Guest guest Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 As you can see, Rife convincingly and scientifically demonstrated that a virus can cause cancer. > > > Here are a few websites with an interesting discussion of Rife and cancer: > > http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter133/bxvirus.htm > > > http://www.frequencyfoundation.com/2004/10/more-on-rife-bxby-virus-and-bacillus.\ html > > http://www.rife.org/crane/cranetherapy2.html > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 and as he also had learned is that cancer is a virus To: Rife From: randynmd@... Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 22:37:15 -0400 Subject: Re: Rife & cancer As you can see, Rife convincingly and scientifically demonstrated that a virus can cause cancer. > > > Here are a few websites with an interesting discussion of Rife and cancer: > > http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter133/bxvirus.htm > > > http://www.frequencyfoundation.com/2004/10/more-on-rife-bxby-virus-and-bacillus.\ html > > http://www.rife.org/crane/cranetherapy2.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Dion, Where is the evidence that cancer is a virus? It is well known that viruses can cause cancer, as can chemicals, radiation, and other factors. But I can't think of one pathologist that says that cancer is a virus. Dr. Flaig > > > Here are a few websites with an interesting discussion of Rife and cancer: > > http://altered- states.net/ barry/newsletter 133/bxvirus. htm > > > http://www.frequenc yfoundation. com/2004/ 10/more-on- rife-bxby- virus-and- bacillus. html > > http://www.rife. org/crane/ cranetherapy2. html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 It is not wise to view cancer as a cause and effect regarding pathogenic infestations. Dr. Rife clearly demonstrated that there was a virus type of an organism associated with cancer but it isn't wise to say that the virus was the cause of the condition because it isn't. Cancer develops because of a failure of the lymphatic system to drain away waste products of cellular metabolism. Cancer is the result of two situations who, independently of each other are harmless. It is when these two conditions meet up that cancer manifests itself. First the entire circulatory system has been contaminated by foreign proteins most often as a result of a compromised digestive tract that allowed seepage of food wastes to exit the confines of the intestines and become drifting garbage components in the humors (I define homors as the blood and lymph in this example and nothing else) which triggers a subacute immune response. Very mild systemic inflammation spreads throughout the body causing swelling of the cells throughout and clogs numerous lymph channels causing a reduction in lymph flow. The Detritis (physical trash) also can accumulate in various areas causing congestion and further reducing lymph flow to the tissues surrounding the mass accumulation of this biological garbage. As the oxygen depletes, the tissues shift their metabolism from aerobic to an anaerobic fermentation which produces a toxin excreted by newly formed fungi via the pleomorphic processes. These organisms by digesting necrosed (dead) tissue act as scavengers, the offspring of which Rife identified as a virus. So while it is true that a viral form amongst others are always found in malignancy, it is not sufficient to say that they were the cause of the cancer because they clearly are not. What Rife failed to say was that the rats were prepared biologically so that cancer could be induced into them, in other words, the virus could transfer and take the disease along with it. During his time, other researchers were breeding rats prone to cancer and others were bread to be resistant to the disease in addition to other factors establishing a tendency to develop the disease which was also required to be present so as to freely induce it. Modern research is still looking for the illusive cootie and they will never find it. If it existed, it would have been discovered long ago. It is the condition of the terrain along with local tissue damage (irritatiion) that produces a stoppage of the lymphatic flow and it is this condition that is responsible for cancer, the virus is there not as its cause but as Nature's scavenger. By flushing away the necrone produced by the cancer digestive process, the disease can be stopped. Not unlike Simoncini and his bicarbonate of soda treatment method, another doctor in the 1920s discovered that a small stream of water had the same effect as chemo therapeutic drugs they were experimenting with. By restoring lymph flow, cancer goes away on its own. Tumors dissolve and homeostasis is restored. It is so unfortunate that people fail to believe that cancer was resolved 100 years ago. I can assure you it was. I have the works of several doctors that were routinely curing the condition. To them it wasn't a big deal. Our medical system has been overcome by greed and the unnecessary suffering of the masses isn't as important to the players as is the blood money they derive from exploiting their patients. This is the real reason that we still deal with cancer today. " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " Claude Bernard 1813-1878 My latest ebook " Breast Cancer Cure " can be downloaded at www.lulu.com/comdyne In the book is a summation of the cancer process in the words of a doctor who understood it the best of all. Extracted and transcribed from " Cancer " by Willy Meyer, MD 1931 This book is one of the finest off all in my extensive collection. I may republish the book in its entirety sometime in the future if the economy recovers. Carmi Hazen > > > > > > > Here are a few websites with an interesting discussion of Rife and cancer: > > > > http://altered-states.net/barry/newsletter133/bxvirus.htm > > > > > > http://www.frequencyfoundation.com/2004/10/more-on-rife-bxby-virus-and-bacillus.\ html > > > > http://www.rife.org/crane/cranetherapy2.html > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 are you just plum ignorant? http://rifehealth.com/_wsn/page2.html To: Rife From: johnflaig@... Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:41:03 -0700 Subject: RE: Rife & cancer Dion, Where is the evidence that cancer is a virus? It is well known that viruses can cause cancer, as can chemicals, radiation, and other factors. But I can't think of one pathologist that says that cancer is a virus. Dr. Flaig > > > Here are a few websites with an interesting discussion of Rife and cancer: > > http://altered- states.net/ barry/newsletter 133/bxvirus. htm > > > http://www.frequenc yfoundation. com/2004/ 10/more-on- rife-bxby- virus-and- bacillus. html > > http://www.rife. org/crane/ cranetherapy2. html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Dr. Flaig, I would like to point out that there is a difference between the work that Rife himself did and the engineers of today who produce equipment that bear no resemblance to Rife other than using his name. I don't know what " claims " coming from Crane you are referring to, but there is fairly good historical evidence for what Rife himself did. Unfortunately, the records from Rife's cancer clinic in the 1930's were loaned out and never returned. As you know, the actual treatment of patients was performed by qualified MD's who reported success using Rife's machines. Can I provide the facts, figures, and reports? No. The physicians continued to use Rife's machines on their own and they evidently did not feel they were conducting studies which needed to be documented. They were just treating patients. Then the AMA cracked down and threatened to have their license to practice revoked. The pressure worked and physicians abandoned using Rife's equipment. Under the modern FDA it is impossible for a maker of Rife-type devices to conduct the type of study required to prove effectiveness. The expense is so great that only a large corporation could afford it. In addition, it is illegal for a maker of Rife-type devices to conduct public tests of their equipment without FDA approval. So as desireable as it is, you will NOT get anyone to test their machines using the scientific method. As you also know, conventional MD's cannot treat anyone using a Rife-type device or they would lose their license. So we are in the poor situation of individuals simply treating themselves at home with whatever equipment they can afford. Consumers ought to ask manufactures about the effectiveness of their machines but what data do you expect them to produce under these conditions? The best they can provide is anecdotal information, which will never be enough for you. This is the reason people join this group and ask which device we use and which we like best. That's all there is to go on. It is a bad situation, but it is reality. But what bothers me about your posts is that not only do you dislike the modern makers of Rife-type devices, you also seem to disagree with every major discovery which Rife made. I'm really very tired of reading the standard medical criticism, " there is no evidence that . . . " Well, there is no evidence against it either. For you, all Rife claims will always be unsubstantiated. I don't understand why you're a member of the group when you have no confidence at all in Rife's work. > > > Randy, > No, my purpose is to get people to question unsubstantiated claims. For > example, many claims about Dr. Rife were actually generated by Crane and > are, in my opinion, of a dubious nature. Further, there have been a lot of > con-artists producing " Rife " machines and selling them to desperate people > that someone needs to ask " do you have any evidence of effectiveness? " When, > I ask these questions, the typical response from the crooks or true > believers is to attack the questioner to distract people because they cannot > support their claims. > So, as I am sure Dr. Rife would recommend, we need to get back to using the > scientific method . Here is a simple test: > 1. Diagnoses confirmed by two MD's or pathologists with cancer staging > information including tumor markers, CT or PET scans.2. Type of treatment > and protocol (list of all equipment, operating procedures, drugs, etc.)3. > Duration of treatment4. Results of treatment again confirmed by two MD's or > pathologists including tumor markers, CT or PET scans.5. The success rate if > the treatment has been performed on more than one person. This is the 3, 5 > and 10 year survival rates. > Dr. Flaig > PS: In God we Trust, all others bring Data. > > > > From: Randy <randynmd@... <randynmd%40gmail.com>> > > Subject: Re: Rife & cancer > To: Rife <Rife%40yahoogroups.com> > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 8:37 PM > > Dr. Flaig, > > Is your purpose for belonging to this group to contradict anything positive > anyone posts concerning Rife's work? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 --- wrote: > , > I will speak to Kurt Olbrich again about these issues and > see what can be done. Thanks . Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Randy, I think you have accurately defined the situation, but have failed to recognize the solution. It is not necessary to get the FDA or AMA to agree that something is effective. And it is very unfortunate that people are left in the position of sifting through a lot of questionable anecdotal comments and buying whatever equipment they can afford. Let me provide a model by which the members of this Rife Group might be able to establish the efficacy of equipment and treatments and really contribute to science. It is not difficult for the moderator to set up a database form to gather the necessary information to establish statistical measures of performance for equipment, condition, and treatment. After all how do you think the CAFL was generated? The relational database might have the following fields. Date, name, condition, condition validation, frequency equipment, frequency protocol, other items used (e.g, drugs, vitamins, etc.) at the same time, results, validation of results. Contributors would be able to list things that worked and things that didn't. After a sufficient number of inputs have been received the database can be analyzed statistically to determine which equipment is effective or ineffective and which frequencies and protocols seem to work best against specific problems. With this structured information the nature of this forum would change from a random walk to acquire knowledge into a organized one that will benefit the Rife community in general. Dr. Flaig > > From: Randy <randynmdgmail (DOT) com <randynmd%40gmail. com>> > > Subject: Re: Rife & cancer > To: Rifeyahoogroups (DOT) com <Rife%40yahoogroups .com> > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 8:37 PM > > Dr. Flaig, > > Is your purpose for belonging to this group to contradict anything positive > anyone posts concerning Rife's work? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Hi Harvey, maybe could answer this one as any answer I give is unlikely to be scientifically valid enough. All I can give is my opinion based on what I have heard from people like Bernard Muschlien, Kurt Olbrich and Dr. Just Dumrese (who spent a year writing that German book on Pleomorphism). As I understand it, Pleomorphism means that a pathogen can change its form from fungus to bacteria or to a virus. Kurt's diagram, mentioned before, shows the process and yes the environment is an important factor. Certainly changing diet can have a positive effect, but depending on how far the disease has progressed, does not mean that this alone is going to cure anybody. Cancer is more complex than that. Kurt tells me that according to his experiments, only electrotherapy has a chance of stopping cancer, his tests with chemicals never got the job done. Another way would be to train the immune system to recognise cancerous cells and he did work with Heidelberg University clinic in a study to do just that back in the 1990s. The few terminal patients treated that way all recovered and at least 3 years ago were still alive with no signs of cancer. That study was however stopped under extreme pressure from a certain lobby group and was never completed or published. I should point out that Kurt is not in favour of " Rife therapy " and prefers a special form of bioresonance available in Germany. Kurt is looking for sponsors to help finance a very promising line of research (I was impressed with what he explained to me) which has the potential to stop cancer in just one treatment (if the in-vitro work is to believed). Anyone here with some good money to invest? By the way, Nenah Sylver has written a pretty good chapter on Pleomorphism in her new Rife Handbook of Frequency Therapy. The new chapter is much better than in her first edition. http://www.nenahsylver.com Otherwise, I will let give you the more scientific explanation. Regards > > > > > > Hi , > > First of all, I have not personally looked at Dr. Simoncini's work and > > to be honest, am not even interested - I have other things I need to > > concentrate on right now. > > > > I have spent some time looking into pleomorphism as that info is > > easily available in Germany with many publications on the subject (I > > have already listed the major doctors and professors) and it is not my > > job to present their work to you. > > > > . > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 No matter how you look at it, the patient/consumer is on the losing end. Not only can we not compete with the huge lobbies, but it is also in the best interests of the physician (defined best interests=money), to keep up us ill and manage the illness, rather than cure us. The pharmaceutical companies encourage that practice, and it's a win-win for them and the docs. I have had an awakening as my more natural, alternative doc in recent days has sent out a reduced price list, his " economic stimulus " plan. In short, he's had less people coming in for all his alternative natural therapies. The short story on me is they didn't cure my lyme disease. He refuses to do antibiotic treatment for the lyme disease, but he's made thousands and thousands of dollars off of me NOT getting well and only attempting it through this or that. So, does he not prescribe the antibiotics because he doesn't believe in lyme, or I'm a cash cow, just as I am? He would not see himself as not a healer. But when you get down to it, a " successful " doctor in our greedy culture, (emphasizing money over service and cure), is one who brings in more money. The more sick people you got coming to you, the more money you are making. It didn't take them long to forget idealism, if they ever had it, and decide on the latter plan. This applies to the allopathic physicians as well as many naturopathic/alternative physicians, I am sorry to say. We have to evaluate the doctor on a case by case basis. In my experience, few were out to cure, and many were out to bilk. First and foremost, take care of yourselves. Recognize that the doc is on the take from you (a thief) and be wary. Protect your wallet and your health, knowing this. They need to prove that they are not on the take. Guilty until proven innocent--that should be your mindset going in. I am not cynical. I am educated. > > It sounds like big pharma and other powerful self interest groups have too much influence in Germany. Apparently doctors and researchers are getting rebates(kickbacks) from big pharma and their like. Like the U.S. the average citizen can not compete monetarily with these groups who are only interested in money and power. There will be a cure for cancer the day that big pharma receives more income from a cure then distributing toxic drugs. It sounds like a cure that is widely available will have to come from Asia. > Regards, > Â Â > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Dr. Flaig, I like your solution very much. I hope the moderator will take the suggestion seriously and set up such a database. However I would note that the information is still anecdotal, simply better organized and systematized (respondents can even include results of medical tests if they have them). I am puzzled that you say it is not necessary to get the FDA or AMA to agree that something is effective. What about the gentleman in California who was just convicted by the FDA of selling unapproved devices? It seems to me that FDA agreement is necessary if the manufacturer wants to make " medical " claims. Randy > > > Randy, > I think you have accurately defined the situation, but have failed to > recognize the solution. It is not necessary to get the FDA or AMA to agree > that something is effective. And it is very unfortunate that people are left > in the position of sifting through a lot of questionable anecdotal comments > and buying whatever equipment they can afford. Let me provide a model by > which the members of this Rife Group might be able to establish the efficacy > of equipment and treatments and really contribute to science. > It is not difficult for the moderator to set up a database form to gather > the necessary information to establish statistical measures of performance > for equipment, condition, and treatment. After all how do you think the CAFL > was generated? The relational database might have the following fields. > Date, name, condition, condition validation, frequency equipment, frequency > protocol, other items used (e.g, drugs, vitamins, etc.) at the same time, > results, validation of results. > Contributors would be able to list things that worked and things that > didn't. After a sufficient number of inputs have been received the database > can be analyzed statistically to determine which equipment is effective or > ineffective and which frequencies and protocols seem to work best against > specific problems. > With this structured information the nature of this forum would change from > a random walk to acquire knowledge into a organized one that will benefit > the Rife community in general. Dr. Flaig > > > > > > > From: Randy <randynmdgmail (DOT) com <randynmd%40gmail. com>> > > > > Subject: Re: Rife & cancer > > To: Rifeyahoogroups (DOT) com <Rife%40yahoogroups .com> > > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 8:37 PM > > > > Dr. Flaig, > > > > Is your purpose for belonging to this group to contradict anything > positive > > anyone posts concerning Rife's work? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 i thought the conversation was about being able to evaluate results, judge machines, and make some valid sense out of a stream of verbiage that flows by... not about being able to use claims to market products, but to give structure and coherency to data collected in order for DIY " researchers " to reach somewhat useful meaningful conclusions. > Re: Rife & cancer > > Dr. Flaig, > > I like your solution very much. I hope the moderator will take the > suggestion seriously and set up such a database. However I > would note that > the information is still anecdotal, simply better organized > and systematized > (respondents can even include results of medical tests if > they have them). I > am puzzled that you say it is not necessary to get the FDA or > AMA to agree > that something is effective. What about the gentleman in > California who was > just convicted by the FDA of selling unapproved devices? It > seems to me that > FDA agreement is necessary if the manufacturer wants to make " medical " > claims. > > Randy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Hi, We have tried to do this before and the problem is that very few people will respond to a form like that. However, if people want to try again, I can setup a suitable database. We have been able to collect a number of Personal Testimonials on the Rife Forum. http://www.rifeforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=55 Regards Moderator > > > > From: Randy <randynmdgmail (DOT) com <randynmd%40gmail. com>> > > > > Subject: Re: Rife & cancer > > To: Rifeyahoogroups (DOT) com <Rife%40yahoogroups .com> > > Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 8:37 PM > > > > Dr. Flaig, > > > > Is your purpose for belonging to this group to contradict anything positive > > anyone posts concerning Rife's work? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 --- Harvey Metzler wrote: > : > > No wonder loves challenging you.   I > never even left the door open > and you still invited him in just because I picked up his > thread. > > I will struggle but will move along without as I > would like for > him to save his energy to stay in lean mental form for > future battle. <snip> LOL!! I was about to quote Worf's words at the ceremony of his age of ascension. will know what that's all about. ;^) Really though, I like challenging, and being challenged, because we're talking about important matters. It's not like we're talking about which hockey team is better. We all need to have accurate information, and a clear understanding of that information. Our information and understanding is refined and improved through challenge and debate. Now, on the matter of pleomorphism, it should be noted that there is not just one theory on the matter. Also, medical, pathogenic microorganisms are not representative of the larger microbial world. At any rate, in essence, pleomorphism is just the mechanism of adaptation for survival. As Bechamp said, " nothing is the prey of death; all is the prey of life " . In order to survive, microorganisms have to adapt to the conditions they find themselves in. Actually, all life has to adapt to survive and is therefore pleomorphic. If you find yourself in a different environment or situation, you either adapt and survive, or you die. It's the same with microorganisms, except they have a much greater ability and capacity for adaptation, because they are a simpler form of life. A given organism might change size, shape, so-called species, it might change from non-pathogenic to pathogenic; whatever it takes or can do to survive. In the theory presented in the book " A New Bacteriology " , they say that all bacteria form a global " super organism " , and should not be looked at as different or separate species. As far as bacteria changing into viruses, I don't think we really know that yet. We don't know whether the " filterable " forms that Rife and others talked about are real viruses, or fit the orthodox definition. Perhaps they might be something else, such as nanobacteria. Suffice to say, there is still a lot we don't know. What we need are honest scientists to take a fresh look at this with modern resources. Regards, P.S. Having Greek blood, I suppose I would challenge even if we weren't talking about important matters! LOL!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 You can learn a little bit about the filtration process use google search berkefeld n filter. Some interesting old work comes up, trying to pin down the exact pore size may be difficult, and as indicated the Rife BX may have been nanobacteria. Which brings to mind that they were motile, there are only a very few motile virus that are described today. Beamray Old Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 --- beamray53 wrote: > You can learn a little bit about the > filtration process use google > search berkefeld n filter. > Some interesting old work comes up, trying to pin down the > exact > pore size may be difficult, and as indicated the Rife > BX > may have been nanobacteria. Which brings to mind that they > were motile, > there are only a very few motile virus that are described > today. Today we would use Millipore filters rather than Berkfeld. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 Hi Randy, I have been talking to a number of people involved in the Jim Folsom case as I am putting together a report for that newsletter of mine I am still preparing (it is this story that is holding it up). Anyway, I mentioned what you said about this case and the reply was: " Randy's comments are not very close. That's not what the court said. The Folsom Appeal, if there ever is any, will say the right words. " Apparently, it is not as bad as you make it out to be for Rife manufacturers and we have been discussing alternative solutions for those marketing " Rife " like devices. This will be discussed in the newsletter when I get this final story wrapped up and ready to send. When I asked for info on the Jim Folsom case, I was sent a load of documents and commentaries that were all mixed up. I have basically been spending the last two days going over the info and writing it up in a factual way for release. Getting the facts straight is not that easy, but as this is potentially a very important issue for the Rife world, I am trying to get this worked out properly. It is certainly more complex than most people here realise. Regards Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > Randy, > > > I don't believe that I said that consumer should ask manufactures about > > the > > > efficacy of their equipment because the manufacture can't answer that > > > question for legal reasons. What I said was that customers should post on > > a > > > database the results of using a specific piece of equipment along with > > > specific information about the nature of their problem, validation > > > information, the treatment, the results and validation of results. We, as > > > consumers, are free to say whatever we want about a product and the FDA > > has > > > no authority to stop us thanks to the First Amendment to the > > > Constitution. > > > > > > > [sNIP] > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 Hi Randy, You are missing the point. In the message I responded to, you said: > > > > > > > Hi Randy, > > I have been talking to a number of people involved in the Jim Folsom case > > as I am putting together a report for that newsletter of mine I am still > > preparing (it is this story that is holding it up). > > > > Anyway, I mentioned what you said about this case and the reply was: > > > > " Randy's comments are not very close. That's not what the court said. The > > Folsom Appeal, if there ever is any, will say the right words. " > > > > Apparently, it is not as bad as you make it out to be for Rife > > manufacturers and we have been discussing alternative solutions for those > > marketing " Rife " like devices. This will be discussed in the newsletter when > > I get this final story wrapped up and ready to send. > > > > When I asked for info on the Jim Folsom case, I was sent a load of > > documents and commentaries that were all mixed up. I have basically been > > spending the last two days going over the info and writing it up in a > > factual way for release. Getting the facts straight is not that easy, but as > > this is potentially a very important issue for the Rife world, I am trying > > to get this worked out properly. > > > > It is certainly more complex than most people here realise. > > > > Regards > > > > > > Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2009 Report Share Posted June 6, 2009 Hello and Randy, What Randy is pointing out is based on what is in the official releases from the Government agencies that prosecuted Jim Folsom. No matter how the appeal process goes it will not change what can be said by manufacturers. Jim Folsom may get an appeal but he will still have to face the same charges of medical claims. Even if he is able to get his instrument classified as a class one device he will still have to show that he did not make medical claims in connection with it and this will be almost impossible. They used in the trial his distributor's web sites along with the brochures, frequency manual, Rife video documentary, hand cylinders, foot plates and printed decal on the back of the instrument to show that his device was a medical instrument. This is not all that they used against him but his chances of overcoming all this evidence will be a mountain to climb in his new trial. All the witnesses will testify again that he was putting all this information in the box with his instrument. We were warned about this several years ago and at that time I warned Jim that he should discontinue doing this for his own sake. Many people who know Jim, including myself, do not like what happened to him. But the fact is he was warned by the FDA back in 1998-99 in a warning letter about all the medical claims he was making. He chose not to take the necessary steps to avoid future problems. Once one of these warning letters is sent out they do not have to send any others. They can then raid you at any time they wish without any notice. This is what happened back in 2003. Many times I talked to Jim about removing all the medical claims that were being made by his distributors on their web sites but he would not make them make any changes. He felt that we should have the right to say these things about Rife. Regardless of what we may think the Government has the laws and the power behind them to enforce them. you may wish to think that things are not really that bad for Rife manufacturers but I believe they are. If you are the one that they are after it is as bad as Jim Folsom experienced. I do not know what solution you have in mind but I hope you have attorneys working on it because a claim is a claim in any language. The problem is most people do not even know what constitutes a medical claim. Even the word " Bio-active " is a medical claim if you sell an instrument. Saying the words " can shatter microbes like an opera singer's voice can shatter glass " is a medical claim when you put it with an instrument. Showing an instrument treating someone in a photo on a web site or in a brochure makes the instrument a medical device. Putting any type of electrode (hand cylinders, footpads) with an instrument makes it a medical device. Even a non contact ray tube if used to treat or mitigate a health problem makes that instrument a medical device. It does not matter if you use a ray tube or electrodes it is the same if you in any way imply the treatment of the person who is to use it. They can get you both coming and going if they are after you. It all comes down to the description of both the USE and FUNCTION of an instrument as I have said in the past. Herb companies can say absolutely nothing about the health benefits of their products and those manufacturing instruments are going to have to live with these facts or risk the possibility of having the same experience that Jim Folsom has had. Because I have had to work with legal advice I can now recognize a medical claim in the simplest descriptions when connected to an instrument. I did not learn this because I wanted to but because I had to. I can tell you that every Rife type web site I have visited over the past few months has many medical claims on it. And if the FDA wanted to come after these distributors or manufacturers they would have no problem getting the same evidence they used against Jim. Because Jim did not make his distributors clean up their sites they used this against him. This is why we have made all the web sites connect to our instrument remove all possible medical claims. If we do not police ourselves then they will do it for us by legal action against us. There is an old biblical saying " The wise man seeing the storm hides himself, while the foolish man goes on and is punished " . Best wishes. Jeff > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Randy, > > > I have been talking to a number of people involved in the Jim Folsom case > > > as I am putting together a report for that newsletter of mine I am still > > > preparing (it is this story that is holding it up). > > > > > > Anyway, I mentioned what you said about this case and the reply was: > > > > > > " Randy's comments are not very close. That's not what the court said. The > > > Folsom Appeal, if there ever is any, will say the right words. " > > > > > > Apparently, it is not as bad as you make it out to be for Rife > > > manufacturers and we have been discussing alternative solutions for those > > > marketing " Rife " like devices. This will be discussed in the newsletter when > > > I get this final story wrapped up and ready to send. > > > > > > When I asked for info on the Jim Folsom case, I was sent a load of > > > documents and commentaries that were all mixed up. I have basically been > > > spending the last two days going over the info and writing it up in a > > > factual way for release. Getting the facts straight is not that easy, but as > > > this is potentially a very important issue for the Rife world, I am trying > > > to get this worked out properly. > > > > > > It is certainly more complex than most people here realise. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 --- Leveille wrote: > Apparently it is futile to try and > accomplish anything resembling approval from the FDA. The > FDA mentality is your either with the FDA or your > against the FDA. There is no middle ground. Wouldn't it be > more effective to work through " Rife type " manufacturers or > distributors in foreign countries such as Canada and > Germany? Why do people care so much about FDA approval? Since the FDA has shown itself to be a corrupt organization, having their approval is meaningless from the perspective of safety or efficacy. From some perspectives, FDA approval of something could be looked at as a strike against it. In my opinion, it would be much better if people would acquire a basic understanding of the technology, and make their purchasing decisions based on technical specifications and price. Some people think that because one particular brand of machine has been subjected to a formal double blind study, that it is somehow superior to other machines of the same type. That is not necessarily the case. The only way you could demonstrate the superiority of one particular machine over another is by doing tests that compare them to each other. I submit that a study with one machine would generally apply to other machines of the same type. Let us not forget that Crane was getting results with comparatively crude off-the-shelf square wave generators. That's why we have the modern paradigm of the audio machines. As I said, a person should understand the basics of the technology before buying. You should know how to drive before you buy a car. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Hello Jeff and , Let me answer this the way I see it - you might like the answer I have been working on and preparing for some time now. First of all, I have now completed my report on the Jim Folsom Trial. and I have been working on this for several days talking to a number of people involved including Jim himself. There is still an important attachment I am waiting for permission to use, but otherwise the report is up to date. I have put the report on the newly relaunched Rife Wiki. Although the Rife Wiki has been around for some time, it was not setup well enough resulting in few real articles and tons of spam. That has all been changed now as follows: 1. All the spam and unwanted users are gone forever. 2. Only Rife Forum members can create or edit pages on the Rife Wiki. 3. All Rife Forum members are automatically logged into the Rife Wiki. 4. As Rife Forum usernames are real names, a system has been setup to allow for the use of pseudonyms for those who need to use them. 5. I am in control of the system, there will be no vandalism of good reports, unlike what constantly happens on the Wikipedia Royal Rife page. The new report on Jim Folsom's Trial can be found here: http://www.rifewiki.org/wiki/Jim_Folsom_Trial At the bottom of that report, you will see the first signs of the solution to the marketing problems the US manufactures are having - a strategic alliance between the Rife Forum, rife.de, Rife Wiki, nenahsylver.com on the one side, and the Rife device manufactures and marketers - I will call them the Rife industry for now (or should I have said R.I.F.E. - sorry ) on the other. The Rife industry has the problem that they are not allowed to inform the public about the medical capabilities of Rife equipment and even providing frequency lists can be a problem. On the other side, the websites I run can openly talk about these things as I am not selling any medical equipment and have no intention of doing so. Additionally, my websites are all running on German servers and Germany is a country where Rife technology is legal and naturopaths here can openly use the technology with no fear from the authorities. Although advertising for medical devices is strictly regulated here too, there is a very useful loophole. Within a medical forum, advertising of medical devices is permitted - with over 5000 members, all people who came to the forum to learn about Rife, that is a highly targeted audience. The vast majority of the members do actually come from the USA, by the way. The solution is therefore for the various manufactures to simply refer the customers to the rife sites I run (incl. nenahsylver.com) for education and medical info, etc. Within the Forum, companies can use both the internal blog system to present themselves and compliment the device specific forums, a number of them are there already, for customer service and for users to discuss amongst themselves. The Forum also has an extensive Links system which can be used to inform people where to find the respective companies and device specific pages can be setup on the Rife Wiki as well. That is just the broad outline and the systems I have can all be expanded with extra features as required. Obviously, those companies taking part in this system will be expected to pay a reasonable amount for the service, yet with that comes a lot of peace of mind and the ability to keep their companies running with very much less exposure to the legal problems of putting medical information on their own websites. And with Nenah's new Rife Handbook, there is no need to distribute those frequency lists any more. Nenah's book does an excellent job of explaining in detail which frequencies to use and Charlene's DNA frequencies can be used as well! I look forward to hearing feedback on these ideas. I have been working on this concept for months, but this is the first time I am announcing this openly. Regards Moderator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Randy, > > > > I have been talking to a number of people involved in the Jim Folsom case > > > > as I am putting together a report for that newsletter of mine I am still > > > > preparing (it is this story that is holding it up). > > > > > > > > Anyway, I mentioned what you said about this case and the reply was: > > > > > > > > " Randy's comments are not very close. That's not what the court said. The > > > > Folsom Appeal, if there ever is any, will say the right words. " > > > > > > > > Apparently, it is not as bad as you make it out to be for Rife > > > > manufacturers and we have been discussing alternative solutions for those > > > > marketing " Rife " like devices. This will be discussed in the newsletter when > > > > I get this final story wrapped up and ready to send. > > > > > > > > When I asked for info on the Jim Folsom case, I was sent a load of > > > > documents and commentaries that were all mixed up. I have basically been > > > > spending the last two days going over the info and writing it up in a > > > > factual way for release. Getting the facts straight is not that easy, but as > > > > this is potentially a very important issue for the Rife world, I am trying > > > > to get this worked out properly. > > > > > > > > It is certainly more complex than most people here realise. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Moderator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 > People care for FDA approval for > several reasons. > 1. It will give entire technology appearance of legitimacy Yeah, like the legitimacy of all the pharmaceutical drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of people each year. That's the kind of legitimacy we can all do without. > 2. It will give particular unit huge competitive advantage That only matters to the manufacturer or other people making money selling machines. I for one don't care about anyone's competitive advantage. If they have a good machine for a good price, that's their competitive advantage. > 3. It will allow to set up clinics that use technology for > treatments. That might be important, but if it was FDA approved, the price might go up to where it was unaffordable. > So like it or not it matters. There's one way to get approval in a way that would matter; demonstrate efficacy in the same manner that Rife did. That probably wouldn't give a machine a competitive advantage, because people could take the frequencies and run them on other machines. As Rife's lawyer said regarding patent or other proprietary protection, the only " secret " was the frequencies that were effective. Frequencies can't really be kept secret. This technology should be looked at as open source, not proprietary. FDA approval matters when someone is looking for a proprietary advantage. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 7, 2009 Report Share Posted June 7, 2009 Very well said. This really only applies to people selling machines and making medical claims. If someone wants to sell machines and make claims, they should do so in compliance with FDA regulations. It seems like people are just looking for ways to bypass regulations. The sad reality is that Jim Folsom brought all that trouble on himself. There are other people who are headed for trouble too. Regards, --- Randy wrote: > Hello , > > First, I apologize for posting again on this topic; I'm > sure you want to > hear from others as well. But I wanted to answer the > question why people > should care about FDA approval--because without FDA > approval the supplier > may go to prison for 140 years--a compelling reason to care > in my opinion. > Don't flout the law. But the point in this discussion is > that Rife-type > devices currently do not qualify for FDA approval. So what > suppliers must do > is avoid incurring FDA dis-approval. The only way to avoid > FDA dis-approval > is to not make medical claims. > > As for your suggestion concerning what to do about the > advertising/information problem, I'm doubtful about it. I > can just hear the > prosecutor at the trial, " So, Mr. Supplier of Rife devices, > you paid a > webmaster to maintain a website which consisted of medical > claims for your > device and you directed your customers to the website with > the medical > claims by a link on your own website. " Do you really think > a flimsy > subterfuge like this will trick a judge? The website with > the medical claims > can be on a server in Timbuktu for all the difference it > makes. In this case > I think the only solution is for the buyer of such devices > to do his or her > own research but not expect to rely on information from the > supplier. The > supplier must not in any way be associated with medical > claims, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.