A Review of the Lifewave Research Database

By Robert J. Burtis at the WorldWide Scam Network




If the research presented by Lifewave and Dr. David Schmidt is going to be credible and valid, it must adhere strictly to the requirements and protocols of established modern scientific research.

In a book published by the National Academy of Sciences entitled, “On Being A Scientist: Responsible Conduct In Research”, it states:

Experimental Techniques and the Treatment of Data

One goal of methods is to facilitate the independent verification of scientific observations. Thus, many experimental techniques-such as statistical tests of significance, double-blind trials, or proper phrasing of questions on surveys-have been designed to minimize the influence of individual bias in research. By adhering to these techniques, researchers produce results that others can more easily reproduce, which promotes the acceptance of those results into the scientific consensus.

If research in a given area does not use generally accepted methods, other scientists will be less likely to accept the results…

…researchers have to be extremely clear, both to themselves and to others, about the methods being used to gather and analyze data. Other scientists will be judging not only the validity of the data but also the validity and accuracy of the methods used to derive those data.

Conducting unorthodox research and presenting results achieved through the use of non-standard equipment, experimental machines, and foreign technology fails all of these standards. If Lifewave is serious about its technology and its patches, it must adhere to the same rigorous standards that are applied to every other new product and science. They are not allowed a pass just because they are a “new technology” and they are not permitted to determine efficacy and results through the use of equipment not currently accepted and in use by the established scientific community. In fact, Lifewave must be held to a higher standard, because of the extraordinary claims being made:

Basic Logic

First, it is important to understand that the strength of a conclusion is a function both of the quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori probability of the claim being supported.

Moreover, the standard for accepting implausible claims should be much higher than the standard for plausible ones. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

If Lifewave cannot rise to meet the existing and generally accepted scientific standards, they should not be the least bit surprised if the scientific establishment, the Internet community, the commercial markets and the consumer reject their research and dismiss Dr. David Schmidt’s inventions, theories and claims as fraudulent.

The Lifewave Research Protocols

Just before the Lifewave Las Vegas Convention one year ago, it was announced that several studies were well underway which would prove the efficacy of their patches, and that they would be released in just a few months.

“Learn about this research at the conference. These papers will not be not available on our web site for up to 6 month due to peer review publication requirements."

"There are just under 40 studies completed, being written up for publication, or in the process of being completed."

This was prior to the Las Vegas Convention in September of 2005. Over 40 studies had been completed, and yet more than a year later, 29 of them remain unavailable and NONE of these studies have been published in a legitimate peer reviewed publication.

Then it was announced that NEW studies would be released very soon which would prove Dr. David Schmidt’s claims for once and for all. The obvious question here is, why not just release the other 29 studies mentioned in 2005?

There are currently eleven studies posted under the heading of “Clinical & Research Studies” on Lifewave’s corporate web site. Most of them are not dated, so it is difficult to determine exactly when the studies were done, and some are presented anonymously, so there is no way to know which researchers actually did each study. Also missing are the specific protocols under which the studies were performed and a detailed cataloguing of the results obtained. Publishing their research without this vital information damages the credibility of the studies right from the start.

Nevertheless, we shall endeavor to review each of them according to the standards for legitimate scientific research previously described.


1. Effect of Novel Nanoscale Energy Patches on Spectral and Nonlinear

Dynamic Features of Heart Rate Variability Signals in Healthy Individuals during Rest and Exercise


PRO: Dr. Nazeran is a respected specialist in his field and his research is very detailed and precise.


CON: The study is more than 18 months old, Dr. Nazeran is on Lifewave’s “Advisory Council”, he is a friend and associate of Dr. Emily Haltiwanger, the research is based upon a statistically insignificant volunteer base, and the conclusions are not meaningful.

This is an old study from a year and a half ago and it fails on several levels.

The opening abstract itself establishes the premise and purpose of the research:

Abstract – LifeWave energy patches are novel nanoscale semiconducting biomolecular antennas, that when placed in the oscillating bioelectromagnetic field of the body, resonate at frequencies in unison with certain biomolecules in the cells and signal specific metabolic pathways to accelerate fat metabolism. As a consequence of accelerated fat burning more cellular energy becomes readily available to support all bodily energy-consuming functions.

That Lifewave patches work is a given aspect of the study; the rest of the research is simply an attempt to prove what they claim in the abstract. The work is not objective, nor is it independent or impartial, as the researcher, Dr. Homer Nazeran, is a member of the Lifewave Advisory Council and he is a research associate of Dr. Emily Haltiwanger at Texas University.

The study itself addresses an obscure aspect of patch efficacy that we have never seen mentioned as a benefit or effect of Lifewave patch use, and involves a statistically insignificant number of ten volunteers. Dr. Nazeran’s own conclusion states that:

Based on these preliminary observations it could be concluded that both during both rest and after 5 min of exercise, the Energy patches enhanced the relaxation level as they reduced the LF/HF... These exciting preliminary results warrant comprehensive investigations to study the effects of these Energy patches under different physical and health conditions in a large number of subjects within different age groups.

This study is old news that was revealed as having little value more than a year ago. It has even less value today.


2. LifeWave Products Pure Energy Patches 60-Subject Test Final Report

    By Fenestra Research


PRO: Fenestra Research is an outside research organization and they used a larger volunteer sample in their study.


CON: This is outdated research done in December of 2005. Their testing consists of one test, test subjects are monitored by telephone twice weekly, and the results are skewed. The test summaries are presented anonymously with no detailed protocol or results database.


At first glance, this undated anonymous study gives the appearance of a serious  independent third-party research group using a database of 60 volunteers. Their seventeen page report actually consists of only three pages that actually pertain to Lifewave patches, followed by fourteen pages describing their standard lab research parameters associated with their “Optimal Wellness Test” and ending with the statement that:


A long term 6 month study is being planned for the 2005 at the end of the first quarter to study the effects of drinking Glacia Nova Pure Glacial Water.

What that has to do with Lifewave patches remains a mystery.

Further investigation reveals that Fenestra Research apparently consists of ONE individual, Dr. Melonie Montgomery, who uses the “Bioanalyzer Technology” she has invented. This technology features the Optimal Wellness Test (a urine and saliva test):

The OWT was able to identify and measure 34 clinical markers in human physiology to a very high degree of accuracy, and conclude the level of “wellness” exhibited by individual clients with specific recommendations for improving areas of concern.

Dr. Montgomery received her education in “Holistic Medicine” from the Clayton College of Natural Health. She owns several Internet domains, including FENESTRARESEARCH.COM, OPTIMALWELLNESSTEST.COM, and EQUUSLAB.COM where she explains that:

The Optimal Equine Analysis developed by “The World Leader In Wellness Technology” Fenestra Research Labs is the first of its kind to measure how close an individual horse is to wellness.

Apparently, the “Optimal Wellness Test” she invented for humans works just as well on horses.

Fenestra Research endorsements show up frequently on web sites for various New Age MLM products, nutraceuticals, and a variety of exotic specialty waters.

And Dr. Montgomery is quick to remind us that:

It is important to understand that while the research is double blind and un-biased, Melonie and Fenestra Research are 100% on your team. Reports are written to highlight product benefits.


Her web pages link to a variety of other commercial product and services web sites. Fenestra Research - by their own definition - is not impartial or objective. The Optimal Wellness Test is not recognized by the scientific establishment and therefore the results have little value or credibility. Dr. Montgomery also appears to have a professional relationship with Lifewave affiliate Lisa Tully, who is also a member of the Lifewave Advisory Council.


Fenestra Research is not independent, is not impartial, and performs only one test of their own design which is judged by their own standards.



3. Summary of IceWave Clinical Research Study – Infrared Imaging


PRO: They do provide a few detailed results.

CON: This is another old study completed in May of 2005. The study is conducted by Dr. Dean Clark (who is a member of the Lifewave Health and Science Council Members and the Lifewave Advisory Council) and Dr. Steven Haltiwanger (who is a paid employee, Lifewave proponent, business affiliate and personal friend of Dr. David Schmidt). There is no control group, no published protocols, and no independent supervision.


This is another study attempting to demonstrate the results promised by Dr. David Schmidt. It cannot be construed to be a “clinical research study” because there is no research! The study consists of 36 volunteers who put on the patches while Lifewave employees presiding over this high school science experiment simply take before and after photos with an infrared camera.


If there are any serious research protocols, they are not mentioned, and there is no control group of any kind. It’s all good fun and the pictures are pretty, but the results have no credibility in the world of true professional research.



4. Patch Permeability


PRO: This eleven page study is done professionally with excellent attention to detail and specific information describing what tests were done and how they were conducted, along with extensive photography and scientific graphing. It was also signed by the researcher. This is the way all of the research should be done. The conclusions are credible – Lifewave patches are definitely nontransdermal. Well done!


CON: The one study that effectively and professionally conducts its research and makes its case pertains to an aspect of the patches that is of the least interest and concern.


Virtually no one is charging that Lifewave patches are transdermal. Certainly professional sports organizations will need assurances that there is no transfer of performance-enhancing substances when using the patches, but they needn’t worry, since the patches offer nothing more than a placebo effect to begin with.


Nevertheless, Lifewave actually secured a legitimate outside agency to perform a series of tests using real science according to generally accepted standards.


Two more obvious questions arise at this point:


1. Why didn’t Dr. David Schmidt retain the services of Fenestra Research to test the patches for permeability?


2. Why didn’t Dr. David Schmidt retain the services of MVA Scientific Consultants

to test the patches against the many claims made for Dr. Schmidt’s nanotechnology energy resonant transfer inventions?


Answers? Fenestra Research would have zero credibility with the relevant regulatory agencies and MVA Scientific Consultants would expose Lifewave patches as a fraud.



5. Investigative Study of Long Term Effects of Life Wave® Patches Using Electro Meridian Analysis System® (EMAS)


PRO: There is an unusually long and thorough description of the study protocol.


CON: It’s an old study released in September of 2005, utilizing an acupuncture device that exists far outside of the general medical establishment, performed by a researcher immersed in fringe health sciences, using a statistically insignificant number of people, to arrive at a “more study is needed” conclusion. 


The author of this study is E. Reenah McGill who has a number of educational degrees including a Master's Degree In Oriental Medicine from Emperor's College of Traditional Oriental Medicine, licensed by the State of California as an acupuncturist, and licensed by the State of New Mexico as a Doctor of Oriental Medicine. Dr. McGill is nationally certified as a National Diplomate in Acupuncture and Herbololgy and Oriental Medicine.

Dr. McGill works out of the “Healing Energy Center” in California where she offers acupuncture, past life regression, mental massage, herbology, auricular therapy, and the SCENAR “Self Controlled Energetic Neuro Adaptive Regulator Healing” device.


If Dr. David Schmidt and Lifewave were seriously looking for a third party researcher that could be both objective and impartial, they came to the wrong place. Dr. McGill may be a wonderful doctor and a talented acupuncturist, but her life’s work is centered around alternative medicine and oriental philosophies.


This “Long Term” study spans a total of seven weeks involving a total of seven volunteers. Each participant acted as their own control and maintained a daily “energy log”. Once a week their Meridian energy was measured using the Electro Meridian Analysis System® (EMAS) which was then compared to their “perceived” energy. The report also notes that, “This study did not use a control group”.


In the first paragraph of her report, Dr. McGill states that, “Further study… is recommended”, and on page 6 says that,


”Further study with larger groups is recommended to support and expand these results. As this technology becomes more widely used and recognized validation is needed.”


No argument there! The purpose of this report and the other ten “studies” was to provide such validation.


This particular study also exemplifies the problems with all of the so-called “Clinical & Research Studies” presented by Dr. David Schmidt and Lifewave as the proof people have been asking for in regards to their nanotechnology resonant energy transfer nontransdermal patches. The researches are always trained in fringe science and alternative medicine fields, the studies use statistically insignificant numbers of volunteers, results are recorded by the participants themselves and checked against measurements made by non-standard equipment, there are no double-blind protocols, and often no control group at all.



6. BioCoherence and Lifewave Energy Enhancement Patches Utilizing Bionetic-Feedback Assessment


PRO: None – the report is unavailable


CON: The TITLE of the report indicates its reliance upon non-standard and unproven scientific methodology, and the involvement of Lifewave’s top corporate doctor, Steven Haltiwanger, taints the report with bias and essentially nullifies any results obtained. Which we cannot review in any case, since the report is not there.



7. Responsiveness of Horses to Biofrequency Modulation after Acupuncture Palpation


PRO: J. Lauren DeRock is a respected veterinarian.


CON: This one page report is old news, released in December of 2005. The author is a Lifewave sales affiliate, company promoter, and a fringe science veterinarian.


This respected veterinarian could hardly be considered independent, objective or impartial. The study is poorly designed, involving 135 horses, only seven of which were given a placebo patch. Pain levels in the horses was determined through the use of Dr. DeRock’s own acupuncture diagnostic technique. There are no independent controls, observations, or standards at any point.


Professional research protocols do not permit one individual to arbitrarily design a study involving 135 horses, with 128 horses using the patch and seven using the placebo, and then to measure and determine the results achieved based on a unique non-standard diagnostic technique she developed and only she uses and understands.



8. Responsiveness of Subjects to the LifeWave Patch during Aerobic and Muscular Endurance Activity.


PRO: None


CON: An old study and biased report with statistically insignificant results that even Dr. Haltiwanger had to dismiss as inadequate.


This report is biased from the very start:


The LifeWave patch is a nontransdermal patent pending patch intended to enhance athletic performance.


The results are presented as having:


“…demonstrated insignificant statistical data.”


“As with the aerobic portion of this study, the push-up segment also demonstrated insignificant statistical data.”


And Lifewave’s very own Dr. Haltiwanger says:


Note from Dr. Steve Haltiwanger- This is an early study on the LifeWave patches.

We have since determined that at least 20 minutes of aerobic activity is needed to

demonstrate the increased production of ATP from fat. This study did not have the

participants exercise long enough.


Why Dr. David Schmidt decided to include this non-study that was even rejected by his friend and Lifewave associate Dr. Haltiwanger, is unfathomable.



9. A double blind placebo controlled study of the LifeWave technology as it relates to the improvement of strength endurance in high performance college athletics


PRO: None


CON: This “study” was exposed as a sham more than a year ago.


Troy University has stated that:


“…we have no relationship with Lifewave and have done no research for Lifewave. Our attorney has notified them to cease all references to Troy University or we will peruse legal action. Coach Shaughnessy does not represent Lifewave on behalf of Troy University.”


“The statement that we have requested that they post on their website and on those of their affiliates is as follows: “Lifewave is not endorsed, represented or supported by Troy University, its employees, or coaches. Troy University has not conducted any official research on the effectiveness of Lifewave products and, therefore any reports to the contrary are incorrect.”


The “studies” they claim were conducted were done illegally and without the permission or approval of the college's IRB (Institutional Review Board), which by law must approve all experimentation on human subjects.


Troy University is also Warren Hanchey’s alma mater and it is safe to assume that Mr. Hanchey made arrangements with Coach Richard Shaughnessy that enabled Lifewave to bypass the legal requirements for such a study and to involve students in their testing without their parent’s knowledge or the approval of the Troy University administration.


By once again publishing these studies on their web site, Lifewave has exposed itself to possible legal actions from Troy University.



10. LifeWave Strength Test


PRO: None


CON: Another illegal study done without the permission or approval of the Morehouse College's IRB (Institutional Review Board) or their administration.


This “study” was also exposed more than a year ago and a Morehouse College administrator has issued the following statement:


“I will be getting a cease and desist letter immediately.”


The testing was biased, unscientific, and done without the knowledge or approval of the Institutional Review Board or the Morehouse College administration, and without any independent oversight or review.



11. LifeWave Energy Patches Measured with Auramed Biopulsar Reflexograph


PRO: Pretty colors…


CON: This is another old report, done in December of 2005. The Auramed Biopulsar Reflexograph is a New Age experimental machine designed to read human auras, and the “research” was done with ONE volunteer.


As stated at the outset, Lifewave patches make extraordinary claims and require extraordinary proof. Unproven technology and non-standard measuring equipment cannot be used to verify Dr. David Schmidt’s claims, if they are to have any credibility. These nanotechnology patches must be tested using existing generally accepted equipment according to universally recognized protocols and standards of research.





We were told that Lifewave would be releasing a great deal of NEW research to support their claims for their nanotechnology patches.


In reality, of eleven documents currently posted on the Lifewave web site, one study is not available at all and the other ten are all old research and studies completed prior to 2006.


Two of these studies have been exposed as illegal and unauthorized frauds. The others either contain statistically insignificant data and results, or are fatally flawed by lack of proper protocol and independent controls, done by biased researchers and skewed by incomplete data and analysis.





The research presented does nothing to validate Dr. David Schmidt’s theories, technology, or inventions. Affiliates and customers should be embarrassed that after five years on the market, all that Lifewave has to offer as their very best research are outdated, unprofessional and incomplete studies such as these.


Robert J. Burtis

The WorldWide Scam Network