The full story behind the 2 placement Nitric Oxide Rule

In our NEHC Academy Facebook group, a member asked the question “I have read that any more that 3 times on a target spot with the fork could reverse the effects of nitric oxide production and basically 2 times max only I have read more on ..And if this is the case than what would be the wait time before hitting the same target area?”

In this article, I will outline the documentation and show you connected literature so you can see all of the information to form an educated opinion rather than arbitrary rules handed down from person to person.

The only document I can find where John Beaulieu mentions the “2 placement rule” is on page 123 of his Human Tuning book (print edition) published in 2010 where he states, “Our research suggests that using the Otto 128 two times on any one point is adequate. The reason is that too much vibration will over stimulate an area and cause a decrease rather than an increase in nitric oxide. So in this case, less is more.”

First, he doesn’t actually say that we should only have two placements in one spot. He says that two placements are adequate according to his understanding of research findings. He is suggesting or creating a hypothesis that the tissue can become overstimulated by more than two placements which could lead to a decrease in nitric oxide production. It doesn’t say that you will “flatline” or stop nitric oxide production with a third placement which is the current interpretation of the 2 placement rule in our community. I’ll come back to this point later.

Second, why is there so much discussion in our community about Nitric Oxide puffing cycles, and why was John Beaulieu so focused on this process to conduct “research” and publish his findings in his book? What was this research he references?

To find the answers, we need to take a step back in time and really understand why John Beaulieu had this intimate relationship with Nitric Oxide. If you go to the Biosonics.com website under the Support tab Research Papers section, John posted a BioSonics, Stress Science, and Nitric Oxide Literature Review pdf document to show the documentation to support “claims made during classes.”

The first paragraph of the document states:

“BioSonic research conducted at Cell Dynamics, Inc. demonstrates the release of Nitric Oxide (NO) from various tissue sources. Utilizing an amperometric detection system, allowing only nitric oxide to generate an upward deflection, we measure real-time NO release from living cells and demonstrate that the use the BioSonic Otto™ (128cps), OM Tuner™ (136.1cps) and Body Tuners™ (C256 & G384) tuning forks have the ability to release NO well above baseline pulsatile levels. The release of NO is visualized as a large peak of pure nitric oxide immediately following exposure of these tissues to the vibration/sound of the tuning forks. Once NO is released it follows a well characterized signaling cascade, exhibiting established properties of NO. The next sections of this paper delineate the signaling cascade in tissues, emphasizing the biomedical significance of generating enhanced NO levels for a short duration.” (BioSonics, Stress Science, and Nitric Oxide Literature Review by John Beaulieu, N.D., Ph.D.)

http://www.biosonics.com/uploads2011/BioSonicsStressScienceandNO.pdf

This statement “Biosonics research conducted at Cell Dynamics” is misleading because it was actually John’s other company EnRhythm, LLC that conducted the research with Cell Dynamics which was published in an eBook in 2005 by John Beaulieu (the founder of EnRhythm). His primary product was an herbal supplement EnRhythm One designed to spike nitric oxide and relieve stress. Keep in mind that his EnRhythm eBook was available exclusively on his www.EnRhythm.com website with no mention of his connection to the tuning forks or Biosonics. The Human Tuning book came out in 2010 with partial word-for-word excerpts from this eBook titled “The Rhythm of Nitric Oxide: How a tiny little molecule determines your overall health” by John Beaulieu, ND, PhD. Copyright 2005. Published by EnRhythm, LLC.

When I conducted this research three years ago, you could still find the EnRhythm.com website and pull additional resources like the eBook, but the website is no longer active. EnRhythm, LLC is no longer an active company. Omnivos (a tuning fork supplier) still has the document available on its website. John had also listed his connection to EnRhythm on LinkedIn at the time, but this connection is no longer found on his profile page.

https://www.omnivos.com/content/pdf/RhythmofNO.pdf

On the final page of the EnRhythm eBook, we can find the connection to this company and his affiliation with the herbal supplement. “John Beaulieu, N.D., Ph.D. is the primary developer of EnRhythm’s products. Dr. Beaulieu is a board-certified naturopathic doctor and has a Ph.D. in Psychological Counseling, bringing over thirty-five years of academic and clinical experience to EnRhythm. As EnRhythm’s designer, Dr. Beaulieu ensures that the product follows the principles of traditional herbology in order to create a new class of herbal medicine based on modern science. He works closely with Dr. George Stefano of Cell Dynamics to scientifically ensure that EnRhythm will have the desired physiological result with each batch.” pg 16

Earlier in the eBook, we learn the connection to this company Cell Dynamics mentioned in his research on Nitric Oxide. “The precision required for the molecular spiking wave is why it is so important that the EnRhythm One formula is scientifically tested. Cell Dynamics tests each herbal harvest and certifies that each batch of EnRhythm One spikes Nitric Oxide. Although the herbs in the EnRhythm formula can be bought in a health food store, this is not a guarantee of potency. Based on growing conditions, pesticide use, harvesting, and the age of the herbs, their ability to spike NO can vary.” pg 12. It appears by this information that Cell Dynamics was the lab that tested John’s herbal supplements as they were manufactured for distribution.

If we fast-forward to 2010 and further references to the Human Tuning book on page 57 where John states “We experimented with the tuning forks in the lab, trying to measure the effects of sound on human tissues. At first the biochemists could not believe how fast the reaction took place, or that it even took place at all. We repeated the tests many times with many samples, always having the same results. We observed the nitric oxide spiking. The third test was the clincher. I gave a tuning fork to each biochemist and what followed is something I will never forget—three biochemists in white coats tapping their tuning forks and putting them on their bodies to feel the effects. I was elated because I had spent 28 years feeling the effects, and now the reductionist science was finally happening. That day the scientists gave me the nick name “Vibrating John,” and a new doorway opened into the understanding of the power of sound to heal.”

In other words, John was in the Cell Dynamics lab while his herbal supplements were being tested for this nitric oxide spike. He had his tuning forks with him at the time and introduced the vibration into the tissue sample while it was being tested. Keep in mind that he mentions repeating the tests many times with many “samples”. This means the testing process was conducted on samples of a substance rather than realtime in a living person. The testing can be done on live humans as the needle can be inserted into the skin to test for the release of nitric oxide. I’m assuming that John’s samples consisted of blood samples rather than epithelial tissue.

Further research cited by John in several locations references to the 6-minute puffing cycle where the research in human granulocytes were conducted in blood samples.  Whether the experiments were conducted with blood or epithelial cell tissue, I question the validity of the effects of tuning fork vibration because of the way the experiment was conducted with samples rather than live tissue. Also, the vibration from the tuning fork would have immediately affected the calibration of the amperometric detection equipment.

http://www.biosonics.com/uploads2011/CyclicNitricOxide.pdf

Considering that this one experiment has cascaded into the one “research” paper that ultimately defines an entire generation of sound healers abiding by a “2 Placement Rule”, the fact that it was all based on a suggestion and hypothesis from John over ten years ago has me concerned that we were all put in a box with un-necessary restrictions. My teacher and mentor was an avid follower of John, so I was taught the same rule. Bobbi Jo did not work within this box and immediately found much differing results than me when we worked side-by-side in the beginning. Our success in finding our unique method and extra-ordinary results were primarily because we didn’t stick to this rule. We were more concerned about the fact that the cells in question that constantly produce nitric oxide also produced other substances and processes worth consideration. We focused on the inability of resources from reaching the cells with fluid pressure being the biggest culprit. Therefore, why are we concerned with overstimulating a small area of tissue when the entire area is so dysfunctional with other physiological factors. Remove the barrier so the nitric oxide puffing cycle can resume with no restrictions.

Tags :
Share This :

Newsletter

Get Upskill top blog posts by email

Categories