�BioElectricHealth.org�

Where the Knowledge Meets the Node!

1. Purpose
    
   1. To find out if raising a human's mentally malfunctioning brain's negatron content via the elevation of that human's air supply's negatron content increases that subject's ability to function mentally more appropriately.
       
   2. If you could establish that the answer to #1 of XII was that a subject's ability to function mentally was improved via the elevation of that subject's brain's negatron content, the next goal would be to find out by what, more natural, means could one derive the same result with stresses on obtaining the least dramatic unwanted side effects, not the least of which is the expenditure of yet greater amounts funding, unless of course your job entailed seeking faster ways to use up people's excess assets for them, so that they would be driven to staying busy, so that they could keep their minds off of what was bothering them. (A little joke: maybe so; maybe not so.)
       
2. Materials
    
   1. A mentally sub-optimally functioning human. What can you say? They/we exist. You probably are aware of one or two, or possibly you could be able to admit that at some points of your own life, your reasoning power could have been better. If however, you wanted one that you could use that you could be sure wasn't going to endanger your data via their possibly skewing it by introducing a placebo effect component into it, you could select for your subject, provided one was at your disposal, an autistic child, possibly, or a child that had ADD; the target feature here being the subjects lack of cognizance of your intentions. This property of your experiment could prevent this introduction of this synthetic factor into your data.
      
      Breathing a somewhat negatronified air supply has, only derived beneficial results, in my case, IMO.  If after you experienced the beneficial effects of a GIN� yourself, so that you feel that it could be beneficial for some other particular person, it seems as though it would be an omission on your part to avoid attempting to assist them via its use, kind of; wouldn't it?
      
      Let me add though that if the person were able to understand what you were trying to do, I believe that you should tell them what is going on, because if you didn't and you hooked up a GIN� on them, they could wind up making incorrect calculations about what was occurring in their world and somehow suffer, due to their then, generated by you, synthetically skewed reality base. The effect could be like spiking their life with an hallucinogenic drug, or something. I, for one, like to know why what is happening is occurring. Knowledge of why is what you would be denying people if you didn't inform them of your actions when they could understand what you were up to. It would be like treating that other person like they were something less than what you were. That's not good for either of you, especially you, if someone that doesn't like you finds out about it after something has gone askew in your plans. The more ideas, in the more heads the more stable reality is. Let your subject in on your plan if they can understand you. They will appreciate what you are doing the more if they deserve your help and if they don't want you to try to help them, there are a whole lot of other people around that probably won't mind your assistance at all. 
       
   2. A GIN (Generator Injecting Negatrons; negative ion generator).   
       
3. Procedure
    
   1. Privately write down the main points that you notice about the subject's behavior that seems to be skewed in some fashion from what you consider to be normal while you also write down what you figure to be normal, so that someone can see later which was the more prominent feature of your experiment�the ion generator, the subject, or you. (A little joke, maybe, but maybe not, also.)
       
   2. Get a GIN going pretty close to where the subject sleeps, and then if you can, have one running where they spend most of their active time too�the Play Room, TV Room, Day Room, etc.
       
   3. Write down your observations of the behavior that you notice. Try to be honest about what you are witnessing. If you are working with a subject that is incapable of installing a placebo effect factor, that doesn't mean that your observational abilities are not vulnerable to like phenomena. Keeping the writing of your observations as simple as possible may help them be accurate. Write down only observations in this step, not interpretations. Let me add here that the ability to accurately observe, devoid of interpretation, seems to me to be one's who is trying to find out the truth's greatest asset.
       
4. Data
   
   Fill this step out with the observations that you've written down via doing section C of the experiment.
    
5. Results
   
   Fill out this step with your take on the phenomena that section D of the experiment seems to be showing to you.
    
6. Conclusions
   
   Fill out this step with your interpretation of how section E of the experiment fits into the general scheme of activity that it seems to be situated with you.
    
7. Footnotes
    
   1. Negatively electrically charged particles; electrons, generally speaking