The effect of the pulsatile electromagnetic field in children suffering from bronchial asthma.

Sadlonova J, Korpas J, Salat D, Miko L, Kudlicka J.

Acta Physiol Hung. 2003;90(4):327-34.

From the bibliography it is well known that pulsatile electromagnetic field has an anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect. It causes vasodilatation, myorelaxation, hyper-production of connective tissue and activation of the cell membrane. Therefore our aim was to study the possible therapeutic effect of pulsatile electromagnetic field in asthmatic children.

Forty-two children participating in this study were divided in two groups. The 1st group consisting of 21 children (11 females, 10 males, aged 11.8 +/- 0.4 yr) was treated by pulsatile electromagnetic field and pharmacologically. The 2nd group served as control, consisting also of 21 children (11 females, 10 males, aged 11.7 +/- 0.3 yr) and was treated only pharmacologically. Therapeutic effect of the pulsatile electromagnetic field was assessed on the basis of pulmonary tests performed by means of a Spirometer 100 Handi (Germany). The indexes FVC, IVC, ERV, IRV, FEV1, FEV1/FVC%, MEF75,50,25, PEF, PIF and the changes of the flow-volume loop were also registered.

The pulsatile electromagnetic field was applied by means of the device MTU 500H, Therapy System (Brno, Czech Republic) for 5 days, two times daily for 30 minutes (magnetic induction: 3 mT, frequency: 4 Hz as recommended by the manufacturer). The results in children of the 1st group showed an improvement of FVC of about 70 ml, IVC of about 110 ml, FEV1 of about 80 ml, MEF75 of about 30 ml, PEF of about 480 ml, PIF of about 550 ml. The increases of ERV, IRV and FEV1/FVC and decreases of MEF25,50 were statistically insignificant. The results in the 2nd group were less clear. The flow-volume loop showed a mild improvement in 14 children. This improvement in the 2nd group was less significant.

The clinical status of children and their mood became better. We believe that the pulsatile electro-magnetotherapy in children suffering from asthma is effective. On the basis of our results we can recommend it as a complementary therapy.

NPR reported today on a USDA threat to prosecute anyone who tests a cow for mad cow disease. A beef producer asked the USDA to test all his cows. He offered to pay for the testing. The USDA not only refused to test his cows but told him they would prosecute anyone else who tested them.

This is the one of many example of vested business interests using government agencies as pawns to undermine the health and safety of the American people. The same type of behavior is rampant in healthcare. Our system is a regulated beaurocracy that systematically suppresses innovation that could help the consumer.

One can turn to the Harvard Business Review for an analysis of “the most entrenched, change-averse industry in the United States.”



Christensen, CM; Bohmer, R; Kenagy, J. Will Disruptive Innovations Cure Health Care? Harvard Business Review, Sep-Oct 2000, pp. 103-111.

“Imagine a portable, low-intensity X-ray machine that can be wheeled between offices on a cart. It creates images of such clarity that pediatricians, internists, and nurses can detect cracks in bones or lumps in tissue in their offices, not in a hospital. It works through a patented “nanocrystal” process, which uses night-vision technology borrowed from the military. At 10% of the cost of a conventional X-ray machine, it could save patients, their employers, and insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. Great innovation, right? Guess again. When the entrepreneur who developed the machine tried to license the technology to established health care companies, he couldn’t even get his foot in the door. Large-scale X-ray equipment suppliers wanted no part of it. Why? Because it threatened their business models.

“What happened to the X-ray entrepreneur is all too common in the health care industry. Powerful institutional forces fight simpler alternatives to expensive care because those alternatives threaten their livelihoods. And those opponents to low-cost change are usually lined up three or four deep. Imagine for a moment that our entrepreneur was able to license the technology. Even then, he would probably face insuperable barriers. Regulators, afraid of putting patients at risk, would withhold approvals. Radiologists, who establish the licensing standards that regulators enforce, don’t want to lose their jobs, so they’d fight it, too. Insurance companies, which approve only established licensed procedures, would refuse to reimburse for it. And hospitals, with their large investments in radiology and emergency departments, want injuries to flow to them–so they, too would join the forces holding back change.”

At the MIT Future of Health Technology Summit we discuss these issues every year among some of the top leaders in healthcare. The consensus last October was that aligning business incentives with the safety and well being of patients was the core of the problem and that radical change was necessary. Frankly, the only way I see this happening is massive consumer revolt causing major political repercussions. It is essential that every healthcare consumer concerned about themselves, their children, and the elderly in their family to become educated, to take charge of their own healthcare and the healthcare of their loved ones, and to demand accountability and political action.

Let’s hope aging baby-boomers will still have the mojo to act on this. It will make stopping the Vietnam war look like a cakewalk. Check out Robert McNamara in “The Fog of War.” If that doesn’t get your juices flowing, try seeing “Apocalypse Now” for the third time. When I finished my 100th mission over North Vietnam in 1968, there were only about 25000 dead U.S. soldiers and it was clear that we were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It took more than another 25,000 to get people to wake up. In healthcare we have more than four Vietnams of medical error every year. That doesn’t count lives that would be saved without systematic suppression of innovation.

The answer is yes, either positively or negatively, depending on state of the cell, electromagnetic frequency, and timing.

Zeeman-Stark modeling of the RF EMF interaction with ligand binding

A. Chiabrera, B. Bianco, E. Moggia, J.J. Kaufman

Bioelectromagnetics, Volume 21, Issue 4 , Pages 312 – 324, © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Abstract

The influence of radiofrequency electromagnetic exposure on ligand binding to hydrophobic receptor proteins is a plausible early event of the interaction mechanism. A comprehensive quantum Zeeman-Stark model has been developed which takes into account the energy losses of the ligand ion due to its collisions inside the receptor crevice, the attracting nonlinear endogenous force due to the potential energy of the ion in the binding site, the out of equilibrium state of the ligand-receptor system due to the basal cell metabolism, and the thermal noise. The biophysical output is the change of the ligand binding probability that, in some instances, may be affected by a suitable low intensity exogenous electromagnetic input exposure, e.g., if the depth of the potential energy well of a putative receptor protein matches the energy of the radiofrequency photon. These results point toward both the possibility of the electromagnetic control of biochemical processes and the need for a new database of safety standards.

As if women didn’t have enough to deal with on the issue of hormone replacement theory, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article today showing increased breast cancer from the use of antibiotics. I’ve avoided them for a decade or more because of candida and intestinal flora problems. Use Transfer Factor Plus and reserve antibiotics for real emergencies. A real emergency is your life is at risk.

This is the first hard data indicating that antibiotics have much worse effects than we previously imagined. Kudos to JAMA because this article is free.

Antibiotic Use in Relation to the Risk of Breast Cancer

Christine M. Velicer, PhD; Susan R. Heckbert, MD, PhD; Johanna W. Lampe, PhD, RD; John D. Potter, MD, PhD; Carol A. Robertson, RPh; Stephen H. Taplin, MD, MPH

JAMA. 2004;291:827-835.

The editorial response is also available:

Antibiotics and Breast Cancer—What’s the Meaning of This?

Roberta B. Ness, MD, MPH; Jane A. Cauley, DrPH

JAMA. 2004;291:880-881.

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer diagnosed among women in the United States. Established risk factors include age, family history, reduced parity, earlier age at menarche, alcohol use, postmenopausal adiposity, and hormone therapy. In this issue of THE JOURNAL, Velicer and colleagues report another potential risk factor: the use of prescribed antibiotics. Among 2266 women with breast cancer, as compared with 7953 controls, the use of antibiotics was more common; the risk of breast cancer was greater with longer duration of antibiotic use and was consistent across antibiotic classes. This observation is potentially worrisome in that antibiotic exposure is common and sometimes nonessential. Thus, if real, the risk of breast cancer attributable to the use of antibiotics could be large and partially preventable.

Every once in a while I get some flak for dedicating this page to the Medicine Buddha because Rife engineers think it is a “new age” religion, even though Buddhism predates both Christianity and Mohammed. The Medicine Buddha is alledgedly the diety who trained the Buddha himself in how to treat people with medical problems, thus preceeding even the Buddha. A number of physicians I have met use the Medicine Buddha as a model for their practice and Tibetan Buddhism is making significant contributions to scientific research. In fact, scientists at Harvard and elsewhere have wired up monks and demonstrated that their individualized training on the internal workings of their mind generate documented physiological and emotional effects that are unheard of in “normal” Americans. I can personally testify that it is better to be an “abnormal” American, not obese, not neurotic, not sick, not on any medications, and free of any chronic disease condition like most Tibetan monks.

Tibetan Buddhism and research psychology: a match made in Nirvana?

Collaborations between monks and psychologists yield new directions in psychological research.

Monitor on Psychology, Volume 34, No. 11 December 2003

Sadie F. Dingfelder

With an eye toward understanding the inner workings of the mind and using that knowledge to reduce human suffering, psychologists and Buddhist monks may have more in common than they realize, and possibly even compatible methodology. These commonalities are driving collaborations between some psychologists and Buddhist monks.

Richard Davidson, PhD, a psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, for one, believes that the shared goals and empiricism of these two traditions could lead to useful advances for each. Tibetan Buddhism, says Davidson, is not a dogmatic religion; knowledge in the tradition is gained by examining one’s own experience. Monks train for years to become expert observers of the inner workings of their own minds, he says. Research psychology, on the other hand, attempts to understand mental processes by focusing on third-person observation and de-emphasizing subjective observations of mental phenomena, he explains.

There is hardly a day that goes by that I don’t receive an email or read an item in a newsgroup about someone who has had problems with our heathcare system. The striking thing about these notes is the shock people have about being harmed and the aloneness they feel like a wolf howling in the wilderness. However, they are not alone and they should read Don Berwick’s new book, “Escape Fire: Designs for the Future of Health Care.” There are other wolves out there howling.

Healthcare leaders are well aware of the problem and have been given a mandate to do something about it by the Institute of Medicine initial patient safety report, “To Err is Human.” Medical errors are conservatively the third leading cause of death in the United States and that includes only inpatient medical errors in hospitals. Healthcare leaders are also aware that nothing of substance has yet been done about it, as noted by the Washington Post Editorial, “A Medical Enron.”

When change will not happen peacefully, you need a revolution, and Dr. Berwick, Harvard Professor of Clinical Pediatrics and Healthcare Policy and CEO of The Institute for Healthcare Improvement is emerging as one of the leading revolutionaries. The book is his collected keynotes speeches at the National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care from 1992-2004. It starts off with “Kevin Speaks” given in 1992.

Kevin had most of his small intestine removed at the age of 2 and at 15, Dr. Berwick asked him to write down three things that especially pleased him about healthcare system in the life of a child with chronic illness. He also asked Kevin to provide a score of the percent of time these things occurred.

Care is best when:

1. They tell you what’s going on right away. 35%

2. You get the same answer from everyone. 30%

3. They don’t make you scared. 40%

The system got failing grades in 1992 and it is not much better now, maybe worse. So Berwick said in 1992:

In the storm of the health care crisis–the variations on “pay or play” or the “Canadian option” or “managed competition”; in the various debates about rationing and protocols and incentive compensation, and even about TQM–it is so easy–frighteningly easy–to forget why we trouble ourselves in the first place. It is so easy–frighteningly easy–to become trapped in the sterile thesis that our institutions must survive simply because they must survive, or that our true, deep purpose is to gain and preserve market share in a vacant terrain of others whose purpose is precisely the same. It is easy to believe that our habits of work are somehow valid and worth defending in isolation from the reason that work exists in the first place.

But the work is not there in the first place. The work is second. In the first place there is Kevin. “Tell me what you know right away,” he asks. “Comfort me, answer me, do not make me wait or waste my time. Try not to frighten me,” he asks. And unspoken, because he is so frightened, is the most important request of all; “To the very best of your ability, help me live and grow.” We are not there to survive. We are there to help Kevin survive.

Thursday, 5 February, 2004, 02:16 GMT

Doctors may one day be able to use powerful electric fields to help destroy cancer cells from outside.

US researchers say they can use energy pulses – which last a tiny fraction of a second – to attack the cell without harming its healthy neighbours. The pulses do not physically destroy the cell, but appear to start a process which makes them “commit suicide”.

The technique, reported in New Scientist magazine, could also be used to tackle obesity, say experts. Currently, surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy are used to destroy cancer cells. The “nanopulse” system is closest to radiotherapy, but may perhaps offer a gentler alternative to radiation.

———

Hmmm. Some of these scientists are reading web pages of Rifers! Maybe this one, since I’m the only one I know who is killing fat cells with specific frequencies. The real news is that the laboratory scientists are starting to see the mechanism. The frequencies don’t kill the cells. They alter the calcium metabolism which results in cell death.

So here is another one for the lab scientists to investigate. There is a frequency which appears to destroy muscle cells and cause cellular regeneration, similar to the effect of lifting weights. This is my latest experiment which some of my colleagues are testing.

About 50% of existing disease can be avoided by nutritional strategies. One of the easiest to avoid is Alzheimer’s disease by eating fish once a week. Better yet, use pharmaceutical fish oil every day and protect your heart as well as your brain. Vitamin C and E in combination reduce the risk even further, but that is another paper.

Has your doctor told you this? Probably not. Surveys show that most cardiologists take Vitamin E and few ever tell their patients. I suspect neurologists are about the same. Is that malpractice? You decide.

Consumption of fish and n-3 fatty acids and risk of incident Alzheimer disease

Morris MC, Evans DA, Bienias JL, Tangney CC, Bennett DA, Wilson RS, Aggarwal N, Schneider J.

Arch Neurol. 2003 Jul;60(7):923-4.

BACKGROUND: Dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids improve brain functioning in animal studies, but there is limited study of whether this type of fat protects against Alzheimer disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether fish consumption and intake of different types of n-3 fatty acids protect against Alzheimer disease.

DESIGN: Prospective study conducted from 1993 through 2000, of a stratified random sample from a geographically defined community. Participants were followed up for an average of 3.9 years for the development of Alzheimer disease.

PATIENTS: A total of 815 residents, aged 65 to 94 years, who were initially unaffected by Alzheimer disease and completed a dietary questionnaire on average 2.3 years before clinical evaluation of incident disease.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident Alzheimer disease diagnosed in a structured neurologic examination by means of standardized criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 131 sample participants developed Alzheimer disease. Participants who consumed fish once per week or more had 60% less risk of Alzheimer disease compared with those who rarely or never ate fish (relative risk, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.9) in a model adjusted for age and other risk factors. Total intake of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids was associated with reduced risk of Alzheimer disease, as was intake of docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3). Eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) was not associated with Alzheimer disease. The associations remained unchanged with additional adjustment for intakes of other dietary fats and of vitamin E and for cardiovascular conditions.

CONCLUSION: Dietary intake of n-3 fatty acids and weekly consumption of fish may reduce the risk of incident Alzheimer disease.

I often get email from people interested in frequency medicine that are called “wacko” by their spouse, their physicians, and their friends. On occassion, I even get called “wacko” myself, although that is becoming increasingly rare as people, including clinicians, get consistent results based on comments posted here.

My favorite mentor and “wacko” is Linus Pauling who was sponsor of the Center for Vitamins and Cancer Research that I cofounded at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in 1980. Linus only won two Nobel Prizes and was very upset he did not get a third for discovering DNA. He loaned some data to Watson and Crick and they got the jump on him, maybe because of Linus’s data. The government thought he was really “wacko” for winning a Nobel Prize for complaining about nuclear testing hazards, considered him a security risk, and would not let him out of the country. The Chinese felt the same way about the Dalai Lama when he got the Nobel Peace Prize.

Francis Crick was a “wacko” of sorts because he was a physicist who dabbled in biology.

Let’s take a look at the “wacko” of the week in today’s Investor’s Business Daily, not exactly a “wacko” publication. J. Michael Bishop won the Noble Prize in 1989 for discovering that normal genes cause cancer. Most of todays clinicians still do not get it. Normal programming in a cell is turned on to produce cancer. We have to turn the program off, not blast cells with various technologies that risk the patients life.

Researcher J. Michael Bishop – Have Vision: Following his instincts helped this doctor win a Nobel Prize

Curt Schleier, Investor’s Business Daily, 27 Jan 2004

Bishop had an idea for a research project early in his career. He wanted to research a theory by Dr. Howard Temin of the University of Wisconsin that retroviruses let genetic information flow backward through what was then though of as one-way circuitry in a cell. However, many of Bishop’s peers predicted his work was doomed to fail. Instead of following his instincts, he listened and abandoned the research, only to discover a year later that Temin and others succeeded where he’d feared to go.

“If you have an idea that you think is really good — particularly if it’s path-breaking — shut off your antennae and just go with it,” Bishop said. “If your own judgment about these things is not sound, your’re not going to make it as a scientist. You’d rather find that out sooner than later…”

Bishop says one reason so many scientists were skeptical about Temin’s theory was its source, at an unlikely outpost in Wisconsin. It taught Bishop to judge ideas on merit — not where they originate.

“Howard Temin had a good pedigree, but he was working at the University of Wisconsin,” Bishop said. “There he was making this heretical proposal on how retroviruses replicate. I saw him at one of the first scientific meetings I attended. He was literally denigrated by the chair of the session in advance of his talk, accused of being a wacko. (Temin) was right, but it was clear that people were willing to snipe at him because he wasn’t from Harvard or MIT.”

So the next time your spouse, your physician, or your friends call you wacko, thank them! You may be in good company.

I started this web site as an FSCAN FAQ, answers to frequently asked questions about the FSCAN. After working with hundreds of people using many different types of devices, I need an Electronic Medicine FAQ or an ElectroMagnetic device FAQ, or EM FAQ.

Various people have asked me a lot of questions this week and even to write a book. For now, the web site will have to do. I’ll try to accumulate information in a form that can be used to create a book in the future. Meanwhile, here are a couple of frequently asked questions that were asked again this week.

Does it matter what frequency device I use?

The simple answer is no. If you can select an exact frequency for a pathogen and get energy transfer at that frequency to the pathogen, the device doesn’t matter. Some enthusiasts are on an endless search for the magic bullet device that will make them successful. Some are trying to recreate the device that Rife used successfully. I don’t think that will solve the problem. Any good frequency generator can work.

That said, if your device puts out a well formed square wave, you will get better results. If it is a pad device you need positive DC offset. It is very useful to be able to add a gating or pulsing frequency to the primary frequency. In addition, being able to control the duty cycle of the device or the percent time the waveform is above zero volts is important, particularly for certain organisms. These factors can shorten treatment time from hours to minutes or seconds if used properly.

It is extremely useful to be able to program all these parameters in a simple scripting language that precisely articulates the treatment pattern which is why the F100 series devices are commonly used to drive EMEM plasma systems.

Getting energy transfer to the target organism is essential to success. The relative utility of emitting frequencies via pads, handheld electrodes, magnetic devices, plasma tubes, is largely related to the ability to penetrate the body to hit pathogens in internal organs. A handheld electrode will generate an effective magnetic field about one inch from the electrode, while a magnetic pad will penetrate several inches. A powerful EMEM device will fill an entire room with an electromagnetic field. An Advanced BioPhoton Analyzer transmits independent of distance and will penetrate every cell in the body.

Power transfer to the pathogy is critical. Low power may annoy it where higher power will kill it. For some organisms in some internal organs, you will never get enough power transfer with a pad device without plate zapping using microscopic slides of target tissue. Plate zapping is possible with any device, including plasma devices.

Pad or handheld electrode devices like the FSCAN2 or F100 series devices used stand alone are best for initial use. EMEM devices are powerful devices that are best used by people with some expertise. I don’t like exposure to radio frequency fields and avoid RF devices, so I use Bruce Stenulson’s EM devices which do not emit RF fields.

All of this said, what really matters is the ability to detect exact frequencies within a few hertz for specific pathogens. Without the exact frequency, success will be sporadic at best, no matter what device you use. I believe this is what made Rife successful. He actually did not understand much about frequencies, nor did he have the accurate, solid state devices we now use for frequency generators. What he did have was a powerful microscope that allowed him to see pathogens self-destruct when he tuned his plasma device to the right setting. In this way he got the exact frequency. Attempts to reproduce his device without the exact frequencies will not meet with success.

If I just run all the Rife frequency sets that I find on the Internet, will I solve my problem?

To me, this question is like asking if I take a shotgun and shoot it in random directions, will I kill something that is bothering me? Some people are building powerful devices that do this automatically. The answer is yes, maybe, but there will be collateral damage.

Electromagnetic fields can effect cells positively or negatively. There is plenty of research that show, for example, that cell phones negatively affect cell function, and this can be clearly seen in blood analysis. I try to minimize my exposure to my cell phone and minimize my exposure to frequency devices.

The best approach is to identify the specific target organism, the specific location of the organism, and, like an expert marksman, fire one shot that eliminates the target without affecting anything else.
Click here for comments and clarifications