[thedoc (OP)]

Andrea asked the Naked Scientists:
   
How does ultrasound inactivate viruses?

What do you think?

[Zapper Dave]

One common theory is that the vibration damages the bonding of the capsids, causing them to separate. This can be caused not only acoustically but also by applying EMF pulses.

 

Andrea asked the Naked Scientists:
   
How does ultrasound inactivate viruses?

What do you think?

[RD]

But firing an ancient ultrasonic television remote control at your body will not cure you of the flu.
Ultrasound applied with sufficient power to inactivate the virus would cook the person ...

At high levels of exposure, ultrasound is capable of causing permanent damage to biological tissues, including teratogenic effects, through heating, acoustic cavitation and radiation force.

  www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1265028759369


There are devices available via t’internet which suggest they can treat viral illness by applying ultrasound , but always read the small print ...

 Ultrasound Rife Generator is not a medical device.  It is an experimental electronic instrument.  It is not intended for the diagnosis, prevention, treatment, cure or mitigation of any disease in humans or animals.  It is not designed to affect the structure or function of any system in the body.

indirect link to source of quote via WOT ... https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/www.braintuner.com

also see ... http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html

[Zapper Dave]

You wrote: at your body will not cure you of the flu.

I could not agree more because the ancient ultrasonic television remote was not made for that purpose and is inefficiently designed when used for that purpose. According to Rife and others, these frequencies are very specific.

You posted: At high levels of exposure, ultrasound is capable of causing permanent damage to biological tissues, including teratogenic effects, through heating, acoustic cavitation and radiation force.

Yes, high levels can be very dangerous and damaging. Even weak little cell phones can cause tissue damage and cancer. This is why proper design is important.

You posted: is not a medical device.  It is an experimental electronic instrument.  It is not intended for the diagnosis, prevention, treatment, cure or mitigation of any disease in humans or animals.  It is not designed to affect the structure or function of any system in the body.

This is a standard disclaimer that us used for any devices that does not have FDA approval. This posting is required by the FDA and the FTC.

NIH - Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. [nofollow]

[RD]

You posted: At high levels of exposure, ultrasound is capable of causing permanent damage to biological tissues, including teratogenic effects, through heating, acoustic cavitation and radiation force.

Yes, high levels can be very dangerous and damaging. Even weak little cell phones can cause tissue damage and cancer. This is why proper design is important.

I was not aware cell phones emitted ultrasound, could you please post a link to evidence corroborating this.

This is a standard disclaimer that us used for any devices that does not have FDA approval. This posting is required by the FDA and the FTC.

Yes it’s the standard disclaimer quacks use to attempt to avoid prosecution for selling unproven medical devices which have not been shown to be both safe and effective.

[Zapper Dave]

You said: I was not aware cell phones emitted ultrasound, could you please post a link to evidence corroborating this.

I do not have any information saying that they do, but they do emit electromagnetic radiation, just ultra high frequency. All electromagnetic radiation carries hazards if it is strong enough. BTW, I know the difference, I hold a FCC Technician license.

>- Yes it’s the standard disclaimer quacks use to attempt to avoid prosecution for selling unproven medical devices which have not been shown to be both safe and effective.

So, only quacks can use this? What proof do you have?

A popsicle stick could be used as a tongue depressor but is only required to be FDA registered and approved if sold for that purpose. If it is used for that purpose, it is considered off label usage. If it was promoted for saving a life, it changes from a Class 1 to a Class 3 device. If there were frequent internet postings to the use of a popsicle stick to help save someone from choking, then popsicle stick manufacturers would be require to post that warning in order to not have to pay FDA fees and undergo the approval requirements for a Class 3 product. Class 3 approval can cost many millions of dollars.

See: A Dog's tongue is not a medical device [nofollow]  :^)

[JP]

Moderator note:

I've deleted the posts about quackery.  Please keep in mind this is a science Q&A forum, and keep your responses to science.  Zapper Dave, we have already discussed this via PM, but please refrain from posting non-mainstream science outside of the appropriate forums.

[RD]



You posted: At high levels of exposure, ultrasound is capable of causing permanent damage to biological tissues, including teratogenic effects, through heating, acoustic cavitation and radiation force.

Yes, high levels can be very dangerous and damaging. Even weak little cell phones can cause tissue damage and cancer. This is why proper design is important.

( the bold emphasis has been added to the above quote by me )

This thread is about the effects of ultrasound, I do not believe cell phones produce ultrasound. If you are referring to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones, (an entirely different phenomenon from ultrasound), it has not been shown to increase the incidence of cancer ... 

The largest study so far on mobile phones and cancer is a Danish study, which looked at over 420,000 people. It found no link between mobile phones and any type of cancer including brain cancers and leukaemia. Reports from the Interphone study, which included over 6,000 people with brain cancer from 13 countries, have also found that brain cancer is not more common among mobile phone users.

The use of mobile phones has skyrocketed since the 1980s. If mobile phones increase the risk of brain cancer, more and more people should now be developing this disease.
But studies in the USA, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland have found that the numbers of people with brain cancer have not changed very much. And in the UK, the incidence of brain cancer has been constant for years.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/cancercontroversies/mobilephones/mobile-phones-and-cancer

This is a standard disclaimer that us used for any devices that does not have FDA approval. This posting is required by the FDA and the FTC.

The disclaimer is only used by irresponsible persons $elling medical devices which have not been proven to be both safe and effective, in an attempt to avoid prosecution, (hopefully unsuccessful).

[RD]

Moderator note:

I've deleted the posts about quackery ...

Hopefully that does not mean links to http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=zapper, (which are unsurprisingly about quackery), will be deleted.

[JP]

Moderator note:

I've deleted the posts about quackery ...

Hopefully that does not mean links to LINK REMOVED, (which are unsurprisingly about quackery), will be deleted.

So long as this thread stays more or less on the topic of science behind the effect of ultrasound on viruses, it won't be touched.  If it derails too far (as it was into the medical evidence for "the zapper"), it will be moderated.  This is a science Q&A forum, meant to answer questions in terms of mainstream science.  We provide the Alternative Medicine sub-forum for discussion of the science of alternative medicine techniques.

As the link you provided was about a product not associated with the original question in any way, it will be removed.

[romanken]

nice post.