Unraveling the Paradox: Sub-Thermal RF Radiation’s Role in Cancer Treatment and Health Risks

“This is a major milestone in that it is the first FDA-approved systemic therapy using radiofrequency electromagnetic fields to treat cancer,” @ 100 to 1000x less power than your cell phone!

The TheraBionic P1 device, operating in the frequency range from 410.2 Hz to 20,365.3 Hz, is indeed working in a frequency spectrum that overlaps with the audible sound range for humans (approximately 20 Hz to 20 kHz).  Despite operating in a frequency range similar to audible sounds, the TheraBionic device uses radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic waves. These waves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum and can propagate without the need for a physical medium like air or water, which is necessary for sound waves.

 

Introduction

The realm of medical science and public health policy is often rife with complexities and paradoxes. One such striking contradiction emerges in the context of radiofrequency (RF) radiation. On one hand, RF radiation, traditionally considered safe at the levels emitted by cell phones due to its non-ionizing nature, has been a subject of growing scrutiny and concern. Research and studies have increasingly suggested potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to cell phone-level RF radiation. On the other hand, in a twist that challenges conventional wisdom, RF radiation is being harnessed therapeutically to treat certain types of cancer, notably liver cancer, at power levels that are significantly lower – up to 100 to 1000 times less – than those emitted by cell phones.

 Frederico Costa of the University of São Paulo medical school, Pasche’s collaborator, agrees. “We observed significant tumor shrinkage in 10% of patients,” he wrote in an e-mail to Microwave News. Costa points out that this is five times the success rate of the best available chemotherapeutic drug —Sorafenib —and that “there are essentially no side effects.”

TheraBionic treatment uses a device that looks like a spatula connected to a box that’s only a bit bigger than an iPhone. The spatula is a stainless steel antenna that transmits 27.12 MHz amplitude modulated (AM) radiation generated by an amplifier inside the box. Patients put the antenna in their mouths, much like they would a lollipop, for one hour, three times a day. It’s so unobtrusive that they can read a book or watch TV at the same time. Treatment can be done at home and does not require hospitalization.

The maximum specific absorption rate (SAR) is less than 2 W/Kg, averaged over 10 g of tissue in the mouth near the antenna. It is much, much lower inside the tumor. Pasche estimates that the dose to the cancer cells is 100 to 1,000 times lower than that from a cell phone. “When you take the mouthpiece and put it in your mouth, the body becomes an antenna —the whole body receives a tiny but fairly homogeneous amount of RF,” he says. The RF dosimetry was carried out by Niels Kuster of the IT’IS Foundation in Zurich. Kuster, a coauthor of the new paper, could not be reached to learn more details on the SAR within the tumor.

The key to the new therapy appears to be a cocktail of frequencies riding on the 27 MHz signal. Over the course of the one-hour treatment, the RF generator runs through 194 different modulations, beginning with 410 Hz and rising to 21 kHz. Each one lasts three seconds. At the end of the cycle, the sequence repeats itself (see diagram below).

Source: https://microwavenews.com/

This juxtaposition raises critical questions about our understanding of RF radiation and its interaction with biological processes. If RF radiation at such low levels can be effectively used in medical treatments, does it not inherently suggest a more intricate relationship with cellular functions than previously assumed?

The aim of this article is to delve into this conundrum. We will explore the evidence and implications of RF radiation’s effects on cellular processes at sub-thermal levels, examining both its therapeutic applications in cancer treatment and the growing body of research that points to potential health risks from cell phone-level RF radiation which is orders of magnitude lower than cell phone radiation exposure. This exploration is not just a scientific inquiry but also a necessary venture to inform public health policies and understand the broader implications of RF radiation in our technology-driven world.

Understanding RF Radiation

What is RF Radiation?

Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is a type of electromagnetic energy that falls within the electromagnetic spectrum. This spectrum includes a range of frequencies, from low-frequency radio waves to high-frequency gamma rays. RF radiation occupies the lower end of the frequency spectrum and is commonly used in various technologies such as radio and television broadcasting, cell phones, and Wi-Fi networks.

Differentiating Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation

The electromagnetic spectrum is broadly divided into two categories based on the ability of the radiation to ionize atoms: ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

  • Ionizing Radiation: This type of radiation has enough energy to remove tightly bound electrons from atoms, creating ions. It includes higher frequency and energy waves like X-rays and gamma rays. Ionizing radiation is known for its ability to damage DNA and cells, leading to potential health risks such as cancer.
  • Non-Ionizing Radiation: RF radiation falls into this category. Non-ionizing radiation has lower energy and frequency compared to ionizing radiation. It does not have sufficient energy to ionize atoms or molecules. Examples include radio waves, microwaves, and infrared radiation.

Conventional Misconception About RF Radiation Safety

Traditionally, non-ionizing RF radiation from sources like cell phones has been considered safe for human exposure, primarily because it does not have enough energy to directly damage DNA or cells. The primary known biological effect of non-ionizing RF radiation is heating. For example, microwave ovens use this property to heat food. Similarly, the RF radiation from cell phones is believed to cause only minor thermal effects, which have been considered negligible in terms of health impact.

However, this conventional understanding has been challenged by emerging research suggesting that non-ionizing RF radiation might have other biological effects beyond mere heating. The notion that cell phone radiation is entirely safe because it only operates at thermal levels has come under scrutiny. Studies investigating the non-thermal effects of RF radiation are revealing a more complex interaction between these low-energy electromagnetic fields and biological tissues, leading to a reevaluation of the safety standards and guidelines for RF radiation exposure.

In summary, while RF radiation is non-ionizing and traditionally considered safe due to its inability to cause direct DNA or cellular damage, the growing body of research suggests that its interaction with biological systems may be more intricate than previously understood, warranting further investigation into its potential non-thermal effects.

Therapeutic Use in Cancer Treatment

Breakthrough in Liver Cancer Treatment

A remarkable breakthrough in the field of oncology is the therapeutic use of very weak radiofrequency (RF) signals for treating inoperable liver cancer. This innovative approach, which seems counterintuitive given the longstanding concerns over RF radiation from sources like cell phones, is demonstrating significant promise in clinical settings.

TheraBionic Treatment

One of the pioneering therapies in this domain is TheraBionic, which utilizes RF radiation at power levels that are drastically lower than what is typically emitted by cell phones. The therapy operates at levels that are 100 to 1000 times lower, a range that was previously considered too low to have any significant biological effects. This stark contrast in power levels challenges the conventional wisdom regarding the safety and biological impact of RF radiation.

Mechanisms of Action

The mechanisms by which this low-level RF radiation exerts therapeutic effects are intriguing and are still a subject of active research. Unlike the thermal effects associated with higher power RF radiation, such as those from cell phones, the effects harnessed in TheraBionic are non-thermal. This implies that the therapeutic action is not due to heating of the tissues but rather to more subtle and complex interactions at the cellular or molecular level.

Several hypotheses are being explored to understand these mechanisms:

  • Resonance Effects: It is hypothesized that specific frequencies of RF radiation might resonate with certain molecular components of cancer cells, thereby affecting their function or viability.
  • Signal Disruption: Another theory suggests that RF radiation might interfere with the signaling pathways within cancer cells, disrupting their growth and proliferation.
  • Immune System Modulation: There is also a possibility that RF radiation could modulate the immune response against cancer cells, enhancing the body’s natural ability to fight tumors.

Ongoing Research

Research into these mechanisms is crucial, as it not only has the potential to revolutionize cancer treatment but also to deepen our understanding of how low-level RF radiation interacts with biological tissues. This research is particularly significant given the widespread use of RF radiation in modern technology and the ensuing public health implications. The therapeutic application of RF radiation in cancer treatment serves as a compelling case study in reevaluating the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation and underscores the need for continued scientific inquiry in this area.

Evidence from Cell Phone Radiation Studies

Major Studies on Cell Phone Radiation

  1. National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study: The NTP conducted extensive experiments using rats and mice to assess the potential health risks from cell phone-level RF radiation. The findings, which were considered groundbreaking, indicated ‘clear evidence’ of a link between high levels of RF radiation and the development of heart schwannomas (a type of tumor) in male rats. Additionally, there were ‘some evidence’ of brain and adrenal gland tumors in the exposed animals.
  2. Ramazzini Institute Study: This Italian research paralleled the NTP’s findings but used lower, more cell phone-like levels of RF radiation. The study found an increase in schwannomas in the hearts of rats exposed to these levels of RF radiation. This was particularly significant as it reflected radiation levels similar to what humans might encounter.

IARC Classification

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization, classified RF electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011. This classification was based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant form of brain cancer, and acoustic neuroma, associated with wireless phone use. The IARC’s decision was primarily informed by epidemiological studies showing an increased risk of these tumors among heavy users of cell phones.

Ongoing Debate and Lack of Consensus

Despite these findings, there remains a significant debate and lack of consensus in the scientific community regarding the extent of health risks posed by cell phone-level RF radiation. This lack of consensus stems from various factors:

  • Variability in Study Results: Different studies have yielded varying results, with some not showing any significant health risks associated with RF radiation exposure.
  • Methodological Challenges: Accurately assessing RF radiation’s long-term health effects is challenging, considering the widespread and varied use of wireless devices.
  • Evolving Technology: As cell phone technology evolves, so does the nature of the RF radiation they emit, making it difficult to generalize findings across different types of devices and usage patterns.

Implications of Therapeutic Use in Cancer Treatment

The therapeutic use of non-thermal levels of non-ionizing RF radiation in cancer treatment, as demonstrated in therapies like TheraBionic, adds a new dimension to this debate. The effectiveness of such treatments, operating at levels below typical cell phone emissions, underscores that RF radiation can indeed have a significant impact on cellular processes. This revelation seems to challenge the previously held view that non-ionizing radiation at these levels is inert in terms of biological effects. The therapeutic application in cancer treatment thus not only opens new avenues for medical research but also calls for a reevaluation of the understanding of RF radiation’s safety and its potential non-thermal effects on human health.

Implications and Theories

The emerging research on the therapeutic use of low-level radiofrequency (RF) radiation in cancer treatment and the growing body of evidence linking cell phone-level RF radiation to health risks have profound implications. These findings suggest a far more complex interaction between RF radiation and cellular processes than was previously understood.

Implications of These Findings

  1. Reevaluation of RF Radiation Effects: The established paradigm that non-ionizing RF radiation is biologically inert except for its thermal effects is now being questioned. The therapeutic application of RF radiation at levels lower than cell phones indicates that non-thermal effects can indeed have significant biological impacts.
  2. Potential for New Therapies: This understanding opens the door to novel therapeutic techniques using RF radiation, potentially revolutionizing the treatment of certain cancers and possibly other diseases.
  3. Public Health and Safety Standards: The findings necessitate a reexamination of public health policies and safety standards related to RF radiation, especially given the ubiquity of wireless devices.

Theories and Hypotheses on RF Radiation’s Influence on Cells

  1. Resonance with Cellular Components: One hypothesis is that specific frequencies of RF radiation may resonate with certain cellular structures or molecules, affecting their function. For instance, in cancer treatment, these frequencies might disrupt the processes that allow cancer cells to grow and divide.
  2. Signal Pathway Modulation: RF radiation might influence intracellular signaling pathways. These pathways are crucial for regulating cell growth, division, and death. Altering these signals could potentially inhibit the growth of tumors or even trigger cancer cell death.
  3. Stress Response Activation: It’s possible that RF radiation at certain frequencies and intensities might activate a cellular stress response, leading to changes in cell behavior. This response could be leveraged therapeutically to target cancer cells while sparing healthy cells.
  4. Immunomodulation: Another theory is that RF radiation might modulate the immune system’s response to cancer cells. By enhancing the immune system’s ability to recognize and destroy cancer cells, RF radiation could offer a novel approach to cancer therapy.
  5. Potential for DNA Damage at Non-Thermal Levels: While non-ionizing radiation is not known to cause direct DNA damage, there is a possibility that prolonged exposure to RF radiation, even at sub-thermal levels, could lead to indirect DNA damage over time. This could occur through increased oxidative stress or disruption of cellular repair processes.
  6. Impact on Cell Membrane Function: RF radiation might affect the function of cell membranes, altering the permeability and affecting the cell’s overall homeostasis. This could have implications for cell signaling and nutrient transport.

The dual nature of RF radiation’s effects—both therapeutic and potentially harmful—highlights the need for a deeper understanding of its interaction with biological systems. The nuanced nature of these interactions calls for cautious interpretation, ongoing research, and a reevaluation of existing assumptions about the safety and biological impact of RF radiation.

The Precautionary Principle

Advocating for Precaution in Public Health Policy

In light of the scientific uncertainty and potential risks associated with cell phone-level radiofrequency (RF) radiation, it is prudent to adopt the precautionary principle in public health policy. The precautionary principle suggests taking proactive steps to protect public health, even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence of harm. This approach is particularly relevant given the ubiquitous use of cell phones and the emerging evidence of both therapeutic applications and potential health risks of RF radiation.

Key Aspects of the Precautionary Principle in this Context:

  1. Acknowledging Uncertainty: Recognizing that there is still much to learn about the long-term effects of RF radiation on human health, especially at sub-thermal levels.
  2. Erring on the Side of Caution: Given the potential risks, it is sensible to take preventive measures even while research continues to provide clearer answers.
  3. Informed Policy Making: Encouraging the development of public health policies and safety standards that reflect the latest research and understanding of RF radiation’s effects.

Practical Measures for Safer Cell Phone Usage

  1. Limiting Duration of Calls: Encourage shorter phone calls or use text messaging when possible to minimize exposure.
  2. Using Hands-Free Devices: Utilize speakerphones or earphones to keep the cell phone away from the head and body during calls.
  3. Avoiding Calls in Areas with Poor Signal: Cell phones emit more RF radiation when searching for a signal. It’s advisable to avoid making calls in areas with poor reception.
  4. Texting Instead of Calling: When possible, texting can be a safer option as it reduces the duration of exposure to RF radiation close to the head.
  5. Keeping Phones Away from the Body: Avoid carrying phones directly against the body, like in pockets or bras, especially when the phone is on and connected to a network.
  6. Using Airplane Mode: When not in use, especially in places like bedrooms at night, setting the phone to airplane mode can prevent RF radiation emission.
  7. Choosing a Phone with a Lower SAR Value: Selecting cell phones with lower Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values, which measure the rate of RF energy absorption by the body from the phone.
  8. Educating and Protecting Vulnerable Populations: Special attention should be given to children and pregnant women, as they might be more susceptible to the potential effects of RF radiation.

By integrating these practical measures into everyday life, individuals can mitigate potential risks associated with cell phone usage. Furthermore, as our understanding of RF radiation’s effects evolves, so too should our strategies for managing its impact on public health. Adopting the precautionary principle provides a balanced approach that prioritizes human health while acknowledging the ongoing scientific investigation into RF radiation’s effects.

The Need for Further Research

Addressing the Research Gap

The critical need for more comprehensive and long-term studies to understand the non-thermal effects of RF radiation on biological systems cannot be overstated. The current scenario, where non-ionizing RF radiation is being used effectively for cancer treatment, highlights a significant gap in our understanding of its biological impact. This gap is particularly concerning given the widespread and increasing exposure to RF radiation from various sources, including cell phones.

Key Focus Areas for Further Research:

  1. Long-Term Health Effects: Investigating the long-term effects of exposure to RF radiation, particularly at low, non-thermal levels, is crucial. This includes studying potential links to cancer and other health conditions over extended periods.
  2. Mechanisms of Interaction: Understanding the precise mechanisms by which RF radiation interacts with biological tissues at non-thermal levels is essential. This knowledge is key to unraveling how RF radiation can be both therapeutically beneficial and potentially harmful.
  3. Vulnerable Populations: Special attention should be given to research involving children and pregnant women, as these populations may be more sensitive to RF radiation.
  4. Comparative Studies: Studies comparing the effects of different frequencies, intensities, and durations of RF radiation exposure are necessary to form a comprehensive picture.

Public Health Guidelines and Therapeutic Approaches

  • Informing Public Health Guidelines: The potential findings from such research are pivotal in informing public health guidelines. Current standards, such as those set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), have been criticized for being outdated, particularly in light of recent legal developments where the FCC faced lawsuits challenging the adequacy of its RF radiation exposure guidelines. Updated guidelines based on the latest research would be more reflective of the true risks and benefits associated with RF radiation.
  • Developing New Therapeutic Approaches: Understanding non-thermal effects of RF radiation could also revolutionize therapeutic approaches in medicine. The success of treatments like TheraBionic for liver cancer opens the possibility of RF radiation-based therapies for other conditions.

Elon Musk is Wrong in Downplaying the Risk From Cell Phone Radiation – Here!

Given the therapeutic application of non-ionizing RF radiation in cancer treatment, it is imperative not to downplay the potential risks associated with RF radiation. The argument that there is no debate about the impact of RF radiation on cellular processes is strengthened by its clinical applications. Thus, further research should not only seek to understand these effects but also to differentiate between conditions where RF radiation can be beneficial and where it might pose risks.

The dual nature of RF radiation’s impact – as a therapeutic tool and a potential health risk – underscores the need for ongoing, rigorous scientific research. This research is crucial not just for updating public health guidelines but also for exploring innovative medical treatments, ensuring that our understanding and application of RF radiation are both safe and scientifically grounded.

Conclusion

The journey through the landscape of radiofrequency (RF) radiation’s interaction with biological systems reveals a narrative filled with complexity and ongoing discovery. The use of RF radiation in treating inoperable liver cancer, effectively employing power levels significantly lower than those emitted by cell phones, has opened a new chapter in understanding how this form of energy interacts with cellular processes. This breakthrough, coupled with growing concerns about the potential health risks associated with cell phone-level RF radiation, underscores the intricate and multifaceted nature of RF radiation’s biological effects.

The dichotomy between the therapeutic potential of RF radiation and its possible health risks presents a compelling challenge to the long-standing divide between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Traditionally, this divide was clear-cut, with ionizing radiation recognized for its capacity to directly damage DNA and non-ionizing radiation considered safe due to its inability to cause such direct harm. However, current research blurs this distinction, indicating that non-ionizing RF radiation, even at sub-thermal levels, can have profound and measurable effects on cellular functions.

In the realm of public health policy and medical research, this evolving understanding calls for a balanced, evidence-based approach. Public health guidelines need to be informed by the latest scientific findings, reflecting not just the thermal effects of RF radiation but also its potential non-thermal biological impacts. This approach is crucial for safeguarding public health, especially considering the ubiquitous nature of RF radiation in our modern, technology-driven world.

Moreover, the therapeutic applications of RF radiation in medical science offer a promising avenue for treatment innovations, particularly in cancer therapy. The success of treatments like TheraBionic signifies the potential for RF radiation to be harnessed for beneficial medical interventions, a prospect that could transform aspects of healthcare.

In conclusion, the journey through the complex world of RF radiation’s effects on cellular processes is far from over. As research continues to unfold, it will inevitably reshape our understanding and inform both public health policies and medical practices. Embracing an evidence-based, cautious, yet open-minded approach will be key to navigating this evolving landscape, ensuring that the applications and regulations of RF radiation are grounded in a comprehensive understanding of its multifaceted impact on human health.

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