Rife Machine/Radionics (Quackery)

Bunk

Incomplete Idiot
Bunk
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
3,209
A friend of my wife has bought a "device" called a Beam Ray to treat her father's cancer. I haven't seen it, but I'm almost certain it falls in the category of a Rife Machine.

I've had no difficulty finding websites about Rife/Abrams devices, but have had little luck finding sites that have researched and refuted the vague claims from the venders.

I've looked here:

Royal Rife Technologies
Rife World Wide

There are hundreds of similar sites and I won't bore you with them.

About the only useful article I could find was from quackwatch and is here.

I don't intend to butt in so long as he maintains his real therapies. I expect he gets a nice placebo effect so long as he believes in it. Should he stop getting treatment from his doctor as some people do, then I want to be ready to change some minds. If anyone knows of any other useful sites or can help in any way, I'd appreciate it.
 
Well, it's a shame if he's wasting money that could be put to better uses. That second link shows a gadget that goes for $1,700 -- not a small amount of money to most people.

I hope he does well and goes into remission.
 
In case you were in doubt: The "technical" explanation in the article about Rife "technology" is bogus. "Special" waves do not exist. The behaviour of electromagnetical (EM) waves is one of the best explored areas of science. The interactions between the human body and EM waves depend solely on frequency (the effects of interaction also depend on the energy of the EM waves). Waves with long wavelengths (radio waves) will pass through the body with little interaction. At increasing frequencies, the absorption increases.

The Rife device will function as a (very inefficient) frequency converter. The high frequency emitted will be absorbed by human tissue and produce heat. Also effects on DNA have been speculated, but are not prooved. Microwaves above certain energy levels are strongly suspected to have carcinogenic effects.

Microwaves can kill cancer cells (thats what is being done in radiation treatment), but they will kill normal cells just as readily, so indiscriminate irradiation by EM waves (as suggested in the article) is either totally without effect (if the energy is sufficiently low) or harmful, possibly deadly.

It is not possible to "tune on to" specific cells.

My authority on this subject is an education as electronic engineer and many years work with medical electronics, including some therapeutic equipment.

Hans
 
How about encouraging him to spend the money on a decent holiday which would probably do him a lot more good and wouldn't be deceptive.
 
Has any one here read John Diamonds Book about his cancer? He was a newspaper / magazine columnist who died of throat cancer, but was able to continue writing until very late in his life.

In his book he talks about a number of people who recommended gizmos like this saying "Try this, it worked wonders for my uncle, right up until he died"

I guess to many people, all this talk of special waves and energy-body coupling is pretty indistingishable from the technical jargon of actual treatments.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Microwaves above certain energy levels are strongly suspected to have carcinogenic effects.

Microwaves can kill cancer cells (thats what is being done in radiation treatment), but they will kill normal cells just as readily, so indiscriminate irradiation by EM waves (as suggested in the article) is either totally without effect (if the energy is sufficiently low) or harmful, possibly deadly.
Click to expand...

Microwaves are not susepected of having carcinogenic effects by anyone that knows much about E.M. The frequency is too low.

Also, radiation treatment is not done with microwave radiation. It is done with X-rays. The difference in freqency is stupendous.

If you are going to pronounce these thing with so much authority, you might want to check the facts a bit closer.
 
Thanks everyone for the replies, clarifications and advice. I'm going to pass the information over to his daughter. I don't actually know him. He's staying the course with his real doctor, so I'm not going to butt in at this point. Unfortunately, I understand that he paid a great deal more than $1700, but he can afford it, even if it is a waste. I hope the placebo effect gives him some comfort as his prognosis isn't good. It's sad that our government ignores all of these people selling snake oil to desperate people. Thanks again!
 
scotth said:
Microwaves are not susepected of having carcinogenic effects by anyone that knows much about E.M. The frequency is too low.

Sorry, but they are. Military radars are suspected to be the cause of increased incidence of cancer among military personnel. Suspected, mind you, not proved.

Also, radiation treatment is not done with microwave radiation. It is done with X-rays. The difference in freqency is stupendous.

I was oversimplifying, my error. Actually even higher frequencies are used, into the radioactive. Still EM waves, though.

If you are going to pronounce these thing with so much authority, you might want to check the facts a bit closer.

Sorry for the error about radiation treatment.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Sorry, but they are. Military radars are suspected to be the cause of increased incidence of cancer among military personnel. Suspected, mind you, not proved.


I was oversimplifying, my error. Actually even higher frequencies are used, into the radioactive. Still EM waves, though.
Hans
Click to expand...

Interesting, where did you get that info about Military radar and cancer. I spent 8 years as a radar tech in the USMC and have never heard anything of the sort.

And, what does "even higher frequencies... ...into the radioactive" mean?

"Radioactive" has nothing to do with EM phenomena and has everything to do with the nucleus of atoms. Now, it is true that radiation therapy does occasionally use gamma rays generated by nuclear decay of some radioactive atoms. It really sounds are you are confusing some terms somewhere.

Bottom line, to damage cells directly it takes light (radiation) of at least the low ultra-violet freqency range. Otherwise, damage would be by heating.

Military radars are certainly capable of being very dangerous. Retinas for instance are very sensitive to heating damage by microwave radiation. There are plenty of opportunities to get electrocuted working with radars. Often, some of the parts are made with radioactive or highly toxic materials that could be especially dangerous if they were damaged.
 
Re. radar and caner, I believe that the suspicion is that partly cooked flesh, burned over and over, can become cancerous due to the high rate of cell reproduction during the repetitive healing process. I have no cites, but this is from memory, that whenever the body is ramping up cell division to fix damaged tissue that the probability of a cancer developing increases.
 
scotth said:
Interesting, where did you get that info about Military radar and cancer. I spent 8 years as a radar tech in the USMC and have never heard anything of the sort.

The Danish army is right now conducting an investigation. I'm a bit surprised that you wouldnt have heard about it as a radar tech. There used to be all sorts of hearsay going around, mostly about a connection to leuchaemia. I think that connection has been debunked, but then the other one has popped up.

And, what does "even higher frequencies... ...into the radioactive" mean?

"Radioactive" has nothing to do with EM phenomena and has everything to do with the nucleus of atoms. Now, it is true that radiation therapy does occasionally use gamma rays generated by nuclear decay of some radioactive atoms. It really sounds are you are confusing some terms somewhere.

Traditionally, radiation therapy used radiation from radioactive cobalt, but to my knowledge, present day methods have progressed a good deal from the old "cobalt guns". I dont know exactly which kind of rays are used, but radioactive radiation, e.g. gamma rays are also electromagnetic waves. Their place in the spectrum is beyond deep UV and X-rays.

But you are not wrong in saying that they have to do with particles, because an energetic particle also behaves like a wave.

Bottom line, to damage cells directly it takes light (radiation) of at least the low ultra-violet freqency range. Otherwise, damage would be by heating.

Well, heat (when radiated) is also EM. The trick in radiation therapy is to hit the right cells, and for this you need a wavelength that is highly directable and that has the ability to penetrate deep into the body. This rules out large parts of the spectrum (including UV). The radioactive radiation types have the additional advantage of being epsecially harmful to fast-growing cells. I'm not sure why, but probably by messing up the DNA.

Military radars are certainly capable of being very dangerous. Retinas for instance are very sensitive to heating damage by microwave radiation. There are plenty of opportunities to get electrocuted working with radars. Often, some of the parts are made with radioactive or highly toxic materials that could be especially dangerous if they were damaged.

Roger that! Real killers. Did you know that radar was first contemplated as a death ray? Engineers early in WW2 were asked to explore the possibility of concentrating a beam of microwaves on enemy troups or planes and fry them. But the power needed was way beyond anything that could be made then. Lately, I hear the idea has resurfaced.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
Well, I will predict the Danish will find nothing.

Traditionally, radiation therapy is done with x-ray machines. Radiation therapy that uses radioactive materials to make a radiation beam emit Gamma rays (even higher frequency). There is also implanted radiation therapy where they surgically implant a small pellet of radiactive material, but nothing in you posts indicated you were discussing this.

You are right about the radiation needing to penetrate to be useful. But, the radiation has to be of high enough energy to do molecular damage. That means x-rays or gamma rays. Not microwave.

I suggest you study up on the photo-electric effect in beginning quantum mechanics. While this isn't exactly what is going on in radiation therapy, what you will learn concerning photon freqency (and energy) and its ability to do molecular level work is indespensible to understanding this whole thing.
 
Let's hope your predictions are right. There was also a great discussion of possible damage from cellphones, but if I remember right, nothing came of that.

X-rays in radiation therapy: OK, if you say so, will depend on the type of therapy too, Bucky rays, for instance, are a type of X-rays. But I'm no specialist in radiotherapy, and I just mentioned it in connection with the Rife equipment as an example of possible harmful effects of EM waves (unfortunately I wrote "microwaves", sorry again). The ionizing tube in the Rife equipment is likely to emit EM waves in a VERY broad spectrum, from shortwave and into the X-ray spectrum, although probably with a relatively low energy.

Oh, I'm fairly well into QM and photo-electrics, at least on an enginner level. But, as you say, it does not have much to do with radiotherapy as such.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
The ionizing tube in the Rife equipment is likely to emit EM waves in a VERY broad spectrum, from shortwave and into the X-ray spectrum, although probably with a relatively low energy.

Oh, I'm fairly well into QM and photo-electrics, at least on an enginner level. But, as you say, it does not have much to do with radiotherapy as such.

Hans
Click to expand...

Here is the absolute key ingredient to the whole thing.

The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. The "brightness" of any light (EM source in general) matters little to none.

Looking at "into the X-ray spectrum, although probably with a relatively low energy" reveals the confusion. X-rays, by definition are of very high energy by virtue of their high frequency. It is the energy per photon that allows EM to do molecular damage (other than by simple heating effects).

To cause molecular level effects, EM must be at or above the ionizing threshold. X-rays are way above it. Microwaves are about 1,000,000 times to long. Ultraviolet marks the begining of ionizing radiation.

The tie to the photoelectric effect is this. No matter how bright (intense) light is, it does not cause photoelectric effects if it is not of high enough frequency. While incredibly dim light (one photon at a time, even) will produce the effect if the frequency of the photon is above a certain threshold.
 
Certainly that "Rife bulb" could be an x-ray emitter. Maybe not a good one, or likely not one that would produce hard (high frequency) x-rays, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did emit some radiation. They're awfully easy to create, as the designers of higher voltage vacuum tubes and CRTs know. Anyone else ever see television chassis tubes with lead shields around them?

All the antenna claptrap is useless, as the low energy RF near this wouldn't do much more than screw up radio (especially CB) and television reception nearby. Very little output above 500 mHz.

It's a free country and we're allowed to spend our money on whatever we want, but selling junk like this to desperate cancer patients should be punishable in the worst way. Those guys make bank robbers look honest, at least they don't hide what they're up to.
 
scotth,

I think we are into nitpicking here. I'm quite aware that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. However, you have to go very high, way into hard gamma or higher, before a single photon has any significant energy on the macro level. However, even on X-ray level, a "well-placed" photon might do DNA damage.

The whole message is that Rife devices are probably harmless, certainly waste of money.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
scotth,

I think we are into nitpicking here. I'm quite aware that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. However, you have to go very high, way into hard gamma or higher, before a single photon has any significant energy on the macro level. However, even on X-ray level, a "well-placed" photon might do DNA damage.

The whole message is that Rife devices are probably harmless, certainly waste of money.

Hans
Click to expand...
Not nitpicking at all.

A single photon can do damage starting with the ultra violet. That is the definition of ionizing radiation.

DNA is not macro. It can be damaged by a single photon.

X-ray radiation therapy is this exact principal in practice. Tissue damage caused by x-rays are of the "one molecule damaged by one photon" variety. Of course, there are many photons and many points of damage.
 
scotth said:
Not nitpicking at all.

If you say so.

A single photon can do damage starting with the ultra violet. That is the definition of ionizing radiation.

Agreed (I'm not sure if the exac limit for ionizing radiation, but sure, UV can cause cancer).

DNA is not macro. It can be damaged by a single photon.

Well, that was what I said.

X-ray radiation therapy is this exact principal in practice. Tissue damage caused by x-rays are of the "one molecule damaged by one photon" variety. Of course, there are many photons and many points of damage.

Yep. Same with "cobalt guns".
Click to expand...

Hans
 
garys_2k said:
Re. radar and caner, I believe that the suspicion is that partly cooked flesh, burned over and over, can become cancerous due to the high rate of cell reproduction during the repetitive healing process. I have no cites, but this is from memory, that whenever the body is ramping up cell division to fix damaged tissue that the probability of a cancer developing increases.
Click to expand...

Cooked Insides! Plug that phrase into snopes.com.
 
Just found new information on the investigation by the Danish DOD on possible cancer from Radar sets:

It is not the radar waves that are under suspicion, it is the X-rays emitted from various parts of the equipment. And it is considered a "just to be safe" investigation.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Just found new information on the investigation by the Danish DOD on possible cancer from Radar sets:

It is not the radar waves that are under suspicion, it is the X-rays emitted from various parts of the equipment. And it is considered a "just to be safe" investigation.

Hans
Click to expand...

Well, that would make quite a bit more sense. Some of the older style tube amplifiers could make small amounts of x-rays. This shouldn't be an issue is most modern radars.
 
Bunk:

I just wanted to say that you have a particularly nice avatar.

A family pet, presumably.
 
scotth said:




Bottom line, to damage cells directly it takes light (radiation) of at least the low ultra-violet freqency range. Otherwise, damage would be by heating.
Click to expand...

Not so. There are over a 100 peer reviewed studies reporting biological effects (many adverse) from exposure to microwaves and RF at levels of intensity too low to cause heating and at frequencies much slower than the low UV (i.e. wave lengths longer than say 190nm).
 
This is incredibly sad and distressing, I agree with edthecat.

Furthermore, people who peddle this nonsense should be run off to some woo-woo island away from those they can take advantage of.
 
cogreslab said:


Not so. There are over a 100 peer reviewed studies reporting biological effects (many adverse) from exposure to microwaves and RF at levels of intensity too low to cause heating and at frequencies much slower than the low UV (i.e. wave lengths longer than say 190nm).
Click to expand...

Really? the one's I've seen tend to be inconclusive (and 12.5cm wavelengths don't count in that stament ok?)
 
Cogreslab said-
"There are over a 100 peer reviewed studies reporting biological effects (many adverse) from exposure to microwaves and RF at levels of intensity too low to cause heating and at frequencies much slower than the low UV (i.e. wave lengths longer than say 190nm)."

Could you post some links to these studies please?
 
[off topic] Why should I instinctively distrust someone who includes what looks like an abbreviation for "research laboratory" in his nick, and lists some very ordinary letters after his name in his sig line?

Am I closed-minded and judgemental? [/off topic]

Rolfe.
 
The "Coghill Research Laboratory" markets such products as:

The Gainex Fuel Economiser
A magnetic dog bed
A magnetic knee wrap

They are therefore somewhat partial
 
This link, via Google, gives Dr. Coghill's qualifications, which seem quite respectable to me. Unusual to see an elder of the Free Kirk with such a background, but that just reflects the small size of the Church. http://www. [Link removed- see note...ears I got entirely the wrong Dr.Coghill.[/B]
 
Very interesting! Seems he DOES have an education in electrical engineering. In that case he cannot excuse himself by ignorance. Some of his remarks (like comparing electron beams to EM radiation) can only be interpreted in two ways:

1) He has little knowledge of electromagnetics.

2) He is deliberately misleading.

Hans
 
Soapy Sam said:
Cogreslab said-
"There are over a 100 peer reviewed studies reporting biological effects (many adverse) from exposure to microwaves and RF at levels of intensity too low to cause heating and at frequencies much slower than the low UV (i.e. wave lengths longer than say 190nm)."

Could you post some links to these studies please?
Click to expand...

Not that this is what you're looking for, but I thought I'd mention that a theoretical treatment of the effect of non-thermal microwaves on the forces between cells has just been published, the first such posited mechanism for action that I'm aware of. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've never found the old "microwaves aren't strong enough to break chemical bonds, so there's no problem" explanation tremendously intellectually satisfying.

In case anyone's interested, the reference is:

Possible induced enhancement of dispersion forces by cellular phones
Sernelius, Bo E.
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2004, 16, 1363-1368.

As the title of the journal suggests, however, it may only be of interest to physical chemistry and/or chemical physicists.
 
Google has several other references to Coghill Research. As the founder is Dr. George Coghill, but I believe the Cogreslab poster is named Roger, it seems we should avoid confusing the two.
Edit- This is wrong. Dr. George Coghill is apparently not connected with the company. My error].
SS


This link-

http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/harmoniser.htm

Links to a description of a test of a device supposed to protect from low level EM effects. I have no competence to criticise the methodology, but I find some of the comments highly speculative- and occasionally rather odd. Reference to rock carvings from Irish Neolithic passage graves is not common in papers discussing electromagnetic testing, for instance.
 
Oh boy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The £2000 ($3000) Coghill Challenge to power utility workers and the NRPB is:

Place any human infant of less than three months age to sleep each night for at least eight hours in an ELF electric field of 100 Volts per metre for thirty days. My studies predict that child will die, or become so seriously ill that the test will have to be called off. The NRPB and the power utilities' investigation levels by contrast predict there will be no adverse effect.

I will personally bet any NRPB member of staff or any any electric power utility worker around the world £2000 (or US$3000) willing to do this experiment, that my prediction will prove correct."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Coghill Research's website by the way makes it clear that they do not use animals in testing.

There is some very interesting reading at Coghill's Website.
 
Nota bene!

Note. I suspect the juxtaposition of Coghill Research (The business) and G.M.Coghill Research (The website of Dr. G.M. Coghill) is purely a coincidence of placement. (In the Google UK listings).
I do not know if Dr.G.M.Coghill is connected in any way with that company, and I suspect not.
EDIT-I am now convinced this is a coincidence of names and nothing more.
I have emailed Dr.G.M.Coghill to ask and will post any response.

SS
 
Soapy Sam said:

Edit to add- We don't know of course, whether Cogreslab is Dr.Coghill, or possibly an associate.
Click to expand...

He's obviously a different Dr Coghill to the one posting in this thread, not least because the initials are different. Or have I misunderstood who you're talking about? :confused:

Edited to add: I've just seen your post above - I see, I think.

But is it likely that a computer scientist lecturer at the University of Aberdeen would be operating a weird lab in Wales? We'll see, I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom