Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may be the key

[Guest guest]

Hi Lee,

If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages of

research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife systems,

and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I can

afford the time for, unfortunately.

If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely don't

switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

were developing what could only be best described as " stress effects "

from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier was

disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or maybe

not.

Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great read

and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

>

> Why are you so sure sure about turning off the RF on a GB4000?

Please be

> specific; while I appreciate you spirit of debate and constructive

conflict,

> in a real debate you would get clobbered for making such sweeping

> statements. I have a GB4000 and if you have some compelling evidence

as to

> why I should turn the RF off, I would like to hear it and hear others

> comment on it. Did not rife himself use an RF carrier? Doesn¹t RF

penetrate

> tissues better? lee

[Guest guest]

It's like religion you are indoctrinated from birth if something changes you

refuse to believe it because? I tell people stuff about Diabetes and they

just look at me, when will people figure out that " most " doctors aren't

" paid " to care and they don't, there is a " small " percentage out there that

I would like as a friend and would trust their decisions, the rest is why

I'm here and on other forums like this.

Terry

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity

may be the key

There was an article about one year ago on Yahoo news, where the NY Times

asked several hundred cancer patients what they were doing about their

condition.

40% admitted to using vitamins and supplements in addition to allopathic

care.

How many of them did not admit to using technology like Rife?

How many of the others did not admit anything for fear of trouble?

To this day my two sisters in law look at me as if I had two heads because I

am alive when doctors had said I'd be dead.

One of them gets the whole family vaccinated for the flu every year, then

most of them get the flu every year anyway.

I'd think that by now she'd have gotten the message...

Luigi

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not

> Quantity may be the key

>

> All I can say is that the advice from people on this and Dr. 's

> forums has brought me to where I am today.

> I have had people call me at home to discuss their experiences, which

> has helped me eradicate terminal cancer.

> PhDs or high school drop outs, these people have caused me to be alive

> when the " experts " at two separate, leading cancer centers told me I'd

> be dead.

> The one thing I must point out is that in my experience, after chasing

> the monster for better than two years, cancer is as individual as its

> victims, so I sincerely doubt that a database of systems can

> effectively be assembled that will describe how to eradicate, say,

> carcinoma where this is 100% functional for everyone.

> Rife works and I no longer have any doubts about that, but I needed to

> add to my cache of weapons vitamins and supplements that would help in

> the fight.

> And being told what parts of me needed to be dealt with to strengthen

> my body meant that I'd know what ELSE to use Rife on.

> Where in my case my hypothalamus was shorted out, someone else may

> have thyroid issues with everything else being the same..

> My large intestine was no longer processing food, while someone else

> might make do very nicely with only digestive pills.

> I have heard from many who praise their GB4000 and from others who

> swear by plasma devices.

> I'd suggest instead for us to create a list of practitioners who have

> the reputation of actually helping us plan out an effective war

> against our

> diseases: having someone show us what parts of us require work besides

> the cancer itself and the order in which this work has to be performed

> is invaluable.

> As far as I'm concerned being able to share the names of good doctors

> (and bad quacks!) can be the difference between going back to work and

> getting buried.

> Luigi

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Neuromancer,

2.4MHz is a high RF value for contact pads I would think, if you can vary it,

and drop it down under 500kHz, then the RF stress should be much lower and you

still get benefits of harmonic generation well through Rife and s ranges.

Personally I don't see a need for a RF carrier on a machine that can output upto

20MHz.

Regards,

Ken

Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may

be the key

Hi Lee,

If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages of

research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife systems,

and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I can

afford the time for, unfortunately.

If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely don't

switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

were developing what could only be best described as " stress effects "

from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier was

disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or maybe

not.

Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great read

and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

>

> Why are you so sure sure about turning off the RF on a GB4000?

Please be

> specific; while I appreciate you spirit of debate and constructive

conflict,

> in a real debate you would get clobbered for making such sweeping

> statements. I have a GB4000 and if you have some compelling evidence

as to

> why I should turn the RF off, I would like to hear it and hear others

> comment on it. Did not rife himself use an RF carrier? Doesn¹t RF

penetrate

> tissues better? lee

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

I could not agree more! I really think that might be where the next

generation of pad devices is heading - and with any luck some

research can be done to see what RF freq. would be optimal for

certain frequency ranges. (I just have a gut feeling that it is not

a constant.) That would make an interesting device in my opinion.

The Wave Resonator *allegedly* has a variable carrier signal, but I

could get no information from the designer as to what range was/is

used or any other information that would be of benefit.

Mark/Neuromancer

>

> Hi Neuromancer,

>

> 2.4MHz is a high RF value for contact pads I would think, if you

can vary it, and drop it down under 500kHz, then the RF stress

should be much lower and you still get benefits of harmonic

generation well through Rife and s ranges.

>

> Personally I don't see a need for a RF carrier on a machine that

can output upto 20MHz.

>

> Regards,

> Ken

> Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not

Quantity may be the key

>

>

> Hi Lee,

>

> If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200

pages of

> research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife

systems,

> and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all

I can

> afford the time for, unfortunately.

> If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely

don't

> switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

> In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large

percentage

> were developing what could only be best described as " stress

effects "

> from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier

was

> disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

> It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or

maybe

> not.

> Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great

read

> and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

[Guest guest]

I am trying to trace down where the ³common² in ³commonly been associated²

has come from. How do you really know you are not getting reactions to freqs

that are detrimental to a client? Can anyone help me with when and where

this notion has arisen. I don¹t believe it has anything to do with Royal

Rife. Somewhere, someone decided that Œhits¹ were good. Was there any

science behind that? lee

> Usually the feeling of a " hit " has most commonly been associated

> with one of the following: goose bumps, watering eyes, slight

> muscle spasm/twitches, sinus clearing - runny nose, prickles in

> scalp, churning stomach, feet and hands get twitchy - like a

> nervousness, breathing rate change. (either way), quickening of the

> pulse, biofeedback temperature drops, a group of muscles going soft

> or strong, nerve pathways (deep in tissue usually) tingle, noise in

> ears alters (can go loud or soft), low level pain in joints increase

> then falls away quickly, a random tingle in the body (may be the

> site of pathogen or tumor), a feeling of warmth in the tissue or

> sweating.

> You usually won't feel a Herx off of getting a hit unless perhaps

> you ran that freq for a long time. With the people I work with, I

> run scans to search for hits, staying only 20-30 seconds on each

> frequency. Plus, in a given day I'll only run a range of 100Hz as

> well, scanning at a simple .5Hz increment. What normally happens is

> that you'll end up with a list of hits and if you look them up on a

> cross-reference CAFL they will usually be centered around something

> which you can then go after.

> I've never seen anyone feel seriously ill on a hit personally, but

> have read of it. Not sure exactly where or when the idea came about,

> either.

> * Hope this is of some help.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Lee,

I use the term " hit " to denote a physiological response to frequency stimuli. I

have noticed more " hits " in people who are sick, than those that are well. I've

been using a RF plasma system for around 7 years on hundreds of friends and

family members.

I am not a scientist or researcher, just a physical therapist, and am trained to

monitor the body for the slightest of responses to Kinesiology adjustments,

Bowen Therapy responses, Myofascial Release responses, Polarity Balance

techniques, and Meridian and Acupressure vessel stimulation.

The body reveals its secrets about its wellness and vitality levels when we know

what to look for. I have come to understand, through observation, that these

responses also apply to frequency therapy stimulation.

Over this time, I have used just about every frequency under 10,000 Hz (the

popular CAFL sets) and am yet to see a negative reaction to frequency therapy,

unless someone got too close to the plasma transmitter (RF loading) or had too

much power in contact pads, electrical burns and trauma added to internal

tissues. This is a product of using this technology incorrectly.

When I am giving a friend a frequency therapy session, and we find a " hit " , this

is a very big signal that the frequency we are using has found a diseased cell.

I say this, because in healthy people, it is almost impossible for me to find

hits, but usually I can find them in a friend who is ill. This is an exciting

time for me and my friend, for it means the end to their pain and discomfort, is

close at hand. I work the RF plasma transmitter to frequencies all around the

one that generated the hit. Moving the frequency up a alittle (1 to 3 Hz) can

increase the response, or sometimes I can move off target, and the response

immediately goes. Adjust the frequency back to the original setting and the

response returns. I generally keep the frequency going until the response fades,

usually 2 to 6 minutes.

On all these occasions, the follow days after the session has seen a huge

improvement in my friends condition.

A sick person can have 1 to 10+ responses to different frequencies, and they are

different for each person, both the response type and the frequency used. When

very closely investigating a response, I.E. advancing or reducing the frequency

a small amount, then the response " feeling " very closely follows a bell shape

pattern. This is also the pattern of resonance, and we can trace it in the body.

The more successful I am at find this responses, and thus eliminating them, the

quicker the person returns to full health, completely symptom free of the

original disorder.

It can be difficult for a person to find a response on themselves, for if they

are very sick, then their perception of a " hit "

can be lost in the pain and discomfort the illness generates. This is where we

need technology to come to our aid in helping people self treat themselves, and

to help find these frequencies in them that generate these resonating responses.

I am 99% sure, pathogen are the cause of some responses. This comes from

countless frequency sessions on candida suffers, and people suffering colds and

flu. When the right frequencies are used, the " hit " is felt strongly at the

pathogen location in the body, and the symptoms totally fade from a few minutes

for colds and flu, to a few days for heavy candida infections. This is not

" easy " work, I have to concentrate and work hard at locating these frequencies

manually, and as all responses I have experienced are under 10,000 Hz, then this

is my motivation for building a resonance scanner to help find these frequency

positions in the body.

Hits can also be experienced at the site of cancer tumours and cells, but I

wouldn't know if this response comes from the cancer cells themselves, or

associated pathogen, mould and fungus resident at the cancer site.

Fascial release has also been observed by me in frequency sessions on friends.

This is where traumatised fascia, which has become bound, tight and restrictive

of body functions, releases, and gives up it's trauma, thus correctly hydrating

again and instantly allowing for a huge improvement of electrochemical and fluid

movement within the body's network and pathways. This I believe is a major

contributing factor when people experience and almost instant normalization of

blood pressure and a very fast return to health. I also believe this is the mode

at work when we hear of miracle healings attributed to frequency therapy

sessions. The body's fascia has released it's trauma and stress, and the healing

comes so fast, that it is often attributed as a miracle from God. When deep and

complete levels of fascia release occur, miracle healings are to be expected, as

the body has huge resources to quickly combat its disease.

I am still studying this special type of response that is generated in the

body's fascia as a result of frequency stimuli. I am pretty sure it is

happening, as the fascia can become so bound up and tight, it makes for a good

tissue to resonate and respond to from our frequency sessions, and it is easy

for a trained therapist to check, if in fact a major fascia trauma release

response has occurred, which I have noted on several occasions, it has.

This is a real miracle, for it can take many therapy session to achieve this

type of release, what a bonus when we get it from our Rife machines. Frequencies

between 50 Hz to 1,000 Hz have been observed by me to generate this release. As

the bound fascia structures will always be different in the body, even different

from day to day, then the frequencies may also likewise be slightly different. I

don't know enough about this yet. More work and study is required.

Regards,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

Frex - CHIamp

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity

may be the key

I am trying to trace down where the ³common² in ³commonly been associated²

has come from. How do you really know you are not getting reactions to freqs

that are detrimental to a client? Can anyone help me with when and where

this notion has arisen. I don¹t believe it has anything to do with Royal

Rife. Somewhere, someone decided that Ohits¹ were good. Was there any

science behind that? lee

> Usually the feeling of a " hit " has most commonly been associated

> with one of the following: goose bumps, watering eyes, slight

> muscle spasm/twitches, sinus clearing - runny nose, prickles in

> scalp, churning stomach, feet and hands get twitchy - like a

> nervousness, breathing rate change. (either way), quickening of the

> pulse, biofeedback temperature drops, a group of muscles going soft

> or strong, nerve pathways (deep in tissue usually) tingle, noise in

> ears alters (can go loud or soft), low level pain in joints increase

> then falls away quickly, a random tingle in the body (may be the

> site of pathogen or tumor), a feeling of warmth in the tissue or

> sweating.

> You usually won't feel a Herx off of getting a hit unless perhaps

> you ran that freq for a long time. With the people I work with, I

> run scans to search for hits, staying only 20-30 seconds on each

> frequency. Plus, in a given day I'll only run a range of 100Hz as

> well, scanning at a simple .5Hz increment. What normally happens is

> that you'll end up with a list of hits and if you look them up on a

> cross-reference CAFL they will usually be centered around something

> which you can then go after.

> I've never seen anyone feel seriously ill on a hit personally, but

> have read of it. Not sure exactly where or when the idea came about,

> either.

> * Hope this is of some help.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to make an

intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum recently

said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to this forum to

learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a little. What your

quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my treatment

regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in any protocol.

Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without following them up

with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info after reading

it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe should be

more cautious before challenging protocols.

Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both? And do you

think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to hear info from

others if they think that rf is either dangerous or ineffective. If you

don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me personally. Thanks,

lee

> Hi Lee,

>

> If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages of

> research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife systems,

> and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I can

> afford the time for, unfortunately.

> If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely don't

> switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

> In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

> were developing what could only be best described as " stress effects "

> from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier was

> disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

> It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or maybe

> not.

> Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great read

> and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

> *

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Lee

There are a few people who have RF sensitivity but the percentage is very

low. I don't see it to be that big of a problem for the majority of the

people who use RF frequencies. In the several years we have been selling

instruments we have only had a few people say they had any problems with it.

And these people started to use the audio mode and were fine. There are

allot of people who are worried about EM fields but I don't see this to be a

real problem either. As long as you are not around them for long periods of

time. EM and RF instruments should be used for the treatment times and then

turned off. I think this is just good old common sense. If used this way I

believe the instruments are safe. All of Rife's instruments were RF

instruments. His frequency range that was listed on his lab notes go from

about 139,000 to 18,000,000 hertz and these are all RF frequencies. Even in

the 1950 when they used the AZ-58 that used his super-regenerative audio

frequencies they modulated them onto an RF carrier frequency. Rife made this

statement and I quote:

I had my microscope here - I had my tube [ray tube] right here in front of

it - oh, about 11 or 12 inches away from the slide in the microscope and

here I was with this thing all around like that and that tube going here and

my specimens and the microscope year after year tuning that thing and it

never harmed me any. " ( Marsh collection - Gonin papers pages 2 & 3.

www.rife.org)

I don't believe Rife's was deluded at all but some people may be.

Best wishes

Jeff

>How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to make an

>intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum recently

>said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to this forum to

>learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a little. What your

>quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my treatment

>regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in any protocol.

>Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without following them up

>with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info after reading

>it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe should be

>more cautious before challenging protocols.

>Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both? And do you

>think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to hear info

>from

>others if they think that rf is either dangerous or ineffective. If you

>don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me personally. Thanks,

>lee

> Hi Lee,

>

> If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages of

> research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife systems,

> and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I can

> afford the time for, unfortunately.

> If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely don't

> switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

> In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

> were developing what could only be best described as " stress effects "

> from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier was

> disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

> It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or maybe

> not.

> Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great read

> and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

> *

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I disagree here.

There are many people who suffer from electrosensibility.

They also suffer from RF radiation.

And those RF radiation from the mobile phones, and mosdt of the stuuf that

is wireless, contains pulsed signals.

So the high frequency carrier wave is pulsed with lowfrequency information,

which has the form of very steep block waves.

But most of the electrosensibility sufferers do not have any problems with

Rife frequencies, mainly because they are *clean* and not pulsed.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity

may be the key

Hello Lee

There are a few people who have RF sensitivity but the percentage is very

low. I don't see it to be that big of a problem for the majority of the

people who use RF frequencies. In the several years we have been selling

instruments we have only had a few people say they had any problems with it.

And these people started to use the audio mode and were fine. There are

allot of people who are worried about EM fields but I don't see this to be a

real problem either. As long as you are not around them for long periods of

time. EM and RF instruments should be used for the treatment times and then

turned off. I think this is just good old common sense. If used this way I

believe the instruments are safe. All of Rife's instruments were RF

instruments. His frequency range that was listed on his lab notes go from

about 139,000 to 18,000,000 hertz and these are all RF frequencies. Even in

the 1950 when they used the AZ-58 that used his super-regenerative audio

frequencies they modulated them onto an RF carrier frequency. Rife made this

statement and I quote:

I had my microscope here - I had my tube [ray tube] right here in front of

it - oh, about 11 or 12 inches away from the slide in the microscope and

here I was with this thing all around like that and that tube going here and

my specimens and the microscope year after year tuning that thing and it

never harmed me any. " ( Marsh collection - Gonin papers pages 2 & 3.

www.rife.org)

I don't believe Rife's was deluded at all but some people may be.

Best wishes

Jeff

>How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to make an

>intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum recently

>said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to this forum to

>learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a little. What your

>quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my treatment

>regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in any protocol.

>Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without following them up

>with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info after reading

>it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe should be

>more cautious before challenging protocols.

>Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both? And do you

>think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to hear info

>from

>others if they think that rf is either dangerous or ineffective. If you

>don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me personally. Thanks,

>lee

> Hi Lee,

>

> If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages of

> research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife systems,

> and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I can

> afford the time for, unfortunately.

> If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely don't

> switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

> In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

> were developing what could only be best described as " stress effects "

> from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier was

> disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

> It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or maybe

> not.

> Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great read

> and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

> *

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,

The context we were discusing was in relation to Rife equipment and RF and

not cell phones or anything else.

Jeff

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not

> Quantity

> may be the key

>

>

> Hello Lee

>

> There are a few people who have RF sensitivity but the percentage is very

> low. I don't see it to be that big of a problem for the majority of the

> people who use RF frequencies. In the several years we have been selling

> instruments we have only had a few people say they had any problems with

> it.

> And these people started to use the audio mode and were fine. There are

> allot of people who are worried about EM fields but I don't see this to be

> a

> real problem either. As long as you are not around them for long periods

> of

> time. EM and RF instruments should be used for the treatment times and

> then

> turned off. I think this is just good old common sense. If used this way I

> believe the instruments are safe. All of Rife's instruments were RF

> instruments. His frequency range that was listed on his lab notes go from

> about 139,000 to 18,000,000 hertz and these are all RF frequencies. Even

> in

> the 1950 when they used the AZ-58 that used his super-regenerative audio

> frequencies they modulated them onto an RF carrier frequency. Rife made

> this

> statement and I quote:

> I had my microscope here - I had my tube [ray tube] right here in front of

> it - oh, about 11 or 12 inches away from the slide in the microscope and

> here I was with this thing all around like that and that tube going here

> and

> my specimens and the microscope year after year tuning that thing and it

> never harmed me any. " ( Marsh collection - Gonin papers pages 2 & 3.

> www.rife.org)

>

> I don't believe Rife's was deluded at all but some people may be.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

>

>>How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to make an

>>intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum recently

>>said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to this forum to

>>learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a little. What

>>your

>>quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my treatment

>>regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in any protocol.

>>Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without following them

>>up

>>with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info after reading

>>it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe should be

>>more cautious before challenging protocols.

>>Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both? And do you

>>think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to hear info

>>from

>>others if they think that rf is either dangerous or ineffective. If you

>>don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me personally. Thanks,

>>lee

>

>

>

>> Hi Lee,

>>

>> If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages of

>> research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife systems,

>> and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I can

>> afford the time for, unfortunately.

>> If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely don't

>> switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

>> In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

>> were developing what could only be best described as " stress effects "

>> from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier was

>> disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

>> It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or maybe

>> not.

>> Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great read

>> and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

>> *

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think you have made a good point here Lee. If critical comments

are forthcoming, then surely they cannont be without foundation or

refernce material. Wishey Washey statements simple add to the

confusion of members that have little understanding of Rife protocol

and frequency machines in general.

I personally enjoy active debate and further enjoy hearing comments

that I may not entirely agree with but I do not enjoy negative

remarks against products or members without supportive proof.

Mike F

-- In Rife , LEE DAVIS wrote:

>

> How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to make

an

> intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum

recently

> said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to this

forum to

> learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a little.

What your

> quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my

treatment

> regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in any

protocol.

> Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without following

them up

> with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info after

reading

> it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe

should be

> more cautious before challenging protocols.

> Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both? And do

you

> think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to hear

info from

> others if they think that rf is either dangerous or ineffective. If

you

> don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me personally.

Thanks,

> lee

>

>

>

> > Hi Lee,

> >

> > If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages

of

> > research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife

systems,

> > and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I

can

> > afford the time for, unfortunately.

> > If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely

don't

> > switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

> > In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

> > were developing what could only be best described as " stress

effects "

> > from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier

was

> > disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

> > It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or

maybe

> > not.

> > Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great

read

> > and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

> > *

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike and Lee,

I can't offer too much information from experience with the GB4000 and RF, I

don't have one.

I do know Bare has placed boundaries/specifications on the RF modulation

envelope. This I believe has been done so people are aware of the minimum

standards for modulating two signals in a plasma transmission system for it to

be an effective enough signal to generate the required harmonics to be of the

type of signal that applies pressure to the body.

I would imagine, this would apply to contact pads, but this has not been

discussed here.

It has commonly been spoken about, that RF is required to make the signal

penetrate the body, better.

Gosh, how does one measure this ?

My RF plasma machine is modulated with a 250kHz (low RF square wave) signal. It

is a good machine. Using the TriField, the RF signal goes out to about 18 inches

from the tube.

If I put the TriField 6 inches from the light, RF at 100%, then put my hand

in-between the TriField and the plasma lamp, the RF almost goes to zero. I don't

know if a higher RF signal like the B/R uses would read any different?

My hand was obviously a shield to RF in this test.

From the harmonics I've seen generated with the use of RF, wow, there are a lot

compared to straight audio. All these harmonics I would think act like a pump,

applying pressure and energy to the signal that is transmitted to the body. As

some people are sensitive to RF, then a neat feature on the GB4000 - would be a

variable RF dial. So modulation could happen at 50kHz to 500kHz or greater. As

we turn down the RF, so does the harmonic signals reduce, so less RF pressure is

placed on the signal, and this would give people an option to use just a little

bit of RF to assist the audio signal. Some people may find their body responds

better to a particular level of RF, and this could be different from people to

people, so it makes sense for a variable RF signal in a contact pad system.

With plasma systems, we sit outside the measurable RF field, and from use with

my machine, at 4 feet to 6 feet out from the tube, there is no detectible

signal. The E field is zero at around three and a half feet. So what is doing

the work? Dr Rife held the plasma tube very close to people, aiming the

electrodes to maximize the signal hitting the body. People were very well in the

RF field with his method.

With the EMEM, we sit well in the E Field, so I have been told. The E field from

the novelty plasma lamps can go out 4 to 6 feet. Alvin tells me the E Field on

his EM7V is 100%, 10 feet out from the tube. This is a big signal, but there is

no RF in it.

With contact pads, we are putting the RF directly into the body. So we have to

do this carefully I would think. I would imagine it would be much easier to

experience RF loading from contact pads, than by using a RF plasma system. When

used with instructions, no RF loading is noticeable on the RF plasma systems,

although Bruce Stenulson has made very important remarks about the use of

chaotic RF in the EM+ systems that use a spark plug to generate RF.

Regards,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

Frex - CHIamp

Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may

be the key

I think you have made a good point here Lee. If critical comments

are forthcoming, then surely they cannont be without foundation or

refernce material. Wishey Washey statements simple add to the

confusion of members that have little understanding of Rife protocol

and frequency machines in general.

I personally enjoy active debate and further enjoy hearing comments

that I may not entirely agree with but I do not enjoy negative

remarks against products or members without supportive proof.

Mike F

-- In Rife , LEE DAVIS wrote:

>

> How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to make

an

> intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum

recently

> said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to this

forum to

> learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a little.

What your

> quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my

treatment

> regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in any

protocol.

> Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without following

them up

> with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info after

reading

> it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe

should be

> more cautious before challenging protocols.

> Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both? And do

you

> think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to hear

info from

> others if they think that rf is either dangerous or ineffective. If

you

> don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me personally.

Thanks,

> lee

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Jeff,

you wrote:

*There are a few people who have RF sensitivity but the percentage is very

> low. I don't see it to be that big of a problem for the majority of the

> people who use RF frequencies*.

I just mentioned that quite a lot of people have RF Sensitivity, and that

the percentage is high (19-25 %).

But thatr most people are not hindered by Rife machines.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not

> Quantity

> may be the key

>

>

> Hello Lee

>

> There are a few people who have RF sensitivity but the percentage is very

> low. I don't see it to be that big of a problem for the majority of the

> people who use RF frequencies. In the several years we have been selling

> instruments we have only had a few people say they had any problems with

> it.

> And these people started to use the audio mode and were fine. There are

> allot of people who are worried about EM fields but I don't see this to be

> a

> real problem either. As long as you are not around them for long periods

> of

> time. EM and RF instruments should be used for the treatment times and

> then

> turned off. I think this is just good old common sense. If used this way I

> believe the instruments are safe. All of Rife's instruments were RF

> instruments. His frequency range that was listed on his lab notes go from

> about 139,000 to 18,000,000 hertz and these are all RF frequencies. Even

> in

> the 1950 when they used the AZ-58 that used his super-regenerative audio

> frequencies they modulated them onto an RF carrier frequency. Rife made

> this

> statement and I quote:

> I had my microscope here - I had my tube [ray tube] right here in front of

> it - oh, about 11 or 12 inches away from the slide in the microscope and

> here I was with this thing all around like that and that tube going here

> and

> my specimens and the microscope year after year tuning that thing and it

> never harmed me any. " ( Marsh collection - Gonin papers pages 2 & 3.

> www.rife.org)

>

> I don't believe Rife's was deluded at all but some people may be.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

>

>>How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to make an

>>intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum recently

>>said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to this forum to

>>learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a little. What

>>your

>>quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my treatment

>>regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in any protocol.

>>Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without following them

>>up

>>with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info after reading

>>it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe should be

>>more cautious before challenging protocols.

>>Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both? And do you

>>think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to hear info

>>from

>>others if they think that rf is either dangerous or ineffective. If you

>>don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me personally. Thanks,

>>lee

>

>

>

>> Hi Lee,

>>

>> If I wanted to get specific, I'd have to reference over 200 pages of

>> research regarding RF usage on both pad and plasma based Rife systems,

>> and I just can't do that on here. A " sweeping statement " is all I can

>> afford the time for, unfortunately.

>> If you're having great success with the RF turned on, definitely don't

>> switch your protocol on the words of one researcher.

>> In short, when using a GB on myself and others, a large percentage

>> were developing what could only be best described as " stress effects "

>> from the treatments which completely went away after the carrier was

>> disabled. The effectiveness of the GB remained the same.

>> It may be something you might want to try just for grins - or maybe

>> not.

>> Also, the book " Cross Currents " by O. Becker is a great read

>> and gets way more into detail than I possibly could on here.

>> *

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken thanks for your response. I hope you do not feel that my

previous posting was aimed at you, as it certainly was not. I have

the highest regard for you and the work you have done to benefit the

Rife researchers and users.

Regards, Mike F

> >

> > How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to

make

> an

> > intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum

> recently

> > said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to

this

> forum to

> > learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a

little.

> What your

> > quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my

> treatment

> > regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in

any

> protocol.

> > Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without

following

> them up

> > with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info

after

> reading

> > it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe

> should be

> > more cautious before challenging protocols.

> > Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both?

And do

> you

> > think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to

hear

> info from

> > others if they think that rf is either dangerous or

ineffective. If

> you

> > don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me

personally.

> Thanks,

> > lee

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

No, it wasn't taken personally, although I'm no fool and do release I step off

the track at times :-)

It's pretty exciting all the knowledge being shared here and discovering

potentially new modalties that frequency therapy may cover.

I've been building a little signal conditioning box, and I was not thinking

about introducting a RF carrier, until I built one and had a look at the

harmonics a relatively low RF carrier will produce.

Jim Bare shares an insight a few weeks back when he commented on how the pulsed

signal builds up in the tissue, like charging up a capacitor. Each pulse adding

to the previous one's effect. This is valuable information and gives a clear

picture to us what is happening and how these pulsed fields are helping us to

combat disease.

Regards,

Ken

Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may

be the key

Hi Ken thanks for your response. I hope you do not feel that my

previous posting was aimed at you, as it certainly was not. I have

the highest regard for you and the work you have done to benefit the

Rife researchers and users.

Regards, Mike F

> >

> > How about 2 or 3 sources on research so I can learn enough to

make

> an

> > intelligent decision? One of the other luminaries on this forum

> recently

> > said the GB became great when it gained the rf. I belong to

this

> forum to

> > learn from the discussion and disagreement. Help me out a

little.

> What your

> > quick statement has done has made me doubt the efficacy of my

> treatment

> > regime. Faith may be the single most important ingredient in

any

> protocol.

> > Beware of making statements that will cause doubt without

following

> them up

> > with enough info to make someone change or dismiss your info

after

> reading

> > it. I am implying that you may do more harm than good and maybe

> should be

> > more cautious before challenging protocols.

> > Is your point that rf is damaging or ineffective, or both?

And do

> you

> > think that Rife was deluded in his use of it? I would love to

hear

> info from

> > others if they think that rf is either dangerous or

ineffective. If

> you

> > don¹t want to stir things up too much here, contact me

personally.

> Thanks,

> > lee

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken, I feel that a carrier is a significant factor and from my own

research it appears to assist in deeper tissue penetration. While my

initial experiments were with a fixed carrier of 4Mhz I'm currently

working on making it adjustable to make it more pad friendly. I

recently built a Rife/Bare device and was amazed at how powerful an

effect these machines have via the plasma tube. As I am only a little

over 12 months into Rife technology I have a long way to go to catch

up with all the other technical minded members of the group. Having

said that however, I am happy with the progression so far due to the

assistance of forum members. I'm getting excellent results from my

pad device which I have added a preamp to allow it to be used with

the smallest input signals and therefore make it compatible with all

laptop computers using your frex program.

Mike F

>

> Hi Mike,

>

> No, it wasn't taken personally, although I'm no fool and do release

I step off the track at times :-)

>

> It's pretty exciting all the knowledge being shared here and

discovering potentially new modalties that frequency therapy may

cover.

>

> I've been building a little signal conditioning box, and I was not

thinking about introducting a RF carrier, until I built one and had a

look at the harmonics a relatively low RF carrier will produce.

>

> Jim Bare shares an insight a few weeks back when he commented on

how the pulsed signal builds up in the tissue, like charging up a

capacitor. Each pulse adding to the previous one's effect. This is

valuable information and gives a clear picture to us what is

happening and how these pulsed fields are helping us to combat

disease.

>

> Regards,

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Friends,

Much of this was previously discussed over the last 8-1/2 years on the various

Rife lists, starting back when Hawkins owned & ran the first Rife-List on

Eskimo.com. Hopefully I can reiterate a few points that will help all of those

who were not around when much of this foundational material was first presented

to approach this subject from a broader perspective.

Bil Green wrote:

> The EMEM machines aren't designed with a default carrier wave but

> according to Dave Jeffers (one of the more experienced engineers

> on the Rife lists) there is a carrier, which he has verified at about 1MHz.

It may be time to clarify this; unless Dave had an RF Spectrum analyzer, he may

have been unaware of the complete nature of the spark gap generated signal. Yes,

he could have detected one of the segments around 1 MHz, so I do not question

that aspect of the observation he reported to you.

Actually, if a classic EMEM-2 with spark gap is built, there's nothing that

looks like a " single 'carrier' at 1 MHZ " ; it's simply not that ‘clean and it's

grossly uncontrolled. Instead, there is wide spectrum chaotic noise spread all

the way up through the EM / RF spectrum- it's more like getting bathed in

hundreds or thousands of RF signals simultaneously.

But my background with a specialization in " Electronic Warfare Operations " while

in the military in the early 1970s made me very uneasy about what I was

observing when doing early testing on the spark gap approach. I had undergone

specialized training in 1970 on the subject of ‘Antennas and Radio Wave

Propagation', along with a lot of other classified material. I worked for

several years in this field, doing work that was classified Top Secret, Crypto;

much of it may still be classified today, so I have not mentioned much of this

in the past, and will not now. But it placed me in an ‘interesting' and possibly

rather unique perspective as to the nature and uses of RF, as well as potential

hazards.

When I was first investigating the claims about the ‘benefits " of, and ‘need'

for a spark gap in the EMEM-2 back in 1997 and 1998, some of the things that

were being claimed did not make sense from the perspective of this background.

After close to nine years of further research and development, those claims make

even less sense to me today.

When I set up the tests, I could hear these spark gap generated noise signals in

multiple places on several radio receivers. Including on both the AM & FM radio

transmission bands. But my background in Electronic Warfare Operations made me

very uneasy about what I was observing. So I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer

- equipment I had previously worked with but not needed since leaving the

military- in order to really see what was going on... and I was quite

uncomfortable about what I was seeing.

>BG This may explain, at least in part, why the energy from EMEMs penetrate so

well.

OH, yes, RF signals can penetrate; the Russians used their understanding of

these principles back during the cold war to constantly bombard the listening

post personnel in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with RF - RF which they new would

be damaging to the personnel spying on them. If you research this, you will find

that an incredibly high percentage of those U.S. listening post personnel came

down with major health problems and an incredibly high incidence of cancers...

and at the time, The U.S. personnel were so far behind the Russians in

understanding this aspect of the research on biological effects of RF, that they

did not even recognize the hazards of the signals with which they were being

intentionally bombarded... they simply had no knowledge of or training in this

aspect of RF usage. It wasn't until after the collapse of the Soviet Union that

this became known, and I expect that some aspects of that type of " Electronic

Warfare " were never disclosed...

Stetzer and Graham have provided extensive information on how the Electrical

Pollution that permeates our living and working environments today has an

insidious and continuous stressor effect on our health; if you have not already

done so, you really need to expand your perspective with the information that is

available at:

http://www.electricalpollution.com/

Plasma Resonance, if properly generated and optimized, simply DOES NOT NEED an

RF carrier in order to penetrate or reach out...In fact, extensive testing by

many researchers using the EM+ systems way back in 1999 and 2000 demonstrate

that the opposite is true... that on a dynamic resonant radiant plasma system,

adding a spark-gap-generated broad spectrum chaotic noise signal was observed to

REDUCE effectiveness, slow research subject response, and result in far more

intense ‘adverse collateral reactions' (commonly also mistakenly referred to as

‘herx' reactions.) I've already previously offered information on individuals

who's challenged health state was substantially worsened by exposures to

machines with spark gaps; I keep receiving reports that this is still ongoing

today. Many still fail to write up reports of their adverse experiences,

however, so most casual researchers remain unaware of how widespread these

adverse reactions might really be.

So from my perspective, statements that RF is ‘necessary' reveal a simple lack

of understanding of the nature of the magnetic component of the Resonant Radiant

Plasma Dynamics. I posted information on these research observations many times

over the last 8-1/2 years, so it should not come as news to those who have been

around.

And the really sad aspect is that, if an RF carrier might want to be employed in

order to test the body response to it's presence, the extremely chaotic

uncontrolled noise signal which a crude spark gap generates should be the last

type of signal to which a cautious researcher would want to expose themselves.

Body response testing techniques (kinesiology, EAV, etc.) can be used to best

evaluate how subjects are affected- hopefully this is done long before a

deteriorating electro-sensitivity condition becomes obvious. Because once an

advanced electro-sensitivity reaction of the body is obvious, the body's

energetic system may have become so sensitized and it's previous resistance and

resilience so compromised that it may take many months - or even years- to

recover to the point where they can resume leading something approaching a

‘normal life'. For further insight, you might want to read Bill McCallum's

report on the Electro-Sensitivity discussion page on The Alternative Health

Approaches Forum:

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

Jeff Garff offers a low amplitude level 2.4 MHz carrier on his GB4000 contact

pad machine, and was insightful enough to also include a switch so that

researchers can easily shut it off completely- [much as I did when I added the

bypass switch to the adjustable spark gaps which were still built in, and

available to researchers for testing in the early EMEM2+ and EMEM3+ systems back

in 1998 and early 1999.]

Neuromancer has offered the results of his extensive work with a wide spectrum

of research subjects while working with the GB4000, and has reported that

virtually all of them responded better when the 2.4 MHz carrier was disabled /

shut off. This is further food for thought, which should provoke interested

researchers to pursue this line of investigation further.

Jeff Sutherland has shared his techniques for programming the F125 or F165 to

generate what he refers to as ‘scalar harmonics'; this is a ‘background

frequency' which is mathematically derived form the primary frequency, is run

simultaneously to enhance the body's receptiveness to the primary frequencies

being sequenced in a given session. On the F165, two scalar harmonics can be

programmed; (on the F125, only one scalar harmonic can be programmed.)

The unique aspect of this approach is that the ‘background frequency / scalar

harmonic' continuously changes at the primary frequency changes, to maintain

it's scalar harmonic relationship to the primary frequency, and thereby insure

that it is supportive, rather than possibly acting as a disruptive aspect. When

such programs are input into the 6C EM+ system which he uses in some of his

work, he reports that this combined primary and dual scalar resonances are

induced into research subjects very effectively. Dr. Sutherland recommends the

F165 for this reason over the F125.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[it's curious, however, that we have also been told by makers and advocates of

the classic EMEM-2 on more than one recent occasion that those systems and their

derivatives which have been built by various researchers are found to become

'ineffective' when the spark gap becomes fouled and their radiated RF chaos

noise signal ceases to be broadcast... the tube is still lighting up, but the

system is 'ineffective'.... so from these reports we also know that it's

possible that 'the light is on, but nobody's home'... very curious indeed...]

Back in the late 1990s, while in the process of studying the characteristics and

dispersion patterns of RF noise signals radiating from the spark gap, using

equipment including the H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer which I bought at that time -

(special equipment which I had not expected to use again after leaving my

position as an " Electronics Warfare Specialist " for the military back in the

early 1970s) I learned several interesting and troubling things.

On of the mots troubling that came to light during this research was that the

spark gap generated signal was cleaner and less chaotic / less noisy, and that

the primary drive frequency could actually be heard as modulation on my various

radio receivers across the spectrum, ONLY when the spark gap was barely open. As

I opened the specially calibrated adjustable spark gap which I was using in my

research wider, the broad spectrum noise became progressively 'dirtier' and

dominant- the majority of the high voltage energy was going into the chaotic

noise signal portions... The result? The pure clean tone of the plasma

resonance (which was present when the spark gap was closed) had virtually

disappeared, overwhelmed in all of this chaotic noise.... For all practical

purposes, the primary frequency was not even there once the spark gap was opened

too far.

I was curious about the disappearance of the primary frequency, so I

investigated this further, and found that with the spark gap firing beyond a

minimal opening, the unprotected / unshielded electronic circuit of the EMEM-2

design was directly receiving so much EM/RF interference from the spark gap that

it could not even generate the correct signal... The circuit's function was

disrupted, the primary frequency was obliterated, and nothing but the broad

spectrum chaotic noise signal remained....

Despite all of the advances in the collective understandings of leading edge

researchers, resulting in the virtual re-writing of the paradigms being

implemented on the leading edge of induced resonance research, there's still a

lot of people that are repeating 1995 ideas as if they were ‘sacred cows'...

>BG Not everything is as it appears. People say that the

> zappers work very well, but with only a 30kHz (and very weak)

> signal you wouldn't expect them to.

Expectations can be a subtle but effective trap to let yourself slip into;

until you observe the higher harmonics which they generate within the body, much

of the picture is simply missing.

>BG So you can go cheap and still get good results. I say, Beck BE

> and EMEM at the very least (and a very simple, cheap one-coil

> EMEM if that's all you can afford, as long as you use the Full

> contact mode).

It's actually now becoming even more obvious- that not all systems which can

light up a plasma tube are the same... and I've already recently pointed out

that in terms of ‘body response' and ‘effectiveness', Quality, not Quantity may

be the key to optimum results with the minimum of adverse collateral reactions.

That's where the title of this thread started, after all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the content of a recent posting to the Lyme & Rife Yahoo Group:

gloria_shell wrote:

> I recently started treatment for Lyme with an EMEM5, and for the third time I

got horrific migraines as a herx. Migraines that are 100 times worse than

usual, where my head is about to explode. I can't lie down, because the

pressure hurts too much. And it takes a ton of pain and migraine meds to even

begin to alleviate it. How do I avoid this next time?? I do lots of coffee

enemas and other cleansing (colon, liver, GB, etc.). I do ozone insufflations

and drink ozonated water. Help! What can I do? It feels like I need to do

something to specificially address the neurotoxins in the brain, but how? It

feels like someone blew my head up like a balloon. Thank you for any

suggestions.

>

> Gloria

Gloria & friends,

People with Lyme disease also commonly have, or very easily and quickly can

develop severe reactions to chemical and electromagnetic pollution from a wide

variety of sources. Our living environments today are already saturated with

electromagnetic pollution, which has the effect of being a cumulative health

stressor factor; adding a bit more of the wrong thing can then be " The Straw

That Broke The Camel's Back " .

For some excellent information on the ever-pervasive " Electromagnetic Pollution "

that can permeate the environment in which you live, and for reasonable costing

solutions that people are implementing, visit:

http://www.electromagneticpollution.com

Unfortunately, when you actually understand how much of a health stressor factor

and destabilizing influence this electromagnetic noise and pollution can be for

people already facing health challenges, you also begin to develop an insight as

to how some of the operational aspects of equipment being offered to researchers

today can in fact have devastating effects on the unknowing experimenters who

might use it, hoping to regain their health.

For some people attempting to use some of the equipment being advocated on this

list & others, it can be very damaging, and can rapidly lead to worsening

environmental sensitivities, as well as resulting in substantially reduced

resistance to other stressor factors already present in their living

environment.

If you run a frequency sequence, and a day or two later you notice a slight

aching in your kidneys, you might realisticly interpret it as giving them more

of a job to do. If you run frequencies effectively for certain parasites, and

you experience a loosening of your stools or even diahrea soon thereafter, and

find any of the parasites in the stools upon examination, then you can interpret

that as a result of affectively using the right resonances to produce those

results.

But if being near a device produces brain fog, severe headaches, or migraines

quickly, you need to also be aware that Electrosensitivity reactions alone can

produce these problems.

While it is said that the Boriella will spew out some toxins when threatened /

challenged, which can make you feel bad, consider carefully that the headaches,

brain fog, and other severe adverse reactions may possibly have little or

nothing to do with actually killing off unwanted microorganisms in any effective

manner. And also consider that making yourself feel really crappy week after

week with experimental equipment may NOT be any reliable indication that you are

making any progress in actually eliminating the microorganisms that you think

you are targeting.

(Oh, yes, I'm aware that from the viewpoint of the advocates of some

experimental approaches, this is bordering on unspeakable heresy ... but every

now and then, serving up a substantial helping of 'roasted sacred cow' may be

just what's really needed to keep the open discussion of this research

healthy... :>)

[The image of three monkeys sitting on a log, with the first one covering it's

eyes, the second one covering it's ears, and the third one covering it's mouth,

with the caption " See No Evil, " Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil " , should never be

considered as an appropriate header logo for any forum such as this. It

certainly does not serve the interests of hopeful individuals who are trying to

deal with serious health challenges, who need ALL of the facts... not just the

ones that seem to 'Tell A Good Story' from some individual's viewpoint.... ]

So to return to the point where I started: everyone needs to keep in mind that

many 'adverse reactions may really have little or no relationship to " herx "

reactions, but are better understood to be " Adverse Reactions " , or " Adverse

Collateral Reactions " - they are your body's reaction to let you know of it's

inability to tolerate the destabilizing effects of either environmental

pollution in various forms, or aspects of certain equipment's eminations.

A web page that's been up on my web site for many years, cautioning

experimenters to such hazards, is here:

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

I began trying to educate people about this aspect of the design and operation

of experimental Resonant Radiant Plasma frequency research equipment back in

1997 and 1998. I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer (kinda pricey!) to pursue

the research in greater depth, because I needed to know what aspects of Resonant

Radiant Plasma system operation was capable of aggravating my own extensive

Electro-Sensitivity.

I had serious health challenges, and while the high frequency adjustable contact

pad devices had been helpful with some aspects, I was still gradually loosing

ground until I began development of the Plasma Resonance systems. I wanted - on,

I really NEEDED to develop my own understanding of how Optimum Plasma Resonance

could actually be achieved, while minimizing or eliminating the operational

aspects which were responsible for my own rapid adverse reactions: as when spark

gaps were used, or when plasma drive voltage or power levels exceeded the body's

'optimum response window'. I was my own best 'Guinea Pig', and I tested

everything thoroughly on myself before I ever released it to other

researchers...

The fans of certain 'sacred cows' were not necessarily receptive then, and that

aspect of this field of research has not changed much in that respect... it's

the aspect of these discussion groups that leaves most leading edge researchers

working independently & quietly, while rarely if ever posting the results of

their work.

Here's the text of a recent post I made to another of the lists:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may be the key

Luigi wrote:

>> The only one I know that might have that info about my EM+ is Bruce

Stenulson so perhaps I should ask him, but I am doing well enough that I figure

it's not really worth wasting his time.

>> Luigi

[My Response:]

Luigi,

It's good to hear that you are doing so well; obviously the way you are using

the 6C EM+ is VERY effective.

There appear to be some common misconceptions around the concepts of 'power'

versus 'effectiveness' that another researcher brought to my attention, so it

may be time to try to shed some light upon this common myth: that " more power

equals more effectiveness " . In many cases, the opposite is actually being found

to be true.

The 6C EM+ actually may have quite a bit more 'power' than what needs to be

employed to produce optimum body response in many situations; for example, using

a modest percentage of it's output power capability at the " 300 " power level

setting is repeatedly being reported to produce the maximum positive response,

while also producing the minimum of adverse collateral reactions.

On the 6C EM+, you can take a TriField meter in hand and back away from a single

Resonant Plasma tube about 8 feet before the E-field reading drops from being

pegged off-scale, down to the 100,000 volts per meter E-field density reading

when the " Power Output Level " setting is set at the " 300 " level. With the output

power set up to the maximum " 1220 " setting, you need to back away about ten feet

(or more) from the Resonant Plasma tube before the Trifield meter's reading

drops to that same 100,000 volts per meter E-field density reading. That's a lot

of power in the E-field. Being within 8 feet of the tube, even at this modest

Output Power Level setting, continuously produces results for users of the EM+

systems.

But the E-field reading is only a simple 'energy field density' reading, and it

does not offer any 'qualitative' information about the characteristics of the

resonance being set up within, and radiated from, the plasma tube (/tubes). When

run at the higher 1220 setting, there is more of a secondary 'ringing' / damped

wave resonance present in the radiated waveforms from the plasma. While this may

be acceptable and usable in many situations for many research subjects, there

may also be many research subjects who will in fact respond more positively to

the 'cleaner' plasma resonance that results when the power level is controlled

and the plasma resonance characteristics are optimized at intermediate power

levels.

Research subjects using the EM+ systems at the 300 Power Output Level setting

report dramatic results with a minimum of collateral reaction that are otherwise

experienced when a higher power output level is selected. (Many times the

'collateral adverse reactions' experienced from exposure to a plasma system with

too much input power, resulting in variations and uncontrolled plasma resonance

characteristics, are being misinterpreted as 'healing reactions', and people are

even being told that they are a 'good sign'.... even though while they feel like

crap for days after an exposure, their condition remains relatively unchanged

for prolonged periods.... (What's wrong with this picture?)

So maybe this often-repeated misconception that " more power is better " needs to

be very closely examined once more.

The body may in fact respond optimally within certain 'power windows', or more

properly 'windows of receptivity'. While the body is known to be responsive to

extremely subtle resonance influences (as evidenced by the results repeatedly

produced by the ABPA devices in use by Dr. Jeff Sutherland and many others), it

is also known to go into a 'resistive' or self-protective made when exposed to

adverse fields or energy levels; EAV testing and various forms of body response

testing illustrates this beyond question.

So yes, in many cases, 'more is less'... more power is paradoxically less

effective... an interesting dilemma for those who are marketing from the

standpoint that " More MUST be better!??). And the often repeated clamor of " MORE

POWER - MORE POWER - MORE POWER! " may have misled many well-meaning researchers,

or individuals fighting their health challenges, looking for help and hope...

Extensive reports on this subject, arising out of research done over the last

year, are being prepared, which should offer further insight. Until these

reports are completed, I'd suggest those who are interested to utilize whatever

body response testing systems they may have available to them to investigate

this subject further.

I wish each of you the best of progress and insights in your research!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Be Well!!

Bruce

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> KU> Hi Mike and Lee,

>

> KU> I can't offer too much information from experience with the GB4000 and

RF, I don't have one.

>

> KU> It has commonly been spoken about, that RF is required to make the signal

penetrate the body, better.

>

> KU> Gosh, how does one measure this ?

>

> KU> My RF plasma machine is modulated with a 250kHz (low RF square wave)

signal. It is a good machine. Using the TriField, the RF signal goes out to

about 18 inches from the tube.

>

> KU> If I put the TriField 6 inches from the light, RF at 100%, then put my

hand in-between the TriField and the plasma lamp, the RF almost goes to zero. I

don't know if a higher RF signal like the

> KU> B/R uses would read any different?

>

> KU> My hand was obviously a shield to RF in this test.

>

> KU> From the harmonics I've seen generated with the use of RF, wow, there are

a lot compared to straight audio. All these harmonics I would think act like a

pump, applying pressure and energy to the

> KU> signal that is transmitted to the body. As some people are sensitive to

RF, then a neat feature on the GB4000 - would be a variable RF dial. So

modulation could happen at 50kHz to 500kHz or

> KU> greater. As we turn down the RF, so does the harmonic signals reduce, so

less RF pressure is placed on the signal, and this would give people an option

to use just a little bit of RF to assist

> KU> the audio signal. Some people may find their body responds better to a

particular level of RF, and this could be different from people to people, so it

makes sense for a variable RF signal in a

> KU> contact pad system.

>

> KU> With plasma systems, we sit outside the measurable RF field, and from use

with my machine, at 4 feet to 6 feet out from the tube, there is no detectible

signal. The E field is zero at around

> KU> three and a half feet. So what is doing the work? Dr Rife held the plasma

tube very close to people, aiming the electrodes to maximize the signal hitting

the body. People were very well in the RF

> KU> field with his method.

>

> KU> With the EMEM, we sit well in the E Field, so I have been told. The E

field from the novelty plasma lamps can go out 4 to 6 feet. Alvin tells me the E

Field on his EM7V is 100%, 10 feet out from

> KU> the tube. This is a big signal, but there is no RF in it.

>

> KU> With contact pads, we are putting the RF directly into the body. So we

have to do this carefully I would think. I would imagine it would be much easier

to experience RF loading from contact pads,

> KU> than by using a RF plasma system. When used with instructions, no RF

loading is noticeable on the RF plasma systems, although Bruce Stenulson has

made very important remarks about the use of

> KU> chaotic RF in the EMEM systems that use a spark plug to generate RF.

>

> KU> Regards,

> KU> Ken Uzzell.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bruce, from my point as a new researcher this information is

indeed helpful and thought provoking and I am sure certainly

beneficial to all members.

Thank you, Mike F

>

> Friends,

>

> Much of this was previously discussed over the last 8-1/2 years on

the various

> Rife lists, starting back when Hawkins owned & ran the first

Rife-List on

> Eskimo.com. Hopefully I can reiterate a few points that will help

all of those

> who were not around when much of this foundational material was

first presented

> to approach this subject from a broader perspective.

>

[sNIP]

[Guest guest]

Great news Mike,

Are you planning on making your device available, or is it just for your

personal use ?

I have plenty of free advertising space on the Frex web site.

Regards,

Ken

Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may

be the key

Hi Ken, I feel that a carrier is a significant factor and from my own

research it appears to assist in deeper tissue penetration. While my

initial experiments were with a fixed carrier of 4Mhz I'm currently

working on making it adjustable to make it more pad friendly. I

recently built a Rife/Bare device and was amazed at how powerful an

effect these machines have via the plasma tube. As I am only a little

over 12 months into Rife technology I have a long way to go to catch

up with all the other technical minded members of the group. Having

said that however, I am happy with the progression so far due to the

assistance of forum members. I'm getting excellent results from my

pad device which I have added a preamp to allow it to be used with

the smallest input signals and therefore make it compatible with all

laptop computers using your frex program.

Mike F

[Guest guest]

Thanks Bruce,

It is a real privilege when experts such as yourself, Dr Loyd and Bare

share information here.

I know RF loading in the body, and have experienced it several times.

My whole house is RF shielded, walls and roof, except for floors and windows.

Quite interesting when friends come over with their mobile phones, they don't

work in the house and have to go outside to use them.

When I have stayed too close for too long, within the RF field my RF plasma

system generates (and this is not a spark plug chaotic signal) that I experience

RF loading, and not a herx effect.

From my experience, and on my own body, RF loading effects the upper body

tissue. The neck/skull muscles known as the occipitals, become tight, may be

more of fascia trauma binding down on these muscles. When these muscle get

restricted, they can effect the cervical artery, that is, reducing blood flow

out of the brain, which increases pressure in the brain and will produce nasty

migraine headaches that can linger for days and not be relieved by drugs. This

binding down of tissue on blood and nerve channels can easily lead to other

symptoms as you have described.

Upper body tightness is also another symptom of RF loading, and not a herx

reaction.

When I sit outside the RF field the plasma transmitter produces, zero loading

occurs.

The novelty plasma lamp with its tiny 28kHz carrier, hasn't produced these

results at all, even when I have been exposed to 4+ hours of it. But it's only a

20 watt system and would be classified as more of a Homeopathic Energetic tool

than a powerful Rife type machine. The TriField does pick up RF out to about 8

inches from the globe, so if this plasma transmitter was used in contact mode

for long times, then may be some RF loading might manifest. I haven't

experienced this todate.

I suspect one client I see may fall into the catagory of working in a dirty

noisy building, every fortnight she comes to see me and it is like she has been

sitting in a strong RF field all day at her work. I have forward her your link

about this topic that you just shared with us. All her upper body and neck

muscles have become tight and rigged, super stressed. It takes a good 2 hours of

work on her to unwind these muscles, she gets instant relief, but it soon ceases

when she goes back to work and gets stressed out again. She loves her work and

can't understand why her body gets so stressed all the time. When she is on

holidays, away from the building, no problems, no head aches and no tight and

stressed tissue in her body.

Question: Would the TriField be strong enough to detect harmful RF living on our

50/60 Hz mains power supply ? If so it would be easy to check her building to

see if it was clean or dirty.

Regards,

Ken

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity

may be the key

Friends,

Much of this was previously discussed over the last 8-1/2 years on the various

Rife lists, starting back when Hawkins owned & ran the first Rife-List on

Eskimo.com. Hopefully I can reiterate a few points that will help all of those

who were not around when much of this foundational material was first

presented

to approach this subject from a broader perspective.

Bil Green wrote:

> The EMEM machines aren't designed with a default carrier wave but

> according to Dave Jeffers (one of the more experienced engineers

> on the Rife lists) there is a carrier, which he has verified at about 1MHz.

It may be time to clarify this; unless Dave had an RF Spectrum analyzer, he

may

have been unaware of the complete nature of the spark gap generated signal.

Yes,

he could have detected one of the segments around 1 MHz, so I do not question

that aspect of the observation he reported to you.

Actually, if a classic EMEM-2 with spark gap is built, there's nothing that

looks like a " single 'carrier' at 1 MHZ " ; it's simply not that ‘clean and it's

grossly uncontrolled. Instead, there is wide spectrum chaotic noise spread all

the way up through the EM / RF spectrum- it's more like getting bathed in

hundreds or thousands of RF signals simultaneously.

But my background with a specialization in " Electronic Warfare Operations "

while

in the military in the early 1970s made me very uneasy about what I was

observing when doing early testing on the spark gap approach. I had undergone

specialized training in 1970 on the subject of ‘Antennas and Radio Wave

Propagation', along with a lot of other classified material. I worked for

several years in this field, doing work that was classified Top Secret,

Crypto;

much of it may still be classified today, so I have not mentioned much of this

in the past, and will not now. But it placed me in an ‘interesting' and

possibly

rather unique perspective as to the nature and uses of RF, as well as

potential

hazards.

When I was first investigating the claims about the ‘benefits " of, and ‘need'

for a spark gap in the EMEM-2 back in 1997 and 1998, some of the things that

were being claimed did not make sense from the perspective of this background.

After close to nine years of further research and development, those claims

make

even less sense to me today.

When I set up the tests, I could hear these spark gap generated noise signals

in

multiple places on several radio receivers. Including on both the AM & FM

radio

transmission bands. But my background in Electronic Warfare Operations made me

very uneasy about what I was observing. So I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum

Analyzer

- equipment I had previously worked with but not needed since leaving the

military- in order to really see what was going on... and I was quite

uncomfortable about what I was seeing.

>BG This may explain, at least in part, why the energy from EMEMs penetrate

so

well.

OH, yes, RF signals can penetrate; the Russians used their understanding of

these principles back during the cold war to constantly bombard the listening

post personnel in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with RF - RF which they new would

be damaging to the personnel spying on them. If you research this, you will

find

that an incredibly high percentage of those U.S. listening post personnel came

down with major health problems and an incredibly high incidence of cancers...

and at the time, The U.S. personnel were so far behind the Russians in

understanding this aspect of the research on biological effects of RF, that

they

did not even recognize the hazards of the signals with which they were being

intentionally bombarded... they simply had no knowledge of or training in this

aspect of RF usage. It wasn't until after the collapse of the Soviet Union

that

this became known, and I expect that some aspects of that type of " Electronic

Warfare " were never disclosed...

Stetzer and Graham have provided extensive information on how the Electrical

Pollution that permeates our living and working environments today has an

insidious and continuous stressor effect on our health; if you have not

already

done so, you really need to expand your perspective with the information that

is

available at:

http://www.electricalpollution.com/

Plasma Resonance, if properly generated and optimized, simply DOES NOT NEED an

RF carrier in order to penetrate or reach out...In fact, extensive testing by

many researchers using the EM+ systems way back in 1999 and 2000 demonstrate

that the opposite is true... that on a dynamic resonant radiant plasma system,

adding a spark-gap-generated broad spectrum chaotic noise signal was observed

to

REDUCE effectiveness, slow research subject response, and result in far more

intense ‘adverse collateral reactions' (commonly also mistakenly referred to

as

‘herx' reactions.) I've already previously offered information on individuals

who's challenged health state was substantially worsened by exposures to

machines with spark gaps; I keep receiving reports that this is still ongoing

today. Many still fail to write up reports of their adverse experiences,

however, so most casual researchers remain unaware of how widespread these

adverse reactions might really be.

So from my perspective, statements that RF is ‘necessary' reveal a simple lack

of understanding of the nature of the magnetic component of the Resonant

Radiant

Plasma Dynamics. I posted information on these research observations many

times

over the last 8-1/2 years, so it should not come as news to those who have

been

around.

And the really sad aspect is that, if an RF carrier might want to be employed

in

order to test the body response to it's presence, the extremely chaotic

uncontrolled noise signal which a crude spark gap generates should be the last

type of signal to which a cautious researcher would want to expose themselves.

Body response testing techniques (kinesiology, EAV, etc.) can be used to best

evaluate how subjects are affected- hopefully this is done long before a

deteriorating electro-sensitivity condition becomes obvious. Because once an

advanced electro-sensitivity reaction of the body is obvious, the body's

energetic system may have become so sensitized and it's previous resistance

and

resilience so compromised that it may take many months - or even years- to

recover to the point where they can resume leading something approaching a

‘normal life'. For further insight, you might want to read Bill McCallum's

report on the Electro-Sensitivity discussion page on The Alternative Health

Approaches Forum:

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

Jeff Garff offers a low amplitude level 2.4 MHz carrier on his GB4000 contact

pad machine, and was insightful enough to also include a switch so that

researchers can easily shut it off completely- [much as I did when I added the

bypass switch to the adjustable spark gaps which were still built in, and

available to researchers for testing in the early EMEM2+ and EMEM3+ systems

back

in 1998 and early 1999.]

Neuromancer has offered the results of his extensive work with a wide spectrum

of research subjects while working with the GB4000, and has reported that

virtually all of them responded better when the 2.4 MHz carrier was disabled /

shut off. This is further food for thought, which should provoke interested

researchers to pursue this line of investigation further.

Jeff Sutherland has shared his techniques for programming the F125 or F165 to

generate what he refers to as ‘scalar harmonics'; this is a ‘background

frequency' which is mathematically derived form the primary frequency, is run

simultaneously to enhance the body's receptiveness to the primary frequencies

being sequenced in a given session. On the F165, two scalar harmonics can be

programmed; (on the F125, only one scalar harmonic can be programmed.)

The unique aspect of this approach is that the ‘background frequency / scalar

harmonic' continuously changes at the primary frequency changes, to maintain

it's scalar harmonic relationship to the primary frequency, and thereby insure

that it is supportive, rather than possibly acting as a disruptive aspect.

When

such programs are input into the 6C EM+ system which he uses in some of his

work, he reports that this combined primary and dual scalar resonances are

induced into research subjects very effectively. Dr. Sutherland recommends the

F165 for this reason over the F125.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[it's curious, however, that we have also been told by makers and advocates of

the classic EMEM-2 on more than one recent occasion that those systems and

their

derivatives which have been built by various researchers are found to become

'ineffective' when the spark gap becomes fouled and their radiated RF chaos

noise signal ceases to be broadcast... the tube is still lighting up, but the

system is 'ineffective'.... so from these reports we also know that it's

possible that 'the light is on, but nobody's home'... very curious indeed...]

Back in the late 1990s, while in the process of studying the characteristics

and

dispersion patterns of RF noise signals radiating from the spark gap, using

equipment including the H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer which I bought at that time

-

(special equipment which I had not expected to use again after leaving my

position as an " Electronics Warfare Specialist " for the military back in the

early 1970s) I learned several interesting and troubling things.

On of the mots troubling that came to light during this research was that the

spark gap generated signal was cleaner and less chaotic / less noisy, and that

the primary drive frequency could actually be heard as modulation on my

various

radio receivers across the spectrum, ONLY when the spark gap was barely open.

As

I opened the specially calibrated adjustable spark gap which I was using in my

research wider, the broad spectrum noise became progressively 'dirtier' and

dominant- the majority of the high voltage energy was going into the chaotic

noise signal portions... The result? The pure clean tone of the plasma

resonance (which was present when the spark gap was closed) had virtually

disappeared, overwhelmed in all of this chaotic noise.... For all practical

purposes, the primary frequency was not even there once the spark gap was

opened

too far.

I was curious about the disappearance of the primary frequency, so I

investigated this further, and found that with the spark gap firing beyond a

minimal opening, the unprotected / unshielded electronic circuit of the EMEM-2

design was directly receiving so much EM/RF interference from the spark gap

that

it could not even generate the correct signal... The circuit's function was

disrupted, the primary frequency was obliterated, and nothing but the broad

spectrum chaotic noise signal remained....

Despite all of the advances in the collective understandings of leading edge

researchers, resulting in the virtual re-writing of the paradigms being

implemented on the leading edge of induced resonance research, there's still a

lot of people that are repeating 1995 ideas as if they were ‘sacred cows'...

>BG Not everything is as it appears. People say that the

> zappers work very well, but with only a 30kHz (and very weak)

> signal you wouldn't expect them to.

Expectations can be a subtle but effective trap to let yourself slip into;

until you observe the higher harmonics which they generate within the body,

much

of the picture is simply missing.

>BG So you can go cheap and still get good results. I say, Beck BE

> and EMEM at the very least (and a very simple, cheap one-coil

> EMEM if that's all you can afford, as long as you use the Full

> contact mode).

It's actually now becoming even more obvious- that not all systems which can

light up a plasma tube are the same... and I've already recently pointed out

that in terms of ‘body response' and ‘effectiveness', Quality, not Quantity

may

be the key to optimum results with the minimum of adverse collateral

reactions.

That's where the title of this thread started, after all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here's the content of a recent posting to the Lyme & Rife Yahoo Group:

gloria_shell wrote:

> I recently started treatment for Lyme with an EMEM5, and for the third time

I

got horrific migraines as a herx. Migraines that are 100 times worse than

usual, where my head is about to explode. I can't lie down, because the

pressure hurts too much. And it takes a ton of pain and migraine meds to

even

begin to alleviate it. How do I avoid this next time?? I do lots of coffee

enemas and other cleansing (colon, liver, GB, etc.). I do ozone insufflations

and drink ozonated water. Help! What can I do? It feels like I need to do

something to specificially address the neurotoxins in the brain, but how? It

feels like someone blew my head up like a balloon. Thank you for any

suggestions.

>

> Gloria

Gloria & friends,

People with Lyme disease also commonly have, or very easily and quickly can

develop severe reactions to chemical and electromagnetic pollution from a wide

variety of sources. Our living environments today are already saturated with

electromagnetic pollution, which has the effect of being a cumulative health

stressor factor; adding a bit more of the wrong thing can then be " The Straw

That Broke The Camel's Back " .

For some excellent information on the ever-pervasive " Electromagnetic

Pollution "

that can permeate the environment in which you live, and for reasonable

costing

solutions that people are implementing, visit:

http://www.electromagneticpollution.com

Unfortunately, when you actually understand how much of a health stressor

factor

and destabilizing influence this electromagnetic noise and pollution can be

for

people already facing health challenges, you also begin to develop an insight

as

to how some of the operational aspects of equipment being offered to

researchers

today can in fact have devastating effects on the unknowing experimenters who

might use it, hoping to regain their health.

For some people attempting to use some of the equipment being advocated on

this

list & others, it can be very damaging, and can rapidly lead to worsening

environmental sensitivities, as well as resulting in substantially reduced

resistance to other stressor factors already present in their living

environment.

If you run a frequency sequence, and a day or two later you notice a slight

aching in your kidneys, you might realisticly interpret it as giving them more

of a job to do. If you run frequencies effectively for certain parasites, and

you experience a loosening of your stools or even diahrea soon thereafter, and

find any of the parasites in the stools upon examination, then you can

interpret

that as a result of affectively using the right resonances to produce those

results.

But if being near a device produces brain fog, severe headaches, or migraines

quickly, you need to also be aware that Electrosensitivity reactions alone can

produce these problems.

While it is said that the Boriella will spew out some toxins when threatened /

challenged, which can make you feel bad, consider carefully that the

headaches,

brain fog, and other severe adverse reactions may possibly have little or

nothing to do with actually killing off unwanted microorganisms in any

effective

manner. And also consider that making yourself feel really crappy week after

week with experimental equipment may NOT be any reliable indication that you

are

making any progress in actually eliminating the microorganisms that you think

you are targeting.

(Oh, yes, I'm aware that from the viewpoint of the advocates of some

experimental approaches, this is bordering on unspeakable heresy ... but every

now and then, serving up a substantial helping of 'roasted sacred cow' may be

just what's really needed to keep the open discussion of this research

healthy... :>)

[The image of three monkeys sitting on a log, with the first one covering it's

eyes, the second one covering it's ears, and the third one covering it's

mouth,

with the caption " See No Evil, " Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil " , should never be

considered as an appropriate header logo for any forum such as this. It

certainly does not serve the interests of hopeful individuals who are trying

to

deal with serious health challenges, who need ALL of the facts... not just the

ones that seem to 'Tell A Good Story' from some individual's viewpoint.... ]

So to return to the point where I started: everyone needs to keep in mind that

many 'adverse reactions may really have little or no relationship to " herx "

reactions, but are better understood to be " Adverse Reactions " , or " Adverse

Collateral Reactions " - they are your body's reaction to let you know of it's

inability to tolerate the destabilizing effects of either environmental

pollution in various forms, or aspects of certain equipment's eminations.

A web page that's been up on my web site for many years, cautioning

experimenters to such hazards, is here:

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

I began trying to educate people about this aspect of the design and operation

of experimental Resonant Radiant Plasma frequency research equipment back in

1997 and 1998. I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer (kinda pricey!) to pursue

the research in greater depth, because I needed to know what aspects of

Resonant

Radiant Plasma system operation was capable of aggravating my own extensive

Electro-Sensitivity.

I had serious health challenges, and while the high frequency adjustable

contact

pad devices had been helpful with some aspects, I was still gradually loosing

ground until I began development of the Plasma Resonance systems. I wanted -

on,

I really NEEDED to develop my own understanding of how Optimum Plasma

Resonance

could actually be achieved, while minimizing or eliminating the operational

aspects which were responsible for my own rapid adverse reactions: as when

spark

gaps were used, or when plasma drive voltage or power levels exceeded the

body's

'optimum response window'. I was my own best 'Guinea Pig', and I tested

everything thoroughly on myself before I ever released it to other

researchers...

The fans of certain 'sacred cows' were not necessarily receptive then, and

that

aspect of this field of research has not changed much in that respect... it's

the aspect of these discussion groups that leaves most leading edge

researchers

working independently & quietly, while rarely if ever posting the results of

their work.

Here's the text of a recent post I made to another of the lists:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may be the key

Luigi wrote:

>> The only one I know that might have that info about my EM+ is Bruce

Stenulson so perhaps I should ask him, but I am doing well enough that I

figure

it's not really worth wasting his time.

>> Luigi

[My Response:]

Luigi,

It's good to hear that you are doing so well; obviously the way you are using

the 6C EM+ is VERY effective.

There appear to be some common misconceptions around the concepts of 'power'

versus 'effectiveness' that another researcher brought to my attention, so it

may be time to try to shed some light upon this common myth: that " more power

equals more effectiveness " . In many cases, the opposite is actually being

found

to be true.

The 6C EM+ actually may have quite a bit more 'power' than what needs to be

employed to produce optimum body response in many situations; for example,

using

a modest percentage of it's output power capability at the " 300 " power level

setting is repeatedly being reported to produce the maximum positive response,

while also producing the minimum of adverse collateral reactions.

On the 6C EM+, you can take a TriField meter in hand and back away from a

single

Resonant Plasma tube about 8 feet before the E-field reading drops from being

pegged off-scale, down to the 100,000 volts per meter E-field density reading

when the " Power Output Level " setting is set at the " 300 " level. With the

output

power set up to the maximum " 1220 " setting, you need to back away about ten

feet

(or more) from the Resonant Plasma tube before the Trifield meter's reading

drops to that same 100,000 volts per meter E-field density reading. That's a

lot

of power in the E-field. Being within 8 feet of the tube, even at this modest

Output Power Level setting, continuously produces results for users of the EM+

systems.

But the E-field reading is only a simple 'energy field density' reading, and

it

does not offer any 'qualitative' information about the characteristics of the

resonance being set up within, and radiated from, the plasma tube (/tubes).

When

run at the higher 1220 setting, there is more of a secondary 'ringing' /

damped

wave resonance present in the radiated waveforms from the plasma. While this

may

be acceptable and usable in many situations for many research subjects, there

may also be many research subjects who will in fact respond more positively to

the 'cleaner' plasma resonance that results when the power level is controlled

and the plasma resonance characteristics are optimized at intermediate power

levels.

Research subjects using the EM+ systems at the 300 Power Output Level setting

report dramatic results with a minimum of collateral reaction that are

otherwise

experienced when a higher power output level is selected. (Many times the

'collateral adverse reactions' experienced from exposure to a plasma system

with

too much input power, resulting in variations and uncontrolled plasma

resonance

characteristics, are being misinterpreted as 'healing reactions', and people

are

even being told that they are a 'good sign'.... even though while they feel

like

crap for days after an exposure, their condition remains relatively unchanged

for prolonged periods.... (What's wrong with this picture?)

So maybe this often-repeated misconception that " more power is better " needs

to

be very closely examined once more.

The body may in fact respond optimally within certain 'power windows', or more

properly 'windows of receptivity'. While the body is known to be responsive to

extremely subtle resonance influences (as evidenced by the results repeatedly

produced by the ABPA devices in use by Dr. Jeff Sutherland and many others),

it

is also known to go into a 'resistive' or self-protective made when exposed to

adverse fields or energy levels; EAV testing and various forms of body

response

testing illustrates this beyond question.

So yes, in many cases, 'more is less'... more power is paradoxically less

effective... an interesting dilemma for those who are marketing from the

standpoint that " More MUST be better!??). And the often repeated clamor of

" MORE

POWER - MORE POWER - MORE POWER! " may have misled many well-meaning

researchers,

or individuals fighting their health challenges, looking for help and hope...

Extensive reports on this subject, arising out of research done over the last

year, are being prepared, which should offer further insight. Until these

reports are completed, I'd suggest those who are interested to utilize

whatever

body response testing systems they may have available to them to investigate

this subject further.

I wish each of you the best of progress and insights in your research!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Be Well!!

Bruce

http://www.stenulson.net/althealth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> KU> Hi Mike and Lee,

>

> KU> I can't offer too much information from experience with the GB4000 and

RF, I don't have one.

>

> KU> It has commonly been spoken about, that RF is required to make the

signal

penetrate the body, better.

>

> KU> Gosh, how does one measure this ?

>

> KU> My RF plasma machine is modulated with a 250kHz (low RF square wave)

signal. It is a good machine. Using the TriField, the RF signal goes out to

about 18 inches from the tube.

>

> KU> If I put the TriField 6 inches from the light, RF at 100%, then put my

hand in-between the TriField and the plasma lamp, the RF almost goes to zero.

I

don't know if a higher RF signal like the

> KU> B/R uses would read any different?

>

> KU> My hand was obviously a shield to RF in this test.

>

> KU> From the harmonics I've seen generated with the use of RF, wow, there

are

a lot compared to straight audio. All these harmonics I would think act like a

pump, applying pressure and energy to the

> KU> signal that is transmitted to the body. As some people are sensitive to

RF, then a neat feature on the GB4000 - would be a variable RF dial. So

modulation could happen at 50kHz to 500kHz or

> KU> greater. As we turn down the RF, so does the harmonic signals reduce,

so

less RF pressure is placed on the signal, and this would give people an option

to use just a little bit of RF to assist

> KU> the audio signal. Some people may find their body responds better to a

particular level of RF, and this could be different from people to people, so

it

makes sense for a variable RF signal in a

> KU> contact pad system.

>

> KU> With plasma systems, we sit outside the measurable RF field, and from

use

with my machine, at 4 feet to 6 feet out from the tube, there is no detectible

signal. The E field is zero at around

> KU> three and a half feet. So what is doing the work? Dr Rife held the

plasma

tube very close to people, aiming the electrodes to maximize the signal

hitting

the body. People were very well in the RF

> KU> field with his method.

>

> KU> With the EMEM, we sit well in the E Field, so I have been told. The E

field from the novelty plasma lamps can go out 4 to 6 feet. Alvin tells me the

E

Field on his EM7V is 100%, 10 feet out from

> KU> the tube. This is a big signal, but there is no RF in it.

>

> KU> With contact pads, we are putting the RF directly into the body. So we

have to do this carefully I would think. I would imagine it would be much

easier

to experience RF loading from contact pads,

> KU> than by using a RF plasma system. When used with instructions, no RF

loading is noticeable on the RF plasma systems, although Bruce Stenulson has

made very important remarks about the use of

> KU> chaotic RF in the EMEM systems that use a spark plug to generate RF.

>

> KU> Regards,

> KU> Ken Uzzell.

[Guest guest]

Ken Uzzell wrote:

> Thanks Bruce,

>

> It is a real privilege when experts such as yourself, Dr Loyd and Bare

share information here.

>

> I know RF loading in the body, and have experienced it several times.

>

> My whole house is RF shielded, walls and roof, except for floors and windows.

Quite interesting when friends come over with their mobile phones, they don't

work in the house and have to go outside to use them.

>

> When I have stayed too close for too long, within the RF field my RF plasma

system generates (and this is not a spark plug chaotic signal) that I experience

RF loading, and not a herx effect.

>

>>From my experience, and on my own body, RF loading effects the upper body

tissue. The neck/skull muscles known as the occipitals, become tight, may be

more of fascia trauma binding down on these muscles. When these muscle get

restricted, they can effect the cervical artery, that is, reducing blood flow

out of the brain, which increases pressure in the brain and will produce nasty

migraine headaches that can linger for days and not be relieved by drugs. This

binding down of tissue on blood and nerve channels can easily lead to other

symptoms as you have described.

>

> Upper body tightness is also another symptom of RF loading, and not a herx

reaction.

>

> When I sit outside the RF field the plasma transmitter produces, zero loading

occurs.

>

> The novelty plasma lamp with its tiny 28kHz carrier, hasn't produced these

results at all, even when I have been exposed to 4+ hours of it. But it's only a

20 watt system and would be classified as more of a Homeopathic Energetic tool

than a powerful Rife type machine. The TriField does pick up RF out to about 8

inches from the globe, so if this plasma transmitter was used in contact mode

for long times, then may be some RF loading might manifest. I haven't

experienced this todate.

>

> I suspect one client I see may fall into the catagory of working in a dirty

noisy building, every fortnight she comes to see me and it is like she has been

sitting in a strong RF field all day at her work. I have forward her your link

about this topic that you just shared with us. All her upper body and neck

muscles have become tight and rigged, super stressed. It takes a good 2 hours of

work on her to unwind these muscles, she gets instant relief, but it soon ceases

when she goes back to work and gets stressed out again. She loves her work and

can't understand why her body gets so stressed all the time. When she is on

holidays, away from the building, no problems, no head aches and no tight and

stressed tissue in her body.

>

> Question: Would the TriField be strong enough to detect harmful RF living on

our 50/60 Hz mains power supply ? If so it would be easy to check her building

to see if it was clean or dirty.

>

> Regards,

> Ken

Ken,

Since the Tri-Field meter was designed primarily for lower frequency response as

I remember it, and it's ability to measure if very relative to the frequency

range, readings on it's meter drop off as frequencies increase (see the Alpha

Labs Website for far more complete information on this characteristic- the

response graphs relative to frequency are available there.) But since some of

the electro-pollution we are interested in is quite high, it might be also

valuable to look at the information on:

http://www.electricalpollution.com

Stetzer & Graham have offered information for setting up specific test equipment

on that web site; it's relatively simple to do.

(Incidentally, one of my cousins says that she has been benefited substantially

by installing the Graham-Stetzer 'electro-pollution filters in her home; she

teaches in one of the schools where the filters were first implemented, and

reports that it made a major difference for both staff and students.)

Be Well!!

Bruce

> Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity

may be the key

>

>

> Friends,

>

> Much of this was previously discussed over the last 8-1/2 years on the

various

> Rife lists, starting back when Hawkins owned & ran the first Rife-List

on

> Eskimo.com. Hopefully I can reiterate a few points that will help all of

those

> who were not around when much of this foundational material was first

presented

> to approach this subject from a broader perspective.

>

> Bil Green wrote:

>

> > The EMEM machines aren't designed with a default carrier wave but

> > according to Dave Jeffers (one of the more experienced engineers

> > on the Rife lists) there is a carrier, which he has verified at about

1MHz.

>

> It may be time to clarify this; unless Dave had an RF Spectrum analyzer, he

may

> have been unaware of the complete nature of the spark gap generated signal.

Yes,

> he could have detected one of the segments around 1 MHz, so I do not

question

> that aspect of the observation he reported to you.

>

> Actually, if a classic EMEM-2 with spark gap is built, there's nothing that

> looks like a " single 'carrier' at 1 MHZ " ; it's simply not that ‘clean and

it's

> grossly uncontrolled. Instead, there is wide spectrum chaotic noise spread

all

> the way up through the EM / RF spectrum- it's more like getting bathed in

> hundreds or thousands of RF signals simultaneously.

>

> But my background with a specialization in " Electronic Warfare Operations "

while

> in the military in the early 1970s made me very uneasy about what I was

> observing when doing early testing on the spark gap approach. I had

undergone

> specialized training in 1970 on the subject of ‘Antennas and Radio Wave

> Propagation', along with a lot of other classified material. I worked for

> several years in this field, doing work that was classified Top Secret,

Crypto;

> much of it may still be classified today, so I have not mentioned much of

this

> in the past, and will not now. But it placed me in an ‘interesting' and

possibly

> rather unique perspective as to the nature and uses of RF, as well as

potential

> hazards.

>

> When I was first investigating the claims about the ‘benefits " of, and

‘need'

> for a spark gap in the EMEM-2 back in 1997 and 1998, some of the things

that

> were being claimed did not make sense from the perspective of this

background.

> After close to nine years of further research and development, those claims

make

> even less sense to me today.

>

> When I set up the tests, I could hear these spark gap generated noise

signals in

> multiple places on several radio receivers. Including on both the AM & FM

radio

> transmission bands. But my background in Electronic Warfare Operations made

me

> very uneasy about what I was observing. So I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum

Analyzer

> - equipment I had previously worked with but not needed since leaving the

> military- in order to really see what was going on... and I was quite

> uncomfortable about what I was seeing.

>

> >BG This may explain, at least in part, why the energy from EMEMs penetrate

so

> well.

>

> OH, yes, RF signals can penetrate; the Russians used their understanding of

> these principles back during the cold war to constantly bombard the

listening

> post personnel in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with RF - RF which they new

would

> be damaging to the personnel spying on them. If you research this, you will

find

> that an incredibly high percentage of those U.S. listening post personnel

came

> down with major health problems and an incredibly high incidence of

cancers...

> and at the time, The U.S. personnel were so far behind the Russians in

> understanding this aspect of the research on biological effects of RF, that

they

> did not even recognize the hazards of the signals with which they were being

> intentionally bombarded... they simply had no knowledge of or training in

this

> aspect of RF usage. It wasn't until after the collapse of the Soviet Union

that

> this became known, and I expect that some aspects of that type of

" Electronic

> Warfare " were never disclosed...

>

> Stetzer and Graham have provided extensive information on how the Electrical

> Pollution that permeates our living and working environments today has an

> insidious and continuous stressor effect on our health; if you have not

already

> done so, you really need to expand your perspective with the information

that is

> available at:

>

> http://www.electricalpollution.com/

>

> Plasma Resonance, if properly generated and optimized, simply DOES NOT NEED

an

> RF carrier in order to penetrate or reach out...In fact, extensive testing

by

> many researchers using the EM+ systems way back in 1999 and 2000 demonstrate

> that the opposite is true... that on a dynamic resonant radiant plasma

system,

> adding a spark-gap-generated broad spectrum chaotic noise signal was

observed to

> REDUCE effectiveness, slow research subject response, and result in far more

> intense ‘adverse collateral reactions' (commonly also mistakenly referred to

as

> ‘herx' reactions.) I've already previously offered information on

individuals

> who's challenged health state was substantially worsened by exposures to

> machines with spark gaps; I keep receiving reports that this is still

ongoing

> today. Many still fail to write up reports of their adverse experiences,

> however, so most casual researchers remain unaware of how widespread these

> adverse reactions might really be.

>

> So from my perspective, statements that RF is ‘necessary' reveal a simple

lack

> of understanding of the nature of the magnetic component of the Resonant

Radiant

> Plasma Dynamics. I posted information on these research observations many

times

> over the last 8-1/2 years, so it should not come as news to those who have

been

> around.

>

> And the really sad aspect is that, if an RF carrier might want to be

employed in

> order to test the body response to it's presence, the extremely chaotic

> uncontrolled noise signal which a crude spark gap generates should be the

last

> type of signal to which a cautious researcher would want to expose

themselves.

> Body response testing techniques (kinesiology, EAV, etc.) can be used to

best

> evaluate how subjects are affected- hopefully this is done long before a

> deteriorating electro-sensitivity condition becomes obvious. Because once an

> advanced electro-sensitivity reaction of the body is obvious, the body's

> energetic system may have become so sensitized and it's previous resistance

and

> resilience so compromised that it may take many months - or even years- to

> recover to the point where they can resume leading something approaching a

> ‘normal life'. For further insight, you might want to read Bill McCallum's

> report on the Electro-Sensitivity discussion page on The Alternative Health

> Approaches Forum:

>

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

>

>

> Jeff Garff offers a low amplitude level 2.4 MHz carrier on his GB4000

contact

> pad machine, and was insightful enough to also include a switch so that

> researchers can easily shut it off completely- [much as I did when I added

the

> bypass switch to the adjustable spark gaps which were still built in, and

> available to researchers for testing in the early EMEM2+ and EMEM3+ systems

back

> in 1998 and early 1999.]

>

> Neuromancer has offered the results of his extensive work with a wide

spectrum

> of research subjects while working with the GB4000, and has reported that

> virtually all of them responded better when the 2.4 MHz carrier was disabled

/

> shut off. This is further food for thought, which should provoke interested

> researchers to pursue this line of investigation further.

>

> Jeff Sutherland has shared his techniques for programming the F125 or F165

to

> generate what he refers to as ‘scalar harmonics'; this is a ‘background

> frequency' which is mathematically derived form the primary frequency, is

run

> simultaneously to enhance the body's receptiveness to the primary

frequencies

> being sequenced in a given session. On the F165, two scalar harmonics can

be

> programmed; (on the F125, only one scalar harmonic can be programmed.)

>

> The unique aspect of this approach is that the ‘background frequency /

scalar

> harmonic' continuously changes at the primary frequency changes, to maintain

> it's scalar harmonic relationship to the primary frequency, and thereby

insure

> that it is supportive, rather than possibly acting as a disruptive aspect.

When

> such programs are input into the 6C EM+ system which he uses in some of his

> work, he reports that this combined primary and dual scalar resonances are

> induced into research subjects very effectively. Dr. Sutherland recommends

the

> F165 for this reason over the F125.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> [it's curious, however, that we have also been told by makers and advocates

of

> the classic EMEM-2 on more than one recent occasion that those systems and

their

> derivatives which have been built by various researchers are found to become

> 'ineffective' when the spark gap becomes fouled and their radiated RF chaos

> noise signal ceases to be broadcast... the tube is still lighting up, but

the

> system is 'ineffective'.... so from these reports we also know that it's

> possible that 'the light is on, but nobody's home'... very curious

indeed...]

>

> Back in the late 1990s, while in the process of studying the characteristics

and

> dispersion patterns of RF noise signals radiating from the spark gap, using

> equipment including the H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer which I bought at that

time -

> (special equipment which I had not expected to use again after leaving my

> position as an " Electronics Warfare Specialist " for the military back in the

> early 1970s) I learned several interesting and troubling things.

>

> On of the mots troubling that came to light during this research was that

the

> spark gap generated signal was cleaner and less chaotic / less noisy, and

that

> the primary drive frequency could actually be heard as modulation on my

various

> radio receivers across the spectrum, ONLY when the spark gap was barely

open. As

> I opened the specially calibrated adjustable spark gap which I was using in

my

> research wider, the broad spectrum noise became progressively 'dirtier' and

> dominant- the majority of the high voltage energy was going into the chaotic

> noise signal portions... The result? The pure clean tone of the plasma

> resonance (which was present when the spark gap was closed) had virtually

> disappeared, overwhelmed in all of this chaotic noise.... For all practical

> purposes, the primary frequency was not even there once the spark gap was

opened

> too far.

>

> I was curious about the disappearance of the primary frequency, so I

> investigated this further, and found that with the spark gap firing beyond a

> minimal opening, the unprotected / unshielded electronic circuit of the

EMEM-2

> design was directly receiving so much EM/RF interference from the spark gap

that

> it could not even generate the correct signal... The circuit's function was

> disrupted, the primary frequency was obliterated, and nothing but the broad

> spectrum chaotic noise signal remained....

>

>

> Despite all of the advances in the collective understandings of leading edge

> researchers, resulting in the virtual re-writing of the paradigms being

> implemented on the leading edge of induced resonance research, there's still

a

> lot of people that are repeating 1995 ideas as if they were ‘sacred cows'...

>

> >BG Not everything is as it appears. People say that the

> > zappers work very well, but with only a 30kHz (and very weak)

> > signal you wouldn't expect them to.

>

> Expectations can be a subtle but effective trap to let yourself slip into;

> until you observe the higher harmonics which they generate within the body,

much

> of the picture is simply missing.

>

> >BG So you can go cheap and still get good results. I say, Beck BE

> > and EMEM at the very least (and a very simple, cheap one-coil

> > EMEM if that's all you can afford, as long as you use the Full

> > contact mode).

>

> It's actually now becoming even more obvious- that not all systems which can

> light up a plasma tube are the same... and I've already recently pointed out

> that in terms of ‘body response' and ‘effectiveness', Quality, not Quantity

may

> be the key to optimum results with the minimum of adverse collateral

reactions.

> That's where the title of this thread started, after all.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Here's the content of a recent posting to the Lyme & Rife Yahoo Group:

>

> gloria_shell wrote:

>

> > I recently started treatment for Lyme with an EMEM5, and for the third

time I

> got horrific migraines as a herx. Migraines that are 100 times worse than

> usual, where my head is about to explode. I can't lie down, because the

> pressure hurts too much. And it takes a ton of pain and migraine meds to

even

> begin to alleviate it. How do I avoid this next time?? I do lots of coffee

> enemas and other cleansing (colon, liver, GB, etc.). I do ozone

insufflations

> and drink ozonated water. Help! What can I do? It feels like I need to do

> something to specificially address the neurotoxins in the brain, but how?

It

> feels like someone blew my head up like a balloon. Thank you for any

suggestions.

> >

> > Gloria

>

>

> Gloria & friends,

>

> People with Lyme disease also commonly have, or very easily and quickly can

> develop severe reactions to chemical and electromagnetic pollution from a

wide

> variety of sources. Our living environments today are already saturated with

> electromagnetic pollution, which has the effect of being a cumulative health

> stressor factor; adding a bit more of the wrong thing can then be " The Straw

> That Broke The Camel's Back " .

>

> For some excellent information on the ever-pervasive " Electromagnetic

Pollution "

> that can permeate the environment in which you live, and for reasonable

costing

> solutions that people are implementing, visit:

>

> http://www.electromagneticpollution.com

>

> Unfortunately, when you actually understand how much of a health stressor

factor

> and destabilizing influence this electromagnetic noise and pollution can be

for

> people already facing health challenges, you also begin to develop an

insight as

> to how some of the operational aspects of equipment being offered to

researchers

> today can in fact have devastating effects on the unknowing experimenters

who

> might use it, hoping to regain their health.

>

> For some people attempting to use some of the equipment being advocated on

this

> list & others, it can be very damaging, and can rapidly lead to worsening

> environmental sensitivities, as well as resulting in substantially reduced

> resistance to other stressor factors already present in their living

environment.

>

> If you run a frequency sequence, and a day or two later you notice a slight

> aching in your kidneys, you might realisticly interpret it as giving them

more

> of a job to do. If you run frequencies effectively for certain parasites,

and

> you experience a loosening of your stools or even diahrea soon thereafter,

and

> find any of the parasites in the stools upon examination, then you can

interpret

> that as a result of affectively using the right resonances to produce those

results.

>

> But if being near a device produces brain fog, severe headaches, or

migraines

> quickly, you need to also be aware that Electrosensitivity reactions alone

can

> produce these problems.

>

> While it is said that the Boriella will spew out some toxins when threatened

/

> challenged, which can make you feel bad, consider carefully that the

headaches,

> brain fog, and other severe adverse reactions may possibly have little or

> nothing to do with actually killing off unwanted microorganisms in any

effective

> manner. And also consider that making yourself feel really crappy week after

> week with experimental equipment may NOT be any reliable indication that you

are

> making any progress in actually eliminating the microorganisms that you

think

> you are targeting.

>

> (Oh, yes, I'm aware that from the viewpoint of the advocates of some

> experimental approaches, this is bordering on unspeakable heresy ... but

every

> now and then, serving up a substantial helping of 'roasted sacred cow' may

be

> just what's really needed to keep the open discussion of this research

> healthy... :>)

>

> [The image of three monkeys sitting on a log, with the first one covering

it's

> eyes, the second one covering it's ears, and the third one covering it's

mouth,

> with the caption " See No Evil, " Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil " , should never

be

> considered as an appropriate header logo for any forum such as this. It

> certainly does not serve the interests of hopeful individuals who are trying

to

> deal with serious health challenges, who need ALL of the facts... not just

the

> ones that seem to 'Tell A Good Story' from some individual's viewpoint.... ]

>

> So to return to the point where I started: everyone needs to keep in mind

that

> many 'adverse reactions may really have little or no relationship to " herx "

> reactions, but are better understood to be " Adverse Reactions " , or " Adverse

> Collateral Reactions " - they are your body's reaction to let you know of it's

> inability to tolerate the destabilizing effects of either environmental

> pollution in various forms, or aspects of certain equipment's eminations.

>

> A web page that's been up on my web site for many years, cautioning

> experimenters to such hazards, is here:

>

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

>

> I began trying to educate people about this aspect of the design and

operation

> of experimental Resonant Radiant Plasma frequency research equipment back

in

> 1997 and 1998. I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer (kinda pricey!) to

pursue

> the research in greater depth, because I needed to know what aspects of

Resonant

> Radiant Plasma system operation was capable of aggravating my own extensive

> Electro-Sensitivity.

>

> I had serious health challenges, and while the high frequency adjustable

contact

> pad devices had been helpful with some aspects, I was still gradually

loosing

> ground until I began development of the Plasma Resonance systems. I wanted -

on,

> I really NEEDED to develop my own understanding of how Optimum Plasma

Resonance

> could actually be achieved, while minimizing or eliminating the operational

> aspects which were responsible for my own rapid adverse reactions: as when

spark

> gaps were used, or when plasma drive voltage or power levels exceeded the

body's

> 'optimum response window'. I was my own best 'Guinea Pig', and I tested

> everything thoroughly on myself before I ever released it to other

researchers...

>

> The fans of certain 'sacred cows' were not necessarily receptive then, and

that

> aspect of this field of research has not changed much in that respect...

it's

> the aspect of these discussion groups that leaves most leading edge

researchers

> working independently & quietly, while rarely if ever posting the results of

> their work.

>

> Here's the text of a recent post I made to another of the lists:

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may be the key

>

> Luigi wrote:

>

> >> The only one I know that might have that info about my EM+ is Bruce

> Stenulson so perhaps I should ask him, but I am doing well enough that I

figure

> it's not really worth wasting his time.

> >> Luigi

>

>

> [My Response:]

>

> Luigi,

>

> It's good to hear that you are doing so well; obviously the way you are

using

> the 6C EM+ is VERY effective.

>

> There appear to be some common misconceptions around the concepts of 'power'

> versus 'effectiveness' that another researcher brought to my attention, so

it

> may be time to try to shed some light upon this common myth: that " more

power

> equals more effectiveness " . In many cases, the opposite is actually being

found

> to be true.

>

> The 6C EM+ actually may have quite a bit more 'power' than what needs to be

> employed to produce optimum body response in many situations; for example,

using

> a modest percentage of it's output power capability at the " 300 " power level

> setting is repeatedly being reported to produce the maximum positive

response,

> while also producing the minimum of adverse collateral reactions.

>

> On the 6C EM+, you can take a TriField meter in hand and back away from a

single

> Resonant Plasma tube about 8 feet before the E-field reading drops from

being

> pegged off-scale, down to the 100,000 volts per meter E-field density

reading

> when the " Power Output Level " setting is set at the " 300 " level. With the

output

> power set up to the maximum " 1220 " setting, you need to back away about ten

feet

> (or more) from the Resonant Plasma tube before the Trifield meter's reading

> drops to that same 100,000 volts per meter E-field density reading. That's a

lot

> of power in the E-field. Being within 8 feet of the tube, even at this

modest

> Output Power Level setting, continuously produces results for users of the

EM+

> systems.

>

> But the E-field reading is only a simple 'energy field density' reading, and

it

> does not offer any 'qualitative' information about the characteristics of

the

> resonance being set up within, and radiated from, the plasma tube (/tubes).

When

> run at the higher 1220 setting, there is more of a secondary 'ringing' /

damped

> wave resonance present in the radiated waveforms from the plasma. While this

may

> be acceptable and usable in many situations for many research subjects,

there

> may also be many research subjects who will in fact respond more positively

to

> the 'cleaner' plasma resonance that results when the power level is

controlled

> and the plasma resonance characteristics are optimized at intermediate power

levels.

>

> Research subjects using the EM+ systems at the 300 Power Output Level

setting

> report dramatic results with a minimum of collateral reaction that are

otherwise

> experienced when a higher power output level is selected. (Many times the

> 'collateral adverse reactions' experienced from exposure to a plasma system

with

> too much input power, resulting in variations and uncontrolled plasma

resonance

> characteristics, are being misinterpreted as 'healing reactions', and people

are

> even being told that they are a 'good sign'.... even though while they feel

like

> crap for days after an exposure, their condition remains relatively

unchanged

> for prolonged periods.... (What's wrong with this picture?)

>

> So maybe this often-repeated misconception that " more power is better " needs

to

> be very closely examined once more.

>

> The body may in fact respond optimally within certain 'power windows', or

more

> properly 'windows of receptivity'. While the body is known to be responsive

to

> extremely subtle resonance influences (as evidenced by the results

repeatedly

> produced by the ABPA devices in use by Dr. Jeff Sutherland and many others),

it

> is also known to go into a 'resistive' or self-protective made when exposed

to

> adverse fields or energy levels; EAV testing and various forms of body

response

> testing illustrates this beyond question.

>

> So yes, in many cases, 'more is less'... more power is paradoxically less

> effective... an interesting dilemma for those who are marketing from the

> standpoint that " More MUST be better!??). And the often repeated clamor of

" MORE

> POWER - MORE POWER - MORE POWER! " may have misled many well-meaning

researchers,

> or individuals fighting their health challenges, looking for help and

hope...

>

> Extensive reports on this subject, arising out of research done over the

last

> year, are being prepared, which should offer further insight. Until these

> reports are completed, I'd suggest those who are interested to utilize

whatever

> body response testing systems they may have available to them to investigate

> this subject further.

>

> I wish each of you the best of progress and insights in your research!

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Be Well!!

>

> Bruce

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> > KU> Hi Mike and Lee,

> >

> > KU> I can't offer too much information from experience with the GB4000

and

> RF, I don't have one.

> >

> > KU> It has commonly been spoken about, that RF is required to make the

signal

> penetrate the body, better.

> >

> > KU> Gosh, how does one measure this ?

> >

> > KU> My RF plasma machine is modulated with a 250kHz (low RF square wave)

> signal. It is a good machine. Using the TriField, the RF signal goes out to

> about 18 inches from the tube.

> >

> > KU> If I put the TriField 6 inches from the light, RF at 100%, then put

my

> hand in-between the TriField and the plasma lamp, the RF almost goes to

zero. I

> don't know if a higher RF signal like the

> > KU> B/R uses would read any different?

> >

> > KU> My hand was obviously a shield to RF in this test.

> >

> > KU> From the harmonics I've seen generated with the use of RF, wow, there

are

> a lot compared to straight audio. All these harmonics I would think act like

a

> pump, applying pressure and energy to the

> > KU> signal that is transmitted to the body. As some people are sensitive

to

> RF, then a neat feature on the GB4000 - would be a variable RF dial. So

> modulation could happen at 50kHz to 500kHz or

> > KU> greater. As we turn down the RF, so does the harmonic signals reduce,

so

> less RF pressure is placed on the signal, and this would give people an

option

> to use just a little bit of RF to assist

> > KU> the audio signal. Some people may find their body responds better to

a

> particular level of RF, and this could be different from people to people,

so it

> makes sense for a variable RF signal in a

> > KU> contact pad system.

> >

> > KU> With plasma systems, we sit outside the measurable RF field, and from

use

> with my machine, at 4 feet to 6 feet out from the tube, there is no

detectible

> signal. The E field is zero at around

> > KU> three and a half feet. So what is doing the work? Dr Rife held the

plasma

> tube very close to people, aiming the electrodes to maximize the signal

hitting

> the body. People were very well in the RF

> > KU> field with his method.

> >

> > KU> With the EMEM, we sit well in the E Field, so I have been told. The E

> field from the novelty plasma lamps can go out 4 to 6 feet. Alvin tells me

the E

> Field on his EM7V is 100%, 10 feet out from

> > KU> the tube. This is a big signal, but there is no RF in it.

> >

> > KU> With contact pads, we are putting the RF directly into the body. So

we

> have to do this carefully I would think. I would imagine it would be much

easier

> to experience RF loading from contact pads,

> > KU> than by using a RF plasma system. When used with instructions, no RF

> loading is noticeable on the RF plasma systems, although Bruce Stenulson has

> made very important remarks about the use of

> > KU> chaotic RF in the EMEM systems that use a spark plug to generate RF.

> >

> > KU> Regards,

> > KU> Ken Uzzell.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,

the symptoms described are very normal for exposure to pulsed high frequency

radiation of mobile phones. phone masts, cordless phones according the DECT

principle and wireless modem/routers for the internet.

A lot of this stuff is used in offices.

Another cause for those symptoms may be electrical and magnetic AC fields,

around electrical appliances.

And, of course, we have the disturbances in the VLF region, from 5 kHz up to

150 kHz, which may be in de mains electricity network and coming from

outside, as well as mabe by the inhabitants by themselves through halogen

lights, transformers for fluorescent lighting, etc. (Here the Stetzer filtes

can help).

I use this special meter, which only checks the situation inside the

wallsocket. On top of that I have a special VLF meter, with a telecopic

antenna, with which I measure *in the air*, so I can find the sources.

Many people think, that a Trifield meter measures everything, but that is

not the case.

For detection, there are other meters around.

Regarding the HF radiation, I have found, that people (with a certain

history) exposed to 200-2.000 uW/m2 may become electrosensible.

But, when they have become so, they may already react at exposures starting

at 1 uW/m2; some already react at 0,1 uW/m2.

I have also found, that electrosensibles feel much weaker signals, and even

at greater distances.

So it is quite possible, that electrosensibles pick up the radiation from

the globe, not at 8 inches, but even from a few meters away.

Greetings,

Claessens

member Verband Baubiologie

www.milieuziektes.nl

www.milieuziektes.be

www.hetbitje.nl

checked by Norton Antivirus

Re: Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not

> Quantity may be the key

>

>

> Friends,

>

> Much of this was previously discussed over the last 8-1/2 years on the

> various

> Rife lists, starting back when Hawkins owned & ran the first

> Rife-List on

> Eskimo.com. Hopefully I can reiterate a few points that will help all of

> those

> who were not around when much of this foundational material was first

> presented

> to approach this subject from a broader perspective.

>

> Bil Green wrote:

>

> > The EMEM machines aren't designed with a default carrier wave but

> > according to Dave Jeffers (one of the more experienced engineers

> > on the Rife lists) there is a carrier, which he has verified at about

> 1MHz.

>

> It may be time to clarify this; unless Dave had an RF Spectrum analyzer,

> he may

> have been unaware of the complete nature of the spark gap generated

> signal. Yes,

> he could have detected one of the segments around 1 MHz, so I do not

> question

> that aspect of the observation he reported to you.

>

> Actually, if a classic EMEM-2 with spark gap is built, there's nothing

> that

> looks like a " single 'carrier' at 1 MHZ " ; it's simply not that ‘clean

> and it's

> grossly uncontrolled. Instead, there is wide spectrum chaotic noise

> spread all

> the way up through the EM / RF spectrum- it's more like getting bathed

> in

> hundreds or thousands of RF signals simultaneously.

>

> But my background with a specialization in " Electronic Warfare

> Operations " while

> in the military in the early 1970s made me very uneasy about what I was

> observing when doing early testing on the spark gap approach. I had

> undergone

> specialized training in 1970 on the subject of ‘Antennas and Radio Wave

> Propagation', along with a lot of other classified material. I worked

> for

> several years in this field, doing work that was classified Top Secret,

> Crypto;

> much of it may still be classified today, so I have not mentioned much

> of this

> in the past, and will not now. But it placed me in an ‘interesting' and

> possibly

> rather unique perspective as to the nature and uses of RF, as well as

> potential

> hazards.

>

> When I was first investigating the claims about the ‘benefits " of, and

> ‘need'

> for a spark gap in the EMEM-2 back in 1997 and 1998, some of the things

> that

> were being claimed did not make sense from the perspective of this

> background.

> After close to nine years of further research and development, those

> claims make

> even less sense to me today.

>

> When I set up the tests, I could hear these spark gap generated noise

> signals in

> multiple places on several radio receivers. Including on both the AM &

> FM radio

> transmission bands. But my background in Electronic Warfare Operations

> made me

> very uneasy about what I was observing. So I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum

> Analyzer

> - equipment I had previously worked with but not needed since leaving

> the

> military- in order to really see what was going on... and I was quite

> uncomfortable about what I was seeing.

>

> >BG This may explain, at least in part, why the energy from EMEMs

> penetrate so

> well.

>

> OH, yes, RF signals can penetrate; the Russians used their understanding

> of

> these principles back during the cold war to constantly bombard the

> listening

> post personnel in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with RF - RF which they new

> would

> be damaging to the personnel spying on them. If you research this, you

> will find

> that an incredibly high percentage of those U.S. listening post

> personnel came

> down with major health problems and an incredibly high incidence of

> cancers...

> and at the time, The U.S. personnel were so far behind the Russians in

> understanding this aspect of the research on biological effects of RF,

> that they

> did not even recognize the hazards of the signals with which they were

> being

> intentionally bombarded... they simply had no knowledge of or training

> in this

> aspect of RF usage. It wasn't until after the collapse of the Soviet

> Union that

> this became known, and I expect that some aspects of that type of

> " Electronic

> Warfare " were never disclosed...

>

> Stetzer and Graham have provided extensive information on how the

> Electrical

> Pollution that permeates our living and working environments today has

> an

> insidious and continuous stressor effect on our health; if you have not

> already

> done so, you really need to expand your perspective with the information

> that is

> available at:

>

> http://www.electricalpollution.com/

>

> Plasma Resonance, if properly generated and optimized, simply DOES NOT

> NEED an

> RF carrier in order to penetrate or reach out...In fact, extensive

> testing by

> many researchers using the EM+ systems way back in 1999 and 2000

> demonstrate

> that the opposite is true... that on a dynamic resonant radiant plasma

> system,

> adding a spark-gap-generated broad spectrum chaotic noise signal was

> observed to

> REDUCE effectiveness, slow research subject response, and result in far

> more

> intense ‘adverse collateral reactions' (commonly also mistakenly

> referred to as

> ‘herx' reactions.) I've already previously offered information on

> individuals

> who's challenged health state was substantially worsened by exposures to

> machines with spark gaps; I keep receiving reports that this is still

> ongoing

> today. Many still fail to write up reports of their adverse experiences,

> however, so most casual researchers remain unaware of how widespread

> these

> adverse reactions might really be.

>

> So from my perspective, statements that RF is ‘necessary' reveal a

> simple lack

> of understanding of the nature of the magnetic component of the Resonant

> Radiant

> Plasma Dynamics. I posted information on these research observations

> many times

> over the last 8-1/2 years, so it should not come as news to those who

> have been

> around.

>

> And the really sad aspect is that, if an RF carrier might want to be

> employed in

> order to test the body response to it's presence, the extremely chaotic

> uncontrolled noise signal which a crude spark gap generates should be

> the last

> type of signal to which a cautious researcher would want to expose

> themselves.

> Body response testing techniques (kinesiology, EAV, etc.) can be used to

> best

> evaluate how subjects are affected- hopefully this is done long before a

> deteriorating electro-sensitivity condition becomes obvious. Because

> once an

> advanced electro-sensitivity reaction of the body is obvious, the body's

> energetic system may have become so sensitized and it's previous

> resistance and

> resilience so compromised that it may take many months - or even years-

> to

> recover to the point where they can resume leading something approaching

> a

> ‘normal life'. For further insight, you might want to read Bill

> McCallum's

> report on the Electro-Sensitivity discussion page on The Alternative

> Health

> Approaches Forum:

>

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

>

>

> Jeff Garff offers a low amplitude level 2.4 MHz carrier on his GB4000

> contact

> pad machine, and was insightful enough to also include a switch so that

> researchers can easily shut it off completely- [much as I did when I

> added the

> bypass switch to the adjustable spark gaps which were still built in,

> and

> available to researchers for testing in the early EMEM2+ and EMEM3+

> systems back

> in 1998 and early 1999.]

>

> Neuromancer has offered the results of his extensive work with a wide

> spectrum

> of research subjects while working with the GB4000, and has reported

> that

> virtually all of them responded better when the 2.4 MHz carrier was

> disabled /

> shut off. This is further food for thought, which should provoke

> interested

> researchers to pursue this line of investigation further.

>

> Jeff Sutherland has shared his techniques for programming the F125 or

> F165 to

> generate what he refers to as ‘scalar harmonics'; this is a ‘background

> frequency' which is mathematically derived form the primary frequency,

> is run

> simultaneously to enhance the body's receptiveness to the primary

> frequencies

> being sequenced in a given session. On the F165, two scalar harmonics

> can be

> programmed; (on the F125, only one scalar harmonic can be programmed.)

>

> The unique aspect of this approach is that the ‘background frequency /

> scalar

> harmonic' continuously changes at the primary frequency changes, to

> maintain

> it's scalar harmonic relationship to the primary frequency, and thereby

> insure

> that it is supportive, rather than possibly acting as a disruptive

> aspect. When

> such programs are input into the 6C EM+ system which he uses in some of

> his

> work, he reports that this combined primary and dual scalar resonances

> are

> induced into research subjects very effectively. Dr. Sutherland

> recommends the

> F165 for this reason over the F125.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> [it's curious, however, that we have also been told by makers and

> advocates of

> the classic EMEM-2 on more than one recent occasion that those systems

> and their

> derivatives which have been built by various researchers are found to

> become

> 'ineffective' when the spark gap becomes fouled and their radiated RF

> chaos

> noise signal ceases to be broadcast... the tube is still lighting up,

> but the

> system is 'ineffective'.... so from these reports we also know that it's

> possible that 'the light is on, but nobody's home'... very curious

> indeed...]

>

> Back in the late 1990s, while in the process of studying the

> characteristics and

> dispersion patterns of RF noise signals radiating from the spark gap,

> using

> equipment including the H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer which I bought at that

> time -

> (special equipment which I had not expected to use again after leaving

> my

> position as an " Electronics Warfare Specialist " for the military back in

> the

> early 1970s) I learned several interesting and troubling things.

>

> On of the mots troubling that came to light during this research was

> that the

> spark gap generated signal was cleaner and less chaotic / less noisy,

> and that

> the primary drive frequency could actually be heard as modulation on my

> various

> radio receivers across the spectrum, ONLY when the spark gap was barely

> open. As

> I opened the specially calibrated adjustable spark gap which I was using

> in my

> research wider, the broad spectrum noise became progressively 'dirtier'

> and

> dominant- the majority of the high voltage energy was going into the

> chaotic

> noise signal portions... The result? The pure clean tone of the plasma

> resonance (which was present when the spark gap was closed) had

> virtually

> disappeared, overwhelmed in all of this chaotic noise.... For all

> practical

> purposes, the primary frequency was not even there once the spark gap

> was opened

> too far.

>

> I was curious about the disappearance of the primary frequency, so I

> investigated this further, and found that with the spark gap firing

> beyond a

> minimal opening, the unprotected / unshielded electronic circuit of the

> EMEM-2

> design was directly receiving so much EM/RF interference from the spark

> gap that

> it could not even generate the correct signal... The circuit's function

> was

> disrupted, the primary frequency was obliterated, and nothing but the

> broad

> spectrum chaotic noise signal remained....

>

>

> Despite all of the advances in the collective understandings of leading

> edge

> researchers, resulting in the virtual re-writing of the paradigms being

> implemented on the leading edge of induced resonance research, there's

> still a

> lot of people that are repeating 1995 ideas as if they were ‘sacred

> cows'...

>

> >BG Not everything is as it appears. People say that the

> > zappers work very well, but with only a 30kHz (and very weak)

> > signal you wouldn't expect them to.

>

> Expectations can be a subtle but effective trap to let yourself slip

> into;

> until you observe the higher harmonics which they generate within the

> body, much

> of the picture is simply missing.

>

> >BG So you can go cheap and still get good results. I say, Beck BE

> > and EMEM at the very least (and a very simple, cheap one-coil

> > EMEM if that's all you can afford, as long as you use the Full

> > contact mode).

>

> It's actually now becoming even more obvious- that not all systems which

> can

> light up a plasma tube are the same... and I've already recently pointed

> out

> that in terms of ‘body response' and ‘effectiveness', Quality, not

> Quantity may

> be the key to optimum results with the minimum of adverse collateral

> reactions.

> That's where the title of this thread started, after all.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Here's the content of a recent posting to the Lyme & Rife Yahoo Group:

>

> gloria_shell wrote:

>

> > I recently started treatment for Lyme with an EMEM5, and for the

> third time I

> got horrific migraines as a herx. Migraines that are 100 times worse

> than

> usual, where my head is about to explode. I can't lie down, because the

> pressure hurts too much. And it takes a ton of pain and migraine meds

> to even

> begin to alleviate it. How do I avoid this next time?? I do lots of

> coffee

> enemas and other cleansing (colon, liver, GB, etc.). I do ozone

> insufflations

> and drink ozonated water. Help! What can I do? It feels like I need

> to do

> something to specificially address the neurotoxins in the brain, but

> how? It

> feels like someone blew my head up like a balloon. Thank you for any

> suggestions.

> >

> > Gloria

>

>

> Gloria & friends,

>

> People with Lyme disease also commonly have, or very easily and quickly

> can

> develop severe reactions to chemical and electromagnetic pollution from

> a wide

> variety of sources. Our living environments today are already saturated

> with

> electromagnetic pollution, which has the effect of being a cumulative

> health

> stressor factor; adding a bit more of the wrong thing can then be " The

> Straw

> That Broke The Camel's Back " .

>

> For some excellent information on the ever-pervasive " Electromagnetic

> Pollution "

> that can permeate the environment in which you live, and for reasonable

> costing

> solutions that people are implementing, visit:

>

> http://www.electromagneticpollution.com

>

> Unfortunately, when you actually understand how much of a health

> stressor factor

> and destabilizing influence this electromagnetic noise and pollution can

> be for

> people already facing health challenges, you also begin to develop an

> insight as

> to how some of the operational aspects of equipment being offered to

> researchers

> today can in fact have devastating effects on the unknowing

> experimenters who

> might use it, hoping to regain their health.

>

> For some people attempting to use some of the equipment being advocated

> on this

> list & others, it can be very damaging, and can rapidly lead to

> worsening

> environmental sensitivities, as well as resulting in substantially

> reduced

> resistance to other stressor factors already present in their living

> environment.

>

> If you run a frequency sequence, and a day or two later you notice a

> slight

> aching in your kidneys, you might realisticly interpret it as giving

> them more

> of a job to do. If you run frequencies effectively for certain

> parasites, and

> you experience a loosening of your stools or even diahrea soon

> thereafter, and

> find any of the parasites in the stools upon examination, then you can

> interpret

> that as a result of affectively using the right resonances to produce

> those results.

>

> But if being near a device produces brain fog, severe headaches, or

> migraines

> quickly, you need to also be aware that Electrosensitivity reactions

> alone can

> produce these problems.

>

> While it is said that the Boriella will spew out some toxins when

> threatened /

> challenged, which can make you feel bad, consider carefully that the

> headaches,

> brain fog, and other severe adverse reactions may possibly have little

> or

> nothing to do with actually killing off unwanted microorganisms in any

> effective

> manner. And also consider that making yourself feel really crappy week

> after

> week with experimental equipment may NOT be any reliable indication that

> you are

> making any progress in actually eliminating the microorganisms that you

> think

> you are targeting.

>

> (Oh, yes, I'm aware that from the viewpoint of the advocates of some

> experimental approaches, this is bordering on unspeakable heresy ... but

> every

> now and then, serving up a substantial helping of 'roasted sacred cow'

> may be

> just what's really needed to keep the open discussion of this research

> healthy... :>)

>

> [The image of three monkeys sitting on a log, with the first one

> covering it's

> eyes, the second one covering it's ears, and the third one covering it's

> mouth,

> with the caption " See No Evil, " Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil " , should

> never be

> considered as an appropriate header logo for any forum such as this. It

> certainly does not serve the interests of hopeful individuals who are

> trying to

> deal with serious health challenges, who need ALL of the facts... not

> just the

> ones that seem to 'Tell A Good Story' from some individual's

> viewpoint.... ]

>

> So to return to the point where I started: everyone needs to keep in

> mind that

> many 'adverse reactions may really have little or no relationship to

> " herx "

> reactions, but are better understood to be " Adverse Reactions " , or

> " Adverse

> Collateral Reactions " - they are your body's reaction to let you know of

> it's

> inability to tolerate the destabilizing effects of either environmental

> pollution in various forms, or aspects of certain equipment's

> eminations.

>

> A web page that's been up on my web site for many years, cautioning

> experimenters to such hazards, is here:

>

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth/es-disc.htm

>

> I began trying to educate people about this aspect of the design and

> operation

> of experimental Resonant Radiant Plasma frequency research equipment

> back in

> 1997 and 1998. I bought an H.P. RF Spectrum Analyzer (kinda pricey!) to

> pursue

> the research in greater depth, because I needed to know what aspects of

> Resonant

> Radiant Plasma system operation was capable of aggravating my own

> extensive

> Electro-Sensitivity.

>

> I had serious health challenges, and while the high frequency adjustable

> contact

> pad devices had been helpful with some aspects, I was still gradually

> loosing

> ground until I began development of the Plasma Resonance systems. I

> wanted - on,

> I really NEEDED to develop my own understanding of how Optimum Plasma

> Resonance

> could actually be achieved, while minimizing or eliminating the

> operational

> aspects which were responsible for my own rapid adverse reactions: as

> when spark

> gaps were used, or when plasma drive voltage or power levels exceeded

> the body's

> 'optimum response window'. I was my own best 'Guinea Pig', and I tested

> everything thoroughly on myself before I ever released it to other

> researchers...

>

> The fans of certain 'sacred cows' were not necessarily receptive then,

> and that

> aspect of this field of research has not changed much in that respect...

> it's

> the aspect of these discussion groups that leaves most leading edge

> researchers

> working independently & quietly, while rarely if ever posting the

> results of

> their work.

>

> Here's the text of a recent post I made to another of the lists:

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> machine and how it works...? : Quality, not Quantity may be the

> key

>

> Luigi wrote:

>

> >> The only one I know that might have that info about my EM+ is Bruce

> Stenulson so perhaps I should ask him, but I am doing well enough that I

> figure

> it's not really worth wasting his time.

> >> Luigi

>

>

> [My Response:]

>

> Luigi,

>

> It's good to hear that you are doing so well; obviously the way you are

> using

> the 6C EM+ is VERY effective.

>

> There appear to be some common misconceptions around the concepts of

> 'power'

> versus 'effectiveness' that another researcher brought to my attention,

> so it

> may be time to try to shed some light upon this common myth: that " more

> power

> equals more effectiveness " . In many cases, the opposite is actually

> being found

> to be true.

>

> The 6C EM+ actually may have quite a bit more 'power' than what needs to

> be

> employed to produce optimum body response in many situations; for

> example, using

> a modest percentage of it's output power capability at the " 300 " power

> level

> setting is repeatedly being reported to produce the maximum positive

> response,

> while also producing the minimum of adverse collateral reactions.

>

> On the 6C EM+, you can take a TriField meter in hand and back away from

> a single

> Resonant Plasma tube about 8 feet before the E-field reading drops from

> being

> pegged off-scale, down to the 100,000 volts per meter E-field density

> reading

> when the " Power Output Level " setting is set at the " 300 " level. With

> the output

> power set up to the maximum " 1220 " setting, you need to back away about

> ten feet

> (or more) from the Resonant Plasma tube before the Trifield meter's

> reading

> drops to that same 100,000 volts per meter E-field density reading.

> That's a lot

> of power in the E-field. Being within 8 feet of the tube, even at this

> modest

> Output Power Level setting, continuously produces results for users of

> the EM+

> systems.

>

> But the E-field reading is only a simple 'energy field density' reading,

> and it

> does not offer any 'qualitative' information about the characteristics

> of the

> resonance being set up within, and radiated from, the plasma tube

> (/tubes). When

> run at the higher 1220 setting, there is more of a secondary 'ringing' /

> damped

> wave resonance present in the radiated waveforms from the plasma. While

> this may

> be acceptable and usable in many situations for many research subjects,

> there

> may also be many research subjects who will in fact respond more

> positively to

> the 'cleaner' plasma resonance that results when the power level is

> controlled

> and the plasma resonance characteristics are optimized at intermediate

> power levels.

>

> Research subjects using the EM+ systems at the 300 Power Output Level

> setting

> report dramatic results with a minimum of collateral reaction that are

> otherwise

> experienced when a higher power output level is selected. (Many times

> the

> 'collateral adverse reactions' experienced from exposure to a plasma

> system with

> too much input power, resulting in variations and uncontrolled plasma

> resonance

> characteristics, are being misinterpreted as 'healing reactions', and

> people are

> even being told that they are a 'good sign'.... even though while they

> feel like

> crap for days after an exposure, their condition remains relatively

> unchanged

> for prolonged periods.... (What's wrong with this picture?)

>

> So maybe this often-repeated misconception that " more power is better "

> needs to

> be very closely examined once more.

>

> The body may in fact respond optimally within certain 'power windows',

> or more

> properly 'windows of receptivity'. While the body is known to be

> responsive to

> extremely subtle resonance influences (as evidenced by the results

> repeatedly

> produced by the ABPA devices in use by Dr. Jeff Sutherland and many

> others), it

> is also known to go into a 'resistive' or self-protective made when

> exposed to

> adverse fields or energy levels; EAV testing and various forms of body

> response

> testing illustrates this beyond question.

>

> So yes, in many cases, 'more is less'... more power is paradoxically

> less

> effective... an interesting dilemma for those who are marketing from the

> standpoint that " More MUST be better!??). And the often repeated clamor

> of " MORE

> POWER - MORE POWER - MORE POWER! " may have misled many well-meaning

> researchers,

> or individuals fighting their health challenges, looking for help and

> hope...

>

> Extensive reports on this subject, arising out of research done over the

> last

> year, are being prepared, which should offer further insight. Until

> these

> reports are completed, I'd suggest those who are interested to utilize

> whatever

> body response testing systems they may have available to them to

> investigate

> this subject further.

>

> I wish each of you the best of progress and insights in your research!

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> Be Well!!

>

> Bruce

> http://www.stenulson.net/althealth

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

> > KU> Hi Mike and Lee,

> >

> > KU> I can't offer too much information from experience with the

> GB4000 and

> RF, I don't have one.

> >

> > KU> It has commonly been spoken about, that RF is required to make

> the signal

> penetrate the body, better.

> >

> > KU> Gosh, how does one measure this ?

> >

> > KU> My RF plasma machine is modulated with a 250kHz (low RF square

> wave)

> signal. It is a good machine. Using the TriField, the RF signal goes out

> to

> about 18 inches from the tube.

> >

> > KU> If I put the TriField 6 inches from the light, RF at 100%, then

> put my

> hand in-between the TriField and the plasma lamp, the RF almost goes to

> zero. I

> don't know if a higher RF signal like the

> > KU> B/R uses would read any different?

> >

> > KU> My hand was obviously a shield to RF in this test.

> >

> > KU> From the harmonics I've seen generated with the use of RF, wow,

> there are

> a lot compared to straight audio. All these harmonics I would think act

> like a

> pump, applying pressure and energy to the

> > KU> signal that is transmitted to the body. As some people are

> sensitive to

> RF, then a neat feature on the GB4000 - would be a variable RF dial. So

> modulation could happen at 50kHz to 500kHz or

> > KU> greater. As we turn down the RF, so does the harmonic signals

> reduce, so

> less RF pressure is placed on the signal, and this would give people an

> option

> to use just a little bit of RF to assist

> > KU> the audio signal. Some people may find their body responds better

> to a

> particular level of RF, and this could be different from people to

> people, so it

> makes sense for a variable RF signal in a

> > KU> contact pad system.

> >

> > KU> With plasma systems, we sit outside the measurable RF field, and

> from use

> with my machine, at 4 feet to 6 feet out from the tube, there is no

> detectible

> signal. The E field is zero at around

> > KU> three and a half feet. So what is doing the work? Dr Rife held

> the plasma

> tube very close to people, aiming the electrodes to maximize the signal

> hitting

> the body. People were very well in the RF

> > KU> field with his method.

> >

> > KU> With the EMEM, we sit well in the E Field, so I have been told.

> The E

> field from the novelty plasma lamps can go out 4 to 6 feet. Alvin tells

> me the E

> Field on his EM7V is 100%, 10 feet out from

> > KU> the tube. This is a big signal, but there is no RF in it.

> >

> > KU> With contact pads, we are putting the RF directly into the body.

> So we

> have to do this carefully I would think. I would imagine it would be

> much easier

> to experience RF loading from contact pads,

> > KU> than by using a RF plasma system. When used with instructions, no

> RF

> loading is noticeable on the RF plasma systems, although Bruce Stenulson

> has

> made very important remarks about the use of

> > KU> chaotic RF in the EMEM systems that use a spark plug to generate

> RF.

> >

> > KU> Regards,

> > KU> Ken Uzzell.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I found the cell-o-matt device works well for me. The principal is

that the copper blanket attracts the charges inside of your body and

then grounds them. I no longer get shocked when picking up canned

vegetables at the grocery store.

Although I'm not too sure about the cell-o-matt's status in the US

now... thought I remember seeing something on the internet about it

being held by customs...

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken, the pad machine is available now to those who are unable to

construct one themselves. I haven't costed it out yet but as it takes

me about a day to build it would have to be somewhere around $A150.00

to make it worth my while. Bearing in mind at this stage I am more

into research than manufacturing. I have just finished putting

together a working model similar to the specs of the Electroregenisis

machine and hope to carry out some tests this week. I'll send you

some photos and details off group of the pad unit.

Cheers Mike

>

> Great news Mike,

>

> Are you planning on making your device available, or is it just for

your personal use ?

>

> I have plenty of free advertising space on the Frex web site.

>

> Regards,

> Ken

> Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not

Quantity may be the key

>

>

> Hi Ken, I feel that a carrier is a significant factor and from my

own

> research it appears to assist in deeper tissue penetration. While

my

> initial experiments were with a fixed carrier of 4Mhz I'm

currently

> working on making it adjustable to make it more pad friendly. I

> recently built a Rife/Bare device and was amazed at how powerful

an

> effect these machines have via the plasma tube. As I am only a

little

> over 12 months into Rife technology I have a long way to go to

catch

> up with all the other technical minded members of the group.

Having

> said that however, I am happy with the progression so far due to

the

> assistance of forum members. I'm getting excellent results from

my

> pad device which I have added a preamp to allow it to be used

with

> the smallest input signals and therefore make it compatible with

all

> laptop computers using your frex program.

>

> Mike F

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

When you start the Electroregenesis type work on your client

are you going to take before, daily and after pictures to show the

diabetic sore speed of healing process? That would be nice. Log

your currents please and let me know.

If you can, get Ohms reading off the mounted and wet electrodes only,

before each session (let the skin wet well first) and after each session.

I'm tracking for fluid build up and pre / post treatment conductivity plots.

If you can , end each session with the opposite polarity you began with.

My friend that was going into surgery had a rash noticed when they

were getting him ready so they put the operation off several weeks.

They think the rash was because of nerves; Also they had to cancel

the whole video hookup, the operation was rare enough that several

remote hospitals were going to watch live;Third of it's kind.

The operation is expected to be about 12 hours and he will be a week

in hospital after that, then home. Once home, the DC work starts.

I will not have the open access you will have, as his right arm is to be

bound in one position for 8 weeks, so I will have the right hand and

small area above it for that end of the electrode set.

The other is to be on the back and below the right shoulder; They are

taking some muscle off the back for the arm so I may have to be

a considerable distance below the shoulder, We're still working that

problem out, as a flexible band will have to maintain the position of

the back mounted electrode.

Trying to reduce the number of joints between electrodes, as

there are high losses there, I hope pad people are keeping this

~ 10 dB loss in mind when they set the voltages.

As you thought, a wick is going to keep the electrode wraps wet.

My friend wanted this so much that he's insisted, the Doc is getting

on board with a lot of real interest, even with all that work of muscle

and nerve surgery, he's still interested. My friend must sign off all

liability, so said the hospital and doctor but that is expected.

Still, because his surgeon is aware my friend is being hooked

up for " Turbo Drive " healing, they are going to pay extra attention

to his healing curve as this could reflect in less time to being bound

in that fixed arm position and onto the next steps. MRI will give a

good look into the deep healing progress, letting them tweak

as needed.

Currents will be kept low, too high can cause clotting but neither

of us will be in that range.

I have finished scanning to 14 pages /JPG full page size pictures,

a great article in 1986, great pictures, too.

Detailed story about Dr. Bjorn Nordenstrom who did a LOT

of work for electro therapy, he also invented the needle biopsy

that is used world wide these days. He also did cancer work

with voltage plus some books on it and cell potential work.

It would take 14 email messages with each page attached, do

you or anybody else want me to email these to you? I don't

mind, I'll just CC it to a few people at a time upon request.

Totals up to 14 one meg mails but the story and info is sure

worth it and I have broadband.

Mike

Re: machine and how it works...? : Quality, not

Quantity may be the key

>

>

> Hi Ken, I feel that a carrier is a significant factor and from my

own

> research it appears to assist in deeper tissue penetration. While

my

> initial experiments were with a fixed carrier of 4Mhz I'm

currently

> working on making it adjustable to make it more pad friendly. I

> recently built a Rife/Bare device and was amazed at how powerful

an

> effect these machines have via the plasma tube. As I am only a

little

> over 12 months into Rife technology I have a long way to go to

catch

> up with all the other technical minded members of the group.

Having

> said that however, I am happy with the progression so far due to

the

> assistance of forum members. I'm getting excellent results from

my

> pad device which I have added a preamp to allow it to be used

with

> the smallest input signals and therefore make it compatible with

all

> laptop computers using your frex program.

>

> Mike F

>