Rife Microscope in Question

Reader attempts to refute my claim that Rife did not observe viruses. My responses follow.

David writes:

In this post you claim that “the claim that the Rife microscope could visualize viruses is false and lacks scientific evidence.”

But in your ‘Viral Misconceptions’ article you hailed about the work of Rife, claiming otherwise, and then even quoting Sean Montgomery from the Rife Research Group saying:

"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…
…He could sustain the specimen, and by not killing it, he was able to use this method to achieve extreme magnification, extreme resolution, and he was able to see his specimens in a natural state. So he could see viruses going through their processes, which you can see with an optical microscope, but it was his ability to see viruses, which were in a 'living' state, that was his main innovation, and all his other inventions."

So which one is it? And what made you change your stance?

---

My response:

My video "Viral Misconceptions" was produced over four years ago. Before I made the video, I received numerous emails asking me to address Rife and his microscope, which prompted me to include that information in my video about viruses and virus history. However, as my knowledge of viruses expanded over the years, I now recognize that those claims are unfounded. Rife's microscope was an optical microscope that relied on visible light to observe specimens.

Optical microscopes have limitations in terms of their resolution, which restricts their ability to visualize structures smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Viruses are significantly smaller than the wavelength of visible light, making them beyond the resolving power of optical microscopes.

Moreover, a deeper knowledge of microbiology has revealed to me the falsehood and lack of evidence behind such extravagant claims. In retrospect, there is no evidence to support the notion that Rife could observe viruses; the available 'evidence' appeared convincing initially, but it was ultimately conjecture without any substantiation, which has been disseminated as truth.

"What someone will find when they search the record, is that Royal Rife invented in the early 1930s a microscope called the universal microscope, and its unique quality was that it was able to see viruses in their living state - able to see microbes as small as viruses in their active state…”

However, upon scrutinizing this statement, it becomes clear that there is no evidence to support this claim. It simply does not exist, and the individual making this statement in the video lacks evidence because there is no mention of Rife observing viruses in the literature. If Rife's optical microscope truly had the capability to visualize viruses, it would surpass all current technologies, including the most advanced electron SEM and TEM microscopy of our day. In reality, this claim is a falsehood.

The second part of his statement contains a partial truth as I do have footage claimed to have been taken with a Rife microscope. However, upon reflection, standard optical microscopy also allows for the examination of specimens without causing harm, enabling the observation of microorganisms and cells going through their life cycles.

Rife's microscope was incapable of visualizing viruses. Once again, there is no evidence to support this claim, and it would have been impossible due to the limitations imposed by the wavelengths of light, as I mentioned. Therefore, when such claims are made and not held under close scrutiny, they can be easily believed.

Here is a document supporting that Rife and his microscope was not what it was claimed to be (see pgs. 470-472): https://www.quekett.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Bracegirdle-Rife-microscopes.pdf

---

David responds:

I’ve read the document you’ve posted and I have some trouble with it.

It’s a good example for what I call ‘technical cunning’: People who are very smart and are trained to be very didactic but have absolutely no openings whatsoever to examine information beyond the confinement of the systems they were inculcated with.

It reminds me of an engineer I used to talk to about perpetual motors who run on no materialistic energy as we know it, and he refuted the concept outright in the name of engineering and physics laws.

And so here. This is the impression I get from Mr. Bracegirdle, which is the predominant paradigm in modern science / masculine based science, is that he’s very good at the reductionist approach, separating the parts and examine them in isolation.

After reading it some potential holes are apparent in his analysis:

1. Whenever someone brings the ‘conspiracy theory’ as a way to explain why people adhere to Rife’s, is already a red flag for me, which showcases mental rigidity. The cancer industry IS a racket beyond any proportions one can imagine. It’s a fact and it’s backed by enormous evidence. Simply alluding it to be a conspiracy is burying one’s head in the sand, or being a silent accomplice to the terror.

(as a side note: the subtext behind ‘conspiracy theory’, as well as ‘pseudoscience ’, is basically saying: “This goes beyond the confinement of the paradigm I have been inculcated with to assume control and safety, and therefore anything that goes beyond it is a threat to my mental security and my position as an authority. Therefore, the best defense is offense: an umbrella terms that induces in the reader who’s the bad guys and who are the good guys in order to reclaim the position of an authoritative figure of influence - i.e. “expertise”.

2. Mr. Bracegirdle examines the microscopes in isolation. By that, he misses the whole that’s greater than the sum of its parts. This reflects the masculine/Newtonian mechanists approach, that can’t see the forest for the trees.

3. It’s true that Royal Rife was a kind of a genius-freak who isolated himself and was really bad at explaining his natural talent. There are many people like that. They simply don’t know how they know, and the fact that they become recluse is to protect themselves from the projection field coming from society to come and explain how they do what they do. That does not negate the fact that his microscopes were more than just a con job or a bag of complexities assembled together for the sake of only impressing others.

4. If Rife was really conning people - what’s the upside for him? Clearly he did not capitalized on his inventions. The guy died penniless., as well as not being wealthy in his lifetime. Why are there testimonials of him sitting still next to his microscopes up to 24-48 hours not moving his body, observing the specimens in them? Does someone who is looking to con others do that?

5. There’s a clear evidence that the authorities did go after Rife as they go after anyone who come up with a solution that is outside the orthodoxy. I recommend reading about Morris Fishbein and the medical racket in America at the time.

6. Why would Sean from the Rife institute claim such a claim. Does he con people too? Does the whole Rife institute, therefore, is one giant con job that has been able to sustain its deceit without detection for years, since its inception?

All these are potential inconsistencies that contaminate the “meticulous” assessment by Mr. Bracegirdle. Please consider reassessing your fatalistic approach by reading this article, which tries to explain why Rife may have gone beyond the limitations of the (Newtonian) optical paradigm.

https://ahealedplanet.net/rife.htm

For the record, I’m not a Royal Rife’s staunch follower and I know very little about the mechanics of microscopy. But I do have a hard time observing others dismantling a man’s reputation, especially when they’re no longer around to defend themselves.

---

My Response:

I also carefully examined the document, and it provided significant insights into the microscopes manufactured by Rife, including one that is housed in the Science Museum in London, among others. The tests conducted on these microscopes revealed that their claims were greatly exaggerated, and this was proven quite well in the descriptions of the writing. Furthermore, the pictures of the various microscopes he produced clearly demonstrate an overbuilt and unnecessarily complex design, particularly in the case of his 'universal microscope'. If one lacks knowledge of machining or an understanding of microscopy principles, they may not recognize the evidence pointing to the unnecessary complexity of Rife's microscope.

The document explicitly states that the microscopes did not function as described and primarily relied on magnification rather than truly enhancing resolution and sharpness. Similar to analog camera photography, where film can be enlarged far beyond its negative size while maintaining resolution, it cannot add resolution. Similarly, Rife's microscope essentially operated in the same manner, as described in the document. The author provided thorough insights into their findings, having direct access to these devices. Rife was merely enlarging the image and not producing greater sharpness or resolution of the image field. Thus, the image was indeed larger, but the resolution and sharpness were not. Optical lenses, at the distance involved, can only magnify and sharpen an image to a certain point.

I do suggest studying the nature and laws of optics and lenses, but essentially, Rife merely used lenses of varying strengths and added them together with prisms that reflect the image throughout, enlarging the image, but adding very little depth, resolution, and sharpness to the final image in the process. The limitations of the microscope's optics, including aberrations and inadequate lens quality, contributed to the blurriness of the images. The image was thus rendered blurry and undefined. Adding so many redundant lenses in a series produces an undefined image as well.

On the overcomplexity of the device and its resolving power:

I am not alone in thinking that the instrument could not have done what Rife claimed similar stands did do. On 7 December 1978, Dr Duggan took the instrument to the Department of Physics at Imperial College, where it was examined in detail by Professor Walter Welford.

Duggan's written report includes the following:

“There seemed to be nothing particularly remarkable about the instrument except that it has been constructed in such a way as to make the work of microscopy tedious and cumbersome, particularly in respect of focusing the instrument. Using the original optics it was quite impossible to obtain an image, but using a light source, eye-piece and objective from a Reichert microscope, a very imperfect image of leukemic blood cells was finally obtained. The image was about 30 per cent larger than would have been expected with the use of a x6 eye piece and a x40 objective, and this was no doubt due to the prismatic arrangement in the barrel of the microscope. The resolution, however, was extremely poor."

With regard to 'conspiracy theory', that is not at all how the author stated the matter. He stated that (written in 2003),

"Of course, in the climate of today, conspiracy theories abound, and I do not for one moment suppose that the foregoing account will satisfy those who see Rife as a crusader who was crushed by an Establishment which actually did not want to see a cure for cancer found too quickly, thus threatening their vested interests!"

And that statement is quite fitting because it seems that you are engaging in a similar pattern as described by the author in your comments. Despite the abundance of evidence demonstrating that these devices were exaggerated and based on falsehoods, you are asserting that they functioned as described, despite the lack of evidence supporting such claims. And more to the point of conspiracy—the more someone appears to be challenging established beliefs, the more likely people are to believe their assertions, even in the absence of evidence.

Additionally, as I previously explained, the wavelength of light restricts optical microscopy from resolving images at the size of viruses. It is simply not achievable with standard optical lenses of varying strengths. Therefore, Rife did not venture into uncharted territory that others cannot reach.

Moreover, I want to emphasize that neither I nor the author attacked Rife. However, given our discussion surrounding Rife, it is important to ensure accuracy in presenting the facts. If, as indicated in the document, Rife was indeed dispatching non-functional and poorly constructed microscopes to customers, it is important to bring such things to attention and subject it to scrutiny, and also relate it to his character, possible motives, and mindset. Importantly, where can we find the micrographs demonstrating the supposed performance of his microscope? They simply do not exist.

Note: The footage featured in my video was not taken with Rife's 'universal microscope'. Based on my current understanding, it showcased a standard optical microscope utilized for testing his purported ‘ray beam’ device.

"6. Why would Sean from the Rife institute claim such a claim. Does he con people too? Does the whole Rife institute, therefore, is one giant con job that has been able to sustain its deceit without detection for years, since its inception?"

It is possible, but the ultimate question remains unaffected by this consideration. The lack of evidence supporting his claim renders your question somewhat self-answering. Anyone can make a claim—where can we find the evidence? The fact remains that it does not exist. Sean made a few inaccurate statements, possibly without being fully informed about the subject matter. As an instance, he claimed that Rife was aware of the constraints of microscopy, including electron microscopy, despite Rife conducting his microscope work in the 1920s, well before the first electron microscope was constructed in 1931.
Additionally, Sean's assertion that viruses can be observed through optical microscopy is incorrect, unless specifically referring to "giant" viruses, such as the mimi virus. This does show a lack of knowledge on the subject matter. 

Regarding Rife, it is possible that he was genuinely striving to develop a new invention for a specific purpose. However, his understanding of entities like viruses was limited. For instance, he asserted that viruses are motile and possess a refractive index. Yet, refractive indices are only characteristic of objects that reflect light, and since most viruses are too small to reflect light, this claim is scientifically incorrect. At the time, Rife was unaware of this fact. He was unaware of virus structure and their non-living, non-motile state. By listening to his recordings, it is now evident to me that he mistakenly identified other objects as viruses.
Rife also incorrectly stated that cancer is caused by microorganisms as well as viruses. But we now know that cancer is a result of imbalance from toxicity and is multifactorial, and is not caused directly by bacteria or viruses. Viral infections that occur alongside cancer has actually been shown to reduce or reverse cancer, not progress it.

It appears he figured out he could market his microscopes for profit to potential customers by overstating their abilities when he found their ultimate limitations, but because he was not a savvy business man, or documented his findings, the money he initially invested to patent his products was lost. Or perhaps, it may have been in part due to the Great Depression during his time. Either way, that veers off from the actual evidence available. 

It appears that you hold a willingness to accept the notion that Rife possessed the ultimate microscope, even in the absence of any tangible evidence—other than hearsay—to substantiate such a claim. This lack of evidence encompasses both physical proof and logical deductions based on the principles governing optical lenses, among others. The introductory and closing section of the document was unequivocal and effectively emphasized how individuals often believe in something regardless of the evidence presented. Interestingly, some of your own remarks have also illustrated this tendency and have veered off path. The majority of your questions can be addressed quite easily once contemplated, much like I am doing in this response.

---

Allow me to now address the link you shared. Viruses, particularly those of the smallest size, lack the ability to reflect light. Hence, the assertion that Rife could transform viruses into light sources is entirely inaccurate. Additionally, Rife's overall concept was inherently perilous from the start. It is not viable to selectively eliminate microbes or viruses using light without causing harm, as Rife claimed. In doing so, millions of healthy cells and their tissues would be destroyed in the process. To add to this, viruses and their unique structures were not yet understood at the time. Furthermore, this approach directly contradicts the fundamental functioning of the human body. By eradicating microbes or viruses in this manner, the immune and healing processes of the body are completely hindered, leading to eventual demise. Consequently, it can be described as a foolish idea.

Furthermore, Rife's claims of the so-called “BX” virus are false. “BX” virus was merely a bacillus spore that was claimed to be a virus by Rife. Rife did not see “BX” virus. If I made such observations, you can rest assured I would have documented every part of my experience. Yet, no documentation exists. There is no scientific evidence or credible documentation to support the existence of the “BX” virus as claimed by Rife.
The resolutions and magnifications mentioned, such as 17,000 and 31,000 diameters, and even up to 300,000 diameter magnifications, are significantly higher than what is achievable with conventional light microscopy or even advanced electron microscopy techniques. These numbers appear to be exaggerated and not aligned with the capabilities of microscopes during that time or even currently.

The claimed resolutions and magnifications far exceed the limits imposed by the wavelength of visible light and the principles of optics. Traditional light microscopy is limited by the diffraction of light, preventing the visualization of structures smaller than the wavelength of light. Achieving resolutions and magnifications as described would require revolutionary advancements in microscopy technology, which are not supported by scientific records.

---

Closing Thoughts:

In closing, the diffraction limit, as described by Ernst Abbe in the late 19th century, sets a fundamental limit on the smallest resolvable details in an optical microscope. According to this limit, the resolution of an optical microscope is limited to structures larger than approximately half the wavelength of the light used. Given that visible light has a wavelength range of about 400 to 700 nanometers, optical microscopes are generally limited to resolving structures larger than 200 to 350 nanometers.

Viruses, on the other hand, are significantly smaller than the diffraction limit of optical microscopes. Most viruses range in size from about 20 nanometers to a few hundred nanometers, well below the resolution capabilities of optical microscopy.

If Rife managed to surpass the limitations imposed by the Abbe limit in optical microscopy to some extent, our present technology has already surpassed such an advancement. Considering the current state of optical microscopy and its more advanced variants, Rife's microscope would serve no purpose in modern usage and would be a step back.

Therefore, with this knowledge, it is my informed conclusion that Rife did not and could not observe viruses with his microscope, and that Rife's claims were hyperbolic. Surrounding evidence shows us that the microscope was over-complicated for the sake of complexity, flimsy, and poorly designed, which would have prevented proper repeatable observations in the first place, especially of viruses. Images that he took, which were also addressed in the link you provided, show that his resolution was lacking, and introduced artifacts that were falsely claimed as detail by the author of the piece you shared.

Rife may very well have been able to see microbes and cells at a higher magnification than the typical optical microscope of his time in the 1920s and early 1930s, which intrigued him, but he could not see viruses. His claims of possibly healing cancer via ray beam is unfounded and, on its face, would have been dangerous in practice. As I stated previously, if a "ray beam" were to indiscriminately target and affect cells in the body, it would harm both cancerous cells and healthy cells, most assuredly leading to significant collateral damage.

Jeff Green