Is it true that the new Russian device “Thor” can remotely suppress the coronavirus?

Russian inventors have unveiled a device called Thor, which they say effectively suppresses viruses through electromagnetic radiation. We decided to check whether modern scientific ideas are consistent with the scientists' promising statement.

Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Vasily Shpak reported, that the device “with its radiation, absolutely harmless to humans, five times less powerful than the radiation from your smartphones, in 15 minutes of operation provides a person with protection from coronavirus infection throughout the day.” On the website of the developer, the Granit concern, there is this information: “Its electromagnetic power is several times lower than the power of household appliances and smartphones. By creating electromagnetic interference to the pathogen, it does not have any negative impact on the living organism.” Founder of Granit Elena Bondarchuk adds: “Like any protein entity, coronavirus has its own wave. We deciphered it, directed it to the virus... Essentially, we make it noisy, it is not able to reproduce, and the immune system calmly copes.” Along with “Thor”, the Granit concern invented nanogloves made of liquid polymer. “Microdischarges are created on the hand. The virus will die within 24 hours. Not only coronavirus, but polio, HIV, herpes... It will be sold at the level of conventional antiseptics,” she explains the principle of their action. Some media call it a miracle device microbial breaker, y others In the comments, users are worried whether such a device will become another marketing ploy to lure money out of gullible pensioners.

There are many questions about the press release issued to introduce the device to the masses. Below we will highlight the main statements and try to understand them and the operating principle of this device. So, the manufacturer’s statements can be divided into:

1) medical:

- already on the fifth day of use in patients hospitalized with coronavirus infection, the titers of IgM antibodies, which confirm the development of the disease, become negative (this quote has already been removed from the site, but preserved in cache);

— on the fifth day of use, 87% of patients have a negative PCR titer (quote also deleted from the official resource);

- within 15 minutes of operation the device provides a healthy person receives daily protection from coronavirus infection.

2) physical:

— coronavirus (like another protein entity) has its own wave and electromagnetic field;

— scientists were able to decipher this wave;

— the device deactivates the virus by creating electromagnetic interference;

— the device can be used without restrictions in the presence of people: in residential, industrial premises, medical institutions, outdoors;

— its electromagnetic power is several times lower than the power of household appliances and smartphones.

Let's first look at the medical indicators of the declared effectiveness of the device. It is stated that “already on the fifth day of use in patients hospitalized with coronavirus infection, IgM antibody titers, which confirm the development of the disease, become negative.” Antibodies, or immunoglobulins, are large globular blood plasma proteins necessary to neutralize various pathogens (fungi, bacteria, parasites, viruses). The presence of IgM antibodies characterizes the acute course of the disease; they are neutralized by the body upon recovery. 

There are the following results IgM test:

- less than one (with IgG, a marker of a previous disease, less than 10) - not sick or have been ill (with IgG more than 10);

- from one to two is a dubious result;

- more than two - stage of the disease.

Immunoglobulins of class M, as well as any other class, are expressed in whole and fractional numbers, including zero. Immunoglobulins, like most blood parameters, are not accepted for negative values. If you translate “antibody titers became negative” from medical into Russian, it’s the same as saying: “There was a negative number of pencils on the table.” At the same time, in everyday communication the results of such an analysis can be called negative (there is no infectious process) or positive (an infectious process is in progress), however, such a formulation is hardly appropriate to describe a medical device.

Apparently, the error was promptly noticed and corrected to a different wording: “On the fifth day of use, 87% of patients have a negative PCR titer.” PCR is a polymerase chain reaction that can detect any pathogen in a sample if even the slightest particle of it is present, acting on the principle of repeated copying of a fragment. And the titer is the maximum dilution of blood serum at which antibodies are detected in the sample. PCR for coronavirus is taken from the mucous membrane of the nasopharynx and/or oropharynx, that is, blood serum is not present there by default. Moreover, when analyzed by PCR, nothing is diluted, but, on the contrary, it is multiplied many times over. And PCR determines not the presence or absence of antibodies, but the presence of virus particles on the mucous membrane. That is again a terminological and factual error.

There are medical questions about the design of the study. There is no full description of the experiment in the public domain, so you have to rely only on information from the manufacturer’s website. The device was studied on a group of 236 people, divided into three categories: those who received the effect of the Thor device, those who did not receive it, and those who received a placebo. All participants were hospitalized at the clinics of Samara State Medical University. There is no information in the description on what day after detection of coronavirus infection the patients were hospitalized, on what day after detection and hospitalization the exposure to the devices began, what age group the subjects belonged to, whether they had additional chronic diseases, or whether they received the same list of medications in the same dosage. Without this data it is difficult to judge the results. For example, the largest amount of virus in a patient highlights two days before and one day after the onset of symptoms, with a significant decrease in viral load occurring on the seventh day and beyond. Thus, patients who were treated at home for several days before seeking hospitalization would show a decrease in viral load earlier than those who went to the hospital when they were just sick. Accordingly, comparing their PCR tests on the fifth day of hospitalization (with or without exposure to Thor) is incorrect in advance.

It should also be noted that the researchers observed the participants for only 28 days after discharge from the hospital, and concluded that there was a “decrease in the severity of post-Covid syndrome.” At the same time, the definition of post-Covid syndrome according to the WHO classification such: “A condition occurring in individuals with a suspected or confirmed history of coronavirus infection three months after the onset of COVID-19, with symptoms that last at least two months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis.” That is, the observation period of just under a month simply does not fit into the framework of the occurrence of post-Covid syndrome.

And finally, the last medical statement “within 15 minutes of operation the device provides a healthy person receives 24-hour protection from coronavirus infection.” In simple terms, the manufacturer promises that anyone who is exposed to the device for a quarter of an hour in the morning will have protection against the virus for the next 24 hours. That is, the device has a certain protective effect of a short interval. Scientists do not explain how this effect will be achieved, but several options can be assumed, based on already known achievements of science. 

— Antibodies that arise as a result of a previous illness or vaccination have a protective effect. However, the description of the device does not mention any introduction of the coronavirus antigen into the human body and further stimulation of antibody formation. Moreover, the exposure time (15 minutes) is not enough to develop an immune response, and the resulting immune response lasts exactly longer than 24 hours.

— Since the point of entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into the cell is the angiotensin receptor (ACE2) on its surface, then in theory, by changing the structure of the receptor, it is possible to resist infection by the virus. Works over creation A synthetic analogue of ACE2 is already being developed, but this principle of operation is not stated in the Thor device.

Thus, without a detailed explanation of how the protection will work, it is not possible to judge this capability of the device. Moreover, if scientists invented some new method, demonstrating its effectiveness could at least be a reason for nominating them for a Nobel Prize. But so far there are not even just publications about the discovery in peer-reviewed journals.

Now let's move on to the manufacturers' statements related to the operating principle of the device.

The electromagnetic field is a special form matter, through which interaction occurs between charges, particles and fields. It occurs when there is a voltage difference and current passes through the field. Any atom has a magnetic field, although it is extremely weak. In a molecule (consisting of atoms), these fields can mutually enhance, but not more than several times. This is not enough to isolate the field of one specific molecule from the background of the fields of all other surrounding atoms and molecules. The inner shell of the virus (capsid), consisting of proteins, also present an electric charge arising from the different numbers of amino and carboxyl groups in the composition, and some electromagnetic field. It is also necessary to understand the concept of a “virus wave.” Since a constant field does not exist outside of physical abstractions, any real field generates waves, therefore, these concepts in applied research can be considered identical. The study of the electromagnetic field of a molecule can be carried out to clarify its composition, this method is called magnetic resonance spectroscopy. However, in the case of the coronavirus, whose genome and proteins have already been studied by sequencing, such a study is unjustified, since it is not able to give us any new knowledge. In theory, scientists from the Garant concern could indeed decipher the wave emanating from the virus and create the declared “noise” for it, but to do this they would have to use a very strong magnetic field inside a magnetic resonance spectrograph. For molecular research are used fields with induction from 0.23 to 0.58 tesla, and, according to expert statement, the induction of the field created by the device is only 1.5 microtesla, which is 333,000 times (!) less than necessary. In addition, the certification of the device states its operating frequency is 30–1000 MHz; radios and microwave ovens operate within this range, but the device closest in characteristics is this walkie-talkie. At the same time, neither the field arising from the waves of a radio receiver, nor that arising from a microwave oven are able to basically deactivate viruses.

The statement that “the device deactivates the virus by creating electromagnetic interference” is similarly refuted. As already mentioned, the fields of individual atoms within a molecule do not mutually reinforce each other to such an extent that it becomes possible to isolate the electromagnetic field of a particular molecule from the field of the atoms and molecules surrounding it. Consequently, today it is not possible to deactivate one protein structure in isolation without violating the integrity of another nearby one. If we assume that the device can really destroy the amino acids of a virus already in the human body, then it should destroy the body’s own amino acids with the same efficiency, exposing the body’s tissue to irreversible decay. The operation of another device that effectively stops cell division is based on electromagnetic radiation - gamma knife. By ionizing DNA atoms, it leads to the destruction of molecular bonds, while simultaneously subjecting water to radiolysis, that is, disrupting the cytoplasm of the cell. It is worth noting that Gamma Knife acts on both tumor cells and healthy cells - albeit with different intensities. That is, its radiation cannot be used to destroy viruses without harming the health of people in the same room. Thus, we come to a dilemma: either the device works as advertised, but it is unsafe, or the device is safe, but does not work. Considering its technical characteristics, the second option is most likely.

It is worth noting that in April 2021, an intellectual property rights court was held, which rejected a patent application for a similar device - an electromagnetic virus destroyer directed against HIV, since the court did not see evidence of “the presence in a cell or molecule of an electrical oscillatory circuit that would resonate with the declared effect on the cell.”

Finally, the statement that the electromagnetic power of the device is several times (and according to information from Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Vasily Shpak, five times) less than the power of a smartphone and household appliances cannot be verified, since there is no data on such a characteristic in open sources. 

We also turned to Yaroslav Ashikhmin, therapist, candidate of medical sciences, for comment. “I’ll immediately make a reservation that I am expressing an exclusively personal opinion; I have no conflict of interest with the manufacturers of this installation,” he said. — The operating principle of this device contradicts the basic laws of physics and biology; it has not been tested in accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine. Personally, I am ashamed to look my European colleagues in the eyes. This thing either has strong enough radiation and is then unsafe, or if it is safe, it is completely useless. Unfortunately, in our country there are two medicines: one is more or less decent, and the second is a whole range of different devices and dietary supplements, which parasitizes magical thinking.”

Thus, most of the manufacturer’s statements do not correspond to scientific facts, factual errors were noticed in the description of the device, and doctors express reasonable doubts about the effectiveness of this method of treating and preventing a new coronavirus infection.

Most likely not true

What do our verdicts mean?

Read on the topic:

1. Elementary particles. How does matter work?
2. Radiosurgery. What is this?