Microwave - and other forms of electromagnetic - radiation are major (but conveniently disregarded, ignored, and overlooked) factors in many modern unexplained disease states. Insomnia, anxiety, vision problems, swollen lymph, headaches, extreme thirst, night sweats, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, muscle pain, weakened immunity, allergies, heart problems, and intestinal disturbances are all symptoms found in a disease process the Russians described in the 70's as Microwave Sickness.
L-Lysine for Electrosensitivity (ES) // Electrohypersensitivity (EHS)?
Recently I started to take L-lysine supplements and also started to try eat foods high in L-lysine and low in L-arginine and L-glutamine under the premise that EMFs weaken the immune system, which in turn stimulate the activation of a number of viruses in the Herpes family (e.g. Herpes Zoster, Epstein Barr Virus, Cytomegalovirus, etc.), candida, (and other pathogens) — and L-lysine(indirectly) has been shown to inhibit a number of Herpes Family Viruses, while L-arginine, on the other hand, stimulates these Herpes Family viruses, and there is some evidence suggesting that glutamine can stimulate candida. <http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/80/1/143.full.pdfhttp://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/80/1/143.full.pdf>. <http://www.astrologyzine.com/health/yeast-infections.shtml>Some bakers are known to add MSG when making bread to stimulate the yeast to grow.
Having said that, there are so many factors involved in this condition. While I had pretty much recovered from the most severe symptoms I had been experiencing when I was first got extremely living in the vicinity of a number of cell towers, by having done a number of things, I was still plagued by more minor symptoms like allergies, etc. I think that the L-lysine is now helping with the latter — unless of course it is something else completely. Initially, ten years ago when I was very very sick, I initially did things like chelation therapy, Q-going, acupuncture, Transfer Factors, antioxidants, etc. and all these things helped. Hence, I am not sure how much just taking L-lysine alone might for example help someone who has severe heavy metal toxicity and multiple infections. It would be interesting to see though. I would guess that it might be more beneficial for some people with mild ES and that people with severe ES might not notice any — or just slight — changes.
I am amazed at how good I feel. Symptoms are pretty much all gone. Perhaps this is part of the key to the problem and part of the cure. Something I am adding to my essential supplement list of magnesium, and GABA from sprouted rice milk, tryptophan from bananas, and whey powder (for making glutathione).
Given that nitric oxide (NO) overproduction is a cornerstone of Dr. Martin Pall's research/theory where EMF leads to Calcium Influx leads to nitric oxide production leads to peroxynitrite and other free radical production, the following research study shows that L-lysine indirectly limits NO production, which should in theory help prevent or inhibit the vicious cycle initially stimulated by EMFs.
1Institute of Pathophysiology, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
1. An enhanced production of nitric oxide (NO) from L-arginine, related to the diffuse expression of an inducible NO synthase (iNOS), contributes to the pathogenesis of endotoxic shock. Since iNOS activity depends on extracellular L-arginine, we hypothesized that limiting cellular L-arginine uptake would reduce NO production in endotoxic shock. We investigated the effects of L-lysine, an inhibitor of L-arginine uptake through system y+, on NO production, multiple organ dysfunction and lactate levels, in normal and endotoxaemic rats. 2. Anaesthetized rats challenged with intravenous lipopolysaccharide (LPS, 10 mg kg[-1]) received a 5 h infusion of either L-lysine (500 micromol kg(-1) h(-1), n = 12) or isotonic saline (2 ml kg(-1) h(-1), n = 11). In rats treated with saline, LPS produced a large increase in plasma nitrate and L-citrulline concentrations at 5 h, both markers of enhanced NO production. LPS also caused severe hypotension, low cardiac output and marked hyperlactataemia. All these changes were significantly reduced by L-lysine administration. 3. Endotoxaemia also caused a significant rise in the plasma levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALAT), lipase, urea and creatinine, and hence, liver, pancreatic and renal dysfunction. These changes tended to be less pronounced in rats treated with L-lysine, although the differences did not reach statistical significance. 4. Similar experiments were conducted in 10 rats challenged with LPS vehicle in place of LPS and then treated with L-lysine (500 micromol kg(-1) h(-1), n = 5) or saline (2 ml kg(-1) h(-1), n = 5) for 5 h. In these animals, all the haemodynamic and metabolic variables remained stable and not statistically different between both treatment groups, except for a slight rise in ALAT, which was comparable in L-lysine and saline-treated rats. 5. In conclusion, L-lysine, an inhibitor of cellular L-arginine uptake, reduces NO production and exerts beneficial haemodynamic effects in endotoxaemic rats. L-lysine also reduces hyperlactataemia and tends to blunt the development of organ injury in these animals. Contrastingly, L-lysine has no effects in the absence of endotoxin and thus appears to act as a selective modulator of iNOS activity.
Anyway, I am presently taking 1000 mg three times a day (for a total of 3000 mg). I would like to enlist a number of people suffering from ES/EHS to give taking this supplement at this amount (or more) — combined with a strict diet — a try and see if there is any positive benefits to their symptoms. Contact me if you are interested in participating in such an ad-hoc trial.
Some other L-lysine pubmed studies of related interest:
Our earlier observations showed that L-lysine enhanced the activity of diazepam against seizures induced by pentylenetetrazol (PTZ), and increased the affinity of benzodiazepine receptor binding in a manner additive to that caused by gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). The present paper provides additional evidence to show that L-lysine has central nervous system depressant-like characteristics. L-lysineenhanced [3H]flunitrazepam (FTZ) binding in brain membranes was dose-dependent and stimulated by chloride, bromide and iodide, but not fluoride. Enhancement of [3H]FTZ binding by L-lysine at a fixed concentration was increased by GABA but inhibited by pentobarbital between 10(-7) to 10(-3)M. While GABA enhancement of [3H]FTZ binding was inhibited by the GABA mimetics imidazole acetic acid and tetrahydroisoxazol pyridinol, the enhancement by pentobarbital and L-lysine of [3H]FTZ binding was dose-dependently increased by these two GABA mimetics. The above results suggest that L-lysine and pentobarbital acted at the same site of the GABA/benzodiazepine receptor complex which was different from the GABA binding site. The benzodiazepine receptor antagonist imidazodiazepine Ro15-1788 blocked the antiseizure activity of diazepam against PTZ. Similar to pentobarbital, the anti-PTZ effect of L-lysine was not blocked by Ro15-1788. Picrotoxinin and the GABA, receptor antagonist bicuculline partially inhibited L-lysine's enhancement of [3H]FTZ binding with the IC50s of 2 microM and 0.1 microM, respectively. The convulsant benzodiazepine Ro5-3663 dose-dependently inhibited the enhancement of [3H]FTZ binding by L-lysine. This article shows the basic amino acid L-lysine to have a central nervous system depressant characteristics with an anti-PTZ seizure activity and an enhancement of [3H]FTZ binding similar to that of barbiturates but different from GABA.
We have previously shown that mice lacking inducible NO synthase are markedly more susceptible to Leishmania major infection but developed a significantly enhanced Th1 cell response compared with wild-type mice. Furthermore, at high concentrations, NO inhibited IL-12 synthesis by activated macrophages, thereby indirectly suppressing the expansion of Th1 cells. We report here that at low concentrations, NO selectively enhanced the induction of Th1 cells and had no effect on Th2 cells. NO exerted this effect in synergy with IL-12 during Th1 cell differentiation and had no effect on fully committed Th1 cells. NO appears to affect CD4(+) T cells directly and not at the antigen-presenting cells. These results therefore provide an additional pathway by which NO modulates the immune response and contributes to the homeostasis of the immune system.
Pregnancy Outcomes After Parental Cell Phone Exposure: Norwegian Mother/Child Prospective Study
Joel's comments: The authors dismiss two outcomes associated with parental cell phone use during pregnancy. First, perinatal mortality was greater (with borderline significance) for expectant fathers whose testes were regularly exposed to cell phone radiation (relative risk = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.00 - 3.15) (or about 90 per 1,000 deaths vs. 50 per 1,000) as compared to fathers with no exposure to the head or testes. Second, pregnant women were less likely to develop preeclampsia during pregnancy if the father's testes were regularly exposed to cell phone radiation (relative risk = 0.73, 95 % CI = 0.54 - 0.99) (or 2.7% vs. 3.7%) as compared to fathers with no exposure to the head or testes.
The study had several major weaknesses which may have contributed to the absence of other perinatal effects: the assessment of cell phone use relied on crude self-reported measures; cordless phone use was not assessed, and only a few potential confounders were examined. Moreover, there may have been few heavy cell phone users in the "high" exposure group in this prospective study.
Prospective Study of Pregnancy Outcomes After Parental Cell Phone Exposure: The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study
Baste V, Oftedal G, Møllerløkken OJ, Mild KH, Moen BE. Prospective Study of Pregnancy Outcomes After Parental Cell Phone Exposure: The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. Epidemiology. 2015 Apr 22. [Epub ahead of print]
BACKGROUND: Research about prenatal exposure to electromagnetic fields from cell phones among expectant parents and reproductive outcome is limited. The aim of this article is to investigate the association between pregnancy outcome and parental cell phone exposure in a large prospective study.
METHODS: The study was based on the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study conducted during the decade 1999-2009. In that study, pregnant women were recruited before a routine ultrasound examination during gestational week 15; they answered a questionnaire at that time and again around gestational week 30. The expectant father was invited to answer a questionnaire during gestational week 15 (2001-2009). The forms contained questions regarding cell phone use. The response rate was 38.7% and the cohort comprised 100,730 singleton births. Pregnancy outcomes were obtained by linkage to the Medical Birth Registry of Norway.
RESULTS: The risk of preeclampsia was slightly lower among women with medium and high cell phone exposure compared with low exposure after adjusting for potential confounders. Fathers with testis exposure when using cell phones had a borderline increased risk of perinatal mortality among offspring and a slightly decreased risk of partner developing preeclampsia during pregnancy compared with no cell phone exposure of head or testis. None of the other pregnancy outcomes was associated with cell phone exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between maternal prenatal or paternal preconceptional cell phone exposure and any of the studied pregnancy outcomes. The only risk estimate suggesting a potential increased risk was not consistent with other findings.
Brain cancer has been the main health concern regarding cell phone use due to the placement of the cell phone close to the head during calls, but other issues such as headache, concentration, and behavioral problems have also raised concern ... exposure of the brain regions of young children to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields can be 1.6 to three times higher than exposure of regions in adult brains ... there is no agreement about adverse health effects related to radiofrequency fields at exposure intensities that do not cause a detectable increase in tissue temperature, except for reactions mediated by free radical pairs. Still, the IARC report states that it is likely that not all mechanisms of interaction between weak radiofrequency fields and biological structures have been discovered or characterized.
... Studies of cell phone exposure among pregnant women are sparse, but a few regarding behavioral problems in children after mothers’ cell phone use during pregnancy have been published.
Cell phone use and the possible effect on semen parameters have been studied among men attending fertility clinics. These studies suggest an association between prolonged cell phone use and adverse sperm motility, whereas results concerning other sperm parameters differed among the studies ...
Occupational studies among both men and women exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields show some adverse reproductive outcomes, but the results are not homogeneous ...
The [Norwegian] cohort includes more than 100,000 pregnancies. Of the total number of invited women, 38.7% consented to participate ...The participation rate among fathers was 31.8% ...
Follow-up was conducted by linkage to the MBRN to obtain information about all pregnancies and offspring at birth. Only singleton births were included and the current database consists of 100,434 births with maternal information and 74,908 births with paternal information ...
Women who participated in the MoBa answered two questions regarding cell phone use in both gestational weeks 15 and 30. The questions were identical in the two questionnaires. The women were asked “How often do you talk on a cell phone?” and the options to respond were “Seldom/never,” “A few times per week,” “Daily,” and “On average more than 1 hour per day.” The second question was “Do you talk on your cell phone for longer than 15 minutes at a time?” and the response alternatives were “Never,” “Seldom,” and “Often.” These two questions were combined to reflect cell phone exposure as Low, Medium, and High ...
The expectant fathers answered a questionnaire at around week 15 of gestation. The questions regarding cell phone use were changed through different versions of the paternal questionnaire. Common to the different versions was the question regarding cell phone use before conception: “How often did you talk on a cell phone during the last 6 months before your partner got pregnant?” But the response alternatives differed between different versions of the questionnaires. In the first two versions (n = 41,397, 0.3% was set to missing due to no answer), the alternatives were “Seldom/never,” “A few times per week,” “Daily,” or “On average more than 1 hour per day.” For the last versions of the questionnaire (n = 33,511, 4.0% did not answer), the alternatives were “Less than once a week,” “1–2 times a week,” “3–6 times a week,” “1–4 times a day,” or “More than 5 times a day.”
For the two last versions of the questionnaire, four questions regarding current cell phone habits were also included. These questions were more detailed and were used as proxy for exposure before conception. The questions with response alternatives in parentheses were as follows: “Do you use a cell phone?” (“No” or “Yes”), “Do you use a ‘hands-free’ device?” (“Seldom/never,” “Only during longer calls,” or “Normally”), “If/when you use a ‘hands-free’ device, where do you mainly have the phone during the call?” (“In the trouser pocket in front,” “On the belt in front on the body,” “Other places on the body,” or “Away from the body”), and “How long do you talk on average in total on days with cell phone calls?” (“Less than 1 minute,” “1–10 minutes,” “11–30 minutes,” “31–60 minutes,” or “More than 60 minutes”).
Adverse reproductive outcomes analyzed were congenital malformation, perinatal mortality, low birth weight, preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), preeclampsia, abruptio placentae, and change in sex ratio ...
The analyses for maternal exposure were adjusted for maternal age, maternal smoking, and parity ...
This study includes the cohort of 100,231 births with information on maternal prenatal cell phone exposure; 15,139 (15%) of the pregnant women had high exposure to cell phone use [i.e., daily use] ...
The adjusted RR for adverse reproductive outcome after paternal cell phone exposure during the 6 months before conception showed similar risk estimates for low, medium, and high cell phone use (Table 6). Regarding paternal regular cell phone habits, exposure to the testes was associated with an increased risk of perinatal mortality among offspring and decreased risk of partner developing preeclampsia in pregnancy compared with no exposure to the head or testes ... In this prospective study, we could not observe any association between maternal cell phone use during pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes: congenital malformation, perinatal mortality, low birth weight, preterm birth, SGA, abruptio placentae, or change in sex ratio. The results concerning preeclampsia suggested a reduced risk but this was not consistent with the other findings. We also did not find any clear and consistent association between the adverse pregnancy outcomes and paternal preconceptional cell phone use.
Maternal studies concerning pregnancy outcome related to cell phone use are scarce. We are aware of two case–control studies, both published in Chinese with abstracts available in English. The first study included 200 cases of early abortions and age-matched controls, and reported that after adjusting for risk factors, the multifactorial analysis revealed a significant association between mobile phone use and the risk for early spontaneous abortion.21 Another study by the same group used the same study design but with 138 cases of embryo growth ceasing as endpoint.22 The multifactorial analysis resulted in an association with the mother’s mobile phone use (OR = 6.0, 95% CI = 1.9, 18.9). The results of these studies are difficult to interpret, because only the abstracts are available. The mobile exposure information was self-reported and the risk of introducing recall bias is probably high because the information was obtained after the outcomes were known.
There have been some studies regarding behavioral problems in children after maternal cell phone use during pregnancy.4,5,28,29 In a study from the Danish National Birth Cohort,4 cell phone exposure was obtained from a questionnaire 7 years after birth. Based on this information, the authors found a higher risk of behavior problems after prenatal cell phone exposure; however, they wrote that the results should be interpreted with caution. In 2012, this group performed the same research on another group of participants in the Danish National Birth Cohort and they replicated their original findings 28 The same group of researchers also studied prenatal cell phone use and motor or cognitive/language developmental delays among infants at 6 and 18 months of age based on the same dataset in which where cell phone use was obtained 7 years subsequently; for these outcomes, the authors found no associations.29 Vrijheid and colleagues5 used data from a prospective birth cohort to examine the relation between cell phones use during pregnancy and neurodevelopment at 14 months of age, but found no association, nor was cell phone use related to the child’s sex, birth weight, or prematurity. The study was based on only 587 pregnancies.
Concerning paternal exposure, pregnancy outcome may be affected through an adverse effect on semen or sperm cells. Because distance to the phone is important for the radiofrequency exposure level, a potential direct effect is most likely when the cell phone is located close to the testes, whereas an indirect effect might occur if reproductive hormones are affected. In the latter case, head exposure must also be regarded. In our study, we could not observe any effect on reproductive outcomes irrespective of where the father usually held the emitting phone.
The main strength in this study is the prospective study design where cell phone exposure was collected before birth outcome. The challenge of gathering cell phone exposure data in epidemiologic settings has been an issue since the widespread use of cell phone began. Cell phone subscription information versus self-reported phone use as exposure proxies as well as changes in technology throughout the years have been discussed ... Radiofrequency exposure from cordless phones could be important but unfortunately we did not have such information. We also had no information about whether a cell phone was turned on when it was carried in the pocket or on the belt, but in this situation the radiofrequency exposure has been shown to be negligible.
We could not reveal any association between maternal cell phone use during pregnancy, nor could we find any association between paternal preconceptional cell phone use and any of the pregnancy outcomes researched in this study.
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley
MAINZ, Germany — A hard-hitting video campaign has been launched by Swiss officials to prevent young people from getting killed while distracted by their cellphones. Entitled "The Magic Trick," the video sees a narrator introduce a character named Jonas, a 24-year-old who enjoys listening to music and messaging friends — even while walking near traffic.
The study, by technology giant Microsoft, did however find that the ability of humans to multitask has improved.
It read: "Canadians [who were tested] with more digital lifestyles (those who consume more media, are multi-screeners, social media enthusiasts, or earlier adopters of technology) struggle to focus in environments where prolonged attention is needed.
Eight seconds: the average attention span of humans
"While digital lifestyles decrease sustained attention overall, it’s only true in the long-term. Early adopters and heavy social media users front load their attention and have more intermittent bursts of high attention.
"They’re better at identifying what they want/don’t want to engage with and need less to process and commit things to memory."
The research follows a study by the National Centre for Biotechnology Information and the National Library of Medicine in the US that found 79 per cent of respondents regularly "dual screen" by using portable devices while watching TV.
Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig and Devra Davis from the
Environmental Health Trust at Berkeley City Council. Photo: Lance Knobel
City Council on Tuesday unanimously passed the first reading
of a “Right to
Know” ordinance to require cellphone retailers in Berkeley to
provide consumers with information that warns them to keep a minimum safe
distance between their bodies and their phones.
“The world is watching what you do tonight,” said Devra Davis,
president of the Environmental Health Trust.
“And you have the opportunity to do the right thing.”
The ordinance would require cellphone retailers to provide
consumers with every sale or lease of a phone with a notice on radio frequency
(RF) radiation exposure guidelines, warning that carrying the phone in a pants
or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra could result in exceeding federal
guidelines. City staff had assistance from Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at
Harvard, and Robert Post, dean of Yale Law School, in drafting the ordinance.
Lessig has offered to defend the city pro bono if the law is challenged, as
expected, by cellphone manufacturers.
San Francisco passed a so-called “Right to Know” ordinance in
2010, but a lengthy legal battle led its Board of Supervisors to withdraw the law
in 2013, after a federal appeals court blocked implementation on
First Amendment grounds.
“This ordinance is fundamentally different from what San
Francisco passed,” Lessig told the City Council. “The San Francisco ordinance
was about getting people to use their cellphone less.”
The drafted Berkeley ordinance, Lessig said, purely provided
information. Questioned by Mayor Tom Bates, Lessig admitted that he did not
follow the guidelines for carrying his phone.
“How I carry it is how people should not carry it,” Lessig said.
“I carry it in my back pocket.”
The only speaker at the meeting against the ordinance was Gerald
Keegan, from CTIA — The Wireless Association.
“All of the agencies that have looked at this issue have
determined that there are no harmful effects,” Keegan said, which elicited a
chorus of boos and hisses from a crowded council chamber. “This proposal would
irresponsibly alarm consumers.”
Numerous speakers provided public comment in support of the
ordinance, many talking about what they said were health risks from RF
radiation. Mayor Bates hurried many speakers on, pointing out that the council
had requested the draft ordinance.
“As soon as we get through this discussion, we can vote,” he
Cellphone manufacturers are currently required to provide
information on FCC testing and guidelines, but proponents of the ordinance
argue that the information is hidden in manual small prints or buried in a
series of menus on phones.
“The singular, only thing on which we’re legislating here today
is on the consumer right to know,” said Councilman Kriss Worthington. “We’re
not telling the consumers what to do.”
Councilman Max Anderson, who initiated the council’s efforts on
the ordinance four years ago, also stressed that the ordinance is not about
scientific issues, but about information.
“The issue before us tonight is not the science itself,” he
said. “The real issue before us tonight is whether or not citizens have the
right to information which they can rely on to make decisions. You see a hunger
for this information.”
The notice that the ordinance would require reads:
“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell
phones meet radio frequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your
phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and
connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for
exposure to RF radiation. This potential risk is greater for children. Refer to
the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use
your phone safely.”
It requires that the notice is provided on paper not less than
5-by-8 inches, in at least 18-point type. If the notice is “prominently
displayed” at a point of sale, it must be on a poster not less than 8-1/2-by-11
inches in at least 28-point type.