How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

[Jeff Garff]

Hello Michael Tigchelaar

I appreciate you giving an explanation but I have a few questions before I am willing to accept your explanation.

First I would like to say, this research on “Bio-Impedance Analysis” is not our research. These are independent scientific tests that have been done on “Bio-Impedance Analysis” with regards to frequency penetration into the human body. As you know there are two different types of pad instruments. Some of them use a carrier frequency and some do not. Frequencies output from a non-carrier instrument, in square wave form, produce harmonics up to about 500,000 hertz. We have tested this on a spectrum analyzer. This can account for a significant amount of cell penetration in the body according to these Bio-Impedance tests. The energy that comes from an RF carrier instrument will create a very strong electromagnetic field which can be read with a tri-field meter just the same as a ray tube and these “Bio-Impedance Analysis” tests prove that energy can fully penetrate the cells of the body. I mention this because the many reports on “Bio-Impedance Analysis” discuss RF frequencies up to 1 MHz and the fact that the human body has no resistance to frequencies of this range or higher.

<As regards our published research on body impact energy, we are in full agreement with your research as regards frequency penetration to the cells. We were discussing impact energy not frequency penetration. Even A.M. and F.M. broadcast penetrate our cells. But what is the impact energy? Is it really sufficient enough cause damage?>

Here are a few of my questions. Do you have any scientific papers on this “Body Impact Energy”? I have never heard of it before. How do you measure it coming out of the ray tube? How do you measure it in the body? Also how do you determine that it is penetrating the cells? Is your published research, your research, or is it independent scientific tests that have been done in laboratories on EM plasma devices proving they have superior “Body Impact Energy”?

The reason I ask these questions is, I do not see any scientific information on your site backing up your claim. I am not trying to be negative about EM devices because I have seen too many good results with the people who use them. But if you do have independent scientific tests that substantiate your claim then I would really like to get that information because I believe it would be very helpful. Without this kind of proof, what you say on your web site is nothing but your personal opinion and your claim is still misleading and incorrect. When I first started to talk about “Bio-Impedance Analysis” many people wanted me to send them the scientific proof, which I did.

<Rife Plasma and Pad devices however operate on entirely different principles of ENERGY transference>

I do not have a problem with the fact that RF Pad and Plasma work on different methods of transferring energy. But the real question is does it really make any difference? The reason I bring this up is, if it really does make a big difference then the EMEM type of instruments, like pad instruments, have a couple of problems. The first problem is, Rife used RF frequencies output through a ray tube and this is how he found the M.O.R.s that resonated with the organisms. Rife’s method of energy transfer was RF. His frequencies ranged from 139,200 hertz for Anthrax to 1,604,000 for the BX and BY organisms. The second problem is, EMEM ray tube instruments cannot reach this frequency range because they are specifically built to work on EM energy in the low audio frequency range. The energy from an RF ray tube is different than the energy from an EMEM type of ray tube. An RF pad instrument does not use a ray tube so this could be the main problem with them but they can output the RF frequencies that Rife used. Dr. Robert P. Stafford reported that his tests with the audio frequencies on Staph and Strep cultures had no effect on the organism. Many others have done the same tests with the same results. After all of Dr. Stafford’s testing he came to the conclusion that all the audio frequencies did was to boost the immune system. So which is more important the correct frequency or the ray tube? We all may be on shaky ground.

If the method of energy transfer really matters as I mentioned earlier then how can an EM instrument be called a “Rife plasma device” when it is not built on any of Rife’s original principles. We call our instrument a “Function Generator” not a “Rife Machine”. No pad instrument should ever be called a Rife machine.

Since Rife did not want his name put on any instrument then the only thing you can call your instrument is an “EM Plasma Device” not a “Rife Plasma Device.” Even if in the future Rife’s method of devitalizing organisms is fully figured out it should never have his name put on it because of his request. As I motioned earlier we removed Rife’s name off of our instrument when we listened to the audio tapes and heard Rife say he didn’t want his name put on any instrument.

<If a Pad device is demonstrated to reduce the viral load of HIV through a comparitive study great!>

Has your HIV study been confirmed by independent medical trials. None of the good results that we have seen with people who have used pad instruments on HIV have been verified by studies. So I do not think personal claims are of much value in arguing this point.

Jeff Garff

As regards our published research on body impact energy, we are in full agreement with your research as regards frequency penetration to the cells. We were discussing impact energy not frequency penetration. Even A.M. and F.M. broadcast penetrate our cells. But what is the impact energy? Is it really sufficient enough cause damage?

Having said this, we do not argue with results. If a Pad device is demonstrated to reduce the viral load of HIV through a comparitive study great! We do not have a problem with pad / contact devices. We actually produce a contact device ourselves and have reports of excellent results.

Rife Plasma and Pad devices however operate on entirely different principles of ENERGY transference.

We are in favor of both pad and plasma. Both methods of energy transference have their own advantages and disadvantages. We recommend both.

Mike www.truerife.com