Does a Rife machine harm normal body cells?

[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.

[Randall Haislip]

This is a bit out of the way; But I work in a industrial facility. My job at one time was monitoring very large scale systems, used for weighing up large amounts of raw materials in a very short period of time. In order to accomplish this, very powerful vibrators/shakers would come on to start the weighing process.
I'm guessing these shaker systems run off of 440Vac and vibrate, I'm guessing between 40-60 times per second.

It never failed to just amaze me that when I had to walk by that shaker that my whole chest/abdomen would vibrate to that vibration and much more than enough to notice.....it felt kinda nice.

There was definitely a sympathetic resonance event occurring. And though one can speculate about the exact frequency, the Amplitude of that vibration was a major contributor to that physical response.

Though I didn't turn into a mud-puddle, some might argue that my brains got a little mushed up. : )

Anyway, Amplitude should come into play somewhere in order to create a significant sympathetic resonance, I believe.

[Leroy Dissinger]

...
Anyway, Amplitude should come into play somewhere in order to create a significant sympathetic resonance, I believe.

I'm still a newbie to actual therapy for illnesses, but from what I've seen (I believe it was on the John Bedini web site) amplitude (i.e. voltage) was also given for the various pathogens.

So, it is just the frequency, or is it a combination or frequency and amplitude?

Leroy

P.S. I've seen frequencies specified (suggested) from various system manufacturers but not amplitude...or am I just missing it.

[Randall Haislip]

Hi Leroy,
Let me introduce you to Dr. Gary Wade
http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com/services.html
Gary has published some of the best papers out there.
The machine he offers uses physical vibrations to induce resonance with whatever the target is.
So in trying to move back in line with the Thread title, it will be found by reading his website that his unit runs a range of frequencies from 0hz-80Mhz. I believe that will most likely cover the frequency range of your concern.

Another analogy on Amplitude is the one spotlighting Ella Fritzgerald in that old memorex commercial.
In that example Ellas' voice set up a resonance with the wine glass and when her voice was Amplified the glass shattered.
But to your question regarding the amplitude of the devices on the market, it seems reasonable to me that the amplitude requirements of someone who carries 100lbs of body fat would be much higher than some one with a extremely low body mass index since lipids act as insulators to electrical current.
I hope you enjoy Gary's papers

I'm still a newbie to actual therapy for illnesses, but from what I've seen (I believe it was on the John Bedini web site) amplitude (i.e. voltage) was also given for the various pathogens.

So, it is just the frequency, or is it a combination or frequency and amplitude?

Leroy

P.S. I've seen frequencies specified (suggested) from various system manufacturers but not amplitude...or am I just missing it.