Re: Re: Viral oncology

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this information, . You wrote in part:

" He showed that it was the virus that

sensitized the cells to the effects of hormones and toxins, so that

these factors are only secondary; if the virus isn't present, the tumor

will be benign. "

This would line up with information from molecular biology, in which certain

viral proteins released inside the cell are known to " dock " with portions of

membrane hormone receptor molecules, and put them into a " locked open " position.

The effect of this - is that the portion of the receptor molecule on the outside

of the cell, will constantly be open to receiving hormone molecules, such as

growth hormones, estrogen, etc.

Really, it serves no purpose to put any one cause into a box and say it's the

ultimate cause of cancer, because all these factors interact. However the

presence of virus(es) can certainly alter the metabolism of cells, significantly

tipping the scales in favor of cancer-like activity. There are numerous cancer

viruses that do this in one way or another, and some act faster than others

depending on their capabilities.

Certain scientists feel there are 3 major causes that tip the scales toward

cancer: viruses, toxins, and radiation damage. The more of these factors that

are (or have been) present in any one tissue, the easier for a cancer type of

transformation to occur.

Best wishes,

Char

[Guest guest]

Something of consideration which Rife wrote....

Page 2 of his paper on " History of the Development of a Successful

Treatment for Cancer and other Viruses, etc "

" We have also proven that it is the chemical constituents and chemical

radicals of the virus under observation which enact upon the unbalanced

cell metabolism of the body to produce any disease which may occur. "

Further.... " We have in many instances produced all the symptoms of the

disease chemically without inoculation of any virus or bacteria in the

tissues of experimental animals. "

So what were the " chemical constituents and chemicals radicals of the (

BX) virus " ?

As reported in an earlier post - a chemical relativity to BX was found by

Dr. Rife, and these chemicals are known carcinogens.

Benzene, benzol, anthracene... as Dibenzanthracene, and also the

chemical naphthalene.

To quote from page 2 " The viruses were stained with a frequency of light

that coordinates with the chemical constituents of the particle or

micro-organism under observation. "

The frequency of light used to stain the BX virus should therefore be the

same as will cause epi-flouresence of it's chemical constitutents. I

believe what Dr. Rife is saying is that what ever frequency of light will

cause epi-fluoresence of dibenzanthracene or naththalene will also make the

BX virus visible.

Jim Bare

[Guest guest]

There is something confusing here.Antibiotics have no

effects on viruses beginning only to work with

bacterias.So that cancer particle might be much closer

to bacterias.Rife also called his microbe ¨virus¨only

because it was a filtrable form.The word virus didnt

have the same meaning as today.

Best

Alan

--- Ringas wrote:

> The viral cause of cancer was thoroughly established

> by Dr. E.

> , whose work was in many ways more impressive

> than Rife's. He

> found a specific virus (using an electron

> microscope) that was distinct

> from other viruses. It was present in all malignant

> tissues examined,

> but was not found in normal tissues. He was able to

> culture it on

> artificial media, showing than viruses are not

> lifeless protein

> particles, but are living organisms; they are

> nothing more than smaller

> bacteria. He fulfilled Koch's postulates, showing

> that this organism

> was the cause of the tumors. He showed that it was

> the virus that

> sensitized the cells to the effects of hormones and

> toxins, so that

> these factors are only secondary; if the virus isn't

> present, the tumor

> will be benign. He showed that the virus produces

> the enzyme

> chymotrypsin, accounting for its invasiveness. He

> developed an antibody

> test that was 88% diagnostic for cancer. He

> developed an antibiotic for

> the cancer virus that produced phenomenal results.

> He also pointed out

> that all the essentials of his work had been

> reproduced by other

> competent researchers.

>

> There was also Dr. Hett who found that cancer

> was caused by a

> virus. He developed some type of serum and also

> claimed excellent results.

>

> So we have at least three researchers, Rife,

> , and Hett, who

> found that cancer was caused by a virus. They all

> developed therapies

> against the virus and claimed results that would

> easily put modern

> cancer therapy to shame.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

> denise jameson wrote:

> >

> > Hi

> >

> > Just a little bit of dissension here. I think

> tumors are due to toxins and hormonal inbalances. I

> don't think viruses cause tumors.. Viruses have

> been blamed for vitamin b defeciences, dangerous

> pharmaceuticals, and AIDS. For more information,

> read " Inventing the AIDS Virus " by Duesberg.

> He talks much about " the virus hunters " . I also

> don't believe in the genetic theory. If for

> example, many people in a family are becoming

> diabetic, their exercise habits, diet and stress

> level needs to be looked at first before genes.

> >

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Sterilizing the culture proves that the vital virus is required to produce

infection. It does not eliminate the possibility that viral metabolites are the

cause of the tumor.

My opinion only of course.

Tony Gallistel

[Guest guest]

So we are in a very accordance then.But believe me do

mention that distinction first when you writte on that

subject and mention the quote you send in your

reply.Because for the moderns viruses are NOT

bacterias!Its all has been so 'specialized'.People

dont realize what is at stake and its very confusing.

Best

Alan

ps work is a very good start.You seems to

trust it 100%....

--- Ringas wrote:

> Alan Petit wrote:

> >

> >

> > There is something confusing here.Antibiotics have

> no

> > effects on viruses beginning only to work with

> > bacterias.So that cancer particle might be much

> closer

> > to bacterias.Rife also called his microbe

> ¨virus¨only

> > because it was a filtrable form.The word virus

> didnt

> > have the same meaning as today.

> > Best

> > Alan

>

>

> This is generally, but not strictly true. Some

> antibiotics do have some

> effects on viruses, but the reason that they

> generally don't affect

> viruses is because they are not developed against

> viruses. If it will

> remove confusion, we could sub-categorize the

> antibiotic as anti viral,

> rather than antibacterial, but even that might be

> inappropriate in this

> context. To quote Dr. again,

>

> " Some have felt that antibiotics would have no

> effect on virus diseases,

> but only on bacterial diseases. This would be

> peculiar if true, for

> viruses are only bacteria that are so small that

> they pour through a

> Berkfeld filter, while bacteria will not. "

>

> In the context of these discussions, I don't use the

> term virus

> according to the modern definition, but according to

> the definitions of

> Rife, and others, that they are nothing more

> than filterable,

> primordial forms of bacteria.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________

Yahoo! Messenger

Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.

http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest

[Guest guest]

Jim

Welcome.But as I say to I am afraid what is

valid for viruses is also valid for epifluo. of

chemicals.But its very worth the trying because they

are chemicals and this could lead on another field of

research.

Alan

--- Bare wrote:

> Alan,

>

> I should have phrased this somewhat differently. One

> first needs a

> microscope capable of equaling the magnification and

> resolution

> capabilities of Dr. Rifes to see the virus. Only

> when there is the chemical

> constituents of the Virus are fluorescing is the

> virus made visible.

>

> In another context... Using a standard microscope,

> it may be possible to

> put these chemicals as a smear on a slide and then

> see if they fluoresce at

> the same light frequency that Rife found.

>

> Jim Bare

>

>

> . I

> > > believe what Dr. Rife is saying is that what

> ever

> > > frequency of light will

> > > cause epi-fluoresence of dibenzanthracene or

> > > naththalene will also make the

> > > BX virus visible.

> > > Maybe.A good idea anyway.But the point is still

> the

> >same.If you want to follow the Rife path,in any

> >case,you will need his microscope.Because I have

> the

> >feeling that somebody on the list will propose

> >¨his¨microscope that idea should be tried with the

> >Ergonom.But the fact is that Rife never used that

> way.

> >Alan

> >

> >

> >--- Bare

> wrote:

> > > Something of consideration which Rife wrote....

> > > Page 2 of his paper on " History of the

> Development

> > > of a Successful

> > > Treatment for Cancer and other Viruses, etc "

> > >

> > > " We have also proven that it is the chemical

> > > constituents and chemical

> > > radicals of the virus under observation which

> enact

> > > upon the unbalanced

> > > cell metabolism of the body to produce any

> disease

> > > which may occur. "

> > >

> > > Further.... " We have in many instances produced

> all

> > > the symptoms of the

> > > disease chemically without inoculation of any

> virus

> > > or bacteria in the

> > > tissues of experimental animals. "

> > >

> > > So what were the " chemical constituents and

> > > chemicals radicals of the (

> > > BX) virus " ?

> > >

> > > As reported in an earlier post - a chemical

> > > relativity to BX was found by

> > > Dr. Rife, and these chemicals are known

> > > carcinogens.

> > >

> > > Benzene, benzol, anthracene... as

> Dibenzanthracene,

> > > and also the

> > > chemical naphthalene.

> > >

> > > To quote from page 2 " The viruses were stained

> with

> > > a frequency of light

> > > that coordinates with the chemical constituents

> of

> > > the particle or

> > > micro-organism under observation. "

> > >

> > > The frequency of light used to stain the BX

> virus

> > > should therefore be the

> > > same as will cause epi-flouresence of it's

> chemical

> > > constitutents. I

> > > believe what Dr. Rife is saying is that what

> ever

> > > frequency of light will

> > > cause epi-fluoresence of dibenzanthracene or

> > > naththalene will also make the

> > > BX virus visible.

> > >

> > > Jim Bare

> > >

[Guest guest]

What brings up is a valid point. There is a good amount of solid thought

process in the alternative medicine arena, but at the same time there's also a

lot of hog wash. This mailing list itself is full of some people with bright and

interesting ideas.

What we have yet to see in our times (since Rife and the like) is someone who

actually resurrects these theories into the proper research. We can all sit here

on a mailing list and harp about MOR's, microscopes, BX, BY, harmonics etc etc

etc. We can build generators that produce different types of waves, greater

ranges and the likes. The problem is at the stagnant rate this is going, it

won't materialize to much.

I think Rife, and the others, were " ahead " of the bell curve. It would be

similar to thinking about building cars back in the 1700's; it just doesn't work

given society's understanding.

I honestly think, come 150-200 years (maybe even longer at this rate),

electromagnetic radiation of all sorts (magnetic fields, frequencies etc) will

be used to treat various illnesses and diseases. The universe we live in is a

giant vacuum and everything within is various forms of electromagnetic energy.

Harnessing the energy and applying it correctly is where the " fun " begins. Years

upon years of research (in vivo and in vitro) is needed to even get this thing

rolling, let alone find the " cure for all diseases " .

I'm doing my part to get this thing going. My father has seen the Ergonom in

Germany, I have seen the RTM from Canada and I can tell you that these machines

are opening new doors of all kinds. I have seen detection down to 60nm, which

was verified by the test slide.

I'll also let you know that investors I know personally are hesitant to get

involved with this. Yes it's been tried and supposedly with successful results

by various people in the past. The problem lies in the overall uncertainty of

it's results. It sure would be nice if some guy with a couple million dollars

lying around somehow stumbled upon this mailing list.

Take care,

Lyon

Ringas wrote:

Alan Petit wrote:

>

> Sorry jason

> I have to disagree.When you use a microscope you set

> the scale.What Rife has seen with His microscope is

> absolutely different from what you can see now on any

> dark field micro. no matter wonderfull it might be.The

> allegedly Rife freq. worked on what Rife found through

> his micro.Consequently they dont work on what you can

> see now with modern micro.Otherwise cancer would be

> today just a souvenir.

> I am very surprised no one ever mentioned that.

What Rife saw with his microscope was different only because of the

superior performance of his microscope. The BX " virus " doesn't and

didn't exist only when viewed under the Rife microscope, although I

suppose quantum theorists will suggest otherwise. The BX " virus " exists

and existed before Rife built a microscope that could see it, and the

reason his microscope could see it was because it had superior

performance. If someone else built or builds a microscope that has the

requisite superior performance, then it will be able to see it as well.

Now regarding the dark field microscope, it has the potential to

" detect " objects as small as the BX, but it can't resolve them. The

magnification would still be an issue, but that's another matter. I

wonder if " detecting " the BX would be sufficient to do MOR research. It

would be interesting to have a dark field microscope with an optical

system of sufficient magnification, and resonant light illumination, and

see if the would be enough to " see " the BX. The resonant wavelength of

light could be determined with a spectrophotometer. The reason cancer

isn't just a souvenir today is because nobody is doing research with BX

and microscopes that can see it, not because we don't have Rife's

microscope.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

,

People drop millions of dollars daily at the casino's, on race cars, and on

biotechnology dead ends. Don't think a thing about it.

The problem as I see it is one of a lifetime of brainwashing. We are all

taught that the solution to our physical problems is just a molecule away.

Find the right molecule - all is well with the world and as an investor

....our pocket books.

Someone comes along and goes " We can manipulate the molecules in our

bodies with external fields of all sorts! " An investor looks at that and

may agree philosophically, but can't overcome their brainwashing. They know

how to make money, but understanding the consequences of a technological

shift is beyond them. They cannot grasp the enormity of their actions, and

the important part they will play in a world changing event.

A few million , well spent can change things in two years, not 150.

Jim Bare

> The problem lies in the overall uncertainty of it's results. It sure

> would be nice if some guy with a couple million dollars lying around

> somehow stumbled upon this mailing list.

>

[Guest guest]

Jim,

I understand, but no " real " effort is being put towards it as of yet (thus my

100 year prediction). I've been spending time trying to raise the capital (since

I am in the investment area of business). It's not as easy as one might expect.

Finding an Angel Investor is the key to this, not VC's. If anyone knows anyone

in that boat, by all means I know the next step (from warrant issues to option

valuations etc.)

Thanks,

Lyon

Bare wrote:

,

People drop millions of dollars daily at the casino's, on race cars, and on

biotechnology dead ends. Don't think a thing about it.

The problem as I see it is one of a lifetime of brainwashing. We are all

taught that the solution to our physical problems is just a molecule away.

Find the right molecule - all is well with the world and as an investor

....our pocket books.

Someone comes along and goes " We can manipulate the molecules in our

bodies with external fields of all sorts! " An investor looks at that and

may agree philosophically, but can't overcome their brainwashing. They know

how to make money, but understanding the consequences of a technological

shift is beyond them. They cannot grasp the enormity of their actions, and

the important part they will play in a world changing event.

A few million , well spent can change things in two years, not 150.

Jim Bare

> The problem lies in the overall uncertainty of it's results. It sure

> would be nice if some guy with a couple million dollars lying around

> somehow stumbled upon this mailing list.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Welcome back.

From this report, it does indicate that it could be rather dangerous to

treat cancer with frequencies unless a cancer sufferer was correctly

diagnosed with the Ergonom microscope first to determine the nature of the

virus, and its exact frequency.

Frequencies such as 2008 and 2128 and others in the CAFL might have the

reverse effect?

This puts a great weight and responsibiltiy on Rife practitioners, and I

would also think adds great value to Bruce Stenulsons approach of using

frequency therapy to boost the bodys system, rather than using frequencies

to eliminate the cancer virus.

Just some initial thoughts.

Ken Uzzell

Re: Viral oncology

>

> Hi,

> I am now back from an interesting visit to Australia (more on that in a

> latter post) and I have been reading up the posts made while I was out of

> the country. I have been reading the posts on " Viral oncology " which I

have

> been finding very constructive.

>

> I have discussed the subject with Kurt Olbrich (inventor of the Ergonom

> microscope) and he made some interesting comments which I want to share.

> Kurt has seen and documented the " cancer virus " in great detail and has

> years of experience looking at it. He has been involved in a number of

> studies and research into cancer including a study with the University of

> Heidelberg (Germany), in about 1991, where with his help, patients with

very

> serious tumours went into full remission and are still alive today!

>

> Kurt has also fully investigated bioresonance therapy and is fully in

favour

> of it (he uses such therapy himself).

>

> Here are some points he made:

>

> 1. When treating cancer, it is VERY important to determine the EXACT

> frequency to use, otherwise the cancer virus will not be destroyed and in

> some cases may even grow faster.

>

> 2. There is NOT just one frequency for cancer! He found that the frequency

> to use had to be determined individually by testing the virus obtained

from

> the patient under the microscope, individually. This is because the virus

is

> different according to the environment in the patient's body. Every person

> has their own weeknesses in their system and the development stage of

> cancers differs, accordingly.

>

> This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the frequencies under the

> microscope for each individual patient and then treat with those

> frequencies!

>

> 3. Kurt sometimes does consultancy work for drug companies, yet he says

the

> most effectice method against viruses in most cases is bioresonance - not

> drugs.

>

> 4. What most people do not know is that viruses do not have a fixed size -

> they grow from being young viruses into full size viruses and this effects

> the resonance frequency, too.

>

> 5. Electron microscopes are poor tools for looking at viruses as the

process

> of observation with such a microscope not only causes the viruses to die,

> they also shrivel up like a fist - what you see is not what viruses

normally

> look like. For example, the HIV virus van be about 30-40nm according to

the

> textbooks as that is the size as seen under the electron microscope. In

> reality, they can grow to nearly 300nm when seen in their living state - a

> fact established during a trial in Berlin using the Ergonom microscopes.

>

> Regards

>

>

> Moderator

> www.rife.de

> www.grayfieldoptical.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

I need to add that the frequencies Kurt used in his experiments (several

years ago) were in the MHz range, not the audio range (no, he has not given

me any exact frequencies).

I suspect that the audio range frequencies are safe. I will ask him more on

this, however.

This does however explain why cancer is not eliminated easily by just using

the standard cancer therapies.

Dr. Holt (also in Australia), treats cancer by blocking glucose use in

the body and then using high frequencies to encourage rapid cancer growth.

The lack of glucose causes the cancer to starve and die. This is a

simplified version of what I have understood how it works.

More on Dr. Holt, here: http://www.rifeforum.com/holt/

Regards

Re: Re: Viral oncology

Hi ,

Welcome back.

From this report, it does indicate that it could be rather dangerous to

treat cancer with frequencies unless a cancer sufferer was correctly

diagnosed with the Ergonom microscope first to determine the nature of the

virus, and its exact frequency.

Frequencies such as 2008 and 2128 and others in the CAFL might have the

reverse effect?

This puts a great weight and responsibiltiy on Rife practitioners, and I

would also think adds great value to Bruce Stenulsons approach of using

frequency therapy to boost the bodys system, rather than using frequencies

to eliminate the cancer virus.

Just some initial thoughts.

Ken Uzzell

Re: Viral oncology

>

> Hi,

> I am now back from an interesting visit to Australia (more on that in

> a latter post) and I have been reading up the posts made while I was

> out of the country. I have been reading the posts on " Viral oncology "

> which I

have

> been finding very constructive.

>

> I have discussed the subject with Kurt Olbrich (inventor of the

> Ergonom

> microscope) and he made some interesting comments which I want to share.

> Kurt has seen and documented the " cancer virus " in great detail and has

> years of experience looking at it. He has been involved in a number of

> studies and research into cancer including a study with the University of

> Heidelberg (Germany), in about 1991, where with his help, patients with

very

> serious tumours went into full remission and are still alive today!

>

> Kurt has also fully investigated bioresonance therapy and is fully in

favour

> of it (he uses such therapy himself).

>

> Here are some points he made:

>

> 1. When treating cancer, it is VERY important to determine the EXACT

> frequency to use, otherwise the cancer virus will not be destroyed and

> in some cases may even grow faster.

>

> 2. There is NOT just one frequency for cancer! He found that the

> frequency to use had to be determined individually by testing the

> virus obtained

from

> the patient under the microscope, individually. This is because the

> virus

is

> different according to the environment in the patient's body. Every

> person has their own weeknesses in their system and the development

> stage of cancers differs, accordingly.

>

> This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the frequencies under the

> microscope for each individual patient and then treat with those

> frequencies!

>

> 3. Kurt sometimes does consultancy work for drug companies, yet he

> says

the

> most effectice method against viruses in most cases is bioresonance -

> not drugs.

>

> 4. What most people do not know is that viruses do not have a fixed

> size - they grow from being young viruses into full size viruses and

> this effects the resonance frequency, too.

>

> 5. Electron microscopes are poor tools for looking at viruses as the

process

> of observation with such a microscope not only causes the viruses to

> die, they also shrivel up like a fist - what you see is not what

> viruses

normally

> look like. For example, the HIV virus van be about 30-40nm according

> to

the

> textbooks as that is the size as seen under the electron microscope.

> In reality, they can grow to nearly 300nm when seen in their living

> state - a fact established during a trial in Berlin using the Ergonom

> microscopes.

>

> Regards

>

>

> Moderator

> www.rife.de

> www.grayfieldoptical.com

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Thanks, I've personally never seen a cancer victim get worst using the audio

Crane/Rife frequencies except where the cancer was so advanced that the body

systems were no longer able to cope or chemotherapy had been re-introduced.

As I am no expert, I eagerly read all the research the Rife giants publish

and take my position from their calls.

Just for interest sake, and this may not mean anything, but when rounding

down Dr Holts 434MHz to view the audio octaves of this tumour stimulation

frequency, I see the following results under 20kHz.

13,244.6Hz

6,622.3Hz

3,311.2Hz

1,655.6Hz

827.8Hz

413.9Hz

206.9Hz

103.5Hz

51.7Hz (close to Australia's mains power :-(

25.9Hz

12.9Hz

etc.

There were a few frequency sets on the April 2004 CAFL at 413 , 414, 207 and

104. I don't know if this is significant ?

The 51.7Hz raises my eyebrow, may be Australia power system (50Hz) has more

to do with the high levels of cancer in Australia than the so called over

exposure to sun-light. Although I noticed that studies on the Cat's Purr,

where it is reported that 50Hz and 100Hz are major bone healing frequencies.

I can't see nature give a mammal a self destruct mechanism as such.

Just me doodling.

Regards

Ken Uzzell

Re: Viral oncology

>

>

> >

> > Hi,

> > I am now back from an interesting visit to Australia (more on that in

> > a latter post) and I have been reading up the posts made while I was

> > out of the country. I have been reading the posts on " Viral oncology "

> > which I

> have

> > been finding very constructive.

> >

> > I have discussed the subject with Kurt Olbrich (inventor of the

> > Ergonom

> > microscope) and he made some interesting comments which I want to share.

> > Kurt has seen and documented the " cancer virus " in great detail and has

> > years of experience looking at it. He has been involved in a number of

> > studies and research into cancer including a study with the University

of

> > Heidelberg (Germany), in about 1991, where with his help, patients with

> very

> > serious tumours went into full remission and are still alive today!

> >

> > Kurt has also fully investigated bioresonance therapy and is fully in

> favour

> > of it (he uses such therapy himself).

> >

> > Here are some points he made:

> >

> > 1. When treating cancer, it is VERY important to determine the EXACT

> > frequency to use, otherwise the cancer virus will not be destroyed and

> > in some cases may even grow faster.

> >

> > 2. There is NOT just one frequency for cancer! He found that the

> > frequency to use had to be determined individually by testing the

> > virus obtained

> from

> > the patient under the microscope, individually. This is because the

> > virus

> is

> > different according to the environment in the patient's body. Every

> > person has their own weeknesses in their system and the development

> > stage of cancers differs, accordingly.

> >

> > This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the frequencies under the

> > microscope for each individual patient and then treat with those

> > frequencies!

> >

> > 3. Kurt sometimes does consultancy work for drug companies, yet he

> > says

> the

> > most effectice method against viruses in most cases is bioresonance -

> > not drugs.

> >

> > 4. What most people do not know is that viruses do not have a fixed

> > size - they grow from being young viruses into full size viruses and

> > this effects the resonance frequency, too.

> >

> > 5. Electron microscopes are poor tools for looking at viruses as the

> process

> > of observation with such a microscope not only causes the viruses to

> > die, they also shrivel up like a fist - what you see is not what

> > viruses

> normally

> > look like. For example, the HIV virus van be about 30-40nm according

> > to

> the

> > textbooks as that is the size as seen under the electron microscope.

> > In reality, they can grow to nearly 300nm when seen in their living

> > state - a fact established during a trial in Berlin using the Ergonom

> > microscopes.

> >

> > Regards

> >

> >

> > Moderator

> > www.rife.de

> > www.grayfieldoptical.com

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

Thanks to remember two important facts which may be

correlated.Different freq.needed for a same °virus°

and an blood testing for each patient and I would add

at each sessions because the patient milieu and as you

say the ° virus size°( would say shape) differ with

time.

Electronic micro.is worthless.

Best

Alan

--- wrote:

>

> Hi,

> I am now back from an interesting visit to Australia

> (more on that in a

> latter post) and I have been reading up the posts

> made while I was out of

> the country. I have been reading the posts on " Viral

> oncology " which I have

> been finding very constructive.

>

> I have discussed the subject with Kurt Olbrich

> (inventor of the Ergonom

> microscope) and he made some interesting comments

> which I want to share.

> Kurt has seen and documented the " cancer virus " in

> great detail and has

> years of experience looking at it. He has been

> involved in a number of

> studies and research into cancer including a study

> with the University of

> Heidelberg (Germany), in about 1991, where with his

> help, patients with very

> serious tumours went into full remission and are

> still alive today!

>

> Kurt has also fully investigated bioresonance

> therapy and is fully in favour

> of it (he uses such therapy himself).

>

> Here are some points he made:

>

> 1. When treating cancer, it is VERY important to

> determine the EXACT

> frequency to use, otherwise the cancer virus will

> not be destroyed and in

> some cases may even grow faster.

>

> 2. There is NOT just one frequency for cancer! He

> found that the frequency

> to use had to be determined individually by testing

> the virus obtained from

> the patient under the microscope, individually. This

> is because the virus is

> different according to the environment in the

> patient's body. Every person

> has their own weeknesses in their system and the

> development stage of

> cancers differs, accordingly.

>

> This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the

> frequencies under the

> microscope for each individual patient and then

> treat with those

> frequencies!

>

> 3. Kurt sometimes does consultancy work for drug

> companies, yet he says the

> most effectice method against viruses in most cases

> is bioresonance - not

> drugs.

>

> 4. What most people do not know is that viruses do

> not have a fixed size -

> they grow from being young viruses into full size

> viruses and this effects

> the resonance frequency, too.

>

> 5. Electron microscopes are poor tools for looking

> at viruses as the process

> of observation with such a microscope not only

> causes the viruses to die,

> they also shrivel up like a fist - what you see is

> not what viruses normally

> look like. For example, the HIV virus van be about

> 30-40nm according to the

> textbooks as that is the size as seen under the

> electron microscope. In

> reality, they can grow to nearly 300nm when seen in

> their living state - a

> fact established during a trial in Berlin using the

> Ergonom microscopes.

>

> Regards

>

>

> Moderator

> www.rife.de

> www.grayfieldoptical.com

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________

Yahoo! Messenger

Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.

http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest

[Guest guest]

Hello , if you listen to the Rife CD's you will find this is not what

Rife said. When he was asked if he needed to find a different frequency for

each person, he said each person would not need a different frequency. Rife

said the frequency was the same for each person. Rife clearly said that each

disease had a frequency and that frequency would work for every person as

long as they had the same disease.

There may be more viruses for cancer today than in Rife's day and these

MOR's will need to be found. This is most likely the reason why there will

be more than one frequency needed for cancer.

Jeff

>

> This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the frequencies under the

> microscope for each individual patient and then treat with those

> frequencies!

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I have already released a number of scientific films he has put together

based on his work. I do have a number of documents as well and a lot of his

work is in the book on Pleomorphism of which I have released an extract to

this group, recently.

http://www.rifeforum.com/Pleomorphismus.pdf

The problem for me is that all the information I get from him is in German

and I simply do not have the time to translate it all into English.

I have not even had the time to read all the material he has

given me so far.

The principle work on cancer was performed in collaboration with Dr. Dr.

Kurt S. Zänder, Professor for Immunology (Witten/Herdecke University) and

Dr. U. G. Randoll (Erlangen University) and the study was performed partly

at Heidelberg University clinic (all in Germany) around 1991. I have not yet

had a chance to actually obtain a copy of these studies (I have not even

asked), however Kurt has described them to me in detail. However, that

particular study was not Rife related, yet so successful that Kurt was

" asked " by certain powers to stop!

Kurt's work on Pleomorphism was mainly with the renowned natural health

practitioner Bernhard Muschlien and that work was presented in the

" Symbiosis or Parasitism " film released online and the associated report

which I do have, but is again in German.

I am releasing info as fast as I can, but at the moment other issues have

higher priorities.

My work with Kurt Olbrich is based more around getting his microscopes out

into scientific research now and releasing his previous work is done where

possible. As Kurt is not in the business of doing scientific research for

himself, the research work is usually done on behalf of his customers

(universities, industry, research organisations, etc.) and it is then these

institutions which release the studies, not Kurt Olbrich who is often also

limited by NDAs.

Although Kurt Olbrich has been involved in similar work to that of Royal

Rife, there are some important differences in these two people:

Royal Rife's principle work was in researching cancer with the aim of

finding a cure. Rife developed his microscopes in order to achieve that aim.

Kurt Olbrich comes from an industrial background (Hoechst), not medicine and

Kurt's principle work is in optics, plastics, metallurgy and medicine where

he has mainly provided a microscope service for other researchers. Unlike

Rife, Kurt does not see himself as a scientist researching for cancer at

all, he spends his time developing and building better microscopes and other

technologies. However, his more than 30 years of work in this field, with

many top research scientists, has allowed him to learn a lot about the

subject.

Kurt's research into Rife frequency therapy was again many years ago and he

specifically stopped that research after determining how accurately the

frequency has to be matched to kill a cancer virus.

Comments on the use of square waves versus sine waves are based on his own

observations and I severely doubt he has published any papers on the matter.

I am in touch with a number of serious research scientists (e.g. Prof.

Szasz, Dr. May, Geoff Baker, Dr. Wendell, etc.) and when this subject was

discussed, square waves were always mentioned as being more effective. If

you have evidence to the contrary, let us see it and I will bring the

subject up again as time permits.

As to Jeff's comments regarding always using the same frequency. I said

" apparently " in regard to Rife as I have not looked too deeply into this

particular comment, I was basically just passing on what I had been told

myself. In regard to treating most diseases, I would agree that the same

frequencies do usually apply. We were however discussing the cancer virus

which is pleomorphic where different frequencies apply to the various stages

of this pathogen. The actual frequency to use can therefore be determined by

high power microscopes. That the same frequency may always apply to the same

stage of pleomorphic change was not being discussed here, a point which I

can agree to be valid. Kurt was working in the MHz range so that might have

influenced his assessment, too.

Here is a point to consider. Viruses are very small so in order to get

perfect resonance, surely a wavelength is needed that matches the size of

the virus. A smaller " wave-length " will not deliver the entire power to the

virus within its size. A common " cancer frequency " of 2028Hz has a

wavelength that is much too long (about 148 km), we can all agree that a

virus is much smaller. A frequency small enough to match the size of a virus

would need a very high frequency (Gigahertz range). I might point out that

this comment is NOT a quote from Kurt. I am no expert on this field so I

welcome the comments of the experts, here.

Regards

Re: Viral oncology

Hi :

I respect the work that Mr. Olbrich has done, but are we ever going to

get any hard data out of him, instead of unsubstantiated claims? When

are we going to see his photomicrographs of purified cancer virus and

his research data establishing it as such? When are we going to see the

data on his research with frequencies? To be sure, he has produced a

very nice microscope, but it is unacceptable to have various statements

come from him without any evidence that we can follow up on. One

example that comes to mind is the claim made that square waves are

better than sine waves; what is the evidence for this? It has seemed to

me that all of the statements that you have made and attributed to him

have been presented and expected to be accepted at face value, based on

his reputation, rather than on the presentation of evidence. I for one

would like to see something more substantial.

Regards,

wrote:

>

> Hi,

> I am now back from an interesting visit to Australia (more on that in

> a latter post) and I have been reading up the posts made while I was

> out of the country. I have been reading the posts on " Viral oncology "

> which I have been finding very constructive.

>

> I have discussed the subject with Kurt Olbrich (inventor of the

> Ergonom

> microscope) and he made some interesting comments which I want to share.

> Kurt has seen and documented the " cancer virus " in great detail and has

> years of experience looking at it. He has been involved in a number of

> studies and research into cancer including a study with the University of

> Heidelberg (Germany), in about 1991, where with his help, patients with

very

> serious tumours went into full remission and are still alive today!

>

> Kurt has also fully investigated bioresonance therapy and is fully in

> favour of it (he uses such therapy himself).

>

> Here are some points he made:

>

> 1. When treating cancer, it is VERY important to determine the EXACT

> frequency to use, otherwise the cancer virus will not be destroyed and

> in some cases may even grow faster.

>

> 2. There is NOT just one frequency for cancer! He found that the

> frequency to use had to be determined individually by testing the

> virus obtained from the patient under the microscope, individually.

> This is because the virus is different according to the environment in

> the patient's body. Every person has their own weeknesses in their

> system and the development stage of cancers differs, accordingly.

>

> This is apparantly what Rife did: determine the frequencies under the

> microscope for each individual patient and then treat with those

> frequencies!

>

> 3. Kurt sometimes does consultancy work for drug companies, yet he

> says the most effectice method against viruses in most cases is

> bioresonance - not drugs.

>

> 4. What most people do not know is that viruses do not have a fixed

> size - they grow from being young viruses into full size viruses and

> this effects the resonance frequency, too.

>

> 5. Electron microscopes are poor tools for looking at viruses as the

> process of observation with such a microscope not only causes the

> viruses to die, they also shrivel up like a fist - what you see is not

> what viruses normally look like. For example, the HIV virus van be

> about 30-40nm according to the textbooks as that is the size as seen

> under the electron microscope. In reality, they can grow to nearly

> 300nm when seen in their living state - a fact established during a

> trial in Berlin using the Ergonom microscopes.

[Guest guest]

No real evidence or studies have been done on the issue, like most everything

else " rife-related " .

Ken Uzzell wrote:

--- Wrote---

One example that comes to mind is the claim made that square waves are

better than sine waves; what is the evidence for this? It has seemed to me

that all of the statements that you have made and attributed to him have

been presented and expected to be accepted at face value, based on

his reputation, rather than on the presentation of evidence. I for one would

like to see something more substantial.

--->8---

Hi ,

Do you mean to say there is no evidence that square waves are better than

sine waves ?

Dr detects resonance with sine waves, but treats the microbes with

square waves, but she doesn't give any real evidence except to say that

square waves are better than sine waves.

With today's technology, square waves are easier to produce than sine waves,

just a on/off switch so I believe.

What about Jim's videos, he uses square waves when he blew up those pond

bugs. I'm sure Jim has tested sine waves out, and found square waves better.

Wouldn't this be evidence?

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Clearly you have enough to do. I do not mean to disturb you, but with

prior discussion in mind must ask. Has any progress has been made yet

towards the rerelease of that beautiful " Pleomorphismus " book?

Warren Rekow

Hi ,

I have already released a number of scientific films he has put together

based on his work. I do have a number of documents as well and a lot of

his

work is in the book on Pleomorphism of which I have released an extract

to

this group, recently.

http://www.rifeforum.com/Pleomorphismus.pdf

<clip>

[Guest guest]

wrote

> The title is " Pathogenesis of Cancer " , by E. , M. D. The

> third edition was published in 1955 and the second edition was published

> in 1952.

[and later wrote]

I have three copies of the third edition and one copy of the second.

You should be able to find a copy, like the other member who was able to

find one shortly after I posted the title.

I was also able to locate a copy of the book through the internet used books

website www.abebooks.com , and am reading the book now.

The electron microscope pictures of what Dr. believed to the cancer

virus are very interesting. Those who have the book may also want to

look at the pictures of cancer-causing retroviruses in the modern text " Fields

Virology " , (4th edition), volume 2, page 1874. The pictures look very similar,

if not the same in some instances, and also show virus budding phenomena.

Dr. 's text is likewise a worthwhile read, certainly pertinent follow-up

material for those interested in Rife's BX efforts.

Best wishes,

Char

[Guest guest]

I am not used to talk for nothing and will not argue

point for point on your endless and confusing

comments.

`I think you are overly fixated on doing things

> exactly the way Rife did

> them, rather than following the principles, ideas

> and goals that Rife

> had.`

This kind of rheteoric I know very well and its easy

to manipulate people mind with that.A negation and an

affirmation of negation just confuse and hypnotize the

reader or the listener so he is ready to follow you or

at least you create a ´^problem^^ for him.

I will argue only this point just for the list.

The Rife principle as you say was to isolate and SEE

not a virus as today terminolgy but an particle

through his micro. and with freq. to blow it out.

What he saw he called the BX.What he saw was through

his micro. and his micro only.If we follow Rife we

need to do what he did at least in the begining to see

that BX.You say the simplest explanation with some

kind of razor is the best isnt it?

We can do the same with other micros provided they

have similar capabilities as Rife one.But no longer BX

because the scale has changed and consequently one

will have to use different freq,Thats what Herr

Olbricht has done.

Back to our point.Volontarily or not you entertain the

confusion saying the BX is everywhere and can be seen

by any micro. even with an electronic micro as in the

case.As far as I know Dr. never talk

about BX.Only YOU with your non scientific " arguably "

associate ,electronic micro. and BX.

Rife BX form belongs to the Rife micro.Point.Period.

Other samse scale micro. will see other different B

something and consequently different freq. and

different culture methods maybe will be used.And

marvels could be done as Rife did.

Now for me that microscopic discussion in both senses

of the word is OVER and will no more answer so you can

argue for the eternity if you want.

Just a last word concerning the model T Ford.

First i begin to understand some friends with your

over inflated ego and

Second the model T cars were far behind todays

cars.But with the Rife micro. its quite the

opposite.Only the Ergonom 70 years later more or less

is of the same trend.So forget Ford and your wrongly

choosed exemple.

No offense

Best

Alan

ps please keep the exchange posts only for that list.I

dont belongs to others.

--- Ringas wrote:

> Alan Petit wrote:

> >

> > What a mixture of arguments but the point is very

> > important here.The Rife microscope is unique in a

> > sense it does ,among other things,manipulate

> > Light.

>

>

> All optical instruments (including our eyes)

> manipulate light; that's

> how they accomplish their task.

>

>

> > Rife was an inventeur not an ingenieur or an

> > universitary and thinking of his machines

> following

> > *scientific* journalistic articles or books

> written

> > after his time is a big mistake.

>

>

> Rife's machines were based on the unique application

> of scientific

> principles. The big mistake is to think of them as

> something magical

> that can't be considered scientifically.

>

>

> > Yes the Rife BX exist only through the Rife micro.

> as

> > the somatid exist only with Naessens micro so with

> > Enderlein and others.Of course the lets say the BX

> > *essence* is as old as the Earth and can be viewed

> > differently with different machines provided they

> are

> > able to do it.No need to look at quantum theories

> to

> > understand that.

> > The performance you talk about is only an *

> innocent*

> > result and you forget completely the machine

> > conception and his purpose.

> > That point is very important and should not be

> > dismissed by simplistic views.

> >

>

>

> Nothing should be dismissed with simplistic views,

> but it is well known

> that the simplest explanation is usually the correct

> one; Occam's Razor.

> The purpose of Rife's microscopes was to see things

> that couldn't be

> seen with what was available. In order to do that

> it needed superior

> performance. It wasn't an " innocent result " , but

> was the whole point of

> building the microscopes. There's no need to overly

> complicate the

> matter. He needed a microscope to see organisms (in

> the live state)

> that weren't observable with regular microscopes,

> but which he had

> indication and believed existed.

>

>

>

> > What you say concerning dark field micro. is only

> > valid for them and I mean also the way they are

> > build.This has nothing to do with Rife.You can add

> > whatever you want to an darkfield micro. you will

> > never see the Rife BX.

>

>

> I think you are overly fixated on doing things

> exactly the way Rife did

> them, rather than following the principles, ideas

> and goals that Rife

> had. His electronic devices and microscope frames

> were primitive

> compared to what could be accomplished today.

> Darkfield is just another

> form of illumination and as such doesn't necessarily

> have anything to do

> with Rife, but that doesn't mean it might not be

> useful in Rife

> research. Dismissing it without investigation is

> unscientific.

>

>

>

> > Now you say detecting BX but HOW you detect

> it?Please

> > enlight me because if you have the real Rife BX I

> can

> > put some hard money down and start experimenting.

>

>

> As I indicated, detecting an object is not the same

> as resolving it. In

> darkfield illumination, many things are detected by

> the light they

> scatter, but are not resolved. My comments were in

> speculation as to

> whether detection might be enough.

>

>

>

> > And you say nobody is experimenting with BX for

> the

> > good reason no one is able to I would not say get

> it

> > which is another story but to see it,both cases

> being

> > intertwinned.

>

>

> A Doctor or other qualified researcher should be

> able to get tumors and

> culture it. Dr. didn't have a Rife

> microscope. He used an

> electron microscope and arguably saw the same

> organism. True, the use

> of an electron microscope would prevent

> experimentation with

> frequencies, but it could be used to reestablish its

> existence and

> culturing technique.

>

>

> > I think you sincerely believe what you say but in

> my

> > humble opinion you are in a wrong path.

>

>

> Henry Ford believed and had the attitude that the

> Model T was the final

> word on automobiles. Modern automobiles show how

> misguided that

> attitude was, despite the fact that they are still

> based on the same

> principles and general configuration. Would anybody

> today be satisfied

> with a Model T for anything other than nostalgia?

> Rife's instruments

> are the Model T, and while we still need to follow

> the same methods,

> principles and general path he laid out, we don't

> need to follow the

> exact instruments he used.

>

> I've spent many years trying to help people see the

> issues clearly.

> I've tried to show that we need to follow the

> principles that Rife

> established, but we don't need to be totally

> dogmatic. What I've seen

> for the most part is that people are either

> neglecting the fundamental

> Rife principles, or are dogmatically chained to the

> actual original Rife

> hardware, rather than the underlying principles

> involved. That, in my

> opinion, is why there has been no real progress.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Alan,

The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up. I'd do more research if I

were you.

As for this arguement, it's pointless considering neither of you have done any

real research in the area. The only people who should be debating the issue are

people like Olbrich and the likes who've " been there and done that " .

Lyon

Alan Petit wrote:

I am not used to talk for nothing and will not argue

point for point on your endless and confusing

comments.

`I think you are overly fixated on doing things

> exactly the way Rife did

> them, rather than following the principles, ideas

> and goals that Rife

> had.`

This kind of rheteoric I know very well and its easy

to manipulate people mind with that.A negation and an

affirmation of negation just confuse and hypnotize the

reader or the listener so he is ready to follow you or

at least you create a ´^problem^^ for him.

I will argue only this point just for the list.

The Rife principle as you say was to isolate and SEE

not a virus as today terminolgy but an particle

through his micro. and with freq. to blow it out.

What he saw he called the BX.What he saw was through

his micro. and his micro only.If we follow Rife we

need to do what he did at least in the begining to see

that BX.You say the simplest explanation with some

kind of razor is the best isnt it?

We can do the same with other micros provided they

have similar capabilities as Rife one.But no longer BX

because the scale has changed and consequently one

will have to use different freq,Thats what Herr

Olbricht has done.

Back to our point.Volontarily or not you entertain the

confusion saying the BX is everywhere and can be seen

by any micro. even with an electronic micro as in the

case.As far as I know Dr. never talk

about BX.Only YOU with your non scientific " arguably "

associate ,electronic micro. and BX.

Rife BX form belongs to the Rife micro.Point.Period.

Other samse scale micro. will see other different B

something and consequently different freq. and

different culture methods maybe will be used.And

marvels could be done as Rife did.

Now for me that microscopic discussion in both senses

of the word is OVER and will no more answer so you can

argue for the eternity if you want.

Just a last word concerning the model T Ford.

First i begin to understand some friends with your

over inflated ego and

Second the model T cars were far behind todays

cars.But with the Rife micro. its quite the

opposite.Only the Ergonom 70 years later more or less

is of the same trend.So forget Ford and your wrongly

choosed exemple.

No offense

Best

Alan

ps please keep the exchange posts only for that list.I

dont belongs to others.

--- Ringas wrote:

> Alan Petit wrote:

> >

> > What a mixture of arguments but the point is very

> > important here.The Rife microscope is unique in a

> > sense it does ,among other things,manipulate

> > Light.

>

>

> All optical instruments (including our eyes)

> manipulate light; that's

> how they accomplish their task.

>

>

> > Rife was an inventeur not an ingenieur or an

> > universitary and thinking of his machines

> following

> > *scientific* journalistic articles or books

> written

> > after his time is a big mistake.

>

>

> Rife's machines were based on the unique application

> of scientific

> principles. The big mistake is to think of them as

> something magical

> that can't be considered scientifically.

>

>

> > Yes the Rife BX exist only through the Rife micro.

> as

> > the somatid exist only with Naessens micro so with

> > Enderlein and others.Of course the lets say the BX

> > *essence* is as old as the Earth and can be viewed

> > differently with different machines provided they

> are

> > able to do it.No need to look at quantum theories

> to

> > understand that.

> > The performance you talk about is only an *

> innocent*

> > result and you forget completely the machine

> > conception and his purpose.

> > That point is very important and should not be

> > dismissed by simplistic views.

> >

>

>

> Nothing should be dismissed with simplistic views,

> but it is well known

> that the simplest explanation is usually the correct

> one; Occam's Razor.

> The purpose of Rife's microscopes was to see things

> that couldn't be

> seen with what was available. In order to do that

> it needed superior

> performance. It wasn't an " innocent result " , but

> was the whole point of

> building the microscopes. There's no need to overly

> complicate the

> matter. He needed a microscope to see organisms (in

> the live state)

> that weren't observable with regular microscopes,

> but which he had

> indication and believed existed.

>

>

>

> > What you say concerning dark field micro. is only

> > valid for them and I mean also the way they are

> > build.This has nothing to do with Rife.You can add

> > whatever you want to an darkfield micro. you will

> > never see the Rife BX.

>

>

> I think you are overly fixated on doing things

> exactly the way Rife did

> them, rather than following the principles, ideas

> and goals that Rife

> had. His electronic devices and microscope frames

> were primitive

> compared to what could be accomplished today.

> Darkfield is just another

> form of illumination and as such doesn't necessarily

> have anything to do

> with Rife, but that doesn't mean it might not be

> useful in Rife

> research. Dismissing it without investigation is

> unscientific.

>

>

>

> > Now you say detecting BX but HOW you detect

> it?Please

> > enlight me because if you have the real Rife BX I

> can

> > put some hard money down and start experimenting.

>

>

> As I indicated, detecting an object is not the same

> as resolving it. In

> darkfield illumination, many things are detected by

> the light they

> scatter, but are not resolved. My comments were in

> speculation as to

> whether detection might be enough.

>

>

>

> > And you say nobody is experimenting with BX for

> the

> > good reason no one is able to I would not say get

> it

> > which is another story but to see it,both cases

> being

> > intertwinned.

>

>

> A Doctor or other qualified researcher should be

> able to get tumors and

> culture it. Dr. didn't have a Rife

> microscope. He used an

> electron microscope and arguably saw the same

> organism. True, the use

> of an electron microscope would prevent

> experimentation with

> frequencies, but it could be used to reestablish its

> existence and

> culturing technique.

>

>

> > I think you sincerely believe what you say but in

> my

> > humble opinion you are in a wrong path.

>

>

> Henry Ford believed and had the attitude that the

> Model T was the final

> word on automobiles. Modern automobiles show how

> misguided that

> attitude was, despite the fact that they are still

> based on the same

> principles and general configuration. Would anybody

> today be satisfied

> with a Model T for anything other than nostalgia?

> Rife's instruments

> are the Model T, and while we still need to follow

> the same methods,

> principles and general path he laid out, we don't

> need to follow the

> exact instruments he used.

>

> I've spent many years trying to help people see the

> issues clearly.

> I've tried to show that we need to follow the

> principles that Rife

> established, but we don't need to be totally

> dogmatic. What I've seen

> for the most part is that people are either

> neglecting the fundamental

> Rife principles, or are dogmatically chained to the

> actual original Rife

> hardware, rather than the underlying principles

> involved. That, in my

> opinion, is why there has been no real progress.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up.

> I'd do more research if I were you.

Just reread my post or go back to school to learn to

read.

As for this arguement, it's pointless considering

> neither of you have done any real research in the

> area. The only people who should be debating the

> issue are people like Olbrich and the likes who've

> " been there and done that " .

kindly reminded you the real point

of these posts.There are huge basic differences

between us and what is irrational for him is very

rational for me.

You are very right with the second assertion.I know

Herr Olbricht personnaly and some °likes° and wish

they could talk.You would be surprised.

The Rife micro. is not lost and could be recreated.No

need of productivity.And then yes we could argue.

And now you have you done any real research in

that area?And what kind of research?

If yes then you have an opinion.If not how do you know

that neither both of us havent done it?

Think twice next time.

Alan

--- K- Doe wrote:

>

>

> Alan,

>

> The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up.

> I'd do more research if I were you.

>

> As for this arguement, it's pointless considering

> neither of you have done any real research in the

> area. The only people who should be debating the

> issue are people like Olbrich and the likes who've

> " been there and done that " .

>

>

> Lyon

>

[Guest guest]

Well Alan with posts you make like this:

" Hi

How are you so sure that the particle seen on the Ergonom IS the BX or BY?If so

then the Ergonom is the RIfe microscope.But it seems not.I am really confused

about that.So what?

Best

Alan "

" Hi

What is exactly a stereo microscope?

Alan "

I tend to doubt your research and or wonder where your opinions originate from.

I'm not doubting you as a person, nor do I want to get in a verbal argument with

you. The old saying " opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got them " applies

nicely to this Rife discussion.

I will do the " proper " research when the time/money permits me (not cancer

related). When that'll be, I'm not too sure.

Take care,

Alan Petit wrote:

The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up.

> I'd do more research if I were you.

Just reread my post or go back to school to learn to

read.

As for this arguement, it's pointless considering

> neither of you have done any real research in the

> area. The only people who should be debating the

> issue are people like Olbrich and the likes who've

> " been there and done that " .

kindly reminded you the real point

of these posts.There are huge basic differences

between us and what is irrational for him is very

rational for me.

You are very right with the second assertion.I know

Herr Olbricht personnaly and some °likes° and wish

they could talk.You would be surprised.

The Rife micro. is not lost and could be recreated.No

need of productivity.And then yes we could argue.

And now you have you done any real research in

that area?And what kind of research?

If yes then you have an opinion.If not how do you know

that neither both of us havent done it?

Think twice next time.

Alan

--- K- Doe wrote:

>

>

> Alan,

>

> The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up.

> I'd do more research if I were you.

>

> As for this arguement, it's pointless considering

> neither of you have done any real research in the

> area. The only people who should be debating the

> issue are people like Olbrich and the likes who've

> " been there and done that " .

>

>

> Lyon

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Alan and ,

I think that this argument should be halted here. Based on my knowledge of

both of you, you are both experienced researchers and more so than this

exchange of Emails would suggest.

Let us return to mutual respect and working together to add to the common

knowledge of the Rife community.

I happen to know that Alan has personally seen the Ergonom microscopes some

time ago as 's father has also done (I took him there).

I have spoken to Kurt Olbrich a few times about the cancer virus which Kurt

has documented in great detail. However, Kurt does not use the terms BX or

BY for the cancer virus he has researched. I will ask him for pictures of

this virus for release to this group. However, this may take some time as I

know he is very busy at the moment.

Kurt tells me that he can detect cancer in blood up to 5 years in advance.

Cancer can also be slowed or even stopped by getting the Ph level of the

blood to be neutral or alkaline. It is acidic blood which the cancer virus

lives in.

The Ergonom microscopes are NOT Rife microscopes and do not work on the same

principles. There are a few similarities like the use of parallel light

paths that never cross. The Ergonom has capabilities like variable depth of

field, ability to focus through thick layers and being very ease of use

which were lacking in the Rife microscope. The Ergonom can also simulate the

method used by Rife to determine which frequencies of light an organism

resonates with (as demonstrated in the Pleomorphism film).

Regarding Kurt Olbrich talking to others like him - he has been doing this

for years and I am often surprised how well informed he is about what others

are doing. He seems to have his spies everywhere!

One thing I wish to add is that unlike other microscope manufactures, Kurt

is willing and able to provide information and knowledge onto the Rife

community through me. I do not see such information or cooperation

forthcoming from any others involved in high power optical microscopes!

Regards

Re: Re: Viral oncology

Well Alan with posts you make like this:

" Hi

How are you so sure that the particle seen on the Ergonom IS the BX or BY?If

so then the Ergonom is the RIfe microscope.But it seems not.I am really

confused about that.So what?

Best

Alan "

" Hi

What is exactly a stereo microscope?

Alan "

I tend to doubt your research and or wonder where your opinions originate

from. I'm not doubting you as a person, nor do I want to get in a verbal

argument with you. The old saying " opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got

them " applies nicely to this Rife discussion.

I will do the " proper " research when the time/money permits me (not cancer

related). When that'll be, I'm not too sure.

Take care,

Alan Petit wrote:

The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up.

> I'd do more research if I were you.

Just reread my post or go back to school to learn to

read.

As for this arguement, it's pointless considering

> neither of you have done any real research in the

> area. The only people who should be debating the

> issue are people like Olbrich and the likes who've

> " been there and done that " .

kindly reminded you the real point

of these posts.There are huge basic differences

between us and what is irrational for him is very

rational for me.

You are very right with the second assertion.I know

Herr Olbricht personnaly and some °likes° and wish

they could talk.You would be surprised.

The Rife micro. is not lost and could be recreated.No

need of productivity.And then yes we could argue.

And now you have you done any real research in

that area?And what kind of research?

If yes then you have an opinion.If not how do you know

that neither both of us havent done it?

Think twice next time.

Alan

--- K- Doe wrote:

>

>

> Alan,

>

> The Ergonom is not the only microscope catching up.

> I'd do more research if I were you.

>

> As for this arguement, it's pointless considering

> neither of you have done any real research in the

> area. The only people who should be debating the

> issue are people like Olbrich and the likes who've

> " been there and done that " .

>

>

> Lyon

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Could you enlighten, what is " BTA " ?

Char

It has been known since the 1920's or early '30's that in cancer, the

more alkaline from normal that the blood is, the worse the prognosis and

the faster the patient declines. In modern BTA testing, the blood is

almost always very alkaline, except when the conductivity skews the pH

reading.

[Guest guest]

Hi, this email below is confusing. I just read peter's email that it is

in acidic blood that one finds cancer virus, but email here is talking

about more alkaline, worse prognosis. How to interpret? Kind advice is

appreciated. Thanks very much.

________________________________

From: Rife [mailto:Rife ] On Behalf Of CB

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:57 PM

To: Rife

Subject: Re: Re: Viral oncology

Hi ,

Could you enlighten, what is " BTA " ?

Char

It has been known since the 1920's or early '30's that in cancer, the

more alkaline from normal that the blood is, the worse the prognosis

and

the faster the patient declines. In modern BTA testing, the blood is

almost always very alkaline, except when the conductivity skews the pH

reading.