Tag Archives: ELF

EMF Exposure and Potential Health Effects

“In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers.  In this report we will use the  term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF and RF when referring to the specific type of exposure.  They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing  radiation.

“Main Reasons for Disagreement among Experts: There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us.  Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as-usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.

1) Scientists and public health policy experts use very different definitions of the standard of evidence used to judge the science, so they come to different conclusions about what to do.  Scientists do have a role, but it is not exclusive and other opinions matter.
2) We are all talking about essentially the same scientific studies, but use a different way of measuring when “enough is enough” or “proof exists”.
3) Some experts keep saying that all studies have to be consistent (turn out the same way every time) before they are comfortable saying an effect exists.  
4) Some experts think that it is enough to look only at short-term, acute effects.
5) Other experts say that it is imperative we have studies over longer time (showing the effects of chronic exposures) since that is what kind of world we live in.
6) Some experts say that everyone, including the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with illnesses have to be considered –others say only the average person (or in the case of RF, a six-foot tall man) matter.
7) There is no unexposed population, making it harder to see increased risk of diseases.
8) The lack of consensus about a single biological mechanism of action.
9) The strength of human epidemiological studies reporting risks from ELF and RF exposures, but animal studies don’t show a strong toxic effect.  
10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate.

“Today’s public exposure limits for telecommunications are based on the presumption that heating of tissue (for RF)  or induced electric currents in the body (for ELF) are the only concerns when living organisms are exposed to RF.

“In the last few decades, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that bioeffects and some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating (or induced currents) occurs at all; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits where heating is an impossibility.

“It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes – some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death.

“Effects occur at non-thermal or low-intensity exposure levels thousands of times below the levels that federal agencies say should keep the public safe. For many new devices operating with wireless technologies, the devices are exempt from any regulatory standards. The existing standards have been proven to be inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures, based on any reasonable, independent assessment of the scientific literature. It means that an entirely new basis (a biological basis) for new exposure standards is needed.  New standards need to take into account what we have learned about the effects of ELF and RF (all non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and to design new limits based on biologically demonstrated effects that are important to proper biological function in living organisms.   It is vital to do so because the explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on earth.  Mid-course corrections are needed in the way we accept, test and deploy  new technologies that expose us to ELF and RF in order to avert public health problems of a global nature.

“There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us.  Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as- usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.

Childhood Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers

“The evidence that power lines and other sources of ELF are consistently associated with higher rates of childhood leukemia has resulted in the International Agency for Cancer Research (an arm of the World Health Organization) to classify ELF as a Possible Human Carcinogen (in the Group 2B carcinogen list).  Leukemia is the most common type of cancer in children.

“There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia.

“The exposure levels for increased risk are quite low –just above background or ambient levels and much lower than current exposure limits.

“There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF exposure but not enough studies have been done.

Brain Tumors and Acoustic Neuromas

“Radiofrequency radiation from cell phone and cordless phone exposure has been linked in more  than one dozen studies to increased risk for brain tumors and/or acoustic neuromas (a tumor in the brain on a nerve related to our hearing).

“People who have used a cell phonefor ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas.   It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.

“For brain tumors, people who have used a cell phone for 10 years or longer have a 20% increase in risk (when the cell phone is used on both sides of the head).  For people who have used a cell phone for 10 years or longer predominantly on one side of the head, there is a 200% increased risk of a brain tumor.  This information relies on the combined results of many brain tumor/cell phone studies taken together (a meta-analysis of studies).

“People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cordless phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.

“The risk of brain tumor (high-grade malignant glioma) from cordless phone use is 220% higher (both sides of the head).  The risk from use of a cordless phone is 470% higher when used mostly on only one side of the head.

“For acoustic neuromas, there is a 30% increased risk with cell phone use at ten years and longer; and a 240% increased risk of acoustic neuroma when the cell phone is used mainly on one side of the head.  These risks are based on the combined results of several studies (a meta-analysis of studies).
 
“For use of cordless phones, the increased risk of acoustic neuroma is three-fold higher (310%) when the phone is mainly used on one side of the head.

“The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks.

Other Adult Cancers

“There are multiple studies that show statistically significant relationships between occupational exposure and leukemia in adults (see Chapter 11), in spite of major limitations in the exposure assessment.

“The evidence for a relationship between exposure and breast cancer is relatively strong in men (Erren, 2001), and some (by no means all) studies show female breast cancer also to be elevated with increased exposure (see Chapter 12).  Brain tumors and acoustic neuromas are more common in exposed persons (see Chapter 10).  There is less published evidence on other cancers, but Charles et al. (2003) report that workers in the highest 10% category for EMF exposure were twice as likely to die of prostate cancer as those exposed at lower levels.

“In total the scientific evidence for adult disease associated with EMF exposure is sufficiently strong for adult cancers that preventive steps are appropriate, even if not all reports have shown exactly the same positive relationship.  This is especially true since many factors reduce our ability to see disease patterns that might be related to EMF exposure: there is no unexposed population for comparison, for example, and other difficulties in exposure assessment, The evidence for a relationship between EMF exposure and adult cancers and neurodegenerative diseases is sufficiently strong at present to merit preventive actions to reduce EMF exposure.

Breast Cancer

“There is rather strong evidence from multiple areas of scientific investigation that ELF is related to breast cancer.  Over the last two decades there have been numerous epidemiological studies (studies of human illness) on breast cancer in both men and women, although this relationship remains controversial among scientists.  Many of these studies report that ELF exposures are related to increased risk of breast cancer (not all studies report such effects, but then, we do not expect 100% or even 50% consistency in results in science, and do not require it to take reasonable preventative action).

“The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher.

“Breast cancer studies of people who work in relatively high ELF exposures (10 mG and above) show higher rates of this disease.  Most studies of workers who are exposed to ELF have defined high exposure levels to be somewhere between 2 mG and 10 mG; however this kind of mixing of relatively low to relatively high ELF exposure just acts to
dilute out real risk levels.  Many of the occupational studies group exposures so that the highest group is exposed to 4 mG and above.  What this means is that a) few people are exposed to much higher levels and b) illness patterns show up at relatively low ELF levels of 4 mG and above.  This is another way of demonstrating that existing ELF limits that are set at 933-1000 mG are irrelevant to the exposure levels reporting increased risks.

“Laboratory studies that examine human breast cancer cells have shown that ELF exposure between 6 mG and 12 mG can interfere with protective effects of melatonin that fights the growth of these breast cancer cells.  For a decade, there has been evidence that human breast cancer cells grow faster if exposed to ELF at low environmental levels.  This is thought to be because ELF exposure can reduce melatonin levels in the body.   The presence of melatonin in breast cancer cell cultures is known to reduce the growth of cancer cells.  The absence of melatonin (because of ELF exposure or other reasons) is known to result in more cancer cell growth.

“Given the very high lifetime risks for developing breast cancer, and the critical importance of prevention; ELF exposures should be reduced for all people who are in high ELF environments for prolonged periods of time.

“Reducing ELF exposure is particularly important for people who have breast cancer.  The recovery environment should have low ELF levels given the evidence for poorer survival rates for childhood leukemia patients in ELF fields over 2 mG or 3 mG.  Preventative action for those who may be at higher risk for breast cancer is also warranted (particularly for those taking tamoxifen as a way to reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, since in addition to reducing the effectiveness of melatonin, ELF exposure may also reduce the effectiveness of tamoxifen at these same low exposure levels).  There is no excuse for ignoring the substantial body of evidence we already have that supports an association between breast cancer and ELF exposure; waiting for conclusive evidence is untenable given the enormous costs and societal and personal burdens caused by this disease.

“These are just some of the cancer issues to discuss.  It may be reasonable now to make the assumption that all cancers, and other disease endpoints might be related to, or worsened by exposures to EMFs (both ELF and RF).

Changes in the Nervous System and Brain Function

“Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been studies in connection with Alzheimer’s disease, motor neuron disease and Parkinson’s disease. (4)  These diseases all involve the death of specific neurons and may be classified as neurodegenerative diseases. There is evidence that high levels of amyloid beta are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, and exposure to ELF can increase this substance in the brain.  There is considerable evidence that melatonin can protect the brain against damage leading to Alzheimer’s disease, and also strong evidence that exposure to ELF can reduce melatonin levels.  Thus it is hypothesized that one of the body’s main protections against developing Alzheimer’s disease (melatonin) is less available to the body when people are exposed to ELF. Prolonged exposure to ELF fields could alter calcium (Ca2+) levels in neurons and induce oxidative stress (4).   It is also possible that prolonged exposure to ELF fields may stimulate neurons (particularly large motor neurons) into synchronous firing, leading to damage by the buildup of toxins.

“Evidence for a relationship between exposure and the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is strong and relatively consistent.

“Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of the nervous system.  There is strong evidence that long-term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Laboratory studies show that the nervous system of both humans and animals is sensitive to ELF and RF.  Measurable changes in brain function and behavior occur at levels associated with new technologies including cell phone use. Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change brainwave activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram SAR (W/Kg)*** in comparison to the US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg and the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg.  It can affect memory and learning.  It can affect normal brainwave activity.  ELF and RF exposures at low levels are able to change behavior in animals.

“There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use affect electrical activity of the brain.

“Changes in the way in which the brain and nervous system react depend very much on the specific exposures. Most studies only look at short-term effects, so the long-term consequences of exposures are not known.

“There is large variability in the results of ELF and RF testing, which would be expected based on the large variability of factors that can influence test results.  However, it is clearly demonstrated that under some conditions of exposure, the brain and nervous system functions of humans are altered.  The consequence of long-term or prolonged exposures have not been thoroughly studied in either adults or in children.

“The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time.  This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory, learning, and control over behavior.

“People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions report symptoms such as problems in sleeping (insomnia), fatigue, headache, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concentration, memory problems, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), problems with balance and orientation, and difficulty in multi-tasking.  In children, exposures to cell phone radiation have resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity during some memory tasks.  Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed (Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel). For example, the roll-out of the 3rd Generation wireless phones (and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands) caused almost immediate public complaints of illness.

“Conflicting results from those few studies that have been conducted may be based on the difficulty in providing non-exposed environments for testing to compare to environments that are intentionally exposed.  People traveling to laboratories for testing are pre-exposed to a multitude of RF and ELF exposures, so they may already be symptomatic prior to actual testing.  Also complicating this is good evidence that RF exposures testing behavioral changes show delayed results; effects are observed after termination of RF exposure.  This suggests a persistent change in the nervous system that may be evident only after time has passed, so is not observed during a short testing period.

Effects on Genes (DNA)

“The European research program (REFLEX) documented many changes in normal biological functioning in tests on DNA. The significance of these results is that such effects are directly related to the question of whether human health risks might occur, when these changes in genes and DNA happen. This large research effort produced information on EMFs effects from more than a dozen different researchers.

“Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits.

Effects on Stress Proteins (Heat Shock Proteins)

“Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful.  This is another important way in which scientists have documented that ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it happens at levels far below the existing public safety standards.

“An additional concern is that if the stress goes on too long, the protective effect is diminished. There is a reduced response if the stress goes on too long, and the protective effect is reduced. This means the cell is less protected against damage, and it is why prolonged or chronic exposures may be quite harmful, even at very low intensities.

Effects on the Immune System

“There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards.

“The body’s immune defense system senses danger from ELF and RF exposures, and targets an immune defense against these fields, much like the body’s reaction in producing stress proteins. These are additional indicators that very low intensity ELF and RF exposures are a) recognized by cells and b) can cause reactions as if the exposure is harmful.  Chronic exposure to factors that increase allergic and inflammatory responses on a continuing basis are likely to be harmful to health.  Chronic inflammatory responses can lead to cellular, tissue and organ damage over time. Many chronic diseases are thought to be related to chronic problems with immune system function.

“There is very clear evidence that exposures to ELF and RF at levels associated with cell phone use, computers, video display terminals, televisions, and other sources can cause these skin reactions.  Changes in skin sensitivity have been measured by skin biopsy, and the findings are remarkable.  Some of these reactions happen at levels equivalent to those of wireless technologies in daily life. Mast cells are also found in the brain and heart, perhaps targets of immune response by cells responding to ELF and RF exposures, and this might account for some of the other symptoms commonly reported (headache, sensitivity to light, heart arrhythmias and other cardiac symptoms).  Chronic provocation byexposure to ELF and RF can lead to immune dysfunction, chronic allergic responses, inflammatory diseases and ill health if they occur on a continuing basis over time.

Plausible Biological Mechanisms

“Plausible biological mechanisms are already identified that can reasonably account for most biological effects reported for exposure to RF and ELF at low-intensity levels (oxidative stress and DNA damage from free radicals leading to genotoxicity; molecular mechanisms at very low energies are plausible links to disease, e.g., effect on electron transfer rates linked to oxidative damage, DNA activation linked to abnormal biosynthesis and mutation).    It is also important to remember that traditional public health and epidemiological determinations do not require a proven mechanism  before inferring a causal link between EMFs exposure and disease.

“Oxidative stress through the action of free radical damage to DNA is a plausible biological mechanism for cancer and diseases that involve damage from ELF to the central nervous system.

Cite:
(1) http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2007_summary_for_public.pdf

The complete BioInitiative Report:
http://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

Epigenetics- Conditions of Existence

There has been an ever increasing amount of information coming from the scientific press that each individual has, through no fault of their own, a silent killer, or two or three, hiding in their DNA deep inside their body’s cells. Many of these press releases characterize the development of genetically connected diseases as virtually inevitable, with the result being that individuals become terrified concerning their supposed fate. The articles are often written as though the particular genetic marker is laying in wait for the right moment to express itself and inflict its damage on the helpless victim.

More and more people are nervously getting tested for their genetic profile in order to prepare for the inevitability of any number of disturbing diseases. Unfortunately, those in the medical establishment, who have a primary focus on cash flow, are adding to the paranoia that many people are experiencing, by offering everything from pharmaceuticals to surgical preventatives so people can feel more safe from their impending doom. The recent stories about Angelina Jolie having her breasts removed after she found out she had genetic markers for the development of breast cancer, is a prime example of the current extreme solutions being put forth by this kind of thinking.

There is clearly validity to certain aspects of the science of genetics, but the current exaggerated paranoid focus on genetic disease markers is not based on valid scientific interpretation. This misinterpretation has led to warnings that are blown way out of proportion, having no direct connection to actual inherent threats.

According to the Human Genome Project, which did a thorough study of human DNA, we all have twenty-two thousand genes, for all sorts of bodily aspects, good and bad. Not all of these genes are actively expressed, which is a good thing, while many remain dormant. A gene will not express itself at all unless the environment surrounding it becomes favorable to that expression. As an example, a cancer gene needs certain environmental requirements to be met before it can activate. The determinant here isn’t genetics, it’s epigenetics.

Epigenetics involves the study of changes in the regulation of gene activity and expression that are not dependent on gene sequence. Epigenetics refers to both heritable changes in gene activity and expression (in the progeny of cells or of individuals) and also stable, long-term alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell that are not necessarily heritable. In other words, epigenetic changes can modify the activation of certain genes, but not the sequence of DNA. Additionally, the chromatin proteins associated with DNA may be activated or silenced. This is why the differentiated cells in a multi-cellular organism express only the genes that are necessary for their own activity.

Epigenetic changes are preserved when cells divide. Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism’s lifetime, but, if gene inactivation occurs in a sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, then some epigenetic changes can be transferred to the next generation.

DNA damage can also cause epigenetic changes. DNA damages are very frequent, occurring at a rate of 1,000 to 1,000,000 molecular lesions per cell per day. These damages are largely repaired, but at the site of a DNA repair, epigenetic changes can remain.

So the term epigenetics could be described as referring to those things that have influence over our genes, leading to gene expression or gene silencing. Epigenetic influences would include chemicals, nutrients, electromagnetic radiation, including various wavelengths of light, along with any other environmental influence on the body’s biological function. We are all products of our environment.

Our genes are the first draft of what we are created to be, but the experience those genes face determines how our life plays out over time. In other words, it’s not the genes alone that predispose us to disease, but rather those things within our diet and environment that act upon our genes. As a conservative estimate in genetics, the average person actually controls anywhere from a low of 80 percent to upward of 97 percent or more of their own genetic expression with respect to potential disease processes and longevity.

It is vitally important that we stop focusing on disease states and instead think about what happens to the cell’s environment that dictates its fate. There is a lot of data over the last fifty years that shows that humans functioning in an “altered field” will experience symptoms common to diseases such as obesity, Hashimoto’s, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and diabetes. The field refers to the local environment that cells and the organism find themselves in. The field constantly changes as we move through the environment. This includes the nutrients available to us and the electromagnetic field around us.

DNA has been shown experimentally to be controlled by a magnetic field. Whatever activates and electrifies DNA is the major determining factor in genetic expression. Genetic expression is directly tied to the electromagnetic field that life lives in. To deny it is to deny experiments already proving it is true.

The field we face at sea level is not the same as the one on the top of Everest. The field we experience near a fault next to a volcano is not the same as the one found on an ice sheet in Antarctica. Since our brain never perceives the field through vision, sound, touch, taste, or smell, the mind never accounts for the effect of the field on its cells. It is almost like it never exists. This problem is compounded when you consider that, in our modern world, a child’s brain has to navigate an altered electromagnetic background before it is fully developed. As it turns out, children are more sensitive to the field because their brains are un-myelinated. Myelin provides some protection, to the deeper grey brain matter, from the effects of an altered electromagnetic field.

This information allows us to gain insights into just how the field affects human epigenetic expression. The field dictates all epigenetic expression and it extends to trans-generational epigenetics as well. Genes are important, but they are not the dominant player modern science believes they are. The ‘field’ makes the call when gene products should and need to be expressed. If the electromagnetic field has been altered from the native frequencies that humans originally developed within, then the result will be alterations in gene expression with potentially damaging results. These are things we need to pay deep attention to if we are going to understand the mystery of how our genes are expressed.

Darwin was right about the conditions of existence being more important than natural selection for life. He said this in his original book on evolution. He spent the rest of his life trying to figure out what controlled this biologic process. Today, conditions of existence have been renamed, and they are called epigenetics. It turns out the “on and off switch” that Darwin was looking for in our genome is an ELF (extremely low frequency) electromagnetic radiation, called the Schumann resonance. It was not discovered until 93 years after Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. The Schumann resonance is an ELF in the lowest energy and frequency range of the electromagnetic spectrum and our brain cannot see it, touch it, or smell it but our cells sense it using quantum resonance. It is below the power of the visible light spectrum where the photoelectric reigns supreme.

Energy has many forms on Earth and ……the photoelectric effect is the most powerful form of energy in our world. Biology uses it and the ELF of the Earth’s magnetic field to control genetic expression. This is an ELF that few seem to realize but has major physiologic power to control how genes are expressed in wellness and in disease states by affecting water chemistry and protein chemistry.

Water is the perfect chemical magnetic dipole, so this is why it is the major substrate on the earth to becomes active or passive in energy transfers with the earth’s magnetic field. When water finds itself in our native magnetic field, water becomes able to transfer more energy from the sun’s light to living things. This is why water is the liquid of life and is called liquid sunshine by some biologists. When water exists in an extreme low frequency (ELF) EMF field, as was normally found on earth before 1850, water’s hydrogen bonds oscillate and resonate at 7.83 Hz or harmonics of this frequency up to 89 Hz. In actuality, the earth magnetic field alters itself seasonally from 0-30Hz due to the sun’s magnetic field.

These changes in micropulsations directly act upon life by changing DNA and RNA expression. We call this epigenetics. How does this happen? The amount of oscillations from these extremely low frequency natural EMFs cause a favorable change in the hydrogen bonds of water to alter the bonding angles in the dipoles of water molecules to become maximally efficient to transfer energy from the sun to our cells. Since 1950, this magnetic field has been radically altered by man.

Another reason genes are not the whole story is that humans have more non coding DNA than every other primate. Our genome is only the first copy of life. It is the stage. It is not the map for a whole life. This helps explain why only 2 percent of the human genome codes for proteins. Ninety-eight percent of the human genome codes for retrotransposons, or junk DNA. Today we know that 99.3% of our DNA is used to alter our genome based upon epigenetic signaling. This is why humans have more non coding DNA (ncDNA) than any other animal on the planet. It turns out that ncDNA contains the epigenetic instructions of how to energize the proteins in our genome to alter function based upon environmental pressures. In this, “junk DNA” are the instructions for how energy transforms matter. The instructions energy gives, specifically electromagnetic energy, to our non-coding DNA is what ultimately makes us different. These energies come from our environment.

This is how biology works. Energy changes the structure and function of matter. Proteins are a form of matter. Energy sculpts what proteins can and will do and how they will act in a cell. This is called conditions of existence, or epigenetics, today. Protein is the matter coded for by DNA. Chimps and humans share the same genes 99.9% but we differ radically in how we energize our DNA. This is what ultimately makes us a different species.

The current variations from the original native electromagnetic frequencies have resulted in the increasingly common diseases that are seen in medicine today. As these environmental frequencies change, it becomes increasingly necessary to understand how the body’s biochemistry changes so we can alter our therapeutic maneuvers to compensate for these environmental issues.

Today, many of the therapeutic maneuvers that we call evidence-based, are, in fact, removing energy from the biologic system. Removing energy from this system causes it to become more unstable, and it leads to poor cell signaling and disease. Proper cell signaling requires a constant, steady flow of energy within the semiconductors of cells. Any treatments that cause a loss of energy, cause patients to emit more black box radiation. These effects are compounded when we advocate a diet or a modern lifestyle that also allows for more energy losses. This further underscores why carbohydrates are a real problem for modern humans because they only give us 36 ATP, compared to 147 ATP from beta oxidation of fats. Carbohydrates can be utilized by the body when cell signaling is working well. But when this signaling is not working well, as happens on earth today, health issues will result from the ingestion of carbohydrates.

The science of epigenetics makes clear that our DNA is not our destiny. Our modern beliefs are usually the cause of our epigenetic decline. Today, medicine is hanging its proverbial hat on dogma it calls “evidence-based” that has divorced itself from most epigenetic mechanisms. Evidence-based research is looking at data over a population and then taking that generalization and applying it to a treatment algorithm for a person.

Epigenetic models have already established that our cellular structure can be modified by thoughts, perceptions, beliefs, environment, diet and behavior, thus determining who we are, how we respond to disease, what we are and in many ways, what we will become. To return to the example stated above, cancer is not a genetic disease, it is an epigenetic one linked to massive loss of energy because of choices the person has made knowingly or unknowingly to themselves. Cancer explodes when we lose control of T cell immunity. 

When we lose energy for any reason at all, the brain and the immune system are normally the two systems that go awry first, in our particular species. This is why Neolithic diseases like Alzheimer’s and Hashimoto’s are exploding today, when 120 years ago they were unheard of.

Eating a diet that provides a huge source of energy makes more sense when you are constantly losing energy to your environment. This is why the Epi-paleo template, developed by Dr. Jack Kruse, stands above any other for today’s condition of existence. It is a Rx designed around our epigenetic mechanisms, and not our cultural or medical beliefs. This, however, does not mean it will remain our best option. We must use epigenetics to guide our decisions in the changing environment we are facing today. In fact, the optimal diet for us all may change in the next ten years because of what is happening today in our world. The human diet should never be thought of as static. It must change as the environment we create around us changes.

This implies “our species solution” really is a moving target because of our epigenetic toolbox. An architect far better and smarter than us has given us that epigenetic toolbox, and we now have the ability to use it by altering our behaviors to change our lives.

Cites:

Nora Gedgaudas, CNS, CNT; Primal Body, Primal Mind; 2011

Energy and Epigenetics 1: The Infant Brain is Unique
August 4, 2013  Jack Kruse, M.D.

Energy and Epigenetics 2: The Real DHA Story
August 17, 2013  Jack Kruse, M.D.

Energy and Epigenetics 3: Autoimmunity, Cancer, Autism
August 31, 2013  Jack Kruse, M.D.

Energy and Epigenetics 4: Light, Water, Magnetism
September 9, 2013  Jack Kruse, M.D.

TENSEGRITY 2: CORTISOL
June 26, 2014  Jack Kruse, M.D.

Energy and Epigenetics 6: Quantum Cell Theory, Life as a Collective Phenomena
October 4, 2013 Jack Kruse, M.D.

Energy and Epigenetics 7: The Epigenetic Toolbox
October 18, 2013  Jack Kruse, M.D.

Wikipedia