FindArticles > Original Internist > Sept, 2003 > Article > Print friendly
Effects of exposure to electromagnetic potential pulsed at the Schumann fundamental frequency on patients with chronic fatigue syndrome
Guy E. AbrahamAbstract
Objectives: The main objective of this study was to test R. O. Becker's postulate that electromagnetic (EM) pollution plays an important role in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).
Design: A total of 19 CFS patients, 14 with complaints of allergies, were recruited from a private practice and underwent an open trial of exposure for 12 weeks to a device called EM potential shield. This electronic device has been previously tested in patients with EM sensitivity and found to reverse symptoms of EM pollution. The following parameters were evaluated before starting the study and biweekly thereafter: overall well-being, pain, fatigue, brain fog, cognitive impact, physical impact, Romberg test, and tandem walking.
Results: Three different designs of the EM potential shield were tested for a duration of 4 weeks each consecutively and with continuous exposure. By 12 weeks of exposure, all the parameters evaluated were significantly improved above baseline value. The scores for overall well-being correlated best with the scores for brain fog, fatigue and cognitive impact, suggesting an important cognitive aspect of this syndrome. Out of four CFS patients who were totally disabled prior to intervention, all four had part-time work by the end of the study. All 14 CFS patients with allergies noticed a significant amelioration of symptoms with less need for allergy medications, at the end of the study.
Conclusion: The results support Becker's postulate that EM pollution plays an important role in CFS and offer a new technology for the management of this problem.
Introduction
A new syndrome associated with evidence of Epstein-Barr virus infection was reported in 1985, characterized by persistent illness with complaints of chronic fatigue, sore throat, tender lymph nodes, mild fever, inability to concentrate, depression and headache. (1) Allergies were present in 22 of 23 adult patients evaluated. Neurological symptoms were also observed in some patients. After Epstein-Barr and numerous other viruses were ruled out as the sole etiology, the term chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was coined and other symptomatologies covering the psychoneuro-endocrino-immunologic systems were added to the list of CFS symptoms. (2-4) A prevalence of up to 0.3% has been reported in the general population (5) and 1% in nurses. (6) The CDC has recently established criteria for the diagnosis of CFS. (7) Various treatment modalities have been tested, based on postulated etiologies: viral infection, immune abnormalities, metabolic dysfunction due to stress, and neuropsychiatric disturbances. (2-7)
Concurrent with reports describing CFS, another new syndrome with similar symptomatology to CFS was also reported, caused by exposure to manmade electromagnetic (EM) fields. (8-11) Allergy was a prominent features (8) similar to observation in CFS. The diagnosis was confirmed by exposing the patient to EM fields at different frequencies until the offending frequencies were found. The treatment consisted of exposing the patient to "neutralizing" EM frequencies. This new syndrome was called electrical sensitivity, (8) electrical hypersensitivity, (9) electromagnetic field sensitivity, (10) and electromagnetic hypersensitivity. (11) In this report, it will be called EM Sensitivity (EMS).
R. O. Becker has suggested that CFS symptomatology may be due to EM pollution. (11) If Becker's postulate is valid, one would expect treatment modalities effective in EMS to be also effective in CFS. Among the devices available for neutralizing the harmful effects of EM pollution, the most promising one is the "potential shield," an emitter of EM potential pulsed at the Schumann fundamental frequency of 7.83 Hz. (12) The concept of a potential shield against EM pollution evolved over the last 20 years from the synthesis of two discoveries: the importance of the Schumann fundamental as a pacemaker for synchronization of biological rhythms and the biological importance of the EM potentials as a mechanism of cellular communication. (12) The Schumann resonances, also called earth-ionosphere cavity resonances, are the naturally occurring low amplitude, low frequency EM spectrum predicted by W. O. Schumann 50 years ago and observed around the world over the last 40 years. (13) They are due to a ringing effect in the earth-ionosphere cavity of worldwide lightning which occurs 100 times every second. The wave length of the fundamental is roughly equal to the circumference of the earth. Human and animal brains will lock on the Schumann fundamental frequency in preference to higher and lower frequencies and use it as an external pacemaker for synchronization of biological rhythms. (14-20) The Schumann fundamental frequency has the most widespread coherence in certain parts of the brain and is implicated in orienting attention, memory processing, motivation, and coordination. (17) Studies in humans have shown the Schumann fundamental to be beneficial and to give a sense of well-being. (14-16) Several studies of healers reveal that during the few seconds when the healer is transmitting healing energy, his (or her) brain waves centered around 7-8 Hz, and the brain waves of the healer and patient became frequency and phase synchronized. In one study during the healing session, the healer's brain waves became both frequency and phase synchronized with the Schumann's fundamental 7.8 Hz of the earth-ionosphere cavity. (18-20)
EM radiations contain five quantities: the velocity of propagation, the electric and magnetic fields, and the electric scalar and the magnetic vector potentials. (21) EM potentials are generated by destructive interference of two EM fields of equal magnitude but out of phase by 180[degrees]. The information contained in the EM fields still exists in the EM potential, but hidden from detection by available EM measuring devices. However, EM potential energy results in biological effects in vitro and clinical effects in vivo. (21,22) If the EM potential information is imprinted into water by exposing water to the EM potential, further incubation of biological materials with this imprinted water will result in biological effects similar to those observed when these biological materials are exposed directly to the EM potentials. (22) Obviously, this observation has great clinical implications, since water could serve as a cartier of beneficial and harmful frequencies. Of interest is the observation that EM field information cannot be imprinted in water. Only the magnetic vector potential possesses this property. (21) Probably because of this property of EM potentials, transfer of bioinformation occurs via EM potentials not EM fields. The biocommunication between living organisms starts with EM fields in both directions which then cancel each other by destructive interference, leaving just the EM potential as the line of cellular communication. (21),(23) In vitro studies by Rein and collaborators, comparing the effect of EM fields with EM potentials pulsed at 8 Hz, reveal a greater biological effect of EM potentials. (22)
The "potential shield" results from combining the synchronizing and healing properties of the Schumann fundamental frequency with the greater biological effects of EM potentials over EM fields. Therefore, the potential mode of EM transmission is used in the pulsation of the Schumann fundamental frequency to maximize its cellular receptivity and effect. The potential shield used in the present study consists of a small battery operated unit, with a self-canceling, non-inductive coil as the emitting antenna. The cancellation of EM fields in this type of antenna results in the emission of both electric scalar and magnetic vector potentials. The radius of shielding was estimated at 3-4 feet, by its ability to reverse symptoms due to EM pollution. Tests in subjects with EMS revealed that a minimum power of 3 mW was required for effectiveness. Optimal power setting for shielding effect depended on the intensity of the environmental EM pollution. (12) After preliminary pilot studies in CFS patients aimed at optimizing the emitters for maximum beneficial effects in CFS, we evaluated the effect of exposure to electromagnetic potential pulsed at the Schumann fundamental frequency on 19 patients with CFS using three different designs of the emitter. The results obtained support Becker's postulate and offer a new technology for the management of CFS.
Materials and Methods
CFS patients were recruited from the private practice of one of us (PBH). All patients met the diagnostic criteria and exclusionary criteria proposed by the CDC in 1994. (7) There were 18 women and one man, all Caucasian. The age range was 28-58 years with a mean of 44.8 years. The mean duration of the disease was 6.5 years with a range from 1.5-8 years (Table I). Allergy was present in 14 of the 19 CFS patients.
After informed consent was obtained, a complete history, physical examination, blood chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis were performed and repeated every four weeks. Extensive evaluation of CFS symptomatology was performed prior to starting the research study and every two weeks thereafter. This presentation will focus on the following relevant parameters: overall well-being, pain, fatigue, brain fog, cognitive and physical impacts, the Romberg test, and tandem walking. Measures of overall well-being, pain, and fatigue were taken from the Modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire II; (24) measures of brain fog was abstracted from the scale of Zung; (25) measures of physical and cognitive performances were taken from Multi-dimensional Assessment of Fatigue Scale as developed by Gerber. (26) The neurological tests, tandem walking, and the Romberg test were used as described by DeJong. (27) Patients continued to take all medications used during the six months prior to the study, and no new medications or physical or psychological programs were introduced during the course of the study. At each session, patients were asked to comment upon any change in symptoms that they thought pertinent. Running commentary was recorded, and prominent statements made by each patient were included in the record.
Pilot studies of CFS patients exposed to the potential shield revealed that a power setting of 12 mW gave the best overall results when tests were done over a power range of 6-60 mW. The design used successfully in EMS (Unit I) was tested in 14 CFS patients in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study using EM field emitters as placebo, both set at 12 mW for an exposure duration of four weeks each. Although the results achieved statistical significance showing greater improvement of CFS patients exposed to EM potential emitters over placebo emitters (Table II), in our opinion, the difference was not large enough to be clinically relevant. We were mainly interested in clinical significance with obvious gain in functionality. Our goal was to induce normal cognitive and physical performances with the use of the potential shield in CFS patients in order to have convincing evidence for a causal relationship between EM pollution and CFS. The present open trial study was undertaken with that goal in mind. The 14 CFS patients who participated in the double-blind study were recruited after eight weeks of non-exposure to participate again in the open trial. Another five CFS patients were included for a total of 19 patients. Based on our previous experience with EM potential emitters in EMS, two different configurations of Unit I, namely Unit II and III were designed and manufactured. These three units were evaluated consecutively for a period of four weeks each. The power setting in all three configurations was 12mW. The CFS patients were told to keep the unit within three feet and to use it continuously. The effects of the three emitters on CFS symptomatology were evaluated and compared to each other by the Student's paired t test. In order to assess which parameters had the greatest impact on overall well-being, the Pearson correlation coefficient was the statistical tool used to correlate scores of overall well-being with those of the other parameters for both baseline values and also the scores obtained following 12 weeks of exposure to the EM potential emitters.
Results
The mean [+ or -] SE of all the parameters evaluated, are displayed in Table III, for baseline scores and after four weeks of continuous exposure to each of three different designs of the EM potential emitter. The statistical analysis of these data by Student's paired t test (Table IV) revealed significant improvement in all parameters studied following 12 weeks of exposure to the potential shield.
Overall Well-being: This parameter is an index of the quality of life and therefore reflects the cumulative effect of the treatment modalities on the other parameters evaluated. A score of 10 being the best, the mean baseline [+ or -] SE was 2.47[+ or -]0.48 and increased to 6.58[+ or -]0.48 after 12 weeks of exposure to the EM potential emitter. In essence, their quality of life improved 250%, from 25% to 66% of ideal. This improvement was functionally significant since four CFS patients who were totally disabled became well enough to work part time by 12 weeks of exposure.
Pain, Fatigue, and Brain Fog: The parameters of pain, fatigue, and brain fog were 20-25% of ideal prior to intervention and increased to 47%, 57%, and 67% of ideal respectively following 12 weeks of exposure to the EM potential shield. No published data are available in "normal" subjects evaluated with the same scoring method. The ideally and optimally healthy subject would be expected to score 10, but the score that would be considered "normal" is not available.
Cognitive and Physical Impacts: These two functional tests assess the impact of CFS on daily activities and response to treatment. A score of 40 being the worst and 0 being the best, the optimally healthy individual would be expected to score 0, but no data are available on the normal range of scores in average normal individuals. The mean baseline scores for cognitive and physical impacts were 27.9[+ or -]1.77 and 29.4[+ or -]1.71 and by 12 weeks of exposure to the EM potential emitters, these scores decreased to 21.6[+ or -]2.17 and 23.8[+ or -]2.0. After 12 weeks of intervention, there were significant improvements of 23% and 18% respectively for cognitive and physical impacts. Although the percent improvement seems small for these two parameters, it was enough to improve the overall well-being by 250%. These small improvements in cognitive and physical impacts allowed four previously totally disabled CFS patients to work part time, and the working CFS patients improved their activities by a mean of 16%.
Romberg and Tandem Walking: The mean scores for tests of balance and coordination improved two- to three-fold following exposure to EM potential and were normal (score of 0) in 14 CFS patients for the Romberg test and in 15 CFS patients for tandem walking at the end of the study.
Correlation with Overall Well-being: The use of the Pearson correlation coefficient to compare scores of overall well-being with the other parameters revealed a highly significant correlation with brain tog, cognitive impact, and fatigue (Table V). Physical impact correlated significantly with overall well-being for baseline values but no correlation was observed at 12 weeks of exposure to EM potential. Pain correlated but not as significantly as fatigue, cognitive impact, and brain fog. Romberg and tandem walking showed no correlation with overall well-being. The cognitive impairment in CFS patients seems subjectively assessed as the main cause of their disability and fatigue.
Performance of EM Potential Emitters: When comparing the effects of the three units on CFS patients, Unit III showed by far the greatest beneficial effects (Tables III and IV). This could be due to a cumulative effect, since Unit III was the last unit used by the patients. It is of interest to note however, that all 19 CFS patients chose Unit III as the one with the best performance.
Side Effects: No side effect was reported by any patient during any phase of this study.
Allergy Status: The 14 CFS patients with allergy reported a percent amelioration ranging from 5-90%, with a mean of 60% after 12 weeks of intervention. Decreased use or discontinuation of allergy medications was observed in all 14 CFS patients in spite of the fact that their range of activities increased significantly. For example, the following activities that would previously trigger an allergic reaction, a panic attack, and/or asthmatic attack, no longer did so after the CFS patients were exposed to Unit III: being in a elevator, staying in a hotel room, working under fluorescent lights, playing wind musical instruments, and walking their dogs.
Disability Status: At the onset of this study, four patients were totally disabled and at the time of completion of using Unit III for one month, all four were engaged in some part-time work or schoolwork. Out of 12 patients who were working on a full-time basis, all 12 increased their activities with a mean increase of 16%.
Discussion
The use of neutralizing frequencies to counteract the harmful effects of EM pollution is based on the observation that among EM frequencies resonant with biological systems, some are beneficial whereas others are harmful. (21) The EM neutralization procedure requires extensive testing first to identify the harmful frequencies and then screen the EM spectrum to find the corresponding beneficial frequencies. (9)
The potential shield, however, is based on the observation that the human brain can be comfortably entrained by the Schumann fundamental frequency, and will lock on this natural frequency in preference to higher and lower frequencies. (18) The exposure to the Schumann fundamental gives a sense of well-being and serves as an external pacemaker for synchronization of biological rhythm. (14-16) Since EM pollution is due to manmade EM energy with frequencies different than the Schumann fundamental, an emitter of EM potential pulsed at the Schumann fundamental would be expected to shield the human body from the harmful effects of EM pollution.
Our previous experience with the EM potential emitters in EMS patients confirmed the work of other investigators using similar devices as shields against EM pollution. (12),(22) The early models of EM potential emitters consumed a few microwatts of power and did not generate the magnetic vector potential which is very important for imprinting bioinformation into structured water of biological systems. (12),(21),(22) The results obtained with these early designs in a clinical setting as shields against EM pollution, were inconsistent and unpredictable, as reported by Rein and collaborators. (22) Since brain fog is a major symptom of EMS, we investigated the effect on this complaint of various electronic parameters, antenna designs, power supplies, and power settings. With optimization of the above variables, a minimum power of 6 milliwatts was required to consistently lift the brain fog in subjects with EMS in a work environment near video display terminals and with fluorescent lighting. During the course of our investigations on the effect of exposure to EM potential emitters in EMS sufferers, we became aware of Becker's work and his suggestion that EM pollution plays an important role in CFS, which is widespread in the electronic industry. (11) We tested this postulate by evaluating the effects of the EM potential shield in 19 CFS patients using three different configurations of the emitters for a total duration of 12 weeks.
The results of this study lend support to the hypothesis that EM pollution and its subsequent desynchronization of biological rhythms play a significant role in CFS. From a clinical perspective, these 19 patients were better able to function and had fewer complaints during periods of high stress and seasonal changes while using the EM potential shield, compared to other patients in the same medical practice not using these units, who reported more complaints during the same period of time. In three patients with severe headaches, placing the emitter near the head or under the pillow at night resulted in rapid elimination of this symptom. All 14 CFS patients who complained of allergies reported feeling better while exposed to EM potential emitters, mainly Unit III. Five who previously required inhalation therapy (albuterol) were able to function without it during the use of Unit III. This was unexpected and may point toward a common etiology for both CFS and allergies.
Since CFS is believed to be multifactorial in etiology, there are possibly multiple subsets of sensitizing factors in this syndrome. However, if there is one triggering factor, it would seem probable that every CFS patient would be exposed to it in different degrees. The results of the present study suggest that this triggering factor may be EM pollution and that CFS may be a form of EMS. A double-blind study is underway to validate these results. This new technology may find applications in other medical problems, such as allergies and immune dysfunctions, and we are currently investigating such possibilities.
Table 1
Demographic and clinical data on the two groups of CFS patients
EM Field EM Potential
(19 patients) (20 patients)
x [+ or -] SE x [+ or -] SE
Age 50.7 [+ or -] 1.8 54.2 [+ or -] 2.7
Height (inches) 65.5 [+ or -] 0.66 63.9 [+ or -] 0.60
Weight (lbs.) 74 [+ or -] 10 - 6 154.7 [+ or -] 8.8
Duration of Illness 3.7 [+ or -] 0.39 4.5 [+ or -] 0.7
(years)
Baseline Scores
1) Overall
Well-being 4.2 [+ or -] 0.5 5.1 [+ or -] 0.5
2) Pain 3.9 [+ or -] 0.6 4.8 [+ or -] 0.5
3) Fatigue 3.4 [+ or -] 0.5 4.0 [+ or -] 0.6
4) Brain Fog 4.1 [+ or -] 0.5 5 [+ or -] 0.5
5) Cognitive Impact 25 [+ or -] 2 24 [+ or -] 2
6) Physical Impact 27 [+ or -] 1.6 25 [+ or -] 1.6
7) Romberg Test 0.47 [+ or -] 0.2 0.45 [+ or -] 0.19
8) Tandem Walking 0.6 [+ or -] 0.2 0.9 [+ or -] .25
p value
Age NS
Height (inches) <.05
Weight (lbs.) NS
Duration of Illness NS
(years)
Baseline Scores
1) Overall
Well-being NS
2) Pain NS
3) Fatigue NS
4) Brain Fog NS
5) Cognitive Impact NS
6) Physical Impact NS
7) Romberg Test NS
8) Tandem Walking NS
Table II
Effect of Exposure to EM Field (Placebo) and EM Potential (Unit I)
on Some Selected Symptoms in 14 Patients with CFS
Parameter Evaluated Baseline Placebo
x [ + or - ] SE x [ + or - ] SE
Overall
Well-being ** 3.7 [ + or - ] 0.4 3.9 [ + or - ] 0.3
Pain 2.9 [ + or - ] 0.45 4.2 [ + or - ] 0.59
Fatigue 3.4 [ + or - ] 0.41 3.9 [ + or - ] 0.5
Brain Fog 3.0 [ + or - ] 0.48 4.1 [ + or - ] 0.56
Cognitive Impact 29.6 [ + or - ] 1.6 27.7 [ + or - ] 1.7
Physical
Impact ** 31.9 [ + or - ] 1.5 30.4 [ + or - ] 1.6
Romberg Test * 2.4 [ + or - ] 0.23 1.6 [ + or - ] 0.25
Tandem Walking * 0.71 [ + or - ] 0.22 1.0 [ + or - ] 0.21
Unit I Placebo vs. Unit I
x [ + or - ] SE t p
Overall
Well-being ** 4.7 [ + or - ] 0.2 4.1 0.001 **
Pain 3.8 [ + or - ] 0.7 0.5 0.62
Fatigue 4.2 [ + or - ] 0.62 1.0 0.33
Brain Fog 3.7 [ + or - ] 0.57 1.2 0.26
Cognitive Impact 25.4 [ + or - ] 2.2 1.6 0.14
Physical
Impact ** 26.6 [ + or - ] 1.7 3.7 0.003 **
Romberg Test * 0.93 [ + or - ] 0.17 2.2 0.045 *
Tandem Walking * 0.64 [ + or - ] 0.2 2.7 0.019 *
* = p value less than 0.05
** = p value less than 0.01
Table III
Effect of Exposure to Electromagnetic Potential Energy from 3
Different Emitters on Some Selected Symptoms in 19 Patients with CFS
Parameter Evaluated Baseline Unit I
x [+ or - ] SE x [+ or - ] SE
Overall Well-being * 2.47 [+ or - ] 0.48 4.96 [+ or - ] 0.55
Pain * 2.25 [+ or - ] 0.38 4.04 [+ or - ] 0.47
Fatigue * 2.16 [+ or - ] 0.23 3.18 [+ or - ] 0.38
Brain Fog* 2.6 [+ or - ] 0.4 4.75 [+ or - ] 0.42
Cognitive Impact ** 27.9 [+ or - ] 1.77 23.1 [+ or - ] 1.8
Physical Impact ** 29.4 [+ or - ] 1.71 24.3 [+ or - ] 1.71
Romberg Test *** 0.79 [+ or - ] 0.22 0.84 [+ or - ] 0.22
Tandem Walking *** 1.05 [+ or - ] 0.26 0.53 [+ or - ] 0.19
Parameter Evaluated Unit Unit
x [+ or - ] SE x [+ or - ] SE
Overall Well-being * 4.84 [+ or - ] 0.58 6.58 [+ or - ] 0.48
Pain * 4.46 [+ or - ] 0.49 5.7 [+ or - ] 0.59
Fatigue * 4.27 [+ or - ] 0.45 4.74 [+ or - ] 0.48
Brain Fog * 4.49 [+ or - ] 0.51 6.5 [+ or - ] 0.51
Cognitive Impact ** 22.7 [+ or - ] 2.24 21.6 [+ or - ] 2.17
Physical Impact ** 22.8 [+ or - ] 1.92 23.8 [+ or - ] 2.0
Romberg Test *** 0.74 [+ or - ] 0.21 0.37 [+ or - ] 0.16
Tandem Walking *** 0.68 [+ or - ] 0.22 0.37 [+ or - ] 0.18
* = Analog scale: 0 = worse; 10 = best
** = Whole number scoring: 0 = best; 40 = worse
*** = Whole number scoring: 0 = best; 3 = worse
Table IV
Statistical Evaluation of Data in Table III
Baseline Baseline
vs Unit I vs Unit II
Parameter Evaluated t p t p
Overall Well-being 3.6 0.002 4.0 0.001
Pain 3.3 0.004 4.2 <0.001
Fatigue 2.3 0.033 5.2 <0.001
Brain Fog 5.6 <0.001 4.8 <0.001
Cognitive Impact 4.4 <0.001 4.4 <0.001
Physical Impact 3.9 0.001 6.0 <0.001
Romberg Test 0.37 0.72 0.37 0.72
Tandem Walking 3.3 0.004 2.1 0.049
Baseline UNIT I
vs Unit III vs Unit II
Parameter Evaluated t p t p
Overall Well-being 7.9 <.001 0.19 0.85
Pain 6.6 <0.001 0.87 0.40
Fatigue 5.5 <0.001 2.7 0.016
Brain Fog 8.4 <0.001 0.51 0.62
Cognitive Impact 7.7 <0.001 0.44 0.66
Physical Impact 4.3 <0.001 1.0 0.32
Romberg Test 3.0 0.007 0.81 0.43
Tandem Walking 4.4 <0.001 1.8 0.083
UNIT I UNIT II
vs Unit III vs Unit III
Parameter Evaluated t p t p
Overall Well-being 3.1 0.007 4.9 <.001
Pain 2.4 0.03 2.0 0.062
Fatigue 3.8 0.001 1.3 0.22
Brain Fog 5.0 <.001 5.9 <.001
Cognitive Impact 1.2 0.27 0.92 0.37
Physical Impact 0.25 0.82 0.62 0.55
Romberg Test 3.4 0.003 3.2 0.005
Tandem Walking 1.8 0.083 2.9 0.01
Table V
Correlation between the Scores for Overall Well-being
and the Scores for the Other 7 Parameters Studied during
Baseline Values and Following 12 Weeks of Exposure to EM Potential
in 19 CFS Patients
Baseline After 12 weeks of exposure
to EM potential
Parameter PCC * p Value PCC * p Value
Pain .517 .023 .532 .019
Fatigue .758 <.001 .705 .001
Brain Fog .634 .004 .646 <.001
Physical .618 .005 .336 .160
Cognitive .515 .024 .626 .004
Romberg .192 .43 .145 .555
Tandem Walking .105 .669 .343 .160
* PCC = Pearson Correlation Coefficient
REFERENCES
1) Straus SE, Tosato G, Armstrong G, et al. "Persisting illness and fatigue in adults with evidence of Epstein-Barr virus infection." Ann Itern Med, 1985; 102:7-16.
2) Straus SE. "History of chronic fatigue syndrome." Rev Infect Dis, 1991; 13:52-57.
3) Lloyd AR, Wakefield D, Boughton CR, and Dwyer JM. "Immunological abnormalities in the chronic fatigue syndrome." Med J Aust, 1989; 151:122-4.
4) Kruesi MJP, Dale J, and Straus SE. "Psychiatric diagnoses in patients who have chronic fatigue syndrome." J Clin Psychiatry, 1989; 50:53-6.
5) Buchwald D, Umali R, and Umali D. "Chronic fatigue and the chronic fatigue syndrome: Prevalence in a Pacific Northwest health care system." Ann Intern Med, 1995: 123:81-88.
6) Jason LA, Taylor SL, and Johnson S. "Prevalence of chronic fatigue syndrome-related symptoms among nurses." Eval Health Prof, 1993; 16:385-399.
7) Fukuda K, Strauss SE, and Hickie I. "The chronic fatigue syndrome: A comprehensive approach to its definition and study." Ann Intern Med, 1994; 21:953-959.
8) Choy RYS, Monro JA, and Smith CW. "Electrical sensitivities in allergy patients." Clinical Ecology, 1987; 4:93-102.
9) Smith CW, Choy RYS, and Monro JA. "The diagnosis and therapy of electrical hypersensitivities." Clinical Ecology, 1990; 6:119-128.
10) Rea WJ, Pan Y, Fenyves EJ, and Sujisawa I. "Electromagnetic field sensitivity." J of Bioelectricity, 1991; 10:241-256.
11) Becker RO. Cross Current. The Promise of Electromedicine. The Perils of Electropollution. Penguin Putnam, NY, 1990; 252-253.
12) Abraham GE. Potential Shields Against Electromagnetic Pollution. Optimox Corp. Publications, Torrance, CA, 1999; 1-33.
13) Sentman DD. "Schumann resonances." In: CRC Handbook of Atmoshperic Electrodyamics. Han Volland, editor. CRC Press Boca Raton, 1995; 267-295.
14) Wever R. Circadian Rhythms of Human Subjects, in Static and ELF Electromagnetic Fields, Biological Effects and Dosimetry. Grandolfo M, Michaelson SM, and Rindi A. editors. New York: Plenum, 1985; 477-523.
15) Wever R. "Human Circadian rhythms under the influence of weak electric fields and the different aspects of these studies." Intl J Biometeorology, 1973; 17:227-32.
16) Wever R. The Circadian System of Man-Results of Experiments Under Temporal Isolation. Springer, Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, 1979.
17) Bullock TH, Buzsaki G, and McClune MC. "Coherence of compound field potentials reveals discontinuities in the CaiSubiculum of the hippocampus in freely-moving rats." Neuroscience, 1990; 38:609-619.
18) Beck RC. "Mood modification with ELF magnetic fields: A preliminary exploration." Archaeus, 1986; 4:47-77.
19) Puharich A. "Changes in global weather and biological systems, with a review of the biological effects of ELF radiation from Tesla to the present." Archaeus, 1984; 2:51-69.
20) Zimmerman J. "Laying-on-of-hands healing and therapeutic touch: A testable theory." Newsletter of the Bio-Electro-Magnetics Institute, 1990; 2:8-17.
21) Smith CW. "Is a living system a macroscopic quantum system?" Frontier Perspectives. 1998; 7:9-15.
22) Rein G. Quantum Biology: Healing With Subtle Energy. Quantum Biology Research Labs, Northport, NY, 1992.
23) Popp FA. "Biophotons and their regulatory role in cells." Frontier Perspectives, 1998; 7:13-22.
24) Pincus T, Summey JA, and Soraci SA, Jr. "Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified stanford health assessment questionnaire." Arthritis Rheum, 1983; 26:1346-53.
25) McDowell I and Newell C. Measuring Health-A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Oxford University Press. Inc., NY, 1987; 249-252.
26) Belza BL. "Comparison of self-reported fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis and controls." Journal of Rheumatology, 1995; 22:639-643.
27) DeJong RN. The Neurologic Examination. Harper & Row, NY. 1967; 524-559.
Guy E. Abraham, MD, is a former Professor of obstetrics, Gynecology and Endocrinology at the UCLA School of Medicine. Some 35 years ago, he pioneered the development of assays to measure minute quantities of steroid hormones in biological fluids. He has been honored as follows: General Diagnostic Award from the Canadian Association of Clinical Chemists, 1974; the "Medaille d'Honneur" from the University of Liege, Belgium. 1976; the Senior Investigator Award of Pharmacia, Sweden, 1980; The applications of Dr. Abraham's techniques to a variety of female disorders have brought a notable improvement to the understanding and management of these disorders. Twenty years ago, Dr. Abraham developed nutritional programs for women with premenstrual tension syndrome and post menopausal osteoporosis. They are now the most commonly used dietary programs by American obstetricians and gynecologists. Dr. Abraham's current research interest includes the adverse effects of electromagnetic (EM) pollution on mental and physical performances. He has made available a small battery-operated unit that serves as a shield against EM pollution.
Peter B. Himmel, MD, is a board certified internist and rheumatologist who specialized in fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. Christine L. Fagan is a psychotherapist and research associate of Dr. Himmel.
COPYRIGHT 2003 Original Internist, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Gale Group