It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Royal Raymond Rife - Cutting Edge Cures or Quackery?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by alpha68

you have peaked my interests.

if you will leave ATS, how would someone keep in touch/contact with you outside ats, of course keeping your privacy?

do you regularly visit any other forum, just for a mean of contact?

losing touch/contact with a honest person like yourself would be a loss...

a certain privacy and a highly low profile activity is evident to be required, but I hope you would give updates from time to time...

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by drwolf
Something to add,
Rife's machine was made illegal here in the US, now if it was such quackery why would tptb do that, what are they afraid of.

Fraud. If you have an informed medical expert, and some snake oil salesman, and a patient is told by the doctor "You're pretty sick, it doesn't look good, but with a lot of time and work we might be able to turn it around", and a snake oil guy that says "Take my genuine Indian Tesla Einstein elixir that 'They Don't Want You To Know About' and you'll be OK!", which one do you think the sick guy will want to believe? Snake oil man gets his bucks, patient dies. Not that that's always the way it goes, but it's the reason.

I read a book on his machine and he actually watched the virus's and germs under the microscope (he developed his own microscope because he found the electron microscope was killing all of his samples )and watched how they reacted to the radio waves and frequency's and was able to kill them. The radio waves and frequency's he was using did not harm our normal cells, just the bad one's.

Yeah, but Rife's work was rife with apparent misunderstandings about the nature of radio. There's no particular reason, for instance, why a cell would "resonate", whatever way he meant that, with a 15 meter radio signal. A cell is much too small to interact well with it, other than some minor dielectric heating, but it definitely wouldn't "oscillate" at that frequency, again, depending on what he meant by that - I find a lot of pseudo scientists like to bandy "resonate", "frequency" and "oscillate" like they actually understand them, when their usage of the terms seems to be wildly inappropriate. This would be one of those times.

An electron microscope ALWAYS kills the target, or the target is by necessity dead when it's examined. It has to do with several things, one is the way you prep the samples, the other is that it's in a hard vacuum, and it doesn't help that it's being bombarded with high energy electrons. If you've read something that said otherwise, there's your clue that they are not a very authoritative source.

And Rife's microscopes - there's you another issue. They were claimed to be able to image at magnifications far beyond the Abbe limit. There are some ways to sort of sidestep this, but they involve bizarre tricks with lensing designs (you'll see this under 'evanescent waves', and no, he wouldn't have had the knowhow nor the materials to do this), or they are for fluorescent samples where you're detecting the light but not able to actually resolve a clear image. It has to do with the size of photons - and it's WHY you use an electron microscope for very high magnification.

IIRC, the lore says that they were so complex that only Rife himself could operate them. Fancy that.

It was rumoured that the ama at the time were the one's that that were doing the threatening and killing along with the distruction of his lab. There would be no need for doctor's and all these medications that have more bad side effects than the one they are trying to "cure or treat", just listen to all the drug commercials, people with dvr's pause the commercial and read the fine print. With all the side effects of these drugs, then they can feed you another drug to treat those symtoms. So now who's the quack.

Yeah, and Keely said that too, after they found his stuff to be fakery, also any number of other similar guys that were about to be caught out. I call it the "dog ate my homework" syndrome - I'd show you the magic energy source, but men in black showed up the day before and stole the model and wrecked my lab. Right.

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by Bedlam

Bedlam, I've seen you on a previous hot debate with drew hempel...

Would you even look at the 2 peer reviewed studies I drew attention to, the patent application by the Arizona State University scientists featured on Wired for example?

Download the patent pdf, look at all images.

If you rely only on the text, you will not see the before & after effects and the graphs/tables...

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:07 PM

Originally posted by alpha68
before I call it quits here I'm going to post a few things regarding Dr. Rife and speak some on the research my group does and hopefully answer some questions before they are even presented.

(First take a look at the link below)

Did you see any mention of Dr. Royal Rife in that little gem even once???
I most certainly didn't ! Hmmm...I wonder why? This is such a new science? LOL!!! HONESTLY!!!

I hate to break it to you, but it has nothing whatever to do with Rife's claims.

As you would perhaps know, if you were who you claim to be. However, I have seen many an MD not be able to plug in a laptop, much less be able to deal with physics, but rarely in "researchers", generally more with surgeons.

Go reread your article. They're talking about 60GHz ultrasonics. That's a mechanical compression wave, and in a saline solution, my yellow pad solution tells me that you'll get about a 25-26nm wavelength. The tobacco satellite necrosis virus they're testing on ALSO has a length of 26nm. Surprise! The wavelength of the sound wave (if you can call it that at 60GHz) is exactly that of the structure they're trying to damage! Fancy! That, by the way, allows you to use resonance (used in the physics sense) to shake the thing to pieces. So, that actually makes sense.

What does not make sense is Rife's statement that a radio wave 15 meters long would do the same thing.

edit: typo, I should use preview

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Bedlam]

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by jjjtir
Nice find.

some things never change, do they?.?.?.?.

Here is the link for the study abstract without subscription.

And if you look at it, you'll see that when they say "low frequency", they mean a wavelength that's maybe 6-10x the size of the thing they're trying to destroy. And that'll give you a 10GHz sound wave.

10. GHz.

Not a 15 meter radio wave. A 10 GHz sound wave, with a wavelength in the medium of maybe 100nm.

edit: unnecessary snark trimmed out

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Bedlam]

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by jjjtir
Look, alpha68 was pretty accurate in that Rife is omitted from all those scientific works, while frequency/acoustic/vibration concepts are being corroborated by state of the art technology.

The patent authors were featured in at least 3 news articles published in 2007, where their technology for killing pathogens was discussed...

Yet Rife never ever claimed to be using sound at 10's of GHz. Nor was he using high-powered femtosecond laser pulses that could induce a mechanical shock wave of that sort of wavelength. None of that ever entered into his claims at all, nor could his devices produce them.

He claimed that radio waves with wavelengths of 15m - 20km were doing this. And it's just wrong. And it's not related to the things you or alpha68 were linking. At all.

edit: even more typos.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Bedlam]

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Bedlam]

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 03:25 PM
reply to post by jjjtir

jjjtir: It's all apples and oranges. I see what they're talking about, and I agree - if you have a mechanical structure that actually HAS clear resonance modes and a high enough Q (not all structures do), you can, in general, mechanically shake that structure to the point of failure.

So they're doing this using mechanical force - longitudinal sound waves from a CW source, or shock waves with wavefronts sharply bounded enough to have wavelengths in a range where you can induce a mechanical coupling.

What they're NOT doing is hitting them with relatively very very long EM waves, because that wouldn't have any effect.

That's the difference between Rife and what you posted.

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by alpha68
Due to restrictions of what was know as "ABBES LAW" and the limits it put upon opptical/light microscopes since 1873 being broken the doubting Thomas and critics of Dr. Rife's genius still continue to roll on....

Yet the STED devices only break Abbe's limit for fluorescent stained samples. Rife's microscope was supposed (by your other link) to do away with staining - it doesn't make sense that he would both be designing the thing to get away from using stains "to stain them with light" and then use a law he didn't know at the time to design a microscope to view an organism that he didn't stain that would only be visible if stained by that law.

It's sort of contradictory, innit?

It's ok, you can go look up evanescent waves and then come tell me that's how it works, it'll take a few minutes.

Oh, and there's another way around it, sort of, if you had metamaterial lensing you can violate the hell out of Abbe and resolve down to one wavelength regardless of the focal depth, although I don't think I've seen that one in open lit yet, though I haven't really looked to be honest. Maybe you can claim that Rife was also using metamaterial lensing.

I also liked how they used unsharp mask to fix the bottom image so it looked sharper than the image their device gave them, but it's all salesmanship I guess.

posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by jjjtir
Maybe...maybe not, you can actually be involved/tangled somehow in all this web of scientific published data, going by some of your posts......
The company above has ablation tech for example(you mentioned this tech in a post of yours as a technique among those not being "suppressed" in cancer research).


Maybe...maybe not, you can actually be involved/tangled somehow in all this web of scientific published data, going by some of your posts......

My "involvement" is with the clinical & commercial development of this new interventional oncology / radiology / surgical technology:

NanoKnife: Cancer Breakthrough Without Radiation or Drugs

The company above has ablation tech for example

Whilst the NanoKnife can be thought of as "ablation tech" insofar as it uses electrode type technology, it WORKS EXTREMELY DIFFERENTLY & has EXTREMELY DIFFERENT & SUPERIOR RESULTS as compared with radio frequency ablation (RFA).

you mentioned this tech in a post of yours as a technique among those not being "suppressed" in cancer research.

Exactly.....there are many extremely intelligent, dedicated, hard working men & women doing everything they can to develop the clinical application of this technology for broad patient use.

I note it has already been approved for patient use by regulatory authorities including but not limited to the FDA.

It is being used in approx 20 sites across the world.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by jjjtir

You are a gentleman and a scholar my friend and I thank you for seeing me as an honest person.

I have been places and have seen things that most people could never even dream of and I came here to let people know whats truly going on out there, and before I do leave here I plan to let a pretty BIG cat out of the proverbial bag and if people choose to believe me thats fine and if they choose not to believe me that of course is fine to. I will not just leave without letting you know.

Anyway... Dr. Rifes Micoscope. LOL!!! Mr. Kurt Olbrich & Grayfield Optical.

Take a peek at these links and be sure to keep it on the down low. > Shhh....

"Sharing iS Caring!"


Take a look at what the Rhoades Scholar in the link below has to say about Dr. Rife & Mr. Olbrich and one of his Ergonom microscopes to Grayfield. "LoL!! WHAT A TOTAL JacKAsS!!"

By the way... my research group & I do not use Grayfield, we use something else.
"LeTs JusT SaY. LoL"


[edit on 21-6-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 21-6-2010 by alpha68]

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by Bedlam

If you don't see what I was talking about in the first place with that link I first posted here having to do with Dr. Rife brother you need glasses or need to have your existing script changed.

Was it the "LASER" that through you ?

What type of staining would you be refering to anyway ? The particles of acid and analine dyes used with standard microscopes are too large to stain virus-sized microorganisms Dr. Rife came up with a "unique illumination system" that used monochromatic light to stain microbes.

The info on all that is quite easy to find and the last thing you want to do is let the trivial cause you to loose sight of the bigger picture here.

Bickering only leads to more bickering, the mircroscope worked and thats about all there is to it and thats all I'm trying to say.

If I were able to show you what I would absolutely love to show you, but unfortunately can't at this time it would be case closed quicker than sh!T.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by alpha68]

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 05:25 PM

Originally posted by alpha68
What type of staining would you be refering to anyway ? The particles of acid and analine dyes used with standard microscopes are too large to stain virus-sized microorganisms

You didn't even read your link with any understanding, did you? Try again, carefully trying to understand "what sorts of microscopes can actually violate Abbe, and why" rather than "HAR HAR ABBE WRONG RIFE GENIUS".

Go back, read the thing, and discover that they're using a fluorescent stain, so that the sample is emitting light instead of using transmissive optical imaging. You can't do the trick without fluorescent stain.

"However, over the past few years, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, Germany, have developed with Stimulated Emission Depletion (STED) microscopy, a physically consistent concept for breaking the diffraction limited resolution limit in fluorescence microscopy, and then verified it in experiments. Unlike in the light microscopes conceivable so far, in a STED microscope, the relevant focal fluorescence spot can, in principle, be reduced in size to the size of a molecule (2-5 nm)."

Noting the repeated use of "stimulated emission", "fluorescence" and "fluorescent stain" in the article about STED microscopes, you'll eventually realize that they're only referring to fluorescence microscopy, and it requires a fluorescent stain. Period.

Dr. Rife came up with a "unique illumination system" that used monochromatic light to stain microbes.

My point exactly. Won't work in the optic system you linked to. So that's not the mechanism of a "Rife microscope". I did give you another couple of things to try to ride as an explanation, although they're not it either.

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Bedlam]

posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by Bedlam

I'm not here to get into any pissing contests with anyone.
You are simply just way to brilliant and all knowing for the likes of lil o'l me to contend with.

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:22 AM
This will be my last post here on ATS.

I guess everyone lost interest with this thread anyway.

Please understand that ATS is not a secure coded site and the work that my research group has been doing is quite sensitive and we would be quite foolish to post it or have our own site up at this time even though our labs are well outside of the United States, one false move and we could end uP working at a KFC in Laos and living in a skeletonized mosquito net covered van down by the side of the Mekong river. lol


I spoke to the head of my group last night and told him that I was chatting it up here and he just thought it was hysterical because I will never be believed, you are all most likely college age give or take, very smart and I will just end up get totally frusterated and surely get completely crucified due to that fact.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by alpha68]

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by alpha68

Psst, one here believes you're actually a "privately funded virologist". You can't even string a few words together properly. How could you have written a doctoral thesis, let alone all the other papers leading up to that point, if you don't even have a basic grasp of the English language?

Not to mention, there are plenty of patents and papers on ideas similar to Rife's, and those researchers are dead or "working at KFC". Nothing you're researching would cause you any harm, unless you are using government money to research how large your bank account can get. Of course, that would be assuming you actually have research grants, and a lab, and a degree...none of which you have.

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by alpha68

Would you not give a hint how to contact you outside ATS then?

About Boyd Graves his story is interesting, maybe create a thread about it, because here would be offtopic.

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by jjjtir

Ohh... geeze,
lol I guess I was wrong in saying I made my final post here, i just caught what was above your post and thats just PAR for the course.

Funny how some people only care to talk more trash after I said I was done posting and not before. Hmmm...
I even apologized !
You don't get funding like we recieve from the GOVERMENT for anything but BIO-WEOPONS research (= H.I.V.) and since we are into killing viruses and not splicing old ones into new ones we never even tried to get funding from them.

That H.I.V. virus is way to complicated to ever have been created in a lab by two tooth the having retards working in goverment labs ya know ! Ahh... Huhhh !

Some people live under rose colored glass domes and think that all science is shared like Harvard offers courses on how to create BIO-WEOPONS or something ! lol That is by invite only into goverment labs and then your given the how to's no way else.

I now feel a need to speak a wee bit more over on the first thread i was ever on here. lol

I did say I would let a cat out of the bag and so I will, but first I would like to start with the following >The NANO KNIFE is no way superior in the very least to Rife technology's no-how.

It can not be used on anything besides tumors which means anyone with another non-tumorous form of cancer is out of luck and even those with tumors it can treat are also out of luck if said tumor is larger than 3cm and just about needless to say that those with brain tumors are also non-qualifying for treatment with the NANO KNIFE due to the fact THAT YOUR BRAIN RUNS ON ELECTRICAL CURRENTS and the power it uses would turn a patient into a drooling freak'in vegetable before the actual tumor even did ! Hello ?

Our good friends at the FDA already had that knoweledge when they put their seal of approval on it in 2006 and they know full well that it's not
even going to put a tiny dent in the BIG PHARMA cancer machine.
The cut, poison, nuke & puke treatments are still alive and well my friends.

The FDA ???? What does food have to do with drugs anyway ? (LET ALONE ELECTRONIC TREATMENTS ?) WHATS uP WITH THAT ???? ANYONE ????

Anyway I will be back on Monday to let the cat out to a certain degree.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 26-6-2010 by alpha68]

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by alpha68

You don't get funding like we recieve... GOVERMENT...BIO-WEOPONS research (= H.I.V.) ...way to... by two tooth the having... goverment labs...BIO-WEOPONS...goverment...your given...


Not aware of all that much bio-weapon research using HIV as the agent - it's too slow - although USAMRIID was working on another non-HIV virus that has something like the same effect, only with a 72 hour time course.

... and just about needless to say that those with brain tumors are also non-qualifying for treatment with the NANO KNIFE due to the fact THAT YOUR BRAIN RUNS ON ELECTRICAL CURRENTS and the power it uses would turn a patient into a drooling freak'in vegetable before the actual tumor even did ! Hello ?

The brain does not run on electrical current. Firing neurons produce a small depolarization wave - it's transverse rather than longitudinal, except between nodes of Ranvier. Meaning, it's not a current running down the nerve axon. And neurons don't communicate between each other by electrical field, they use neurotransmitters. With the weird exception of gap junction synapses, which aren't true synapses.

I also find it amusing that the person you claim to be doesn't know that neurosurgeons don't do a lot of scalpel work in the brain - they tend to use little suction tubes and low frequency-to-RF AC electrocautery devices like a Bovie. Right there in the brain.

Anyway I will be back on Monday to let the cat out to a certain degree.

I can't wait.

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Bedlam

WHoA ! Now were CooK'iN with GaS ! LoL!!
I give you credit because you at least try.

I could have never opened door any wider for anyone then I did for you by saying what I did regarding the NANOKNIFE & BRAIN TUMORS ("Let alone electricity") and you just went Blazing off in the absolute opposite other direction like a freak possessed with some tired old lesson in brain mechcanics !

You obviously are not alone in the fact that you totally missed the boat on the fact that when it comes to brain tumors, the NANO ain't the only KNIFE in the drawer ! LoL!! The NANOKNIFE would flambe a brain even if they turned it down to simmer and thats that. The Nano isn't ALL THAT, but it does serve its purpose. "AT LEAST FOR NOW ANYWAY"

As far as surgeons who prefer Dysons over cutlery...thats just great.

As far as BIO-WEAPONS and H.I.V. being a poor excuse for one goes ?
Not when they want to use one to thin out the worlds population over time, for that its absolutly perfect.

The load of crap regarding H.I.V. being found dating back to 1959 is total crap and they did not find any complete virus ethier like SOME PEOPLE here insist simply because there would never have been one find.
To anyone who actually believes it I say to them in the immortal words of BiFF TanneN >"Don't be so gullible McFly."
It was created by splicing Vesta Virus and thats no B.S.
I'm not going any further with it then the links below on this thread.
You must look at how the gov. would want it to be used and why.
[edit on 29-6-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by alpha68]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by alpha68]

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 03:27 PM

Doctors routinely use electrocautery in the brain. And no, people don't become drooling window lickers from it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in