Guest guest Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 First let me apologize for what I'm about to say but Royal Rife was a man of his time. His theory and practise developed with his experience and had he lived till today his perspective and theory would likely to be different. What Tesla started has been adapted in many forms but in both sets of works the acceptance of frequency was paramount if not stated. Here we change horses as Rife developed frequency to do localised work. Tesla used frequency to do universal work. If we said God forbid frequency causes illness Rife localised a response to frequency by adding frequency or removing it as required. Personally I think this is the horse bolted approach. Rife's work has many qualities but one basic flaw in my humble opinion is that universal or localised frequency was not addressed. His work is outstanding taken within a context that the horse has bolted and now if where going to do something about it; there are conventional methods and alternative methods but the real question is . If we catch the horse and re-stable it to give treatment, is that enough. If you believe in frequency everything has it so why just treat the horse and not the stable or even farm The stable has domain over the horse who has a condition that's localised and the part of the horse affected is affected by LAW. The law of least resistance to be precise and pedantic. If the localised area or problem is treated and strengthened and the horse is released. Where is the law of least resistance likely to strike next on the horse because frequency in the horses environment has not been addressed. Sorry for speak out of turn but that's the effect the funny farm has on a horse. Best wishes Geofizz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.