Interview with Dr Messagier
MD
GP
CES of General Human Physiology
Director of Medical Research at Tecnolab
Author of literature review:
“Synthesis: Electromagnetic fields and Biology.”
European BioElectromagnetics Association (EBEA) 1996 Convention, Nancy, France”
1. Question: Dr Messagier, why are you interested in the effects of cellular telephones and screens (computers, video consoles, televisions) on health?
Ever since my childhood, I have been immersed in an environment of electromagnetism and new technologies: my father was an electrician who invented and built a lot of machines. So it was quite naturally that, during my studies in medicine, I should be attracted to the interactions between living beings and electromagnetic fields, from a therapeutic point of view, but also considering their possible health hazards.
This evolution lead me to meet, and later to join, Tecnolab’s research team in electromagnetic biophysics. The researchers who created this laboratory over a decade ago, and those who joined it or collaborated with its studies, came from various fields. Some, like myself, are physicians, others include biologists, physicists, mathematicians, biophysicists, electricians, environmentalists, sociologists, all of us fascinated with the connections which can be established between life sciences and electromagnetism. It was an international group: some worked at their university: for example, Prof. Madeleine Bastide, toxicologist and immunologist, in France; Prof. A. Canavan, neuropsychiatrist, in England; Doctor M. F. Paya, expert in energetic Medicine, in Spain; Prof. M. Miyata, eminent researcher in ophthalmology, in Japan; Dr V. N. Binhi and his team, on the cutting edge of Biophysics and Quantum Physics, in Russia; and others in the biology and biophysics laboratory of Chalon-on-Saône.
I speak in the past tense, because this French laboratory, the coordinating center for works carried out around the world, never received research grants from the civil authorities or from industry, and thus had to close its doors in March 2002. I hope one day to see this scientific approach revived. Besides, all is not said and done: an American scientific study was recently published (April 2003)8, offering a new biological model to establish protective standards for human health. Its work demonstrates the toxicity of cellular telephones and shows it is possible to protect oneself against it through compensatory oscillation.
As a general practitioner, I appreciated the Tecnolab team’s different and original approach in the face of official position and “scientific doubt” concerning the health hazards. Instead of focusing its research on the more serious risks, such as cancer, leukemia, death, the team focused on what triggered the biological stress processes in people and animals exposed to telephones or screens. Many works in biology carried out by Tecnolab on humans and animals have confirmed that these devices provoke “electromagnetic stress”. At the same time, this laboratory developed a major bio-technological breakthrough, allowing telephone and screen users to protect themselves from the physical effects of these devices’ radiations.
2. While we’re on this topic, could you explain why and how an electromagnetic field acts on living beings?
This is a complicated problem, and one for which it is difficult to provide a simple answer, because Biophysics is a new science and this question is the subject of the most advanced hypotheses of current Physics.1
However, there are fundamental bases we tend to forget or overlook, and these are simple; humans are electromagnetic, from the atoms of their cells to each of their organs (eye, brain, heart, etc.). Through their biochemical and biophysical activities, living beings generate many internal, or endogenous, electromagnetic fields. Furthermore, living cells and their components generate two types of frequencies: extremely low frequencies, or “ELF’s”, and so-called “microwave” frequencies. Because of this, the radiations issued by living beings are in the same range of broadcast frequencies as those of our electronic devices.
There are scientists, unfamiliar with biology, who do not grasp this reality. They seem to forget that, according to the laws of physics, the (endogenous) electromagnetic fields of living organisms can interact with the external electromagnetic fields of emitting devices. Yet such interferences derive from elementary physical processes.2
We can see how resonance or interference phenomena between the electromagnetic fields of devices and of living beings can create disruptions in the physiology of the exposed organisms.
To avoid malfunctions or technical accidents between devices, certain international standards have been established, with which all industrials comply. Hopefully, an “electromagnetic bio-compatibility” standard for devices with humans will be established, to avoid biological dysfunctions.
To explain the great sensitivity of any living organism to even very low-intensity radiations, and if we were to use the simplest example possible, we might compare this receptiveness of living beings to tuning a radio set to a specific wavelength: you search for the frequency and when you find it, you get clear reception. There is communication. Likewise, there are similarities between certain frequencies emitted by cellular telephones or screens and those emitted by living beings; you might use a colourful image and say that the cells of living beings are connected on the same wavelengths, and therefore clearly receive signals which can disrupt them. These resonance or interference phenomena can appear to be very weak, but by accumulating over time, they cause the body’s resistance to drop, something we call biological or electromagnetic stress.
3. How can you protect yourself against this electromagnetic stress?
The sensitivity of any living being to outside waves is seen both to induce illness and to stimulate recovery.
The contamination caused by electromagnetic waves can disrupt or stress a living organism at every level (from its cells’ ions to its organs, functions, and even its psychological condition), but it is equally true that a positive electromagnetic stimulation can correct dysfunctions, redress imbalances, or compensate stress.
On the basis of this knowledge, you can design devices which will offer protection against the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields. The appropriate method is then to allow the radiation of the devices and that of their users to coexist, by resorting to other electromagnetic fields.
The idea is to bring all observed cellular dysfunctions back to normal. This approach is already being applied in medicine, for example to encourage the repair of bone fractures through the broadcast of specific frequencies.
It is with this in mind that the biophysicists of the Tecnolab team tried to produce electromagnetic fields that would correct the biological effects observed in animals or humans exposed to the radiations of devices, by attempting to cancel out all disruptions with a broadcast of a compensation field. This field, emitted simultaneously with the radiation, you might say “in” or “over” the radiation of the contaminating device, makes the electromagnetic field of the emitting device (telephone or screen) “biologically compatible”, without modifying its operating intensity.
The compensation field is a magnetic oscillation of ultralow intensity, yet it “audible” or “caught” by any living organism. So it is a signal that carries compensation or correction information at the level of living cells, thus compensating the effects of stress.
The development of this biophysical discovery1 gave birth to the technology known as compensatory magnetic oscillation (or CMO). Bio-protection oscillators have been developed to compensate the biological effects of fields for every kind of emitting device. These various oscillators consist of saline solutions, structured by an electromagnetic charge, specifically adapted to the stressful radiation of the various devices.
4. What protection does this compensation oscillation provide?
To assess the protective effectiveness of these various oscillators, a number of studies were conducted, in universities, on animals (embryology, immunology, endocrinology, cellular biology) and humans (clinic, psychophysiology, neuropsychology, ophthalmology), in Europe, Japan and the USA.
In short, of the score of university studies carried out since 1993, and until the next scientific publication in 2003, we can say that all have demonstrated that electromagnetic stress may be avoided through compensatory magnetic oscillation (CMO) technology.
In microbiology, it has been noted that inside white globules, cell “micronuclei” increase anarchically upon being exposed to a cellular telephone, and that compensation oscillation (CMO) reduces the rate of this micronucleic multiplication.3
In embryogenesis, whereas embryos exposed to telephones or screens have an average embryonic mortality rate of 60%, a normal rate of animal births can be obtained by providing them with CMO electromagnetic bioprotection.4
Regarding the immune, hormonal and neuroendocrinian system, tudies have revealed abnormal variations in the production rates of stress-adaptation hormones (cortisol, melatonin…) and antibodies, i.e. increases or decreases ranging from 50% to 95% for animals exposed to the devices (cellular telephones/screens), whch return to their normal rates under electromagnetic bioprotection.5
As for humans, Prof. Clement-Croome, Reading University (UK), carried out a clinical study on over 1,000 people working with screens, obtaining a 33% drop in stress symptoms through the use of compensation oscillators. The symptoms which manifested themselves included: eye fatigue, dry eyes, itches, coughing, sneezes, fatigue, headaches, neck and shoulder pain, backaches, concentration problems, irritability, anxiety etc.6
The same decrease was also noted for symptoms exhibited by cellular telephone users.
Prof. M. Miyata has shown that the many corneal micro-ulcerations provoked by a screen’s radiations can be avoided with compensation oscillation.7
5. What would you like to see come out of all of these investigations?
I wish health-related scientific research would focus increasingly on solutions based on technological adaptation and the compensation of stress factors.
Electromagnetic biocompatibility could develop, thus making every type of radiation compatible with living organisms.
Finally, I would like to see the Tecnolab team, which saw these efforts through to a successful conclusion, reunited and take up this fascinating research.
References of scientific publications:
(1) Binhi V.N. Magnetobiology: Underlying Physical Problems. Academic Press (2002)
(2) Hyland G.H. The Lancet (2000)
(3) Youbicier-Simo B.J. Radioprotecção (IRPA)(2000-2001)
(4) Youbicier-Simo B.J. Bioelectromagnetics (1997) 18 : 514-523
(5) Hyland G.H. Progress in Radiation Protection (IRPA) (1999)
(5)(3) Bastide M. Indoor and Built Environment (2001)
(6) Clements-Croome D., Jukes J. SYR Indoor Air (2000)
(7) Miyata M. Japanese Review of Clinical Ophtalmology (1999)
(8) Weisbrot D, Lin H, Ye L, Blank M. and Goodman R. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry. Vol. 89, Issue 1, 2003, pages 48-55
|
