Response to Vinny

Vinny now says:
"I have stated in the past that I disagree with some statements
made on the list group by Shivani, and this matter is one of the
points on which I disagree with her."

Shivani replies:
I don't mind being disagreed with at all. The more we can discuss
things from many angles, the better overall view we will get, and the more
accurate.
I am glad that now you just say that you disagee with me, vs. what you
were saying before - that I was presenting inaccurate information and that I
was lying. That really did not sit well.
So, let's move on...

Regarding your question, Vinny, about the range of frequencies of
electrical pollution on utility AC lines that cause health problems...
Dr. Havas' research that's been done regarding this, and also the
personal experience of people like myself, has been based on using the Stetzer
filters, which filter very effectively the frequency range of 4 to 100 KHz.
Beyond that, there is still filtering effect, but less. However, most of the
pollution is around 25 KHz. (The original experimental model of the filter just
filtered effectively to 25 KHz. One party still sells this kind of filter.)
You can see a printed-out oscilloscope image of the waveform of
electrical pollution at www.electricalpollution.com/images/MNschool.jpeg (This was
found in a school classroom where two teachers in adjoining rooms had died
from cancer.) This is, unfortunately, a rather typical waveform.
The Russians have done research over decades, that shows the damaging
health effects of various frequencies, including those present in our
"electrical pollution." Our own military has done research on the effects of
different frequencies, too, though that tends to "disappear" as it does not reflect
well on them that they continue to expose personnel to these damaging
frequencies, with nasty results. Charles Polk wrote very clearly about this. Now,
however, he does not want to comment or be contacted.
Anyway, as it is clear that removing 4-100 KHz makes a tremendous
difference in human and animal health, we conclude that these frequencies should be
avoided.
Regarding the effects, for example, of chronic exposure to 25 KHz as
compared to 50 KHz... I refer you to work such as that done by the Russians and
as documented by Polk, which was rather frequency-specific.
The focus of Dave Stetzer and Martin Graham has been on coming up with
ways to help as many people/animals as quickly as possible, vs. on just which
frequency does what. As the electric utilities are providing the 4-100 KHz
range in a mixed coctail, so to speak, that is what the filters are made to
filter out.

Regards,
Shivani Arjuna
www.LifeEnergies.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shivani:

Thanks for your reply and for explaining more about what you mean by
"high frequencies". By the way, you wrote below:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I am glad that now you just say that you disagee with me, vs. what you
were saying before - that I was presenting inaccurate information and that I
was lying. . ."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While you are, of course, welcome to believe what you wish about my
writings or those of others, I have never written nor insinuated that
you were lying, and rather, I did express concern that several
persons on this list (one of whom seems to have perhaps left the list
group in the interim) have made statements with which I disagreed
and, despite the fact that their statements seemed to fly in the fact
of commonly-accepted knowledge, they did not provide details nor
references/citations to back up those somewhat controversial statements.

Again, thanks for elucidating what you meant by "high frequencies",
and now that I see explicitly what frequency range you are
discussing, I can say that I agree with you that many people may be
more sensitive to EMF at frequencies above 4 KHz than to EMF at
frequencies of 50 or 60 Hz. My personal perspective on that is that
there also seems to be great variance in response - including
frequncy response -- across individuals.

I must also note that there are also some perplexing things about the
observations you and others have cited regarding frequencies in the 4
kHz to 100 KHz range, because these frequencies -- either as EMF
fields or more often as direct square waves sent through the skin via
contact plates from arm to arm or from foot to foot -- are quite
widely employed in various "alternative" and New Age electrotherapy
devices, including the following:
1) skin contact-type Rife devices, perhaps more accurately called Crane devices
2) many of the versions of the electrotherapy skin contact devices
popularized by the late Bob Beck, often called the "Beck devices"
3) many of the so-called Clark skin contact devices
4) many versions of the powered, spark-gap discharge Lakhovsky device
(most of these run at frequencies ranging from 20 KHz to 300 KHz.
5) many inexpensive versions of the Rife plasma device currently on
the market (i.e., the ones which use cheap ignition coils and spark
gaps rather than true modulated CW RF exciters driving plasma tubes.
6) numerous other devices in the field, including several direct
skin-contact devices currently marketed to chiropractors under various names

with care,
--Vinny

At 08:35 PM 12/3/2006, you wrote:

Vinny Pinto
[hidden email]

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
http://www.vinnypinto.us

Vinny writes:
"there are also some perplexing things about the
observations you and others have cited regarding frequencies in the 4
kHz to 100 KHz range, because these frequencies -- either as EMF
fields or more often as direct square waves sent through the skin via
contact plates from arm to arm or from foot to foot -- are quite
widely employed in various "alternative" and New Age electrotherapy
devices...."

Shivani replies:
Yes. It's a problem. This is why Dr. Becker titled his book CROSS
CURRENTS.
When I look through catalogs full of electronic gizmos, that are
supposed to make our lives easier and improve our health, but which produce damaging
frequencies, I cringe.

Vinny also wrote:
"I have never written nor insinuated that
you were lying, and rather, I did express concern that several
persons on this list (one of whom seems to have perhaps left the list
group in the interim) have made statements with which I disagreed
and, despite the fact that their statements seemed to fly in the fact
of commonly-accepted knowledge, they did not provide details nor
references/citation references/citations to back up those somewhat
controversial statements."

Shivani replies:
What you said, Vinny, was:
"I am also concerned about the accuracy/veracity of a number of
> statements made by the same author ([hidden email]) in this and
> recent posts..."
> Veracity means truthfulness. As you used the word "veracity" in
addition to the word "accuracy," it is clear that you were not just talking about
accuracy, but meant just what you said.
When I mentioned this, and also asked you to be specific about what
information you believed to be inaccurate/untruthful so that it would be possible
for me to reply, you remained silent. (I had my eye open. If you replied,
I missed it.)
> Now you say that you did not mean what you said. ????
>
Regards,
Shivani

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> When I look through catalogs full of electronic gizmos, that are
> supposed to make our lives easier and improve our health, but which
> produce damaging frequencies, I cringe.

Yes, but since you have not personally tried these items, I don't
think you are qualified to state that any of these items actually
cause any damage. You are only assuming they do, based on
assumptions which may not even be correct.

You seem to be a bit hypocritical on this matter -- you feel free
to say that all sorts of gizmos are harmful, even though you have
absolutely no experience to back this up, yet you jump all over
anyone who has anything negative to say about the Stetzer
products, even when they have firsthand experience!

Marc

Hello Vinny,

you are quite right, but your given frequency range is too narrow.

I own several of your mentioned electrotherapy devices, among them a
M.O.R.I.
This one has Rife frequencies from 0,5 Hz up to 10.000 Hz, as well as Clark
frequencies, which start at 30.000 Hz till 1 MHz.
(Btw. the organisation channel of UMTS or 3G is pulsed with 15.000 Hz, so
just between the Rife and Clark frequency ranges.)
I also have the Lakhovsky M.W.O., and the Clark Zapper, as well as the Blood
Optimizer.
My MWO runs in the MHz range.

So in Bioresonance almost a very wide range of frequencies is used, for
health improvement.
Starting at 0,5 Hz up to 1 MHz.
There exist even machines that work in the GHz range.

In my December issue of *het bitje* (of which the english version is
underway) I have articles placed, that tell that especially 16 Hz and 32 Hz
do have an enormous impact on the calcium and potassium ions at cell level.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus





----- Original Message -----
From: "Vinny Pinto" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 03:12
Subject: Re: [eSens] Response to Vinny

Hi Charles:

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the upper frequency limits of
many of these devices being higher (sometimes even much higher) than
the upper limit which Shivani had mentioned. In the examples cited in
my post, I kept the upper f limits as cited extremely conservative
simply so as not to confuse the issue by mentioning (too many) upper
limits in the MHz range, and also due to the fact that there are
instantiations (i.e., particular brands/models of devices) in each
category which do indeed only reach to perhaps 100 kHz or 200 kHz.

In fact, to help to buttress your point, one of my programmable
digital signal generators here for a Rife plasma device (currently in
storage) has an upper limit of 1 MHz or 2 MHz, and of course, the
Rife device itself uses an RF carrier frequency in the 28 MHz range.

Incidentally, I personally have never liked the concept of
contact-devices which try to impress square-wave voltages across the
body -- the very idea gives me the willies. In fact, when I was in
acupuncture graduate school, I started getting drawn into
electroacupuncture, and then when I realized the signals (DC as well
as square wave or triangle wave signals in the range of 0.5 Hz to 200
kHz) which were being impressed upon the body via the needles, I got
a gut feeling which told me to leave the field immediately. This does
not necessarily meant that there is anything wrong with this category
of devices, but the entire concept is not my cup of tea; I get an
instant gut aversion to the concept and to any devices in this category.

BTW, most of the Lakhovsky MWOs with which I have played over the
years, each of which used free-running (i.e., spark gap) Tesla coils,
had operating f's in the range of 130 kHz to 450 kHz, and one was as
low as perhaps 90 kHz.

Yes, I too have come across studies (I no longer have access to them
and it would likely take weeks of work to re-discover them if I
wished to do so) over the years showing that E or H fields at
numerous frequencies below 100 Hz can have adverse effects upon
cellular metabolism and cell wall performance. In any case, my
intuition tells me that frequency response is quite varied and even
idiosyncratic across individuals; some may not be bothered at all by
frequencies below 1 kHz but bothered by fs around 20 to 50 kHz, while
others may show almost exactly the opposite pattern.

with care,
--Vinny

At 05:38 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote:

Vinny Pinto
[hidden email]

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
http://www.vinnypinto.us

Hi Charles:

Just a quick second reply, as I am curious about something which you
mentioned. You wrote:
"Btw. the organisation channel of UMTS or 3G is pulsed with 15.000
Hz, so just between the Rife and Clark frequency ranges..."

If you are referencing electro-therapy devices, I am unaware of any
using the designations "UMTS" or "3G". Will you tell me what you
meant in using these two terms?
Did you by any chance mean to indicate the "UT code" or "UTM code",
aka "UTMC code"? All three of these terms are used by the Quantum
Products company ( www.quantumproducts.com ) to denote the intent
field treatment rendered to their line of EMF protective area
treatment devices during manufacture.

Oh, and since you mentioned 15 Hz, as you know, that frequency is
pretty much exactly the second harmonic of the fundamental Schumann frequency!

BTW, as I am sure you already know, I am one of those persons who
definitely does not believe that all EMF signals in the 2 Khz to 100
kHz (or 200 kHz) range are necessarily harmful. Rather, I suspect
that the matter of EMF frequencies/signals which affect ES/EHS
sufferers is much more complex, multivariate (i.e., polyfactorial)
and variegated than that. Much as I have indicated in the past, not
only are there plenty of electrotherapeutic devices (and at least
some of these devices definitely help some people) which employ these
frequencies, but it is also true that our biosphere (the part of the
planet surface/air/water boundary where we and most mammals live) as
well as our bodies and those of our ancestors (since they occupy the
biosphere) have for many millions (perhaps billions) of years been
bathed in plenty of signals in that frequecy range which are of
natural origin. Unfortunately, while discussing this vein of
discourse, I must note with some regret that some non-technical list
members have taken to trying to engage in outright and wholesale
bashing of "high frequencies" in the aforementioned range, and also
similar bashing of both alternative and mainstream electrotherapy
devices which utilize frequencies in that range. I think that kind of
verbiage is grossly overgeneralized and can also be sensationalistic,
encouraging people to think in simplistic good/bad or black/white
terms when in fact there is no underlying reality to support those
broad conclusions. I have much the same concerns about overuse and
over-generalized use of the term "skin effect" and other terms by
some list members, and yet I simply cannot afford the time or energy
to try to "set the record straight" every time I see such statements;
I do not do that even on my own list groups, it would be a
never-ending mop-up job! I have a very good sense of my priorities
and interests while here on earth, and one of them is NOT enaging in
arguments with non-technical people who overuse or abuse terms or
concepts in their writings, except in very rare cases to set an
example (as I did with the bizarre "mercury emitted from fluorescent
lamp bulbs" thesis offered by one over-zealous non-technical list
member a few months ago...)

Thanks for your fascinating writings and for sharing your
observations and experiences here!

with care,
--Vinny

At 05:38 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote:

Vinny Pinto
[hidden email]

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
http://www.vinnypinto.us

Hello Vinny,

you misunderstood.

UMTS or 3 G is the new mobile phone system, for which they are placing
transmitters everywere.

Universal Mobile Terror System.
Only the organisation channel is pulsed this way; when traffic is there, it
seems to disappear in the background.

And no, I did not mention 15 Hz, but 16 Hz and 32 Hz.

I am quoting:
*****************************************
although it is generally accepted that the calcium ion is by far the most
important in controlling biological responses, it is the resonant frequency
for potassium (16Hz in the Earth's field) that has the most devastating
effects.

It doesn't explain why the resonant frequencies for calcium and potassium
give opposite biological effects.

According to Blackman et al (1982) Radiat. Res. 92: 510-520, there are at
least two amplitude windows for the release of calcium from brain tissue at
16Hz. One is around 6V/m and the other about 40V/m (measured in air).
So as you can see, these findings are consistent with my hypothesis that it
is changes in the permeability of the phospholipid part of the membrane by
calcium-loss that are the main driving force behind the biological effects
of electromagnetic fields. In particular, it explains why increasing the
chemical activity of either calcium or potassium ions by excitation at their
appropriate resonant frequencies gives opposite biological effects.
*****************************************

Btw. why do you keep telling 2 Khz to 100 kHz range?
Energy healing starts already at 0.5 Hz, so in the Hz region, not the kHz
region.

I am looking into this "mercury emitted from fluorescent lamp bulbs" matter.
Even the technicians at Philips, the lamp makers, are not willing to inform
me.
Knowing bioresonance, I think, that with the frequencies, emitting from
those lamps, the frequency of mercury is also there, because all
fluorescent lamps contain mercury as a starter medium.
According to my list of bioresonance frequencies for metals, mercury has
17.827 MHz.
So that frequency should also come out of those fluorescent lamps.
Sounds plausible to me.

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus



----- Original Message -----
From: "Vinny Pinto" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 16:22
Subject: Re: [eSens] Response to Vinny

Hi Charles:

Thanks for clarifying what the terms stood for! One more comment below!

At 11:55 AM 12/5/2006, you wrote:
>And no, I did not mention 15 Hz, but 16 Hz and 32 Hz.

Oh... I had assumed that you meant to indicate 15 Hz when you wrote
(in the letter to which I had responded):
"(Btw. the organisation channel of UMTS or 3G is pulsed with 15.000
Hz, so ust between the Rife and Clark frequency ranges.)"

wherein you wrote "15.000 Hz", but perhaps in the European method of
displaying numbers the term may instead have been meant to indicate
15 thousand hertz, which we in America would write as "15,000 Hz" or "15 kHz".

with care,
--Vinny




Vinny Pinto
[hidden email]

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
http://www.vinnypinto.us

Hello Vinnie,

yes, I am in Europe, and I drive on the *right* side of the road.
(Although some on an isolated Isle prefer the other side of the road)

And yes, I meant 15 kHz.
Why do you americans write and use the . and , differently ?
Is it to confuse us, europeans ? ;o))

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus


----- Original Message -----
From: "Vinny Pinto" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 18:39
Subject: Re: [eSens] Response to Vinny

Dear Charles:

No, it is the other way around, you darn Europeans do the dangdest
things with "." and "," symbols in your numbers, as do the people in
India and Nepal, just to confuse us poor innocent not-very-smart and
less-than-savvy Americans! :-) sigh!

And, in this vein: Please do the needful to get the entire EU to
convert to displaying numbers in the American style by December 15,
2006. Thank you in advance for your fine work!

Oh, and you also drive on the wrong side of the road! >:-} :-)

with care,
--Vinny

At 12:58 PM 12/5/2006, you wrote:

Vinny Pinto
[hidden email]

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
http://www.vinnypinto.us

Charles wrote: yes, I am in Europe, and I drive on the *right* side of the
road.
(Although some on an isolated Isle prefer the other side of the road)

Although history is on our side, as passing on the left keeps the sword arm
free in case the person coming the other way is a potential enemy! As an
aside, there are some interesting webpages on this, including one which
quotes this advice supposedly from the UK Ministry of Transport some years
back:
 
“Visitors are informed that in the United Kingdom traffic drives on the
left-hand side of the road. In the interests of safety, you are advised to
practise this in your country of origin for a week or two before driving in
the UK.”


!
Ian
_____  

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
charles
Sent: 05 December 2006 17:59
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [eSens] Response to Vinny



Hello Vinnie,

yes, I am in Europe, and I drive on the *right* side of the road.
(Although some on an isolated Isle prefer the other side of the road)

And yes, I meant 15 kHz.
Why do you americans write and use the . and , differently ?
Is it to confuse us, europeans ? ;o))

Greetings,
Charles Claessens
member Verband Baubiologie
www.milieuziektes.nl
www.milieuziektes.be
www.hetbitje.nl
checked by Norton Antivirus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vinny Pinto" <vinny@mindspring. <mailto:vinny%40mindspring.com> com>
To: <eSens@yahoogroups. <mailto:eSens%40yahoogroups.com> com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 18:39
Subject: Re: [eSens] Response to Vinny



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shivani:

I have hesitated to reply to your letter, because I have increasing
concerns about your tone and credibility in light of your recent
attempt to twist my words (regarding your claim that I was accusing
you of "lying" in an earlier letter), and in light of your recent
attacks on Charles and Marc (largely regarding Charle's statements
about Stetzer products) by attempting to twist their words as well
and to raise questions about their intents and motives. This has
unfortunately been followed by the revelation that you are a vendor
of Stetzer filters. I have decided to reply this one time, in order
to perhaps offer some persepective to the list members who are not
very technically-inclined.

Comments below!

At 03:56 PM 12/4/2006, you wrote:
Well, I certainly do not feel that all EMF signals in the 2 Khz to
100 kHz (or 200 kHz) range are necessarily harmful, at least a low to
moderate strength (note that I am not advocating sleeping under a
transmitting tower for a transmitter at ANY frequency!). And if you
were trying to say that you believe that all of those categories of
electrotherapy devices which I cited in my earlier letter are "bad"
or "damaging", I do not agree with that statement at all, and rather,
I feel that it would be a gross over-generalization. As far as the
effects of EMF in the range of 2 kHz to 200 kHz, I suspect that the
matter of EMF frequencies/signals which affect ES/EHS sufferers is
much more complex, multivariate (i.e., polyfactorial) and variegated
than that. Much as I have indicated in the past, not only are there
plenty of electrotherapeutic devices (and at least some of these
devices definitely help some people) which employ these frequencies,
but it is also true that our biosphere (the part of the planet
surface/air/water boundary where we and most mammals live) as well as
our bodies and those of our ancestors (since they occupy the
biosphere) have for many millions (perhaps billions) of years been
bathed in plenty of signals in that frequecy range which are of
natural origin.

Be all that as it may, I am among the first to agree with you
regarding being wary of the plethora of household consumer products
which seem to emit more and more EMF electrosmog every year!

I find it fascinating that you keep trying to twist or reframe my
words to fit into your particular "story" in life, much as you have
aggressively tried to do with recent statments by Charles and Marc.
Shivani, you are free to believe what you wish and to create whatever
stories you wish; I have no desire nor need to convince you of
anything nor to change your beliefs. Bottom line, however, is this: I
never wrote nor implied that you were lying, but I did state that I
felt that your statements in question (in several areas, regarding
EMF protective devices, skin effect and grounding) were lacking in
veracity and accuracy (and now, I would add -- in light of recent
developments -- credibility), particularly when you make broad
sweeping (and very negative) generalizations about whole categories
of devices, or vague overgeneralizations about skin effect or about
the "dangers" of grounding. This is my last statement on this topic,
and I will not respond to any further claims by you in this regard;
any such claims are entirely your story and your business, and it has
nothing to do with me.

Regarding your recent attempts to twist statements or reframe the
intentions of Charles and Marc regarding Charle's statements about
European Stetzer filters, since the fact has emerged that you are a
vendor of Stetzer filters, you may wish to consider a casual observer
reading your recent posts might come to the conclusion that you have
been writing from a biased perspective and with an undisclosed
agenda; this could seriously impact your credibility among those
reading your posts.

Having said all the above, I want to point out that I also realize
that you have told us that you are quite ill with ES and related
symptoms, and thus I can understand why and how your tone may
sometimes become rather strident or why you may appear to be
overzealous or cranky at times. I remember my own period of being
very ill for several years back in the mid-and late 1980s, and, if
your current experience is anytign at all like mine was, I realize
that it may often take your last bit of energy to write some of your
emails to the list group, and I can understand that you might perhaps
feel a little irritable or cranky at such times, and thus some of
your posts may come across as "stronger" or "harsher" than you
perhaps intended.

Shivani, in closing, I wish you the very best in finding ways to
recover your health and energy, and, though I may disagree with some
of your written words at times, I admire your patience and
persistence in dealing with your ES.

with care,
--Vinny




Vinny Pinto
[hidden email]

phone 301-694-1249

To see my informational websites and e-mail list groups, please go to:
http://www.vinnypinto.us