RE: Re: The best Rife machine

August 31, 2008

Mike's machine is not Rife, " true " or otherwise. This is part of the

disinformation that I keep complaining about. I have no problem with any

statements about its features or efficacy, but that has nothing to do with

whether it's " Rife " or not. From what I can see, it appears to be a very good

machine as you stated, and I feel it could stand on its own merits. The only

real connection to Rife is the cashing in on his name. That's something I can't

agree with. If it was a " true " Rife machine, it would be demonstrated as such

according to Rife's methodology. That hasn't been done, and therefore calling

it " true Rife " is nothing more than fraud. Again, this has no bearing on the

efficacy and quality of the machine.

Regards,

--- masterskier wrote:

> Let us not forget the EMEM F117 Phaser TrueRife machine that

> is like the Swiss army knife

> of Rife machines.

> http://truerife.com

>

<snip>

August 31, 2008

How much are these scanner devices? Which one is the best?

Angie

Subject: Re: The best Rife machine

To: Rife

Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 9:47 AM

Has anyone heard of any results with Wade's 10A? I really like

the concept of scanning through frequencies, since you don't always

know what microbe is the problem, but don't know if it's helped people

in practice.

Holly

>

> What is considered the best rife machine?

>

> thx for all your help

>

September 1, 2008

>Hi Sally

>What things have you used the Prowave 101 for? I sent for his

>'report' comparing 'Rife' machines, and found it's mostly an ad for

>his own machine. But it did look easy to use, and he included lots of

>testimonials about results from trying it. I'm surrounded by people

>with Lyme, dental abscesses, and prostate cancer, and also would like

>to have a machine 'just in case'.

I haven't seen the report, but the website is " nothing to write home about. "

I don't think it really does the machine justice and certainly wouldn't have

made me buy it. But after talking with , I felt convinced that it was

a very good and capable machine - plus there's a 30 day refund offer. He is

very happy to discuss Rife, btw, so you may find it more helpful to call him

than rely on his brochure or website for info.

I am (as far as I know) as healthy and well person so I can't give you

testimonies about cured cancer or anything, but I have used it various times

for things like joint pain, muscle spasms, skin issue and headaches and

found it to be very effective. I also routinely run either General

Infection or Cancer and Detox just as a preventative.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I will give you my feeling for the

ProWave 101's pros and cons.

It's very easy to use - around 325 conditions have pre-programmed sets of

frequencies intended for that condition so you just select the condition and

hit Run. The frequency per se does not display in the LCD screen, but a

channel number does and the manual has a list of the channel numbers and

what frequency it is so you can easily see what frequency is running. (Why

they don't just list the frequency, I don't know.) There are 181

frequencies. The LCD also tells you how long the total program has yet to

run, as well as how long each channel has to run (default is 3 min per

channel, but you can change that). You can also program about 10 of your

own conditions (in case there's something not covered in the 325) or combine

channels from your favorites to make custom programs. I made one up just for

fun, and it wasn't hard to program at all.

It doesn't take up much room (easily packs away into a standard sized

briefcase), no breakable tubes, and can run on its internal rechargeable

battery which is a feature I use much more often than I would have guessed.

Out on the deck, or even stick the whole thing in an old purse bag that I

can wear while I cook in the kitchen. I've even used it on long commutes.

It ramps up (over 3 secs) at the start of each channel (frequency) so you

don't get jolted. Also you can adjust the intensity with a knob if it's too

strong.

There's a set of lights that let you know if you are getting good contact

with the electrodes. It comes with a variety of electrodes: hand held

cylinder, stainless steel wristband, carbon and flexible adhesive pads. I'm

still " playing " with these types but I'm finding are more effective for

certain areas (like sticking them on a joint) whereas sometimes the hand

held or wristband are better.

What I don't like, is that you are limited to the 181 frequencies programmed

in it. It can be updated by them, as they feel needed, but that's still a

limitation.

You also can't do " sweeps " . I don't know as I need to do this, since

everything I've thought of seems to be covered in the pre-programmed

conditions, but it still would be a nice option.

It relies on physical contact to work. Again, not bad, but a limitation.

For me to get a machine that can do what this one can't, I'd have to give up

things that I like about this one. So that's why I'm thinking it would be

nice to have two types - plus then I could loan one out. (Pros and cons

with that plan too).

Anyway, hope that's helpful. This whole debate about which is the best Rife

machine (leaving aside the question of if they are indeed Rife machines)

reminds me of when people debate which is the best version of the Bible.

The answer? The one you read. Maybe something similar is true here. J

Sally

September 1, 2008

>for all that info! You cleared up more of my confusion than

>'s flyer. I am in the same situation as you are, happily, with

>just joint pain, etc now and then. But I know people with more dire

>things, who might benefit. I really liked the portability and ease

>with the 101, but am sure wondering why there would only be 181

>frequencies available. That seems like an extremely limited number,

>considering that some devices run from 0 to 20 (or even 80) million

>Hz. Maybe it's a DC current, and is working like a Terminator zapper?

>Holly

Let me clarify - there are 181 different frequencies available, but those

choices cover various Hz frequencies from 0.5 to 21275 Hz.

Sally

September 3, 2008

Hey ,

It's . Hopefully you still remember me from the microscope days.

Anyways, I'm curious. How much $ would be involved to prove or disprove the

ability to kill e coli using frequencies? Debating whether or not to try it just

as a gamble.

You know more about this stuff than I do so I thought I'd ask.

Example:

Microscope with video recording $5K

Frequency generator/sweeper: $5K

Lab etc. $5K

Would be interesting to prove or disprove it ourselves (since nobody else will

try).

Let me know good sir.

Thanks,

> The special thing ,IMHO ,was the super microscope that he

> had which

> gave him the ability to confirm resonance with the pathogen

> he wanted

> to destroy.

<snip>

This is another misconception that lingers on in the Rife community. A super

microscope like Rife's is only needed for work with virus sized organisms.

Regular microscopes can be used for other organisms such as bacteria and yeast.

I have always said that this is where we need to start. If we could reproduce

the " Rife effect " with a common bacteria such as E. Coli and with a regular

microscope, so that anyone could confirm it, then that would be the impetus to

get the ball rolling for funding and resources to get work done on viruses.

Regards,

September 4, 2008

Hi and Members,

Well, Dr Rife used a plasma system, this we know, he didn't use electrodes.

Electrodes and Plasma work differently on biology, this we know.

Electrodes provide a flow of pulsed electrons through the body, in

comparison to a plasma device which provides a field of radiant energy

which has pulsed electromagnetic waves present.

Dr Rife used the plasma ball up very close to the body and it output

frequencies between 300kHz to 1.6MHz which was gated by a fixed audio

frequency just over 1kHz.

Dr Rifes frequency wave shape from pictures I have seen seemed to

resemble more a sine wave with jagged edges and it has spikes on it

which would have created random harmonics.

The gating audio frequency would have created a square wave made up of

his higher frequency. The signal by today's standards would be

considered a dirty signal.

Dr Rife proved that cancer is viral in origin, as his lab tests of

placing the BX and BY virus in healthy mice, without cancer, and they

got cancer.

Dr Rife proved that a healthy biological specimen had to be present in

the radiant field as a " biological road map " , otherwise the cancer would

not go away and the mice would not heal. This one fact has been ignored

greatly by this group. Only Jim Bare acknowledges this very important

aspect of Dr Rife's work. Without the healthy mouse, or human in human

trials, the Rife Effect did not exist.

This is a good time to pause things and attempt to theorise what was

" really " going on here? Because in my books we are now beginning to see

Dr Rife was working with esoteric sciences that allopathic medicine

hasn't got a clue about. Or have they? Often called the " white coat

syndrome " which is a known aspect of the placebo effect.

Was the healthy mouse that was placed among the cancer ridden mice in

some way being the " white coat syndrome " and Dr Rife demonstrated how to

generate the placebo effect with 100% results?

In the human trials done, Dr Rife or another healthy Dr or engineer was

always present so this road map back to a healthy state was provided via

an esoteric function we are yet to fully understand?

So when we are treating a sick pet, maybe better results would be

experienced if another animal of the same type was present in the plasma

field.

Entrainment is a well known phenomena, and Dr Rife's machine, along with

all our modern day machines could be an entrainment amplifier. To

medical researchers, entrainment would be a part of the placebo effect.

So if people want to duplicate Rife's work, part of Rife's machine, or

method, is to have a healthy mouse around, or pet, or human. If you

treat yourself on your own, then you are not doing what Dr Rife did. So

by this very fact, we can make the statement that entrainment is a big

part of the Rife Effect. Without it, there is no Rife Effect.

Sure people get well on their own, using a frequency therapy machine,

but this has happened just using FreX and listening to audio tones, no

plasma or electrode device in operation. They are on their own so

entrainment of a close body is not available. So we have something else

occurring, something even more esoteric than entrainment. Like somehow,

people are becoming connected to the Rife healing community at great

distances. This is beginning to sound like radionics or some type of

Rife global conscious that people are tapping into at a subconscious

level, and how the heck are we going to prove anything scientific about

this?

For a couple of decades, many of our cancer frequencies, and some

others, were calculations from what we believed to be Dr Rife's

Original Frequencies. Just recently, via and Geoff's efforts, the

original Rife machine was built and it was found that what we believed

to be his original frequencies were not, they were errors, because we

didn't have the information we have now, and we just believed what was

written on paper, was the operational resonant frequencies, we were only

out by 15 megahertz or so. Wow!

But our erroneous frequencies worked to a level. Frequencies like 2008,

2127 etc have displayed a good track record of killing cancer. We

believed these were lower harmonics of Rife's original frequencies, but

they are not, they are something else and obviously disrupting the

cancer cells cycles. So we have discovered something totally different

with frequencies than what Dr Rife discovered.

Only thing is we just don't know what we have discovered. But we

believed these were Rife's cancer frequencies (in octave form) and so

they worked to a level. They major operating parameter here is " we

believed " ... and that was obviously enough to do the work and so people

enjoyed a level of success.

About a year ago, Jim Bare opened our minds with a link to a university

trial that clearly displayed frequencies between 100kHz and 300kHz would

stop cancer cells dividing, thus stop the spreading of cancer.

A big truth statement ... All frequencies in square wave form from

around 1,000Hz and higher will blank bomb this 100kHz to 300kHz range

with many harmonic sine waves ... so here it becomes obvious why just

one aspect of our frequency therapy worked for cancer. Again with Dr

s simple zapper, it also carpet bombs this 100kHz to 300kHz range,

and she say to use her zapper all day long if you have cancer. So the

pieces are starting to come together.

Now all cancer cells have receptors on the outer cell wall, and some of

these receptors are only present in cancer cells, not normal healthy

cells. These receptors purpose is to ID glucose in the blood environment

and gobble it up much more quickly than the health cells receptors will

do. These are antenna like structures and if we break them, we break

the ability for cancer cells to consume glucose and we have a Dr Holt

situation, the cancer cells die because they can't access sugars that

they need to live on.

A Professor of Microbiology working in private Foundation in Queensland,

Australia discovered this and has also discovered a simple herbal enzyme

extract that gives these receptors a hair cut, i.e. it breaks them, and

thus the cancer cells die. As these receptors are on the outside of the

cancer cell, we don't need cellular penetration to " break " these

receptors with electromagnetic vibrations, so unknowingly, we have

another application in how frequency therapy may kill cancer cells.

These receptors must be sensitive to frequency therapy, otherwise we

wouldn't have enjoyed the success levels we have experienced with cancer

demise and frequency therapy.

Anyway, all this sure does display frequency therapy is working on many

levels in combating disease, and it is all upside for the public. I

don't think the public can buy a " bad " frequency machine, they are all

wonderful tools that offer healings. And believing in this is good! It

is another mode of application.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

Ringas wrote:

> --- wildman350smom wrote:

>

>> So what is the technical differences between the rife

>> machine (that

>> you can't buy anymore) and the talked about frequency

>> generators??

>> What special thing did rife have the the various talked

>> about machines

>> are lacking?

>> Carol

>>

>

> As I've said so many times before, the Rife machine is not necessarily about

the hardware, it's about the methodology. That's the special thing that Rife

had and we are lacking. Rife had a very simple, yet very specific and clear-cut

method for demonstrating what we now call the " Rife effect " . I should also

point out that although Rife's methodology was simple, it was labor intensive

and required resources and expertise that few of us have access to.

Demonstration of the " Rife effect " is what distinguishes a Rife machine from a

frequency therapy machine. It may turn out that some frequency therapy machines

can also produce the " Rife effect " , and vice versa, but if it doesn't produce

the " Rife effect " , there's no justification for calling it a Rife machine.

Doing so is just disinformation and fraud.

>

> Regards,

>

September 4, 2008

Hi ,

It's not written, it's on a video Jim Bare released. I spoke with you

about this a few years ago and Jim verified this.

The forum went quiet after Jim verified this fact.

And then the forum proceeded as if nothing had been said.

This has nothing to do with disrupting microbes in a test tube or on a

slide under a microscope, this was all about killing the cancer in mice

in trials Rife did.

He got his plasma beam and the mice did not recover or get better from

the frequency transmission until he placed a healthy mouse in with the

sick mice.

This is a pretty major thing, the way I see it.

Well, I took note of Jim's video and made sure I was always present when

running a frequency session for a sick friend, and the results have been

outstanding. When they run the frequencies on their own (same machine)

and no-one else is present, then the responses were not so good. I've

been doing this for years and thought it was just the norm and accepted

method, but it appears I am wrong.

So I feel it is important to talk about this, as it seems to be a

critical part of this therapy.

When you say we aren't doing what Dr Rife did, you are correct. We

should be insisting that a healthy person be present when running a

plasma system frequency session, then we _are_ doing what Dr Rife did.

The differences in the transmission system may not be all that

important, Dr Rife said it was all about the frequency, not the

transmission system.

I have followed Jim Bares advice all along and have witnessed great

results, Jim knows his stuff. I don't think I am breaking any code of

secrecy here, Jim didn't have disclaimers on his videos that said we

couldn't talk about the content of his videos, although they are

copyright to Jim and we are not allowed to reproduce them without his

express written permission.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

Ringas wrote:

>

> --- Ken Uzzell wrote:

>

>> Hi and Members,

>>

> <snip>

>

>> Dr Rife proved that a healthy biological specimen had to be

>> present in

>> the radiant field as a " biological road map " ,

>> otherwise the cancer would

>> not go away and the mice would not heal. This one fact has

>> been ignored

>> greatly by this group. Only Jim Bare acknowledges this very

>> important

>> aspect of Dr Rife's work. Without the healthy mouse, or

>> human in human

>> trials, the Rife Effect did not exist.

>>

> <snip>

>

> You've lost me here Ken. Where is it written that a healthy animal or person

had to be present to get results? How did he produce the " Rife effect " under

the microscope, did he have a non-pathogenic version of the organism beside the

pathogenic form? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Rife was following a

very simple proposition; he was devitalizing pathogenic organisms with specific

frequencies. It had nothing to do with healthy specimens providing a

" biological road map " .

>

> I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: the reason nobody has

fully replicated Rife's work is because nobody has fully followed his

methodology.

>

> Regards,

>

> ------------------------------------

>

September 4, 2008

I must have missed this thread but with this factoid aside if this was

the only circumstance where cancer was cured in living life forms then

how is it Dr. Holt achieves results without the human dependence. if

memory serves his methodology was imparting the frequency with only

utilizing a glucose blocker as the only augmentation with his delivery?

Medusa

Ken Uzzell wrote:

> Hi ,

>

> It's not written, it's on a video Jim Bare released. I spoke with you

> about this a few years ago and Jim verified this.

>

> The forum went quiet after Jim verified this fact.

>

> And then the forum proceeded as if nothing had been said.

>

> This has nothing to do with disrupting microbes in a test tube or on a

> slide under a microscope, this was all about killing the cancer in mice

> in trials Rife did.

>

> He got his plasma beam and the mice did not recover or get better from

> the frequency transmission until he placed a healthy mouse in with the

> sick mice.

>

> This is a pretty major thing, the way I see it.

>

> Well, I took note of Jim's video and made sure I was always present when

> running a frequency session for a sick friend, and the results have been

> outstanding. When they run the frequencies on their own (same machine)

> and no-one else is present, then the responses were not so good. I've

> been doing this for years and thought it was just the norm and accepted

> method, but it appears I am wrong.

>

> So I feel it is important to talk about this, as it seems to be a

> critical part of this therapy.

>

> When you say we aren't doing what Dr Rife did, you are correct. We

> should be insisting that a healthy person be present when running a

> plasma system frequency session, then we _are_ doing what Dr Rife did.

> The differences in the transmission system may not be all that

> important, Dr Rife said it was all about the frequency, not the

> transmission system.

>

> I have followed Jim Bares advice all along and have witnessed great

> results, Jim knows his stuff. I don't think I am breaking any code of

> secrecy here, Jim didn't have disclaimers on his videos that said we

> couldn't talk about the content of his videos, although they are

> copyright to Jim and we are not allowed to reproduce them without his

> express written permission.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Ken Uzzell

> http://heal-me.com.au

>

September 4, 2008

Hi Ken and all,

I have never heard of this situation with the healthy mouse/person needed.

Were did this info come from and I am wondering why I have only heard it now.

Is this on the video or audio tapes of Dr. Rife?

If so I would like to purchase them. It seems every 6 months or so more new

information comes out on Rife's work.

If this information is in Jim Bare's possession were did he get it from? The

Rife tapes?

I guess what I am saying is that I would like to see all of this information

myself and draw my own conclusions.

I have been following this group for several years, guess I missed that one.

A.J.

Re: Re: The best Rife machine

Note: Original message sent as attachment

------------------------------------------------------------

Hair Care Products

Click here to find the name brand hair care products you're looking for!

http://tagline.excite.com/fc/JkJQPTgL3rm6XE593s5RkFm4HvOBzClmvEDeLbkQzB02z0B2HHR\

H6k/

September 4, 2008

Hi Jeff,

Well, okay, I'm only parroting what I saw in Jim's video. I raised the

subject before and it was never addressed, only verified by Jim. At that

time no one challenge Jim.

Do you understand where I am coming from? I'm just a therapist trying to

figure things out from material being presented.

And from many years experience, my observations do seem to verify what

was on Jim's video.

Jim did say at the time this information is not in public domain, nor in

Rife's notes.

Just thought it was important.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

astroboy84088 wrote:

> Hello Ken,

>

> It is true that Rife did use a plasma ray tube. But, he expressed the

> fact that the frequencies could be put through a radio station

> antenna and work just as well. In my paper " A History of Rife's

> Instruments and Frequencies " I quoted a few of these statements.

> There are more that I could have included. So it appears from these

> statements that the ray tube is not as important as the correct

> frequency. Both plasma and electrodes are viable methods. I have and

> do use both and have found that as long as an RF carrier is used they

> seem to work equally as well.

>

> When it comes to the mice needing a healthy mouse put in with them in

> order to get well, Rife never stated that this was necessary. The

> reason that people spoke against this at the time it was brought up

> by Jim Bare is that nowhere in Dr. Rife's documents does he state

> that a healthy mouse needed to be put in with the sick mice in order

> for them to get well. It was pointed out at that time that Dr. Rife

> always had a healthy mouse which was used as a control. But he stated

> that it was not treated with the ray tube. The idea that a healthy

> mouse needs to be put in with the sick mice is just an " urban legend "

> with no proof. If anywhere in Rife's documents he would have said

> that this was necessary it would not have been overlooked. If you are

> getting what you feel are better results when you are present with

> someone getting treated, that's great, but it in no way verifies that

> Rife was doing this.

>

> Jeff Garff

>

September 5, 2008

Ken,

On behalf of the 'silent majority' of curious researchers, I want to

offer thanks for your being brave enough to bring this up for

discussion, while being aware of the probable knee-jerk reactions that

would be directed at you.

Open discussion is what is healthy, what is needed.... there's far less

of that these days than there was 8 or 9 years ago. While not all of the

new information or theories that might be offered will always prove out

specificly as first worded, it is sad to see such discussions met with

mean spirited responses.... (not that we haven't seen the same from

those who want to claim authority in the past. )

Jim Bare has offered some highly valuable insights and perspectives over

the years. Others have also tried to do so. It's sad that so many of

those insightful offerings have also been met with 'resounding silence'.

While we might hope that such lack of discussion participation hasn't

been prompted by researchers simply choosing to avoid the mean spirited

responses, I expect it's been a repressive factor in many cases.

Be Well!!

Bruce

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

Ken Uzzell wrote:

>Hi Jeff,

>

>Well, okay, I'm only parroting what I saw in Jim's video. I raised the

>subject before and it was never addressed, only verified by Jim. At that

>time no one challenge Jim.

>

>Do you understand where I am coming from? I'm just a therapist trying to

>figure things out from material being presented.

>

>And from many years experience, my observations do seem to verify what

>was on Jim's video.

>

>Jim did say at the time this information is not in public domain, nor in

>Rife's notes.

>

>Just thought it was important.

>

>Sincerely,

>

>Ken Uzzell

>http://heal-me.com.au

>

>astroboy84088 wrote:

>

>>Hello Ken,

>>

>>It is true that Rife did use a plasma ray tube. But, he expressed the

>>fact that the frequencies could be put through a radio station

>>antenna and work just as well. In my paper " A History of Rife's

>>Instruments and Frequencies " I quoted a few of these statements.

>>There are more that I could have included. So it appears from these

>>statements that the ray tube is not as important as the correct

>>frequency. Both plasma and electrodes are viable methods. I have and

>>do use both and have found that as long as an RF carrier is used they

>>seem to work equally as well.

>>

>>When it comes to the mice needing a healthy mouse put in with them in

>>order to get well, Rife never stated that this was necessary. The

>>reason that people spoke against this at the time it was brought up

>>by Jim Bare is that nowhere in Dr. Rife's documents does he state

>>that a healthy mouse needed to be put in with the sick mice in order

>>for them to get well. It was pointed out at that time that Dr. Rife

>>always had a healthy mouse which was used as a control. But he stated

>>that it was not treated with the ray tube. The idea that a healthy

>>mouse needs to be put in with the sick mice is just an " urban legend "

>>with no proof. If anywhere in Rife's documents he would have said

>>that this was necessary it would not have been overlooked. If you are

>>getting what you feel are better results when you are present with

>>someone getting treated, that's great, but it in no way verifies that

>>Rife was doing this.

>>

>>Jeff Garff

>>

>

September 5, 2008

Re: the discussion on need or not for healthy mice present to effect a

cure -

I don't see any mention in any online notes or in Barry Lynes' book

about healthy humans being present during treatment sessions in Rife's

human trials of 1924, where 14 of 16 patients were reported to be

'clinically cured'. I don't care so much about curing cancer in mice

as in humans. Anyone have any relevant evidence on those?

I'm only trying to be precise here. It's quite possible that in the

mouse trials there were healthy mice present. It's also possible that

there were other cancerous mice present. I see the need for four

cases, many tests each, for a complete and valid statistical trial:

- no other mouse present

- healthy mouse present

- mouse with same disease present

- mix of other mice present, some with and some without same

condition

And, we'd need a definition of " present " . Radionics seems to indicate

physical presence isn't always necessary when dealing with energetic

healing, so we are all always " in the presence " of all cases. The

wavelength of a 27 mhz wave is about 11 meters. The wavelength of

Rife's approx 3.1 mhz signal is about 75 meters. That's pretty far!

Where are the lines... Issues like this tend to muddy the waters

as often as clear them, so a certain amount of precision and

definition is needed to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Thanks, Mike

Thursday, September 4, 2008, 9:01:12 AM, you wrote:

KU> Hi ,

KU> It's not written, it's on a video Jim Bare released. I spoke with you

KU> about this a few years ago and Jim verified this.

KU> The forum went quiet after Jim verified this fact.

KU> And then the forum proceeded as if nothing had been said.

KU> This has nothing to do with disrupting microbes in a test tube or on a

KU> slide under a microscope, this was all about killing the cancer in mice

KU> in trials Rife did.

KU> He got his plasma beam and the mice did not recover or get better from

KU> the frequency transmission until he placed a healthy mouse in with the

KU> sick mice.

KU> This is a pretty major thing, the way I see it.

KU> Well, I took note of Jim's video and made sure I was always present when

KU> running a frequency session for a sick friend, and the results have been

KU> outstanding. When they run the frequencies on their own (same machine)

KU> and no-one else is present, then the responses were not so good. I've

KU> been doing this for years and thought it was just the norm and accepted

KU> method, but it appears I am wrong.

KU> So I feel it is important to talk about this, as it seems to be a

KU> critical part of this therapy.

KU> When you say we aren't doing what Dr Rife did, you are correct. We

KU> should be insisting that a healthy person be present when running a

KU> plasma system frequency session, then we _are_ doing what Dr Rife did.

KU> The differences in the transmission system may not be all that

KU> important, Dr Rife said it was all about the frequency, not the

KU> transmission system.

KU> I have followed Jim Bares advice all along and have witnessed great

KU> results, Jim knows his stuff. I don't think I am breaking any code of

KU> secrecy here, Jim didn't have disclaimers on his videos that said we

KU> couldn't talk about the content of his videos, although they are

KU> copyright to Jim and we are not allowed to reproduce them without his

KU> express written permission.

KU> Sincerely,

KU> Ken Uzzell

KU> http://heal-me.com.au

KU> Ringas wrote:

>>

>> --- Ken Uzzell wrote:

>>

>>> Hi and Members,

>>>

>> <snip>

>>

>>> Dr Rife proved that a healthy biological specimen had to be

>>> present in

>>> the radiant field as a " biological road map " ,

>>> otherwise the cancer would

>>> not go away and the mice would not heal. This one fact has

>>> been ignored

>>> greatly by this group. Only Jim Bare acknowledges this very

>>> important

>>> aspect of Dr Rife's work. Without the healthy mouse, or

>>> human in human

>>> trials, the Rife Effect did not exist.

>>>

>> <snip>

>>

>> You've lost me here Ken. Where is it written that a healthy animal or person

had to be present to get results? How did he produce the " Rife effect " under

the microscope, did he have a non-pathogenic version of the organism beside the

pathogenic form? This makes absolutely no sense at all. Rife was following a

very simple proposition; he was devitalizing pathogenic organisms with specific

frequencies. It had nothing to do with healthy specimens providing a

" biological road map " .

>>

>> I've said it many times before and I'll say it again: the reason nobody has

fully replicated Rife's work is because nobody has fully followed his

methodology.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> ------------------------------------

>>

September 5, 2008

Hi Ken -

Your observations are extremely interesting. There are, of course, healing

techniques that work by transfer of energy between persons, and this may

have been replicated " electrically " (

http://keelynet.com/mexistim/nexcrock.htm ). Perhaps a healthy person sets

a dominant pattern in the " force field " from the plasma tube, which then

dominates the " disease " patterns in the patient.

I wish to thank you and others for contributing to this discussion. To me,

it is most important to determine what works, and under what conditions.

The myriad of zapper devices, Beck blood purifiers, and variations on the

" Rife " theme (auditory, plasma, and contact electrodes) may effect healing

through different principles and likely vary in effectiveness for different

conditions. Sharing our observations is very important.

Kindest regards,

Ken Kaufman

> Hi Jeff,

>

> Well, okay, I'm only parroting what I saw in Jim's video. I raised the

> subject before and it was never addressed, only verified by Jim. At that

> time no one challenge Jim.

>

> Do you understand where I am coming from? I'm just a therapist trying to

> figure things out from material being presented.

>

> And from many years experience, my observations do seem to verify what

> was on Jim's video.

>

> Jim did say at the time this information is not in public domain, nor in

> Rife's notes.

>

> Just thought it was important.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Ken Uzzell

> http://heal-me.com.au

>

> astroboy84088 wrote:

> > Hello Ken,

> >

> > It is true that Rife did use a plasma ray tube. But, he expressed the

> > fact that the frequencies could be put through a radio station

> > antenna and work just as well. In my paper " A History of Rife's

> > Instruments and Frequencies " I quoted a few of these statements.

> > There are more that I could have included. So it appears from these

> > statements that the ray tube is not as important as the correct

> > frequency. Both plasma and electrodes are viable methods. I have and

> > do use both and have found that as long as an RF carrier is used they

> > seem to work equally as well.

> >

> > When it comes to the mice needing a healthy mouse put in with them in

> > order to get well, Rife never stated that this was necessary. The

> > reason that people spoke against this at the time it was brought up

> > by Jim Bare is that nowhere in Dr. Rife's documents does he state

> > that a healthy mouse needed to be put in with the sick mice in order

> > for them to get well. It was pointed out at that time that Dr. Rife

> > always had a healthy mouse which was used as a control. But he stated

> > that it was not treated with the ray tube. The idea that a healthy

> > mouse needs to be put in with the sick mice is just an " urban legend "

> > with no proof. If anywhere in Rife's documents he would have said

> > that this was necessary it would not have been overlooked. If you are

> > getting what you feel are better results when you are present with

> > someone getting treated, that's great, but it in no way verifies that

> > Rife was doing this.

> >

> > Jeff Garff

> >

>

September 5, 2008

It is my belief that viruses and bacteria evolve and mutate over the course of

time, so frequency researchers are often aiming at a moving target. Rife's

original research might be invalidated by these shifts in form and frequency;

however, the logic behind frequency healing is sound.

S. Losey, Frequency Researcher / Shamanic Techniques

To: Rife@...: hepcat67@...: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:06:49

-0700Subject: Re: The best Rife machine

Hi :The biggest obstacle in my opinion is in getting someone who can do the

grunt work full time. Microscopes are available for affordable prices.

Experimental prototype configurations have been built that can run Rife's

original frequencies. Commercial samples of non-pathogenic E. Coli can be

purchased. What we need is someone who can sit there hour after hour, day after

day, hunting and trying all the frequencies. How much will it all cost? I have

no idea. But I suspect that it wouldn't cost as much as we might think. We need

to keep a clear perspective regarding what needs to be done, and not get

diverted by distortions.Regards,--- K- Doe wrote:> Hey

,> > It's . Hopefully you still remember me from the> microscope

days.> > Anyways, I'm curious. How much $ would be involved to> prove or

disprove the ability to kill e coli using> frequencies? Debating whether or not

to try it just as a> gamble.> > You know more about this stuff than I do so I

thought> I'd ask.> > Example:> > Microscope with video recording $5K>

Frequency generator/sweeper: $5K> Lab etc. $5K> > Would be interesting to prove

or disprove it ourselves> (since nobody else will try).> > > Let me know good

sir.> > Thanks,>

September 6, 2008

Hi Jeff,

I understand the need for documented evidence, as we know, most of

Rife's notes were destroyed.

On the video I bought from Jim, 8 or 9 years ago in PAL format, it had

someone making a movie of Dr Rife's mouse experiments. Dr Rife was

wearing a white lab coat from memory, and it showed all the mice being

prepared for the plasma session. The commentator (not Jim) said once the

mice were given the cancer virus, they developed cancer, and in this

video they all looked like brown mice (it was a black and white movie

and poor quality by today's standards). The commentator went onto

explain that the mice didn't respond to the Rife treatment. Then another

shot came in which appeared like Dr Rife dropping a white mouse (without

cancer) into the group of darker coloured mice with cancer.

The plasma ball was run, and then we saw a movie which was made shortly

after of all the mice, and the commentator said all their cancers were

gone. There were close-in shots of tumours on the mice, and then later,

shots of the same mice, and the tumours had gone. This was a 100% cancer

cure rate.

The way I view things, there was no advantage to Jim Bare in the

marketing of his B/R by making this video available. In fact it would

have gone against the marketing value of the B/R as it displayed the

failure of Dr Rife's plasma treatment to fix cancer in mice without the

above " healthy mouse " placed into the cage of the cancer mice. It was a

display of a simple fact of truth from the experiments that Dr Rife did.

I suggest you contact Jim and grab a copy of his video, so you can view

this yourselves, and you don't have to rely on a 3rd party as I am.

Hopefully without a fading memory :-)

When Dan (my electronics buddy) and I viewed this VCR, our hearts

dropped a little, for it was not what we expected to see. But it did

display the sheer honesty and truthfulness of Dr Rife and Jim Bare. It

was because of this truthfulness displayed by Jim and Dr Rife that got

me even more interested in the works of Dr Rife and the modern day

equipment we all enjoy and find so helpful.

A few frequency machine vendors, like Bruce Stenulson, Mike from

trueRife.com and Jim Bare have all commented over the years that we have

moved further along the road than what Dr Rife's machines were. This is

verified by personal testimonial reports I have received from people

using the B/R and going into remission, without a healthy person

present. I.E. they have done it on their own.

It has been said hundreds of time Dr Rife was a genius. You take a

genius, with an amazing microscope and plasma transmitter, and the bugs

all get blown up, and this display caught on film. But did other

scientists, without Dr Rife around able to achieve this same destruction

of microbes?

With the 16 people with cancer Dr Rife cured, there was always a healthy

person around in the plasma field. So it must be considered that this is

part of the treatment. The presence of a doctor or other healthy person

in the plasma field with the 16 sick people can not be considered to be

valid, unless another 16 people with same illness receive the same

treatment without a healthy person in the therapy field. As this

experiment hasn't been done, then we are only looking at one side of the

possible outcome.

We have an entrainment issue here that hasn't been addressed or

compensated for.

When building an instrument, we always have to find, then compensate for

the local noise so we can see what is there, that isn't being generated

by the instrument itself or other external influences other than what we

are trying to measure.

The same should be applied to the methodology of evaluating plasma

generated therapy fields and what is in the plasma therapy field that

can provide entrainment functions.

As an example, a mother and daughter together in plasma frequency field.

Mother has terminal leukaemia, a few days to live, the liver has gone

west. My instructions to the daughter was to stay at her mothers side as

the operator of the plasma frequency sessions. The love and spirit is

major at this time, the connections between people (Souls) is through

the roof, the entrainment factor off the planet.

Mother tested after three days of these sessions and the leukaemia had

just gone, hardly any presence of it in her. Unfortunately, it wasn't

enough to repair the liver. She slipped from this world peacefully, pain

free and happy with her family around her.

The daughter rang me after the funeral with nothing but praise for the

most perfect environment and setting had been provided for her mothers

departure.

Our plasma transmitters are truly wonderful machines, and I believe they

are doing a lot more than just transmitting a pulsed EM field,

especially when two or more people are in the field. The energy healers

in this forum would know a lot more than me about these functions.

Sincerely,

Ken Uzzell

http://heal-me.com.au

astroboy84088 wrote:

> Hello Ken,

>

> I do understand where you are coming from and I am in total support

> of anything that might help. I do feel what you are saying is

> important. I am not trying to be mean spirited in any way. So many

> things are attributed to Rife that he never said or did. If some

> information is not in Rife's notes or in public domain then there is

> no way to verify if it is true. Nothing that Jim Bare or I or anyone

> else says has any validity if it is not backed up with documented

> support. This is the point that both and I are trying to make.

>

> If this information is true I hope that whoever has it would be

> willing to let Jim Bare release the documents so that everyone can

> benefit from it.

>

> Please keep up the good work.

>

> Best wishes,

> Jeff Garff

>

September 6, 2008

I have to disagree to say that people have not devitalized in the same

method rife did. I have been successful with four life organisms so far

as I can determine without microscopic examination of each of every

sample daily when I rife...I have achieved kill with 2 flukes, one

bacteria and one worm parasite.

medusa

astroboy84088 wrote:

> Hello Ken,

>

> Jim Bare reads these posts. I am sure that there are many people on

> the list that would want a copy. Maybe he could please let us know

> where we can get a copy of this video of Dr. Rife's experiment. I

> personally would like to have a copy. I am always looking for more

> information about Dr. Rife.

>

> Even though some people have said that they believe we have gone

> beyond what Dr. Rife was able to do with his instrument, I do not

> agree, because no one has been able to devitalize organisms in the

> same manner as Dr. Rife did. Not because it is not possible but

> because we really have not put forth the effort. How can we be beyond

> Rife or have moved further along the road than him if we cannot

> demonstrate the same things he was able to do with microorganisms. I

> believe this is just wishful thinking (no disrespect intended). Our

> machines have to be able to devitalize organisms through microscope

> observation and more if we are to claim that they are further along

> than Rife's instruments were. No one has been able to do this yet.

>

> There were other doctors that were able to devitalize microorganisms

> like Dr. Rife did without him being there. Dr. Milbank was

> one of a few other doctors that were able to do what Rife did without

> him being present. Dr. had his own lab and was testing the

> ray on microorganisms and devitalizing them in the exact same way

> that Dr. Rife did. He and Dr. Rife communicated many times in regards

> to Dr. 's experiments. Henry Siner, Dr. Rife's lab assistant,

> was also able to do the same thing Dr. Rife was able to do without

> Dr. Rife being with him. Henry Siner was in England devitalizing

> organisms under microscope observation while Dr. Rife was still in

> the USA. So to answer your question, yes there were others that were

> able to verify his work without him being present.

>

> The 16 terminal cancer patients " myth " is one of the reasons why we

> need to make sure we check the documents. This " myth " is written all

> over the internet as though it is a fact. Dr. Rife never said there

> were 16 terminal cancer patients. On the Rife audio CDs Dr. Rife said

> that the patients had cancer and tuberculosis. He said more had

> cancer that tuberculosis. The exact number of cancer patients they

> treated we do not know, but there were not 16 terminal cancer

> patients, only 16 terminal patients with cancer and tuberculosis.

>

> Now, all of these 16 patients that were treated had Dr. and

> Dr. Rife present when they were treated. Dr. B. Couche was also

> there for some of the treatments and said he treated about 22,000

> people with the ray during his medical practice. He also said that he

> received the same treatment as his patients did because he was

> present during the treatment. The doctor or assistant needed to be

> present due to the nature of that old equipment. So in all these

> cases there was always someone in good health present during the

> treatment. No one can argue this fact. Whether it is necessary or

> not, no one can be for sure. Remember that Dr. Rife thought Henry

> Siner's idea to put the frequencies out through a radio station was a

> great idea. This same idea was mentioned by Rife, Ben Cullen,

> Marsh and others. Would it have done any good to do this if a healthy

> person was not right next to all the people being treated by the

> frequencies? Also, since a plasma field would not have been used

> because a metal antenna would have been the radio station

> transmission method, is it really necessary to have a plasma field or

> anyone in it? Just a few things to consider.

>

> There is too much supposition being passed off as statements made by

> Dr. Rife. One person says it and soon everyone believes it came from

> Dr. Rife. Our own speculation and testing is good and well worth

> sharing but we need to be careful that we do not attribute things to

> Rife to give it validity. Because we plan on releasing a ray tube

> instrument in the next few months I plan on having people try your

> method to see if they notice any difference because I believe that it

> should be tested.

>

> Best wishes,

> Jeff Garff

>

>>

>>> Hello Ken,

>>>

>>> I do understand where you are coming from and I am in total

>>>

> support

>

>>> of anything that might help. I do feel what you are saying is

>>> important. I am not trying to be mean spirited in any way. So

>>>

> many

>

>>> things are attributed to Rife that he never said or did. If some

>>> information is not in Rife's notes or in public domain then there

>>>

> is

>

>>> no way to verify if it is true. Nothing that Jim Bare or I or

>>>

> anyone

>

>>> else says has any validity if it is not backed up with documented

>>> support. This is the point that both and I are trying to

>>>

> make.

>

>>> If this information is true I hope that whoever has it would be

>>> willing to let Jim Bare release the documents so that everyone

>>>

> can

>

>>> benefit from it.

>>>

>>> Please keep up the good work.

>>>

>>> Best wishes,

>>> Jeff Garff

>>>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

September 7, 2008

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for taking the trouble to punch out a great reply.

There were only two areas I was querying about Dr Rife, and you have

answered them both well.

1) Other people could blow up microbes under a microscope besides Dr

Rife, so this takes Dr Rife's " energy " out of it.

2) Treatment of a sick person as the only person in the therapy field

verses having a healthy person in the therapy field.

Entrainment is a natural function of this universe, so we are going to

have levels of entrainment happening when two people are in the field.

But the big question is, does it improve the speed of remission for the

sick person? I am really hoping the plasma field acts as an entrainment

amplifier, for I believe this is what I have been witnessing.

I hope you'll be in a position to share the results of your Rife Machine

you will be releasing. Is is a plasma system or electrode contact system?

I know Dr Rife said any form of transmission could be used with his

frequencies, but this was never tested. If your Rife Machine is a

contact electrode system, then you'll be the first to perform this work.

If your machine is a plasma machine, then you should be able to

duplicate Dr Rife's microscope work and get all excited!

Great work!