The Scientific American investigation

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. 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 were 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, streptococcus, 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". 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.

The committee came to the conclusion that the E.R.A. was occult 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 séance". 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.

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, CA. 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.

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.

After one year of tests 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.

Back