Re: Super Regenerative Mixing Circuts

[Guest guest]

Ian MacLeod wrote:

> Just a thought:

>

> Why on earth would you want to duplicate the Rife science of the past when

today's Rife-Work has surpassed his by leaps and bounds. It really is time for

us to take fresh looks at all parts of the old, and realise that Royal Rife's

work was foundational, critical, and the impetus of our movement today but ...

it is passe'

>

With all due respect, it's premature for you to be making such

assertions. What concrete evidence do you have to support this claim?

If I understand correctly, you haven't even published the results of

your research yet. I also don't recall you presenting any video

microscopy of pathogenic bacteria and viruses being destroyed. So, how

is it that " today's Rife-Work " , which you are presumably doing, is leaps

and bounds ahead of Rife, and his work is passe? I've heard these

claims made before, but I haven't seen any real evidence to support

them. The reality is that there is very little real " Rife " research

being conducted. Also, you would need to duplicate Rife's foundational

work first, so that you would have the solid grounding to make your

leaps and bounds ahead of him. Your claims are meaningless without

doing so, and ultimately do a disservice to the " Rife " community.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

,

I must agree with you on this one. The reason we want to duplicate the

super-regenerative mixing circuit is because it appears to be the reason

why Rife's instruments worked. The audio frequencies we use today don't

devitalize any organisms under microscope observation. Dr. Stafford, who

used the AZ-58 in the 1950's, couldn't get these audio frequencies to

kill any of the organisms they are supposed to devitalize. Even today

others have tested them with the same results. It appears that the audio

frequencies we use today which Rife, Crane and Marsh used in the 1950's

were derived from the audio frequencies that were used by Rife in the

super-regenerative mixing circuit. Most people today do not understand

that all of Rife's lab note frequencies are only ball park numbers

because of the inaccuracy of Rife's earlier instruments. These were

M.O.P.A. designs and could wander + or - 40,000 hertz. The AZ-58 which

was built in the 1950's had this very problem as did all of Rife's

instruments. Ben Cullen, one of Rife's close friends, talked about this

problem on the Rife CDs. He mentioned how Rife had a hard time coming

back to the same frequency which killed an organism. The

super-regenerative mixing circuit appears to have solved this problem

for Rife by creating as many side band frequencies as were needed in

order to hit the M.O.R. frequency even with the inaccuracies of the

equipment Rife was using.

We know Rife was using high RF frequencies to kill the organisms and the

audio frequencies were used only to create sidebands. But, if this type

of circuit was used for just audio frequencies it would be far superior

to square wave because it can produce far more octave step frequencies

than a square wave. If for no other reason, we should pursue this type

of circuit because this old type of circuit is far ahead of anything we

are using today, contrary to what has been said.

No one has yet been able to duplicate what Rife did. Soon this type of

circuit will be available.

Best wishes

Jeff

> > Just a thought:

> >

> > Why on earth would you want to duplicate the Rife science of the

past when today's Rife-Work has surpassed his by leaps and bounds. It

really is time for us to take fresh looks at all parts of the old, and

realise that Royal Rife's work was foundational, critical, and the

impetus of our movement today but ... it is passe'

> >

>

>

> With all due respect, it's premature for you to be making such

> assertions. What concrete evidence do you have to support this claim?

> If I understand correctly, you haven't even published the results of

> your research yet. I also don't recall you presenting any video

> microscopy of pathogenic bacteria and viruses being destroyed. So, how

> is it that " today's Rife-Work " , which you are presumably doing, is

leaps

> and bounds ahead of Rife, and his work is passe? I've heard these

> claims made before, but I haven't seen any real evidence to support

> them. The reality is that there is very little real " Rife " research

> being conducted. Also, you would need to duplicate Rife's foundational

> work first, so that you would have the solid grounding to make your

> leaps and bounds ahead of him. Your claims are meaningless without

> doing so, and ultimately do a disservice to the " Rife " community.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

As of today there are no Rife type instruments that do this, but soon

there will be. There are some, like us, who are working on developing

this type of circuit. It is not necessary to do this with old tube

technology. If one wants analog signals all that is necessary to use

is a DAC (Digital to analog converter chip).

PS. The audio frequencies were modulated on to an RF carrier not an

audio carrier.

Jeff

>

> Are there any currently made Rife units that have output

oscellators

> that can send audio frequencies through super regenerative mixing

> circuts? Can this only be accomplished using a tube amplifier?

> Apparently, this is the method used in the early machines that Rife

> and Hoyland produced where using a super regenerative mixing

circut,

> audio frequencies are regenerated in audio step or octave step

> frequencies with many resulting side band frequencies produced with

> every pass with this output being modulated onto an audio carrier

> frequency. The sweeps are built right into the circut.

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for pointing out my misconception of the carrier being being

RF and not audio. I need to study this further. This would have to

be strictly a contact type device so as to not interfere with FCC

regulated RF frequencies. Are you sure that something is not being

lost going digital and doing an analog conversion using a DAC?

There is something to the variability of a tube circut that could be

missing using digital circuts. I view audio frequencies as sort of

a homeopathy component and RF frequeicies as being more of the MOR's

necessary to devitalize bacteria and virus. Is anyone out there

currently devitalizing BX or BY using 2008 or 2128 and curing

cancer. Probably not. Rife beleived that pathogens were pleomorphic

and it would make sense that his devices would give broad coverage

to a frequency spectrum to be effective. He also had a problem

keeping his devices calibrated which also made sense to use super

regenerative mixing circuts. Pathogens could also have drift in

their MOR's.

> >

> > Are there any currently made Rife units that have output

> oscellators

> > that can send audio frequencies through super regenerative

mixing

> > circuts? Can this only be accomplished using a tube amplifier?

> > Apparently, this is the method used in the early machines that

Rife

> > and Hoyland produced where using a super regenerative mixing

> circut,

> > audio frequencies are regenerated in audio step or octave step

> > frequencies with many resulting side band frequencies produced

with

> > every pass with this output being modulated onto an audio

carrier

> > frequency. The sweeps are built right into the circut.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff,

What puzzles me is that Rife got outstanding result in a test-tube, but not

good results with animals and people when the microbes were inside the body.

I believe this is what Ian was commenting on when he said we have come

further than Rife. We are not doing very well killing microbes in a test

tube, but getting good results with people.

Obviously, there is a lot of " personal " people experimentation happening,

which Rife avoided, he used mice instead, but he couldn't heal the mice

unless a healthy mice was placed in with the sick mice, so this starts to

place doubts on the effectiveness of his signal. It appears there is a more

esoteric science attached to Rife's work than what we are doing.

At the end of the day, it results in people that counts, healing the sick.

I'm here because I am a healer, not a techo, I personally want results in

people, not test tubes.

It would be a shame to direct great resources at achieving Rife's test tube

results, to find we still have to have a healthy mice in with the sick ones

to effect a healing.

I've only been at this for 7 years and have more remissions than Rife

experienced, and all I do is turn a dial on a function generator. The B/R

would have produced many more remissions than Dr Rife did, and the EMEM's

with their signal under 10kHz, has also produced more remissions, faster

than Dr Rife experienced according to what I have been told by some Rife

vendors.

From the science aspect, killing microbes in a test tube is probably a great

thing, but if it doesn't heal people, then it is basically useless.

Regards,

Ken

Re: Super Regenerative Mixing Circuts

>

> ,

>

> I must agree with you on this one. The reason we want to duplicate the

> super-regenerative mixing circuit is because it appears to be the reason

> why Rife's instruments worked. The audio frequencies we use today don't

> devitalize any organisms under microscope observation. Dr. Stafford, who

> used the AZ-58 in the 1950's, couldn't get these audio frequencies to

> kill any of the organisms they are supposed to devitalize. Even today

> others have tested them with the same results. It appears that the audio

> frequencies we use today which Rife, Crane and Marsh used in the 1950's

> were derived from the audio frequencies that were used by Rife in the

> super-regenerative mixing circuit. Most people today do not understand

> that all of Rife's lab note frequencies are only ball park numbers

> because of the inaccuracy of Rife's earlier instruments. These were

> M.O.P.A. designs and could wander + or - 40,000 hertz. The AZ-58 which

> was built in the 1950's had this very problem as did all of Rife's

> instruments. Ben Cullen, one of Rife's close friends, talked about this

> problem on the Rife CDs. He mentioned how Rife had a hard time coming

> back to the same frequency which killed an organism. The

> super-regenerative mixing circuit appears to have solved this problem

> for Rife by creating as many side band frequencies as were needed in

> order to hit the M.O.R. frequency even with the inaccuracies of the

> equipment Rife was using.

>

> We know Rife was using high RF frequencies to kill the organisms and the

> audio frequencies were used only to create sidebands. But, if this type

> of circuit was used for just audio frequencies it would be far superior

> to square wave because it can produce far more octave step frequencies

> than a square wave. If for no other reason, we should pursue this type

> of circuit because this old type of circuit is far ahead of anything we

> are using today, contrary to what has been said.

>

> No one has yet been able to duplicate what Rife did. Soon this type of

> circuit will be available.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

>> > Just a thought:

>> >

>> > Why on earth would you want to duplicate the Rife science of the

> past when today's Rife-Work has surpassed his by leaps and bounds. It

> really is time for us to take fresh looks at all parts of the old, and

> realise that Royal Rife's work was foundational, critical, and the

> impetus of our movement today but ... it is passe'

>> >

>>

>>

>> With all due respect, it's premature for you to be making such

>> assertions. What concrete evidence do you have to support this claim?

>> If I understand correctly, you haven't even published the results of

>> your research yet. I also don't recall you presenting any video

>> microscopy of pathogenic bacteria and viruses being destroyed. So, how

>> is it that " today's Rife-Work " , which you are presumably doing, is

> leaps

>> and bounds ahead of Rife, and his work is passe? I've heard these

>> claims made before, but I haven't seen any real evidence to support

>> them. The reality is that there is very little real " Rife " research

>> being conducted. Also, you would need to duplicate Rife's foundational

>> work first, so that you would have the solid grounding to make your

>> leaps and bounds ahead of him. Your claims are meaningless without

>> doing so, and ultimately do a disservice to the " Rife " community.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was not aware that a healthy mice was needed for healing to occur. I

this is true clearly the body is responsible for the healing. The

regenerative circuit may recharge the cells of the body in much the

same way as a MWO. The killing of viruses etc may be secondary. I

believe that rife may not have fully understood the technology at the

time.

The healthy mice bit sounds like yet another area to be researched.

> >> > Just a thought:

> >> >

> >> > Why on earth would you want to duplicate the Rife science of

the

> > past when today's Rife-Work has surpassed his by leaps and bounds.

It

> > really is time for us to take fresh looks at all parts of the old,

and

> > realise that Royal Rife's work was foundational, critical, and the

> > impetus of our movement today but ... it is passe'

> >> >

> >>

> >>

> >> With all due respect, it's premature for you to be making such

> >> assertions. What concrete evidence do you have to support this

claim?

> >> If I understand correctly, you haven't even published the results

of

> >> your research yet. I also don't recall you presenting any video

> >> microscopy of pathogenic bacteria and viruses being destroyed.

So, how

> >> is it that " today's Rife-Work " , which you are presumably doing,

is

> > leaps

> >> and bounds ahead of Rife, and his work is passe? I've heard these

> >> claims made before, but I haven't seen any real evidence to

support

> >> them. The reality is that there is very little real " Rife "

research

> >> being conducted. Also, you would need to duplicate Rife's

foundational

> >> work first, so that you would have the solid grounding to make

your

> >> leaps and bounds ahead of him. Your claims are meaningless

without

> >> doing so, and ultimately do a disservice to the " Rife " community.

> >>

> >> Regards,

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Ken,

DITTO! Well said.

Dr. Ian MacLeod & Team

Ken Uzzell wrote: Hi Jeff,

What puzzles me is that Rife got outstanding result in a test-tube, but not

good results with animals and people when the microbes were inside the body.

I believe this is what Ian was commenting on when he said we have come

further than Rife. We are not doing very well killing microbes in a test

tube, but getting good results with people.

Obviously, there is a lot of " personal " people experimentation happening,

which Rife avoided, he used mice instead, but he couldn't heal the mice

unless a healthy mice was placed in with the sick mice, so this starts to

place doubts on the effectiveness of his signal. It appears there is a more

esoteric science attached to Rife's work than what we are doing.

At the end of the day, it results in people that counts, healing the sick.

I'm here because I am a healer, not a techo, I personally want results in

people, not test tubes.

It would be a shame to direct great resources at achieving Rife's test tube

results, to find we still have to have a healthy mice in with the sick ones

to effect a healing.

I've only been at this for 7 years and have more remissions than Rife

experienced, and all I do is turn a dial on a function generator. The B/R

would have produced many more remissions than Dr Rife did, and the EMEM's

with their signal under 10kHz, has also produced more remissions, faster

than Dr Rife experienced according to what I have been told by some Rife

vendors.

From the science aspect, killing microbes in a test tube is probably a great

thing, but if it doesn't heal people, then it is basically useless.

Regards,

Ken

Re: Super Regenerative Mixing Circuts

>

> ,

>

> I must agree with you on this one. The reason we want to duplicate the

> super-regenerative mixing circuit is because it appears to be the reason

> why Rife's instruments worked. The audio frequencies we use today don't

> devitalize any organisms under microscope observation. Dr. Stafford, who

> used the AZ-58 in the 1950's, couldn't get these audio frequencies to

> kill any of the organisms they are supposed to devitalize. Even today

> others have tested them with the same results. It appears that the audio

> frequencies we use today which Rife, Crane and Marsh used in the 1950's

> were derived from the audio frequencies that were used by Rife in the

> super-regenerative mixing circuit. Most people today do not understand

> that all of Rife's lab note frequencies are only ball park numbers

> because of the inaccuracy of Rife's earlier instruments. These were

> M.O.P.A. designs and could wander + or - 40,000 hertz. The AZ-58 which

> was built in the 1950's had this very problem as did all of Rife's

> instruments. Ben Cullen, one of Rife's close friends, talked about this

> problem on the Rife CDs. He mentioned how Rife had a hard time coming

> back to the same frequency which killed an organism. The

> super-regenerative mixing circuit appears to have solved this problem

> for Rife by creating as many side band frequencies as were needed in

> order to hit the M.O.R. frequency even with the inaccuracies of the

> equipment Rife was using.

>

> We know Rife was using high RF frequencies to kill the organisms and the

> audio frequencies were used only to create sidebands. But, if this type

> of circuit was used for just audio frequencies it would be far superior

> to square wave because it can produce far more octave step frequencies

> than a square wave. If for no other reason, we should pursue this type

> of circuit because this old type of circuit is far ahead of anything we

> are using today, contrary to what has been said.

>

> No one has yet been able to duplicate what Rife did. Soon this type of

> circuit will be available.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

>> > Just a thought:

>> >

>> > Why on earth would you want to duplicate the Rife science of the

> past when today's Rife-Work has surpassed his by leaps and bounds. It

> really is time for us to take fresh looks at all parts of the old, and

> realise that Royal Rife's work was foundational, critical, and the

> impetus of our movement today but ... it is passe'

>> >

>>

>>

>> With all due respect, it's premature for you to be making such

>> assertions. What concrete evidence do you have to support this claim?

>> If I understand correctly, you haven't even published the results of

>> your research yet. I also don't recall you presenting any video

>> microscopy of pathogenic bacteria and viruses being destroyed. So, how

>> is it that " today's Rife-Work " , which you are presumably doing, is

> leaps

>> and bounds ahead of Rife, and his work is passe? I've heard these

>> claims made before, but I haven't seen any real evidence to support

>> them. The reality is that there is very little real " Rife " research

>> being conducted. Also, you would need to duplicate Rife's foundational

>> work first, so that you would have the solid grounding to make your

>> leaps and bounds ahead of him. Your claims are meaningless without

>> doing so, and ultimately do a disservice to the " Rife " community.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe it is our intent to heal that makes the difference in healing not the

machine, maybe we provide the healthy human!!!!

Re: Re: Super Regenerative Mixing Circuts

Ken,

DITTO! Well said.

Dr. Ian MacLeod & Team

Ken Uzzell wrote: Hi

Jeff,

What puzzles me is that Rife got outstanding result in a test-tube, but not

good results with animals and people when the microbes were inside the

body.

I believe this is what Ian was commenting on when he said we have come

further than Rife. We are not doing very well killing microbes in a test

tube, but getting good results with people.

Obviously, there is a lot of " personal " people experimentation happening,

which Rife avoided, he used mice instead, but he couldn't heal the mice

unless a healthy mice was placed in with the sick mice, so this starts to

place doubts on the effectiveness of his signal. It appears there is a more

esoteric science attached to Rife's work than what we are doing.

At the end of the day, it results in people that counts, healing the sick.

I'm here because I am a healer, not a techo, I personally want results in

people, not test tubes.

It would be a shame to direct great resources at achieving Rife's test tube

results, to find we still have to have a healthy mice in with the sick ones

to effect a healing.

I've only been at this for 7 years and have more remissions than Rife

experienced, and all I do is turn a dial on a function generator. The B/R

would have produced many more remissions than Dr Rife did, and the EMEM's

with their signal under 10kHz, has also produced more remissions, faster

than Dr Rife experienced according to what I have been told by some Rife

vendors.

From the science aspect, killing microbes in a test tube is probably a

great

thing, but if it doesn't heal people, then it is basically useless.

Regards,

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi Uzo,

Yeah, this is what Dr Rife had to do to cure mice of cancer.

So while Dr Rife did some amazing pioneering, and killing virus in test

tubes, the people part of his application wasn't all that clear so it seems.

May be the new and upcoming Super Regenerative Mixing Circuits will provide

greater support than what is now experienced. This would be a boom.

The only people who can currently see the BX and BY virus is

with his Rife type microscope, but it uses different technology than what

Rife used.

Numerous Rife vendors have experienced good results with cancer, but I

wouldn't know if they are killing the BX and BY virus or just boosting the

immune to super levels with audio frequencies. How can anyone prove this ?

Friends have used my low RF plasma tube, and commented on tingling

sensations at their cancer tumour sites, but I can't say this is the BX and

BY virus resonating and dieing. I don't think anyone can. It may be the

cancer cells themselves are resonating and devitalising or the fascial

structure of the cancer cells are stressed right out and binding down on the

internal cancer cell structures, thus interrupting their speedy progression.

Many things are possible on what is really happening.

Bare has often commented that this industry requires proper funding

and research so these questions can be resolved.

As far as I know, Dr Ian MacLeod is the only person I know of in this

position that has told us he has the funds and research team, and is soon to

present the white paper.

He is not popular with some because he challenges Dr Rife's principles prior

to presenting his paper, this rightly so gets under the skin of other

researchers who also have great knowledge and skills. They are well

justified in challenging Ian's claims.

Regards,

Ken Uzzell

Re: Super Regenerative Mixing Circuts

>I was not aware that a healthy mice was needed for healing to occur. I

> this is true clearly the body is responsible for the healing. The

> regenerative circuit may recharge the cells of the body in much the

> same way as a MWO. The killing of viruses etc may be secondary. I

> believe that rife may not have fully understood the technology at the

> time.

> The healthy mice bit sounds like yet another area to be researched.

>

[Guest guest]

I agree in principle to everything you said, but we should not lose

sight of the fact that " Rife " is not about the hardware. " Rife " is

about the verification and demonstration. It doesn't really matter what

type of circuit, waveform, frequency range, or whatever else you use, as

long as you accomplish the same results and verify it in the same manner

as Rife did. If any of the modern devices are " leaps and bounds " ahead

of Rife, then let them demonstrate it by _first_ destroying pathogenic

microorganisms under the microscope, and then proceed to do the same in

animals and humans. It seems that a lot of people believe that their

positive clinical results with a frequency device automatically means

that they are doing " Rife " . This of course is totally erroneous. There

are all sorts of documented effects that could produce positive clinical

results that have nothing to do with direct germicidal action, and

therefore are not " Rife " .

Regards,

astroboy84088 wrote:

> ,

>

> I must agree with you on this one. The reason we want to duplicate the

> super-regenerative mixing circuit is because it appears to be the reason

> why Rife's instruments worked. The audio frequencies we use today don't

> devitalize any organisms under microscope observation. Dr. Stafford, who

> used the AZ-58 in the 1950's, couldn't get these audio frequencies to

> kill any of the organisms they are supposed to devitalize. Even today

> others have tested them with the same results. It appears that the audio

> frequencies we use today which Rife, Crane and Marsh used in the 1950's

> were derived from the audio frequencies that were used by Rife in the

> super-regenerative mixing circuit. Most people today do not understand

> that all of Rife's lab note frequencies are only ball park numbers

> because of the inaccuracy of Rife's earlier instruments. These were

> M.O.P.A. designs and could wander + or - 40,000 hertz. The AZ-58 which

> was built in the 1950's had this very problem as did all of Rife's

> instruments. Ben Cullen, one of Rife's close friends, talked about this

> problem on the Rife CDs. He mentioned how Rife had a hard time coming

> back to the same frequency which killed an organism. The

> super-regenerative mixing circuit appears to have solved this problem

> for Rife by creating as many side band frequencies as were needed in

> order to hit the M.O.R. frequency even with the inaccuracies of the

> equipment Rife was using.

>

> We know Rife was using high RF frequencies to kill the organisms and the

> audio frequencies were used only to create sidebands. But, if this type

> of circuit was used for just audio frequencies it would be far superior

> to square wave because it can produce far more octave step frequencies

> than a square wave. If for no other reason, we should pursue this type

> of circuit because this old type of circuit is far ahead of anything we

> are using today, contrary to what has been said.

>

> No one has yet been able to duplicate what Rife did. Soon this type of

> circuit will be available.

>

> Best wishes

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

Ken Uzzell wrote:

> Hi Jeff,

>

> What puzzles me is that Rife got outstanding result in a test-tube, but not

> good results with animals and people when the microbes were inside the body.

>

Who said that Rife didn't get good results in animals and people? If he

didn't get good results in people, he wouldn't have reached the level of

commercial viability and formed the Beam Rays Corp. I would like to

know who is claiming that Rife didn't have good results in people, and

on what basis they are claiming so.

> I believe this is what Ian was commenting on when he said we have come

> further than Rife. We are not doing very well killing microbes in a test

> tube, but getting good results with people.

>

Ian was just making unsubstantiated claims. If he has something more

concrete, let him submit all the details so that other researchers can

follow up and either confirm or refute. Now, I know Ian has stated that

they will be publishing in the near future, and I respect their desire

for priority, but that is also why any claims at present to being " leaps

and bounds " ahead of Rife are premature. And as I said in another post,

getting good results with people in no way means that you are doing

" Rife " . There are many doctors who get good results with people without

using any frequency technology. Are they doing " Rife " too?

> Obviously, there is a lot of " personal " people experimentation happening,

> which Rife avoided, he used mice instead, but he couldn't heal the mice

> unless a healthy mice was placed in with the sick mice, so this starts to

> place doubts on the effectiveness of his signal. It appears there is a more

> esoteric science attached to Rife's work than what we are doing.

>

Perhaps I've missed something, but this is the first time I've heard

that Rife had to put a healthy mouse in with the sick mice for them to

heal. Do you have any references for this?

> At the end of the day, it results in people that counts, healing the sick.

> I'm here because I am a healer, not a techo, I personally want results in

> people, not test tubes.

>

I totally agree, and respect your position on this, but as I said

before, getting results with people doesn't automatically have any

connection with " Rife " . The issue isn't about whether you or anyone

else is getting results. It's about confusing one form of therapy with

another. You can't advertise " Rife " , and when they come to your clinic

for it, you give them an IV drip of ascorbate, even if that drip gets

results.

> It would be a shame to direct great resources at achieving Rife's test tube

> results, to find we still have to have a healthy mice in with the sick ones

> to effect a healing.

>

You're proceeding on an unsubstantiated, and probably erroneous

assumption. It's like saying that a cancer patient has to sleep in the

same bed with a healthy person in order to get results with " Rife "

frequency therapy; an absurd notion. Achieving Rife's test tube results

is not only for the sake of proper scientific protocol in " following

up " , but is necessary because it is the foundation from which to proceed

further. If Rife didn't get results in the test tube, he wouldn't have

had any foundation to proceed further into animals and humans,

ultimately resulting in a therapy that was ready for widespread use.

Keep in mind again that I'm referring to " Rife frequency therapy " , not

the wider general field of frequency therapy that most everyone uses and

gets results with today.

> I've only been at this for 7 years and have more remissions than Rife

> experienced, and all I do is turn a dial on a function generator. The B/R

> would have produced many more remissions than Dr Rife did, and the EMEM's

> with their signal under 10kHz, has also produced more remissions, faster

> than Dr Rife experienced according to what I have been told by some Rife

> vendors.

>

Aside from the fact that you haven't presented your documentation for

other researchers to follow up on, there is no working real " Rife "

machine to compare against, so you're making an unfair claim. Are your

results due to your abilities as a healer, or strictly due to your

specific form of frequency therapy? My prediction is that when someone

produces a real " Rife " machine, it will make all our current machines

look like silly little toys. This is of course only referring to the

field of diseases caused by pathogenic microorganisms. The current

machines will still be useful for other conditions.

>>From the science aspect, killing microbes in a test tube is probably a great

> thing, but if it doesn't heal people, then it is basically useless.

>

Can't argue with that, but when talking about Rife, killing microbes in

a test tube is the first foundational step that leads to healing people.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

> Ken Uzzell wrote:

>>

>> What puzzles me is that Rife got outstanding result in a test-tube, but

>> not

>> good results with animals and people when the microbes were inside the

>> body.

>

> Who said that Rife didn't get good results in animals and people? If he

> didn't get good results in people, he wouldn't have reached the level of

> commercial viability and formed the Beam Rays Corp. I would like to

> know who is claiming that Rife didn't have good results in people, and

> on what basis they are claiming so.

There were discussions on this list or the Rife-List a few months back where

people were questioning the 16 people Rife was meant to have cured of

cancer. Can you provide evidence that he actually was successful in curing

their cancer and their cancer didn't come back a few months or years later ?

What other evidence can you present that Dr Rife healed anyone ? A few cases

were discussed on the Rife DVD, but no evidence presented that I am aware

of.

Many years back, there were all sorts of claims on the internet, and I got

well sucked into these claims, believing all I was reading. I've made

numerous erroneous comments based on my old readings. The Rife community has

put me straight on this.

>> I believe this is what Ian was commenting on when he said we have come

>> further than Rife. We are not doing very well killing microbes in a test

>> tube, but getting good results with people.

>

> Ian was just making unsubstantiated claims. If he has something more

> concrete, let him submit all the details so that other researchers can

> follow up and either confirm or refute. Now, I know Ian has stated that

> they will be publishing in the near future, and I respect their desire

> for priority, but that is also why any claims at present to being " leaps

> and bounds " ahead of Rife are premature. And as I said in another post,

> getting good results with people in no way means that you are doing

> " Rife " . There are many doctors who get good results with people without

> using any frequency technology. Are they doing " Rife " too?

Rife proved he could kill microbes in a test tube, but was it the frequency

that zapped the microbes or the power of his plasma tube that killed the

microbes. Can anyone provide evidence on this ?

How did Dr Rife prove he was killing the BX and BY virus in the body ?

>> Obviously, there is a lot of " personal " people experimentation happening,

>> which Rife avoided, he used mice instead, but he couldn't heal the mice

>> unless a healthy mice was placed in with the sick mice, so this starts to

>> place doubts on the effectiveness of his signal. It appears there is a

>> more

>> esoteric science attached to Rife's work than what we are doing.

>>

>

>

> Perhaps I've missed something, but this is the first time I've heard

> that Rife had to put a healthy mouse in with the sick mice for them to

> heal. Do you have any references for this?

Dr Bare came onto this list and told us of this fact several months

back. You did not challenge his statements then.

>> At the end of the day, it results in people that counts, healing the

>> sick.

>> I'm here because I am a healer, not a techo, I personally want results in

>> people, not test tubes.

>>

>

>

> I totally agree, and respect your position on this, but as I said

> before, getting results with people doesn't automatically have any

> connection with " Rife " . The issue isn't about whether you or anyone

> else is getting results. It's about confusing one form of therapy with

> another. You can't advertise " Rife " , and when they come to your clinic

> for it, you give them an IV drip of ascorbate, even if that drip gets

> results.

I don't treat the public with these machines for cancer anymore. I thought

Rife machines were legal in Australia, the news papers reported that they

were, but Geoff Baker who did the arthritis trials in Australia, and his

work can be viewed on s web site, http://www.rife.de gave me a

call and put me straight on the matter.

Although there are MD's in Australia who treat the public with Rife machines

and advertise this fact.

http://www.smile.org.au

A good place for Australians to go if they have cancer.

So I have had to stop treating people with cancer. Nenah Sylver probably has

the best approach, which advises people to acquire their own Frequency

Therapy (RIFE) machine for personal experimentation because of the large

amounts of exposures required, it would probably work out cheaper than

seeing a therapist and avoid legal medical entanglements.

The problem here is that there are many therapists who have great skills

with their B/R and EMEM's and GB4000 machines, and being under the care of a

skilled frequency therapist increases the effectivness of treatment, for

they would know the best ways to run sessions and how to manage programs as

the treatment and responses continue.

When you are new to RIFE, it can be a little daunting looking at the

frequency tables in the CAFL.

>> It would be a shame to direct great resources at achieving Rife's test

>> tube

>> results, to find we still have to have a healthy mice in with the sick

>> ones

>> to effect a healing.

>>

>

>

> You're proceeding on an unsubstantiated, and probably erroneous

> assumption. It's like saying that a cancer patient has to sleep in the

> same bed with a healthy person in order to get results with " Rife "

> frequency therapy; an absurd notion. Achieving Rife's test tube results

> is not only for the sake of proper scientific protocol in " following

> up " , but is necessary because it is the foundation from which to proceed

> further. If Rife didn't get results in the test tube, he wouldn't have

> had any foundation to proceed further into animals and humans,

> ultimately resulting in a therapy that was ready for widespread use.

> Keep in mind again that I'm referring to " Rife frequency therapy " , not

> the wider general field of frequency therapy that most everyone uses and

> gets results with today.

I am proceeding on the discussions as presented here.

If you disagreeded with Bare's comments about Dr Rife using healthy

mice as a map for the sick mice to heal, then why didn't you challenge Jim's

comments when he made them?

I'm not the expert here, just the witness. The only level I am qualified to

validate Frequency Therapy is via the Physcial Therapies and the change in

soft tissue as a result of stimulation of pulse EM fields. Now you can call

this Rife or R.I.F.E. (Resonance Initiated Field Effects), what ever. Can

anyone provide evidence that Rife killed bugs in the body, or that his

frequencies effected physiological changes that killed the bugs and cancer

cells. Remember, Ian has claimed to have done the research where no one else

has except for Bare, who has made huge personal sacrifices in his

research into this field.

This entire community should be extremely supportive of any person who

rallies the funds and research team to come up with the truth and answers.

>> I've only been at this for 7 years and have more remissions than Rife

>> experienced, and all I do is turn a dial on a function generator. The B/R

>> would have produced many more remissions than Dr Rife did, and the EMEM's

>> with their signal under 10kHz, has also produced more remissions, faster

>> than Dr Rife experienced according to what I have been told by some Rife

>> vendors.

>

> Aside from the fact that you haven't presented your documentation for

> other researchers to follow up on, there is no working real " Rife "

> machine to compare against, so you're making an unfair claim. Are your

> results due to your abilities as a healer, or strictly due to your

> specific form of frequency therapy? My prediction is that when someone

> produces a real " Rife " machine, it will make all our current machines

> look like silly little toys. This is of course only referring to the

> field of diseases caused by pathogenic microorganisms. The current

> machines will still be useful for other conditions.

I can't properly investigate or research Rife, I am not qualified to do so,

so I am not going to pretend that I am, I wouldn't know how to present a

correct scientific report or document, I am not a scientist or a qualified

researcher. But I can read these forums and make comments.

Yes, I am a wholistic therapist, and will use all the knowledge at my

disposal to help a person heal from their disorder. Diet, supplements, body

work, trauma release, mediation, placebo, entrainment, etc. and I'll do my

very best to convince people to get monitored by a licensed health

professional who is qualified to help them, and this is not me, when critial

life threatening diseases are present. Naturopathic and Homeopathic doctors

and MD's are the people to see.

We can't allow new people, who may drop in here, to think Rife/Frequency

Therapy is going to be the total solution to their health problems. As you

know, it takes a big life style change to win the battle against cancer, not

just Rife. This is how MD's use Rife, and so should other therapists where

the laws allow.

>

>>>From the science aspect, killing microbes in a test tube is probably a

>>>great

>> thing, but if it doesn't heal people, then it is basically useless.

>>

>

> Can't argue with that, but when talking about Rife, killing microbes in

> a test tube is the first foundational step that leads to healing people.

Respectfully,

Ken Uzzell

[Guest guest]

Hello Bill,

Digital sine waves do have the dashes, segments and spaces that Ian

has talked about. They look like stairs. Converting the digital to

analog through a DAC eliminates this problem. We have looked at the

signals on a spectrum analyzer and can find no real difference in the

waveform of a digital signal converted to analog and an old tube type

function generators output. The only difference we could see was the

old tube instrument had more noise in the waveform. If Ian wants to

use only tube type instruments that is his choice. I still like using

the AZ-58. We have found in our many years of testing that old tube

technology is not necessary as long as the signal is converted to

analog.

When we first started building instruments several years ago the

first 25 were digital. Many of the people who purchased them (several

who already owned analog instruments) let us know that they didn't

think they were as effective. We ended up changing the instrument to

analog by using a DAC and replacing the 25 digital instruments. It

was an expensive mistake.

Best wishes

Jeff

> >> > Just a thought:

> >> >

> >> > Why on earth would you want to duplicate the Rife science of

the

> > past when today's Rife-Work has surpassed his by leaps and

bounds. It

> > really is time for us to take fresh looks at all parts of the

old, and

> > realise that Royal Rife's work was foundational, critical, and the

> > impetus of our movement today but ... it is passe'

> >> >

> >>

> >>

> >> With all due respect, it's premature for you to be making such

> >> assertions. What concrete evidence do you have to support this

claim?

> >> If I understand correctly, you haven't even published the

results of

> >> your research yet. I also don't recall you presenting any video

> >> microscopy of pathogenic bacteria and viruses being destroyed.

So, how

> >> is it that " today's Rife-Work " , which you are presumably doing,

is

> > leaps

> >> and bounds ahead of Rife, and his work is passe? I've heard these

> >> claims made before, but I haven't seen any real evidence to

support

> >> them. The reality is that there is very little real " Rife "

research

> >> being conducted. Also, you would need to duplicate Rife's

foundational

> >> work first, so that you would have the solid grounding to make

your

> >> leaps and bounds ahead of him. Your claims are meaningless

without

> >> doing so, and ultimately do a disservice to the " Rife " community.

> >>

> >> Regards,

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Hello Ken,

In all my studies of Rife I cannot find where he ever said that he

didn't get good results in test tubes. He first did his work with

cultures and when he had success with them he moved on to animal

testing. Today no one is having success on cultures with audio

frequencies because Rife's M.O.R. frequencies were higher in the RF

range.

I also cannot find where he ever had to have a healthy mouse in with

the sick mice in order to devitalize microorganisms. Rife said the

frequency devitalized the organism.

Rife said he never treated anyone. Dr. Couche treated between 22,000

to 25,000 people over a period of about 22 years, curing many

different disease including cancer. Other doctors such as Dr. Tully

treated many thousands of people with good success. These men were

confident that they could easily cure cancer and other diseases.

We do not have equipment that works the way these early instruments

did. Hoyland built the instruments Dr. Couche and Dr. Tully used and

even though they didn't use Rife's exact frequencies they would still

kill the various microorganisms under microscope observation. We

learn from the Beam Rays trial that he must have use a lower harmonic

of Rife's original frequencies. The instruments that we have today

cannot do this. If we are going to measure the effectiveness of an

instrument then I would think that the instrument that can kill a

organism under microscope observation would win the test.

Rife found that the frequency that would devitalize an organism in

the cultures would also devitalize it in the body. Therefore the

opposite must be true. Anything less than this would not be

scientific.

Best wishes

Jeff

> >> > Just a thought:

> >> >

> >> > Why on earth would you want to duplicate the Rife science of

the

> > past when today's Rife-Work has surpassed his by leaps and

bounds. It

> > really is time for us to take fresh looks at all parts of the

old, and

> > realise that Royal Rife's work was foundational, critical, and the

> > impetus of our movement today but ... it is passe'

> >> >

> >>

> >>

> >> With all due respect, it's premature for you to be making such

> >> assertions. What concrete evidence do you have to support this

claim?

> >> If I understand correctly, you haven't even published the

results of

> >> your research yet. I also don't recall you presenting any video

> >> microscopy of pathogenic bacteria and viruses being destroyed.

So, how

> >> is it that " today's Rife-Work " , which you are presumably doing,

is

> > leaps

> >> and bounds ahead of Rife, and his work is passe? I've heard these

> >> claims made before, but I haven't seen any real evidence to

support

> >> them. The reality is that there is very little real " Rife "

research

> >> being conducted. Also, you would need to duplicate Rife's

foundational

> >> work first, so that you would have the solid grounding to make

your

> >> leaps and bounds ahead of him. Your claims are meaningless

without

> >> doing so, and ultimately do a disservice to the " Rife " community.

> >>

> >> Regards,

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

You are correct that a super-regenerative instrument would have to be

a contact type instrument, unless you had a faraday cage in order to

avoid problems with the FCC.

Having tested old analog tube equipment and analog signals produced

by a DAC we couldn't see any significant difference other than a

little more noise in the tube instruments. So I don't think anything

is being lost by using a DAC.

Dr. P. Stafford was never able to cure anyone with 2008 and

2128 and wrote a report stating this fact. That report is on

rife.org. I believe like Dr. Stafford that the audio frequencies

strengthen the immune system and this is the reason some people are

getting better using them. As for curing the way that Rife did with

his high RF frequencies I don't think anyone is having the success he

had. As I have stated before I believe his high RF frequencies were

only ball park numbers because of the drifting in those old

instruments. Super regeneration can overcome this problem even in the

new instruments that we build today by creating many hundreds of side

bands. Rife said that he had to be within one tenth of a meter in

order for the frequency to work. The frequency for the BX given on

the Rife Ray #4 documents and the Rife CDs is 1,604,000 hertz. We

found that those old M.O.P.A. instruments could wander as much as

40,000 hertz. So the real question is what is the real M.O.R. for the

BX. It could be + or - 40,000 hertz different than 1,604,000. The one

tenth of a meter for 1,604,000 hertz is about 850 hertz. So this is

the most you can be off in order for the frequency to work. With

super regeneration a person could use a 425 hertz audio frequency

which would produce many side band frequencies 425 hertz apart. It is

easy to see that it would be very easy to finally hit the correct

M.O.R. frequency for the BX. Now let's take this a little farther and

start to sweep these hundreds of side bands. It would be possible to

hit the M.O.R. of every organism in a very short period of time. Dr.

Couche only treated his patients for 1 minute per frequency. If you

used a 200 hertz frequency and produced 200 side bands you could

cover 40,000 hertz. The sweep you used could cover 40,000 hertz in 1

minute and in 25 minutes you could cover every M.O.R from 1 MHz to 2

MHz. It is possible with this type of instrument to finally be able

to hit every organism's M.O.R. without even knowing them.

You are correct that Rife found that organisms were pleomorphic. If

an organism's M.O.R. became different then it would have had to have

changed to a new form and would need a different M.O.R. This is

pleomorphism.

Best wishes

Jeff

> > >

> > > Are there any currently made Rife units that have output

> > oscellators

> > > that can send audio frequencies through super regenerative

> mixing

> > > circuts? Can this only be accomplished using a tube amplifier?

> > > Apparently, this is the method used in the early machines that

> Rife

> > > and Hoyland produced where using a super regenerative mixing

> > circut,

> > > audio frequencies are regenerated in audio step or octave step

> > > frequencies with many resulting side band frequencies produced

> with

> > > every pass with this output being modulated onto an audio

> carrier

> > > frequency. The sweeps are built right into the circut.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff,

I never mentioned that Rife couldn't kill microbes in cultures. He excelled

at this.

Message No: 10817

---->8----

Re: Enter the RF Zone

Ken,

On one of the Rife CD's, Dr. Rife states that one must put a healthy mouse

in with the diseased mice when treating.

Jim Bare

>I've nearly always experienced good results when I sit down with my clients

>and run through a frequency session,

---->8-----

Now I am confused.

Guess I need a holiday.

But if what Jim states is true, then the whole Rife paradigm is

questionable, from a scientific point of view.

Unless who ever made the Rife CD, that Jim has quoted from, slipped a micky

in to confuse viewers.

May be BIG PHARM made the Rife CD to confuse us all ;-) ?

LOL

Regards,

Ken Uzzell

Re: Super Regenerative Mixing Circuts

> Hello Ken,

>

> In all my studies of Rife I cannot find where he ever said that he

> didn't get good results in test tubes. He first did his work with

> cultures and when he had success with them he moved on to animal

> testing. Today no one is having success on cultures with audio

> frequencies because Rife's M.O.R. frequencies were higher in the RF

> range.

>

> I also cannot find where he ever had to have a healthy mouse in with

> the sick mice in order to devitalize microorganisms. Rife said the

> frequency devitalized the organism.

>

> Rife said he never treated anyone. Dr. Couche treated between 22,000

> to 25,000 people over a period of about 22 years, curing many

> different disease including cancer. Other doctors such as Dr. Tully

> treated many thousands of people with good success. These men were

> confident that they could easily cure cancer and other diseases.

>

> We do not have equipment that works the way these early instruments

> did. Hoyland built the instruments Dr. Couche and Dr. Tully used and

> even though they didn't use Rife's exact frequencies they would still

> kill the various microorganisms under microscope observation. We

> learn from the Beam Rays trial that he must have use a lower harmonic

> of Rife's original frequencies. The instruments that we have today

> cannot do this. If we are going to measure the effectiveness of an

> instrument then I would think that the instrument that can kill a

> organism under microscope observation would win the test.

>

> Rife found that the frequency that would devitalize an organism in

> the cultures would also devitalize it in the body. Therefore the

> opposite must be true. Anything less than this would not be

> scientific.

>

> Best wishes

> Jeff

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ken Uzzell wrote:

>>Ken Uzzell wrote:

>>Who said that Rife didn't get good results in animals and people? If he

>>didn't get good results in people, he wouldn't have reached the level of

>>commercial viability and formed the Beam Rays Corp. I would like to

>>know who is claiming that Rife didn't have good results in people, and

>>on what basis they are claiming so.

>

>

> There were discussions on this list or the Rife-List a few months back where

> people were questioning the 16 people Rife was meant to have cured of

> cancer. Can you provide evidence that he actually was successful in curing

> their cancer and their cancer didn't come back a few months or years later ?

>

If I remember those discussions correctly, it was agreed that we should

be talking in terms of tumor response rather than " cure " . There's

absolutely no way that Rife, or anyone else even today, could guarantee

that cancer would not return, so asking for such evidence is unreasonable.

> What other evidence can you present that Dr Rife healed anyone ? A few cases

> were discussed on the Rife DVD, but no evidence presented that I am aware

> of.

>

It's true that there is no truly concrete evidence that Rife healed

anyone, which is understandable because all of the records have been

lost to history. All we have is Rife's word, and the word of some of

the people who worked with him. Even if we did have all of his records,

we would still have to follow up and replicate what he did. The modern

" Rife " movement is based on the assumption and possibility that Rife's

technology can work to heal people, and I don't think that his name

would have survived for so long if it didn't. It is the possibilities

of Rife's technology that inspires so many people. Also, asking for

evidence from a current researcher is not the same as asking for

evidence on something that occurred seventy years ago, with all the

players long since passed away.

> Many years back, there were all sorts of claims on the internet, and I got

> well sucked into these claims, believing all I was reading. I've made

> numerous erroneous comments based on my old readings. The Rife community has

> put me straight on this.

>

>

There are still all sorts of claims being made that suck people in, and

it doesn't appear that the Rife community has things as straight as we

might like to think.

>>Ian was just making unsubstantiated claims. If he has something more

>>concrete, let him submit all the details so that other researchers can

>>follow up and either confirm or refute. Now, I know Ian has stated that

>>they will be publishing in the near future, and I respect their desire

>>for priority, but that is also why any claims at present to being " leaps

>>and bounds " ahead of Rife are premature. And as I said in another post,

>>getting good results with people in no way means that you are doing

>> " Rife " . There are many doctors who get good results with people without

>>using any frequency technology. Are they doing " Rife " too?

>

>

> Rife proved he could kill microbes in a test tube, but was it the frequency

> that zapped the microbes or the power of his plasma tube that killed the

> microbes. Can anyone provide evidence on this ?

>

The experiments he described show that it was the frequency that did the

job. He said that if the frequency was off, it did nothing. Also, if

it wasn't the frequency doing the job, he wouldn't need a frequency

generator. He could have just lit the tube with a neon sign transformer

or something else that could light the tube.

> How did Dr Rife prove he was killing the BX and BY virus in the body ?

>

>

They did experiments, and fulfilled Koch's postulates.

>>Perhaps I've missed something, but this is the first time I've heard

>>that Rife had to put a healthy mouse in with the sick mice for them to

>>heal. Do you have any references for this?

>

>

> Dr Bare came onto this list and told us of this fact several months

> back. You did not challenge his statements then.

>

>

As I said, I must have missed that one. I'll admit that there has been

so very little real Rife discussion that I haven't been paying that much

attention lately. How did Jim establish this as " fact " . I'll call upon

him here to provide us with some references so that we can check up on this.

<snip>

>>You're proceeding on an unsubstantiated, and probably erroneous

>>assumption. It's like saying that a cancer patient has to sleep in the

>>same bed with a healthy person in order to get results with " Rife "

>>frequency therapy; an absurd notion. Achieving Rife's test tube results

>>is not only for the sake of proper scientific protocol in " following

>>up " , but is necessary because it is the foundation from which to proceed

>>further. If Rife didn't get results in the test tube, he wouldn't have

>>had any foundation to proceed further into animals and humans,

>>ultimately resulting in a therapy that was ready for widespread use.

>>Keep in mind again that I'm referring to " Rife frequency therapy " , not

>>the wider general field of frequency therapy that most everyone uses and

>>gets results with today.

>

>

> I am proceeding on the discussions as presented here.

>

> If you disagreeded with Bare's comments about Dr Rife using healthy

> mice as a map for the sick mice to heal, then why didn't you challenge Jim's

> comments when he made them?

>

Now that I've taken notice of it, I do so here.

> I'm not the expert here, just the witness. The only level I am qualified to

> validate Frequency Therapy is via the Physcial Therapies and the change in

> soft tissue as a result of stimulation of pulse EM fields. Now you can call

> this Rife or R.I.F.E. (Resonance Initiated Field Effects), what ever. Can

> anyone provide evidence that Rife killed bugs in the body, or that his

> frequencies effected physiological changes that killed the bugs and cancer

> cells.

Rife's description and interpretation of the research that he did

indicates that what he did under the microscope was exactly what was

happening in the body. There's no indication that there was one effect

taking place under the microscope and another different effect taking

place in the body. It is for those making such a proposition to present

their experimental evidence in support of it.

> Remember, Ian has claimed to have done the research where no one else

> has except for Bare, who has made huge personal sacrifices in his

> research into this field.

>

I'll reserve judgment on Ian's research until I have the opportunity to

read it.

> This entire community should be extremely supportive of any person who

> rallies the funds and research team to come up with the truth and answers.

>

>

Yes, we should, but we shouldn't uncritically accept any claims made.

You said that you've been sucked in before. Have you stopped

questioning what you're told? Just because someone has rallied the

funds and research team, doesn't mean they are or will come up with " the

truth " . I'll remind again that I'm talking from the perspective of

" Rife " , which is what started this debate. I don't question the

positive clinical results that Ian, or anyone else may be getting. I'm

challenging Ian's claim to being " leaps and bounds " ahead of Rife, and

also his assertion that we don't need or shouldn't even want to

replicate Rife's work.

>>Aside from the fact that you haven't presented your documentation for

>>other researchers to follow up on, there is no working real " Rife "

>>machine to compare against, so you're making an unfair claim. Are your

>>results due to your abilities as a healer, or strictly due to your

>>specific form of frequency therapy? My prediction is that when someone

>>produces a real " Rife " machine, it will make all our current machines

>>look like silly little toys. This is of course only referring to the

>>field of diseases caused by pathogenic microorganisms. The current

>>machines will still be useful for other conditions.

>

>

> I can't properly investigate or research Rife, I am not qualified to do so,

> so I am not going to pretend that I am, I wouldn't know how to present a

> correct scientific report or document, I am not a scientist or a qualified

> researcher. But I can read these forums and make comments.

>

You can also question and challenge claims and statements that are made

on these forums, even if the persons making them have more expertise or

qualifications than you. Nobody has all the answers, and the " experts "

are very often wrong.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Hello Ken,

My mistake, I should have been talking about the fact that the

doctors who used Rife's instruments did get good results with the

people that were treated.

As for Jim Bare's statement about the mice. I have those Rife CDs and

I cannot find anywhere on them where Rife ever stated that he had to

put a healthy mouse in with the diseased mice when treating them in

order to heal them. Rife does talk on the CDs about the fact that he

always used a healthy mouse as a control. This is always done in any

scientific study. So you don't have to be confused. This statement is

not on the Rife CDs.

Best wishes

Jeff

>

> Hi Jeff,

>

> I never mentioned that Rife couldn't kill microbes in cultures. He

excelled

> at this.

>

> On one of the Rife CD's, Dr. Rife states that one must put a

healthy mouse

> in with the diseased mice when treating.

>

> Jim Bare

>

>

> ---->8-----

>

> Now I am confused.

>

> Guess I need a holiday.

>

> But if what Jim states is true, then the whole Rife paradigm is

> questionable, from a scientific point of view.

>

> Unless who ever made the Rife CD, that Jim has quoted from, slipped

a micky

> in to confuse viewers.

>

> May be BIG PHARM made the Rife CD to confuse us all ;-) ?

>

> LOL

>

> Regards,

> Ken Uzzell

>