Abusive Childhood Experience: Epigenetic Link to Suicide? Bioresonance / Biofeedback as Adjunct
Posted Nov 04 2009 10:00pm
Question of the day: Do you ever wonder why already-existing modalities which are drug-free, non-invasive, and gentle are rarely included as potential solutions to such serious issues as early childhood trauma and links to suicide? We’d love to hear your opinions!
(To post your comments, go to the bottom of this article. You’ll see a list of key words. The final word in that list will either say “No Comments” or a number in front of the word “Comments”. Select that phrase by left clicking on it. A menu will appear called “Leave a Reply”. Fill in the form. Select “Submit Comment”.)
Researchers note that chemical responses to traumatic and abusive childhood experiences may affect heritable traits which contribute to poor decision-making and other behaviors.
While scientists debate this further, an immediate consideration is bioresonance / biofeedback which may re-educate and train the body to deal with mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual responses to these chemicals.
Article: A friend recently asked my opinion about an article courtesy of McGill University and World Science staff (May 6, 2008) entitled “Brain’s Molecules May Tell Of Child Abuse / Finding Could Lead To Treatments”.
The McGill article reported that researchers found key differences in brains of folks who experienced early childhood abuse. It discusses a possible cause-and-effect link between Epigenetics and early childhood abuse which subsequently might contribute to their decisions to commit suicide.
My friend further requested an opinion from the perspective of bioresonance / biofeedback and its ability to train and re-educate the body regarding physical (including chemical), mental, emotional, and spiritual stressors.
Let me start by agreeing with the findings of McGill University and the World Science Staff as well as tie-ins from studies in related areas.
When researchers examined brains, although genes showed no significant differences, chemical differences were noted in epigenetic markers which are influenced by life experiences.
Simply put, we have an “experience” with its associated “chemical, which affects the epigenetic marker, which in turn may affect decision-making. Although, DNA is not changed, the trait is heritable.
Let’s fill in some background.
Modern usage of the word “epigenetic” usually references attempts to explain heritable traits NOT involving changes to underlying DNA structure.
This is significant because all cells within an organism inherit the same DNA sequence. Yet scientific studies consistently point to “something else” which contributes to heritable traits; modern scientists now talk of chemicals which “turn on” or “turn off” traits without affecting DNA structure.
The McGill article, discusses, in particular, a possible cause-and-effect relationship between child abuse and suicide.
Examination of brains of childhood abuse victims who committed suicide focused on pro¬teins crit¬i¬cal for learn¬ing, mem¬o¬ry, and build¬ing new con¬nec¬tions in the brain because researchers reasoned that pro¬tein pro¬duc¬tion can af¬fect decision-mak¬ing and oth¬er behaviors.
Their search found that rRNA, a key piece of the cell’s machinery to make protein, can be governed by Epigenetics.
Further, knowing that brain molecules, which may have been altered due to childhood abuse or trauma, are contributed to a zygote both by mother as well as father, we quickly realize that we are no longer considering a single generational affect,
Let’s keep in mind that these are “real folks” being discussed, not computer models, and not lab animals. So, although science proved chemical existence of a cause-and-effect relationship - namely that traumatic experiences can be responsible for heritable traits - at this point of the argument, we’re no closer to being of actual practical assistance to anyone living this nightmare – nor are we any closer to stopping the heritable chain.
With this end in mind, let’s examine another side of the equation for a bit.
When a person has an experience, the body produces a chemical associated with that experience. (This has been proven by researchers such as Dr. Joe Dispenza (Rutgers) and others.) In fact, there are times the body may even become addicted to that chemical… when this happens a person may be driven to re-experience whatever might be associated with that chemical in order for the body to greedily get its fix. In this sense, a person may be truly addicted to negative emotions and decision-making behaviors in a physical sense.
In simplest terms, we have a negative / abusive childhood experience, a chemical resulting from that experience which may affect decision-making, may be addictive, and in addition, may be heritable to subsequent generations.
We just added another dimension to the issue.
In fact, Mo¬she Szyf, one of the researchers from McGill Uni¬ver¬s¬ity in Mont¬real, wondered if these chemicals could be identified in blood DNA, perhaps leading to diag¬nos¬tic tests, which, in turn might lead to treat¬ments that might “erase these dif¬fer¬ences” and the re¬sult¬ing stress re¬s¬ponses.
The “stress responses”, Mr. Szyf described might be addressed within the existing field of bioresonance / biofeedback.
Because the chemical, resulting from a particular experience (in this case –early childhood abuse) is an actual physical “thing”, it has an associated resonant frequency. Bioresonance / biofeedback communicates with the body on an electrical level - that “discussion” being in the frequency realm – in order to train and re-educate the body regarding its choice to react or not react to the chemical stressors noted in this discussion.
Therefore, at least one practical and immediate course of action already exists.
In addition, because there are no known deleterious side affects to the client, discussion regarding contraindications becomes moot • there are no chemicals involved; • the session is non-invasive, gentle, and pain-free; • communication with the body occurs purely on an electrical level which negates necessity to re-traumatize by requesting a re-living / re-telling of the abusive experience.
In addition, because the modality communicates with the body on a purely electrical level, it also eliminates consideration of secondary trauma which may be associated with cognitive, allopathic, and / or chemical attempts to deal with this issue.
My question to researchers now becomes empirical proof in the following arenas: 1. If the body might be re-educated and trained to not respond to these chemicals, could the “automatic” response to them be “turned off”? 2. Further, after the body alters its response, and no longer has use for the chemical, would it “un-glue” and no longer be part of the heritable chain?
Summary 1. Victims of early childhood abuse and trauma might benefit greatly from immediate addition of bioresonance / biofeedback as an adjunct to their existing mental wellness plan. 2. I strongly urge all mental health practitioners to refer existing early childhood abuse clients to seek bioresonant / biofeedback sessions as an adjunct to their present mental wellness plan. 3. I urge continued empirical research in the area of bioresonance / biofeedback and how it relates to this issue from a heritable perspective.