Re:Looking For Evidence of Effects

September 20, 2003

One of the large problems that many people have is thier training stands in

the way of understanding alternative explanations and treatments. In other

words, their educational success was predicated upon excelling within a

certain philosophical model. As they left their schooling behind, these same

people then became part of an accepted paradigm in which they could earn a

living. This paradigm/model is primarily biochemical. Proofs, utilization,

explanations, treatments, and research is all based upon what furthers the

biochemical model.

Due to behavior and mental programming, many find it difficult to think

outside this model.

Please look up the Gables Lab reports and other correspondence found on Stan

Trumans web site: http://www.rife/.org . Sad to say a lot of supporting

evidence for Rife's work has either been lost, or is being hoarded by people

looking for some financial gain. A good 1000 pages of material has been

released to the public domain in the past few years. There are many times

this amount of material still in private hands. The US FDA by law may allow

the use of anectdotal evidence for approval of devices and medication. Since

they " may " they chose not to. This cuts off the ability of the natural

health care professions to develop new devices and products.

>If so, on what evidence do you base your faith and confidence

>in this modality?

In the United States, a good 25% of the primary health care practitioners

do not adhere to a medical model. A total that comes as a shock to many

people steeped in the biochemical model. There are 62,000 Chiropractors,

83,000 Massage Therapists with another 10,000 in school. There are totaled,

tens of thousands of Naturopaths, Herbalists, Acupuncturists,

Kinesiologists, and Nutritionists. There are tens of thousands that might be

classified as " intention healers " . Shamans, Medicine men/women, Curanderos,

ministers, priests, magnetic healers, holy people and others of thier like.

There are thousands of people trained in the biological sciences that use

their knowledge to heal using non medical therapies. All together, I

estimate a good 250,000 professionals of all types use non medical means to

treat and heal well over 70 million Americans every year.

All of these different healing professions and methods are primarily

empirically based. These methods have different non medical terminologies

that explain the initiation, diagnosis and treatment of disease. Often the

condition is given a non medical name. In spite of the fact that 25+% of

taxpaying Americans utilize non medical treatments as their primary health

care, 100% of thier tax monies and charitable donations go to fund only

medical research. People don't necessarily want a " medical " solution, they

just want their health care problems solved.

The lack of research money has lead to an entirely different form of " proof "

than that utilized by the medical model. This form works very well, and in

the case of Acupuncture and Herbalism, has been in practice for thousands of

years . This method of proof is accepted with validity within the non

medical professions. Outcome based therapies are the true arbitrar of

clinical success. What works is passed within the profession through the

schools, journals, symposia and other means of communication. A bit arcane,

but a method that is extremely effective. The medical profession even uses

this method to some extent. Surgery is a prime example.

Reality can never be disproved by science, science can only be used to

explain a reality. A lack of so called science has nothing to do with

assigning a lack of reality. Reality is never lacking, it is only science

that lacks an adequate explanation for the observed reality. People make

scientific spoofs of Radionics, Chiropractic, Therapeutic Touch,

Acupuncture, Naturopathy, Homeopathy and on and on and on. This is an abuse

of science, for science is being used to disprove reality. In so doing,

science passes into the realm of self delusion which is then used for

economic oppression.

> Surely those people who

>are excited about Rifes work should conduct their own trials to

>extract a truly objective appraisal.

The oppression of clinical trials for non pharmaceutical treatment of

disease is a reality that is unknown to the general public. I personally

have had this happen, as have at least two other groups/people I am aware of.

>This would help legitimise this

>modality and lift it above it's current reputation as little more

>than a curiosity.

For those that have used a frequency device to restore their health, there

is no curiosity. Right now in the US there are at least 400,000 frequency

devices of all types. Not a one is medically appoved, nor are they FDA, FTC

or Postal Service approved. Acceptance of Electrotherapeutics is growing

without medical, government, or media approval. The reason?, They work! As

to why they work, well one needs research money for that. Research money

would also help to delineate for what they work. A lot of confusion about

that presently! There are medical devices, and then there are devices used

for healing which are non medical and used by the natural health care

professions. There is a distinction!

>There are no legal impediments to private trialing

Human or animal clinical trials are subject to strict guidelines and review.

The cost of a clinical trial on what the FDA has so far classified as a

Class III device is phenominal.

The opressive forces that maintain economic supremacy of the medical model

can be brutal to those that would challenge them. The AMA has lost at least

3 and possibly 4 anti trust suits. Multi time convicted of monopolistic

practices, the AMA and it's associates serve only themselves. How many

natural health care practitioners are consultants, associates, or employees

of the FDA or FTC? The answer is a big ZERO.

Every healing profession is unique and has their own philosophy of

treatment. They arrive at healing of their patients thorough different

means. 25 % of the public money that should be going to research within the

natural health care professions is bled off to fund the medical monopoly.

The NIH last year spent 25 billion dollars on research. About 1/100,000th of

that ( which is better than it used to be! ) got spent in natural health

care schools.

E. Bare, D.C.

September 20, 2003