RE: Aubrey Scoon: Hip, hip, Hooray!!!!!

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

Thanks, I'm flattered!

As for a book, I've thought about it. Problem is, there is so much

I'd like to explain that one book would never be enough! I could

write 50 books on this area and the related physics, biochemistry

etc., and still only scratch the surface! But I'll think about it

anyway. The one advantage that writing on lists like this has over a

book is that it's interactive and it gives me a chance to correct any

misunderstandings in real time so to speak. Someone getting the wrong

idea on page 1 of a book could end up extremely misinformed by the

time they reached the end of it!

By the way my impedance paper IS on my web site and has been there

ever since the Rife conference! It's the last entry under the

" Papers " section. Several people have asked me where to find it, but

I must admit I can't understand why anyone has difficulty finding it,

it seems quite obvious to me. Perhaps if you or anyone can tell me

why you didn't find it I could do something to make it easier.

What I will explain quickly is that my web site is organised with one

top level link to electrotherapy, all the Rife related stuff is under

that. Then there is a page below that which contains a link to " Rife

Research " , all my Rife stuff is under that, and there are separate

links for the Fscan report and general electrotherapy guidelines that

are not specifically Rife related. The reason why I have a separate

electrotherapy link at the top level is because in the past I've

written other papers on other subjects unrelated to electrotherapy, I

have papers I've written in psychology, electronics, chemistry,

electromagnetics and quantum mechanics for example. I haven't had

time to update and tidy those for posting to the site yet, some of

them are 20 years old! One day, when I get time I intend to put them

up and will need to put them under separate links.

There are various sub links under the Rife section, some of them go a

few levels deep, so if all else fails just click on every link you can

find and you'll find all kinds of hidden wonders! :-)

And before I forget again, the web site link is http://www.scoon.co.uk

!!!!!! :-)

The one thing I heartily recommend to anyone interested in Rife etc.,

is to get a good grounding in BASIC science. Forget the advanced

stuff, if you really understand the basics, the advanced stuff is

easy. The only reason people have difficulty following advanced

science is because they never learned the basics properly and didn't

get the concepts clear in the first place.

One thing I would also recommend to everyone, is to find out about a

discipline called General Semantics (do a web search). It was a

system of thought invented by a Polish mathematician called Korzybski

in the 1930's. There's nothing mathematical about it, it's a

different way at looking at how we think about things. Korzybski

wrote a book called " Science and Sanity " which brilliantly explains

the principles in simple terms, and to my mind this is one of the

greatest works of all time. If anyone learns how to employ the

principles of General Semantics they will benefit enormously because

it automatically weeds out false assumptions and bad logic and can

unravel even the most complicated confusions. Very few people are

aware of GS techniques although it has been popularised in things like

science fiction novels as a system called " Null-A " . " Null-A " or

" Non-A " actually means " Non Aristotelian Logic " and is only one part

of the complete system of GS.

The reason why I advocate GS is because it provides simple,

irrefutable proofs of many things, and in particular allows one to see

that certain ideas which seem very profound are in fact

self-contradictory and nonsense.

Best wishes

Aubrey

> >Open question: does anyone think I'm being

> >unreasonable here?

>

> I hope the cheering format above is to Brit spec <gg>, because you

deserve

> it and much more. Your willingness to bang away at a keyboard to teach

> Rife, Abrahms and other history lessons as well as share with us your

> careful research results and opinions is. . .well, dare I say it. .

> .unreasonable, excessive, to-be-congratulated and more!!! Waaaay

beyond

> the call of duty!!

>

> You've clarified in a half dozen posts material I've been puzzling

over for

> most of the six months or so I've been trying to figure out Rifestuff,

> Lakhovsky, Beck, Abrahms, Crane, Skilling, the QXCI (uh-oh, caveat

emptor

> on that one, too!) and several others.

>

> Please accept the doffing of me cap to ye and my gratitude. . .and

I'm sure

> there are plenty more on this BBS who'll want to join with me

whether they

> agree with your assessments or not.

>

> Hear, hear!!!!!

>

> -=d=-

>

> P.S. I hope you're planning a book. It'd be invaluable. Also,

anyone on

> this BBS who's not read Scoon's excellent ideas in his paper, " Rife's

> Missing Link: The Significance of Impedance in Rife Therapy " ,

delivered by

> an associate of his at the Rife conf in LV in March, is in for a

delightful

> high voltage zinger to the brain. Possibly ground-breaking material!

> (Aubrey, are you planning to post that one on your website or saving

it for

> the book <gg>?)

[Guest guest]

Just wanted to add my thanks, Aubrey, for your patience with questions from

those of us who don't have your background, for the clarity of your

explanations, and for sharing your personal experience as well! I have

always read your posts with interest, but I've learned a tremendous amount

from what you've written in recent weeks. (I, too, look forward to a book!)

I'm also very glad to be on a list where the discussions can be of such

high calibre. Thank you, , for making them possible!

I have a question inspired by the discussion on radionics. Could you tell

me, Aubrey, or anyone else on the list, if QXCI machines fall into the

radionics category? I know someone who has one and I'm sure it doesn't

emit frequencies that kill bugs, but the little I have heard about how it's

supposed to work has left me completely mystified. If it is a radionics

type of machine, that would make things a lot clearer for me.

Many thanks!

Barbara

______________________________________________________________________

Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

[Guest guest]

I am a previous owner of a QXCI, and I would definitely categorize this

device under " radionics " . It generates TENS frequencies, but this

device does not emit frequencies necessary to " directly " kill bugs. My

biggest complaint was the inconsistencies that I experienced when using

the device and it didn't seem to make a big difference whether the

volunteer was " hooked up " or miles away.radionics could explain this.

F.

Re: Aubrey Scoon: Hip, hip, Hooray!!!!!

Just wanted to add my thanks, Aubrey, for your patience with questions

from

those of us who don't have your background, for the clarity of your

explanations, and for sharing your personal experience as well! I have

always read your posts with interest, but I've learned a tremendous

amount

from what you've written in recent weeks. (I, too, look forward to a

book!)

I'm also very glad to be on a list where the discussions can be of such

high calibre. Thank you, , for making them possible!

I have a question inspired by the discussion on radionics. Could you

tell

me, Aubrey, or anyone else on the list, if QXCI machines fall into the

radionics category? I know someone who has one and I'm sure it doesn't

emit frequencies that kill bugs, but the little I have heard about how

it's

supposed to work has left me completely mystified. If it is a radionics

type of machine, that would make things a lot clearer for me.

Many thanks!

Barbara

[Guest guest]

,

Could you elaborate in more detail what you mean by inconsistencies?

Thanks,

Marisol

> I am a previous owner of a QXCI, and I would definitely categorize this

> device under " radionics " . It generates TENS frequencies, but this

> device does not emit frequencies necessary to " directly " kill bugs. My

> biggest complaint was the inconsistencies that I experienced when using

> the device and it didn't seem to make a big difference whether the

> volunteer was " hooked up " or miles away.radionics could explain this.

>

> F.

>

[Guest guest]

At 07:44 PM 08/02/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>. I have personally found that a much

>better solution is using an EAV device (I am using a Combi unit build by

>Kindling and sold to me by Vibrant Health)

Please sumbuddy 'splain me what's an EAV device? And where's Vibrant

Health. . .website? In my dreams?

Thanks,

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

At 08:47 AM 08/03/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>EAV stands for Electro-Acupuncture by Voll, and this form of diagnosis

>has been around for 50+ years, used in Germany for example as a standard

>diagnostic tool in hospitals.

Aha!! Thanks, . I knew I'd seen EAV somewhere, but couldn't place it.

Serendipitously enough, my wonderful holistic M.D. in Sebastopol, CA

happens to be Madill who, quite a few years back was the central

figure in EAV and Voll's fair-haired boy in the USA when EAV first got

started here. tells me he was super at the tech and very much a

proponent, poster boy, sales rep and all the rest. Studied with Voll. .

..the works.

>Then he and EAV started catching flak from hard science folks (we could

>call them " scooners " , I guess <gd & r>). He bridled mightily and took the

>EAV into a careful testing lab. Wound up having to back away from the

>instrument, strongly disappointed, because he and the lab discovered that

>degree of pressure on the skin of the " probe " (I don't recall the correct

>term) determined the reading. was no doubt very good using it

>because he's one super-fine, intuitive diagnostician anyway, without any

>instrumentation. I can testify to that as his patient for five

>years. He's done some pretty jaw-dropping " magic " in that department on me.

What I wonder is whether this problem has ever been addressed with the EAV.

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

I think Aubrey has encapsulated this in his amusing essay on

Mr. Schrodinger and Mr. Heisenberg, expert witnesses in the case

of Pursglove vs. Scoon. There are things that cannot be measured

without affecting them. So, is what Mr Heisenberg and Mr. Schrodinger

write about " science " or not? The conventional

answer is that activity at sub-atomic levels cannot be

compared to activity in the everyday world we experience.

However, I don't think we have demonstrated *how* these perplexing

devices

that work for some people and not for others actually work, or even

whether they work. It is much less perplexing than the episode with

Mr. Schrodinger's cat if one thinks about it.

I would like to suggest that there are different standards of proof in

different

disciplines. When we do understand these devices, I doubt that their

explanation will map to Aubrey's incisive deconstruction in terms

of the current scientific paradigms. Rather, I think that we will find

out

that something that we cannot measure (now, perhaps ever, in confirmation

of Mr. Heisenberg's ideas) is what is causing the percieved effect.

And it fascinates me. I would like to understand it, and debunking it

will not assist me in that endeavor. I would like to think that Mr.

Schrodinger

and Mr. Heisenberg share my curiosity.

On Sunday, August 4, 2002, at 01:20 PM, Dennis Harwood wrote:

>     If someone is good with it, an EAV device can be a miracle worker.

> Do we discount all such devices because no one can figure out how to

> scientifically validate them?

[Guest guest]

At 03:03 PM 08/04/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>I would like to suggest that there are different standards of proof in

>different

>disciplines. When we do understand these devices, I doubt that their

>explanation will map to Aubrey's incisive deconstruction in terms

>of the current scientific paradigms. Rather, I think that we will find

>out

>that something that we cannot measure (now, perhaps ever, in confirmation

>of Mr. Heisenberg's ideas) is what is causing the percieved effect.

But the problem with the EAV and Dr. Madill was that the eqpt was

being sold and promoted as making *scientific* readings, not intuition or

consciousness-modulated. 's a USA physician with the FDA, AMA and the

local medical boards to answer to. His license is at risk if he promotes

gear like this even if it works like sixty in his capable hands.

>And it fascinates me. I would like to understand it, and debunking it

>will not assist me in that endeavor. I would like to think that Mr.

>Schrodinger

>and Mr. Heisenberg share my curiosity.

>

>

>On Sunday, August 4, 2002, at 01:20 PM, Dennis Harwood wrote:

>

> > If someone is good with it, an EAV device can be a miracle worker.

> > Do we discount all such devices because no one can figure out how to

> > scientifically validate them?

No, but we can't call them " science " now.

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

Re: Aubrey Scoon: Hip, hip, Hooray!!!!!

> > > If someone is good with it, an EAV device can be a miracle worker.

> > > Do we discount all such devices because no one can figure out how to

> > > scientifically validate them?

> No, but we can't call them " science " now.

> -=d=-

But science according to WHOM? Isn't that the whole question?

It all depends on whose criteria you choose to believe, doesn't it.

Nina

[Guest guest]

At 08:14 PM 08/04/2002 -0400, you wrote:

> Re: Aubrey Scoon: Hip, hip, Hooray!!!!!

>

>

> > > > If someone is good with it, an EAV device can be a miracle worker.

> > > > Do we discount all such devices because no one can figure out how to

> > > > scientifically validate them?

>

> > No, but we can't call them " science " now.

> > -=d=-

>

>But science according to WHOM? Isn't that the whole question?

>

>It all depends on whose criteria you choose to believe, doesn't it.

I shoulda said mainstream, 3-Dticktock, materialist science, the " dominant

paradigm " including much of that foggy bayou known as QM.

And then I shoulda added Wayne Dyer's bon mot: " If you only believe what

you can see, why do you pay your electric bill? "

Tilting at whatever moves,

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

RE: Aubrey Scoon: Hip, hip, Hooray!!!!!

> Please do not categorize EAV technology along with radionics. EAV is

> not some mysterious form of energy that is based on someone's belief

> system. It works on the same basic concepts as acupuncture.and how many

> years did it take before acupuncture was accepted in the U.S.? Has

> acupuncture been " scientifically " proven? Do you believe in the

> theories of acupuncture? Do you think acupuncture will only work on

> certain people? If it doesn't help someone, doesn't it make more sense

> that the problem is not the patient, but the acupuncturist? Eastern

> medicine certainly doesn't believe that only certain people are capable

> of benefiting from acupuncture. I think it's a bit arrogant and

> insulting to Eastern medicine to dismiss something that has been

> practiced successfully for thousands of years because some scientists in

> the U.S. can't quite explain it with their own tunnel vision paradigms.

>

> The latest EAV devices do in fact take into consideration " pressure " and

> " skin moisture " as variables, and will provide consistent results with

> ANYONE they are used on if the practitioner is properly trained. I

> personally know a chiropractor and homeopathic doctor practicing in

> Toronto that is using EAV, bio-resonance, and Rife technologies in

> combinations with homeopathic remedies, and his patients actually regain

> their health. Results, baby. Isn't that what we're looking for?

>

> What we are all missing is a better method of tracking results when

> using alternatives. Since the so-called " scientific " or " clinical

> trial " methods of proof cost so much money, it's not practical to expect

> this process to take place on alternative therapies. It seems to me

> that the next best thing is a structured method for individuals to

> document their own symptoms and what they do for therapies, treatments,

> supplements, etc. on a daily basis. In other words, accurate and

> substantial data could be captured, shared and evaluated to assess what

> actually helps people and the corresponding variables. This would also

> help people take control of their own health. Well, I have developed a

> program called the Health Tracking Assistant that does just that.

>

> One reason I developed the Health Tracking Assistant is because so many

> people are desperately looking for valid information, data, etc. and

> anecdotal data is only " so-so " . It's tough to gain much from it, other

> than to " feel good " that someone out there was helped. I know, because

> I lost a daughter to cancer three years ago, and finding substantial

> data about all the alternatives I researched was nearly impossible.

> What if I could've looked at a report of 50 people with the same brain

> tumor as my daughter, with their blood types, ages, gender, and all the

> therapies, treatments, diet, exercise, etc. and their progress or lack

> of??? Well, this is my passion and my goal for the Health Tracking

> Assistant.

>

> If you want to learn more about the Health Tracking Assistant, visit

> www.thebritteam.com <http://www.thebritteam.com/> . Your constructive

> input would be welcomed and appreciated.

Well said, , the points you made about EAV technology. In addition to

examining the data about any given modality, I examine -- just as intensely, if

not more so -- just WHO is presenting the data. This can reveal a lot about the

modality. In my Rife Handbook, I discuss the many problems of bias with

so-called peer-reviewed journals, including the fact that so many " objective "

articles about drugs are written by agents hired by the drug companies, and

signed by a third party doctor (unaffiliated with the drug company) who is not

aware of the origin of the article. Even the United States Supreme Court found

that the criteria by which articles are accepted for publication in scientific

journals are scientifically flawed. With all this, PLUS the fact that the

mainstream media all over the world is now owned by about five corporations, is

it any wonder that the truth is so hard to find? That's why I stick with

independent journals and magazines. They might be called " fringe " -- but again,

just who is doing the name-calling?

I also want to tell the list that the early version of 's Health Tracking

Assistant is wonderful. I had the opportunity to preview it, and he did a

wonderful job! I am sure that this will help many people in the years to come.

Best,

Nina

Nina Silver, Ph.D.

Author, *The Handbook of Rife Frequency Healing*

Read excerpts from, and order the book at

http://www.healingheart-harmonics.com

[Guest guest]

At 10:26 PM 08/04/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>The latest EAV devices do in fact take into consideration " pressure " and

> " skin moisture " as variables, and will provide consistent results with

>ANYONE they are used on if the practitioner is properly trained. I

Very interesting to hear this, since I agree, acupuncture and the

" meridians " are far more in the 3-Dticktock, empirically verifiable bin

than the " consciousness-modulated " bin.

Have the " pressure " and " moisture " variables been adjusted for and that

adjustment tested by an independent lab? If so, where can I read the

results and fwd them on to Madill. I'm sure he'd be overjoyed to know.

-=d=-

[Guest guest]

At 03:03 PM 08/04/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>I would like to suggest that there are different standards of proof in

>different

>disciplines. When we do understand these devices, I doubt that their

>explanation will map to Aubrey's incisive deconstruction in terms

>of the current scientific paradigms. Rather, I think that we will find

>out

>that something that we cannot measure (now, perhaps ever, in confirmation

>of Mr. Heisenberg's ideas) is what is causing the percieved effect.

This may appear to be a nit-pick at first glance. Bear with it for a

moment if you can:

If we discover it's " something we cannot measure " , then we won't be able to

tell or even recognize if it's " causing " anything of any kind or not. The

notion of causation in a space/time continuum (if that's the right way to

say it) is bound to the Aristotelian/logical

positivist/materialist/Newtonian/Cartesian/etc. worldview, and it works as

long as we stay inside the limits that view imposes. But crack just *one*

of those limits, such as the speed of light (as was already done in the lab

in 2000), and now it's " through the looking glass " in a hell of a

hurry. If we arrive at our destination before we left. . .uh-oh. . .what's

causing what and what's the effect of what in a world like that? ( " Son of

Back to the Future " )

IMHO and FWIW and YMMV, many of these " consciousness-modulated " (clumsy

term, I know; any better ideas?) healing techs and modalities are

borderline processes, slip-sliding in and out of the latter, acausal aspect

of overall reality that the scientific enterprise tends to

ignore. Studiously ignore, in most cases. And very likely correctly

ignore. Science, for better or for worse, identifies itself as an

*empirical* enterprise, so " through the looking glass " explorations are

off-limits. That's okay by me in the same way that it's okay by me that

it's precisely 90' from home plate to first base, and I opine brassily when

asked (and often when *not* asked) that we need a different name for

explorations, enterprises, experiences, etc., that are

" consciousness-based " or " consciousness-modulated " . Let's stop beating up

on " science " for having limits. And IMHO, we need new, value-neutral terms

to point at this " through-the-looking-glass " un-place. " Spiritual " ,

" 'para'normal " , " non-ordinary " , " subtle energy " , " transcendent " ,

" supernatural " " 'meta'-physical " , " higher dimensional " and all the rest are

terms containing right inside them an obeisance to the dominant,

3-Dticktock, scientific paradigm, as if it were the only benchmark around

to which everything else must be compared. (At times I long for Medieval

Christian days when theology was " the *queen* of the sciences " . Simplified

everything, right? <gg>)

As an example, psychology has resolved some of this conceptual hassle by

adopting ph 's coinage, " transpersonal " , sometimes known as the

" fourth force " in psych. The word refers to those experiences,

understandings, feelings, etc., that are beyond the commonly understood

boundaries of self, time and space. ( " Commonly understood " are, of course

the operational and fraught terms in that admittedly loose

definition.) And this alternative suffers from the same limitations as the

ones above: it uses the " personal " as the benchmark. Lao-tse long ago

pranged our collective egos about that blooper: " Nature is not

anthropomorphic, " he said. But the term's a start in the desired

direction, anyway, and transpersonal psych occupies its own separate niche

in the psych field with courses, journals, practitioners, etc. I believe

even recent yearly Amer. Psychological Ass'n. confs have a " transpersonal

track " . The APA are mostly the licensed Ph.Ds, so " transpersonal's " made

the trip into the mainstream. Not too shabby.

I'd love to see some candidates for value-neutral, trenchant, easily

understood terms for that " other side of the looking glass " . All I can

ever come up with are corny, semi-literary, playful allusions such as

" Alice's Restaurant " (horsing around with " Alice in *Wonderland* " [!!] and

the place where Arlo said, " You can get anything you want. . . " ) or Zen

koan-ish monikers like " the place where we do 'raids on the unspeakable' "

( Merton), or the realm of " Imperishable Being " (ph ). I

know, I know; waaay too recondite. In fact anyone who can even use the

word " recondite " in a sentence should recuse himself from the selection

committee and go swill Gatorade on the second string bench.

What we need -- especially for those healing techs that aren't Rife, but

are clearly. . .somehow. . .related -- is a one- or two-word, catchy handle

that can be explained fully in less than a sound bite. Any sixth grader

should be able to grok the meaning in one take, or the term will never make

it onto prime time TV.

Go for it guys! This effort is directly relevant to the many comments on

's recent posting of a list of Rife eqpt. How to decide what

goes into the non-Rife eqpt list??? And what should be on *neither* list???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An anomaly about anomalies:

We can show with hard science lab experiments that certain phenomena and

results do *not* belong in the 3-Dticktock paradigm. What we're mostly

unable to do with such testing is to figure out what paradigm, if any,

these anomalous findings *do* belong to. Figures, since with empirical

tools and assumptions we can only measure the bounded, empirically-based

sector of what's likely an unbounded " reality " spectrum. Again, not

something to beat up on science about, and not something for either the

scientists or the non-empirically-verifiable-results mavens to get uppity

with each other about. Enough with trying to milk billy goats by either

side of the argument!

And enough with the mutual sneering, already, when the billy goat takes

offense and buts some investigator across the barn!!

-=d=-

" We should tackle reality in a slightly joky way, otherwise we miss its

point. " -Lawrence Durrell