Nexus - 0218 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

ciently prolonged. In developing the Hiltron instrument, which Negative magneto-electric energy controls all the metabolic bio- uses both magnetic poles, it was demonstrated that a stress field chemical processes involved in growth, healing, immune defence, resulted by 200 gauss. This was used only for short durations, non-immune micro-organism defence, detoxification, oxidation, Albert Roy Davis found approximately 300 gauss (manufacturer's metabolism, etc. The body has a process by which through a rating of 300 gauss which is in fact 1/3 of this as actual exposure _ direct current circuit surrounding neurons and their axons concen- in an open system) produced a consistent easily detectable sepa- trate negative electromagnetic energy at the site where it is need- rate and in fact opposite magnetic pole effect. There is a distant ed. There are reflexology methods that can evoke the body to relationship between gauss strength and efficiency when using a concentrate the necessary negative magneto-clectric energy at the magnetic field. The higher the gauss strength, the more efficient _site where it is needed. One such is a mildly irritating but not cel- the response. lularly damaging liniment or, in terms of magnetism, the use of a I submit the following responses to the separate and opposite low-level positive electromagnetic field which can be placed over magnetic poles of either a direct current circuit, electromagnet or _the area (such as a painful arthritic joint) necding the negative static magnetic field. I present this because I have accepted this as Magneto-electric energy for healing. Another such is acupuncture so and as a practical guide to the therapeutic application of static _stimulation signaling the body to concentrate this negative magne- magnetic field therapy. However, it should be understood that to-electric energy at a specific body area where it is needed. basic scientists/physicists do not accept any of these observations Homeopathy isa method by which a negative magneto-electric and/or theories as being scientifically established since none of _ field with a systemic value is introduced into the body. A symp- these are statistically published in peer review literature. There is tom-producing substance which is the same as being positive mag- a lot of objective research yet to be done to provide convincing _neto-electric pole symptom-producing is repeatedly diluted and scientific evidence. The separate biological response to the two —_succussed with each dilution, which produces a static electricity BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO ANTI-STRESS NEGATIVE BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE TO PROLONGED, STRESSFUL, MAGNETO-ELECTRIC FIELD POSITIVE MAGNETO-ELECTRIC FIELD * pH-normalising * Acid-producing * Oxygenating * Oxygen deficit-producing * Resolves cellular edema * Evokes cellular edema * Usually reduces symptoms * Often evokes or exacerbates the existing symptoms * Can relieve addictive withdrawal symptoms * Stress evokes endorphin production and can thus be addicting * Inhibits micro-organisms' replication * Accelerates micro-organism replication * Biologically normalising * Biologically disorganising * Governs rest, relaxation and sleep * Governs wakefulness and action * Restores magnetic biological energy * Uses up magnetic biological energy * Evokes anabolic hormone production—melatonin and growth * Evokes catabolic hormone production and inhibits anabolic hormone hormone production * Counters and processes metabolicproduced toxins out of the body * Produces metabolically, toxic end products of metabolism and * Cancels out free radicals does not counter or process these toxins out of the body * The magnetic energy expressed and governing during metabolic * Produces free radicals healing * The magnetic energy expressed initially at the site of injury magnetic poles comes the closest to being established and yet I _ that of course produces with it a magnetic field. The succussion find physicists, when initially introduced to this idea, quite rou- _ and dilution are continued until the polarity switch from a symp- tinely reject it. tom-producing positive magneto-clectric ficld to a symptom- The evidence of separate, distinct and opposite biological relieving negative magneto-electric field. The negative magneto- responses to separate opposite magnetic poles comes from (1) _ lectric field remedy is then used as a relicving agent. Thus, the Albert Roy Davis’ research work* reported in his several books, remedy is specific for the relief of a specific symptom. An alter- which were not reported in scientific peer review literature; (2) Malive view Is that with repeated dilutions, a weak strength dilu- Robert 0. Becker's two books’ in which he demonstrated a positive On occurs to produce a biofeedback response of increased ener- magnetic field as present initially after injury and a negative mag- 8Y- How homoeopathy works is still hypothetical. netic field as being present during the healing process. He did not When the body concentrates negative electromagneto energy at publish this information in peer review literature; (3) my observa- _ the site where it is needed, or with a direct application of an exter- tions and several unpublished research projects I know about; (4) nal source of negative magneto-electric energy at the site where Robert Bradford's report® when examining the separate magnetic needed, there is no need for a counterirritant or acupuncture stimu- pole effect in a tumour, which has not been reported in the peer _ lation for the body to concentrate negative electromagnetic energy review literature; and (5) Arthur Trappier's 1990 research article in at the site. With a local application of negative magncto-clectric the Journal of the National Medical Association’ showing a sepa- energy at the site of disordered metabolism, there is no need for rate magnetic pole effect in malignancy. This is the only peer homoeopathy since the gauss strength is sufficient to override all review article on the subject of separate biological effects to oppo- _- variables. Thus, there is no nced for the specific negative magne- site magnetic poles. Physicists are not likely to have heard of this _to-electric field energy provided by the symptom-relieving article. At this stage, with a lack of peer review scientific reports, | homoeopathic remedy. we can only anticipate that basic scientists/physicists will either My medical experience includes electric shock for mental doubt or cautiously consider what I have put forth as laws govern- _ patients, varied electrical treatments for pain and other symptoms, ing static magnetic fields. I can only hope basic scientists will _ varied pulsing frequencies without as well as with associated mag- consider and take these as reason for research and not quickly __ netic fields, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, ozone therapy, hydrogen reject the whole based on some small part they cannot believe in at _ peroxide therapy and homoeopathy. Based on this background of this stage of research. I present my observations and resulting the- _ therapeutic expertise, I draw the following conclusions: ories based on the principle that observations not reported might 1) The application of static field negative magneto-electric as well not have been done. Adequate research will ultimately energy of sufficient gauss strength and duration, (a) provides for define the truth for all of us. the most efficient oxygenation of all systems for cellular oxygena- ciently prolonged. In developing the Hiltron instrument, which uses both magnetic poles, it was demonstrated that a stress field resulted by 200 gauss. This was used only for short durations, Albert Roy Davis found approximately 300 gauss (manufacturer's rating of 300 gauss which is in fact 1/3 of this as actual exposure in an open system) produced a consistent easily detectable sepa- rate and in fact opposite magnetic pole effect. There is a distant relationship between gauss strength and efficiency when using a magnetic field. The higher the gauss strength, the more efficient the response. I submit the following responses to the separate and opposite magnetic poles of either a direct current circuit, electromagnet or static magnetic field. I present this because I have accepted this as so and as a practical guide to the therapeutic application of static magnetic field therapy. However, it should be understood that basic scientists/physicists do not accept any of these observations and/or theories as being scientifically established since none of these are statistically published in peer review literature. There is a lot of objective research yet to be done to provide convincing scientific evidence. The separate biological response to the two NEXUS*47 FEBRUARY - MARCH 1994