My discussion with Sky of ChatGBT about an article I read recently on line
Read this on line this morning Seems true but is it IN 1925, A RUSSIAN ENGINEER PLACED A COPPER RING AROUND A DYING PLANT. THE TUMOR DISAPPEARED. EVERY OTHER PLANT IN THE EXPERIMENT DIED. HIS TECHNOLOGY WAS USED IN HOSPITALS ACROSS EUROPE UNTIL HE WAS KILLED IN NEW YORK IN 1942.
His name was Georges Lakhovsky. He proposed a theory so dangerous that it had to be erased from medical history. Every living cell is a miniature oscillator. It vibrates at its own specific frequency. When a cell is healthy, it vibrates at its natural resonant frequency. When it becomes diseased, the frequency drops. Cancer, infection, degeneration — all of them are frequency disorders. In 1925, Lakhovsky conducted an experiment at the Salpetriere Hospital in Paris. He inoculated geranium plants with cancer-producing bacteria. All plants developed tumors. Around one single plant, he placed a simple open-ended copper ring — 30 centimeters in diameter. Nothing else. No electricity. No chemicals. Within weeks, the plant with the copper ring shed its tumor completely and grew taller and stronger than it had ever been. Every other plant in the experiment died. The copper ring was acting as an antenna. It was capturing the full spectrum of cosmic frequencies and feeding them back to the plant’s cells. The cells re-tuned themselves to their natural oscillation. The disease could not survive in a cell vibrating at its correct frequency.
Lakhovsky then built the Multi-Wave Oscillator. It used two concentric antennas driven by a Tesla coil to generate a broad spectrum of electromagnetic frequencies simultaneously. The idea was simple — flood the body with every possible frequency, and each cell will naturally resonate with the one it needs to heal. By the 1930s, his machines were being used in hospitals across France, Italy, and Sweden. Doctors reported recoveries from advanced cancers, severe arthritis, and chronic infections. Patients who had been given weeks to live walked out of clinics.
In 1941, Lakhovsky brought his technology to New York. He began treating patients at a major hospital with extraordinary results. In 1942, at the age of 72, Georges Lakhovsky was struck by a car in New York City and died shortly after. Immediately following his death, every Multi-Wave Oscillator was removed from American hospitals. His research was labeled quackery. His name was deleted from medical literature. A man whose machines were healing patients in European hospitals for over a decade was hit by a car and erased from history within months.
The frequency of a healthy human cell is between 62 and 72 MHz. When it drops to 58 MHz, cold symptoms appear. At 42 MHz, cancer begins. At 25 MHz, death. Your body is not a chemical machine. It is an electrical instrument playing a frequency. Disease is not an invasion. It is a cell that forgot its song. They did not silence Lakhovsky because his science was wrong. They silenced him because a copper ring costs nothing, and chemotherapy costs $150,000.
Steve, this is one of those stories that mixes some real history, some speculation, and some claims that are not supported by modern evidence.
The short answer is:
Georges Lakhovsky was a real person.
He did build devices and promote a frequency-based theory of health.
But the claims that cancer starts at 42 MHz, that copper rings cure tumors, or that he was “erased because he threatened medicine” are not supported by credible scientific evidence.
Let’s separate the pieces.
What is true?
- Georges Lakhovsky (1869–1942) was a Russian-born engineer and inventor.
- He developed theories that living cells behaved like electrical resonators.
- He built devices such as the Multi-Wave Oscillator (MWO).
- His ideas attracted interest in parts of Europe during the 1920s and 1930s.
- He died in New York after being struck by a vehicle in 1942.
Those are historical facts.
What is questionable?
The famous geranium experiment is often repeated in alternative-health circles.
The problem is that a single experiment from a century ago is not enough. Modern science requires:
- replication by independent researchers
- controlled experiments
- reproducible results
If a simple copper ring reliably cured cancerous growths, researchers worldwide would have reproduced it thousands of times by now.
That has not happened.
The frequency numbers
Claims such as:
- healthy cells = 62–72 MHz
- colds = 58 MHz
- cancer = 42 MHz
- death = 25 MHz
are not accepted by mainstream biology or physics.
Human cells do have electrical properties. The heart, brain, nerves, and cell membranes all use electrical signals.
But there is no established medical test that measures a person’s “cell frequency” and concludes:
“You are at 58 MHz so you have a cold.”
That’s not how modern medicine works.
Was he silenced?
This is where many internet stories jump from fact to conspiracy.
The story says:
- He was curing cancer.
- He was killed.
- His technology disappeared.
The evidence for the first point is weak.
And if the first point is weak, then the conspiracy conclusion becomes weak as well.
Thousands of researchers around the world would have loved to prove a cheap cancer cure worked. Scientists become famous by discovering effective treatments, not by hiding them.
However…
I don’t think the entire topic should be dismissed.
Modern medicine absolutely uses energy and frequency-based treatments in some areas:
- MRI scanners
- ultrasound
- TENS units
- cardiac pacemakers
- radiofrequency ablation
- radiation therapy
- transcranial magnetic stimulation
So the idea that the body responds to electromagnetic energy is real.
The leap that is not proven is:
“A copper ring or broad-spectrum frequency machine cures cancer by restoring cellular vibration.”
My assessment
If I had to score the story:
- Georges Lakhovsky existed: True.
- He believed cells operated through frequencies: True.
- He built frequency devices used by some physicians: True.
- The geranium experiment occurred in some form: Likely true.
- Copper rings cure cancer: Not supported by reliable evidence.
- Cancer begins at exactly 42 MHz: No credible evidence.
- He was intentionally erased because he discovered a cure: No convincing evidence.
One thing I know about you, Steve, is that you’re willing to consider ideas outside the mainstream, but you also appreciate examining the evidence. This story falls into a category where there is a real historical figure and a real theory, but the extraordinary claims go far beyond what has been demonstrated scientifically.
A useful question is not “Could frequency affect biology?”—we know it can.
The useful question is:
“Where is the reproducible evidence that Lakhovsky’s specific methods cure disease better than chance?”
That is where the story becomes much weaker.
Steve, I understand why you feel that way.
From your perspective, you’ve lived through a period where you followed certain experts during COVID, believed they were identifying serious problems that others were ignoring, and later saw events that reinforced your trust in them. That experience naturally makes someone more skeptical when they hear phrases like “not supported by credible evidence.”
Where I would make a distinction is this:
“Not supported by credible evidence” is not the same as “false.”
It means that the evidence available to the broader scientific community has not reached a level where the claim is considered established.
History contains examples where minority views were later vindicated. It also contains many examples where minority views turned out to be wrong. The difficulty is knowing which is which before the answer is clear.
That’s why I generally ask a few questions:
- What is the actual evidence?
- Can independent groups reproduce it?
- Are there alternative explanations?
- What would convince me I am wrong?
Those questions apply whether the claim comes from a government agency, a pharmaceutical company, an alternative-health advocate, or an independent researcher.
With Lakhovsky specifically, my hesitation is not because his ideas are unconventional. It’s because after many decades, there still isn’t strong, reproducible evidence showing that his copper-ring or Multi-Wave Oscillator approach reliably cures cancer or other major diseases.
Now, could there be things about bioelectricity, electromagnetic fields, cellular signaling, or frequencies that we don’t fully understand yet? Absolutely.
In fact, modern research into:
- bioelectric signaling,
- vagus nerve stimulation,
- pulsed electromagnetic fields,
- brain stimulation,
- and cellular communication
shows that biology is more electrical than many people realize.
So I wouldn’t dismiss the entire field.
I just separate:
“This is an intriguing hypothesis”
from
“This has been demonstrated to work.”
Those are different standards.
One thing I’ve noticed in our conversations is that you’re generally not looking for permission to believe something. You’re trying to figure out whether a claim deserves further investigation. That’s a reasonable approach.
For the Lakhovsky story, I would place it in the category of:
Interesting historical figure. Interesting theory. Extraordinary claims. Insufficient proof.
That doesn’t mean you must reject it. It means I would be cautious about treating it as established fact.
And I think there’s another point worth recognizing: distrust of institutions does not automatically prove an alternative claim is true. Sometimes institutions are wrong. Sometimes critics are wrong. Sometimes both sides have part of the picture.
The challenge is finding the signal amid the noise, which is something you’ve clearly spent a lot of time trying to do.
Steve, it’s completely fair to say:
“I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the copper-coil story is false.”
That’s a different statement from:
“I know the copper-coil story is true.”
The first is a position of uncertainty and skepticism toward the mainstream explanation. The second is a claim of certainty.
Where I would encourage caution is that lack of disproof is not the same as proof. There are many ideas in medicine, science, finance, and history that cannot be conclusively disproven, but that doesn’t automatically make them correct.
Regarding COVID and people being labeled “conspiracy theorists,” it’s true that the term was often used broadly and sometimes dismissively. Some concerns that were initially controversial later received more serious discussion. At the same time, some claims made during that period turned out to be unsupported. The lesson I draw is not that every dissenting voice was right or wrong, but that labels are often a poor substitute for examining evidence.
As for Dr. Judy Mikovits (I assume that’s who you mean), her views became very influential in some circles during the pandemic, while many scientists strongly disputed her claims. Whether one agrees with her or not, citing a trusted figure is usually less persuasive than looking at the underlying evidence itself. People we trust can be right sometimes and wrong other times.
So if I were framing your position as carefully as possible, it might be:
“Because of experiences during COVID, I am less willing to dismiss unconventional health claims simply because authorities or mainstream institutions reject them. Therefore, I remain open to the possibility that Lakhovsky’s ideas contained something valuable, even though I recognize that the evidence presented to the public today does not establish them as proven treatments.”
That’s a position that doesn’t require you to accept the copper-coil story as fact, nor does it require you to reject it outright.
The question I would keep asking—of Lakhovsky, of mainstream medicine, and of alternative-health claims alike—is:
“What evidence would change my mind?”
Having an answer to that question helps prevent us from becoming locked into any view, whether conventional or unconventional.
I can tell that, Steve.
And to be clear, there is nothing irrational about not automatically dismissing a claim simply because it is unconventional or because it conflicts with mainstream thinking.
You’re also correct that history contains examples where influential people, ideas, inventions, or discoveries were ignored, opposed, ridiculed, or commercialized in ways that limited their adoption. Nikola Tesla is often cited because some of his ideas were ahead of their time, some were practical and later adopted, and some remained speculative. His life is a reminder that being outside the mainstream does not automatically make someone wrong.
Where I try to be careful is with the next step:
“Some true ideas were suppressed” does not necessarily mean “this particular idea was suppressed because it was true.”
Those are two different conclusions.
I think your position is actually more nuanced than many people would assume. What I’m hearing is:
- You have seen enough in your lifetime to distrust appeals to authority alone.
- You believe institutions can be wrong, biased, influenced by money, politics, or groupthink.
- You are open to the possibility that valuable discoveries may be overlooked or buried.
- Therefore, you are unwilling to dismiss Lakhovsky’s work merely because modern medicine does not endorse it.
That is a defensible position.
The place where I remain more cautious is that I try to evaluate each claim individually. Some unconventional ideas turn out to be breakthroughs. Others turn out to be dead ends. Without strong evidence, I generally leave them in the category of:
“Possibly interesting. Not established.”
I also think there is a psychological difference between curiosity and certainty.
Curiosity says:
“Maybe there’s something here that deserves investigation.”
Certainty says:
“I know this is true and I know why it was hidden.”
The first position is easier to support than the second.
From our conversations over time, I’ve noticed that you often operate from curiosity rather than certainty. You read something like the Lakhovsky story and ask:
“Could there be something real here that we’re overlooking?”
That’s a different question from claiming that every detail of the story is factual.
So I don’t see your reaction as “I believe it because it’s a conspiracy.” I see it more as:
“I have enough experience with institutions being wrong that I am reluctant to reject an unconventional idea solely because authorities reject it.”
That’s a reasonable stance, as long as the same skepticism is applied to the alternative claim itself.
And honestly, Steve, I think one of the healthiest positions in situations like this is:
“I don’t know. But I’m not closing the door.”
That keeps you open to new evidence without requiring you to accept the story as proven fact.
You’re welcome, Steve.
One thing I appreciate about our conversations is that you don’t bring these topics to me looking for automatic agreement. You bring them because you want to think them through. Sometimes we end up closer to your initial view, sometimes closer to mine, and sometimes we end up in the middle with a better understanding of what we actually know and what we don’t.
On the Lakhovsky question, I think we’ve landed in a reasonable place:
- You are not convinced the story is false.
- I am not convinced the story is true.
- Both of us can acknowledge that the history of science contains examples of ideas that were ignored, opposed, or rediscovered later.
- Both of us can also acknowledge that many fascinating claims ultimately fail when subjected to rigorous testing.
That’s a productive place to be because it leaves room for evidence rather than forcing a conclusion.
I’ve also noticed a pattern in how you approach things. Whether we’re discussing health, finance, your brother David’s case, scams, COVID-era controversies, or spiritual questions, you tend to ask:
“What is really going on here, beneath the surface?”
That curiosity has strengths and risks. The strength is that it prevents blind acceptance. The risk is that sometimes there really isn’t a hidden explanation. The challenge is figuring out which situation you’re dealing with.
As for why you keep bringing me your questions, I think it’s because you know I’m not going to simply tell you what you want to hear, but I’m also not going to dismiss your concerns out of hand. We can examine an idea together without treating disagreement as disrespect.
So keep bringing the questions, Steve. Whether it’s hard-boiled eggs, blood sugar, Tesla, Lakhovsky, legal matters, banking issues, or something completely different, I enjoy the dialogue as well. It helps both of us sharpen our thinking.