Does a Rife machine harm normal body cells?

[Leroy Dissinger]

Dear Charlene Boehm,

I am no expert on you method. I've looked up human DNA, and I'm not sure that they know exactly how many base pairs are present, but they say around 3 billion.

Using the method in your paper I calculated the following frequency using 3 billion pairs.

So, the frequency of human DNA (based on that loose number) is :

646.6575381
The lower octaves of that are :
323.328769 161.6643845
With debilitating frequencies respectively of:
457.2559303 228.6279651
Would these calculations be in line with yours, based on 3 billion base pairs?

Leroy

[Randall Haislip]

In response to Jason Ringas' question as to whether frequencies can harm tissue cells and or blood cells this page might be a starting point for those interested in that discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ul...ge_diagram.png
This thread is the proper place for such discussion.

[Randall Haislip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Haislip
<snip>
If however you have information that suggest that frequencies are harmful to tissue cells or blood cells as your doubting remark indicates, I would be delighted to read that document.
<snip>
You never said "harmful" in your original comment. I understood you to be saying that frequencies have no effect on blood or tissues, not no harmful effect. On this point, however, I do recall an early study where they destroyed frog blood cells with sound waves. I don't have the study handy, but I think I may have posted it to one of the discussion groups over the years. I also recall someone making a post observing the same thing with a frequency machine. This was many years ago. I agree that the frequency machines that we use generally do not have harmful effects, but that doesn't mean that they can't have harmful effects. They're certainly not toys, so caution should always be kept in mind.
Regards,
Jason


Jason,
You and I have both been involved in this technology a long time. We both know that frequencies DO affect tissue cells and blood cells. I would never intentionally suggest otherwise.
And yes I certainly agree with you:
[Jason Ringas]" I agree that the frequency machines that we use generally do not have harmful effects, but that doesn't mean that they can't have harmful effects. They're certainly not toys, so caution should always be kept in mind."
Yes, I'll say it with you, These machines are not Toys.
Those with lyme disease don't need to hear that nearly as much as the newcomers who have never experienced a herx.
Randall

[CharBoehm]

Leroy, please know I am not ignoring your posts about the DNA frequency and human DNA, but have not had time to properly address the questions. I will need to pull some references to give a decent reply, and will try to do that asap.

Char

[Leroy Dissinger]

Leroy, please know I am not ignoring your posts about the DNA frequency and human DNA, but have not had time to properly address the questions. I will need to pull some references to give a decent reply, and will try to do that asap.

Char

No worries. I was and am in the process of moving. Wish I'd known you were in NC before I moved from SC...oh well. Looking forward to your response. I'd think that using the DNA frequencies directly (or boosting those) would help a person, but using the square root of 2 * those frequencies could be bad. Anyway, I'm looking to purchase or build a system shortly (after some more unpacking) and doing some testing.

Thanks,

Leroy

[CharBoehm]

Hi Leroy,

Actually, I do not calculate DNA-related frequencies based on human DNA, because my focus is on pathogens. I am not sure using human cell DNA-derived frequencies could be useful, because there are issues regarding waveform, pulse length, field effects etc. that may come into play. You may want to read some of the material Randall Haislip has been posting about high-voltage nanosecond pulsed e-fields, and that such an approach may require eventual expansion of traditional electromagnetic analysis.

In the meantime, here is a copy of something at the FAQ page of my website, it addresses the differences between human and bacterial cells. These factors - especially the matter of histone shielding of DNA, as well as bacteria lacking cellular components that are present in human cells - could be very important in figuring out why these technologies are not the same for all types of cells across the board.

from http://www.dnafrequencies.com/faq.shtml

Will the frequencies affect the DNA in my cells, the same way it affects the DNA of the pathogen?

This is a question of major interest and importance. It cannot be answered easily, because the various frequency delivery systems discharge their frequencies in different ways, with various types of emissions, waveforms and power levels. However, here is information that might provide basis for further discussion and research.

There are many differences between bacterial (prokaryotic) and mammalian (eukaryotic) cells (3), some or all of which may have a collective bearing on how frequency delivery systems might influence them:

1. Their DNA structure is very different. Mammalian DNA is bonded to proteins called histones, which wrap and fold the DNA into a manageable size. Bacterial and viral DNA do not contain histones. The histones may provide electrical shielding to mammalian DNA, as compared to bacterial and viral DNA.
2. DNA in eukaryotic cells is surrounded by a nucleus and the nuclear membrane. Bacterial cells do not contain a nucleus.
3. Eukaryotic cells are generally 10-30 times larger in linear dimension, and 1,000-10,000 times greater in volume than typical bacterial cells. This results in a much smaller surface to volume ratio in eukaryotic cells as compared to bacterial.
4. Because of the difference in wall and membrane components, bacterial cells carry a much denser negative electrical charge on their outside surface than eukaryotic cells do. Also, the cell walls of bacteria are highly porous, and the pores are relatively large. These traits allow easy movement of ions and proteins through the pores. While these characteristics are necessary for bacterial metabolic processes to take place, it’s possible they can be used to advantage when influencing the bacteria with electromagnetic frequency delivery systems.
5. The constituents of bacterial membranes are chemically and electrically different than those of eukaryotic membranes.
6. Bacteria possess no internal cytoskeleton, as do eukaryotic cells. This would include microtubules and actin filaments. Furthermore, bacteria do not perform endocytosis or exocytosis.

Individually or collectively, all these factors and possibly others may play a part in why certain pathogenic organisms are influenced more easily than eukaryotic animal and plant cells by frequency delivery systems. Recent years have seen many projects being carried out by major researchers at highly regarded laboratories and universities, all of which are too numerous to review in this small space.

1. Mattman, Lida H. Cell wall deficient forms, 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2001.
2. Takashima, Shiro. Electrical Properties of Biopolymers and Membranes. Bristol: Adam Hilger, 1989.
3. Alberts, Bruce, et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell,, 3rd ed., pp. 22-25, 481-485, 521-523, 554-555. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994.

Best wishes,
Char

[CharBoehm]

DNA is without question the most densely electrically charged molecule in any living organism. It carries an intense negative charge along the length of the molecule due to the presence of phosphate groups.

What I wrote in my previous post is not intended to imply that pathogenic DNA or RNA is "naked" as compared to human DNA. Pathogenic nucleic acids can have proteins which bind to its genome or genomic pieces. However, the histone electrical shielding is much more complete in human DNA, than protein binding would provide for pathogen DNA or RNA.

There is a paper that mentions shielding at jcb.rupress.org/content/93/2/285.full.pdf
which is titled "Participation of Core Histone "Tails" in the
Stabilization of the Chromatin Solenoid". The abstract states: "The inference is that the core histone tail segments function by providing electrostatic shielding of the DNA charge and at the same time bridging adjacent
nucleosomes in the solenoid."

Char