Re: Devising Rife Placebo Tests

[Guest guest]

> Let's think about the characteristics of the machines in order to

> devise a placebo test.

>

> I suspect the person making the placebo pad device joke didn't

> mean to insult pad devices.

Quite right. I know they can have biological effects, I just don't

believe you can perform Rife style treatments with them because of

the way electricity behaves when going from point to point. I bet

that question has been debated elsewhere already though.

But I don't think there's any way to

> turn on a lighted tube device without emanating some kind of

> frequency, and it's real obvious if it's turned off. So it

~can't~ be a

> placebo. (Or can it?) A pad device doesn't light up the room

when

> it's on. I suspect it looks pretty much the same whether it's on

or

> off. So maybe you could fake someone out to do a placebo test.

> Does the pad device make a noise? Can you feel anything through

> the contacts? (I don't know myself.)

>

> Heh -- well I have heard of people observing effects from lighted

> tube devices through solid walls, so ~~that~~ might be a way to

> devise a placebo test for them.

>

> I think both types of devices have their place, and both are

applying

> a frequency of sorts to the body, so I don't mind calling them both

> Rife.

Well, the thing about that is you would then have to call zappers and

TENS boxes Rife machines. (I wonder who made the first pad machine? )

>

> Suzanne.

[Guest guest]

devising Rife placebo tests

> Let's think about the characteristics of the machines in order to

> devise a placebo test.

>

> I suspect the person making the placebo pad device joke didn't

> mean to insult pad devices. But I don't think there's any way to

> turn on a lighted tube device without emanating some kind of

> frequency, and it's real obvious if it's turned off. So it ~can't~ be a

> placebo. (Or can it?)

Why not, some kind of neon lamp could be made to look like a Rife tube.

> A pad device doesn't light up the room when

> it's on. I suspect it looks pretty much the same whether it's on or

> off. So maybe you could fake someone out to do a placebo test.

The PET units have been used in a serious placebo tests. The placebo

patients just received harmless frequencies (I do not know which).

> Does the pad device make a noise? Can you feel anything through

> the contacts? (I don't know myself.)

>

It makes no noise, you do feel a tingling sensation.

> Heh -- well I have heard of people observing effects from lighted

> tube devices through solid walls, so ~~that~~ might be a way to

> devise a placebo test for them.

>

> I think both types of devices have their place, and both are applying

> a frequency of sorts to the body, so I don't mind calling them both

> Rife.

Lets get this straight. The tube design was the original device designed by

Rife in the 30s. The Rife/Bare device is an attempt to duplicate the effect

Rife had developed then although without the original blueprints.

The pad device was designed by Rife and his engineer Crane in the 50s

after gaining many years of experience. One of the scientists I am in

constant contact with who has spent many years investigating the Rife effect

under well funded labatory conditions actually met Crane shortly before

he died and was able to discuss the entire history with him. Crane

clearly stated that he and Rife concidered the pad device they had invented

to be the better way of applying the frequencies. I will ask the scientist

to send me his accont of this more fully. We talk on the phone often and I

have learnt a lot from him (amongst others).

All the professional Rife machines I have seen over here in Europe that are

getting approval for use in Europe are of the pad type (more or less).

Regards

http://www.rife.de

[Guest guest]

Hi List,

If a " resonant " therapy device is alleged to produce " resonant " hits,

then perhaps it logically follows that there are frequencies which

are not a resonant frequency for any typical condition.

IOW, if there are resonant frequencies, then it follows that there

must be those frequencies which are not resonant.

Therefore, IMO, it follows that there are placebo frequencies.

These are frequencies which a plasma/pad device can operate at

without producing ay biological effect. They will light up or be

powered up, but have no more biological effect than an ordinary

fluorescent tube, nor a TENS device, respectively (which avoid any

resonance).

If we're happy with the above so far, then it follows that a computer

controlled frequency selection generator can do runs for which a

keypress response is required from the person, when they believe they

have sensed some change/alleged- " hit " . Keypresses can easily be

collected with the synchronised sequencing of the frequency generator

-- such as using the INP/OUT commands of Basic, with the Blaster5

(Basic) software.

Runs then randomly select, from a desired program, those frequencies

expected to produce hits for the person's presenting condition.

Randomly interspersed among hopefully active frequencies are those

frequencies deemed placebo, for that person -- and there will be a

general set of placebo frequencies for which no condition typically

(if ever) responds for anyone. This is easily do able with current

approaches.

Do we agree that it follows from the definition of resonant frequency

therapy that there must be those frequencies which are not resonant-

therapy /'hits' ?

Chris

>

> > Let's think about the characteristics of the machines in order to

> > devise a placebo test.

> >

<snip>

> > But I don't think there's any way to turn on a lighted tube device

> > without emanating some kind of frequency, and it's real obvious if

> > it's turned off. So it ~can't~ be a placebo. (Or can it?)

> > A pad device doesn't light up the room when it's on. I suspect it

> > looks pretty much the same whether it's on or off. So maybe you could

> > fake someone out to do a placebo test. Does the pad device make a noise?

> > Can you feel anything through the contacts? (I don't know myself.)

> >

> > Heh -- well I have heard of people observing effects from lighted

> > tube devices through solid walls, so ~~that~~ might be a way to

> > devise a placebo test for them.

> >

> > I think both types of devices have their place, and both are

> > applying a frequency of sorts to the body, so I don't mind calling

> > them both Rife.

>

> Well, the thing about that is you would then have to call zappers and

> TENS boxes Rife machines. (I wonder who made the first pad machine? )

> >

> > Suzanne.

[Guest guest]

>

> Lets get this straight. The tube design was the original device

designed by

> Rife in the 30s.

Okay.

The Rife/Bare device is an attempt to duplicate the effect

> Rife had developed then although without the original blueprints.

Okay.

>

> The pad device was designed by Rife and his engineer Crane in

the 50s

> after gaining many years of experience.

Uhhmmmmm...........?

Crane

> clearly stated that he and Rife concidered the pad device they had

invented

> to be the better way of applying the frequencies.

Now that defies common sense. We know that Galvani made a frog's

leg twitch by applying wires to it, but it seems a bit much to

believe that some guy already using high-voltage gas plasma tubes

would decide that merely applying wires was somehow an improvement.

Is there anything in Rife's *own* accounts that says he ever used

pads?

I will ask the scientist

> to send me his accont of this more fully.

Ask the " scientist " if he understands that electricity takes the path

of least resistance, and that it cannot induce a current in a part of

the body not within that path.

[Guest guest]

On 17 Aug 2000, at 23:12,

MGPerrault@... wrote:

> IF you eliminate the audio clue and perhaps visual clue by using

> ear plugs and facing the person away from the tube, then one does

> not need a placebo.

Max,

Someone suggested that a background music tape & walkman can be used,

in lieu of the earplugs idea, for those setups which do sing at the

lower frequencies. Someone also suggested using a curtain over the

equipment or between the person and the equipment, so they might

still face the device if desired, rather than having their body

turned away so as to limit desirable exposure, when using a plasma

tube. For a pad device neither is really necessary, but the

background music tape would also have a quite desirable calming

influence for sometimes mildly anxious persons.

> If you run through sets of frequencies and the person can

> repeatedly pick the same ones as hits, there is no need for placebo

> frequencies.

A few of us don't see it as being quite that straight forwards. We

feel the difficulty is subconscious operator clues, often not easily

avoided when anticipation causes subtle body language that highly

responsive types pick up on so quickly. (IMO this type of subtle body

language is recognisable in situations where the subtle power of

suggestion is apparent).

In my University psychology course it was apparent how subtly

influential anticipation can be, on peoples responses, without them

consciously realising it. The power of suggestion is a well known

phenomena; but easily addressed with randomised placebo frequency

testing.

While a few operators might theoretically avoid these subtle clues

which are so innate to daily life, they often goes unnoticed by those

who then mistakenly hold seeming indicators to be devoid of such

influences.

> One does not need a need a placebo to test the accuracy of their

> assumption that the sun is shining when they walk outside.

The sun shining is a well known situation, rather than having unknown

variables capable of subjective interpretation easily influenced by

the power of suggestion or autosuggestion.

> It is another matter if one cannot easily determine the beneficial

> effect,

When recording subjective responses of people who are anticipating

some effect(and often desiring value for their hard earned money),

when the operator is (unknowingly) giving off subtle signals and the

power of suggestion or autosuggestion is already well established,

then in numerous cases it will be that any supposed effect cannot be

distinguished from a subtly cued response. Random placebo software

minimises or eliminates this situation, by scrambling possible

answers, only printing run results after the run is completed. It is

a strong step in the direction of provable legitimacy.

> in which case you need to test against something that gives

> the same feeling but does not have the same effect.

While ideal, it doesn't seem necessary to get this complicated IMO.

A few of us believe it necessary and sufficient to use the random

placebo software.

> It would have to feel like a hit but not be bio-active,

Ideal ... but unnecessary for isolating out the subtle power of

suggestion or autosuggestion IMO. Random placebo software (plus audio-

tape & curtain) offers the required degree of control to eliminate

unconsciously cued results.

> and then you could see if one group realized improvements that the

> other did not.

An ideal double blind approach suited to large test/control groups.

For the common situation most researchers are currently working with,

the random placebo software earlier described should provide

significant improvement over the current situation, leading to more

reliable data upon which later double blind studies might also build.

> But this is so rudimentary, that I am sure I missed your point

> which must have relevance.

> Max

It seems you might have. No matter. The random placebo software, with

keypress recording (using Basic's INP/OUT statements), will hopefully

soon become freely available for those that understand the situation

and have expressed much interest.

Chris

>

> In a message dated 08/17/2000 3:25:41 PM US Mountain Standard Time,

> chris@... writes:

>

> >

> > Runs then randomly select, from a desired program, those frequencies

> > expected to produce hits for the person's presenting condition.

> > Randomly interspersed among hopefully active frequencies are those

> > frequencies deemed placebo, for that person -- and there will be a

> > general set of placebo frequencies for which no condition typically

> > (if ever) responds for anyone. This is easily do able with current

> > approaches.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I don't mean to undercut the idea of having placebo's, but here is a

different slant on the whole question. Certainly at some point placebo's

may be necessary, and it's important to hash out some solutions to this

problem.

Placebo's in general are necessary to judge the effectiveness of a

particular therapy over doing nothing at all. Traditionally, a placebo is

made to appear as close to the actual item being tested as possible. But

here is the catch, much has to do with how the placebo and tested item is

presented to the subject. Attach a light bulb to a frying pan. Then expose

people to the light while in a large medical center with lots of people

about in white coats. This will certainly elicit some sort of psychological

response. Take the same frying pan with a light bulb and put it in Rosie's

diner in rundown part of town with bums laying about and you will get a

much different response.

So let's just forgo the whole idea of a placebo and put a frequency

instrument into Rosie's diner in a run down part of town and have the

cook expose people there. In fact let's expose the bums too. Then at some

time in future, run lab tests and see what happened to the test patients

disease, and see what happened to the bums. Either people got better or

they didn't.

Essentially this is exactly what is going on now. People are using the

devices and getting better as judged by all known diagnostic criteria. The

real kicker here is that one can use such outcomes to judge against all

previously tested medications . The medications underwent trials, the

outcomes of which are public records. If a group of people are tested that

is equal to that tested in some drug trial, then outcomes as based on

diagnostic results can be the deciding factor. Fact is many drugs are

approved for a particular condition based on only a 30 to 40 % response

rate above that of the placebo. Pretty scarry actually.

If 20 people out of 100 responded to the placebo, then only 26 to 28 out of

100 in the test group would need to be responsive to get approval. That

works out to only 6-8% actual effectiveness. Hulda s zapper, the

most basic of all the frequency devices can easily beat that % on all sorts

of problems.

Jim Bare

>Hi List,

>

>If a " resonant " therapy device is alleged to produce " resonant " hits,

>then perhaps it logically follows that there are frequencies which

>are not a resonant frequency for any typical condition.

>

[Guest guest]

> I don't mean to undercut the idea of having placebo's, but here is

> a different slant on the whole question. Certainly at some point

> placebo's may be necessary, and it's important to hash out some

> solutions to this problem.

We do need to toss this around a bit to clearly distinguish working

parameters which might offer to build credible results. Here's an

alternative perspective, which we commonly know motivates widely

accepted need of proper test procedures with which we're acquainted;

(including those absolutely required for statistical surveys).

A pharmaceutical company rep says they have finally developed a

panacea pill; based on their alleged simple 'unifying principle',

which has long been disputed by competent researchers.

They claim to have tested their panacea pill with a small group of

people and they believe that a number of quite different diseases

have seemed to be diagnostically significantly improved on.

However, results were not undisputed, so as to be considered highly

repeatable, rather seeming quite erratic upon examination by those

given to an interpretation of those which didn't share a vested

interest in the pharmaceutical company.

For their claimed tumor and lesion results the pharmaceutical company

did not photographically record tumors and lesions being visibly

healed (on animals and humans); without any concurrent use of other

modalities. There were no successful microbiology lab tests of their

panacea pill, to independently corroborate allegedly indicative

results on humans.

The people making up the therapy group also used a mixture of other

modalities, at the same time that they took their expensive pill.

It was accepted that the people involved (as is common for humanity)

were subtly influenced by suggestion or autosuggestion and expectant

anticipation arising out of panacea pill promotion, their own

desperation, and the money they spent for the pill, but the

pharmaceutical company rep says we're able to ignore that. The rep

claims his interpretation of the diagnostic indicators overrides

others reticence about whether their panacea pill was adequately

tested and established to an impeccable or incontrovertible degree.

The rep says they didn't do any double blind testing because, he

says, the results of their panacea pill speak for themselves, and

we're not to question his interpretation of those claimed results,

nor common hidden factors which often have invalidated claimed

results of pharmaceutical company pills, nor openly recognised

suggestion/autosuggestion/anticipation.

It's only his/their interpretation of what those indicators mean that

matters, and we can ignore any unavoidable selection bias or hidden

influential factors/suggestion, just taking their word for it that

they are right about their indicators ?

Is this not like saying that a statistical survey questionnaire need

not be concerned with the way the questions are formulated and

presented ? Are statistical results or indicators to be interpreted

as promoters and those with a vested interest tell us they are to be

interpreted ?

Simple, free, randomised ( & placebo) testing can only help with

credibility. Using simple, free, randomised ( & placebo) testing

strengthens interpretation of seeming indicators and doesn't

undermine that interpretation -- unless there really are problems.

There should be nothing to lose, and everything to gain by, freely,

recorded computer assisted randomised ( & placebo) testing.

The sample population from which indicator anecdotes are recorded all

typically are using a number of modalities, and have other factors

which compromise the data (just as for a more usual statistical

survey). No one can be sure which modality helped any one person's

specific circumstances (nor who among them might have had spontaneous

remissions perhaps induced by placebo effects/autosuggestion or

similar).

Indicators are only prerequisites to testing for repeatability; and

orders of magnitude issues, where hundreds, thousands, or millions of

lives are affected, across successive generations or making up a

community.

Unavoidable selection bias is known to occur with small sample

populations. Statistical surveys do need their questions and target

population to be very carefully formulated, to avoid very well known

and otherwise unavoidable people problems with collecting preferably

meaningful data.

Chris

On 17 Aug 2000, at 22:58,

> I don't mean to undercut the idea of having placebo's, but here is

> > a different slant on the whole question. Certainly at some point

> placebo's may be necessary, and it's important to hash out some

> solutions to this problem.

>

> Placebo's in general are necessary to judge the effectiveness of a

> particular therapy over doing nothing at all. Traditionally, a

> placebo is made to appear as close to the actual item being tested

> as possible. But here is the catch, much has to do with how the

> placebo and tested item is presented to the subject. Attach a light

> bulb to a frying pan. Then expose people to the light while in a

> large medical center with lots of people about in white coats. This

> will certainly elicit some sort of psychological response. Take the

> same frying pan with a light bulb and put it in Rosie's diner in

> rundown part of town with bums laying about and you will get a much

> different response.

>

> So let's just forgo the whole idea of a placebo and put a

> frequency instrument into Rosie's diner in a run down part of town

> and have the cook expose people there. In fact let's expose the

> bums too. Then at some time in future, run lab tests and see what

> happened to the test patients disease, and see what happened to the

> bums. Either people got better or they didn't.

>

> Essentially this is exactly what is going on now. People are using

> the devices and getting better as judged by all known diagnostic

> criteria. The real kicker here is that one can use such outcomes to

> judge against all previously tested medications . The medications

> underwent trials, the outcomes of which are public records. If a

> group of people are tested that is equal to that tested in some

> drug trial, then outcomes as based on diagnostic results can be the

> deciding factor. Fact is many drugs are approved for a particular

> condition based on only a 30 to 40 % response rate above that of

> the placebo. Pretty scarry actually. If 20 people out of 100

> responded to the placebo, then only 26 to 28 out of 100 in the test

> group would need to be responsive to get approval. That works out

> to only 6-8% actual effectiveness. Hulda s zapper, the most

> basic of all the frequency devices can easily beat that % on all

> sorts of problems.

>

> Jim Bare

>

>

>

>

> >Hi List,

> >

> >If a " resonant " therapy device is alleged to produce " resonant " hits,

> >then perhaps it logically follows that there are frequencies which

> >are not a resonant frequency for any typical condition.

> >