Talk:Royal Rife
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on August 15, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of the suppression of Rife's research by an evil conspiracy. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. |
 Archives |
Sydney Morning Herald article medical expert challenged by Rife operator
Medical authority Prof. Dr. John Dwyer, M.D., was interviewed on TV in Australia in addition to his comments made in the Sydney Morning Herald about the Rife frequency devices being universally condemned as quackery.
A Rife machine / natural healthcare professional was outraged by this Prof. Dr. John Dwyer's completely unfounded conjecture about the uselessness of the Rife frequency treatment device on the TV show and challenged the show's producers to a showdown on TV. This Rife machine operator / natural health practitioner sent off a registered letter signed by a Justice of the Peace and witnessed delivery person that challenged the claims made by this medical expert, Prof. John Dwyer.
The natural health Rife treatment operator says that he supplements the Rife machine treatments with that of a Dr. Robert C. (Bob) Beck, DSc. Physics, blood electrification machine, colloidal silver water drinking, dietary supplements, and other things. The natural healthcare practitioner insists that the treatments be conducted for a much longer time than was done in the case of Des Carpenter's 69 year old father, David Carpenter, cited in the SMH article who eventually died after his Rife machine treatments seemed to have initially placed his cancer in remission.
Unfortunately for all of his pro-Rife arguments, this natural health practitioner seems to claim that he knows more about cancer causes than other people rather than being humble and saying that he has any uncertainty in the matter--just that he has had phenomenal success rates in treating cancer patients, achieving complete remissions dating back X-number or so years, for Y percent of his patients who have already been given up for dead / terminal cases by conventional medical institutions / doctors.
I found this information by researching the name of Prof. Dr. John Dwyer in conjunction with Rife. It seems that this Dwyer character on the internet is more widely known for his comments in the SMH about Rife than anything else that I could find! It appears in alt-med blogs, and all over the place just to refute Rife machine use against cancer.
It mentions in the initial article from that site that Rife machines are being successfully used to fight Ross River virus. So I suppose that the machines are not universally condemned after all? Oldspammer (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Professor John Dwyer is Clinical Dean and Chairman of the Division of Medicine at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, Australia. On 31 October, 2002, the Minister for Health in the New South Wales Government (Australia) set up a committee (the Health Claims and Consumer Protection Advisory Committee) to review some of the more objectionable aspects of "alternative" medicine. The Chairman of the committee is Professor John Dwyer.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Additionally, anyone can send a registered letter and write about it on their website; the bar for notability and reliable sourcing is a bit higher. MastCell Talk 00:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
EM frequency treatments on viruses Pub-Med Studies
Resonant microwave absorption has been proposed in the literature to excite the vibrational states of microorganisms in an attempt to destroy them. But it is extremely difficult to transfer microwave excitation energy to the vibrational energy of microorganisms due to severe absorption of water in this spectral range.
– Tsen KT, Tsen SW, Chang CL, Hung CF, Wu TC, Kiang JG., Virol J. 2007 Jun 5;4:50., PMID: 17550590
Absorption by water of EM radiation can be avoided by using frequencies that out-of-band for water, yet in-band for the capsids of the given viruses.
Pathogen devitilization claims by Rife? Maybe they are true?
In the list of cited articles, one of them includes descriptions of the nano-joules of energy used by the given laser applications. The milliwatts per square centimeter levels are pretty low as well. The thermal coefficient for bond breakage does not enter into the argument for viral disruption using EM radiation because the laser example is using low powered light pulses of a non-ionizing radiation frequency (red or infra-red) to disrupt / devitalize the viruses, and that resonance is specifically stated as the modality in action.
Note also that the authors refer to other literature regarding resonant frequency treatments applied to microorganisms. Anyone with full access to the med journals could provide us the referenced citations concerning the microwave-RF EM radiation literature referred to above by the study article authors?
References in the Rife article to the American Cancer Society's (ACS) critique on Rife that relies in large part on the 1994 CA - A Cancer Journal for Clinicians publication that states that RF EM radiation energy levels are "too low" to have any effect on microorganisms should be removed as being unreliable sources of information due to lack of actual scientific evidence (indeed, many key statements of the ACS are contradicted by some of the above studies) and lack of any fact checking what so ever by the uncredited authors of both the 1994 CA - A Cancer Journal for Clinicians article and for the Wikipedia Rife article-referenced ACS web site page that talks about Rife (mostly in terms of modern day operators, only examinations of descriptions of the original equipment employed by Rife, and not by any hands-on testing).
The ACS is no doubt a corporation. Corporations have been known to be less than candid so that their interests are maintained. It has been said in many writings elsewhere that more people are employed by the cancer industry than suffer from the disease. The ACS no doubt wants to keep its employees busy? This conflicts with the goal of curing the disease. What number of ACS employees are involved strictly in fund raising activities? What would they then say after a cure is announced? Economics usually wins out in these conflicts. The goal of the ACS may only be to fight the disease, but not defeat it? Oldspammer (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at WP:NOR, again. Proof by assertion of conspiracy tends to be an unsuccessful approach on Wikipedia, and you may want to review what Wikipedia is not as well. MastCell Talk 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Autofluorescence and Second harmonic generation seen when using 2 or more sources
PMID: 17181133 indicates when 2 or more laser sources are directed incident to a spectroscopy sample specimen, the peak position of autofluorescence spectra are down shifted in frequency.
This may be the result that the energy of the SHG (secod harmonic generation) signal is in resonance with an electronic absorption band.
– Chen J, Zhuo S, Luo T, Jiang X, Zhao J., Laboratory of Optoelectronic Science and Technology for Medicine, Fujian Normal University, Ministry of Education, Fuzhou 350007, China, Scanning. 2006 Nov-Dec;28(6):319-26.
EM absorption band is that of the constituent chemicals in the sample specimen. The SHG and down-shift in frequency results from the use of mixing, adding, interference, or heterodyning the multiple light sources "in backscattering geometry."
Rife claimed that his staining with light method of being able to see his small samples involved adjusting / tuning the Risely prisms (rotating optical wedges) of his microscopes to elicit a light resonance (autofluorescence) with the chemicals constituent in his specimen sample.
The heterodyning principles used by some observers to explain the operation of Rife's microscope seem in agreement with this published study's observations about resonance and longer wavelength shifting--specifically how the Rife microscope was able to view specimens of and using shorter light wavelengths than the human eye can normally see (vis á vis a standard optical lab microscope).
The limitations of optical microscopes, and the size of viruses is such that most viruses cannot be seen under an optical microscope.
Therefore the RR article text should not discount the possibility that a broader range of viruses could be seen with Rife's microscopes despite the diffraction limit observed when both no heterodyning and no sample resonance (autofluorescence) are employed. Recall also that 4 Risely prisms were employed in Rife's most powerful #3 Universal microscope, permitting the mixing / shifting of the original light with 4 successive filtered light frequencies, permitting not only SHG but several higher order harmonics to be generated simultaneously. Oldspammer (talk) 11:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a look at WP:NOR again. You may want to review what Wikipedia is not as well. MastCell Talk 17:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Why is it is not OR or synthesis to say that an ordinary optical lab microscope cannot see anything but larger viruses due to numerous optical limitations implying that Rife's microscopes are ordinary optical lab microscopes? I see that AC = Vanished user? Any indications that the microscopes were unusual are deleted. Oldspammer (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
... As this was before the invention of the electron microscope, Rife invented an optical microscope with a claimed magnification of 17,000x. A perusal of the web sites of Olympus, Nikon and Zeiss shows that the best theoretical magnification claimed today is about 1,400x, although practically it is about 1,250x. (Zeiss use an appropriate slogan to promote their microscopes: "Limited only by the laws of physics.") The secrets of Rife’s microscope are lost, presumably suppressed by orthodox optical companies, but his method of curing cancer lives on.
– Peter Bowditch, Cognitive psychology undergraduate degree, Technology management Diploma, and Web developer, operator of http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/ , and key contributor to http://www.acahf.org.au/ (37 page hits for his name on that site as of June 1, 2008)
-
-
-
- Peter seems less than qualified to render any opinion on microscopes or any forms of physics / engineering. He is not an optician, nor an engineer. He plays a skeptic, but his mind is very much already made. The mention of the 17,000x figure is that of the Rife #2 Microscope. He presumes for no particular reason that Rife microscopes had no unusual operating principles like the "staining with light" (heterodyning / interfereometry / mixing of tuned light sources) features afforded by the Risely prisms in the microscopes' bodies, aspherical (parabolic) lenses to prevent spherical aberration, Far-UV light source, incident white light source, symmetric / matching ocular-objective lens pairs (to overcome the Fraunhofer Diffraction Limit), light ray paths that were magnified without crossing / inverting the image, and all quartz optics, and so compares them to "ordinary visible light" optical instruments that do not possess theses features.
-
-
-
-
-
- It is clear from reading about and listening to Rife that he owned and could have produced ordinary lab microscopes with which to tinker, yet found them inadequate, so Rife went to greater trouble to use special, more expensive components in a very unique design.
-
-
-
-
-
- On the other hand, search of Peter's name via Google search turns up all sorts of criticisms about opinions that Peter has expressed indicating that he is not held in high esteem as a scientist or rational skeptic--on the contrary, Peter is seen as a believer in, and promoter of all things of traditional orthodox despite any unusual contradictory observations made by anyone in recent times.
-
-
-
-
-
- Gary Wade, Masters Physics, attempts to explain Rife's Microscope principles I am more interested in what Wade might say than anything that a psychology-web guy might say about Rife's microscopes. Does Peter diagram the optical path of the Rife microscopes? Does he compare the designs with conventional optical lab microscopes? He has not undertaken any proper analytical steps to account for his presumptions. I do not value Peter's appraisal of the Rife microscopes due to his lack of attention to technical details. If he had step by step demonstrated (citing references) how these technical innovations would not work, that would be another matter. As it stands, the opinions rendered by Peter, this lay person, should not be used as a reference in this wiki article. Oldspammer (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No, material from rife.de is promotional in nature. The promotional sites are already cited far too much for this to be a truly neutral, encyclopedic article, but that's where things are. If you Google Peter Bowditch and find that people have written negative things on teh Internets about him, that doesn't necessarily make the source less reliable. You are of course welcome to personally believe whatever you think makes the most sense, but Wikipedia is not the place to expound on your personal beliefs at length in a way which contravenes this site's policies. I don't have much more to say; you are, once again, welcome to seek outside input, but a repetition of the same line of conspiracist and non-linear argument is not persuasive to me. MastCell Talk 04:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
