Talk:Royal Rife/Archive 5

A section for his Microscopes?
File:Royal Rife Universal Microscope number three b&w 1933..jpg Historically speaking, this article is quite poor. And this in itself is not objective, not to say baias. Not to have a single picture of his N.3 (1933) or N.5 (1938) microscope reveals quite clearly the intention of the authors of this page: not to give Rife his due place in history (whether one believes in his treatments or not). The achievements of his microscopes are historically and scientifically recognized and undeniable. They are also quite well sourced.

The Microscopes of Royal Rife are a true gem in history! Here is an article from --and I quote Wikipedia's page-- "the peer-reviewed Quekett Journal of Microscopy" ARTICLE: Rife and his microscopes. Not only does this article show the microscope, but it also shows the pictures Rife was able to take, recognizing his genius because electron microscopy was not able to do this yet! He also patented and light-dying technique based on the different chemical composition of the organisms observed, allowing him to observe and classify even smaller organisms than ever before.

And here is another article titled THE UNIVERSAL MICROSCOPE in the JOURNAL OF THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE 1944. It also describes in great detail the scientific achievements of Royal Rife with his microscopes.

If this is not enough for a distinct section with pictures and explanations of his achievements in the history of science, what does??

TThor (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If RS discuss his microscopes, then a short section or few sentences might be worth having. -- Valjean (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine??
This is an article on Royal Rife (1888-1971). According to Wikipedia's article on Alternative Medicine, the term refers to "the history of a group of diverse medical practices that were collectively promoted as "alternative medicine" beginning in the 1970s". [|].

As explained in that same Wiki page, the real historical term is "irregular practitioners", which is much more accurate when it comes to Rife and his time. Please correct.

TThor (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourced: PLEOMORPHISM observed under the microscope! Requires a new section.
In this scientific paper published in the Journal of the Franklin Institute —search for (Page 121, Feb., 1944)—one can clearly read how Rife and Kendall observe under the microscope, after some time in a broth, the "free-swimming, small, oval, actively-motile, turquoise-blue granules" change "over again into their original rod-like forms." Which was "confirmed by Dr. Edward C. Rosenow of the Mayo Foundation." This is the definition of pleomorphism in microbiology.

Note that, as explained a little further on that same page 121, it was the first time that "Brownish-gray cocci and diplococci of the exact same size and density as those observed in the filtrates of the streptococcus cultures were also revealed in hanging-drop preparations of the virus of poliomyelitis under the Rife Microscope, while no organisms at all could be seen in either the stained films of filtrates and filtrate sediments examined with the Zeiss scope or in hanging-drop preparations examined by means of the dark-field."

Also note that, it was the first time in microbiology that filtrable bodies could be seen under the microscope.

Anyone with an ounce of science knows that this is, till today, quite revolutionary! One could go on and on finding these sourced gems in history, with a little bit of good will and honesty.

PS. It should be added to the Wiki page on | Pleomorphism (microbiology) that Kendall and Rife were the first to demonstrate pleomorphism under the microscope, and thus disproving the monomorphic theory supported by Pasteur, Koch and others.

TThor (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE article: confirming Rife’s affirmations
Although the Smithsonian Institute article from the Board of Regents of 1944 is not a scientific research paper in itself, it is a reliable, serious source that bears witness to a century of affirmations by Rife’s supporters, starting with Rife himself. The article confirms in detail: (4, 5 & 6 are particularly important)


 * 1) Page 207. The universal microscope, “a very successful and highly commendable achievement on the part of Dr. Royal Raymond Rife,” with further detailed descriptions of its components and capabilities.
 * 2) P. 208. “The illuminating unit used for examining the filterable forms of disease organisms,” a first in the world.
 * 3) P. 212. That Rife’s microscopes surpassed the other powerful microscopes of the epoch (the Zeiss and the dark-field), thanks to the prisms of the microscope and the light dyes of Rife’s patented technology.
 * 4) P. 214. The microorganism responsible for CANCER, systematically cultured and observed under Rife’s microscope (more than 20,000 cultures over 7 years).
 * 5) P. 214, bottom. For the first time, POLYMORPHISM is observed under the microscope. “The virus of cancer, like the viruses of other diseases, can be easily changed from one form to another by means of altering the media upon which it is grown.”
 * 6) P. 216. “Under the universal microscope disease organisms such as those of tuberculosis, cancer, sarcoma, streptococcus, typhoid, staphylococcus, leprosy, hoof and mouth disease, and others may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies, coordinated with the particular frequencies peculiar to each individual organism, and directed upon them by rays covering a wide range of waves.”
 * 7) P. 223-4-5. Pictures of organisms taken by the universal microscope. Impressive for the epoch.

The article also confirms that Dr. Arthur Isaac Kendall, of the Department of Bacteriology of Northwestern University Medical School, was working with Dr. Rife on these discoveries, and that the findings of Drs. Rife and Kendall were confirmed by Dr. Edward C. Rosenow, Chief of Bacteriology, Mayo Clinic Foundation. The article ends by thanking 8 doctors (other than Rife and Kendall) for collaborating with information allowing the medical profession to find out about these microscopes and their possibilities.

TThor (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The Cancer Research of UK: Rife’s machine possible CANCER CURE
The world's largest independent cancer research charity, funding more than 4,000 researchers and having 40,000 regular volunteers, the Cancer Research UK states the following:

“Research into Rife machines as a cancer treatment: The Rife machine hasn't been through the usual process of scientific testing. There are studies that looked at low energy waves as a treatment for cancer. They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine. Some of these studies were in the laboratory. One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work.”

Here is the study cited by the Cancer Research UK. Hepatocellular carcinoma: radio-frequency ablation of medium and large lesions. 126 tumors were treated with RF, 100 were completely or near completely destroyed (80%), and the remaining 26 achieved partial necrosis of the tumor (20%).

Additional: A case study at the Soissons General Hospital, France, using a Rife technology device. . The authors explain in scientific detail the biophysical resonance at the cellular level. Many references to different studies on the matter. Dr. James Bare’s version of Rife’s technology (or Rife/Bare) was used, which is the technology researchers seem to prefer. For those who want to see the Bare/Rife technology in action here is the Youtube page of Dr. Anthony Holland (not that these have any “official” scientific value, but just for fun, to see the concept in action under the microscope). Here is Dr. Holland’s promotional video. Remember that Royal Rife did all this from scratch in the 20’s and 30’s. He built his own microscopes and developed his own Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field (PEMF). Quite an achievement for his time.

Additional: an article from the Chinese Journal of Cancer also confirms that RF and EMF can be used to treat cancer. Targeted treatment of cancer with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields amplitude-modulated at tumor-specific frequencies

TThor (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are cherry-picking and carefully avoiding several statements like the following made by Cancer Research Org: "There is no reliable evidence that the Rife machine works as a cure for cancer."
 * You need to read our sourcing guideline for medical content. It is more stringent than sourcing for other content: WP:MEDRS. -- Valjean (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info Valjean. Actually, I have no problem with that, I was just pointing out to The Cancer Research of UK statement which is quite impressive in itself. I didn't pretend to say that they were definitive on the matter (the part on experimental stage confirms it). Also it's a talk page, but on the main page, your link WP:MEDRS should be quite useful. Thanks again TThor (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, this statement "There is no reliable evidence that the Rife machine works as a cure for cancer" is empty, because no one can reproduce the exact same machine that Rife built. What all this is about, is Rife’s legacy, did he or did he not open the door to a new branch of medicine, i.e. PEMF, a branch that in the last 30 years has started to yield remarkable results. TThor (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Radiotherapy is a thing, but this article's topic is far from it... Valjean did not link it, but I think WP:SYNTH is also useful in this case.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

FDA approves Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) systems to treat tumors!
In April 2012, the FDA approved the PEMF system NovoTTF-100A for brain tumor. 

In Novembre 2020, NovoCure earned CE mark for Electrical Field Cancer Treatment. 

And just recently, in September 2021, the FDA granted Breakthrough Device designation to the PEMF system NovoTTF-200T for Liver Cancer. 

Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are defined as: “a cancer treatment modality that uses alternating electric fields of intermediate frequency (∼100-500 kHz) and low intensity (1-3 V/cm) to disrupt cell division.” That’s the technology that Rife discovered and developed 100 years ago. These are modern Rife devices.

Here is the science behind it (one of many articles). Notice figure 2 frequencies: within Rife’s frequency range. Notice figure 6: Rife would use a plasma tube to produce a near field (non-contact) to avoid dermatitis and skin burn.

And a scholarly paper: the introduction is quite instructive. 

TThor (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Rife’s technology “rejected as an effective medical treatment”??
As a consequence of the previous two sections, it is obvious that the following two sentences in Rife’s article are not true: “The technology he described is now classified as a type of radionics device which has been rejected as an effective medical treatment.” “Rife devices are currently classified as a subset of radionics devices, which are generally viewed as pseudomedicine by mainstream experts.”

Furthermore, it is crucial to understand that Rife machines are NOT a type of radionics. It’s a very different technology from Dr. Albert Abrams. Anyone who knows a bit about Rife’s generators will tell you: they consist of PULSED Radio Frequencies (almost always coupled with a carrier wave of higher frequency), connected to a plasma tube that outputs the Electromagnetic Field. Radionics or Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) is not pulsed; plain radio waves, for example. Non-pulsed electromagnetic radiation has not proven to be effective in the treatment of diseases. Keep in mind that Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) allow microorganisms to resonate, to mechanically vibrate, like a musical instrument for example, which is not the case with non-pulsed frequencies (EMR).

With this basic concept of biophysical resonance in mind, only PEMF, not Radionics or EMR, allowed the Smithsonian Institute to write in 1944, “Under the universal microscope disease organisms such as those of tuberculosis, cancer, sarcoma, streptococcus, typhoid, staphylococcus, leprosy, hoof and mouth disease, and others may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies...” Remember that at the end of the article, 9 doctors are thanked by the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institute for their testimony: Dr. Karl K. Darrow, Dr. John A. Kolmer, Dr. William P. Lang, Dr. L. Marton, Dr. J. H. Renner, Dr. Royal R. Rife, Dr. Edward C. Rosenow, Dr. Arthur W. Yale, and Dr. V. K. Zworykin.

For further investigation, here is a description from an interesting study into the technical aspect of Rife’s original machines: “A high level radio-frequency pulse to drive the plasma tube.” And here is an extensive article demonstrating the possibility of Virus Destruction by Resonance. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 describe how Rife generated PEMF and exploded microbes. Finally, a quote from James E. Bare D.C., inventor of the Rife/Bare machine used in many labs and research facilities: “The Rife machine was developed by Dr. Royal R. Rife in the 1930s. The Rife machine uses a variable frequency, pulsed radio transmitter to produce mechanical resonance within the cells of the physical body.”

The only reference ever (since the beginning of time :) found linking Rife to Radionics is an unsigned article from a Cancer journal, reference #7 in Rife’s article. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 1994: 44: 115-127. Here is the full citation: “The Rife Frequency Generator allegedly would generate radio frequencies of precisely the same vibratory rates as the offending bacteria and destroy them in a manner similar to an opera singer’s voice breaking a crystal glass. (Note: Although sound waves can produce vibrations that will break glass, radio waves cannot destroy bacteria due to their low energy level.) It is clear from descriptions of how Rife’s Frequency Generator supposedly functioned that it was simply another radionics device.” Notice that the unknown author uses the words “it is clear from the descriptions of how… supposedly functioned”. This cannot be a serious source. It’s an opinion based on descriptions. It’s basically spreading rumors. Nothing scientific about it. Even more, “radio waves cannot destroy bacteria” is completely false. Pulsed Radio Waves sure can, it’s on film, many times, and systems are now FDA approved. This source cannot be trusted. Rife is not Radionics, everybody knows that. Rife is PEMF.

For those interested in a detailed but short biography of Rife, here is a link:

As pulsed frequencies, Rife’s technology is a subset of PEMF. Why subset? Because PEMF uses an array of methods to output the field: plasma tubes, coils, electrodes, metal tubes, plates… whereas Royal Rife used exclusively plasma tubes. Therefore, Rife’s page should be linked to the Wiki page on Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Field therapy. Not radionics. (Note that some so-called Rife’s kits online include other objects to output the field, like metal coils, cylinders, plates, etc. Although they emit PEMF and are proven to have therapeutic effects, they are not the original Rife system.)

Here is more on Rife’s technology and PEMF. In the past years, hundreds of independent studies using PEMF have been conducted on a wide variety of afflictions, with definitive positive results. Visit www.pubmed.gov and enter the PMID number:

Arthritis PMID 20329696 Back pain PMID 30177406 and 32258569 Bone repair PMID 29694967 Cancer PMID 22761760 Erectile Dysfunction PMID 17882824 and 8819933 Fibromyalgia PMID 18080043 Frequency Device Safety PMID 20329696 Osteoarthritis PMID 22451021 Osteoporosis PMID 19080282 SARS-CoV-2 PMID 34728858 Stroke PMID 17892036 Wounds – Ulcer PMID 19008935

Here are 767 studies in PubMed involving PEMF And 728 in the US National Library of Medicine (some might be duplicates). Finally, 912 articles in ScienceDirect

Note 1. The first external link of the article is no more—the ACS page. Could it be that science has made a leap forward since that page was originally written 15 years ago and consequently it was taken down? Well on May 5th 2020, the ACS did publish in favor of the very same technology. There is plenty of real research out there, some extremely promising.

Note 2. The second external link—the quack-hunter NCAHF—uses reference material from the 90’s. As shown here, much has been achieved in the field of PEMF during the last 30 years.

Not only are these two sources outdated, but both have proven to be wrong. BTW, it is my opinion that the National Council Against Health Fraud blindly applies its subjective rational anywhere it feels like, sometimes being right and sometimes wrong. In fact, it is private and not governmental or public. In that respect, its name is misleading. Google “National Council” and you’ll get governmental institutions all over the world. Isn’t misrepresentation a fraud?

Again, Rife’s technology is not “a subset of Radionics” and it is not “rejected as an effective medical treatment,” on the contrary, it lies at the forefront of medical research. The above-mentioned sentences must be changed. Science needs to go forward, not backward.

TThor (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * PS. For those interested, this Wiki page is 100% Rife: Pulsed radiofrequencies —TThor (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Rife, scientist or quack? (conclusion of 7 previous sections)
Till today, most anti-Rife consider him a fraud. Somehow, they can’t believe that he did those things 100 years ago, even though most of his achievements were verified by top-scientists of the time and are sourced. Moreover, as we have demonstrated, in the last 20 years, not only has his science been proven right, but it is yielding revolutionary treatments, giving hope to terminal cancer patients and reaching a wide array of ailments and diseases. FDA and its equivalent in Europe have now approved some devices and technics, saving lives in clinics in the USA, Europe, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Japan, Hong Kong, Israel… The 1944 testimony of the Smithsonian Institute is slowly but surely becoming modern reality: “Under the universal microscope disease organisms such as those of tuberculosis, cancer, sarcoma, streptococcus, typhoid, staphylococcus, leprosy, hoof and mouth disease, and others may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies, coordinated with the particular frequencies peculiar to each individual organism, and directed upon them by rays covering a wide range of waves.”

Additionally, if we consider his education, his inventions and contributions to industry and science, the quality of the scientists around him, his lab and his research, his financial supporters, his methodology and principles… we have no choice but to conclude that Dr. Royal Raymond Rife was a true scientist and an outstanding inventor. Here is an interesting documentary on his life. Dismissing it entirely because it is done by his supporters would perpetrate the same mistakes, again. It can teach us about the man and his discoveries. Here is another video with rare footage from his original lab.

In the coming years, we shall see the consolidation and expansion of PEMF treatments, honoring Rife’s memory and restoring his due place in history… probably that of a genius. In fact, historically speaking, his biggest misfortune—the downward turning point of a brilliant career—occurred when showing to the world how specific disease organisms, including cancer, could be destroyed using resonating frequencies. Is there causality? To answer this question, one doesn’t necessarily need to talk about conspiracy… just consider this Wikipedia sentence: “bias caused by conflicts of interest is an important issue in medical research. It arises in part due to financial interests that compete within medicine.” If it is true that Rife was capable of “devitalizing” microorganisms responsible for many diseases with PEMF—as the reliable secondary sources of the epoch confirm and is today reproduced with the same technology—then is it so difficult to imagine that at least some interests may have felt enormously threatened financially by his achievements? Difficult to prove, indeed, but obvious. Whether these interests took action or not to undermine Rife’s career and discoveries would require an in-depth investigation, hardly possible for the normal citizen. Let us just say that Rife’s followers have brought up a number of irregularities and tragic coincidences, enough to suggest circumstantial evidence. It did happen not so long ago:

.— AP News, AMA Found Guilty of Antitrust Conspiracy against Chiropractors, August 28, 1987. .— LA Times, Judge Says AMA Tried to ‘Destroy’ Chiropractors .— New York Times, U.S. Judge Finds Medical Group Conspired Against Chiropractors .— On May 10th 1973, Joseph Sabatier, chairman of the AMA Committee on Quackery, said that “rabid dogs and chiropractors fit into about the same category…” AMA Journal of Ethics .— On September 25, 1987, Judge "Getzendanner issued her opinion that the AMA had violated Section 1, but not 2, of the Sherman Act, and that it had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade ‘to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession.’” She further stated that the “AMA had entered into a long history of illegal behavior.” Wikipedia, Wilk v. American Medical Association

Who was behind all this? Well historically speaking, it was the then famous Morris Fishbein M.D., head of the JAMA (Journal of the AMA) who chiropractors have come to call the “medical Mussolini”, the same Fishbein that Rife supporters blame to have pulled the strings of all his misfortunes. But it’s a long story, involving a court case that Rife eventually won, but that left him morally destroyed and financially ruined.

Moving foreword in time, here is a modern example of potential conflicts of interest within Rife’s technology. The therapy offered by Novocure for cancer with TTFields costs 21,000 US per patient per month, as confirmed on this link (notice the picture of the device). That is 168,000 US for the required average 8 months treatment, per patient. In contrast, the entire Rife/Bare plasma technology for example—cited in research papers—costs around 7,000 US, once, for life, for all the diseases studied successfully and listed in the previous section, and others being studied as we speak, for as many patients as you like. In addition, Rife’s treatment for terminal cancer patients included two three-minute sessions a week. As noted in an existing letter from Dr. Johnson of the Mayo Clinic and many other witnesses, the results were astonishing. Modern Rife’s machines usually require an hour a day for cancer treatment. With the TTFields version of the technology, the patient needs at least 18 hours of treatment per day, plugged to the machine.

Imagine just for one minute that Royal Rife was the real deal, a true genius, would there be any words to express the unfairness, the injustice and the debt to the man and his memory?

Obviously, a clear distinction must be made between Royal Rife and the plethora of generators on the market today: a wide array ranging from notable innovative reproductions (like the Rife/Bare, used in research facilities) to modern quackery and fraud. Also, I think that there should be more training of the practitioners and more studies done, more evidence under the microscope—as Rife would do—for the specific frequencies, the various generators and diseases. Paradoxically, it’s been 100 years and only recently has it started picking up, thanks to the pioneer work of scientists and devoted Rife researchers and inventors.

The fact that Rife supporters have felt unjustly suppressed during this lengthy process is unfortunate. But considering the endless historical fraud attempts by quacks in all fields of medicine, including Electromedicine, one can understand the need for AMA to protect the public against fraudulent attempts, as long as there is no conflict of interest (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers?). That there was such conflict, and prejudice against Dr. Royal Rife can be advocated, but is not for us to judge (either way). There should be a thorough investigation to better understand what really happened.

In the light of what we have shown here, this 15-year-old version of the article on Rife must be edited, bettered, made more accurate scientifically and reflecting recent discoveries, hopeful that together we will achieve a greater neutrality, while preserving the integrity of all.

TThor (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "", well when PEMF treatments do get recognised as mainstream medical devices and Rife's royal in developing such devices gets recognised our article will be updated to reflect that. Since at the moment PEMF devices are still regarded as quackery and Rife a proponent of ineffective devices our article reflects that. Alleged modernish problems with the AMA are neither nere nor there in this article, especially since Rife's devices are rejected by all mainstream medicine including outside the US and by medical regulators. Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Nil. Sorry, I'm not sure I understand, what do you mean by "PEMF devices are still regarded as quackery," haven't you read the Wiki pages Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy and Pulsed radiofrequency? There are literally hundreds of studies and articles: 767 studies in PubMed involving PEMF and 912 articles in ScienceDirect . Here is Oncothermia, uses 13.56 MHz thermal Pulsed radiofrequency to destroy tumors. See all their studies and approved clinics  TThor (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS. And quackery does not turn into medicine by people publishing hundreds of studies and articles on it. The studies must also be high-quality and have consistent positive outcomes, and high-quality independent secondary studies must say so. What you need asWP:RS is those secondary studies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * TThor, MEDRS is about more than individual studies of high quality. It demands we use only reviews and metanalyses of many well-done research projects, not single studies. If we allowed single studies, which are always primary sources, then editors could cherry pick to build any type of case they want as one can always find single studies to support anything, including the weirdest ideas. We want to know the consensus views from many scientists as published in many good studies. -- Valjean (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Was that comment really addressed at me or was it intended for TThor? N.B. I mean role in my comment above rather than royal. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops! No, not you. Now fixed. -- Valjean (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

According to our Oncotherm (self-sourced and promotional) article, the devices are not approved by the FDA, ergo they are likely quackery. That article needs reliable secondary sources. -- Valjean (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggested change 01 - Radionics
To say that Rife’s technology is radionics (like a plain radio wave) is not only false, but as explained in section 9 of this talk page: the source linking Rife to radionics is unsigned, unconfirmed and expresses an opinion based on uncited “descriptions.” This opinion of the Cancer Journal’s author is unverified and unverifiable. Moreover, the unknown author is mistaken when affirming that radiofrequencies are incapable of killing bacteria. Many FDA approved radiofrequency systems are used to kill bacteria, in medicine and the industry. There are numerous studies on these technologies. This source has proven unreliable.

Here is the full citation again: “The Rife Frequency Generator allegedly would generate radio frequencies of precisely the same vibratory rates as the offending bacteria and destroy them in a manner similar to an opera singer’s voice breaking a crystal glass. (Note: Although sound waves can produce vibrations that will break glass, radio waves cannot destroy bacteria due to their low energy level.) It is clear from descriptions of how Rife’s Frequency Generator supposedly functioned that it was simply another radionics device.”

In addition, these unfounded allegations have exposed the author’s bias, due to a conflict of interest, in restraint of trade on Rife’s technology, the latter having demonstrated its ability to destroy the microorganisms responsible for cancer, as reported by the Smithsonian Institute in 1944 and confirmed by numerous recent published studies. The famous court case Wilk v. American Medical Association (and its Journal) has demonstrated that such reputable institutions sometimes do engage in unlawful antitrust schemes.

Wikipedia, with its long and reputable experience in source classification and selection, should not encourage such warmongering and be more cautious. In this particular case, due to the strong possibility of conflict of interest, before using this source (and putting it at the forefront of this article), the experienced Wikipedia should have recognized the necessity to corroborate this source with at least one other more reliable source stating the same. But there is not a single other source claiming that Rife is radionics, while in reality there are plenty confirming that Royal Rife’s technology is indeed Pulsed radiofrequencies and PEMF. Four such sources are presented: Cancer Research UK and 3 published scientific papers.

'''Here are the 2 sentences to be changed. If no comments are made within the next few days, I will conclude that the suggested changes are accepted: '''

1.– Actual sentence. The technology he described is now classified as a type of radionics device which has been rejected as an effective medical treatment.

Suggested new sentence. The technology he described is classified as a type of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF), generated by a Pulsed radiofrequency device, an emerging technology currently studied for various medical treatments.

2.– Actual sentence. Rife devices are currently classified as a subset of radionics devices, which are generally viewed as pseudomedicine by mainstream experts.[7]

No new sentence suggested. This sentence should be deleted and not replaced. The rest of the section is untouched.

TThor (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Changes done after 3 days. TThor (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And reverted. See the edit summaries. -- Valjean (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Valjean. Why can't we be constructive about this? I come in good faith, and I don't pretend to be a Wiki expert. It is my understanding that, for mainstream, Rife technology was a big nono until 15 years ago, but that there has been a small but tangible shift in the recent years. All I want is to reflect this shift. Can you please suggest a wording that would be acceptable, to reflect that shift, as of Cancer Research UK? Regards – TThor (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that you are acting in good faith, in the sense that you sincerely believe in Rife's machines. That isn't enough.
 * What RS show this change? Cancer Research UK doesn't do it. Look at my additions to the article from them. They reject Rife's devices and state that others also reject them. You can't come here and cherry-pick while leaving out what they say: "There is no reliable evidence that the Rife machine works as a cure for cancer.... There is also no evidence that it doesn't cause harm.... Many websites promote the Rife machine as a cure for cancer. But no reputable scientific cancer organisations support any of these claims."
 * User:Doug Weller has placed a Discretionary Sanctions Notice on your talk page. I suggest you be more careful to follow our policies and not engage in forbidden WP:Advocacy of WP:Fringe ideas. Keep in mind that all of alternative medicine is a fringe topic. One of the best definitions of alternative medicine is provided by Tim Minchin: "By definition alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine." Attempts to support alternative medicine are not welcome here as such attempts invariably are based on unreliable sources or are misuses of RS that violate WP:SYNTH. -- Valjean (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good faith means to keep all the negative from all the websites, but adding the little but real positive from Cancer Research UK. "The use of low energy waves as a treatment is less common, but there is some research on it." ... "There are studies that looked at low energy waves as a treatment for cancer. They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine. Some of these studies were in the laboratory. One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells." That particular study showed that 80% of the tumors were either completely or near completely destroyed
 * It's a process called neutrality. You are cherry-picking, not me. Maybe someday Javert will become Valjean, hopefully at the end of the story... Regards - TThor (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:AGF, which applies to editors. Otherwise, you're still cherry-picking and dangerously close to a block for advocacy. Administrators are watching what you write here, and you've been warned. Stop digging. -- Valjean (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's sad to see that all you are left with is menaces—in the light of real science and real sources like Cancer Research UK. Anyways, let me thank you for preserving science and medicine from the real quacks throughout the years. Truly. Just remember that throughout history, there has been diamonds in the mud. As we speak, thousands are being cured in approved clinics, thanks to “machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine” (as Cancer UK would put it). 1. https://www.novocure.com 2. https://oncotherm.com/oncothermia-clinics 3. https://www.therabionic.com And no anti-Rife cult will stop them, or the thousands to come... for the good of mankind! — TThor (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is now clear that a WP:NOTHERE block is needed. -- Valjean (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I just took a quick look at those websites and saw junk science red flags galore. This is a waste of our time and violates our policies forbidding advocacy. -- Valjean (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)-- Valjean (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Friend, you are digging. Since when is FDA-approved junk science?   — TThor (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with Rife and his devices? What RS make that connection? What is your connection to them? Why are you promoting them here? -- Valjean (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is so wrong with real, honest to God science, if it's sourced. —TThor (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing, but WP:Original research and novel synthesis is not allowed. Only secondary RS that explicitly mention Rife can be used, with rare exceptions (see WP:ABOUTSELF), and WP:MEDRS governs all medical and scientific claims. There must not be any promotion of devices or therapies. -- Valjean (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —TThor (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There are studies that looked does not mean that those studies also found what they were looking for. And your link does not even mention Rife, so it cannot be used as a source on him. What you wrote is the typical result of quote-mining: sentences that sound to laymen as if there were something to it. Your claims are not supported by that weak sauce. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller has answered on my talk page. His answer is: if the [reliable] source discusses Rife himself, then it’s OK. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TThor#Have_you_got_any_relationship_with_Rife? You can read it for yourself]. It’s clear and simple. Cancer Research UK is a reliable source and it talks about Rife himself. If reflected in its entirety (pros and cons) then no one can deny this source. The following part is NOT reflected anywhere in Rife’s article:

"The use of low energy waves as a treatment is less common, but there is some research on it." ... "There are studies that looked at low energy waves as a treatment for cancer. They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine. Some of these studies were in the laboratory. One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells." 

For those interested, the study referred to by Cancer Research UK (using Rife-like machines) is here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10715043. Using “Radio-frequency (RF) ablation” 80% of the tumors were either completely or near completely destroyed. So, once again, I ask the more experienced Wiki editors: how do we add to the article this important quote from Cancer Research UK? Thank you for your cooperation.

TThor (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new lead
Royal Raymond Rife (May 16, 1888 – August 5, 1971) was an American inventor and early exponent of high-magnification time-lapse cine-micrography.

He is best known for his microscopes, which he claimed could observe live microorganisms with a magnification considered impossible for his time, and for a 'beam ray' invention, which he thought could treat various ailments by "devitalizing disease organisms" through vibration. Although he came to collaborate with scientists, doctors and inventors of the epoch, and his findings were published in newspapers and scientific journals like the Smithsonian Institution annual report of 1944, they were later rejected by the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Cancer Society (ACS) and mainstream science.

Until today, Rife’s supporters claim that impulses of electromagnetic frequencies can disable cancerous cells and other microorganisms responsible for diseases. Most of these claims have no scientific research to back them up and Rife machines are not approved for treatment by health authorities in the world. Multiple promoters were convicted of health fraud and sent to prison. Recently, some studies were made in laboratory with pulsed radiofrequency machines that work in the same way as Rife machines: researchers found that low frequency waves affected cancer cells, but did not affect normal cells.

—TThor (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: the Alternative medicine sidebar would not be taken away, since it corresponds to this page, in particular to the section Health fraud after his death. —TThor (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The WP:LEAD must follow what's in the body of the article, so your changes fail in that regard. You can't introduce content there which isn't in the body. He is not "best known for his microscopes", but they could be mentioned if that part was more developed in the body. The last part of your added paragraph ("Recently....") uses cancerresearchuk.org in a dubious manner that implies there might be some credibility to Rife's ideas. Cancer Research UK clearly rejects Rife and his machines, and the lead currently makes that clear. You really need to stop advocating for Rife. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you Valjean for engaging in constructive sharing of views, I really appreciate it. For the microscope in the lead, although it is present in the body, I thought we could expand just a bit the sentence already there, to be fair to history. As far as the word “best” is concerned, according to the newspapers and journals of the time, it's even more important than the beam ray, but I have no problem in deleting that word. As far as CancerUK is concerned, for more clarity, the proposed lead is as follows:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Cons !! Almost-pros
 * + Cons & Pros
 * Rejected by AMA || Some studies in laboratory
 * Rejected by ACS ||
 * Rejected by mainstream science ||
 * No scientific research (CancerUK) ||
 * Machines not approved in the world ||
 * Promoters health fraud and prison ||
 * }
 * Allow me to cite WP:NPOV “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” CancerUK is fully represented in its cons and more. The almost-pro part is minimal and is not from me, but from them. They would know better than us about studies and lab research on cancer, don’t you think? These studies are real and there are many. Why hide the sourced truth? Wikipedia is not communist, and this is not a witch-hunt. Readers can think for themselves. Why can't you live with the truth if it's sourced, must you obligatorily have it your way, 100%? Warm regards —TThor (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted much of your addition. You are still cherry-picking, and it's not even relevant to this article! What you added totally fails MEDRS (note "one" small study using frequencies that are "not the same as those of Rife machines."): "One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines." How can you keep making these claims when even the one small study didn't even use the same frequencies as Rife machines? Give it up. -- Valjean (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough bullying. Cancer Research UK is very clear: “Studies [with an "s"] ... They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine … Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells.” Not relevant to this article? I wonder what could be more. Your bias is anti-scientific. You have demonstrated it many times; a few days ago you called an FDA-approved therapy "junk science." Stop your useless editing wars. —TThor (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is about the usual amount of evidence quackery has: unreproduced, small studies with positive results. That is what you expect when something does not work. One or more studies does not matter. The CRUK page mentions them, but so what? It immediately says that it is not enough. There is no need for Wikipedia to note more than the summary from CRUK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Must I remind you that Cancer Research UK is the world's largest independent cancer research charity. They fund research on Cancer, right? They know about Cancer Research, right? They fund over 4,000 researchers. Do you have any medical or scientific education or training? Do you realize that they say that lab studies were done with machines that work like Rife (Rife-like machines) and that these Cancer Researchers had positive results with these machines, treating cancer patients (maybe if you had cancer you would realize this, God forbid). Now, if you care to look up some of these studies, you will realize that Cancer Research UK does not lie. Sorry if this does not fit your paradigm. You are bias, it's obvious. Science dies in such subjectivity, it's sad. —TThor (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, you’re beginning to sound like quacks. One says that FDA-approved devices is “junk science,” and the other that “CRUK [Cancer Research UK] page mentions them, but so what?” This is exactly the same discourse as quacks. —TThor (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Allow me to cite WP:NPOV “All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” CancerUK is fully represented in its cons and more. The almost-pro part is minimal and is not from me, but from them. They would know better than us about studies and lab research on cancer, don’t you think? These studies are real and there are many. Why hide the sourced truth? Wikipedia is not communist, and this is not a witch-hunt. Readers can think for themselves. Why can't you live with the truth if it's sourced, must you obligatorily have it your way, 100%? Warm regards —TThor (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted much of your addition. You are still cherry-picking, and it's not even relevant to this article! What you added totally fails MEDRS (note "one" small study using frequencies that are "not the same as those of Rife machines."): "One study was on a small number of people with advanced cancer. They had a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma. Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells. But this research is still at an experimental stage, and it’s not clear exactly how it could work. And importantly the electromagnetic frequencies used in this research were not the same as those of Rife machines." How can you keep making these claims when even the one small study didn't even use the same frequencies as Rife machines? Give it up. -- Valjean (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough bullying. Cancer Research UK is very clear: “Studies [with an "s"] ... They used machines that work in the same way as the Rife machine … Researchers found that the low frequency waves affected cancer cells. It did not affect normal cells.” Not relevant to this article? I wonder what could be more. Your bias is anti-scientific. You have demonstrated it many times; a few days ago you called an FDA-approved therapy "junk science." Stop your useless editing wars. —TThor (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is about the usual amount of evidence quackery has: unreproduced, small studies with positive results. That is what you expect when something does not work. One or more studies does not matter. The CRUK page mentions them, but so what? It immediately says that it is not enough. There is no need for Wikipedia to note more than the summary from CRUK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Must I remind you that Cancer Research UK is the world's largest independent cancer research charity. They fund research on Cancer, right? They know about Cancer Research, right? They fund over 4,000 researchers. Do you have any medical or scientific education or training? Do you realize that they say that lab studies were done with machines that work like Rife (Rife-like machines) and that these Cancer Researchers had positive results with these machines, treating cancer patients (maybe if you had cancer you would realize this, God forbid). Now, if you care to look up some of these studies, you will realize that Cancer Research UK does not lie. Sorry if this does not fit your paradigm. You are bias, it's obvious. Science dies in such subjectivity, it's sad. —TThor (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, you’re beginning to sound like quacks. One says that FDA-approved devices is “junk science,” and the other that “CRUK [Cancer Research UK] page mentions them, but so what?” This is exactly the same discourse as quacks. —TThor (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This version has been rejected by multiple editors and TThor has been indefinitely blocked. End of story. -- Valjean (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
An edit warring case related to this page has been opened here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Cancer Research UK is a very reliable source. Stop your subjective bias and your totalitarianism. If you have a point to make, I'll be happy to discuss it with you on this Talk page (which you seem to avoid). Regards —TThor (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)