Re: rifing, burst bacteria, & inflammation

January 9, 2009

Hi,

There is a big difference between what happens under a microscope and what

happens in the human body. I've been rifing every day for several years and

I have yet to experience any adverse effects from it. I sincerely doubt that

the commonly available Rife devices are anywhere near powerful enough to

cause bacteria (which do not cause influenza) to " burst " within the human

body. Rife's original device had the power of a small radio broadcasting

station. Nothing we have today comes close, which is a pity.

Randy

> I am posting this rather interesting release from St. Jude about

> influenza, pneumonia and inflammation, because there may be a related rifing

> concept worth considering here.

>

> It may be counter-productive (and sometimes even dangerous) in a bacterial

> infection, to " burst " the bacteria (akin to the common rife idea of " blowing

> up bugs " as proven under a microscope) - as opposed to debilitating the

> bacteria in some other way. As the article indicates, burst bacteria can

> release components into the tissues and bloodstream, which then can

> sometimes trigger very strong (and sometimes deadly) inflammatory reactions.

>

> This is akin to what we see with lyme disease herxing problems in some

> people. The herx sometimes gets so bad that the person cannot use the

> technology in what might be an effective way.

>

> Maybe future research needs to consider frequencies or power levels that

> debilitate rather than burst bacteria in all circumstances. The situation

> may vary from one bacteria to another, or whether the situation is chronic

> or acute disease. Trying to do everything " fast " or " strong " may not always

> be in the person's best interest. Perhaps slowing down the bacteria, or

> hampering its usual life cycle or responses in some way could be other

> approaches to consider.

>

> We see a lot of comments here and there, indicating that people think

> nothing is happening if they are not getting a herx reaction. This is

> particularly true in people with lyme complex. Might we want to be asking,

> does lack of herx necessarily indicate lack of effectiveness? I realize that

> sometimes people really do *want* to know - or need to know - *something* is

> happening. But should we equate that as evidence of efficacy?

>

> Likewise, would evidence of a " bug blow " under the microscope, indicate

> best course of action for all in-vivo situations?

>

> Food for thought...

>

> Best wishes,

> Char

> __________________________________________________________

>

> Study Finds More Effective Treatment for Pneumonia Following Influenza

>

> Results of St. Jude study could shape new treatments for secondary

> pneumonia

>

> MEMPHIS, Tenn., Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Scientists at St. Jude

> Children's Research Hospital have demonstrated a more effective treatment

> for bacterial pneumonia following influenza. They found that the antibiotics

> clindamycin and azithromycin, which kill bacteria by inhibiting their

> protein synthesis, are more effective than a standard first-line treatment

> with the " beta-lactam " antibiotic ampicillin, which causes the bacteria to

> lyse, or burst.

>

> The finding is important because pneumonia, rather than the influenza

> itself, is a principal cause of death from influenza in children and the

> elderly. During pandemics -- such as the one that may arise from avian

> influenza -- up to 95 percent of influenza deaths are due to pneumonia. A

> bioterrorism attack using the influenza virus would likely result in the

> same high percentage of pneumonia deaths, according to the researchers.

>

> The group, led by McCullers, M.D., associate member of the St.

> Jude Infectious Diseases department, expect the new findings, currently

> demonstrated in mice, to be incorporated into standard clinical practice

> guidelines during the next few years.

>

> McCullers and his colleagues published their findings in the advanced,

> online issue of the Journal of Infectious Diseases. The researchers based

> the new treatment on growing evidence that beta-lactams are relatively

> ineffective against secondary pneumonia because the drugs exacerbate

> inflammation caused by influenza.

>

> " With severe secondary pneumonia, it has seemed that physicians do almost

> everything they can, and it doesn't work, " McCullers said. " People still die

> despite treatment with antibiotics that can kill the bacteria. Our research

> is showing that the intense inflammatory response that is already there from

> the virus is amplified by the bacterial infection. And, treatment with

> beta-lactams releases bacterial components into the bloodstream that the

> immune system recognizes, triggering an inflammatory burst that can be

> deadly.

>

> " Traditional first-line therapy has been based on the belief that the

> bacteria are bad, so we have to get rid of them as quickly as possible, "

> McCullers said. " But what we are finding is that maybe it is the

> inflammation we need to worry about first, and the bacteria second. Protein

> synthesis inhibitors shut down the bacterial protein-making factory, and

> they can avoid the inflammatory burst by killing them over days instead of

> quickly lysing them. "

>

> In their experiments, the St. Jude researchers infected mice with a mild

> form of influenza that restricted itself to the lungs. After a week, the

> scientists infected the mice with pneumonia bacteria. This sequence mimics

> how humans with influenza would contract secondary pneumonia.

>

> The researchers treated groups of the doubly infected mice with ampicillin,

> clindamycin, combined clindamycin and ampicillin, or azithromycin. They

> found that 56 percent of the mice survived with ampicillin treatment, 82

> percent survived with clindamycin, 80 percent with clindamycin and

> ampicillin, and 92 percent with azithromycin. Significantly, while

> clindamycin and azithromycin both inhibit protein synthesis, azithromycin

> also has anti-inflammatory properties.

>

> Ampicillin aggravated inflammation compared to clindamycin, the researchers

> confirmed in test tube studies. The investigators also found evidence of

> increased inflammation in lung cells of ampicillin-treated animals.

>

> According to McCullers, lung tissue studies of ampicillin-treated animals

> also revealed the antibiotic's deleterious effects.

>

> " We saw in those animals that, even though we were clearing their lungs of

> bacteria, the lungs looked just like those of animals in which the bacteria

> were continuing to multiply, " McCullers said. " The damage process was

> continuing. "

>

> McCullers said he would like the new findings to influence treatment

> guidelines immediately for pneumonia secondary to influenza.

>

> " The current guidelines still adhere to the theory that beta-lactams are

> the only drugs of choice, because it is necessary to kill the bacteria as

> fast as possible, " he said. " However, our findings represent the first data

> showing that inflammation is important, and that alternative therapies such

> as protein synthesis inhibitors should be considered and incorporated into

> revised guidelines. "

>

> More broadly, McCullers said, the new findings support a growing body of

> evidence that treating severe pneumonia in general should take into account

> the inflammatory response and not just the rapid demise of bacteria.

>

> Other authors of this paper include Asa Karlstrom and Kelli Boyd (St.

> Jude); and B. English (Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center). This

> research was supported in part by the U.S. Public Health Service and ALSAC.

>

> St.Jude's

>

January 9, 2009

Hi cb,

Excellent report!

I think we even have one fatality that I heard about many years back. A person

with cancer using a plasma system had an " all day " session to try and quickly

kill the cancer. This worked for the cancer, but he soon died from toxic

overload. His liver could not cope with the toxic load the blown-up

microbes/cancer cells released, experiencing liver failure and death.

Many years ago, this was reported in the forum to warn people about the hazards

of going too fast. This technology does work, and works very well, and people

have to respect it and not get so overwhelmed by their illness and their need

for a quick heal - as you say, the reverse can happen. Their body has to clear

the toxins dumped by microbes that actually do explode open when using powerful

Rife type systems.

This can easily be achieved by the more powerful Rife type plasma system, and

may be some of the high voltage/power contact systems, but todate, vendors have

been diligent about warning people of this problem and instruct them to proceed

at shorter session intervals with good breaks between to evaluate their response

to the session.

Dr Hulda now advises to use her 9 volt DC zapper for upto 10 hours per day

if a person has cancer. Obviously, the 9 volts is not enough to blow-up the

microbes, but it will devitalise them, and at the same time, increase the body's

killer T-Cells to mop-up the dead bacteria (As per Prof. Noel research

with AIDS). People don't experience a herx with the zapper (when at 9 volts)

I know from people when first using my electrode amplifiers report that only a

slight tingle can be felt in frequencies under 3,000Hz. This is an 18 volt

signal. People have expectations that the signal has to be blasted into them,

where they feel great power surging into their bodies for it to work. I guess

this comes from the fastness of life these days, where people want to wake up

the next day cured. This expectation is in error and can only lead to trouble.

Yet is was the way of the old Rife industry, to crank up the power to a level

where it could just be tolerated. These high power levels can also strip the

protective cholesterol outer layer from the nerves thus giving people nerve

damage which can take years to heal.

So, if people are using powerful Rife type systems, the clear message is to go

slow, with short sessions at the beginning to evaluate response and toxic

loading in the body. Obviously, high levels of Vit C will aide the removal of

the toxins. Massage and other lymphatic therapies could be used to help with the

eliminate of toxins.

Sounds to me that a good approach is not to try to blow the microbes up, as Dr

Rife did, but more to devitalise them, break their motors and movement

mechanisms, keeping their bodies intact thus protecting the body from the toxins

they carry. Once immobilised, it is rather easy for the body to remove them

without the collateral damage of toxic overload and nasty herx responses which

as you say - limit the amount of frequency sessions a person can have to a non

effective level.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

HealMe Foundation

A New Humanity Associate

rifing, burst bacteria, & inflammation

I am posting this rather interesting release from St. Jude about influenza,

pneumonia and inflammation, because there may be a related rifing concept worth

considering here.

It may be counter-productive (and sometimes even dangerous) in a bacterial

infection, to " burst " the bacteria (akin to the common rife idea of " blowing up

bugs " as proven under a microscope) - as opposed to debilitating the bacteria in

some other way. As the article indicates, burst bacteria can release components

into the tissues and bloodstream, which then can sometimes trigger very strong

(and sometimes deadly) inflammatory reactions.

This is akin to what we see with lyme disease herxing problems in some people.

The herx sometimes gets so bad that the person cannot use the technology in what

might be an effective way.

Maybe future research needs to consider frequencies or power levels that

debilitate rather than burst bacteria in all circumstances. The situation may

vary from one bacteria to another, or whether the situation is chronic or acute

disease. Trying to do everything " fast " or " strong " may not always be in the

person's best interest. Perhaps slowing down the bacteria, or hampering its

usual life cycle or responses in some way could be other approaches to consider.

We see a lot of comments here and there, indicating that people think nothing

is happening if they are not getting a herx reaction. This is particularly true

in people with lyme complex. Might we want to be asking, does lack of herx

necessarily indicate lack of effectiveness? I realize that sometimes people

really do *want* to know - or need to know - *something* is happening. But

should we equate that as evidence of efficacy?

Likewise, would evidence of a " bug blow " under the microscope, indicate best

course of action for all in-vivo situations?

Food for thought...

Best wishes,

Char

___________________________________________________________________________

January 10, 2009

Hi Randy,

Rifing every day for seven years?

We already have one fatal experience, we don't want anymore!

It's not about how your body responds, it's about how other people react to this

low level radiation therapy who may not enjoy the level of health you do.

I have a client here with nasty tissue damage and slight permanent disabilities

from an unskilled operater using too much power in their Rife machine (not

mine), in setting the power to a level where it is just bearable. It appears the

contact system she was exposed to ruptured lymph vessels in her lower legs.

We have a duty of care to other people to educate them on potential problems

that can happen with miss-use of some of the more powerful gear.

Used with skill and care and you have a miracle maker, abuse it and you can be

in trouble.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

HealMe Foundation

A New Humanity Associate

Re: rifing, burst bacteria, & inflammation

Hi,

There is a big difference between what happens under a microscope and what

happens in the human body. I've been rifing every day for several years and

I have yet to experience any adverse effects from it. I sincerely doubt that

the commonly available Rife devices are anywhere near powerful enough to

cause bacteria (which do not cause influenza) to " burst " within the human

body. Rife's original device had the power of a small radio broadcasting

station. Nothing we have today comes close, which is a pity.

Randy

> I am posting this rather interesting release from St. Jude about

> influenza, pneumonia and inflammation, because there may be a related rifing

> concept worth considering here.

>

> It may be counter-productive (and sometimes even dangerous) in a bacterial

> infection, to " burst " the bacteria (akin to the common rife idea of " blowing

> up bugs " as proven under a microscope) - as opposed to debilitating the

> bacteria in some other way. As the article indicates, burst bacteria can

> release components into the tissues and bloodstream, which then can

> sometimes trigger very strong (and sometimes deadly) inflammatory reactions.

>

> This is akin to what we see with lyme disease herxing problems in some

> people. The herx sometimes gets so bad that the person cannot use the

> technology in what might be an effective way.

>

> Maybe future research needs to consider frequencies or power levels that

> debilitate rather than burst bacteria in all circumstances. The situation

> may vary from one bacteria to another, or whether the situation is chronic

> or acute disease. Trying to do everything " fast " or " strong " may not always

> be in the person's best interest. Perhaps slowing down the bacteria, or

> hampering its usual life cycle or responses in some way could be other

> approaches to consider.

>

> We see a lot of comments here and there, indicating that people think

> nothing is happening if they are not getting a herx reaction. This is

> particularly true in people with lyme complex. Might we want to be asking,

> does lack of herx necessarily indicate lack of effectiveness? I realize that

> sometimes people really do *want* to know - or need to know - *something* is

> happening. But should we equate that as evidence of efficacy?

>

> Likewise, would evidence of a " bug blow " under the microscope, indicate

> best course of action for all in-vivo situations?

>

> Food for thought...

>

> Best wishes,

> Char

> __________________________________________________________

>

> Study Finds More Effective Treatment for Pneumonia Following Influenza

>

> Results of St. Jude study could shape new treatments for secondary

> pneumonia

>

> MEMPHIS, Tenn., Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Scientists at St. Jude

> Children's Research Hospital have demonstrated a more effective treatment

> for bacterial pneumonia following influenza. They found that the antibiotics

> clindamycin and azithromycin, which kill bacteria by inhibiting their

> protein synthesis, are more effective than a standard first-line treatment

> with the " beta-lactam " antibiotic ampicillin, which causes the bacteria to

> lyse, or burst.

>

> The finding is important because pneumonia, rather than the influenza

> itself, is a principal cause of death from influenza in children and the

> elderly. During pandemics -- such as the one that may arise from avian

> influenza -- up to 95 percent of influenza deaths are due to pneumonia. A

> bioterrorism attack using the influenza virus would likely result in the

> same high percentage of pneumonia deaths, according to the researchers.

>

> The group, led by McCullers, M.D., associate member of the St.

> Jude Infectious Diseases department, expect the new findings, currently

> demonstrated in mice, to be incorporated into standard clinical practice

> guidelines during the next few years.

>

> McCullers and his colleagues published their findings in the advanced,

> online issue of the Journal of Infectious Diseases. The researchers based

> the new treatment on growing evidence that beta-lactams are relatively

> ineffective against secondary pneumonia because the drugs exacerbate

> inflammation caused by influenza.

>

> " With severe secondary pneumonia, it has seemed that physicians do almost

> everything they can, and it doesn't work, " McCullers said. " People still die

> despite treatment with antibiotics that can kill the bacteria. Our research

> is showing that the intense inflammatory response that is already there from

> the virus is amplified by the bacterial infection. And, treatment with

> beta-lactams releases bacterial components into the bloodstream that the

> immune system recognizes, triggering an inflammatory burst that can be

> deadly.

>

> " Traditional first-line therapy has been based on the belief that the

> bacteria are bad, so we have to get rid of them as quickly as possible, "

> McCullers said. " But what we are finding is that maybe it is the

> inflammation we need to worry about first, and the bacteria second. Protein

> synthesis inhibitors shut down the bacterial protein-making factory, and

> they can avoid the inflammatory burst by killing them over days instead of

> quickly lysing them. "

>

> In their experiments, the St. Jude researchers infected mice with a mild

> form of influenza that restricted itself to the lungs. After a week, the

> scientists infected the mice with pneumonia bacteria. This sequence mimics

> how humans with influenza would contract secondary pneumonia.

>

> The researchers treated groups of the doubly infected mice with ampicillin,

> clindamycin, combined clindamycin and ampicillin, or azithromycin. They

> found that 56 percent of the mice survived with ampicillin treatment, 82

> percent survived with clindamycin, 80 percent with clindamycin and

> ampicillin, and 92 percent with azithromycin. Significantly, while

> clindamycin and azithromycin both inhibit protein synthesis, azithromycin

> also has anti-inflammatory properties.

>

> Ampicillin aggravated inflammation compared to clindamycin, the researchers

> confirmed in test tube studies. The investigators also found evidence of

> increased inflammation in lung cells of ampicillin-treated animals.

>

> According to McCullers, lung tissue studies of ampicillin-treated animals

> also revealed the antibiotic's deleterious effects.

>

> " We saw in those animals that, even though we were clearing their lungs of

> bacteria, the lungs looked just like those of animals in which the bacteria

> were continuing to multiply, " McCullers said. " The damage process was

> continuing. "

>

> McCullers said he would like the new findings to influence treatment

> guidelines immediately for pneumonia secondary to influenza.

>

> " The current guidelines still adhere to the theory that beta-lactams are

> the only drugs of choice, because it is necessary to kill the bacteria as

> fast as possible, " he said. " However, our findings represent the first data

> showing that inflammation is important, and that alternative therapies such

> as protein synthesis inhibitors should be considered and incorporated into

> revised guidelines. "

>

> More broadly, McCullers said, the new findings support a growing body of

> evidence that treating severe pneumonia in general should take into account

> the inflammatory response and not just the rapid demise of bacteria.

>

> Other authors of this paper include Asa Karlstrom and Kelli Boyd (St.

> Jude); and B. English (Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center). This

> research was supported in part by the U.S. Public Health Service and ALSAC.

>

> St.Jude's

>

January 10, 2009

Hi,

Several, not seven. I do not use a contact device, I use a plasma tube

device. The principle of the Rife machine is that it disables the

bacteria/virus/fungus without affecting human tissue. If contact devices

damage human tissue then perhaps they should not be used at all. We are each

unique, however I don't think my body's response is fundamentally different

than anyone else's response.

As you may have read, Rife's term for what he did to germs was " devitalize " .

Whether germs " burst " within the human body by using a Rife device is

something I doubt anyone has witnessed.

Your anecdote about the person with cancer who died after rifing for some

hours is on the CAFL website. The person was described as having " advanced

terminal cancer " . I'm not sure it is fair to conclude that he died from the

rifing rather than the cancer.

G'day

> Hi Randy,

>

> Rifing every day for seven years?

>

> We already have one fatal experience, we don't want anymore!

>

> It's not about how your body responds, it's about how other people react to

> this low level radiation therapy who may not enjoy the level of health you

> do.

>

> I have a client here with nasty tissue damage and slight permanent

> disabilities from an unskilled operater using too much power in their Rife

> machine (not mine), in setting the power to a level where it is just

> bearable. It appears the contact system she was exposed to ruptured lymph

> vessels in her lower legs.

>

> We have a duty of care to other people to educate them on potential

> problems that can happen with miss-use of some of the more powerful gear.

>

> Used with skill and care and you have a miracle maker, abuse it and you can

> be in trouble.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Ken Uzzell

> http://heal-me.com.au

> HealMe Foundation

> A New Humanity Associate

>

> Re: rifing, burst bacteria, & inflammation

>

> Hi,

>

> There is a big difference between what happens under a microscope and what

> happens in the human body. I've been rifing every day for several years and

> I have yet to experience any adverse effects from it. I sincerely doubt

> that

> the commonly available Rife devices are anywhere near powerful enough to

> cause bacteria (which do not cause influenza) to " burst " within the human

> body. Rife's original device had the power of a small radio broadcasting

> station. Nothing we have today comes close, which is a pity.

>

> Randy

>

> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:30 AM, cb

<soundtree@...<soundtree%40windstream.net>>

> wrote:

>

> > I am posting this rather interesting release from St. Jude about

> > influenza, pneumonia and inflammation, because there may be a related

> rifing

> > concept worth considering here.

> >

> > It may be counter-productive (and sometimes even dangerous) in a

> bacterial

> > infection, to " burst " the bacteria (akin to the common rife idea of

> " blowing

> > up bugs " as proven under a microscope) - as opposed to debilitating the

> > bacteria in some other way. As the article indicates, burst bacteria can

> > release components into the tissues and bloodstream, which then can

> > sometimes trigger very strong (and sometimes deadly) inflammatory

> reactions.

> >

> > This is akin to what we see with lyme disease herxing problems in some

> > people. The herx sometimes gets so bad that the person cannot use the

> > technology in what might be an effective way.

> >

> > Maybe future research needs to consider frequencies or power levels that

> > debilitate rather than burst bacteria in all circumstances. The situation

> > may vary from one bacteria to another, or whether the situation is

> chronic

> > or acute disease. Trying to do everything " fast " or " strong " may not

> always

> > be in the person's best interest. Perhaps slowing down the bacteria, or

> > hampering its usual life cycle or responses in some way could be other

> > approaches to consider.

> >

> > We see a lot of comments here and there, indicating that people think

> > nothing is happening if they are not getting a herx reaction. This is

> > particularly true in people with lyme complex. Might we want to be

> asking,

> > does lack of herx necessarily indicate lack of effectiveness? I realize

> that

> > sometimes people really do *want* to know - or need to know - *something*

> is

> > happening. But should we equate that as evidence of efficacy?

> >

> > Likewise, would evidence of a " bug blow " under the microscope, indicate

> > best course of action for all in-vivo situations?

> >

> > Food for thought...

> >

> > Best wishes,

> > Char

> > __________________________________________________________

> >

> > Study Finds More Effective Treatment for Pneumonia Following Influenza

> >

> > Results of St. Jude study could shape new treatments for secondary

> > pneumonia

> >

> > MEMPHIS, Tenn., Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Scientists at St. Jude

> > Children's Research Hospital have demonstrated a more effective treatment

> > for bacterial pneumonia following influenza. They found that the

> antibiotics

> > clindamycin and azithromycin, which kill bacteria by inhibiting their

> > protein synthesis, are more effective than a standard first-line

> treatment

> > with the " beta-lactam " antibiotic ampicillin, which causes the bacteria

> to

> > lyse, or burst.

> >

> > The finding is important because pneumonia, rather than the influenza

> > itself, is a principal cause of death from influenza in children and the

> > elderly. During pandemics -- such as the one that may arise from avian

> > influenza -- up to 95 percent of influenza deaths are due to pneumonia. A

> > bioterrorism attack using the influenza virus would likely result in the

> > same high percentage of pneumonia deaths, according to the researchers.

> >

> > The group, led by McCullers, M.D., associate member of the St.

> > Jude Infectious Diseases department, expect the new findings, currently

> > demonstrated in mice, to be incorporated into standard clinical practice

> > guidelines during the next few years.

> >

> > McCullers and his colleagues published their findings in the advanced,

> > online issue of the Journal of Infectious Diseases. The researchers based

> > the new treatment on growing evidence that beta-lactams are relatively

> > ineffective against secondary pneumonia because the drugs exacerbate

> > inflammation caused by influenza.

> >

> > " With severe secondary pneumonia, it has seemed that physicians do almost

> > everything they can, and it doesn't work, " McCullers said. " People still

> die

> > despite treatment with antibiotics that can kill the bacteria. Our

> research

> > is showing that the intense inflammatory response that is already there

> from

> > the virus is amplified by the bacterial infection. And, treatment with

> > beta-lactams releases bacterial components into the bloodstream that the

> > immune system recognizes, triggering an inflammatory burst that can be

> > deadly.

> >

> > " Traditional first-line therapy has been based on the belief that the

> > bacteria are bad, so we have to get rid of them as quickly as possible, "

> > McCullers said. " But what we are finding is that maybe it is the

> > inflammation we need to worry about first, and the bacteria second.

> Protein

> > synthesis inhibitors shut down the bacterial protein-making factory, and

> > they can avoid the inflammatory burst by killing them over days instead

> of

> > quickly lysing them. "

> >

> > In their experiments, the St. Jude researchers infected mice with a mild

> > form of influenza that restricted itself to the lungs. After a week, the

> > scientists infected the mice with pneumonia bacteria. This sequence

> mimics

> > how humans with influenza would contract secondary pneumonia.

> >

> > The researchers treated groups of the doubly infected mice with

> ampicillin,

> > clindamycin, combined clindamycin and ampicillin, or azithromycin. They

> > found that 56 percent of the mice survived with ampicillin treatment, 82

> > percent survived with clindamycin, 80 percent with clindamycin and

> > ampicillin, and 92 percent with azithromycin. Significantly, while

> > clindamycin and azithromycin both inhibit protein synthesis, azithromycin

> > also has anti-inflammatory properties.

> >

> > Ampicillin aggravated inflammation compared to clindamycin, the

> researchers

> > confirmed in test tube studies. The investigators also found evidence of

> > increased inflammation in lung cells of ampicillin-treated animals.

> >

> > According to McCullers, lung tissue studies of ampicillin-treated animals

> > also revealed the antibiotic's deleterious effects.

> >

> > " We saw in those animals that, even though we were clearing their lungs

> of

> > bacteria, the lungs looked just like those of animals in which the

> bacteria

> > were continuing to multiply, " McCullers said. " The damage process was

> > continuing. "

> >

> > McCullers said he would like the new findings to influence treatment

> > guidelines immediately for pneumonia secondary to influenza.

> >

> > " The current guidelines still adhere to the theory that beta-lactams are

> > the only drugs of choice, because it is necessary to kill the bacteria as

> > fast as possible, " he said. " However, our findings represent the first

> data

> > showing that inflammation is important, and that alternative therapies

> such

> > as protein synthesis inhibitors should be considered and incorporated

> into

> > revised guidelines. "

> >

> > More broadly, McCullers said, the new findings support a growing body of

> > evidence that treating severe pneumonia in general should take into

> account

> > the inflammatory response and not just the rapid demise of bacteria.

> >

> > Other authors of this paper include Asa Karlstrom and Kelli Boyd (St.

> > Jude); and B. English (Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center). This

> > research was supported in part by the U.S. Public Health Service and

> ALSAC.

> >

> > St.Jude's

> >

January 10, 2009

Hi cb and Ken:

This subject is very delicate. Because some times is like a person

walking a high wire, you miss a step and out you are.

What I can say is that every person backgroung is different and you have

to make some background digging before the starting session.

On the minus side:

For cancer, is it a fast grow type?

Quimio treatments, how long , outcome, etc.

Infections.

General health status. can walk, etc.

Does he/she lives in moldy place, close to water.

He/she eats sugar or carbs in any form.

Is the kidney in bad status?

I pH deep in the acid zone?

+

On the plus side:

Is it a slow grow type of cancer?.

No metastasized.

Person is in god standing, it loks sharp?

Looks healthy?

Last quimio was taken 6 month ago or more with no residual problems.

Does he/she agrees to follow a cancer diet?

Uses Stevia?

Is the kidney in good status?

pH is close to 7.

+

I found that weak people take longer to recuperate themselves from a

lamp session. They have more herx reactions.

It also depends on cancer progression speed. If you go to slow in

killing/devitalize the virus the end is obvious.

The immune system is the key to the problem. A strong immune will

process the dead debris in a very short time and being alert for more.

Kidneys should support the cleaning load, usually a walking person will

not have serious problems. Others will have to be closely monitored. The

other basic info is the ph saliva reading.

As you can see, is more a balancing act with the available info.

Horacio

Ken Uzzell wrote:

>

> Hi cb,

>

> Excellent report!

>

> I think we even have one fatality that I heard about many years back.

> A person with cancer using a plasma system had an " all day " session to

> try and quickly kill the cancer. This worked for the cancer, but he

> soon died from toxic overload. His liver could not cope with the toxic

> load the blown-up microbes/cancer cells released, experiencing liver

> failure and death.

>

> Many years ago, this was reported in the forum to warn people about

> the hazards of going too fast. This technology does work, and works

> very well, and people have to respect it and not get so overwhelmed by

> their illness and their need for a quick heal - as you say, the

> reverse can happen. Their body has to clear the toxins dumped by

> microbes that actually do explode open when using powerful Rife type

> systems.

>

> This can easily be achieved by the more powerful Rife type plasma

> system, and may be some of the high voltage/power contact systems, but

> todate, vendors have been diligent about warning people of this

> problem and instruct them to proceed at shorter session intervals with

> good breaks between to evaluate their response to the session.

>

> Dr Hulda now advises to use her 9 volt DC zapper for upto 10

> hours per day if a person has cancer. Obviously, the 9 volts is not

> enough to blow-up the microbes, but it will devitalise them, and at

> the same time, increase the body's killer T-Cells to mop-up the dead

> bacteria (As per Prof. Noel research with AIDS). People don't

> experience a herx with the zapper (when at 9 volts)

>

> I know from people when first using my electrode amplifiers report

> that only a slight tingle can be felt in frequencies under 3,000Hz.

> This is an 18 volt signal. People have expectations that the signal

> has to be blasted into them, where they feel great power surging into

> their bodies for it to work. I guess this comes from the fastness of

> life these days, where people want to wake up the next day cured. This

> expectation is in error and can only lead to trouble. Yet is was the

> way of the old Rife industry, to crank up the power to a level where

> it could just be tolerated. These high power levels can also strip the

> protective cholesterol outer layer from the nerves thus giving people

> nerve damage which can take years to heal.

>

> So, if people are using powerful Rife type systems, the clear message

> is to go slow, with short sessions at the beginning to evaluate

> response and toxic loading in the body. Obviously, high levels of Vit

> C will aide the removal of the toxins. Massage and other lymphatic

> therapies could be used to help with the eliminate of toxins.

>

> Sounds to me that a good approach is not to try to blow the microbes

> up, as Dr Rife did, but more to devitalise them, break their motors

> and movement mechanisms, keeping their bodies intact thus protecting

> the body from the toxins they carry. Once immobilised, it is rather

> easy for the body to remove them without the collateral damage of

> toxic overload and nasty herx responses which as you say - limit the

> amount of frequency sessions a person can have to a non effective level.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Ken Uzzell

> http://heal-me.com.au <http://heal-me.com.au>

> HealMe Foundation

> A New Humanity Associate

>

> rifing, burst bacteria, & inflammation

>

> I am posting this rather interesting release from St. Jude about

> influenza, pneumonia and inflammation, because there may be a related

> rifing concept worth considering here.

>

> It may be counter-productive (and sometimes even dangerous) in a

> bacterial infection, to " burst " the bacteria (akin to the common rife

> idea of " blowing up bugs " as proven under a microscope) - as opposed

> to debilitating the bacteria in some other way. As the article

> indicates, burst bacteria can release components into the tissues and

> bloodstream, which then can sometimes trigger very strong (and

> sometimes deadly) inflammatory reactions.

>

> This is akin to what we see with lyme disease herxing problems in some

> people. The herx sometimes gets so bad that the person cannot use the

> technology in what might be an effective way.

>

> Maybe future research needs to consider frequencies or power levels

> that debilitate rather than burst bacteria in all circumstances. The

> situation may vary from one bacteria to another, or whether the

> situation is chronic or acute disease. Trying to do everything " fast "

> or " strong " may not always be in the person's best interest. Perhaps

> slowing down the bacteria, or hampering its usual life cycle or

> responses in some way could be other approaches to consider.

>

> We see a lot of comments here and there, indicating that people think

> nothing is happening if they are not getting a herx reaction. This is

> particularly true in people with lyme complex. Might we want to be

> asking, does lack of herx necessarily indicate lack of effectiveness?

> I realize that sometimes people really do *want* to know - or need to

> know - *something* is happening. But should we equate that as evidence

> of efficacy?

>

> Likewise, would evidence of a " bug blow " under the microscope,

> indicate best course of action for all in-vivo situations?

>

> Food for thought...

>

> Best wishes,

> Char

January 10, 2009

Ken:

I sent you a detailed letter asking several questions. Did you get it?

I've received no answers. Thanks.

> Hi cb,

>

> Excellent report!

>

> I think we even have one fatality that I heard about many years back. A

> person with cancer using a plasma system had an " all day " session to try and

> quickly kill the cancer. This worked for the cancer, but he soon died from

> toxic overload. His liver could not cope with the toxic load the blown-up

> microbes/cancer cells released, experiencing liver failure and death.

>

> Many years ago, this was reported in the forum to warn people about the

> hazards of going too fast. This technology does work, and works very well,

> and people have to respect it and not get so overwhelmed by their illness

> and their need for a quick heal - as you say, the reverse can happen. Their

> body has to clear the toxins dumped by microbes that actually do explode

> open when using powerful Rife type systems.

>

> This can easily be achieved by the more powerful Rife type plasma system,

> and may be some of the high voltage/power contact systems, but todate,

> vendors have been diligent about warning people of this problem and instruct

> them to proceed at shorter session intervals with good breaks between to

> evaluate their response to the session.

>

> Dr Hulda now advises to use her 9 volt DC zapper for upto 10 hours

> per day if a person has cancer. Obviously, the 9 volts is not enough to

> blow-up the microbes, but it will devitalise them, and at the same time,

> increase the body's killer T-Cells to mop-up the dead bacteria (As per Prof.

> Noel research with AIDS). People don't experience a herx with the

> zapper (when at 9 volts)

>

> I know from people when first using my electrode amplifiers report that

> only a slight tingle can be felt in frequencies under 3,000Hz. This is an 18

> volt signal. People have expectations that the signal has to be blasted into

> them, where they feel great power surging into their bodies for it to work.

> I guess this comes from the fastness of life these days, where people want

> to wake up the next day cured. This expectation is in error and can only

> lead to trouble. Yet is was the way of the old Rife industry, to crank up

> the power to a level where it could just be tolerated. These high power

> levels can also strip the protective cholesterol outer layer from the nerves

> thus giving people nerve damage which can take years to heal.

>

> So, if people are using powerful Rife type systems, the clear message is to

> go slow, with short sessions at the beginning to evaluate response and toxic

> loading in the body. Obviously, high levels of Vit C will aide the removal

> of the toxins. Massage and other lymphatic therapies could be used to help

> with the eliminate of toxins.

>

> Sounds to me that a good approach is not to try to blow the microbes up, as

> Dr Rife did, but more to devitalise them, break their motors and movement

> mechanisms, keeping their bodies intact thus protecting the body from the

> toxins they carry. Once immobilised, it is rather easy for the body to

> remove them without the collateral damage of toxic overload and nasty herx

> responses which as you say - limit the amount of frequency sessions a person

> can have to a non effective level.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Ken Uzzell

> http://heal-me.com.au

> HealMe Foundation

> A New Humanity Associate

>

> rifing, burst bacteria, & inflammation

>

> I am posting this rather interesting release from St. Jude about influenza,

> pneumonia and inflammation, because there may be a related rifing concept

> worth considering here.

>

> It may be counter-productive (and sometimes even dangerous) in a bacterial

> infection, to " burst " the bacteria (akin to the common rife idea of " blowing

> up bugs " as proven under a microscope) - as opposed to debilitating the

> bacteria in some other way. As the article indicates, burst bacteria can

> release components into the tissues and bloodstream, which then can

> sometimes trigger very strong (and sometimes deadly) inflammatory reactions.

>

> This is akin to what we see with lyme disease herxing problems in some

> people. The herx sometimes gets so bad that the person cannot use the

> technology in what might be an effective way.

>

> Maybe future research needs to consider frequencies or power levels that

> debilitate rather than burst bacteria in all circumstances. The situation

> may vary from one bacteria to another, or whether the situation is chronic

> or acute disease. Trying to do everything " fast " or " strong " may not always

> be in the person's best interest. Perhaps slowing down the bacteria, or

> hampering its usual life cycle or responses in some way could be other

> approaches to consider.

>

> We see a lot of comments here and there, indicating that people think

> nothing is happening if they are not getting a herx reaction. This is

> particularly true in people with lyme complex. Might we want to be asking,

> does lack of herx necessarily indicate lack of effectiveness? I realize that

> sometimes people really do *want* to know - or need to know - *something* is

> happening. But should we equate that as evidence of efficacy?

>

> Likewise, would evidence of a " bug blow " under the microscope, indicate

> best course of action for all in-vivo situations?

>

> Food for thought...

>

> Best wishes,

> Char

> __________________________________________________________

>

January 11, 2009

--- cb wrote:

<snip>

> We see a lot of comments here and there, indicating that

> people think nothing is happening if they are not getting a

> herx reaction. This is particularly true in people with

> lyme complex. Might we want to be asking, does lack of herx

> necessarily indicate lack of effectiveness? I realize that

> sometimes people really do *want* to know - or need to know

> - *something* is happening. But should we equate that as

> evidence of efficacy?

A more fundamental question that needs to be asked is whether what is being

called a Herx reaction really is a Herx reaction? Dr. Stafford said that he

never saw any Herx reactions with his use of the AZ-58 machine. I've never seen

anyone present any evidence of the actuality of Herx reactions from the use of

the modern frequency machines; it's just something that was proposed and then

parroted by everyone. I suspect that what is being called a Herx reaction is in

actuality a negative side effect of too much power and or treatment time.

> Likewise, would evidence of a " bug blow " under

> the microscope, indicate best course of action for all

> in-vivo situations?

>

> Food for thought...

The idea of a " bug blow " is more of a figure of speech than a reality. Rife

said that many organisms weren't visibly affected under the microscope; that's

why he called it " devitalization " . In the Rife paradigm, we're not necessarily

looking for an actual " bug blow " , but a " devitalization " , which is the

elimination of the organism's ability to function and reproduce. Doctors such

as Dr. Couche treated all sorts of conditions with real Rife machines that were

proved to " blow bugs " . I don't recall reading anything that there was a problem

with reactions to components of the organisms, but keep in mind that they didn't

treat every day or for hours on end.

When someone demonstrates a real Rife machine, it will be interesting to see

whether there is a problem with reactions to " blown bugs " .

Regards,

January 11, 2009

--- Randy wrote:

<snip>

> I've been rifing every day

> for several years and

> I have yet to experience any adverse effects from it.

Can you explain why you've been " rifing " every day for several years? Perhaps

you should consider that what you're doing isn't working.

<snip>

> Rife's original device had the power of a small

> radio broadcasting

> station. Nothing we have today comes close, which is a

> pity.

Who told you this? This is totally incorrect. Some of the modulated RF systems

today have more power than Rife's most powerful #4 machine.

Regards,

January 12, 2009

I use my EMEM device every day to control what I believe to be a permanent

sinus infection, either viral or fungal. If I don't do this every day then I

have continual sneezing and runny nose and I cannot breathe at night while

trying to sleep. If I use the EMEM device every day then I do not suffer the

symptoms. The EMEM use is controlling the symptoms. I have used every

suggested frequency for colds, allergies, sinus problems, etc., as well as

fungus. If you have some brilliant suggestion as to what to do differently

then I'd be glad to hear it.

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Ringas wrote:

> --- Randy <randynmd@... <randynmd%40gmail.com>> wrote:

>

> <snip>

>

> > I've been rifing every day

> > for several years and

> > I have yet to experience any adverse effects from it.

>

> Can you explain why you've been " rifing " every day for several years?

> Perhaps you should consider that what you're doing isn't working.

>

> <snip>

> > Rife's original device had the power of a small

> > radio broadcasting

> > station. Nothing we have today comes close, which is a

> > pity.

>

> Who told you this? This is totally incorrect. Some of the modulated RF

> systems today have more power than Rife's most powerful #4 machine.

>

> Regards,

>

January 12, 2009

Wrote:

A more fundamental question that needs to be asked is whether what is being

called a Herx reaction really is a Herx reaction? Dr. Stafford said that he

never saw any Herx reactions with his use of the AZ-58 machine. I've never seen

anyone present any evidence of the actuality of Herx reactions from the use of

the modern frequency machines; it's just something that was proposed and then

parroted by everyone. I suspect that what is being called a Herx reaction is in

actuality a negative side effect of too much power and or treatment time.

My Question:

Hi ,

Your a pretty clued up health specialist. What in your opinion could be

happening when people say they are herxing? Like they feel real bad for a day or

two, and for some people with Lyme, they can feel bad for a week or more.

These are obvious physiological responses to the frequency therapy session.

My observations have been :- No herx (feel bad) when treating herpes virus.

6 hour to 24 hours feel bad for cancer suffers

2 days to 1 week+ feel bad for Lyme disease.

These observations came when using my 60 watt 250kHz RF plasma tube system which

was sold back in the mid 1990's as Green/Rife. While people could feel bad from

this device, improvements in health were outstanding. I sat in on every session

and had zero response from it, like Randy had been discussing earlier.

It does appear in general, that people who's health is compromised, suffer the

" feel bad " symptoms, where people in good health do not have this reaction.

Looking at lower powered amplifiers and plasma balls, I haven't heard of one

" feel bad " experience with contact electrodes up to a level of 18 volts DC or

AC. Improvements in health have been good. The 15 watt 40/50kHz RF novelty

plasma balls I work with, I have experienced a slightly runny noise for an hour

or so, then felt exceptionally alive and vital about 4 hours later.

Responses to the novelty plasma ball have been wide and varied, from numerous

people passing worms in their stools about 12 hours later, chronic fatigue seems

to disappear, allergy suffers get a huge benefit, herpes disappears quickly,

colds and fluey symptoms can go very quickly, nasal polyps discharged from head.

Most people here didn't know if it was the frequency device because they didn't

experience a herx, or feel bad time. But their positive health experience

followed a frequency therapy session.