Re: Molar Cracked in two

[Guest guest]

Thank you. What happened to set number two. I see frequencies that I

haven't used as yet for teeth, I will have to give it a try.

The Beck Brain Tuner BT6pro is a bit more convenient to use unless I treat

myself radionically with the Rife contact device. I have been using that

for the dog. But . . . I digress. I started to get pretty achey this a.m.

so I used the Brain Tuner and have alleviated the pain. I used it has a

T.E.N.S. unit on frequency set three putting the sticky electrodes on my

jaw hopefully in general on either side of the area in question. Then

after finished with that I put used the Brain Tuner with the electrode

headset and ran through freqency set three so many times I lost count, but

it worked. I have also pulsed with the Magnetic Pulser. Taken MSM and

Collodial silver. I will not know what has been the true cure of this

problem, but hopefully hitting it with everything will get the job done.

Oh I also rinsed with drug store grade 3% h202. That is an experience.

What brought the cracked tooth to my attention was the discomfort after I

used the water pik with celtic sea salt and baking soda last night. To

much to late! Nothing like shutting the barn door after the horse is

already gone!

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

LOL a housekeeping customer asked me if I had cloves today. He used them

to spice up baked ham. I have some boxes of cloves that were here when I

came her 32 years ago, and I think they were probably here quite a while

before that. They still smelled fairly strong, but I wouldn't know how to

get the oil out of them. No matter I think I have oil from the drugstore

as you mentioned. Thank you. Sheila

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 7/

[Guest guest]

Sheila Bliesath wrote:

>

<snip>

> The Beck Brain Tuner BT6pro is a bit more convenient to use unless I treat

> myself radionically with the Rife contact device. <snip>

Could you please elaborate here? How can you treat yourself

Radionically with a so called " Rife contact device " ?

Regards,

[Guest guest]

I am short on time here, but I believe that I have explained how to do this

previously and a search on the archives should find this information. If

not then please ask again. Sheila In answer too . . .

*************************

Could you please elaborate here? How can you treat yourself

Radionically with a so called " Rife contact device " ?

Regards,

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Sheila Bliesath wrote:

>

> I am short on time here, but I believe that I have explained how to do this

> previously and a search on the archives should find this information. If

> not then please ask again. Sheila In answer too . . .

> *************************

> Could you please elaborate here? How can you treat yourself

> Radionically with a so called " Rife contact device " ?

>

I did find your explanation in the archives; thanks for that. I feel

compelled to tell you though, and please don't take this the wrong way,

but you have a mistaken understanding of what constitutes Rife frequency

therapy. First of all, there's no such thing as a " Rife contact

device " , but even if there were, you would have to apply the electrodes

directly to the subject and not a polaroid photograph. What you're

doing is pure Radionics, which has nothing to do with Rife, regardless

of whether you're using a so-called Rife device. I'm not questioning

the validity or efficacy of what you're doing, but I've been arguing for

quite some time that it's a bad idea to mix up and confuse the various

modalities. Not only does it provide easy ammunition for the skeptics

and enemies of this technology, but it also creates confusion for the

newcomers who are trying to make a decision regarding which modality

they want to use and or invest in. It would be better if you didn't

mention Rife's name in association with Radionics. Again, no offense

intended.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

At 11:29 AM 07/26/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>So contact devices, and I would imagine even a purists

>idea of a Rife device, could be used successfully radionically.

>

>Everyone has a right to their opinion, which includes you and me.

I think you may not be meeting the objections by replying that 's

considerations are just a matter of " opinion " . The discussion goes into

silly-land if you say that.

To me, it's most interesting to conjure with the idea that there may be a

junction point or other cross-over from radionics to Rife healing tech. I

didn't see your original post on the subject, so maybe you can aim me at it

if what I say here requires a visit to that doc. The two approaches are

very different. Rife is nutznboltz electromagnetism and sound; radionics

may have some electromagnetic aspects, but they're very hard to get a clear

picture of. I opened up an older radionics instrument once and saw

there's no power or output or input connected to any of the dials inside.

Each has some electronic components hooked to various of its own terminals,

but no connections to the other dials. Anyone who knows thing one about

electronics can see the only thing being activated by the plug going to the

wall outlet is the pilot light. The rest is consciousness. (The unit was

then sold to friends of mine who were also my homeopathists. In some

other, unrelated connection later, I asked to look again inside the box; it

was only four screws to remove the control panel. They refused to allow

it. <gg>)

So, as I understand it, radionics depends on the consciousness of the

practitioner (and maybe the " client " ) far more than does anything Rife-ish

-- which, as I understand it, focuses in quite the opposite direction. The

idea in Rife work being to keep mental/psychological tweaking and

intervention by the practitioner *out* of the healing picture as much as

possible.

So, given that stark contrast, I'm wondering where the crossover is: Do

you choose freqs on a Rife machine using a radionics protocol or procedure,

either traditional or of your own creation? Is there any use of locks of

hair or other " disposable " body parts or secretions in your process?

Have you tried working with a " client " both with and without using any

radionics procedures? If so, can you describe differences in results?

Do you place yourself and/or the " client " in any special condition(s) of

consciousness when you work radionically with Rife tech?

Some radionics folks can do their healing work " at a distance " -- E.g.,

send in a lock of hair and your list of problems from Walla Walla and the

radionics worker in Philadelphia will set up his machine and " transmit " the

healing " rates " . Distance is of no concern, though it most emphatically is

of central concern in Rife work. (I gotta say here, it'd sure be neat to

find a way to do Rife work at a distance. Wow!!!) Have you any experience

with this way of working with Rife/radionics?

(BTW, FYI, though I wonder about the mix you suggest with Rife work, I have

no problem whatever with some kinds of evidence of

consciousness-moderated-action-at-a-distance. Much of this evidence is

extremely robust. Bell's Theorem, Jahn and Dunne's bulletproof PK work at

Princeton for example. And that real jaw-dropper experiment by Cleve

Backster where he fills the bottom of a small test tube with a subject's

saliva, inserts two electrodes into the fluid, connects them to a

sensitive, recording voltmeter, then watches and records as the subject

drives ten miles away to a stressful interview. During the interview, the

recording pen bounces around all over the lot. . . .Hmmmm. Is that an

" electromagnetic " phenom, or, perhaps, is the voltage reading a secondary

consequence of some other phenom/force/energy/etc.?. . . Hmmm. And if we

can read the " consciousness " of the subject at a distance with an

electromagnetic instrument, might we be able to figure out eventually how

to " send " a signal to him/her? Reliably?. . .And from here the questions

proliferate like rabbits.)

Best,

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

At 07:48 PM 07/26/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>As to Radionics depending on the consciousness of anyone wouldn't fit in

>the experiment that I did. I was very skeptical the first time that I

>tried it. I just followed directions, so the intent was there, but did I

>believe it would happen.

What directions did you follow?

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

You didn't get the point I was trying to make. I was not trying to

prevent or discourage you from doing what works for you and reporting

it. I was just saying that it's a really bad idea to associate Rife with

Radionics, and it would be better if you didn't do so. Whether what

you're doing works or not isn't the point I was trying to make. Now,

regarding your comment regarding people using frequencies discovered by

Rife, if you're referring to the frequencies that we all know and use,

then you're mistaken. I don't want to sound immodest, but I dare say

that there are few people alive that have studied Rife's work more

intensely than I, and I can say with a great deal of confidence that

what we're doing and the frequencies we're using are not what Rife was

doing. Nobody is using Rife's frequencies, and or in the manner he used

them. If anyone claims differently, then please make a detailed report

to us. Does that mean that what we're doing is wrong or doesn't work?

Of course not, unless of course we claim that we're doing " Rife " .

That's the point I'm trying to make. We shouldn't wave Rife's name

around our own ideas in an attempt to give them some sort of

credibility. Yes, we all know that Rife inspired a lot of the things

that we're doing and we'd like to honor him, but I don't think he'd be

pleased with the way his name is being bandied about. By all means,

continue doing whatever works for you and report it, but when you apply

electrodes to a polaroid photograph and mention Rife's name in

association with it, well I think that's plain wrong.

Regards,

Sheila Bliesath wrote:

>

> I was asked and so I answered. If you are doing something that works then

> you have a desire to share it. Some people have access to a contact

> computerized (using frequencies discovered by Rife or many other people)

> frequency device and yet the people/animals that they would like to benefit

> from its use are to ill or the situation to awkward perhaps to use a

> contact device. So contact devices, and I would imagine even a purists

> idea of a Rife device, could be used successfully radionically.

>

> Everyone has a right to their opinion, which includes you and me. So if I

> have found that to use a contact device radionically works, and that this

> device incorporates Rife technology to acheive an end result then I feel I

> have as much right to share this information, as you have a right to not

> agree with my doing so. For sure contact devices came out of the work that

> Rife was doing, and if you read a bit more you will find out that Rife was

> not the only one who realized that frequencies could kill or cure. So

> perhaps the name of Rife and the word frequencies should not be used

> together. In the end is it the plasma tube or is it the frequency that

> takes care of the virus? So no matter how it is delivered it is ultimately

> the frequency that does the job.

>

> If you do not want to use different modalities together that is your

> business. If someone else does not believe that to use the Rife technology

> radionically is acceptable that is for them to decide, not you or me. I

> certainly am not twisting anyones arm. I have personal experience that

> using the device radionically will work and only wish to share this method

> on the off chance that someone needs to use it.

>

> No offense taken.

[Guest guest]

At 02:37 PM 07/27/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>You comment that we would not be using the frequencies

>that Rife used is a little strange as I am sure a frequency of 727, or 728

>would be the same frequency now as it was in Rife's time. It may have been

>delivered in a different manner but again the end result was a frequency

>resonating throughout the universe of 727 or 728.

Rife himself did not use those frequencies at all. His work was done in

the megahertz range.

>As to associating Rife with Radionics, what do you think radionics is? In

>my very unscientific mind the use of frequencies is radionics. Rife used

>frequencies that were delivered through the air, no contact, to me that is

>radionics.

No, it's most emphatically *not* radionics. Abrams developed the

technology and procedures that became known as radionics (did he call it

that himself??. . anybody know?) well before Rife, and the research,

discipline, research and development and equipment used went a very

different route and is based on very different principles than anything we

call Rife work today. The kind of radionics I know doesn't claim to

transmit electromagnetic frequencies of any kind. As said, that

healing technology is not related to any branch of Rife work, no matter

what frequencies, high or low, are used, and it's completely confusing to

use the term in connection with any Rife technique.

And please: To argue that this is " semantics " just won't fly. If I say

surgery is just vitamin therapy with a knife and you objected to that

characterization, I'd certainly not be able to reply that you're just

arguing semantics.

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

----- Original Mradionics

ra·di·on·ics [ràydee ónniks ] noun

use of electronic diagnostic device: the use in alternative medicine of an

electronic device that can detect vitamin and mineral deficiencies from a hair

sample or can detect subtle energy changes in the body. Its results are used to

determine appropriate herbal or homeopathic treatments. (takes a singular verb)

[Mid-20th century. A blend of radiation and electronics.]

essage -----

From: Pursglove

To: Rife

Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:47 PM

Subject: Re: Molar Cracked in two

At 02:37 PM 07/27/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>You comment that we would not be using the frequencies

>that Rife used is a little strange as I am sure a frequency of 727, or 728

>would be the same frequency now as it was in Rife's time. It may have been

>delivered in a different manner but again the end result was a frequency

>resonating throughout the universe of 727 or 728.

Rife himself did not use those frequencies at all. His work was done in

the megahertz range.

>As to associating Rife with Radionics, what do you think radionics is? In

>my very unscientific mind the use of frequencies is radionics. Rife used

>frequencies that were delivered through the air, no contact, to me that is

>radionics.

No, it's most emphatically *not* radionics. Abrams developed the

technology and procedures that became known as radionics (did he call it

that himself??. . anybody know?) well before Rife, and the research,

discipline, research and development and equipment used went a very

different route and is based on very different principles than anything we

call Rife work today. The kind of radionics I know doesn't claim to

transmit electromagnetic frequencies of any kind. As said, that

healing technology is not related to any branch of Rife work, no matter

what frequencies, high or low, are used, and it's completely confusing to

use the term in connection with any Rife technique.

And please: To argue that this is " semantics " just won't fly. If I say

surgery is just vitamin therapy with a knife and you objected to that

characterization, I'd certainly not be able to reply that you're just

arguing semantics.

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

At 08:56 AM 07/28/2002 -0700, you wrote:

> ra·di·on·ics [ràydee ónniks ] noun

> use of electronic diagnostic device: the use in alternative medicine

> of an electronic device that can detect vitamin and mineral deficiencies

> from a hair sample or can detect subtle energy changes in the body. Its

> results are used to determine appropriate herbal or homeopathic

> treatments. (takes a singular verb)

And my homeopathists and others use it to transmit healing " rates " to

clients as well.

> [Mid-20th century. A blend of radiation and electronics.]

Neither my homeopathists nor anyone else I've spoken to about radionics is

sure that whatever's " radiated " has anything to do with the electromagnetic

spectrum. Electronic circuitry *may* be involved in the radionics process,

but it might be a secondary or even tertiary aspect of whatever phenomenon

is at work. Most users or practitioners I've talked to acknowledge that

" consciousness " in some form(s) (healing intention, unobstructed attention,

non-linear intuition, and/or many more) operates as one of the backbones of

the processes involved.

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

An interesting book to read is " Mind Machines you can Build " which is an

engineer's perspective on this (general, not specific) area of

discussion.

In particular he addresses machines that are not plugged in and yet work.

The extreme case is schematics of machines rather than boxes. These

also work, providing that anything works for the subject. He specifies

explicit experiments to do

and gives his results in terms of the number of people who could or

could not reproduce

these results. Interestingly enough, being able to reproduce the

results has no correlation with believing in the phenonemon -- some

people believed and could

not make anything work, others did not believe, and yet things worked.

Rife's work is in an entirely different category and is designed to be

explicitly reproducible by other researchers. This puts it squarely

within the context of

modern science. Radionics might be described by quantum mechanics, but

certainly

not by Newtonian science. So mixing the two (Rife and Radionics) is

legitimately problematic. This is not to say that there might not be

interesting things to be learned, but rather that to expect others to be

able to reproduce such experiments is probably unjustified.

[Guest guest]

I did a search on google.com and went to the following sites to search for

a definition to Radionics. You will note that on two of these sites there

wasn't a definition and on one of them I even Asked Dr. Dictionary and he

didn't know. Please continue down the list and you will see what I found

for a definition. I know I said my last message was it, but I couldn't

help but accept this one last challenge. Sheila

*****************

Home - Ask Dr. Dictionary - FAQ - Help

Ask Dr. Dictionary

You asked: Radionics

We were unable to find an answer to your question. You can:

Get a search pro at LiveAdvice to help.

Ask about it in our forum (free registration is required)

Browse through our FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

********************

Dictionary.com

No entry found for radionics.

60 suggestions found:

radiance

radiancy

radio emission

radio news

radio noise

radiomicrometer

ETC.

**********************************

Mirriam Webster Dictionary

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click

on a spelling

suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary

search box to the right.

Suggestions for radionics:

1. radiancy

2. radiancies

3. readiness

4. reediness

5. radiances

6. radiating

7. readings

8. redialling

9. reedings

************************************

SEARCHING AT THE FOLLOWING SITE THAT USES MANY DICTIONARIES . . .

http://www.onelook.com/?q=radionics & ls=a

AND A DEFINITION WAS FOUND AT

http://ashelf.com/wordlists/t/tsl/www/words/radionics.html

Copyright 1996 by The International Tesla Society

Edited by Riversong and J.W. McGinnis

Used with permission.

Radionics

NOUN

1 Use of invisible, largely unclassified energies to create effects on

biological entities. It can operate equally well at any distance, because

it is using resonant forces which are inherently non-locational.

----- Original Mradionics

ra·di·on·ics [ràydee ónniks ] noun

use of electronic diagnostic device: the use in alternative medicine of

an electronic device that can detect vitamin and mineral deficiencies from

a hair sample or can detect subtle energy changes in the body. Its results

are used to determine appropriate herbal or homeopathic treatments. (takes

a singular verb)

[Mid-20th century. A blend of radiation and electronics.]

essage -----

From: Pursglove

To: Rife

Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 3:47 PM

Subject: Re: Molar Cracked in two

At 02:37 PM 07/27/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>You comment that we would not be using the frequencies

>that Rife used is a little strange as I am sure a frequency of 727, or

728

>would be the same frequency now as it was in Rife's time. It may have

been

>delivered in a different manner but again the end result was a frequency

>resonating throughout the universe of 727 or 728.

Rife himself did not use those frequencies at all. His work was done in

the megahertz range.

>As to associating Rife with Radionics, what do you think radionics is?

In

>my very unscientific mind the use of frequencies is radionics. Rife

used

>frequencies that were delivered through the air, no contact, to me that

is

>radionics.

No, it's most emphatically *not* radionics. Abrams developed the

technology and procedures that became known as radionics (did he call it

that himself??. . anybody know?) well before Rife, and the research,

discipline, research and development and equipment used went a very

different route and is based on very different principles than anything

we

call Rife work today. The kind of radionics I know doesn't claim to

transmit electromagnetic frequencies of any kind. As said, that

healing technology is not related to any branch of Rife work, no matter

what frequencies, high or low, are used, and it's completely confusing to

use the term in connection with any Rife technique.

And please: To argue that this is " semantics " just won't fly. If I say

surgery is just vitamin therapy with a knife and you objected to that

characterization, I'd certainly not be able to reply that you're just

arguing semantics.

-==d==-

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Wait, hold it. Anything I have done that I rightly called radionics, that

some believe I should not have used the name Rife in association with this

protocol, or with the contact computerized frequency generator I used to

produce the results, can be done by anyone. Look I am not a rocket

scientist here. I am just an ordinary person who bought what I thought was

a contact Rife device that I found out later could be used to produce

results for a person, animal, or plant from a distance by using a Polaroid

picture of the subject and also a hair, saliva, urine, blood sample from

the same subject. The device I have, that I will in this forum at least

continue to call a computerized frequency generator (perhaps I should give

Crane credit), is capable of frequencies up to 7 digits, so can produce the

frequencies that Rife also used.

You guys need to learn how to live out of the box. The term anal retentive

comes to mind.

Rife certainly would have used whatever frequency he needed to use to get

the job done.

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

An interesting book to read is " Mind Machines you can Build " which is an

engineer's perspective on this (general, not specific) area of

discussion.

In particular he addresses machines that are not plugged in and yet work.

The extreme case is schematics of machines rather than boxes. These

also work, providing that anything works for the subject. He specifies

explicit experiments to do

and gives his results in terms of the number of people who could or

could not reproduce

these results. Interestingly enough, being able to reproduce the

results has no correlation with believing in the phenonemon -- some

people believed and could

not make anything work, others did not believe, and yet things worked.

Rife's work is in an entirely different category and is designed to be

explicitly reproducible by other researchers. This puts it squarely

within the context of

modern science. Radionics might be described by quantum mechanics, but

certainly

not by Newtonian science. So mixing the two (Rife and Radionics) is

legitimately problematic. This is not to say that there might not be

interesting things to be learned, but rather that to expect others to be

able to reproduce such experiments is probably unjustified.

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

At 04:32 PM 07/28/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>You guys need to learn how to live out of the box. The term anal retentive

>comes to mind.

Thinking outside the box I do for sure (else I doubt I'd be on this

BBS). I don't believe doing so gives me linguistic license to call a sheep

a 747. Especially online with others exploring an outside-the-box healing

discipline where terminology and misunderstanding are already problematic.

>Rife certainly would have used whatever frequency he needed to use to get

>the job done.

Not the point. It is that he did *not* use lower freqs. It was the higher

ones that did get the job done *for him*. Apparently, the same job can be

done, though apparently not as effectively, by using the Crane (and other)

freqs.

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

Sheila Bliesath wrote:

>

> Wait, hold it. Anything I have done that I rightly called radionics, that

> some believe I should not have used the name Rife in association with this

> protocol, or with the contact computerized frequency generator I used to

> produce the results, can be done by anyone.

I doubt it. I was once told the same thing regarding a dowsing rod,

that anybody could use it. I held it exactly as instructed and it did

nothing. The same goes for Radionics. It requires a certain type of

" special " person operating the device. It can't stand up to objective

scientific methods of verification.

> Look I am not a rocket

> scientist here. I am just an ordinary person who bought what I thought was

> a contact Rife device that I found out later could be used to produce

> results for a person, animal, or plant from a distance by using a Polaroid

> picture of the subject and also a hair, saliva, urine, blood sample from

> the same subject.

I would hardly call curing ailments by using a polaroid photo and a DNA

sample " ordinary " . If you can actually do this, I should think that

walking on water would be no trouble at all for you. ;^)

> The device I have, that I will in this forum at least

> continue to call a computerized frequency generator (perhaps I should give

> Crane credit), is capable of frequencies up to 7 digits, so can produce the

> frequencies that Rife also used.

The frequency in Rife's lab notes for cancer is eight digits.

http://www.rife.org/bacillusx.htm

> You guys need to learn how to live out of the box. The term anal retentive

> comes to mind.

Yeah, right! How often it is that people use the charge of close

mindedness to cover up their lack of concrete evidence. Is your

position so weak that you have to resort to personal insults?

> Rife certainly would have used whatever frequency he needed to use to get

> the job done.

Yes; and the way he would have verified that the frequency was getting

the job done, would have been to put a sample of the particular organism

under the microscope and watch it blow up when exposed to the chosen

frequency. Then he would repeat everything several more times.

So, what I'd like to propose to you is a simple experiment:

1. Take a pure culture of an organism of your choice. Simple baker's

yeast would be fast and easy.

2. Place a drop of the sample on a slide and put it under the

microscope.

3. Take a polaroid photo of the microscope with the sample under it.

Also take another polaroid of the test tube with the culture in it.

4. Put a couple of drops of the culture on each photo and put them both

in the envelope.

5. Take your setup into the next room and do your Radionics wizardry.

6. Have someone back at the microscope looking to see if the bugs under

the microscope blow up.

If you can repeatedly and consistently blow bugs under the microscope,

you'll have demonstrated the validity of your Rife/Radionics fusion

technique.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Sheila Bliesath wrote:

>

> How do you know that he wouldn't, or didn't use the lower frequencies? And

> if he didn't use them was it perhaps because he didn't have the time to

> research them?

It's impossible to know why he didn't, or whether he wouldn't use the

lower range frequencies. I think it's much safer and more constructive

if we proceed on what we know, rather than speculate too much on what we

don't know. What we know is that all of the Rife lab notes that we

have, along with the other documents from that era that mention

frequencies, the figures are in the RF range. On the Rife CDs, Rife

himself says that _some_ of the frequencies are in the audible range,

others are higher than that, and others are way up in the broadcast

band. He gives an example, saying that cancer is very high, which is

consistent with the lab note. I would think that the frequencies in the

audible range are for parasites, because they are much larger.

> My understanding was that his notes were burned in a fire

> and he had to try and reconstruct his work.

This may be a confusion with the fire that took place at Dr. Burnett's

lab, when he was visiting Rife.

> Since there seems to be some

> Rife authorities on this list tell us why he didn't use the lower

> frequencies.

I would think that there isn't enough power in the lower frequencies.

The size, shape and structure of the organism will determine what it's

resonant frequency will be. You can still produce a resonance effect

with sub harmonics of the fundamental frequency, but the further away

you get from the fundamental, the harder it will be because there will

be less power. Rife mentions this on the CDs. He said that _some_ of

the frequencies that he found may be harmonics (meaning sub harmonics),

but they " did the business " . He said that a true frequency (meaning a

fundamental) would be better because it would have more power. I'd like

to say here that I'm not sure that the lower frequencies that we use

presently are actually killing microorganisms. I suspect that they are

what we might call physiologic frequencies, which might explain why

there are many common frequencies that work for a lot of conditions. If

the frequencies we use today were actually killing microorganisms, then

we should only need one frequency for each form of a particular

organism.

> Do you have access to notes that are known to be authentic?

Yes. Most of them we've put up on Stan's web site. I thought I sent

him all of them, but I guess not. When I get a chance, I'll scan the

few remaining ones for him. In the mean time, go to the following link

to see them:

http://www.rife.org/laboratory.htm

> Was it perhaps that what he was trying to eradicate didn't respond to those

> frequencies?

There is an enormous amount of work to be done. Not only do we have to

repeat Rife's work, but we have to continue on from where he left. Rife

said that he had worked on this for fifty years, and that he had

" scratched the surface damn gently " . Three of the twenty-seven lab

notes that we have don't have frequency figures, indicating that he

hadn't found frequencies for them yet.

> Does that mean that just because he didn't use/experiment with

> the lower frequencies that they are not valid for some situations?

No. Obviously the frequencies we're using today have some validity,

because people have been having success with them for quite some time.

What isn't valid, however, is to say that because we're using

frequencies, we're doing what Rife was doing.

> What

> was he trying to kill?

He was trying to kill pathogenic microorganisms of human disease,

whether they be bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, or whatever else.

> You imply by what you say that anything that a

> person would want to eliminate from their system can more effectively be

> done using higher frequencies. Or are you just considering a specific

> disease? Are you perhaps concerned just with cancer?

As I understand it, the general rule is that the smaller the object, the

higher the frequency needed to resonate it. Perhaps one of the techs

could clarify the matter.

> Can you point us to a

> list of 'Rife' frequencies? One that doesn't include those lower

> frequencies? Educate us.

Go to: http://www.rife.org/index.htm

> Isn't it true that one person can discover 'something', and then others can

> improve upon that discovery?

<snip>

I don't think that the fundamental principle can be improved, that of

resonating microorganisms. Of course you can improve the application by

building better frequency generators, finding new frequencies and the

like, but it's still the same principle at the foundation. What you're

doing has a totally different foundation.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

It seems to me that before we say that Rife didn't use lower frequencies that we

should look at the all the evidence. Rife stated in his deposition of March 7,

1961 this:

" Initially I worked with loose couplers to get an audio oscillation and then

with the use of transmitters, I tried to balance the audio and modulate the

audio on a carrier wave to transmit the audio energy but I found that both the

audio and the audio transmitted through a tube as an antenna worked equally as

well in a painless and harmless method to human tissue. "

And in an affidavit filed in the United States Court of Appeals of the State of

California dated February 7, 1967 he said:

" I started this research in 1913 and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars

in finding a method to isolate and positively identify cancer and other types of

virus and also to kill all types of bacteria, virus, fungi and worms with safe

audio frequencies from Frequency Instruments. "

We should also take a look at the 1939 Beam Ray Instrument that came from Beam

Ray corporation that Rife was an owner of and the frequencies that it used. All

the frequencies were in the audio range but they were modulated on a carrier

frequency. This is what Rife said in his deposition.

http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/Analysis/index.htm

It is apparent that Crane lowered Rife's original audio frequencies by 10

times and that Rife never used Cranes frequencies. If one takes a look at Rife's

lab notes from the early 1930's there are two diseases at that time that had

audio frequencies. These frequencies where use in 1934 and earlier. The first

one is Anthrax Symptomatic. The meter frequency for it was 18,000 which in Hz is

16,655. The second is Tetanus and its meter frequency was 19,000 or 15,779 Hz.

If one looks at all of Rife's MOR frequencies many of them are below 1 megahertz

therefore he would have had to use a carrier frequency. I put a spread sheet of

Rife's and Crane's frequencies in the photo album for any who wants it. It

includes the frequencies from the 1939 Beam Ray instrument.

This is just some food for thought.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Jeff Garff wrote:

>

> It seems to me that before we say that Rife didn't use lower frequencies that

we should look at the all the evidence. Rife stated in his deposition of March

7, 1961 this:

>

> " Initially I worked with loose couplers to get an audio oscillation and then

with the use of transmitters, I tried to balance the audio and modulate the

audio on a carrier wave to transmit the audio energy but I found that both the

audio and the audio transmitted through a tube as an antenna worked equally as

well in a painless and harmless method to human tissue. "

There's nothing in that alleged deposition to indicate that it was from

Rife. When I read it, I immediately concluded that it was written by

Crane. It certainly has his style. When we consider that Rife's

lawyer, who was also Crane's lawyer in his case, said that he asked Rife

when he went down to Mexico to take his deposition if what Crane was

doing was the same as what Rife had done and " he indignantly denied it " ,

" he blew up " . Rife's deposition was not introduced in court because it

would have been damaging to Crane's case.

> And in an affidavit filed in the United States Court of Appeals of the State

of California dated February 7, 1967 he said:

>

> " I started this research in 1913 and have spent hundreds of thousands of

dollars in finding a method to isolate and positively identify cancer and other

types of virus and also to kill all types of bacteria, virus, fungi and worms

with safe audio frequencies from Frequency Instruments. "

This is the same as the alleged deposition. It was just something that

Crane wrote up and had Rife sign it. Keep in mind that Rife was almost

eighty years old at that time, also the fact that it was Crane who kept

Rife supplied with alcohol.

> We should also take a look at the 1939 Beam Ray Instrument that came from Beam

Ray corporation that Rife was an owner of and the frequencies that it used. All

the frequencies were in the audio range but they were modulated on a carrier

frequency. This is what Rife said in his deposition.

> http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay/Analysis/index.htm

I'm not entirely convinced that in its present form, its an original

1939 device, but even if it is, I think that the audio modulation was

the new method introduced by Hoyland. The #4 machine that was

commissioned and build for Rife used RF, without any audio.

> It is apparent that Crane lowered Rife's original audio frequencies by 10

times and that Rife never used Cranes frequencies. If one takes a look at Rife's

lab notes from the early 1930's there are two diseases at that time that had

audio frequencies. These frequencies where use in 1934 and earlier. The first

one is Anthrax Symptomatic. The meter frequency for it was 18,000 which in Hz is

16,655. The second is Tetanus and its meter frequency was 19,000 or 15,779 Hz.

If one looks at all of Rife's MOR frequencies many of them are below 1 megahertz

therefore he would have had to use a carrier frequency. I put a spread sheet of

Rife's and Crane's frequencies in the photo album for any who wants it. It

includes the frequencies from the 1939 Beam Ray instrument.

>

> This is just some food for thought.

The wavelength of superregeneration is not the M.O.R., although it may

play some kind of integral role. When the frequencies from the other

documents are factored in, it becomes fairly clear that it's the cycles

per second figures in the lab notes that are the M.O.R.s. Now in regard

to Crane lowering the frequencies by a factor of ten and using square

waves instead, I think it would be really good if more people could work

with the X10 frequencies with sine waves and compare. It would also be

great if you could produce a sine wave option in your pad device, with a

little higher range.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you very much for filling me in on what you know about Rife, from

other posts I see the poor man let the booze get hold of him. I was

unaware that he lived to the age of 80 plus, so that too was interesting.

I am also surprised that the information regarding Rife's notes being

burned in a fire is untrue. It would be great to have the time to research

how he came to the results that he did, but some of us have to rely on what

others tell us.

All of what you have said boils down to the fact that frequencies and their

harmonics

'snip' kill pathogenic microorganisms of human disease,

whether they be bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, or whatever else.

'unsnip'

The end result in using Rife fathered technology is the pathogens are

killed by the frequencies. The end result in what I am doing is that the

pathogens are killed by frequencies. The method of delivery is a bit

different but the real life result is the same. If it hadn't been for Rife

and others discovering the power of frequencies then what I am using, would

not have been discovered as without the frequencies there wouldn't be any

healing using this particular method.

My introduction to Rife technology was by a Naturopath that I visited to

pick up a herbal combination for gallbladder. He was very convincing so I

tucked this information away in long term memory. Although the machine

that he was telling me about was not a Rife machine as it was a contact

device, where you put your feet on stainless steel plates that were in

water. He did tell me about Barry Lyne's book, and that was why I

considered any frequency healing as Rife's work. The book was was

difficult to get at the time, I didn't have a VISA card, and even then I

was horrible at snail mail so I never did buy it. I liked what the

Naturopath had told me and I believed him, I didn't need to know more at

the time. More then a few years later, in the mid 80's a sister-in-law was

diagnosed with lung cancer and I remembered what this gentleman had told me

so I called him. He was afraid to talk, but did manage to give me the name

of a man who would talk briefly. I found out the address of someone where

they could go to view the machine, but alas my brother-in-law thought his

ability to buy booze (ironic) was more important then taking a chance on a

treatment that his health plan would not pay for.

When I purchased my Computerized Frequency Generator it would have been

nice to have more information on how to use the machine. In 1999, on the

Internet, I couldn't find the wealth of information that is available now.

So most of what I have found out was from having a situation, looking up

some frequencies in the very limited list that I recieved with the machine

and using them. When it came to my husbands colon cancer, I am sure the

machine kept the pain in control. But it was for him that I wish I would

have been 'listening' to the manufacturer, as when my husband decided to go

into the hospital we didn't feel that we could use the machine without

causing the doctors grief. So the machine was not used. Had I been

'listening' I could have run the frequencies for pain remotely and perhaps

my husband would have been more aware and left us less drugged and more

peacefully. An old friend of my husbands came to visit yesterday and he

mentioned going into the hospital to see my husband and he was sleeping.

Bob didn't want to bother his rest, although the nurses said it would be

okay. Bob's comment to me yesterday was, " I didn't get to talk to him

before he left. "

After reading what has been written about frequencies I probably should

have had my husband use the frequencies in Hulda s book for cancer.

But I didn't know what I know today. It just makes you think that everyone

has their time to leave and his was then.

Has anyone done mice or rat studies? At all?

Sheila

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

At 08:31 PM 07/29/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>Although the machine

>that he was telling me about was not a Rife machine as it was a contact

>device, where you put your feet on stainless steel plates that were in

>water.

It's very likely that was a Rife-derived instrument.

> He did tell me about Barry Lyne's book, and that was why I

>considered any frequency healing as Rife's work. The book was was

>difficult to get at the time, I didn't have a VISA card, and even then I

>was horrible at snail mail so I never did buy it.

At this point it's become clear that you're writing from a very minimal and

spotty information base. I'd urge you to get a copy of Barry Lyne's book

ASAP. It's not perfect, but it's a very good place to start. Barring

that, a visit to some of the following websites where there are good

summaries of Rife's work and life. A good start is our host,

's site <http://www.rife.de/>. Many good photos and historical

articles. (In fact, I've been looking for a place to thank him for all the

work he's done on that site. . .thanks, !)

Another good one is <http://www.rife.org/>. I believe it's the work of

Stan Truman.

Good hunting!

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

Re: Molar Cracked in two

> At 08:31 PM 07/29/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> It's not perfect, but it's a very good place to start. Barring

> that, a visit to some of the following websites where there are good

> summaries of Rife's work and life. A good start is our host,

> 's site <http://www.rife.de/>. Many good photos and historical

> articles. (In fact, I've been looking for a place to thank him for all

the

> work he's done on that site. . .thanks, !)

Hi ,

thanks for your comments and I am glad you liked my site. In fact I have a

lot more material just waiting to be put online. I am currently working on a

Rife related project I have been planning for a long time. It is in an

advanced stage and I will announce it here at the beginning of September! A

select number of people on this list already know what I am talking about

(and are sworn to secrecy :-) - the rest of you will have to wait one more

month!

Best wishes

List moderator

P.S. May I make a request to the members of this list. When replying to a

message, please only repeat the part of the message you are referring to. In

particular, please remove the footer that starts " Send an E-Mail to: " and

any Yahoo advert above it. Otherwise, we have mails that have this footer at

the bottom 2 or 3 times!

This applies in particular to digest readers. I have often had to remove a

very long digest from a mail before releasing it to the list. That is

particually frustrating when the poster is only adding " I think so, too! " .

In fact I have been rejecting a few of those messages as they are of no

value to the group and just clutter up the archives!

[Guest guest]

'snip'>Although the machine

>that he was telling me about was not a Rife machine as it was a contact

>device, where you put your feet on stainless steel plates that were in

>water.

It's very likely that was a Rife-derived instrument. 'unsnip'

Now what would make that a Rife-derived instrument and not the one that I

use? The machine that I use you input frequencies and the time you want

the frequency to run. You can also sit with your feet on the stainless

steel plates provided for this purpose. When using it this way I generally

put wet wash clothes over top the plates to help conductivity instead of

putting the plates in water. It has a digital read out so I know what

frequency I am running. When I have my feet on these plates on some

frequencies I very definitely feel a tingling. The machine uses one of

those AC to DC wall converter things for power, or it can be run off from a

12 volt system.

I admire all of you people who are more scientific minded for your

knowledge. If it weren't for people who enjoy these pursuits, well, there

wouldn't have been a Royal Rife would there? But what you have to realize

is some of us don't really need to know how Rife got to where he did before

he quit, or the booze got him. LOL you guys get going and are talking

about 'stuff' that I haven't a clue about. Personally I have no desire to

learn either. There are some subjects that I want to know all about from

the ground up, but in this particular case I want to know what works in the

real world. The basic knowledge of how frequencies work is good enough for

me.

LOL I hesitate to say what my definition of frequency would be as I am sure

it wouldn't be quite what you would read in a book. But that definition is

good enough for me to understand how frequencies can destroy the bad guys.

Or how certain frequencies could enhance well-being.

Talking about the technical side of Rife and frequencies is great for you

who are into that side, but I skim read those messages to be sure there

isn't anything in them I can use and then I delete. What I am interested

in are the messages where people are using the machines and are telling how

the machine has benefited them. I see very few of these posts. To see

someone who has posted on this list for a few months about how they are

using the machine and the results that they are or are not getting with the

particular machine they are using would be extremely valuable to everyone.

If we don't have scientific studies we would at least have more anecdotal

information to consider.

There should be a form set up with an outline of what information would be

beneficial to know. Personality type, age, disease, frequencies used,

duration, once per day, every other day, what type of frequency generator,

and the list goes on? These forms could be posted anonymously on a website

or in the files section for this group.

My question to you would be, how could all of the technical, or even the

touchy feely stuff about Royal Rife help me to use a frequency machine

better? I am not trying to belittle the fact that some have spent a lot of

time learning about RR, and I applaud those who have spent hours/years

putting that information together for all who are interested. But some

come to these lists and they are grasping at whatever they can find that

might heal them or a loved one. They really don't have time to figure out

how this technology was found, they just want some help in figuring out

does it work, and how can they best approach the use of these machines.

Now if someday I needed to build a device then I might have some

difficulty, but hopefully there will be someone around who is more

scientific/electronic to build what I describe.

Sheila

Sheila Bliesath

Open Season Sometimes . . . Sno'd Inn (OSSI)

http://snodinn.com

P0 BOX 1017

WAWA ON POS 1K0

PH:

FX:

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The

latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to

hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.

-Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheila,

I'd like to comment if I may.

I can only speak for myself but my objective is real simple. I want

to understand exactly how and why a Rife machine works for the sole

purpose of building a better machine. Current machines " work " to some

extent and certainly make people feel better in many circumstances.

But Rife supposedly cured terminal Cancers etc COMPLETELY in a matter

of weeks. Regardless of what anybody today claims, it's fairly clear

that no modern machine does that. So the most interesting questions

for me are: why not? What can WE do to achieve the same results? I

don't want a machine that just makes me feel a bit better, I want a

machine that cures, period.

A lot of people are suffering from terrible diseases. Many write to

me and ask for help and advice. It's very hard to give good advice

because there are too many unknowns. I spend most of my time telling

people I don't know all the answers and they need to research things

themselves. There are always people who will stand up and say, " Just

do this and it'll cure you, no problem " . Problem is, it rarely

happens in practice. Many MANY times I've been contacted by people

who've gone down the routes of strange and outlandish therapies only

to have them come back to me months later with reports along the lines

of " It seemed to be working for a while but now I'm much worse, help! "

Above all, what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for

someone else. That is why I always warn people to beware of anyone

who " knows all the answers " . The best thing *I* know is that I DON'T

know everything, and I'm quite sure neither does anybody else. But at

the same time there are some things that I DO know. So I spend my

time trying to educate people in the things they need to know to make

an informed assessment for themselves. If anybody wants to ignore

what I say or anybody else that's up to them, but ignorance is the

most dangerous thing as far as I am concerned.

You promote radionics. I don't believe in radionics. I choose to

take the opinion that you are fooling yourself and that any effect you

might achieve is only placebo effect at best. No offence, that's just

my opinion. But it's an informed opinion based on what I've observed

over many years. Now you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.

If as you have done, you simply state that's your opinion I won't

argue with you. If you state however that it's a proven fact then I

might take issue with that. But I rarely just say to people " you're

wrong and I'm right " . What I do is explain WHY I think what I do, what

the evidence is that I base my opinion on etc., I give all the

technical reasons why and wherefore. If I'm wrong, all my reasoning

is out in the open for anyone to challenge and correct if necessary.

In other words, it's transparency, I take the view that everyone who

wants to make the effort is intelligent enough to decide for

themselves what's true or what's not, but that it is essential to give

everyone the data they need to make such a decision.

The sad fact is that in the " alternative health game " as much as in

any other area of life there are a wide variety of people. There are

some people who are enthusiasts or zealots. Some have religious ideas

that they are trying to promote. Some are just plain crazy (there's

probably a few who'd want to stick ME in that category! :-) ) and

finally there are some who just want to separate people from their

money and they don't care how they do it. There are far too many

people whose only concern is to sell or promote their favorite

machine/therapy regardless of the consequences.

Now as for me, I'll admit I have one ulterior motive. I enjoy solving

mysteries. I get a kick out of trying to crack difficult problems.

I'm an old fashioned classic " hacker " in the true sense of the word.

But I also want to help people, I've seen and experienced too much

suffering to sit back and accept it. At any given moment I can't say

for certain which " motive " is more dominant to be completely honest.

But at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. In doing one I

automatically do the other. It's both helpful and fun to share ideas

with people and often I learn something in the process. And judging

by the general response I get, it appears it helps others too.

So with all the above in mind I'm a great believer in " what works " .

But to me that word " work " needs to be justified. It needs to be

backed up with a little more than just, " Trust me, I an expert " or,

" My pendulum says it worked! " . It's ironic how many people on the alt

health lists would automatically get worried if they went to their MD

and he said, " Trust me, I'm a doctor " . Yet it appears, based on what

I see every day, those same people will blindly and unconditionally

trust some stranger on the internet who tells them to drink a bottle

of kettle descaler or some such stupidity!

If I tell someone the technicalities of how a machine works, it's not

because I'm trying to teach them how to, or encourage them to build

their own machine. Nine times out of ten it's to give them enough

background to know when they're being conned! Or to help them avoid

electrocuting or poisoning themselves! Simple as that. Of course if

more people DID learn how to build their own machines etc., there'd be

a lot less scope for the con artists to take advantage.

So in summary each person can make their own choices. They can trust

the " experts " and/or they can trust people who tell them that strange

practices will cure their ills. Or they can try to learn for

themselves and make their own decisions based on common sense.

Up to a point I agree with you that the ultimate test is to try

something yourself and see if it works for you. But at the same time

if someone tells me that jumping into a stream of fast moving traffic

is good for me, then my common sense tells me that is not something I

would want to try for myself! :-) I'd want to see the proof up front.

So there always has to be a balance of reason and common sense, at

least for me.

If I was dying of cancer for example, I wouldn't want to waste my time

trying every (often contradictory) theory about what helps. What I'd

want is hard facts. If someone says " x " works, then show me the scans

that prove it worked for others. I may not have time to just try it

for myself and hope it works. Because by the time I find out it

didn't, it may be too late for alternative measures. Anecdotes may

help, but again, if I don't know the people who give the anecdotes

then how do I know if they're telling the truth? They are probably

not intentionally lying to me, but what if they are fooling

themselves? What if they are " plants " put out by some vendor who

wants to sell me some incredibly expensive device? And so on.

So at the end of the day, all I have to fall back on is my own reason,

common sense and experience. That's all anybody has. And in my case I

need data to feed all the above. Some people prefer to operate on

blind faith rather than reason. Fair enough, each to his own. But

for my part, all I can do is provide information to those who want to

listen and would rather go on reason. I don't ask anyone to believe

me or trust me, I just present what I believe to be the facts, WHY I

believe them to be facts, and let people make up their own minds. I

constantly encourage people NOT to believe me blindly but to check

things out for themselves.

I agree that time is a problem. Someone with a serious illness may

not have time to learn everything, just as they don't have time to try

everything. In which case they will have to rely to some extent on

the experience and knowledge of others. So once again my method is to

educate as best I can and maybe I won't be able to directly help a

newcomer with a short time, but maybe also I'll hopefully have

contributed something to the general background knowledge of the

community and thereby facilitated others to help in ways that I cannot.

So that's why I, for one, engage in what I do. Others will no doubt

have their own reasons.

Best wishes

Aubrey

> My question to you would be, how could all of the technical, or even the

> touchy feely stuff about Royal Rife help me to use a frequency machine

> better? I am not trying to belittle the fact that some have spent a

lot of

> time learning about RR, and I applaud those who have spent hours/years

> putting that information together for all who are interested. But some

> come to these lists and they are grasping at whatever they can find that

> might heal them or a loved one. They really don't have time to

figure out

> how this technology was found, they just want some help in figuring out

> does it work, and how can they best approach the use of these

machines.

>

> Now if someday I needed to build a device then I might have some

> difficulty, but hopefully there will be someone around who is more

> scientific/electronic to build what I describe.

[Guest guest]

Please do not say that I promote radionics. I reported that I used my

machine, which is a contact computerized frequency machine, radionically.

The results were positive. If you choose or choose not to use this method

I lose nothing, gain nothing at all. It was a rousing discussion and I

believe some good has come of it, but now it is time for me to cease and

desist.

With that said I am hoping that all I wrote about in my previous email was

not misunderstood. I took great care in writing so you would know that I

admire those of you who continue to work on finding the ultimate machine

and the appropriate frequencies. The most important point that I was

trying to make is most of us certainly want to know about the machines, but

we really do not want to know the technical stuff as we are electronically

challeneged.

So today I went to the Dentist and the offending teeth were pulled. I used

the Rife machine four different times at the frequencies outlined in Nina's

book and added to the extraction frequencies 20, 5000, 10,000. Running the

frequencies that I did helped. I also earlier used the Beck Brain Tuner

for pain as it is more portable. The BT was very helpful. Not that the

pain was excrutiating, as it wasn't. Just more of a dull ache. Everything

seems to be coming along just fine. Sheila

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Hi Sheila,

I'd like to comment if I may.

I can only speak for myself but my objective is real simple. I want

to understand exactly how and why a Rife machine works for the sole

purpose of building a better machine. Current machines " work " to some

extent and certainly make people feel better in many circumstances.

But Rife supposedly cured terminal Cancers etc COMPLETELY in a matter

of weeks. Regardless of what anybody today claims, it's fairly clear

that no modern machine does that. So the most interesting questions

for me are: why not? What can WE do to achieve the same results? I

don't want a machine that just makes me feel a bit better, I want a

machine that cures, period.

A lot of people are suffering from