The key to the experience discussed previously in part I of entanglement was the joint observation and expectation of the particular result particle, wave or mixture. It is clear that expectation helps to determine the experience. It is also clear that only the person having the primary experience can determine outcome. This can be seen as the factor accounting for the difference in experience using aspirin as treatment for heart disease. It can be seen from this perspective that certainly it is possible in this way for aspirin to stop working if the collective expectation changes. The change in results would then be explainable in “better studies” or “better blinded studies” correcting for some perceived bias.

   Another example of this can be seen in the relationship between the use of Group B strep cultures and the incidence of prenatal deaths from overwhelming bacterial sepsis. Sepsis, here is the large scale infection that may take place in newborn infants. Years ago in the 1980’s it was noted that a certain number of babies died each year from this widespread infection in the body. Studies revealed that the organism associated was Group B streptococcus. It turned out that this could be associated with the GI system and so a program was considered to culture all pregnant women. This was organized through the CDC and women who were positive were treated for this in labor. This resulted in the following statistics. One in one hundred women, who tested positive for the organism, would have babies who tested positive. These would be considered colonized. Of these, one in one hundred would get extremely sick, sick enough to die. So then, one thousand people would need to be treated in order to prevent one death from Group B sepsis. This, in addition to the cost of screening all pregnant women and the cost of having to treat persons colonized with organisms now no longer susceptible to the antibiotics being used to treated Group B strep helped to make this quite expensive.

    Now over twenty odd years as obstetrics developed this program, the numerator of the ratio of babies changed from 9 to 0.5 on the average. This numerator being the number per statistical group against which the death rate was calculated. The interesting thing is that on the surface this appears to be quite successful, until one looks at the actual number of infants who die from sepsis where the number is still around 9 and what has actually changed is that, the infants still die from sepsis in the same proportion, just not from Group B strep. In other words the outcome did not change, just the statistics did.

  The situation is that the infant having the experience from the quantum mechanics perspective is the one determining the outcome in terms of its consciousness and the “qwiffs” that generate the experience. The results or experiences that others have associated with the outcome can, however, be determined by their expectation. Consequently it is not possible for the persons present to change the outcome, but only their experience of it, since it is not their primary outcome.

   Still another example can be found in an experiment done at Baylor University, by an orthopedic physician, regarding knee arthroscopy surgery. The surgeon divided a number of patients into three groups, one group having the surgery consisting of shaving the knee internally and washing the material out. The second group had only a washing done and no shaving, while the third group only had an incision, but did have the experience of hearing the machine. Now all persons participating had the same perceptive experience, but their bodies had different experiences. The results in each group were found to be identical, the same proportion having success, partial success and/or failure.

This showed from the quantum mechanics perspective, that when expectation and observation are the same, that the same results are experienced. These perspectives show how the results that are obtained from studies, even when surgery is performed, consistent results are obtained only when expectation and observation are the same and have little to do with how the study is constructed otherwise.

This leads us to the inevitable conclusion, that the actual results have more to do with what the individual is prepared for. The actual outcome can be only determined by the individual and he or she is the one who can change this by changing preparation, anticipation and expectation.