Massages were usually fine for me when I was more moderate, but I've always had that awful reaction to acupuncture. Is there a solution, though? I've tried various biofilm treatments like natto-serra, xylitol and lactoferrin, etc.
Evidence the cause of ME/CFS is in the kidneys: my experiments targeting my kidneys with bacterial biofilm-destroying ultrasound
- Thread starter Hip
- Start date
Massages were usually fine for me when I was more moderate, but I've always had that awful reaction to acupuncture. Is there a solution, though? I've tried various biofilm treatments like natto-serra, xylitol and lactoferrin, etc.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
I think these biofilm disruptors that you tried are unlikely to have any significant effect when taken orally. They may have effects when used in a highly concentrated solution applied topically, for example to fight biofilms when applied topically on bacterially-infected wounds; but when taken orally they get diluted into the whole body.
Maybe try it on just one kidney. Also, try it on an area of your abdomen farthest away from your kidneys, to see whether it's not the kidneys that are involved (likely is, but still a valid test). I think there were a lot of "Wow, look at these amazing results!" 'discoveries' that gave the same results even when the important-for-the-theory target of the experiment wasn't in place, or the equipment wasn't actually operating.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
I did try this with my professional 1 MHz ultrasound machine: when I applied this to my kidneys, I had PEM-like adverse effects the next day; but when I applied it to my belly, there were no adverse effects.
I have not tried the 18 kHz near ultrasound on my belly though. The 18 kHz sound has much stronger results than the 1 MHz, and when applied to my kidneys, the 18 kHz causes 3 days of a horrible PEM-like state. Whereas the 1 MHz only causes me to have one day of the PEM-like state (and even this 1 day is milder).
So I did not want to risk trying the 18 kHz on my belly, just in case it triggered the same 3 days of PEM-like misery.
But I should really try the 18 kHz on my belly at some point, just to prove that it is only targeting the kidneys which causes these adverse effects.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
By the way, for accurate placement of the sound transducers on the kidneys, I found these diagrams useful;
Rufous McKinney
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,495
insert image of human guinea pig.....!!
So can you control the depth of penetration? of the sound waves?
Rufous McKinney
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,495
right kidney seems close to liver.....also a busy place.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
When using the 1 MHz ultrasound, the absorption of these waves is well characterised in biological tissue.
This paper for example says that the half-depth (the distance at which 50% of the sound energy gets dissipated) for 1 MHz ultrasound is 2.3 cm (and 3 MHz ultrasound has a shorter half-depth). Although the half-depth does vary with tissue type.
So when applying 1 MHz ultrasound to my kidneys, I think most of the sound energy will have dissipated by the time the sound travels through my kidneys and reaches other organs like the intestines.
With the 18 kHz sound wave, I could not find any data for its penetration into biological tissues. I was trying to find some formula for the sound absorption coefficient of different sound frequencies in biological tissue, but my Google-fu was not good.
Looking at the torso organs diagram below, the liver appears to be too high up to be hit with any sound waves traveling out of the other side of the kidneys. But those sound waves might hit the pancreas, duodenum or the colon.
Last edited:
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
Some years ago in 2012, I had an interesting experience with a medical ultrasound scan, which seemed to put me into remission from ME/CFS.
I had to have a scan of my liver, so went to a hospital, where for several minutes they placed the ultrasound transducer at various points on my belly, sides and back, getting images of my torso organs from various directions.
The two days after this ultrasound scan, I had a major remission from my ME/CFS brain fog. I suddenly had this amazing mental clarity, and started getting involved in a software project requiring very sharp perception —something I would not normally be able to do at all. After about a week, this clarity faded, and unfortunately I returned to baseline.
But from that experience, I had an idea that the ultrasound scan might have temporarily fixed my ME/CFS brain fog.
This was actually the reason I bought my own ultrasound therapy machine (pictured earlier in the 1st post of this thread), in order to try to replicate the remission. Unfortunately I was not able to replicate.
But the problem was that I did not know where to place my ultrasound transducer in order to obtain the therapeutic effect for ME/CFS, since during the medical scan, they were placing the transducer at many different locations on my stomach, sides and back. I did not know which location was the magic hotspot.
But with Markov's ideas that the kidneys are involved, that at least gives a clue about where one might place the ultrasound transducer.
I was also experimenting with various drugs and supplements at that time, though, so I cannot be sure that the remission was due to the ultrasound.
I had to have a scan of my liver, so went to a hospital, where for several minutes they placed the ultrasound transducer at various points on my belly, sides and back, getting images of my torso organs from various directions.
The two days after this ultrasound scan, I had a major remission from my ME/CFS brain fog. I suddenly had this amazing mental clarity, and started getting involved in a software project requiring very sharp perception —something I would not normally be able to do at all. After about a week, this clarity faded, and unfortunately I returned to baseline.
But from that experience, I had an idea that the ultrasound scan might have temporarily fixed my ME/CFS brain fog.
This was actually the reason I bought my own ultrasound therapy machine (pictured earlier in the 1st post of this thread), in order to try to replicate the remission. Unfortunately I was not able to replicate.
But the problem was that I did not know where to place my ultrasound transducer in order to obtain the therapeutic effect for ME/CFS, since during the medical scan, they were placing the transducer at many different locations on my stomach, sides and back. I did not know which location was the magic hotspot.
But with Markov's ideas that the kidneys are involved, that at least gives a clue about where one might place the ultrasound transducer.
I was also experimenting with various drugs and supplements at that time, though, so I cannot be sure that the remission was due to the ultrasound.
Last edited:
BrightCandle
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,218
On cue I am crashed today all be it mostly a headache and some loss of energy, its more headache than poor muscle function. I have not stopped treatment 2x a day continuing I can stand this for weeks/months.
thanks for putting yourself through it and reporting back for the greater good BrightCandle !
Whalesong, down in the tens of Hz range, can cross 10,000 km, so your 18 kHz unit will have a range somewhere between 2.3 cm and 1,000,000,000 cm. I hope that narrows it down for you.
I think it's quite unlikely that repeating the initial ultrasound scan exactly would trigger the same sort of remission. We--and our ME--change too much over time. There's also ME's 'works great once, then never again.' habit. I've had several treatments trigger remission, but only for a couple of times each before they stopped having any noticeable effect. So sad.
Yah, there's that 'which factor was responsible' problem too.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
Just noticed that on the US eBay you can buy ultrasonic slimming / fat reduction machines for about $40 which operate in the low-frequency ultrasound range of 60 kHz (they often advertise as "60K" but this means 60 kHz).
It is this low-frequency ultrasound which appears to be better at breaking up biofilm than higher frequency, according to the source linked to in the first post.
Most consumer ultrasound machines use 1 MHz or higher; so it is unusual to find such low frequency machines. I believe these low frequencies are used to create a cavitation effect in the tissues, which breaks up the fat cells.
These 60 kHz ultrasonic slimming / fat reduction machines look like this:
So if targeting the kidneys with low-frequency ultrasound does have benefits for ME/CFS, these cheap 60 kHz fat reduction machines would make the treatment very accessible.
It is this low-frequency ultrasound which appears to be better at breaking up biofilm than higher frequency, according to the source linked to in the first post.
Most consumer ultrasound machines use 1 MHz or higher; so it is unusual to find such low frequency machines. I believe these low frequencies are used to create a cavitation effect in the tissues, which breaks up the fat cells.
These 60 kHz ultrasonic slimming / fat reduction machines look like this:
So if targeting the kidneys with low-frequency ultrasound does have benefits for ME/CFS, these cheap 60 kHz fat reduction machines would make the treatment very accessible.
Last edited:
BrightCandle
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,218
That is a bit cheaper than what I did with transducers which are about £20 each and the amplifier is about £35, so £95 in all. I have an alternate use planned for when this experiment ends (and if its an effective treatment or cure I'll just buy more!).
if cost is an issue - there seem to be a great many ultrasonic transducers on the market that are designed for ultrasonic cleaning baths
typically 40khz or 60khz frequency - 40-60watts rated power
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/174812209987?_
i don't know what type of driver they need - that's not made clear on the adverts
i suspect they just require a DC voltage - ie from an AC-DC power supply
or if 40-60watts is too much power for our purpose ( that is input power i believe - not sound power output )
i did a bit more digging and found these things typically need a driver that applies a high voltage signal
eg this driver circuit - which says 700-1100v output to the transducer
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003813990803.html?
typically 40khz or 60khz frequency - 40-60watts rated power
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/174812209987?_
i don't know what type of driver they need - that's not made clear on the adverts
i suspect they just require a DC voltage - ie from an AC-DC power supply
or if 40-60watts is too much power for our purpose ( that is input power i believe - not sound power output )
i did a bit more digging and found these things typically need a driver that applies a high voltage signal
eg this driver circuit - which says 700-1100v output to the transducer
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003813990803.html?
Last edited:
BrightCandle
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,218
Day 3, treatment 5.
I am up to 30 seconds now on 25% power of the amplifier and all I got after this dose was a short sharp front headache and fatigue, its almost immediate it takes a few minutes at most to have impact but that impact is definitely reducing with each one. Its very curious. I am struck by the fact that what I am doing should do nothing at all. If it was causing damage I would expect worsening impact, if it was temporary disruption I would expect the same. But as I increase the treatment the impact of it lessons and I have to up the dose.
I have also been able to play computer games ever since this started, not twitchy stuff but still my orthostatic intolerance is less severe.
I am up to 30 seconds now on 25% power of the amplifier and all I got after this dose was a short sharp front headache and fatigue, its almost immediate it takes a few minutes at most to have impact but that impact is definitely reducing with each one. Its very curious. I am struck by the fact that what I am doing should do nothing at all. If it was causing damage I would expect worsening impact, if it was temporary disruption I would expect the same. But as I increase the treatment the impact of it lessons and I have to up the dose.
I have also been able to play computer games ever since this started, not twitchy stuff but still my orthostatic intolerance is less severe.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
That sounds promising, BrightCandle, that the adverse effect impact of the treatment is lessening each time.
Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,161
I've just been reading some details about the cavitation effect of low-frequency ultrasound.
I was not aware that frequencies like 18 kHz could cause cavitation, but it seems this frequency is near to the optimum range of cavitation-inducing acoustic frequencies.
So I am now wondering whether as a result of cavitation from the 18 kHz sound wave, there may be some risks of damage to kidney cells?
Cavitation is where sound waves create microscopic bubbles in a liquid (the bubbles consisting of vapour).
When these tiny bubbles collapse, they create shock waves, and these shock waves can damage nearby material. In the case of machinery immersed in a liquid, such as a ship's propellor, the shock waves from cavitation can damage the metal. These shock waves are also the basis for ultrasonic cleaning baths.
In the case of ultrasonic cavitation machines for fat loss, these apparently work by creating cavitation bubbles and shock waves, and the shock waves will rupture the walls of the fat cells, thereby causing the fat they contain to drain out. In this way, the cavitation machine can reduce fat under the skin.
But the fact that ultrasonic cavitation machines can damage fat cells raises the issue of safety, as cavitation might also damage kidney cells.
Presumably the damage is transient, and the ruptured walls will repair themselves. But nevertheless, these shock waves can have strong effects on cells and tissues.
Until today, I was not aware that audible sound frequencies like 18 kHz could cause cavitation.
This then shines a new light on the adverse effects I experienced from using 18 kHz on my kidneys. The adverse effects I experienced may not necessarily come from disrupted biofilm, but might come from some negative impact on the kidneys themselves.
This article says:
So it seems that consumer home ultrasonic cavitation machines for fat loss are set to a frequency of 60 kHz to make them less efficient at rupturing fat cells; the more effective cavitation frequencies between 20 kHz and 30 kHz are reserved for professional machines.
Since 18 kHz is just outside the most effective cavitation frequency range of 20 kHz and 30 kHz, we can assume that 18 kHz will induce powerful cavitation effects. And possibly these effects could risk causing some damage to tissues.
So I think it would be wise to do some further research on the safety aspects of cavitation frequencies like 18 kHz, before proceeding with placing such sound waves on the kidneys.
One study using a 28.48 kHz ultrasound continuously applied to the skin of rabbits for 24 hours, at two different power levels of 100 mW/cm2 and 300 mW/cm2. The power level of 100 mW/cm2 showed no adverse effects, but at 300 mW/cm2 some tissue damage to the skin was noted after 24 hours.
Ultrasonic frequencies which do not produce cavitation may be safer.
I was not aware that frequencies like 18 kHz could cause cavitation, but it seems this frequency is near to the optimum range of cavitation-inducing acoustic frequencies.
So I am now wondering whether as a result of cavitation from the 18 kHz sound wave, there may be some risks of damage to kidney cells?
Cavitation is where sound waves create microscopic bubbles in a liquid (the bubbles consisting of vapour).
When these tiny bubbles collapse, they create shock waves, and these shock waves can damage nearby material. In the case of machinery immersed in a liquid, such as a ship's propellor, the shock waves from cavitation can damage the metal. These shock waves are also the basis for ultrasonic cleaning baths.
In the case of ultrasonic cavitation machines for fat loss, these apparently work by creating cavitation bubbles and shock waves, and the shock waves will rupture the walls of the fat cells, thereby causing the fat they contain to drain out. In this way, the cavitation machine can reduce fat under the skin.
But the fact that ultrasonic cavitation machines can damage fat cells raises the issue of safety, as cavitation might also damage kidney cells.
Presumably the damage is transient, and the ruptured walls will repair themselves. But nevertheless, these shock waves can have strong effects on cells and tissues.
Until today, I was not aware that audible sound frequencies like 18 kHz could cause cavitation.
This then shines a new light on the adverse effects I experienced from using 18 kHz on my kidneys. The adverse effects I experienced may not necessarily come from disrupted biofilm, but might come from some negative impact on the kidneys themselves.
This article says:
So it seems that consumer home ultrasonic cavitation machines for fat loss are set to a frequency of 60 kHz to make them less efficient at rupturing fat cells; the more effective cavitation frequencies between 20 kHz and 30 kHz are reserved for professional machines.
Since 18 kHz is just outside the most effective cavitation frequency range of 20 kHz and 30 kHz, we can assume that 18 kHz will induce powerful cavitation effects. And possibly these effects could risk causing some damage to tissues.
So I think it would be wise to do some further research on the safety aspects of cavitation frequencies like 18 kHz, before proceeding with placing such sound waves on the kidneys.
One study using a 28.48 kHz ultrasound continuously applied to the skin of rabbits for 24 hours, at two different power levels of 100 mW/cm2 and 300 mW/cm2. The power level of 100 mW/cm2 showed no adverse effects, but at 300 mW/cm2 some tissue damage to the skin was noted after 24 hours.
Ultrasonic frequencies which do not produce cavitation may be safer.
Last edited: