Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

[Guest guest]

Interesting. I'm glad that the folks who have seen their flu clear up

overnight after exposure to Bare-Rife or EMEM machines didn't convince

themselves that it couldn't work.

I've seen the machines work time after time. And no, I don't know what

the field is that does it, but both EMEM and Bare-Rife machines seem to

create that field. My Bare-Rife certainly does create a field that a

Field-Strength meter reads, although the EMEM does not. They both work.

Thanks for the update!

Dave

bob Larson wrote:

> ...i'm interested in responses to the various points in this as well as

> other factors mentioned in the full article at the website.

>

>>From http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html :

>

>

> There are three technical reasons that prove, yes *prove*, that Rife

> can't work:

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

Who said it was the RF that causes Rife therapy to work? There's

the so-called plasma wave (not discovered yet), the

electromagnetic wave containing the Audio modulation, and at

least with the EMEM units we have the high electrostatic field.

BTW, radio signals go right through your body (the certainly go

through walls).

Bil

PC 1000

M-Pulse 5000 magnetic pulse generator

http://magpulser.com

Mammoth Lakes, CA

mailto:magpulser@...

bL> ...i'm interested in responses to the various points in this as well as

bL> other factors mentioned in the full article at the website.

bL> From

bL> http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html

bL> There are three technical reasons that prove, yes *prove*, that Rife

bL> can't work:

bL> 1) The RF (Radio Frequencies) that are used have resonate wavelengths

bL> measured in feet and yards. There is no way that frequencies that long

bL> can resonate with microscopic bacteria.

bL> 2) RF is a skin effect phenomenon. It penetrates even good conductors

bL> like copper only a few thousandths of an inch. That's not even deep

bL> enough to have any effect on infections of the skin and skin

bL> structures.

bL> 3) There is no RF emanated, or a vanishingly small amount measured in

bL> micro-watts. If there was any significant RF emitted the FCC (Federal

bL> Communications Commission) would shut them down for causing RFI (Radio

bL> Frequency Interference) and operating an unlicensed radio station.

bL> Proof that there is no RF emanated can be made with a Field Strength

bL> meter. It is not an expensive instrument and most Ham Radio operators

bL> have one. But an easier proof can be made by noting that the RF is

bL> sent to a light bulb, coil, resistive pads or some other resistive

bL> load. These convert the RF to light and heat and are known in the RF

bL> industry as " dummy loads " . The purpose and function of dummy loads is

bL> to prevent the radiation of stray signals that would arouse the ire of

bL> the FCC. It is used by radio stations, both commercial and amateur, to

bL> 'tune-up' the transmitter before going on-air.

bL> Confirmation of all 3 points can be found by consulting any issue of

bL> the " Commercial Radio Operators Manual " or any issue of the " Radio

bL> Amateurs Handbook " . These concepts are very basic and are covered in

bL> the first few chapters.

bL>

[Guest guest]

Interesting. Perhaps you can explain this. A friend of with diabetes, was

stating that his blood sugar was high in the 200 range. This was confirmed by

his

meter. I ran a EMEM type Rife device on him at 5000hz for about 10min.He

stated that he had an unusual taste in his mouth.Ater this 10min period he

retested with his meter. It gave a reading of 89. Now for something that does

not

work how do you explain this?

Ted

[Guest guest]

Have just added this page to my site that explains how these devices output

energy to put things in perspective: http://truerife.com/TrueRifeQuestions.html

Mike

settostun1@... wrote:

Interesting. Perhaps you can explain this. A friend of with diabetes,

was

stating that his blood sugar was high in the 200 range. This was confirmed by

his

meter. I ran a EMEM type Rife device on him at 5000hz for about 10min.He

stated that he had an unusual taste in his mouth.Ater this 10min period he

retested with his meter. It gave a reading of 89. Now for something that does

not

work how do you explain this?

Ted

[Guest guest]

This would make good research for all diabetics with a Rife machine.

To be safe, I think I'll start with 3 minutes and then work up slowly.

jp

Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

Interesting. Perhaps you can explain this. A friend of with diabetes, was

stating that his blood sugar was high in the 200 range. This was confirmed by

his

meter. I ran a EMEM type Rife device on him at 5000hz for about 10min.He

stated that he had an unusual taste in his mouth.Ater this 10min period he

retested with his meter. It gave a reading of 89. Now for something that does

not

work how do you explain this?

Ted

[Guest guest]

I personally cannot address the issues that you brought up but my

husband is an electrical engineer, very smart, with a degree from

Case Western University. He also taught college level electronics

for 5 years so he is more than qualified to evaluate Joe Hamm's

statements. When Joe Hamm wrote his information on lymenet I was

concerned and had my husband look at it. He stated emphatically that

Joe Hamm is incorrect on many of his points, including penetration.

I don't know what Joe's background is but from what my husband said,

he is obviously not qualified to make the statements he has made

because some of his " basics " are incorrect. Do a search on lymenet

as others may have responded to him about his " expert opinion " .

Rife is experimental and one person may not get the same results as

someone else. I had visible proof that rife worked in the first

month that I used it when (before I started antibitotics for lyme or

changed anything else in my treatment)the numbness in my heel and the

very deep crack in it started to heal. It was amazing to me since

I'd tried many things before to try to fix this long term problem

with no luck. It is now months later and my heel is almost

completely healed. I can walk better and the deep crack is gone. A

large part of my heel was hard and had no feeling and now the feeling

is back and the tissue is soft. This indicates to me that there is a

deeper healing taking place.

I considered asking my husband to respond technically to Joe's points

but it will do little good since Joe is bent on discrediting the use

of rife and stopping people from using it. Trying to talk some sense

into someone who does not want to hear it and thinks he already knows

all the answers is not on my list of priorities. We have more than

enough to do in dealing with my illness.

I believe Joe is doing a disservice to those who are ill and could

get some help with rife. If he really wants to help, he should make

sure his facts and asssumptions are correct. Perhaps he should take

some college level electronics classes or find a consultant who has

the qualifications and could help him understand the basics.

I don't spend much time on this list but I do use rife every week and

I'm very happy with the results.

Terry

>

> ...i'm interested in responses to the various points in this as

well as

> other factors mentioned in the full article at the website.

>

> From http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-

9720.html :

>

>

> There are three technical reasons that prove, yes *prove*, that Rife

> can't work:

>

> 1) The RF (Radio Frequencies) that are used have resonate

wavelengths

> measured in feet and yards. There is no way that frequencies that

long

> can resonate with microscopic bacteria.

>

> 2) RF is a skin effect phenomenon. It penetrates even good

conductors

> like copper only a few thousandths of an inch. That's not even deep

> enough to have any effect on infections of the skin and skin

> structures.

>

> 3) There is no RF emanated, or a vanishingly small amount measured

in

> micro-watts. If there was any significant RF emitted the FCC

(Federal

> Communications Commission) would shut them down for causing RFI

(Radio

> Frequency Interference) and operating an unlicensed radio station.

>

> Proof that there is no RF emanated can be made with a Field Strength

> meter. It is not an expensive instrument and most Ham Radio

operators

> have one. But an easier proof can be made by noting that the RF is

> sent to a light bulb, coil, resistive pads or some other resistive

> load. These convert the RF to light and heat and are known in the RF

> industry as " dummy loads " . The purpose and function of dummy loads

is

> to prevent the radiation of stray signals that would arouse the ire

of

> the FCC. It is used by radio stations, both commercial and amateur,

to

> 'tune-up' the transmitter before going on-air.

>

> Confirmation of all 3 points can be found by consulting any issue of

> the " Commercial Radio Operators Manual " or any issue of the " Radio

> Amateurs Handbook " . These concepts are very basic and are covered in

> the first few chapters.

>

[Guest guest]

....i have no clue. i'm working to learn about how these things work by,

among other approaches, looking for answers to the basic obvious questions

such as are raised by the sceptics put-down arguments in places where i

might get various perspectives & facts.

can you repeat that blood sugar lowering result with other people, or with

the same person? reliably? that would be really really cool.

bobL

> Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>

>

> Interesting. Perhaps you can explain this. A friend of with diabetes, was

> stating that his blood sugar was high in the 200 range. This was

> confirmed by his

> meter. I ran a EMEM type Rife device on him at 5000hz for about 10min.He

> stated that he had an unusual taste in his mouth.Ater this 10min

> period he

> retested with his meter. It gave a reading of 89. Now for

> something that does not

> work how do you explain this?

> Ted

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Bob L

This may sound a bit on the wacky side BUT I have a diabetic cat.5000hz has

the same effect on the cat only the exposure time was limited to 2min 30

sec.Damn machine had the same blood sugar lowering effect.Bob I understand that

you

have doubts. I did too but there is something happening here. The best thing

that I can recommend is to get your hands on a Rife machine and conduct your

own reasearch,draw your own conclusions. If its a bust you can always sell the

machine I know for a fact that I WON'T be selling mine. My suggestion is to get

a machine that uses plasma tubes I have a machine from rifelabs.com these

machines (devices) are well made and the price won't put that big of a hole in

your pocket.

Rock on

Ted

[Guest guest]

Of course, Rife can't work and bees can't fly. Nevertheless, just like the

bees we rifers ignore some things others proved. Flowers are pollinated and

disease disappears. Maybe it's only magic.

Jim

_____

From: Rife [mailto:Rife ] On Behalf Of

terryannkerr

Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 9:23 AM

To: Rife

Subject: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

I personally cannot address the issues that you brought up but my

husband is an electrical engineer, very smart, with a degree from

Case Western University. He also taught college level electronics

for 5 years so he is more than qualified to evaluate Joe Hamm's

statements. When Joe Hamm wrote his information on lymenet I was

concerned and had my husband look at it. He stated emphatically that

Joe Hamm is incorrect on many of his points, including penetration.

...

I believe Joe is doing a disservice to those who are ill and could

get some help with rife. If he really wants to help, he should make

sure his facts and asssumptions are correct. Perhaps he should take

some college level electronics classes or find a consultant who has

the qualifications and could help him understand the basics.

I don't spend much time on this list but I do use rife every week and

I'm very happy with the results.

Terry

>

> ...i'm interested in responses to the various points in this as

well as

> other factors mentioned in the full article at the website.

>

> From http://www.disease-

<http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t->

information.com/archive/index.php/t-

9720.html :

>

>

> There are three technical reasons that prove, yes *prove*, that Rife

> can't work:

>

> 1) The RF (Radio Frequencies) that are used have resonate

wavelengths

> measured in feet and yards. There is no way that frequencies that

long

> can resonate with microscopic bacteria.

>

> 2) RF is a skin effect phenomenon. It penetrates even good

conductors

> like copper only a few thousandths of an inch. That's not even deep

> enough to have any effect on infections of the skin and skin

> structures.

>

> 3) There is no RF emanated, or a vanishingly small amount measured

in

> micro-watts. If there was any significant RF emitted the FCC

(Federal

> Communications Commission) would shut them down for causing RFI

(Radio

> Frequency Interference) and operating an unlicensed radio station.

>

> Proof that there is no RF emanated can be made with a Field Strength

> meter. It is not an expensive instrument and most Ham Radio

operators

> have one. But an easier proof can be made by noting that the RF is

> sent to a light bulb, coil, resistive pads or some other resistive

> load. These convert the RF to light and heat and are known in the RF

> industry as " dummy loads " . The purpose and function of dummy loads

is

> to prevent the radiation of stray signals that would arouse the ire

of

> the FCC. It is used by radio stations, both commercial and amateur,

to

> 'tune-up' the transmitter before going on-air.

>

> Confirmation of all 3 points can be found by consulting any issue of

> the " Commercial Radio Operators Manual " or any issue of the " Radio

> Amateurs Handbook " . These concepts are very basic and are covered in

> the first few chapters.

>

[Guest guest]

....i'd very much like to read your hubby's tech response if he's got the

time to do it. others here might value it also. i know some electronics &

am trying to learn about Rife theory from many angles, mostly boiling down

to staring at this monitor a lot & hammering keys. I understand what the

guy is saying & i'd like to expand my understanding by taking it from

there....that would be very cool for me at least....know what i mean?

bobL

> Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>

>

> I personally cannot address the issues that you brought up but my

> husband is an electrical engineer, very smart, with a degree from

> Case Western University. He also taught college level electronics

> for 5 years so he is more than qualified to evaluate Joe Hamm's

> statements. When Joe Hamm wrote his information on lymenet I was

> concerned and had my husband look at it. He stated emphatically that

> Joe Hamm is incorrect on many of his points, including penetration.

>

> I don't know what Joe's background is but from what my husband said,

> he is obviously not qualified to make the statements he has made

> because some of his " basics " are incorrect. Do a search on lymenet

> as others may have responded to him about his " expert opinion " .

>

> Rife is experimental and one person may not get the same results as

> someone else. I had visible proof that rife worked in the first

> month that I used it when (before I started antibitotics for lyme or

> changed anything else in my treatment)the numbness in my heel and the

> very deep crack in it started to heal. It was amazing to me since

> I'd tried many things before to try to fix this long term problem

> with no luck. It is now months later and my heel is almost

> completely healed. I can walk better and the deep crack is gone. A

> large part of my heel was hard and had no feeling and now the feeling

> is back and the tissue is soft. This indicates to me that there is a

> deeper healing taking place.

>

> I considered asking my husband to respond technically to Joe's points

> but it will do little good since Joe is bent on discrediting the use

> of rife and stopping people from using it. Trying to talk some sense

> into someone who does not want to hear it and thinks he already knows

> all the answers is not on my list of priorities. We have more than

> enough to do in dealing with my illness.

>

> I believe Joe is doing a disservice to those who are ill and could

> get some help with rife. If he really wants to help, he should make

> sure his facts and asssumptions are correct. Perhaps he should take

> some college level electronics classes or find a consultant who has

> the qualifications and could help him understand the basics.

>

> I don't spend much time on this list but I do use rife every week and

> I'm very happy with the results.

> Terry

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> > ...i'm interested in responses to the various points in this as

> well as

> > other factors mentioned in the full article at the website.

> >

> > From http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-

> 9720.html :

> >

> >

> > There are three technical reasons that prove, yes *prove*, that Rife

> > can't work:

> >

> > 1) The RF (Radio Frequencies) that are used have resonate

> wavelengths

> > measured in feet and yards. There is no way that frequencies that

> long

> > can resonate with microscopic bacteria.

> >

> > 2) RF is a skin effect phenomenon. It penetrates even good

> conductors

> > like copper only a few thousandths of an inch. That's not even deep

> > enough to have any effect on infections of the skin and skin

> > structures.

> >

> > 3) There is no RF emanated, or a vanishingly small amount measured

> in

> > micro-watts. If there was any significant RF emitted the FCC

> (Federal

> > Communications Commission) would shut them down for causing RFI

> (Radio

> > Frequency Interference) and operating an unlicensed radio station.

> >

> > Proof that there is no RF emanated can be made with a Field Strength

> > meter. It is not an expensive instrument and most Ham Radio

> operators

> > have one. But an easier proof can be made by noting that the RF is

> > sent to a light bulb, coil, resistive pads or some other resistive

> > load. These convert the RF to light and heat and are known in the RF

> > industry as " dummy loads " . The purpose and function of dummy loads

> is

> > to prevent the radiation of stray signals that would arouse the ire

> of

> > the FCC. It is used by radio stations, both commercial and amateur,

> to

> > 'tune-up' the transmitter before going on-air.

> >

> > Confirmation of all 3 points can be found by consulting any issue of

> > the " Commercial Radio Operators Manual " or any issue of the " Radio

> > Amateurs Handbook " . These concepts are very basic and are covered in

> > the first few chapters.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Who is this Joe and how do you get ahold of him or email him? Does he have

an email address?

Josh

Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>I personally cannot address the issues that you brought up but my

> husband is an electrical engineer, very smart, with a degree from

> Case Western University. He also taught college level electronics

> for 5 years so he is more than qualified to evaluate Joe Hamm's

> statements. When Joe Hamm wrote his information on lymenet I was

> concerned and had my husband look at it. He stated emphatically that

> Joe Hamm is incorrect on many of his points, including penetration.

>

> I don't know what Joe's background is but from what my husband said,

> he is obviously not qualified to make the statements he has made

> because some of his " basics " are incorrect. Do a search on lymenet

> as others may have responded to him about his " expert opinion " .

>

> Rife is experimental and one person may not get the same results as

> someone else. I had visible proof that rife worked in the first

> month that I used it when (before I started antibitotics for lyme or

> changed anything else in my treatment)the numbness in my heel and the

> very deep crack in it started to heal. It was amazing to me since

> I'd tried many things before to try to fix this long term problem

> with no luck. It is now months later and my heel is almost

> completely healed. I can walk better and the deep crack is gone. A

> large part of my heel was hard and had no feeling and now the feeling

> is back and the tissue is soft. This indicates to me that there is a

> deeper healing taking place.

>

> I considered asking my husband to respond technically to Joe's points

> but it will do little good since Joe is bent on discrediting the use

> of rife and stopping people from using it. Trying to talk some sense

> into someone who does not want to hear it and thinks he already knows

> all the answers is not on my list of priorities. We have more than

> enough to do in dealing with my illness.

>

> I believe Joe is doing a disservice to those who are ill and could

> get some help with rife. If he really wants to help, he should make

> sure his facts and asssumptions are correct. Perhaps he should take

> some college level electronics classes or find a consultant who has

> the qualifications and could help him understand the basics.

>

> I don't spend much time on this list but I do use rife every week and

> I'm very happy with the results.

> Terry

>

>

>

>

>

>>

>> ...i'm interested in responses to the various points in this as

> well as

>> other factors mentioned in the full article at the website.

>>

>> From http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-

> 9720.html :

>>

>>

>> There are three technical reasons that prove, yes *prove*, that Rife

>> can't work:

>>

>> 1) The RF (Radio Frequencies) that are used have resonate

> wavelengths

>> measured in feet and yards. There is no way that frequencies that

> long

>> can resonate with microscopic bacteria.

>>

>> 2) RF is a skin effect phenomenon. It penetrates even good

> conductors

>> like copper only a few thousandths of an inch. That's not even deep

>> enough to have any effect on infections of the skin and skin

>> structures.

>>

>> 3) There is no RF emanated, or a vanishingly small amount measured

> in

>> micro-watts. If there was any significant RF emitted the FCC

> (Federal

>> Communications Commission) would shut them down for causing RFI

> (Radio

>> Frequency Interference) and operating an unlicensed radio station.

>>

>> Proof that there is no RF emanated can be made with a Field Strength

>> meter. It is not an expensive instrument and most Ham Radio

> operators

>> have one. But an easier proof can be made by noting that the RF is

>> sent to a light bulb, coil, resistive pads or some other resistive

>> load. These convert the RF to light and heat and are known in the RF

>> industry as " dummy loads " . The purpose and function of dummy loads

> is

>> to prevent the radiation of stray signals that would arouse the ire

> of

>> the FCC. It is used by radio stations, both commercial and amateur,

> to

>> 'tune-up' the transmitter before going on-air.

>>

>> Confirmation of all 3 points can be found by consulting any issue of

>> the " Commercial Radio Operators Manual " or any issue of the " Radio

>> Amateurs Handbook " . These concepts are very basic and are covered in

>> the first few chapters.

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

a pad machine will do the same thing. like gb4000

roger

settostun1@... wrote:

Hey Bob L

This may sound a bit on the wacky side BUT I have a diabetic cat.5000hz has

the same effect on the cat only the exposure time was limited to 2min 30

sec.Damn machine had the same blood sugar lowering effect.Bob I understand that

you

have doubts. I did too but there is something happening here. The best thing

that I can recommend is to get your hands on a Rife machine and conduct your

own reasearch,draw your own conclusions. If its a bust you can always sell the

machine I know for a fact that I WON'T be selling mine. My suggestion is to get

a machine that uses plasma tubes I have a machine from rifelabs.com these

machines (devices) are well made and the price won't put that big of a hole in

your pocket.

Rock on

Ted

[Guest guest]

joe is the writer of the sceptics argument i posted awhile back. the link

below will get you there, but if it rolls over to two lines be sure to make

sure you get the whole thing into the browser address.

http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html

> Re: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>

>

> Who is this Joe and how do you get ahold of him or email him?

> Does he have

> an email address?

>

> Josh

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, but how do I get in touch with Joe? I want to send him an email.

Josh

[Guest guest]

RE: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

joe is the writer of the sceptics argument i posted awhile back. the link

below will get you there, but if it rolls over to two lines be sure to make

sure you get the whole thing into the browser address.

http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html

Is anyone going to pick up the glove and respond to this, or do I have to do it?

Regards,

[Guest guest]

After reading half this file ,I decided not to read the rest of it as

it is mostly crap.As a non technical person,I can attest to the fact

that RF is

very powerful in the sense that it will peneterate body tissue,walls

etc.My stereo system was affected when I started doing tests on my RB

system.By the way,I was targetting babesia.As an apprentice, so to

speak, in doing research with my RB,I already know that what this person

is saying is not true.I don't think it is even worth while giving him

the time of day.But maybe for the more contankerous among us,LOL,someone

can play his game.

There will always be sceptics among us,I believe that they deep down

hope that we are on the right track,they don't want to admit it and they

want us to prove that we are right.We all know that we can't do this

given the FDA,AMA,Health Canada,etc....

But the main thing in all of this is that we can produce results .The

truth will never be destroyed.

Regards to all.....Guy

Ringas wrote:

> RE: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>

>joe is the writer of the sceptics argument i posted awhile back. the link

>below will get you there, but if it rolls over to two lines be sure to make

>sure you get the whole thing into the browser address.

>

>http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html

>

>

>

>Is anyone going to pick up the glove and respond to this, or do I have to do

it?

>

>Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Of course we can't prove it to the AMA and FDA because we don't have tons of

money. I think the only thing that will prove anything to the FDA or AMA

will be some huge natural disaster that kills off at least one third or

maybe two thirds of the population of the planet.

Josh

RE: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>>

>>joe is the writer of the sceptics argument i posted awhile back. the link

>>below will get you there, but if it rolls over to two lines be sure to

>>make

>>sure you get the whole thing into the browser address.

>>

>>http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html

>>

>>

>>

>>Is anyone going to pick up the glove and respond to this, or do I have to

>>do it?

>>

>>Regards,

>>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

sure, go for it .

> -----Original Message-----

>

> joe is the writer of the sceptics argument i posted awhile back. the link

> below will get you there, but if it rolls over to two lines be

> sure to make

> sure you get the whole thing into the browser address.

>

> http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html

>

>

>

> Is anyone going to pick up the glove and respond to this, or do I

> have to do it?

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

i have no clue.

try googling on his name? internet white pages or the like? there can't be

all that many...or can there?

> Re: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>

>

> Yes, but how do I get in touch with Joe? I want to send him an email.

>

> Josh

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

This guy's " critique " is too long to make a point by

point rebuttal, so I'll just make a few comments.

The first thing that struck me, based on his style of

presentation, is that he is not a sceptic, but is a

debunker. The difference is fundamental. A sceptic

is critical, but open-minded and sincere in his search

for understanding. A debunker is dishonest and is

just looking to shoot something down. He has no

desire to learn or be convinced of anything.

What qualifies this guy to make such an authoritative

pronouncement that " Rife " machines are quackery and a

waste of time and money? His presentation indicates

that he doesn't have a clue what " Rife " is all about,

nor does he make any distinction between the various

Rife-inspired modern derivatives. His assessment of

such a broad field is clearly simplistic, superficial,

and small-minded.

He claims that proponents of Rife claim that it can

cure 650 pathogens. I've never seen this claim. The

figure of 650 is a figure I've seen claimed for

colloidal silver, not Rife, so he may be getting his

" facts " confused.

His three technical reasons that " prove " that Rife

can't work demonstrates his superficial understanding

of the matter. He assumes that RF acting in a

conventional manner is is the mode of operation, when

the reality is that it's a plasma driven by RF. A

plasma changes everything, and nullifies the argument

that the wavelengths are too long. He also confuses

the phenomena of the RF skin effect of a metallic

conductor with the phenomena of a complex living body

with semi-conductive properties being exposed to RF,

let alone a plasma driven by RF. And his assertion

that there is no RF emanated is absurd, as can be

attested to by anyone who's worked with an RF device.

Also, his claim that the RF is sent to a " light bulb "

that acts as a resistive " dummy " load, shows his lack

of understanding. A gas plasma tube is not a

resistive dummy load.

Everything I've said so far is in no way a presumption

on my part to being a technical expert, or a claim

that I understand everything about the operation of

these frequency devices. I do claim, however, that I

can recognize such a blatantly incompetent and even

fraudulent " critique " from an alleged " sceptic " . When

I first read it, my immediate impression was that it

was written by someone associated with the

" Quackwatch " people.

I'll finish by saying that it is the height of hubris

for this person to think that he knows what's best for

everyone in regards to how they should proceed in

treating their disease. For me, this and other

" alternative " fields have been as much about freedom,

as they've been about whether they work or not.

Regards,

> Joe Hamm

>

>

>

> About this time every year the ranks of Lyme disease

> victims swells

>

> just because it's tick season and people get bitten

> by germ laden

>

> ticks. I'm sorry that you have to be here but you

> have found one of

>

> the best forums on the topic of Lyme disease.

>

>

>

> Its strength and its weakness lies in it being an

> unmoderated board.

>

> You will find all kinds of opinions here, some well

> researched and well

>

> reasoned, and some that are just garbage. After a

> little while you

>

> will get to know the players and which ones are

> credible and which ones

>

> are not. That's when the search engine will become

> the most valuable

>

> feature of this board.

>

>

>

> However, right now your first priority should be to

> find a good Lyme

>

> Literate MD (LLMD), one who practices in the region

> where you most

>

> likely got Lyme. That's because Lyme disease is not

> a monolith, as

>

> evidenced by sheer numbers of strains. Bb has over

> 100 strains and you

>

> will read here how some antibiotics worked well for

> some and not for

>

> others. And there is increasing evidence that some

> strains have

>

> distinct symptom clusters. A good LLMD will know

> about that and will

>

> be the most likely to treat you with the most

> effective antibiotics for

>

> your strain. Find one. Ask around your

> neighborhood or ask on this

>

> board but find a good LLMD first.

>

>

>

> That begs the question of how to qualify an LLMD.

> There is no easy

>

> answer for that but one thing that you can do fairly

> easily is to

>

> disqualify the quacks. Ask him if he thinks that

> Rife, colloidal

>

> silver, bee venom or mushrooms will cure Lyme. If

> he say Yes, then

>

> keep looking.

>

>

>

> This thread is to help you avoid wasting time and

> money during the

>

> first few critical weeks or months of infection on

> the quackery called

>

> the Rife machine.

>

>

>

> The proponents of Rife claim that it kills bacteria

> with

>

> " electromagnetic frequencies " that resonate with at

> least 650 pathogens

>

> and kills them in a fashion similar to an opera

> singer shattering a

>

> crystal class. That analogy fails because it

> violates the laws of

>

> physics as will be shown.

>

>

>

> Also, the claim that Rife can cure 650 diseases

> including cancer is so

>

> preposterous that any straight thinking person would

> and should laugh

>

> at that kind of propaganda. Unfortunately, " Lyme

> fog " can scramble

>

> one's critical faculties so badly that the

> preposterous becomes

>

> credible.

>

> I know; I had some experience with Lyme fog last

> year. It kept me

>

> seeing (and paying) a heart specialist long after

> the misdiagnosis

>

> should have been obvious. Fortunately I 'came to'

> before I underwent a

>

> needless cath job.

>

>

>

> Funny how a diagnosis will so often align with the

> doctor's speciality.

>

> Just a human failing perhaps: When you're a hammer

> everything looks

>

> like a nail.

>

>

>

> The next duc that I saw was the only " LLMD " in the

> state, Kinderlehrer,

>

> a self proclaimed LLMD and a Rife peddler. He also

> promotes

>

> trans-rectal ozone.

>

>

http://www.lymesite.com/Integrated%20approach%20DAN.htm

>

>

>

> When I questioned that Rife could work against Lyme

> his argument was

>

> that one can't prove a negative. That is, that

> since Rife has never

>

> been proven to not work, therefore it might work,

> therefore buy one,

>

> from him, at a " discount. " That kind of " logic "

> will make your head

>

> spin even if you aren't already dizzy from Lyme. It

> should also make

>

> you question the judgment and competence of such a

> " doctor. " We pay

>

> doctors not only for their medical knowledge but

> also for their

>

> objective view of effective treatments. Sadly,

> sometimes they fail.

>

>

>

> There are three technical reasons that prove, yes

> *prove*, that Rife

>

> can't work:

>

>

>

> 1) The RF (Radio Frequencies) that are used have

> resonate wavelengths

>

> measured in feet and yards. There is no way that

> frequencies that long

>

> can resonate with microscopic bacteria.

>

>

>

> 2) RF is a skin effect phenomenon. It penetrates

> even good conductors

>

> like copper only a few thousandths of an inch.

> That's not even deep

>

> enough to have any effect on infections of the skin

> and skin

>

> structures.

>

>

>

> 3) There is no RF emanated, or a vanishingly small

> amount measured in

>

> micro-watts. If there was any significant RF

> emitted the FCC (Federal

>

> Communications Commission) would shut them down for

> causing RFI (Radio

>

> Frequency Interference) and operating an unlicensed

> radio station.

>

>

>

> Proof that there is no RF emanated can be made with

> a Field Strength

>

> meter. It is not an expensive instrument and most

> Ham Radio operators

>

> have one. But an easier proof can be made by noting

> that the RF is

>

> sent to a light bulb, coil, resistive pads or some

> other resistive

>

> load. These convert the RF to light and heat and

> are known in the RF

>

> industry as " dummy loads " . The purpose and

> function of dummy loads is

>

> to prevent the radiation of stray signals that would

> arouse the ire of

>

> the FCC. It is used by radio stations, both

> commercial and amateur, to

>

> 'tune-up' the transmitter before going on-air.

>

>

>

> Confirmation of all 3 points can be found by

> consulting any issue of

>

> the " Commercial Radio Operators Manual " or any issue

> of the " Radio

>

> Amateurs Handbook " . These concepts are very basic

> and are covered in

>

> the first few chapters.

>

>

>

> These books are rather technical in nature and some

> people without a

>

> technical bent may find them difficult reading. So

> an easier way get a

>

> handle on these principles of the physics of RF is

> to consult with a

>

> local Ham radio operator. You can probably find one

> by just looking

>

> around your neighborhood for a Ham Radio " antenna

> farm " .

>

>

>

> Stop in, introduce yourself and ask questions. Most

> Hams are very

>

> friendly and love to talk radio. He will be able to

> answer your

>

> questions in less technical terms. Be prepared to

> spend some time; we

>

> are known as Hams for good reason.

>

>

>

> Why then do Lymies and victims of other chronic

> diseases spend good

>

> money on such an improbable remedy? Probably

> because of the lack of a

>

> technical background, combined with sheer

> Desperation, a dose of " Lyme

>

> fog " and some naive credulity.

>

>

>

> Lyme is still considered an 'emerging' infectious

> disease, identified

>

> for barely 30 years, the causative agent, Borrelia

> Burgdorferi, for

>

> only 20 years. Mainstream medicine has not come to

> grips with it yet,

>

> offers no sure cure, and often outright denial.

> Under those

>

> circumstances any 'alternative' that offers

> validation and hope starts

>

> to look pretty good.

>

>

>

> That denial happened to my dog also. All 5 of the

> local vets insisted

>

> that he couldn't have Lyme disease because this not

> an endemic area.

>

> When his blood test came back 'positive' 2 of them

> said that it was

>

> probably a false positive. I did not bother to

> consult with the other

>

> 3 vets because I had already been thru a string of

> denials from human

>

> ducs myself. In fact, the New Mexico State

> Epidemiologist, Dr. C. Mack

>

> Sewell claims that we can't have Lyme disease here

> because we don't

>

> even have the vector. I wonder if a shovelful of

> ticks in his shorts

>

> would convince him otherwise.

>

>

>

> This " failure to diagnose " and " refusal to treat "

> opens the door very

>

> wide to any " alternative " that offers validation and

> hope. Validation

>

> is important because it resolves the mystery,

> confirms that the

>

> symptoms are not 'all in your head' and offers the

> prospect of

>

> treatment. Hope can be very important also because

> it gives the

>

> patient some reason to keep on fighting and that can

> help get them

>

> through the tough spots. Most doctors are very

> reluctant to deliver a

>

> fatal prognosis because that would take away hope.

> Sometimes hope may

>

> be all that the patient has. Doctors know the

> therapeutic value of

>

> hope. Charlatans know the commercial value.

>

>

>

> The failure of mainstream medicine to come to grips

> with Lyme disease

>

> causes many victims of the disease to become

> desperate. Desperate

>

> people will do desperate things. I know of several

> otherwise

>

> intelligent people who have suspended reason in

> order to believe that

>

> an electronic gizmo will cure Lyme disease and 649

> other diseases and

>

> maladies.

>

> And that this miracle cure for all diseases has been

> suppressed for 60

>

> years by some evil conspiracy.

>

>

>

> But what about all those glowing 'testimonials'?

>

> No doubt some of them were written by the enterprise

> that makes and

>

> sells them. That's just merchandising.

>

>

>

> But most of them seem to be from genuine customers

> and users who truly

>

> believe the device works.

>

>

>

> An analysis of why so many people believe that it

> works probably has

>

> some explanation in the placebo effect. That is,

> during the depths of

>

> a relapse when the patient is feeling the worst then

> any hope of

>

> relief, no matter how thin, becomes cause for

> belief. When a natural

>

> remission cycle follows Rife treatments, whether by

> days or weeks, the

>

> device gets the credit not the person's own immune

> system or the

>

> Relapsing/Remitting nature of Lyme disease. And the

> next relapse is

>

> attributed to a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction and is

> interpreted as

>

> further proof that the device works.

>

> http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/2140798985.htm

>

>

>

> That first impression is powerful and can persist

> even when,

>

> objectively, subsequent treatments yield no

> improvement. I have heard

>

> Lymies say that they are sure that their relapses

> would have been much

>

> worse without Rife even though their relapses were

> getting more severe

>

> over time.

>

>

>

> This self deception can start even earlier. I know

> of one Lymie who

>

> objects strenuously to any criticism of the

> effectiveness of Rife even

>

> though the newly purchased machine hasn't arrived

> yet!

>

>

>

> And another who suggests that Rife might work on a

> principal different

>

> from resonance as the Rife promoters claim but has

> no idea what that

>

> other principal might be.

>

>

>

> Another part of the explanation leads to the soft

> science of

>

> psychology. I'm not comfortable with that

> psycho-babble so perhaps

>

> some illustration by way of examples will suffice.

>

>

>

> A friend and fellow bird dog trainer recently

> brought over a Rife

>

> device and left it for me to " fix " . He felt that it

> was broken because

>

> it seemed to no longer have any effect on his Lyme

> disease. I put it on

>

> the oscilloscope and found that it was generating

> the RF signal as

>

> noted in the manual and delivering it to the dummy

> load. In other

>

> words it was not broken.

>

>

>

> The problem is how to handle the situation when he

> returns to pick it

>

> up.

>

> If I tell him the truth it will probably damage the

> friendship. He

>

> truly believes that it is curative and would not

> take kindly to being

>

> shown that he had been deceived by hucksters. He

> has a large ego that

>

> would be bruised if I showed him how he had been

> duped and conned out

>

> of $2300.

>

>

>

> Or I could tell a half-truth, hand it back to him

> saying: " It works

>

> now, as designed. " That's not something that a true

> friend should do

>

> because then he would probably continue Rifeing and

> stop using the

>

> antibiotics that are proven to be effective for this

> disease.

>

>

>

> Stopping abx while using Rife is actually

> recommended by Rosner

>

> ('theskyking' on Lymenet). He says outright that

> Rife works better

>

> without abx:

>

>

>

> " Rife machines are not very effective while using

> antibiotics. "

>

> http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/029696.html

>

>

>

> " It is typical for antibiotics to greatly lessen

> rife effectiveness. "

>

>

>

> http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/034109.html

>

>

>

> However, it's obvious that he doesn't believe that

> because he posted to

>

> Lymenet recently begging for advice about which

> antibiotic should be

>

> used by a friend who had just been bitten by a tick.

>

> http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/034046.html

>

>

>

> A third option would be another half-truth; suggest

> that his bacteria

>

> had developed a strain that is resistant to Rife. I

> have until Sunday

>

> to decide which approach to take.

>

>

>

> A fellow Lymie in the next town got hold of a Rife

> last January. She

>

> figured out that Rife wasn't doing any good in just

> three months. She

>

> says that she had help from her dog that also has

> Lyme. That is,

>

> because dogs seem to cycle relapsing diseases such

> as Lyme so much

>

> faster than humans do it was easier to see that Rife

> treatments on the

>

> dog were having no effect at all. Dogs do not

> appear to be susceptible

>

> to the self-deception of the placebo effect.

>

>

>

> Then she looked critically at how it was working on

> her and it was

>

> obvious that it was not. The disease was moving to

> its own timetable

>

> whether Rife was used or not. It might also have

> helped that she had

>

> borrowed the Rife and so she didn't have any money

> or ego invested in

>

> it. She is doing well enough now on antibiotics to

> be back at work.

>

> Hopefully her detour into Rife wasn't long enough to

> cause her Lyme

>

> disease to progress to the chronic stage.

>

>

>

> The issue of the placebo effect has been kicked

> around quite a bit on

>

> this board and in the medical literature. The

> general consensus is

>

> that the Relapsing/Remitting diseases such as Lyme

> are the more prone

>

> to the placebo effect for the obvious reason of

> coincidence. That's

>

> why the statistical analysis of trials is so

> important. Another

>

> confounding factor is that some antibiotics,

> particularly the

>

> b'statics, can take a while to kick-in. If another

> alternative therapy

>

> is started and improvement is noted then the last

> therapy added will

>

> get credit that it doesn't deserve. It pays to keep

> a long time frame

>

> in mind and keep a log.

>

>

>

> However, sometimes the placebo issue can yield some

> tongue-in-cheek

>

> humor that is good for the soul. An interesting

> article about it

>

> concluded that the placebos that were used were just

> too weak and that

>

> better results would have been found if they had

> used Double Strength

>

> Placebos. Sly grin. My perverse sense of humor.

>

>

>

>

http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume5/v5i2/placebos-5-2.html

>

>

>

> So we should not be surprised that Rife users are

> now being offered

>

> add-on amplifiers to make their placebos a bit

> stronger.

>

>

>

> On the other hand there is now a Rife whacko,

> Klinghardt in Seattle,

>

> who claims that his reduced strength Rife machine

> works better.

>

> http://www.neuraltherapy.com/

>

>

>

> BTW, his license to practice medicine was not

> renewed in 2004.

>

>

http://www.state.nm.us/nmbme/pdffiles/Jun04newsletter.pdf

>

>

>

> The worst part about the Rife propaganda is that too

> many Lymies

>

> (afflicted by Lyme fog) will believe it and forego

> antibiotics while

>

> doing Rife. That just gives the spirochete more

> time to adapt and

>

> burrow in deeper. The tragedy of this is especially

> profound in the

>

> case of early/acute Lyme which is fairly easily

> cured with adequate

>

> dose and duration of antibiotics but when left

> untreated then becomes

>

> disseminated or late/chronic Lyme and is much more

> difficult to treat.

>

> In some cases it seems that chronic really means

> chronic; treatable but

>

> not curable.

>

>

>

> So if you are considering buying a Rife machine you

> might want to ask

>

> yourself: Is there any objective evidence, any at

> all, that it works?

>

>

>

> How desperate are you?

>

>

>

> Can you afford to delay effective treatment for your

> stage of Lyme

>

> disease?

>

>

>

> How fragile is your ego? Will it allow you admit

> your mistake before

>

> it's too late?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Exactly . The paragraph:-

> He claims that proponents of Rife claim that it can

> cure 650 pathogens. I've never seen this claim. The

> figure of 650 is a figure I've seen claimed for

> colloidal silver, not Rife, so he may be getting his

> " facts " confused.

This claim was made in the Doctor Beck protocol and was for

Colloidal silver and was never mentioned for Rife.....Noel

>

> This guy's " critique " is too long to make a point by

> point rebuttal, so I'll just make a few comments.

>

> The first thing that struck me, based on his style of

> presentation, is that he is not a sceptic, but is a

> debunker. The difference is fundamental. A sceptic

> is critical, but open-minded and sincere in his search

> for understanding. A debunker is dishonest and is

> just looking to shoot something down. He has no

> desire to learn or be convinced of anything.

>

> What qualifies this guy to make such an authoritative

> pronouncement that " Rife " machines are quackery and a

> waste of time and money? His presentation indicates

> that he doesn't have a clue what " Rife " is all about,

> nor does he make any distinction between the various

> Rife-inspired modern derivatives. His assessment of

> such a broad field is clearly simplistic, superficial,

> and small-minded.

>

> He claims that proponents of Rife claim that it can

> cure 650 pathogens. I've never seen this claim. The

> figure of 650 is a figure I've seen claimed for

> colloidal silver, not Rife, so he may be getting his

> " facts " confused.

>

> His three technical reasons that " prove " that Rife

> can't work demonstrates his superficial understanding

> of the matter. He assumes that RF acting in a

> conventional manner is is the mode of operation, when

> the reality is that it's a plasma driven by RF. A

> plasma changes everything, and nullifies the argument

> that the wavelengths are too long. He also confuses

> the phenomena of the RF skin effect of a metallic

> conductor with the phenomena of a complex living body

> with semi-conductive properties being exposed to RF,

> let alone a plasma driven by RF. And his assertion

> that there is no RF emanated is absurd, as can be

> attested to by anyone who's worked with an RF device.

> Also, his claim that the RF is sent to a " light bulb "

> that acts as a resistive " dummy " load, shows his lack

> of understanding. A gas plasma tube is not a

> resistive dummy load.

>

> Everything I've said so far is in no way a presumption

> on my part to being a technical expert, or a claim

> that I understand everything about the operation of

> these frequency devices. I do claim, however, that I

> can recognize such a blatantly incompetent and even

> fraudulent " critique " from an alleged " sceptic " . When

> I first read it, my immediate impression was that it

> was written by someone associated with the

> " Quackwatch " people.

>

> I'll finish by saying that it is the height of hubris

> for this person to think that he knows what's best for

> everyone in regards to how they should proceed in

> treating their disease. For me, this and other

> " alternative " fields have been as much about freedom,

> as they've been about whether they work or not.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > Joe Hamm

> >

> >

> >

> > About this time every year the ranks of Lyme disease

> > victims swells

> >

> > just because it's tick season and people get bitten

> > by germ laden

> >

> > ticks. I'm sorry that you have to be here but you

> > have found one of

> >

> > the best forums on the topic of Lyme disease.

> >

> >

> >

> > Its strength and its weakness lies in it being an

> > unmoderated board.

> >

> > You will find all kinds of opinions here, some well

> > researched and well

> >

> > reasoned, and some that are just garbage. After a

> > little while you

> >

> > will get to know the players and which ones are

> > credible and which ones

> >

> > are not. That's when the search engine will become

> > the most valuable

> >

> > feature of this board.

> >

> >

> >

> > However, right now your first priority should be to

> > find a good Lyme

> >

> > Literate MD (LLMD), one who practices in the region

> > where you most

> >

> > likely got Lyme. That's because Lyme disease is not

> > a monolith, as

> >

> > evidenced by sheer numbers of strains. Bb has over

> > 100 strains and you

> >

> > will read here how some antibiotics worked well for

> > some and not for

> >

> > others. And there is increasing evidence that some

> > strains have

> >

> > distinct symptom clusters. A good LLMD will know

> > about that and will

> >

> > be the most likely to treat you with the most

> > effective antibiotics for

> >

> > your strain. Find one. Ask around your

> > neighborhood or ask on this

> >

> > board but find a good LLMD first.

> >

> >

> >

> > That begs the question of how to qualify an LLMD.

> > There is no easy

> >

> > answer for that but one thing that you can do fairly

> > easily is to

> >

> > disqualify the quacks. Ask him if he thinks that

> > Rife, colloidal

> >

> > silver, bee venom or mushrooms will cure Lyme. If

> > he say Yes, then

> >

> > keep looking.

> >

> >

> >

> > This thread is to help you avoid wasting time and

> > money during the

> >

> > first few critical weeks or months of infection on

> > the quackery called

> >

> > the Rife machine.

> >

> >

> >

> > The proponents of Rife claim that it kills bacteria

> > with

> >

> > " electromagnetic frequencies " that resonate with at

> > least 650 pathogens

> >

> > and kills them in a fashion similar to an opera

> > singer shattering a

> >

> > crystal class. That analogy fails because it

> > violates the laws of

> >

> > physics as will be shown.

> >

> >

> >

> > Also, the claim that Rife can cure 650 diseases

> > including cancer is so

> >

> > preposterous that any straight thinking person would

> > and should laugh

> >

> > at that kind of propaganda. Unfortunately, " Lyme

> > fog " can scramble

> >

> > one's critical faculties so badly that the

> > preposterous becomes

> >

> > credible.

> >

> > I know; I had some experience with Lyme fog last

> > year. It kept me

> >

> > seeing (and paying) a heart specialist long after

> > the misdiagnosis

> >

> > should have been obvious. Fortunately I 'came to'

> > before I underwent a

> >

> > needless cath job.

> >

> >

> >

> > Funny how a diagnosis will so often align with the

> > doctor's speciality.

> >

> > Just a human failing perhaps: When you're a hammer

> > everything looks

> >

> > like a nail.

> >

> >

> >

> > The next duc that I saw was the only " LLMD " in the

> > state, Kinderlehrer,

> >

> > a self proclaimed LLMD and a Rife peddler. He also

> > promotes

> >

> > trans-rectal ozone.

> >

> >

> http://www.lymesite.com/Integrated%20approach%20DAN.htm

> >

> >

> >

> > When I questioned that Rife could work against Lyme

> > his argument was

> >

> > that one can't prove a negative. That is, that

> > since Rife has never

> >

> > been proven to not work, therefore it might work,

> > therefore buy one,

> >

> > from him, at a " discount. " That kind of " logic "

> > will make your head

> >

> > spin even if you aren't already dizzy from Lyme. It

> > should also make

> >

> > you question the judgment and competence of such a

> > " doctor. " We pay

> >

> > doctors not only for their medical knowledge but

> > also for their

> >

> > objective view of effective treatments. Sadly,

> > sometimes they fail.

> >

> >

> >

> > There are three technical reasons that prove, yes

> > *prove*, that Rife

> >

> > can't work:

> >

> >

> >

> > 1) The RF (Radio Frequencies) that are used have

> > resonate wavelengths

> >

> > measured in feet and yards. There is no way that

> > frequencies that long

> >

> > can resonate with microscopic bacteria.

> >

> >

> >

> > 2) RF is a skin effect phenomenon. It penetrates

> > even good conductors

> >

> > like copper only a few thousandths of an inch.

> > That's not even deep

> >

> > enough to have any effect on infections of the skin

> > and skin

> >

> > structures.

> >

> >

> >

> > 3) There is no RF emanated, or a vanishingly small

> > amount measured in

> >

> > micro-watts. If there was any significant RF

> > emitted the FCC (Federal

> >

> > Communications Commission) would shut them down for

> > causing RFI (Radio

> >

> > Frequency Interference) and operating an unlicensed

> > radio station.

> >

> >

> >

> > Proof that there is no RF emanated can be made with

> > a Field Strength

> >

> > meter. It is not an expensive instrument and most

> > Ham Radio operators

> >

> > have one. But an easier proof can be made by noting

> > that the RF is

> >

> > sent to a light bulb, coil, resistive pads or some

> > other resistive

> >

> > load. These convert the RF to light and heat and

> > are known in the RF

> >

> > industry as " dummy loads " . The purpose and

> > function of dummy loads is

> >

> > to prevent the radiation of stray signals that would

> > arouse the ire of

> >

> > the FCC. It is used by radio stations, both

> > commercial and amateur, to

> >

> > 'tune-up' the transmitter before going on-air.

> >

> >

> >

> > Confirmation of all 3 points can be found by

> > consulting any issue of

> >

> > the " Commercial Radio Operators Manual " or any issue

> > of the " Radio

> >

> > Amateurs Handbook " . These concepts are very basic

> > and are covered in

> >

> > the first few chapters.

> >

> >

> >

> > These books are rather technical in nature and some

> > people without a

> >

> > technical bent may find them difficult reading. So

> > an easier way get a

> >

> > handle on these principles of the physics of RF is

> > to consult with a

> >

> > local Ham radio operator. You can probably find one

> > by just looking

> >

> > around your neighborhood for a Ham Radio " antenna

> > farm " .

> >

> >

> >

> > Stop in, introduce yourself and ask questions. Most

> > Hams are very

> >

> > friendly and love to talk radio. He will be able to

> > answer your

> >

> > questions in less technical terms. Be prepared to

> > spend some time; we

> >

> > are known as Hams for good reason.

> >

> >

> >

> > Why then do Lymies and victims of other chronic

> > diseases spend good

> >

> > money on such an improbable remedy? Probably

> > because of the lack of a

> >

> > technical background, combined with sheer

> > Desperation, a dose of " Lyme

> >

> > fog " and some naive credulity.

> >

> >

> >

> > Lyme is still considered an 'emerging' infectious

> > disease, identified

> >

> > for barely 30 years, the causative agent, Borrelia

> > Burgdorferi, for

> >

> > only 20 years. Mainstream medicine has not come to

> > grips with it yet,

> >

> > offers no sure cure, and often outright denial.

> > Under those

> >

> > circumstances any 'alternative' that offers

> > validation and hope starts

> >

> > to look pretty good.

> >

> >

> >

> > That denial happened to my dog also. All 5 of the

> > local vets insisted

> >

> > that he couldn't have Lyme disease because this not

> > an endemic area.

> >

> > When his blood test came back 'positive' 2 of them

> > said that it was

> >

> > probably a false positive. I did not bother to

> > consult with the other

> >

> > 3 vets because I had already been thru a string of

> > denials from human

> >

> > ducs myself. In fact, the New Mexico State

> > Epidemiologist, Dr. C. Mack

> >

> > Sewell claims that we can't have Lyme disease here

> > because we don't

> >

> > even have the vector. I wonder if a shovelful of

> > ticks in his shorts

> >

> > would convince him otherwise.

> >

> >

> >

> > This " failure to diagnose " and " refusal to treat "

> > opens the door very

> >

> > wide to any " alternative " that offers validation and

> > hope. Validation

> >

> > is important because it resolves the mystery,

> > confirms that the

> >

> > symptoms are not 'all in your head' and offers the

> > prospect of

> >

> > treatment. Hope can be very important also because

> > it gives the

> >

> > patient some reason to keep on fighting and that can

> > help get them

> >

> > through the tough spots. Most doctors are very

> > reluctant to deliver a

> >

> > fatal prognosis because that would take away hope.

> > Sometimes hope may

> >

> > be all that the patient has. Doctors know the

> > therapeutic value of

> >

> > hope. Charlatans know the commercial value.

> >

> >

> >

> > The failure of mainstream medicine to come to grips

> > with Lyme disease

> >

> > causes many victims of the disease to become

> > desperate. Desperate

> >

> > people will do desperate things. I know of several

> > otherwise

> >

> > intelligent people who have suspended reason in

> > order to believe that

> >

> > an electronic gizmo will cure Lyme disease and 649

> > other diseases and

> >

> > maladies.

> >

> > And that this miracle cure for all diseases has been

> > suppressed for 60

> >

> > years by some evil conspiracy.

> >

> >

> >

> > But what about all those glowing 'testimonials'?

> >

> > No doubt some of them were written by the enterprise

> > that makes and

> >

> > sells them. That's just merchandising.

> >

> >

> >

> > But most of them seem to be from genuine customers

> > and users who truly

> >

> > believe the device works.

> >

> >

> >

> > An analysis of why so many people believe that it

> > works probably has

> >

> > some explanation in the placebo effect. That is,

> > during the depths of

> >

> > a relapse when the patient is feeling the worst then

> > any hope of

> >

> > relief, no matter how thin, becomes cause for

> > belief. When a natural

> >

> > remission cycle follows Rife treatments, whether by

> > days or weeks, the

> >

> > device gets the credit not the person's own immune

> > system or the

> >

> > Relapsing/Remitting nature of Lyme disease. And the

> > next relapse is

> >

> > attributed to a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction and is

> > interpreted as

> >

> > further proof that the device works.

> >

> > http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/2140798985.htm

> >

> >

> >

> > That first impression is powerful and can persist

> > even when,

> >

> > objectively, subsequent treatments yield no

> > improvement. I have heard

> >

> > Lymies say that they are sure that their relapses

> > would have been much

> >

> > worse without Rife even though their relapses were

> > getting more severe

> >

> > over time.

> >

> >

> >

> > This self deception can start even earlier. I know

> > of one Lymie who

> >

> > objects strenuously to any criticism of the

> > effectiveness of Rife even

> >

> > though the newly purchased machine hasn't arrived

> > yet!

> >

> >

> >

> > And another who suggests that Rife might work on a

> > principal different

> >

> > from resonance as the Rife promoters claim but has

> > no idea what that

> >

> > other principal might be.

> >

> >

> >

> > Another part of the explanation leads to the soft

> > science of

> >

> > psychology. I'm not comfortable with that

> > psycho-babble so perhaps

> >

> > some illustration by way of examples will suffice.

> >

> >

> >

> > A friend and fellow bird dog trainer recently

> > brought over a Rife

> >

> > device and left it for me to " fix " . He felt that it

> > was broken because

> >

> > it seemed to no longer have any effect on his Lyme

> > disease. I put it on

> >

> > the oscilloscope and found that it was generating

> > the RF signal as

> >

> > noted in the manual and delivering it to the dummy

> > load. In other

> >

> > words it was not broken.

> >

> >

> >

> > The problem is how to handle the situation when he

> > returns to pick it

> >

> > up.

> >

> > If I tell him the truth it will probably damage the

> > friendship. He

> >

> > truly believes that it is curative and would not

> > take kindly to being

> >

> > shown that he had been deceived by hucksters. He

> > has a large ego that

> >

> > would be bruised if I showed him how he had been

> > duped and conned out

> >

> > of $2300.

> >

> >

> >

> > Or I could tell a half-truth, hand it back to him

> > saying: " It works

> >

> > now, as designed. " That's not something that a true

> > friend should do

> >

> > because then he would probably continue Rifeing and

> > stop using the

> >

> > antibiotics that are proven to be effective for this

> > disease.

> >

> >

> >

> > Stopping abx while using Rife is actually

> > recommended by Rosner

> >

> > ('theskyking' on Lymenet). He says outright that

> > Rife works better

> >

> > without abx:

> >

> >

> >

> > " Rife machines are not very effective while using

> > antibiotics. "

> >

> > http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/029696.html

> >

> >

> >

> > " It is typical for antibiotics to greatly lessen

> > rife effectiveness. "

> >

> >

> >

> > http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/034109.html

> >

> >

> >

> > However, it's obvious that he doesn't believe that

> > because he posted to

> >

> > Lymenet recently begging for advice about which

> > antibiotic should be

> >

> > used by a friend who had just been bitten by a tick.

> >

> > http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/034046.html

> >

> >

> >

> > A third option would be another half-truth; suggest

> > that his bacteria

> >

> > had developed a strain that is resistant to Rife. I

> > have until Sunday

> >

> > to decide which approach to take.

> >

> >

> >

> > A fellow Lymie in the next town got hold of a Rife

> > last January. She

> >

> > figured out that Rife wasn't doing any good in just

> > three months. She

> >

> > says that she had help from her dog that also has

> > Lyme. That is,

> >

> > because dogs seem to cycle relapsing diseases such

> > as Lyme so much

> >

> > faster than humans do it was easier to see that Rife

> > treatments on the

> >

> > dog were having no effect at all. Dogs do not

> > appear to be susceptible

> >

> > to the self-deception of the placebo effect.

> >

> >

> >

> > Then she looked critically at how it was working on

> > her and it was

> >

> > obvious that it was not. The disease was moving to

> > its own timetable

> >

> > whether Rife was used or not. It might also have

> > helped that she had

> >

> > borrowed the Rife and so she didn't have any money

> > or ego invested in

> >

> > it. She is doing well enough now on antibiotics to

> > be back at work.

> >

> > Hopefully her detour into Rife wasn't long enough to

> > cause her Lyme

> >

> > disease to progress to the chronic stage.

> >

> >

> >

> > The issue of the placebo effect has been kicked

> > around quite a bit on

> >

> > this board and in the medical literature. The

> > general consensus is

> >

> > that the Relapsing/Remitting diseases such as Lyme

> > are the more prone

> >

> > to the placebo effect for the obvious reason of

> > coincidence. That's

> >

> > why the statistical analysis of trials is so

> > important. Another

> >

> > confounding factor is that some antibiotics,

> > particularly the

> >

> > b'statics, can take a while to kick-in. If another

> > alternative therapy

> >

> > is started and improvement is noted then the last

> > therapy added will

> >

> > get credit that it doesn't deserve. It pays to keep

> > a long time frame

> >

> > in mind and keep a log.

> >

> >

> >

> > However, sometimes the placebo issue can yield some

> > tongue-in-cheek

> >

> > humor that is good for the soul. An interesting

> > article about it

> >

> > concluded that the placebos that were used were just

> > too weak and that

> >

> > better results would have been found if they had

> > used Double Strength

> >

> > Placebos. Sly grin. My perverse sense of humor.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> http://www.improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume5/v5i2/placebos-5-

2.html

> >

> >

> >

> > So we should not be surprised that Rife users are

> > now being offered

> >

> > add-on amplifiers to make their placebos a bit

> > stronger.

> >

> >

> >

> > On the other hand there is now a Rife whacko,

> > Klinghardt in Seattle,

> >

> > who claims that his reduced strength Rife machine

> > works better.

> >

> > http://www.neuraltherapy.com/

> >

> >

> >

> > BTW, his license to practice medicine was not

> > renewed in 2004.

> >

> >

> http://www.state.nm.us/nmbme/pdffiles/Jun04newsletter.pdf

> >

> >

> >

> > The worst part about the Rife propaganda is that too

> > many Lymies

> >

> > (afflicted by Lyme fog) will believe it and forego

> > antibiotics while

> >

> > doing Rife. That just gives the spirochete more

> > time to adapt and

> >

> > burrow in deeper. The tragedy of this is especially

> > profound in the

> >

> > case of early/acute Lyme which is fairly easily

> > cured with adequate

> >

> > dose and duration of antibiotics but when left

> > untreated then becomes

> >

> > disseminated or late/chronic Lyme and is much more

> > difficult to treat.

> >

> > In some cases it seems that chronic really means

> > chronic; treatable but

> >

> > not curable.

> >

> >

> >

> > So if you are considering buying a Rife machine you

> > might want to ask

> >

> > yourself: Is there any objective evidence, any at

> > all, that it works?

> >

> >

> >

> > How desperate are you?

> >

> >

> >

> > Can you afford to delay effective treatment for your

> > stage of Lyme

> >

> > disease?

> >

> >

> >

> > How fragile is your ego? Will it allow you admit

> > your mistake before

> >

> > it's too late?

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

It is good to have a strong challenge, even from a debunker. It makes us all

stronger to learn how to respond appropriately. I copied and pasted some of

the responses into a file that I hope I will memorize the contents of. Some

people's nature in searching for truth is to negate something. You can't

tell whether he is a serious seeker by how he challenges: only whether he

changes his mind or not. As long as we keep challenging others without

becoming personally abusive, this will remain a strong group. God forbid the

day when we all agree with each other! All my love, lee

[Guest guest]

--- LEE DAVIS wrote:

> It is good to have a strong challenge, even from a

> debunker. It makes us all

> stronger to learn how to respond appropriately. I

> copied and pasted some of

> the responses into a file that I hope I will

> memorize the contents of. Some

> people's nature in searching for truth is to negate

> something. You can't

> tell whether he is a serious seeker by how he

> challenges: only whether he

> changes his mind or not. As long as we keep

> challenging others without

> becoming personally abusive, this will remain a

> strong group. God forbid the

> day when we all agree with each other! All my love,

> lee

I'm certainly not afraid of a challenge, strong or

otherwise, but debunkers don't really challenge; they

" fight dirty " . They distort and manipulate the facts.

They present themselves and their " challenges " as

objective and scientific, but they're neither.

There's no response that we could make that would be

appropriate to a debunker.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Yes, you can't debate with someone who is always right, there is no point,

now someone who is open minded you have a good chance.

Terry

_____

From: Rife [mailto:Rife ] On Behalf Of

Ringas

Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 11:58 PM

To: Rife

Subject: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

--- LEE DAVIS <zenvaseearthlink (DOT) <mailto:zenvase%40earthlink.net> net>

wrote:

> It is good to have a strong challenge, even from a

> debunker. It makes us all

> stronger to learn how to respond appropriately. I

> copied and pasted some of

> the responses into a file that I hope I will

> memorize the contents of. Some

> people's nature in searching for truth is to negate

> something. You can't

> tell whether he is a serious seeker by how he

> challenges: only whether he

> changes his mind or not. As long as we keep

> challenging others without

> becoming personally abusive, this will remain a

> strong group. God forbid the

> day when we all agree with each other! All my love,

> lee

I'm certainly not afraid of a challenge, strong or

otherwise, but debunkers don't really challenge; they

" fight dirty " . They distort and manipulate the facts.

They present themselves and their " challenges " as

objective and scientific, but they're neither.

There's no response that we could make that would be

appropriate to a debunker.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Rife experimentors might just be in the best possible position as things are

if they're careful.

currently it's not illegal to make, possess, & use the machines on oneself

or loan or rent them to others. we can share findings/research/ideas.

if the FDA/bigmed people test they will likely do it in a limitedd way only

for a time, & either approve or disapprove. approval could make the

machines out of legal reach without a medical license, disapproval could

shut things down as they are also.

count your blessings?

cheers,

bobL

myspace: http://www.myspace.com/bob021147

ebay: http://stores.ebay.com/bobLs-fine-flotsam

homepage: http://www.toad.net/~blarson/

> Re: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>

>

> Of course we can't prove it to the AMA and FDA because we don't

> have tons of

> money. I think the only thing that will prove anything to the FDA or AMA

> will be some huge natural disaster that kills off at least one third or

> maybe two thirds of the population of the planet.

>

> Josh

>

> RE: Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

> >>

> >>joe is the writer of the sceptics argument i posted awhile

> back. the link

> >>below will get you there, but if it rolls over to two lines be sure to

> >>make

> >>sure you get the whole thing into the browser address.

> >>

> >>http://www.disease-information.com/archive/index.php/t-9720.html

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>Is anyone going to pick up the glove and respond to this, or do

> I have to

> >>do it?

> >>

> >>Regards,

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

>

>

>

>

>