George Lakhovsky, a Russian-born scientist, believed to have found out that every cell of the human body has its own frequency. Healthy cells emit a frequency radiation, he claimed, and whenever a part of the body gets damaged, inflamed or ill, the resonance of those cells become less intense. When pathogens, bacteria, microbes take over, they disrupt the healthy cells with their harmful frequency, Lakhovsky thought.

Based on these notions, Lakhovsky constructed a device capable of generating a field of frequencies in a very broad spectrum. He argued that, if one would place a sick person or an affected body part in this frequency spectrum, those diseased cells would recognize their own frequency, tune in and would start resonating in their own, healthy frequency again. Thus the illness would disappear, Lakhovsky thought.

He felt it should be possible to halt and even cure degenerative diseases like cancer in this way. After a long time of experimenting unsuccessfully, he called Nicola Tesla for help. Tesla had the blueprints for the oscillator machine ready for use. Their multi-wave oscillator was said to activate healing processes and cured most cases of cancer, leukaemia, osteoporosis etc.

An important part of Lakhovsky’s work took place in 1920-1930. In France, Italy, England and Germany multiple of Lakhovsky’s machines were operating. But then they slowly started disappearing again. Many people said the reason for this was that the quick results provided by the machines made the hospitals unnecessary and no profits could be made by them.

The Second World War put an end to much of Lakhovsky’s work. While visiting the US, Lakhovsky was struck by a car and died under mysterious circumstances aged 72.


Is this intriguing story the script of a bizarre film?

No, it is a true – well, partly true – story which I have taken from this article by a therapist who, like many others, uses Lakhovsky’s oscillator for treating patients (and sells potions, some of which cost well over Euro 1 000!). Another article by a practitioner offering this treatment claims that the oscillator is effective for the following indications:

  • vitalising cells,
  • activation of the body’s own healing powers,
  • anti-ageing,
  • wellness,
  • improving general well-being,
  • pain reduction,
  • detox,
  • rejuvenation of skin,
  • improvement of visual aspect of the skin.

The article further assures us that the treatment is totally free of side-effects and can be used as an adjunctive therapy for almost any disease.

Yet another website advertises the therapy as follows: Have you lost a loved one to cancer? Georges Lakhovsky had a 98% success rate in treating fatal cancers over an 11-year period. Today we celebrate a 50% five-year survival rate.

And this is what Wikipedia tells us about the Lakhovsky oscillator (depicted in the photo above, together with its inventor):  The main circuit basically consists of concentric rings forming electrical dipole antennas having capacitive gaps opposing each other by 180° (called Lakhovsky antennas). The circuit is fed with high voltage, high frequency, impulses from a generator, usually a Tesla coil. If set up correctly, the unit is supposed to create a broad band frequency spectrum of low amplitude, consisting of much more substantially lower and higher frequencies, from 1 Hz to 300 GHz, than those of the exciting generator, usually several 100 kHz to a few MHz from a Tesla transformer or several kilohertz from an induction coil. But the power of this broad band noise spectrum is very low. In order to create more harmonics and sub-harmonics, an additional spark gap on the secondary side has been found in some devices, being mounted directly on the antenna, or being mounted in parallel to the secondary coil…

In an attempt to find out whether the machine works, I have searched for published, peer-reviewed clinical evidence on the Lakhovsky oscillator. I was unable to find any. If any of my readers are aware of any evidence, please let me know.

31 Responses to Lakhovsky’s oscillator, the ‘cure all’ that the world forgot

  • There already is a huge experiment going on with 2.4 and 5 Ghz frequencies everywhere with wifi 24/7. I wonder what Lakhovsky would make of this? Are we all getting cured without knowing it?

  • Not RF, sound frequency…. as in hertz (Hz)

    • Sorry, what isn’t RF? And Hertz can be used as a measure of any frequency, whether acoustic or electromagnetic.

      • C’mon Alan, I know you are playing dumb. Well, perhaps not.

          • Alan Henness on Tuesday 14 July 2020 at 18:23 said
            “So, what isn’t RF?”

            Everlasting DC.

          • LOL!

            I suppose we might never know what RG meant…

          • Alan Henness on Wednesday 15 July 2020 at 14:01 said
            “I suppose we might never know what RG meant…”

            It’s not just RG, it’s everywhere e.g. my ancient “Radio Systems for Technicians by D. C. Green says p.84:
            “…above about 15kHz [it’s RF]…”

            And here it’s above 20kHz:
            “RF is… in the frequency range from around 20 kHz…”

            Which is why QI has an everlasting source…

          • I think the term RF (radio frequency) comes from the early days of radio broadcasting. The circuitry had to deal with two signals – a carrier, which was a high frequency wave, and a lower frequency signal representing the information to be broadcast (or received) which modulated it. The principle of a radio receiver is that the radio signal signal induces a very weak alternating current in an antenna designed to be sensitive to that band, and then circuitry tuned to resonate at the frequency of the broadcast wave amplifies it, so that the modulating signal can then be separated from it (“detected”) and amplified further by adio circuitry. RF referred to the carrier and any waves of a similar frequency that the circuitry was designed for, to differentiate it from the audio signal. The two behave quite differently (for instance RF signals travel as a field around the cable from the aerial, whereas audio signals travel along the wires to the amplifier). Amazingly, a very simple AM (amplitude modulated) radio receiver can be built using just a diode, a resistor, a coil and a variable capacitor, powered only by the radio wave itself, and it will produce an audio signal loud enough to be heard through headphones (the old “crystal radio” was one such).

            Since then the term RF has been used more generally to refer to waves of all types in the range 20KHz to 300GHz or thereabouts. 20 KHz is the upper limit of hearing of the human ear in a young, healthy individual, so frequencies in the range 20 Hz to 20 KHz are known as audio frequencies. The largest pipes of a pipe organ (with a speaking length of 32 feet) produce a fundamental tone at a frequency of 16 Hz (there are a handful of organs around the world that can go an octave lower, i.e. 8 Hz). It takes a lot of energy to get air to vibrate at these very low frequencies, hence the need for high-powered sub-woofers in certain audio systems. Though for very-low frequency applications there is the Thigpen loudspeaker, which uses a fan to move the air, and modulates it by altering the angle of the blades.

            It is also quite difficult to get air to carry very high frequency waves. In a medical ultrasound scanner, sonically conductive gel is used to carry the signal between the transducer and the skin, and any gas in the the path of the beam (e.g. within bowel) casts an acoustic shadow obscuring whatever is behind it.

            Indeed, getting a mechanical wave to propagate between different media is an interesting engineering challenge. The middle ear functions as a device for matching the impedance of air to the impedance of the fluid within the cochlea, effectively functioning as a mechanical amplifier.

            It is not at all clear from the description whether Lakhovsky’s oscillator is designed to produce electromagnetic or acoustic waves, but whichever it is, with the problems of impedance-matching between different media I can’t see how one transmitter can cover the frequency band from 1 Hz to 300 GHz as claimed. I doubt very much that it does what it says on the tin.

          • @Dr. JMK

            you are correct doc
            I was speaking of the lower range of sound frequencies recognized by the human ear.
            I’m pretty certain the Michael Kenny was aware of what I was speaking also. I just didn’t want to play his game.

          • RF doesn’t define the frequency per se: it simply means propagation by electromagnetic radiation. Indeed, there are radio transmitters down to just a few Hz – ELF (Extra Low Frequency) radio waves have been used for long distance communication and undersea communication. But RG said:

            Not RF, sound frequency…. as in hertz (Hz)

            Just a few words, but no clarity as to what was meant, particularly when Edzard was referring to Lakhovsky transmitting from 1 Hz to 300 GHz (the latter clearly not referring to the fundamental frequency being transmitted but simply harmonics – although he would have had no way to measure them), hence my question to RG.

          • The gown of the JMK swishes through the door and the classroom goes instantly quiet from the bilateral cease-fire,
            “When is AF, RF? – You boy!”
            “When the aerial is long enough! Don’t you listen to anything you are told!”

  • @Dr Julian Money-Kyrle

    what do you mean by matching different media? Isn’t only the air it propagates through? And what do you mean by “transmitter”? As I see there is no classical transmitter in this device but just two antennas and one Tesla coil. But I feel also that the width of the spectrum is quite too overwhelming to be true.

    • See the Wikipedia article Impedance matching, especially the section Non-electrical examples:

    • If Lakhovsky’s oscillator was intended to produce acoustic waves, then there is the problem of how to get the air vibrating in the first place. Most sound generators / transducers produce vibrations in a solid, which then need to be transferred into the air, which is a different medium. How to do this depends very much upon the frequencies involved. It is possible to generate sound waves electrostatically by corona discharge, which does not involve a vibrating solid at all, but I believe this only works for fairly high frequencies.

      By transmitter I was referring to whatever device Lakhovsky was using to turn the electrical oscillations in his circuitry into either acoustic waves in air (i.e. something akin to a loudspeaker) or electromagnetic waves (i.e. some kind of antenna); I am still not clear what sort of waves he was claiming to produce, but in neither case can I think of a single device that would cover the wide range of frequencies involved.

      • One thing for sure is that the MWO didn’t work with acoustic waves. This is just one of those silly claims made by people later on such as that the machine generates scalar waves and so on. Non of these things have ever been claimed by the inventor. I don’t actually believe that the transmitter itself is really the problem in the first place. What is more outstanding is the fact that the dipole elements are too close to each other to resonate at their own frequencies. Furthermore the way the antennas were connected makes them rather more like capacitive endings than antennas, because none of the antennas were connected correctly like dipole antennas should be connected. I see that the frequencies can only be generated with a spark gap or another non linear component inside the device. There is none. I measured one such MWO once myself and found absolutely nothing. These antennas look spectacular but act just like sheets of metal would do. It just emitts what have been put in. A big hoax I almost fell for myself.

  • I haven’t found any evidence for the machine itself. I mean there is no evidence proving that this machine is able to produce such a wide range of frequencies and from my point of view, with my understanding of physics, I really doubt it can. But if it really creates a broad band it might actually do. I’ve found some evidence for radio frequencies being able to have physiological effects in this regard.

  • I got one MWO now for measurements and we found no frequencies created by the Lakhovsky antennas. There are no frequencies measureable except those emitted by the coil and spark gap itself.

  • Theres a book called The Cure for All Diseases featuring several case studies in which experimentation with audio frequencies via an audio oscillator is conducted for the purposes of curing all diseases. Hulda Regehr Clark Ph.D is the author.

    Also, a website called sound healing, i believe is worth checking out. They’ve created a program that can identify one’s ailments only with a listen to a recorded bit of your voice.

    • Hulda Clark?
      are you serious?

      • I am. Is it all rubbish? I’m quite new to all this information.

        • Hulda Clark is utterly idiotic.

        • Sonyja on Friday 06 November 2020 at 17:51 said:
          “There’s a book called The Cure for All Diseases… via an audio oscillator… Hulda Regehr Clark Ph.D is the author.”

          Clark managed to fool herself “[…the easiest person of all to fool]”. She is in earnest and makes her little oscillator in a shoe box with parts from Maplins and full instructions, so that any kid can make one too.

          She then places something to “test” on some part of this oscillator and grabs hold of some other part and squeezes it just so, to make it change frequency (which will happen with any sort of low energy, high Z, oscillator – it’s called “pulling it” in the jargon.)

          She has invented an electronic ouija board / divining rod, that’s all.

          And she has fooled herself.

          (calling her a quack or whatever is ignorant because no one is immune from self-deception, all that is required to to expect something to happen, and then when it happens, that’s the danger zone – the subject of an other thread about critical thinking on this blog.)

    • Hulda Regehr Clark Ph.D is the author.

      Hulda Clark? Of “cancer is caused by liver flukes and cured by my £300 zapper” fame? Who died of cancer? That Hulda Clark?

      They’ve created a program that can identify one’s ailments only with a listen to a recorded bit of your voice.

      Big woop. I can diagnose “blindly ignorant”, “terminally gullible”, and “dumb as a stump” just from reading two paragraphs.

      • Indeed. Hulda “The method is 100% effective in stopping cancer regardless of the type of cancer or how terminal it may be. It follows that this method must work for you, too, if you are able to carry out the instructions.” Clark. Who died of cancer.

        One of the most shameless and brass-necked of quacks. Invoking her name labels you only as a fool.

        • The whole thing is screwed up. There is no such thing as a cure for everything and these antennas aren’t even antennas nor is it an oscillator. Scientifically it’s just bunch of capacitors. No frequencies, no proven effects.

      • Is it all rubbish? I’m quite new to all this information. Sorry to have wasted your time then. Lastly, ouch?

        • Sonyja on Thursday 19 November 2020 at 06:25 said:
          “Is it all rubbish? I’m quite new to all this information. Sorry to have wasted your time then. Lastly, ouch?”

          Hi Sonyja, these guys love it, so you have not wasted their time 🙂

          As described above, Clark invented an electronic version of ouija board / divining rod, and fooled herself (from which no one is immune), and that makes her infinitely more dangerous because she utterly believes it (whatever her ouija board says) + she what she says about diet is standard vegetable fare, which is true, eating properly makes you healthy (ignoring the whether-it-cures-cancer for the time being 🙂 ) – no one would disagree with that. (plus the parasite thing is bananas).

          So you have a mixture of True and False, with the false, riding on top of the true.

    • Sonyja,

      I think the first thing to do when you come across something like this is to ask yourself “does this sound likely?”.

      These days when smartphones and smartwatches can monitor your heartbeat and detect unusual rythms, perhaps the idea of being able to make a diagnosis from a recording of somebody’s voice might not seem so far-fetched. Indeed, it is well-established that certain conditions, such as Parkinson’s disease, cerebellar brain injury and laryngeal cancers, can affect the voice in a specific way, and the other day I read that an AI has been developed that can recognise Covid-19 from the characteristic cough that it causes. However, these are very specific examples, and no doctor would rely on voice alone to make a diagnosis.

      Consider the claim that any ailment can be diagnosed from a recording of the voice. Does this really give more information than a doctor would collect in a normal consutation, which should involve taking a detailed history of the symptoms, a careful clinical examination and probably ordering some additional tests (blood, x-rays, scans, biopsies etc.); even with these reaching a diagnosis may not always be possible. Then compare the possible expertise of a program with 5 plus years of medical school, more years of post-graduate specialist training and years of experience practising medicine. Which do you think is more likely to come up with the right answer?

      It is true that AI’s are being used now to assist doctors in making a diagnosis, but this is still in its infancy, and the AI at least has access to the same information that the doctor has.

      Now consider the idea of curing diseases with sound waves. Does this actually seem plausible, given what we know about the causes and mechanisms of disease, whether it is infective agents (bacteria and viruses), trauma (injuries), degenerative (systems in the body “wearing out”), malignancy (i.e. cancers), autoimmune (the immune system is even more complex than the brain)?

      Also consider how these ideas fit with what we already know. If somebody is suggesting something that goes against established ideas in physics, chemistry and biology, then who do you think is more likely to be mistaken? Bear in mind that engineers relied on these ideas in order to design your smartphone.

      Anybody can put whatever they want on the Web. It doesn’t even carry the basic safeguards against fake news that are supposed to be in place with social media. If something sounds too good to be true, than mayber there is a reason.

  • But on the other hand it’s not really relevant whether something sounds likely or unlikely. That’s way too subjective. Only science and research/studies can give the answer. And in this case there are no studies. So there is no proof for nor against it. Enough to be cautious.
    Science on the other hand can be used to take a closer look at the claims made concerning the physics of the device. It’s supposed/claimed to create a broad band spectrum through the antenna rings. Actually the rings forming the “Lakhovsky Multiwave Oscillator” themselves aren’t a real dipole-antenna at all, nor an oscillation/frequency generator. So it doesn’t/can’t do what has been claimed. Does it work or not? What’s more probable now, what do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.