A response of considerable magnitude and clarity (if you`ll excuse the pun). You have illustrated a simple necessity viz.: that we must first check thoroughly that we are not just making assertions but that there exists unequivocal , factual evidence that supports a proclaimed truth for without this principle, we will leave reason in darkness.
When I first began exploring your work, your mention of the Rife microscope was the first I'd heard of it. I was excited by the idea, so I tried to learn what I could about how it worked. This exploration led me to the same conclusions you patiently explained here. It's impossible to get around the limit of the wavelength of visible light without using something besides visible light (that provides greater resolution without being destructive). I had pondered how polarization might possibly offer a way around this inconvenient obstacle, but that is beyond me. I'd like to think Rife had really discovered something to this effect, but the evidence paints a less fantastic picture. However, I'd much rather settle for a disappointing truth than commit to believing an exciting lie.
There are now confocal and super-resolution microscopy techniques, which are hybrid forms of optical microscopy. They can overcome some limitations of the Abbe limit to a certain extent, but the fundamental constraints of the Abbe limit still apply. Polarization does not improve resolving power or increase resolution beyond the diffraction limit of a microscope, but it can provide information on a sample's structure and properties.
In theoretical terms, for Rife to overcome these limitations or even begin to explore that path, he would have needed a completely different design from what he had. A simpler design would have been necessary. I encourage anyone to examine his 'universal microscope' and see how excessively complex it is. It is claimed that focusing a single image took 90 minutes. It is not feasible for Rife to have machined over 5,000 parts that would, in totality, have resulted in a predictable outcome, and the evidence shows this.
Microscopes require highly precise tuning to function properly, and even the slightest movement can throw off the entire instrument's focus. Imagine accidentally bumping the microscope stand and having to spend another 90 minutes to realign and refocus the image. It simply doesn't make logical sense.
There is no doubt that Rife's microscopes worked, but it is illogical to believe that he was able to see structures below 300 nanometers. Most viruses range from 20 to 100 nanometers in size, and he would not have been able to resolve such small images. A further indication of this is his misidentification of a bacillus spore as a virus, which shows that he didn't have a clear understanding of what he was observing.
Most importantly, even IF his microscope could achieve a resolution down to 20 nanometers, it still wouldn't mean that he could observe viruses. Viruses would be invisible under optical microscopy without reflective properties. The reason we can see objects with our eyes is because most objects possess reflective qualities. Without these properties, everything would appear pitch black.
Electron microscopy, however, offers much higher resolution and can visualize structures at the nanoscale, including viruses, without relying on their reflective properties.
Based on the fundamental principles of nature, it is evident to me that the claims of Rife seeing viruses are entirely incorrect. Claiming that he overcame these principles would be disregarding the fundamental laws of nature.
From the relatively little experience I have with microscopes as an amateur, I must say I wholeheartedly agree that the complexity of that device would make it nearly impossible to obtain a clear image. More lenses means more opportunities for aberration and distortion, not to mention the tedium of bringing them all into focus.
Do you always turn any challenge to your views into a circus? Is it only through the showcase of your prowess abilities to intellectually “dissect” any dissenting view in front of a crowd, a way to secure a footing?
.
.
Jeff green: "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."
David Roy: I don't understand. You hand wave someone's entire life's work based on an assessment of a few who couldn't figure out how his microscope worked?
.
.
JG: "The document explicitly states that the microscopes did not function as described and primarily relied on magnification rather than truly enhancing resolution and sharpness."
DR: Perhaps he was using different technology. In September 1998, Tom Bearden talked about Rife's microscope and speculated that Rife may have been generating gravitons (a mythical subatomic particle) to gain that high resolution.
Again, I'm baffled why you are so quick to dismiss someone's life work. I've noticed you've done the same in your previous post about Neassans work. Are you aware of all the components and the ingenuity they have put in their devices?! Today anyone can be a “truth warrior” behind a keyboard sitting high above in an ivory tower, yet have no real understanding grounded in the real world.
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: Where exactly do you see in my comment that I engage in a similar pattern as described by the author?
It goes both ways.
Anti-Rife propaganda has circulated since the 1930s, and his microscope is dismissed by orthodoxy today, but images taken with his microscopes survive, which prove the “impossible” results that Rife’s microscope achieved.
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: Where do you see in my comment that I assert that they (microscopes) functioned as described? and why do you call such an assertion ‘falsehood’? Who is the authority to claim an absolute on such a matter?
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: What absence of evidence? I have provided an article that provided a possibility for the fact that Mr. Rife has gone beyond the Abbe limitation with his universal microscope. Who gets to validate which evidence is worthier? Why are you quick to dismiss evidence that is contrasting to yours?
.
.
JG: "Moreover, I want to emphasize that neither I nor the author attacked Rife."
DR: The Author claims in the end of his article: "Rife 5 didn't do what Rife said it would, either. This smacks of fraud on any reading. "
I don't know about you, but this sounds to me as a personal attack equivalent to defamation, especially when the guy is no longer around to defend or explain himself.
.
.
JG: "Regarding Rife, it is possible that he was genuinely striving to develop a new invention for a specific purpose. 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."
DR: Are you aware that your dismissal of such thinking is done from a hindsight, almost a hundred years later? It's really easy to handwave something in a hindsight. Everyone can do that with the access everyone has to the same pool of information.
.
.
JG: "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, …Either way, that veers off from the actual evidence available.
DR: So why did he die penniless, and why did he never capitalize on his inventions while living?
Rife had help refining his frequency device from an electrical engineer named Philip Hoyland. A company was formed to build and sell the frequency generators. It was called Beam Ray, and Hoyland, Rife, James Couche (a doctor who had been using the frequency device to treat patients for years), Ben Cullen (a long-time friend of Rife's), and a promoter named Hutcheson were the company’s owners.
The company made 14 frequency devices, and they were used with phenomenal success. Cancer, cataracts, and other diseases simply melted away with the device, properly calibrated to the disease forms.
One doctor, Richard Hamer, was running 40 cases a day through his San Diego clinic, and the results were miraculous.
Milbank Johnson was trying to gather enough clinical evidence to prove beyond any doubt that Rife's treatment worked, and they were trying to keep their patients quiet about their treatment.
Were Dr. Hamer, Milbank Johnson, Philip Holman, James Couch, Ben Cullen and Hutchison all in on the fraud too?!
Through his agents in Los Angeles, Fishbein approached Beam Ray and tried buying into the company, and their offer was rebuffed.
After Beam Ray rejected the AMA's offer, the AMA funded a lawsuit to try seizing the company. The lawsuit led to a trial. The brutal realities of America's legal system were too much for Rife's constitution. The trial destroyed Rife and stopped Beam Ray in its tracks.
They hunted down all the doctors using the device. Everybody was threatened with losing their license if they kept using the Rife frequency device. Hamer quickly gave up his device. Milbank Johnson, however, was not intimidated.
Apparently on the brink of making a very public announcement about Rife's device, Johnson suddenly took ill in 1944 and died. His death remains mysterious. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, two federal inspectors examined Johnson's hospital records and concluded that he was likely poisoned.
During the same period when Johnson suddenly died, a new technician in Rife's lab stole one of the quartz prisms from Rife's microscope, rendering it inoperable.
Just before that theft, Dr. Raymond Sidel published a description of Rife's microscope in the Smithsonian, in which Sidel ran the censorship gauntlet that the AMA had dropped on Rife's work. In the Smithsonian, Sidel described how the cancer virus "may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies."
Those surviving micrographs from Rife's scope came from Sidel's article. That public exposure made somebody irate, for soon after the article was published, Sidel became aware that somebody was following his car and a bullet crashed through his windshield. Dr. Couche defied the AMA and continued using Rife's frequency device until the 1950s, when they revoked his license.
The judge in Hoyland's lawsuit was accusatory of Hoyland when rendering the verdict, telling Hoyland that he thought he was crooked, and he ruled in favor of Beam Ray. The judge even told Beam Ray that he would be happy to represent them in a lawsuit against the AMA, but the trial had bankrupted Beam Ray. Ben Cullen even lost his house in the ordeal. Rife was a ruined man who never recovered from the 1939 trial.
Just prior to the AMA-funded attack on Rife, the other quality "electronic medicine research lab" in America mysteriously burned to the ground in New Jersey, while that lab's owners were visiting Rife's lab in California, for another "coincidence."
Why, if Rife was such a fraud, did Morris Fishbein go after his company with the intent of getting it out of business? Was it solely to defend the purity and sanctity of the medical profession at the time?
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: You haven't addressed my points 5 and 6. It seems you cherry pick the points that are easier for you to refute, but neglect those that aren’t aligned with your “substantive analysis” that tries to prove I’m wrong to question your cardinal verdict.
Secondly, logical deduction without providing historical evidence, oftentimes leading to unintentionally creating misinformation.
My response and conclusion continue in part 2 below.
JG: "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. “
DR: How do you know? How come you're so sure that all living cells share the same frequency? Are you aware that every form in nature, having a different shape and form, renders a different vibratory frequency to it?
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: Again, how do you know? Is your knowledge of the subject at the moment finite and absolute?
What can be derived from your words is that basically all Rife’s and similar frequency technology machines, claiming to eradicate diseases (viruses / pathogenic bacteria and so forth), are a form of con job aimed to deceive people?
Was Dinshah Ghadiali a fraud too?
Dinshah Ghadiali was a gifted scientist who rubbed shoulders with Edison and Tesla, and came to America from India in the 1890s, believing the "land of the free" propaganda and Horatio Alger tales. In the 1920s, Ghadiali developed and used with great success what he called Spectro-Chrome Therapy ("SCT"). It was simply subjecting people to light waves. In certain respects, it was little different from Royal Rife's therapy (presented in this essay soon).
As soon as he came into power, Fishbein attacked Ghadiali and SCT in the January 24, 1924 JAMA. Fishbein led the attacks that saw Ghadiali put on trial eight times, and he eventually spent eighteen months in prison. In a pattern that will become familiar, a 1945 fire of mysterious origin destroyed Ghadiali's main research building just before an important trial. At that trial, with the fire eliminating most of the evidence that he could defend himself with, part of the judgment was to burn his books.
.
.
JG: "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."
"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."
DR: Again, your assertion is based on a hindsight, filled with novel jargon based on the development of science and technology throughout a hundred years later.
The fortuitous "accident" Rife had in 1932 was while he had been experimenting with the field produced by an argon-filled electrified tube. It seemingly altered the culture he was observing, and through that serendipity, Rife isolated what he dubbed the "BX cancer virus."
At that time Rife was using his frequency device to destroy the typhus bacteria, the poliovirus, the herpes virus, the “cancer virus”, and others using experimental animals. Human treatment was not far off. Rife fortunately had a powerful ally. Milbank Johnson was an influential doctor in Los Angeles circles and a member of the Pasadena Hospital's board.
Johnson began laying the political groundwork for Rife's cure to be used on humans.
In 1934, Rife began using his frequency device on humans, and Johnson began the University of Southern California Medical Research Committee, a committee that Johnson ran until his sudden death in 1944.
The Rife frequency treatment worked on cancer from the beginning. Fourteen of his first sixteen cancer patients were cured using his device within three months. The patients all had "terminal" cancer that orthodox medicine had given up on.
The device was simple. It created an electromagnetic field that Rife calibrated to the resonant frequency of the cancer virus. Once every three days, a patient was subject to the field for a few minutes. The patients felt nothing, and no tissue was damaged. All signs of cancer quickly left those patients. The device could also be calibrated for other diseases such as syphilis, and several diseases could be cured at the same time.
Historical evidence shows that his cancer treatment worked, unless, again, you claim that all the names I’ve provided were in on the fraud too, including the patients?
If so, do you have evidence for that?
Hoxsey, Rife, and Ghadiali were far from the only cancer treatment pioneers wiped out by Fishbein and his cronies. Fishbein led a war on "quackery" during the 1940s, and eventually the AMA's "quack" files included 300,000 names. Parallels to the 1950s communist black lists are not coincidental.
Dr. William Koch developed glyoxylide in the 1940s and found himself in Fishbein's gunsight. This link presents some pertinent Medical Dark Ages quotes about Koch. Koch apparently experienced numerous attempts on his life. Doctors who supported his treatment were physically attacked and some died violently or mysteriously. Koch died in disgrace, with his treatment abandoned.
Today, modern medical orthodox research has borrowed from his work, without giving him any credit or mention. Koch’s fate was part of Fishbein’s self-proclaimed “war on quacks,” an AMA dynamic going back to the AMA’s founder. It was really a war on the competition, Al Capone-style.
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
Your assessment, as well as Mr. Bracegirdle’s, that the universal microscope was merely a contraption of complexities not possible to pass the Abbe limitation, as well as the ability to see viruses or not is insufficient to become an absolute verdict.
As I mentioned in my second response, I am not claiming to understand nor do I have adequate proficiency on the nature of microscopes. But I do know that when things are examined it’s imperative to combine both the logical and abstract processes (I.e. the historical evidence around that time) and bring them to the table. That’s why it was important for me to bring the the history surroundings work art the time to tip the scale.
Mr. Bracegirdle, as well as you, have failed to do so and therefore your “verdict” that Rife’s microscopes are merely a contraption of complexities made to impress; that he did not observe what he deemed to be a cancer virus; and that he could not cure cancer and other dis-eases by frequency are an opinion and nothing more.
Many engineers do not understand some of Tesla’s inventions and the logic behind them. Does that render him a quack or is there a possibility that the critiques merely examine these inventions from a limited dimension of consciousness?
If Rife’s was merely a fraud then his microscopes wouldn’t render the need to be examined many years later. He wouldn’t be persecuted by Fishbein and sued by the AMA. I never heard of the orthodoxy going after quacks that we’re real quacks, unless they pose a threat to the orthodoxy in some kind.
.
.
In lieu of whether Rife could have seen viruses or not, is determinant on the transitoriness between the knowledge of virology today and the knowledge at the time (1930’s). Therefore, it’s imperative to take this gap into consideration when analyzing Rife's work.
Rife may very well have seen something that at that time has been deemed a virus by the convention, whereas today, a bacterial spore, etc.. We don’t know and cannot know based on the limited evidence.
Additionally, the understanding of viruses is still not conclusive. As Naessans has demonstrated, there’s an intimate relationship between the cycles of transformation and they are not isolated from one another, but dynamic in their morphology.
Therefore, this does not negate Rife’s work and contribution.
One should be very careful about dismantling someone's life work with the brush of a stroke. It’s tempting and it’s the easiest thing to do nowadays, since we all have access to the same pool of information. But one has to be humble and remember that even with the amount of knowledge they possess, they still don’t know and cannot know everything.
It was you that called me out in my last article and singled out my brief comments about Rife. In doing so, you made multiple points implying that Rife was correct and that it's all a conspiracy. I did not create a circus. I am simply presenting the facts as they are, while you seem to be in a different universe. Your defensive replies indicate that my scientific assessment of the facts has struck a nerve.
------------------------
You state:
"Again, your assertion is based on hindsight, filled with novel jargon stemming from scientific and technological advancements made a hundred years later."
You come to my page to deliver lengthy diatribes that lead nowhere, while failing to address the main questions posed. You're not engaging in productive discussion or even understanding the terms being discussed, and you have no problem dismissing them.
The entire point of emphasizing the potential danger of such a device lies in the fact that Rife lacked knowledge and understanding of what a virus truly was, as clearly demonstrated in his recordings and claims. You are simply reading stories and falsehoods promoted by a small group of individuals, likely driven by their own 'replica' Rife devices and consultations and books to sell (which would perhaps be legitimate if they worked and were backed by science). You are not presenting legitimate science; instead, you rely on hearsay without subjecting such claims to scientific scrutiny.
Certainly, you do not expect me and everyone else to believe that Rife could cure cancer with light waves alone, despite not even comprehending the nature of viruses, and falsely attributing them as the cause of cancer? At that early stage, it is implausible for him to have achieved what he claimed due to the numerous unknowns of that time that would require, as you say, 100 more years of progress.
This is microbiology, not electricity. Using Tesla as an example is a scapegoat to deny that Rife's device did not make sense. Tesla also had inventions and ideas that would not have worked in practice—those that did work were legitimate and backed by repeatability.
------------------------
You state:
"Mr. Rife has gone beyond the Abbe limitation with his universal microscope. Who gets to validate which evidence is worthier? Why are you quick to dismiss evidence that is contrasting to yours?"
Thats quite the statement. Where's your evidence, theoretically, or otherwise? As I stated clearly in my response to you, Rife did not and could not have surpassed the Abbe limit with a strictly optical unit. You mentioned graviton, but gravitons would not have increased optical resolution. You are making extraordinary leaps and yet you admittedly do not even understand microscope function or the science of optics behind them.
------------------------
Addressing your point 5:
There is no evidence to suggest that Rife was sued by the AMA. Find one historical record of evidence to support this claim, outside your biased Rife sources.
You can continue to insist it's a conspiracy and ignore the science, but I have provided ample scientific explanations as to why such a device would not work. You have ignored that and are resorting to philosophical posturing that goes in circles, answering nothing.
------------------------
You state:
"Additionally, the understanding of viruses is still not conclusive. As Naessans has demonstrated, there’s an intimate relationship between the cycles of transformation and they are not isolated from one another, but dynamic in their morphology."
Yes, they have been proven. That "novel jargon" you claim I am using is simply you not understanding the terms. Viruses do not morph as you claim and Naessens did not prove such a thing. Viruses have a defined structure and cycle, consisting of specific genetic material (DNA or RNA) encased in a protein coat. They are distinct entities with characteristic properties, and this is well-documented. If virus structure was not approaching conclusive now, then they certainly weren't close to being conclusive during Rife's time.
------------------------
Lastly, you state:
"You haven't addressed my points 5 and 6. It seems you cherry pick the points that are easier for you to refute,"
Nonsense. I addressed Sean Montgomery in my response to you.
------------------------
Conclusion:
Let us suspend our disbelief and believe, foolishly, that Rife did the work of thousands of scientists that would have taken a hundred more years to understand, and that he had such things figured out to the point that he could precisely kill viruses with light in a whole body, specifically, and predictably. And yet, he didn't understand the relationship between viruses and their cells. And claimed that viruses are the cause of cancer, not toxicity and other such factors. You can believe that, but do not expect the rest of us to do so.
To accomplish what you claim he did, there would be no shortcuts. He would need to first comprehend the nature of viruses, characterizing their numerous structures, which number in the thousands. Understanding their individual functions and their relationship to cells would be imperative, as well as understanding the cellular processes involved in virus production. Additionally, he would have to grasp and characterize the variations in enzyme proteins across the diverse range of viruses. All of these tasks, and more, would need to be undertaken.
Furthermore, he would have to determine the precise frequencies required to "kill" each virus without causing harm to the surrounding tissue, where other entities in the 100nm range might possess the same frequencies, potentially resulting in extensive damage within that range.
The claim is not even plausible when viewing it through this reality.
I may live in my own universe, but so are you. The difference between you and I, as it seems, is that I’m aware I live in one.
You still haven't addressed the majority of my questions, but only pick those that fit the narrow spectrum of your impeccable knowledge. You react to your own projections and twist my words to maintain the martyr syndrome you exalt in, which, remarkably, have succeeded turning into an art form.
Every challenge, every differing opinion, even if it's expressed in a objective manner, is translated into a personal attack, turned into a combative mode, when there’s no fight to begin with. I’ve seen this time and time again in the way you reply to differing views from yours and in the way you articulate your posts.
You tend to present your findings as a “cardinal law”, whereas anyone challenging these views is painted as "enemies” to scientific rigor and “truth”, or reveling in conspiracies. When the same approach is done onto you, however, you paint it as you being the victim.
And yet, when you happen to change your stance on the matter years later, due to the nature of research, it appears you have amnesia. Being the other side of the fence, you maintain the same habitual pattern forgetting that it’s still all relative; that the position you hold on today may be changed tomorrow.
In such a way I'm not sure you're aware you alienate the very audience that was attracted to your work in the first place.
Perhaps it is a good time to consider taking a break from the raw meat diet for a while, as it makes you overly aggressive and argumentative, for nothing really, and it's quite off putting to watch and experience.
The premise of my challenge here is to point out that neither you, nor Mr. Bracegirdle, nor anyone else, are proficient in all the pertaining details beyond your specified areas of expertise, and how, when judging someone’s life’s work, it’s imperative to incorporate historical evidence surrounding the person and their life events when analyzing technical inventions, even if it may not seem relevant.
There are major issues with your assessment. You constantly shift the goalposts and bombard others with many related and unrelated questions, expecting agreement. When legitimately challenged for the first time in your life, you resort to personal attacks, struggling to accept the presented science.
Ignoring information and clinging to cognitive dissonance isn't tolerated here on my page. My platform is intended to value facts, science, and principles, not baseless conspiracy theories with no evidence. And it is not an unregulated forum where any individual can share their absurd and nonsensical rants.
Continue pontificating, but without evidence and intelligent conversation, you'll be banned. You've been given multiple opportunities, yet you persist with philosophical rants that fail to address the matter at hand. Do not waste my time or the time of my readers. Your provided source doesn't support your claims, and its main arguments are easily disproven with scientific evidence. Your latest response lacks legitimate counterarguments and is nothing but an attack.
Further, I've clearly explained my evolving perspective on Rife, addressing your points directly in my article without personal attacks. Yet, you persist in attempting to provoke a reaction with each comment. I began questioning Rife's claims and evolving my viewpoint a couple of years ago. I initially took the word of what others claimed, as you are now, without verifying the veracity of the claims.
Many individuals drawn to my work also believe in the most outlandish conspiracy theories. If I don't endorse their biases, they resort to attacks, as you are now. Since many of you reside in an echo chamber of shared beliefs, and take haven here on Substack, I become an easy target. When I defend myself with evidence, individuals like you emerge as self-absorbed contrarians with nothing to contribute. If you can't present evidence, facts, and sources, like I'm expected to do, step aside and unsubscribe from my page.
A response of considerable magnitude and clarity (if you`ll excuse the pun). You have illustrated a simple necessity viz.: that we must first check thoroughly that we are not just making assertions but that there exists unequivocal , factual evidence that supports a proclaimed truth for without this principle, we will leave reason in darkness.
When I first began exploring your work, your mention of the Rife microscope was the first I'd heard of it. I was excited by the idea, so I tried to learn what I could about how it worked. This exploration led me to the same conclusions you patiently explained here. It's impossible to get around the limit of the wavelength of visible light without using something besides visible light (that provides greater resolution without being destructive). I had pondered how polarization might possibly offer a way around this inconvenient obstacle, but that is beyond me. I'd like to think Rife had really discovered something to this effect, but the evidence paints a less fantastic picture. However, I'd much rather settle for a disappointing truth than commit to believing an exciting lie.
There are now confocal and super-resolution microscopy techniques, which are hybrid forms of optical microscopy. They can overcome some limitations of the Abbe limit to a certain extent, but the fundamental constraints of the Abbe limit still apply. Polarization does not improve resolving power or increase resolution beyond the diffraction limit of a microscope, but it can provide information on a sample's structure and properties.
In theoretical terms, for Rife to overcome these limitations or even begin to explore that path, he would have needed a completely different design from what he had. A simpler design would have been necessary. I encourage anyone to examine his 'universal microscope' and see how excessively complex it is. It is claimed that focusing a single image took 90 minutes. It is not feasible for Rife to have machined over 5,000 parts that would, in totality, have resulted in a predictable outcome, and the evidence shows this.
Microscopes require highly precise tuning to function properly, and even the slightest movement can throw off the entire instrument's focus. Imagine accidentally bumping the microscope stand and having to spend another 90 minutes to realign and refocus the image. It simply doesn't make logical sense.
There is no doubt that Rife's microscopes worked, but it is illogical to believe that he was able to see structures below 300 nanometers. Most viruses range from 20 to 100 nanometers in size, and he would not have been able to resolve such small images. A further indication of this is his misidentification of a bacillus spore as a virus, which shows that he didn't have a clear understanding of what he was observing.
Most importantly, even IF his microscope could achieve a resolution down to 20 nanometers, it still wouldn't mean that he could observe viruses. Viruses would be invisible under optical microscopy without reflective properties. The reason we can see objects with our eyes is because most objects possess reflective qualities. Without these properties, everything would appear pitch black.
Electron microscopy, however, offers much higher resolution and can visualize structures at the nanoscale, including viruses, without relying on their reflective properties.
Based on the fundamental principles of nature, it is evident to me that the claims of Rife seeing viruses are entirely incorrect. Claiming that he overcame these principles would be disregarding the fundamental laws of nature.
From the relatively little experience I have with microscopes as an amateur, I must say I wholeheartedly agree that the complexity of that device would make it nearly impossible to obtain a clear image. More lenses means more opportunities for aberration and distortion, not to mention the tedium of bringing them all into focus.
1/2
Do you always turn any challenge to your views into a circus? Is it only through the showcase of your prowess abilities to intellectually “dissect” any dissenting view in front of a crowd, a way to secure a footing?
.
.
Jeff green: "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."
David Roy: I don't understand. You hand wave someone's entire life's work based on an assessment of a few who couldn't figure out how his microscope worked?
.
.
JG: "The document explicitly states that the microscopes did not function as described and primarily relied on magnification rather than truly enhancing resolution and sharpness."
DR: Perhaps he was using different technology. In September 1998, Tom Bearden talked about Rife's microscope and speculated that Rife may have been generating gravitons (a mythical subatomic particle) to gain that high resolution.
Again, I'm baffled why you are so quick to dismiss someone's life work. I've noticed you've done the same in your previous post about Neassans work. Are you aware of all the components and the ingenuity they have put in their devices?! Today anyone can be a “truth warrior” behind a keyboard sitting high above in an ivory tower, yet have no real understanding grounded in the real world.
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: Where exactly do you see in my comment that I engage in a similar pattern as described by the author?
It goes both ways.
Anti-Rife propaganda has circulated since the 1930s, and his microscope is dismissed by orthodoxy today, but images taken with his microscopes survive, which prove the “impossible” results that Rife’s microscope achieved.
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: Where do you see in my comment that I assert that they (microscopes) functioned as described? and why do you call such an assertion ‘falsehood’? Who is the authority to claim an absolute on such a matter?
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: What absence of evidence? I have provided an article that provided a possibility for the fact that Mr. Rife has gone beyond the Abbe limitation with his universal microscope. Who gets to validate which evidence is worthier? Why are you quick to dismiss evidence that is contrasting to yours?
.
.
JG: "Moreover, I want to emphasize that neither I nor the author attacked Rife."
DR: The Author claims in the end of his article: "Rife 5 didn't do what Rife said it would, either. This smacks of fraud on any reading. "
I don't know about you, but this sounds to me as a personal attack equivalent to defamation, especially when the guy is no longer around to defend or explain himself.
.
.
JG: "Regarding Rife, it is possible that he was genuinely striving to develop a new invention for a specific purpose. 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."
DR: Are you aware that your dismissal of such thinking is done from a hindsight, almost a hundred years later? It's really easy to handwave something in a hindsight. Everyone can do that with the access everyone has to the same pool of information.
.
.
JG: "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, …Either way, that veers off from the actual evidence available.
DR: So why did he die penniless, and why did he never capitalize on his inventions while living?
Rife had help refining his frequency device from an electrical engineer named Philip Hoyland. A company was formed to build and sell the frequency generators. It was called Beam Ray, and Hoyland, Rife, James Couche (a doctor who had been using the frequency device to treat patients for years), Ben Cullen (a long-time friend of Rife's), and a promoter named Hutcheson were the company’s owners.
The company made 14 frequency devices, and they were used with phenomenal success. Cancer, cataracts, and other diseases simply melted away with the device, properly calibrated to the disease forms.
One doctor, Richard Hamer, was running 40 cases a day through his San Diego clinic, and the results were miraculous.
Milbank Johnson was trying to gather enough clinical evidence to prove beyond any doubt that Rife's treatment worked, and they were trying to keep their patients quiet about their treatment.
Were Dr. Hamer, Milbank Johnson, Philip Holman, James Couch, Ben Cullen and Hutchison all in on the fraud too?!
Through his agents in Los Angeles, Fishbein approached Beam Ray and tried buying into the company, and their offer was rebuffed.
After Beam Ray rejected the AMA's offer, the AMA funded a lawsuit to try seizing the company. The lawsuit led to a trial. The brutal realities of America's legal system were too much for Rife's constitution. The trial destroyed Rife and stopped Beam Ray in its tracks.
They hunted down all the doctors using the device. Everybody was threatened with losing their license if they kept using the Rife frequency device. Hamer quickly gave up his device. Milbank Johnson, however, was not intimidated.
Apparently on the brink of making a very public announcement about Rife's device, Johnson suddenly took ill in 1944 and died. His death remains mysterious. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, two federal inspectors examined Johnson's hospital records and concluded that he was likely poisoned.
During the same period when Johnson suddenly died, a new technician in Rife's lab stole one of the quartz prisms from Rife's microscope, rendering it inoperable.
Just before that theft, Dr. Raymond Sidel published a description of Rife's microscope in the Smithsonian, in which Sidel ran the censorship gauntlet that the AMA had dropped on Rife's work. In the Smithsonian, Sidel described how the cancer virus "may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies."
Those surviving micrographs from Rife's scope came from Sidel's article. That public exposure made somebody irate, for soon after the article was published, Sidel became aware that somebody was following his car and a bullet crashed through his windshield. Dr. Couche defied the AMA and continued using Rife's frequency device until the 1950s, when they revoked his license.
The judge in Hoyland's lawsuit was accusatory of Hoyland when rendering the verdict, telling Hoyland that he thought he was crooked, and he ruled in favor of Beam Ray. The judge even told Beam Ray that he would be happy to represent them in a lawsuit against the AMA, but the trial had bankrupted Beam Ray. Ben Cullen even lost his house in the ordeal. Rife was a ruined man who never recovered from the 1939 trial.
Just prior to the AMA-funded attack on Rife, the other quality "electronic medicine research lab" in America mysteriously burned to the ground in New Jersey, while that lab's owners were visiting Rife's lab in California, for another "coincidence."
Why, if Rife was such a fraud, did Morris Fishbein go after his company with the intent of getting it out of business? Was it solely to defend the purity and sanctity of the medical profession at the time?
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: You haven't addressed my points 5 and 6. It seems you cherry pick the points that are easier for you to refute, but neglect those that aren’t aligned with your “substantive analysis” that tries to prove I’m wrong to question your cardinal verdict.
Secondly, logical deduction without providing historical evidence, oftentimes leading to unintentionally creating misinformation.
My response and conclusion continue in part 2 below.
2/2
JG: "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. “
DR: How do you know? How come you're so sure that all living cells share the same frequency? Are you aware that every form in nature, having a different shape and form, renders a different vibratory frequency to it?
.
.
JG: "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."
DR: Again, how do you know? Is your knowledge of the subject at the moment finite and absolute?
What can be derived from your words is that basically all Rife’s and similar frequency technology machines, claiming to eradicate diseases (viruses / pathogenic bacteria and so forth), are a form of con job aimed to deceive people?
Was Dinshah Ghadiali a fraud too?
Dinshah Ghadiali was a gifted scientist who rubbed shoulders with Edison and Tesla, and came to America from India in the 1890s, believing the "land of the free" propaganda and Horatio Alger tales. In the 1920s, Ghadiali developed and used with great success what he called Spectro-Chrome Therapy ("SCT"). It was simply subjecting people to light waves. In certain respects, it was little different from Royal Rife's therapy (presented in this essay soon).
As soon as he came into power, Fishbein attacked Ghadiali and SCT in the January 24, 1924 JAMA. Fishbein led the attacks that saw Ghadiali put on trial eight times, and he eventually spent eighteen months in prison. In a pattern that will become familiar, a 1945 fire of mysterious origin destroyed Ghadiali's main research building just before an important trial. At that trial, with the fire eliminating most of the evidence that he could defend himself with, part of the judgment was to burn his books.
.
.
JG: "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."
"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."
DR: Again, your assertion is based on a hindsight, filled with novel jargon based on the development of science and technology throughout a hundred years later.
The fortuitous "accident" Rife had in 1932 was while he had been experimenting with the field produced by an argon-filled electrified tube. It seemingly altered the culture he was observing, and through that serendipity, Rife isolated what he dubbed the "BX cancer virus."
At that time Rife was using his frequency device to destroy the typhus bacteria, the poliovirus, the herpes virus, the “cancer virus”, and others using experimental animals. Human treatment was not far off. Rife fortunately had a powerful ally. Milbank Johnson was an influential doctor in Los Angeles circles and a member of the Pasadena Hospital's board.
Johnson began laying the political groundwork for Rife's cure to be used on humans.
In 1934, Rife began using his frequency device on humans, and Johnson began the University of Southern California Medical Research Committee, a committee that Johnson ran until his sudden death in 1944.
The Rife frequency treatment worked on cancer from the beginning. Fourteen of his first sixteen cancer patients were cured using his device within three months. The patients all had "terminal" cancer that orthodox medicine had given up on.
The device was simple. It created an electromagnetic field that Rife calibrated to the resonant frequency of the cancer virus. Once every three days, a patient was subject to the field for a few minutes. The patients felt nothing, and no tissue was damaged. All signs of cancer quickly left those patients. The device could also be calibrated for other diseases such as syphilis, and several diseases could be cured at the same time.
Historical evidence shows that his cancer treatment worked, unless, again, you claim that all the names I’ve provided were in on the fraud too, including the patients?
If so, do you have evidence for that?
Hoxsey, Rife, and Ghadiali were far from the only cancer treatment pioneers wiped out by Fishbein and his cronies. Fishbein led a war on "quackery" during the 1940s, and eventually the AMA's "quack" files included 300,000 names. Parallels to the 1950s communist black lists are not coincidental.
Dr. William Koch developed glyoxylide in the 1940s and found himself in Fishbein's gunsight. This link presents some pertinent Medical Dark Ages quotes about Koch. Koch apparently experienced numerous attempts on his life. Doctors who supported his treatment were physically attacked and some died violently or mysteriously. Koch died in disgrace, with his treatment abandoned.
Today, modern medical orthodox research has borrowed from his work, without giving him any credit or mention. Koch’s fate was part of Fishbein’s self-proclaimed “war on quacks,” an AMA dynamic going back to the AMA’s founder. It was really a war on the competition, Al Capone-style.
.
.
.
CONCLUSION
Your assessment, as well as Mr. Bracegirdle’s, that the universal microscope was merely a contraption of complexities not possible to pass the Abbe limitation, as well as the ability to see viruses or not is insufficient to become an absolute verdict.
As I mentioned in my second response, I am not claiming to understand nor do I have adequate proficiency on the nature of microscopes. But I do know that when things are examined it’s imperative to combine both the logical and abstract processes (I.e. the historical evidence around that time) and bring them to the table. That’s why it was important for me to bring the the history surroundings work art the time to tip the scale.
Mr. Bracegirdle, as well as you, have failed to do so and therefore your “verdict” that Rife’s microscopes are merely a contraption of complexities made to impress; that he did not observe what he deemed to be a cancer virus; and that he could not cure cancer and other dis-eases by frequency are an opinion and nothing more.
Many engineers do not understand some of Tesla’s inventions and the logic behind them. Does that render him a quack or is there a possibility that the critiques merely examine these inventions from a limited dimension of consciousness?
If Rife’s was merely a fraud then his microscopes wouldn’t render the need to be examined many years later. He wouldn’t be persecuted by Fishbein and sued by the AMA. I never heard of the orthodoxy going after quacks that we’re real quacks, unless they pose a threat to the orthodoxy in some kind.
.
.
In lieu of whether Rife could have seen viruses or not, is determinant on the transitoriness between the knowledge of virology today and the knowledge at the time (1930’s). Therefore, it’s imperative to take this gap into consideration when analyzing Rife's work.
Rife may very well have seen something that at that time has been deemed a virus by the convention, whereas today, a bacterial spore, etc.. We don’t know and cannot know based on the limited evidence.
Additionally, the understanding of viruses is still not conclusive. As Naessans has demonstrated, there’s an intimate relationship between the cycles of transformation and they are not isolated from one another, but dynamic in their morphology.
Therefore, this does not negate Rife’s work and contribution.
One should be very careful about dismantling someone's life work with the brush of a stroke. It’s tempting and it’s the easiest thing to do nowadays, since we all have access to the same pool of information. But one has to be humble and remember that even with the amount of knowledge they possess, they still don’t know and cannot know everything.
It was you that called me out in my last article and singled out my brief comments about Rife. In doing so, you made multiple points implying that Rife was correct and that it's all a conspiracy. I did not create a circus. I am simply presenting the facts as they are, while you seem to be in a different universe. Your defensive replies indicate that my scientific assessment of the facts has struck a nerve.
------------------------
You state:
"Again, your assertion is based on hindsight, filled with novel jargon stemming from scientific and technological advancements made a hundred years later."
You come to my page to deliver lengthy diatribes that lead nowhere, while failing to address the main questions posed. You're not engaging in productive discussion or even understanding the terms being discussed, and you have no problem dismissing them.
The entire point of emphasizing the potential danger of such a device lies in the fact that Rife lacked knowledge and understanding of what a virus truly was, as clearly demonstrated in his recordings and claims. You are simply reading stories and falsehoods promoted by a small group of individuals, likely driven by their own 'replica' Rife devices and consultations and books to sell (which would perhaps be legitimate if they worked and were backed by science). You are not presenting legitimate science; instead, you rely on hearsay without subjecting such claims to scientific scrutiny.
Certainly, you do not expect me and everyone else to believe that Rife could cure cancer with light waves alone, despite not even comprehending the nature of viruses, and falsely attributing them as the cause of cancer? At that early stage, it is implausible for him to have achieved what he claimed due to the numerous unknowns of that time that would require, as you say, 100 more years of progress.
This is microbiology, not electricity. Using Tesla as an example is a scapegoat to deny that Rife's device did not make sense. Tesla also had inventions and ideas that would not have worked in practice—those that did work were legitimate and backed by repeatability.
------------------------
You state:
"Mr. Rife has gone beyond the Abbe limitation with his universal microscope. Who gets to validate which evidence is worthier? Why are you quick to dismiss evidence that is contrasting to yours?"
Thats quite the statement. Where's your evidence, theoretically, or otherwise? As I stated clearly in my response to you, Rife did not and could not have surpassed the Abbe limit with a strictly optical unit. You mentioned graviton, but gravitons would not have increased optical resolution. You are making extraordinary leaps and yet you admittedly do not even understand microscope function or the science of optics behind them.
------------------------
Addressing your point 5:
There is no evidence to suggest that Rife was sued by the AMA. Find one historical record of evidence to support this claim, outside your biased Rife sources.
You can continue to insist it's a conspiracy and ignore the science, but I have provided ample scientific explanations as to why such a device would not work. You have ignored that and are resorting to philosophical posturing that goes in circles, answering nothing.
------------------------
You state:
"Additionally, the understanding of viruses is still not conclusive. As Naessans has demonstrated, there’s an intimate relationship between the cycles of transformation and they are not isolated from one another, but dynamic in their morphology."
Yes, they have been proven. That "novel jargon" you claim I am using is simply you not understanding the terms. Viruses do not morph as you claim and Naessens did not prove such a thing. Viruses have a defined structure and cycle, consisting of specific genetic material (DNA or RNA) encased in a protein coat. They are distinct entities with characteristic properties, and this is well-documented. If virus structure was not approaching conclusive now, then they certainly weren't close to being conclusive during Rife's time.
------------------------
Lastly, you state:
"You haven't addressed my points 5 and 6. It seems you cherry pick the points that are easier for you to refute,"
Nonsense. I addressed Sean Montgomery in my response to you.
------------------------
Conclusion:
Let us suspend our disbelief and believe, foolishly, that Rife did the work of thousands of scientists that would have taken a hundred more years to understand, and that he had such things figured out to the point that he could precisely kill viruses with light in a whole body, specifically, and predictably. And yet, he didn't understand the relationship between viruses and their cells. And claimed that viruses are the cause of cancer, not toxicity and other such factors. You can believe that, but do not expect the rest of us to do so.
To accomplish what you claim he did, there would be no shortcuts. He would need to first comprehend the nature of viruses, characterizing their numerous structures, which number in the thousands. Understanding their individual functions and their relationship to cells would be imperative, as well as understanding the cellular processes involved in virus production. Additionally, he would have to grasp and characterize the variations in enzyme proteins across the diverse range of viruses. All of these tasks, and more, would need to be undertaken.
Furthermore, he would have to determine the precise frequencies required to "kill" each virus without causing harm to the surrounding tissue, where other entities in the 100nm range might possess the same frequencies, potentially resulting in extensive damage within that range.
The claim is not even plausible when viewing it through this reality.
I may live in my own universe, but so are you. The difference between you and I, as it seems, is that I’m aware I live in one.
You still haven't addressed the majority of my questions, but only pick those that fit the narrow spectrum of your impeccable knowledge. You react to your own projections and twist my words to maintain the martyr syndrome you exalt in, which, remarkably, have succeeded turning into an art form.
Every challenge, every differing opinion, even if it's expressed in a objective manner, is translated into a personal attack, turned into a combative mode, when there’s no fight to begin with. I’ve seen this time and time again in the way you reply to differing views from yours and in the way you articulate your posts.
You tend to present your findings as a “cardinal law”, whereas anyone challenging these views is painted as "enemies” to scientific rigor and “truth”, or reveling in conspiracies. When the same approach is done onto you, however, you paint it as you being the victim.
And yet, when you happen to change your stance on the matter years later, due to the nature of research, it appears you have amnesia. Being the other side of the fence, you maintain the same habitual pattern forgetting that it’s still all relative; that the position you hold on today may be changed tomorrow.
In such a way I'm not sure you're aware you alienate the very audience that was attracted to your work in the first place.
Perhaps it is a good time to consider taking a break from the raw meat diet for a while, as it makes you overly aggressive and argumentative, for nothing really, and it's quite off putting to watch and experience.
The premise of my challenge here is to point out that neither you, nor Mr. Bracegirdle, nor anyone else, are proficient in all the pertaining details beyond your specified areas of expertise, and how, when judging someone’s life’s work, it’s imperative to incorporate historical evidence surrounding the person and their life events when analyzing technical inventions, even if it may not seem relevant.
There are major issues with your assessment. You constantly shift the goalposts and bombard others with many related and unrelated questions, expecting agreement. When legitimately challenged for the first time in your life, you resort to personal attacks, struggling to accept the presented science.
Ignoring information and clinging to cognitive dissonance isn't tolerated here on my page. My platform is intended to value facts, science, and principles, not baseless conspiracy theories with no evidence. And it is not an unregulated forum where any individual can share their absurd and nonsensical rants.
Continue pontificating, but without evidence and intelligent conversation, you'll be banned. You've been given multiple opportunities, yet you persist with philosophical rants that fail to address the matter at hand. Do not waste my time or the time of my readers. Your provided source doesn't support your claims, and its main arguments are easily disproven with scientific evidence. Your latest response lacks legitimate counterarguments and is nothing but an attack.
Further, I've clearly explained my evolving perspective on Rife, addressing your points directly in my article without personal attacks. Yet, you persist in attempting to provoke a reaction with each comment. I began questioning Rife's claims and evolving my viewpoint a couple of years ago. I initially took the word of what others claimed, as you are now, without verifying the veracity of the claims.
Many individuals drawn to my work also believe in the most outlandish conspiracy theories. If I don't endorse their biases, they resort to attacks, as you are now. Since many of you reside in an echo chamber of shared beliefs, and take haven here on Substack, I become an easy target. When I defend myself with evidence, individuals like you emerge as self-absorbed contrarians with nothing to contribute. If you can't present evidence, facts, and sources, like I'm expected to do, step aside and unsubscribe from my page.