| Subject: RE: Priore/Rife and
Neuromuscular diseases Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:29:45 -0600
Dear David,
I do not know if
either of the two technologies were ever used to treat that particular
disease; in fact I doubt it.
If the extension of
the Priore approach can ever get born, then -- at least down the road,
and at least theoretically -- scientists should be able to produce an
exact "antiengine" (set of spacetime curvatures and their dynamics,
produced by higher symmetry electrodynamics) for most disorders and
diseases. We are speaking of finally beginning to use the very approach
the body itself uses to develop, steer, and control its cells, their
exact structure and dynamics, etc. In short, the ultimate genetic
engineering, using the same higher symmetry electrodynamics the body
uses.
But to be honest we
are a very long way from that, at the present. The fundamental Priore
approach -- produce slow time-reversal (physics term) or
dedifferentiation (biology term) of living damaged cells in vivo, back
to their previous undamaged condition -- is the first class of effects
to be researched and developed. That is the line of research to deal
with conditions where the cells were once normal, but now are not. The
other line of research, which should come a bit later, is for the case
where the cells were never normal in the first place (as with genetic
diseases or physical damage present from formation of the embryo and
from birth). Priore's method will not heal such conditions, as
Pautrizel's experiments with immature rats clearly showed. However, in
our extension, one will seek to add a "delta" engine as well as the
"time-reversal" engine. This "steers" the ongoing induced cellular
dedifferentiation (time reversal) process off-course from the abnormal
past, to what the past would have been had it been normal.
All that is doable, if
medical science can be awakened to the potential. But it has to be done
under proper scientific protocols and tests. The last thing we would
wish is for unsupervised and unregulated "experiments" on sick people,
doing all sorts of damage to them, by all sorts of folks "popping" them
willy-nilly with electricity. It must be developed and shown in animal
test first, and then only when sufficiently matured and well-understood
should it progress to controlled usage in humans. The theoretical model
must also be extensively developed at the same time. For technology,
one requires both the experimental results and the theoretical model by
which engineering can be done. That of course is the way medical
science is supposed to be done anyway.
I believe that,
eventually, the fact that such technology can actually be developed for
the benefit of humanity will sink into the scientific mind. The young
grad students and post-docs will have no problem adjusting to the idea
of such a medical science. However, presently the "cut, slash, burn,
and drug" approach is so ingrained that --- to put it mildly --- getting
legitimate scientific research funded in this area is enormously
difficult.
We also believe that a
dramatic blow to the present U(1) electrodynamics will be required.
That, we think, will come in electrical power systems that freely
extract EM energy from the vacuum. Presently the successful "first lab
experiment" prototypes do exist, developed by several inventors. In
most cases, the systems still require about a year of very hard research
and development, to place commercial units on the market. Hopefully we
will see that begin in 2003. If that can be successful, then the iron
grip of the Maxwell-Heaviside-Lorentz truncated version of Maxwell's
theory can be broken. When that is broken and broken quite
resoundingly, then and only then will the medical science community wake
up and recognize that they have never even looked at biological
electrodynamics through the right "eyes" and models. Instead, they are
still using a 137 year old archaic theory, further strongly reduced and
with half of it simply "thrown out" by Lorentz for the coup de grace.
Better and much more complete systems of electrodynamics are already
developed, mostly in particle physics, but have hardly been applied to
engineering, biology, medical science, etc.
Very best wishes,
Tom Bearden
|