Re: Is there anything to the Rife approach?

May 21, 2007

Hi Nate:

Here are my thoughts on your case of basal cell

carcinoma:

You didn't mention if the other part of the body was

biopsied also. I'll assume that it wasn't. I think

this case would fall into the variability of

physiologic frequency therapy. It may be that the

area under the eye responded because it was disturbed

by the biopsy, and the healing factors of the body

were drawn there, and stimulated by the frequencies,

" did the business " . The other area, assuming again

that it wasn't biopsied, was not disturbed, so the

healing factors of the body were not drawn there, and

so there was nothing to respond to. This is all

speculation on my part, but it would seem to fit.

An MOR can't be called such unless it's verified.

Just because a tumor or other condition responds to a

frequency, that doesn't automatically mean that it's

an MOR. As I've argued for so many years, the issue

is not whether a machine or frequency protocol is

therapeutically effective; the issue is the means by

which it is effective. In the " Rife approach " , as Dr.

Couche said, " the machine is definitely for germs

only. It doesn't have any effect on the hormones of

the body; not any constitutional conditions. " This

clearly shows that the Rife machine is a frequency

specific germicidal machine. If the condition is not

caused by an organism, and you don't have a confirmed

MOR, then that's not the " Rife approach " It may be in

some cases that we are achieving an MOR effect, but

the key is reproducibility. As Rife said, " if I can

do something 10 or 15 or 100 times consecutively,

following the exact same technique, then it _may_ mean

something. "

Regards,

P.S. How were the frequencies individually

determined?

--- " Dr. S. Berger "

wrote:

> Dear ,

>

> Yours are among some of the most probing postings in

> this group. You

> provide an intriguing explanation: That we have

> evolved along separate

> pathways, on the one hand using MOR frequencies, and

> on the other

> hand, utilizing physiologically individualized

> frequencies. It did not

> occur to me, until you mentioned it, that we have

> further complicated

> matters by allowing ourselves to combine or

> " hybridize " these into one

> entity we now call " Rife Approach " .

>

> If you will, I ask you, or anyone who has not done

> so, to please go to

> the " Photos " section for this group and check out

> the first album. Its

> photos present a case of basal cell carcinoma I

> treated and documented

> several years ago.

>

> This case was confirmed by biopsy. The photos shown

> have not been

> re-retouched, and the only treatment rendered was

> use of frequencies,

> individually determined, delivered to the patient

> via a R/B plasma

> unit over a period of several months.

>

> Did frequency therapy (Rife approach) accomplish

> anything in this

> case? I think you would agree: YES.

>

> However, the patient also had another basal cell

> cancer in another

> part of his body. That lesion, receiving the same

> frequencies at the

> same time, failed to respond at all.

>

> Did frequency therapy (Rife approach) accomplish

> anything in this

> case? NO.

>

> Thus the dilemma.

>

> Here is both success and failure, with no broadly

> accepted explanation

> of either one- up to now. Was the first cancer

> treated with MOR

> frequencies? Was the second cancer treated with

> physiologic

> frequencies? The reverse? Combination? Neither?

> What?

>

> Thanks to you, I now understand and can explain the

> polar-opposite

> outcomes. Even better, I can accept these

> contradictory results.

>

> Best of all, by delineating and verbalizing these

> parameters, you have

> provided me (and all others using " rife approach " )

> an understanding

> which should produce a higher degree of " success "

> for those we treat.

>

> My utmost goal is to find some kind of approach an

> ordinary person can

> use for himself/herself which will permit

> self-administered treatment

> leading to a restoration and preservation of health.

>

> Further, this approach should be relatively easy to

> employ, produce

> relatively consistent results, should not require

> heavy professional

> intervention, should not require extensive use of

> drugs, and should be

> relatively inexpensive to set up.

>

> In the main, I think that Rife-type concepts (please

> interpret in the

> broadest sense of the words), coupled with today's

> equipment (whatever

> this may be, i.e., plasma, pad, etc.), offer such

> possibilities. But

> our only consistent results seem to involve a

> degree of

> unpredictability most of us cannot accept.

>

> Perhaps your thoughts will permit us all to see that

> at journey's end,

> there is no one machine that will produce consistent

> results. No one

> set of frequencies (be they MOR or physiologic), no

> one overriding

> principle such as the need to first strengthen the

> immune system or

> eliminate toxins from our environment, that will

> lead to consistent,

> reproducible, predictable results.

>

> And if that is so, I, at least will now be O.K. with

> it.

>

> After all, isn't that what our current medical

> system does? At least

> " Rife " doesn't bankrupt us, and it does hold out

> some promise of hope

> when our physician looks at us and with sadness in

> his/her voice,

> tells us, Nothing more can be done. "

>

> Thanks again for your efforts. Enjoy thinking with

> you.

>

> Nate

May 21, 2007

Hello ,

Yes indeed. Per your mention of the DigiBio web site, it is the work

of Benveniste among others that I had in mind when making the

reference to water and homeopathy. The frequency spectrum associated

with DNA, as another example, may have something to do with

morphogenesis and how the multiplying cells from a fertilized ovum

simultaneously communicate and coordinate towards the formation of

tissues. Seeming quantum mechanical/nonlocality aspects may even

suggest that the " frequencies " are non-electromagnetic. The mechanics

of how the plasma tubes in our Rife-like devices yield healing

effects still lacks clarity. Perhaps there are underlying energetic

processes in common here. It shall be interesting to see how your

efforts progress.

Warren

Beck also dabbled in actual Rife effects, as indicated by the circuit

I recently put online at:

http://biospectrum.50webs.com

It is the beginning of a semi-technical resource for experimenters,

which I hope to add to from time to time, or upon request. Comments

welcome.

In response to another post about water, here is some information

which may be relevant:

http://www.digibio.com/cgi-bin/node.pl?nd=n5

Nieslen

> While I respect the work of Rife we should not ignore the work of

> Beck as again here is another example of a differing protocol

> that appears to work. Use of silver colloid, blood electrification and

> the magnet pulsar is simple in application but effective as the herx

> effects will verify.

May 21, 2007

>This " beating " or motorboating effect is what I am trying to put back in.

This seems more like AM to me. A " beat " is usually defined as the

difference frequency of two sinewaves.

>2. By varying the " power " or time ON of the coil I am trying to

>modulate the plasma in the negitive resistance region of the tube.

>This can be furthre inhanced by adding resistance to the secondary of the coil.

Similar in function to the rheostat in the Beam Ray perhaps. Have a

look at this:

http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Praha/WEB/98ICPP_W/H094PR.PDF

>The comments below apply to a NEW type of machine.

>I am planning on using pseudorandom spread spectrum frequency

>modulation for the carrier and then just gate it at 50% with the MOR

>frequency. With the circuit that I allready have I will be using a

>full octive ie: 200kHz to 400kHz or maybe move it up to say 300kHz

>to 600 kHz I think you can get the picture of what I am going to do.

>If you think about it this would be a good way to avoid interfering

>with radio transmissions by spreading it out.

> Jeffers

>www.osptechnologies.com

So you have a carrier that is frequency modulated over an arbitrary

200-400KHz range by a second randomly ocurring, discrete frequency?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but none of that appears to be

effect-specific. Hence, you must be seeking to improve general

absorption of the " MOR " ... or lower your ionization potential. Fair

enough. If, on the other hand, it's a strategy to run a transmitter

legally, I think you may find otherwise. Undetectably, maybe to a degree.

The only reason for introducing a chaotic element that I know of is

to make the influence more biologically affinitive. IOW more likely

to be accepted by the body as of natural or internal origin. But

generally, this is only a small percentage of the effective signal.

I could comment more if I had a clearer idea of your intentions, and

why you fee this design is an improvement upon existing ones.

Nielsen

May 22, 2007

While viewing the Rife story there are some aspects that I have not

seen discussed before:

After isolating the cancer virus following the growing of a tumour on

a rat (part of his repetitive process)then dissecting a portion and

placing on a slide under his microscope he then walks to the machine,

sets the dials, throws a switch and there is the briefest flash in the

plasma globe. There is no lengthy exposure i.e. 3 - 20 minutes that is

generally discussed in treatment protocols. I realize that in vitro

and in viva experiments are quite different but the split second

exposure has amazed me.

It raises the questions:

1. how powerful was the machine?

2. What actual type of plasma globe was used?

3. Was Xray frequencies involved?

4. In short, there was something special about this machine that had

the ability to kill the virus almost instantly.

Clearly the type of globe Rife was using, as is discussed throughout

the video, had directional abilities. It would make sense then that

exposure could be decreased as it is likely that penetration would be

deeper and more effective.

I note that it was much later that he developed the double bubble,

which was again directional in its application.

While we are on the subject of the earlier machines, which had a

carrier frequency, they seemed to be able to achieve a repetitiveness

that the later machines developed by the Beam Ray company did not. The

latter being known to drift off frequency or simply not work as in the

case of the units shipped to the UK.

As discussed by Jim and others there is still much work to be done.

Mike Fellows

>

> > Dear ,

> >

> > Yours are among some of the most probing postings in

> > this group. You

> > provide an intriguing explanation: That we have

> > evolved along separate

> > pathways, on the one hand using MOR frequencies, and

> > on the other

> > hand, utilizing physiologically individualized

> > frequencies. It did not

> > occur to me, until you mentioned it, that we have

> > further complicated

> > matters by allowing ourselves to combine or

> > " hybridize " these into one

> > entity we now call " Rife Approach " .

> >

> > If you will, I ask you, or anyone who has not done

> > so, to please go to

> > the " Photos " section for this group and check out

> > the first album. Its

> > photos present a case of basal cell carcinoma I

> > treated and documented

> > several years ago.

> >

> > This case was confirmed by biopsy. The photos shown

> > have not been

> > re-retouched, and the only treatment rendered was

> > use of frequencies,

> > individually determined, delivered to the patient

> > via a R/B plasma

> > unit over a period of several months.

> >

> > Did frequency therapy (Rife approach) accomplish

> > anything in this

> > case? I think you would agree: YES.

> >

> > However, the patient also had another basal cell

> > cancer in another

> > part of his body. That lesion, receiving the same

> > frequencies at the

> > same time, failed to respond at all.

> >

> > Did frequency therapy (Rife approach) accomplish

> > anything in this

> > case? NO.

> >

> > Thus the dilemma.

> >

> > Here is both success and failure, with no broadly

> > accepted explanation

> > of either one- up to now. Was the first cancer

> > treated with MOR

> > frequencies? Was the second cancer treated with

> > physiologic

> > frequencies? The reverse? Combination? Neither?

> > What?

> >

> > Thanks to you, I now understand and can explain the

> > polar-opposite

> > outcomes. Even better, I can accept these

> > contradictory results.

> >

> > Best of all, by delineating and verbalizing these

> > parameters, you have

> > provided me (and all others using " rife approach " )

> > an understanding

> > which should produce a higher degree of " success "

> > for those we treat.

> >

> > My utmost goal is to find some kind of approach an

> > ordinary person can

> > use for himself/herself which will permit

> > self-administered treatment

> > leading to a restoration and preservation of health.

> >

> > Further, this approach should be relatively easy to

> > employ, produce

> > relatively consistent results, should not require

> > heavy professional

> > intervention, should not require extensive use of

> > drugs, and should be

> > relatively inexpensive to set up.

> >

> > In the main, I think that Rife-type concepts (please

> > interpret in the

> > broadest sense of the words), coupled with today's

> > equipment (whatever

> > this may be, i.e., plasma, pad, etc.), offer such

> > possibilities. But

> > our only consistent results seem to involve a

> > degree of

> > unpredictability most of us cannot accept.

> >

> > Perhaps your thoughts will permit us all to see that

> > at journey's end,

> > there is no one machine that will produce consistent

> > results. No one

> > set of frequencies (be they MOR or physiologic), no

> > one overriding

> > principle such as the need to first strengthen the

> > immune system or

> > eliminate toxins from our environment, that will

> > lead to consistent,

> > reproducible, predictable results.

> >

> > And if that is so, I, at least will now be O.K. with

> > it.

> >

> > After all, isn't that what our current medical

> > system does? At least

> > " Rife " doesn't bankrupt us, and it does hold out

> > some promise of hope

> > when our physician looks at us and with sadness in

> > his/her voice,

> > tells us, Nothing more can be done. "

> >

> > Thanks again for your efforts. Enjoy thinking with

> > you.

> >

> > Nate

>

May 22, 2007

Hi Mike:

If you remain focused on his right hand and time it

with a timer, you'll find that the switch was thrown

for a total of about 7 seconds. If I understand

correctly, the film was made at 16 frames per second,

but transfered at the more modern 24 frames per

second. I believe this is why it looks just slightly

fast. If this is actually the case, the 7 seconds on

the film is actually about 10 real seconds. The

flashing of the tube that you see was unintentional.

The machine was mismatched or something, which is why

he tried to readjust it midway when he turned back and

saw that the tube was off. A little later in the

film, when they show the tube on with the room lights

off, there is no flashing.

What was special about this machine is that he was

using the MOR for the organism, in this case, BX.

I've been doing a lot of research and analysis

recently, and I'm more convinced than ever that all of

the early machines up to and including the #4 machine

shown in the film, were straight frequency machines,

meaning there was no modulated carrier, frequency

mixing, audio, or anything of that sort. It was just

a single frequency at the MOR. Now the #4 machine did

have the capability to run two individual MOR

frequencies simultaneously if he wanted, but that has

nothing to do with modulation or anything of that

sort. The early machines may also have had some

harmonics, but this is beside the point of putting all

the power into the single MOR. This is very different

than what we're doing today. There was no X-ray

produced, and the power has been mentioned at 400-600

watts. This could not have been the actual power at

the plasma tube, because in my experience, a phanotron

type tube can't handle that much power. The helium

filled tube was just a variation of the theme. The

double bubble tube that he had was one of his earliest

tubes, that he had made in Germany. He said it was

the best tube he ever had. I doubt that had anything

to do with the fact that it was double bubble.

As I've said so many times before, if we can get back

to using real MORs, everything will change. We'll

have even better results than Rife, at least under the

microscope, because modern electronics components and

engineering knowledge are far superior to what was

available back then. We may not necessarily have much

better results in curing patients as they had back

then, because our health issues are more complex and

we are weaker than they were back then. If you

survived childhood back then, you were made of pretty

sturdy material, not to mention that they didn't have

all the pollution to deal with.

I hope that answers all of your questions.

Regards,

--- Mike Fellows wrote:

>

> While viewing the Rife story there are some aspects

> that I have not

> seen discussed before:

>

> After isolating the cancer virus following the

> growing of a tumour on

> a rat (part of his repetitive process)then

> dissecting a portion and

> placing on a slide under his microscope he then

> walks to the machine,

> sets the dials, throws a switch and there is the

> briefest flash in the

> plasma globe. There is no lengthy exposure i.e. 3 -

> 20 minutes that is

> generally discussed in treatment protocols. I

> realize that in vitro

> and in viva experiments are quite different but the

> split second

> exposure has amazed me.

>

> It raises the questions:

> 1. how powerful was the machine?

> 2. What actual type of plasma globe was used?

> 3. Was Xray frequencies involved?

> 4. In short, there was something special about this

> machine that had

> the ability to kill the virus almost instantly.

>

> Clearly the type of globe Rife was using, as is

> discussed throughout

> the video, had directional abilities. It would make

> sense then that

> exposure could be decreased as it is likely that

> penetration would be

> deeper and more effective.

>

> I note that it was much later that he developed the

> double bubble,

> which was again directional in its application.

>

> While we are on the subject of the earlier machines,

> which had a

> carrier frequency, they seemed to be able to achieve

> a repetitiveness

> that the later machines developed by the Beam Ray

> company did not. The

> latter being known to drift off frequency or simply

> not work as in the

> case of the units shipped to the UK.

>

> As discussed by Jim and others there is still much

> work to be done.

>

> Mike Fellows

May 22, 2007

Hi

Your response is a big help. If this was the case and the MOR was held

for 10 seconds in vitro and it worked, and I have no reason to believe

it did not, it raises another question. With modern function

generators that have extremely accurate sweep functions one would

think that the actual frequency should be hit at some point during the

sweep. I know this is not what is intended and it would be nice to

know the actual MOR but in the interim experimentation it would at

least give us some idea that we were on the right track.

I suspect that the actual output is much greater than we have been led

to believe. Whilst I realize that valve technology was in place which

required much larger housings, these were large units to say the least.

The video highlights the fact that the frequency went through many

stages of amplification culminating in a 50 watt output tube.

I have done a lot of in vitro and in viva testing with pseudomonas and

have had no luck with Rife/Bare, EMEM units or 30 volt p/p pad units

(the latter my own design). I have had some success with curing

staphylococcus in a tooth abscess in viva. However it was done with a

sweep so I have no idea what the actual frequency was. I chose

pseudomonas as it is fairly easy to obtain and known to be difficult

to kill.

While I respect what many are saying in that accuracy over power is

what is important I am beginning to believe that this may not be the

case for the serious diseases that we face in the world today.

So......... my next attempt will be to build a device with much more

output preferably controlled from another area as I am particularly

sensitive to the output from the plasma tubes and large coils that I

have built.

Again thank you for your help and I hope I don't get carted away

before I achieve some results.

Mike Fellows

>

> >

> > While viewing the Rife story there are some aspects

> > that I have not

> > seen discussed before:

> >

> > After isolating the cancer virus following the

> > growing of a tumour on

> > a rat (part of his repetitive process)then

> > dissecting a portion and

> > placing on a slide under his microscope he then

> > walks to the machine,

> > sets the dials, throws a switch and there is the

> > briefest flash in the

> > plasma globe. There is no lengthy exposure i.e. 3 -

> > 20 minutes that is

> > generally discussed in treatment protocols. I

> > realize that in vitro

> > and in viva experiments are quite different but the

> > split second

> > exposure has amazed me.

> >

> > It raises the questions:

> > 1. how powerful was the machine?

> > 2. What actual type of plasma globe was used?

> > 3. Was Xray frequencies involved?

> > 4. In short, there was something special about this

> > machine that had

> > the ability to kill the virus almost instantly.

> >

> > Clearly the type of globe Rife was using, as is

> > discussed throughout

> > the video, had directional abilities. It would make

> > sense then that

> > exposure could be decreased as it is likely that

> > penetration would be

> > deeper and more effective.

> >

> > I note that it was much later that he developed the

> > double bubble,

> > which was again directional in its application.

> >

> > While we are on the subject of the earlier machines,

> > which had a

> > carrier frequency, they seemed to be able to achieve

> > a repetitiveness

> > that the later machines developed by the Beam Ray

> > company did not. The

> > latter being known to drift off frequency or simply

> > not work as in the

> > case of the units shipped to the UK.

> >

> > As discussed by Jim and others there is still much

> > work to be done.

> >

> > Mike Fellows

>

May 22, 2007

I think has a sensible idea. Replicate first the simplest

effect that Rife openly demonstrated.

Generating frequencies in the MHz is easy. The complexity enters

where substantial power is required. This is compounded as the

frequency rises. So my question is, what is the minimum singular

frequency for which there is a fully documented MOR effect? Then we

can look at the hardware required.

Next issue is the tube. Are we just looking for something general

like this, to boost the activity of the MOR?

http://www.cayce.com/vray.htm

Or does the phanotron have specific properties that distinguish it

from say, a household tubular fluorescent lamp? If it's the UV, then

try a germicidal lamp. If it's the directionality, surround the

subject with additional tubes. If it's the power, move a smaller lamp

closer. And so on.

Modulation we are not mentioning for the moment.

On the surface, it would seem a few simple tests are all that is

required. However, my intuition tells me there must be more.

Otherwise, how could it remain a " secret " all these years? Still,

there is only one way to find out, particularly in the face of

speculation and heresay. That's a systematic process of elimination.

Is it time yet?