Does a Rife machine harm normal body cells?

[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

[CharBoehm]

There is one additional mechanism about EM effects, or lack thereof, on human cells. This is from a short paper I wrote for people that want information about the DNA-related frequency method:

When bacterial and other cells are dividing, they are known to be much more susceptible to electromagnetic emissions during the time of division. One research article states: “The observed electric field response of E. coli in different stages of their growth indicates that rapidly dividing cells are more susceptible to electric fields than cells which are not proliferating. If this also holds true for mammalian cells, then ultrashort high-electric-field pulses could affect tumor or cancer development significantly.”4

4. Schoenbach, K., et al. The Effect of Pulsed Electric Fields on Biological Cells: Experiments and Applications. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Apr 1997; 25(2): 284-292.
___________________



In short, the concept is that electric fields affect dividing cells more easily than non-dividing cells. When cells / viruses are dividing or reproducing, their DNA is much more exposed than in a resting state. This is why pregnant humans and animals should stay away from electromagnetic field emissions, and also why cell phones are not so smart for young children to continually use at close range, because their brain cells are still undergoing a lot of division. It could also be why cancer cells are more vulnerable than normal cells.



And it's also why pathogens that are in a rapidly dividing stage (during acute bacterial or early stages of viral infections), may be more susceptible to EM field emissions than when they are in a latent or resting stage (for instance, spore and cyst stages).


Best wishes,
Char
www.dnafrequencies.com

[Leroy Dissinger]

Char,

Thank you for your reply. I now understand why you do not calculate the frequencies based on human DNA and I hope you are correct. But the body is so complex is is really a guessing game, no (Our creator was a pretty smart dude/dudette)? I'm GUESSING that you are correct and that these frequencies do not harm "normal" body cells, but could (according to the manufacturer or one machine) harm non-normal body cells, such as malformed or dying red blood cells.

Did you find my calculations to be correct for the human DNA, IF the number of base pairs was 3 billion?

If these figures were correct, then some low frequencies would however, be just a very few octaves (or 0 octaves) from the DNA freq. and Rife did not use the low frequencies in his original machines. These lower frequencies were utilized after the AMA and FCC shut him down on the powerful machines. Maybe Rife never had any problem because his frequences were many octaves above the human DNA frequency? It is still a little scary, but I guess that people have been using these low frequencies for a while and died from use of these machines.

Thank you for the research...I will read up on it more.

Leroy

[CharBoehm]

Char,

Thank you for your reply. I now understand why you do not calculate the frequencies based on human DNA and I hope you are correct. But the body is so complex is is really a guessing game, no (Our creator was a pretty smart dude/dudette)? I'm GUESSING that you are correct and that these frequencies do not harm "normal" body cells, but could (according to the manufacturer or one machine) harm non-normal body cells, such as malformed or dying red blood cells.

Did you find my calculations to be correct for the human DNA, IF the number of base pairs was 3 billion?

If these figures were correct, then some low frequencies would however, be just a very few octaves (or 0 octaves) from the DNA freq. and Rife did not use the low frequencies in his original machines. These lower frequencies were utilized after the AMA and FCC shut him down on the powerful machines. Maybe Rife never had any problem because his frequences were many octaves above the human DNA frequency? It is still a little scary, but I guess that people have been using these low frequencies for a while and died from use of these machines.

Thank you for the research...I will read up on it more.

Leroy

Hi Leroy,

I am coming up with different numbers than you did, based on 3 billion base pairs.

From your comments, I get the impression that you think that DNA-related frequencies are just in lower, audio-range octaves or regions. They can be in any region of the spectrum, including ultrasound, radio, microwave, and on up. The only reason I gave examples in the audio range in my 1999 paper, was because that's the range everybody was using or talking about back then.

Also, if you were to give me any frequency at all in the audio range, including ones proposed to be associated with human DNA, I can assure you that I could find other items in my pathogen databases that relate to the same frequency.

What I look for is not frequencies that might coincidentally match on a rare occasion, but frequencies that show up numerous times in a pattern, especially if they seem to be getting beneficial results, or have shown evidence of results elsewhere (i.e., even before the DNA frequency theory was proposed).

You should never take my word as being definitive, and there will always be room for improvement of theory and hardware. There are many factors regarding frequency delivery systems that could have varying effects on cells, normal or otherwise. Many of these factors are totally out of my control.

Some of us try to study existing reports and literature as time permits, to see if more patterns can be discovered regarding cellular and pathogen response.

Best wishes,
Char

[Leroy Dissinger]

Hi Leroy,

I am coming up with different numbers than you did, based on 3 billion base pairs.

From your comments, I get the impression that you think that DNA-related frequencies are just in lower, audio-range octaves or regions.

Char

Well, it is sometimes hard for me to communicate in text, I guess. I have no doubt that your DNA frequencies are not JUST in the lower audio range octaves or regions. According to the paper as I read it, you could keep going down in octaves until you are in the lower ranges, and based on THE particular machine used, you would divide by 2 until you were in an acceptable frequency range for THAT machine.

You are correct, my numbers were off...based on 3 billion base pairs. I should have used your numbers to make sure my calculations were correct. I hate it when I do stupid things...which is most of the time.

The following is just for discussion, as you have given several reasons as to why a normal human cell should not be destroyed by frequencies. For the sake of this discussion, let us assume that we could be harmed, and that the number of base pairs in human DNA is 3 billion.


That being said...then the following debilitating frequencies could cause a human harm:

frequencies of: 198, 396, 791.9, 1583.8, (times 2 on up) etc.

One of the most interesting (scary) things about this formula is that the more base pairs present in the target, the closer the lower octaves are to the "base" debilitating frequency, because the number of base pairs is in the divisor.

Of course, the numbers for human DNA are not accurate, because I have not found any place that can definitively say an exact number of base pairs for human DNA. But lets just go with this discussion and say that 3 billion pairs is correct.

HUMAN DNA DEBILITATION FREQ: 396 is 20 octaves from the base debilitating frequency.

Plasmid cp9 containing 9386 base pairs - DEBILITATING FREQ of 482.8 is a whopping 38 octaves below the base debilitating freq.

So, what I was trying to say, is this: The relative debilitating frequencies for human DNA (no matter what the actual number of base pairs) is at a lower octave than any of the pathogens we are trying to kill. This, without your excellent reasons as to why we are not harmed, would have given pause to using frequencies close to any debilitating frequencies for human dna....

Leroy

P.S. Sorry about the screwed up numbers in the previous post and I hope this made more sense.