A Clear View From the Mountain-Top...

Orgone Biophysical Research Lab

Ashland, Oregon, USA

Response to Martin Gardner

Sign Up for Email Updates

* The article below was written in 1989. Since that time, an enormous amount of new research has been published validating Wilhelm Reich's orgone energy discovery. While the article is still valid for the time of publication, as a rebuttal to Martin Gardner's pathological life-long fixation to destroy Reich's name and research legacy, as well as my own, the article's list of cited works supporting Reich's experimental findings is radically incomplete as compared to what would be possible had the article been written today, around 25 years later. For a good summary of that newer material, please obtain my new book on the subject, published in 2013:

James DeMeo: In Defense of Wilhelm Reich: Opposing the 80-Years' War of Mainstream Defamatory Slander Against One of the 20th Century's Most Brilliant Physicians and Natural Scientists, Natural Energy Works, Ashland 2013. Available at Amazon and other on-line bookstores, also also from here.

The book not only exposes the backgrounds of many leading "skeptic club" personalities, but also reveals some of their own very dirty "behind the scenes" activities, including how some leading "skeptics" are also purveyors of pornographic materials, including those which advocate bestiality and pedophilia. They appear, in fact, to hate Reich's guts precisely because he opposed such things, identifying them as evidence of sexual sickness. My book also includes a Timeline history of Wilhelm Reich's life and discoveries, and a caution about the misinformation and disinformation about Reich on "Wikipedia", which has been fully taken over by the "skeptic clubs" liars. The book also has another cautionary chapter warning against the false comparisons of Reich's original discoveries to the modern "orgonite-chembuster" fad, something that has no factual relationship to Reich, being created out of thin air by ebay gadget hawkers and ignorant lay enthusiasts.

The reader may also review my own list of published books and research articles, many in peer-reviewed publications and available as downloads, from the ResearchGate and Academia.edu websites:
A less complete listing is available here: http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopubs.htm

Thank you for your attention to these facts.

James DeMeo, PhD
Ashland, Oregon 2013

"Love, Work and Knowledge are the Wellsprings of Life.
They should also govern it."

Wilhelm Reich

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth
has a chance to get its pants on."

Winston Churchill

Response to Martin Gardner's Attack on Reich
and Orgone Research in the Skeptical Inquirer

by James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
Ashland, Oregon, USA
E-mail to: info(at)orgonelab.org
(Click or copy into your email program and insert the "@" symbol)

Copyright (C) 1989
All Rights Reserved by James DeMeo

(This article was originally presented to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer in response to Martin Gardner's published article. Unfortunately, the editors of SI refused to publish it, nor even a shorter rebuttal letter. In fact, the editors of SI refused even to acknowledge that I had sent them a letter and article rebutting Gardner treating this author with additional silent contempt, as if they were the Bishops of Rome. A subsequent personal letter to CSICOP Fellows Carl Sagan, Steven Jay Gould, and Paul Macready, appealing for their help to have my rebuttal published in SI, elicited total silence also, confirming the existence of a vast academic mafia. Such a failure to acknowledge rebuttal and response to criticism is, of course, completely anti-scientific, undemocratic, and highly unethical. Subsequently, this Rebuttal appeared in Pulse of the Planet #1, 1989. Click here for the OBRL Home Page)

The journal Skeptical Inquirer is the official publication of CSICOP, the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal". The organization has a reputation for debunking many popular beliefs of either a metaphysical or folk-lore nature. Among their favorite targeted subjects are astrology, ESP, UFOs, psychokinesis, faith-healing, and psychic surgery. CSICOP has made the headlines in recent years for its attacks on advocates of "paranormal" phenomena, and for actual unmasking of a few deceptive "faith healers". But its membership has also expressed opposition to any unusual ideas that do not fit within a very narrow, mechanistic world view, such as solar-terrestrial correlations, acupuncture, and dietary treatments for degenerative disease. In recent months, the organization was itself publicly tarnished following their attack upon Jacques Benveniste, a French scientist whose experiments provided some evidence for the principle of homeopathic dilutions.(1) Given their apparent reluctance to rely upon fair and open discussion, or honestly-conducted research as a means of resolving scientific controversies, CSICOP has since been labeled the "Truth police", "science cops", and other names by various members of the scientific community.

Attack Against Wilhelm Reich and Contemporary Scientists

Most recently an article attacking Wilhelm Reich and orgonomy, by CSICOP leader Martin Gardner, appeared in the Skeptical Inquirer.(2) Titled "Reich the Rainmaker: The Orgone Obsession", the article takes aim at Reich primarily for his discovery of the orgone energy. To Gardner, Reich was a man gone mad, a "paranoid egoist". In the article, Gardner also recounts a small bit of my own research with the cloudbuster, which he attempts to condemn via association with the distorted picture of Reich he has painted. The article reeks with contempt for Reich, and for the whole concept of energy in space, and contains so many falsehoods, distortions, and half-truths that rebuttal requires some lengthy documentation. Only someone unread about the facts of Reich's life and works will find Gardner's article convincing.

Gardner mentions a few of Reich's research findings, but in such a manner as to invite disbelief, without any attention to details, or mention of the specific experiments which led to his conclusions. The article makes cartoons out of serious experimental work, and Gardner calmly asserts that the orgone is "an energy no physicist outside orgonomy circles has detected". This is quite a bald statement, but is completely false. Many examples will be given below of researchers who made little or no mention of Reich, who often strongly disliked him and the whole notion of the orgone energy, but who nevertheless unexpectedly detected an unusual, orgone-like energy in living creatures, in the atmosphere, or in space. First, however, let us briefly review what evidence has been gathered by Reich and his coworkers on the orgone question. I must reject Gardner's attempt to place automatically anyone who obtains positive evidence for the orgone within a suspect (and non-existent) "orgonomy circle". This is a dishonest attempt to cast suspicion and a taint upon anyone who actually does obtain positive evidence favoring Reich's claims. It is a method of ostracism common to cliques of schoolchildren on the playground, but has no place in scientific investigations. Furthermore, there has never been, to the best of my knowledge, any researcher who has ever carefully reproduced Reich's experiments and obtained clearly negative findings. Even Einstein confirmed one of Reich's experimental findings, the temperature differential within the orgone accumulator,(3) but unfortunately without completing the necessary control tests which demonstrate its orgone-energetic origins. Indeed, there are dozens of qualified researchers who have duplicated Reich's experiments, obtained positive confirming evidence, and published their findings in various journals.

Several years ago I produced a detailed Bibliography on Orgone Biophysics,(4) which covered the period of research from 1934 to 1986. It contains over 400 separate citations by more than 100 different authors, most of whom possessed the M.D. or Ph.D. degree. Besides my own thesis and doctoral dissertation,(5) which were presented to and accepted by a group of respected scholars at the University of Kansas, I have listed in this Bibliography 17 other theses and dissertations which drew heavily from Reich's works, confirming various aspects of his bioenergetic formulations. There are 38 indexed citations in the Bibliography covering Reich's bion and biogenesis experiments, including Professor du Teil's 1938 confirming presentation on the bions to the French Academy of Sciences. The Bibliography also contains more than 80 indexed citations on the electroscopical, thermical, and biological effects of the orgone energy accumulator. This includes some 22 studies on plant-growth responses, and 6 on cancer retardation or wound-healing in laboratory mice. Another 12 citations discuss or evaluate the Reich bioenergetic blood test. More than 50 citations focus on cloudbusting, with 20 or so papers discussing methods for direct visual observation of the atmospheric orgone. Of particular note is the most recent German dissertation on "The Psycho-Physiological Effects of the Reich Orgone Accumulator",(6) which was a double-blind, controlled study, confirming many details of Reich's original assertions on the parasympathetic stimulation of concentrated orgone energy on the body, and the weather-dependent pulsation of the orgone in the accumulator.

But Gardner says nothing about this research, as if it was wothless, the workers involved being somehow deluded into forgetting their research training, or worse. I ask, can he specifically cite anyone, even a single person, who has duplicated any one of Reich's experiments and obtained a fully negative result? Has he ever personally attempted to reproduce a single one of Reich's experiments, or even the more simple observational tests? Can he demonstrate even a cursory knowledge of this body of positive research evidence, which extends back some 50 years, or give a convincing, rational reason for his contrived and easy dismissal of it all? Does Gardner, a master with math games, card tricks, and use of the English language, have any research training or credentials to support his self-proclaimed authority over this matter? Does he not care a whit for the facts in his overwhelming drive and passion to skewer Reich and the orgone? The answer appears to be NO on all counts.

What Gardner fails to mention is also telling. For example, one would not know from his article that Reich had his books and research journals banned and burned by an American court of law, with five actual episodes of court-ordered book-burning taking place, most recently in the 1960s. He mentions the fact that Reich was, in 1932 and 1933, disowned by both the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) and the German communists, but failed to mention that he was likewise attacked, and put on death lists, by both the Nazis and Stalinists, who also burned his books. After fleeing from Hitler's Germany, Reich was welcomed by the Norwegian analysts, who liked his writings, and disagreed with the politically-motivated actions of the IPA.(7) But Gardner is not concerned with details, as he considers Reich's work, and that of his coworkers, to be "religion". He compares orgonomy, which makes no claim to metaphysical truths or salvation, and has no gurus, churches, and the like, to Scientology, a self-proclaimed religion with churches, sunday services, and a messianic leader widely know for his science-fiction writing. One would not know, for example, that orgonomy is a research discipline developed from new natural scientific observations and experimental findings.

Gardner's History of Attacking Reich

Gardner's first attack against Reich appeared in the Antioch Review of 1950,(8) though he was then more restrained in his linguistic distortions and vituperation. In 1952 he attacked Reich, with similar clever wit and fervor, in a chapter in Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.(9) His articles helped fuel the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) pseudo-investigation, which has since been demonstrated, through at least three different Freedom-Of-Information-Act searches of FDA files,(10) to have been conducted in a most shabby, antiscientific "get Reich" manner. Today, we know that there is no credible evidence contained in FDA files by which they could have justified their actions.(See the article on Page 18 in this issue of the Pulse.)

Reich, of course, was outraged that various hack journalists had slandered him, and put false words into his mouth about the effects of the accumulator.(11) Gardner incautiously repeats some of these falsehoods in his recent article, such as "The concentrated orgone is said to relieve symptoms of almost every illness from cancer to impotence."(2:26) He was more cautious in his earlier articles on Reich. In the Antioch article he also asserted that no competent scientist would bother to refute Reich's findings, condemning them with a wave of the hand. Gardner was obviously wrong in that Reich has not been ignored since the 1950s, by either scientists or laypeople. But Gardner continues to deny and ignore the experimental, empirical nature of Reich's findings, which have guaranteed a continuing, growing interest in them for over three decades. Having failed in his 30-year mission to distort the facts, Gardner's latest attack reveals a harsher, more frustrated tone. Interestingly, in his early articles the younger Gardner made at least passing mention of Lysenko, a Stalinist bureaucrat who put many scientists to death for their research findings; but not so the elder Gardner, who has lost sight of the lessons of history, and seems glad that Reich died in jail, his books condemned to flames. I believe this is because Gardner, and other politically-powerful media-darlings of the CSICOP gang, have been quietly and consistently asserting a deadly new form of Lysenkoism in the USA, for at least 30 years. Is there anyone who would deny the fact that academic freedom is almost non-existent in the USA if one wishes to seriously study certain questions, such as the orgone energy, or, for that matter, anything which challenges the assertions of "empty space", "every cell from a cell", or non-genetic mechanisms for heredity? My files grow increasingly full of recent examples of American researchers and medical pioneers who have been trounced into silent submission, into jail, or prematurely into their graves, for doing nothing more than exploring such questions!

CSICOP claims, on the back cover of its publication, that it investigates "fringe-science claims from a responsible scientific point of view", and also does "not reject claims on a-priori grounds antecedent to inquiry, but rather examines them objectively and carefully". However, from the above, we have seen that the Gardner article, at least, has violated these high-sounding goals in an extreme way. The detailed scientific research of Reich and his coworkers is flippantly ignored, as if it does not really constitute "research", their experiments somehow failing to be real "experiments". But he, Gardner, writes as if he had examined all the facts and evidence, when the truth is that he has done little or no examining at all, other than to select quotes cleverly here and there from a few books. CSICOP and Gardner have set a pattern for themselves. They proclaim expertise over matters where they have none, and condemn it where it exists. It is not so much different from the 1950s, when the FDA substituted rumor and gossip for "evidence", granted "expertise" only to those scientists who had demonstrated the proper quanta of ignorance, contempt, and prejudice, and concocted "experiments" which bore no resemblance to those previously published.

What Are the Facts About Wilhelm Reich's Discoveries?

Dr. Reich's findings have not died with him because his experiments, when carefully conducted under the original conditions, produce the same results now as when he first developed them. They yield clear evidence for a pulsatory, weather-active and biologically-active energy continuum. It can, and has been, measured and photographed, and found to exist in high vacuum as well.(4) Reich called this energy continuum the orgone, but other scientists, working completely independent of Reich, and usually without knowledge of his works, have likewise measured or strongly inferred the existence of such an energy.

For example, there is Dayton Miller's work on the dynamic aether drift,(12) Halton Arp's work on energy/matter bridges between galaxies in deep space,(13) Giorgio Piccardi's work on solar influences upon the physical chemistry of water,(14) Frank Brown's work on cosmic modulation of biological clocks,(15) Harold Burr's work on the electrodynamic characteristics of creatures and the natural environment,(16) Hannes Alfven's work on streaming plasmas in the depths of space,(17) Thelma Moss' work on energy-field photography,(18) Bjorn Nordenstrom's work on x-ray phantom-images and circulation of bioenergy,(19) Robert Becker's work on mammalian bioelectrical limb regeneration,(20) Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphogenetic fields,(21) Louis Kervran's work on bioenergy-driven biological transmutations,(22) Berkson, Emergy, Anderson and Spangler's works on non-constant, continuum effects in nuclear decay processes,(23) and Paul Dirac's observations on the "neutrino sea".(24) And yes, we must not forget the work of CSICOP target Jacques Benveniste,(1) who demonstrated a non-molecular, likely energetic phenomena long known to homeopathic physicians. Each of these workers discovered or argued for a force conceptually similar to orgone: mass-free, yet capable of affecting or being bound to matter, participating in physical chemistry, metabolism, and heredity in some way, possessing measurable biological, meteorological, and cosmic components, reflectable by metal shielding, yet also amplifiable (and not extinguishable) through use of solid metal enclosures. Only in the case of Moss do I recall orgone being mentioned as a possible mechanism, but the properties and behavior of the phenomena independently identified by these researchers were orgone-like in many ways. So much for the assertion that no one "outside orgonomy circles" has detected these phenomena.

Other aspects of Gardner's attack on Reich focus upon his personal life, and his observations of UFOs. Here, highly selective quotes and exaggerations paint an awful portrait of Reich; one would never guess that he was admired by his coworkers for being an emotionally honest, patient, and gentle man. But is this really an issue? Could we condemn the telephone or the light bulb if it were proven that Bell or Edison somehow behaved in an "unlikable" way? Reich's personal life has no bearing at all on the question of whether or not the accumulator or cloudbuster really function as described; similarly regarding UFOs, which Reich, and a host of other reliable witnesses have seen from time to time. Unless we wish to focus specifically upon the question of UFOs, or upon Reich's Arizona experiments, his speculations about the nature of the UFO are of only passing interest.

Gardner is also very selective when discussing the childhood recollections of Reich's son, Peter.(25) He cites the passage where Peter Reich helps his father work the cloudbuster in the Arizona desert, where UFOs were observed, but says nothing of the child's recollections of Government Agents invading his father's Maine laboratory, putting accumulators to the axe, and carrying away crates of books for burning in incinerators. And likewise regarding Reich's writings in Contact With Space.(26) The UFO observations are mentioned again and again, but nothing is said of Reich's successful experiment for bringing moisture to the deserts. Gardner brands Reich paranoid for his speculative, and forlorn writings from this time when he was working almost entirely alone in the middle of the desert, and under malicious attack by the popular media, by academics, and by the Government. The diagnosis of "paranoia" is only correct in circumstances where there is no real threat to the individual in question, only a falsely perceived one. In Reich's case the threats were real.

Gardner's Attack Against James DeMeo

Gardner's discussion of my work was in many cases either only partly true or incorrect. This may be due to the fact that he relied on dubious sources for information on my research. Rather than write me for details on my published experiments,(5, 27) Gardner relied on a National Enquirer article I know nothing about. He also relied on second-hand, word-of-mouth recollections of a lecture I gave to the Association for Arid Lands Studies,(28) or a clandestinely recorded version of that lecture. I learned about the Skeptical Inquirer article not from its editors, from CSICOP, or Gardner, but via an anonymous phone call. Such intrigue! Whatever, the figures Gardner cited, of my engaging in 13 successful cloudbusting operations out of 15, are several years out of date. As of October 1988, I have participated in or directed over 30 different cloudbusting operations, more than half of which took place during mild to severe drought conditions, or desert conditions. Approximately 80% of these operations were successful in that significant rains, and other major and distinct atmospheric changes, developed within 48 hours after onset of operations. This success rate is preserved for the drought-desert operations, as assessed independently. These latter experiments include work during the 1986 Southeastern drought, which did dramatically end shortly after our cloudbusting operations began, and a most recent cloudbusting operation (mid-September 1988) in the drought zone of the Pacific Northwest. Another successful cloudbusting operation recently took place in the harsh deserts north of Yuma, Arizona, confirming the desert-greening possibilities raised by Reich in Contact with Space over 30 years ago. For the record, all my cloudbusting operations since 1980 have been preceded by a documentary telegram to NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). They are documented and evaluated via ground photos, satellite imagery, and National Weather Service data.

Gardner implies that I make a lot of money from the orgone research, when the truth is that it costs me a lot of money, and returns nothing financially. It costs thousands of dollars to launch a cloudbusting operation of any magnitude, and because of the hatred towards Reich's works which currently exists, funding is not available through ordinary sources. The orgonotester, which I import but do not manufacture, is made by the Marah SA company, which also makes top-notch air ion measuring equipment. Apparently Dr. Walter Stark, the Swiss ion expert who developed these instruments, is also interested in orgone energy.

I started giving workshops on "The Bioenergetic, Orgonomic Basis of Life and Weather" after I saw the need for factual education on these subjects. For the record, the workshops are attended by many enthusiastic young students, often the brightest and best, who usually already know a lot about Reich, and feel deeply offended that so many of their professors put him down without the slightest notion of what they are talking about.

What Is the Real Reason Gardner Attacks Reich and Orgonomy?

We come to a point of consideration, namely why it is that Gardner attacks Reich in such a blind way? He is decidedly upset that the orgone question did not lay down and die with Reich in 1957:

"One might have thought that today's orgonomists...would confine themselves to Reich's youthful contributions to psychoanalysis, which are reasonably sane and still greatly admired by many psychiatrists, but no -- most of them buy it all."(2:28)

The thought that these younger orgonomists might have been persuaded to accept Reich's findings by weight of evidence does not pass into Gardner's pen. However, a clue to his own motivations for attacking and distorting the record is found in Gardner's own writings. In The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,(29) Gardner finally makes known his own world view. And what do we see? One reviewer puts it so:

"...not what we might expect from an apostle of the rational. Gardner announces that he believes in the existence of God -- not the pantheistic God of Spinoza or Einstein, but an omniscient creator who would be recognizable to anyone immersed in the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Gardner is deeply convinced of the possibility of a soul and an afterlife, if not of a conventional heaven and hell. He writes movingly about the benefits of prayer, not merely for its possible psychological value, but also because God might actually heed it."(30)

Now, Mr. Gardner is fully entitled to believe whatever he wishes, but we must note that Reich's functional, bioenergetic works stand in clear opposition to both a dead, machine-like universe, and a dualistic, "spirit-versus-flesh" anthropomorphic deity. Indeed, Reich argued persuasively that the mechanistic-mystical world view was the result of a perceptive splitting-off of organic sense functions, caused by the chronic damming-up of emotional-sexual energy within the body of the observer.(31) For these reasons, he argued, animistic peoples, who lived a more vibrant and uninhibited emotional and sexual life, and who consequently remained relatively free of neuroses,(32) could feel, with their sense organs, the tangible energetic forces which shaped and created the universe. To them, the spirit-forces were dynamic, alive, in the "here and now", and not divorced off into some intangible "heaven" or "hell". Reich also pointed out the essentially mystical nature of many concepts of modern physics, wherein, like deistic religion, the basic forces which shape and structure the universe, are also not tangible, not directly measurable, and not observable through the senses. Mystical physics of today says we can't possibly touch or see these forces directly, given that they expended their influence billions of years ago,or are woven into the fabric of an unobservable "space-time continuum". According to this view, the central creative event which put the whole universe into motion occurred in a primordial "big-bang", which only by "accident", we are told, conforms to the biblical Genesis. This point of view might be convincing were it not for the fact that plenty of contrary empirical evidence exists. In addition to the evidence cited above, we may ask: what do Reich's functional discoveries do to such a world view?

Reich's orgone is a spontaneously pulsatile, excitable, and negatively-entropic energy. It is an active, creative principle which is tangible, real, measurable, and in the "here and now". Through experiment, it was found that concentrated, excited orgone in high vacuum absorbs and diminishes electromagnetic excitations transmitted through it. As such, it provides a mechanism for the red-shifting of galactic light, through a means other than doppler effects.(13, 31) These findings completely undermine the theoretical basis of the "expanding universe", the "big-bang", "relativity", and popular notions such as "black holes", etc. Indeed, any astrophysical theory which requires a constant light speed and "empty space" is undone by Reich's findings. And if Reich is correct about the streaming, pulsatile, superimposing nature of the orgone continuum in space,(33) it would also fulfill the requirements of prime mover, putting the anthropomorphic deity into the unemployment lines, and preserving Genesis only as historical literature, and not important natural philosophy. Who will deny the growing speculative tendency in certain quarters of astrophysics for linkage between the big-bang and the book of Genesis? This connection has not even been lost on the Pope!

But there is more. Reich also argues that the spontaneous aspects of life, namely those governing emotion and sexuality, are not only natural and biologically necessary, but also measurable and tangible.(31, 34) Sex is not a sin to Reich, and Original Sin is psychopathological myth. The sexual impulse is not intrinsically devilish but an aspect of bioenergetic superimposition and charge, striving for natural release, even among adolescents and the unmarried.

All this harkens back to a similar, historically important difference between the world views of Galileo, history's greatest empiricist, and Newton, a man who was preoccupied with theology. Galileo looked to the energetic aether as probable prime mover, at work in the here and now. He was antagonistic towards "revealed truth", and demanded that his critics reproduce his experiments before making judgments, to "look into the telescope". But not so Newton, who argued for dominance of the Church over matters of experimental science.(35) He proclaimed the aether to be static and immobile, without a shred of evidence in order to eliminate its participation in the ordering and movements of the Heavens. That role, he believed, belonged only to the Christian anthropomorphic God. Newton's theological restraints on scientific inquiry have remained to this day, and are even championed by a scientistic community bent on a near total denial of the bioenergetic in the natural world. In the late 1800s, Michelson and Morley searched for but did not detect Newton's static aether. But their student, Dayton Miller, did detect and fully document a moving, dynamic, metal reflectable form of it.(12) And so did Reich, who discovered this same dynamic energy as the sensible and measurable sexual-biological-cosmic orgone energy.(4) Reich's works not only undermine many popular "facts" regarding human behavior and the origins and functioning of life, but also all the various mechanistic and mystical theories of science which demand the absence of a dynamic energy in the natural world. Gardner and the CSICOP gang oppose Reich not because he failed to provide good empirical evidence for such an energy, but for just the opposite reason, because he did.

"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign:
that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him."
Jonathan Swift

Postscript: Many additional new research studies verifying and extending Wilhelm Reich's biophysics have been undertaken and published since this article was written. For example, see the current and back issues of the journal Pulse of the Planet, as well as the various listings in the on-line Bibliography on Orgonomy.


1) E. Davenas et al, Nature, 333:832, 1988; J. Maddox, et al, Nature, 334:287, 1988; J. Benveniste, ibid, p.2; J. Benveniste, Science, 241:1028, 1988.

2) M. Gardner, "Reich the Rainmaker: the Orgone Obsession", Skeptical Inquirer, 13(1):26-30, Fall 1988.

3) W. Reich, The Einstein Affair, Orgone Institute Press (xerox avail. from Wilhelm Reich Museum, PO Box 687,Rangeley, Maine 04970), 1953.

4) J. DeMeo, Bibliography on Orgone Biophysics, Natural Energy Works (El Cerrito, Calif.), 1986. (Now expanded and posted to internet as the "Bibliography on Orgonomy").

5) J. DeMeo, "Preliminary Analysis of Changes in Kansas Weather Coincidental to Experimental Operations with a Reich Cloudbuster", U. of Kansas thesis, Geography-Meteorology Department (xerox avail. from Natural Energy Works, PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon 97520), 1979; J.DeMeo, "On the Origins and Diffusion of Patrism: the Saharasian Connection", U. of Kansas dissertation, Geography Department, 1986 (now published as: Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child-Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, In the Deserts of the Old World, Natural Energy, Ashland, Oregon, 1998.

6) S. Muschenich & R. Gebauer, "Die (Psycho-) Physiologischen Wirkungen des Reich'schen Orgonakkumulators auf den Menschlichen Organismus", U. of Marburg (FR ofGermany) dissertation, Psychology Dept. 1986. (Published as Der Reichsche Orgonakkumulator, Nexus Press (avail. through Natural Energy Works, PO Box 1148, Ashland, Oregon 97520) 1987.

7) M. Sharaf, Fury on Earth, a Biography of Wilhelm Reich, St. Martin's-Marek, NY, 1983.

8) M. Gardner, "The Hermit Scientist", Antioch Review, Winter 1950-1951, pp.447-457.

9) M. Gardner, chapter on "Orgonomy" in In the Name of Science (later titled Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science), Dover, NY, 1952.

10) R. Blasband, "An Analysis of the United States Food and Drug Administration's Scientific Evidence Against Wilhelm Reich, Part 1: the Biomedical Evidence", J. Orgonomy, 6(2):207-222, 1972; C. Rosenblum, ..Part 2: the Physical Concepts", J. Orgonomy, 6(2):222-231, 1972; C. Rosenblum, ...Part 3: Physical Evidence", J. Orgonomy, 7(1):92-98, 1972; J. Greenfield, Wilhelm Reich Versus the USA, W.W. Norton, NY, 1974; J. DeMeo, "Postscript on the Food and Drug Administration's Scientific Evidence Against Wilhelm Reich", Pulse of the Planet, 1(1): 18-23, 1989.

11) J. Greenfield, ibid.; T. Wolfe, The Emotional Plague Versus Orgone Biophysics, the 1947 Campaign, OrgoneInstitute Press, NY, 1947; W. Reich, Listen, Little Man, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, NY, 1974.

12) D. Miller, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, 5:203-242, 1933.

13) H. Arp, et al, The Redshift Controversy, W.A. Benjamin, Reading, MA 1973; H. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies, Interstellar Media, Berkeley, CA, 1987; cf. C. Rosenblum, "The Red Shift", J. Orgonomy, 4:183-191, 1970.

14) G. Piccardi, Chemical Basis of Medical Climatology, C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1962; cf. J. Bortels, "Die Hypothetische Wetterstrahlung als vermutliches Agens Kosmo-Meteoro-Biologischer Reaktionen", Wissenschaftliche Seitschrift der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, VI:115-124, 1956.

15) F. Brown, "Evidence for External Timing in Biological Clocks", in An Introduction to Biological Rhythms, J. Palmer, ed., Academic Press, NY, 1975.

16) H. Burr, Blueprint for Immortality, Neville Spearman, London, 1971; cf. L. Ravitz, "History, Measurement, and Applicability of Periodic Changes in the Electromagnetic Field in Health and Disease", Annals, NY Academy of Sciences, 98:1144-1201, 1962.

17) H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasmas, Kluwer, Boston, 1981; cf. , "The Big Bang Never Happened", Discover, June, 1988, pp.70-80.

18) T. Moss, The Body Electric: A Personal Journey Into the Mysteries of Parapsychological Research, Bioenergy, and Kirlian Photography, J. P. Tarcher, Los Angeles, 1979.

19) B. Nordenstrom, Biologically Closed Electric Circuits: Clinical, Experimental and Theoretical Evidence for an Additional Circulatory System, Nordic Medical Publications, Stockholm, Sweden, 1983.

20) R. Becker & G. Selden, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, Wm. Morrow, NY 1985.

21) R. Sheldrake, A New Science of Life, The Hypothesis of Causative Formation, J. P. Tarcher, Los Angeles, 1981.

22) L. Kervran, Biological Transmutations, Beekman, Woodstock, NY, 1980.

23) J. Berkson, "Examination of Randomness of Alpha Particle Emissions", Research Papers in Statistics, F.N.David, ed., Wiley, NY, 1966; G. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates", in Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA 1972; J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Serial Statistics: Is Radioactive Decay Random?", J. Physical Chemistry, 77:3114-3121, 1973

24) P. Dirac, "Is There An Ether?", Nature, 162:906, 1951; also see L. deBroglie, Non-Linear Quantum Mechanics, Elsevier, NY, 1960; H. Dudley, New Principles in Quantum Mechanics, Exposition University Press, NY, 1959, H. Dudley, Morality of Nuclear Planning, Kronos Press, Glassboro, NJ, 1976. I. Asimov, The Neutrino, Avon Books, NY, 1966.

25) P. Reich, A Book of Dreams, Harper & Row, NY, 1973.

26) W. Reich, Contact With Space, Core Pilot Press, NY, 1957.

27) J. DeMeo, "Field Experiments with the Reich Cloubuster: 1977-1983", J. Orgonomy, 19(1):57-79, 1985; J. DeMeo & R. Morris, "CORE Progress Report #13, Fighting the Extreme Drought of Spring 1985: Southeast", J. Orgonomy, 19(2):265-266, 1985; J. DeMeo & R. Morris, "CORE Progress Report #14: Possible Slowing and Warming of an Arctic Air Mass Through Cloudbusting", J. Orgonomy, 20(1):120-125, 1986; J. DeMeo & R. Morris, "CORE Progress Report #15: Breaking the 1986 Drought in the Eastern U.S., Phase 3: A Cloudbusting Expedition into the Southeastern Drought Zone", J. Orgonomy, 21(1):27-41, 1987; J. DeMeo & R. Morris, "Preliminary Report on a Cloudbusting Experiment in the Southeastern Drought Region, August 1986", Southeastern Drought Symposium Proceedings, March 4-5, 1987, Columbia, SC., South Carolina State Climatology Office Publication G-30, pp.80-87, 1987.

28) J. DeMeo, "Nine Years of Field Experiments with a Reich Cloudbuster: Positive Evidence for a New Technique to Lessen Atmospheric Stagnation and Bring Rains in Droughty or Arid Atmospheres", Abstracts of Papers, Program of the 1987 Meeting of the Association for Arid Lands Studies, El Paso, Texas, p.6, 1987.

29) M. Gardner, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, Quill, NY, 1983.

30) F. Golden, Book Review, Discover, October 1983, pp.88-91.

31) W. Reich, Ether, God and Devil, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, NY, 1973.

32) B. Malinowski, Sexual Life of Savages, Routledge & Keegan Paul, London, 1932; W. Reich, The Function of the Orgasm, Noonday, NY, 1971; W. Reich, The Sexual Revolution, Octagon Books, NY, 1971; V. Elwin, The Muria and their Ghotul, Oxford U. Press, Calcutta, 1947; J. Prescott, "Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence", The Futurist, April 1975, pp.64-74; J. DeMeo, "On the Origins and Diffusion of Patrism: The Saharasian Connection", ibid.

33) W. Reich, Cosmic Superimposition, Wilhelm Reich Foundation, Rangeley, Maine, 1951.

34) W. Reich, The Bioelectrical Investigation of Sexuality and Anxiety, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, NY, 1982.

35) L. C. Stecchini, "The Inconstant Heavens" in The Velikovsky Affair, The Warfare Of Science and Scientism, A. deGrazia, Editor, University Books, NY, 1966; D. Kubrin, "How Sir Isaac Newton Helped Restore Law'n Order to the West", unpublished monograph, 1972.

Additional Articles and Materials:

* Click here to review and/or purchase books by James DeMeo.

* The Orgone Biophysical Research Lab: James DeMeo's Research Website.

* The Saharasia web page.

* The Complete OBRL / Natural Energy Works On-line Bookstore and Product Shop

Click here for more information on SAHARASIA             Click here for our Online Books & Products Page

    saharasia.org                           naturalenergyworks.net

If you enjoyed and benefited from these materials, please consider to
purchase our publications on similar topics, or to
make a donation to the OBRL research fund.
Thank you!

Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory, Inc.
A Non-Profit Science Research and Educational Foundation, Since 1978
Ashland, Oregon, USA
E-mail to: info(at)orgonelab.org
(SPAM Reduction: Click or copy into your email program and insert the "@" symbol)

Return to the "Response to Skeptics" Page

Return to Articles Page

Return to Home Page

This page, and all contents, Copyright (C)
by the Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory, Inc.

Visitor Count:

web analytics