& a couple more questions....the sceptics view on rife efficacy

[Guest guest]

hi ....that's pretty much how it took it too, & did notice the 650

pathogen mixup. your response did provide a more understanding for me

despite not being a highly tech detailed response. thanks!

i'm wondering if, when using plasma type machines, would it be better to do

it nude?

also wondering about messing with the plasma ball, which is relatively low

output... i've read that not hitting hard enough might only stimulate cancer

cells instead of killing them. i'd guess that could be true of microbes

also. in that regard, is using the plasma ball really a good idea at cancer

freqs & possibly others or likely to be counter-productive?

bobL

> Re: the sceptics view on rife efficacy

>

>

> 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,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>l. An interesting

>