Talk:Royal Rife/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Barry Lynes 80s refernces invalid

A few times in this article it is mention that Lynes wrote a book in the 80s responsible for a resurengence of internest among some alternative medical pratctioners in the 80s. Who these practioners are in the 80s? not cited. The proof of an increase in interest in the 80s? not cited . Proof that manufacturing of rife mahinces increased in the 80s in reposnse to Lynes book? not cited.

Seems like the 80s referneces are a bit exaggereated and should be toned down a notch to be more reflective of the truth. Most of the court episodes are in the 2000s then 90s.. What case was in the 80s?

Also what eveidence is their of prominence regarding the court cases? I never heard of any of them in the news and I see almost no news links suggesting anything that these were high profile cases.... Got Citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm254480.htm

Tumor treating fields (TTFields) are low intensity (1 ? 2 V/cm), intermediate frequency (100 ? 200 kHz) alternating electric fields administered using insulated electrodes placed on the skin surrounding the region of a malignant tumor

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21548832

So then. This work above is not rejected quakery and it is very close to some of the same kind of work Rife did. Using frequency todestroy cancer cells. Anthony Holland is doing some of the same work but the drive to suppress medical advancement ESPECIALLY regarding this subject matter is severally in effect. Some would mock me if I suggested the conspiracy of suppresion regarding rife. I would ask Why was the Anthony Holland Composer page deleted with in weeks of having Rifes name taged to his biography. Holland is working on a plasma attena broadcasting method not unlike novocures pad method. Both ideas previously explored and pioneered by Royal Raymond Rife. Just as he pioneered microscope innovations. the amount of Negative Point of View in this article is overwhelming. Especially in light of the acceptence and approval of novocures frequency device.

NovoTTF-100A Treatment Kit: power supply, portable battery, battery rack, battery charger, connection cable and carrying case.

we can call this spade by any name you like but at the end of the night anyone with common sense will know that it is a dirivitive of Rifes work. As such that it has been clincaly accept stand to change the face of the modern medical establishment. Maybe even one day we will be able to attruibute some of the real ground breaking work to Royal Rife. .realiable sources willing. The semiprotect should be lifted and fair and honest editing be encouraged again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 12:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent studies on Rife’s work in the Journal of Exp Clinical Cancer Research, Cancer Journal, Primary Care, Annuals of NY Academy of Science, Journal of Alternative Complementary Medicine, Integrative Medicine Inisghts and Biomedical Science Instruments have all shown the same thing – Rife Therapy gives remarkable results.

It is time to stop letting biased wiki editors with strange obbsessions in denying the truth of this subject to stop abusing this page.

It is time to be honest about the work of Rife... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Check your misspellings... Please use Fire Fox or other web browser with a built-in spell checker that highlights misspelled words.

The reasons that small clinical trials that duplicate Rife's experimental work cannot be cited is that Rife's name is likely not referenced so that logically linking them with Rife involves deductive reasoning / synthesis of thoughts or ideas that cannot be not permitted on Wikipedia because this would be "original research," the trials are inexpensive / small so, therefore, not supported by a large tycoon-owned / controlled entity whose conclusions were foregone in favor of conventional therapies currently in tycoon regulated monopoly control plus all of these positive studies have already been deemed unimportant or insignificant by the conventional medically inclined editors, and it would probably be fine if you could find scientific articles that associated Rife with these various medical science clinical studies so long as: the article is in a reliable source journal, and written by a biochemistry PhD or medical doctor M.D. who has not and will not be denounced as supporting quackery--which is traditionally impossible due to the financial forces at work in the world.

A few years ago, I cited an article written on the web by a masters in physics, Gary Wade, that explained the theoretical operation and components of the Rife microscopes, but this was summarily deleted. The Gary Wade article was likely self-published, so not peer reviewed nor tycoon-controlled. I seem to recollect that Gary Wade also elsewhere was likely promoting his own version of the Rife treatment device that included an ultrasonic element, so was deemed a financially conflicted party in favor of Rife's work. If someone independent of Wade in a reliable source documented about Wade's theories and opinions, perhaps that could be cited?

Even if positive medical studies were cited in the Rife article, the structure of many clinical studies is often inflexible so that the applied therapy cannot be adjusted or combined with other therapies to suit the patient so that outcomes are less than stellar. Cases in point include cancer patients who self-medicate with various alt-med treatments who end up dying because they did not have any means to quickly determine via diagnostic thermal / PET+CT / MRI imaging, etc, that their particular type(s) of cancer(s) were or was not responding measurably to their chosen handful of methods or that it was just too late for them because their cancer was so aggressive. Oldspammer (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Misspellings are irrelevant. Btw, if you google “Royal Raymond Rife” most of the sources you get say that his device really worked.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If I Google "Bigfoot", most of the sources I get say that Bigfoot is real. Does that make Bigfoot real? MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I request that marketing revival and health fraud be removed and that this whole article get an overhaul from a non biased source.

That portion about marketing speaks to alleged rife machines ... Their is no proof the devices in questions were real "rife machines" as defined by Royal Rife. Even if, they weren't made by rife nor endorsed by rife nor owned by rife... so I find it very wrong that they are attributed to rife.

This is a biographical page meant only to discredit and disparige... Dr royal rife built an engine for a boat that held world records...no mention of that. He was married twice. No mention of that. Born in Nebraska . No mention of that. Rife enjoyed playing a varity of musical instruments. No mention of that. However, Barry Lynes book is cited twice. In different sections..... THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT ROYAL RIFE NOT BARRY LYNES!

The entire third paragraph of the first section shouldn't be there.

The citation asked for by tenofalltrades regarding the dinner is outlandish. The very citation he askes for is in the historical revisions of the article! Pictures, newspapers,scholerly articles on rife and his work all of these things have been repeatedly edited out so that we could talk about barry lynes? Is the Kendell medium a debatable and questionable thing that needs to be cited as well?

All this is to say nothing about the latest clinical research based on the work of Royal Rife by PHD Anthony Holland.

This is one of the most biased articles on wiki that I know of. And I do not say that lightly.

I am not requesting a complete unilateral endorsement of everything Rife ever claimed.

I am requesting that the obvious biased be cleaned up and more attention paid to the man in question and not the people who made money off his legacy by invoking his name years after his death. People who have nothing to do with him or his life or his lifes work aside from slapping his name on their product. People who are not Royal Rife or directly related to him.

Please fix this page 108.247.104.253 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful to hear of any reliable sources you can identify which we could use to edit the article. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Another edit request We all understand that very little is left of Royal Rife's research or papers, therefor original work or reliable sources are difficult to find, but how about using a little common sense here. This is the first article I have had a great deal of difficulty believing as completely unbiased and truthful. There are intrinsic problems with the information presented. I humbly offer this addition to this article. Unfortunately, the Electronics Australia magazine is no longer in business, and old copies of their articles are hard to come by, so it is difficult to know just how exhaustive their analysis was, or even when this article was published, but from this description, it sounds like they are describing Hulda Clark’s zapper rather than Royal Rife’s oscillation equipment. Also, there was very little known at that time about the area of study Royal Rife was involved in. Today, much more is known. From Rife photographs taken while in his lab, it is quite obvious that half the room was filled with his complex oscillation equipment, and just about the only thing that is commonly known about his work, is his use of simultaneous multiple tones, which would be impossible for such a device described to produce. Therefore, their description of the “typical” Rife machine seems quite suspect. Another point of confusion is the idea that a milliamp rage current produced by a 9 volt battery is insufficient to have an effect on the body. This is also a fallacy. The human body being mostly liquid is an excellent conductor. Today it is common knowledge that even the smallest measurable amount of amperage is easily transmitted into the human body via the skin. This subject matter is covered in your own article “Microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulator”. Wikipedia should at least represent both possibilities without demanding absolute proof they know is not there. Soundean (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Soundean

Another edit request and sanctions against Mastcell requested.

Mastcell has been infringeing upon this article for years now. Y-E-A-R-S!!!

It is time for him to move on and stop impeading this article.

This rife article is not about barry lynnes but mast cell seems to support making it about Barry rather than Rife.

A citation for the a dinner that their is photo graphic evidence of as well as RSVPs and news paper articles.

That is not a call for a citation being asked for... no what is being asked for is premission to slander/libel.

Mastcell and other psudo skeptics need to leave this article alone and move on.

It is past time to stop perpetuating lies and misconceptions about this man and his work.

If this is a biography entry make so instead of some kind of defmation of a dead mans charicter.

Because that is all this is.

A defemation of a dead man.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.247.104.253 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph in original article "Although 'Rife devices' are not registered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and have been linked to deaths among cancer sufferers..." is irresponsible. It implies the machine itself was responsible for deaths of cancer patietients. In fact, the patients themselves stopped chemotherapy of their own accord, or at the behest of practitioners. The machine never killed anyone. please edit to report responsibly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.155.185 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

An interesting take on the word "irresponsible"! The source mentions death related to rife machine use (on account of avoiding real treatment), so the article's statement that machine use has been "linked to" death seems fair enough to me. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

Please revise the part "Modern revival, marketing, and health fraud". All of the sources are somehow subjective. In the materials, it is said that: patients were killed because they tried Rife's machine instead of chemo - thus we blame the machine. And I failed to find an evidence, eg. study, stating that the machine is harmful or even helpful, because there were no studies at all. How can you say that it is a health fraud then? Lendelat (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: What exactly do you want it changed to? Also you need to provide reliable sources to refute the reliable sources already on the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The machines sold as "Rife Machines" in the 90's, with an electrode for each hand, were not like Royal Rife's machines which used a glowing gas tube. The common element was that they both put out a programmable frequency. I bought one (with electrodes); it did nothing for my friend with cancer and the manufacturer refused to give me the promised refund. The hobbyists that went to the 2006 Rife convention were using gas tube Rife Bare devices, which were guesses about how to emulate Rife's device. I met people who had seen their machines produce results but many didn't work.

Skipper2 (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead too long? request

The words in the third paragraph of the lead are quite duplicative of the /* Modern revival, marketing, and health fraud */ section. The lead should summarize not duplicate. They also duplicate the charge of an "AMA conspiracy" from the second paragraph of the lead. Please can the lead be made more summary on this point? I propose replacing the third paragraph of the lead with:

Beginning in 1987 a popularization of Rife's ideas lead to renewed interest and a number of 'Rife devices' were marketed claiming a variety of curative effects. Several dealers and manufactures of such 'Rife devices' were convicted of fraud. Despite continued non-recognition of such radionic devices by the medical and scientific establishment,<ref name="acs" /> interest continued in Rife's ideas.

The other citations there will need to be moved down to their occurrence in the body of the article, if this is accepted. --Bejnar (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Could not find substantiation of claim

Hi, I'm new here, so I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask for clarification on a reference. I followed the referral link for the following sentence section: "Rife's claims could not be independently replicated[5]" "Questionable methods of cancer management: electronic devices" (PDF). CA Cancer J Clin 44 (2): 115–27. 1994. doi:10.3322/canjclin.44.2.115, and I could not find in the linked source a reference to independent experiments performed which discredited Rife's claims; for example, dates, locations, and number of test subjects would be helpful. Do the authors have access to this information? Hawleysmoot (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

888 Hawleysmoot, you gave us the one edit and never played with us again Anyways the link to the AMA PDF is outdated in that the material that was cited then has been contradicted by the current medical establishment.Novocure has proven beyond all doubt that low level electrical frequency will indeed destroy GBM cancer cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18596382?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

This is not deniable nor is the reference valid with its contradictions and I strongly suggest deletion of it due to its current lack of accuracy.888 1zeroate (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This reference is clearly in the wrong place as it dates from 1994. It must be intended to refer to the general discussion on fraudulent devices, though see "Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: Discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach" Journal of Experimental Clinical Cancer Research (2009;28:51).The only likely sources for the statement are the transcripts of the Crane court case and Rife's obituary. AJRG (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The PDF file cited is almost completely in image-only form, so it is not usually text searchable unless processed through OCR software.It is reviewed (fact-checked) every few months, and re-published on their web site. They basically say that based on second-hand written notes describing the Rife equipment, that it theoretically had insufficient power to effect any treatment of cancer. The authors are un-named, and likely unqualified to render such an opinion since they are unable to provide any fact-checkable substantiation of their opinions with any cited theories, or laws of physics, or chemistry that would discount the resonance disruption effect claimed by Rife. Years ago here, I remarked on this same topic. The supposed argument in this case is that only ionizing radiation at and shorter than ultra violet wavelengths can directly break a chemical bond, but what they neglect to mention is that that kind of radiation is non-selective and would radiate & damage non-cancer tissues more if used--which is what IS done in something mainstream oncology calls radiotherapy.

Rife was discredited by a campaign carried out by the AMA when Rife refused to sell out to them for minimal compensation. At the same time the treatment methods might have been suppressed anyway from the politics involved with forbidding engineering-physics rather than drugs to treat or cure disease. This was due to the 1910 Flexner Report where certain tycoons wanted to control medicine, so took over funding of its research & education. Once taken over by private interests, only patented, profitable drugs were taught and researched for medical treatment ever since. G. Edward Griffin has all sorts of eye opening books & videos produced from the 1960s onwards talking about the influence of tycoons and potential business competitors that the tycoons had crushed and sent to jail for having broken laws established to protect tycoon-monopolies. Rife also supposedly dismissed a deal with medical insurance people.

Google (Dr. Thomas Rivers Royal Rife). Rivers, working at a (tycoon-owned) research facility, called the key doctor working research efforts with Rife, Dr. Arthur Isaac Kendall, a liar to his face. If Dr. Kendall had been quick on his feet, he could have replied "Just because your antiquated garbage optical equipment is unable to view smaller objects does not mean they are not there"--but Kendall was much slower than he needed to be, and ended up embarrassed & falsely discredited.

The medical & science & tycoon forces attacking Rife then are stronger today. They supervise the editing of this article. Should it become too favorable to Rife, it shall be deleted. Rife is supposedly only "notable" on Wikipedia as being a medical fraud.

Google (Nikola Tesla alarm clock steel harmed a baby). The articles are about resonance able to degrade a steel girder. No one here would argue that any part of the body is stronger than a large steel girder, especially a cancer tumor, yet a small alarm clock sized device using resonance was able to destroy such a girder. The CA Cancer Journal authors would be at a complete loss to account for steel bond breakage by such a weak energy device used by Tesla in this example more than 100 years ago. Oldspammer (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please Google (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone posted to the "Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)" Talk page that recently a cancer treatment method using electromagnetic RF radiation had been trialed and approved by the FDA, thereby removing RF EMF therapy from the fringe science, or pseudo science categories, and so too from the alternative medicine category.

The FDA link is http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm254480.htm

The same 1994 CA Cancer Journal article "Questionable methods of cancer management: Electronic devices" was used in that WP article to pronounce all RF electromagnetic and pulsed magnetic field therapies as pseudo science, and not having sufficient disruptive energy to have any positive treatment affects on cancer cells or tumors. The FDA approval demonstrates quite the opposite. The inaccurate claims from this 1994 article should therefore be dismissed as financially and philosophically conflicted attack propaganda funded by those opposed to EMF RF treatment methods. Oldspammer (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

False claims

"Several deaths have resulted from the use of Rife machines in place of standard medical treatment."

This sentence claims that standard medical treatment would have saved those patients. These claims are just wrong, since millions die each year due to standard medical treatment today, and there is no prove that the patients could have been saved with it.

Moreover it is a proven fact that any microorganism dies in vivo through electric currents. Therefore the claims of Rife were completely right. The problem only is that for in vivo treatment the currents must be higher that in todays devices. So just because people are too stupid to build functioning devices doesn't mean that Rife made wrong claims. He was a great scientist and constructor of microscopes, a technology that was later seized and neglected by the medical establishment. Which directly or indirectly caused probably about 100 million of unnecessary deaths in the last 65 years. So who' the murderer here? --178.197.225.95 (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement you've highlighted appears to be supported by footnotes 7 and 16 in the article. Have you located other, better sources which meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability and which impeach our current sources?

The second part of your comment doesn't seem to address the question of how to edit the Wikipedia article, and employs some dubious reasoning to boot. (If you replace "electric currents" in the first sentence with "chlorine bleach" or "potassium cyanide", you can see why the line of reasoning is specious. Lots of things kill microorganisms; few make effective therapies.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

poor state of article

A cursory viewing of this article and I see that there has been a lot of fighting and POV-ism. Is there anyone here contributing who wants to work with me on repairing the page? docboat (talk) 04:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: obtain the ANNUAL REPORT OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE for the period ending June 30th, 1944. Publication #3776 Published by the United States Printing Office. Read the report with Rife's Universal microscope and show the photo taken with the microscope ( included in that article) to a modern microscope repair person. S/he will tell you that the photo in the book is not possible for a light microscope. But there it is, more detail than should be possible. Look at it. Those who say Rife was "discredited" are ignoring reality. Rife used special optics and some tricks to get the resolution he did. He worked for years with cancer samples from the Mayo clinic. He obtained a filterable substace that when injected into rats caused cancer. Then he irradiated the samples and when injected they no longer caused cancer. Finally, he was able to kill the pathogen after the injection, healing the rats, and eventually several people "hopeless cases" of cancer. Years ago, it was "discredited" that viruses can cause cancer. Now we know that there is a direct link between some cancers and specific viruses. (Eg HPV). Further, the idea of shaking viruses apart was confirmed with lasers in 2008. One problem is that light does not penetrate into the body. Rife used a gas filled tube as a semi-directional antenna to transmit specific frequencies of RF into the body of the patient, frequencies he observed in his microscope, which at the right power were able to "devitalize" the pathogen by breaking it. Research Rife in depth and you will find evidence of the murder by poison of the man who was to announce Rife's success the next day. That was not the only death. Someone who had one of his scopes and was replicating his work died in a lab fire. Facts are not "theories" and I will not donate to Wikipedia while it censors history by refusing to provide facts which seem to be evidence of conspiracies. Delete this entire article if you can't publish the truth. The grim reality is that industry watchdogs protect profits even today by attacking cures that work. This is a fact, not a theory. Look at Novamin, as one small example. You can not avoid the conspiracy facts and write an accurate entry about Rife's work. Yes, there are plenty of hoaxes and scam artists, but the evidence I've seen does not support that Rife was one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeno735 (talk • contribs) 03:55, December 28, 2014 (UTC) (Also editing as User:73.12.160.204 and User:166.170.42.178

Not very good, and lost much of the factual content of the past

there was material on the actual microscopes he produced, one of which IIRC is in the Science Museum in Kensington. It doesn't work very well. Mention of UV also is no longer here. This article is about a quack and has suffered severely from the attentions of people with an interest in use of quackery, I think. Midgley (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

eg compare https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Rife&oldid=396958053 We've given up on the Smithsonian? Midgley (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

He was employed as a chauffeur, was he not? Midgley (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If I recall correctly Midgley, you were and are very anti-Rife. Any material sourced from so called pro-Rife web sites was said to be NOT wp:rs material, so was excised from the article. Because Rife died 1971 or whatever, no one in wp:rs associates his work with modern day efforts to use RF EMF to successfully treat cancer when the association is clear to most with some reasoning cognitive capacities. Other RF EMF pioneers have also been mistreated in WP as frauds when now the FDA has approved a RF EMF device for cancer treatment--these guys should all be vindicated as visionary pioneers, and possibly geniuses years ahead of their time. Oldspammer (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you do not. I seem to be pro-(an article about) RIfe, and anti-quack. It seems worth commenting on the things he built, and what the Smithsonian and Science Museum think of them - and reported of them - and it seems difficult to write a biographical article about the man while losing what he was actually paid to do for work. There is a degree of madness about the editing efforts, but also a degree of effort to generate spurious support for selling quackery to people who are ill. I'm certainly against that. And your response doesn't seem to bear in any way on editing the article or the WP, but is purely ad hominem, unjustified and unhelpful to anyone else. Midgley (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

With out a doubt, Insightec is doing exactly what Rife claimed to the letter only instead of viewing the results with a microscope insightec uses an MRI, Novocure is doing simaler things with GBM cancer but that is not allowed to be related here despite being of the same sort of theory of frequency based novel treatment.Just like Insightec. The article will never get the overhaul and proper and impartial updating as long as people insist on agendas of vilifcation. Like insisting on the vulgar term "Quack" instead of the politically correct impartial term of unaccredited. 99.137.241.158 (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Insightec appears to be using magnetic resonance imaging to guide focused ultrasound ablation. This doesn't seem to even remotely resemble Rife's claims.

The Novocure devices (see Tumor Treating Fields—and what's up with that capitalization?) do at least claim to use electric fields to treat cancer. However, they haven't generated any impressive results. They managed a rather dubious FDA approval based on the fact that patients with GBM (glioblastoma multiforme, an extremely aggressive form of brain cancer) didn't do any worse with TTF devices than they did with conventional treatments (though the Novocure arm of the study did also include some chemotherapy agents). That's not so much an endorsement of TTF, as a further demonstration that GBM is extraordinarily aggressive, and even our best treatments don't do much to extend survival. (Median survival with best standard of care is only about 6 months from diagnosis; these tumors are nasty.)

I haven't seen (and you haven't offered) any sources to support the idea that the Novocure devices operate at similar frequencies, intensities, or durations to Rife's designs, nor that Novocure's proposed mechanism of action is anything close to Rife's. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

Please change the word "mentioned" to "featured" in the following sentence: "Subsequently, one of Rife's microscopes was mentioned in the 1944 Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution." Pragmath (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: The Universal Microscope is covered in 8.3 pages of the annual report, as part of a 26 page article on "The new microscopes" in an annual report of 576 pages - IMHO this is more than a "mention" but at <1.5% does not constitute it being "featured" - perhaps you could suggest an alternative word, "covered" ? "discussed" ? - Arjayay (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are correct Arjayjay, the word "featured" would not be justified. Upon further reflection... I suggest "detailed". The article in question is relatively in-depth and technical in nature. - Pragmath (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done I've taken the liberty to change your proposal slightly, to "details of one of Rife's microscopes were included in ..." if you are unhappy, please come back, - Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If one has truly read the Smithsonian piece and considers the nuance between the two terms, i.e. "detailed" vs "details", they would in fairness tip the scales in your direction here. Best regards Pragmath (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the word "ultimately" from the following sentence: "Rife's work and claims were ultimately discredited by the medical community". Rife's work, his exact work, using his equipment/procedures, has never to date been investigated with any rigor by any more than just a handful of physicians. Pragmath (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see the difference between using ultimately and not using it - either way the sentence says that he was discredited. Cannolis (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word "ultimately" in this case would infer that his methods and equipment were discredited after a lengthy series of tests had been conducted in order to make such a judgment. From everything that I have read it would appear that this is not the case. He was labeled a fraud by a few influential individuals such as Dr. Thomas Rivers - who refused to look through Rife's microscope. River's behavior was/is, from what I have been able to glean, a characteristic common to Rife detractors. Pragmath (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The section about Rife's devices from the ACS source already cited in the article is sufficient to that his claims were discredited. I am unsure as to how much testing was done on the devices, as the principles behind their purported function clash with science as we know it.

I don't get the same implication from the usage of ultimately as you do, but I do not mind removing the word if you are dead set on that. Personally, when I read it with "ultimately" it sounds like there was some debate, when it seems the scientific community rather wholeheartedly rejected the claims. Cannolis (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The ACS article doesn't seem to say much other than that Rife's methods, to their knowledge, could not have worked. Yes, you're correct in that the word "ultimately", used in the context in question, intimates that a debate had occurred before Rife became a name not to be mentioned in scientific circles. Would it have been fair to discredit Rife's instruments and methods before he was given the chance to demonstrate them? That, it appears, is what transpired. Rife was denied, rather than discredited. Yes, I'd appreciate it if you would remove the word. Thank you, Pragmath (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The following sentence appears in the next to last section, forth paragraph: "Rife's work and claims were ultimately discredited by the medical community, a result which Rife blamed on powerful conspiracies against him." That aspect of the story however had already been laid out in the first section, second paragraph: "Rife's claims could not be independently replicated,[5] and were discredited by the medical profession in the 1950s. Rife blamed the scientific rejection of his claims on a conspiracy involving the American Medical Association (AMA), the Department of Public Health, and other elements of "organized medicine", which had "brainwashed" potential supporters of his devices".[6] In my opinion this repetition smacks of bias and as such I propose that the sentence (in the next to last section, forth paragraph) be removed. Pragmath (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done the lead section is meant to be a synopsis of the rest of the article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence which follows (first section, second paragraph)can too easily be misleading: "Rife's claims could not be independently replicated... " To date, I've read nothing published in the peer reviewed journals that could be construed as conclusive either way. I propose that, to be fair, in the sentence in question that the words "could not be" be replaced with the words "have not been". Pragmath (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like asking them to prove a negative. Stickee (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re-instatement of footnote link to photocopy of Rife's newspaper obituary

On 16.12.2013 the link was removed from footnote 6 which refers to the obituary by Del Hood in the Daily Californian, with the remark: (rm link to site which clearly fails all sourcing criteria).

According to WP guidelines: "A convenience link is a link to a copy of your source on a webpage provided by someone other than the original publisher or author. For example, a copy of a newspaper article no longer available on the newspaper's website may be hosted elsewhere...."

It seems useful to have the external link, so that readers/editors can verify the authenticity of the source quoted from.

The link which was removed on 16.12.2013 led to a page with the incomplete photocopy displayed (the bottom paragraphs are cut off). The link I am instating leads to a full page photocopy of the entire article within the same website.

Parsonage1 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course this article is locked

It's about an alternative cure for cancer...and that couldn't be true could it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.51.163 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you wikipedia for ending the gang stalking on this article.

For the longest time this article had been hounded by psudeoskeptics and general nare do wells stiffling sourced information and instituting blanket censorship... the new direction of this article is great, keep up the good work and stay on guard against those wiki gangs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.132.112 (talk) 02:34, 19:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor edit request to remove cite note

Please remove the citation note 5 from the first paragraph of the article in the statement: "Rife's claims could not be independently replicated,[5]" Requesting this because the source does not support the statement. Manofstoke (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The source does say that. Stickee (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda, disgusting, evil

The people who edited this wikipedia page should burn in hell. You describe him as penniless and bitter? Show me the "reliable source". Looks like you are editorializing. And also chemo kills people and there are millions of documented cases. Yet, I bet you can hardly cite more than a handful of alleged Rife deaths. The reality is, Rife cured not only cancer but 100s of diseases. There are videos of his labs and of pathogens being destroyed. The people who edited this page are traitors, enemies of truth, enemies of discovery and innovation, parties to an idiocracy. The deaths of millions is on the shoulders of each conspirator either those who are witting or unwitting. The "Cancer cure that worked" had 100s of sources, news articles and other things you can cite. Why didn't you cite those articles? Let me guess anyone who adds those will get reverted eventually by CIA, Vatican, AMA, or some useful idiot or doctor with their head up the governments ass and other places that are notorious for editing wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.156.246.158 (talk • contribs)

Source

"The Daily Californian (or Daily Cal) is an independent, student-run newspaper (Wikipedia)." A student run newspaper is not a source. If his theories and claims were discredited, we need an actual source. If not, it will remain NPOV. Orasis (talk)

1. The issue has not been resolved. 2. The NPOV has been made clear, very clear. 3. It has not, the discussion that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with that: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134#The Harvard Crimson at John Harvard statue. Stickee (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:"

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

1. There is no consensus. 2. It is clear. No satisfactory explanation has been given. No sources either. 3. Discussion is lively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs)

An extensive response was given here. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it not "satisfactory". Stickee (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth Orasis reading Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans - although only an essay, it includes Jimmy Wales endorsement of the NPOV policy on pseudoscience and the policy on fringe science - Arjayay (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

TRUTH of diversity

There has been as much death or more from Chemotherapy, as there has been in the Royal Rife application . to ignore this is to ignore any reach for the answer to the cure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.11.121.245 (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo in this article - who can fix this?

The first sentence says Rife was the primary "exponent" of the Rife machine and it should say the primary "proponent". An exponent is a math term not a person. Since this is a debunking article of a dangerous medical hoax that has caused some cancer patients to die instead of using proven treatments, it's important that the first sentence be grammatically accurate or else it loses credibility. This article is protected from editing - how do I request an edit? Thanks. DocRaj (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Correction to my above post - the first sentence said Rife was an early exponent of DocRaj (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

From the Oxford dictionary: "Exponent (noun): A person who supports an idea or theory and tries to persuade people of its truth or benefits." Stickee (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Rife. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204225953/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words

Does a cure for cancer exist? Yes, or no? If not... this article is using weasel words in one instance. Chemotherapy has not shown to cure cancer anymore than any other 'cure'. Yes, or no? Unless Chemotherapy has been shown to be a cure for cancer, which it has not, that paragraph contains 'weasel words'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 07:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're objecting to here. What specific wording from the article do you find problematic? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's clear enough. Perhaps even more clear, is the naively repetitive nature of the article. It's feathered with multiple boilerplate-like iterations of a single Argument from authority, representing a consistent POV based on those very falsities which User:Orasis references for you, ie.: As there has never existed consistent evidence that any AMA-FDA process reliably cures any cancer, the article's every mention of Rife-tech users "dying", due to any imagined lack of AMA/FDA approved interventions (eg., chemo), telegraphs a message of bad faith manipulation. Further assertions that Rife-tech promoters were fairly convicted and justly incarcerated on the basis of that same fallacious theory - as if a blatantly political trial should be understood beyond social context - would tend to contribute to a further appearance of cabal bad faith among any article's apparently corporately-allied editorship. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 20:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Deaths

"Although 'Rife devices' are not registered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and have been linked to deaths among cancer sufferers."

These are weasel words. Show me drugs from from the FDA that can cure cancer or that no one has died from taking FDA approved drugs to treat cancers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.231.236 (talk) 02:24, July 20, 2017

I must disagree: the wording itself is clear enough. I suspect you actually meant to point out how the sentence is a 'fallacy', as an Argument from authority based on a conflict of facts (ie., those paradoxes supporting any corruption-of-power).

But please understand that while Evidence is always a matter of human opinions, we do not come here to do research or argue for any justice. Thus WP is more an echo-chamber of our Lowest-Common-Denominators. As such it inevitably reacts positively towards a greater power, and as a preferential shelter for every Establishment. Contrarian contributions must internalize this- or they succumb to that failure. But I must say! The contrarian attempts to reform this article on this page have resulted in the talk-page providing all the evidence of thought-control that an editor could want! It's the strongest, most blatant case of committee-scientism distortions I've ever encountered - and that's a very competitive field! I'll be referring to it for years. Hail Cerebus! Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 20:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

FT/N

FYI, this article is currently being discussed at WP:FT/N#Royal Rife. Alexbrn (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

Wikipedia has obviously just become a voice for big money, big Pharma...this is nothing but dribble. No evidence to prove his claims, because his lab was raided by the FDA, local law enforcement, in a free country, because he was doing something that worked. Wikinonsense...your time will come. 47.184.96.161 (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Alexbrn (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please consider improving this article by including pleomorphism and its impact on Rife's work ...

... since that was the foundation of his study.Vinyasi (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Really?

I believe that using a link to "conspiracy theory" is totally unfounded. Also, one of the sources is... "The Daily Californian (or Daily Cal) is an independent, student-run newspaper that serves the University of California, Berkeley campus and its surrounding community. How on earth is a Student newspaper a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That Rife's supporters allege a conspiracy (i.e. a conspiracy theory) to suppress Rife's work seems to be supported by cites to CA Cancer J Clin (a peer-reviewed journal that aims to provide clinicians with information about cancer therapy) in addition to the Daily Cal obit. As far as I can tell, even strongly pro-Rife sources like the Lynes book The Cancer Cure That Worked vociferously claims a conspiracy by the AMA and others to suppress Rife's work.

There seems to be ample evidence that a conspiracy is claimed; so there's no basis to remove the description of conspiracy theories as such on that basis. Are you arguing that the term (or link to) "conspiracy theory" is problematic because you would like to argue that there actually is/was a genuine conspiracy to suppress Rife's work? If you want to take that tack, then you will need to present robust and reliable sources (as good or better than the ones already present in the article) which support that assertion.

With respect to the Daily Cal obit, do you have a specific objection to any of the content which is attributed to it? At the time of Rife's death, his work was long-rejected by the scientific community, and he just wasn't seen as an important or credible figure; few independent news outlets would have bothered to run a substantial obituary. Again, if you can find more robust sources which refute any of the material solely supported by the Daily Cal obit, by all means bring them forward.

Finally, you slapped a {npov} template on the article page. Can you be specific about what aspects of the article's neutrality you wish to dispute? Aside from not liking the article's content, can you describe specifically what is non-neutral and inadequately supported by the available sources (and provide good-quality, independent sources to support any changes you would like to make)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody with half a brain would think this article is neutral. And just by uttering that it proves you as a traitor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.156.246.158 (talk • contribs)

Hello gatekeepers hows it going? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.252.251 (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This article is slanted, as if it were written by "gatekeepers"

for the medical industry. Wikipedia is losing credibility with stuff like this. It is entirely anti-Rife and low level. Admittedly there are issues with his obscure work and fraudulent devices that use his name. BUT the Smithsonian is probably the MOST important pro-Rife point and has been deleted today -- the Smithsonian vetting of Rife's microscope, examined and written up by the BOard of Regents in a 1944 Smithsonian publication: "The Universal Microscope." It is fascinating and has a wealth of detail. Aexbrn has written as far as I can tell, "weak source." 

HERE, THEN, IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE: https://library.si.edu/digital-library/book/annualreportofbo1944smit (start p. 207)

Today's WP editor has called the Smithsonian ref. a weak source. So I took the trouble to find the actual publication on SMITHSONIAN"S archive site (not from a pro Rife website unrelated to Smithsonian). The source is now rock solid and primary. Let's see if it is removed again -- and what the reason might be this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariwiki77 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

If you were paying attention to the actual edits, you would see that I took out the content about his microscopy work being discredited. Settle the fuck down and pay closer attention. And sign your posts. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

--Ok, my reference to Smithsonian's 1944 vetting of Rife's Universal Microscope (someone interested in this topic pls read the report, it is fascinating in its detail) was removed as OR. It is not my research. I did not examine the microscope -- and they published the report. How do I get this in the article -- a single piece of pro-Rife information from an excellent institution that took great pains to look at his invention?

I am fairly new to this process, ie, I have been away from it for a few years. Any advice -- or does this article have to remain almost 100% anti rife? Mariwiki77 (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It is OR to dig up and present a piece of primary evidence. What secondary sources establishes that this is WP:DUE to mention? Alexbrn (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

hat ranting. Further posts like this will be removed. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
--What is missing in this article is a sense for who Rife really was and the company he kept in people like Milbank Johnson (head of Calif Med. Assoc), Arthur Isaac Kendall (top bacteriologist of the day: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3803779/pdf/QBullNorthwestUnivMedSch-34-1-90_14.pdf), and Edward C Rosenow (Mayo Clinic head of bacteriology). These people elected to be with Rife and pursue his theories and work. ...Think about this for a moment... The whole article spins off a low level need to discredit his concepts as if they probably had no truth at all (his "claims," "could not be replicated by others" etc. This is the emphasis. Especially the fraudulent devices being sold today in Rife's name -- as if ALL of them were useless. "He raped my sister." Why does knowledge get suppressed? It happens all the time ... jobs, politics, competing careers, money, etc. Mostly this: 'healthcare' (sic) is a multi trillion dollar industry, hence the vehemence with which any alternative is treated by the AMA et al. Marcia Angell quit as lead editor of NEJM ("the best medical journal for MDs America has to offer') after 15 years bc of the corruption. "NEJM editor: “No longer possible to believe much of clinical research published” https://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/No Longer possible to believe My main pt: When you get an outfit like the Smithsonian vetting a microscope built by hand with 5,682 parts -- machined by hand, including the lenses, and the article demonstrates it all works, this is quite a piece of information about an inventor. But the microscope came up against the monied interests of the time, and competing careers: example -- Thomas Rivers MD who headed the other side of the field -- monomorphism in bacteria vs pleomorphism. Look at his credentials and the monied interests he represented. None of the interesting parts of Rife's story are here. It is just a summary bashing of a man who was on a level with someone like Tesla. The Smithsonian article proves this much -- Rife's genius. It cannot be used bc it is a primary source? It is a publication, not a data sheet. I suppose you could see it either way. I'm still somewhat new to all this. (I write books for a living.) I get the need for rules here -- the WP secondary source one is weak, as bad as it is good. Antithetical to, say, a good research university, but the MO of wikipedia for stated reasons. There needs to be some balance re primary sources. I understand the difficulties but the current system is rough: McDonalds makes and sells more burgers than anyone else. I wouldn't eat one, I get sick every time I try. All that said, I think the non-establishment view of Rife deserves just a little more weight here; again, especially given the Smithsonian analysis of his microscope. You have to read that article to believe it. Mariwiki77 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a summary of accepted knowledge (see WP:NOT). It is also very mainstream. If you want to write new, edgey, stuff about Rife then start a blog or something. Also, learn to WP:INDENT your comments. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Pt. taken, Alexbrn. This is not my arena, not for this topic. I'm passionate about Rife bc his device saved my friend's life when nothing else worked. /I study biochemistry. American medicine is just as Angell's book (cited above) states.

JYTDog, let me know if you ever get to NYC. I'll buy you a beer. You strike me as hilarious. Mariwiki77 (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariwiki77 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

02/14/20 I wish to add, the article fails to recognise that the invention was designed to "disrupt" viruses. Viruses are minuscule the energy required to destroy such a structure is extremely small if exactly the right frequency is applied. This is supported by classic physics. He never made any claims about curing cancer. The 9V gimmicks were less of a scam than the tainted smallpox and hep B vaccines that implanted the HIV virus directly into the population in the 1970's. And a greater scam to tell people to protect themselves with condoms, HIV passes through the hole in condoms like a rat through a tunnel such is the size and scale discrepancy. More research needs to be conducted to verify by test the resonant frequency of these viruses. Particularly resonant frequency of RNA.

See: Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy Also, Transcranial Magnetic Simulation Are these examples of modern, demonstrated medical technologies not of the very same scientific principles Rife was describing? Enrighmm (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Devitalizing disease organisms through vibration

Modern research with low power femtosecond lasers has been able to inactivate both viruses and bacteria using induced vibration. In the case of viruses, the capsid explodes like a wine glass resonating to the voice of an opera singer.

This is the same language that Rife used, so the effect he claimed does indeed occur. The mocking tone of the article seems inappropriate.

Whether Rife managed to achieve this with his own apparatus is doubted, and was certainly not replicated by others, but the effect is real. AJRG (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Any source for the statement that it didn't replicate?

"Rife's claims about his beam ray could not be independently replicated, and were discredited by independent researchers during the 1950s.[7][8]" Neither of the two sources cited seem to mention these "failures to replicate", or these "independent researchers in the 1950s". The American Cancer Society article is all about the modern rip-offs (which are mostly nothing like Rife's machine), except for a brief claim that it shouldn't be theoretically possible for a radio wave to destroy a bacterium by resonance (and "shouldn't be theoretically possible" tends to be worth very little in medical science). The Sydney Morning Herald article likewise only seems to refer to the modern rip-offs. (The whole page seems to make not enough distinction between these things, and to be less informative for it.) Anyone got a proper source for this statement, please? If not, maybe it should come out. It may be true, but usual Wikipedia rules are that you can't have things you don't have references for. Have gone ahead and put a "citation needed" on it for now. Wombat140 (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)