6 ms·

I just found this, I didn't even know it existed. 1998 - Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. http:/

I just found this, I didn't even know it existed. 1998 - Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9453702 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9453702 2004 - Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields as effectors of cellular responses in vitro: possible immune cell activation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15352165 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15352165 2009 - Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19366446 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19366446 2011 - Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829195 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829195 2012 - Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134506 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134506 2013 - Targeted treatment of cancer with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3845545/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3845545/ Abstract: In the past century, there have been many attempts to treat cancer with low levels of electric and magnetic fields. We have developed noninvasive biofeedback examination devices and techniques and discovered that patients with the same tumor type exhibit biofeedback responses to the same, precise frequencies. Intrabuccal administration of 27.12 MHz radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF), which are amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies, results in long-term objective responses in patients with cancer and is not associated with any significant adverse effects. Intrabuccal administration allows for therapeutic delivery of very low and safe levels of EMF throughout the body as exemplified by responses observed in the femur, liver, adrenal glands, and lungs. In vitro studies have demonstrated that tumor-specific frequencies identified in patients with various forms of cancer are capable of blocking the growth of tumor cells in a tissue- and tumor-specific fashion. Current experimental evidence suggests that tumor-specific modulation frequencies regulate the expression of genes involved in migration and invasion and disrupt the mitotic spindle. This novel targeted treatment approach is emerging as an appealing therapeutic option for patients with advanced cancer given its excellent tolerability. Dissection of the molecular mechanisms accounting for the anti-cancer effects of tumor-specific modulation frequencies is likely to lead to the discovery of novel pathways in cancer.

dalke 12y ago
In the late 1990s, with the rise of cell phones, people were worried that the RF energy from the phones and towers, while low, might cause physiological problems. The first paper specifically concerns this topic. Note that it says "It was concluded that, although hazards from exposure to high-level (thermal) RF fields were established, no known health hazards were associated with exposure to RF sources emitting fields too low to cause a significant temperature rise in tissue." The second paper is because starting even by the late 1980s there was a concern that the background 50Hz/60Hz EMF from power lines might be causing a problem. There was a 1979 epidemiological association between power lines and childhood leukemia. See http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-f... for more details. This second paper presents a hypothesis for how that mechanism might work, should it exist. The third paper rings warning bells. For example, it references clinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00805337 but the research protocol was never explained in the submission, and no research results were ever published there. It was also registered at about the time the paper you pointed to would have been submitted, so it feels like it was added because it was required by the publisher, and not because it was a well-run clinical trial. Also, frequencies like 10456.383 Hz are incredibly precise; to the point of unbelievability. They don't show a plot of the signal as a function of frequency, they don't have information about reproducibility, and they don't describe control, since surely they should have RF interference from the environment, and feedback effects from the equipment itself. In any case, the last 4 papers all list B. Pasche as a co-author, and from the conflict of interest section in one of the papers it says "Boris Pasche and Alexandre Barbault have filed applications for patent protection and hold patents related to electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies as they relate to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. They hold stocks in TheraBionic." Thus, they aren't really independent confirmations of some observed effects, are they? Why did you list them all?

dalke 12y ago

In the late 1990s, with the rise of cell phones, people were worried that the RF energy from the phones and towers, while low, might cause physiological problems. The first paper specifically concerns this topic. Note that it says "It was concluded that, although hazards from exposure to high-level (thermal) RF fields were established, no known health hazards were associated with exposure to RF sources emitting fields too low to cause a significant temperature rise in tissue." The second paper is because starting even by the late 1980s there was a concern that the background 50Hz/60Hz EMF from power lines might be causing a problem. There was a 1979 epidemiological association between power lines and childhood leukemia. See http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-f... for more details. This second paper presents a hypothesis for how that mechanism might work, should it exist. The third paper rings warning bells. For example, it references clinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00805337 but the research protocol was never explained in the submission, and no research results were ever published there. It was also registered at about the time the paper you pointed to would have been submitted, so it feels like it was added because it was required by the publisher, and not because it was a well-run clinical trial. Also, frequencies like 10456.383 Hz are incredibly precise; to the point of unbelievability. They don't show a plot of the signal as a function of frequency, they don't have information about reproducibility, and they don't describe control, since surely they should have RF interference from the environment, and feedback effects from the equipment itself. In any case, the last 4 papers all list B. Pasche as a co-author, and from the conflict of interest section in one of the papers it says "Boris Pasche and Alexandre Barbault have filed applications for patent protection and hold patents related to electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies as they relate to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. They hold stocks in TheraBionic." Thus, they aren't really independent confirmations of some observed effects, are they? Why did you list them all?