Rife-Bare or Rife, which is better?

[Guest guest]

What do the machines we use today do then?

Terry

Re: Rife-Bare or Rife, which is better?

Terry McClelland wrote:

> I don't care what they are called, calling them a Rife is just a

tribute to

> a great scientist, calling a Ford a Ford is a tribute to Henry Ford

as what

> people drive now is only similar in theory to what he invented, I see

Rife

> machines as nothing different

> Terry

Ariella Vanderveen wrote:

> yes...i see any use of the knowledge that using frequencies to kill

> diseased cells of the same frequency is just the most amazing discovery

> that i credit rife with...

You people just don't seem to get it that Rife is not the founder of

frequency therapy, and the machines we use today do not " kill diseased

cells of the same frequency " . It is not a tribute to Rife what you're

doing. When Rife was still alive, he made a doctor remove his name from

association with his clinic, because he wasn't doing what Rife was

doing. If he were alive today, he'd make us do the same, unless of

course we were doing what he was doing. This issue is a matter of

principle, as well as scientific accuracy.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

and All,

We must look at todays machines within the context of their usage Vs that

of Dr. Rife's machine and it's usage.

Dr. Rife's machines were designed from the ground up to be able to kill a

micro organism with a specific frequency. This frequency could be found via

culture of the organism from the affected individual, observation of the

micro organism under a micro scope, and exposure of that micro organism to

a specific frequency. The exposure process was repeated on different

culture samples to assure an exact and reliable frequency had been

determined. The frequency was then used to kill the organism and cure the

patient.

In short... Dr. Rife's original devices were very limited as to

capabilities. They primarily killed living micro organisms. A later usage

was found for them in treating cataracts. That's it. Two, count them, Two

uses.

Our modern machines utilize principles developed by Dr. Rife - that is the

application of a frequency . But! Our devices due to their different

electrical principles of operation treat a multitude of diseases. They are

not limited to just infections and cataracts.

In many ways our modern machines are far superior to Rife's. But in some

ways they are also inferior.

The solution to invitro testing with our modern devices is in developing a

test mechanism that somehow replicates the effects of the frequencies

inside our bodies. When that has been accomplished - we too will be able to

duplicate Rife's methods and results.

Jim Bare

>

>My only response to your claim of having a " Rife " machine is, prove it!

>

>Whether Rife was a genius, or whether I'm smart or not is irrelevant to

>the issue at hand. I was involved in Rife research long before most

>people on this list, and a significant amount of the information that's

>publicly available came through my efforts, so I think I'm qualified to

>comment on the subject.

>

>Rife may have been a genius, but he was also a fool for not publishing

>his work. He was a fool for thinking that he was going to single

>handedly present the cure for cancer to the medical establishment on a

> " silver platter " .

>

>I may not be that smart, but frankly, a lot of smarts aren't required

>for the arguments I've been making here. All you have to do is examine

>the available information and use a little critical thinking. It's not

>rocket science. Appealing to emotion and nostalgia, and deifying Rife

>is not going to result in any real progress in this field. Let's stick

>to the issues. You have a " Rife " machine? Prove it to us all, so that

>we can buy the same machine that you have.

>

>Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

jason, in spite of your unpleasant tone...let me refer you to jim

bare " s message of today

" dr rife's machines were designed from the ground up to be able to kill

a micro organism with a specific frequency " ...seems to be just what i

said....

ariella

'

> Ariella Vanderveen wrote:

>> yes...i see any use of the knowledge that using frequencies to kill

>> diseased cells of the same frequency is just the most amazing

>> discovery

>> that i credit rife with...

>

[Guest guest]

99% of all machines discussed on the different " Rife " lists may be Rife

inspired but have, in reality nothing to do with Rife!

Gordon

> ,

>

> I get it and agree with you.

>

> doug

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There are 2 things, we must differentiate between:-

1. A personality named Dr. Rife

2. A principle called RIFE (Resonant Initiated Field Effect)

Confusion is due to this.

Today when people say it is a Rife machine, it is item # 2.

Peace to you

gesi

============================================

Subject: Re: Rife-Bare or Rife, which is better?

> Terry McClelland wrote:

> > I don't care what they are called, calling them a Rife is just a

> tribute to

> > a great scientist, calling a Ford a Ford is a tribute to Henry Ford

> as what

> > people drive now is only similar in theory to what he invented, I see

> Rife

> > machines as nothing different

> > Terry

[Guest guest]

Terry McClelland wrote:

> What do the machines we use today do then?

> Terry

The machines we use today " work " on a physiological level, not a

germicidal level; they work by affecting, improving, or normalizing the

physiology of the body, rather than destroying microorganisms directly

and independently from physiological function. This explains why we

have such long frequency lists and so many different frequencies for a

given condition. If they worked in the same manner that Rife's machines

worked, there would be one frequency (perhaps with some of its

harmonics) for each form of a microorganism. In the case of cancer,

that would be just a handful of frequencies, and they would work far

more consistently and effectively than the current situation. It also

explains why we haven't been able to produce the MOR effect under the

microscope with the frequencies we use.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Ariella Vanderveen wrote:

> jason, in spite of your unpleasant tone...let me refer you to jim

> bare " s message of today

>

Tone is not accurately conveyed through email.

> " dr rife's machines were designed from the ground up to be able to kill

> a micro organism with a specific frequency " ...seems to be just what i

> said....

>

Notice he said " Dr. Rife's " . That has nothing to do with our machines.

As I've said so many times before, if our machines did what Rife's

machines did, we would be able to demonstrate the MOR effect like he

did, and we would certainly have far better long term success with

cancer than we do today.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

rifetech@... wrote:

> and All,

>

> We must look at todays machines within the context of their usage Vs that

> of Dr. Rife's machine and it's usage.

>

> Dr. Rife's machines were designed from the ground up to be able to kill a

> micro organism with a specific frequency. This frequency could be found via

> culture of the organism from the affected individual, observation of the

> micro organism under a micro scope, and exposure of that micro organism to

> a specific frequency. The exposure process was repeated on different

> culture samples to assure an exact and reliable frequency had been

> determined. The frequency was then used to kill the organism and cure the

> patient.

>

> In short... Dr. Rife's original devices were very limited as to

> capabilities. They primarily killed living micro organisms. A later usage

> was found for them in treating cataracts. That's it. Two, count them, Two

> uses.

>

> Our modern machines utilize principles developed by Dr. Rife - that is the

> application of a frequency . But! Our devices due to their different

> electrical principles of operation treat a multitude of diseases. They are

> not limited to just infections and cataracts.

>

> In many ways our modern machines are far superior to Rife's. But in some

> ways they are also inferior.

>

> The solution to invitro testing with our modern devices is in developing a

> test mechanism that somehow replicates the effects of the frequencies

> inside our bodies. When that has been accomplished - we too will be able to

> duplicate Rife's methods and results.

>

> Jim Bare

I agree with everything you've said, however, I doubt that a test

mechanism could be developed that replicates the effects inside our

bodies, because it's just too complex. Even if it could be done, we

would need a different test for every person, since we are all different.

I think we should have both our modern physiologic type of machines and

real Rife machines; the best of both worlds. I don't think this is

unrealistic or unattainable. We just need to keep the proper

distinction, and realize that our present machine are not Rife machines.

If that fact is widely acknowledged, more qualified researchers will be

inspired to try to develop real Rife machines, to the benefit of all of

us. I also think that it's not impossible to have a machine that does

both functions in one unit.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

You do have a point and I agree with you. I have stopped using the name Rife

when I talk to clients about these machines, but for a different reason than

what you describe.

In Australia, the media has hammered Rife machines and the name Rife is well in

the sub conscious of Australians as a machine that is associated with quacks and

killers.

This is just the way it is.

I now simply call my machince a RF frequency machine, which provides frequency

therapy. I have not had one negative reaction to this. When I use to tell people

I had a " Rife " machine, they would all take a step back and I could see almost

fear in their eyes. Not many people wanted to try it. But since using the name

" Frequency Machine " (not very origional eh) - everyone is interested in my

machine and wants to know more.

The frequency therapy detractors have made strong connections in the media

announcements which links Rife to trouble and death. A name change turns

everything around.

Thanks for keeping up being persistant in your case here, it has helped me in

ways I didn't expect.

Regards

Ken Uzzell

----- Original Message -----

From: Ringas

You people just don't seem to get it that Rife is not the founder of

frequency therapy, and the machines we use today do not " kill diseased

cells of the same frequency " . It is not a tribute to Rife what you're

doing. When Rife was still alive, he made a doctor remove his name from

association with his clinic, because he wasn't doing what Rife was

doing. If he were alive today, he'd make us do the same, unless of

course we were doing what he was doing. This issue is a matter of

principle, as well as scientific accuracy.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Ken Uzzell wrote:

> Hi ,

>

> You do have a point and I agree with you. I have stopped using the name Rife

when I talk to clients about these machines, but for a different reason than

what you describe.

>

> In Australia, the media has hammered Rife machines and the name Rife is well

in the sub conscious of Australians as a machine that is associated with quacks

and killers.

>

> This is just the way it is.

>

> I now simply call my machince a RF frequency machine, which provides frequency

therapy. I have not had one negative reaction to this. When I use to tell people

I had a " Rife " machine, they would all take a step back and I could see almost

fear in their eyes. Not many people wanted to try it. But since using the name

" Frequency Machine " (not very origional eh) - everyone is interested in my

machine and wants to know more.

>

> The frequency therapy detractors have made strong connections in the media

announcements which links Rife to trouble and death. A name change turns

everything around.

>

> Thanks for keeping up being persistant in your case here, it has helped me in

ways I didn't expect.

>

That's another very important benefit in not calling the machines Rife;

it disarms the detractors. When we finally do get real Rife machines,

we can shut them up with an objective demonstration. If the media was

informed that at present there's no such thing as a " Rife " machine, they

wouldn't be able to smear his name.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Yeah, but Doug of Seattle in late 80's did his own experiment with CDC

spirochetes and microscope and would blast them with his own machine (to this

day

called " the doug " ) using a wound coil and capacitor array with approx 2000

watts. Using low frequencies only he would notice some of them on a slide

vibrating and that these same key frequencies caused some of them to look

damaged

or even dead and also he and his wife looking through the microscope got

herxheimer response but with time of 2 years went on to be totally symptom free

and presumably cured (since it's been well over a decade).

Perhaps that was very close to what Rife was doing BUT not really b/c Doug

was using low frequencies (all under 3000 hz I think) and a coil whereas Rife

used very high frequencies and plasma. Just b/c there is no proof of MOR

scientifically does not mean that is not what is going on with some of these

frequencies inside the body. Maybe these machines today are working with MOR's

sometimes (would explain the herx response with those with lyme) and for

other conditions that may be non-microbial there is some totally different

response.

In a message dated 8/28/2005 4:18:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

Rife writes:

The machines we use today " work " on a physiological level, not a

germicidal level; they work by affecting, improving, or normalizing the

physiology of the body, rather than destroying microorganisms directly

and independently from physiological function. This explains why we

have such long frequency lists and so many different frequencies for a

given condition. If they worked in the same manner that Rife's machines

worked, there would be one frequency (perhaps with some of its

harmonics) for each form of a microorganism. In the case of cancer,

that would be just a handful of frequencies, and they would work far

more consistently and effectively than the current situation. It also

explains why we haven't been able to produce the MOR effect under the

microscope with the frequencies we use.

[Guest guest]

Finaly,Gordon

Thanks.Even a few of those who were responsible for

that confusion now want to rectify that trend..

Alan

--- Gordon Minor wrote:

> 99% of all machines discussed on the different

> " Rife " lists may be Rife

> inspired but have, in reality nothing to do with

> Rife!

>

> Gordon

>

>

> > ,

> >

> > I get it and agree with you.

> >

> > doug

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

A lot of possibilities but keep in mind, concerning those treating lyme, the

use of rife machines seems to be very similar to using antibiotics, where

the patient is first met with herx and then as symptoms subside, so does herx

along with it. Those who are finally remitted from lyme symptoms receive no

herx from using the EMF machines. Evidence also exists that if you take any

healthy person and do the same frequencies they tell no difference good or bad

while a sick person may either feel better or worse in the days following a

treatment.

In a message dated 8/28/2005 10:37:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

Rife writes:

As far as herx reactions go, it's

also possible that they're not true herx reactions, but are reactions

from the low range frequencies affecting the nervous system. I don't

think anyone has demonstrated that it's a real herx effect going on with

our machines.

[Guest guest]

To: Rife

Date: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:56 am

Subject: Re: Rife-Bare or Rife, which is better?

> > and All,

> >

> > We must look at todays machines within the context of their usage

Vs that

> > of Dr. Rife's machine and it's usage.

If machines could target elements with enough responsive power they

would be to dangerous to use, just imagine distroying the wrong organ

cells, it would be to late to change things.

I have always been very respectful of this situation and am glad to

move slowly with improvements. One major improvement is using higher

fundemental freqencies. Jim's new radio the OM-1 coupled with the EB-

63 in IRB/PT-500 can run frequencies up to 500,000 Hertz. Just a few

harmonics away from the fundemental effective frequency and power

drops off to the point of uselessness. This is a scientific point in

fact that many do not understand.

> >

> > Dr. Rife's machines were designed from the ground up to be able

to kill a

> > micro organism with a specific frequency. This frequency could be

found via

> > culture of the organism from the affected individual, observation

of the

> > micro organism under a micro scope, and exposure of that micro

organism to

> > a specific frequency. The exposure process was repeated on

different

> > culture samples to assure an exact and reliable frequency had been

> > determined. The frequency was then used to kill the organism and

cure the

> > patient.

Once power transfer is substantial resonant frequency can be

calculated mathmatically. An example is the ultrasonic frequency used

to destroy kidney stones, cataracts are removed similarely.

Molecules(example water)have a resonant frequency but if the body

were exposed to microwaves resonant to water death would result.

> >

> > In short... Dr. Rife's original devices were very limited as to

> > capabilities. They primarily killed living micro organisms. A

later usage

> > was found for them in treating cataracts. That's it. Two, count

them, Two

> > uses.

> >

> > Our modern machines utilize principles developed by Dr. Rife -

that is the

> > application of a frequency . But! Our devices due to their

different

> > electrical principles of operation treat a multitude of diseases.

They are

> > not limited to just infections and cataracts.

> >

> > In many ways our modern machines are far superior to Rife's. But

in some

> > ways they are also inferior.

Although sine waves are created in the plasma using square wave

harmonics they may have many additional subtle healing properties,

(homeopathic, vaccinating, stimulating, inhibiting etc.

> >

> > The solution to invitro testing with our modern devices is in

developing a

> > test mechanism that somehow replicates the effects of the

frequencies

> > inside our bodies. When that has been accomplished - we too will

be able to

> > duplicate Rife's methods and results.

> >

> > Jim Bare

Rife did tests like this with horse meat penitration, how about a

capsule with organisms inside that are destroyed outside the body

then ingested and test frequencies applied. No problem coming up with

ideas here.

>

> I agree with everything you've said, however, I doubt that a test

> mechanism could be developed that replicates the effects inside our

> bodies, because it's just too complex. Even if it could be done,

we

> would need a different test for every person, since we are all

different.

>

> I think we should have both our modern physiologic type of machines

and

> real Rife machines; the best of both worlds.

IR/BPT-500 can use square wave harmonics, sine waves and heterodyne

the carrier and still stay within FCC guidelines.

I don't think this is

> unrealistic or unattainable. We just need to keep the proper

> distinction, and realize that our present machine are not Rife

machines.

> If that fact is widely acknowledged, more qualified researchers

will be

> inspired to try to develop real Rife machines, to the benefit of

all of

> us. I also think that it's not impossible to have a machine that

does

> both functions in one unit.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

Without a doubt this technology will come about, the main hurdle is

politics. Been unable to post directly to the lists regarding

research etc. for months due to software virus and an inability to

make posts, even though we are signed up with yahoogroups and the

individual groups.

Dave T.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~vibrnthealth/

[Guest guest]

vibrnthealth wrote:

<snip>

> I have always been very respectful of this situation and am glad to

> move slowly with improvements. One major improvement is using higher

> fundemental freqencies. Jim's new radio the OM-1 coupled with the EB-

> 63 in IRB/PT-500 can run frequencies up to 500,000 Hertz. Just a few

> harmonics away from the fundemental effective frequency and power

> drops off to the point of uselessness. This is a scientific point in

> fact that many do not understand.

<snip>

There are some who have used the so-called fundamental frequencies from

the Rife documents, but didn't get results. There's something we're

missing, and the only real way to find out is through extensive in vitro

testing. My personal suspicion is that the true fundamental MORs will

prove to be in a much higher frequency range than anyone is using

presently, even those who are using the so-called fundamental

frequencies from the lab notes. I hope I'm wrong on this suspicion,

because it will just complicate things further.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

jseaton357@... wrote:

>

> Yeah, but Doug of Seattle in late 80's did his own experiment with CDC

> spirochetes and microscope and would blast them with his own machine (to this

day

> called " the doug " ) using a wound coil and capacitor array with approx 2000

> watts. Using low frequencies only he would notice some of them on a slide

> vibrating and that these same key frequencies caused some of them to look

damaged

> or even dead and also he and his wife looking through the microscope got

> herxheimer response but with time of 2 years went on to be totally symptom

free

> and presumably cured (since it's been well over a decade).

>

> Perhaps that was very close to what Rife was doing BUT not really b/c Doug

> was using low frequencies (all under 3000 hz I think) and a coil whereas Rife

> used very high frequencies and plasma. Just b/c there is no proof of MOR

> scientifically does not mean that is not what is going on with some of these

> frequencies inside the body. Maybe these machines today are working with

MOR's

> sometimes (would explain the herx response with those with lyme) and for

> other conditions that may be non-microbial there is some totally different

> response.

>

I mentioned the Doug device in an earlier post, and admit that they are

getting good results with this device because of the confirmation he

made under the microscope. What I would like to see now is some

independent confirmation. I should also think that using 2000 watts

could induce other effects that are not necessarily purely MOR related,

such as heating effects. A purely MOR effect would get the job done

with less power. Rife's machines used less than 100 watts, or rather

output less than 100 watts.

Objective proof is what differentiates Rife from all the rest; that's

the fundamental point I've been trying to make all these years. Yes, it

may be possible that there is an MOR effect happening in the body, but

if we can't prove it, then it's not the same as what Rife was doing.

Rife confirmed a frequency at least ten times in vitro before he

recorded it in his notes, and then moved on to animal experimentation.

I like a quote from a CDC character in a film I saw: " What do we think,

what do we know, what can we prove " . We may think we're doing what Rife

was doing, we may even know it, but can we prove it? That's the crucial

difference of what Rife is all about. As far as herx reactions go, it's

also possible that they're not true herx reactions, but are reactions

from the low range frequencies affecting the nervous system. I don't

think anyone has demonstrated that it's a real herx effect going on with

our machines.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

and All,

An important point that should not be lost in this discussion. The

frequencies we use to treat cancer, and many infectious organisms, are all

sub harmonics of fundamental frequencies discovered by Dr. Rife. The

functioning of our machines and their effective treatment of many different

micro organisms is directly related to Dr. Rife's discoveries and methods.

There is a patent on Stan Truman's web site that Dr. Rife is a co author of

.. In the patent it specifically discusses the use of sub harmonic

frequencies to treat with. The 1939 Beam Rays machine used sub harmonics.

So this entire concept owes it's origin to Rife - and perhaps Hoyland, and

it goes back over 65 years.

Jim Bare

>I think we should have both our modern physiologic type of machines and

>real Rife machines; the best of both worlds. I don't think this is

>unrealistic or unattainable. We just need to keep the proper

>distinction, and realize that our present machine are not Rife machines.

>If that fact is widely acknowledged, more qualified researchers will be

>inspired to try to develop real Rife machines, to the benefit of all of

>us. I also think that it's not impossible to have a machine that does

>

[Guest guest]

,

I have been following this discussion with great interest. A lot of good points

have been made in the course of the debate.

I agree with you that the only person who ever made a real Rife machine was

Royal Rife himself; and I say this in my Rife Handbook. I also agree with you

that there are many other effects of frequency devices that are not related to

busting pathogens. Some effects of the frequencies stimulate healthier cell

function. And there are probably other effects that we don't know about (yet).

Points have been raised by others that are very valid, however: (1) No matter

what you call these devices and no matter what technology has been used in the

manufacture of these devices, they are derived from Rife's work or at least

attempt to duplicate Rife's work. (2) As far as the general public is concerned,

for identification purposes it can be useful to call these devices " Rife "

machines even though they do not operate in the same way as Royal Rife's

original units.

It is in the interest of historical accuracy that I like to call these devices

" Rife-based frequency devices, " although this is a mouthful and I doubt that I

even could say this every time I'm talking to someone. Most of my book customers

who talk to me say " Rife machine. " I try to use the phrase " frequency device. "

My question to you is this: Why are you so insistent about using certain

terminology? Is it a matter of historical record? I can understand this. I can

also understand that using the correct terminology helps keep one focused on

what the device actually is and what it does -- and how our modern frequency

devices are different from what Rife himself invented.

However, I keep wondering if there's something else too...although I couldn't

guess what it might be. Is there another reason why you are taking such a strong

position?

Just curious.

Thanks,

Nenah

Nenah Sylver, PhD

http://www.nenahsylver.com

* The Handbook of Rife Frequency Healing

* The Holistic Handbook of Sauna Therapy

* products and services for wellness

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for bringing this issue up. Use of subharmonic frequencies is

dependent upon a lot of different factors.

The primary issue is that we must always remember that we use square waves

in our modern machines. A Square wave can only generate odd harmonics of

itself.

The one big problem we have is the use of an even number divisor to create

the sub harmonic. Many of the frequencies in common usage have this

problem. Use of a frequency that is formed by an even number divisor means

that you cannot directly create the Rife fundamental directly via harmonic

generation!

This means that the sub harmonic chosen for treatment will only be

generated as a heterodyne product. A frequency formed by heterodyning is

most likely going to have substantially reduced power than if one used a

sub harmonic formed by an odd divisor. Further a lot of machines due to

their design, may not be able to form the correct heterodyne frequency.

The way to overcome this is to increase the duty cycle of the square wave

to about 60% or more. 65% should work very well and not overly stress many

devices. The problem is that many frequency devices can only output a 50%

duty cycle.

We of course presently lack any method to accurately determine frequencies

for variants of micro organisms. This is why an invitro testing method is

so critical!

Another way to increase the effectiveness of our machines is to utilize and

odd divisor of the Rife fundamental that is much closer to the fundamental.

Using a divisor that is 201 times removed should work much better than one

that is 1001 times removed.

I've had some feed back from people trying this approach - and so far the

results have been quite positive.

Is it possible the fundamentals are higher than Rife discovered? I find

this doubtful. The reason has to do with the generation of sub harmonics

that are effective. If one was using a sub harmonic of a sub harmonic to

create treatment frequenices - it is very doubtful that the frequencies we

presently use would work. We must therefore be using sub harmonics of some

fundamental.

However, it is possible that there are multiple MOR's (in the true sense

of the word) for a particular micro organism. Some of these MOR's may be at

much higher frequencies than Rife discovered.

Jim Bare

>There are some who have used the so-called fundamental frequencies from

>the Rife documents, but didn't get results. There's something we're

>missing, and the only real way to find out is through extensive in vitro

>testing. My personal suspicion is that the true fundamental MORs will

>prove to be in a much higher frequency range than anyone is using

>presently, even those who are using the so-called fundamental

>frequencies from the lab notes. I hope I'm wrong on this suspicion,

>because it will just complicate things further.

>

>Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

still says nothing about how they work....

ariella

> Terry McClelland wrote:

>> What do the machines we use today do then?

>> Terry

>

> The machines we use today " work " on a physiological level, not a

> germicidal level; they work by affecting, improving, or normalizing the

> physiology of the body, rather than destroying microorganisms directly

> and independently from physiological function. This explains why we

> have such long frequency lists and so many different frequencies for a

> given condition. If they worked in the same manner that Rife's

> machines

> worked, there would be one frequency (perhaps with some of its

> harmonics) for each form of a microorganism. In the case of cancer,

> that would be just a handful of frequencies, and they would work far

> more consistently and effectively than the current situation. It also

> explains why we haven't been able to produce the MOR effect under the

> microscope with the frequencies we use.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

i guess i've been busy with other lists...what are " our machines " ?

ariella

> Ariella Vanderveen wrote:

>> jason, in spite of your unpleasant tone...let me refer you to jim

>> bare " s message of today

>>

>

> Tone is not accurately conveyed through email.

>

>

>> " dr rife's machines were designed from the ground up to be able to

>> kill

>> a micro organism with a specific frequency " ...seems to be just what

>> i

>> said....

>>

>

>

> Notice he said " Dr. Rife's " . That has nothing to do with our machines.

> As I've said so many times before, if our machines did what Rife's

> machines did, we would be able to demonstrate the MOR effect like he

> did, and we would certainly have far better long term success with

> cancer than we do today.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

not quite sure who i'm asking, but what about dr. clark's synchrometer?

ariella

> To: Rife

>

> Date: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:56 am

> Subject: Re: Rife-Bare or Rife, which is better?

>

>>> and All,

>>>

>

>>> We must look at todays machines within the context of their usage

> Vs that

>>> of Dr. Rife's machine and it's usage.

>

> If machines could target elements with enough responsive power they

> would be to dangerous to use, just imagine distroying the wrong organ

> cells, it would be to late to change things.

>

> I have always been very respectful of this situation and am glad to

> move slowly with improvements. One major improvement is using higher

> fundemental freqencies. Jim's new radio the OM-1 coupled with the EB-

> 63 in IRB/PT-500 can run frequencies up to 500,000 Hertz. Just a few

> harmonics away from the fundemental effective frequency and power

> drops off to the point of uselessness. This is a scientific point in

> fact that many do not understand.

>>>

>>> Dr. Rife's machines were designed from the ground up to be able

> to kill a

>>> micro organism with a specific frequency. This frequency could be

> found via

>>> culture of the organism from the affected individual, observation

> of the

>>> micro organism under a micro scope, and exposure of that micro

> organism to

>>> a specific frequency. The exposure process was repeated on

> different

>>> culture samples to assure an exact and reliable frequency had been

>>> determined. The frequency was then used to kill the organism and

> cure the

>>> patient.

>

> Once power transfer is substantial resonant frequency can be

> calculated mathmatically. An example is the ultrasonic frequency used

> to destroy kidney stones, cataracts are removed similarely.

>

> Molecules(example water)have a resonant frequency but if the body

> were exposed to microwaves resonant to water death would result.

>

>>>

>>> In short... Dr. Rife's original devices were very limited as to

>>> capabilities. They primarily killed living micro organisms. A

> later usage

>>> was found for them in treating cataracts. That's it. Two, count

> them, Two

>>> uses.

>>>

>>> Our modern machines utilize principles developed by Dr. Rife -

> that is the

>>> application of a frequency . But! Our devices due to their

> different

>>> electrical principles of operation treat a multitude of diseases.

> They are

>>> not limited to just infections and cataracts.

>>>

>>> In many ways our modern machines are far superior to Rife's. But

> in some

>>> ways they are also inferior.

>

> Although sine waves are created in the plasma using square wave

> harmonics they may have many additional subtle healing properties,

> (homeopathic, vaccinating, stimulating, inhibiting etc.

>

>>>

>>> The solution to invitro testing with our modern devices is in

> developing a

>>> test mechanism that somehow replicates the effects of the

> frequencies

>>> inside our bodies. When that has been accomplished - we too will

> be able to

>>> duplicate Rife's methods and results.

>>>

>>> Jim Bare

>

> Rife did tests like this with horse meat penitration, how about a

> capsule with organisms inside that are destroyed outside the body

> then ingested and test frequencies applied. No problem coming up with

> ideas here.

>

>>

>> I agree with everything you've said, however, I doubt that a test

>> mechanism could be developed that replicates the effects inside our

>> bodies, because it's just too complex. Even if it could be done,

> we

>> would need a different test for every person, since we are all

> different.

>>

>> I think we should have both our modern physiologic type of machines

> and

>> real Rife machines; the best of both worlds.

>

> IR/BPT-500 can use square wave harmonics, sine waves and heterodyne

> the carrier and still stay within FCC guidelines.

>

> I don't think this is

>> unrealistic or unattainable. We just need to keep the proper

>> distinction, and realize that our present machine are not Rife

> machines.

>> If that fact is widely acknowledged, more qualified researchers

> will be

>> inspired to try to develop real Rife machines, to the benefit of

> all of

>> us. I also think that it's not impossible to have a machine that

> does

>> both functions in one unit.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>

>>

>

> Without a doubt this technology will come about, the main hurdle is

> politics. Been unable to post directly to the lists regarding

> research etc. for months due to software virus and an inability to

> make posts, even though we are signed up with yahoogroups and the

> individual groups.

>

> Dave T.

> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~vibrnthealth/

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Nenah Sylver wrote:

> ,

> I have been following this discussion with great interest. A lot of good

points have been made in the course of the debate.

>

> I agree with you that the only person who ever made a real Rife machine was

Royal Rife himself; and I say this in my Rife Handbook. I also agree with you

that there are many other effects of frequency devices that are not related to

busting pathogens. Some effects of the frequencies stimulate healthier cell

function. And there are probably other effects that we don't know about (yet).

>

> Points have been raised by others that are very valid, however: (1) No matter

what you call these devices and no matter what technology has been used in the

manufacture of these devices, they are derived from Rife's work or at least

attempt to duplicate Rife's work. (2) As far as the general public is concerned,

for identification purposes it can be useful to call these devices " Rife "

machines even though they do not operate in the same way as Royal Rife's

original units.

>

> It is in the interest of historical accuracy that I like to call these devices

" Rife-based frequency devices, " although this is a mouthful and I doubt that I

even could say this every time I'm talking to someone. Most of my book customers

who talk to me say " Rife machine. " I try to use the phrase " frequency device. "

>

> My question to you is this: Why are you so insistent about using certain

terminology? Is it a matter of historical record? I can understand this. I can

also understand that using the correct terminology helps keep one focused on

what the device actually is and what it does -- and how our modern frequency

devices are different from what Rife himself invented.

>

> However, I keep wondering if there's something else too...although I couldn't

guess what it might be. Is there another reason why you are taking such a strong

position?

>

> Just curious.

>

> Thanks,

> Nenah

My insistence, generally, is a matter of principle, in calling a spade a

spade. It is a matter of historical, as well as scientific accuracy.

Rife himself stopped calling his machines " Rife " , and they were real

Rife machines, so I don't think he would approve of what we're doing

with his name now. Ken has pointed out that there is a big stigma

attached to the name Rife, and I believe that's it's collectively our

fault (including Crane) with our modern machines in not being able to

" prove it " . Instead of being looked upon with honor and respect, with

perhaps a posthumous Nobel prize, Rife is looked upon as the founder of

a quack movement. That doesn't sit well with me. Someone has to

champion Rife, and since there really isn't anyone else doing it (at

least there wasn't when I started in this field), I'm going to have to

continue doing it. And it's not about my ego, but is my way of honoring

Rife. When I first learned about Rife so many years ago, all I wanted

to do was buy a " Rife machine " . I had no intention of getting involved

on the level I have. There was very little information available back

then, and I almost laid down $1700 USD for one of Crane's machines. It

was a rare stroke of good fortune that I found some additional

information that showed that what Crane was doing was not what Rife had

done, so I was spared the expense of buying a machine that wasn't what I

wanted. The same thing is occurring today. Someone, usually with a

disease that they have or are helping someone with, will read the story

of Rife and go looking for a " Rife machine " . They then encounter all

the distortion that exists regarding Rife, despite the wealth of

documentation compared to what I had available when I started, and they

will end up buying a machine that they might not buy if they had more

accurate information. What I see happening is that there are a lot of

people simply cashing in on Rife's name. There are also a lot of people

who have an emotional need to have what they're doing associated with

Rife. There are also a lot of embittered people (many now dead) who

feel they were deceived regarding the " Rife machine " . They read about

Rife, tried a modern machine that didn't work for them, and feel that

" Rife " scammed them. The present situation does not truly honor and

credit Rife. I believe in truly informed choice. The market for the

modern machines would not go away if everyone clearly admitted that they

were not " Rife " . In the past few years, I have also become involved in

helping people, rather that just pure research. Some of the people I've

tried to help would still be alive today if I had a real " Rife machine " .

Despite all the work I've done over the past fifteen years, and others

too, there seems to be even more confusion rather than clarity. There

are some who do get it, but they generally aren't willing to stand up

and argue the matter. I guess my Greek blood makes me especially

qualified for such a task, and so here we are. ;^)

Regards,

[Guest guest]

..

the same thing happened with wilhelm reich....where it is even much

worse, since many people call themselves reichians, when there are only

very few who really know reich's therapy...

and here, too, you can look at it as an exploitation of reich's name

(after all what american isn't interested in SEX)

and then there's lowen who just gave it a different name,

bioenergetics, so as to escape all the mccarthty anticommunist

hysteria.

i've been busy with a very similar train of thought on the wilhelm

reich list...

i would appreciate (i've done a lot of reading so i'll probably

understand) if you would once more be specific about the original " rife

machine " was different...is it the testing with the microscope? and

what was wrong with what i said about destroying diseased cells with

the similar frequency....the example that always sticks out for me is

that it's like the glass breaking when ella fitzgerald reached a

certain high pitch.....

interesting that rife himself did not want them called rife

machines....it's a dilemna..

thanks for all your research.....

ariella

> Nenah Sylver wrote:

>> ,

>> I have been following this discussion with great interest. A lot of

>> good points have been made in the course of the debate.

>>

>> I agree with you that the only person who ever made a real Rife

>> machine was Royal Rife himself; and I say this in my Rife Handbook. I

>> also agree with you that there are many other effects of frequency

>> devices that are not related to busting pathogens. Some effects of

>> the frequencies stimulate healthier cell function. And there are

>> probably other effects that we don't know about (yet).

>>

>> Points have been raised by others that are very valid, however: (1)

>> No matter what you call these devices and no matter what technology

>> has been used in the manufacture of these devices, they are derived

>> from Rife's work or at least attempt to duplicate Rife's work. (2) As

>> far as the general public is concerned, for identification purposes

>> it can be useful to call these devices " Rife " machines even though

>> they do not operate in the same way as Royal Rife's original units.

>>

>> It is in the interest of historical accuracy that I like to call

>> these devices " Rife-based frequency devices, " although this is a

>> mouthful and I doubt that I even could say this every time I'm

>> talking to someone. Most of my book customers who talk to me say

>> " Rife machine. " I try to use the phrase " frequency device. "

>>

>> My question to you is this: Why are you so insistent about using

>> certain terminology? Is it a matter of historical record? I can

>> understand this. I can also understand that using the correct

>> terminology helps keep one focused on what the device actually is and

>> what it does -- and how our modern frequency devices are different

>> from what Rife himself invented.

>>

>> However, I keep wondering if there's something else too...although I

>> couldn't guess what it might be. Is there another reason why you are

>> taking such a strong position?

>>

>> Just curious.

>>

>> Thanks,

>> Nenah

>

>

> My insistence, generally, is a matter of principle, in calling a spade

> a

> spade. It is a matter of historical, as well as scientific accuracy.

> Rife himself stopped calling his machines " Rife " , and they were real

> Rife machines, so I don't think he would approve of what we're doing

> with his name now. Ken has pointed out that there is a big stigma

> attached to the name Rife, and I believe that's it's collectively our

> fault (including Crane) with our modern machines in not being able to

> " prove it " . Instead of being looked upon with honor and respect, with

> perhaps a posthumous Nobel prize, Rife is looked upon as the founder of

> a quack movement. That doesn't sit well with me. Someone has to

> champion Rife, and since there really isn't anyone else doing it (at

> least there wasn't when I started in this field), I'm going to have to

> continue doing it. And it's not about my ego, but is my way of

> honoring

> Rife. When I first learned about Rife so many years ago, all I wanted

> to do was buy a " Rife machine " . I had no intention of getting involved

> on the level I have. There was very little information available back

> then, and I almost laid down $1700 USD for one of Crane's machines. It

> was a rare stroke of good fortune that I found some additional

> information that showed that what Crane was doing was not what Rife had

> done, so I was spared the expense of buying a machine that wasn't what

> I

> wanted. The same thing is occurring today. Someone, usually with a

> disease that they have or are helping someone with, will read the story

> of Rife and go looking for a " Rife machine " . They then encounter all

> the distortion that exists regarding Rife, despite the wealth of

> documentation compared to what I had available when I started, and they

> will end up buying a machine that they might not buy if they had more

> accurate information. What I see happening is that there are a lot of

> people simply cashing in on Rife's name. There are also a lot of

> people

> who have an emotional need to have what they're doing associated with

> Rife. There are also a lot of embittered people (many now dead) who

> feel they were deceived regarding the " Rife machine " . They read about

> Rife, tried a modern machine that didn't work for them, and feel that

> " Rife " scammed them. The present situation does not truly honor and

> credit Rife. I believe in truly informed choice. The market for the

> modern machines would not go away if everyone clearly admitted that

> they

> were not " Rife " . In the past few years, I have also become involved in

> helping people, rather that just pure research. Some of the people

> I've

> tried to help would still be alive today if I had a real " Rife

> machine " .

>

> Despite all the work I've done over the past fifteen years, and others

> too, there seems to be even more confusion rather than clarity. There

> are some who do get it, but they generally aren't willing to stand up

> and argue the matter. I guess my Greek blood makes me especially

> qualified for such a task, and so here we are. ;^)

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

rifetech@... wrote:

> ,

>

> Thank you for bringing this issue up. Use of subharmonic frequencies is

> dependent upon a lot of different factors.

>

> The primary issue is that we must always remember that we use square waves

> in our modern machines. A Square wave can only generate odd harmonics of

> itself.

>

> The one big problem we have is the use of an even number divisor to create

> the sub harmonic. Many of the frequencies in common usage have this

> problem. Use of a frequency that is formed by an even number divisor means

> that you cannot directly create the Rife fundamental directly via harmonic

> generation!

>

> This means that the sub harmonic chosen for treatment will only be

> generated as a heterodyne product. A frequency formed by heterodyning is

> most likely going to have substantially reduced power than if one used a

> sub harmonic formed by an odd divisor. Further a lot of machines due to

> their design, may not be able to form the correct heterodyne frequency.

>

> The way to overcome this is to increase the duty cycle of the square wave

> to about 60% or more. 65% should work very well and not overly stress many

> devices. The problem is that many frequency devices can only output a 50%

> duty cycle.

>

> We of course presently lack any method to accurately determine frequencies

> for variants of micro organisms. This is why an invitro testing method is

> so critical!

>

> Another way to increase the effectiveness of our machines is to utilize and

> odd divisor of the Rife fundamental that is much closer to the fundamental.

> Using a divisor that is 201 times removed should work much better than one

> that is 1001 times removed.

>

> I've had some feed back from people trying this approach - and so far the

> results have been quite positive.

>

What about using a sawtooth wave, the kind that has the vertical lead

edge like a square wave, not a ramp wave that has trailing edge

vertical? |\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\ Don't those waves put out even harmonics?

> Is it possible the fundamentals are higher than Rife discovered? I find

> this doubtful. The reason has to do with the generation of sub harmonics

> that are effective. If one was using a sub harmonic of a sub harmonic to

> create treatment frequenices - it is very doubtful that the frequencies we

> presently use would work. We must therefore be using sub harmonics of some

> fundamental.

>

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong, but I was thinking of a fundamental

without a plasma tube. If I remember the discussion on this subject, a

plasma tube will generate harmonics even with a plain sine wave fed into

it. Also, if you recall the 1944 Electrical Engineering article, they

used a frequency of 60 MHz for E. Coli. Also, keep in mind that I'm not

talking about clinically effective frequencies, but MORs, which isn't

necessarily the same. You could have a clinically effective sub

harmonic frequency, even one derived from a fundamental MOR, but that

doesn't automatically make the sub harmonic a MOR too.

> However, it is possible that there are multiple MOR's (in the true sense

> of the word) for a particular micro organism. Some of these MOR's may be at

> much higher frequencies than Rife discovered.

I definitely agree with this. Targeting different structures of an

organism would require different MORs. Having said that, I'd be content

with just one. ;^)

Regards,