(4 of 4)
Investigations. The layman will say: " Why doesn't some one con-duct a strict scientific investigation of Abrams' extravagant claims and fantastic methods f Attempts have been made. The American Medical Association consistently refuses to do so. It will conduct a serious investigation, its says, "when the American Astronomical Society appoints a committee to determine the truth or falsity of the theory of Voliva (head of the Zion City Dowieite colony) that the earth is flat." Abrams has constantly refused to submit his method to tests controlled by the ordinary canons of science. His "reactions" often disagree with conventional diagnoses, and are claimed to be more delicate and sensitive than any orthodox method. Blood samples from animals and from perfectly healthy humans have been submitted, and returned with a formidable array of diseases.
But he has his supporters. The most conspicuous is Sir James Barr, consulting physician of the Liverpool Royal Infirmary and former Vice President of the British Medical Association, who has the Abrams machines, and lauds Abrams' achievements. In the U. S., Pearson's Magazine, sensational radical organ, espoused his cause, and published long supplements on Abrams. Upton Sinclair, the fighting Socialist pamphleteer and health apostle, has spent some time in Abrams' laboratory, and is sincerely convinced of his scientific genius and humanitarianism. But he is hardly a competent judge of cures.
The first systematic investigation of Abrams is now under way, by the Scientific American (also investigating psychic phenomena—TIME, June 4). To an Abrams practitioner in New York, six tubes were submitted, containing pure cultures of typhoid, pneumococcus, colon septicaemia, tetanus, tuberculosis, diphtheria. None of them was correctly diagnosed, and all gave marked "ohmages" and vibratory rates for a number of diseases. Various explanations for the failure were made, and Dr. Abrams has promised to give personal demonstrations in New York for the Scientific American. An electrical expert, investigating for Science and Invention, points out technical inconsistencies which would condemn the apparatus on known electrical principles.
To sum up the present status of the Abrams controversy: If his sincerity is granted and his obvious vagaries overlooked, there are still grave obstacles that his theories must hurdle both on the medical and bacteriological and on the mechanical side. The vast majority of reputable scientists who will express an opinion believe the scheme unmitigated charlatanism. The idea of specific vibratory rates for given diseases is not inherently an absurd one, and such men as Dr. Crile (TIME, Nov. 5) may evolve a scientific electronic analysis of the body. But Abrams' case would appear to be negated by patent absurdities.