Rife-Bare or Rife, which is better?

August 29, 2005

jseaton357@... wrote:

>

> 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.

>

You make some good points. In the case of Lyme disease, I have no

problem conceding that there may be a real herx reaction being produced,

especially since they've done at least some work under the microscope.

I should also think that it would depend on the particular machine being

used. There a lot of " healthy " people who are very sensitive to the

frequencies from a plasma tube machine, so the nervous system

explanation can't be totally discounted.

Regards,

August 29, 2005

Ariella Vanderveen wrote:

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

" Our machines " refers to the modern machines in use today, the various

pad type and plasma tube machines that most people call " Rife " , and

which I've been arguing are not.

Regards,

August 29, 2005

Ariella Vanderveen wrote:

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

The Synchrometer might be described as a 'poor man's' EAV device. It is

used for detecting the presence of parasites or chemicals in the body.

There are not many people who can use it effectively. I have seen no

independent confirmation of its validity. In my opinion, there are far

too many people who have uncritically accepted everything that Hulda

says, as if it were handed down from the mountain.

Regards,

August 29, 2005

Ariella Vanderveen wrote:

> .

>

> 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

The Rife machine might be thought of as an electronic antibiotic, the

term antibiotic being used in its more general sense that includes

antibacterial, antiviral, anti fungal, etc. Rife would take a specific

pathogenic microorganism, put it under the microscope, and start dialing

the machine until he hit a frequency that caused it to be destroyed.

This would take sometimes months of 16-20 hour days, which is why he

ruined his eyesight. When he found a lethal frequency, or mortal

oscillatory rate (MOR), he would zero the dials on the machine and

repeat the test at least ten times to confirm it. Only then would he

record the frequency and proceed further on animals and humans. If he

wasn't able to find the MOR under the microscope, then he had nothing to

go on. In the case of cancer, the frequency wasn't killing the cancer

cells, but was killing the microorganism that was the cause of the cells

becoming cancerous. The difference is fundamental. If it was just

killing the cancer cells, it would really be no different than modern

conventional therapy, and would not have been as effective as reported.

Dr. did the same thing with his antibiotic against the " cancer

virus " , and Dr. Hett did the same thing with his serum, or vaccine. It

seems to me that all of the researchers who have developed a therapy

against the microorganism that is the fundamental cause of the cancer

reported astounding results. Our modern machines do not get anywhere

near the results that were reported by Rife, , Hett, and others,

so the natural conclusion is that we're not killing the " cancer virus " .

Regards,

August 29, 2005

,

>

>What about using a sawtooth wave, Don't those waves put out even harmonics?

Yes, this is correct.

>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.

Yes, there are even harmonics however... these are going to be heterodyne

frequencies. They will lack the power that might otherwise be created via

direct generation using a square wave frequency derived by the use of an

odd divisor of the fundamental.

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.

Yes, I did mean true MOR's.

Jim

August 29, 2005

This is a lot of emails about something that is in reality, unimportant.

Bill Clinton could answer the questions by simply saying, " It all depends on

what the definition of is is " . The truth is that this forum is concerned

with investigating what most people think of as " Rife-like " and not

necessarily exactly what Rife did. What the most of us want is to find out

is if we can consistently cure diseases with frequencies. After all, it is