1. The Scientific American investigation
The adventures of Alice in Wonderland are tame in comparison of those of an investigator in the land of ERA.


In 1923 and 1924, the Scientific American magazine put together an investigation committee and investigated the "electronic reactions of Abrams". The investigation lasted about one year and cost the Scientific American $20,000 in 1923/1924 dollars. The Scientific American reported on the progress of the investigation in each monthly issue from October, 1923 to September, 1924.
In the second installment in the series they printed the results of their first test of an E.R.A. practitioner in New York City. [28] The practitioner was to diagnose the diseases contained in six vials. These contained pure germ cultures from diseased patients. The results of this first test was typical of the rest the Scientific American conducted with E.R.A. diagnosticians. The results were published in a chart reprinted here (numbers are "ohmage" rates of disease).



Each tube containing a pure germ culture of one specific disease was diagnosed as a host of diseases. For example, tube #2, which simply contained Pneumacoccus (a bacterium that causes pneumonia), was diagnosed as being syphilis, tuberculosis, septococcus, malaria and the flu, at which the committee decided that was enough diagnosing, which they called a "broadside". "The purity of the germ culture was questioned" by the doctor. There was no such thing as a pure germ culture according to the doctor. After a few more tests, the doctor "sought some reason for his flat failure". The Scientific American reported:
He asked to look at one of the pure germ culture vials. Looking at it in full light, presumably for the first time, he discovered the red edge on the label, as well as the blue handwriting. Right then and there Dr. X found the reason for his unsuccessful diagnosis. He explained to us that red is fatal to the accuracy of the electronic reactions! The presence of that bit of red on each label was sufficient to upset the reactions completely.... Furthermore, there was handwriting on our labels. No doubt the electronic emissions from the writer of those labels were being carried along in the diagnosis. If so, the writer of those labels must have been in a terrible state of health--and mind, so we reflected at the time. [29]
This was typical of the problems and obstacles the committee faced in testing E.R.A. practitioners. They accommodated such complaints by taking pains to eliminate any possible electronic contaminations. For example, in the above case, after "Dr. X" complained about the red edged labels and the blue handwriting, the committee had new labels attached in accordance with the doctor's specs, such as typing the numbers on plain labels, etc. Further testing, as their chart indicated, resulted in "broadside upon broadside" diagnoses that were completely off the mark. Further tests with other E.R.A. practitioners using various techniques in the following months resulted in complete failures as well. [30]
Additional strange complaints and requests of the doctor in the above case were common in the various Scientific American tests. Dr. X several times during the tests requested that all those present:
... and especially the reagent, keep their minds off the pure germ cultures.... It seems that even the thoughts of those present have a serious electronic effect on the reagent and the accuracy of the diagnosis. Sensitive-super-sensitive, these reactions! [31]
Later, in mentioning an ongoing correspondence with Dr. Abrams in which he said he would "demonstrate" his technique but not submit to test by their committee, they wrote:
Dr. Abrams, it will be noted, calls attention to the psychological factor. He indicates that when the E.R.A. diagnostician is working under test conditions, he is at a decided disadvantage because of his anxiety regarding the outcome of the test. From time to time we have been warned against a skeptical turn of mind, for such a state on the part of the investigator has a decidedly detrimental influence on the reactions... [32]
The committee came to the conclusion that the E.R.A. was occultic or psychic in nature. Before beginning the test with Doctor X in their first test, they said the preliminaries (subduing the light in the room, etc.) reminded them "in no little degree of a psychic seance"(p. 203). After tests with other doctors that included similar and even more bizarre claims and procedures ("queer" they said), they came to the conclusion that:
The whole thing bears striking resemblance to the subjective psychic phenomena. Compare it to the ouija board.... Compare it with automatic writing.... The ERA technique works-when it does work-in just this way.[33]
They also noted frequently its occult nature:
Dr. Abrams claimed that his electronic diagnosis enabled him to tell how old was the donor of the drop of blood, whether he was white, black, red or yellow; what diseases he was suffering now; what diseases could be expected in the future... and the expectancy of life. If additional information was desired, Dr. Abrams could tell the religion, the racial traits, and even the location of the individual at any given moment. In fact, during one of his classroom demonstrations he received a photograph of a young man, placed it in the dynamizer, found the young man to be insane as a result of serious syphilitic condition, and then, running an electrode over a map, located the individual at Stockton, Cal. Photographs, strands of hair, handwriting and many other things intimately connected with an individual could be used for electronic diagnosis in place of a drop of blood. The thing was uncanny. It bordered on occultism.[34]
Dr. Abrams himself diagnosed his own "life expectancy" and predicted his death would occur in January of 1924 based on his own E.R.A. diagnosis, which was fulfilled. [35]
After one year of tests and $20,000 dollars spent, the Scientific American committee's conclusion as to the scientific basis of the E.R.A. was that it was "the height of absurdity" and "utterly worthless". Their official statement was:
This committee finds that the claims advanced on behalf of the electronic reactions of Abrams, and of electronic practice in general, are not substantiated; and it is our belief that they have no basis in fact. In our opinion the so-called electronic treatments are without value. [36]

2. The Thomas Horder committee
In 1924, a British committee was put together to investigate an adaptation or modification of Abrams' E.R.A. apparatus and technique by Dr. W.E. Boyd of Glasgow. This committee's investigation and mostly negative conclusions are intriguing and a little puzzling to me. It has given rise to debate and claims that the E.R.A. was vindicated by this committee by those who endorse radionics.
A report of the committee's findings were recorded in both The Lancet and the British Medical Journal in January of 1925. [37] Basically, the tests of Dr. Boyd were at first complete failures. He was asked to differentiate between two different substances placed in the Dynamizer at random. His results were much less than what would be expected by chance. A physicist was also employed for six months to determine if "any effect measurable or detectable by orthodox physical apparatus was associated with the so-called 'reactions'. No such change could be found, and this aspect of the work was ultimately abandoned." [38]
However, after complaining about electronic interference, Dr. Boyd undertook further tests at his insulated residence with Whatley Smith of the committee in which he was able to differentiate between substances with remarkable accuracy. For example, he determined when a sample of saliva on filter paper was placed in the Dynamizer correctly 25 times in a row. This was estimated at being done by chance alone at 1 in 33,554,432. Most of the other tests thereafter yielded nearly 100 per cent accuracy. Was Mr. Smith deceived by Dr. Boyd due to his having more control over the experiments at his own residence?
The entire committee repeated the tests later with Dr. Boyd and obtained similar results. The entire committee was "satisfied" that the results were accurate. Overall the committee obtained numerous negative results with other E.R.A. practitioners of the Abrams and Boyd variety when dealing with diagnosing diseases, much like the Scientific American. However, they obtained some success from Dr. Boyd in differentiating certain non pathological substances such as "sulfer" and saliva. Their four stated conclusions were as follows:
(1) That certain substances , when placed in proper relation to the emanometer of Boyd, produce, beyond any reasonable doubt, changes in the abdominal wall of "the subject" of a kind which may be detected by percussion. This is tantamount to the statement that the fundamental proposition underlying, in common, the original and certain other forms of apparatus designed for the purpose of eliciting the so-called electronic reactions of Abrams, is established to a very high degree of probability.
(2) That no evidence justifying this deduction is yet available from the work of those who practice with the apparatus as yet designed by Abrams himself.
(3) That the phenomena appear to be extremely elusive, and highly susceptible to interference, so that in order to obtain reliable results it is necessary to take the most elaborate precautions, particularly as regards the elimination of effects due to irrelevant objects.
(4) That it would be premature at the present time even to hazard in the most tentative manner any hypothesis as to the physical phenomena here described. [39]
The first conclusion has of course been quoted by just about every pro-E.R.A. individual since then as confirming the E.R.A. However, this had nothing to do with the diagnosing of disease as the successful tests were done on non pathological substances such as saliva and sulfer. As the committee said after their above conclusions:
It is impossible to emphasize too strongly that nothing in this Communication is to be taken as implying that any correlation of those changes in the abdominal wall, referred to in conclusion (1), with pathological conditions has yet been shown, or a fortiori, that any justification-- physical, pathological, nosological, or clinical--exists for the direct use of either the Abrams or the Boyd apparatus in diagnosis or treatment.
This was further emphasized in the closing remarks of the committee's Communication which has been quoted by numerous critics of the E.R.A.:
To sum up. The conclusions arrived at in this Communication leave the practicing electronist as scientifically unsound and as ethically unjustified as it was before. They give no sanction for the use of E.R.A. in the diagnosis or in the treatment of disease. Nor does there appear to be any other sanction for this kind of practice at the present time. [40]
This Communication was delivered before the Royal Society of Medicine. At the end it was put to a vote as to whether the matter should be discussed further then or at a later time. Neither was decided, the matter simply dropped for the most part and hasn't been taken up again as far as scientific investigations are concerned. Some magazines picked up the controversy during 1925 based on the Horder report, but this quickly died out. [41]

Abrams' Legacy
After the Scientific American and Thomas Horder investigations, the E.R.A. lost most of its credibility. A few individuals carried on with the E.R.A. The major individuals in its later development were George De la Warr and Dr. Ruth Drown. Drown was the last major E.R.A. practitioner in America. The AMA dealt with her claims the way they did with Abrams, including recounting investigations and tests of her techniques similar to the rooster and guinea pig and Scientific American variety which found no basis for her claims. She was twice charged with fraud and died awaiting her second trial. [42] To my knowledge, "radionics" and associated devices are considered fraudulent by the U.S. Government and using it to diagnose and treat diseases is now illegal.
Due to the endorsement of Sir James Barr and the Horder report on the E.R.A., England has had more tolerance for radionics. The writer has read books published there in the 1960s and early 1970s that were still pointing out individuals using radionics without much government interference there. The last reference to individuals such as Chiropractors practicing radionics on patients in the U.S. was in the early 1960s. [43] Today, the only ones supporting radionics on either continent are those involved in the occult and the New Age movement. [44]
One occult spiritual group that supported the E.R.A. after the scientific investigations that denounced it were the Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) who supported it until 1953. [45] Individuals within the movement even invented new radionics devices to cure fellow JWs of diseases including cancer. [46] Today, radionics is considered quackery and to be occultic, psychic and spiritistic in nature by JWs. [47]





References:
1. Russell, Edward, Report on Radionics, (London: Neville Spearman), p. 17. Other sources put his birth in 1864 (Fishbein, Morris,The Medical Follies, (New York: Boni & Liveright), 1925, p. 99). There has been some uncertainty about his date of birth as Abrams apparently put the dates 1862, 1863 and 1864 for his birth in various sources. For a discussion of this see Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA ), 78:1072(April 8, 1922).
2. Report, p. 18; Follies, p. 99; Hygeia, January, 1939, p. 53.
3. Follies, p. 99.
4. Report, p. 18.
5. Follies, p. 99, JAMA 78:913.
6. JAMA, 78:913.
7. Russell, Edward, Report on Radionics, (London: Neville Spearman)
8. One AMA magazine article said the AMA joined in with the Scientific American investigation of the ERA, but I haven't been able to confirm this. Kaplan, Jack, "The Health Machine Menace: THERAPY BY WITCHCRAFT," Today's Health, February, 1961, p. 83.
9. JAMA, 78: 1072, 1334-5, 1832-33; 79: 92; 80: 1317-18.
10. JAMA, 80:1245, 1459.
11. JAMA, 80:1317.
12. JAMA, 81:493.
13. JAMA, 78:1832-33.
14. Hygeia, January, 1939, p. 53.
15. Hygeia, May, 1938, p. 462.
16. Hygeia, January, 1936, p. 26.
17. See for example, Cramp, Arthur, "Electric and Magnetic Cure-alls," Hygeia, May, 1938, pp. 439-441, 462, 479, 480; Kovacs, Richard, "Health Gadgets for the Gullible," Hygeia, January, 1936, pp. 24-28.
18. Page, Ernest W., "Portrait of a Quack," Hygeia, January, 1939, pp. 53-55, 92, 95.
19. Hygeia, January, 1939, p. 55.
20. Holbrook, Stewart, "The Golden Age of Quackery," Today's Health, 38: 52-3, 82-85 (November, 1960); Kaplan, Jack, "Therapy by Witchcraft," Today's Health, 39:28-31, 81-87 (February, 1961).
21. For example, Martin Gardner in his popular 1957 book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science had a chapter on quackery that relied on Fishbein's book for its content. Gardner also mentions Abrams.
22. JAMA, 78:913-14.
23. Hale, Annie, "These Cults" (New York: National Health Foundation), 1926.
24. The Lancet, Jan. 26, 1924, pp. 176-178, 191.
25. The Lancet, Jan. 26, 1924, p. 177.
26. "The Abrams' Cult in America," Nature, 113:809-10 (June 7, 1924), 114: 525-6(October 11, 1924).
27. Gibbes, Dr. J. Heyward, "Quacks and Quackeries," The Scientific Monthly, November, 1925, pp. 533-550 (p. 542.).
28. Scientific American, November, 1923, pp. 306, 307, 370.
29. Scientific American, November, 1923, p. 307.
30. Scientific American: April, 1924, pp. 278-80, 281; May, 1924, pp. 313, 361-2; June, 1924, p. 383, etc.
31. Scientific American, November, 1923, p. 370.
32. Scientific American, January, 1924, pp. 69, 70.
33. Scientific American, March, 1924, p. 212.
34. Scientific American, Sept., 1924, p. 160.
35. Scientific American, March, 1924, p. 214.
36. Scientific American, Sept., 1924, p. 159.
37. The Lancet, January 24, 1925, pp. 177-181; British Medical Journal, January 24, 1925, pp. 179-185.
38. Forum, 4: 201 (August, 1925).
39. The British Medical Journal, January 24, 1925, p. 184.
40. The British Medical Journal, January 24, 1925, p. 185; The Lancet, January 24, 1925, p. 181.
41. Smith, Whatley and Fishbein, Morris, "Abrams-Scientist or Quack?", Forum, August, 1925, pp. 199-207; "The Inquiry into the Abrams "Dynamizer" and Similar Apparatus", Discovery, March, 1925, pp. 107-110; Spectator, January 24, 1925, pp. 112-113.
42. See JAMA, 112:1853-4(May 6, 1939), 142:506-7(Feb. 18, 1950); Gardner, Martin, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, (New York: Dover Publications), 1957, pp. 209-211.
43. Holbrook, Stewart, "The Golden Age of Quackery," Today's Health, 38: 52-3, 82-85 (November, 1960); Kaplan, Jack, "Therapy by Witchcraft," Today's Health, 39:28-31, 81-87 (February, 1961).
44. See for example Hartman, Jane, Shamanism For the New Age: A Guide to Radionics and Radeisthesia, (Placitas, NM: Aquarian Systems, Inc.), 1987.
45. The Golden Age: February 25, 1925, pp. 323-4; April 22, 1925, 451-455; November 30, 1927, pp. 138-9; April 30, 1930, pp. 483-93, February 18, 1931, pp. 338-342; Awake!, September 22, 1953, pp. 20-23.
46. The Golden Age, April 22, 1925, pp. 451-455.
47. The Watchtower, November 15, 1962, pp. 679-680; Awake!, January 8, 1963, pp. 12-14; The Watchtower, June 15, 1982, pp. 25-26.