Talk:Royal Rife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Does the Smithsonian Institute actually possess a Universal Microscope?

An electron microscope requires the sample to be coated in a conducting solid (ex. gold), or frozen, or embedded in a plastic, so the electron beam itself would not kill the sample. Staining of samples is required since most things that have no colour cannot be seen, even if one looks at them very close up.

If Rife's work with the Beam Ray was so extensive and ground-breaking, at least some of his research would still exist today, if it was so popular at the time of experimentation.

Who is the "one" doctor who stood up for him? The entire paragraph about Fishbein's utter obliteration of Rife is POV.

The FDA articles describe food preservation.

The inner workings of the Universal Microscope need to be explained in a different article.

--CDN99 01:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

The section under Beam Ray, where it says the patients were "cured" of their cancer, there is no evidence that I know of that supports such a concrete claim. Also, the tone of the article is biased toward Royal Rife.

[edit] Answer

Have you bothered looking in the Bibliography to "The Cancer Cure That Worked"? ALL THE SOURCES -- absolutely 100% of the sources listed by Barry Lynes are available on microfilm at major libraries. Among these sources, if you bothered LOOKING AT THE FACTS, you would find that numerous patients and MEDICAL DOCTORS submitted SWORN AFFIDAVITS attesting to their cures, during the legal proceedings brought against Royal Rife by Morris Fishbein's American Medical Association. Thus, you "know of no evidence" simply because you haven't done your homework.

Now, I suppose, you are going to remove this comment, too, like you have removed my previous comments. Be aware, however, that I am not going to go away. I am going to learn and study Wikepedia, until I absolutely master the means by which your biased writing can be overcome to provide a more Neutral-Point-of-View. I am not going to go away.

[edit] Sources Requests

I am formally requesting a source for information on the raid and destruction of papers/equipment.
--Breakpoint 10 May 2005

[edit] Sources

--Unknown 20 Aug 2005

Here are some of your sources: This is not a complete list. The problem with Rife is that there was supression of his device. People hold his notebook entries and won't release it. However, rife.org has LOTS of letter and NOTEBOOK entries. I suggest you look there. I am going to help dispute this claim. http://www.rife.org/ http://www.rifeconference.com/

I'll get more later

Once, again, look at the Bibliography of "The Cancer Cure That Worked." Take the time to go to a large library and copy ALL THE SOURCES listed by Barry Lynes from the library's microfilm records.

You will find articles in The New York Times, SCIENCE magazine, etc., etc.

Do your research and you will find your answers. Here I am FORMALLY GIVING YOU A SOURCE FOR INFORMATION -- the Bibliography located at the end of "The Cancer Cure That Worked" by Barry Lynes. Now it is up to you to GO TO THE SOURCE and OBTAIN YOUR INFORMATION.

Seek and ye shall find. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.103.80 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Answers to CDN99 questions...

Q: Does the Smithsonian Institute actually possess a Universal Microscope?

A: My understanding is that the Smithsonian Institute possesses an incomplete and/or broken version of one of the earlier Rife microscopes, which technically was a predecessor to the Universal Microscope, but is called "Universal Microscope" by the Smithsonian in all the documents on the web I've been able to find.

Q: An electron microscope requires the sample to be coated in a conducting solid (ex. gold), or frozen, or embedded in a plastic, so the electron beam itself would not kill the sample. Staining of samples is required since most things that have no colour cannot be seen, even if one looks at them very close up.

THat is not why the sample is coated, and the electron beam passes through the sample anyway so it is no explanation. No living object has been imaged with an electron microscope, not least because the interior of the instrument is evacuated to a very high vacuum. The Invisible Anon 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A: Indeed. The Rife microscope used prisms to allow objects to be examined without stains. Several modern microscopes available today use the same technique. See Richardson Technologies' microscopes (http://www.richardson-tech.com/) for just one example. There are several others.

Q: If Rife's work with the Beam Ray was so extensive and ground-breaking, at least some of his research would still exist today, if it was so popular at the time of experimentation.

A: Rife's work has survived, but much of his notes and equipment were destroyed in the fire that burned down his laboratory. Crane was trained by Rife, and continued his work. His work is continued today, mostly in Europe and by Dr. James Bare in the USA.

Q: Who is the "one" doctor who stood up for him? The entire paragraph about Fishbein's utter obliteration of Rife is POV.

A: I'd have to look up the doctor who stood up for him. It is in the literature on the Rife sites already cited in this discussion. As for Fishbein, with a minimal amount of web research you will find numerous alternative therapy people of the time who had their careers and lives destroyed by the machinations of this man. Rife was just one of many. Fishbein is notorious in the alternative healing community.

Q: The FDA articles describe food preservation.

A: Yes. Food preservation by means of destruction of microbes using pulsed EM and pulsed RF fields. Rife also used pulsed EM and RF fields to destroy microbes. The FDA articles prove the basic underlying concept outlined by Rife as viable technology.

Q: The inner workings of the Universal Microscope need to be explained in a different article.

A: Agreed. I've never been able to find detailed info on this device. I'd love to find it....

Perhaps when a working copy is available, teh article on Rife could be re-written but until then he seems not to deserve symnpathetic treatment. The Invisible Anon 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "one" doctor

There were actually two doctors who stood up for him: Dr. Arthur Isaac Kendall at Northwestern University and Dr. Milbank Johnson.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011215/timeline.asp http://www.dfe.net/Milbank_Johnson.html

[edit] Pseudoscience tag

Any reason why the article is tagged with the Pseudoscience tag category? I don't see any evidence to suggest that Rife was pulling a fast one, or not. For all we know, his cancer study was part of a scientific study; but to assume he was a fraud, without any evidence, is pseudoscience itself. It is unfortunately that his research was destroyed. --Iantresman 23:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The size of object you can resolve depends on the wavelength of the radiation you use to resolve it with. Bats can resolve insects and threads using ultrasound, people can resolve things on the order of a light wavelength apart, with sufficient magnification, and to get 30 000 times magnification you need to use electrons, which have a much shorter wavelength than light. If you look at blurs you can convince yourself that you see many things, but this was a device which could not work as claimed. Pseudoscience. Midgley 03:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It was already explained that the Universal Microscope operated outside the visible light spectrum, how many times was it said? ULTRA-VIOLET LIGHT is not hindered by the physics of white light (the simple fact that we CAN'T see it for one) but through heterodyning the two beams were crossed and the INTERFERENCE of the microbe illuminated it in the 3rd longer beam which was visbible. 66.203.231.75 04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Split for ease of commenting. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. There are several useful articles on light and the electromagnetic spectrum in WP, why not read them instead of writing this rubbish. White light is a mixture of wavelengths, from red to violet. UV is as one would expect slightly shorter than violet, and as you say, invisible to humans. Bees however see it adequately well. The physics of UV are exactly those of violet and the resolving power is marginally better hence the use of UV microscopy in various situations. Midgley 11:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I would plead Aristotle's dictum...the benefit of the doubt goes to document, NOT the critic. The doctors and scientists of the 1930's were not morons, they knew what they were looking at, this was not the dark ages. Rife was very well published and the some of the links I added provided photocopies from newspapers of the time. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, right? The air is rife with an obvious heavy bias against Rife. Have you ever looked through a universal microscope?...no. Do you own one?...no. Are you in charge of leading a team of scientists to try to recreate one?...no. Were you on the research committee behind Rife at his clinic?...no. Then leave the facts well enough alone, or please PROVIDE SOME LINKS TO COUNTER HIS RESEARCH, I mean, seriously now, at least do that much and quit acting like little wiki-dictators or pseudo-experts....step up to the plate. 66.203.231.75 04:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you own one? Showing pictures would be helpful. Midgley 11:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a pic of the scope, but being new here, haven't posted it yet for concerns about fair use. Thoughts? Fredsagirl 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent reversions

User:66.203.231.75, please discuss on the Talk page instead of repeatedly adding unsourced article content. And please (re)read WP:NOR, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. AvB ÷ talk 12:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary reverts

It's become increasingly apparent this subject is flooded with a bias against Rife, unfortunately insomuch that I've been told I have not a clue what I'm talking about. Did the scientists AND doctors of the 1930's not have a clue either praytell?
Aristotle's dictum states that the benefit of the doubt goes to the document, N-O-T the critic. I have graciously provided link after link WITH pictures, WITH official reports, WITH variable Rife machines, WITH recently funded research, WITH freakin' court documents if you bother to LOOK at them. If you're having trouble facing reality, seek help, don't burn books that have popped your party line bubbles. Even after another man elaborated even farther on quartz magnification and IBM's new re-discoveries of Rife's old work (albeit, he didn't provide any links), not even that survived the revert.
There were 3 kinds of people who had an interest in Galileo's telescope, 1) looked and believed 2) looked and still didn't believe. But by far the worst group was 3) didn't believe and WOULDN'T look.
When I provide verifiable links and photocopied newspaper clippings, and all you provide is....pffft....Quackwatch? "Dr" Barnett's personal propaganda page? And you believe you're good unbiased Wikipedians? What do you want me to do, read the pages to you? Mail you pictures? That's just lazy, or slanted journalism. Shall we now commence to burn the heretics? 66.203.231.75 01:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I applied Aristotle's dictum in reverting your edits. Current Wikipedia policies happen to be consistent with Aristotle's ideas in this regard; unfortunately for you they tend to protect the existing article text. Please also note that Wikipedia editors are required to report existing viewpoints, not to be journalists. FWIW, I am not particularly enamored with Quackwatch. That does not mean Barrett is always wrong. I am not particularly susceptible to guilt by association either. (Mentioning some personal opinions just in case you really believe they do matter.) Wikipedia is not about my or your opinion. It's about what's already out there (see WP:NPOV). AvB ÷ talk 01:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Avb, I will admit the references regarding Moris Fishbein are unsubstantiated, I can easily say I have no empirical evidence for a conspiracy, it is only theory, that's why I never bothered that section. But when characters like Midgley or CDN erase entire paragraphs detailing what Rife did and how he did it, I'm sorry, this is an article about a MAN, not an article about medicine or cancer. I think we've gotten a little off track with forgetting that.
I think that the current viewpoint supports Rife, since all we can do is look at the evidence presented, a few of the links that have been provided are recent, updated on a regular basis, and backed by their respective organizations. Now if you want to go with the world's viewpoint on Roy Rife, 99.99% of the world has no idea who the man is, this includes doctors.
To my research prior to posting, the AMA has no comment on Rife either, or I would have included it.
So the conclusions seem to be, if you do a search for Rife on the internet, the top listed websites are all supportive of his research, this must be the popular viewpoint. What say ye? 66.203.231.75 03:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You make some good points. It would be nice if we could get some constructive discussion going on this talk page. However, your recent edit lacks consensus so you shouldn't be surprised if it is reverted. If so, you may want to see it as your contribution towards clearing the air. I've slightly refactored your note above for the same reason. I'll post some general info on your talk page.
(Please note I won't be doing much on Wikipedia for the rest of the week.) AvB ÷ talk 11:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle would be a WP:AUTH? I would suggest that if the Google hits are in favour it is because they are selling something or trying to back up a general set of claims that current science is wrong - (Pasteur / Antoine Bechamp, Variolation / Homeopathy etc). I think it is more reasonable to regard the Google hits on light microscopy, resolving power and wavelength, the photo-micrographs of Smallpox and so on as the orthodox or contemporary response to Rife's claims than to demand that the busy world of science gives you a page of argument specifically why this specific gadget is not currently working. It isn't difficult to convince scientists of things, all you have to do is to build one and let them play with it - or for theoretical stuff just do the sums. For instance, what flux of UV light at what wavelengths do you need to put down on a bacterium to arrange that a detectable amount of it comes off as heterodyned gamma rays (short Xrays perhaps, but to get 40* the resolution of ordinary light you need to use 40* shorter rays, and 40* shorter than violet is pretty energetic. Heterodyne and superheterodyne were terms which came into public use around the period RIfe was hawking his gadgets I think (by all means look it up) in connection with radio sets. I suspect him of stringing together a set of buzz words, seeking investment, and making claims which were illegal even then. BTW, what is http://69.107.103.80/ ? Midgley 12:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your points are accurate, as usual. FWIW, I researched the 30 nm claim and, as far as I can see, it is wanting as predicted using phase shift masks and /or fluid immersion, 193 nm deep UV was predicted to reach a resolution *for etching purposes* of some 70 nm but this has not been accomplished as yet, while but has experimentally reached 30 nm recently [1], possibly leading to postponement of the switch to higher frequencies for digital chip feature etching purposes being made even as we speak. However, I do not think you have addressed the main points raised by 66.203.231.75, such as relative instead of absolute notability; or the covering of viewpoints held on (perceived) scientific issues (including the worst of quackery) that are not based on articles in peer-reviewed journals. I would add that if Rife's work has never been published (or commented on) in peer-reviewed journals (a hallmark of pseudoscience by the way), the article cannot be built from reputable sources as per the (deprecated) WP:SPOV policy and therefore everything needs to come from other reputable sources as per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE. Comments on/criticism of Rife's work are not allowed if not out there in the context of Rife's work. Obviously the SPOV has a place in the article if underpinned by relevant quotes. The room allocated to viewpoints should be based on the proportion of people out there who e.g. have heard about Rife and *know* it's all nonsense; those who have heard about Rife and *know* it's all true; etc. I would say that people who are ill that can't be helped by mainstream medicine are another important group whose size can help gauge notability (and I'm sure it contains both Rife believers, Rife skeptics, etc.). A different issue is how to describe the contemporary situation re current Rife followers (good faith, criminals, whatever. They exist). Much more to say but must "run" now. AvB ÷ talk 12:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the medics on Wikipedia are using an outdated, deprecated and therefore increasingly inadequate tack in order to protect the public against quackery, fraud, you name it. The time has come to present the facts instead of deleting or ridiculing information about non-SPOV viewpoints. To paraphrase Jimbo, if it's important enough, you can find reputable sources reporting on it. If you can't find such sources, you can't say it in WP. Wikipedia is not the battle ground - it describes battles. From all sides. If you want to protect the public but the info is not out there, you can develop or join initiatives aiming to get it written and talked about in the media (this obviously includes, but is not limited to, peer-reviewed journals). Then you can quote. If you don't like this, don't blame me - blame Jimbo.
(Question to self: am I turning into a Wikiholic?) AvB ÷ talk 13:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The facts however are that claims were made, and they do not come up to proof. So simply repeating the claims, particualrly without some reference to court records etc is by no means biogrpahical, nor does it make an encyclopaedic article about the gadgets. Midgley 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Midge, I don't know how closely you've been following my talk here on the discussion page, I said way up there, that there were "freakin' court documents if you bother to look at them..." It only takes a few clicks around the Rife.org site to find afformentioned documents. Rife.org has an enormous plethora of his material, the largest I have ever seen.

There's several hundred pictures and newspaper clippings on the site, up for everyone's scrutiny. I guess one could say there was no evidence if one wouldn't even turn around to look at it. 66.203.231.75 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Might it be reasonable to actually refer to them then, rather than saying "the truth is out there, go and repeat my search to find it?" There is a WP policy, I believe, that links to references should be to the document not to the site, and it is a convenience to users, who might be man in th emany years to come. Midgley 14:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explicitly unverified

If the science described existed it would be repeated. It hasn't, therefore it didn't. Midgley 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a clever, but overused trick in debates, it's called "shifting the burden of proof". Let's say, your honor, I have photographic evidence of a flying green dinosaur that terrorized Chicago rooftops in 1999, and I also have 40 credible, sane witnesses who stood there and saw it too as I took the picture. Now my flying green dinosaur picture has also been printed in the newspaper, and I have the testimony of 2 FBI photography experts, who say that my picture is original and not tampered with. I also have cryptozoologists examining the droppings of this flying green dinosaur and they testify that it is reptilian in nature but not like any they've ever seen. To top it off I also have Lieutenant John Smith with the National Guard who confirms a large blip appeared on the radar near the Sears Tower that day.
My friend, my job is not to provide you with MORE evidence for Rife, YOUR job is to DISPROVE mine. Aristotle's Dictum.
This means finding an organization who has tried to reproduce Rife's work to no avail. It must be a group of professionals (not a bunch of teenagers doing a research paper). It must be scientifically demonstrated and concluded with real equipment and duplications of what Rife worked with (not some fat guy with an opinion). And they must test their hypothesis within the boundaries of Rife's theories in order to prove or disprove Rife, otherwise it's non sequitur and/or a rubber ruler (IE: "Rife's microscope cannot see a star, therefore it cannot see a microbe" or "In a 5 second test, the Rife machine provided no results, therefore it does not work"). The evidence of Rife's work is fact and the popular viewpoint to boot, now disprove his results. If you can't, then accept it, and move on. 66.203.231.75 05:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That approaches WP:CIVILITY. Note that this is a relevant item as far as contemporary devices said to be beased on his work go. http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Cancer-news/smh001230rife-aus.html Also, do you in fact have "40 credible sane witnesses who saw viruses down a Rife microscope? Shall we try to be a little specific on the actual devices we are talking about, otherwise we might as well be talking about crytopoo?

Midgley 14:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My allegory of the 40 sane, credible witnesses was hinting at the 40 or so doctors who supported Rife, many of them pictured in the 'Banquet' photo and names are given. The devices we are talking about are the two Rife was famous for of course. The Universal Microscope first, and secondly his Beam Ray. Both had witnesses, both were submitted for review, and both achieved national accolades. I read the article, it mentions that Barry Lynes's book does have a chapter titled "The Exploiters" who will throw together some wires and a black box and call it a Rife machine. If you notice the article also says there have been no double-blind peer-reviewed clinical trials done with re-creations, all we can do here is go with actual factual history. I don't come here to promote companies, I am more than aware of swindlers and quacks. 66.203.231.75 08:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
(please use colons to indent, it makes life easier and more logical. I'm a doctor. I've been taken out to dinner from time to time and been told things. It doesn't mean I support them and it emphatically does not mean they are true. However, some of the dinners have been excellent. I've also attended demos of things, and then seen that the report in a peer reviewed journal matches what I have been shown and what other researchers have been able to duplicated. That tends to indicate they are true, and that is not how machines using Rife as a touchstone are being marketed. Midgley 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I expect Aristotle was taken out to dinner from time to time as well. Midgley 14:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources?

Funding: "Four insurance companies are interested in financing Rife proivided the International Cancer Foundation gave its approval. Dr. Mildred Schram, Secretary of the Foundation, after visiting Rife's lab, stipulates conditions for acceptance which have nothing to do with Rife's work. Rife doesn't have time to be sidetracked. Result: the Cancer Foundation never funds any of Rife's work."

Good grief, Midgley, "Another picture said to be of him..." You really do have a vendetta don't you? Even if it's completely unrelated to his work, such as the pyramid scheme. People today want to make money, so therefore Rife was a quack 70 years ago. Eh, er, run that one by me again? 66.203.231.75 06:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It would work like this:- an unethical trader wishes to make money so they identify a source of plausible gobbledegook, hype it up, persuade many other people to likewise hype it up and set up a pyramid (I think the Americanism of "MLM" is something we don't bother with over here but possibly means the same thing.) Money flows and the originators get richer and happier. That isn't an obscure idea - did I really need to explain it or am I being trolled? Midgley 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is, it has nothing to do with discrediting a man's published work 70 years ago. In America today, people like to make money--some will lie to do it. We have entire corporations over here setup on pyramid schemes aka MLM, companies like: Amway, Kirby, Avon, and Melaleuca just to cover a few of the more popular ones. 66.203.231.75 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
A pyramid scheme would account for the multiple mentions of him on the Web, and for the claims of unlikely effect. If anyone can demonstrate that picture to be of him, then it is a picture of him, until then it is a picture one person says is of him. Encyclopedias should be accurate. I don't have a vendetta against him, but I would be interested to know what is the source of interest of the main writer of this page? Midgley 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that would account for the multiple mentionings of him on the web would be "information" and "knowledge" and "search engines". On Yahoo right now I'm looking at 1-10 of 1,040,000 hits on the name "Midgley". 66.203.231.75 08:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If any of them say I can cure cancer let me know. (I do actually, but only a few sorts and not using anything that isn't entirely clear.) Midgley 09:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary accounts of "Rife machines"

http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Cancer-news/smh001230rife-aus.html

[edit] Another "not a biography" page

If one reads a biogrpahy it tends to have things like

1888 Born in Elkhorn, Nebraska.

1913 Married. Moves to San Diego. A man of varied interests: ballistics, racing auto constructions, optics and microscopy.

in it, possibly even with a note of who the subject married[2](?), and the issue of their union.

This is actually an article about a device, or two devices - at present - which show things smaller than the wavelength of the light they use, and achieve a 100% cure rate in arbitrary forms of cancer. And are on sale, althought he design was destroyed by the FDA and AMA (gosh, I wish the BMA could mount an occasional commando raid, we just get to talk to people).

Which is it supposed to be, about the man, who by one report became alcoholic, was arrested, fled the country ... Midgley 17:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It is about the man, and his notable achievements (hence the reason he is in Wikipedia). If you can find something else notable that he did, by all means add it to the article. To my knowledge he wasn't a classical composer, he wasn't an athlete, and he wasn't a singer or painter. His field of wide renown was not the automotive industry, or ballistics. If you would like to add to the article with a generous contribution of his work in other fields, by all means do so.
If you know more about where he was born and who he married, then go ahead and type your heart out, though none of the above is what he was even remotely famous for, you are right, it should be included. 66.203.231.75 06:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Development based on Rife's microscope

http://www.rifeconference.com/videos.html reports the Ergonom 500 microscope to be "based on Rife's work".

http://www.grayfieldoptical.com/microscience/e500/history.html gives the history of this device.

(It doesn't mention ultraviolet, heterodyning etc, but it does remark on difficulties in agreeing a deal for purchase of the technologies by existing large suppliers of microscopes).

Midgley 14:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Here is a Usenet conversation on the topic: http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.techniques.microscopy/2005-01/0003.html

Here are pictures of what probably is a microscope made by Rife, declared to be stored in the Science Museum London. http://www.rife.de/mscope/mscope4.htm - on a site by the chap referred to immediately above, Mr Walker.

"Rife was the first worker known to have isolated and photographed the tuberculosis virus," (regarded by orthodox medicine as a baterium then, and now. "a fairly large nonmotile rod-shaped bacterium ... The rods are 2-4 um in length and 0.2-0.5 um in width." http://textbookofbacteriology.net/tuberculosis.html (which includes a picture taken with a 100X objective lens.)

"In March, 1882 Robert Koch announced his sensational discovery of a staining technique which would reveal the bacterium causing tuberculosis, now known as Mycobacterium tuberculosis." http://www.uccs.edu/~cragmor/tuber.html Nobel Prize 1905 http://nobelprize.org/medicine/educational/tuberculosis/readmore.html Pictures incl microscope and micoscopy: http://images.google.co.uk/images?hs=Mb9&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&q=tuberculosis%20koch&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wi


And here is a picture of what is listed as the universal microscope: http://www.rife.de/mscope/Images/univLarge.jpg Is that the device we are talking about? And might anyone provide a picture for the article?

Shall we do interests? I am a doctor, with an interest in the promoters and promotion of quack medical treatments on the Internet. THats mainly a hobby, but does connect to my work in that patients who lose money or time by falling for quackery may also lose health as a result. Anyone selling anything here? Midgley 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a "post Lyme" CFS patient with expert knowledge of Lyme Disease and CFS. I have an interest in the promoters and promotion of quack treatments for CFS and Lyme disease. In addition, many patients attempt to self-treat (diets, food supplements, OTC meds, self-imported antibiotics, etc). I believe that well-informed patients will not easily fall prey to deception. Information is the key. AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] obscure meaning

What does this phrase mean? "Rife commissioned the invention of a device called the "Beam Ray". Midgley 15:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I know you said you're a doctor, which certainly takes years of training, and I can't help but wonder when you write "telescope" twice now instead of "microscope", and now you're saying that's an obscure sentence? 66.203.231.75 09:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No need to make this personal, 66.203.231.75. I've changed these freudian slips to "microscope". All they tell us is that it could as well be called a telescope according to Midgley. Nihil novum. AvB ÷ talk 10:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I know that could be misconstrued as being a personal attack, but it's not. If I work with Fords I'm not going to call them Harleys. It seeemed like one heck of a freudian slip to me, but I didn't say anything about it until he said that sentence was obscure. The only other thing that crossed my mind was perhaps English wasn't his native language, but he types too well for that. 66.203.231.75 11:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I meant telescope. If someone has written "radio microscope" that is going to look very unusual. The resolving power depends on the wavelength, although in radio telescopes, and probably in optical ones, other factors put coarser limits on the resolution achieved in practice. If you work with Fords, you may well remark on the factors that govern cornering, where the adhesion of rubber to tarmac etc may be worked out on Maclarens. Optics is optics, light is light. What is 66.203.231.75, and what is that sentence to be taken to mean? Midgley 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
User:66.203.231.75 was referring to your mention of "microscope" here. AvB ÷ talk 14:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Aah yes. Slip of the tongue. I'll try typing with my feet next. Meanwhile ... how would I for instance go about commissioning the invention of a device, whether called a beam ray or bandsaw? I suspect it of being a quote from somewhere, and doubt it made sense there either. Midgley 01:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It still eludes me what is so obscure about that statement. You can commission all sorts of things under the sun, here in America there is even a local city office of the "Commissioner". Rife commissioned the invention of it, in the same sense you can go down to a metalshop and give specifications of equipment you need molded and cut, or go to an engineer and give blueprints of a structure that you need built. 66.203.231.75 18:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting (I mean exactly that, interesting.). I'd say that invention isn't in the same sense that one can have something built by specifying it. It is something that requires a spark, an element of newness, some non-obviousness. So the guy who does the specifying for having it built has done the inventing, and the one to whom it is specified, and who then builds it, is the constructor, fabricator or whatever, carrying out as someone talking about patents and copyright here would call a mechanical process, although with some adaptability and ingenuity. To me the phrase or sentence seems ambiguous. "Rife invented the beam ray, and had the components machiend by a local 'shop." would do, although I suspect it would be better to lose the troublesome word "invent" altogether, and talk abut "Rife commisioned the production of his invention, the Beam Ray" which used a marine radio linear amplifier to produce radio frequency oscillations... what he did with that would be potentially (and potential is a carefully chosen word here) interesting. Midgley 19:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well yeah, I figured for the sake of details that phrase was more appropriate than saying he invented it. Rife wasn't known to assemble machinery in the same sense as the Wright brothers, or Thomas Edison. Rather, he drew up the schematics and had someone else do it for him. 66.203.231.75 05:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hocus pocus

"He illuminated the microbe with two different wavelengths of the same ultraviolet light frequency"

wavelength = Frequency /c

where c is the speed of light, in other words, the distance between crests of waves is set by the number of willges per second, and the number of metres per second the wave moves at.

Specifically, for a heterodyne system you require two frequencies, which differ by the amount of the frequency you want as a result - for radio, which is the only use I'm aware of except possibly some odd singing, you use a frequency which differs from the received radio frequency by the exact amount of the frequency of your intermediate stage - about 5 MHz IIRC.

Explanation or clarification? Midgley 15:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a verbatim quote from the website of a manufacturer? of purportedly Rife-based machinery (though I'm sure whoever wrote it will not be crying "copyvio!"). I have no idea if it conveys Rife's ideas, but I'm sure removing it actually helped latter day Rifeans since it was bound to strike many readers as obvious nonsense. ~:-] AvB ÷ talk 11:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe you'll find your explanation here, I'm rather sure it's credible. So much for the "obvious nonsense". http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/wav/frequency.html "Waves of different wavelengths can have the same frequency." You can even see with your own eyes what Rife was doing with heterodyning, they have some interesting graphical 'toys'. 66.203.231.75 13:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
That isn't about light waves, which do not move through an aether, nor stand still, nor move at different speeds in the same medium. Midgley 13:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It remains obvious nonsense to me. AvB ÷ talk 11:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it's time for the $64,000,000 question. "What is light?" Sometimes it acts like a particle and sometimes it acts like a wave. It's obvious the dual nature of light is not completely understood, it was one of Einstein's last unanswered questions. Electricity can produce light, fire also produces light, and light can be observed separately from heat. In a recent study (which I can provide) sound has been able to produce light in a liquid medium, such as water, but yet light is supposed to be a photon. Note, I am not referring to refracting light off of vibrating water, I mean illuminating the water itself, using sound. It's also been discovered in the last 6 years that the speed of light is no longer a constant.
You wouldn't think that electricity and magnetism had something in common until you saw an electromagnet lift an enormous car, something that ceramics or lodestones, even neodymium cannot compare to the power of. Perhaps Rife had something actually important among the nearly 6,000 parts. 66.203.231.75 15:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he had. As to microscope resolution, constructing phase shift masks (and certainly immersion lenses) may have been technically possible at the time. I'd like to see something tangible here. Irradiation of living tissue with high energy RF waves was quite possible at the time. On the other hand, I have grave doubts about the use of any kind of "resonance" to seek, identify and destroy (if only because genetically identical bacteria come in different weights and sizes depending on reproduction cycle etc. - see also ajn below). Absolutely unbelievable are the "Rife-derived" devices that are claimed to cure by means of sound - sometimes even applied via a headphone.
I don't know whether or not Rife was a quack. However, I don't believe there are Rife machines around that can cure cancer, or Rife microscopes with x60,000 magnification. But I am quite ready to revise that belief when someone demonstrates such devices to me and allows me or others to research their principles and actual effects. One of my friends recently developed breast cancer for the second time, both times requiring radical surgery. The first time it didn't metastasize - this time it probably has done so, test results due in tomorrow. Now tell me she could have kept her breasts. Tell me where she can go to kill off any and all metastases right now without chemotherapy, X-rays and prayers. In the meantime I am only too glad she won't be boarding a plane to a "Rife" clinic. AvB ÷ talk 11:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding sound, it was not merely soundwaves coming out of an amp. There is a particular type of wave called a "scalar" wave. Sound waves are curved, scalar waves are square, any Rife machine using some generic radio frequencies may be able to cause some funky sounds in your stereo equipment, but there's no guarantee of anything.
I can honestly tell you your lady friend could have kept her breasts if she had some of the things my wife had when she came down with cervical cancer 10 years ago (the kind that turned her abdomen into a lumpy rock) and sought no conventional medical treatment. That's how I was able to come here and graciously provide the information about LER and the REM SuperPro--we knew Pat Ballistrea, before and since prison. That's the only Rife device I would ever consider vouching for. The rest I would call suspicious myself.
Other than that, theres a few *other* things we've had access to over the years, and whadyaknow? Some of our friends and relatives just miraculously got better after being sent home to die.
As a sidenote, (though not completely unrelated) I can say Quackwatch is honestly full of c-r-a-p when it comes to 35% h2o2. I could summarize their articles on it in 3 words...."misleading scare tactics". I actually chuckled after reading one of the paragraphs because I know all the information Barrett left out. 66.203.231.75 13:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Up to Wikipedia standards?

Some editors do not always see the wisdom of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:CITE. For example, Midgley's "hocus pocus" edit removed from other people's viewpoint something the editor knows is nonsense (after explaining on the talk page). However, that's not Wikipedia. If this is about a notable viewpoint, so be it. Describe it as well as possible. Little point in trying to convince other editors it's right or wrong. If mainstream science says something is not possible, do not remove it from an existing viewpoint. Simply add the scientific point of view by quoting external sources. In this case, comments on Rife's work and that of his (real or purported) followers. Inform and empower by describing what's out there. That's Wikipedia. AvB ÷ talk 11:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence Midgley removed wasn't POV, it was literally nonsense. You can't have two different frequencies of the same wavelength of light (because the speed is constant and the frequency is defined as the speed divided by the wavelength - Midgley's got the equation wrong but the right idea). NPOV doesn't mean including material which is just plain wrong on its own terms. The section from which it was removed was clearly POV, as it was presenting the claims of the microscope's method and results as if they were undisputed fact (the article's now a little better in that respect, but not much). Rife was also working from a now-discredited theory of microbiology (see Technology and Alternative Cancer Therapies: An Analysis of Heterodoxy and Constructivism, David J. Hess, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 4, Dec. 1996, pp. 657-674.), so at least some of the time he was claiming to see things which electron microscopy has subsequently shown not to exist. --ajn (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be one of the people who do not fully understand WP:NPOV. Please reread what I wrote. FWIW, you are right in that the disputed sentence is nonsense. But that's not the point. AvB ÷ talk 11:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
PS We can hardly remove a structural part of a notable viewpoint simply because we can prove the part (and therefore the probably the entire viewpoint) is nonsense. A valid reason for removing nonsense would be when editors agree that it is e.g. not relevant to or illustrative of the viewpoint. I'm sure clicking on Random article will provide you with countless examples of articles that would suffer greatly from the removal of nonsense. AvB ÷ talk 11:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not a notable viewpoint - it is nonsense. The problem here is that Rife's microscope was not claimed to herald the overthrow of conventional physics, it was claimed to work within the accepted scientific paradigm (where f = c / λ, and c is a constant). If someone, somewhere (no sources cited) is making the claim that for a given value of wavelength you can have two different frequencies, that's nonsense according to Rife's POV (as well as according to conventional scientific POV). If you can provide a reference for someone who believes that the microscope worked by means outside standard optical physics (and from what I've read of Rife that certainly wasn't his view), the sentence could go back in. I'm afraid this illustrates the problem with a lot of "followers of X" - Rife himself understood the basic theory behind what he claimed to be doing (regardless of whether he could actually do what he said he did), but whoever wrote that sentence had no idea. --ajn (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote. You are repeatedly arguing a point on which we do agree. We simply have a different opinion as to what to do with it according to Wikipedia policies. My point is that the nonsense is out there, it's notable because it's deceiving less educated folks, and removing it from Wikipedia does not serve any purpose. AvB ÷ talk 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
One of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to educate - IE that someone less educated comes to the article, they should become more educated. I suspect that the relevant WP: is not NPOV, but Patent Nonsense which is around somewhere. Midgley 12:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You and I recognize the nonsense. Not everybody does. You could educate readers looking up information on Rife so much better by leaving in the nonsense (or even adding it yourself) and refuting it, rather than removing it. Especially when the nonsense is clearly used to deceive e.g. terminal cancer patients. AvB ÷ talk 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have read what you wrote - what you're saying is that unsourced "information" which is contradictory on its own terms should be left in articles. I'm not saying that it needs to go because it's "nonsense" in the sense of being contrary to conventional science (which would be counter to NPOV), I'm saying it needs to go because it is literally nonsense - it doesn't make any sense at all. It's using the words "frequency" and "wavelength" in ways that are meaningless. If someone has claimed that that is how the microscope worked (and I'm sure Rife would not have been this confused about basic optics), NPOV might allow for it to be included in the article with attribution. Without attribution, it is, as Midgley says, patent nonsense, not a question of NPOV. --ajn (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not want to keep nonsense that is NOT out there in Wikipedia. Once again, this came from a website selling purported "Rife" machines and is illustrative of how an entire "Rife" quackery industry is selling its stuff. Very notable. AvB ÷ talk 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense is only acceptable if the source is cited, and it's made very clear that it's what the source believes, not something which is being stated as a fact. Neither applies to the sentence which was removed. --ajn (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think I want to put these sentences back in. If so, I would have done so immediately. I simply used it as an example to explain my point, which is about editors removing "information" they oppose. If the reason for its removal had been that it was unsourced, I would not have used it as an example; I would have cited the source and reinserted it as a matter of principle. It was not removed because it stated the nonsense as a fact. If so, I would have re-inserted and NPOV'ed it (like I did before with other parts of this article). No, the reason given on the talk page was that it was nonsense (& fully documented). My point is that editors should distinguish between "stand-alone" nonsense (indeed, Patent nonsense) and nonsense used out there as part of something notable (good, bad or ugly). Like rubbing blue mud into your belly button to placate the gods. FWIW, the reference is [3] but I would not want to advertize such URLs in this article, especially not where it still fails to warn potential customers. Also, you seem to have joined a discussion without seeing its "prequel" - which is better understood as what may be becoming a bit of my mission here on WP, namely showing SPOV proponents how they can more effectively spread the word by refuting than removing. I'm not very good at it, but that's just a temporary drawback. (This example was not quite as useful as I thought it would be.) AvB ÷ talk 14:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "incredible" with no indication of why it might be credited

A reason for not regarding a doctorate as incredible would be being able to point to the university (of Heidelberg) account of awarding it. No such pointer. Fraud. Quackwatch assuredly does remark on him. In detail. Midgley

Heidelberg. THis will be leakage into his legend of material from the senior scamster - Abrams - nearby. Midgley 20:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quackwatch and quackery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tearlach#Job_Collins_document

This should probably be on a central page somewhare, perhaps as an RFC, but teh main material is WP:RS and WP --> external links. Midgley 17:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Cleanup

This is a very interesting debate. I have gone through the article in an attempt to fix many obvious spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors, but am rather unsure in a few places; WP:NOR states that any specific claims in an article must be backed up by reputable sources. Much of the material which is disputed results from an author's new synthesis of potentially unreliable secondary sources, and therefore seems unfit for inclusion here.

AvB suggests that it is unproductive for those pursuing SPOV to delete material containing misleading scientific or medical claims. Any attempt at refuting these articles, however, could conceivably be hamstrung by the same WP:NOR considerations that should prevent our IP-addressed friend from making his preposterous claims. Anyone with a sufficiently advanced scientific background can see that the proposed mechanism of this microscope is a wash. The explanation given is not only confusing and lacking in rigor, but riddled with misconceptions in spectroscopy, optics, and electromagnetic theory. To contradict established theory is a wonderful thing, but there can be no doubt that the burden on proof rests firmly upon the claimant, not his critic. This is the only way the consistency of science can be preserved.

I am hesitant, however, to modify the article to reflect the unreliability of its sources, for fear that this debate might be seen as one between relatively equal points of view. It is not; one should not be tempted to grant those who make extraordinary claims the equality of consideration they demand, but instead regard their claims with withering skepticism. A valuable idea will withstand this treatment, while those misusing scientific vocabulary to achieve some other end will be appropriately disposed of without expending too much time and effort on the part of the editor.

I await comment on this issue.--Angio 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hesitation becomes us, sometimes... Midgley 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
My point was directly taken from WP:NPOV. You would be right if this were e.g. a textbook you're preparing, but you can't use this line of reasoning as long as Wikipedia's policies are what they are. You may want to verify my point by rereading relevant policies (mainly WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). There is a conflict in the real world between contemporary mainstream science and Rife's claims. What we can do is describe the conflict. We cannot simply throw out what we "know" to be garbage. Our IP-based friend is not simply claiming things, s/he is describing other people's claims. The former can go out of the window straight away, the latter are a different matter. The only proof our friend is required to provide is that the info is out there and that a minority do not see Rife and his latter day followers as quacks but as saints and saviors. What you can do here is to contrast it with published critiques of Rife, his work and his current followers and imitators. And while you can't call him a quack yourself, you can quote notable sources that do so. AvB ÷ talk 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, as in the humanities, it is appropriate to describe the conflict, or else when there is an argument to be made that draws either upon peer-reviewed research or the well-established principles of science. On other scientific matters, however, such as whether it is possible to use light to achieve a magnification of 60,000, there is no such legitimate conflict. In cases such as these, calls to "describe the conflict" ring hollow, and are reminiscent of Creationists' calls to "teach the conflict" over evolution, a basic theoretical proposition over which there is no scientific controversy. It is still appropriate to describe the claims made by Rife, but it is not appropriate to give more than a shadow of credence to them. Angio 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree that "describe the conflict" rings hollow in this case, or that giving or witholding credence is up to WP editors. It all depends on what's reported in the real world. We are not teaching the conflict, we are showing all important sides. And in an article on Rife, his "side" is important. We need to report what's doing the rounds out there in the real world.
Nevertheless, I think we're in agreement - if only because your recent edit does almost exactly what I meant. It probably boils down to the fact that mainstream science has sufficient evidence to leave very little doubt that Rife's theories, devices and cures were quackery based on pseudoscience. AvB ÷ talk 22:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Folks! I don't believe Rife cured cancer, but let's try to remember that articles here are supposed to be in the style of an encyclopedia. The opening salvo (there's no other word for it) calling Rife a "fraud and quack", claiming his microscope's resolution was "impossible", and all other manner of superlatives just doesn't cut it. Any science or protoscience (or pseudoscience) should be discussed in such a manner to provide the reader with information on the subject, the debate (if any) and current standing in mainstream acceptance, but what we have here is bloodsport. Take three deep breaths and count to 10! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xenoncloud (talk • contribs) .

[edit] 'Homework eaten by dog'

While an amusing metaphor, this section title strikes me as NPOV... -Toptomcat 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Edit

The preceding comments were indeed well-founded. I have edited this article for tone and clarity, removing most of the unprofessional vitriol. I also removed the two subheaders on microscopy, as they are inappropriate content under a biographical article, opting instead to link to our own substantial offerings on the subject. I feel the article now strikes a neutral tone, and have removed the controversial tag. Angio 18:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Angio. This article can now help inform readers who do not have a fixed position on "Rife" and come to Wikipedia for information, e.g. when they consider buying such a device or visiting a "Rife" clinic. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No no... now as then that vitriol was professional. Rife was a fraud and quack, and the devices using his name are pyramid sales efforts if not outright fraud, as well as quackery. The advice to anyone considering buying such a device - apart form the component value of it being on the order of £10 and an appropriate sale cost being around £20 therefore, should be clear on the basis and history of it. Attempts to make use of WP to provide apparent support for similar health frauds is noticeable and will increase. Midgley 13:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That may be so, but a header with the title "Homework Eaten by Dog" is not something that should ever be seen in an encyclopedia. The article is just as firm in rejecting Rife's claims without using ad-hominem attacks and sarcasm.Angio 16:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the amusing metaphor (understood by all) has had its day. I'm less certain that there were ad hominem or ad personem attacks in there though. Midgley 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NNDB

Anyone know if the NNDB can be considered a reliable source? It has some info on Rife not in the WP article. I think Midgley will like it. http://www.nndb.com/people/693/000098399/

[edit] uncited claims redacted.

I redacted this:-

[Current research has shown tiny precursors to stem cells in the blood, and it is possible that Rife's microscope may have been able to visualize these.]

If it had any sort of reference to it it might be possible to see why it was thoguht to be true. Midgley 12:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Sneaky bastards! Angio 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optical nanoscopes?

The reference to these interesting instruments was omitted by mistake perhaps?


I find it very intersting that so many people totally want to dismiss Rife off hand. During his time, he was considered a brilliant scientist and was wrote about at least twice on the front page of the san diego newspaper, and also appeared in the Smithsonian Institute's work, with a ten page writeup, not to mention numerous other articles.

The problem lies in the medical field adopting the wrong theory on diseases back in the late 1800's. What has now proven to be the correct theory(undisputably proven again, with a microscope(Ergonom 500) that is not even as powerful as rife's original microscope), was Antoine Bechamps "Pleomorphism" theory, and not Louis Pasteur's "Germ Theory". Until the medical profession is willing to admit it is wrong(and face it, they probably never will---imagine all the money they would lose between the Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies---not to mention jobs...), and starts teaching the correct theory(those who claim its not true are either willingly ignoring undeniable proof, or intentionally remaining blissfully ignorant of reality), we will continue to persecute all those who claim the world is actually round, while flying in the face of modern day science which claims the world is flat. Sound familiar? Galileo so angered the world with his nonsensical drivel claiming the world was actually round, that he was nearly killed for making such a ridiculous claim. Well, what do you know...I hear recent photographs from outer space reveal that Galileo was right...oh I forgot--all that outerspace stuff is made up in a huge studio in Hollywood right? The same people who will try to make one believe that there have been no improvements made to the internal combustion engine that would allow a car to get more 20-25% efficiency are the same people who will tell you that Rife's research was nonsense. Oh yeah, btw, they just once again, invented an internal combustion engine that gets over 85% efficiency--this time it made the front page of yahoo news, but of course these people are just mistaken(kinda like the people back in the mid 1930's who origianlly developed a design almost identical to the oe they created). Of course, no automaker will ever put one of these in the car, even though they claim they want to increase fuel economy and hybrids, blah blah blah---if that were true, all the cars would use the diesel engine, which was originally developed to run on----no, not gas or oil----nope---not diesel fuel----peanut oil. Yes thats right. The diesel engine was made to work with peanut oil. Which might explain why anyone with a diesel engine these days can buy a retrofitting kit for about $400 and drive virtually for free by getting used oil from fast food restaurants. Oh, sorry---I am sure this must be a lie too---the big oil companies would never undermine the people trying to ruin their trillion dollar industry would they? Of course, they wouldnt give the politicians so much money that they turn a blind eye either would they? As gas continues to climb towards $4/gallon in the US, there have been engines that will get 100-150 miles a gallon around for 75 years that mysteriously have never made it into an automobile...wow how amazing---but i digress---back to the topic at hand.

I guess in the end no amount of factual evidence will ever get people to believe what they just dont want to believe. If you want to believe that medical science has the answers for everything, then go right ahead, but as we can see many times they just dont. Not because they dont want to, or even because they arent trying, but because they have been led down the wrong path their whole scientific life, starting from their first biology class all the way thru college and into their laboratories(I am well aware of the process---my mother has been in medical research for over 40 years). They often are very rigid and everything must fit into their view of the way things should be, which is based on the ideas they have been taught(the same ones that are wrong). As the next generation gets ready to go into the research field, they are inevitably taught by these same people, which explains why this perpetuates itself. It is funny how medical science claims that x-rays destroy cancer cells, while Rife's observations claim just the opposite---that x-rays actually not only don't kill these cells, they stimulate them to grow and cause other cells which were not cancerous to become cancerous. I also find it funny why noone talks about the congressional investigation into the FDA/AMA/ and the pharmaceutical companies that took place in the 1940's or 1950's after a Senators son was cured from "incurable" cancer by a "rogue" physician still ilegally using one of the original Rife machines. He was infuriated to think that it could been his son that died because of the unwanted cures that this machine provided people. The investigation ended and found that indeed, there was a coverup(which is so obvious it should not even have to be stated).

In closing, I would like to say what most people are talking about as a Rife machine or Rife frequency, is actually a Crane machine or Crane frequency. Rife's original frequencies from his lab notes started at 400,000 Hz and went to 13,000,000 Hz. Crane's frequencies are at 20 to 10,000 Hz, and Clark's Frequencies are from 80,000 to 800,000. For example, from Rife's original notes, the Bx Virus(the virus that was shown to cause cancer under Rife's microscopes) was destroyed at a frequency of 11,780,000 Hz, and not the 2180 that most machines call for(this is a Crane Frequency). This may be why some people claim his research is wrong, because 95% of the machines out there use the wrong frequencies. The frequencies Rife used ARE NOT AUDIBLE to the human ear. If a machine uses frequencies that are audible, then you can rest assured it is not a true Rife machine. In addition a lot of machines using the Crane frequencies are transmitted thru an electrode, while Rife utilized a phanotron plasma tube that needed no attachments, but would shoot the beam thru the air at the intended target(there have been many improvements made today in that area, as the antennas no longer discharge X-Rays as the phanotron tube did). Indeed, Rife was astounded to see that the wave passed thru everything and killed microbes thru walls, cabinets, etc... To those who wish to dismiss Rife's work, and now those who utilize the ergonom 500 who see exactly the same thing as Rife and support every one of his findings, go ahead. Just pray that you come to your senses when you get cancer and don't become another statistic of the pharmaceutical companies and FDA...

Sorry to tell you: optical microscopes cannot have a resolution better than around 300 nm, the reason is Abbe's law. Even your cited Ergonom 500 from Olbrich in Germany seems to have a resolution of around 250 nm (their own claims). Recent developments (confocal microscope, STED, 4pi) may reach under certain circumstances 50nm, but they have limitations. The picture of claimed HI-virus Olbrich's company show on their own webpages

  • [4], shows us that such a Olbrich-HI-virus (yellow particles) should be sized around 1µm (=1000 nm). This is nonsense, HI-virus is sized 100-120 µm. Bechamp, Enderlein and other pleomorphists-ideas have been disproved even before they were born. Serology and PCR show clearly that virus, bacteria and body cells have different DNA (some virus even only RNA). Redecke 13:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this description of him amounts to ...

"became known for his unsubstantiated claim of finding a 100% effective cure for terminal cancer by means of his "beam ray" device, which was supposed to work by methods which conflict with contemporary and subsequent scientific theories."

That is a long way of saying "fraud and quack". Midgley 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Most people will come away with that impression. But this is what we can source. Your version is WP:OR unless you have a source to which we can attribute the statement. This also applies to your revert to "unnecessarily complicated". As you know, we're not only looking at the limitations of optics, we're also looking at the limitations of WP:NPOV here. I don't like it either.
Do you think there's a chance that the true believers will allow us to apply WP:IAR? AvB ÷ talk 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


I am no expert on Rife, have done a little reading, have used a device once (and was very impressed) and have a general idea of his theories, ideas that I find profound. I think that the article as it now exists is badly biased against Rife. Since his work, if proven, would put the "Peer Reviewers" out of business it is surely needed to approach the subject from unconventional angles if a balanced article is to be provided. D.E.H. 208.238.205.131 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning that the aforementioned "Peer Reviewers" are almost exclusively tenured faculty at various universities. That is, they cannot be fired except for egregious behavior (e.g., sleeping with their students). The idea that the reviewers want to prevent scientific realizations that challenge the status quo is a little unfounded. I think we should mention that some people swear by these things, but that the peer reviewed scientific literature cannot substantiate his claims. --Selket Talk 07:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm a proponent (and user) of these machines, I'm trying to simply edit this article into something encyclopedic, which strikes a balance between viewpoints and allows the reader to make up their own mind. As it stands, even after my edits this evening, this is not even close to NPOV. I agree much of the tech is unproven and likely unprovable. Anecdotally, it's been a tremendous boon for my family. Please note that I'm not editing to make the article a billboard for Rife, simply to remove the dripping venom. Fredsagirl 05:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this article was a compromise between true believers and skeptics. One could say that the venom is a conditio sine qua non - I have defended a friendlier approach in the past, and this is the balance we struck. FWIW, I'm a skeptic too, and I have seen Lyme disease patients spend a lot of money on "Rife" machines to no avail. I'm all for letting the reader decide. Please read previous discussions on this talk page. My IAR question to Midgley was a very real one and I'm now asking the newly arrived contributors to consider it. The problem is simple: we do not have sufficient sources to build a scientifically sound article. Mainstream science long ago debunked "radionics" and related nonsense and did not spend another minute on what is and remains impossible without changing the laws of nature. We can hardly cite any sources and should remain silent regarding the impossibilities. Yet, the WP:Consensus process has resulted in an article that does so anyway, in both directions (scientific criticism and popular belief) which constitutes WP:OR. As such, some WP:IAR tendencies are already visible here. My question is, basically: can we talk about this and rewrite the article, ignoring many rules where necessary, into an article we all think is encyclopedic, written from a neutral point of view, and - I hate to say this - as TRUE as we can make it?
Please forgive me if I'm rambling a bit, I haven't really thought this through, and others are very welcome to come up with their own ideas. The only alternative I see is to put the thing up for AfD. And the lack of good sources per WP:V, WP:RS, etc. will be a better argument for deletion than many editors here seem to think. AvB ÷ talk 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if AfD is apropos either. That's simply tossing up one's hands and admitting defeat. There are plenty of excellent and important articles here w/o superb sourcing. To continue to use radionics as the guidepost however, is a little misguided. I'm being called away; more later. Fredsagirl 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We have many articles without sufficient sourcing that are nevertheless superb. But I doubt this applies to articles that cannot and will not be sufficiently sourced at some point in the future due to their being based on myths on partisan websites and the like. I mean it: if we throw out everything we can't source per our rules, there will be very little left. AvB ÷ talk 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent unnecessary reversions

I just made a series of edits to the language here in order to neutralize some of the obvious bias and bring the article more into standard.

Unfortunately they were reverted by a bot, as I'm clearly too new here to be trusted. Can someone please revert my edits?

Also, how long until I'm in the bot's good graces?

Thanks! Fredsagirl 03:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not conversant with the inner workings of this bot. You may find more info at User:VoABot_II or ask its operator, User:Voice_of_All.
However, as far as I can see, it only reverted you once (diff). AvB ÷ talk 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quack

My concerns with the term quack is two fold. First, it is unencyclopedic. That is, the term inherently violates NPOV and is otherwise unprofessional. I doubt you will find anyone in Britanica called a "quack". Second, comments about Albert Abrams should go on Albert Abrams, not here. Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also seems to support this idea but is not explicit. Wp:npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves leaves no ambiguity about whether such labels are appropriate. -Selket Talk 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"comments about Albert Abrams should go on Albert Abrams, not here." - why not?
"inherently violates NPOV" - how? Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Britannica.
Wp:npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves - my favorite! How does this apply to someone who is a quack and a fraud, period? This guy was as much a fraud and a quack as Einstein was a physicist. His claim to fame and the sole reason why he's included in the encyclopedia is the fact that he was a fraud and a quack plus the fact that he fooled a lot of people, some of them even now. Very few people can be called a quack on well-sourced scientific grounds, but he is one of them. We can't say the same about Rife.
Will you be disputing the same language in the lead of the Albert Abrams article? How about Charlatan and Electrical quackery?
Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt you will find anyone in Britanica called a "quack".
True. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, however: "Brodum, William (fl. 1767–1824), quack ... Case, John (c.1660–1700), astrologer and quack ... Paul Chamberlen 1635–1717, born on 22 October 1635, was a quack doctor ... Crippen, Hawley Harvey (1862–1910) ... his professional life as a quack dealing in patent medicines ... Donald, Adam [called the Prophet of Bethelnie] (1703–1780), spiritualist ... also acted as a quack physician ... Graham, James (1745–1794), quack ... unbalanced woman-hating American quack, Francis Tumblety c.1833–1903 ... the German quack uroscopist Theodor Myersbach ... Long, John St John (1798–1834), quack and painter ..." Tearlach 18:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Tearlach, very well, I concede that point but reply that, as AvB points out, "Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Britannica." The difference between quack and physicist is that if Einstein were here, he would almost certainly not contest the idea that he was a physicist. Whereas, if Rife were here, he would almost certainly contest that he was a quack. I would encourage you to go read the Wp:npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves link. We should be in the habit of stating facts, not our own conclusions to comply with WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If Quackwatch calls him a quack, say "Quackwatch calls him a 'quack'." Say that he was convicted of selling unapproved medical devices. Say that no peer-reviewed research has been able to substantiate his claims. The analogy is that the Hitler article should say, "Hitler oversaw the systematic murder of 6,000,000 civilians" not "Hitler was a very bad man." I think the first not only satisfies WP:NPOV, but makes for a more powerful statement. --Selket Talk 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be a good point if we were talking about Rife. But this is about Abrams. As a matter of fact I have consistently removed the word "quack" from the Rife article. AvB ÷ talk 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So, post the critcism on his page and take it up with the people there --Selket Talk 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Another non sequitur. The Abrams article is fine in this respect. AvB ÷ talk 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my questions. In addition, Tearlach has shown that Wikipedia is not the only reference work qualifying proven quacks and frauds like Abrams as such, which you have conceded. I consider the actual dispute here (see links above) of minor importance, but your reasoning seems to follow from a faulty understanding of NPOV. That's why I think it would be important for you to either give an explanation, or concede the point that (the use of) "quack" is not inherently violating NPOV, unencyclopedic or unprofessional. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 11:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of lead: no consensus

I reverted (diff) an edit (diff) that did not provide any reason besides the assertion that it "cleaned up a biased intro". In my edit summary I asked for consensus and discussion on the talk page. Selket then reverted (diff) my reversion providing no other reason than "for NPOV" and without discussion on the talk page. This is not the way to reach a WP:Consensus. Please revert back and discuss here. AvB ÷ talk 18:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit was made because Rife's machines are not alleged to work by controverting established theory, but by a means which I explained. The sentence was poorly grammatically constructed and misleading. If a sentence promises to describe how something works, it should then describe how it works, not leap immediately to criticism. Also, the liberal use of words such as "purportedly," "unsubstantiated," and so on serve the same function as "ironic" quote marks - it allows the author to take a POV (in controvention of WP standards) without explicitly taking one. It's an old editorializing trick employed by "purportedly" neutral newspaper writers. Fredsagirl 19:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not act as if I have written this article. There is no need to lecture me on writing (or reading for that matter). You seem unaware of the finer points of cooperative writing on Wikipedia. The crazy thing is, when I first edited this article, I tried to make it more neutral in much the same way you're doing. Yet now I'm defending the current status quo (i.e. the one before your edits) simply because I know what will happen if I don't. The article will end up worse than it was, or be deleted. AvB ÷ talk 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it was not your intention, but as I read your posting I can't help but think some people would think you were implying I was acting in bad faith. I just want to point out that I had posted discussion on the talk page (see above) almost two hours before your posting. --Selket Talk 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I thought (and think) you were editing in good faith and did not want to imply otherwise. However, and I hate to point this out, while you did post discussion, it was not about the reversion I am defending in this section (linked above). You only discussed the second reversion in the same edit (regarding quack and fraud Albert Abrams). I stand by what I have written: a simple observation of fact and a comment primarily intended for Fredsagirl as a new editor. I did not imply a specific reason why you did not discuss the reversion. In fact, the point is still outstanding since you, unlike Fredsagirl, still haven't given any other reason for the reversion than "for NPOV" which is much too vague and could easily be reverted back with the same reason, in essence creating an edit war which I have prevented by insisting on discussion (and practising 1RR as usual for me). But you don't have to comment; I accept Fredsagirl's reasoning regarding the lead. However, I'm not so sure certain other regulars here will accept what now is a consensus between the three of us. Time will tell. AvB ÷ talk 14:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

AvB, Nowhere did I contend or imply that you wrote the article. I wasn't lecturing you, I was defending my edit. Fredsagirl 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop gutting the article

User:Fredsagirl, please stop inserting your partisan minority POV into this article. You actually removed information from Quackwatch because "Quackwatch is not peer reviewed": If we are going to apply such self-created rules, please note that the article as you have rendered it now has NO peer reviewed sources whatsoever and should be put up for AfD. I have no time to do much about this but I'll be back later. AvB ÷ talk 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I've just reverted two of your edits. More later. AvB ÷ talk 18:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


AVB, I did no such thing. I restructured the quackwatch ref because it was in the same sentence, and followed, the phrase "peer-reviewed." I did not "remove it", as you assert. I cleaned up a sentence which was incoherent. The sentence was poorly constructed and implied that quackwatch is peer reviewed, which in fact, it is not. Quackwatch has a place in this article, and I have most clearly not "gutted" the article. I am attempting to bring it into NPOV. I was appalled upon my initial read at how sloppy and one-sided the existing article was. I do not want the controversy "whitewashed," as you imply, but am attempting to bring balance to the subject. I'm paid to read critically, as an attorney, and small words can bias an article. I removed no peer-removed sources, so the presence or lack thereof was not of my doing. It is my opinion that quackwatch is now in an appropriate place. If you would please take the time to re-read the edit I made, you'll find that information was added, while subtle editorializing was removed.
Further, just because a POV is minority does not make it de facto invalid. Just because your viewpoint may or may not be in the majority does not make it de facto valid, either.Fredsagirl 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting that while Quackwatch is not peer reviewed, the American Cancer Society study they cite is. I'll add a reference when I track it down again. I'm not sure who it was that keeps putting medical device fraud back into the article unsourced. I'm sure this was a good faith edit and the phrase medical device fraud probably quite accurately describes the conduct of the "practitioners". If you have a source for this please include it, otherwise leave the phrase medical device fraud out (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence). I think it is unlikely that you will be able to find such a reference, however, as the crime medical device fraud does not appear in the United States Code and googling for the phrase -- in quotes -- returns only six links, none of them related. --Selket Talk 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's in the source. I wouldn't know if it should be in the article, but as a RC patroller hereabouts I do know that extensive changes without clarification or discussion are suspect. AvB ÷ talk 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, while the DFA doc mentions them being charged with MDF, the convictions were or a different nature. MDF is not a statutory violation, but a colorful turn of phrase by a prosecutor. Fredsagirl 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's further worth noting here, that in spite of my perspective being noted as being in the "partisan minority," the net is full of newsgroups and boards populated by people who, with nothing to gain, happily discuss their cures from Lymes and other pernicious ailments using Rife instrumentation. Granted, this is all anecdotal, and this stuff will likely never be peer-reviewed. However, the mere presence of so many enthusiasts with no personal horse in the race is indicative that there's more here than meets our eye. Fredsagirl 19:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict> :If I've misread anything amidst the miriad of changes I apologize. But I still view your activities as gutting the article. It is quite possible I and other users here would agree with some of your edits, but you still have to discuss such extensive changes and reach a consensus on the talk page. Instead, you have once again not honored my request for discussion on the talk page, in blatant disregard of our rules. Currently you are operating a single-purpose account clearly intended to infuse the article with a pro-Rife (whatever that may mean) viewpoint while ignoring information from other editors.

On Wikipedia it doesn't really matter what you do for a living. This is a collaborative project where consensus and sources are the main ingredients.
Please read up on our rules. It is clear you have no idea how Wikipedia works. You may also want to read the talk archive above before making inferences about my beliefs.
I was not arguing that you removed the article's single peer-reviewed source, just that editors who insist on sources for this article being peer reviewed will end up without an article. AvB ÷ talk 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


You are flinging unsubstantiated allegations as fast as you can type, my friend:

1. My account is not "single purpose." This is my first foray into WP, and I thought it might be useful to help refine my skills by shaping an article on something with which I'm familiar, and which is in dire need of shaping. I'd be willing to bet that when your account was new, you only appeared on a few articles as well. Were you then operating a "single purpose" account? This amounts to character assassination on your part, and I don't appreciate it one iota. You'll note that I'm not only leaving criticism intact, but in some cases, making it clearer. As it still stands, the article is rife (no pun intended) with subtle bias and undercurrents, which need to be leveled, in order to bring this article into compliance with the WP standards as I understand them. Please re-read my edits. You'll note a significant about of things removed and clarified, and very few "pro" things added. You are misreading my intentions and making incorrect inferences, simply because I disagree with you.

2. I did not remove the cite. I merely made it coherent and not misleading. The source is still there.

3. I did read the rules. Over and over again. Particularly the parts about "be bold!" You appear to be getting prickly because a favorite shibboleth of yours is being deconstructed a wee bit. I'm sorry, but balance was necessary. I am reading this exhaustive talk archive as I have time between hearings. Do you truly mean I need to obtain consensus before repairing mangled syntax and misleading statements? I doubt it. I apologize for duping a cite. But not for much else I've done here. This article is a long way from ready for prime-time. Fredsagirl 19:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the part about reaching consensus on the talk page. AvB ÷ talk 19:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Re shibboleth: nonsense, and you would have known it if you had read the discussion above instead of typing an incredible number of words I will never be able to keep up with (and not because I can't type fast, my friend). AvB ÷ talk 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

AvB, I'm sorry if I'm stepping on toes. My read of the consensus page included a flowchart which essentially says to make the changes, then reach consensus on them. Not to reach consensus on each change prior to making it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And please accept my apology if anything I'm writing reads as a personal attack. I don't mean it that way. I'm trained to express and defend my position strongly.Fredsagirl 21:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't even know if I have any toes left after some 4,000 edits here. The idea is to edit until challenged, then discuss, reach consensus and/or compromise. As an alternative you could do edit-revert-adapt cycles but that's asking for trouble on controversial articles. What you have interpreted as my shibboleth was actually a somewhat trigger-happy version of what many editors do when someone seems to ignore their challenges and continues to make extensive changes to the article - apparently without realising it is already a compromise and a work in progress being developed by many editors. I admit I was a bit trigger-happy though; I've been seeing too much conflict here on Wikipedia lately (not even involving myself, I'm following an ArbCom case that doesn't make me feel any happier). All I wanted was to engage you on the talk page. I think you're there now :-)
An inherent part of "being bold" Wikipedia style is to be prepared to see one's edits changed, disputed or reverted. The general idea is to discuss disputed changes on the talk page. This prevents edit wars and allows editors who are not experts to work together and still create good articles. Problem areas are articles on controversial subjects; such articles take more time to mature.
You express your position clearly and defend it strongly. That is a good thing in my book. But there's one thing you will not like about Wikipedia, and that's the fact that its rules are enforced by editor consensus. Stalemates are solved via WP:DR, but it can be time-consuming.
So, no hard feelings? I'll review your edits later on and comment (and hopefully apologize regarding "gutting") here on the talk page if necessary. AvB ÷ talk 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hard feelings? I live in an adversarial system, and don't take anything personally. No, no hard feelings. Fredsagirl 05:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical device fraud

Ok, I found it on the FDA site. The phrase is not "medical device fraud", it's "device health fraud". The relevant section follows:

In a felony prosecution for device health fraud, the three men--LER's top distributors--were convicted and sentenced in 1993, 1994 and 1995, for selling unapproved medical devices and drugs.

– FDA, [5]

My reading of his is that the conviction was for selling unapproved (i.e., misbranded) medical devices in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and that use of the term "device health fraud" is dicta. Anyone agree? --Selket Talk 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Even less than dicta; it sounds like a reporter made it up. But note that interpretations by Wikipedia editors arë not allowed per WP:NOR. AvB ÷ talk 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No reporter involved. These are, by my read, FDA and courts docs. Again, while the prosecution was for device health fraud, and other counts, the convictions were statutory and not for "device health fraud." Sorry all, I was trying to edit for accuracy. Fredsagirl 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Dixie Farley (who "compiled" the quoted Unproven Medical Claims Land Men in Prison) is an FDA staff writer. In some instances she uses newspaper articles as a source. What I was trying to say is that it was probably phrased by Farley or a newspaper. We don't know that it's dicta, it could be even less important. Nevertheless, the best way to quote this on Wikipedia would not be to rephrase it (as had been done in the article) but to make it a direct quote. AvB ÷ talk 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my rewrite was from an appellate court decision, not re-written. I'll look for the appellate court cite Thurs or Fri; I'll be traveling 'till then. Fredsagirl 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience link

I've removed the Pseudoscience link under "See Also". It's pretty blatantly POV, as it indicates to the reader that Wikipedia classifies Rife's work under that heading.

I only recently began reading about Rife, but it's clear already that the man's grasp of optical microscopy and the building from scratch of complex machines involving then-state-of-the-art circuitry and vacuum tube usage puts him onto a level on which the Pseudoscience moniker must be shown, not assumed. For a very reasonable treatment of the questions involved, please see http://www.xenophilia.com/zb/zb0012.htm ... I'm quite far from being a defender of "alternative" medicine and such-like, yet I believe it's quite unscientific to deny claims out-of-hand because some self-appointed "experts" have declared such-and-such "quackery" simply on their own authority and without providing real, thorough debunking. Sadly, because of these practices, there is a growing need for a quackwatch-watch.org... Anyone feeling up to the task? JDG 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Assume for the sake of arguing that hist "grasp of optical microscopy" included inventing results that violate other well established laws of physics and that nobody else has been able to reproduce. What type of reference would you requirer before including the pseudoscience category? --Selket Talk 17:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I would need to see a good source documenting that Rife in fact "invented results", and a source that did not simply pontificate about the "Abbe limit" without considering Rife's approach to it, which involved an angled transmission of UV light onto the specimen target, while all the Abbe talk assumed the straight-on light sources of conventional microscopes. JDG 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree w/JDG. I think the psuedoscience tag violates NPOV in spirit and in letter. With proper citation, I'd support it. Otherwise, the article is biased from "go." Fredsagirl 20:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would encourage you (both, now) to read Pseudoscience as it does not in any way require inventing results -- only lack of repeatability and a gross departure from the Scientific consensus. The American Cancer Society article referenced in the Quackwatch reference does a pretty good survey of the lack of repeatability. --Selket Talk 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Note also that the article does not make any assertion of whether or not his work is pseudoscience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Selket (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Ah, but by including the tag, we imply it's pseudoscience. After all, if it's not pseudoscience, why would WP link it that way? Fredsagirl 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I would also argue that the cite I just posted to Milbank's results demonstrates repeatability. Fredsagirl 20:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add that although a bare "See Also" Pseudoscience link is a bit much as applied to Rife himself, the article could probably stand more material describing how all kinds of frauds and fakes have used Rife's work (or more exactly their misrepresentations of his work) as backing for their scams. JDG 16:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree, except that so far, the only frauds I can find have been covered relatively well; the people who have been tried for making unsubstantiated claims for the technology. Who has misrepresented the work, in a way we can verify? Fredsagirl 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiated claim

I removed the uncited claims about Milbank removing the eye of a patient who relapsed, and added a cite to a study by Milbank indicating kill of typhoid.Fredsagirl 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if you take out this claim, you need to take out all of the claims that he cured cancer as well. --Selket Talk 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the claim because I couldn't locate a cite for it, and the tag requesting one has been there for quite some time. Read also the numerous cites I added today. IMHO, this is retaining NPOV. Not claiming that he cured cancer, but claiming that HE CLAIMED to cure cancer. Those claims are citeable. Big difference Fredsagirl 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abrams

I removed the Abrams link. After reading it, I can't justify the linkage. Abrams was an outright fraud. His machine claimed to diagnose disease, while Rife's machine claims to treat. Rife's other machine is a microscope. No evidence indicates that either man knew the other, or that Rife based any of his thinking upon Abram's.

I think this is enough of a distinction to remove the link. Retaining it only serves to imply fraud on Rife's part via guilt by association, which none of the editors has provided a cite for. Fredsagirl 21:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/y/Talk%7ERoyal_Rife_0bab.html"