months because the disease was progressing much faster than anticipated. He began the self administered harmonization process in September. In November, his doctor can not hear any cracking in his lungs and asked him to come back for tests in January. In January, his doctor told him he would no longer qualify for a lung transplant. All this occurred in 1996-97 and he is still alive today. This disease rarely goes into remission, let alone improves. He is off medication most of the time except for occasional illnesses that seems to target his weaken lungs. Although he still harmonizes daily, at times he still has bouts of coughing and difficulty breathing but overall he is still improving. This was not the only case with documentation (x-rays and medical reports) but one of the toughest cases I have observed so far. He tells me that how he is now still is better that he would have been with a lung transplant. Most of the people he interviewed who had transplants are dead or dying. (I featured the progress of his case on the old website for over two years along with some others and this case is also featured in the book I am writing.)

reply: Not exactly? If you don't call this a case study, what do you call it? This is a testimonial, not a scientific study.

[You write

It is true that alternative practitioners can help some people by the placebo effect and by providing attention, love and care.]

Placebo? I really doubt it but let's say for a moment that it is. (Isn't it too bad that the learned, scientifically based, medical profession could not give him the elements needed for the placebo effect -- hope, faith and love.) Placebo effects rarely, if ever, actually make the person well rather than just "feel good". It is doubtful that this was placebo especially when you consider the time factors of this one case but there are several others.

reply: According to the Methodist Health Care System webpage on respiratory disorders, there are over 180 kinds of interstitial lung diseases. It is possible your machine helped the man, but we'll never know because so many other factors could account for his condition.

I would not place too much emphasis on the erroneous predictions of medical divinities (MDs).

Actually, I am pretty skeptical of many of the metaphysical ideas that you have categorized with my research. The thing I find so fascinating is that you assumed it was the same as the others and did not really investigate BioHarmonics itself. I have been able to do something no healing energy philosophy has ever done to date. With a bioenergy test, I have been able to accurately (less than 5% error) determine blood types from bioenergy patterns with hundreds of people who knew I could not possibly know that information about themselves. This is something that can be empirically verified with a blood test. As a skeptic, don't you find that the least bit interesting?

reply: I not only find it interesting, I find it appalling. So you can detect bioenergy. Do you do this with a machine or is it intuitive, some gift that only you possess? What journal have you published your study in? I would like to read how you detect the patterns and what algorithm you use to correlate the patterns to blood type. This alone would win you the Nobel Prize. Think of the lives that might be saved by not having to do a blood test before a transfusion in emergency cases!

[You write

 Finally, I am having difficulty in understanding why you  keep baiting me. Why would you want to be interviewed by a  hack who you know will rip you to shreds?]

I view this conversation as exchange between two people of unlike minds. I honestly respect the views of someone who is true to skepticism. At this point I could quote your definition of a skeptic but you already know what you have written. I believe to be skeptical is to doubt and question. Skepticism is not about prejudging but in seeking truth that can be proven. I merely ask the question why are you convinced before you seek all the evidence? Are you not a contradiction of your beliefs? And if you are convinced what you believe is the truth and do not need further proof, why did you respond?

Wishing you wellness,
Linda Townsend

reply: A good critical thinker must not only have a healthy skepticism, but also be able to recognize a likely fraud or deluded person when he or she comes upon one. It would be wasteful of time and intellectual energy to dig deeply into every crackpot idea that is put forth by people such as yourself.

I respond for three reasons. One, I'm open-minded enough to allow that maybe you have some evidence for your claims and that maybe I was wrong in my initial evaluation of what you present as your work.

Two, the public exposition of my reasons and reasoning in your case can serve as an example of what I am doing in many other cases that are similar. Hopefully, by reading my comments some readers will see more clearly the importance of doing controlled tests rather than collecting testimonials. They may recognize how easy it is to delude ourselves if we do not clarify our terms and set out precise methods of evaluating our claims.

Three, in case you are a fraud, rather than a sincere person who is deluded or mistaken, I hope that by exposing you and others like you some people with serious illnesses will not seek your services. Your kind of medicine gives false hope to desperate people. Your attempt to lure in cancer patients with a meta tag and keywords in your html code is especially disgusting.


Ms. Townsend replies to my replies again (to avoid confusion I will reply to these replies to my replies at the end of her letter rather than respond to each reply to the reply). My earlier replies and questions are in bold, Ms. Townsend's responses are italicized:

10 Jan 2000
Dear Mr. Carroll,

Your definition may be accurate, but it still is not clear. What do you mean by 'inherent'?

I believe the definition of inherent is "existing in someone or something as a natural inseparable quality".

What are the essential characteristics of this energy that distinguish it from other forms of energy? 

The only essential characteristic is that is of living systems. Even plants have it although in a different formation than animals.

 How is this energy detected and measured?

You cannot measure the power of a magnet with a piece of wood but you can with a piece of iron. The iron, unlike wood, has the potential of becoming magnetic. You cannot measure bioenergy without a sensitive source of bioenergy.

How does 'bioenergy', in your sense, differ from elan vital, chi or prana?

They don't reveal patterns relating to physical variation of one's blood type.

If this energy you posit exists outside the range of our most sophisticated equipment, how do you know it exists? You are making claims for a very powerful effect from this energy, yet the energy itself is undetectable. This sounds like faith, not science.

Perhaps. Science is also a belief system with several sects. What one scientist believes is a logical conclusion of the evidence can often be doubted and even concluded as wrong by another. Interpretations of evidence is still ruled by imperfect humans. In effect, yes, I believe all things of science have an element of faith.

How do you know these things? What evidence is there for either of these claims? If these harmonics are at the outer boundary of our range of physical detection (by which I assume you mean detection using sophisticated scientific equipment), then they are detectable. If so, why are you the only one who has detected them? I don't imagine you even have access to the kind of equipment necessary to detect energy at the boundaries of detection.

About 250 B.C. Greek scientists determined the Earth was round. Yet, the discoverers did not act on that belief. It does not amaze me that it was over 1700 years later before a "civilized" explorer acted on that information. What amazes me is how one can claim to prove with theory alone that something exists and then sit back discussing it without venturing on. Acting on a belief is what makes it believable.

The answers I would give you may be no more proof to you that bioenergy exists than the sophisticated mathematical equations was [sic] proof to common people that the world was spherical. I have no mathematical equations except for simple harmonics, no quantum science theories and no empirical evidence that would satisfy you and still I say it does exist because I can detect it. If it does not exist, how can I detect it and determine a person's blood type by it?

Furthermore, what is the basis for your claim that there is a causal relationship between these boundary energies and illness? And if there is a causal relationship, you have no way of knowing which is the cause, which the effect. How do you know that it is not illness which causes disharmony (assuming for the moment that these boundary energies and their harmonics exist)?

It can be either or both. Often the bioenergy reveals an anomaly prior to physical symptoms of temporary conditions such as colds, flues and infections but whether the bioenergy anomaly causes or allows the cause of the illness is something I cannot say with absolute certainty at this time. I only say say that the bioenergy anomaly is found in relationship to the effected areas.

You like musical analogies, so here is one for you. If I hit the G string on my guitar and send out sound with various harmonics, you will have no effect on my G string by altering the harmonics with another instrument.

I am not sure what you meant here, but I believe you are saying that I cannot make the G string change. If I had a guitar with an out of tune G string and we played together, it would eventually effect [sic] your G string. I used to play guitar with others and have noticed this happens. If you are saying I could not do this with harmonics alone, I would have to say that it would be an interesting experiment.

It is also the stuff of quackery and nonsense. You seem to think that you have carte blanche to furnish the universe with whatever entities you wish on the ground that scientific knowledge has increased over time.

I apologize for misleading you about how I think.

On what do you ground this hope? And, until then, shouldn't you be a bit more cautious of making grandiose claims regarding the health benefits of your Harmonizer? By the way, how could you invent the Harmonizer if you don't have the technology to detect these energies? If you can create them or affect them, you must be able to detect them. You should be writing a scientific paper and getting ready to receive your Nobel Prize.

I have not made any claims other than the Harmonizer can be used [to] energize bioenergy and correct bioenergy imbalances. The rest has been extracted from personal experience and reports of others. You know, a doctor gave me this same Nobel Prize speech once. It was done publicly and, unknown to him, in front of researchers, doctors, and scientists who had just witnessed me determining blood types by bioenergy testing. I was terribly embarrassed for him.

 Not exactly? If you don't call this a case study, what do you call it. This is a testimonial, not a scientific study.

The "not exactly" was answering your question: "Are your case studies going to be reports of people who say they used the machine and boy do they feel better now?"

What I gave you is a synopsis from dated notes, reports, etc. as well as his testimony. His case reports are several pages long.

According to the Methodist Health Care System webpage on respiratory disorders, there are over 180 kinds of interstitial lung diseases. It is possible your machine helped the man, but we'll never know because so many other factors could account for his condition.

I thought I had given you the cause, breathing metallic dust while working in a steel mill, and if you looked it up you know that there is no medical cure. The disease progresses even when removed from the environment that caused it. His diagnosis was chronic interstitial fibrosis. His prognosis was terminal in 1995 with 3 years, possibly 5 years, of life without a lung transplant until August of 1996. At that time his prognosis was change to 6 months of life.

I would not place too much emphasis on the erroneous predictions of medical divinities (MDs).

Oh. Well, I agree. I used to work at a place that did x-ray readings. You see some things and learn some things here and there. One thing I have noticed is that when about half of the lungs look white on an x-ray one month and the next month more that half with greater density, that person is has a fast paced disease that is most liked going to inhibit his breathing to the point the lungs cannot exhale.

I not only find it interesting, I find it appalling. So you can detect bioenergy. Do you do this with a machine or is it intuitive, some gift that only you possess?

I test the motions of bioenergy using a special device that is able to swing freely and has access living bioenergy source [sic?]. Even though this is a subjective device at this time that will not always be so. Subjective or not, I still can detect blood types with high accuracy.

Everything causes a reaction in the bioenergy field. I am in the process of logging the patterns of various stimuli. For instance, the Florida man had difficulty correcting his bioenergy patterns to healthy states. I tested the bioenergy motion reactions of various metals and found the "signature" of nickel in the lungs, liver, and in the joints. He also had arthritis. Nickel is known to have an affinity for the lungs and is a known cause of lung cancer. Detoxification methods were suggested. Afterward, the bioenergy did improve and the nickel signature cannot be found. He reports he has very little to no arthritis pain now. When we first met, he could barely walk most days. 

What journal have you published your study in? I would like to read how you detect the patterns and what algorithm you use to correlate the patterns to blood type. This alone would win you the Nobel Prize. Think of the lives that might be saved by not having to do a blood test before a transfusion in emergency cases!

All things come in time.

Have you ever written a paper for a journal and had it accepted?

It is extremely difficult to get a journal to accept a paper without some peer recognition regardless of supportive findings. Still, I am continually looking for devices or someone with the technical expertise to make a device that would be considered absolutely objective, if there ever is such a thing.

 I respond for three reasons. One, I'm open-minded enough to allow that maybe you have some evidence for your claims and that maybe I was wrong in my initial evaluation of what you present as your work.

I recognized that or I would not have responded.

Two, the public exposition of my reasons and reasoning in your case can serve as an example of what I am doing in many other cases that are similar. Hopefully, by reading my comments some readers will see more clearly the importance of doing controlled tests rather than collecting testimonials. They may recognize how easy it is to delude ourselves if we do not clarify our terms and set out precise methods of evaluating our claims.

I appreciate that as well.

Three, in case you are a fraud, rather than a sincere person who is deluded or mistaken, I hope that by exposing you and others like you some people with serious illnesses will not seek your services. Your kind of medicine gives false hope to desperate people. Your attempt to lure in cancer patients with a meta tag and keywords in your html code is especially disgusting.

I understand your concern. Perhaps it is inappropriate but then if someone does a search for cancer, I very much doubt he will find our site in the first 500 sites that come up on any major search engine.

Usually those with cancer who come to us are terminal with have no medical options left. I do not give them false hope about their situation or miracle speeches although I have seen some miraculous things. I think you can tell that I am not trying to use hype and, even if I am deluded by your definition, I am sincere about my work and the research I have done.

I have really enjoyed our conversation and your questions have helped me. Perhaps when we get some case studies on-line you will be inspired to review the site again.

Wishing you wellness, 
Linda Townsend

reply: I think you've answered all my questions as well as they can be answered. Your own words have exposed your intentions, methods, accomplishments and understanding of scientific procedures with exquisite clarity and appalling self-confidence.


10 Jan 2000 
In her latest missive, Linda has actually made a testable claim, viz, that she can (with her magic box), type blood to a 95% accuracy by measuring the bioenergy field. You might wish to suggest that she apply for the million dollar Randi award. Or, ask for volunteers to run a controlled test, with her written pledge that if the test should prove negative, she will cease and desist from all promotion of her devices, books, and seminars. Of course, if she DOES succeed, we will do everything we can to promote her important work and get her that Nobel Prize that she apparently deserves.

Stuart Yaniger


10 Jan 2000
I have been reading the ongoing email discussion you have been having with the BioHarmonics quacks. I found the Meta tag to be very disturbing, so I took the time to email the agencies listed in the tag to alert them to the inappropriate referencing by BioHarmonics. I included a link to your letters page. I don't know if they have the time or resources to pursue things like this but I felt they should be given the opportunity. Large corporations have sued companies and website owners for doing the same thing and won.

It is an obscenity. Thanks for bringing it to the attention of the web community.
Kevin Miller

reply: It was Mike Hall (see his letter above) who brought it to my attention.


10 Jan 2000 
I am following with interest the on-going discussion between you and Ms. Townsend regarding bioharmonics. Looking at a website's search keywords can probably shed some light on a company's motives; I think a company's accounting practices can, too. From the bioharmonics web page (http://www.bioharmonics.com/cei/ie-index.htm , under Harmonizer, then DISCOUNT PRICE!), I found this gem:

"Would you like to pay $100 less for a Harmonizer and 10% off all other products.....

"To qualify you will need to pay in CASH. Postal Money Orders from the U.S. Post Office and U.S. Currency are the only types of payments that qualify. Wire transfers may be considered on an individual basis.

Money Orders, Cashier's Checks, personal checks or any other type of payment method through banks or other companies are exempt from this offer."

This appears to be an attempt to collect money without a paper trail. While this doesn't invalidate bioharmonics per se, it does affect my opinion of the company, and causes me to question the nature of their motives, and the veracity of their claims.
Russell Fox

bioharmonics

 

All Reader Comments

 
This page was designed by Cristian Popa.