Call or Text: +1 727-610-1188

Free worldwide shipping on all orders over $100.00

Physics Girl Dianna Cowern Long COVID Recovery Requires A New Physics Perspective On Non-ionizing Microwaves and Bioelectricity

The concerns and hypotheses we outline about the potential interactions between radiofrequency radiation (RFR), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and COVID-19 present a complex and multifaceted issue for bioelectricity maintaining proper cellular functions. The notion that RFR may exacerbate COVID-19-linked conditions through mechanisms like increased oxidative stress, immune system impairment, and bioelectric dysfunction is an area of research that challenges conventional health and safety guidelines regarding non-ionizing radiation. Which I will point out are very outdated, but still championed by science influencers.

The following is a quote from the popular Physics Girl YouTube channel from eight years ago, dated Mar 22, 2016 

So should you be worried? Well, the FDA regulates microwaves. And they even allow for a small bit of leakage. And remember, microwave radiation is not ionizing. So it couldn’t damage your DNA directly. The risk is of heating up your tissues, but that’s only with super-concentrated amounts of microwave radiation. You’re in more danger of burning yourself on the water you heat it up in the microwave.

The scientific influencer community must start advocating for a perspective that suggests regulatory bodies do not fully address the subtler, potentially harmful effects of microwave radiation, especially in vulnerable individuals or those with pre-existing conditions like long COVID.

The Forgotten Frequency: Unregulated Radiation and the Sidelined Science of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity

In an era dominated by rapid technological advancements, our everyday lives are saturated with devices that emit radiofrequency radiation (RF)—from the smartphones in our pockets to the Wi-Fi routers that power our homes. While these technologies have transformed the ways we communicate, work, and play, they have also brought with them concerns about the potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Despite clear evidence of these risks, regulatory bodies and funding for research seem to lag dangerously behind, leaving those with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) to bear the brunt of inaction.

The Regulatory Lag

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) set safety standards for RF exposure back in 1996. These guidelines were based on the understanding at the time that only significant heating (thermal effects) of tissues constituted a health risk. However, decades of research have since shown that non-thermal biological effects do occur at levels of RF exposure much lower than these limits, implicating risks that include DNA damage, cancer, and neurological disorders.

A landmark ruling in 2021 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the FCC had failed to consider this newer scientific evidence when it decided not to update its RF exposure guidelines in 2019. The court criticized the FCC for ignoring research showing potential harm, particularly to children, the developing brain, and the environment, and ordered a review of the evidence.

Despite this judicial push, the efforts to update these guidelines have stalled. The reluctance to adopt new standards based on current science perpetuates a status quo that may pose significant risks to public health.

The Drought of Research Funding

Adding to the regulatory inertia is the drying up of crucial funding for research into the effects of RF radiation. After the National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” of cancer in rats exposed to RF radiation, one might have expected a surge in government-backed research. Instead, there has been a reduction, with the NTP halting further studies on the biological effects of cell phone radiation. This decision was made despite the need for more comprehensive studies to understand the full spectrum of RF radiation’s health impacts.

The lack of funding for new studies creates a gap in our understanding and limits the development of safer technology standards. It also undermines efforts to protect the public from potential hazards, especially vulnerable groups like children and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Impact on Those With Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS)

Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, a condition where individuals experience adverse symptoms upon exposure to electromagnetic fields, exemplifies the human cost of inadequate regulation and insufficient research. Symptoms reported by those with EHS include headaches, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, skin prickling, burning sensations, and muscle aches. Despite these debilitating effects, the lack of formally recognized diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols leaves sufferers without proper care or support.

The ongoing debate around the legitimacy of EHS and the dismissive attitude toward its sufferers only exacerbate their plight. The absence of updated regulations and the dwindling research funds mean that EHS remains poorly understood, and those affected continue to suffer in silence, often forced to alter their lives drastically to avoid exposure.

A Call to Action

It is imperative that health and environmental agencies take immediate steps to address these deficiencies. Updating safety standards to reflect the latest scientific findings, securing funding for comprehensive research, and formally recognizing and studying EHS are critical steps toward safeguarding public health.

The story of RF radiation is not just about technology and regulations; it’s about real people whose lives are impacted by these invisible waves. As we continue to navigate a world increasingly dependent on wireless technologies, let us not ignore the science or the voices of those affected. It’s time for a change, and it’s time to start taking the health implications of our wireless world seriously.

 

ME/CFS and Its Complex Interactions with MCAS, ROS, and Wireless Radiation in the COVID Era

Understanding ME/CFS: A Chronic Debilitating Condition

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a long-term, complex disease characterized by profound fatigue that is not improved by rest and is worsened by physical or mental activity. Many have attributed this to an accumulated effect of EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome) a dysfunction of bioelectric dissonance. It involves multiple systems in the body, including neurological, immune, endocrine, and energy metabolism systems. The exact cause of ME/CFS remains unknown, but factors such as viral infections, immune disturbances, and stress are thought to play roles.

Exploring the Potential Links with MCAS and ROS

Recent explorations into the complexities of post-viral recovery have illuminated potential overlaps between ME/CFS and Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS). MCAS involves an abnormal release of mast cell mediators, which can cause a wide range of symptoms, from skin rashes and gastrointestinal discomfort to severe anaphylaxis. The chronic, systemic nature of the immune activation in MCAS shares similarities with the immune dysregulation observed in ME/CFS.

Additionally, Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) have been implicated in the pathophysiology of ME/CFS. ROS are chemically reactive molecules containing oxygen, which at elevated levels can lead to oxidative stress, damaging cells and tissues. This oxidative stress is a common feature in both ME/CFS and severe cases of COVID-19, suggesting a potential exacerbating role in those suffering from both conditions.

The Role of Wireless Radiation in Sickness and Health

The role of wireless radiation from devices like cell phones and Wi-Fi routers is a contentious area of research, particularly in the context of diseases like ME/CFS and COVID-19. The hypothesis proposed by some researchers is that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) emitted by these devices could trigger mast cell activation and increase oxidative stress by raising ROS levels. This interaction could theoretically worsen symptoms in individuals predisposed to conditions like MCAS or ME/CFS, particularly in the era of COVID-19 where both environmental and physiological stressors are in flux.

Navigating the COVID-19 Era

The COVID-19 era has introduced additional variables into the already complex interaction between environmental factors and chronic illnesses. For individuals with ME/CFS, the increased exposure to EMFs due to extended periods indoors and increased screen time could potentially aggravate symptoms. Furthermore, the virus itself can cause an immune response that mirrors some ME/CFS symptoms, compounding the difficulty in managing these conditions.

A Call for Action and Awareness

There is a critical need for increased awareness and understanding of ME/CFS among healthcare providers and the general public. ME/CFS often falls into a gray area in medical diagnostics, frequently misunderstood and under-researched. This lack of understanding can lead to misdiagnosis or dismissal of the severe impact this disease has on individuals’ quality of life.

The potential exacerbating factors of MCAS, ROS, and EMF exposure during the COVID-19 era highlight the urgent need for comprehensive approaches to understanding and treating complex chronic illnesses. As we move forward, it is vital that both the medical community and the industry invest more in researching these interactions and developing clear, effective treatment and management strategies for conditions like ME/CFS, especially in the context of our increasingly digital world.

By addressing these issues head-on, we can begin to remove the stigma associated with ME/CFS, improve the quality of care for those affected, and advance our understanding of how modern lifestyles may impact chronic health conditions.

The concept of “bioelectric dissonance” refers to a disruption or imbalance in the bioelectric signals within an organism. Bioelectricity is crucial for numerous physiological processes, including cell regulation, tissue regeneration, and neural activity. In a theoretical sense, bioelectric dissonance implies a disturbance in these electrical signals, which could result in various health issues or dysfunctional states in the body.

Understanding Bioelectricity

Bioelectricity involves the electrical potentials and currents that occur within or between living cells. It is a fundamental aspect of biological processes, influencing how cells grow, communicate, and maintain their complex functions. Bioelectric signals are essential for everything from embryonic development to brain function and heart rhythm.

Hypothetical Mechanisms of Bioelectric Dissonance

Bioelectric dissonance can manifest as a misalignment or improper signaling between cells. This could lead to several potential issues, including:

  1. Cellular Dysfunction: Improper bioelectric signals can lead to errors in cell division, migration, or differentiation. This could affect tissue development and function, potentially leading to diseases if the cells involved are critical to a particular tissue or organ.
  2. Impaired Healing: Bioelectricity plays a role in wound healing and tissue regeneration. Disruption in these signals could slow down or impair these processes, leading to incomplete or delayed healing.
  3. Neurological Issues: Since neurons communicate through electrical impulses, any disturbance in their underlying bioelectric patterns could impact brain function, potentially leading to neurological disorders or impairments in sensory processing or motor control.
  4. Cardiac Problems: The heart’s rhythm is regulated by bioelectric signals. Dissonance in this area might lead to arrhythmias or other cardiac conditions, impacting the overall cardiovascular health.

Possible Causes of Bioelectric Dissonance

Several factors could theoretically lead to bioelectric dissonance:

  • Environmental Factors: Exposure to external electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from devices like smartphones or power lines could hypothetically interfere with the body’s natural bioelectric fields.
  • Genetic Mutations: Alterations in genes responsible for regulating ion channels or electrical gradients could disrupt normal bioelectric signaling.
  • Diseases and Conditions: Certain diseases might alter the bioelectric environment of cells, either through direct damage to cells or by disrupting the balance of electrolytes and other ions critical for electrical signaling.

Implications and Research Directions

While “bioelectric dissonance” is not a recognized medical condition, the study of bioelectric signals and their role in health and disease is a legitimate and growing field of research. Understanding how these signals work and how they can be disrupted offers potential pathways for innovative treatments, particularly in regenerative medicine and cancer therapy. Researchers are also exploring how artificial modulation of bioelectric signals might be used to treat chronic diseases and injuries.

Further exploration into bioelectric phenomena could unveil new dimensions of understanding the intricate balance of life at the cellular and systemic levels, potentially leading to breakthroughs in how we diagnose and treat various ailments that affect millions of people just like Physics Girl Dianna Cowern.

The growing body of research demonstrating potential health risks associated with cell phone-level electromagnetic radiation (RF) highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of how non-ionizing radiation impacts human health. This includes not only potential cancer risks but also a broad spectrum of other health effects that challenge the traditional regulatory stance that non-ionizing radiation is harmless except for its thermal effects.

Major Studies Indicating Health Risks

Several key studies and reports have contributed significantly to the debate on the safety of RF radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices:

  1. Interphone Study: One of the largest studies ever conducted to assess the health effects of mobile phone use, which found a 40% increased risk of glioma (a type of brain cancer) among the highest users of cell phones.
  2. Hardell Group Studies: Research by Dr. Lennart Hardell’s group in Sweden suggested a consistent pattern of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma associated with long-term use of mobile phones and cordless phones.
  3. CERENAT Study: A French study that observed a similar increased risk of glioma and meningioma associated with extensive mobile phone use.
  4. U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP): This study found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in rats exposed to RF radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, indicating a connection between radiation and the development of heart schwannomas and malignant gliomas in the brain.
  5. Ramazzini Institute Study: This Italian research confirmed the results of the NTP study, showing increased incidences of heart schwannomas in rats exposed to RF radiation starting from prenatal life.
  6. REFLEX Project: Research funded by the European Union that indicated RF radiation can cause genetic damage at levels well below the international safety guidelines.
  7. BioInitiative Report: A comprehensive review by 29 experts from 10 countries, suggesting that low-intensity RF exposure is associated with a range of health effects, including DNA damage.

Emerging Research and Non-Thermal Interactions

The TheraBionic treatment, an FDA-approved therapy using RF radiation to treat liver cancer, illustrates a pivotal shift in understanding RF interactions. It employs RF at power levels significantly lower than those emitted by cell phones, affecting cancer cells through non-thermal mechanisms such as cellular resonance and immune system modulation. This challenges the longstanding regulatory assumptions that non-ionizing radiation is biologically inert except for heating effects.

Implications for Public Health Policy

The evidence from these studies suggests a pressing need to reconsider safety standards and regulatory policies concerning RF radiation. The current safety limits, which primarily consider thermal effects, may not adequately protect public health, particularly considering the non-thermal interactions demonstrated by the TheraBionic treatment.

To address these concerns, regulatory bodies should:

  • Update RF exposure guidelines to reflect the latest research, including both thermal and non-thermal effects.
  • Promote rigorous, independent research to further explore the health implications of long-term RF exposure.
  • Enhance public awareness programs to inform individuals about how to minimize unnecessary RF exposure.

Conclusion

The collective findings from these significant studies warrant a precautionary approach to the use of RF-emitting devices. As scientific understanding evolves, it is crucial that public health policies are updated to reflect these advancements, ensuring that safety standards for RF radiation are based on comprehensive risk assessments and the latest scientific evidence.

A substantial body of research accumulated over the past 30 years tells the story. This research includes landmark studies such as the Interphone Study, the work of the Hardell group, and comprehensive evaluations like the BioInitiative Report. These studies collectively suggest that RFR can cause biological effects at levels well below those that produce noticeable heating, implicating risks like DNA damage, oxidative stress, and changes in cell behavior.

 

Free Worldwide shipping

On all orders above $100

Easy 30 days returns

30 days money back guarantee

Replacement Warranty

Best replacement warranty in the business

100% Secure Checkout

AMX / MasterCard / Visa