Nikola Tesla Inspired Treatment Protocols for Tinnitus?

Hey all,

Just finished this book. Dry reading as expected, but intriguing too:



I'd heard an interview recently discussing Nikola Tesla and his healing machines. With so much information out there on Tesla I decided to do a bit of a delve into Thomas Valone because I was aware of his interest in bio-electrics, and that he had kind of put the bits and pieces together about the health dimension of Tesla's work (albeit in a rather scattered way it has to be said).

The gist of what I have taken away and rightly or wrongly interpreted can be summed up in the following very simplifed few statements:

1. Tesla's assumption is that we are energy. I guess more directly, electrical energy vibrating at frequencies.

2. Tesla's work was about 'harnessing' the abundant 'free' energy of the universe and putting that into the service of man.

3. Much of Tesla's work revolved around his 'coils'; mechanical transformer devices that were able to generate incredible amounts of 'potential' energy (volts) that could be directed to carry out various work, including healing the human body by transferring energy where it is needed into unhealthy living beings and thus return them to homeostatis.

I'm always a bit dubious about these kind of grand, almost science-fiction, statements but Valone does discuss the idea of an 'unhealthy' living being from this perspective and how it ties in with Tesla's view when he cites the work of French-Russian inventor, Georges Lakhovsky.

In the 1920's Lakhovsky developed the idea that human cells vibrated at their own set frequencies. When a cell, or organism of cells become unwell, these resonant frequencies are changed. They become lower in frequency.

Lakhovsky built on Tesla's work and developed his Multi-Wave Oscillator (MWO), a device that utilised a Tesla coil to generate high voltages but differed by outputting these voltages at a broadband of frequencies that could in turn be directed at the human body. The theory being that any unhealthy cells would eventually return to their natural vibrational frequency through the process of resonance.

This makes perfect sense to me. And if you think about it, in a way it's what Susan Shore et al have stated they are trying to do through neuromodulation. The main difference being, whereas their devices make direct electrical contact with the body, the Lakhovsky/Tesla machine 'offers up' these frequencies within the treatment environment and allows the cells in the body to absorb them where needed and resonate.

Apparently the original Lakhovsky machines vanished into antiquity but bizarrely just a couple of years ago in 2019 three of them turned up in Italy. You can watch a video here of one of those machines being fired up. The website Multiwaveresearch contains a few more details and link to an eBook that purportedly also shows how to build a replica. More reading for me.

Evidently now the big question is could these machines treat or even cure tinnitus? Well... I've no idea frankly. But what I can say, however, is that I'm on a slow quest to find out!

 

Very informative, thanks for posting.

 

When you consider that neuroscientists like Rahul Jandial have accepted Tesla's view that, we are electricity vibrating at different frequencies, and when you think about procedures like DBS to modulate aberrant neuronal activity, then stuff like Lakhovsky's Tesla coil utilising Multiple Wave Oscillator doesn't seem that far-fetched (and this treatment doesn't come with the associated hole in one's head).

From the website: multiwaveresearch.com

The Multiple Wave Oscillator

He [Lakhovsky] realized that better results might be obtained by giving an oscillatory shock to all the cells of the body simultaneously. Such a very brief shock, produced by damped electrostatic waves, does not cause a prolonged thermal effect and therefore cannot injure the cells. Lakhovsky’s aim was to produce an oscillatory shock that would cause the diseased cells to oscillate aperiodically that is to say, not at a specific rate. At first sight, from a physical point of view, the problem seemed insoluble since the human body is made up of something like 200 quintillion cells, each oscillating at a specific rate, typical of its own cellular wavelength. Theoretically this implies the necessity of taking into account as many different wavelengths as there are cells in order that each cell may oscillate in accordance with its own physical-chemical constants.

After many experiments Lakhovsky succeeded in constructing an apparatus generating an electrostatic field in which all frequencies, from 3 meters to the infra-red region, could be produced. Hence, in this field, every cell could find its own frequency and vibrate in resonance. Moreover it is known that a circuit supplied by damped high frequencies currents gives rise to numerous harmonics. These considerations led Lakhovsky to invent an oscillator of multiple wavelengths in the field of which every cell, every organ, every nerve, every tissue, could find its own frequency. To this end he devised a diffuser consisting of a series of separated concentric oscillating circuits connected with one another by silk threads. Thus a type of oscillator was obtained giving all fundamental wavelengths from 10 cm to 400 meters, corresponding to frequencies of 750,000 to three milliards per second. In addition to this, each circuit emits numerous harmonics which, together with their fundamental waves, interference waves and effluvia, may extend as far as the infra-red and visible light regions (1-300 trillion vibrations per second).

As all cells and even their mitochondria are believed to oscillate within that range of frequencies, they are thus provided, in the field of such an oscillator, with the characteristic individual frequencies enabling them to vibrate in resonance.

In February 1931 Lakhovsky brought out his first Multiple Wave Oscillator representing a greatly improved innovation of his former apparatus, the Radio-cellular-oscillator , with which geraniums, bearing cancerous tumors, were successfully treated. From 1931 onwards, Lakhovsky’s new Multiple Wave Oscillator has been used in various Paris hospitals, notably Hospital Saint Louis, Val-de-Grace, Calvaire, Hospital Necker , Dispensary Franco-Britannique, etc.

The Multiple Wave Oscillator has also been used in most European countries and in America for the treatment of various organic diseases, including cancer. Since its inception in 1931, the Multiple Wave Oscillator has been applied by many workers and no contra-indications nor any harmful effects on patients or medical personnel have ever been reported. This is in striking contrast with short-wave therapy in general , X-rays and radium, whose application, particularly in the case of the latter , has not infrequently been followed by the most serious consequences.



The apparatus consists of a transmitter and a receiving resonator, both arranged so as to set up an electromagnetic field in their immediate vicinity. The patient is placed between the two oscillators separated from each other by a distance of about 0.8 to 1.5 meter. The current is then switched on and the apparatus functions instantly. The duration of treatment and number of applications depend on the state of the patient and the nature of the disease. Generally speaking, a quarter of an hour is sufficient for each application. Excellent results have been obtained by giving a session of five to seven minutes every other day, but some practitioners advise a longer application, from ten to fifteen minutes. It should be particularly noted that, unlike the average type of short-wave generator in use in medical practice, the Multiple Wave Oscillator cannot cause any injurious effects. As all the radiations generated by this apparatus are of an electric nature, they cannot overheat or burn the tissues.

 

Interesting. My mom has a biohealer and another friend has two. If we could all just afford a MedBed! Lol.

https://www.teslabiohealing.com/

 

Thanks for posting this. Has your mum noticed any benefit from using the biohealer?

Looks like an interesting device. I took quite a deep dive on their website but couldn't find any information about how the system actually generates the energy. Piecing stuff together I'm assuming it's a mixture of crystals or minerals??? (Your avatar's great by the way).

 

I'm not sure if she's got benefit from that. She got parathyroid disease and had surgery/recovered quickly. She also uses a PEMF mat from HealthyLine that helps too. In the beginning of tinnitus I had researched and heard a few anecdotal reports of people using PEMF and resolving their tinnitus from it.

 

Glad to hear your mum recovered quickly.

The PEMF machine is quite intriguing. I think there was a number of studies conducted in the early 2000's on tinnitus reduction efficacy, and if I'm not mistaken a few devices out on the market today discuss tinnitus treatment.

I think the thing with the PEMF is that the electro-magnetic frequencies are user-set. So I can imagine how this could work with some tinnitus sufferers where maladaptive cell frequencies lie within the certain pre-determined bandwidth. But for those cells where the resonant frequency lies outside the operational bandwidth I should imagine treatment could be a bit hit and miss.

It's actually the fact that the Lakhovsky machines transmit multiple frequencies simultaneously that really piqued my attention about them. I'm convinced a lot of the old pioneers got it right first time.

These and a whole bunch of other questions are what I want to ask Bruno Sacco from Italy who owns an original Lakhovsky machine. I'm going to try and reach out to him at some point but first have to get through the book he co-authored after reverse engineering his own MWO. I think the book is going to take a while to finish. Very dry reading!

 

Following on from the initial post, I have just finished reading this book. The technical data was dry as sand but absolutely worth the effort as I try and slowly develop my own ideas about tinnitus:

 

I need some help trying to understand the method of action of certain pharmaceutical products. If there are any biochemists, chemists, deep-dive researchers out there, please chip in!

For months now I've been following a line of thought. Is the cure to tinnitus and hyperacusis already out there? One research road now well-travelled is that of the electrical medicine loosely described in this thread.

A few days ago while also doing some research on various pharmacologies I began to gather some thoughts. I've seen mention of the method of action of pharmaceuticals. My understanding of one strand of this process (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is that researchers identify so-called receptors in the body that for reasons unbeknown to me are singled-out as candidates for the ingested medication to chemically bind to. The desired result being that some form of chemical balance or re-balancing is achieved and the underlying ailment treated.

The thing that stood out to me was a reference in one passage I was skipping through (sorry I can't link to it as I'm reading so much of this stuff it's getting difficult to keep track) to the role of chemical ions in this binding process.

If like me, you've ever wondered how an ingested chemical tablet can address an underlying malady then seeing the reference to chemical ions (in the context of the material I've been reading and citing earlier in this thread) this question suddenly began to make more sense. I think.

We know that chemical ions facilitate the transfer of electricity (consider the design of a car battery for example). Therefore (and this is where I need the information/correction/opinions), is it the case that these pharmacological interventions, particularly those that modulate the Sodium and Potassium channels in the human brain isn't actually a treatment in the chemical sense, but more a treatment in the electrical sense because the underlying mechanism of chemical action actually changes the electrical characteristics of the membranes and cells to which these additional ions bind to?

I realise this may come across as a kind of self-fulfilling statement but my understanding of the Lakhovsky Multi-Wave Oscillator mentioned in the prior post, and Lakhovsky's theories (backed up it has to be said by much supporting evidence), is that a recuperative, even regenerative (in the cellular energistic sense) state is achieved by supplying broadband electromagnetic energy to the human body. This allows those cells and networks of cells "ill" due to lowered operating voltages, (or transmembrane potential), to absorb the transmitted energy through the phenomenon of resonance and achieve their peak operating potential for which they are designed.

If this balance is ultimately what pharmacology is also trying to achieve, albeit through a chemical intervention process, then are the pharmacological method and Lakhovsky's similar, insofar as they're both actually trying to achieve the same thing but through fundamentally different approaches?

 

The above statement sets the stage I think.

The screengrab below is from a paper I found that is an overview of pharmacodynamics (PD) (or in plain English - what is really happening at the tissue level when we ingest chemical tablets).



For "biochemical activity" I read "electrical activity" as defined in the initial screengrab with respect to the human body that catalytically burns food in an electrolyte to produce energy.

The final underlined statement:

A drug-receptor interaction can open or close an ion channel across the cell membrane.

Again, I would read this drug-receptor interaction as being an electrical one. Having said that, these statements about opening and closing ion channels across the cell membrane are fundamental in the attempt to define a simple theoretical electrical model of why tinnitus occurs in some people and not others.

As I alluded to previously, we essentially stand at a fork in the road. I'm of the view that PD is ultimately an electrical therapy not a chemical one per se.

In one sense this is perfectly acceptable, however, the current use of pharmacologic interventions that leads to statements like this one (from the same paper):

In the future, network-based systems pharmacology models using ligand binding principles could be an effective way of understanding drug-related adverse effects. This will facilitate and strengthen the development of rational drug therapy in clinical practice.

is an industry admission I would suggest of the inelegant, even dangerous (to the patient), aspect of current chemical drug synthesis and many of the adverse effects it can cause. Remember, Trobalt turned some people's skin literally the colour blue before it was pulled from the shelf.

If, as I've suggested previously that current tinnitus drug therapy is essentially an electrical therapy then I'm tending towards the belief that the standalone electrical therapies (here I would not discount a more elegant use of rTMS) are the way forward (if for no other reason than they seem safer with less adverse effects).

At some point I'll be posting my own very basic theoretical model of tinnitus and why I believe a therapy like the Lakhovsky Multi-Wave Oscillator (of which there is an original in Italy) could be a realistic treatment in the case of tinnitus.

Meanwhile we do have ongoing development and improvement of rTMS systems (from @Christiaan's latest post) but I do think there are some very serious questions that need to be asked about their mode of treatment before considering their use.

 

Posting this recent "Higherside Chats" podcast interview with Clive De Carle.

Disclaimer: I've not managed to listen to the full 1 hour programme yet as I fell asleep to it last night (which I suppose is a good sign (!) - sometimes podcasts seem better for me masking for sleep than white noise). Having said that, I'm going to give it another listen tonight.

Clive and host chat about Nikola Tesla and his electric medicine machines, which I find fascinating and absolutely relevant to tinnitus. The simple electric medicine as described here is a lost art of the most elegant form I believe, and definitely something that should be revisited.

@Leila posted recently various similar historic work that she has been researching and there appears to be quite a bit of cross-reference to that here in this interview.

A quick note on Clive De Carle. A lot of what he states during the chat is anecdotal. He also sells various machines and wellness stuff and so I think he will likely get a bashing in some quarters who may perhaps view him as a charlatan or quack or whatever. The thing is this; I have uncovered many references (the Lakhovsky book from earlier in this thread for example) that cite various turn-of-the-centry European medical journals detailing many treatment successes of this kind of electrical therapy in a clinical setting. So I think that although Clive's accounts may sometimes sound a little too good to be true, they're not without merit if one is willing to dig deep enough.

 

It's funny but I keep circling back to the Lakhovsky oscillators below:



The transmitter/receiver coils transmit therapeutic broadband electromagnetic energy across the patient who sits in between. The theory is that the oscillator restores the lost energy discordant human cells need to operate at their correct frequency through the natural phenomenon of resonance.

In recent years, Gerald Neuwirth has been quietly moving forward with his own tinnitus tech and I can't help but notice similarities between his and Lakhovsky's work:

 

I love the cover of the book.

Tesla was certainly a genius and a man ahead of his time, but in terms of practical medical possibilities, I don't think that his coils (great fun at parties!) have done anything for anyone. Living beings are much, much more complicated than "energy", especially at the cellular level.

These sort of electrical devices have been beloved by quacks for ages. Many of their contraptions promised amazing healing results w/ glowing testimonials from people who were "healed", but none of this ever panned out once things were looked at scientifically.

If anything, electrical fields are known for creating cellular disruption and cell damage. Just living next to high voltage electrical lines is a cancer risk, and there is a similar concern w/ living too close to cell phone microwave towers. Despite a massive public relations push to paint cell phones as safe, there's a reason that governments have many stringent safety regulations for them.

My uncle Ralph was a physicist, and he once said something quite interesting. While we can observe electricity and measure it and work with it, no one actually knows what it is. Whenever I think of electrical discharges, I think of danger, not healing.

 

I think of both. That's the difference between you and me.

 

He is behind Ti-ex and Cleanhearing Sono (there is a thread here somewhere) which is CE approved and available in the UK.

 

There's much about him and his story that I find intriguing. Aside from the fact that he (like us poor buggers) suffered from tinnitus, his background as an electrical/mechanical engineer and inventor puts him in quite a favourable position when trying to crack this malady. Also he's not necessarily hindered by the kind of limitations affecting those operating in academia and so perhaps he can be a little more free and creative.

I also really like and respect the credentials of Dr. Herbert Bächler, one of the members of Cleanhearing's scientific advisory board. I firmly believe right now that electrical and electronic engineers are going to play a huge role in solving tinnitus. I actually listened again to the Brian Fargo Tinnitus Talk Podcast episode this morning, and it was quite telling to hear Dr. Djalilian make the comment that, we still don't know why some people with hearing damage get tinnitus, whilst others don't.

On that matter, I'm pretty convinced right now that we need to take a closer look at how the bio-electronic gating model might relate to tinnitus; so much so in fact that much of my own layman's research has been focused on this.

There's a really simple model of tinnitus that I'm putting together (again I should emphasise this is layman's stuff - I'm not a tinnitus/electronics expert) and intend to make a complete post about in time. Suffice to say, the model references real-world electronic gating systems but also mimics the report Dr. Djalilian made that introducing current into the round window shut 60% of his test patients' tinnitus off - not just turned down but turned off.

In pursuit of furthering these ideas I had thought it'd be great at some point to try and organise a round table podcast with experts in this space; again just as a layman to float or even brainstorm these concepts to see what kind of response they get. I'm prepared and perfectly happy to be told my ideas are junk but frankly at this point I don't care; it's an itch that needs scratching.

A while ago I contacted one of the authors of the Lakhovsky book listed in this thread to try and pave the way to conducting such an interview. Never got a response. But it's really encouraging that people like Dr. Djalilian will come and talk, and I do wonder whether going forward it might be more apt to invite Dr. Bächler for a conversation too because the particular gating model (and anecdotal evidence of Dr. Djalilian) that I think could be of interest will most definitely be something a man of Dr. Bächler's credentials will be aware of.

As I see it, Cleanhearing, Dr. Bächler, and Dr. Djalilian sit on either side of today's electricity based tinnitus treatment design. Dr. Djalilian's is electrical current based and shifts electrons down the auditory nerve by direct contact. Gerald Neuwirth's Sono system Dr Bächler advises on, however (so far as I can tell), is an electromagnetic treatment, which applies its effect essentially through aether.

Either way, I feel that each system is nurturing the same effect that is to introduce energy into an area of the brain that regulates a gating function that acts to block aspects of the auditory system (in this case unconscious neural noise) from conscious perception. Whether or not science will ever find a bio-marker for the origins of the dysfunction remains to be seen. For us going forward, however, I no longer believe it's necessary to solve this problem from the brain up. We just need a solid and reliable electromechanical treatment, a bit like a pacemaker I suppose.

 

Genuine question. If a person reports hearing phantom voices in their head, why doesn't their GP refer them to audiology?

 

I find Dr. Jack Kruse lively and interesting, and enjoyed this recent podcast. I took a look at his website and found a solitary blog about tinnitus that he published in 2017.

Aspects of that blog feed into much of my own thought regarding tinnitus this past few years, but this paragraph in particular is intriguing [my emphasis]:

 

Starting some notes. I'd like to try and speak to Dr. Kruse. If any member here can take the time to read his blog post from 2017 mentioned above, it will help me understand if I'm getting his points correctly. Anyhow, the notes...

=====================================

The blog post from 2017 is complex for a layman and discusses many different topics; however, if my broad understanding of Dr. Kruse's theory is correct, tinnitus forms because:

Widespread energy deficits in mitochondria reduce the activity of neurons. This alters the reflex arc between the cochlear and auditory cortex. The neurons lose their feedback control and begin to do things they would not usually do.

The point source for this altered energy flow lies in the external auditory canal, where skin melanin is. Skin melanin plays a role that has not yet (to my knowledge) been considered in tinnitus generation. In this proposition, it acts as a kind of transducer for sunlight—a 'pigment relay center.'

This system is finely tuned to the natural frequency range of sunlight. In fact, sunlight is the principle energy supply to it. Non-native EMF [nnEMF], like the frequencies from mobile phones, WiFi, etc, may be interfering with this process, flooding these circuits with a kind of 'dirty energy' that plays a role in tinnitus generation.

At this stage, there are some questions I would like to ask Dr. Kruse:

1. If nnEMF is a causal factor of tinnitus, how can it be that there are historical references to tinnitus dating back at least a couple of thousand years to a time when there was no nnEMF?
   
   
2. You've mentioned how ubiquitin marking and up-regulation to replace melanin cells in the external ear and cochlea might be indicated in tinnitus.
   
   You've also stated that;
   
   

It turns out that all the ENT researchers have to do to test my theory is look at the ubquitination rate of melanin cells in the external ear and cochlea to see if I am right in tinnitus.


   
   How straightforward is it for ENTs/tinnitus researchers to carry out that measurement?
   
   
3. You've mentioned that red blood cells [RBCs] have many antigens on them, which is possibly why tinnitus forms at different rates for different people. Is there a way to measure the RBCs of a cohort of tinnitus sufferers against controls to test this theory?