Download Scientific Evaluation of Aulterra`s cell phone neutralizer

WinStar Ventures, LLC
The
RADIATION PROTECTION Store
Website: www.cpneutralizer.com
Email: [email protected]
Voice Mail: (800) 429-0176
Presents
Clarification and scientific evaluation of Aulterra’s cell phone Neutralizer:
1. In reference to Dean’s query about measuring the radiation from the cell phones:
We are aware that the standard method (SAR) for assessing the efficacy of cell phone (CP) “blockers” involves
measuring the intensity of the radiation emitted by the CP in the presence and absence of the blocker. A
reduction in the incident radiation would reduce the resultant effect on a biological system. Since most
commercially available blockers reflect or absorb CP radiation, the SAR is clearly an appropriate method.
However, when dealing with new technologies, which are not expected to reflect or absorb CP radiation, it
seems more logical to measure the biological response to the CP radiation. This approach was taken in the
Quantum Biology Laboratories study of the Aulterra neutralizer, which demonstrated the neutralizer’s ability to
reverse the detrimental effects of CP radiation on human DNA (Rein, 2002). Although the mechanism of action
of the Aulterra neutralizer is unknown we do not believe it involves reflection or absorption of CP radiation. We
believe that there are two plausible explanations for these results.
As proposed by Frohlich (1988), let us consider a resonant interaction between two oscillators: the CP as the
primary source and some intrinsic oscillator within the biological system. The addition of the Aulterra’s
Neutralizer to such a system can be considered as a second radiation source. A separate series of experiments by
the Quantum Biology Research Lab has demonstrated that Aulterra’s technology contains and emits an intrinsic
weak, non-classical electromagnetic (EM) field, which modulates hydrogen bonds holding together the tertiary
structure of DNA (Rein, 2001). Therefore, the addition of a second radiation source to a system of interacting
oscillators will either:
modulate some property of the biological system,
modulate the primary radiation source or
modulate the interaction between the primary source and the biological system.
In all cases, the net result is an altered biological response to the primary radiation source, which was in fact
observed experimentally. We believe the most plausible explanation involves a direct effect of Aulterra’s
intrinsic fields to modulate the biological system. In addition to DNA modulating effects of Aulterra’s intrinsic
fields, biological effects of non-classical EM energy have been recently reported and reviewed (Rein, 1998).
There is also a scientific rationale for an interaction between Aulterra’s intrinsic field and the CP radiation
(mechanism #2), although classical physics does not acknowledge the ability of two superimposed fields to
interact. Because of the weak and non-classical nature of the neutralizer’s intrinsic energy, it is unlikely that
such an interaction would result in a decrease in the intensity of the CP radiation. However, a subtle modulation
of its properties is plausible. Some experimental studies indicate the anomalous interaction between two
Dr. Rein’s Reponses to Questions
Page 1 of 3
superimposed fields. The first report of such an interaction demonstrated that a secondary crossbeam of visible
light could neutralize the biological effects (induction of glutamate-pyruvate-transaminase activity by
pretreatment of the substrate alanine) produced by a primary beam of visible light (Comorosan, 1980). The
second report demonstrated an interaction between a coherent and an incoherent magnetic field. In this case, the
biological effect (induction of ornithine decarboxylase) produced by the primary coherent magnetic field could
be neutralized or enhanced depending on the magnitude of the secondary superimposed incoherent field
(Litovitz, 1994; Farrell, 1998). Based on these observations, a marketing claim was developed that states the
plausible hypothesis that the neutralizer renders CP radiation coherent and harmless. This statement however is
somewhat simplistic, since it is more likely that we are dealing with a superposition of incoherent and coherent
radiation resulting in an inhibition of the biological effects of CP radiation.
2. In reference to Dean’s query about controlled experiment and differences compared:
Although these experiments did not involve “measuring the radiation with and without the neutralizer, they
were done measuring a biological effect with and without the neutralizer in a controlled manner. Since it was
unknown what effect the neutralizer would have on the CP and how “reversible” such an effect would be, a
series of 8 separate experiments were first done using the CP without the neutralizer. Then with the neutralizer
in place, the exact same procedure was followed in 6 separate additional experiments. Furthermore, an
additional series of 6 separate control experiments were done in the ambient environment in the laboratory,
before any CP radiation was introduced. The “differences” between these sets of experimental data were indeed
compared (relative to the control set) and analyzed for statistical significance using the standard two-sample ttest.
3. In reference to Dean’s query that the CP should be used on the live, send-receive mode:
In studying the biological effects of electromagnetic (EM) radiation, most contemporary researchers do not use
actual cell phones under “live” field conditions. Instead, in an attempt to isolate the “active components”, the
standard operating procedure for in vitro studies involves the use of EM field generators tuned to specific
frequencies known to be emitted from these devices. Since CPs emit a complex (and often synergistic)
combination of principle and harmonic frequencies, this common practice of using simulated EM fields is only
a rough estimate of the complex “live” conditions. The use of actual cell phones in the Aulterra study allows a
far more accurate assessment of the damaging effects of cell phones. It is also important to note that the cell
phone was intentionally used in a standby mode to simulate EM emission intensities users are chronically
exposed to throughout the day. Much higher intensities occur when cell phones are actually in use.
Dr. Rein’s Reponses to Questions
Page 2 of 3
References:
Comorosan, S., Tiron, V., Hristea, M., et. al. "Interaction of water with irradiated molecules: a new physical
aspect" Physiol. Chem. & Physics 1980; 12:497-508.
Farrell JM, Barber M, Kause, D. et. al. "The superposition of a temporally incoherent magnetic field inhibits 60
Hz-induced changes in the ODC activity of developing chick embryos" Bioelectromagnetics 1998; 19:53-6.
Frohlich, H. "Theoretical physics and biology" In: Biological Coherence and Response to External Stimuli,
Frohlich, H. (ed.), Berlin, Springer-Verlar, 1988, 1-24.
Livovitz, T. A., Montrose, C. J., Doinov, P. et. al. "Superimposing spatially coherent electromagnetic noise
inhibits field-induced abnormalities in developing chick embryos" Bioelectromagnetics 1994; 15:105-13.
Rein G. “Biological effects of quantum fields and their role in the natural healing process” Frontier Sciences
1998; 7:16-23.
Rein, G. "Conformational changes in human DNA characterize the radiated energy from the Aulterra
formulation" (Internal report, 2001).
Rein, G. "The ability of the Aulterra Neutralizer to reverse the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields
generated from cell phones on human DNA" (Internal report, 2002).
Glen Rein, Ph.D.
Quantum Biology Research Lab
Northport, NY
[email protected]
WinStar Ventures, LLC
The
RADIATION PROTECTION Store
Website: www.cpneutralizer.com
Email: [email protected]
Voice Mail: (800) 429-0176
Dr. Rein’s Reponses to Questions
Page 3 of 3