The Power and Pitfalls of Omics: George Davey Smith’s storming talk at ME/CFS conference
Read about the talk that stole the show at a recent ME/CFS conference in Simon McGrath's two-part blog.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Rife Machines: Discussion--cancer, Lyme, ME/CFS

Discussion in 'Alternative Therapies' started by brenda, Jul 3, 2014.

  1. golden

    golden Senior Member

    Clear Light
    In my view, this thread has remained perfectly on track. The thread title allows for variety...

    And although i am more of a 'you know where the kettle is' kind of thread host.....

    Happy with all the input but having to take a break and unable to answer some of the questions.

    Looking forward to reading your post zzz.
  2. brenda

    brenda Senior Member

    @zzz thank you for that. It was very interesting to hear about your experiences with rifing, or as you rightly say, frequency therapy rather.

    I agree that there are crooks involved and it is big business, and there are many overpriced devices out there, and that is why I went with the $114 outfit. It has helped me with a number of things like high blood pressure, which it brings down very quickly, sugar cravings, pleuricy and salmonella, but I have not really got into killing Lyme yet. I am sure that it is slowly improving my level of health due to the healing frequencies which I am running often and particularly with the emotional healing I needed.

    As for it being non FDA approved, I bought a battery device in Germany that is medically approved and used by doctors over there (they are much more advanced than the US or UK) and I have had successes with it but I chose the one I am using for its remote option which is too far out I guess for most here but many of us have been experimenting and finding it works.

    I do not rely on it entirely and would not for cancer either, and unfortunately, even if they do use the original frequencies, cases of cancer today are more complicated due to the extra pollution we have to contend with, but it is a useful tool in the tool box for me.
    wintersky, RosieBee and golden like this.
  3. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Exactly, people just make this stuff up. It has no basis in fact.

    I'd like to know his experimental method. Was there any science involved?

    MRI machines do not make cells vibrate. Rather, MRI machines use a combination of very strong static magnetic fields and radio waves to act on the magnetic spins of the nuclei at the center of each atom. So MRI machines act on the atomic nuclear spin, but nothing else.

    Furthermore, Rife contraptions do not make cells vibrate either. You can only make something resonate if it has stiffness, like the stiff metal of a bell, or like the stiff glass of a wine glass. You cannot make say a soggy tissue paper vibrate, because it lacks stiffness; and likewise, you cannot make cells vibrate because the cell and the cellular membrane is not a stiff substance. (Although resonance in cellular organelles might conceivably be possible).

    So the theory of the Rife machines is wrong in this respect. The cells and cellular membranes of bacteria, fungi and parasites cannot be made to resonate, because these are more like soggy tissue paper than a hard stiff substance. The idea of a Rife machine vibrating bacteria, fungi or parasites to death is thus complete bunk.

    In the case of viruses, however, it is a different story: the outer casing (the capsid) of viruses is stiff, and thus can be made to resonate. However, it turns out that the frequency of vibration of the viral capsid is in the order of 100 GHz, which is around 100,000 times higher than the highest frequency that can be achieved using a Rife machine. What's more, you need to use a ultra short pulse (USP) laser to create this 100 GHz signal optically, not magnetically. If you use such a USP laser, and use this very high frequency, the research of Tsen and Tsen has shown that you can destroy a virus by resonant destruction. But the idea of a Rife machine vibrating viruses to death is completely out of the question.

    So as you can see, Rife machine theory is just dripping in pseudoscience.

    If Rife machines are providing some therapeutic effect for bacterial diseases like Lyme, it would come from some mechanism other than resonant destruction. For example, Rife machines may kill bacteria through the bioelectric effect. The bioelectric effect is the phenomenon where an electric current will increase the efficacy of antibiotics against bacteria hiding in biofilms by an an astounding 100 million times (see this post for more details). Since a Rife machine will cause an electric current to flow through the tissues of your body (as a result of electromagnetic induction), a Rife machine may be inducing a bioelectric effect in an individual, if they are taking antibiotics when they use a Rife machine.

    If anyone is interested in in using electric currents or oscillating magnetic fields for therapeutic purposes, there are plenty of devices and areas of study that are scientific, and not buried knee deep in pseudoscience like the theory of Rife machines. All the following electric and magnetic therapies are science-based:

    Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS machine)
    Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS)
    Microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulator (MENS)
    Electrical muscle stimulation (EMS)
    Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES)
    Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF or PEMFT)
    Functional electrical stimulation (FES)
    Alpha-Stim® therapy
    Picotesla magnetic field therapy
    Electrical brain stimulation (EBS)
    Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)
    Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (Deep TMS)
    Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS)

    Plus for cancer, there appears to be:

    Tumor treating fields (TTF)
    More info here: FDA approves the treatment of brain tumors with electrical fields

    Irreversible electroporation (IRE)
    More info here: Irreversible electroporation for treating liver metastases

    None of the above therapies will mire you in the pseudoscientific gobbledygook and unsubstantiated claims that surround Rife machines.
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2014
    SOC likes this.
  4. Kati

    Kati Patient in training


    Well I guess you could try being hit by lightning ;)
  5. zzz

    zzz Senior Member

    Believe it or not, there was. Here's a letter written by Doug McLean around 1994. It can be found in the main book I referenced previously.
    This was published in 2009. and Doug was symptom free; he had not used antibiotics since before the letter was published. He never sold anything related to his discovery, or made money from it in any other way.

    This is far from the only evidence available demonstrating the workings of a Rife machine. Here's a picture from an experiment in 2007, using the same type of Rife machine that Royal Rife used:


    The organism in the picture is apparently unaware that this is impossible.

    This picture is from the page The effect of Plasma Waves on Select Microorganisms. There are many more pictures on that page, along with commentary; there are also links to other pictures. There are also links to a number of videos, but these all unfortunately appear to be broken. Fortunately, the main video can be found on YouTube (of course):

    There's a very dramatic sequence just past the four minute mark, where you can see an organism disintegrate frame by frame. The frequency used was 926 Hz, which I found very interesting, as the frequency that I have found most helpful is 930 Hz.

    There are many other scenes of destruction in this video.

    Here are some experiments done by the same lab two years later. The frequency used was 1174 Hz. You can see a nice, slow disintegration right at the beginning of the video.

    And here's the video from which many stills were posted on the site. The frequency used was 929 Hz. Again, you can see a dramatic disintegration right at the beginning of the video.

    So have they tried it on cancer? Yes. Watch the following video, and you will see leukemia cells being destroyed by a Rife machine. There's a lot more narrative in this video, as the presentation was given at a TEDx talk.

    There are many more videos like this; if you search for "Anthony Holland Rife" on YouTube, you will find about 40 of them.

    So if this is all true, why haven't we all heard about it? Well, that's easy. It's basically the same reason that my doctor thinks that ME isn't a real illness.
    You're right, @Hip - once again you've caught me in a physics mistake. I was thinking of the operating principle of microwave ovens. I used to know this stuff. Cognitive dysfunction is such a pain.
    [Boldfacing is mine.] Your right again. Cells are mostly water, and you can't really shatter water, can you? (At least not when it's liquid, as it is in our bodies.) And you are also correct, of course, about the cellular membranes.

    But something's clearly happening to these organisms. (Unless you think the whole thing's a hoax, of course.) Watching the videos, you can see that the cells do not disintegrate uniformly, so resonance in cellular organelles is quite possible. There are many ways that a strong electromagnetic field could conceivably disrupt the function of a cell. All of chemistry essentially comes down to electrical interactions between atoms, so throwing a nice big electromagnetic field into a cell could have the potential for wrecking a number of chemical activities that are necessary for a cell's life. The fact that it takes several minutes for some of these cells to die would be consistent with the EMF interfering with one or more of the cell's essential processes.

    Perhaps it's possible that certain parts of the cell are simply overheating from the resonance (like my belt buckle), and that the heat eventually kills the cell. It doesn't take much of a temperature rise to kill most cells. Did you ever hear of someone with a fever of 115 degrees?
    [Boldfacing is yours this time.] Now you're contradicting the sentence I boldfaced from your previous paragraph. And if your last sentence is true, what's happening in the videos? If it's a hoax, how is it being pulled off? It's one thing to fake a photo, but it's quite something else to fake hours of video.
    It's true that viruses are extremely simple organisms - there's just not that much to disrupt there. I'll take your word for it about the outer casing of viruses being to stiff to resonate using a Rife machine. But what about the DNA or RNA inside? Just a bit of genetic damage is all you need to knock a virus out of the picture.
    No, I don't see. I see something in those pictures and videos that seems just like what Royal Rife described, though.
    But the in vitro experiments didn't use antibiotics. And I have not been able to take any antibiotics for years, which includes most of the time I've been using the Rife machine and deriving benefit from it. And many people who relied on Rife machines to treat their Lyme disease relied on the Rife machine alone.

    As you might expect, not everyone who treated their Lyme disease with a Rife machine were able to cure it, and for many, a combination of Rife and antibiotics did work better than either treatment alone. But most people who used a good Rife machine and used it properly were able to get at least some benefit from it. I say this from my experience reading many, many posts in the Rife forums before deciding to buy my machine.
    Unless you can refute those videos, I can't see how the phrase "knee deep in pseudoscience" is justified.

    Now it's true that Royal Rife himself had some rather unusual ideas about biology, and there is no scientific evidence for these. But in the end, these have no bearing on whether or not a Rife machine works. Whether or not it works is testable.

    As for the true theory behind it, that may not be settled yet, though I've mentioned some possibilities. But that's a whole separate issue. Note that to get a drug approved by the FDA, you have to prove safety and efficacy - you don't have to prove all the details of how a drug works.

    I remember a few years ago thumbing through my PDR and discovering, to my great surprise, that the mechanism by which most drugs worked was unknown. Look at the Prescribing Information for a drug, and under Clinical Pharmacology, you'll find a standard phrase that looks something like this:

    I picked four drugs at random; as you can see, the precise mechanism of action in three of them is unknown, including the tricyclic antidepressants - a whole class of older drugs. This doesn't bother doctors, or anyone else. They know that these drugs work; how they work is of academic interest.

    So if we don't even know how most of our drugs work, why should it be a problem if we don't know the precise mechanism by which Rife machines work? The important clinical question is whether or not they do work, not how. And from all the evidence I've seen, along with years of personal experience, they certainly appear to work.
    And none of them do some of the most important things that Rife machines do.
    From Wikipedia:
    So it works using the well-established principles of acupuncture! I'm very happy to see that you consider these to be "science-based".
    Ah, but the mechanisms of efficacy are not well established. But the one theory for which there is evidence is traditional Chinese medicine. Wonderful!
    I have been using an Alpha-Stim machine for the last dozen years. It really does live up to its claims, and for people with ME, the conditions it treats are very common among us. It is especially good at helping with sleep problems. I also found that it's great for clearing away a lot of brain fog, although this is not mentioned on their site. I use my machine an hour a day in the morning so that I can think the rest of the day.

    It's a great little machine, but it's abilities don't really overlap those of Rife machines.
    From the description [bolding is mine]:

    This does not sound like good science to me.
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2014
  6. Kina

    Kina Admin Support Staff

    Ontario, Canada
    Where is this evidence? Let's put aside any form of personal anecdotal claims and look at direct evidence that rife can cure cancer or lyme etc.

    The only acceptable evidence would be to measure the blood for organisms before the rife treatments, do the treatments measure the blood again. In the case of cancer, it would be to measure a tumour, apply the rife, and measure the tumour. Repeat and validate with a large subject group.

    Killing microbes in a lab in a petrie dish is not any kind of proof that the same thing will work in the human body. You can dump many every day products in a petri dish and it will kill microbes, drinking the same products won't do the same thing. So applying radio waves to organisms in a petri dish is not proof of anything except you can kill microbes in a petrie dish with radio waves.

    We don't how many things work but what we do know is that may or may not be effective because of double-blinded studies with randomly assigned subjects. Sometimes we find that studies need to be thrown out due to deception or researcher bias or poor study design. Whether or not we know how things work is a moot point because science often starts out with stabs in the dark because one thing seems to be associated with another -- when this happens, X happens. They develop a hypothesis and test it. Then they can make a statistical statement about X. This is the problem with the whole rife issue -- there is no research -- measure the blood for organisms, give one group rife, give other placebo, measure blood. May be there have been studies that never saw the light of day because the results were not positive.

    Rife and associated forms have been around for decades -- you would think by now there would have been many many many double-blinded studies.

    Sadly not.

    Making bold statements about cancer cures requires clinical proof. Chemotherapy and radiation have tons of research behind it, why not rife?

    And really these long posts with anecdotes are getting difficult to follow.
    Valentijn, SOC, Kati and 1 other person like this.
  7. manna

    manna Senior Member

    I had something similar to rife, maybe more complex. used a computer to take certain readings/frequencies, cleaned them up and fed this info back to my body, supposedly. he was a qualified gp and lectured to med students at uni, so was quite highly regarded. his main patient base was cancer. hes had to restrict his catchment area even though hes private. he didn't only use that though. complex homeopathic remedies were given for between treatments and various other remedies. the only thing i can say that the machine did for me, noticeably so, was remove the cramping in my calves, which was nice and unexpected because i assumed the machine was diagnsing me only. it diagnosed gut dysbiosis. the complex homeopathy he used was one of the most powerfull remedies ive ever taken.

    i don't even notice traditional homeopathy when i take it. this kicked like a muel. the viral remedy induced a full blown 10 day flu experience which left me feeling better afterwards. first bout of flu id had since getting ill. one of the remedies was supposedly for chicken pox. he always gives a kidney flush remedy, liver detox remedy and tissue matrix detox to anyone with a chronic illness. it was a good experience. he charged me a fifth the usual price. wrote me the first letter that got me on the path to the help and benefits i need, for free. ive heard theres a clinic in crete (saw it online once) that claimed to have healed a few longterm mecfs patients using a similar approach to the above. ive met one man online who claimed it healed him too. he had only been ill 3 years which would have helped, if he was even legit. my experience of this type of healing makes it believable but, of course, i might be deluded.

    i looked into zappers and have often thought they might be worth a pop, seeing as plans are given away for free and devices can be bought for $10.
    xrayspex likes this.
  8. Kina

    Kina Admin Support Staff

    Ontario, Canada
    Maybe we should start a thread for scientific evidence only.
    SOC, Kati, Hip and 1 other person like this.
  9. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    The "Letter from Doug MacLean, Coil Machine Inventor" offers no evidence of a microbicidal effect from oscillating magnetic fields produced by a solenoid (ie a Rife machine) because for one thing, there are no controls — microbes might die anyway when placed under a strong light shone on a microscope slide, and might die by osmotic shock if transferred from one solution to another, etc. You need to have an identically prepered control microscope slide which was not subjected to the oscillating magnetic fields, and compare the two.

    It's feasible that oscillating magnetic fields might have some kind of microbicidal effect, but you need to use rigorous scientific laboratory methods of you are going to prove (or refute) it.

    Regarding your link "The effect of Plasma Waves on Select Microorganisms". Just by that title alone, it's obvious that this is pure pseudoscience. It may be very imaginatively concocted pseudoscience, which no doubt will appeal to the pseudoscience consumers of the world (and pseudoscience does seem to appeal to a lot of people, for some reason). But apart from the imaginative appeal, it is scientifically vacuous. It's bunk. When you generate plasma, it can generally only exist inside sealed containers (or in electric arcs like lightning), and any plasma waves cannot escape the container. Therefore plasma waves will not reach the microorganisms. How is it that the writer of that article, Anthony G. Holland, is not aware of this? Answer: it's because this musician is pretending to be a scientist, but clearly knows nothing about science.

    If there are any microbicidal effects from those tubes, this might conceivably arise from the ultraviolet light that plasma can emit. UV light is an extremely potent microbe killer. Just by seeing the white-blue color glow in that tube pictured in the above link, I would expect lots of ultraviolet light to be emitted. This emitted ultraviolet light may also trigger skin cancers in those people using these tubes, so you might want to email Anthony G. Holland and warn him of this possible UV skin cancer danger, @zzz.

    I was shocked to see that the last video you posted above on Anthony G. Holland's Rife machine pseudoscience originated from the TED website, a website which has a very good intellectual reputation. However, when I tried to find this video on the TED website, it was no longer available there, so someone must have alerted TED to fact that Anthony G. Holland's talk is brim-filled with pseudoscience.

    On the pseudoscience scale of one to ten, this plasma wave nonsense definitely gets full points: a 10 out of 10 pseudoscience award. This is pseudoscience of the highest order.

    No that's wrong. Just because someone tried out a MENS device at some acupuncture points does not mean that this device works by what you call the "well-established principles of acupuncture". That's a logical non sequitur.

    As for the mechanisms of microcurrent, one study (full paper here) showed that microcurrent can increase ATP production by 500% in the rat skin. I would like to see this study replicated and validated, but it does indicate that microcurrent may have affects in the mitochondria.

    There is no contradiction: I speculated that an oscillating magnetic field at MHz frequencies might be able to affect or resonate organelles within cells, but even if they can, that does not imply that they can vibrate the entire microbe to death.

    Because even an 18 year old physics student would be able to discern that this is bunk.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2014
    Valentijn, SOC and Butydoc like this.
  10. Kati

    Kati Patient in training

    It reminds me of this person who answered me on a support phone line, said she got all better from an alternative practitioner who 'aligned her elecrons'. (roll eyes)
    Valentijn and Hip like this.
  11. zzz

    zzz Senior Member

    Here are the first three sentences from the introduction to Dr. Jay Goldstein's well-known book, Betrayal by the Brain:
    From what I have seen, these numbers appear to be correct. He is generally regarded as being in the top tier of ME researchers and clinicians, having treated over 20,000 patients in his career. Yet he does not pass your test for evidence. He was decades ahead of his time, and as a result, few people in the medical profession could understand his work. At a certain point, his papers no longer got published, because people couldn't understand them. He wanted to do double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, but all his grant requests were turned down, again, because people couldn't understand his work. Yet he was able to get major or complete long-term remissions in 95% of his patients, a success rate that I haven't seen matched anywhere.

    But according to your quote, and others that I've seen in this thread, he had no scientific evidence for what he was doing. He had a theory, which was unproven, and he treated patients in accordance with his theory. He simply observed the reactions of his patients in order to decide what to do next. Different patients were treated differently. This in no way sounds like what you would call scientific proof; he simply had a theory and empirical evidence. Nevertheless, he was able to help 20,000 people put most or all of this disease into remission.
    Of course not - I never said it was.
    This is true. Such experiments are quite useful, however, which is why they're done all the time. In this case, if the radio waves didn't do anything in vitro, there would have been no need to continue the experiment; the uselessness of the technique would be immediately known. That's why in vitro tests, where it's easier to control variables, are typically done before in vivo tests whenever possible.

    Not if you knew the history and current status of Rife machines. It is illegal to use them to treat people, and has been for many decades. Therefore, no studies involving people can be done.

    The reason that these machines are illegal is solely political, and if you read up on their history you can verify this. I don't think that anyone in this group should be surprised that political considerations (including the influence of affected industries) can play a large part in medicine. And then there are people in the medical profession who will just say, "That's impossible!" without even looking at the evidence. I think we've all run into our share of such people. Such an attitude is not scientific, as it refuses to examine evidence. Nevertheless, it is widely held.
    For the two reasons I stated above: It is illegal to use the machines for treatment (even in research), and there are various vested interests that want to keep it that way. For example, what would happen to the drug companies if Rife machines were proven to work?

    In an earlier post, I said I didn't know whether Rife machines could be used to cure cancer or not. I still don't. But I've seen enough evidence of various types to suggest that further research into the use of Rife machines is warranted. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have their limitations, but yes, they are the best method we have for testing medical treatments, at least when done properly. I would love to see such studies done for Rife machines; I agree that that's the only way to definitively prove their usefulness. But right now, such studies are impossible for the reasons I outlined.

    In the mean time, all we have is anecdotal evidence, but we have it from thousands of people who've been helped by Rife machines for various conditions. Now some people might get the impression from reading this thread that "anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron. However, a search of PubMed shows that this phrase is used in the title or abstract of over 1500 papers, which seems to show it's a well accepted term in the medical community. And in many of these papers, there is far less anecdotal evidence than there is for Rife machines. Anecdotal evidence is certainly one of the least reliable forms of evidence, but it's still evidence.

    I think you missed the point of my posting my story about ganciclovir. At the time I signed up for treatment, the only evidence that ganciclovir was effective in the treatment of ME was in the form of fewer than two dozen anecdotal stories I found on the Internet. Not a lot to go on! But I was desperate, and my success added to the anecdotal evidence for what became Valcyte.

    Now it's well known that research funds are scarce in our community. So when Dr. Jose Montoya wanted to find a drug that might be helpful in treating ME, he didn't just pick a drug at random. By that time the anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of Valcyte had grown quite a bit, with more people trying the drug as the evidence for its efficacy grew. I remember that people were begging the major ME researchers to do clinical trials on Valcyte so that they could have much stronger evidence of its safety and efficacy. And I think that there's no doubt that all of this played a large role in Dr. Montoya's decision to do research on Valcyte. If most or all the anecdotal evidence on Valcyte had been null or negative, do you think he would have used his scarce funds (and time) to test it?

    So that's the value of anecdotal evidence. It's on the other end of the spectrum from proof, but it can be a valuable first step in that direction.

    If you read what I posted, it mentions doing multiple tests with multiple frequencies. There was a response at some frequencies and not at others. These tests were run multiple times. This rules out casual errors of the type you mentioned.

    What I posted was obviously just a brief summary of his efforts. But the fact that he cured himself of long-term Lyme disease completely, and that this started happening directly after he started his treatments based on his in vitro experiments, should tell you something. Unlike cases of spontaneous ME remission, I've heard of no cases of long-term Lyme disease just disappearing on its own.
    Really? Are you sure you understood the title correctly? And did you watch the video, where any ambiguity is removed?
    Wrong answer. What you say about plasma is correct, and is known by anyone who knows anything about plasma. So when I saw the title, I assumed by "plasma waves", he meant electromagnetic waves generated by the plasma, which is clear in the video. Your interpretation didn't even occur to me.

    As for the fact that Anthony Holland's primary career is as a musician, remember that Albert Einstein's primary career was that of a patent clerk at the time he developed the Special Theory of Relativity. Does that disqualify him? Should we throw out relativity? After all, that stuff is pretty weird, and some of it has never been verified. Compared to relativity, Rife machines are quite blasé. Sorry, Albert.
    At first glance, this would seem to be a reasonable alternate explanation. But remember that different modulating frequencies are being used for different organisms - only certain frequencies cause the organisms to die. Any UV radiation is at a constant frequency, so if it were causing the organism deaths, you would expect it to kill organisms at all modulating frequencies.

    So why are those organisms dying only at certain frequencies?
    You're not paying attention, @Hip. As I said in my post, "the presentation was given at a TEDx talk." TEDx is not TED. And if you had watched the video, you would have seen a big "TEDx" logo through much of it.
    "No longer available there" implies that it was once available there. Since this was a TEDx talk, and not a TED talk, it was never on the TED Web site. Another assumption not based on fact.
    Although Holland's talk was never on the TED Web site, it is still listed on the TEDx page for that conference. Apparently the conference organizers missed the whole pseudo-science thing.
    So let's see how you arrived at this conclusion. You misinterpreted the title of the video, and on the basis of this misinterpretation, you built a whole wacky theory that nobody would buy, and then you proceeded to point out how wacky your theory was. But instead of taking responsibility for your wacky theory, you attributed it to Mr. Holland, who had nothing to do with it. You then offered an alternate theory as to how the tubes might work, but this theory has an obvious flaw. Then by misreading "TEDx" as "TED", you came up with a whole bogus theory about how TED had discovered that this was pseudo-science and removed the video from its site.

    Note the singular lack of factual basis for any of this. So on a "sticking to the facts" scale of 0 to 10... well, I'll let you figure it out.

    For the record, I do not enjoy pseudo-science any more than you do. However, your strong opinions have apparently blinded you to certain facts.

    [P]lease - stick to the facts. They make arguments so much more convincing.

    Really! When I was 18, I was a third-year physics major at MIT. And as I mentioned, the man who built my Rife machine (and also cured himself of Lyme disease using one of these machines) was a former NASA engineer. I'm pretty sure you need to know some physics to be a NASA engineer. You know, rocket science and all that.

    Really? I'm curious - which part reminds you of that? There are many things that people say that are obvious nonsense - I've heard someone say that they won't use microwave ovens because they change the molecular structure of water. This is simply total ignorance of science. I've never been accused of total ignorance of science before - this is a first!

    There are always people saying that something is impossible - there's never any shortage of those. I'll leave you with a few quotes that will hopefully illustrate the dangers of close-minded science.

    Pierre Pochet:
    The New York Times, January 13, 1920:
    (The Times offered a retraction on July 17, 1969, as Apollo 11 was on its way to the moon.)

    Scientific American, January 2, 1909:
    Surgeon General of the United States William H. Stewart, 1969:
    Robert Millikan, American physicist and Nobel Prize winner:
    Guglielmo Marconi, pioneer of radio, 1912:
    Margaret Thatcher, 1974:
    Albert Einstein, 1932.
    Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project
    Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria 1873:
    Molière, from his satirical work "L'Amour Médicin" (quoted by Dr. Jay Goldstein)
    I hope that at least some people will be a little more circumspect about what is possible and what is not, and what is science and what is pseudo-science.
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
  12. Kina

    Kina Admin Support Staff

    Ontario, Canada
    @zzz I am talking about a rife machine or a rife-like machine being able to cure cancer or Lyme.
    The only acceptable way to prove that would be by objective measurements as I mentioned. This has nothing to do with ME or Goldstein.

    Has anybody on this forum been cured of Lyme disease or cancer because people here posting seem to be very ill.

    I am talking about claims related to cure and that is it and the science behind these claims. It has nothing to do with being biased. It is just as biased of you to insist that we must subscribe to your way of thinking. Unfortunately your posts seem quite off topic to me and due to my own limitations I can not be reading long posts like this so I think I will not be reading them any more.
    SOC, Kati and Valentijn like this.
  13. zzz

    zzz Senior Member

    Fair enough. I have mentioned that the builder of my Rife machine cured himself of Lyme using the machine I have. I've talked to him quite a bit. If people think it's useful, I could contact him and see if he would be willing to post here.

    To clarify, I don't insist that anyone subscribe to my way of thinking. I just don't want to see people with dissenting views be silenced.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2014
    pamojja likes this.
  14. brenda

    brenda Senior Member

    Apologies for the delay in my response to the questions and rudeness regarding evidence.

    "There is the Novocure instrument - for all intents and purposes a Rife Device that uses specific frequencies and electrodes in the treatment of brain cancer.
    This is FDA approved, there are multiple stage 3 clinical trials underway at the moment for it's use with other cancers. Publications from this group have appeared in the PNAS.

    There is this recent publication in "The Journal of Cancer Therapy" which reports a case study of the successful treatment of pancreatic cancer.

    This is a whole list of papers on frequency instruments. The titled
    "Was Rife Right....etc" is a case study of healing of a chronic infection.

    This is the work done by Dr. Boris Pasche and his group. This includes publication in BJC and others. Using modulated frequencies for the treatment of cancer. Although the link is from 2011, his work is ongoing and later publications exist.

    There is a poster presentation done in 2013 for the American Society of Microbiology Conference- where a the application of a pulsed field from a Rife-Bare instrument in conjunction with low dose antibiotics overcame antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

    Poster # 2175 found on page 190" (James Bare the rife
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
    CFS_for_19_years, golden and zzz like this.
  15. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Can you point out where in Anthony Holland's document he defines "plasma waves" as "electromagnetic waves generated by the plasma". He does not even use the word "electromagnetic" in his document.

    All the references I can find in this document indicate that Anthony Holland erroneously thinks that the plasma is directly affecting the microorganisms. For example:
    Plasma waves are a known phenomenon in physics. Thus you should only use the term "plasma waves" if that is what you mean. But hey, Anthony Holland is a musician after all, so you can't expect him to know very much about science.

    Since a musician is in charge of these experiments, anything could happen. Perhaps he simply moved his UV-emitting plasma tube slightly between experiments, so that in some tests the organisms were more in a shadow and thus more shielded from the UV. Who knows. Does this guy have the scientific experience to consider and control for all such possibilities and confounding factors?

    I did indeed see the TEDx logo, but assumed, incorrectly it seems, that TEDx videos would be on the same TED website. But in fact I just found out that there is a separate TEDx website, and Anthony Holland's presentation is unfortunately on it.
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    Valentijn likes this.
  16. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    @brenda, it surely cannot be rude to press for supporting evidence of extraordinary statements like "Rife machines have been curing cancer since the 1930s"? With a statement like that, you have to expect to be challenged for evidence.

    Having said that, though, a few of the links you provided were very interesting, so thanks very much for those.

    I found the following article particualry eye opening, and in fact, it has changed my view a bit on Rife ideas:

    Would You Believe… Specific Frequencies Block Growth of Cancer Cells

    The two studies referred to in that article are these ones:

    Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields (2011)

    Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies (2012)

    These two studies detail the use of an electromagnetic radio wave to treat cancers.

    The researchers, led by Dr Pasche, used a 27 MHz carrier wave (radio wave), which was then amplitude modulated (AM) at specific frequencies (between 100 Hz and 21 kHz). Amplitude modulation is of course the means used to transmit sound over the AM radio band. The 27 MHz radio wave used by the researchers had a power level 100 to 1000 times lower than a mobile phone's output, so this was quite a weak radio wave they were using.

    The researchers found that a specific set of modulation frequencies between 100 Hz and 21 kHz inhibited the growth of two types of liver cancer cells, and a different set of modulation frequencies inhibited breast cancer cells. Interestingly, the liver tumor frequencies had no effect on the breast cancer cells, and equally, the breast cancer frequencies had no effect on the liver cancer cells. So each of the two sets of frequencies appeared to be tumor specific. Dr Pasche claims that the exact frequency of the carrier wave is not particularly important; but that the specific modulation frequencies are very important.

    The researchers found evidence that these modulated radio waves disrupted the mitotic spindle, a microtubule-based apparatus in the cell which guides the division of DNA during cellular replication. The radio wavess also changed gene expression. So mitotic spindle disruption and gene expression alterations might be the mechanism by which these amplitude modulated electromagnetic fields appeared to inhibit cancer cell replication.

    So... just how good is Dr Pasche's science? Are the anti-cancer effects of amplitude modulated electromagnetic fields for real, or are the studies published by Dr Pasche et al flawed in some way?

    Well a good scientific discussion about Dr Pasche's cancer studies can be found in this blog article here, written by science blogger David Gorski. Scroll down to the section entitled "Boris Pasche and low energy EMF as a treatment for cancer". This blog article concluded:
    There are also a lot of good comments discussing the validity of these studies at the bottom of this blog article, for those interested in the scientific minutiae.

    The most worrying and unscientific aspect of Dr Pasche's study is the method he used to determine the anti-cancer frequencies. What he did was play each frequency to a patient while measuring their radial pulse. The frequencies that created the greatest increase in pulse strength and/or pulse rate were selected as tumor-specific frequencies.

    This method of choosing frequencies appears to have no scientific basis. How could pulse rate or pulse strength be in away related to the observed mitotic spindle disruption or gene expression changes in tumor cells? Selecting the frequencies on the basis of pulse strength is the most disconcerting aspect of these studies. However, an anti-cancer effect of these frequencies seems to be evident in these studies.

    It does, however, remain for others the replicate these results, and only when we have seen successful replications will we know if these anti-cancer effects are for real or not. As we all know, promising initial scientific studies can often turn out to be flawed and incorrect when other research groups try to replicate the results.

    But if Dr Pasche's work is replicated and validated at some point in the future, it might for the first time show that there is something to Rife's ideas. I remain skeptical until there is more solid evidence. Also, bear in mind that even if an anti-cancer effect from these amplitude modulated radio waves were to be proven and validated in future, the question would still remain as to whether the magnitude of this anti-cancer effect is sufficient to be of any value as a cancer cure or treatment.

    Though I guess it might conceivably turn out that Rife enthusiasts were correct, at least in the general spirit of their enterprise.

    Finally, this commentary on Dr Pasche's work by Carl Blackman asks some pertinent questions:

    • Is the cancer growth inhibition persistent, or do resistant cancer cells emerge from continued treatment?

    • Will tumor-specific amplitude modulated electromagnetic field treatments for humans have similar effects on animal tumors? For example, if rodent liver tumor cells respond similarly to the treatments for human liver tumor cells, this may open a new, more rapid investigation of the therapeutic efficacy of the technique.
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2014
    zzz, Valentijn, Sushi and 1 other person like this.
  17. Kina

    Kina Admin Support Staff

    Ontario, Canada
    Royal Raymond Rife's theory was that all organisms have a specific rate at which they vibrate and organisms can be selectively destroyed in the body with a rife machine set at different frequencies unique to the organism-- talking about viruses, bacteria, parasites, fungi.

    There have been cure claims for cancer, cystic fibrosis, alzheimers, diabetes via using rife machines-- none of these diseases are caused by any sort of organisms. Tumours are not made up of viruses, CF is a genetic disorder, the plaque tangles in alzheimers do not contain organisms, diabetes is a disorder related to insulin production -- so how is it possible for rife to cure any of these diseases.

    Do all bacteria have the same frequency, do all viruses, do all parasites? Has this even been measured so you know what frequency to set your machine at? I mean some parasites are huge -- how does that work?

    Now as far as tumour suppression in Cancer research -- this is all very interesting but really this research is very young. It would be fantastic to catch tumours early on and use something like this as a initial treatment.

    @zzz just because 'anecdotal evidence' is in pub med doesn't mean a thing because I plugged 'Santa Claus' into pub med titles and got 65 results. Is this evidence that scientists take Santa Claus seriously. :rofl:
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2014
    SOC, Sushi and Valentijn like this.
  18. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    This Mortal Oscillatory Rate concept that Rife came up with — the idea that all organisms have a specific frequency at which they can be destroyed — does seem very unlikely, and I am not aware of any peer previewed studies on this.

    And all these Rife machine frequencies that are posted online which claim to treat specific diseases or specific microbial infections are clearly nonsense, because they are not based on any research, as @zzz pointed out earlier in this thread.

    However, take away all that Rife specific frequency stuff, and just use your Rife machine and coil as a pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF) machine — which is what it actually is – and then what you have is a scientifically proven treatment device. So don't call it a Rife machine, call it a PEMF machine, if you want to take a scientific approach.

    PEMF machine therapy has been shown to have a number of beneficial effects:
    And pulsed electromagnetic field therapy machines have shown benefit for Lyme:
    So in other words, if you forget about Rife's unsubstantiated theories, and instead realize that your Rife machine is a PEMF machine, you don't have to buy into Rife's theories.

    Many years ago, before I had ME/CFS, and suffered from a bit of bipolar, I read about transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) being effective for depression. TMS is a type of PEMF therapy applied to the head, in order to target the brain. TMS has been shown to be effective for major depression and bipolar.

    I decided to make my own PEMF coil, and then I experimented with applying pulsed magnetic fields to my head (albeit at much, much lower power levels than TMS: my coil was designed to produced only fairly weak oscillating magnetic field — less than the strength of a fridge magnet).

    I got very good results from applying pulsed magnetic fields to my head, and found that 10 or 20 minutes of treatment (at 10 Hz) produced not only significant antidepressant effects for me, but also seemed to boost my intelligence, creatively and cognitive abilities. In short, my PEMF apparatus made me sparkle mentally. It was great. So I can certainly vouch for the benefits of PEMF therapy for depression and cognition. Sadly, since getting ME/CFS, my PEMF apparatus no longer seems to boost my mood, and no longer seems to give me a cognitive improvement. This device worked well for my bipolar, but does not work for ME/CFS, unfortunately.

    So in summary: people using Rife machine coils are really just using PEMF therapy, and PEMF has scientifically well established health benefits. And when you experience health benefits from your PEMF therapy, it has nothing to so with Rife's theory, it's because pulsed electromagnetic field are known to produce these benefits.
    xrayspex likes this.
  19. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    @zzz, I have just been looking at this video of Doug MacLean, who you mentioned built a powerful Rife machine coil and successfully treated his Lyme. However, if you go to timecode 0:55 m of that video, you will notice that Doug says his whole family developed Lyme disease at approximately the same time (his family got it first, and then he got it slightly later). From this, it would seem unlikely that Doug or his family had Lyme. This is because Borrelia does not spread from person to person, so you would not expect the whole family to develop Lyme (there is some suggestion that Borrelia might occasionally be sexually transmitted, but it is not spread by ordinary social contact).

    So it is perhaps more likely that Doug MacLean was infected by some other pathogen, such as an enterovirus, which is known to spread person to person, and which is strongly linked to triggering ME/CFS.
  20. fredounet


    @Hip, did you try the interferential current therapy with your hi fi equipment?

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page