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

[zzz]

I'll get to the remaining points regarding Anthony Holland's work a little later. But for now...

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.

I haven't seen some of those claims, but I would have the exact same questions you do. Even Rife himself didn't make all these claims. At this point, they are just claims and nothing else. No one in this thread has stated otherwise.

Now as far as tumour suppression in Cancer research -- this is all very interesting but really this research is very young.

That's true - even Anthony Holland and his collaborating scientists see human trials as being many years off.

@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.

Obviously, you have to examine the results before you make any claims about them, and I did. First of all, since I searched for "anecdotal evidence", I got relevant results. For example, from the first hit:

Nevertheless, what we presently know on this matter mainly derives from anecdotal evidence. To improve knowledge in this field...

This is exactly how I was using "anecdotal evidence" in my previous post. Note that even this short quote, anecdotal evidence is clearly regarded as a type of valid knowledge - it's valid not necessarily in the sense that its implications are correct (they may or nay not be), but because it tells us what has been observed so far. It's just the first step, as I have pointed out, but it's knowledge.

This Mortal Oscillatory Rate concept that Rife came up with — the idea that 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.

I would urge you (and everyone else here to watch the TEDx talk by Anthony Holland from beginning to end. It's 17 minutes, and will correct a lot of misconceptions about Holland's work that have been published in this thread.

@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).

Yes, I am aware of this.

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.

A little research into Lyme disease would have shown that Doug's case is not unusual at all. A simple family hike through a tick-infested area would be all that would be needed for the whole family to come down with Lyme.

Alternately, simply living in a Lyme-infested region could explain this. There are many scenario's in which Doug's family could have gotten Lyme while he didn't, until a slightly later encounter with an infected tick.

 

[Undisclosed]

Well then @zzz

How do you account for rife curing cancer, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer. All you are doing is repeating the same stuff over and over. There is a lot on the internet regarding rife therapy and it's original premise and it does have to do with organisms vibrating at a certain frequency and rife being able to kill them at certain frequencies.

Your arguments hold no water and really mean nothing. You have failed to convince me of anything because your arguments are based on anecdotal comments and are really unscientific. Really, saying that scientists take anecdotal evidence as real evidence because you found it in Pub Med is not really logical. Saying that rife works even though there is no empirical evidence is illogical. How about producing some clinical research that shows how and why rife would work instead of writing opinions.

Can you explain how and why rife would cure cancer.

 

[zzz]

There's not much I can do when people don't look at the evidence I provide. If you don't want to look at the evidence I provide, that's your decision. But please don't tell me I haven't provided any scientific evidence.

Well then @zzz

How do you account for rife curing cancer, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer.

To repeat what I said in the previous post:

I haven't seen some of those claims, but I would have the exact same questions you do. Even Rife himself didn't make all these claims. At this point, they are just claims and nothing else. No one in this thread has stated otherwise.

To elaborate, I can think of no mechanism by which Rife treatment would cure cystic fibrosis, diabetes, or Alzheimer's.

The exception is cancer. If you watch the video that I keep mentioning, you will see this in action, along with a modern theory that explains the mechanism.

I did not make the other claims; Rife did not make them. I don't understand why you're asking me to defend them.

Brenda kindly supplied four references. For the fourth:

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.
http://gm.asm.org/images/asm2013_Final_Program.pdf

Poster # 2175 found on page 190" (James Bare the rife forums.org)

This is a poster presentation by Anthony Holland. And in fact, if you look at the listing for Poster #2175, you will find "A. Holland" among the authors. He is referred to by his full name in the index, on page 232.

Professor Holland was also co-author of the paper MORPHOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF HUMAN CANCER CELLS AND MICROTUBULES CAUSED BY FREQUENCY SPECIFIC PULSED ELECTRIC FIELDS BROADCAST BY AN ENCLOSED GAS PLASMA ANTENNA, published in the proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Biological Effects of EMF - October 2012 (Malta). He is a major player in this field.

The video of the TEDx talk is not anecdotal evidence and is, in fact rather convincing. But you have to watch it to see that.

 

[Undisclosed]

No 'modern' theory and none of the studies provided actually are based on rife. It's just rifers altering facts to fit their own biases. you still haven't provided any evidence that rife cures cancer. Nevermind, this is going nowhere. I think the lack of evidence speaks for itself.

 

[zzz]

No 'modern' theory and none of the studies provided actually are based on rife. It's just rifers altering facts to fit their own biases. you still haven't provided any evidence that rife cures cancer.

This is incorrect; even a casual viewing of Holland's video will show this. So will a casual reading of the paper I linked to in my previous post. If you want to be scientific, you need to look at the evidence before drawing conclusions. I do not understand why you are not looking at the evidence, especially since it is being provided to you right here in this thread.

The paper I linked to in my previous post is a fascinating paper, and I would highly recommend reading it. Holland's machine and technique (and in the end, they are his, as you will find if you do the research) are also compared to the TTF machine that @Hip described earlier. The advantages of Holland's machine are made clear. Comparing Holland's machine to Pasche's, you can see that Holland's is more flexible, as Holland is the only one in the field to use frequency harmonics. This enables the machine to have a more powerful effect against microorganisms.

Holland and his collaborators call his machine a Rife-Bare machine, and that's what it is. As Holland mentions in the video, the only difference between his machine and a standard Rife-Bare machine is that the RF carrier wave was made tunable; it is set to the 11th harmonic of the base frequency. Nobody else uses harmonics in this way - not even Rife. Holland's background as a music professor came in handy here, as he himself alludes to in the video.

As for following Rife's theory about vibrating cells, please see the section in the paper that is entitled, "Microtubule mechanical resonance model". This is essentially the identical effect observed by Royal Rife, except explained in modern scientific terms, complete with equations showing how this works.

 

[Undisclosed]

@zzz this study does not even come close to saying that rife cures cancer. I am specifically asking for empirical evidence that supports all the cure statements that have been made. Extraordinary cure claims require more than this.

 

[zzz]

@zzz this study does not even come close to saying that rife cures cancer.

That's because it's a scientific study - no pseudo-science here.

I am specifically asking for empirical evidence that supports all the cure statements that have been made. Extraordinary cure claims require more than this.

I have stated several times that I don't know if Rife machines can be used to cure cancer. I certainly have seen nothing I would consider proof. There will not be proof unless and until proper controlled studies on people have been done. This has always been my position.

These cure statements have not been coming from me. I don't understand why you're asking me to support them.

 

[Undisclosed]

@zzz because every time I ask for scientific evidence that rife cures cancer, you tag me with a bunch or irrelevant information and quotes. Stop doing this if you don't have an answer to what I am asking. Thank you.

 

[zzz]

@zzz because every time I ask for scientific evidence that rife cures cancer, you tag me with a bunch or irrelevant information and quotes.

I have not tagged you even once in this entire thread, and this is easy to verify. I have also maintained a consistent position here. I simply do not understand why you keep asking me for scientific evidence that Rife cures cancer.

I have just gone through this entire thread, searching for every instance of the word "cure". Not only do I never claim that Rife cures cancer, but the only time I replied to one of your posts that requested evidence, it was to explain why such evidence was impossible to come by when use of these machines on people was illegal.

Please provide evidence to support your claims, or stop accusing me of doing things I didn't do. Thank you.

 

[Undisclosed]

@zzz

When you directly quote one of my posts in the thread by using the 'reply' button, I receive an alert and this is what I meant. You keep quoting me, I keep getting alerts. I should have been more specific and said 'directly quoting me' rather than 'tagging'. So I apologize for misuse of the word 'tagging'.

I never said you used the word 'cure', I said every time I ask for evidence that rife cures cancer, you keep posting back with irrelevant information and quotes. Just because something is 'illegal' doesn't mean it can't be studied. You can study the effects of radio waves on tumours etc without breaking any law whatsoever. In other words, it is possible to replicate what a 'rife' machine does in a clinical section which is not illegal.

 

[zzz]

As I promised, I will now address @Hip's remaining objections to Anthony Holland's work. [Edit: I have added a response to Kina's post at the end.]

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.

No, he does not. But he does in the TEDx video. In this video, he also describes his plasma device, and it's clear from his explanation (at 6:55) that he knows how plasma works.

zzz said: ↑
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 either at all modulating frequencies. So why are those organisms dying only at certain frequencies?

Since a musician is in charge of these experiments, anything could happen. Perhaps he simply moved his UV 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?

Within the first minute of the TEDx video, Holland makes it clear that he was working with a number of university scientists from the very beginning

At 1:25 into the video, Holland says, "The scientists said, 'You're killing more cancer cells than if you had used radiation!' That same scientist went on, 'If you had spent millions of dollars developing a new drug that killed this many cancer cells, it would be a home run.'"

Without transcribing the whole video, I can simply say that Holland describes his collaborations with professional scientists, and as these people were professionals, they presumably knew how to do experiments. He also mentions having his work professionally reviewed during the video. At 13:30, he says, "In repeated, controlled laboratory experiments, independently assayed by the two top experts. we killed an average of 25% to 42% of the leukemia cells - as high as 60%. They also determined that we slowed the growth rate of the cancer by as much as 65% - so a double effect."

He then illustrates the destruction of ovarian cancer cells, followed by scenes of destruction of pancreatic cancer cells.

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.

I've already mentioned the main reason this would not happen in an earlier post. However, they don't want the EM waves to just kill cells by heating them up, because then cells would be killed indiscriminately. So at 7:06 in the video, Holland addresses how his group solved the problem: They pulse the output. The pulses are 2.5 microseconds long, and are not related to the frequencies used in the experiment.

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.

Fortunately, that's not necessary. Glass tubes that are manufactured to contain plasma are leaded, and they will protect observers from X-rays. So the protection they offer against UV radiation is actually overkill.

@zzzI never said you used the word 'cure', I said every time I ask for evidence that rife cures cancer, you keep posting back with irrelevant information and quotes. Just because something is 'illegal' doesn't mean it can't be studied. You can study the effects of radio waves on tumours etc without breaking any law whatsoever. In other words, it is possible to replicate what a 'rife' machine does in a clinical section which is not illegal.

OK, you're being very specific here, so I can give you a very specific response: I don't know. The history of Rife machines is full of Byzantine politics which may or may not have had an influence here. Perhaps others who are more familiar with the history can answer your question more fully.

One factor that probably has a lot to do with your question is that for decades after Rife's machines were destroyed, there was absolutely no activity in the field at all. It is only relatively recently that people have picked up Rife technology once again, so from that standpoint, it's a young field. But considering that, the current work by Anthony Holland and his associates sounds just like what you're looking for. And his machine uses Rife technology and is about as close to the original Rife machine as you can come. (The original used big, expensive vacuum tubes that aren't even manufactured anymore.) Furthermore, Anthony Holland got his modified frequency generator from Dr. James Bare, creator of the Rife-Bare machine.

 

[brenda]

QUESTION

Can someone tell me please, why a moderator would be leading the charge against one method of alternative medicine on an Alternative Therapy Sub-forum section of an ME/CFS forum?

Those who don't like it are welcome to leave the discussion to those who do is the usual answer to the problem of not being able to have a discussion in peace.

 

[xrunner]

In the past I was treated with a Scio machine where one can program into it the relevant frequencies, taken from the Rife handbook, in my case frequencies for Lyme and CPn. It did nothing for me.
My therapist also treated her late husband who had prostate cancer. Neither chemo nor rife frequencies helped him.
On the other hand, it seemed to work for my back and neck pain but it helped as long as I kept treating.

 

[Hip]

Can someone tell me please, why a moderator would be leading the charge against one method of alternative medicine on an Alternative Therapy Subforum section of an ME/CFS forum?

I don't think there are any forum rules against discussing the evidence base, validity and efficacy of an alternative treatment in this subforum, just as there aren't any rules against discussing the evidence base, validity and efficacy of conventional treatments in the rest of the forum. And I don't think there are any rules that prevent moderators from expressing their opinions.

 

[brenda]

I don't think there are any forum rules against discussing the evidence base, validity and efficacy of an alternative treatment in this subforum, just as there aren't any rules against discussing the evidence base, validity and efficacy of conventional treatments in the rest of the forum. And I don't think there are any rules that prevents moderators from expressing their opinions.

If anyone wants to debate the validity of rife therapy they should start their own thread instead of interupting the discussion.

 

[Hip]

If anyone wants to debate the validity of rife therapy they should start their own thread instead of interupting the discussion.

Is that because you believe that Rife machines have been curing cancer since the 1930s, and you want to be able to state this belief without anyone asking you for that pesky thing called evidence?

 

[brenda]

I would like to have the freedom to discuss alternative treatments without a debate, unless I desire one. If you want to debate then start one.

Its a valid therapy used extensively in Europe by medical doctors.

 

[Hip]

I would like to have the freedom to discuss alternative treatments without a debate, unless I desire one. If you want to debate then start one.

And I would always like the freedom of being able to say "where's the evidence for that statement". Such questions keep these forums honest.

I have no problem with people criticizing and questioning conventional treatments in other subforums. I don't complain about this, because often the criticism is valid and informative. The same should apply to the alternative therapies subforum.

If you look at my comments in this thread, you will notice that they are generally in support of the therapeutic use of the pulsed magnetic fields produced by Rife / PEMF machines.

In fact I have explicitly said that magnetic coil type Rife machines are essentially the same as PEMF machines, and I pointed out that there is scientific evidence showing that PEMF machines provide a range of therapeutic benefits.

 

[Undisclosed]

QUESTION

Can someone tell me please, why a moderator would be leading the charge against one method of alternative medicine on an Alternative Therapy Sub-forum section of an ME/CFS forum?

Those who don't like it are welcome to leave the discussion to those who do is the usual answer to the problem of not being able to have a discussion in peace.

Moderators are allowed to post as a regular member. I am interested in any science behind rife machines so therefore I am posting on this thread.

Should we all just keep our mouths shut then and not discuss whether a treatment is scientifically valid. Dangerous claims deserve serious discussion.

 

[SOC]

QUESTION

Can someone tell me please, why a moderator would be leading the charge against one method of alternative medicine on an Alternative Therapy Sub-forum section of an ME/CFS forum?

Those who don't like it are welcome to leave the discussion to those who do is the usual answer to the problem of not being able to have a discussion in peace.

Moderators are allowed to have personal opinions here at PR. Moderators are volunteers who do not give up their right to comment as individuals just because they're willing to do some of the work necessary to maintain these forums.

Comments made as moderator are clearly identified as such as well as being posted in a clearly different font size and color. Moderation is done according to the rules, not according to personal opinion.