Other “cheaper” and “better” EMF radiation stress-reducing devices
“Many devices (such as medallions, buttons, ‘towers,’ mains plug-in ‘stress neutralisers,’ stick-on gizmos, and so on) are available on the market that claim to help protect against or neutralize the EMF/ELF or other output from electrical appliances such as computers and microwave sources such as mobile phones. With most of the products we have seen there is no scientific foundation for their claims and some we have examined in detail can only be described as useless ‘snake-oil’ scam products. The pseudo-scientific literature that is associated with the products is usually flawed and completely useless. The only thing you can be sure of is that the manufacturers see a market for the device that will create money for them.”
— Statement from a team of electric engineers from a book (out of
print) on the destructive effects of EMFs on the brain and body.
In order for us to better understand the generic nature of the deceit behind most claims as “better” concerning medicine or health, we need to first understand the very basis for such deceit which can be even unintentional. There is nothing generically wrong with anything that is cheaper and better from a car, TV, or a computer, to sneakers, jeans or a device that reduces EMF stress, provided we well understand the criteria for such claims. Without this basis, to just say that something is “cheaper and better” is as “convincing” as saying “buy this, not that.” That is why publications like Consumer Reports use well-established objective criteria in order to arrive at comparative quality for all the goods which are not of a medicinal nature. Following this, a consumer is given a much better understanding of the reasons behind the price difference between products. Those who wish to have a product of higher quality that translates into their superior performance, longevity of use, lower breakdown-fixing record, and even safety, choose higher priced competitors, while those who wish to settle for less, settle for less.
But once it comes to comparing medical products such as medications, natural supplements or some energy balancers for the body or environment, our ability to find truly objective and sound criteria for their comparison becomes very difficult and even impossible. This difficulty holds true for practically 100% of all products, including EMF-protective devices and from such muddy waters, a “victor” arises who knows how to exploit better marketing ploys to sell us goods by using words which we have been conditioned to trust. These words are: “science”, “research”, “latest discovery”, “natural”, “endorsed by” who might even be famous or with impressive professional titles, yet is often clueless concerning the true virtue of a product. What are the main reasons for these muddy waters in health and medicine-related products and why can terms as “science” and “research” be grossly misleading in this field? Because there is a huge difference between scientifically testing people and hard goods. As an example, while testing cars, engineers use firmly established and reliable indicators such as acceleration, engine pressure or its efficiency, fuel economy, crash testing and other. For computers, they use just as reliable and important indicators: speed, memory capacity, ability to interface different functions. For air purifiers, comparative results indicated by monitors which measure the number of airborne polluted particles before and after the use of these devices.
Hundreds of consumer goods are tested with a high degree of accuracy through the same general principles which are notorious for one common and most important denominator: exactness. It is the exactness in testing and exactness in total body of knowledge concerning the tested goods since their exact composition and design are well-known to everybody involved. The same holds true for the monitoring testing equipment, where their exact structure and mode of operation is known as precisely, too. All of this exactness normally translates in exact benefit-to-risk ratio in consumer usage.
Likewise, if any machinery is to undergo a renovation of one of its parts, the exactness in both its total design and testing will usually preclude other parts from being thrown off, as the result. However, in spite of the manufacturers of or doctors dispensing medical goods while all using the same words “science”, “research”, “discovery”, etc., their actual meaning in relation to the human body can be and is very deceptive, most of the time. This holds true particularly for products other than for short-term use as for acute infections, pain or injury. And the main reason for this deceit is being just the opposite to the main reason for the reliability of hard goods. It is inexactness or grossly deficient knowledge of the ultimate receiver of medicine-related products – the human body itself.
This is because the human body, even in perfect health (a non-existent entity, per se, quoting Stanford Professor Emeritus, William A. Tiller, Ph.D.,), remains essentially a Black Box. This is due to its extremely complex nature consisting of constantly fluctuating tens of thousands of parts which, in addition, are all interconnected with and interdependent on each other. This also means that something that is beneficial for one part in the short run may harm it and damage other parts in the long run. That is why Nobel laureate in medicine, physiologist Dr. George Wald emphasized that “the most complex machine man has devised – say, an electronic brain – is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms.” By “simplest” he meant something even like an amoeba that is thousands of times less complex than Man. This also means that extracting good and objective answers from such a complex and, largely, unknown machine as Man’s body, is not as simple as the majority of conventional and alternative doctors or medical scientists make us believe. If we are to add to such an already overwhelmingly complex system numerous environmental pollutants which reside in the bodies of 100% of the modern population, as per official EPA and CDC statistics, and thousands of combined morbid effects of some of these agents, things become even more overwhelming. Adding chronic infectious agents, which are inevitable, as the result of immune suppressions caused by toxic pollutants and electricity and considering other factors – genetic, emotional, dietary – the human body becomes a virtual mystery machine. How medical researchers and medical specialties, conventional and alternative, deal with this complexity in chronic diseases reflects exactly the same virtues and numerous deficiencies involved in the testing and the recommended use of electromagnetic-protective devices, as well. The deficiencies boil down to the prevailing research and diagnostic methods having to settle for just studying only some isolated parts of the human body in chronic disease and other states, and then recommend treatments or preventions based on some gathered, yet fragmented and very incomplete knowledge. Based on the latter, even if formally correct scientific knowledge, conventional medicine prescribes drugs in order to decrease, increase or balance some body chemicals as per such research. Alternative medicine follows the same deficient path while it simply attempts to address more things by using different treatments. Yet the results are quite the same with a cure or the effective prevention even of a single chronic disease being virtually zero. And the other outcome – countless side-effects of drugs and far more numerous side-effects of alternative treatments than the industry that portrays itself as “natural and safe” will ever admit to, for commercial reasons. In essence, this is an inevitable price to be paid for ignoring the totality of knowledge concerning complexity while settling for knowledge which only justifies the sale of products and use of treatments all of which are limited to only isolated parts.
Indeed, the science of complexity warns us about its Law of Unintended Consequences that simply states that only because scientists aim at correcting one bad thing within a complex system, they often end up harming many other parts within it unless they possess the correct tools to monitor the entire complex system. Perhaps, one of numerous examples to this is long-term antibiotic treatments of Lyme and other infectious diseases where the cures are hard to find while long term health damage is abundant. That is why drugs or nutritional supplements which do not harm, do not even exist. And that is why molecular biologist and former Stanford University researcher, Bruce Lipton, PhD, stated that “these are not side-effects, these are effects”, meaning that within such an enormous intertwined biochemical ocean as the human body, it is impossible to confine the action of a product to only a “beneficial use.”
So, what are these tools which would allow us to monitor the response of the entire human body in relation to a medication, natural substance or electromagnetic-protective device? Such a tool is bioresonance testing that is based on the most fundamental science of all and if empowered with the broad medical knowledge from conventional and alternative medicines and from other sciences, it becomes an indispensable and only reliable guide through the medical jungle of unsupported and naïve claims. Its guiding power lies in asking the patient’s body at the level of its true information – energy – and on a level of its totality versus a fragment of the true use of any medicinal substance. This is one of the main reasons why Nobel laureate in Medicine, Dr. Albert Szent-Györgyi stated that dealing with the human body without energy principle is the same as dealing with dead matter.
Based on these body energy or bioresonance testing findings, I have taught since 1999 through FCT courses, among other useful observations, that antioxidants and nutritional supplements, regardless of their lab-, mice- or other isolated benefits, do more harm than good. This still remains a hard to believe opinion. Yet, “strangely” enough, over the last decade, multiple studies have confirmed that these substances, portrayed as ‘immune boosters’ and ‘indispensable’ free radical fighters, have only increased the incidence of cancer, heart disease, hypertension and other diseases, instead of preventing these, in people who consumed these. Just very recently, in May 2012, calcium supplements have been linked to doubling heart attacks in women who were consuming these to strengthen their bones.
Just as “strange”, other studies showed that calcium and vitamin D both failed to prevent osteoporosis.
The relevance to electromagnetic-protective devices is that our bodies are just as much of an innate electromagnetic as it is a biochemical ocean and where potential clashes of energetic fields are just as unavoidable as the clashes within biochemical-pharmaceutical fragments.
And when a manufacturer of EMF-protective devices claims that the device is “good”, only because it improved some electric or magnetic fragment in the environment, we need to recognize that a) this may have been too weak of an improvement and b) that, in the process, the device might have changed and created an all new field in our environment that may harm the body even more than the original or pre-device EMF-field.
From this perspective, an electromagnetic-protective device ought to be perceived, first of all, as only a source of another and new radiation. And even if a manufacturer may claim some formal scientific or quality control studies, as do the drug and natural supplement manufacturers, such studies do not necessarily guarantee a beneficial effect of the device for the entire body. Nor can they guarantee that the device will become oversaturated with electricity itself even within hours or days of its use, and will either become useless or start spilling even more harmful field onto its users.
One is to keep in mind also that the phenomenon of electricity itself is not even completely understood by science. Therefore, recommending the device based on some positive change through an EMF-measuring device, dowsing or other tool, does not guarantee that the reduced EMF environmental field is rendered harmless because there might be more subtle related fields involved which may affect the body at its deeper level of disrupted energetic information.
When I was first introduced to Memon, in 2008, during my professional presentation in Western Europe, I was initially quite skeptical. The reason for skepticism was that I had already tested many devices which were claiming to be effective against “dirty electricity”, cell phones, computers and other EMF-related radiation or geopathic stress.
But my findings of bioresonance testing on many patients and on myself and my household were showing just the opposite. These were that not only were these devices too weak to do the job, as was evidenced by patients’ bodies still displaying significant electromagnetic stress while being allegedly protected by these devices, but even worse. The worst was that these electromagnetic “protective” devices seemed to either heightening EMFs or converting them into even more harmful fields for the human brain, immune, reproductive or other organs. This is not that surprising, considering the fact that besides some shabby engineering, science still does not possess a complete understanding of the phenomenon of electricity. Some of the devices I used in the past were effective, but as time went on and the electronic and EMF loads have skyrocketed, those devices have “collapsed.”
Even after using and being very satisfied with Memon technology for my patients and my own personal EMF protection at home, car, and in the office, I would still give a chance to other devices. One of these was installed for a trial period in my office. Less than a day into the trial I started having headaches, which is very atypical for me. So did my secretary. I asked one of my patients who was very energetically sensitive, in general, and to electricity, in particular, and who was very satisfied with Memon, if she felt any different being in my office that day. I did not tell her anything about that EMF-protective device being installed. Her reply was, “It usually feels very peaceful here but today it feels weird. And the moment I came in, I started having a headache.”
The company was explaining this as electrical washout which I can relate to, yet the difference between a healing washout and harm is that in the course of a healing washout, bioresonance testing indicates considerable decrease in EMF stress, with a concurrent healthy increase in the vitality of the internal organs and, particularly, the brain. At the same time, the dowsing method shows improvement in the environmental fields, not worsening. Yet, the device rendered all of these readings as detrimental to health. Surely, sooner or later, the headache may go away and the company would say “you see, we’ve told you.”
In other patients, a proper clinical progress could not be achieved until they gave up their “EMF-protective devices” acquired on their own and replaced these with Memon that only confirms that the “pseudo-scientific literature that is associated with the products is usually flawed and completely useless.“
Among testing many patients with bioresonance testing, this lady reacted to her cellphone with attached alleged cellphone protective device even worse than to the same cellphone after the “protective device” was removed.
The company claims being “the worldwide leader in ElectroMagnetic Field (EMF) protection products…”, due to their talented researcher. The company stresses that the inventor was so talented that even Stanford University and one of its reputable professors sought his skills. However, the real facts were that:
- the good researcher had no formal education in electro-engineering or any science
- Stanford University never invited him, but its reputable professor did invite him to his private lab that was not sponsored by Stanford University
- the reputable professor had personal interest in the scientific aspects of dowsing that the good researcher claimed to be an expert in
- but even with the dowsing the good researcher was caught cheating, was fired and all of his produced “research” ended up in the garbage. Having omitted these “minor details”, the company expects us to trust the rest of its information.
Returning to bioresonance testing as a powerful screening tool, one needs to know that in order to avoid subjective testing and statements, bioresonance testing, as any other test, must be supported by the actual results in medical practice.
And that is why the ultimate testimony to Memon lies in the words of its users themselves. See Why Memon? In People’s Own Words.