Radio Frequency Dev...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Radio Frequency Devices  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

E
 E
(@ergin)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 134
03/05/2017 12:06 am  

I highly belive that we can kill cancer cells by true frequencies for true type.


Robinrae liked
Quote
Daniel
(@daniel)
Member Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 799
03/05/2017 12:25 am  

Me too. It is not a matter of faith. It is pure science. But the art is in finding the resonance frequencies. And the interesting question is how we could do that ... what if we would have a device that can constantly vary the frequencies until we feel something at the tumor location? Like tuning the radio. Off course, the assumption is that the waves have energy high enough to induce the local pain when the right frequency is applied. Off course, there are so many devices that are already claiming they know the right frequencies and some of them I already discussed. Once such devices has been approved by FDA as a cancer treatment for lung and brain cancers (Novocure) but still ... they are not targeting well enough the tumor since they have fixed frequencies, which assumes that all cancer cell types will respond to the same frequency, and which I think/feel it is not the case.


Robinrae liked
ReplyQuote
Alex
 Alex
(@snake)
New Member
Joined: 3 years ago
Posts: 14
03/05/2017 12:48 am  

Interestingly, Ergin would be the person capable to design and build such a device, 10W, 100W,1000W.

"You" name it, he'll do it.


ReplyQuote
E
 E
(@ergin)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 134
10/05/2017 8:07 am  
I am in contact with Dr Anthony Holland.He gave me permission to share his mail with you.
 
Thank you for your email.
 
I'll try to answer some of your questions below and also will provide some information that you may find helpful.
 
To keep up with the latest news about our research work, please go to this link below and 
add your name to our email list:
 
 
To go to a page on our website which contains all of our technical scientific papers and posters,
go to this link:
 
Please share this short video excerpt with your friends, family and colleagues:
 
See my TEDX talk on "Shattering Cancer" with frequency-specific oscillating
pulsed electric fields:
 

Wishing you all the best!

 
Anthony Holland
President
Novobiotronics Inc.
Shattering Cancer ~ One Cell At A Time
See all our scientific papers and documents at this link:
ps. If you haven't already seen it, please watch this TED talk on shattering cancer with nontoxic pulsed electric fields (and pass along the link to family, friends and colleagues)
 
...............................................................................................................................................................................
 
 
 
This may be a bit lengthy, but I hope it you will find it informative.
 
First, I must give you this general disclaimer:
 
Please understand that I am not a medical doctor and therefore cannot give
any medical advice.  My comments are simply for educational & informational 
purposes only and based upon my personal experience in laboratory experiments
 with microorganisms and cells in vitro.  What follows is just my personal opinion
and should not be taken in any way as medical advice please. 
 
Our research has been exclusively with the device invented by the American
physician Dr. James Bare.  You can reach him at this email:
and this website:
I cannot vouch for the effectiveness of any other 'frequency' type
device in killing cancer cells or pathogenic organisms in vitro as this is the only device
our laboratory has worked with to date.
 
If you contact Dr. Bare, be sure to ask about his PGM-1 device, 
which is nearly identical to the electronics we use in our laboratory experiments.
 
 
**************************************************************
April 15, 2017
 
I visited your website and found it to be very interesting.
You have my permission to post this entire email to your
website, if you find that is appropriate.
 
Please include our disclaimer at the top, which is similar
to the disclaimer on your website. It's important for people
to understand that our laboratory experiments are still
being performed and studied and that we report all results
to our company website.  However, I am not a medical doctor
and cannot suggest any medical treatments whatsoever.
 
yes, we work with cancer cells every day in our laboratory, 
as we try to find the most effective frequencies to destroy them
and slow their growth, but our experiments to date are only
'in vitro', and our electronics have not been tested in any
animals yet.
 
We have been doing this work for over a 11 years now and are
convinced that it will lead to a future cancer treatment that
will be nontoxic, noninvasive and inexpensive.
 
Kind regards,
 
Anthony Holland
President, Novobiotronics Inc.
**************************************************************
Regarding our current research in the use of frequency-specific
Oscillating Pulsed Electric Fields (OPEF) to kill cancer cells,
we are only in the early stages of this work and this work is
currently restricted to working only with cells 'in vitro', meaning
cells grown in special plastic dishes.  We cannot work with
human patients at this point and while this of course is our
goal, I suspect it will be some years before we can engage
in clinical trials (and of course it requires many millions of
dollars to go through the FDA medical approval process,
a daunting task to be sure).
 
There may be some physicians working with the same
device we use to destroy cancer cells in vitro, but I do
not know them personally.  You might contact the device's
inventor, Dr. James Bare, at the email listed above, to inquire
about this.  He may know more.
 
I can tell you this, I have sat next to Dr. Bare's device
for nearly 10 years now while running experiments
against microorganisms (some quite pathogenic) and
cancer cells.  I have seen the machine destroy up to
60% of cancer cells under the microscope (as measured
by top cancer research experts).  It is very impressive
in our laboratory experiments.  
 
It is worth noting that the use of frequency-specific electric fields
is now approved, in some forms, by the American FDA (a government
organization which controls what type of treatments patients may
receive) for use against specific types of cancer (Glioma, brain cancer)
and is now in stage 2 trials for lung and breast cancer.  The company
which has managed to go so far through the US FDA trial program
(costing many millions of dollars) is called "Novocure".  While their
technology has proven affective against cancer cells and pathogenic
organisms, our laboratory testing seems to suggest that our device
which uses a plasma antenna is even more effective, but since our small
research company does not have the many millions of dollars that
Novocure has, we are unable to work through the FDA trial process
at this time.  Nonetheless, we will continue our research to find the most
effective frequencies against human cancer cells (in vitro only for now).
We hope that the data we provide the public will one day result in a 
greater general acceptance of this technology for medical uses.
 
And while nothing I write here should be
construed in any way as medical advice
(just my opinion as a non medical person), I can tell you
that should I contract cancer, I would take several actions....
 
1. I would probably sleep very close to the plasma tube
of Dr. Bare's device every night, bathing myself in the
OPEF for hours a night.  This of course could have some
potential dangers and I would have to be vigilant about
how I am feeling, starting first with a relatively brief
exposure (maybe an hour at first), then gradually expanding
the duration if I'm feeling ok the next day.)  The potential danger,
as explained to me by a cancer surgeon at Thomas Jefferson
University Medical College in 2010, is that if you can actually
'shatter' ('lyse') cancer cells with OPEF, then you'd have to
be alert for 'tumor lysis syndrome', which would mean you are
'shattering' so many cancer cells at once that the kidneys could
become overwhelmed with the debris and be in danger.
I think I would have to have a doctor friend who could help
monitor my kidney function while I was running Dr. Bare's
OPEF device nightly while I slept.  In fact, if my body could
withstand it, I would probably spend all day next to Dr. Bare's
device, but again, I would be very cautious to monitor how I was
feeling and have a doctor friend keep a close eye on my situation.
I would want to be sure to have the latest electronics from Dr. Bare,
as there have been many developments and improvements over
the past 10 years.  I would want the exact same setup I have in
the Novobiotronics lab right now (what I call a 'classic OM2' setup).
It has withstood many hours of operation under laboratory experimentation.
 
note: two companies (including ours) have found that cancer is vulnerable
between 100khz-225khz.  100khz has been listed as being 'generally' effective
on numerous types of cancer cells, but most cells have a more specific frequency
to which they will be most vulnerable.  We often use a slow 'sweep', ranging from
100khz-200khz spending at least 30 min on each frequency (moving in 5,000hz
increments. For example: 100khz (30 min), then 105,000khz (30 min) etc.).
Our research work involves finding the more specific frequencies for different
types of cancer cells in vitro.  This work is on going and time consuming, but
we are doing are best to collect data and to find the most effective frequencies
in vitro.

Robinrae liked
ReplyQuote
E
 E
(@ergin)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 134
10/05/2017 8:10 am  

Here is the latest mail from Dr Anthony Holland,

Thanks for your research suggestions!
Of course it is our goal to do in-vivo studies
with mice some day, but this would require
substantial funding, so for now, we are very busy
finding the most effective frequencies against cancer
cells in-vitro.
 
Regarding our current research in the use of frequency-specific
Oscillating Pulsed Electric Fields (OPEF) to kill cancer cells,
we are only in the early stages of this work and this work is
currently restricted to working only with cells 'in vitro', meaning
cells grown in special plastic dishes.  We cannot work with
human patients at this point and while this of course is our
goal, I suspect it will be some years before we can engage
in clinical trials (and of course it requires many millions of
dollars to go through the FDA medical approval process,
a daunting task to be sure).
 
I'm sorry, but because I am not a medical doctor, I cannot
give any medical advice whatsoever.  My apologies, but
this is prohibited by law in the United States.
 
Anthony Holland
President
Novobiotronics Inc.
Shattering Cancer ~ One Cell At A Time
See all our scientific papers and documents at this link:

ReplyQuote
catalin.popovici@gmail.com
(@catalin-popovicigmail-com)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 6
17/06/2018 6:50 am  

Dear all,

I would like to (re-)open the topic on the Therabionic device and its effectiveness.

Brief history on my personal involvement: my wife's mother was diagnosed in late 2017 with an aggressive form of breast cancer, metastasized at liver and bones. I contacted Dr. Pasche for compassionate treatment, but  since the patient was located in Romania, he could not offer help. At that time, he asked me to renew my inquiry in February 2018, as the device would have been passed European certifications (I am not aware of any current similar certification available in the U.S.) As the metastasis progressed and the device was still not available, I decided to build it myself based on Dr. Pasche's patents (available online). The implementation cost was around $2500 (off the shelf equipment plus custom circuitry), adding a month of development (I am an electrical engineer holding a PhD in medical technology).  Unfortunately, by the time the device was completed and I could travel to Romania, my wife's mother was already sent back home from the hospital with a prognostic of less than a week of life. I immediately started the treatment, but after another two weeks she gave up on any treatment and in less than a month passed away.

At the time of my last contact with Dr.  Pasche and his team (February 2018), I disclosed my involvement in physically duplicating the device and the results I obtained. I also pointed out to him some intriguing facts about the odd distribution of frequencies given in the patents. He never responded since. 

As I see no recent progress in the Therabionic certification (a study done in 2009 that Dr. Pasche personally sent me was envisioning certification by 2015...), I wonder what is actually happening with this study and the device.

As it is patented, one can only use it for himself or for non-profit scientific research. Unfortunately, I do not have access to any of such resources. If you would read the patents, you will find out that a bio-feedback method is required for validating the exact frequencies that are said to interact with each type of tumor (ECG, PPG and GSR - nothing really difficult nowadays). As the absolute accuracy of the modulating frequencies must be better than 0.1 ppm (at least this is the patent's claim), searching through the (wide) spectrum for all the relevant frequencies would still take many years. From this point on, the discussion would become mainly technical.

If anyone has more recent information or would like to bring up comments on the implementation or a study feasibility, I would be happy to respond.

Thank you,

Catalin


ReplyQuote
E
 E
(@ergin)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 134
17/06/2018 9:34 pm  

Hi Catalin,

You can contact Dr Anthony Holland.

He is nice and helpfull.

He is using different frequencies and started using it with chemo.


ReplyQuote
Daniel
(@daniel)
Member Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 799
18/06/2018 1:05 am  

HI Catalin,

Thanks for your msg.! What you did is really great! At some point I was also looking through these patents and trying to get my brother do it (as he is also an eng. in medical equipment), but we never had the chance to start on it. I strongly believe this treatment route should work, but like you said determining the right frequencies is key. Although different tech, Oncotherm with their local hyperthermia equipment did also some frequency-picks, chosen as the most effective (but that is not tuned to the tumor type). So I was wondering if there is a way to extract the frequencies if we use a tumor sample?

As you experienced, due to various reasons, "the idea" owners are not that opened to discuss their ideas with the world. And so, although good, their ideas may end up locked and lost. That happens often in this world. However, you could try to contact the Dr. mentioned by Ergin above. But I think another route could be to think what would be the best way forward to further develop the technique without spending much time to try extract some communication from the patents owners. 

In Bucharest, there is an oncology hospital that starts up based on donations from some rich and kind people, focused on helping people and not business. They may have some financial capability to support such development with you? It's just a wild idea from my side, but if you like I can check that. Before that we could have a call. Just let me know if you think it is a relevant idea.

Kind regards,
Daniel

 


ReplyQuote
catalin.popovici@gmail.com
(@catalin-popovicigmail-com)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 6
18/06/2018 7:46 am  

Hi Daniel,

I can share both the hardware and code implementations for free and maintain the documentation as we go, also free of charge. There are still additional constraining factors we need to take into account:

- my free time is quite limited (I work full time for a company developing autonomous driving cars in California and, as you can imagine, the work pace is extenuating)

- expanded use of the method would require approval from Dr. Boris Pasche and team, the owners of the patents (using this device in a hospital, even as an experimental equipment, implies this level of acknowledgement) 

- hardware implementation and local maintenance requires at least one part-time engineer located in Bucharest (or at least an EE freelancer willing to help for a decent by-the-hour fee)

These being said, if an appropriate infrastructure could be created, I am willing to send complete technical details (it will take me around a week to put together a solid, easy to use documentation).

Now let me explain what are the future challenges for anyone trying to discover new frequencies or "match" a patient's tumor to a specific subset of frequencies (from the existing larger, already discovered set).

The treatment device is not difficult to develop and (blindly) use on the existing set of frequencies. Once the parts are acquired, minimal mechanical and electronic development is required (any electronics company could assemble the setup). The more complicated part is related to the bio-feedback setup: once put together (this is still work in progress, as I am not 100 % happy with the current implementation), it must be connected to the patient (ECG, PPG, and GSR electrodes and sensors - attention to medical grade circuitry and isolation!) and let run through the targeted spectrum with a very fine frequency increment, continuously monitoring the data and extracting the relevant features. Tuning this setup to get the true positives out of noise is the key to find new valid frequencies. It requires both EE and medical field experience. It also requires a large amount of time and as many patients as possible.

Here it is how it works:

http://cost-emf-med.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/WM-pres-Boris-Pasche.pdf

The "signature" of the true positives is, at best, "weak" in terms of automatic identification by regular means (filtering, waveform processing, statistics). This would require a large amount of data to be acquired and post-processed using various methods until a stable identification procedure could be coded and ran automatically (for a more efficient identification of new frequencies).  Let alone repeatability testing done on (preferably) the same patients. The proposed frequency increments are in the 1 ppm range, so millions of frequencies are possible (and need at least a 15 s-20 s run to acquire sufficient data). One important "calibration" step should be the confirmation of as many existing frequencies as possible.

As you can see, if done right, it would not be a small effort...

Please let me know what you think,

All the best,

Catalin

 


ReplyQuote
catalin.popovici@gmail.com
(@catalin-popovicigmail-com)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 6
18/06/2018 7:48 am  

Hi Ergin,

Different frequencies and different method. I did not study this procedure.

I will try to find time, but this is the most difficult part. I do not want to dilute my efforts unless I can make real progress on the subject matter.

 

Thank you,

Catalin

 


ReplyQuote
E
 E
(@ergin)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 134
19/06/2018 11:42 pm  

Hi Catalin,

What is the frequency range that you are trying and the method?

If you have time could you please expand a little bit.

And on which patient will you try it when finished?


ReplyQuote
E
 E
(@ergin)
Trusted Member
Joined: 4 years ago
Posts: 134
19/06/2018 11:46 pm  

Oh sorry you gave the link.

27mhz electro magnetic fields.

I will work on it.


ReplyQuote
catalin.popovici@gmail.com
(@catalin-popovicigmail-com)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 6
21/06/2018 7:25 am  

Hi Ergin,

The carrier frequency is less relevant. The choice for 27.12 MHz comes from the existing spectrum allocation for this type of applications. The key is in the modulating frequencies. If you would like more info, please find attached the zip file with the patents I found so far - in case you didn't get them allready.

To answer your question, this is one of the problems - in order to validate the method you need as many patients as possible (I can try running the code using the known frequencies on any person willing to help in a study, starting with myself - it looks like the feedback reaction can be used also as an early-stage detection/diagnose method).

 

 


ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
16/10/2018 12:21 am  

Happy to report that TheraBionic GmbH has received European certification for the TheraBionic P1 device as a class II a (low risk) medical device for unmet medical needs according to the European MDD 93/42/EEC guidelines and ISO 13485:2016 quality managements systems regulatory requirements for medical devices. Production of the certified devices has begun and the first devices will become available for commercial use in Europe in October 2018. 

The TheraBionic P1 device was approved as a breakthrough medical product for unmet medical needs, specifically for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who have exhausted all curative treatment options. The intended use of the TheraBionic P1 device is the systemic treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who have either failed or are intolerant to first line and second line therapies.

More information is available at www.therabionic.com

 


ReplyQuote
catalin.popovici@gmail.com
(@catalin-popovicigmail-com)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 6
16/10/2018 7:40 am  

Dear Dr. Pasche,

Thank you for sharing the news and congratulations!

I am sure you will get positive feedback and numerous questions and inquiries. 

Making this technology available on a large scale would be certainly beneficial.

Hoping to hear back from you soon on availability, pricing, and distribution details.

Thank you,

Catalin

 


ReplyQuote
Daniel
(@daniel)
Member Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 799
17/10/2018 10:34 am  
Thank you for the update.
 
It would help if you can also add updates on the next steps, including possible plans related to adapting the device so that it becomes relevant to other tumors.
Next to that, you may want to clarify how the patients in US can access the device, given that the approval is now for Europe only and given that many of the visitors of this website are from US.
 

ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
17/10/2018 3:26 pm  

Happy to answer your questions:

1) TheraBionic has already identified tumor specific frequencies for other tumor types such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, and pancreatic cancer. This is described in our 2009 article by Barbault et al.  https://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1756-9966-28-51

2) The TheraBionic P1 device has not yet received FDA approval. At this thime, the device can only be prescribed by physicians in the European Economic Area,Turkey, and Switzerland

Best wishes

Boris


ReplyQuote
Daniel
(@daniel)
Member Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 799
23/10/2018 11:03 am  

Dear Boris,

Thank you for your response. 

I was looking a little more into the details of your solution. I do believe in resonance as key to everything in our life. All matter has own resonance frequency and so the tumors. Therefore, finding the corresponding resonance frequency related to the tumors is key in being able to influence them and eventually destroy them. The more specific they are, the easier will be to influence them while not affecting healthy tissue.

Because finding the tumor resonance is key, my questions is how are you able to identify that? I understand that you are using a biofeedback approach to identify frequencies specific to cancer patients with specific tumors. But how can you make sure those frequencies are not related to other processes in the body, that may be an outcome of the existing tumors?

On the same line, the other question I have, is on whether you have or are considering implementing a way to track the changes of resonance frequencies with time, as we know that tumors are changing their profile relatively fast.

Therefore, I very much like the concept of manipulating matter (including tumors) via its resonance frequency. This is for me without doubts one perspective that can generate solutions against tumors and other illnesses. But I also understand that the road to that effectiveness has its own challenges that need to be overcome. In this context, I think your work represents a good step on that road. Of course, I do not expect that you now have answers to all the questions, but it would be helpful for us here to have a fair understanding about what is known and what we still need to found out.

And if the Foundation can help with anything on this road, please let me know and will do my best. On that line, to support your activities and create awareness about that, I would like to invite you and your team to write an article to be published on this website, describing your vision on treating tumors, your solutions on that line up to today as well as the projected roadmap of solutions. 

Kind regards,
Daniel


ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
23/10/2018 3:51 pm  

Dear Daniel,

Our frequency discovery technology is proprietary and I cannot disclose any additional information besides what is described in the Barbault et al. 2009 article.

Best wishes

Boris


ReplyQuote
Daniel
(@daniel)
Member Admin
Joined: 5 years ago
Posts: 799
23/10/2018 5:34 pm  

Clear. Thank you.  I will have a look at the patent to try to understand more about that  https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100042168A1/en?inventor=Boris+Pasche  

As a patient, in order to invest my very valuable time and resources in such a solution, it would be important to understand why such a tool can work given the typical challenges. And I think for any company it is important to address the why at a mechanism level, such as for example this oncology company is doing  https://www.verastem.com/focus/pi3k-inhibition/ But I am sure you though carefully about these communication aspects.

I wish you all the best and hope to see more advancement on this route of treatments.

Kind regards,
Daniel


ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
19/11/2018 6:31 pm  

Happy to report that the first CE marked TheraBionic P1 devices have already been delivered to patients. As indicated on the therabionic.com web site, the device is not sold but loaned to patients against a a fully refundable deposit of 3500 Euros. The cost of treatment if 4500 euros per month plus VAT, which depends on the European country where the device is delivered, e.g. 19% in Germany, 7.7% in Switzerland.

Additional information can be found on the therabionic.com web site and by emailing questions to [email protected]

 


ReplyQuote
asafsh
(@asafsh)
Eminent Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 85
07/01/2020 5:32 pm  

@daniel

i have a bit knowledge in electronics so if you have additional question i may try to clarify them based on information from patent.

Though there is a question that has to be answered:

from patent: " Furthermore, AM frequencies which differ only very slightly (less than 0.0001% at higher frequencies) from the frequencies listed, in general elicit no physiological response by subjects exposed to excitation at such very slightly different frequency."

but looking to Novocure docs especially to IC50 graph vs frequency it could be visible that tumor cell (glioblastoma)  kill rate vs freq doesn't show sharp extreme (means accuracy of frequency doesn't matter much once the frequency is adjusted near the extreme). Of course for the patent in question the carrier frequency is set to those for industrial and medical use and the effect is achieved by AM modulation frequency some of which are in the range of those used by Novocure (200 kHz). Looks like the company tried to cover all possible combinations with single patent to protect their R&D investment. 

From my understanding - the cost of this device in 1K production can't be high than few kilobucks (including R&D for device design, mold die preparations, but excluding biolab R&D, trials etc, and EMC certification tests). for higher production range it should be less than 1k usd for sure. 

The Novocure device can be reproduced very easily DIY using microcontroller devkits (if the information supplied from open sources is correct) ECG probes can be used as electrodes. The most challenge is in the determination of frequency per cancer cell and the method of manipulating the electrode arrays. That needs considerable time and pharma lab to check cell viability after treatment to define optimum treatment modes (frequency, probe array switching etc).

Regarding frequency, i have read somewhere that tissue molecules are behaving differently at very high frequencies (GHz range). So using low (novocure) carrier frequency vs high (present patent) may have different effect.

there is a presentation from Novocure that might be interesting:

https://www.novocure.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/201901_NVCR_Corporate_Presentation_vF-1.pdf

i have seen an article with embedded video in pubmed (can't find the link now) with novocure where the process of resonant frequency determination was described in short (they put cancer cell populated multiple petri dishes with embedded electrodes in temperature humidity controlled environment with unique frequency per each dish to draw IC50 per freq graph and figure out death rate extreme).

 

now regarding the finding the frequencies in shortest time - the square wave frequency (applied to the cells) doesn't mean fixed but multiple harmonics of base frequency. That means if we apply square wave freq f and delta deviation to the one sample then we cover ranges f +- delta, f*3 +- delta*3, f*5 +- delta* 5 and so on.

 

if number of petri dishes and base frequencies will be chosen appropriately (to cover the whole frequency band of interest using base frequencies and their harmonics), and if frequency harmonics energy will be enough to get statistically significant detection of cell viability in petri dishes, then whole process can be split into 2 phases - rough search for frequency (frequencies are chosen to cover the band of interest by base and harmonics) and fine search within base and harmonics that showed best response.

That could decrease the time needed to find the frequency to kill. The frequency voltage in the measurement setup is constrained by - upper limit to avoid cell kill by energy of signal directly (we need only resonance frequency), lower limit - to have energy on harmonic frequencies enough to observe statistically significant cell killing figures.

Or we can just sweep within frequency bands and find the one with best response and then fine sweep within that range to find exact frequency. 

yet we can use method of successive approximation to find out results faster too.


ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
07/01/2020 8:33 pm  

The attached article answers many questions related to the mechanism of action of tumor-specific frequencies discovered by Pasche and Barbault.


ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
07/01/2020 8:34 pm  

One more article reporting the mechanism of action of breast cancer-specific frequencies discovered by Pasche and Barbault


ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
07/01/2020 8:35 pm  

And a brief history of the discovery of tumor-specific frequencies


ReplyQuote
catalin.popovici@gmail.com
(@catalin-popovicigmail-com)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 6
08/01/2020 4:16 am  

Thank you Dr. Pasche for sharing. Interesting to see that a second anti-tumor non-ionizing EM radiation mechanism related to Calcium ions could be documented, besides the TTField. 

I was recently diagnosed with LGLL (Large Granular Leukocyte Leukaemia). I would like to ask you if there is any specific research for a set of frequencies targeting this rare form. I am located in the U.S. so if you would agree to take me in a trial to find the specific frequencies, I can request some time off from work. The tests revealed an expanding T-cell monoclonal population and an associated severe neutopenia. I can share my medical records if my case is of interest for your research. 

Thank you,

Catalin


ReplyQuote
Boris Pasche
(@boris-pasche)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Posts: 8
08/01/2020 12:51 pm  

Happy to discuss this off line


ReplyQuote
prashant
(@prashant)
New Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 10
08/01/2020 2:42 pm  

This is most interesting.

I am surprised at the use of a carrier wave, when pure base frequencies can be used too, either in a capacitative form, or as electromagnetic field.

And the point about square waves and harmonics raised by @asafsh is very valid.

These suggest that the frequency is less of a specific resonance, and more of a range of frequencies. Probably harmonics are involved in the picture too.

 

On an aside, what if a musician made a piece of music out of these frequencies and the cancer patients could just listen to the audio? Admittingly, it would not be Electromagnetic waves, but the body would still move with the wind impact of sound waves. Something to be tried out!


ReplyQuote
asafsh
(@asafsh)
Eminent Member
Joined: 7 months ago
Posts: 85
08/01/2020 6:22 pm  

@prashant

seems that these 2 products may utilize different means for oscillating em power delivery to tumor cells. 

While ttfileds could be regarded as more electrical based kind, the device presented by Mr. Boris Pasche uses radiated electromagnetic energy to vibrate tissues. From my amateur point of view for latter product

- spoon antenna attached to tongue is rather port than antenna and body acts as a real one, where the opposing side is the device body and exterior of 50 ohm fiber

- the energy delivery to tissue is not optimal and can be improved by various means

- these both devices may utilize resonance vibration of specific DNA parts link  ... Within the framework of the theoretical model, DNA fragments of about 400 bp oscillate over a distance of one base-pair at TTFields frequency of 100 kHz, while larger fragments are not affected ... Conclusions: We show that TTFields influence DNA-break repair capacity of tumor cells likely by influencing DNA fragment positioning and DNA strand break ligation thus sensitizing tumor cells to IR and link In summary, we have identified increased intracellular Ca2+ resulting from Ca2+ influx through CACNA1H.

In case if someone wish to try the ttfields by themselves, they can start with dds enabled function generator (cost 200 - 600 USD range) with enough output voltage (iirdc they were saying about 2-4 V/cm so 20-40 V output will be ok, but beware 40V may feel). I don't know whether 0.1 hz precision will suffice or won't, and also whether array of electrodes on ttfields is used to enable omnidirectional fileds distribution of electric current flow. for latter some electrode array switching circuitry might be needed (not a big deal).

Regarding sound waves, i really don't know. Effect of electricity on cell and galvanic processes during current flow can't be neglected. Yet freq above 20kHz will require ultrasonic transducer, which are fixed freq devices whose resonant freq are quite sharp to allow same output power delivered on different frequencies equally. Yet, effect of ultrasound on bones for different frequencies must be researched first to avoid possible damage unintentionally. 


Daniel liked
ReplyQuote
prashant
(@prashant)
New Member
Joined: 8 months ago
Posts: 10
09/01/2020 8:01 pm  

asafsh: right on all counts

Spoon is indeed a port, the energy delivery is rather poor and untargetted when the whole body is used as an antenna. However, I guess the whole body does need energy delivery; poor or not.

What I am also surprised at is how we can only get benefits and not negatives from this resonance treatment. If DNA parts do indeed resonate, use of frequency sweeping and harmonics from square waves implies that other DNA parts will get excited too, and should cause side effects.

And if this therapy indeed works, resonant EMF irradiation might well be a magic cure for many more diseases. Off the cuff, the same concept can be applied to say Alzheimer and Parkinson.

For now, I would like to wait and see more results.


Daniel liked
ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: