Diary of Unknown Symptoms

Mystery of the Internal Vibration

Entry for June 26, 2006


So now I have two things pointing me in the direction of my sigmoid. Doctor Google?

Sigmoid Function: The functions of the sigmoid and rectum are transmitting stool toward the anus,  serving both as a collection site and with contractions, producing evacuation. Absorbing water from the stool and secreting mucus are other important functions. The parasympathetic stimulate contractility, secretion of mucus, and relaxation of sphincters, and the sympathetic produce functions antagonistic to those parasympathetic nerves.

Okay, talk about way too much information… But now I have a link with the Sigmoid and the parasympathetic nervous system. And now B vitamins!

The colon contains nearly 60 varieties of microflora or bacteria to aid digestion, promote vital nutrient production, to maintain pH (acid-base) balance, and to prevent proliferation of harmful bacteria. These bacteria provide important functions such as the synthesis of folic acid and valuable nutrients from foods, including vitamins ‘K’ and portions of the ‘B’ complex. Bacillus coli and acidophillus comprise the majority of healthy bacteria in the colon along with other disease producing bacteria in lesser numbers. The process of digestion from ingestion of food to defecation, normally takes between 12 to 24 hours assuming that the colon is fully functional and non-toxic. Irregular or infrequent bowel movements can allow toxic residues, from the by-products of undigested foods, to remain in the colon.

The intestering thing about the sigmoid process is I’ve been taking acidophilus almost every day since my first appointment with the naturopath. Is it possible that it was hiding a bigger problem with my sigmoid? I did have weird bowel movements starting around July 2005 and the acidophilus had a great effect.

June 26, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , | Leave a comment

Entry for June 26, 2006

On the way home I stop by the local health food store and inquire about Iridology. A guy shows me to the bulletin board and hands me a pamphlet and a business card of a local women. I call the number as soon as I get home and I leave a message for her to call me.

Later in the afternoon she returns my call and I tell her that I’m interested in a Iridology exam. She explains the process. The cost is $150 for two sessions and the first session is three hours long. She will take pictures of my iris and sclera and suggest a health plan.

The second appoinment is scheduled with two weeks and she will provide a detailed report or as she put it “theisis” on my health conditions and she will us Iridology again to check if there is any improvement.

This sounds great. If I have serious vitamin deficiencies, whose to say I don’t have other things going on as well? I could be seriously lacking in minerals as well.

Iridology is used to identify nutritional deficiencies so this is definately the right direction.

June 26, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , | Leave a comment

Entry for June 26, 2006


Walked into the Osteopathy clinic, filled out the standard introduction form detailing a brief medical history and waited. While I’m in the waiting area, I spot the Toronto Star talking about how Toronto Hydro will switch on the first phase of its new wireless broadband service.

After a short wait, I meet with the doctor and he asks me what brings me to the clinic. I give my usual story: Internal vibration, Plantar Fasciitis, Stomach bloating and how all of my testing has come up negative. I mention about the suspected EMF exposure, pears, vitamin C, tuna and talk about vitamin deficiencies and Beriberi. He makes a few notes as I go through the history and he comments that it is an interesting story but has never heard of Beriberi. He admits right away that I’ve done a tremendous amount of research and that he may not be able to solve my problems but explained that using Osteopathy, he may be able to find other things that are going on within the body.

He asks if I have ever been in a car accident, any sprained or broken bones and any surgery. I’ve had my appendix removed, a sprained finger on my left hand and surgery to remove a extra bone growth in my leg when I was about twelve.

He then starts by asking me to stand in the upright position and asks me to remove my shirt. He walks back and forth and then asks me to turn around. I assume he does the same thing again and he comments how my left shoulder is higher than it should be. He then asks me to lie down on the table and he twists my legs checking for the range of motion and flexability. He starts pressing around my abdomen and comments on how my left side is firmer than it should be and says he is pressing on my Sigmoid.

SAY WHAT??!!! The Sigmoid? That came up in my self-Iridology exam. I can’t believe it.

He continues by talking about Cranial osteopathy. He lightly touches around my head and keeps talking about a thing called the sacrum. It is the bone that joins your spine to your pelvis. After about five minutes, he comments on how my cranial has no movement and how it can cause other problems when movement is restricted with a possibility that there is a link to the sigmoid. He places his hand around the area of the tailbone and measures the pulse of something called the Cerebrospinal fluid from the brain to the bottom of the spine. Turns out that mine is weaker than it should be.

That was basically the appoinment. Very simple and non-instrusive. I google cranial osteopathy when I get home:

What is Cranial Osteopathy?

Cranial osteopathy has many similarities with the oldest known method of healing, the laying on of hands. The osteopath combines healing intention with a knowledge of anatomy, using the hands to “listen” for restrictions or strains in the body. Although the name implies head manipulation, the techniques are used to treat the whole body. 

Why Call it Cranial

Partly for historical reasons. Dr Sutherland, who was the first teacher of cranial osteopathy, devised a system of correcting cranial bone restrictions using manipulation. He tested many of his early theories on his own head, keeping detailed records of the symptoms that came and went when he created, then removed, a variety of cranial bone restrictions. He experienced symptoms such as depression and severe head and jaw pain that were a direct cause of the restrictions he created.

What About the Rest of the Body

Although originally the focus was on the bones of the skull, it soon became obvious that other parts of the body were involved, in particular the sacrum. The sacrum is the bone that joins your spine to your pelvis. If the pelvis is twisted, tilted or unbalanced it will have an effect through the sacrum and its attachments all the way up the spine and into the base of the cranium.

However, bones are held in position by muscles, ligaments, tendons and fascia. It is the interplay of all these forces that is important. The osteopath combines healing intention with a knowledge of anatomy, using the hands to “listen” for restrictions or strains within the body’s intrinsic movement patterns.

Wow! That was really amazing but will it solve my problems?

June 26, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , | Leave a comment

Entry for June 26, 2006


Keep That Laptop Off Your Lap
At Least Until a New Generation of Researchers Give Us Some Answers
August 13, 2005

The inside back cover of the August issue of Wired has an ad with a picture of a model who has a laptop on her belly. She’s got a big grin on her face apparently because her computer is protected with Symantec’s anti-spyware and anti-virus software.

Putting a laptop on your body may be okay for a photo shoot, but it’s probably not such a good idea to leave the computer there for a long time. In addition to delivering heat to sensitive organs, there can be significant exposure to EMFs. In fact, it’s probably not a good idea to keep any electronic or electric appliance flush to your body on a regular basis.

Let me be clear: We don’t know whether EMFs from appliances are a health hazard. What we do know is that some appliances give off strong localized fields with complex waveforms. While they diminish very quickly with distance, up close they can pack a wallop.

We also know that a discomfortingly large number of epidemiological studies show that long-term exposure to low-level EMFs is linked to childhood leukemia —the implicated levels are 250 times lower than the current limit for exposing children 24/7 and more than a 1,000 times lower than the occupational guidelines. (The U.S. has never adopted an EMF exposure standard.)

In addition, we know that the use of certain appliances has been associated with cancer. For instance, a 1998 National Cancer Institute (NCI) study showed that children exposed to electric blankets, hair dryers or video games had significant higher rates of acute lymphoblastic leukemia. A number of other appliances, including curling irons, were also linked to cancer.

But there were inconsistencies. The risk associated with years of use was often similar to that from short-term use —that is, there was no dose-response relationship. But that said, looking at all the NCI appliance data, you will see a large number of statistically significant elevated risks of childhood leukemia and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that something is going on.

The NCI team, however, focused on the inconsistencies, threw up their hands and concluded there was nothing to worry about.

Earlier this year, the NCI published another study which linked the use of electric hair dryers and shavers with brain tumors. (Men who used electric shavers had ten times more meningiomas!) Once again, the NCI decided that it was “unlikely” that there was a true association.

One major problem with both NCI studies is that the EMFs from the appliances were not measured. The NCI team assumed that the magnetic fields from a hair dryer are identical to those from a fan or a microwave oven, except in terms of the intensity of the field. This is a primitive, though not uncommon, approach among EMF researchers. But it’s like studying particulate air pollutants without specifying the size or the chemical composition of the particles. You might get an idea about effects, but it would be a very rough estimate.

By neglecting the differences among the different types of EMFs, the NCI team assumes that all appliances are sources of simple sinusoidal 60 Hz magnetic fields. No allowance is made for fields whose frequency and intensity fluctuate over time, whether other frequency components and transient are present, or
whether the resulting exposures are intermittent. (In the more recent paper, the NCI team does acknowledge that hair dryers and shavers give off high-frequency transients). Another ignored variable is the polarization of the field.

Elizabeth Ainsbury, an English doctoral student of Denis Henshaw’s at Bristol University, illustrates the variation in polarization of the magnetic fields associated with appliances in a paper published recently in Physics in Medicine and Biology. She reports, for example, that microwave and electric ovens have
the most elliptically polarized fields, while alarm clocks have the least ellipticity.

(As the field becomes more circularly polarized —that is, as it become more elliptical— the greater the potential for depositing its energy into those exposed, see MWN, M/A00.)

Ainsbury concludes that her measurements demonstrate that domestic magnetic fields are extremely complex and cannot simply be characterized by traditional measurements such as time-weighted average or peak exposure levels.”

Could polarization be the missing variable that, if taken into account, would clarify the existing epidemiological and experimental data? It’s far too soon to tell, but it is a tantalizing possibility.

For a long time, many have speculated that EMF epidemiological studies are cloudy because some characteristic of the field has been left out. It is as if we are looking through a distorted prism. But with the right set of filters, we could see the EMF risk more clearly.

Five years ago, Jim Burch showed that workers exposed to circularly or elliptically polarized fields were more likely to have lower melatonin levels. And years before that Masamichi Kato in Japan reported a similar finding in animals (see MWN, M/A00).

Back in 2000, Burch told us his results “definitely need to be followed up.” They weren’t. (Burch has recently moved to the University of South Carolina.)

With progress coming in five-year intervals it is going to take a long time to sort all this out.� Joe Bowman at NIOSH in Cincinnati is hopeful however. “I’m encouraged to see an EMF health study measuring more than just the time-averaged magnetic field,” he told Microwave News in a recent interview. “Studies like Ainsbury’s will hopefully lead to a new generation of more informative epidemiologic studies.”

Bowman is himself designing an epi study using the Multiwave meter developed by Electric Research, which can measure a number of field parameters including polarization. Ainsbury also used the Multiwave. Clearly, there is much more work to be done.

And until we learn more and can see the EMF problem more clearly, it’s probably a good idea to keep your laptop off your lap —especially if that computer is broadcasting RF radiation through its wireless connection to the Internet.

June 26, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , , | Leave a comment

Entry for June 26, 2006


Woke up vibrating… But today is my appointment with the Osteopath.

Because the Oseopath is down the street from where I live, I am working from home today. I have the company laptop with me so I decide to test it for EMF exposure.

I turn on the laptop and use the meter to take a reading and it’s off the scale. Everyday I see people using laptop computers on their lap and it makes you wonder. These people are easily travelling two hours a day. What about the health effects of long term exposure?

June 26, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Entry for June 25, 2006

Chocolate bug cases spread
Jonathan Leake and Gareth Walsh

Cadbury hit by more salmonella claims

CADBURY was fighting to save its reputation this weekend as genetic tests showed a possible link between the salmonella strain that contaminated its products and dozens of cases of illness around Britain.

At least 53 people are known to have come down with severe stomach upsets after contracting salmonella montevideo, a rare strain of the disease.

This weekend the Health Protection Agency (HPA) confirmed molecular fingerprinting tests had shown that the bacteria that caused the outbreaks were the same as those contaminating some of its products. Last week the company, Britain’s biggest chocolate manufacturer, recalled 1m chocolate bars.

The HPA said the number of cases of the disease could be up to five times higher than the 53 reported because many people with stomach upsets never visit their doctor.

“The molecular typing showed that the samples from Cadbury were the same as the human cases. We cannot be 100% sure that Cadbury’s products caused the disease but it is a strong possibility,” said the HPA.

This weekend Cadbury, which sells £1 billion worth of chocolate a year, was also accused of failing to follow key food safety principles.

Following the initial alert that became public on Friday, the company has repeatedly insisted that low levels of salmonella in ready-to-eat foods are harmless and acceptable.

However, microbiological experts and official agencies said high levels of fat and sugar in chocolate made it an ideal vehicle for preserving salmonella and carrying it into the intestine. This meant that serious illness could be caused by what appeared to be mere trace levels of the bacterium.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA), the government’s watchdog, said: “Salmonella is unacceptable at any level and we would have expected Cadbury to have notified us far earlier than they did on finding this bacterium in their products.”

The contamination was first detected in January in chocolate at the company’s Marlbrook plant in Herefordshire. The plant produces nearly 100,000 tonnes of chocolate crumb a year, which is sent to other factories to be mixed with cocoa butter and made into chocolate products.

The company said the contamination was traced to a leak in a pipe carrying waste water from cleaning machinery that was dripping on to the floor near a conveyor belt. Cadbury said the pipe was fixed at that time, so ending the problem.

However, this explanation raises several questions as the HPA said up to eight subsequent samples taken from January to June also showed contamination.

Cadbury sent the initial and later samples to an independent laboratory for testing. The laboratory told Cadbury that the samples contained salmonella and then sent them on to the HPA to find out the exact strain, but it did not tell the HPA the origin of the samples.

Cadbury management had decided the level of contamination did not warrant any further action. “The level we found was so incredibly low that we decided there was no need to inform the FSA,” said a spokesman.

This decision has amazed experts who point to a wealth of scientific evidence about the dangers of salmonella in chocolate, even at trace levels

June 26, 2006 Posted by | Health | , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: