Dear Dr. Carlo:
I am a health care professional and am wondering if you have a position on the numerous products out there that claim to protect against the effects of EMR. Many of the claims seem hyperbolic and there are few resources where clinical efficacy data are available. Can you help?
Dr. J. L.
New York
Dear Doctor:
Thank your for your question regarding products claiming EMR protection.
In short, there is no easy answer, especially for health care professionals. To be sure, there is no "silver bullet", and our work clearly suggests that multiple interventions bundled together would provide the most effective protection -- but even that leaves holes. To make matters worse, there are many companies pushing products that simply do not have benefit, and the presence of that type of consumer fraud makes it very difficult for practitioners to sort through the morass. Hopefully, I can provide you with some information that will make your evaluation easier.
In our research at SWI, we focus on the mechanisms of harm at the cellular and molecular level -- not on the diseases that may be the result of the exposures, per se. By focusing on the mechanisms, we can see where and how certain types of intervention technologies might work. We don't focus on products at all, but on intervention technologies.
Here are summary points that should help you in your evaluation:
Mechanisms of harm:
- Information carrying RF waves trigger the cell membrane protective response which leads to harmful effects
- Specific types of damage occur inside the cell. First, you have increased free-radical concentration that leads to both disruption of DNA repair (micronuclei) and cellular dysfunction. When the cell loses its function, it goes through apoptosis (programmed cell death). In apoptosis, the micronuclei formed from the disrupted DNA repair are released into nutrient rich interstitial fluid and they are free to clone and proliferate -- that is the most likely cancer mechanism.
- Specific damage occurs to proteins on the cell membrane -- the effect is that intercellular communication is compromised. Cells can't talk to each other and that damages tissue, organ and organism function. Overall, almost all of the acute and chronic symptoms seen in electrosensitive patients can be explained in some part by disrupted intercellular communication.
- These mechanisms explain the wide scope of problems we observe following EMR exposure -- from learning and sleep disorders to birth defects and cancer. The mechanisms also explain why gross measures like blood microscopy and thermograms suggest improvement. The interventive effect occurs at the cellular level, but it is manifested at the tissue, organ and organism levels. Note, however, that without a mechanistic underpinning, the effects seen at the organ level (e.g. blood microscopy) have no biological grounding and are thus subject to speculation. There is much more information gleaned when we begin at the mechanism and work outward rather than the other way around.
Mechanisms for intervention:
- We follow the Public Health Paradigm in our intervention work.
- Primary intervention technologies are those that act to prevent the cell membrane protective response from being inappropriately triggered. These act on the "cause" of the problems and include: headsets, active noise field technology (developed by the U.S. military) and passive noise field technologies.
- Secondary intervention technologies are those that act to restore intercellular communication and thus can ameliorate the "effects" of the exposure to EMR. These are most effective in conjunction with primary interventions and include: subtle energy technologies, diodes, and some pendants.
- Tertiary intervention technologies are those that act to rehabilitate and correct cell damage. These work only in conjunction with primary and secondary intervention technologies and include: nutritionals, anti-oxidants and repair supplements.
Contraindications:
- In our work, we are noting that it is sometimes dangerous to the patient to use secondary or tertiary preventives in the absence of concurrent primary intervention. If the intercellular communication is restored by artificial means while significant physical or chemical damage to the cell membrane continues to occur, cell membranes become "imprinted" with information chronically limiting gap-junction communication. In short, the cell membranes become "lazy".
We are learning as we go along, but we remain in the learning phase. As more information becomes available, we will continue to pass it along.
G. L. Carlo |