Talk:Royal Rife/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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

Pub Med list of articles

PMID: 17550590

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)

What frequency do you propose is in and out of band and blah? GIve it in hertz, please. Midgley (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2009 (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)

I'm going to humor you and point out that it's not OR because it's explicitly stated by the cited sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 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)

Independent verification by scientists?

If there has been no independent verification of the machines under controlled conditions, perhaps that should go in the lead. Scientific consensus that something doesn't work, when that consensus has been made without actual close study, needs to be qualified. Mainstream science needs to just get around to trying to debunk these things under controlled conditions before vilifying them -- it's not really that hard. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please understand that Rife's theories of bacteria, viruses, cancer, and microscope optics are presently disputed by sources. To my knowledge the machines Rife built for treatment were never adequately evaluated, or any human trial results published except by Rife. The concept and construction of rife machines presently used is different from Rife's machines in power output, frequencies, and even transmission mode of the EMF. In this context I have a problem with lumping Rife's original machines with the present generation of machines loosely using his name. Ward20 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a source which says that, I think it is appropriate for the lead. Also, Ludwigs2, I don't think these comments are unfairly prejudicial, and they are certainly supported by the sources. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the capsule version FYI but not RSed.[1] It will take a while to hunt down the RS if they exist. Ward20 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ImpIn - it seems to me that what the articles actually say is that people who should have been getting other types of treatment tried the Rife thing instead, and died. dying because they failed to receive proper treatment is not the same thing as being killed by the Rife device, which would imply the device was doing something harmful. If someone stabs you with a knife, they are guilty of murder; if someone else offer you an aspirin and tells you it will cure your stab wound, all they are guilty of is being a serious jerk. as I said, I'm not averse to a stronger statement, but the sources just don't support that the Rife machine directly killed anyone. --Ludwigs2 03:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

My wording doesn't say the machine killed them. The sources do blame the machine for killing them, however, because they subsituted the Rife machine for conventional treatments. Whether those sources are justified in blaming the Rife machines is another story. I'm not gonna push, however. I do think we should try to note that these machines haven't even been really studied by mainstream science, and that these modern machines are likely different than the original machines. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is back-asswards. Implausible claims are not considered valid until disproven conclusively - actually, quite the reverse. I'm going to actually insist on some real, acceptable, reliable sources for the Rife device to go with the American Cancer Society, the newspaper coverage from the Seattle Times and Sydney Morning Herald, and material from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, all of which consider these devices ineffective, fraudulent, and potentially harmful. Rather than note that they've "never been really studied by mainstream science", we should take a shot at accurately and proportionately representing what reliable sources have to say. MastCell ^Talk 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Implausible claims which have not been empirically investigated are not considered valid or invalid. I'm saying that "mainstream science dismisses these claims" should always be qualified if the dismissal is not based upon empirical evidence. You don't consider those sources to be reliable? II | (t - c) 05:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Rife's theories and devices already have been dismissed by mainstream science, as the sources amply indicate. It's not our job here to editorially determine whether that dismissal is based on adequate empirical testing; it's our job to accurate report the fact that it's been dismissed. You're asking me whether I think self-published promotional websites marketing "Rife devices" are reliable and appropriate sources as used here? No. Patent applications? No. Newspaper articles from 1938? No. Rense.com? No. MastCell ^Talk 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the way I read that made it seem as if the sources you were talking about were not reliable. Sure, I'd agree that the current pro-Rife sources are not reliable. I'm all for adding them if they exist, but apparently they haven't been found -- maybe they don't exist. What's your point? Those self-published sources suffice for mentioning what the proponents think, although perhaps Rife's History of the Development of a Successful Treatment for Cancer, and Other Virus, Bacteria and Fungi is the best source for that. Also, I don't think whether Rife's claims have been dismissed based on actual controlled evaluation is beside the point. Sorry. I request that science empirically test before it makes claims; in fact, that is sort of the definition of science. No matter how theoretically plausible or implausible something sounds, it should not be dismissed prior to empirical investigation. Science, by definition, must investigate empirically before making strong claims. The only exception is mathematics, which can do a priori validation, which is, arguably, empirical as well. Also, I did say that we should look for a source which does comment on the empirical validation or not -- not just say it on own, because we have no idea whether there's been controlled tests. II | (t - c)

my two cents on this issue

• we cannot include pro-Rife device sources as scientific sources without a reasonable consensus from the scientific community. we might be able to include them as promotional sources if we need to, and if we are very careful to point out that it is unverified promotional assertions and not scientifically verified results.
• we cannot include sources that say Rife devices are harmful unless there is a reasonable scientific consensus that the Rife device does something explicitly harmful. indirect harm is not sufficient. for example, if I started a movement on the claim that generous applications of Grape Jello was a miracle cure for syphilis, well... you could say what you like about me, but you could not (in all fairness) say that Grape Jello caused people to die of syphilis. that's just a bad inference.
• we have to be careful and conservative about the scientific community's attitude towards Rife devices. there is a distinct difference between the SC rejecting rejecting a claim on the grounds of testing and evidence, and the SC dismissing a claim on the grounds of obvious wrongness. only the first of these is a valid scientific finding which can be relied on. the second is clearly prejudicial, but... it's a prejudice based on inferences from a well-established body of theory and research, and so it clearly carries a degree of scientific weight. I think sources that say either are usable, but the latter sources need to be treated as less-powerful types of statements, and that should be reflected in how they are used in the article.

--Ludwigs2 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is not our job to determine whether the scientific community has excercised "due diligence" in ignoring or rejecting Rife's claims. It is our job to note that his claims have been rejected, as evidenced by reliable sources.

Re: deaths caused by Rife machines, we have reliable, independent secondary sources blaming Rife machines for deaths in a handful of patients. Therefore, we accurately reflect these reliable sources. Do you have alternate phrasing which you would prefer to use to encapsulate the findings of these reliable sources?

Re: grape Jello, if an entrepreneur convinced you to forgo treatment with penicillin and instead buy his Grape Jello to treat your syphilis, then one might well blame the Grape Jello for your death or eventual insanity. The point made by the reliable sources is that Rife machines are marketed to be used in place of proven, effective medical treatment, and that their use in such a context has caused deaths. MastCell ^Talk 21:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

nor is it our job to play fill-in-the-blanks on things the scientific community has neglected - that point is adequately covered in WP:OR and WP:SYN. heck, I'm a published scientist, but neither you nor I would want people to take my word for something that I haven't actually published research on. the fundamental principle of (modern) science is that theories should be held accountable to testing and evidence; trying to hold them accountable in the absence of testing and evidence isn't science; it's opinion. I will happily credit it as being expert opinion, mind you, worthy of deep consideration. but it's still not the same as scientific evidence.

Re: deaths caused by Rife machines and Grape Jello - from reading the articles provided, what you have is evidence that lay individuals and (maybe) a few government regulatory agencies attribute deaths to the Rife machines. there's nothing in there that says scientists or science - or even legal entities or court systems - think Rife machines kill people (and believe me, if there were you wouldn't have government agencies saying 'there's nothing we can do about this' because they would use that scientific evidence to have the machines outlawed). you cannot equate the opinions of lay people published in reliably sourced newspapers and magazines with the analyses of scientists published in academic journals. --Ludwigs2 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in arguing the workings of science with you in this venue; suffice to say we disagree, and that it is irrelevant to the task at hand here. So long as reliable, independent secondary sources have blamed the treatment for patient deaths, that information will be in the Wikipedia article. Again, is there an alternate phrasing you would prefer? MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, fair enough. lets get the attributions correct, then. I'd suggest we replace ", though an underground market in "Rife devices" still exists. The devices have been blamed for the deaths of patients who substituted Rife's treatment for conventional treatments." with ". Though no scientific evidence has indicated the devices are directly harmful, family members and media organizations have claimed that Rife devices have been complicit in several deaths, resulting in fraud charges against purveyors." would that (or some variation) work? --Ludwigs2 23:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Media articles have stated several deaths occurred in patients after medically unapproved Rife type devices were ineffective in healing cancer, and contemporary medical treatment was not utilized. Ward20 (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

hmmmm... a little convoluted, but I can work with this. how about (mostly rearrangement): "The media have reported cases where patients who relied on medically unapproved Rife type devices, instead of conventional medical treatments, have died." --Ludwigs2 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So there is no ambiguity, I think it is important to state the machines were not effective, and they died of their cancer, (or illness) if we want to be less specific. Ward20 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

makes sense. does this work? "The media have reported cases where patients have died while relying on Rife-type devices instead of the conventional medical treatments for their conditions, citing them as examples of the ineffectiveness of such devices." I removed the words 'medically unapproved' because I though it was a bit heavy to use along with the 'ineffectiveness' bit (as well as being somewhat redundant in context) but I'm flexible on the point. --Ludwigs2 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Close enough for me. Ward20 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would favor something a bit more straightforward and closer to the sources, such as: "Rife devices have been marketed to cancer patients as an alternative to effective standard treatments, and have been associated with several deaths when used in this context." This is what the sources, particularly the Seattle Times, say. The association was made not by "the media", but by the FDA in the case reported by the Times. Most of our material on Wikipedia comes from the media, but we generally don't preface it with "The media have reported..." That's what the reference links to reliable sources are for. If we use Ludwigs2's suggestion, then I'd leave out the leading intro and just write: "Patients have died while relying on Rife-type devices marketed as alternatives to standard medical treatment for their conditions." MastCell ^Talk 05:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be good with either MastCell's version or his modification of my version; which ever you and Ward prefer. my only (very mild) concern would be that the have been associated with phrase would imply a causal relationship in some people's minds, but I can't think of a way to phrase it better, so...  :-) --Ludwigs2 05:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to me (and you, I'm guessing), "associated with" specifically does not imply causation, but I agree that the fine point there is often lost in general usage. Maybe the second alternative is better - it's definitely shorter. MastCell ^Talk 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, but where do the sources say Rife machines are marketed to be used in place of standard medical treatment? This version implies an intent I did not find in the sources. To be faithful to the sources I believe the wording should say, "Newspaper articles have reported patients died from potentially curable disease while being treated with medically unapproved Rife-type devices rather than standard medical treatment." Attribution never hurts. Ward20 (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Based more on MastCell's version if preferable, "Newspaper articles have reported Rife-type devices have been marketed to cancer patients resulting in ineffective treatment and several deaths when used as an alternative to standard medical treatments.", or "Newspaper articles have reported Rife-type devices have been marketed to critically ill patients resulting in ineffective treatment and several deaths when used as an alternative to standard medical treatment for their condition." Ward20 (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, I think we're close to an agreement here (we're just twiddling with various formulations) so I'm going to go ahead and edit in this melange version: "Newspaper articles have reported cases where the terminally ill have died while using Rife-type devices as alternatives to standard medical treatments for their conditions." I figure at this point it will be easier to tweak it into shape in situ, so have at it.  :-) --Ludwigs2 01:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, but I don't think "terminally ill" is correct. I'll have to re-read, but I think one of the people in question had testicular cancer, which is highly curable with standard medical treatment, and hence likely not "terminal". But let me re-read the source before I do anything. Otherwise looks good. MastCell ^Talk 02:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

yeee...! maybe more curable, but not really preferable...  :-) --Ludwigs2 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like rubbish

Again. Midgley (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

errrrr... can you be more specific? --Ludwigs2 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're implying that at some point, the article actually looked encyclopedic... :) MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we had it looking encyclopedic, but there have been several (brief) periods of the unfortunate history of this article during which the article existed in consensus version. It should be obvious, however, that Oldspammer has an axe to grind, and each time we fix the article, the nonsense creeps slowly back, until we end up with the present awfulness. This article needs to take a much harder line against the pseudoscientific claims of Rife, if it mentions them at all, but I know I'm not the only editor tiring of this edit war. MastCell, I know you've brought Oldspammer to AN/I before. Do you think it would be either appropriate or effective to repost AN/I on the basis of tendentiousness? Angio (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's not been that active recently - there are a small handful of other accounts/IP's which have been promoting Rife devices here, though. I think the bottom line is that there are almost no good sources about Rife's life. In fact, basically everything under his bio and "Rife microscope" section should be axed as unsourced or poorly sourced. The only reliable sources deal with "Rife devices", which is where this article should focus as well. It should probably be moved from "Royal Rife" to Rife device, given the lack of biographical sources, but I despair of accomplishing much on a low-visibility article beset with agenda-driven promotional accounts. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

errr... just an aside, Angio, but the only reason Rife is notable is because of his pseudoscientific claims. I don't think we can remove them entirely...  :-) can you point me to someplace in the history where you thought the article was properly encyclopedic? --Ludwigs2 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a more reliable publication From the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian Institution - 1944 unfortunately hosted at a source that is probably not considered RS[2] The Smithsonian Institution publication itself though seems genuine and does verify much of the information in the article. Ward20 (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ludwigs, when I went back and looked at the old version, I saw that it was actually worse than the present version. >.< In its present state, the article seems to be just a copy edit and a few deletions away from becoming encyclopedic. Once we have a consensus version, I can add this page to my watchlist and revert non-corrective edits as they occur. Angio (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

okay then, let me go through and give it a decent copy-edit (give me a day or so to get to that), and then let's table this as resolved. anything in particular that you think needs polishing, let me know. --Ludwigs2 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is the biographical material, much of which is unsourced or inappropriately sourced, as are some of the details about his microscope(s). If these are really notable and worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia, then these details should be sourceable in independent sources (i.e. somewhere other than rife.org and rife.de). MastCell ^Talk 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The microscope info is in the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian Institution. Do you consider the details in From the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of The Smithsonian Institution - 1944 unreliable? If so, would getting a copy from a library be reliable? Ward20 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I think we can reasonably assume their reproduction is accurate. My bigger concern is notability; this appears to be an idea that was briefly entertained by small segments of the scientific community about 70 years ago and then discarded, to the point where the only sources of information are a small handful of 70-80-year-old reports with no context. I think the most we can say with this source is that "a 1944 report from the Smithsonian Institution described the workings of Rife's microscope", but how can we contextualize this or indicate that there has been no further scientific investigation and that the idea has long since been dropped by the scientific community? MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) well, as a quick and unscientific metric, searching for "Royal Rife" on google scholar yielded roughly 37 references, and those did not look to be the most savory references in the world. A general web search, by contrast, gave 40600 hits. that's probably enough to suggest Rife has notability on cultural and historical grounds, if nothing else. maybe we can be upfront and frame it that way - that Rife started a short-lived scientific fad, that didn't pan out,and only has fringe supporters left? not very well stated, but you can see my drift... --Ludwigs2 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My sense (and correct me if this seems wrong; I haven't looked at all of those Google hits) is that Rife did some research which, in the end, didn't pan out and was discarded by the scientific community. Subsequently, there has been a revival of interest in the form of a booming gray market in "Rife devices", which claim to be based on his research. The connection between Rife himself and devices marketed today bearing his name seems tenuous. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have the same understanding of MastCell's synopsis. I think the difficulty is going to be finding reliable sources to document why Rife's experiments were discarded by the scientific community, as it seems that is where all the mystery and conspiracy theories are floating around. The most logical explanation is that they didn't work, but the literature is highly partisan. Ward20 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Most commonly, when an idea is discarded by the scientific community, there is of course no official announcement of the fact. It just disappears from the scientific literature because no one sees the value in investigating it further. (Not intending to lecture anyone, just pointing out why we probably won't find an "official" account of why Rife's ideas were not pursued). This is actually the fate of the vast majority of initially promising ideas; they don't pan out, for whatever reason, and they drop off the map except for the occasional conspiracist. This is probably the best reliable source describing the evolution of Rife's ideas into the "Rife device" market. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the ca-online 115.pdf. It has a list of references. Hmmm. Maybe some fact checking actually happened?

References

1. Haygarth J: Of the Imagination, As Cause and As Cure of Disorders of the Body; Exemplified by Fictitious Tractors and Epidemical Convulsions. London, Cruttwell, 1800.
2. Pehek JO, Kyler HJ, Faust DL: Image modulation in corona discharge photography. Science 1976;194:263-270.
3. Watkins AJ, Bickel WS: A study of the Kirlian effect. Skeptical Inquirer 1986;10:244-257.
4. Inglis B: Fringe Medicine. London, Faber and Faber, 1964, p 244.
5. Staff of the Scientific American: Our Abrams Investigation. Scientific American series beginning October 1923 and running through September 1924.
6. Kaplan J: Doctor Abrams: Dean of machine quacks. Today's Health, April 1966.
7. Food and Drug Administration: FDA news release, March 1964.
8. Wagner W: The unreal world of Dr. Drown, in Reader's Digest Scoundrels & Scalawags. Pleasant-ville, New York, Reader's Digest Association, 1968, pp 413-427.
9. Smith RL: The incredible Drown case, Today's Health, April 1968.
10. Sieger L: Consumer guide to Rife Generators, in Confidential Rife Report, 1991.
...
...
...

— OCR'd references in ca-online 115.pdf

Let's look at one reference in particular: item 10. "Confidential Rife Report, 1991." It is an article written by Sieger L. Let us do a Google search for this article... What does this CA A Cancer Journal reference source say the reasons were that Rife's ideas were not adopted? Does this source mention the dubious nature of current day Rife machines? Oldspammer (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow this oblique post. The Cancer Journal cites the "Confidential Rife Report" in the context of warning consumers against the fraudulent devices marketed in the report. You seem to be implying that the Confidential Rife Report is a reliable source for use in our article, whereas the Cancer Journal is using it to illustrate fraudulent claims and marketing. Maybe you could clarify what, exactly, you propose in terms of concrete changes to the article? MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) oldspammer - I read through the Confidential Rife Report you pointed out. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't tell me anything about the effectiveness of Rife's treatments or machines (except to assert that they work, without much analysis). mostly the CRR is an extended complaint, bordering on conspiracy theory, about how Rife and his techniques were abused and defrauded. this might (remotely) be reliable as a source about the trials and tribulations of Rife's life (though I think more neutral sources must be available), but I can't see this as a reliable source about why Rife's theories were rejected scientifically (because on that point it clearly is conspiracy theory). or am I missing something? --Ludwigs2 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell: The machines are "unproven" and so under the FDA's rules are frequently mislabeled and sold as medical devices having an unproven curative claim, and so are fradulent only in this regard.

The CRR and the reference citation in 115.pdf indicates that a "Consumer guide to Rife Generators" existed, but no such full document or doc section turns up in a Google search, so it is difficult to confirm that the 115.pdf listed Rife devices are therein endorsed or deemed ineffective. Maybe the decidedly ineffective ones are listed in 115.pdf? Do you have a copy of this "Guide?"

There is tremendous variation in the cost and design of the modern Rife Generator. Where can the average person go for information? His doctor won't know. The reader may not be knowledgable about the features of the Rife Generators. It is possible to spend a lot of money for an instrument which does not perform any better then a model that costs a third as much. And some models have undesirable limitations in range and power. For this reason I wrote "The Consumer Guide to The Rife Generators" with Dr. Reisdorf, revised 1990. While this guide does not specifically recommend any particular brand, there is adequate information for you to find the model that suit your needs.

The CRR above infers that some machines work like Rife's original units, and some are too limited to be useful (dubious). The online version of this document that I examined does not list specific machines, nor does it categorize which ones are dubious--those listings must be in this referenced "Guide"-part instead.

Ludwigs2: According to the "not WP:RS" of the CRR--Why Rife's theories were rejected:

1. Dr. Arthur I. Kendall of Northwestern University (Chicago, Illinois) with Royal Rife scientifically claimed that some viruses had a pleomorphic nature. They had slides, photomicrographs, and motion picture films. However their claims were dismissed by an expert, Dr. Thomas Rivers, who unscientifically expected to replicate their findings and to see and clearly resolve such virus forms using a conventional lab microscope in Rivers' lab. Rivers effectively called Kendall a liar to his face for having presented such findings at a science conference--Rivers was a defender and proponent of his own different, unscientifically supported virus theory. For what organization did Rivers work? Was this family involved in the drug industry?

2. In 1939 at the time of the Beam Ray Corporation law suit brought to it by shareholder & key technical employee Philip Hoyland, the AMA Inc. & Jama made it so that doctors making use of Rife's Beam Ray devices to treat patients were threatened with having their licenses to practice medicine revoked, and any M.D.s supporting Rife's theories and treatments henceforth would be banned from publication in scientific and medical journals. This made the reproducibility of Rife's treatment results nearly zero, as well as eliminating the on-going demand to purchase new machines from Rife's company. (A way to prove a scientific theory is to have its claims reproduced many times over, even by many members of the pubic).

3. A sister lab (to that of Rife's Point Loma / San Diego lab) in New Jersey that was reproducing Rife's results and work was torched / burned (arson). (Ongoing confirmation work was put to a stop so that scientific reproduction was completely halted in so far as the microscope virus claims were concerned.)

4. Rife's lab records, equipment, photos, films were stolen by one or more of his many lab workers. Existing evidence was reduced, leaving only a few hints that something nice may have been discovered. These hints exist in the 1944 Smithsonian article where photomicrographs of some specimens were preserved.

5. The conspiracy part of the CRR is that the AMA was provided money to offer to Philip Hoyland to bring suit against his employer (Rife and the Beam Ray Corporation) by a powerful family who controlled 85% of the drug industry. (For whom did Dr. Thomas Rivers work?)

Other reasons that are based upon money, bribery, greed, and maintaining the status quo, but not science.

Effectiveness? Did you expect the CRR to scientifically prove Rife's claims? All that the CRR says is one or more clinical trials starting in 1934 were conducted by Dr. Milbank Johnson, M.D. on chronic / terminal disease patients. And that members of the special medical committee oversaw the good results. Before widespread clinical trials could be conducted, the AMA banned use of the machines, persecuted Rife and doctors using the treatments, and Rife's labs were looted and raided.

The CRR does not wholly endorse the sole use of the Rife device to treat any disease. It states that the Rife treatments go better with some other therapies such as Gerson or Wigmore:

Note: even a 100% cure rate is not the final answer. Even a therapy that kills 100% of the microbes may not prevent a relapse due to repopulation from the environment at a later date. Because microbes, like animal predators, only attack the week. To return the cells to vigor, it can be immensely helpful to use a raw food diet such as the Gerson or Wigmore therapy. Such a diet is free of the denatured molecules of cooked food which gradually clog call machinery and reduce ts functioning. But how long can you eat only raw food? Furthermore, in the case of a chronic condition that has eroded the immune system and other organs. a raw food diet will usually be too little, and too late to overcome the overwhelming advantage the microbes now have. For everyone who thinks he might have cancer one day--and 40% of us eventually will have--Rife's frequency treatment is the one method found to be almost a guarantee of survival. Providing the correct procedure, frequency, and instrument is used, I have never seen Rife's frequencies fail in cases involving micro-organisms. I have also seen dramatic changes in cases which are not known to be caused by microbes. Perhaps they are caused by microbes not visible with ordinary microscopes.

Other Rife operators (see above) endorse the simultaneous use of Dr. Robert (Bob) C. Beck Protocol, diet, and specific herbs. Oldspammer (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Oldspammer - wow. am I reading this wrong, or are you admitting this is all conspiracy theory, yet still think it should be considered for Wikipedia? look, when this stops being conspiracy theory and starts being conspiracy fact, then you might have a hope, but please, this is not the right venue for this. if you have some credible (and hopefully short-winded) suggestions about improving the article, I'm all ears, but please don't fill the talk pages with supposition and innuendo (even if it's correct and valid supposition and innuendo, it doesn't belong on wikipedia...) --Ludwigs2 22:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my world, Ludwigs2. :) MastCell ^Talk 22:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

lol - I never doubted you, really. I don't actually mind conversations like this, personally, though I imagine it gets old after a few thousand such. he just really believes in something, which I can respect, even if I don't share his beliefs. the question is whether he can bend his beliefs to the very limited ways that wikipedia can accept them (or even accept that wikipedia is limited in this regard). we'll see... --Ludwigs2 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Did the New Jersey lab burn down? Did the Beam Ray trial take place? Was Hoyland provided money to bring suit? Were other people besides Rife persecuted by Fishbein? The only apparent speculation above was about the particular family origin of the money provided to Hoyland.

Unsubstantiated claims must be substantiated here at WP by RS and if those sources could have but did not cover this, then the story cannot be told here in the article text. There can be involved mechanisms at play that determine whether a story is publicized in RS. If key individuals make a decision, the story is killed. Wisely or unwisely one can be open or closed minded about any number of things, and so chooses for themself what they want to believe in. I choose not to believe anything necessarily--I just was paraphrasing the information from that "not WP:RS." Oldspammer (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldspammer - I don't think you're seeing the issue here. if these things are reliably sourced facts then we can discuss including them - believe me, I'm very open minded to things like this. what we cannot include is any inference that these things represent some kind of conspiracy against Rife or his work - that would violate WP:SYN. if there's a reliable source out there that has proven a conspiracy exists, we can use that, but we cannot make the inference on our own. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 18:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. In:

Ludwigs2: According to the "not WP:RS" of the CRR--Why Rife's theories were rejected:...

Q. What does the phrase "not WP:RS" mean?
A. It means the source is not reliable. It means that I know that this information cannot be sourced from that document.

If no WP:RS for the statements are available, it means we cannot have high confidence levels about those facts, that if they were true, decisions were made not to provide news coverage--possibly like early Bilderberg Group meetings enjoyed no news coverage. Oldspammer (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please directly address a specific content issue as clearly as possible. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

MC - I think what he's trying to say is that the CRR is not reliable entirely because some people in the past have made sure that it couldn't be reliably sourced. I don't think he's worked through the logic, though: wikipedia would need some independent reliable source that shows "some people in the past have made sure that these things couldn't be reliably sourced" in order for us to talk about it.

Oldspammer - whether or not it's fair to Rife, or to us, our hands are tied here. we can't introduce theories that are not reliably sourced - not even theories which suggest that things are not reliable sourced on purpose - unless those theories are reliably sourced in their own right. even if I were to grant that everything the CRR implies is absolutely, factually correct, the bad guys would have to win here, because we don't have the sourcing we need to catch them at it. wikipedia is very limited that way; do you see what I'm saying? --Ludwigs2 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Valid Scientific References to Microscope Resolution Incorrectly Deleted

I made a number of well sourced corrections as to the capabilities of optical microscopes as two German inventors (Kurt Olbrich and Professor Stefan Hell) have both shown and proved that optical microscopes can resolve to the resolutions achieved by Rife and are currently marketing microscopes with resolutions of at least 150nm and up to 20nm respectively. Every statement was fully sourced and both Kurt Olbrich and Stefan Hell have been recognised by the German government, scientific institutions and numerous scientists for their achievements. Despite the fact that the statements made had been fully verified with links, the whole thing was reverted with a simple statement "Be more careful". I consider that reversion to be a distortion of facts as they would balance out this otherwise very one sided article to a certain extent. Are you denying the facts presented by Kurt Olbrich or Professor Stefan Hell, whose microscopes are marketed by www.grayfieldoptical.com and Leica Microsystems respectively. Surely the scientific acceptability in the field of microscopes is higher with a company like Leica (one of the big 4 microscope manufacturers) and even Kurt Olbrich (www.mikroskop-olbrich.de and www.grayfieldoptical.com) than with Peter Bowditch whose knowledge of microscopes seems to be limited to those that confirm his sceptical views.

So please do explain in detail why the following comments were seen to be less scientifically acceptable than those made by Peter Bowditch or otherwise reinstate my corrections. The references in the following quote can be found in the version I wrote (see history)

However, there are optical microscopes, on the market today, that have been shown to resolve up to at least 150 nanometers, as confirmed by at least two different certified test slides,[1] and can reach at least the same true magnifications claimed by Rife,[2] although the technology used is different to that used by Rife. The German made Ergonom microscope[3][4] has been used to carefully measure the cancer causing pathogen in its living state,[5] according to Kurt Olbrich as published in a German language reference book,[6] and is capable of showing this pathogen even in its viral state. Although other microscope technologies, like scanning electron microscopes, can show virus sized objects, they are unable to show living unstained viruses. Therefore Rife's virus claims have been confirmed by at least one modern commercially available microscope system as also discussed in one of their scientific films.[7] Other microscopes have also proved that it is possible for light microscopes to resolve down to such levels like the Leica STED microscope with a claimed resolution of 20 nanometers.[8]

The Leica STED microscope has won prizes and international scientific recognition. According to the statement issues by Leica: "What is new about this technique is the fact that the resolution of microscope images is no longer limited by the wavelength of the light, as postulated by Abbe." which in itself invalidates the now dated statements made by Bowditch.

Further, no explanation is given as to why rife.de is not acceptable as a promotional website. The comment "No, material from rife.de is promotional in nature" does not stand up with anyone who has visited the site. It is certainly non-commercial, as nothing is being sold, and it is full of well referenced historical and scientific information including articles quoted from confirmed peer reviewed sources. The only reason to delete this can be to try and maintain this article's heavy bias against Rife by allowing unscientific sceptical opinion against Rife to be allowed whereas scientifically verified information confirming any of Rife's work is being systematically deleted. The heavy bias of the people controlling this article needs to be investigated in my opinion.

It has been suggested to me that my text was deleted purely for placing it on the wrong part of the page and quoting a German language source in the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that book has not yet been translated into English (a small part has been translated). The lack of the use of the English language does not invalidate the contents however. I will look into reinserting my text in a separate section conform with Wikipedia guidelines. LetsGetItRight (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well. First you discuss STED microscopy, a newly developed technique which bears absolutely no resemblance to anything Rife is ever reported or rumored to have done. I'm not a physicist, but my understanding is that STED microscopy relies on (among other concepts) nonlinear optics, stimulated emission, and laser-fluorescent dyes, all concepts which were completely unknown at the time Rife was reputedly active. Furthermore, I'm unaware of any remotely reputable source linking STED microscopy with Royal Rife, making this not only a bizarre line of conjecture but a violation of Wikipedia's original synthesis policies.

I'm not sure what "cancer-causing pathogen" has been demonstrated in its "viral state"; perhaps you could enlighten me (a non-Germanophone) using slightly more specific terms?

As to why rife.de is unacceptable as a reliable source, please see that guideline along with the fringe-theories guideline. Basically, encyclopedic descriptions of fringe claims require independent sources; otherwise the article rapidly acquires the promotional and somewhat outlandish tone of the self-published Rife websites, when the goal is to produce a serious and respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 06:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The STED microscope was only mentioned as an additional proof that the Abbe "rules" do not always apply. That the STED does not have any connection with Rife is irrelevant as this relates only to Abbe's "rules" that such resolutions are not possible with optical microscopes. All optical microscopes relate to the Abbe definition irrespective of how the problem is solved, the point here is that it has been shown to be solvable. The Ergonom microscope has been able to resolve beyond the Abbe limit since 1976 (according to their history page) and they even mention Rife on one of their videos and demonstrate the principle! Certainly the Ergonom is much closer to the Rife microscope than the STED. There are a few other such Abbe beating microscopes around like from Richardson, Naessens, etc. Each has a different approach to resolving beyond the Abbe limit. I can go into much more detail, if you still have problems following my point. If you look at rife.org, you will find that even they have managed to build a microscope using the same principle as Rife and have shown that it works. As you can see, there is plenty of evidence that the Abbe limit is no longer the problem and rife.org has even shown that Rife's concept is sound. Do I need to go into this point even more or can you at least accept that the sentence "The limitations of optical microscopes, and the size of viruses is such that most viruses cannot be seen under an optical microscope" as well as the link from Bowditch have been shown to be no longer valid and should be removed.

As to the document about the cancer causing pathogen in its viral state, that is available in English here. There are more details in their online film as well.

As to rife.de - this entire topic is about Royal Rife. Sure you can call Rife "fringe" if that is your personal opinion, but that would then apply to the entire article. Here we need to simply assess if rife.de is relevant to a topic about Rife which it clearly is. Further, rife.de is just as independent as rife.org, or even the other "Mainstream" links quoted, as both sites were not written by Royal Rife, John Crane or even any of the Rife device manufacturers. Rife.de provides access to original documentation from the time, original images of Rife microscopes and also to current day scientific research like clinical studies made by various organizations. All highly relevant to those wanting to independently assess the validity of Rife's methods. And by the way, Rife therapy appears to be "Mainstream" in Europe in that there have been a number of clinical studies, the equipment is med CE approved (~FDA approval) and is even being used in many hospitals and clinics throughout Europe! Perhaps the link to rife.de (a European website) should therefore be placed under "Mainstream" or perhaps a new category should be created: "Promotional and Mainstream"!

At the moment, this article is heavily biased with negative articles and obviously the moderators here are doing their best to suppress anything objective. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased? --LetsGetItRight (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Neutrality, for our purposes, is described here. You seem to be arguing that reliable sources can be dispensed with if a topic is non-mainstream. This is not the case. If a subject is "mainstream", then it will be trivially easy to produce independent, reliable sources covering it. Similarly, you're advocating a textbook case of original synthesis with the STED microscope, which has absolutely nothing to do with Rife beyond the links you'd like to create.

As to content, if you'd prefer to say that "In Rife's era, limitations of optical microscopes, and the size of viruses were such that most viruses cannot be seen under an optical microscope", then this may be borderline acceptable though I'm not completely comfortable with it, as it relies on generous helpings of WP:SYN.

The material on the "cancer-causing pathogen in its viral state" appears to be nonsense, as best I can tell. A small number of viruses have been associated with human cancer, but this document appears to be postulating something else entirely. MastCell ^Talk 04:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Most scientific theories, when read from the perspective of current day knowledge, look absurd, and history is rewritten by those who prevail. But a reliable scource may still comprise such data if it is all that is available. To quote Wikipedia's policy on that, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field."

Taking your view of things, we might as well destroy 90% of the entry on Tesla as well, since he is still regarded within the electronics industry as somewhat of a fringe ratbag, and little of his work has been either proven or continued by mainstream science. My point in the above comments is to underline the bias and obsession held by editor MastCell in this matter, whose only alterations and objections to my entries thus far have been to those related to medicine, and whose emotive arguments throughout this discussion comprise specious sophistry at best. Haiqu (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've again reverted this edit, repeatedly reinserted. I've enumerated my concerns on the editor in question's talk page, but will repeat them here.

• Inappropriate sourcing. Google Videos are not appropriate sources here. Rife.org is a promotional and self-published website which also fails to meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Personal webpages on Navi.net are not reliable sources. Finally, a promotional website like grayfieldoptical.com is not an appropriate source.
• Exceptional claims. The edit claims that Rife has been vindicated by the "recently published" findings of a German microscopist, who found "pleomorphic bacteria" associated with cancer. This is an exceptional claim (some might go so far as to call it nonsense), and as such requires exceptionally good sourcing. Instead, it's sourced to grayfieldoptical.com (see above).
• It reinserts the claim that Rife attended Heidelberg. While we should probably not veer in the other direction and claim (without sourcing) that he did not, this claim requires as source and may be properly removed as unsourced.

Please take a moment to consider these concerns and discuss them before again reinserting this material. MastCell ^Talk 17:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two highly legitimate (non 'promotional') published references on the abilities of the Rife Microscopes: 1) "Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution" for 1944 and 2) the "Journal of the Franklin Institute", also published in 1944, both of which include an important article which clearly documents some of the details of magnification and resolution levels achieved by the Rife microscope in an article entitled "The New Microscopes" by Seidel and Winter (including micrographs taken on the Rife microscope). I have spent time reading the discussion page for the wiki Royal Rife entry and see that others have written in and pointed out how you are apparently blocking anyone from adding this perfectly legitimate references to the Royal Rife wiki entry. Further, you state that Rife 'casually' linked his 'cancer virus' to the cause of cancer. Audio CDs have been available for some time now which captured interviews with Royal Rife and in which he clearly states having done hundreds of experiments with mice, injecting the 'cancer microbe' into the mice and thus causing cancer..... proving 'Koch's postulate', as pointed out by Rife. The expression 'casually linked' seems hardly neutral. Also, you ignore completely the information given on this 'discussion' page about Kurt Olbrich's Sanguinogramm which gives precise measurements for the cancer microbe. I suppose you would claim that Olbrich's work has not been published in peer reviewed journals. Well, since only his Ergonom 400 microscope is capable of actually imaging this pleomorphic 'cancer microbe', I guess we will have to wait until the rest of the world catches up to him in order to have a peer-reviewed journal publish his work.

Frankly, I find 'MastCell's actions to be rather of a bully who controls the Royal Rife entry....... whose bias is clearly seen by refusing to recognize the perfectly legitimate article on the Rife microscope by Seidel and Winter. It's quite disingenuous of you to claim that the Seidel & Winter article are on some website which makes the article less than acceptable for Wiki standards. The Seidel and Winter article exists and should be permitted to be referenced in this article on Rife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritaspax (talk • contribs)

Um, that is causally linked. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you see the problem with highlighting two articles from 1944 as proof of the abilities of this microscope? They're from 1944. The understanding of virology, optics, cancer, and medicine in general were hugely more rudimentary in 1944. If this were a legitimate finding, then there would be subsequent investigation and publication. The fact that nothing reputable has been published on the subject since 1944 is the clearest possible indication that Rife's claims have been rejected and considered invalid by the scientific community - but instead, you want to hold up those two 65-year-old articles as supporting evidence. That's where Wikipedia's policies on undue weight come into play.

The fact that "audio CD's have been available for some time now" is not particularly convincing from either a scientific standpoint or from the standpoint of Wikipedia's sourcing policies. I won't go into detail on the fundamental importance of reproducibility in scientific claims, but suffice to say that if Olbricht's microscope is the only one in the world which can support his claims, and no one else is capable of reproducing them, and they have not been published in any independent reputable venue, then they are not appropriate to present on Wikipedia. When the "rest of the world" catches up to Rife's ideas, then Wikipedia will be updated to reflect that - but you're trying to use Wikipedia to lead the way, and to promote and publicize an idea which by your own admission lacks any independent credibility at present. That's not Wikipedia's role.

Regarding my failings as a bully, I'm one editor. I'm not the final word on anything. Please peruse our dispute resolution pathway. If you honestly feel that your problem is one unreasonable editor (me) rather than a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and role, then the best approach is probably to solicit outside input. Several means of doing so are detailed here. I may also ask for outside opinions on the fringe theories noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And from the Fringe Noticeboard, here I am. I have to concur with MastCell here; 1944? If the microscopes could actually do what Rife claimed there would be more recent articles, and more specific rather than speculative pieces on "new microscopes). One puppy's opinion, but you really, really need to stop putting this highly questionable materiel into this article. As far as I'm concerned, its unsourced in any meaningful sense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Second MC and KC here. And calling someone a bully is not a good idea (even, counterfactually, if true). MastCell has been quite straightforward with describing significant problems with the content he(?) removed, with ample references to the relevant guidelines and policies (it might take a while, but if you read them all, you should understand how problematic your content is, at least here). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is definitely not "bullying", and raises some very legitimate concerns here. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• You can't reference something like this with data from 1944. Fact. And I think that's clear consensus, too. Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with what has already been stated by the other editors. Find a recent ref and then bring it to talk to discuss. I would suggest not edit warring it into the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

MastCell appears to have a lot of friends. Sadly quantity does not, by itself, produce an article that gives users the information they seek when they refer to it.

I suspect most Wikipedia users want to know what Rife claimed his devices did, how he claimed they worked - and then what current science has determined about those claims and theories.

Quote from Wikipedia "Controversial Articles" section:

"(1)Describe the controversy

An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy."

By bringing in his cabal, MastCell is merely promoting his view, rather than moving the article to a neutral point of view, as required by policy.

As a small, and I hope non-controversial improvement, I propose to add the identifier "a leading manufacturer of camera lenses and microscopes" to the first mention of "Carl Zeiss" in line two of the Biography. This is quite relevant, and is easily verified in Google. 208.238.205.208 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is acting consistently with Wikipedia policies on fringe science and reliable sources. The claims made by Rife and his supporters are extraordinary. YouTube videos and papers from the 1940s are plainly not reliable sources. It is quite reasonable for MastCell to proceed on this basis. LeContexte (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article currently makes clear what Rife claimed and what the scientific response to his claims has been. While it does continue to rely too heavily on patently unreliable and unencyclopedic sources such as rife.org, I don't see the basis for the IP's complaint that the article lacks such information. Can s/he elaborate? MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We are chasing our tail regarding reliable sources. There are no qualifying RS either proving or disproving Rife. The next alternative is best available sources.

Perhaps the basic information that the user wants is in the article, but I am not satisfied with the order and clarity. I suspect the largest interest is in Rife inspired "healing" devices so the introduction should start there, rather than a narrow focus on his work on supposed viruses.

---

For Consideration:

Royal Raymond Rife (May 16, 1888 – August 5, 1971) believed that he had discovered very specific wavelengths of light {visible light? Help me out OldSpammer.} that rendered particular viruses and bacteria inert in the living patient. He claimed his "beam ray" device devitalized pathogens by inducing resonances in their constituent chemicals. Modern medical theory cannot account for his claims and no clinical tests have been performed to validate them.

A number of devices are being marketed that claim to be based on Rife's methods, some using sound or physical vibration. There is no assurance that these devices genuinely follow Rife's theories which require extreme precision. The medical profession is greatly concerned that ill persons would substitute questionable treatments for a Doctor's care.

---

Just a starting point. 208.238.205.112 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with either the detail or the general principle. The first paragraph is too weak - Rife's claims contradict the laws of optics. The second paragraph implies that the devices in question could work if only they precisely followed Rife's theories. The general problem is that you are taking a neutral position on whether Rife's claims were true. The NPOV position, however, is to weigh the article in favour of the mainstream position: which is that Rife was wrong. LeContexte (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View means favoring one side??? Never going to get a consensus that way.

"Of course that is impossible" is faith, not science. Science has never proven Rife right or wrong.

Heterodyning wavelengths and destructive resonance are well recognized mainstream scientific principals. But they are optics, not medicine, which is, I suspect, the cause of much of the friction regarding Rife. 208.238.205.7 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read WP:NPOV. Neutral point of view, as Wikipedia defines the term, mandates presenting views proportionately to their acceptance by experts in the relevant fields. In other words, if experts in medicine or optics hold that Rife's claims are unworthy of investigation or physically impossible, then yes - we absolutely "favor" that side over the views presented on www.rife.org.

"Science has never proven Rife right or wrong" is factually incorrect (Rife's claims about viruses as a cause of cancer as well as the claimed optical resolution of his devices are inconsistent with the current scientific understanding of the world, hence "proven wrong"). It also betrays a basic misunderstanding of science; ideas are either supported by scientific evidence, or they're not. Rife's are not. To claim that they're in a middle ground because insufficient numbers of people have actively disproven them is a bit odd. There's not really anything to disprove.

Anyhow, it comes back to reliable sources. I am not aware of any more recent than 1944 which make any pretense of supporting Rife's claims, while numerous modern reliable sources testify to their incorrectness. If we're diagnosing the causes of friction here, I'd submit that a basic misunderstanding of the goals and remit of this encyclopedia on the part of a small handful of committed advocates is the issue. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Rife's claim about viruses as a cause of cancer is an insignificant part of his work, at least as regards the modern interest in him. It certainly does not belong in the introduction.

I disagree that the "claimed optical resolution of his devices is inconsistent with the current scientific understanding of the world".

Heterodyning is a process of combining two slightly different wavelengths. Two new frequencies representing the sum of and difference between the original two frequencies are produced. (from: Macmillan Dictionary). Modern science agrees that it is possible to "step down" light from high frequency to visible by heterodyning, retaining the information it carries.

This is the scientific basis of Rife's microscopes. That the industry has not moved in this direction may be result of the availability of electron microscopes and the difficulty of fine tuning the wavelengths to the sample in Rife's approach. Destructive resonance is well documented in physics. These central ideas of Rife's work are indeed supported by current scientific theory.

Mainstream medicine overwhelmingly rejects Rife's claims. That should be stated clearly in the introduction. Those who follow the medical community's judgment will accept that verdict without question. That in itself carries great weight.

208.238.205.229 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that heterodyning can be used in the way you describe, and a citation that this was a basis of Rife's microscopes? LeContexte (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for inspiring a bit of research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_heterodyne_detection Optical heterodyne detection is special case of heterodyne detection. In heterodyne detection, a signal of interest at some frequency is non-linearly mixed with a reference "local oscillator" (LO) that is set at a close-by frequency. The desired outcome is the difference frequency, which carries the information (amplitude, phase, and frequency modulation) of the original higher frequency signal, but is oscillating at a lower more easily processed carrier frequency.

From the July 28, 2007 Wikipedia entry on Royal Raymond Rife: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Rife&oldid=147657924 (Rife was)....overcoming physical limitations by heterodyning, a frequency up- and down-shifting technique, fairly new at that time, used in radio receivers and other electronics.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/rife.htm From: "Lost Science" by Gerry Vassilatos Chapter 5: (Rife's microscope used) ...a secondary monochromatic ultraviolet ray... When combined with the brilliant internal fluorescence of the specimen, this ... would heterodyne the light. This meant that light pitches from the specimen would be raised far above its original values.

This last book is a curious combination of overly emotional prose and well-informed research.

My intent is not as much to include any of this in the article as it is to dispel the idea that Rife's work belongs in the "fringe" category, along with Flat Earth and Green Cheese. Rife has many supporters, including a number of MDs. He falls under the "Controversial" heading and deserves a fair and neutral article. To that effect I hope to rewrite the introduction and will post that effort in a separate section below. (Same User as 208.238.205.229) HorusFlight (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you start, please review again our policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, and original research. In response to LeContexte's request for sources, you provided two citations to Wikipedia and one to a self-published personal homepage. Those are probably not what LeContexte had in mind as "citations"; they're certainly not suitable for Wikipedia. If you agree that they don't belong in the article, then they're hardly suitable to make content arguments on the talk page.

If your goal is to produce "fair and neutral content", then please understand that such content begins with solid, reliable, independent sources. What I'm seeing is more along the lines of WP:ADVOCACY. MastCell ^Talk 23:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Science-Gerry-Vassilatos/dp/0945685254/ "Lost Science" was not self published. The chapter on Rife is reprinted online at the URL mentioned, along with other items. As for Wikipedia entries being unacceptable sources, ..... well, I don't think I need to reply to that.

HorusFlight (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, HorusFlight. Apologies if I was not clear - I know what heterodyne detection is, but was querying if there were any sources supporting the claim that it can be used to "step down" light in the way you describe, and the claim that this was what Rife was doing. An unsourced statement on a Wikipedia page cannot really be said to be a source. LeContexte (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost Science, which is out of print, was apparently published by an obscure entity called Borderland Sciences Research Foundation, which is dedicated to promoting UFOs, radionics, and other sorts of fringe science. The book description indicates that it covers "remarkable lives, astounding discoveries and incredible inventions" such as "aura research", "controlled fusion devices", "earth batteries", etc, not to mention "the twisted intrigues that surrounded the often deliberate attempts to stop this technology." Briefly, I don't believe that this is an appropriate source for an encyclopedia article. MastCell ^Talk 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I never said that "Lost Science" was a high quality source (although it has some good parts). It connects optical heterodyning with Rife's work and thus shows it is not my own synthesis. It suffices for that.

Optical heterodyning can be used to "step down" light according to a Wikipedia article with five references and three external links. So there is a possible basis for Rife's microscope in modern Physics. Underline "possible".

That is a long way from proof of his claims, but it should be enough to move Rife from the "fringe" category in our discussion here on the talk page. The sources are more than adequate for the intended purpose - to refute the oft quoted here and **completely unsourced** claim that Rife's microscope results are theoretically impossible. And if you disagree that is fine, lets move on. HorusFlight (talk) 01:34, (edit 18:30) 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry HorusFlight, you're wasting your time citing fringe books and Wikipedia articles. Unless you start citing reliable, published sources that explicitly support your claims, you're never going to get anywhere here. Lost Science does not suffice to draw a link between optical heterodyning and Rife's work: to do that, you need to cite a reliable source that explicitly makes the link. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in discussing this further (although I have clarified my earlier post). Accept or reject as you wish. HorusFlight (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

I don't much like the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Rife's virus claims were therefore incorrect". When I read the article, it hits me as non-neutral. Sad experience has taught me that if I try to fix it (by attributing that statement), somebody will think I'm trying to defend Rife, so I'm just going to grumble here for the moment. Looie496 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - I'm not crazy about that sentence either. It's worth pointing out that the magnification claimed by Rife was well in excess of presumed physical limitations, that his claimed results have not been convincingly reproduced, and that his beliefs about bacterial and viral causes of cancer have been superseded. But maybe we can do that via explanation and sourcing, rather than simply asserting that he was Wrong. MastCell ^Talk 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I also agree it's problematic. It's too much he said/she said. We should simply say that he incorrectly claimed various things and leave it at that since we have a source that indicates his claims are incorrect. I rewrote the lead accordingly. Remember, assert facts and summary style. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of TS's revert of an edit by 84.104.135.86

I've reverted an edit [3] by this user that, amongst other things, changes one of the section headings to "The Cancer Cure That Worked". and another from "Cancer and disease treatment claims" to "Treatment". This was in my view an edit that had the potential to mislead readers as to the efficacy of the treatment. --TS 12:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, fraud can not be asserted. I also fail to see Bowditch authority on the subject.

The current article does not fairly describe Rife therapy.

example: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1658030

84.104.135.86 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article you have just edited you will see that the claims of health fraud are substantiated. In particular, Scott County District Court found that a Minnesotan woman, Shelvie Rettmann, had violated state laws and sold unlicensed medical devices through misrepresentation. --TS 12:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way is her conviction descriptive over the pup med publication? Rife was not convicted nor was the autor of the book. 84.104.135.86 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not make those claims. The article on pubmed is a "preliminary communication" and probably doesn't meet our standards for citation of medical sources. --TS 14:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bowditch indeed doesn't meet the requirements. I have no interest in creating the illusion this is an accepted therapy. I'm merely trying to write a honest article that doesn't read like defamation.

On November 20, 1931, forty-four doctors attended a dinner advertised as "The End To All Diseases" at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson. This dinner was honoring Dr. Arthur I. Kendall, professor at Northwestern Medical School, and developer of the "Kendall Medium" or "K-Medium," and Dr. Royal Rife, the developer of the "Rife microscope." Moving microorganisms from prepared, diseased human tissue were supposedly seen in Berkefeld-000 filtered form, still-photographed and motion pictured.[9]

The "beam ray" terminology is wp:OR the original name is MOR short for mortal oscillatory rate.

If the article may contain nothing but defamation I suggest to put it up for deletion. The number of wp:own violations does not suggest anyone will ever be allowed to work at it.

Look at the archive, every contribution has been reverted including long lists of referrences all has been deleted without any explaination. I tried to link this article to Non-invasive_RF_cancer_treatment which page miraculously disapeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-invasive_RF_cancer_treatment&redirect=no

For you to suggest Rife's RF cancer treatment is not RF cancer treatment is pure nonsense, both are equally unaccepted by modern day medical science.

If this article about Royal Rife should exist it should describe the available information and warnings in an objective way. As the drive-by edditors have decided no one should be allowed to contribute anything to the article I see I'm wasting my time here.

Read what users are saying, they are actually suggesting Radio is not Radio. 84.104.135.86 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We're simply asking that reliable sources be used here. Unreliable sources are not useful. Laundry lists of dozens of unreliable sources are not either. Rife's modern notability stems mainly from the fact that devices bearing his name are widely marketed, often with fraudulent claims.

I think one has to be very careful in presenting a medical journal article from 1931 as a source of medical fact. Most fields of medicine have undergone dramatic changes since 1931. For illustration, look no further than the article immediately following Rife's, which talks up testicular transplantation as a cure for aging. Should we cite that article in our coverage of testosterone and aging? MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

LockDown again?

Yeah, Sure, that is real science.

(note to the archive: the Rife article and talk page have just been semi-protected, preventing any further contribution from 84.104.135.86)

This article has been a constant edit war, as far back as the talk page archive runs. What is needed is consensus - one of the defining principals of Wikipedia. People feel abused when things are so one sided. And I, for one, have lost most of my respect for Wikipedia. HorusFlight (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia, like any social space, has some basic rules and standards of behavior. This talk page is intended for discussion of specific improvements to the article in line with Wikipedia's policies. If a small handful of people continually ignore those basic guidelines and instead use this talk page as a platform for their personal views and conspiracy theories, then we have a problem. The semi-protection is intended to address that problem. MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly have a problem. The problem is lack of respect for each other's views. Such as calling every source that is offered "unreliable" and therefore unworthy. This constant mantra of "Reliable Sources" is more an excuse to block a fair presentation of Rife's work than an upholding of editorial standards.

Standards are important, yes they are critical. Wikipedia policy offers a solution. Right at the top of the "reliable sources" policy page it says "though it is best treated with common sense". Common sense would include citing the best available sources and using caveats, such as "Rife.de, a pro-Rife website, shows documents that claim ..." and "a 1944 Smithsonian article describes ...".

A consensus article can be built, within Wikipedia guidelines, with tolerance and respect. Blocking people from contributing and hiding behind the letter rather than the spirit of WP just creates disgust.

HorusFlight (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see our content guideline at Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE). In essence, we don't want Wikipedia to be used to promote fringe theories, which would be the inevitable effect if we set statements from some fringe website alongside statements from more reputable sources. Our Neutral point of view policy requires that we do not promote (or denigrate) fringe theories. --TS 12:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

HorusFlight, if you propose specific text cited to reliable sources (promotional sites in some cases may be considered reliable for the claims of people promoting an idea), we can discuss it here. Presently, the preponderance of our most reliable sources indicate that Rife's ideas do not describe reality; this is why the article indicates thusly. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the source may be of use in the historical context. Such use must be carefully distinguished from use of the source to support a claim of efficacy. --TS 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

I have unprotected this page, since there is no evidence of talk page abuse. If this page is semi-protected then there is no mechanism through which unregistered editors can discuss and improve the article. For their part, unregistered editors are strongly encouraged to remain civil and use this page appropriately. Accusations of conspiracies (either in the medical community or here among Wikipedians) is not constructive.

If the editors of this article are unable to reach a consensus of how Rife's work should be represented then there are other options available, for example, WP:3O or WP:MEDIATION. Rockpocket 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While unregistered users are allowed to edit Wikipedia (a situation opposed by many registered users), when they become very disruptive, I see no better way than to require that only registered users have access to editing privileges on very controversial articles. I thus would encourage a restoration of semi-protection with a clear encouragement for unregistered users to register. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of this matter can be found here. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That may be true of an article itself, but talk pages are generally given greater leeway. Unless there is some egregious abuse going on (and that is not the case recently), then talk pages should not be protected for any significant period of time. Unregistered users can make edit requests here, and an admin can determine whether there is consensus for addition. Thus the article can continue to be improved by all editors. Rockpocket 20:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

August, 1932, Science

After rereading the source, the article appears to be incorrect about the small turquoise bodies.

August, 1932, Science published a report by Dr. Edward C. Rosenow, M.D. (1875–1966). It said that, in addition to other small particles viewable with the standard lab microscope, small turquoise bodies were seen in the filtrate that were not visible in the lab microscopes, which Rosenow attributed to "the ingenious methods employed [in preparing the specimens] rather than excessively high magnification".[4]

When Rosenow was talking about "the ingenious methods employed" he was talking about the way the microscope illuminated the specimens not how they were prepared. Ward20 (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and object anyhow to this imbedded interpretation of quoted text. The reader is free to read the original document for context. If I had rights to delete this, I would. Haiqu (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Haiqu (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

The following is now a reference so it should probably go. WP:ALSO, "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also". Does anyone object to its removal?

"Rife's original published claim of his observation of the Typhoid bacillus, California and Western Medicine"(December 1931), v. 35, no. 6[5]

Ward20 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Ward20 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Electronics Australia reference problems

"An investigation by Electronics Australia found that one "Rife device" consisted of a nine-volt battery, wiring, a switch, a timer and two short lengths of copper tubing, delivering an "almost undetectable" current unlikely to penetrate the skin."

There are several problems with inclusion of the statement above.

1. In the original Sydney Morning Herald article quoted, journalist Ben Hills states that Electronics Australia has been "campaigning against the gadgets." He does NOT state that they had done an "investigation" at all, and in fact if you look at his website at http://www.benhills.com/articles/articles/MED06a.html you will see he uses the word "analysis" instead.

2. The article in EA is actually an editorial comment in their Forum column, a section devoted to raising contentious issues for discussion. Ref: Rowe, J, 1998, ‘Forum—Diseases like cancer can be cured with a 555 in a jiffy box—so they claim!’ in Electronics Australia, January, 24–27

3. Neither the SMH journalist nor the Electronics Australia editor is qualified to comment on the efficacy of the device, as they are not medically trained. Ben Hills merely mentions EA's stance on the matter as a pseudo-authoritative reference, while Jim Rowe himself is pot-stirring for reader reaction to increase circulation in what was, at that time, a failing publication. The magazine ceased to exist in early 2002 and rights to their materials are now owned by Silicon Chip magazine.

4. The device studied may have been sold to EA as a "Rife Device" but it bears no resemblance to any of Rife's original equipment, either in operating principles or hardware used. While this may or may not be a valid device to compain about, I fail to see how Royal Rife should be tarred with the brush of those who commit dubious acts in his name posthumously.

5. The device - by the description given in the EA article - bears more than a passing resemblance to a Hulda Clark Zapper. The Zapper itself is controversial, but at least one serious study (Singh, Narendra P. & Lai, H. at the University of Washington) shows it to be effective against leukemia.

It is my conclusion that the addition of this statement is therefore biased, and should be deleted from the text. Alternatively a balancing reference, perhaps to Aubrey Scoon's technical analysis of the actual Rife Beam Ray devices or a link to his "Rife Device" construction article in the April 2001 edition of Everyday Practical Electronics, would suffice.

"Several prosecutions for health fraud have resulted, including cases concerning the deaths of cancer patients who used such "Rife devices" in place of standard medical therapy."

This statement follows on from the Electronics Australia reference, implying that the prosecutions reported by Seattle Times are a result of the SMH articles. Needs to be reworded to clarify this possible misinterpretation.

Haiqu (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see this as something other than nitpicking one of the few reliable sources contained in this article. For some puzzling reason, the reliable sources (which happen to be universally negative about Rife's claims) are subject to incessant hair-splitting, parsing, and wrangling on the talk page. The bulk of unreliable, promotional sources like rife.de tend be accepted at face value. That seems backward to me.

If you seriously feel that it's misleading to substitute the word "investigation" for "analysis", then feel free to change that word. The remainder of your points strike me as editorial spin on the wording of a clearly reliable source. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See point 3 above. The criterion that "their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (wiki definition of reliable sources) has not been met. Haiqu (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit performed, per MastCell's suggestion. Also clarified the next line and fixed the reference link mess. Haiqu (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the subject at hand is fraudulent "cancer-cure" devices, I think our sources are suitably authoritative. This argument has been addressed most recently in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe theories, where it was held that the "subject at hand" in fringe theories refers to the mainstream field of study. Nothing in Wikipedia's policies restricts sourcing to the proponents of a fringe theory - quite the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire. While I am impressed with Ben Hills' Walkley Award for journalism and with Jim Rowe's tireless editorship of a hobbyist electronics publication, neither of these gentlemen can be regarded as experts in either "cancer-cure" devices or mainstream medicine. And far be it from me to propose that we restrict sources to proponents of a fringe theory, which you have now stated on two separate occasions in this talk area. In fact this comment seems to outline frustrations caused long before I blundered in here.

Moreover, the subject at hand is the history of the life of a human being; to wit, one Royal Raymond Rife, a point we all seem to be overlooking. Such discussion of opponents to various devices rightly belongs in a separate section on "Rife Devices". Perhaps you'd like to create one? Haiqu (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cause of death

"Rife died on August 5, 1971 in Grossmont Hospital, El Cajon, California, from a combination of valium and alcohol, at the age of 83."

Histories I have read state that Rife died from an accidental overdose of valium while in hospital. To say that he died from a combination of alcohol and valium implies that his death was self-caused. While I lend no credence to the idea of an AMA conspiracy theory, there's no point in whitewashing the medical establishment here either.

Haiqu (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a radical idea which, I realize, departs broadly from the general approach used in this article. How about we remove the statement entirely until we have a reliable source which can verify it? MastCell ^Talk 23:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find any reliable source that goes further than saying he died in 1971. I would suggest a source for the cause of death be provided or else it should probably be removed. Rockpocket 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Haiqu (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Haiqu (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This section now has both news references and a link to Rife's headstone. I think that might settle the matter. He's dead, Jim. Haiqu (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Constant reversions by editors

Apparently the vandalism to this entry isn't coming from short-term users, but from experienced editors who should know better. In the past 24 hours I have had to revert a batch of seven minor changes on two occasions. On the first occasion Shoemaker's Holiday made the reversion of all seven changes while objecting to only one. When I had fixed that (and meanwhile lost my current edit) I found that it was all changed again by ScienceApologist who, from the looks of his personal page, is quite a skeptic. However, he may not have realized that his change affected all seven prior edits, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

The last change, made by Ludwigs2, seems to have been an attempt to make the first section flow better, which is what I was fixing when the first batch of changes were reverted by Shoemaker's Holiday. The result was no improvement in readability, and he also effectively ignores the WP:FTN discussion of microscopes and reverts to incorrect science. Before changing the meaning yet again I'd prefer if the issue were bashed out in WP:FTN, if necessary. The addition of the word "standard" as in "standard optical microscope" is MEANT to imply that there are other types than those most people are familiar with, and this is not Crystalballing. My second comment on this change, that Rife is not a discussion about microscopes, was a bit cryptic, but essentially the links from the words "limitations" and "size" take the reader to adequate data about optical microscopes and virus sizes so we have no need to force-feed it here.

Would all those who have tagged this entry for observation for whatever quirky personal reason, out of respect for someone who is at least TRYING to straighten out this godawful mess, please at least look before you leap? I have zero respect or tolerance for anyone whose only product is the destruction and criticism of the works of others. Should this continue, I'll take it straight to arbitration. Thanks. Haiqu (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Haiqu:

• first, don't refer to good faith edits as vandalism. it's rude, and puts off people who are predisposed to talk with you intelligently.
• second, this isn't your article. if you dislike an edit, please discuss the matter before you jump on the revert button and post something as mind-bogglingly supercilious as the above. you're not the only one trying to 'straighten out this godawful mess', and if you have as little respect for me as the above post suggests, well... you get what you give, yah?
• third, I tried to take that dodgy phrase about the limitations of optical microscopes (and the even worse one about how 15% of cancers are cause by viruses) and make something out of them that at least has some factual basis (and yes, my figures are correct, so there). if it were up to me alone I'd remove both of those dingbat sentences and place them later in the article; they have no place in the first paragraph. but I was trying to be considerate of other editors and not delete their work. something you might take into consideration yourself...

now, if you'd like to discuss these issues reasonably, fine; let's do so. you want to take it straight to arbitration, fine; I don't really give a fig. but either way, don't feed me this kind of crap.

nice screenname, by the way; I love haiku

that being said, I'm going to go and edit the lead the way I think it ought to look (no holds barred), and this time I expect some discussion before it reverted, please. --Ludwigs2 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with leaving both the bit about optical limitations and the bit about 15% of cancers till later in the article. It's enough for the lead to indicate that Rife's claims have been variously ignored or dismissed as invalid by the scientific community. It seems incorrect to say that Rife's claims "may have contained a grain of truth" - after all, whatever else he may have done, he didn't actually observe any viruses. So it's kind of immaterial that we now know about HPV and hepatitis B virus and so forth. MastCell ^Talk 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, please accept my apologies. I did not intend to lump your changes in as "vandalism", this referred exclusively to the first two editors who made bulk changes without referring to the talk pages first. The changes made by both yourself and MastCell since I was here last seem to be heading in the right direction. Haiqu (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

that may be true about the 'grain of truth': I was really just looking for a good lead-in to the second paragraph, and might have given him more credit than due (except possibly for a bit of insight). I'm open to better suggestions. --Ludwigs2 06:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

edit: sorry, I just noticed. I do think it's important to distinguish between Rife's actual devices (of which there were only a handful) and the things that were later marketed as Rife devices. or at least we should establish whether there was any relationship between the originals and the later things. I don't want to blame Rife himself for the frauds that were later perpetrated in his name unless there's good evidence that the frauds were actually using something akin to Rife's design. (I mean, you can criticize the Kia company if Kias are bad cars, but you can't criticize the Kia company if someone starts painting the Kia logo on tricycles and selling them as kias - though I'm not really sure how you'd tell the difference in that case). --Ludwigs2 06:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, please refer to photographs in the Journal of the Franklin Institute Volume 237(2):103-130 (1944) "The New Microscopes" for evidence that Rife did indeed observe and photograph actual viruses. Haiqu (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd to view this in terms of "blame". The article is very clear: Rife made a bunch of obscure and unreproduceable claims which fell into the dustbin of rejected scientific claims. His ideas were then revived by a writer in the 1980s, with the subsequent development of fraudulent "cancer cure" devices bearing his name. A few points:

• I am not aware of any reliably sourced, comprehensible description of Rife's actual devices, which makes it hard to generate WP:OR about whether the current "Rife devices" are based on them or not.
• Rife's modern notability stems entirely from the fact that fraudulent devices bearing his name are marketed in some alt-med circles. The article could be renamed to "Rife devices" if that would help, but regardless the article will focus on the modern devices - because that's where the reliable sources focus. MastCell ^Talk 06:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

well, maybe 'blame' is the wrong word, but I just don't think it's correct to defame someone due to circumstances beyond their knowledge and control. I mean really: if I were to suggest that Jesus Christ was responsible for the millions upon millions of deaths (through war, execution and torture) that have been perpetrated by Christians since He first started preaching, you can imagine what kind of a Shite-Storm that would stir up. Rife's no Christ, and the people that use his name don't have the good intentions that most of those Christians had, but the principle still holds. to your points:

• true, which makes it all the more important to disambiguate between Rife's unknown devices and the later (known) scandelous ones.
• clearly false. if Rife was not at least somewhat notable in his own right, no one would have written a book about him, and no scammer would have bothered to use his name to make a quick buck. there wouldn't have been any value in either act.

Look, Rife was obviously trying to do something good (cure all human diseases, or something inanely noble like that), and he failed spectacularly enough that other people noticed. the people that make 'Rife Devices' are not trying to do something good: they're either trying to make a quick buck, or they're completely deluding themselves. You can see why I would want to distinguish between the pleasantly Quixotic Rife and the Merchant of Death/DingBat crews that use his name, no? --Ludwigs2 07:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

MastCell: Reliably sourced descriptions (including full circuits and modern reproductions) of Rife's actual "Beam Ray" devices can be found here http://www.scoon.co.uk/Electrotherapy/Rife/BeamRay and they bear no resemblance to most "Rife devices" on sale today. Haiqu (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, the article does distinguish between Rife himself and the subsequent "Rife devices", and I think we're in heated agreement about the need to do so. It would be ludicrously unencyclopedic to "blame" Jesus for the various indignities committed in his name. On the other hand, it would be entirely encyclopedic to note that an awful lot of atrocities have historically been justified with reference to Christian ideology. We're doing the latter here, or at least trying to, and I think we agree on that. MastCell ^Talk 06:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RAmen. Haiqu (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, sorry - I think we're down to that 'fussy' stage where we all pretty much agree and are just quibbling over details. sorry if I came across as more than that (I was taught to write persuasively, and that habit dies hard). --Ludwigs2 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream Reference section

Apparently the Skeptics dictionary is regarded as mainstream, which is dubious at best, and the reference to Radionics - claiming that Rife was an imitator of Abrams - is irrational, since Abrams claimed to be able to detect diseases electronically, a claim that Rife has never made. His detection was purely through microscopic observation. I believe this reference should go. Haiqu (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

is there a reference to the Skeptics Dictionary here? dictionaries are generally not considered fully reliable sources on Wikipedia (being tertiary sources compiled by non-experts in the field). they are useful for general background information, sometimes, but not usually for accurate details. I think you can feel safe in removing that reference, unless someone MC has a good reason for keeping it in. --Ludwigs2 10:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. The other two links are no better, referencing private organisations with no record of having cured or researched anything to scientific standards. I'm leaving them in for now, the educated reader can figure out who to trust for himself I suppose. Haiqu (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks like we have a difference of viewpoint from Eldereft here. If he'd like to explain why a reference to a dictionary entry on an entirely different subject qualifies for inclusion, I'd like to hear it. Also like to point out that if WP:LEAD applies to the chunk about microscopes having exceeded the Abbe limit, it equally applies to the whole discussion about resolving power. This could be rectified by creating a new entry on Rife's Microscopes, in which analysis could take place, or be moved entirely to the main section, which is what I was intending to do eventually. Haiqu (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion about microscopes to Microscope section, and comments about cancer to Cancer section per WP:LEAD - thanks for pointing that out, Eldereft. Await comments about re-inclusion of link to Radionics. Haiqu (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The new presentation works for me - good job. The Skeptic's Dictionary is more like an encyclopedia than a dictionary; I reincluded it based on WP:PARITY, but I can see an argument that it does not treat the topic in sufficient depth to be worth linking. Removing it now. With only three links, it seemed a little silly to divvy them up by promotional/mainstream - is that good? - Eldereft (cont.) 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm... I'm concerned that the microscopes is getting a little weasely. three points that need to be addressed:

1. We need a citation for optical microscopes that have broken this particular limit. as I understand the problem, the resolution limit has to do with the interference caused by diffraction of light at visible wavelengths. that shouldn't be possible to overcome without some means of circumventing the laws of physics, so I'd like to see what's really being offered.
2. Add to the preceding, the last sentence of the first paragraph sounds like a classic 'Yeah, but...' argument. 'Yeah, but...' arguments always sound like they're trying to get around something; they are not particularly encyclopedic. that needs to be rewritten to be more factual.
3. the second and third paragraphs out to be combined, in a way that sounds less like a justification of Rife's lost technique. I may do that myself in a bit

--Ludwigs2 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Eldereft, re only three links, it's a temporary situation. Ludwigs2, citations have been inserted in limitations of light microscopes, do they need to be repeated here? Haiqu (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Skeptic's Dictionary is a published work that has been recognized, many times, as a reliable source on the reliable sources noticeboard. As Rife is just another footnote in 'vibrational medicine'/'radionics', it's hardly surprising that such a source doesn't provide a huge amount of miscellaneous information about his life, just the important stuff. Certainly, if the incredibly inappropriate rife.org site is linked then failing to link a reliable published source that puts him in context seems odd. Nevard (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The entry on Radionics links Rife erroneously to Abrams on the basis that he was, and I quote, "one of Abrams' imitators" and goes on about auras. Unprovable, and Abrams allegedly used electronics to detect disease, a much less plausible act than selectively nullifying it. If they had made this comparison to Hulda Clark's "homeography" I'd have no trouble agreeing. At any rate I'm unfamiliar with prior discussion about Skepdic and selectively using it as a source, so perhaps I'll bow out and leave this one to be hammered out amongst more experienced editors. The rife.org site seem to be a collection of old papers about Rife transcribed for the web. While I'd prefer the originals as a research source, this doesn't make the site either pro~ or anti~Rife. Haiqu (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rife.org

My virus checker says the site is infected with a sofware virus (just to be clear;)). Is there a policy about links that send people to an infected sites? Ward20 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #3 says do not do it. Someone please confirm, as my dinner bell is ringing. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a very good source anyway: We can reference any journals it copied, and tag any othe claims. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

does this strike anyone except me as funny/ironic? --Ludwigs2 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't we zap it? Who has a Resonant Light machine? Ward20 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not seeing a problem this end. Then again, I'm wearing my aluminium hat and peril-sensitive sunglasses. Haiqu (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

me, I use a Mac. 'nough said.

Cancer section

A statement that "Registration of a patent does not require that the device or method described works, for the intended purpose or any other." has been added to qualify the previous line. This seems to invite arguments on the criteria for, and the merits and limitations of, patenting a method or device. I should also point out that this is not generally true of patent laws in countries other than the USA. Is there any policy in WP regarding the regulation of such off-topic inclusions? Haiqu (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems off-topic to have a mention of a new patent obtained to 'prove' that whatever device Boehm is flogging works in an article about Royal Raymond Rife. Actually, the page on perpetual motion fraud has a section which notes many patents that have been granted for inventions that are just as scientifically based as any of Rife's. Nevard (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Boehm's patent relates to a method of calculating the resonant frequency of genomic materials, not a device. This is relevant to the discussion about Rife's frequencies being incorrect, which they would be in any case since they were established in vitro.

If a patent examiner specialised in the field can see that an invention is an advance on prior technology or methodology (including the rule of novelty) then it is usually granted in the USA. You state quite correctly that this doesn't necessarily mean it will be useful or that it has been tested in the real world, but perhaps this information needs to be in the entry on patents, if it isn't there already, and a hyperlink inserted. Haiqu (talk)

Just read the section on patents. Quote: "The application contains a description of how to make and use the invention that must provide sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art (i.e., the relevant area of technology) to make and use the invention." This means that the statement conflicts with WP on that matter and contravenes WP:NOR so I'm taking it out. Haiqu (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No- US patent examiners just approve anything they don't understand. Nevard (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit different in Australia. I took the exam as a patent examiner specialising in electronics, they're pretty tough on who they allow to evaluate stuff here. Haiqu (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, patents are a form of control, but do not represent any sort of rigourous control, and do not necessarily test that the item in question works precisely as said, or even that the item is useful. I could patent a new type of cookware, if I so wanted, and even if it was more likely to catch the user on fire, if it was sufficiently unique, it would probably be granted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

and if you patented that, I have a friend who would buy it. the woman cooks well (she's a chef) but with needless amounts of drama.

Re: John Nevard's insertion of "such as Rife's hypothesized 'BX' virus which caused all cancer" - AFAIK no primary source contemporary with Rife is known to have said this. However, Peter Bowditch is a Real Doctor (albeit a card-carrying member of the Australian Skeptics), and the article is cited as a primary source, so I have no choice but to leave it in. The wording looks a bit clumsy, however, and inline quoted attribution might be clearer. Haiqu (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he isn't. According to his resume at http://users.bigpond.net.au/peterb/resume.htm his highest qualification is a BA in Cognitive Psychology. Hmmm. Haiqu (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a secondary source, unlike the useless patent, which is a primary source. The patent in question has no more value as a source than the perpetual motion patents listed on that page. Nevard (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Per Wikipedia's definition it's a secondary source, and my objection was based on a misunderstanding of "Primary Source" which I had presumed to mean an unsupported or unreferenced first-hand account of events, which is precisely what Bowditch's opinion piece comprises. It is published in a private publication which is neither academic nor peer reviewed, but since Australian Doctor is a "respected mainstream publication" (albeit one with a circulation of less than 22,000 copies, most of which are distributed free to Australian MDs) I'll leave it in. Haiqu (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted link to Boehm's patent. If Bowditch's article is allowable (as a primary source) then so is her patent. Both have been peer reviewed, the former by editorial staff at Australian Doctor and the latter by specialized patent examiners. Haiqu (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Boehm's patent went through peer review similar to this patent, and was obtained for the same purpose, to obtain the appearance of official backing for the legitimacy of the applicant's crankery. Wikipedia does not allow that, like the US Government, we trust in the honesty of the applicant. Nevard (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

John, your bias against alternative medicine is showing. Although I'd like to have seen a longer series of tests, the patent you linked above appears to have been properly researched and I would be surprised if the applicant would spend the time and money to cover the invention unless it was effective against AIDS. Regardless, and assuming for now that this patent is invalid, a single example - or even a series of examples which is small compared to the total number of patents granted - doesn't prove that the patent system is broken. Haiqu (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Marketers of Rife-type devices jailed

A federal jury has convicted James Folsom of 26 felony counts relating to his sale of quack medical devices. Evidence presented at his trial indicated that for more than ten years, he conspired with others to ship Rife-type biofrequency devices in interstate commerce. Royal Raymond Rife (1888-1971) claimed that cancer was caused by bacteria and that his devices could emit vibrations that would shatter them. Folsom is a former business associate of Kimberly Bailey, a Fallbrook, California woman who sold similar devices until she was sentenced to life in prison in 2002 for plotting the kidnapping, torture, and murder of a business partner. John Bryon Krueger, who operated the "Royal Rife Research Society," was sentenced to 12 years in prison for his role in the crime and, in a separate case, received a concurrent 30-month sentence for illegally selling devices.

For additional details and links to court documents, see:

• http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/rife/folsom.shtml

-- Fyslee (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

O tempora! O mores! MastCell ^Talk 06:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Low-quality sources

I've removed some poorly sourced material. Please see the verifiability policy. Material needs a reasonably reliable source. Poor-quality, unreliable, self-published online sources are worse than no sources/content at all. I haven't bothered to tackle the patents, because I'm lacking the patience to argue for the 14th time that they are a remarkably poor source for an encyclopedic article, but at the very least the standards of sourcing need to be a bit higher here. MastCell ^Talk 07:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Cancer Cure that Worked true/falsiness

Mccready - I think we need to be a bit careful with OR here. this book did not 'falsely' claim that Rife's work was successful, nor did it make that claim 'despite lack of scientific verification'. According to the book's premises, Rife's work was successful, period, and the book probably makes some claim to the effect that there was no attempt at verification whatsoever (why try to verify something that you're actively suppressing?). whatever we may think of that, we don't have the evidence to state outright that the book is wrong (any more than a conspiracy theorist would have the evidence necessary to say that it's right), or that its author is engaging in a falsehood. I mean, sure - the natural inclination here is for us to say 'well, we know Rife's work didn't pan out, and this guy says it did, so he must be lying', but that's an improper synthesis. I think it's best to err on the side of objectivity here, and not offer any implicit judgments of the book. --Ludwigs2 14:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The judgments offered should probably be limited to those found in reliable, independent sources, like the American Cancer Society. I think that if we accurately lay out the facts, people will be more than capable of deciding for themselves about whether the book is "true" or "false" without our applying those adjectives. MastCell ^Talk 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request (2)

" These 'small turquoise bodies' are now known to have been the cells of the bacterium Salmonella typhi, which causes typhoid fever.[9] " The source listed does not support this claim, rather presents and refutes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.243.56 (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Done by Ward20 (talk · contribs). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Does a Swiss medical study on cancer validate Royal Rife's medical treatment claims?

In Google searching for >Alexandre Barbault Lausanne Switzerland< we come across a series of articles some of which are entitled "Rife Revisited" (among other things). Currently Google.ca hit number 2 is the page Pub Med PMID: 19366446 that is a medical science study indexed by Pub Med that mentions this same researcher's name.

Does it not state (2009 Apr 14) that various EM frequency emissions were used experimentally on slightly less than 1600 163 clinical, late stage cancer patients?

Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach.

... CONCLUSION: Cancer-related frequencies appear to be tumor-specific and treatment with tumor-specific frequencies is feasible, well tolerated and may have biological efficacy in patients with advanced cancer.

— Pub Med PMID: 19366446

I move that any mention of “pseudoscience” for this article be seriously reconsidered since Rife's research coincides with the topic and results of this scientific revelation.

What is the level of credibility of Quackwatch, ACS, NCI, and pharmaceutical drug-oriented news items / writings / pieces regarding this topic?

Should these misleading stories that seemingly defend costly pharmaceutical drug, chronic disease treatment, and disputing Rife's treatment claims be purged from the article?

And if not, why?--since these stories don't seem to provide any other grounds for the treatments not to have worked other than the “valued medical opinions” of financially-interested (a.k.a. conflict of interest), drug-oriented medical practitioners, not even scientists who have attempted any research, and who dismissed all previous scientifically published claims by Dr. Arthur Isaac Kendall of Northwestern University and Rife of the time--nor any claims of many other scientists who experimentally found both negative and positive biological effects of EM radiation? I seem to recall that Nikola Tesla had made such claims a very long time ago--circa 1890s when researching the precursor to the Lakhovsky multiple wave oscillator (MWO)? Oldspammer (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we not immediately claim every tangentially related, preliminary Phase I trial from an obscure journal as vindication for Royal Rife? I won't bother asking for an end to the conspiracy theories, because thta is clearly beyond the realm of possibility for this talk page. Has anyone linked these results to Royal Rife - I mean, any reliable sources? Besides, the details of this study is extremely curious. Are they serious when they say that 7 patients provided "oral informed consent" only - that is, they were treated with an entirely experimental therapy without written informed consent, and presumably without the approval of an institutional review board? And 60% of the treated patients were "not available for response assessment"? When a patient with advanced cancer is "not available for response assessment", they are best considered a treatment failure for the purposes of actuarial analysis. I also don't see how they can make sweeping claims about the safety and tolerability of this treatment when they lost more than half of their patients to follow-up. The handful of documented responses are interesting, certainly, but it may be a bit soon to rewrite the textbooks, and it's absolutely editorial synthesis to cast this as some sort of vindication for Royal Rife. MastCell ^Talk 05:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

rife.org

rife.org seems to be listed as malware-related by Google as well as Avast Antivirus. The link to rife.org should be changed to rife.de.

 Done by User:Stmrlbs. AJCham 02:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)