Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

My interest in the topic is mere curiosity. So far, while it doesn't prove anything, the skeptical side of the argument is mostly nonsense. While yours isn't an exception I do have to say I've never seen a skeptic raise such elegant issues. For completely uninformed conjecture yours is most admirable. It reads as if you know what you are talking about (at least the medical part)

(I cant think of a nice way to say "conjecture", sorry about that.)

The link is there because physicists claim an optical microscope is limited to Rayleigh criterion.[0] Their uninformed conjecture holds that Rife's microscope[1] is not possible. After imagining the microscope not to exist it of course follows "logically" that Rife could not adjust the frequencies to those variations in shape and ph that you so elegantly pointed out.

But try telling that to the medical professionals looking though the microscope? A bit like going to the airport to tell people heavier than air flying machines are impossible. According to the physicists the further Rife zoomed in the less credible he gets. Maybe I'm ignorant about the terrifying consequences of accepting empirical observations physics?[2]

In short:

in 1931 Dr. Arthur I. Kendall, Director of Medical Research at Northwestern University and Dr. Milbank Johnson of Pasadena Hospital. Dr. Alvin G. Frood, President of the American Association of Pathologists joined Rife's research. Moving microorganisms from prepared, diseased human tissue were photographed and filmed. On November 20, forty-four doctors attended a dinner to celebrate "The End To All Diseases" at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Johnson[2]

in 1932, Kendall speaks before the Assoc. of American Physicians at Johns Hopkins University about the successes with Rife's methods and treatments.

In 1933, Richard Edwin Shope discovered the first mammalian tumor virus.

Also in 1933, Rife completes the universal microscope. Upgrading his resolution claims from 17 000 X to a resolution of 31,000 times and a magnification of 60,000 times.

In 1934, The first clinic is opened. A special University of Southern California Medical Research Committee chaired by Milbank Johnson is formed to oversee the research. Committee members are: Whalen Morrison, Chief Surgeon of the Santa Fe Railway. George C. Dock, M.D. George C. Fischer, M.D., Children's Hospital of New York, Arthur I. Kendall, Dr. Zite, M.D., professor of pathology of Chicago University. Rufus B. Von Klein Schmidt, President of USC. Also in attendance: Dr. James Couche of San Diego. Dr. Carl Meyer, Ph.D. of the Hooper Foundation, SF. Dr. Kopps of the Metabolic Clinic in La Jolla. The clinic is held at the Scripps Institute in La Jolla. Sixteen terminally ill people are treated. Fourteen are cured in three months, the other two are cured in six months.

In 1935, Dr. Milbank Johnson opens a second clinic with the same results.

In 1937, Dr. Milbank Johnson opens the third clinic with the same results. Drs. Couche of San Diego, Gruner of Montreal are also having great success.

In 1938, Fourteen machines are built. Two go to England, one goes to Dr. Richard Hamer of the Paradise Valley Sanitarium, one to Dr. Arthur Yale, two to Arizona doctors, and eight to Southern California doctors. Dr. Hammer cures an 82-year-old from Chicago of terminal cancer. Through this man, Morris Fishbein, head of the AMA in Chicago learns of Rife and his work. Fishbein visits Rife. Wants to buy in. Rife and his associates turn him down.

In 1938, The AMA indicts Rife for fraudulent medical practices. Rife wins the case, the AMA is made to pay $200,000. During the trial and afterwards the AMA visits all doctors involved with Rife. Those who didn't stop using the Frequency Instruments lost their medical license.

Rife makes a career switch to alcoholism.

the end!

I know it sounds very dubious, I would stick with the radium therapy.[3][4]

You could try a web search for more information and/or check out http://www.rife.de

Good luck,

[0] - http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38146/optical-mic...

[1] - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C02E0D81131E...

[2] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1361863/Most-...

[3] - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sN85jvTBETs/TVkdsnt-HWI/AAAAAAAAAq...

[4] - http://www.marketing-professionnel.fr/wp-content/uploads/201...

[5] - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Radium_therapy...



I don't understand why you've switched from discussing audio-modulated RF energy for resonance induction to microscopes and some 80 year old history.

The basic premise - shaking a virus at its resonant frequency, where each virus has its own frequency - doesn't make sense. On the other hand, what does make sense is to induce vibrations in bonds. This is how microwave ovens works.

The video demonstration you linked to is identical to what I would expect if the RF source acted as a microwave oven heating up the liquid in the slide. In order to be effective evidence that the effects are not due to heating, a researcher must also keep track of the temperature across the slide and/or in the view of the microscope. Since this didn't occur, it isn't convincing evidence.

For what it's worth, near-field scanning optical microscopy has optical resolution beyond the Rayleigh limit.


I just found this, I didn't even know it existed.

1998 - Low-level exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: health effects and research needs. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9453702

2004 - Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields as effectors of cellular responses in vitro: possible immune cell activation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15352165

2009 - Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19366446

2011 - Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829195

2012 - Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134506

2013 - Targeted treatment of cancer with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3845545/ Abstract: In the past century, there have been many attempts to treat cancer with low levels of electric and magnetic fields. We have developed noninvasive biofeedback examination devices and techniques and discovered that patients with the same tumor type exhibit biofeedback responses to the same, precise frequencies. Intrabuccal administration of 27.12 MHz radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF), which are amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies, results in long-term objective responses in patients with cancer and is not associated with any significant adverse effects. Intrabuccal administration allows for therapeutic delivery of very low and safe levels of EMF throughout the body as exemplified by responses observed in the femur, liver, adrenal glands, and lungs. In vitro studies have demonstrated that tumor-specific frequencies identified in patients with various forms of cancer are capable of blocking the growth of tumor cells in a tissue- and tumor-specific fashion. Current experimental evidence suggests that tumor-specific modulation frequencies regulate the expression of genes involved in migration and invasion and disrupt the mitotic spindle. This novel targeted treatment approach is emerging as an appealing therapeutic option for patients with advanced cancer given its excellent tolerability. Dissection of the molecular mechanisms accounting for the anti-cancer effects of tumor-specific modulation frequencies is likely to lead to the discovery of novel pathways in cancer.


In the late 1990s, with the rise of cell phones, people were worried that the RF energy from the phones and towers, while low, might cause physiological problems. The first paper specifically concerns this topic. Note that it says "It was concluded that, although hazards from exposure to high-level (thermal) RF fields were established, no known health hazards were associated with exposure to RF sources emitting fields too low to cause a significant temperature rise in tissue."

The second paper is because starting even by the late 1980s there was a concern that the background 50Hz/60Hz EMF from power lines might be causing a problem. There was a 1979 epidemiological association between power lines and childhood leukemia. See http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-f... for more details. This second paper presents a hypothesis for how that mechanism might work, should it exist.

The third paper rings warning bells. For example, it references clinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00805337 but the research protocol was never explained in the submission, and no research results were ever published there. It was also registered at about the time the paper you pointed to would have been submitted, so it feels like it was added because it was required by the publisher, and not because it was a well-run clinical trial.

Also, frequencies like 10456.383 Hz are incredibly precise; to the point of unbelievability. They don't show a plot of the signal as a function of frequency, they don't have information about reproducibility, and they don't describe control, since surely they should have RF interference from the environment, and feedback effects from the equipment itself.

In any case, the last 4 papers all list B. Pasche as a co-author, and from the conflict of interest section in one of the papers it says "Boris Pasche and Alexandre Barbault have filed applications for patent protection and hold patents related to electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies as they relate to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. They hold stocks in TheraBionic."

Thus, they aren't really independent confirmations of some observed effects, are they? Why did you list them all?


(the order of my links is incorrect)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: