The Thomas Horder committee
In 1924, Dr. W.E. Boyd of Glasgow put a British committee together to
investigate an adaptation or modification of Abrams’ E.R.A. apparatus and
technique. 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 this committee vindicated the E.R.A. by those who endorse radionics.
A report of the committee’s findings was recorded in both The Lancet and the British Medical Journal in January of 1925. 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."
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. Did Dr. Boyd deceive Mr.
Smith 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 "sulphur" and saliva. Their four stated conclusions
were as follows:
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 that 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.