I am forwarding a message and my reply, from a friend whose wife will
start some kind of electrotherapy directed by a Japanese MD. This
seems relevant to the topic we are discussing.
Our correspondence falls between the # marks.
NB the work of Bjorn Nordenstrom is also highly relevant, but his
theory is different also, focusing on "closed electrical circuits" in
the body. BN is a supporter of Y. Omura, MD. Both are remarkable
and worth reading apropos our discussion.
Bottom line for lay readers, myself included: there may be several
mechanisms involved in the efficacy of various electromedicine devices.
BTW, I have read the patent that got Bob Beck started in his work,
but I do not recall if the authors hypothesized a mechanism. . . .
JBB
########################################################################
#######
Peter,
I think this is wonderful, very promising indeed. It corresponds
well with my reading, but I do have some questions.
If Dr. Yamada is merely stimulating the acupuncture points, I think
this method is possibly not appropriate. If he is, as your letter
suggests, seeking to stimulate macrophage activity by electrifying the
blood, then this would correspond to CAM treatments that, anecdotally
at least, are said to be highly effective.
I admire your open-mindedness to all plausible alternatives. I have
confidence in your success and am thinking of both of you often.
JBB
On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 18:59 Asia/Tokyo, Peter XXXXXXXX wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
we visited Dr. Yamada this morning. He is 82 years old and still
practising! His is a form of electric acupuncture. He claims it
cured his receptionist of liver cancer.
He recommends 10 straight days of treatment (30 minutes a time, once
each day) to see how T. responds. To make it covered by insurance he
has to give her a shot (vitamins) and write it up as therapy for back
pains. He is a trusted figure, a surgeon and ex-Fukudai lecturer and
he is on the board of an insurance company.
I looked up electro-acupuncture and it is claimed to be both
anti-tumour and anti-emetic (chemo makes T. vomit sometimes, so it
should help). I've ordered 2 sea bands for T. from the US, she can
wear them on her wrists. We will also buy a TENS machine so she can
self-stimulate point 91, to relieve nausea. Maybe Dr. Yamada can even
prescribe a TENS machine, I don't know, but I don't think they are
expensive.
T will begin her 10 days with Dr. Yamada after her next chemo, so
she'll probably start next Thursday, visiting his clinic each day for
ten days in a row. She will continue with him after that, this
initial ten day trial is just to see what response we get.
He does not believe the tumour marker is an accurate index of how the
cancer is, I agree. He thinks sometimes dead cancer cells effect the
result to give an inaccurate reading. He also claims that some
patients with white hair say that it falls out to be replaced by black
hairs!
Dr. Yamada wrote a thesis many years ago, maybe in the 50s, about the
role of macrophages in fighting cancer and bacterial infection. It
was dismissed then but that line of thinking is in fashion now.
So, it's neither Rife nor Beck therapy, but it does seem promising.
Let me know what you think.
Take care,
Peter
########################################################################
#####
On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 00:36 Asia/Tokyo, Marshall Dudley wrote:
I had never seen that theory before. I guess the questions is, does
that
theory support the facts, which are:
If you increase the Beck device to 30 KHZ it does not work.
If you make the Clark zapper use a bipolar rather than a unipolar
wave, it
does not work.
At this time I do not see any reason why they would not work if you do
that
with that theory, but could be missing something.
Marshall
"Jonathan B. Britten" wrote:
Hi, Marshall,
Good questions. My understanding, as a layman relying on a variety
of sources, was based on a different theory of the mechanism of
action. One theory, supposedly based on dark field microscopy of
live blood, is that the Beck device and other blood electrification
methods work by improving the efficacy of white blood cells. The
related hypothesis is that these cells (macrophages I believe) work
not just by devouring the pathogens, in a Pac Man sort of attack,
but
by first electrocuting the invaders! I think this concept derived
from the work of Gaston Naessens.
I do not know which theory is correct. You know a lot about the
DNA
theory, which I do not know well.
Perhaps other list members have ideas.
My own experiences leave me with no reason to favor one hypothesis
over the other at the moment.
JBB
On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 23:21 Asia/Tokyo, Marshall Dudley wrote:
"Jonathan B. Britten" wrote:
Hi, Richard,
Soon SOTA will support only the Beck Pulser. They will drop the
Clarke
Zapper.
You have gotten one of the last Clarke Zappers to be sold by SOTA.
They now offer a second device for half price if you buy one.
They sell both Beck and Clarke devices at present. Your device
is a
Clarke Zapper, which is not related to Beck's protocol. It puts
out
12 volts as opposed to 31 volts. Both devices use 9 volt
batteries.
Everyone I know uses the Clark Zapper in place of the Beck device
when
doing
the beck protocol, and have had very good success with it.
I am glad if the Clarke Zapper works for you.
I think the Beck Pulser (blood electrification) protocol is more
plausible, but I have no direct experience with either device. I
use
a TENS device (Omron) to experiment with blood electrification.
Why do you say it is more plausible? As far as I can tell they work
exactly
the same way.
They both do the same thing:
1. Send a fast rise time pulse of current through the body.
2. This fast rise time pulse causes the dna of pathogens to ring at
their
resonance, causing them to break apart. (This is like a lightning
bolt
causing static on a AM radio. The radio picks up across all
frequencies
since they are in the fourier transform of the pulse).
3. The pulse does not break apart the human dna because there is so
much of
it, there is insufficient power at the resonant frequency of human
dna
to
affect it.
4. There is an electric field to cause the dna to pull apart once it
is
broken. This can be in the form of an average electric field in the
Clark
zapper, or by using a pulse width of milliseconds for the Beck
Device.
Without the field, the dna repairs itself with no lasting damage.
Now the Beck device switches 100 times a second if I remember right
and has
no offset. The leading edge breaks apart the dna and the the long
pulse
provides the field to pull the dna apart sufficiently so it cannot
recombine.
The Clark device pulses 30,000 times a second. If the pulses had an
average
value of 0, that is if they were bipolar, then the dna would split
apart,
then recombine, accomplishing nothing. But the pulse is unipolar (and
thus
has a 4.5 volt average value), which provides the electric field to
pull the
dna fragments apart.
Each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.
Clark Zapper
Advantages, 30,000 hits a second for more shaking of the dna and more
pumping
of the resonance.
It does not cause the blood cells to open causing the potential for
poisoning
with toxins in the body
Disadvantages
Discrete frequencies in the fourier are every 30,000 hertz, which may
fall
outside of a pathogen's resonance sufficiently to not couple well
Beck device
Advantages - Discrete frequencies are every 100 cycles, so you are
always
within 50 htz of a resonance for better coupling.
Disadvantages - frequency is so low that there is little likelihood
of
resonance pumping, that is one pulse does not add to the ringing from
the
previous pulse.
Causes blood electrophoriation (sp? not in my dictionary).
So I am wondering, on what basis you you base your statement on that
the Beck
device is more plausible?
Marshall
--
The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal
silver.
Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org
To post, address your message to: [email protected]
Silver-list archive:
http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html
List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
