cell-wellbeing app
View RSS Feed

Aqua Cronic Hydro

How to Find the Frequencies to Use!

Rate this Entry
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Walker View Post
Introduction

The most important part of any Rife frequency therapy is using the right frequency in a form that is clean enough and accurate enough to be effective. There are two experts, in this field, that I have asked to write an introduction for this forum.

Brian McInturf (commonly known as "turf") has been compiling his Consolidated Annotated Frequency List (CAFL) for a number of years.

Quote Originally Posted by Brian McInturf
Introduction to Frequency Lists
by turf@mindspring.com

There are a number of frequency lists available for rifers and other frequency researchers. One of the most complete sources is www.electroherbalism.com. This is where two major frequency lists are available: The Consolidated Annotated Frequency List (CAFL) and the Non-Consolidated Frequency List (NCFL).

The CAFL contains the frequencies from many sources combined into one list. It also includes frequencies reported in anecdotes and on no other lists, plus Garvy sets (some which have been converted for use on a Rife-Bare), as well as anecdotal frequencies. The main problem with the CAFL is that the sets for even minor maladies can be quite long. However, all frequencies found are included in the hope that at least one in a set will be beneficial.

The NCFL is composed of many of the original lists which were combined to produce the CAFL. It can be valuable for viewing concise frequency sets, but does not contain anecdotal frequencies, some of which are the most beneficial since they have been developed most recently. It also contains frequencies and other information not included in the CAFL, including empirical muscle frequencies, mineral frequencies, Hulda Clark's frequencies, and a list of "coded" frequencies for devices which hide the frequencies from the user.

The frequencies in these lists are not well tested. Some are from pad device sets, some are from homeopathic nosodes, some may be what worked for a single researcher, some are probably mere speculation. Do not stake a life on them. They are a starting point for research.

There are other frequency lists like the Crane and Keelynet lists, but these are excluded in turf's lists since they are generally composed of different combinations of general frequencies that are typically run often, i.e., 20, 728, 784, 800, 880, 5000, 10000Hz.

Many of the frequency sets address the symptoms and only marginally if at all the cause, just like in allopathic medicine. For example, the IBS irritable bowel syndrome) frequency set may help balance gut bacteria levels and perhaps alleviate some intestinal spasms, but may not include the frequencies for giardia or other parasites, which are a factor in most cases. The hepatitic C set does not include the frequencies for the blood fluke, schistosoma mansoni, which may be a factor in some if not most cases, according to recent conventional research. Same with chlamydia, herpes 6, and parasites as being potential causative factors in MS. Same with pinworms and anal itch. Etc, etc, etc.

The CAFL attempts to deal with some of these factors by providing notes of which other frequency sets may help. Despite filtering, many of the sets contain only general frequencies such as 727/728, 784/787, 464, and 880 when those are the only ones which have been used and found to help. These four frequencies do address a wide range of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. In this respect they may nonetheless help almost any infectious process by removing common pathogens and therefore assisting the immune system since there will be more cells available to concentrate on the "uncommon" pathogens which were not directly addressed in the set. Many people run these four general frequencies in every set regardless of the condition.

Frequencies in the 2000-2200 range are thought to increase the activity of the immune system cells as well as improve blood circulation, so these can also be helpful in any infectious disease, even if they do not address a condition directly. When I have limited time and will run a session which must include frequencies for many different maladies, I generally use the concise Garvy frequencies along with a basic set of 728, 784, 880, and 464, plus any anecdotal frequencies. These are listed separately in the NCFL. When I have plenty of time, I run the complete set from the CAFL along with any causative factor sets which are listed.

Hulda Clark's frequency set (in the NCFL) may be useful if a specific pathogen is known. The frequencies are stated in KHz, and are in the 80-900 KHz range, so cannot be run directly on most Bare-Rife generators. For some of her frequencies, dividing them by 440 works well. In some cases, dividing by 100 or 1000 may provide a useful frequency. The best general conversion factor I have found so far is to divide by 512, although dividing by 256, 128, 64, 32, etc, may provide a better frequency. For the Garvy freqs which are out of range, dividing by 64 seems to work best, and dividing by 8 will usually also yield a valuable frequency, as will 2, 4, 16, 32, etc.

Most people run frequencies three minutes each. For a 20 frequency set, this would be an hour long session. Higher powered devices (100W+) may require less time on each frequency.

Scans can be effective for determining new frequencies, as well as therapeutic by themselves. Running scans is feasible only with a programmable function generator since manually entering a single frequency every few seconds hundreds of times in a session is not practical. The best ranges I have found for scanning are 300-800 and 2000- 2500/2600Hz. Each frequency in a scan is run for 3 to 10 seconds. Any "hits" are noted and after the session these frequencies are run for a full three minutes each. Hits are any frequencies which cause a sensation, such as tingling, pulsing, tickling, itching, etc.

Note that many times (if not most of the time) frequencies which are beneficial may not cause any sensation. And, many times frequencies which are hits may cause no apparent benefit. In general, though, frequencies which produce consistent hits over multiple sessions are usually therapeutic, and should be included in sessions until they no longer do.

Some function generators have the ability to scan or sweep about a chosen frequency with a predefined number of steps. The RifeTechnology ProGen and the Semoia Hammerhead have this capability. Either of them can do this with an expanding or contracting scan. For example, setting 728Hz with a contracting 3Hz scan at 20 seconds will yield 731, 725, 730, 726, 729, 727, and 728, running 7 frequencies for 20 seconds each for a total of 140 seconds. This may be a valuable method to more completely address a pathogen, particularly one which mutates. RifeTechnology's ProGen comes preprogrammed with many sets, and most of them use this method, using contraction with +/- 9Hz on each frequency, usually at 20 seconds each. This makes for long sets, but may be the best method for dealing with stubborn conditions.

If any frequencies are found to be particularly effective and are not yet listed for a condition, please report them to turf@mindspring.com and he will add them to the CAFL or a Frequency Anecdote file.
An American researcher has recently developed a means of calculating a frequency to devitalise pathogens based on data available from genome research. Here is Charlene Bohm's description of her work:

Quote Originally Posted by Charlene Bohm
The theory of finding DNA or RNA-related frequencies was first developed in 1999. It considers a nucleic acid chain as an basic antenna, and then computes a frequency for it using principles of biophysics, and the coherent electromagnetic response characteristics of the entire human body. Initial in-vivo experiments with the method focused primarily on entire genomes of certain pathogens, and produced enough encouraging results to warrant further pursuit of the concept. However, because the genomes of some organisms in the course of their existence delete or acquire stretches of DNA (or RNA), it was realized that in such situations, additional knowledge from the field of molecular biology had to be incorporated into the application of this theory. If an organism with a relatively large genome acquires (or deletes) a short section of DNA, or experiences a small point mutation, it will not affect the final frequency result very much, if at all. On the other hand, if a small genome similar to for example certain cancer viruses, acquires a stretch of the host DNA or RNA, this could produce a radical change in the final frequency computation.

After the early experimental results addressing consistent-form full genomes started coming in, we also discovered a beneficial in-vivo response when applying the mathematical process to certain other very common components of pathogens. The research into this aspect of the theory is ongoing at this time, as is development of additional extensions of the method, which is under patent-pending status.
Charlene's DNA based frequencies are currently being used in clinical trials and I have been told independantly that the frequencies have often been effective in treating the relevant pathogen.
http://www.dnafrequencies.com

This is the place to discuss any questions relating to frequencies.
Attached Thumbnails Attached Files
Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Private Blogs

Comments