Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Probably the GB 4000. What does the list think? Angie Subject: The best Rife machine To: Rife Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 8:20 AM Hi All Hope all is well. What is considered the best rife machine? thx for all your help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 This question is asked so frequently {including by myself when I first joined, not long ago} that most of the members do not bother answering it. Quite simply, there is no 'best' Rife machine, none come close to the original Rife machine. Further, it depends on what you are treating, and what is convenient to you, your pocket and preferences. For instance, some say for treating Lyme disease, the Doug Machine {a type of rife machine, using coils} is best. For other things, like Repetitive Strain injury or CTS, handhelds are best, like a GB4000, for candida overgrowth the PERL by resonantlight.com is best, and so forth. Further, it depends on your budget, and how much you are willing to spend on experimental technology, as that is exactly what it is, since no modern 'rife' machine comes close to the original, due to lost/suppressed knowledge by the NWO elite. Further, you have to consider things like portability, and whether you would like a handheld unit, or a plasma radiant unit {can interfere with Cathode Ray technology TV's, the big bulky old one's}, or a doug coil unit. From my own research on this question, I believe the PERL by resonantlight.com is one of the best Rife machines on the market for treating cancer, candida, lyme disease. I have talked/emailed some of the users of this device with those listed diseases, and I have heard nothing but positive comments on the PERL from them and various forums. Hope this helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 What about the GLOBAL WELLNESS PLUS XXXXX, I have so many successes with it for the last 7 years. Hildegard > > Probably the GB 4000. What does the list think? > > Angie > > > > From: Steel <psteel5@... <psteel5%40yahoo.com>> > Subject: The best Rife machine > To: Rife <Rife%40yahoogroups.com> > Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 8:20 AM > > Hi All > > Hope all is well. > > What is considered the best rife machine? > > thx for all your help > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 I like my F117 by TrueRife. Subject: The best Rife machine To: Rife Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 8:20 AM Hi All Hope all is well. What is considered the best rife machine? thx for all your help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 > What is considered the best rife machine? The best " Rife machine " , is a Rife machine. Unfortunately, at present you can't buy one. I've been arguing this point for longer than I care to recall. There's so much misinformation, disinformation, and just general confusion regarding Rife's work and machines, that we still get newcomers asking this question. There is no best Rife machine because at present a Rife machine doesn't exist. If anyone claims otherwise, let them prove it. If you asked, " what is the best frequency therapy machine? " , then I would have to agree with comments made by others. If a machine does what you want it to do, for a good price, then that's the best machine for you. There are some technical features available that make some machines easier and more convenient to operate. From some perspectives, that would make them " better " . But having a machine that's simple and convenient to operate doesn't mean that it has " better " therapeutic efficacy. There are some technical features that make some machines more stable and reliable. That might make them more therapeutically effective, but not necessarily. As an example, I've seen no hard evidence that all else being equal, a machine that produces an extra clean and sharp square wave is more therapeutically effective than a machine that produces a " regular " square wave. I would argue as a general statement, that ten different machines generating a square wave at the same frequency, voltage, and current, will have the same therapeutic efficacy. The only thing you can do to really answer this question is to compare technical specifications and features, against its price, and also your needs. That will get you the " best frequency therapy machine " for _you_. As far as the " best Rife machine " goes, we're still working on that issue. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 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 > > > What is considered the best rife machine? > > > The best " Rife machine " , is a Rife machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Let us not forget the EMEM F117 Phaser TrueRife machine that is like the Swiss army knife of Rife machines. http://truerife.com The flexibility, controllability and high output of this unit compared to others, I think makes it the best Rife investment. Mike Tigchelaar's constant innovation and lightning fast response to field researchers has eclipsed other units on the market and left them playing catch up. * Dual transistor Phase Shifting Technology * PC Computer controlled with free Internet instant download frequency updates * Plasma bulb output (4 different bulb options -comes with 2) * Ion Pro foot bath with Rife frequencies * GRS - Galvanic Resonance Scanner to monitor nervous system ramp up responses to frequencies and record a custom program automatically! * Matrix Grounding Foot Plate * Colloidal silver option * Plasma Sphere Ozone option * Brain entrainment option * QX2 High Output double bubble plasma bulb option * Helix Vortex Detonator plasma bulb option * Lifetime support Mike Tigchelaar's TrueRife EMEM F117 Phaser gets my vote for Best Rife Machine! Mellor http://DocWallach.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Think I'll jump in on this one too. I agree that there is no best Rife machine, indeed maybe even no true Rife machine. I have a lot of sympathy for any newbie (including myself in that genre) who's trying to navigate this field. Having been convinced of the safety and efficacy of " Rife " treatments, I found myself overwhelmed with trying to pick " the best " machine, and then further overwhelmed by wondering if I could figure out how to really use it! Some of them look very intimidating and complicated. There are many people much more qualified that I to answer 's question so the only thing I would like to say to him is that I currently own a ProWave 101 (from http://rife911.com/ ) which I am very happy with both the results, portability and ease of use, as well as the personalized support from the seller. For a newbie like me, this has been a great toe in the water. I would like to purchase another machine as I learn/grow more - the GB4000 is what I'm thinking of, although that may change as I hear others posts on this discussion. I'm not even sure exactly what I want from this second machine that I don't already have, but part of it would be to have one to loan out since everyone seems to want to try it! What's really too bad is we don't live in a place where there's a store we can go into, look them over, get a demo on how to use, talk with a sales guy, etc. Maybe someday. But thanks to this group for the help and insight they provide to newbies like me and . Sally From: Rife [mailto:Rife ] On Behalf Of Steel Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:20 AM To: Rife Subject: The best Rife machine Hi All Hope all is well. What is considered the best rife machine? thx for all your help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 --- 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, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 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'. It seems from my reading on other frequency machines that if you have a serious ailment, you practically have to make a full-time job deciding on particular frequencies and sets. This is why I was intrigued by the 10A, though I can't find many personal comments about it. Holly > Think I'll jump in on this one too. I agree that there is no best Rife > machine, indeed maybe even no true Rife machine. I have a lot of sympathy > for any newbie (including myself in that genre) who's trying to navigate > this field. Having been convinced of the safety and efficacy of " Rife " > treatments, I found myself overwhelmed with trying to pick " the best " > machine, and then further overwhelmed by wondering if I could figure out how > to really use it! Some of them look very intimidating and complicated. > > > > There are many people much more qualified that I to answer 's question > so the only thing I would like to say to him is that I currently own a > ProWave 101 (from http://rife911.com/ ) which I am very happy with both the > results, portability and ease of use, as well as the personalized support > from the seller. For a newbie like me, this has been a great toe in the > water. I would like to purchase another machine as I learn/grow more - the > GB4000 is what I'm thinking of, although that may change as I hear others > posts on this discussion. I'm not even sure exactly what I want from this > second machine that I don't already have, but part of it would be to have > one to loan out since everyone seems to want to try it! > > > > What's really too bad is we don't live in a place where there's a store we > can go into, look them over, get a demo on how to use, talk with a sales > guy, etc. Maybe someday. But thanks to this group for the help and insight > they provide to newbies like me and . > Sally > > > > From: Rife [mailto:Rife ] On Behalf Of > Steel > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:20 AM .... > What is considered the best rife machine? > > thx for all your help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 > What special thing did rife have the the various talked about machines > are lacking? > Carol 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. Resonance is the key.The problem with our research is not being able to verify/confirm resonance.Once you have resonance with a pathogen,it will get shaken up and destroyed .Other factors are also needed of course,such as the power of the transmission of the frequency. I am only a novice in this research but do believe the above to be the cornerstone of Rife therapy. Best regards to all. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 What have you had success with? What has it treated? Is it a contact pad device or a plasma tube? Angie > > From: Steel <psteel5yahoo (DOT) com <psteel5%40yahoo. com>> > Subject: The best Rife machine > To: Rifeyahoogroups (DOT) com <Rife%40yahoogroups .com> > Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 8:20 AM > > Hi All > > Hope all is well. > > What is considered the best rife machine? > > thx for all your help > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Yes but from your answer I'm still not finding " what " was different about it. Sine waves? Tubes? Length of time?? I was kind of looking for a technical answer. Anyone know? Carol > > > 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, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 --- wildman350smom wrote: > Yes but from your answer I'm still not finding > " what " was different > about it. Sine waves? Tubes? Length of time?? I was kind > of looking > for a technical answer. Anyone know? The most current information we have is that Rife's machines generated variable RF, and pulsed it at a fixed audio rate. This is exactly opposite to the modern RF systems, which use a fixed RF carrier with variable audio frequencies. Many other systems use only audio range frequencies with no RF other than any harmonics that may be generated from the audio frequencies. These differences make it so that the frequencies we are generally using today are orders of magnitude removed from the original frequencies that Rife used. Of course his machines were also of simple vacuum tube construction, which may or may not be a necessary factor. Proper experimentation will determine that. The problem is that there are exceedingly few people who are even trying to replicate Rife's work. Many are just trying to cash in on his name and legacy. Still others aren't paying attention to the latest information and developments, and seem content to remain behind with the old and obsolete information. I often wonder, how will it be received when we finally do replicate Rife's work? Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2008 Report Share Posted September 1, 2008 The best thing to do is a therapy that gets rid of your " problem " while leaving the most of you intact. Sometimes that may be a Rife machine, sometimes it might be an herb or even a massage. I have to agree with . Most machines out there aren't " Rife " machines, they're some form of " zapper " ala Hulda 's design. So the definition of " what's Rife " becomes important to make sure we're talking about the same thing. The main characteristics I see when I look at Rife's work and the pics of his device are: - AM modulation of an audio tone on an RF carrier wave - plasma tube delivers the " output " - tube placed in close proximity to the patient or critter In general it looks like the radio frequency output delivers a lot of energy at a specific frequency. Rife's notes indicate a frequency in the 75 meter radio band as the BX killer frequency, which indicates he thought the RF was doing the work, not any audio tone. I can't find the schematic I once saw of the reverse-engineered Rife machine, which could confirm whether the RF carrier was pulsed or not. Given the state of electronics in Rife's day, I would doubt the output actually pulsed; it is far easier to vary the output by AM modulation, which just makes the RF output stronger at the peaks in the tone. The devices I've seen and built pulse (or gate) the audio tone rather than actually pulsing the carrier wave itself; the Kinnaman function generator is a good illustration. The carrier wave remains on while the freq gen pulses the tone on and off. IMO devices like Dr Bare's are closest to what Rife did. That doesn't mean they're the most effective, no one has proven beyond a doubt that what Rife did is any more or less effective than anything else. Nice can o' worms eh! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 --- 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, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 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, > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 I don't understnad, is there not already videos that show devitalisation, proof of concept video's like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXvuVJwmUS8 & feature=related Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 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 > > > > > >> 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, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Hi Ken, In support of your thinking regarding having a " healthy " mouse or human present when an unhealthy mouse or human is to be treated, it strikes me this is somewhat related to plate zapping techniques where a healthy section of, say, pancreas tissue is used in the energy circuit to " provide the essence of normal " to someone being treated for pancreatic disease. Assuming this concept has validity, and your personal experience says this is so, I might ask you to consider this is a slightly different light: My own clinical experience has shown that most people who consider themselves " normal " or " healthy " frequently have physical conditions of which they are unaware. If, for example, I were to accompany an unhealthy person being treated for cancer of the pancreas- which I do not have- all would be well so far as the pancreas is concerned. Unfortunately, my " field " would contain " essences " of hypertension- which I do have- or any number of physical conditions of which I might have no awareness at all. And how about the possible influences of miasma? Is is possible that the energy of my own irregularities could be picked up and transferred to the person seeking treatment? I would never have thought of this were it not for your intriguing observations, but it would seem that the presence of any additional energetic influence carries a certain liability, along with the asset of " normalcy " . What do you think? Nate > > > > > >> 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, > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 --- james.sherman1 wrote: > I don't understnad, is there not already videos that > show > devitalisation, proof of concept video's like this one: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXvuVJwmUS8 & feature=related I would consider the pond bug videos as only partial " proof " of concept. I don't feel that the experiments are rigorous enough to qualify as proof. We need to have some results with bacteria and yeast. Regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2008 Report Share Posted September 5, 2008 > > What about the GLOBAL WELLNESS PLUS XXXXX, I have so many successes with it > for the last 7 years. > Hildegard ----------------------------------- I have not seen a reply to Hildegard's question: " What about the Global Wellness Plus? " . Are any members using this machine? It, also, is sold under the names of Bio Solutions Plus and Energy Wellness. Is anyone out there using these machines and what kind of results are you getting? Von Hamrick vbhamrick@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2008 Report Share Posted September 6, 2008 Lancet Oncology Feb 2003 Vol. 4 pg. 63 contains an article indicating Rife's observations of pleomorphism of B. Licheniformis. The organism was changed into 3 different physical forms yet all contained identical DNA signatures. Mattman stated in her book that she estimated about 30% of the human population carried B. Licheniformis. One of Rife's observations often overlooked is the fact that proteins are liquid crystaline structures that solidify when their energy dissipates. Crystallography was an important area of his research as he indicated in the Stafford recordings when asked if he had to find specific frequencies for each patient. He said no, all cancers were the same within their types of which he claimed only two, sarcoma and carcinoma. > > > 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. > > > This is possible, but it is also possible that the evolutions, mutations, and variations that you're referring to do not affect the fundamental MOR of an organism. A flu virus is still a flu virus, and E. Coli is still E. Coli, regardless of what strain or variant it is. On the other hand, if it was a pleomorphic transformation into another form, such as E. Coli transforming into Salmonella Typhi, then that would definitely require a different MOR, as Rife found. We need something more substantial than personal beliefs; we need experimental scientific research. > > Regards, > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2008 Report Share Posted September 6, 2008 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 > > > > > > > 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.