Light versus COVID, Part 1: Truth, Radiation, and Georges Lakhovsky

(L) Great peacock moth, Photo: whatsthatbug.com (R) Stamp honoring Fabre (1823-1915), Photo: Provence7.com 

by Mary W Maxwell, LLB

Behold, a new series at Gumshoe.  We will see some amazing things. I hope the series will live up to its title, “Light versus COVID.” Works by Robert O Becker, MD, Royal Rife, and Harold Saxton Burr will be included.

Part1 is about the work of Georges Lakhovsky (1869-1942), a Russian-born scientist who lived in France. The coil-bound copy of The Secret of Life that I have in my hand says: “First printed in 1939, revised [posthumously] in 1951, reprinted 1970.”  You may recall Lakhovsky’s oscillator with which he cured a geranium plant of a tumor.

First, I present comments about Lakhovsky, made by a later author, Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn., on the Internet (at ReadKong.com). I do not know his work and cannot vouch for his science, but here is what Hatonn says about light and truth (at ReadKong.com):

Hatonn’s Comment about Light and Truth

“The time is at hand for the realization of TRUTH as it now rises through the entropy of the eons come before. LIFE IS BUT LIGHT IN RADIANCE AND THEREFORE ALL THINGS HAVE POWER AND RECOGNITION THROUGH THE LIGHTED THOUGHT OF GOD (LIGHT). LIGHT IS, TRUTH IS, LIFE IS—GOD IS!

“What is the use of propounding a new theory of life? … Human knowledge of a positive character is not solely made up of a mass of experimental facts. …The future of science lies essentially, in its dynamic sense, in the expansion of its fundamental concepts, that is to say in scientific hypothesis. [says Hatonn] … Medicine, biology, the natural sciences … seem to be still separated, sometimes by watertight compartments, from the physical sciences, notably from electricity and radioelectricity.

“This is your “Electric Universe” brought forth from Light in every instance but presented in various and sundry forms….”

Fabre and the Lady Bird

In The Secret of Life, Georges Lakhovsky presents the 1910 investigations of Jean-Henri Fabre entitled Moeurs de Insects — bug mores, so to speak. Basically, Fabre was trying to figure out how male moths knew how to find the female shortly after she reached “puberty.” (I mean “emerged from the chrysalis.”)

Note: Lakhovsky claims that “the antennae of insects function in the manner of complex oscillators vibrating with the frequency of harmonics of a far higher scale than their fundamental wavelength.”

The rest of this section is me paraphrasing Lakhovsky’s discussion of Fabre, with me using double quotes if it’s verbatim Lakovsky from The Secret of Life.  This is about “access to the female moth” in Fabre’s laboratory.

Fabre observed that, at night, a whole swarm of males invaded the place. He pointed out the difficulties of access to his laboratory, as there were numerous trees. Still, the males always reached the female.

Was it sense of smell that guided the moths?  No, his experiment disproved that. The species he was dealing with, the Great peacock moth, had come from afar (None were near the vicinity of the lab.) “Sound, light and the sense of smell are out of the question, for the moth makes straight for the cage in spite of a variety of scents intentionally diffused by [Fabre] in order to lead the insects astray. The factor of place memory may be ruled out as irrelevant.”

Daytime

That was the night-time test. Now for a similar daytime experiment. This requires a diurnal species, the oak-bombyx, which is similar to the Great peacock. “But this insect is not to be found in the region where Fabre was working. How are we to account for the fact that it was able to come from its distant habitat? The males hurried along and found the female locked up in a drawer or under a framework covered by a cloth, in spite of nauseating effluvia emanating from all sorts of odoriferous substances placed there by the experimenter.

Fabre “placed the female in a bell-glass and gave her a slender oak twig with withered leaves as a support. The glass was set upon a table facing the open window. On entering the room the moths could not fail but see the prisoner as she was placed directly in their way. Without premeditation [he] placed it at the other end of the room, on the floor, in a corner where but little light could penetrate, about ten steps away from the window.”

Again, the males did not glance at their proper mate in the bell-jar. They all flew to the far end of the room to the dark corner where Fabre had placed the tray. They alighted on the wire dome… All afternoon, the moths danced about the empty cage a saraband – “which is what the presence of the female would normally evoke… Finally they departed, but not all. There were some who would not go, as if held there by some magical force. Truly a strange result. The moths collected where there was apparently nothing…”

“What had deceived them? All the preceding night and all the morning the female had remained under the wire-gauze cover, sometimes clinging to the wirework, sometimes resting on the sand in the tray. Whatever she touched, above all, apparently, with her distended abdomen, was impregnated, following a long contact, with certain emanations. This was her lure, her love-philter.”

(Hmm. I don’t quite get it. Dear Reader, so far I have not heard of emanations. Lakhovsky says that the sand retained these “emanations”! which “diffused the effluvian turn.” )

As for the irresistible philter, he now quotes Fabre, in Mark Clement’s English translation thereof:

“[The philter] requires time for its elaboration. I imagine it as an exhalation which is gradually given off and saturates whatever is in contact with the motionless body of the female… With these data in hand and unexpected information resulting from them, I varied the experiments, but all pointed in the same direction. In the morning I placed the female under the wire-gauze cover; for support an oak twig was provided. There, motionless, as if dead, she lay for hours, buried under a cluster of leaves which would thus become impregnated with her emanations.

“When the hour of the daily inspection drew near, I removed the twig and put it on a chair not far from the open window. I left the female under the bell-glass, plainly exposed. The moths arrived as usual… They hesitated… They were still searching. Finally they found something, and what did they find? Just the twig . . . With their wings rapidly fluttering they alighted on the foliage exploring it all over, probing, raising and displacing it until at the last the twig fell on the ground. Nevertheless, they continued probing between the leaves.”

Long story short, Fabre, according to Lakhovsky, concluded that these moths were endowed with a sense of smell very different from that of the human.  But Lakhovsky says:

“Fabre’s conclusion fails to satisfy me. The act of smelling is dependent on material particles which excite the olfactory sense, but the diffusion of these particles is limited to a short radius in the atmosphere. Thus it is not due to these particles that the moths were enabled to fly long distances. I thought it fit, therefore, to repeat these experiments. In my view, what attracts the males towards the female in the case of the Great Peacock and the Bombyx, is not the splendor of her colored mantle and her velvet wings, nor is it the odoriferous particles. It is rather the infinitesimal particles given off by her ovaries, micro-organic cells radiating according to a scale of determined wavelengths and exciting in the males the desire of procreation.” [Emphasis added]

A New Experiment

Lakhovsky invented a different experiment. During a night, he left the female lying on a leaf of cotton wool. (Remember we’re talking about moths here.) The next day at noon, he placed that cotton wool about 15 feet from the female. The males came as usual. But when Lakovsky on another day dipped the cotton wool in a solution of pure alcohol, the males didn’t show.

He concludes that “Neither pure alcohol nor corrosive sublimate could have had the least effect on the odoriferous effluvia. On the other hand, these solutions had destroyed by sterilization the living cells which gave off the radiations that attracted the moths.” [Emphasis added]

Lakovsky then considers the activity of the species Necrophorus — known as “burying beetles” — that attack dead bodies. They perform a hygiene function in the economy of nature in fields and woods — they restore the material of the corpse back into the land.

But how do the beetles direct themselves across great distances to the bodies of rats, birds, etc?

“It would seem that it is the micro-organisms arising out of this decomposition and oscillating according to a determined scale of wavelengths, which direct the burying beetles toward their food….My theory of radiation of living beings, confirmed by conclusive experiments, is in perfect harmony with the facts in question. … Similarly, the role of orientation in the flight of birds, the problem of migration, are explicable by the phenomena of auto-electrification in living beings.”

What Is Life?

I have skipped over other experiments to get to the main statement of Lakovsky’s theory. Here is the way Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn renders it:

“These fundamental principles cover the whole field of biology. WHAT IS LIFE? It is the dynamic equilibrium of all cells, the harmony of multiple radiations which react upon one another.  WHAT IS DISEASE? It is the oscillatory disequilibrium of cells, originating from external causes. It is, more especially, the struggle between microbic radiation and cellular radiation.” [Emphasis added]

“You cannot control a world if you do not control thought, knowledge and expression. … truth in understanding is BURIED AND HIDDEN from you….”

Hatonn continues:

“It is quite sad that greedy man keeps truth from humanity that you might not find balance, harmony and wondrous expression. The Lords of the Land of Physical shall NOT PREVAIL— save to continue as long as they can to STOP TRUTH from revelation unto you whom they would control.”

Conclusion

There is no conclusion for this Part 1 of the series “Light v Covid”!  The point was to bring in the idea of radiation. Maybe the Fabre and Lakhovsky experiments, and the extrapolation made by Hatonn, are dead wrong. Even so, it helps us to have some “mental furniture” about elements in nature, other than what we get from the glib remarks of say, the CDC.

Think about it.

Source

Is Scott Morrison the purported prime minister of Australia a convicted pedophile?

Leave a Reply