Re: Shelvie Rettman - The Case Quoted on Quackwatch!

[Guest guest]

the woman might well have been just as bad as the article says.

$500 is a bit steep for transcripts of public records, isn't it?

maybe a different avenue of request, like FOIA, could enable getting them a

lot cheaper?

did Barrett have to shell out $500 ?

> Shelvie Rettman - The Case Quoted on Quackwatch!

>

>

> Hi,

> I have been trying to find out more about the Shelvie Rettman case,

> that is the case, mentioned on Quackwatch, which is used to discredit

> Rife therapy. You can read the Quackwatch side of the story here:

> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html

>

>

[Guest guest]

While it would be nice to find out the exact details

of this case, I don't need that information to answer

anyone who asks about it. This is a prime example of

the damage people are causing by calling their

machines " Rife " . She was not using a " Rife

generator " , and therefore any comments made by

Quackwatch are uninformed and irrelevant. When a

person has a clear understanding of what " Rife " is,

then all arguments such as those made by Quackwatch

types are shown to be the absurdities that they are.

Regards,

--- wrote:

> Hi,

> I have been trying to find out more about the

> Shelvie Rettman case,

> that is the case, mentioned on Quackwatch, which is

> used to discredit

> Rife therapy. You can read the Quackwatch side of

> the story here:

>

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html

>

> In particular, newcomers often ask about this and

> our lack of an answer

> to the case needs to be addressed.

>

> I have been investigating this and it appears that

> nobody in the Rife

> world ever knew this lady, her case or what

> equipment she was using.

> This has allowed Barret to get away with attributing

> it to Rife therapy

> for so long.

>

> In order to learn more, I contacted the court in

> Wisconsin and asked

> for more information. They have now replied saying

> they can provide me

> with a copy of the case files for about $500. My

> letter and their reply

> can be viewed here:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Rife/files/ and

> then download

> Rettman.pdf

>

> As I cannot afford to pay $500 out of my private

> funds just to find out

> what really happened, I want to ask the members of

> this group if we

> want to pursue this and would members of this group

> be prepared to

> contribute towards the cost of obtaining these

> documents.

>

> This would allow us to determine what really

> happened, what equipment

> was actually being used and if this has any bearing

> on what we are

> doing now.

>

> We could then put out a page on the Internet, for

> example on

> www.rife.de, debunking the Quackwatch story.

>

> Is anyone here interested in pursuing this?

>

> If so, I can setup a fund so people can contribute

> towards these costs

> via PayPal.

>

> Regards

>

>

> Moderator

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

I have talked to these people on the phone, and they tell me there

are a lot of documents related to the case. That is why it is so

expensive.

If you know of a cheaper way of obtaining this information, all the

better.

Although it is unlikely she was using a Rife device, certainly not if

we follow 's interpretation of what a Rife device is, skeptics

quote and requote this story to defame Rife therapy.

Although anyone who has spent any time investigating Rife will see

that story for what it is - a poor attept to discredit Rife by

association - those learning about Rife for the first time often find

this story and then write off the whole thing because of it. That is

why debunking this article with real facts would be a good thing.

Regards

>

> the woman might well have been just as bad as the article says.

>

> $500 is a bit steep for transcripts of public records, isn't it?

> maybe a different avenue of request, like FOIA, could enable

getting them a

> lot cheaper?

>

> did Barrett have to shell out $500 ?

>

> > Shelvie Rettman - The Case Quoted on Quackwatch!

> >

> >

> > Hi,

> > I have been trying to find out more about the Shelvie Rettman

case,

> > that is the case, mentioned on Quackwatch, which is used to

discredit

> > Rife therapy. You can read the Quackwatch side of the story here:

> > http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

--- wrote:

<snip>

> Although it is unlikely she was using a Rife device,

> certainly not if

> we follow 's interpretation of what a Rife

> device is, skeptics

> quote and requote this story to defame Rife therapy.

>

> Although anyone who has spent any time investigating

> Rife will see

> that story for what it is - a poor attept to

> discredit Rife by

> association - those learning about Rife for the

> first time often find

> this story and then write off the whole thing

> because of it. That is

> why debunking this article with real facts would be

> a good thing.

I agree, but I think it would be better overall to do

it with real facts about Rife. Showing the real facts

about Rife instantly disarms any arguments like those

made by the Quackwatchers. It also shows that when it

comes to Rife, they don't know what they're talking

about. It is probable that what they said about the

woman in question was justified, and so arguing the

matter from the facts of her case will continue to

give their arguments " teeth " . I also feel that any

newcomer that would write off Rife based on this

article, and not first look for further information,

is better off looking for something else. " Rife "

requires just a little bit more from people.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

If we have no other way of debunking this story - I would be willing

to contribute a small amount, there are certainly enough members on

this group that it wouldn't take much from even a small majority of

us. I think we should do all we can do to stand up for Rife

Technology and win this fight - Let's not sit back - it's not

getting us anywhere very fast. Thank you for attempting to

get the information. Count me in.

>

> <snip>

> > Although it is unlikely she was using a Rife device,

> > certainly not if

> > we follow 's interpretation of what a Rife

> > device is, skeptics

> > quote and requote this story to defame Rife therapy.

> >

> > Although anyone who has spent any time investigating

> > Rife will see

> > that story for what it is - a poor attept to

> > discredit Rife by

> > association - those learning about Rife for the

> > first time often find

> > this story and then write off the whole thing

> > because of it. That is

> > why debunking this article with real facts would be

> > a good thing.

>

>

> I agree, but I think it would be better overall to do

> it with real facts about Rife. Showing the real facts

> about Rife instantly disarms any arguments like those

> made by the Quackwatchers. It also shows that when it

> comes to Rife, they don't know what they're talking

> about. It is probable that what they said about the

> woman in question was justified, and so arguing the

> matter from the facts of her case will continue to

> give their arguments " teeth " . I also feel that any

> newcomer that would write off Rife based on this

> article, and not first look for further information,

> is better off looking for something else. " Rife "

> requires just a little bit more from people.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello

The link that I've posted may give you some additional detail about

the Shelvie Rettman case. I believe that you can also obtain the full

court proceedings through this website much cheaper.

Duane

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/

getcase.pl?court=mn & vol=appunpub%5C9807%5C2199 & invol=1

>

> Hi,

> I have been trying to find out more about the Shelvie Rettman case,

> that is the case, mentioned on Quackwatch, which is used to

discredit

> Rife therapy. You can read the Quackwatch side of the story here:

> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html

>

> In particular, newcomers often ask about this and our lack of an

answer

> to the case needs to be addressed.

>

> I have been investigating this and it appears that nobody in the

Rife

> world ever knew this lady, her case or what equipment she was

using.

> This has allowed Barret to get away with attributing it to Rife

therapy

> for so long.

>

> In order to learn more, I contacted the court in Wisconsin and

asked

> for more information. They have now replied saying they can provide

me

> with a copy of the case files for about $500. My letter and their

reply

> can be viewed here:

> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Rife/files/ and then download

> Rettman.pdf

>

> As I cannot afford to pay $500 out of my private funds just to find

out

> what really happened, I want to ask the members of this group if we

> want to pursue this and would members of this group be prepared to

> contribute towards the cost of obtaining these documents.

>

> This would allow us to determine what really happened, what

equipment

> was actually being used and if this has any bearing on what we are

> doing now.

>

> We could then put out a page on the Internet, for example on

> www.rife.de, debunking the Quackwatch story.

>

> Is anyone here interested in pursuing this?

>

> If so, I can setup a fund so people can contribute towards these

costs

> via PayPal.

>

> Regards

>

>

> Moderator

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sherry,

I am very sorry to hear about your experience. I also feel bad about

the misinformation and confusion that this thread has produced.

A number of times, veterinarians have asked if the F-Scan was a suitable

piece of equipment for animals. My answer has been that it is not.

The F-Scan runs a test that requires bare skin of suitable proportions

for the finger sensor and hand cylinders and the subject must remain

still for the test. It then applies the frequencies to the skin or wet

fur. A much cheaper piece of equipment such as the F165 would be

suitable for use with the ABPA. I do not have any experience with

broadcasting frequencies with the ABPA.

The F-Scan does not use a pendulum. It is an very good piece of

equipment that scans and routinely finds frequencies that turn around

situations for which we otherwise would not know what frequencies to use.

It does produce repeating peaks. These peaks are easily avoided on your

unit by using 759742 for the upper limit, 78607 for the lower limit, and

683 for the delta. Even if you do not avoid those repeating peaks, the

only thing lost is a few minutes of time. So far, no no one has

discovered exactly how it does the scan. The design " flaws " may not be

flaws at all.

I approved your F-Scan group membership today. If you go back and read

the posts by Dr. Fuelling, they will verify that he thinks that it is a

fine unit and it does find good frequencies.

is a valued researcher and purist. When people use the phrase

" Rife equipment " these days, they mean most any kind of radiant or

contact unit. points out that these are not real original Rife

equipment. I agree with that genuine Rife equipment may not be in

use anywhere in the world today. But it does not bother me if people

call a modern unit a " Rife Machine. " And a Rife frequency to him is a

frequency that was determined by use of a microscope. But other

frequencies determined by other methods can be very useful too though

they are not " Rife " frequencies.

Loyd

http://www.royalrife.com

sherry bakko wrote:

> I did not have good results at all - as a matter of fact, if someone

> else on this list would not have stepped in and 'educate' me about the

> FSCAN being a radionics NOT a RIFE machine - I think my dog would be

> dead.

[Guest guest]

Hi Sherry,

I am very sorry to hear about your experience. I also feel bad about

the misinformation and confusion that this thread has produced.

A number of times, veterinarians have asked if the F-Scan was a suitable

piece of equipment for animals. My answer has been that it is not.

The F-Scan runs a test that requires bare skin of suitable proportions

for the finger sensor and hand cylinders and the subject must remain

still for the test. It then applies the frequencies to the skin or wet

fur. A much cheaper piece of equipment such as the F165 would be

suitable for use with the ABPA. I do not have any experience with

broadcasting frequencies with the ABPA.

The F-Scan does not use a pendulum. It is an very good piece of

equipment that scans and routinely finds frequencies that turn around

situations for which we otherwise would not know what frequencies to use.

It does produce repeating peaks. These peaks are easily avoided on your

unit by using 759742 for the upper limit, 78607 for the lower limit, and

683 for the delta. Even if you do not avoid those repeating peaks, the

only thing lost is a few minutes of time. So far, no no one has

discovered exactly how it does the scan. The design " flaws " may not be

flaws at all.

I approved your F-Scan group membership today. If you go back and read

the posts by Dr. Fuelling, they will verify that he thinks that it is a

fine unit and it does find good frequencies.

is a valued researcher and purist. When people use the phrase

" Rife equipment " these days, they mean most any kind of radiant or

contact unit. points out that these are not real original Rife

equipment. I agree with that genuine Rife equipment may not be in

use anywhere in the world today. But it does not bother me if people

call a modern unit a " Rife Machine. " And a Rife frequency to him is a

frequency that was determined by use of a microscope. But other

frequencies determined by other methods can be very useful too though

they are not " Rife " frequencies.

Loyd

http://www.royalrife.com

sherry bakko wrote:

> I did not have good results at all - as a matter of fact, if someone

> else on this list would not have stepped in and 'educate' me about the

> FSCAN being a radionics NOT a RIFE machine - I think my dog would be

> dead.

[Guest guest]

I'd like to clarify a few points below.

--- Loyd wrote:

<snip>

> is a valued researcher and purist.

I want to make it clear that I'm only a purist in the

sense of wanting things to be clear and distinct. I'm

not opposed to other effective devices that are not

Rife; and that includes the F-scan.

> When

> people use the phrase

> " Rife equipment " these days, they mean most any kind

> of radiant or

> contact unit. points out that these are not

> real original Rife

> equipment. I agree with that genuine Rife

> equipment may not be in

> use anywhere in the world today.

I'm actually not particularly interested in " the

original " Rife equipment, except of course for

historical and nostalgic reasons. I'm interested in

modern equipment that can do the same thing and better

than the original Rife equipment, but still prove it

in the rigorous way in which Rife proved his

equipment.

> But it does not bother me if people call a modern

> unit a " Rife Machine. "

Then how can you be sorry about Sherry's negative

experience, when it was this very thing that caused

it?

> And a Rife frequency to him is a frequency that was

> determined by use of a microscope.

This is not strictly correct. A Rife frequency is

determined _in vitro_. As Dave reported, he did his

experiments with culture tests and spectrophotometry.

While it may generally be more efficient to use a

microscope, it's not absolutely necessary. It would

be a lot more work though. Also, Rife noted that some

organisms are not visibly affected under the

microscope.

> But other frequencies determined by other methods

can > be very useful too though they are not " Rife "

> frequencies.

I have no problem with any frequencies that get people

well. I just have a problem with people saying that

their frequencies are devitalizing organisms like Rife

did, without proving it like he did.

Regards,