1

BIOMAGNETISM AND ENERGY-MEDICINE

The first reports on the phenomenon of bioelectromagnetism are to be found in early Greek and
Roman texts. Plato and Aristotle, among other prominent scientists of that time, described the
"shocking" impact that electric Torpedo fish had on human health. The first report describing the
use of electric fish as a medical therapeutic modality appeared five hundred years later, during the
first century. Prior to the Renaissance period, physicians were routinely employing electric fish in a
form of electrotherapy to treat sleeping disorder, migraine, melancholy and epilepsy.

The technical development of batteries and other devices producing electric energy at the end of
the nineteenth century, resulted in the widespread use of electrotherapy in medical practice.
Electromagnetic healing devices became a medical panacea in that they were reported to "cure"
virtually every conceivable disease known to man. By 1894, over 10,000 US physicians were
regularly using electrotherapy in their practice.

The excessive use of electrotherapy, especially by untrained practitioners and outright charlatans
was one of the primary contributing factors that led to the Carnegie Foundation to establish a
commission to study medical education and standards of medical practice. The conclusions of this
commission, documented in the Flexner Report, led to an immediate revision of medical education
and licensure of physicians. The report further stipulated that medical therapies must be based
upon sound scientific principles. At that time, the lack of scientific knowledge concerning the
nature and influence of electromagnetism on biological systems effectively eliminated
electrotherapy as a medical modality. Since electromagnetism was not amenable to experimental
investigation, the affects attributed to electromagnetic healing devices were not supportable and
as a result, electrotherapy fell into disrepute.

The essence of these historical considerations lays the foundation for us to consider and establish
the position in which the therapeutic aspects of the EM spectrum now find themselves, as we
enter the last decade of the 20th century. Education is of paramount importance in encouraging a
dialogue between the physicians and those who are developing the therapeutic opportunities of
electromagnetic fields.

Currently in the medical sciences, the emphasis on pharmacology permeates the training of
physicians and in fact, our entire society. This situation produces an additional difficulty for the
introduction of electromagnetic technology since physicians are not likely to be as well versed in
biophysics as they are in biochemistry. Since an understanding of biophysics, which includes an
introduction to the basic mechanisms by which electromagnetic devices most probably function, is
not part of current medical education, physicians have no practical knowledge of EM fields impact
biological systems.

In recent years, the crosslinks between the basic sciences of physics and quantum mechanics,
with the development of biophysics are becoming so strong and profound, that where the life
scientists and in particular the physiologists, thought of themselves as in a completely different

Site : BruceLipton.com Article : Copyright 2006-2007 Bruce Lipton Ph.D.

 2

scientific discipline from physicists and electrical engineers, they now realize they are looking at
different positions of the same continuum.

The need for an interdisciplinary approach is paramount to the formation of a solid foundation for
understanding the therapeutic value of electrotherapy. But even the scientific justification of the
efficacy of bioelectromagnetic will not in itself lead to adoption of electromagnetic healing devices.

Strong resistance to change has been the hallmark of medical scientific endeavor. Medical
therapeutic advances are slow, when compared to advances in other scientific fields. Treatment is
an aspect of medicine most restricted by social, cultural and ethical risk/benefits, only slow
progress can be achieved because of these interactive forces. The extreme caution in seeking
new modalities also stems from the trust and responsibility inherent within the doctor-patient
relationship, which has been and continues to be the reason for this reluctance to change.
Failures on the part of the physician negatively impact the "placebo" therapeutic benefit. A
patient's doubt in either the doctor, or the profession in general, seriously diminishes the
effectiveness of the physician. While at the same time, society more than ever expects cures from
physicians. Their demands are frequently so unrealistic, that as TIME Magazine pointed out in
1989 (cover story: Doctors and Patients, July 31, 1989, pg 48), the doctor-patient relationship is
deteriorating in the United States. By 1994, the American Medical Association reported that more
patients were seeking alternative healing modalities than were attending traditional allopathic
physicians.

However, attitudes are changing. The potential value of using the electromagnetic spectrum in the
medical sciences is beginning to pay off. This is especially true in regard to the use and efficacy of
diagnostic instruments that read bioenergy fields, such as CAT scans and MRI instruments.

Diagnostic advances are easier to introduce than new therapeutic modalities. New diagnostic
techniques enhance the capability and reputation of the medical user, but in no way do they
jeopardized his position. In utilizing diagnostic equipment the risk is usually minimum.

Compare the ready acceptance by the medical profession of these electromagnetic diagnostic
instruments(CAT, MRI) with their reluctance in adopting electromagnetic therapeutic devices.
Therapeutic devices need to have their "mechanism" explained while diagnostic equipment is able
to succeed on their instantaneous merits. For example, physicians readily employ CAT scans
without having any knowledge of how they work. Push the scan button and the results are
immediate and obvious.

Electromagnetic healing devices and electrotherapy offer a new way to look at the treatment of
disease. Unfortunately, human behavior tends to resist the perception and acceptance of new
ideas, this can preclude the acceptance and use of new and novel ideas or techniques. New
developments in medicine, particularly ones that promise increased healing power or reduction in
human discomfort, are met with varying levels of excitement. Patients for whom available
treatments failed, or were only partially successful, are most excited about the new procedure. A
physician in a specialty area where success is limited and prognosis is generally poor, is also
likely to be excited. Physicians and health professionals in areas where current techniques and
available medications provide good or professionally acceptable patient prognosis are likely to be
skeptical or simply less enthusiastic.

The scientific community, who are trained and rigidly socialized to be skeptical of any new

Site : BruceLipton.com Article : Copyright 2006-2007 Bruce Lipton Ph.D.

 3

development, ordinarily express some curiosity, but no excitement unless the underlying
mechanism of action is known. Consider the opposition Lord Joseph Lister encountered when he
began his campaign to have surgeons wash their hands before surgery. Lister view on sanitation
was ostracized by fellow physicians. A mechanism was needed to justify Lister's hygienic results
as being relevant. It was only after Louis Pasteur's discovery of bacteria that Lister was able to
explain why sepsis was so important. Interestingly, 35 years after Lister died, physicians in certain
areas were still operating without gowns and gloves. This is direct testimony of the resistance to
change that epitomizes medical scientific endeavors.

It is well established that the function and metabolism of the human body is an electrochemical
system. Modern medicine is preoccupied with studying, analyzing and treating mainly the chemical
side of the equation. For the most part, the electrical half of human systems has been completely
ignored. Physicians use several of the body's electrical systems for diagnosis (e.g., EKG, EEG,
EMG and MEGs), though even fewer uses of the electromagnetics are found for therapeutics
(e.g., cardiac pacemakers, defibrillators, TENs devices, bone healing instruments).

Physiology reveals that most of the body's natural chemicals are released by an electrical signal or
an electrochemical reaction. Can these same chemicals be released by applying an external
electrical signal? Can different EM parameters stimulate different chemical systems?

Simply stated, can externally applied bioelectromagnetic fields influence cell and organismal
behavior and expression? The answer is a clear, resounding, and unequivocal, YES!
Electromagnetic energy fields, which include energies in the ranges of microwaves,
radio-frequencies, the visible light spectrum, ELF and even acoustic frequencies, have been
shown to profoundly impact every facet of biological regulation. Specific frequencies and patterns
of electromagnetic radiation regulate: cell division; gene regulation; DNA, RNA and protein
syntheses; protein conformation and function; morphogenesis; regeneration; and nerve
conduction and growth.

If electromagnetic fields can affect enzymes and cells, there is no reason of principle why one
should not expect to be able to tailor a waveform as a therapeutic agent in much the same way as
one now modulates chemical structures to obtain pharmacological selectivity. The high specificity
of electromagnetic signals may result in the "direct targeting" of activity, without many of the
side-effects common to pharmaceutical substances.

Site : BruceLipton.com Article : Copyright 2006-2007 Bruce Lipton Ph.D.