I'm curious. Does anyone else share my sentiment that the HDR device is a load of crap? Perhaps this might be more suitable to a separate thread, but seeing as we have a couple of "users" here who are putting Mr. Gibbs on a pedestal, I think it's relevant in this context.
Let me first qualify my comments with ignorance. I have read very little about this device. In part because my intuition is really good at weeding out the garbage, and I feel the HDR is just that. It seems nothing more than a toy for half wits (take no offense, I'm mearly stating my opinion of the device). Its supposed function seems about as haphazard a way at time travel as marijuana and ayahuasca are for seeking enlightenment. Sure, you might get a little something that might open your mind to possibilities, but the effects are unpredictable, impractical, and in the end you're no closer to your goal than you were before you started.
I wonder if the device is nothing more than a placebo. A focal point to trigger you into a process that in inherent in all of us.
There's a medical procedure called bronchial thermoplasty that is used to treat severe cases of asthma that can't be controlled by medication. What they do is run a scope with a laser on the end of it down your airway. They turn on the laser at various places in your airway to burn off the scar tissue to both allow more air to flow and prevent your airway from closing up when you have an asthma attack. During the clinical trials for this procedure there were two groups. Both groups had the device inserted into their airway, but only one group had an active laser. The patients never knew what group they were part of. The study was double-blind, so neither did the doctors. But a stange thing happened. Some of the patients in the control group, the one that the laser wasn't active, actually got better.
I bring this up because people who have used the HDR seem to have results similar to this study. It works for some, but not all. And for the ones it works for, it works in various degrees. This suggests that the device isn't actually doing anything at all, and any results are a result of a users BELIEF that it will. Even if it does work, there still seems to be some indication that the device requires a human component. Which begs the question, if it's working, is it because of the device, or because of the user?