Re: The best Rife machine

[Guest guest]

Yes but from your answer I'm still not finding " what " was different

about it. Sine waves? Tubes? Length of time?? I was kind of looking

for a technical answer. Anyone know?

Carol

>

> > So what is the technical differences between the rife

> > machine (that

> > you can't buy anymore) and the talked about frequency

> > generators??

> > What special thing did rife have the the various talked

> > about machines

> > are lacking?

> > Carol

>

>

> As I've said so many times before, the Rife machine is not

necessarily about the hardware, it's about the methodology. That's

the special thing that Rife had and we are lacking. Rife had a very

simple, yet very specific and clear-cut method for demonstrating what

we now call the " Rife effect " . I should also point out that although

Rife's methodology was simple, it was labor intensive and required

resources and expertise that few of us have access to. Demonstration

of the " Rife effect " is what distinguishes a Rife machine from a

frequency therapy machine. It may turn out that some frequency

therapy machines can also produce the " Rife effect " , and vice versa,

but if it doesn't produce the " Rife effect " , there's no justification

for calling it a Rife machine. Doing so is just disinformation and fraud.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- summitflyer2003 wrote:

> The special thing ,IMHO ,was the super microscope that he

> had which

> gave him the ability to confirm resonance with the pathogen

> he wanted

> to destroy.

<snip>

This is another misconception that lingers on in the Rife community. A super

microscope like Rife's is only needed for work with virus sized organisms.

Regular microscopes can be used for other organisms such as bacteria and yeast.

I have always said that this is where we need to start. If we could reproduce

the " Rife effect " with a common bacteria such as E. Coli and with a regular

microscope, so that anyone could confirm it, then that would be the impetus to

get the ball rolling for funding and resources to get work done on viruses.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Thanks for all that info! You cleared up more of my confusion than

's flyer. I am in the same situation as you are, happily, with

just joint pain, etc now and then. But I know people with more dire

things, who might benefit. I really liked the portability and ease

with the 101, but am sure wondering why there would only be 181

frequencies available. That seems like an extremely limited number,

considering that some devices run from 0 to 20 (or even 80) million

Hz. Maybe it's a DC current, and is working like a Terminator zapper?

Holly

>

> >Hi Sally

> >What things have you used the Prowave 101 for? I sent for his

> >'report' comparing 'Rife' machines, and found it's mostly an ad for

> >his own machine. But it did look easy to use, and he included lots of

> >testimonials about results from trying it. I'm surrounded by people

> >with Lyme, dental abscesses, and prostate cancer, and also would like

> >to have a machine 'just in case'.

>

> I haven't seen the report, but the website is " nothing to write home

about. "

> I don't think it really does the machine justice and certainly

wouldn't have

> made me buy it. But after talking with , I felt convinced

that it was

> a very good and capable machine - plus there's a 30 day refund

offer. He is

> very happy to discuss Rife, btw, so you may find it more helpful to

call him

> than rely on his brochure or website for info.

>

> I am (as far as I know) as healthy and well person so I can't give you

> testimonies about cured cancer or anything, but I have used it

various times

> for things like joint pain, muscle spasms, skin issue and headaches and

> found it to be very effective. I also routinely run either General

> Infection or Cancer and Detox just as a preventative.

>

> I'm not an expert by any means, but I will give you my feeling for the

> ProWave 101's pros and cons.

>

> It's very easy to use - around 325 conditions have pre-programmed

sets of

> frequencies intended for that condition so you just select the

condition and

> hit Run. The frequency per se does not display in the LCD screen, but a

> channel number does and the manual has a list of the channel numbers and

> what frequency it is so you can easily see what frequency is

running. (Why

> they don't just list the frequency, I don't know.) There are 181

> frequencies. The LCD also tells you how long the total program has

yet to

> run, as well as how long each channel has to run (default is 3 min per

> channel, but you can change that). You can also program about 10 of

your

> own conditions (in case there's something not covered in the 325) or

combine

> channels from your favorites to make custom programs. I made one up

just for

> fun, and it wasn't hard to program at all.

>

> It doesn't take up much room (easily packs away into a standard sized

> briefcase), no breakable tubes, and can run on its internal rechargeable

> battery which is a feature I use much more often than I would have

guessed.

> Out on the deck, or even stick the whole thing in an old purse bag

that I

> can wear while I cook in the kitchen. I've even used it on long

commutes.

>

> It ramps up (over 3 secs) at the start of each channel (frequency)

so you

> don't get jolted. Also you can adjust the intensity with a knob if

it's too

> strong.

>

> There's a set of lights that let you know if you are getting good

contact

> with the electrodes. It comes with a variety of electrodes: hand held

> cylinder, stainless steel wristband, carbon and flexible adhesive

pads. I'm

> still " playing " with these types but I'm finding are more effective for

> certain areas (like sticking them on a joint) whereas sometimes the hand

> held or wristband are better.

>

> What I don't like, is that you are limited to the 181 frequencies

programmed

> in it. It can be updated by them, as they feel needed, but that's

still a

> limitation.

>

> You also can't do " sweeps " . I don't know as I need to do this, since

> everything I've thought of seems to be covered in the pre-programmed

> conditions, but it still would be a nice option.

>

> It relies on physical contact to work. Again, not bad, but a

limitation.

>

> For me to get a machine that can do what this one can't, I'd have to

give up

> things that I like about this one. So that's why I'm thinking it

would be

> nice to have two types - plus then I could loan one out. (Pros and cons

> with that plan too).

>

> Anyway, hope that's helpful. This whole debate about which is the

best Rife

> machine (leaving aside the question of if they are indeed Rife machines)

> reminds me of when people debate which is the best version of the Bible.

> The answer? The one you read. Maybe something similar is true here. J

>

> Sally

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Ken,

I do understand where you are coming from and I am in total support

of anything that might help. I do feel what you are saying is

important. I am not trying to be mean spirited in any way. So many

things are attributed to Rife that he never said or did. If some

information is not in Rife's notes or in public domain then there is

no way to verify if it is true. Nothing that Jim Bare or I or anyone

else says has any validity if it is not backed up with documented

support. This is the point that both and I are trying to make.

If this information is true I hope that whoever has it would be

willing to let Jim Bare release the documents so that everyone can

benefit from it.

Please keep up the good work.

Best wishes,

Jeff Garff

> > Hello Ken,

> >

> > It is true that Rife did use a plasma ray tube. But, he expressed

the

> > fact that the frequencies could be put through a radio station

> > antenna and work just as well. In my paper " A History of Rife's

> > Instruments and Frequencies " I quoted a few of these statements.

> > There are more that I could have included. So it appears from

these

> > statements that the ray tube is not as important as the correct

> > frequency. Both plasma and electrodes are viable methods. I have

and

> > do use both and have found that as long as an RF carrier is used

they

> > seem to work equally as well.

> >

> > When it comes to the mice needing a healthy mouse put in with

them in

> > order to get well, Rife never stated that this was necessary. The

> > reason that people spoke against this at the time it was brought

up

> > by Jim Bare is that nowhere in Dr. Rife's documents does he state

> > that a healthy mouse needed to be put in with the sick mice in

order

> > for them to get well. It was pointed out at that time that Dr.

Rife

> > always had a healthy mouse which was used as a control. But he

stated

> > that it was not treated with the ray tube. The idea that a

healthy

> > mouse needs to be put in with the sick mice is just an " urban

legend "

> > with no proof. If anywhere in Rife's documents he would have said

> > that this was necessary it would not have been overlooked. If you

are

> > getting what you feel are better results when you are present

with

> > someone getting treated, that's great, but it in no way verifies

that

> > Rife was doing this.

> >

> > Jeff Garff

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bruce:

On what basis do you characterize Jeff's and my responses to Ken's post as mean

spirited and knee-jerk reactions? Since Jeff and I were the only ones who

responded to the contrary, you're clearly referring to us. I think it's totally

uncalled for to characterize our posts like you did. We were simply challenging

another erroneous statement that was ascribed to Rife. There was nothing mean

spirited or knee-jerk about it.

Regards,

--- Bruce Stenulson wrote:

> Ken,

>

> On behalf of the 'silent majority' of curious

> researchers, I want to

> offer thanks for your being brave enough to bring this up

> for

> discussion, while being aware of the probable knee-jerk

> reactions that

> would be directed at you.

>

> Open discussion is what is healthy, what is needed....

> there's far less

> of that these days than there was 8 or 9 years ago. While

> not all of the

> new information or theories that might be offered will

> always prove out

> specificly as first worded, it is sad to see such

> discussions met with

> mean spirited responses.... (not that we haven't seen

> the same from

> those who want to claim authority in the past. )

>

> Jim Bare has offered some highly valuable insights and

> perspectives over

> the years. Others have also tried to do so. It's sad

> that so many of

> those insightful offerings have also been met with

> 'resounding silence'.

> While we might hope that such lack of discussion

> participation hasn't

> been prompted by researchers simply choosing to avoid the

> mean spirited

> responses, I expect it's been a repressive factor in

> many cases.

>

> Be Well!!

>

> Bruce

[Guest guest]

--- Ken Uzzell wrote:

>

> Hi ,

>

> It's not written, it's on a video Jim Bare

> released. I spoke with you

> about this a few years ago and Jim verified this.

>

> The forum went quiet after Jim verified this fact.

>

> And then the forum proceeded as if nothing had been said.

Now that you mention it, I do recall a little about this discussion. Didn't we

put it to rest back then? I thought that we proceeded as if nothing had been

said because there were no verified facts or any other foundation to stand upon.

> This has nothing to do with disrupting microbes in a test

> tube or on a

> slide under a microscope, this was all about killing the

> cancer in mice

> in trials Rife did.

Then it has nothing to do with Rife. The whole foundation of Rife's therapy is

in testing and verifying frequencies in vitro, which were then applied to test

animals and humans. He was targeting the organism that was the causative agent

of the cancer (tumor), not the cancer itself.

> He got his plasma beam and the mice did not recover or get

> better from

> the frequency transmission until he placed a healthy mouse

> in with the

> sick mice.

>

> This is a pretty major thing, the way I see it.

If it were true, it most certainly would be a major thing, but we need some

facts to go on.

> Well, I took note of Jim's video and made sure I was

> always present when

> running a frequency session for a sick friend, and the

> results have been

> outstanding. When they run the frequencies on their own

> (same machine)

> and no-one else is present, then the responses were not so

> good. I've

> been doing this for years and thought it was just the norm

> and accepted

> method, but it appears I am wrong.

>

> So I feel it is important to talk about this, as it seems

> to be a

> critical part of this therapy.

I have no problem accepting at face value your personal experience and

observations, but you're confusing what you're doing with what Rife was doing.

It's not the same thing.

> When you say we aren't doing what Dr Rife did, you are

> correct. We

> should be insisting that a healthy person be present when

> running a

> plasma system frequency session, then we _are_ doing what

> Dr Rife did.

> The differences in the transmission system may not be all

> that

> important, Dr Rife said it was all about the frequency, not

> the

> transmission system.

On the contrary. If we want to follow what Rife did, we'll have to confirm our

frequencies first on organisms under the microscope.

> I have followed Jim Bares advice all along and have

> witnessed great

> results, Jim knows his stuff. <snip>

Again I want to emphasize that getting great results is not, and never has been

the issue. The issue is whether those great results are due to following Rife's

lead and replicating the " Rife effect " . I've seen nothing to support the notion

that a healthy subject was necessary for Rife to get clinical results. The

whole concept is alien to what he was doing.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- Losey wrote:

> It is my belief that viruses and bacteria evolve and mutate

> over the course of time, so frequency researchers are often

> aiming at a moving target. Rife's original research

> might be invalidated by these shifts in form and frequency;

> however, the logic behind frequency healing is sound.

This is possible, but it is also possible that the evolutions, mutations, and

variations that you're referring to do not affect the fundamental MOR of an

organism. A flu virus is still a flu virus, and E. Coli is still E. Coli,

regardless of what strain or variant it is. On the other hand, if it was a

pleomorphic transformation into another form, such as E. Coli transforming into

Salmonella Typhi, then that would definitely require a different MOR, as Rife

found. We need something more substantial than personal beliefs; we need

experimental scientific research.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

I do agree with - in my case my " bugs " got used to the numbers

that I was using (they mutated and hid) so my doc had to change my

rife numbers for improvement (and yes it worked!). I leave the

picking the numbers to her - she's a kinesologist.

Carol

>

> > It is my belief that viruses and bacteria evolve and mutate

> > over the course of time, so frequency researchers are often

> > aiming at a moving target. Rife's original research

> > might be invalidated by these shifts in form and frequency;

> > however, the logic behind frequency healing is sound.

>

>

> This is possible, but it is also possible that the evolutions,

mutations, and variations that you're referring to do not affect the

fundamental MOR of an organism. A flu virus is still a flu virus, and

E. Coli is still E. Coli, regardless of what strain or variant it is.

On the other hand, if it was a pleomorphic transformation into

another form, such as E. Coli transforming into Salmonella Typhi, then

that would definitely require a different MOR, as Rife found. We need

something more substantial than personal beliefs; we need experimental

scientific research.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Whatever the costs involved with testing the frequencies, it's got to be less

than

comparable research (grunt work testing various drug configurations) done by big

pharma!

I would think that there are people out there (possibly in this group) that are

doing just

that.

Ted

> Hey ,> > It's . Hopefully you still remember me from the>

microscope

days.> > Anyways, I'm curious. How much $ would be involved to> prove or

disprove the

ability to kill e coli using> frequencies? Debating whether or not to try it

just as a>

gamble.> > You know more about this stuff than I do so I thought> I'd ask.> >

Example:> > Microscope with video recording $5K> Frequency generator/sweeper:

$5K>

Lab etc. $5K> > Would be interesting to prove or disprove it ourselves> (since

nobody

else will try).> > > Let me know good sir.> > Thanks,>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>