James Bare wrote:

> Jason,
>
> You stated...
>
>
>>I'll agree with your statement that the goal of a
>>"Rife" machine is to selectively kill microbes using MORs.
>
>
> You are quite correct, all machines to date should be considered as
> frequency therapy devices and not a true "Rife" machine. The principles of
> operation are based upon Rife's discoveries, but the limited capabilities
> of the Rife instruments demonstrate a different method of operation. Rife's
> instruments were developed to produce results in only a narrowly
> defined parameters. Namely; Infections, cancer , and cataracts. That's it.
>
> Without question many of the effects of Dr. Rife's instrument are due
> to overlap with physiologic
> mechanisms utilized by modern day transmitted field frequency devices .


How do we know this "without question"? In order to make such a
statement, we should be able to refer to exhaustive and comprehensive
experimental studies with the particular device in question that show
this to be the case. If it's just inference and supposition, then it
should stated as such. I'm not just trying to be argumentative here.
The issues and questions raised in this thread keep me awake at night,
and over the past fourteen years, I've lost an enormous amount of sleep.


> Modern day transmitted field instruments such as the R/B work consistently
> with pain, arthritis, true viruses ,and a whole variety of ailments that
> Dr. Rife's instrument did not. They also work consistently with infections
> and cataracts

Then why haven't they done anything for the cold sores that I
occasionally get, or my sinusitis? I mean, I know they work for a lot
of things, because I've had positive results, but we rarely have posts
on negative results. I think we could learn a great deal from more
analysis of our failures.


>The reason for modern day treatment superiority is that the
> physiologic mechanisms enlisted within the body by the transmitted wave are
> different.
>

How does enlisting different physiologic mechanisms make the modern
treatment superior? I mean, our machines can't match what Rife's
primitive machines did, so how are we superior? Also, how do we know
that if Rife's machines were set to the frequencies that we use, they
wouldn't do the same thing? Obviously this is something that we can't
know, so when comparing our machines to Rife's, we should stick to what
we do know, and that is the germicidal capability.


> There are other fundamental differences. Frequencies are different, the
> wave produced by the device is different, the electronics which produce the
> wave are different, the plasma tubes - can be the same but are primarily
> different, the method of application is different, and finally, there is a
> significant understanding of exactly how an instrument such as the R/B
> device produces effects. Something lacking in Dr. Rife's instrument.
> Milbank Johnson stated that he didn't believe Dr. Rife knew what the effect
> was, only how to create it.
>

I wonder whether Dr. Johnson was qualified to question what Rife knew or
not, but that aside, if there are so many differences, why do so many
people still invoke Rife's name and make claims regarding their results
as if they're doing the same thing that Rife was doing? This is why I
expend so much energy raising these issues, because many people come
'looking for Rife', and are misled into thinking that what we're doing
in the modern paradigm is the same as what Rife was doing. If there are
so many fundamental differences between our machines and Rife's, then
that's all the more reason for us to have to prove that we're doing
anything like what he was doing. If people are going to talk in terms
of MORs, then that requires objective evidence.

>> If we can't get past the microscope
>>phase, then we have no business claiming that we're killing microbes
>>after the fashion that Rife established, and with all due respect to all
>>concerned, I don't think any machine on the market today can
>>legitimately claim to have reproduced Rife's results.
>
>
> The significance of Dr. Rife's instrument is not that it could destroy
> microbes in vitro. Anyone can do that with a bottle of bleach. One doesn't
> need some sort of microscope to prove that. This effect is consequently of
> interest but I believe should not be considered as some sort of limitation
> . What matters, and what was of ultimate significance, is that the in vitro
> effects shown by Dr. Rife could be applied safely to higher living
> organisms. One cannot do that with a bottle of bleach. It is the ability
> to utilize frequency devices in a reliable repeatable manner, provable with
> lab tests, to treat disease that makes any frequency device worthwhile.
> Without out in vivo applicability - what does one have? An expensive light
> bulb? A floor/food/bathroom sterilizer? Without the ability to treat
> infections, cancer and cataracts in vivo, Dr. Rife's device, although
> admirable, would be almost meaningless.
>


I agree. The point I've been trying to make in all these discussions,
is that the in vitro work is the objective demonstration for
establishing that we don't have just an expensive light bulb or bathroom
sterilizer. How would Rife have been able to treat infections and
cancer in vivo if he didn't definitely know that he was destroying the
causative microbes, and independently of any physiologic functions at that?

>
>> Yes, there have
>>been some limited results under the microscope with devices such as the
>>Bare device and some others, but those results haven't been consistently
>>reproduced.
>
>
> But they have been reproduced, and that is what is of significance.Yes, not
> consistently, but they have been reproduced.


Granted, but there hasn't been any real progress beyond the few pond bug
experiments. In fact, I had a private post from one of the people who
has reproduced the pond bug results, and they said that they haven't
progressed beyond that because of the inconsistency in outcome. What
about with pathogenic bacteria? From what I've seen, most, if not all
results have been negative.


> The problem with the majority
> of main stream university level EM field research , is that it has not
> been replicated ! Look at all the mess with cell phones for instance. Some
> people say they cause problems others do not. The only research that has
> been able to be reproduced is that showing they don't cause problems. Right
> now the EM field research community is pretty well convinced cell phones do
> not cause problems, but there are those who feel otherwise.
>
> Without question, there are weaknesses to our modern instruments, which are
> being addressed as more understanding comes about. They certainly don't
> work as well as reported on cancer. Dr. Rife was the first to find a virus
> attributable to cancers and sarcomas. The BX and BY, but we know now this
> definition is far too narrow. Cancer is also caused by other viruses and
> some bacteria. All with different frequency requirements.
>

I think the claims of other viruses and bacteria causing cancer are
dubious at this point. It makes no sense to think that a virus would
cause one disease at one point, and then cause cancer later. The work
of Dr. John Gregory showed pretty conclusively that the fundamental
cause of cancer was a virus, and that it was distinct from other
viruses. Also, Dr. John Hett found the same thing. Other viruses and
bacteria may provide the concomitant irritation and endocrine
dysfunction that is required to produce clinical cancer, but it is
improbable that they are fundamental causative agents.


> Modern day transmitted field instruments have become a mature technology in
> their own right. Some papers will be forthcoming in the next few months
> which have pretty well defined ( at least for the R/B ) their mechanisms of
> action.
>

That's good news for sure, and I totally agree that the modern
instruments have matured in their own right. What I can't understand
(or accept) is people continuing to talk in the "old" terms (MORs) about
the modern devices, without even pausing to mention any evidence. I
don't think I've ever questioned the validity or therapeutic value of
the modern devices; I have a few myself. I just think we need to be
more accurate in describing and claiming the capabilities of our devices.


> New definitions and new testing procedures are vitally necessary to
> understand and evaluate the effectiveness of modern day transmitted field
> instruments. The old concept of using test tubes , petri dishes , and
> culture flasks is highly limited. A solution needs to be either discovered
> , or the concept discarded for testing of modern transmitted EM field
> instruments.
>

Discarding the concept of MORs (and Rife's name with it) for the modern
devices would be a solution of sorts, but if we are to continue to talk
about MORs, then in vitro work will always be the gold standard of
verification.

Regards,


Jason