I Controlled a Huge Freakin’ Laser With My Mind!

The New Science of Remote Causation

Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

I contrive no hypotheses. ~ Isaac Newton, discussing gravity in Principia Mathematica

Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist who ever lived, did of course make many hypotheses about gravity. In fact, he developed an incredibly profound general theory of gravity that united such seemingly different phenomena as a falling apple and the circling of the planets around the Sun. His theory of gravity stood firm for over two centuries before Einstein argued convincingly that Newton’s theory was incomplete. (Einstein’s general theory of relativity renders Newton’s theory a “limiting case.”)

What Newton refused to do, however, was speculate about exactly how gravity works its magic. Gravity just is, and Newton apparently recognized that his era’s scientific knowledge was not sufficient to go beyond the equations that formed his theory of gravity. He contrived no hypotheses as to the mechanism behind gravity, but he recognized fully that it seemed to be some kind of “action at a distance” that operates quite differently than through direct contact, which is how the world around us operates more generally.

Tam Hunt

Cause and effect is what physics is all about, and science more generally. What causes what? Even though we can never make definitive statements about what caused what, we can probe correlations and make reasonable inferences.

The most familiar form of causation is the direct contact of push and pull. A billiard ball bounces directly away from the cue ball due to the direct contact of ball upon ball. The energy from the pool cue is transferred by the pool player’s arm to the cue ball and then to the second ball.

But even this extremely simple form of cause and effect is not as simple as matter pushing matter. Rather, the electromagnetic force that holds the molecules of the balls together is the intermediary for these actions. Electromagnetism is in fact the most important force at our scale of reality: It holds all molecules together and it allows us to see, hear, touch, etc. The billiard balls don’t actually touch. Rather, the electromagnetic forces generated by the molecules in each ball repel each other.

Gravity keeps us, as well as apples, on terra firma, and plays a very large role in the universe outside of the scale of human life. But it is electromagnetism that forms the basis for life and much of our existence as earth-bound organisms, due to its attractive/repulsive qualities at the molecular level.

What’s behind the various forces of nature?

Electromagnetism – the combination of electricity and magnetism, which we know now are different aspects of a single force – was described comprehensively by Maxwell and others in the 19th Century. These scientists developed what are now known as “Maxwell’s equations,” even though their modern form wasn’t actually Maxwell’s work. While we can describe electromagnetism quite well mathematically, and predict its workings based on these equations, there is still no consensus as to what electromagnetism actually is.

The photon is a massless particle that carries the electromagnetic force. Einstein stated around 1955, shortly before his death: “A full 50 years of deliberate brooding have not brought me any closer to the question: What is the [photon]? Today every clod thinks he knows it, but he deceives himself.” Einstein had for decades tried unsuccessfully to develop various field theories of electromagnetism and the other forces, but still couldn’t say what the photon really is. For Einstein, in his later work, fields were fundamental. Despite significant development of field theory since Einstein’s era, we’re not much closer today in understanding what the photon is.

Similarly, we still don’t know the mechanism for gravity with any certainty. Einstein’s general relativity suggests that matter and energy literally curve space, and gravity simply reflects the easiest path for matter and energy to follow as it moves through curved space. It’s a two-way street, then, with matter/energy curving space and curved space causing matter/energy to change its trajectory.

However, the Standard Model of particle physics, based on the other pillar of modern physics – quantum mechanics – suggests that gravity works through the exchange of “gravitons” (boson particles) between massive bodies. The Higgs Boson is yet another way in which today’s physics attempts to explain gravity, and it made big news in 2012 due to evidence suggesting it had actually been found by the Large Hadron Collider.

Reconciling these two different models, general relativity and quantum theory, is the objective of theories of quantum gravity, none of which are yet widely accepted. String theory is the most popular approach to quantum gravity, though it has yet to lead to any experimental verification, and it suggests, through its “brane cosmology” approach, additional ideas on gravity that go beyond both the quantum mechanical and general relativity notions of gravity.

So who’s counting? How many forces are there?

Anyway, my point is to show that our physical understanding of cause and effect is still quite nascent and always evolving. While there is a broad consensus that there are only four fundamental forces or interactions – gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear force – there are also serious efforts underway to explain key observations through additional forces.

For example, dark energy, which is thought to comprise the majority of the matter/energy in the universe (about 70%), would itself constitute a new force. Specifically, dark energy is posited as the force behind the accelerating expansion of our universe, and also of the very early inflationary period that saw our universe expand from minute dimensions to a sizeable fraction of its current size in literally millionths of a second.

Yet another possible new force or interaction is suggested by the strong evidence for quantum entanglement, which appears to operate far faster than the speed of light. In 2008, a Swiss team led by Daniel Salart showed that entanglement operates at, at the least, 10,000 times the speed of light. What’s behind this effect? No one really knows yet, but apparently it is not one of the traditional four forces.

So, even without getting very exotic in our survey of different physical theories (which is certainly a relative notion given the extremely broad array of theories in physics today!), we can make a good argument that there should be at least six fundamental forces. A seventh force is compound interest. Einstein declared that “the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.” Okay, that’s a joke…

Action at a distance

Now, here’s where I’m going with all of this discussion about cause and effect, and forces of nature: While action at a distance, mediated by fields or force particles like the photon or graviton, is very much part of our mainstream physical and cosmological theories, action at a distance when it comes to human causation is far too often dismissed as impossible or as wacky “woo woo” science. And despite its wide recognition in physics, we still don’t know much about the actual mechanisms behind such action at a distance, for example, with respect to gravity or quantum entanglement.

In fleshing out a more complete understanding of the physical world, and the role of mind in the physical world, we are gathering substantial evidence that the human mind may have a broader causal role than has been assumed. It seems clear that human minds can directly impact more than just our immediate bodies. Dean Radin’s excellent book, Entangled Minds, surveys the field of what is known often as parapsychology or extrasensory perception.

The data in this field are certainly debatable and the effects are clearly subtle, if they are indeed real. If they weren’t subtle, there would be far less controversy surrounding them. However, there is one area of parapsychology that I’ve found pretty convincing, and I’ve now been personally involved with research in this area – I’m referring to work with random number generators (RNGs) and the influence of mass celebrations on the output of electronic RNGs.

This is a really interesting area of research but it takes a little background to explain it. Traditional random-number generators include dice, coins, shuffled cards or any physical device used to produce a random outcome. Modern RNGs, however, are small electronic devices that produce zeros and ones (bits) randomly (hence the name). They’re traditionally used in cryptography, gambling, and other areas by producing true randomness and thus foiling attempts to algorithmically discover passwords or predict outcomes. However, there is a more recent tradition of using RNGs to probe the impact of minds on matter, and the evidence produced is increasingly convincing that there is a causal link between mind and matter.

Probably the best way to explain this area of science further is to explain the experiments that I’ve been involved with recently. I’m a visiting scholar in psychology at UC Santa Barbara (under Professor Jonathan Schooler) and I’m also a regular Burning Man attendee (a “Burner” in the parlance of this sub-culture). I’ve met some very interesting people by being a regular at this massive celebration in the Nevada desert. About 50,000 people attend each year, celebrating music, art, and collaborative creation.

A few years ago I met Cassandra Vieten, the executive director of research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) in Petaluma, California. IONS focuses on frontier science, which includes working toward a better understanding of the relationship between mind and matter. IONS was founded by Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to walk on the moon. Mitchell was so inspired by a profound spiritual experience as he hurtled back to Earth that he wanted to re-direct some scientific attention to phenomena that are too often denied as impossible by mainstream science. IONS was the result.

Vieten, Schooler (another Burner), and I were chatting at the Burn in 2010 about the research that IONS does, and we decided it would be awesome and fun to do some RNG experiments at Burning Man. Many past experiments have shown a correlation between mass celebrations, like New Year’s Eve in Times Square, and a deviation from randomness in RNGs. The reasonable inference from these correlations is that there is a causal link between the mass focus on a single event, and whatever mechanisms produce the random events in the RNG.

The twist in our idea was that we decided to add a huge freakin’ laser to our experiment, connecting the output of the RNG to a laser in order to show, visually, any deviation from randomness. This would, we hypothesized, create a positive feedback loop and the effect would be enhanced.

We turned this idle talk into reality in 2012 by completing our first experiment on the Playa, which is where the Burning Man event is held each year. It worked! We obtained strong evidence of a correlation between the collective focus of thousands of minds on the burning of the Man (which happens on Saturday night every year), and the burning of the Temple (another major structure that is integral to the Burning Man celebration, on Sunday night), and the output of our RNGs.

Figure 1 shows the key result of our experiment: a strong spike in deviations from randomness during the burning of the Man, with a p value of 0.004. (A p value of 0.05, which means one-in-twenty odds of the result occurring due entirely to chance, is considered standard in most areas of science; a value of 0.004 is far more significant and means that the odds of our results occurring entirely due to chance were four in one thousand).

Unfortunately, our huge freakin’ laser wasn’t very huge and it didn’t function very well due to various technical problems. So we’re going back this year, in August, to repeat the experiment and use a really big laser, in collaboration with other more experienced laser technicians. We’re going to use a 30-watt laser rather than the one-watt laser we used last year. A 30-watt laser is easily visible across the whole Playa, so the positive feedback loop should be substantial. Yes, it’s huge!

But what does it all mean?

At the end of the day, what does all this mean? Who cares if there’s a tiny impact from mass celebrations on the output of zeros and ones from a little electronic device? Well, first, we think it’s just really cool and intriguing that this stuff works at all. It’s denied as impossible by many scientists today. Personally, I think the really powerful result of this research is to show that we could in theory, if we can amplify what are obviously very subtle effects, use just our minds to influence macroscopic events in the world around us.

There is an ironic convergence of traditional science and this frontier science, when we consider that “mind reading” using electromagnetic technologies is advancing quickly. Using various types of brain imaging, we can now tell what words subjects are thinking (from a pre-selected list only, at this point); and monkeys have used the power of their minds, implanted with electrodes, to control mechanical arms.

It may be the case that using electromagnetism alone will be the more fruitful path to manipulating macro events with thoughts alone. However, understanding that there may be other ways for mind to influence matter is really important for a more complete physical understanding of the universe, and it may give rise to more options for helping physically disabled persons to transcend their disabilities, allow us to create interesting new forms of entertainment, and perhaps help in many other human endeavors.

We’re in the middle of a crowd-funding campaign to pay for the laser and other equipment for round two of our RNG experiment at this year’s Burning Man. If you’re inspired by these ideas, please contribute something to our Indiegogo campaign or spread the word more generally:

Who knows – you may be helping to usher in a really exciting paradigm shift in how we understand physical reality. And maybe you too can one day control a huge freakin’ laser with your mind!


Independent Discussion Guidelines

pk (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

haha, PK, now why don't you address the merits of my article? :) I'd love to hear your thoughts on the EVIDENCE.

TamHunt (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think you two should seriously consider the ability of mind control as shown in this 32-second video.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Haha, Bill, same response as for PK: now why don't you address the EVIDENCE I've presented?

TamHunt (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tam: What’s the hypothesis for the causal relationship between the output of a random number generator and a (critical?) number of people getting off on watching a fire? Without one, all you have is a gaggle of noise searching for a message.

This seems to be the best the website’s author can manage: “My own ‘model’ is that consciousness or mind is the source or seat of a nonlocal, active information field (this is not a standard, well defined physical construct). Such fields interact, usually with random phase relationship and no detectable product. When some or many consciousness (information) fields are driven in common, or for whatever reason become coherent and resonant, they interact in phase, and create a new, highly structured information field. The REG has an informational aspect (entropy) and a completely undetermined future, and I speculate, with Bohm, that it manifests a ‘need for information’ which allows or guides the actualization of the active information sourced in human, group, or global consciousness.”

Of course there’s also the obligatory but meaningless invocation of “quantum entanglement” and, elsewhere, of the schizoid meanderings of that great champion of Aryan thought, Carl Jung.

When you've published the results of your randomized, controlled experiment in a journal with editors and reviewers equipped to assay your statistics and what they might legitimately be taken to imply, we can see what sort of evidence you actually have, and of what.

Meanwhile, I'm listening, but all I can smell is the woo.

pk (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ps. I’ve taken another look at your formal communication to the Institute, and what I see are grounds for requesting a refund for a device that didn’t always work as advertised. Finally, it’s hard to find a polite way to characterize a statement like “periods of intense collective attention focused may literally alter aspects of physical randomness,” so I’ll just leave it at that.

pk (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 7:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tam: I was just trying to break the tension. I'll admit that the subject matter is over my head.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 30, 2013 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Brain-Machine Interface, Unplugged Researchers report prototype wireless neural interfaces PRACHI PATEL OCT 2009
Flying A Helicopter With Brain Waves CES 2013, IEEETV. Bin He , Univ. of Minn.
Ask a nerd. IEEE is a professional organization with membership limited to engineers - I logged in to search, researchers names should help, I'm not sure if non-members can access online, but I bet journalists can get at least temp access by phoning IEEE in Massachusetts.
More on the researcher who did the helicopter project (public, I think) IEEE has published research on telekinesis using amplified brain waves to enable quadraplegics to use keyboards, mice, etc, for a while.
I keep waiting until Burning Man is booked up - next year, maybe.
Limited reservations suck.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
March 31, 2013 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Although terrific and important research, this:

- - :: "In that experiment, volunteers each wore a cap containing multiple electrode sensors that picked up the slight electric currents produced by brain waves. Different thoughts changed the wave patterns. As the subjects imagined steering the flying robot, the sensors would pick up the waves and wirelessly transmit them to a laptop that amplified the waves and ran them through signal processing algorithms to extract control signals. Those signals were then wirelessly transmitted to the drone to control its flight in real time.

- - :: “Key to our success was the integration of engineering innovation and neuroscience research,” He says. “It reflects the essence of the IEEE Life Sciences New Initiative.”

and this:

- - :: "Wireless brain-machine interfaces would be much more practical and could be implanted in several different areas of the brain to tap into more neurons. A typical scheme would have electrodes penetrating brain tissue, picking up neuronal electrical impulses, called spikes. A chip would amplify and process the signals and transmit them over a broadband RF connection through the skull to a receiver. Then, just as in wired systems, algorithms would decode these signals into commands for operating a computer or a robot."

Are neither "telekinesis" as you state above, nor representative of what Tam Hunt is asserting in this column.

It's akin to holding your RC helicopter controls and telling someone you are controlling the helicopter by moving your hands around.

binky (anonymous profile)
March 31, 2013 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Binky: Sorry you're unable to recognize the basis of this demonstration, can't help you with that. The IEEE articles refer to telekinesis, not me.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2013 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams, the word you used, "telekinesis," appears in neither of the IEEE articles you provided in your comment.

As to being "unable to recognize the basis of this demonstration," I'm not sure if you refer to the IEEE articles -- easily digestible and clear enough -- or the information presented in Tam's, which by his own description is still TBD and an experimental phase.

binky (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2013 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

binky: Exactly what I said, thanks. Telekinesis means moving or affecting objects using the mind, without physical contact, as the quotes I posted describe.Tam's example of the effect of many people focusing on increasing temperature could be explained as increasing the vibrational energy of the atoms, which is in the far-IR (heat).
Here's another one - telekinesis is part of the title, so it's a no-brainer. The article explains that the foam ball isn't moved directly by brain waves, it moves due to change in the speed of the fan blades.
I didn't read the results - they were basically testing Mattel's product.
CES 2009: Telekinesis is Child's Play With Mattel's Mindflex - IEEE Tv
A new game lets you control a floating ball with your brain, and Spectrum puts it to the test.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2013 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, let's look at this rationally. From a natural selection point of view, the ability to use the mind to manipulate matter (without the use of our hands) would have been and would continue to be a very useful skill, for which evolution would have selected the best practitioners. By now we should have all been able to practice telekinesis (sp?). Alas, this is just a science fiction fantasy. Quite frankly, considering that the human mind created the 30-Years-War, the Holocaust, pedophilia, street gangs, and other such lovely human inventions, I am not so sure I would want us to develop the old "mind-over-matter" trick. Good luck with your experiment Tam. Have fun at Burning Man, which is the point after all.

Eckermann (anonymous profile)
April 1, 2013 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Eckermann – Evolution is thought to be a continuous process; perhaps our species will evolve telekinetic powers. Personally I doubt it, and suspect the peak shown in the graph is an artifact or a 1/f-type phenomena (eg, beginner’s luck). But the only way to have any confidence in a result like this is to develop a repeatable experiment and submit the results for scientific peer review. The real reason for this post is to let you know that your fears about the results of humans having significant telekinetic powers – and thus releasing ‘monsters of the id’ - were entertainingly explored in the classic Forbidden Planet…

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 5:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

.Eckerman: No, " this is just a science fiction fantasy".
"the latest generation of computer–brain interfaces (CBIs) means they could soon be linked to the outside world again. And THIS IS NOT JUST SCIENCE FICTION: last autumn, 25-year-old quadriplegic Matthew Nagle showed he could move a computer cursor by the power of his thoughts. Nagle was linked to the computer by BrainGate™—an experimental CBI developed by Cyberkinetics (Foxborough, MA, USA),"
These are all based on one person's ability to affect the physical world using brain waves, not thousands, as in Tam's Burning Man example, but the fact is that there is current technology in use validating the fact that brain waves are electromagnetic energy that interact with matter, which is the definition of telekinesis. Researchers probably intentionally avoid the use of that word because it's associated with "in the box" thinking like Eckermann's and Hodgmo's, in which it's restricted to fantasy.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@14noscams – If by advocating the application of the best scientific methods available to verify an idea or hypothesis before accepting it is ‘in the box,’ I am guilty. Further I think that anything outside that box cannot be called science, and is unlikely to produce useful technology. Further, you are confusing the commonly accepted concept of telekinesis, that is, “using the power of the mind to cause the movement of matter at a distance” (wikipedia) with wiring a brain to a machine, as was done in the case of Nagle where a probe “was implanted into the motor cortex of his brain.” The brain is an electro-chemical device so it’s no surprise (and old news) that there are internal signals that can be monitored and used. But that’s not telekinesis. Play outside the box of repeatable experiments and peer review if you like, but don’t expect such activity to advance science or technology.

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hodgmo: I'm a little confused by your comment - are you questioning research supported by the world's largest professional technical association, IEEE, or the National Institute for Biochemical Investigation, part of the National Institutes of Health, or the quote from Cybernetics, the manufacturer of devices that operate by brain waves? I didn't find any publications by Trekkies, but you probably can. You're free to disregard definitions of terms that don't serve your bias, but there's no point in posting comments using your personal definitions - it's not possible to communicate in a language used only by yourself.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)


- Pot.
- Kettle.
- Black.

binky (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

14noscams: Your confusion may be alleviated if you focus your brain waves on cognition. The article about Nagle that you posted a link to is interesting and describes work that may benefit a significant number of disabled people, but it does not describe “action at a distance” mind control, aka telekinesis (per the definition in Wikipedia for example), which is what our subject article describes. Similarly the link describes picking up the small electrical signals that exist on pour skin – ever heard of an EEG? From Wikipedia: “Electroencephalography (EEG) is the recording of electrical activity along the scalp. EEG measures voltage fluctuations resulting from ionic current flows within the neurons of the brain.” These signals contain very little energy and broadcast even less. Go back and read the Tam Hunt article: he is talking about “action at a distance” not implanting probes on or in the brains of burning man participants. Telekinesis is currently considered to be parapsychology because there are no scientifically sound, that is published and repeatable, demonstrations of it. But that only means that telekinesis is unlikely. Tam Hunt says he hopes or plans to make more careful measurements, and who knows, maybe he will be part of the first scientific demonstration of the phenomenon. But if I had to bet, I’d bet against that outcome.

hodgmo (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PK, first, the evidence should come first, regardless of whether we have a theory to explain it yet. This is of course a long debate in the philosophy of science and Einstein famously stated that it is the theory that determines what facts can be gathered - but his point was to be careful about being blinkered by extant theories.

That said, I think Dean's ideas may be in the ballpark but my personal hypothesis about these phenomena is that mass focus on a single event becomes a dynamic attractor for all mass/energy/mind in the vicinity of the crowd-focused event.

This idea is built upon the panpsychist notion that all matter has some associated mind and vice versa, though it is extremely rudimentary in most cases. At the level of individual quantum events, which is what RNGs are supposed to produce, we get randomness because the level of mind in these quantum events is so rudimentary that in the aggregate all the choices of each quantum event balances out to an even number of zeros and ones. So rather than chance at the quantum level, in the panpsychist conception of reality we have "choice not chance." But because these choices are so habit-based, due to their occurrence so low on the scale of mind, they may as well be called chance.

However, when a crowd of high level minds (like human minds) focuses on the same macro event, like the burning of the Man, there is apparently a small bias introduced into the local causal web that constitutes reality (each element of reality is interconnected with all other entities, but proximity is of course a large factor in that chain of interconnectedness).

It's akin to a form of persuasion, but a serendipitous persuasion in the case of crowd events. Similar experiments have been run with individuals focused on RNGs, trying to bias the outcomes one way or the other. So this is explicitly a type of persuasion. The evidence of an impact in these experiments is not as strong as it is for crowd events, but the fact that it works at all suggests that mind is causally impactful. And if the panpsychist notion of mind is accurate, all of reality is a smooth continuum of mind, all interconnected in some way in the vast web that constitutes reality.

So why would we see bias toward more zeros or more ones? I don't know, but I suspect that the initial bias of the crowd focus creates a positive feedback loop that could go either toward more ones or more zeros, and that the initial bias is entirely contingent on reaching the required threshold for a measurable signal.

Anyway, while this is clearly a very speculative framework, it is at least coherent and consistent. As always, I appreciate your feedback.

TamHunt (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

FWIW, @ 14noscams, while I don't think it's a big problem to call EM-induced action at a distance telekinesis, it is definitely confusing in this context because other commenters are right that I'm making a very different claim - that mind may impact matter through non-EM causal pathways, or using EM pathways in ways that are new to science.

TamHunt (anonymous profile)
April 2, 2013 at 11:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Tam. I respect the effort that you put into in presenting your ideas, and of course no move based on my inability to understand something can be taken as much of an argument against it, but I’m more baffled than enlightened by statements like “mass focus on a single event becomes a dynamic attractor for all mass/energy/mind in the vicinity of the crowd-focused event” and introduces “a small bias … into the local causal web that constitutes reality”. I’m not even sure how to frame any questions about this, since I can’t even grasp how the focus of people on the burning constitutes “a serendipitous persuasion” that causes events in the RNG to behave nonrandomly.

pk (anonymous profile)
April 4, 2013 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PK, imagine that the universe is a single web of cause and effect. In fact, this is what the universe consists of, and nothing more. What I am suggesting is that mind is very much part of that causal web. So crowds focused on a single event like the burning of the Man will have an impact on that web, small but measurable through the impact on single quantum events like those produced by RNGs. And that's the really short answer. This is different from mainstream physics because mainstream physics suggests that the electromagnetic effects of human minds are insufficient to have any impact beyond the scalp. This new evidence from RNG experiments suggests that there is some additional cause and effect relationship at work.

TamHunt (anonymous profile)
April 5, 2013 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: