Electromagnetic Controversy: When Levin Called Becker’s EMF Concerns a Red Herring – It’s A Case of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black. It is Levin who is presenting the Red Herring when disregarding the profound effect on bioelectricity from environmental man-made EMFs.
The central theme here is the exploration of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs), particularly radiofrequency radiation (RFR), on human health. The video features differing perspectives and research findings in this area. However, Levin’s stance, calling Becker’s take a Red Herring, is a classic case of Levin’s own Red Herring. But why? The debate about environmental RFR radiation having bioefects or not is over, as RFR at 1000 times lower than cell phones are used to treat cancer.
Two issues parallel here, how important is bioelectricity, and is it influenced by external sources?
Both men see bioelectricity as very important for all living organisms. However only one is correct about the effects on biology from external EMF sources. Newly approved devices prove Becker is correct, Levin is wrong!
- Michael Levin’s Perspective: The transcript begins with Michael Levin discussing bioelectricity and its role in scaling goals from cellular levels to entire organisms. Levin references early pioneers like HS Burr and Robert Becker, acknowledging their contributions to the field. However, Levin expresses skepticism about Becker’s stance on the dangers of environmental EMFs, labeling it as a red herring unrelated to bioelectricity. This suggests Levin does not see EMFs in the environment as a threat to normal bioelectricity, and focuses more on intrinsic biological processes rather than external electromagnetic influences – and this is fine. But why call Becker’s stance a red herring?
- Robert Becker’s Stance: The video includes a clip of Robert Becker from 1990, where he discusses the potential health implications of man-made electromagnetic fields. Becker suggests that the massive change in the global electromagnetic environment could be linked to rising health issues, including cancer. He emphasizes the significance of this change and calls for more research into its effects.
- FDA-Approved Medical Devices Treating Cancer with EMFs: The video also highlights two FDA-approved medical devices that use EMFs to treat cancer, suggesting that Becker’s concerns about the biological effects of EMFs were valid. These devices operate at low intensities, indicating that non-thermal effects of EMFs can have therapeutic applications.
- TheraBionic Device: Uses specific modulation frequencies targeting different types of cancer, operating at low specific absorption rates (SAR).
- Oncomagnetic Device: Developed at Houston Methodist Hospital, it employs oscillating magnetic fields to disrupt cancer cell metabolism, specifically targeting reactive oxygen species production.
- Implications and Contradictions: The mention of these devices implies that Becker’s stance on EMFs having significant biological effects, even at low levels, was correct. This contradicts Levin’s earlier dismissal of Becker’s concerns about environmental EMFs. The effectiveness of these FDA-approved devices in treating cancer using EMFs supports the idea that electromagnetic fields, even at non-thermal levels, can profoundly impact biological systems, both harmfully and beneficially.
In summary, the video presents a nuanced view of the impact of EMFs on human health. It juxtaposes Levin’s skepticism about the detrimental effects of environmental EMFs with Becker’s concerns and the therapeutic successes of EMF-based medical devices. This contrast highlights the complexity of EMF research and its implications for human health, underscoring the need for continued exploration in this field.
It is important to note, that Levin’s own words suggest you can hack the very nature of bioelectric potentials. This is exactly how the above-mentioned FDA-approved cancer treatment works!
