Re: [rife-list] Working out frequencies from base pairs

[Guest guest]

Hello Caron and Rife groups,

An inquiry was posted to the rife-list about how to use the DNA frequency

method. I will take this opportunity to reply about it to all the Rife groups.

There is a bit of information about this method, which I developed in 1999, at

http://www.rifetechnologies.com/dna-rna.html .

It is currently under patent-pending status, and we are attempting to put

together a reasonable mechanism whereby this method of frequency computation can

someday be used by others.

There have been numerous misunderstandings when some people tried to use this

method in the past. Here are a few:

- some people have thought that the number of base pairs is the frequency, which

is not true.

- some people have done the mathematics inaccurately, or misunderstood how the

concept works.

- many people look up something at the PubMed website, find any kind of entry

whatsoever with the pathogen name, and think the base pair info at that entry is

what they need. This is perhaps one of the biggest problems.

- some people have used totally inappropriate frequency-emitting devices.

I hope you don't mind me using the Aspergillus fumigatus inquiry below as an

example. Without further information about which item you found, I cannot check

what it was. Most certainly though, 747 base pairs is not the genome (or even

one of the chromosomes) for A. fumigatus, because that pathogen is a fungus and

will have millions of base pairs in its DNA genome. The genome for this

organism has not been decoded. The entry for 747 base pairs could have been for

a partial gene, a messenger RNA, coding information for a partial (incomplete)

protein...it is impossible to tell. It might even be a piece of DNA fragmented

or damaged in the lab (lab techniques can easily damage DNA). And

unfortunately, there is only a very tiny chance that computing a frequency for

this item (whatever it was) would produce a desired result, simply because the

organism is a relatively large and complex one. Even if one component was

debilitated in some way, there is a good chance that the organism could adapt to

that temporary insult (depending on what that component is, of course).

The point is, there are millions of DNA and RNA data submissions to the PubMed

system. Many of these submissions are only small fragments of DNA or RNA that

were submitted by lab researchers from around the world, so that other

researchers could compare their coding results. I cannot stress enough - unless

a person has some knowledge of molecular biology (or biochemistry), and knows

how to properly work these databases and extract the appropriate information

from them, using the PubMed information with this frequency method may very well

NOT produce the results one is looking for. It would be irresponsible for me to

imply otherwise. On top of that, some devices may not deliver their emissions

in a manner that is appropriate for this frequency method. We have by the way,

seen some inappropriate behavior from a few individuals with commercial

interests, attempting to use this method with " frequency " equipment utterly

incapable of achieving any results for the stated purpose. We are trying very

hard to shake out some of the technical issues, but it really does take time.

We are seeing a few quite encouraging trends, but until there has been more

testing accomplished, nothing definitive can be said about it.

It is very important to understand that simple frequency emission from

whatever...some are even using a small sound speaker or headphones...does not

cut the mustard for this method. More importantly mere frequency emission from

whatever DOES NOT equate with Rife technology in the sense of debilitating

pathogens, as he worked so hard to accomplish.

Quite understandably, most people on these lists are looking for hard and fast

information that will help them get better fast, and if I were to post about the

DNA method in a speculative manner - without explaining the details and

background...or if people don't get immediate positive results, well then people

get discouraged about the entire business. For all these reasons I have been

rather reticent to publicly make any claims about the DNA-related frequency

method. There is too much potential for misunderstanding, even among those with

considerable knowledge in their various fields of expertise. The future

foundation for this method, if indeed one will be found, lies in a combination

of practical field results, high-quality emission device(s), and perhaps some

knowledge of certain specialized areas of biophysics.

Now having said all this, Caron if there is some way I can help you with your

effort, please let me know (no promises okay)! You came write me offline,

perhaps send me the accession number of the item you were looking at.

With best wishes,

Char

Earlier this week, someone wrote info on this list regarding how to

calculate frequencies from base pairs (I think they indicated the

info would be on pubmed under the genome project) - I now can't

locate those instructions and am not sure the formula would be

specifically for what I'm seeking - I'm looking for the frequencies

for aspergillus fumigatus - One pubmed report that I found indicated

that there are 747 base pairs, but I don't know how to calculate the

frequencies from there. As you may note, I'm in the " kindergarten "

stage of learning this technology, so please bear with me. Thanks in

advance for any help...

Caron