Statement from Jimmy Hollmann

July 9, 2002

The following statement from Jimmy Hollmann has just been released on Bob's

Rife-List. I enclose it here for the people on this list to see.

He makes some comments about me that I wish to answer here:

>It is obvious by now that I don't agree with at least " part " of

>'s statements, more specifically, his stating and explaining

> " other peoples " words and meanings as absolutes when they are at best

>relative opinion and may even be out of context. That also includes

>incorrect public assessments of what I said/mean. I have, and will

>continue to have problems with ANYONE who makes or describes MY words

>for me in my behalf without my consent or approval. However ... when

>writing MY words .... I try to be as meticulous (as Aubrey Scoon) in

>stating opinion as opinion, fact as fact, speculation as speculation,

>theory as theory, and question as question .... and you the reader can

>be pretty sure I have demonstrable evidence, technical

>documentation, or SOMETHING substantial to back it up .... even it it

>isn't provided or referenced in the context of that particular dialog.

I have commented at length about my quoting of scientific professionals.

These people are all highly trained professional research scientists working

in professional labs or for professional manufactures of medical equipment,

etc. I have already covered this at length. I have not made statements out

of context in this matter.

I have problems with the way Jimmy Hollmann attacked me in a very

unprofessional way. A lot of people have written to me thanking me for the

calm way I handled this situation. I have even publically offered to Jimmy

that I bear him no grudge and that he should reciprocate. It is obvious that

he is not interested and as far as I am concerned, that is his loss!

>

>How chooses to operate and run " his " list is of course " his' own

>business. I am well aware this is NOT the first time this issues and

>disagreements on this very topic has come up and been the source of

>discord between him and other researchers prior to this. For that

>reason, I suspect it will also not be the last but rather a clear

>indication of how things simply " will be " there. I doubt that I or many

>folks can or should live within those limitations and arbitrary

>assumptions. For that reason alone it will be VERY unlikely that I will

>be participating much in the " limited " list. I have PLENTY to do to keep

>me busy here and elsewhere! If something of importance is brought up

>there, I'm sure it can be well and more openly addressed in detail HERE

>in Bob 's rife-list.

There was one other similar incident on my list and again that was related

to me pointing out a safety issue that I saw to have been played down. If

manufacturers do not make potential dangers of their product known. It is

only correct that these points be brought out into the open for discussion.

The customer can only decide what is correct for him to use if he knows ALL

the facts relating to safety, not just those which the manufacturer decides

to let us know about.

Here is Jimmy Hollmann's statement in full

Regards

*********** BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE ***********

>

>Hello group !

>

>I have been away and with family the last few days but am glad to see

>that the computer generated frequency discussion has continued. (I'm

>also glad to see Bob is moveing things considering all the

>problems we have been having with yahoogroups.) I would especially like

>to thank all the folks who have contacted me personally and who have

>been reading, following, and obviously " seeing through " what has been

>being said. I know it has been an " eye opener " to many.

>

>I would like to present some of the technical issues for your

>understanding and consideration from my perspective and opinion, which I

>know " this " forum is for.

>

>I am a big believer ... from PERSONAL, observed, and reported

>experience, that using even the crudest PC based application and

>software has its place in our research and experimentation.

>

>I want to emphasize those words ... " research and experimentation " ...

>because that is precisely what this is. Anyone who considers this (at

>least in MY and neighboring countries) as " treatment " seriously needs to

>look at the laws in their respective countries. It would be wonderful if

>that were not the case, but at least it is a starting place for us ....

>a starting place with considerable background freely shared by our

>predecessors of 60 or so years. I believe we know this is rarely the

>case or opportunity when considering many other closed fields.

>

>To begin with, it would all be very nice if we all had easy access to

>high quality " medical grade " computer controlled function generators.

>I'm not even sure such thing currently exists in my country. A

>$5000-$10,000 function generator certified in THIS country would most

>likely sell for MANY MANY MANY times that. Example ... a very simple

>TENS circuit in this country, which can easily be built for $15-20 sells

>here in the US by " prescription only " for $800-900 ... or MORE and is

>very restricted and regulated including all markings, instructions, and

>documentation. What would you guess a $5000 function generator MIGHT

>sell for? I personally shudder to think.

>

>Realistically, there are FEW among us that have the resources OR the

>need to equip ourselves in that manner. We each personally consider the

> " trade-offs " ... although we DO need to understand the deficiencies

>inherent in our educated decisions. I don't think ANYONE will argue that

>there are limitations and considerations in using PC based software as

>the base frequency generation tool.

>

>I personally have/own, a host of various commercial function generator

>solutions which I use constantly ...with commercial names like

>Tektronix, Signametrics, Hewlett-Packard, Southwest Technologies, and

>more. Some of which have PC-based control circuitry. I would not expect

>even one of those pieces to be used by anyone but the most serious

>developer. I also have a host of " other devices " as well for comparison

>purposes, i.e. Square-One (Bob Hansen), Kinniman (Ed Heft), Geny2 (no

>longer being produced), and I've used others too. The fact remains, I've

>found " limitations " for my use, to each and every device ... REGARDLESS

>of price. I can constantly recognize and note " improvements " needed to

>better utilize them for our perceived or envisioned environments.

>

>Lets address or examine lightly specific concerns.

>

>FREQUENCY ACCURACY

>Without a doubt this is an issue that needs attention! .... from several

>perspectives and several considerations:

>

>1. Mathematical/Hardware Errors: We have long known that there are

>mathematical error and limitations in the generation processes of BOTH

>the software AND the hardware. We also well know that these errors can

>vary from PC to PC. This has been well explained, documented, and

>elaborated on over the years by quite a few excellent researchers.

>While the end user does NOT have to understand the technical reasons, he

>most assuredly should be aware that these errors exist. By the same

>consideration, he should ALSO be made well aware that MANY off the shelf

>test grade function generators ALSO exhibit a degree of drift and

>inaccuracy equal to or exceeding those known mathematical and hardware

>errors or limitations. It should also clearly pointed out, that even the

>highest dollar function generators must be kept in calibration if they

>are to be used as a reference and for absolute accurate generation.

>

>2. Microsoft Windows: ... I probably should NOT even start on this ... I

>abhor this program and all the technical problems it CAUSES ... which is

>why I mostly use Linux. I DO realize however this is the ONLY OS many

>folks feel is practically available to them ... but these inherent

>problems are also the reason many of the software programs are DOS

>based, so as NOT to introduce the errors caused by Windows Input/Output

>control in that operating environment. We simply need to be well aware

>of this for our future development.

>

>3. Sweep/Drift/Waver/Deviation: We have briefly touched in this in point

>#1 above .... however we should also probably consider that even our

>worst equipment today, is probably more stable than the oscillators of

>Rife's day. It has been speculated more than once that Rife's successes

>were NOT based as much on frequency accuracy as the accuracy in hitting

>the target by the " drift " inherent in his frequency. Not so

>surprisingly, many or most of the current Rife specific software

>includes the ability to artificially emulate this very attribute. One

>of the topics at this years Rife Conference (and the consensus of many

>of those attending) was this was INDEED an important attribute and

>feature to be noted. This probably bares a interesting correlation to

>both points 1 and 4.

>

>4.THE CAFL LIST (and others): McInturff's Consolidated Annotated

>Frequency List in my opinion is without a doubt the very best and most

>up-to-date of " Starting Places " for frequency selection. Nina Silver's

>excellent book, " The Handbook of Rife Frequency Healing " , also has an

>annotated list and as a printed source, in my opinion, second to none.

>As researchers and experimenters we should realize several things. These

>lists are STARTING POINTS ... these are what has been reported by others

>to be effective for their applications. Any thinking person should also

>consider and be aware of:

>1. we do not know the circumstances under which those specific

>frequencies were tested and submitted.

>2. we do not know the technical capabilities and background of the folks

>utilizing the equipment NOR do we necessarily know their criteria.

>3. we have absolutely no idea what type of equipment OR ERROR there was

>in the user's/submitter's equipment ... however... based on personal

>conversation and history and past posts to the lists ... we can be

>relatively assured that the users have been generally using the same

>types of equipment we are using now, with the same types of errors.

>4. because the numbers are presented often vary often times only one

>Hertz, from one list to another, or even withing the same list, that to

>me seems to be an excellent indication that the numbers being reported

>ARE most likely representative of " error " .

>5. without a doubt, resources, information, and technical discussion

>like this list is terribly important to the development and refinement

>of this technology ... even if such discussion may be restricted or

>frowned upon elsewhere.

>

>WAVEFORM ACCURACY

>This is without a doubt, in my opinion one of the weakest points of

> " sound card " output as well as PC speaker output. This can vary greatly

>from PC to PC depending on design. I HAVE seen decent waveforms at

>certain frequencies but this can and almost always does, vary a LOT

>across the frequency spectrum for which it was designed.... from good to

>TERRIBLE!

>

>1. Better Waveform = Better Results???: It is well and been thought by

>most researcher that " better waveform " and waver " shape " typically

>equates to " better results and responses " As a general rule I agree

>completely. ... however I would NOT even begin to dictate what another

>persons criteria might be.

>

>2. Individuals Use: Different types of use may require different

>degrees of accuracy.For example: I personally, as the result of 2

>serious car wrecks, personally utilize the most simplest of contact

>applications ON MYSELF. This was after months of almost DAILY

> " conventional " medical treatment and therapy, drugs, TENS, etc had

>failed to seriously correct and alleviate the associated pain. It was

>ONLY through the (off the record suggestions, guidance, and explanations

>of a dedicated chiropractor that I realized there might be a possible

>alternative solution. Actually the only real relief i was receiving or

>noticing was the conventional TENS treatments at the respective offices

>of BOTH the doctor and the chiropractor .... both providing different

>explanations as to how it was working and the reasons for its use.

>Having a technical background I had absolutely NO PROBLEM constructing

>something simple to test the Rife theories which quite frankly, at the

>time i though was simply the " quack medicine " it was universally labeled

>(in my technical world). As skeptical as I was, I was pleasantly

>surprised to see how wrong i was in my UNEDUCATED assumption. This

>worked " for me " FAR better than ANYTHING the doctors had applied using

>VERY EXPENSIVE " approved " equipment. The primary difference being that

>the computer was selecting specific pain related frequencies to target.

>This was undoubtedly it seed that grew in my " Rife education and

>development. I STILL use basically that same setup for that type of

>application .... even over the Bare-Rife setups I have on hand.

>Self-education is often the very best path to " enlightenment " or

> " epiphany " .

>

>3. We should remember that individuals may be using any number of

>schemes to correct known problems or limitations or that their equipment

>may not be as sensitive to those limitations BY DESIGN.

>

>WAVEFORM CORRECTION:

>As waveform has been openly and repeatedly discussed, (at least on Bob

>'s " rife-list " ), several solutions have been publicly and openly

>offered. Ralph Hartwell's " Wave Shaper " and others are very welcome

>additions and may be the potential solutions to many folk's concerns. We

>should consider and remember EACH of these potential solutions probably

>has its own unique set of considerations and limitations and might even

>introduce new problems. We also need to be aware that many of these

>recommended offerings are for use in a specific environments only. i.e.

>a device (regardless of price) designed to output a beautiful square

>wave signal into a 50 ohm load very likely have a terribly output when

>placed on an animal's skin. (even a human). An output specifically

>designed to match THAT type of load range of course would be expected to

>maintain a better waveform. These are all things I personally discuss

>with developers and users .... it isn't any type of secret. It IS a

>consideration.

>

>WAVEFORM COMPONENTS:

>Most researchers (I've discussed these issues with) agree the specific

>waveform characteristics, attributes, and components are apparently very

>related to the physics by which all this seems to work at the molecular

>and cellular level. Much " formal " study has ALREADY been done in this

>and as we learn and experience more, we can better correlate the

>existing science to what is applicable for our use.

>

>USABILITY-CONVENIENCE

>For most of our uses, the computer provides a much needed convenience.

>It allows:

>

>1. quick and easy access to the most up to date information, frequency

>lists, and correspondence with like minded others.

>

>2. it allows for construction of frequency lists of our own choosing,

>easy editing, and the ability to keep noteworthy annotations.

>

>3. software to make the computer a frequency generator is freely and

>easily accessible to almost any potential user.

>

>4: COST: In the case of many folks I personally talk to, the computer

>software solution may be their ONLY feasible or immediate solution

>regardless of their type application.

>

>SAFETY

>No one... I don't care HOW technically savvy they are, can absolutely

> " assume " how another person will use any information, nor should they be

>allowed to make those decisions absolutely for the public. It is

>ridiculous to assume precisely how a person may utilize ANY device or

>even information .... or hopefully how he might INNOVATE or IMPROVE UPON

>or UTILIZE any information or devices.

>

>Safety is a VERY relative term. While our governments set standards and

>guidelines for us in various areas ... that varies greatly and is OFTEN

>open for interpretation AND as we have found, is in itself often

>misleading.

>I myself, am one of " those " persons that has terrible debilitating

>reactions to the " sulfite preservatives " that our own FDA in their

> " wisdom " deemed " Generally Recognized as Safe " ... an additive when on

>that GRS list was allowed to NOT be disclosed as an ingredient. It was

>not until after the death of many folks, and public outcry, that it was

>removed from this list. IT HAD been " legally proven " to the

>government's standards to be proof to be able to be labeled as SAFE!.

>

> I doubt many of use would consider chemotherapy " safe " from ANY

>perspective. I'm not sure I would subject myself to it under ANY

>circumstances ... yet THAT is " acceptable " conventional treatment

>

>Almost any device can have " innovative " uses. A simple (generally

>considered " safe " ) extension cord, has numerous practical applications,

>but could be fatal if one end was in a persons mouth while the other end

>is plugged in to the wall outlet. It is a matter of common sense,

>education, and a general understanding of the practical, related

>concepts behind these technologies of our study. I would of course

>recommend strongly for " innovation " directed more along the lines of our

>intended goals.

>

>The technical papers and information available from FDA and universities

>and as the result of government grants are quite useful or invaluable in

>determining as a general rule what MIGHT be safe or not .... still, the

>individual's specific PRIVATE application and decisions may have

>preference over the reported scenario. For instance, if our FDA has

>determined that the maximum voltage used in a TENS application is

>80volts peak-to-peak ... without causing localized cellular damage at

>the contact point of application, ..... and the user found that 81 volts

>was beneficial for his particular application or destruction, It is my

>contention that it is NOBODY'S business but his own to determine what

> " his " acceptable " safety " threshold is under circumstances and

>conditions undoubtedly his own. He should be able to freely state from

>his technical OR non-technical perspective what his observations are. It

>is NOT any of our responsibility or right to predetermine, or make

>absolute assumptions or decisions for another person. I will continue

>to resent ANY person that does so in my behalf without my permission or

>knowledge and would have to question the over-all validity of a forum

>moderator (or anyone else) that operates from that so-stated

>perspective.

>

>THE PHYSICS

>Although beyond the limited scope of this probably already too long

>post, the technical physics, in my opinion surely should be considered.

>For the last year and a half to two years, I have seriously been

>collecting technical documentation, medical, scientific, biological,

>electrical, patent, even info in the area of particle physics. Maybe

>surprisingly to many, I have NOT collected much in the way of anecdotal

>offerings although some DEFINITELY has merits, and unique content worthy

>of consideration and inclusion. When prepared to my satisfaction, I'm

>sure I will be making my information available as well as properly

>referencing, including (with proper permissions), or appropriately

>linking to my source materials. Unfortunately I believe too many folks

>are blinded and limited by past or too-simply furnished information when

>it is not considered into the larger picture. An excellent example of

>this was presented by Stuart s effectively demonstrating the all

>to common (Ella Fitzgerald/Memorex tape commercial) analogy of resonant

>destruction of a cell (and how that analogy is basically wrong) ... by

>taking a water balloon, shaking, beating, talking, etc. to it and it was

>basically absorbing each abuse. There are probably few among us that

>really believe from a technical perspective that is how the targeted

>cellular destruction occurs, however ... the original analogy REMAINS

>still an acceptable method to describe to the complete neophyte the very

>basic concept of resonant frequency so that THEY TO can enjoy this

> " quest " .

>

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

>

>Many folks have informally asked me ... " What do you use on yourself? "

>(knowing of my accessibility to almost anything. I have NO PROBLEM

>stating that I use the very hardware and software I/we openly discuss

>here ... (not JUST mine) ... the very same things THEY have easy access

>to ! As most of you should recall, my sites and observations are almost

>EXCLUSIVELY made up of photos, notations, editorial content of what I

>have PERSONALLY built and used myself. It is presented as such. I have

>never recommended anything I wouldn't use myself or feel safe in using.

>If and when that perspective ever changes, the content and reasoning

>will not be necessarily removed, but rather TECHNICALLY EXPLAINED. This

>is so the reader can have the " choice " of deciding what is applicable

>for himself.