How Are Rife Manufacturers Compared?

[Jason Ringas]

Hello Michael Tigchelaar

The answer that you have given on you web site under “Contact Vs Plasma” in regards to pad devices would be good if it was correct.
<snip>
It would be better to give people correct information so that they can make a more informed decision. <snip>

A far more seriously incorrect statement that Michael is making is in calling his web site and machines "True Rife". They are not "true Rife", and calling them such is a misrepresentation of and disservice to Rife's name and legacy. Any clinical therapeutic efficacy his machines may produce is irrelevant to the point being made.

The biggest obstacle to the advancement of "true" Rife research is the Rife community's misrepresentation of what a "true Rife" machine is, and the methodolgy used to establish it as "true Rife". This ultimately filters down into people being confused as to how to proceed, what machine to buy, etc.

Regards,


Jason

[Jeff Garff]

A far more seriously incorrect statement that Michael is making is in calling his web site and machines "True Rife". They are not "true Rife", and calling them such is a misrepresentation of and disservice to Rife's name and legacy. Any clinical therapeutic efficacy his machines may produce is irrelevant to the point being made.

The biggest obstacle to the advancement of "true" Rife research is the Rife community's misrepresentation of what a "true Rife" machine is, and the methodolgy used to establish it as "true Rife". This ultimately filters down into people being confused as to how to proceed, what machine to buy, etc.

Regards,


Jason

Hello Jason,

Your point is well taken. Dr. Rife made this statement on the Rife CDs.

“Well it’s been called a half a dozen different things, a frequency device now, but it was called a Rife ray at one time. I made them stop that because I didn’t want my name on it. Some quack might get a hold of it.”

Because of this statement Rife made we closed all of our web sites that had his name on them and took his name off of our instrument. How could we honor him and then put his name on our machine.

Jeff
www.rifevideos.com

[Jason Ringas]

Hello Jason,

Your point is well taken. Dr. Rife made this statement on the Rife CDs.

“Well it’s been called a half a dozen different things, a frequency device now, but it was called a Rife ray at one time. I made them stop that because I didn’t want my name on it. Some quack might get a hold of it.”

Because of this statement Rife made we closed all of our web sites that had his name on them and took his name off of our instrument. How could we honor him and then put his name on our machine.

Jeff
www.rifevideos.com

Good point. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with a machine being called "Rife", if it actually was a "true Rife" machine. As I've said so many times before, at present, there's no such thing as a "true Rife" machine. I really wish people would stop abusing Rife's name for their own interests. It is a very sad reality that in many respects, it is we the Rife community that have become the quacks that Rife feared would sully his name and reputation. That may be a harsh statement, but I believe it's a totally true one, and all would do well to reflect upon it.

Regards,


Jason

[Michael Tigchelaar]

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

[Stephen Freeman]

Hi MIke and other
I am a Physical therapist doing Electromyography for 31 years. that is a fancy muscle and nerve test. I use a gel "Sonigel" when placing my electrodes on the ski. I tape them on.."OLd School" the newer ones are self adhesive and pre gelled...anyway I use Sonigel, as even with a slight air space the current I use will not effeciently pass from electrode to and into the skin and eventuyally into the nerve tissue which I am testing. I have read many of the Forum posts and have not seen any mention of a gel. I know that with Ulatrsound..which I have also used...that we need to Sonigel for the same reasons...and then you have the OB-GYN doctors using the gel for ultrasound of pregnang women. ....Hmm in just a though just now....could or would a clinical ultrasound unit used by therapist, and chiropracters, also work as a Rife..."if you could find the freqs.?

Anyway I was just want to ask or inquire about the Gel ussage.
All Be Blessed
Stephen Freeman North Carolina
Sfreeman@ec.rr.com

[Jason Ringas]

<snip>
Anyway I was just want to ask or inquire about the Gel ussage.

I've used a pad machine with both self-adhesive and gel type electrodes. They both work fine. They're more for a focused type of application rather than a generalized whole body type of set-up that is commonly used.

Regards,


Jason

[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

[Jason Ringas]

In reference to the debate on plasma tube versus pad type applications, I've never seen any definite information on the subject. We just don't know at this juncture if the plasma tube adds something "extra", making it a necessity. If anyone makes a claim or implication that their machine is "better", because it uses a plasma tube, they should back it up with some solid evidence. By the same token, if someone claims that the plasma tube is not necessary, then that should be backed up too.

This comes back to the fundamental issues of what is Rife research, Rife technology, and Rife therapy? Despite all that we've learned over the years, there are still many people who blatantly misrepresent the matter. As I've said so many times before, "Rife" is not about any particular hardware, it's about a methodology. It doesn't matter if you use pads, plasma tubes, vacuum tubes, transistors, analog, digital, or whatever else. If you can produce the "Rife effect", and can demonstrate it with the same methodology that Rife used, that's all that matters. In "Rife therapy", you shouldn't really be talking about what disease you're treating, but rather what microorganism you're trying to devitalize. In Rife's hand-written lab notes, they didn't "ray" the experimental animals for cancer, they "rayed" them for the BX organism. The fact that Rife believed the BX organism was the cause of the cancer is beside the point. "Rife therapy" is founded upon rigorous laboratory research and testing, not clinical trials or results. Clinical results may be the ultimate goal, but if your "therapy" is not founded upon, or is somehow divorced from in vitro laboratory research, it's not "Rife therapy" and it's not "Rife research". Anyone claiming otherwise is misrepresenting the matter, and is "muddying the water". They are not only doing a disservice to Rife's name and legacy, but are doing a disservice to the broader field of electrotherapy. This misrepresentation and in some cases outright fraud needs to stop.

Regards,


Jason

P.S. Who disagrees with what I've said here, and why? What I've said here is the crux of what Rife is all about, so I would like to hear what any objections may be and why.

[Mike Kirkpatrick]

I just found this discussion, and now have a few questions for Mr. Garff:

I notice that the GB-4000 is now being offered with an Emem-type plasma device.

1. Can you run the carrier from the GB-4000 through the Emem?
2. What is the highest frequency from the GB-4000 that can be run through the Emem?
3. Is the Emem-SRX 10Khz (as stated on one page of your website) or 10,000,000 Hz as stated on another page?
4. Can the amp be used with the Emem?

Thank you,

Mike

[Jeff Garff]

Hello Mike,

I hope these answers will be helpful.

>I just found this discussion, and now have a few questions for Mr. Garff:
I notice that the GB-4000 is now being offered with an Emem-type plasma device.

This site is one of our distributors site. We do not built the Emem-SRX.

>1. Can you run the carrier from the GB-4000 through the Emem?

No. If you use the carrier frequency it will damage it.

>2. What is the highest frequency from the GB-4000 that can be run through the Emem?

I believe that you can run up to 10,000 hertz through it.

>3. Is the Emem-SRX 10Khz (as stated on one page of your website) or 10,000,000 Hz as stated on another page?

The Emem-SRX can output up to 10,000,000 Hz if you use it as a stand alone instrument. But you need to understand that it only outputs 1/10 of one watt (0.10). This is all the FCC will allow. So the power is very limited. Dr. Rife’s 1934 instrument was 500 times more powerful.

>4. Can the amp be used with the Emem?

No. It will damage it.

Best wishes
Jeff Garff

[Mico Snook]

Hi Jeff,
Been reading your replys and also your replys to Mark Lipton which included you having to run fans to keep your machine cool. The pearl M+ states The ProGen 3 is the culmination of 23 years of extensive research by some of the best frequency specialists in the world. It generates frequencies up to 4,000,000Hz with stunning clarity and class-leading accuracy.
They don't have heat issues as you can run their equipment 24/7. If I read your information correctly your machine goes up to 40,000Hz with heat issues but they go up to 4,000,000Hz with no heat issues. Am I missing something?
Regards

[Jeff Garff]

Hello Mico Snook,

I am not going to give you a bunch of sales hype. We have been building instruments for almost 19 years. We use cooling fans in all of our instruments because of the power output. The GB-4000 outputs 3.7 watts not just 1/5^th of a watt therefore we use a cooling fan. The SR-4 outputs from 15 to 18 watts so we also use cooling fans with it. The MOPA is a plasma tube device which can output a maximum of 190 watts therefore we use cooling fans also. But we do not have overheating issues and if you want to run them 24/7 you certainly can. We do have customers who do this.

The information you have is old information and we are not limited to 40,000 Hertz with the MOPA. May 1, 2015 over 3 1/2 years ago we updated the MOPA so that it now has the same frequency range of 20,000,000 Hertz that the GB-4000 has. Our brochure has the specifications on it and if you go to www.gbgenerators.com you can download one or just read the specification listed on the site.

Regards,
Jeff Garff
jgarff@cut.net

Hi Jeff,
Been reading your replys and also your replys to Mark Lipton which included you having to run fans to keep your machine cool. The pearl M+ states The ProGen 3 is the culmination of 23 years of extensive research by some of the best frequency specialists in the world. It generates frequencies up to 4,000,000Hz with stunning clarity and class-leading accuracy.
They don't have heat issues as you can run their equipment 24/7. If I read your information correctly your machine goes up to 40,000Hz with heat issues but they go up to 4,000,000Hz with no heat issues. Am I missing something?
Regards