12
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 97:
Line 97: − + − + − − − Another argument against Oligoscan is that spectroscopic measurements of metals through the skin and inside the cell would be of very low concentrations. Such measurements require special sample preparation and special, highly sensitive equipment that can only be operated by highly trained personnel, all of which requires much more time than 20 seconds per test. − − The basics and applications of spectrophotometry are described in more detail at Wikipedia [8]. The principle-related limitations - and thus the impossibility of the functioning of the Oligoscan - are described in the textbooks of Analytical Chemistry, in particular those on Instrumental Analysis. − In order to validate the suitability of Oligoscan for diagnostic purposes, studies would be needed that compare Oligoscan test results with those from conventional laboratory analysis obtained from blood, urine or tissue samples. It would also be necessary, for example, to examine to what extent measurements on the palm of the hand reflect the concentrations in the rest of the body. [9] Such studies do not exist, but when asked, Oligoscan promoters often state that studies are in process. Physioquanta confuses and misleads with a list of 35 publications entitled "Scientific References". [10] None of these publications concern itself with such research investigations or even about the Oligoscan process. Instead, listed articles reflect on the physiological importance of minerals, etc. The company Project Health Consulting GmbH, which distributes the device under the name Zell-Check, argues that the detection of mineral deficiencies on the basis of a blood sample is less accurate than the measurement with Zell Check, and that Zell-Check has the advantage that minerals are detected intracellularly and not only in the blood. [11] (Note. Red blood cell testing reflects on intracellular levels) − As of 2018, no serious report validating Oligoscan has been published. In discussion rounds of users, failed measurements that did not hold up in comparison are mentioned. Comparisons with laboratory results are said to have failed. There are also reports of patients with persistent chronic diseases, in which Oligoscan gave values "in the normal range". − It has not been proven that repeated measurements taken in one and the same patient hold up to comparison. In fact, the manufacturer does not seem to like such repetitive measurements. While the user has to pay a fee of 30 euros per test, the manufacturer also claims that repeat measurements lead to so-called "quantum physical changes", making a comparison impossible. With this argument, the method can practically not proven wrong and is therefore non-scientific. − Apparently, the user must believe results, and from the onset, a repeatability / replicability check is prevented.
→Psiram articles in other languages
*http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000021965714 (french)
*http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000021965714 (french)
==Psiram articles in other languages==
==Psiram articles in other languages==
* Français: OligoScan
* Français: OligoScan
*
* German:
==Sources==
==Sources==
<references/>
<references/>