| Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001
10:55:29 -0600
Dear
Glenn, Thanks
for the good words; much appreciated. As
far as electrical machines, I use a simple criterion.
If there is no indication of the exact manner in which the
device uses other than normal -- i.e., U(1) --- electrodynamics, I'm
not much interested. As
you know, there are all sorts of gadgets etc. out there, using names
such as "Tesla", "Rife", etc.
There is indeed a science of EM healing (but only by higher
group symmetry EM); however, it is just being born.
Instead of healing, it has been weaponized (e.g., by the KGB)
for destructive purposes. Also,
another thing one must watch for is what studies were performed to
ascertain the results, and how they were performed.
The placebo effect is a real, physical effect; so we already
know that if one just willy-nilly "pops" folks with
electrical devices, some 20% to 30% will get better, at least
temporarily. All
double-blind studies, e.g., must subtract the placebo effect results
from the supposed "drug being tested" results, to guarantee
that there is in fact effects of the drug and not just placebo. This
was the reason I chose to study the Priore process for so many years.
The work was done by very fine scientists, with impeccable
protocols. So the
experimental results were valid.
But then no one -- including Priore himself -- understood the
mechanism. It
took more than 14 years to finally "break" the mechanism,
and another five or so to get it to the point that one could express
it clearly. I also was
able to further advance the principle rather dramatically. So
the next step is to try to get a funded project initiated, first with
animal experiments, then when these are successful, to move (legally)
to treatment of volunteer terminal patients, etc. All along the way,
specialists must also be preparing and continually "fitting"
a proper higher group symmetry EM model, so that an actual engineering
technology results rather than arm-waving.
In other words, to be safe for the public, there are no
real shortcuts. Instead,
one has to demonstrate real effectiveness all the way through the
process, and one must do the proper mathematical work right along
through all the experiments. Problem
is, that's a very expensive process requiring several years.
Nonetheless, Tony Craddock is doing his best to get it started.
If we can just get it off and running as a legitimate
scientific project, where results can be properly reported in medical
journals etc., then that will be a great hurdle finally overcome. We
are using the old "Chinese" method, with the attitude that a
journey of 1,000 miles is done one step at a time. So
in that vein, we just keep putting one foot in front of the other. There
will come a time (whether I live to see it or not) when
electromedicine becomes THE major medical modality.
All chemistry, e.g., is driven by the electrodynamics.
The present "drug-based" science relies only on a
very old EM model, 137 years old.
That model is seriously limited, and also contains many errors
in light of today's knowledge in physics.
There are already far better electrodynamics models available,
most developed for particle physics in those areas where the
"old" EM just folds up and is totally inadequate. Since
no one person can have all the multi-disciplines required, my own role
is simply to try to clearly lay out the rigorous concepts and
mechanisms that allow precise healing in the body.
Becker, with his study of the cellular regenerative system from
an EM standpoint, came closest. I
believe he would have had it, had he not been limited to the standard
old U(1) classical electrodynamics. Anyway,
this is what we're trying to get done, if we can.
Often one is asked, why would you pursue so many years of your
life struggling with such things, when with the same effort in more
conventional fields a lot of money could be made?
The answer is quite simple: it is a moral imperative.
When one considers all the people -- babies, children,
juveniles, adults, aged, etc. -- who are dying of terrible infections
and diseases, and realizes that the microbes adapt faster than the
drug chemistry can evolve new treatments -- one realizes that the
microbes are going to win, if we do not change that basic approach.
As an example, with the present terrorist war, smallpox is
going to be unleashed as a terrorist strike.
It's not a matter of if, but a matter of when.
When that happens, then eventually that single release in a
major city anywhere on Earth is likely to kill off one-third the human
population. Some 2
billion is the estimate. And
that is only a single infectious disease unleashed in biological
warfare. Multiply that by
some of the other infectious and ravaging diseases that can and will
be unleashed, and you can see the result: three-quarters of the human
population is likely to be destroyed, and much of the earth laid
waste. So
that is what drives the moral imperative.
Even if we fail, the effort must be made to the best of one's
ability. There is no
shame in honestly failing, so long as we give it our very best shot. So
that's what we do. We
just keep giving it our very best shot, and hoping for the best. Best
wishes, Tom
Bearden
|