Re: Global RIFE treatment/scan database

August 11, 2004

Hello Ken, Mike & all.

Effective data entry validation is often a challenge. The requirement

of maintaining contributor privacy within a publicly available database

doesn't make the task any easier. It seems like it would be important

to have a unique data contributor identifier associated with each

original submission of data. This identifier could be a sequence number

or other non-significant form of identification.

The challenge then becomes assuring correct identification of the

contributor at the time of original data submission. If all original

data were submitted to one single online database system, then that

system could have a logon-id and password type of entry process. If a

first-time data contributor selects their own password (and logon-id?)

then their logon-id could be used as their identifier in the database

henceforth. Thus the data entry process only stores logon-id and

password in order to identify and verify each individual contributor.

It would be each contributor's responsibility to protect and remember

their id and password, and thus the integrity of their submitted data.

There would be no way to prevent a contributor from creating multiple

IDs. If data corruption does occur then hopefully it could be

associated with a specific ID such that data collections submitted by

that ID could be flagged, deleted, etc.

Alternatively, contributors could be given the voluntary option to

include more information about themselves with the explicit

understanding that all provided information will be publicly available.

How to handle queries directed to data contributors is not addressed

here.

Contributor identity issues aside, it may also be desirable, whenever

possible, to define the database fields in such a way that data

consistency can be maintained and automatic data verification processes

can be run at the time of data submission. This would enhance the value

and utility of the data.

Mike wrote:

> What bothers

> me about the possible exclusion of people not with scientific

> credentials, if screening went to this level, on this reporting for

> the GRID network ( the name I also like as the grid is a control

> element in tubes, a little input generates a larger output) is that

> some otherwise qualified people get left behind.

<clip>

Mike, your sentiments are eloquently stated. 8^) Certainly there are

many others who share your perspective. Given that there are numerous

competent and capable folks from varied backgrounds active in this

realm who are making important observations, it would be a loss for all

if their observations were given no voice. How to sort the wheat from

the chaff I don't know. As you indicate, the peer-review process has

its own deficiencies.

Hopefully this input will be of some help,

Warren Rekow

> Hi Warren,

>

> I understand the extreme problems an " open house " system would allow.

> It

> would be unworkable.

>

> Are there any suggestions of ways to assure data entry validation?

>

> My only thought on this would require membership screening to exist

> which in

> turn could be used against researchers by bodies wishing to discredit

> this

> work.

>

> An earlier suggestion was to register a Rife Research Organization

> that may

> provide an umbrella from FDA attempts to harass and prosecute

> members. This

> sounds like a big job to me and would probably require members to have

> qualifications at a scientific level to participate.

>

> Ken

August 11, 2004

This is very true, an example...myself... 2 weeks ago I used a set of

frequencies including the " Mickeys Magic 3 " , I had copied them from a posting

some time ago. the person I used them one only once with my GB4000 5 minutes RF

Mode with the amp and device on full power. His blood pressure went from 208/100

to 140/80 in about 6 hours. I took both the pressures myself. The dissapointing

part of this story is he never asked for another session, called his MD and had

another medication added to his already large list. I should have reported this

to the forum and did not, your post caused me to think about it, I wonder if

others do the same thing. I am including the posting I saved in case some one

wants it:

Yadu & friends,

The " Mickie's Magic Three " are some of the frequencies I'd

personally use; but I'd also likely use them at the end of

this entire sequence, which also targets Heliobacter pylori:

2230

840

624

620

471.5

324

528

15

This sequence has been observed to also be effective for

angina; a friend used this sequence once (EM+ System being

used in contact mode in this case) to totally clear the

angina he had been experiencing continuously for about ten

days. There were no further occurrences of the angina

reported to me thereafter.)

As I understand it, H. pylori is also associated with plaque

buildup in the veins & arteries, and this sequence may also

possibly be helpful in reversing plaque buildup to some

degree; it did for my mother, reducing a ~70% blockage with

a lot of 'turbulence' observed by her doctor on one

occasion, to less than 50% over the course of three weeks,

with far less 'turbulence' in the area of the blockage in

the subsequent testing.

She went from the first doctor saying 'we may need to do an

angioplasty' before using this sequence daily (on the EM+ in

contact mode), to having the specialist say after the

follow-up exam, 'It's not grounds for immediate concern, so

we'd like to check you again in about a year'.

No, this doesn't 'prove' anything... but these are just two

of the 'researchers' who are pleased with the results of

their 'experimentation' with induced resonances, and with

this experimental frequency sequence in particular.

August 11, 2004