Our Research

It has recently been popular to assume that the conductive nature of a mammalian body (including a human body) prevents external static electric fields from influencing cell operation inside the body. As a result there have been no grants available for research in this area. Modern animal studies are very expensive and, without grants, relatively little research has occurred in recent years. However, a retrospective search of research papers from years ago identifies studies that clearly show influence of these fields inside mammalian tissue (see “Previous Research”).

Now, the Gary Lynn Gray family has used personal funds to conduct 6 studies exposing research rodents to static electric or static magnetic fields. Our studies have shown that these fields can produce the strongest non-thermal biological influences every observed from a non-ionizing field of any type.

We see the possibility of using this strong influence for medical benefit. For example our animal studies have shown that exposing cancerous tissue to these fields while undergoing chemotherapy treatment can dramatically increase the action of the chemotherapy against the cancer. In humans, we believe the static field could be confined to only the disease area and used only while the drug is active (typically 1 to 4 hours). This would increase drug efficacy against the cancer, while sparing the rest of the body from the increased potency.

These medical use methods are detailed in our U.S. Patents 6,447,499 and 6,749,596. Both patents have been placed in the public domain, and the technology can be freely used by any medical organization.

As important as the medical uses are, our studies point to something much more important. At this time, we have every reason to believe that we face a high level of danger from our almost daily exposure to these fields. The danger first became apparent during our chemotherapy studies using rodents:

1. When a chemical agent was applied inside the animals’ bodies at a normally harmless level, exposing the animals to common static electric fields dramatically increased the dangerous reaction of the chemical within their bodies (to even a lethal level in some cases). One danger from this is the possibility of these fields increasing the reaction of common environmentally encountered chemicals with our cells.
   
   
2. When animals with cancer tumors inside their bodies were exposed to these fields without chemo present, the tumor growth rate almost doubled compared to tumors inside animals not exposed.

These results show the danger we face from static fields may be far more important than that from even the most powerful power-lines or cell phones.

We have published or presented much of this work (Google PMID: 11102947 for example). We have not shown that these fields can directly cause cancer. That may or may not be true, but the answer to that will have to come after long-term studies which are currently beyond our financial capabilities.

Although we’ve worked with both static electric and magnetic fields, the following study examples will cover only our findings regarding static electric fields. We believe this is most important because we’re often exposed to static electric fields at intensities higher that those used in some of our animal studies (see “Human Exposure” section). For clarity, the following descriptions of the study methods are intentionally truncated. Complete details of the methods may be found in the three papers listed at the end of this section.

Our heartfelt appreciation is given to two special people who volunteered their time to help with our studies.

Charles H. Frith, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Dr. Frith is a veterinary pathologist, and recognized expert in the field of
rodent tumors. He helped plan, conduct, and evaluate our studies.

J. David Parker
Dave served as physics consultant, and helped plan and evaluate our studies.

Most of our studies were designed to evaluate enhanced chemotherapy treatment. We used research mice with breast cancer. The animal and tumor used are recognized by the National Cancer Institute as standard models for chemotherapy research. The treatments consisted of an intraparietal injection of the chemotherapy agent adriamycin (ADM), then some of the groups were additionally exposed to a static electric field emanating from a charged (insulated) screen above the animals.

Custom equipment was constructed to provide the desired static electric field for the studies. The high-voltage power supply used for all studies was constructed to provide up to 15,000 volt DC positive and negative output. The supply was designed to incur less than 10 mV peak-to-peak output ripple. Also, the output could be programmed to change from positive to negative at desired time intervals if required. Special shelving was constructed to hold the cages and shield the electric fields to prevent interaction between cages. Purina Formulab™ 5008 and water were provided ad libitum to each group. Central air-conditioning and an auxiliary dehumidifier maintained 67o to 73o F and 35% to 40% relative humidity. Fluorescent lighting was on for 12 hours and off for 12 hours.

Although the above power supply station may look exotic, the static fields we exposed the test animals to were not exotic at all. In fact if you quickly pull a piece of common cellophane tape from the roll, then hold the piece next to your other hand, you will be exposing your hand to a static electric field more intense than the field used in most of the following studies. We’ve known for a long time that this field would polarize molecules at the surface of mammalian tissue. What we’ve not realized is how deeply the influence could pass into tissue to affect cell operation inside.

Treated Control Study

This study contained four groups, with 11 tumor-bearing animals in each. All of the animals were treated with 12 mg/kg ADM on day 4, and housed in cages containing an insulated metal screen suspended 25 mm above the Group A, B, and D animals, and 82 mm above the Group C animals.

GA: Control group, treated with ADM and no static field exposure. A screen was placed 25 mm above animals, but not charged.

GB: The screen above this group was charged, and changed from positive to negative potential once each 15 minutes. This group also had a grounded wire grid below (outside) the cage (90 mm between the screen and grid). The animals were exposed to a static electric field intensity of approximately 175,736 volts per meter (V/m).

GC: The screen was charged, and changed from positive to negative potential once each 15 minutes. The animals were exposed to a static electric field intensity of approximately 26,080 V/m. The animals were on a grounded wire grid cage floor (115 mm between the screen and floor).

GD: The screen was charged, and changed from positive to negative potential once each 15 minutes. The animals were exposed to a static electric field intensity of approximately 175,736 V/m. The closest ground plane was a concrete floor 125 cm away.

This is a graph of the mean tumor weight loss/gain (percent) for each group from day 4 (at the start of treatment) to day 16 at the end of the study.

Maximum Tumor Regression

GA: 24% tumor wt. loss. (ADM With No Field)

GB: 86% tumor wt. loss. (ADM Plus Static Field)

GC: 80% tumor wt. loss. (ADM Plus Static Field)

GD: 75% tumor wt. loss. (ADM Plus Static Field)

Conclusions

1. All four treatment methods reduced the median tumor size by day eight. However by the end of the study (day 16), the median tumor in all of the electrostatic field treated groups (even Group C with a field intensity of only 26,080 V/m) showed three times more tumor cell kill than Group A which was treated with ADM only.
   
   
2. As little as 15 minutes exposure to a static electric field of the same polarity significantly increased cell reaction to the ADM.
   
   
3. Statistically, the study demonstrated p-values as low as .001, and odds as high as 8.3 to 1 that an animal in Groups B, C, or D (with field exposure) would have less tumor growth than an animal in Group A (without field exposure).
   
   
4. This demonstrates the benefit of the controlled use of these fields in chemotherapy treatment. However, it also points to the danger of uncontrolled exposure to these fields. If a static electric field can increase the action of chemotherapy inside the body to this degree, there is every reason to believe it can do the same with some of the hazardous chemicals we’re exposed to in our environment (or even some of the drugs we intentionally take).
   
   

Two Treatment Study

This study included three groups of 11 tumor-bearing animals each. All of the animals were treated twice. Eight mg/kg ADM was given on days 3 and 5 (16 mg/kg total). Note that the total 16 mg/kg ADM used in this study was higher than the 12 mg/kg used in the above Treated Control Study. Groups B and C were exposed to a static electric field for only 4 hours following each injection.

GA: Control group, treated with ADM and no field exposure.

GB: ADM plus exposure to a negatively charged screen 25 mm above, and a grounded grid below, the animals (90 mm between the screen and grid). This exposed the animals to a static electric field of approximately 175,736 V/m.

GC: ADM plus exposure to 15 minute cycles of positive then negative charge on a screen 25 mm above, and a grounded grid below, the animals (90 mm the between screen and grid). The animals were exposed to a static electric field of approximately 175,736 V/m.

In this study, we inadvertently allowed the applied static electric fields in Groups B and C to increase the cellular influence of the ADM to a lethal level. The above chart shows the number of animals dying each day during the study. The deaths in Groups B and C all occurred while the tumors were still small, so the tumors were not a factor in the deaths.

GA: One Animal Death (ADM With No Field Exposure)

GB: Seven Animal Deaths (ADM Plus Static Field Exposure)

GC: Eight Animal Deaths (ADM Plus Static Field Exposure)

Conclusions

1. All of the animals in the study were treated with an ADM dose known to be safe because of previous studies at this level by other researchers. The animals in GA, without exposure to a static field, incurred no ill effect until day 30 when the tumor (not the ADM) killed the first animal.
   
   
2. The static fields highly potentiated the reaction of Groups B and C to the ADM, creating the effect of a lethal overdose. Necropsy revealed heart enlargement in the dead animals in Groups B and C (but not Group A), and this is the classic symptom of ADM overdose (irreversible myocardial toxicity with delayed congestive heart failure).
   
   
3. ADM is a non-polar molecule, so the applied static electric fields were not directly affecting the chemical. Instead, the fields were increasing the reaction of body cells to the ADM.
   
   
4. Externally applied static electric fields can increase cell damage caused by foreign chemicals inside an animal’s body. The increased cell damage can be severe enough that a normally well-tolerated chemical dose becomes lethal. This has important implications in the ability of common drugs, or environmentally encountered chemicals, to damage cells.

Groups B and C show the most powerful, and dangerous, non-thermal biological influence ever observed from a non-ionizing field of any type.

10 mg/kg ADM Study

This study included three groups of 11 tumor-bearing animals each. All of the animals were treated with 10 mg/kg ADM on day 7. The animals in Groups B and C were placed in restraining tubes for one 4-hour static field exposure period following the ADM injection.

The restraining tubes used for each group were placed on tube holding fixtures. The holding fixtures were then placed on shelving for the 4-hour field exposure period.

GA: Control group, treated with ADM and placed in restraining tubes for 4 hours, but with no static field exposure.

GB: ADM, plus the field from a charged 6.3 mm brass ball maintained 5 mm from each tumor. The charge on the ball changed from positive to negative each 5 seconds. The animals were exposed to a field intensity of approximately 450,000 V/m for 4 hours.

GC: ADM, plus the static electric field from a charged 6.3 mm brass ball maintained 5 mm from each tumor. The charge on the ball had a constantly negative polarity, and the animals were exposed to a field intensity of approximately 450,000 V/m for 4 hours.

After the 4-hour field exposure period, all animals were returned to standard cages for the remaining 10 days of the study.

The above graph shows the mean tumor weight gain/loss (percent) from the time of treatment on day 7, to the end of the study on day 17.

GA: 225% mean tumor wt. gain. (ADM With No Field Exposure)

GB: 59% mean tumor wt. gain. (ADM Plus Static Field Exposure)

GC: 35% mean Tumor wt. gain. (ADM Plus Static Field Exposure)

Conclusions

1. The 10 mg/kg ADM used for all of the animals is less than the 12 mg/kg successfully used in the first study above, but increasing the static electric field intensity in this study increased cancer cell kill without harming the animals.
   
   
2. This study demonstrated odds as high as 119 to 1 that an animal in the field exposed groups would have more tumor cells killed than an animal in the group treated with ADM only.

GA: No tumor regression.

GB: P-value of .0031

GC: P-value of .0015

3. A constant polarity static electric field, as in Group C, increased the ADM cancer cell kill as well as a field perodically from positive to negative polarity.
   
   

No ADM Study

This study included two groups of 6 tumor-bearing animals each. None of the animals were treated with ADM. One of the groups was not exposed to a static field. The other group was exposed to a static electric field of approximately 175,736 V/m from days 2 to 16.

GA: Control group, in a cage with no field exposure.

GB: In a cage identical to GA, but exposed to the field from a negatively charged plate under (outside) the cage, with a grounded grid above the animals (90 mm between the plate and grid). This exposed the animals to a static electric field of approximately 175,736 V/m.

After the study, the animals’ tumors were excised and laid out by weight on a 12.7 mm (½”) grid. The left row is Group A (no field exposure), and the right row is Group B (175,736 V/m field exposure). The median tumor size would fall between tumors 3 and 4).

The above bar graph shows the mean and median tumor size (grams) for each group at the end of the study on day 16.

GA: Median tumor weight 0.9g (No Field Exposure)

GB: Median tumor weight 3.2g (Static Field Exposure. 356% more than the control. P-value = .01)

Conclusions

1. This was our first study pointing to the ability of an external static electric field to accelerate cancer growth inside a mammalian body.
   
   
2. This degree of growth acceleration may jeopardize a successful outcome in standard cancer treatment.

Naturally Generated Field Study

This study included four groups of 11 tumor-bearing animals each. None of the animals were treated with ADM. Two of the groups were not exposed to static fields.

Two of the groups were exposed to static electric fields from charges produced on their fur as they rubbed against a piece of carpet suspended above the animals in the Group C and D cages.

GA: The animals were housed in a low charge generation cage with no carpet suspended above the animals, and a wire grid floor. An average 63-volt charge potential was found on the animals’ fur during the study.

GB: In this group carpet was suspended above the animals so they could rub against it, but the carpet was treated with a conductive mixture for low charge generation. The cage used a wire grid floor. An average 300-volt charge potential was found on the animals’ fur during the study.

GC: In this group standard (static charge susceptible) carpet was suspended above the animals so they could rub against it. A wire grid floor was used. An average 1,250-volt charge potential was found on the animals’ fur during the study. The fact that the charges were so close to the animals’ bodies exposed them to an intense static electric field. Assuming a 1 cm charged area of fur, Group C averaged a 200,971 V/m field exposure.

GD: In this group standard (static charge susceptible) carpet was suspended above the animals so they could rub against it. A non-conductive plastic grid floor was used. An average 2,350-volt charge potential was found on the animals’ fur during the study. Again, because the charges were so close to the bodies, the animals’ would be exposed to an intense static electric field. Assuming a 1 cm charged area of fur, Group D averaged a 377,825 V/m field exposure.

The above graph shows the median tumor weight gain (percent) for each group from day 4 at the start of the study, to day 13 at the end of the study.

GA: 1,642% median tumor wt. gain. (No To Low Field Exposure)

GB: 1,467% median tumor wt. gain. (No To Low Field Exposure)

GC: 3,459% median tumor wt. gain. (High Field Exposure)

GD: 3,407% median tumor wt. gain. (High Field Exposure)

P-values for Groups C and D, compared to Groups A and B, ranged from 0.01 to 0.007 on the various measurement days. Odds were over 2.5 to 1 that an animal from Groups C or D would have greater tumor growth than an animal from Groups A or B.

Conclusions

1. Exposure to external static electric fields, generated from charges produced as two materials rub together, can significantly accelerate cancer growth inside a mammalian body.
   
   
   
2. The charges and fields produced in this study were identical to those produced as our clothing rubs together, or against other surfaces.
   
   

Overall Summary

Our studies, and animal studies by others, leave little doubt that external static electric fields can have influence inside a mammalian body. We have shown that we are often exposed to intense fields of this type, and that this may present significant danger. The full range of possible hazards we face from this is not known, simply because studies exploring the possibilities have not been conducted. It’s important for other researchers to start to work in this area, and we offer to freely help any research group planning such studies.

Papers
In addition to the above simplified study examples, more complete information on three of our animal studies can be found by clicking on in the following paper titles:
	In Vivo Enhancement of Chemotherapy With Static Electric or Magnetic Fields
	Static Fields: Possible Therapeutic Benefit --- Possible Danger
	Cancer Growth Acceleration By External Electrostatic Fields

Additional Work Areas

Identifying a hazard is only the first step in addressing any disease. The next step has to be providing ways to protect from the hazard.

We’re currently working to develop technology that will allow the production of inexpensive apparel items which protect from static electric fields. We’re most interested at this time in undergarments and apparel linings that look and wear like common clothing, but completely protect from these fields.

We’re making progress in this, and we’re prepared to work with any apparel manufacturer in this regard. Please e-mail James R. Gray (jrgray@cancer6million.org).