User talk:Hermes49

This article is not accurate in many areas. Clearly whom ever is editing this article is deliberately mixing up the development of Rife's microscopes and Rife generators. Since Rife passed away in 1971, it is obvious that he did not develop any of this so-called Rife machines nor did he authorize any of the machines discussed in this article. He was dead!

Now regarding the statement that he made claims regarding his microscope that could not be validated. This is misleading.

As an example, according to your wiki article, to state that the Rife Universal Microscope is just mentioned in the Smithsonian Report of 1944 is grossly misleading. The Rife Universal Microscope is featured in the article, The New Microscopes and occupies more than a dozen pages. The exact reference from the Smithsonian reads, "It is not only a reasonable supposition, but already, in one instance, a very successful and highly commendable achievement on the part of Dr. Royal Raymond Rife, who for many years, has built and worked with light microscopes which far surpass the theoretical limitations of the ordinary variety of instrument..." (page 207) Now that doesn't sound like a slight mention. Also, "under the universal microscope disease organisms such as those of tuberculosis, cancer, sarcoma, streptococcus, typhoid, staphylococcus, leprosy, hoof and mouth disease and many others may be observed to succumb when exposed to certain lethal frequencies, coordinated with the particular frequencies peculiar to each individual organism..." Thus, with the aid of this microscope, it is possible to reveal the typhoid organism, for instance, in the blood of a suspected typhoid patient 4 and 5 days before a Widal is positive...In light of the amazing results obtainable with this universal microscope and is smaller brother scopes, there can be no doubt of the ability of these instruments to actually reveal any and all micro-organisms according to their individual structures and chemical constituents." (page 216)

Now does this sound more than just a mention? I have the original personal letters of Dr. Seidel, one of the authors of the Smithsonian article, so I know exactly what he thought as he wrote this article.

The last three quarters of this article is talking about the rival of Rife's work because of a book by Barry Lynes. Barry Lynes never met Royal Rife so these comments by Rife to sell his book do not necessarily reflect the thoughts of Royal Rife. The pushing of a suppression is that of the author. Can you produce in Rife's own hand the statements that you make in the article?

You site a dinner party attended by 44 people discussing the end of disease. The proper article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Nov 22, 1931 on page 1 read, "Science's Latest Strides in War on Ills Disclosed." The doctors were the leading doctors in the world. They belonged to the Mayo Clinic, Northwestern University, Johns Hopkins, USC, University of California and so many more institutions. The article states, "Scientific discoveries of the greatest magnitude including a discussion of the world's most powerful microscope recently perfected after fourteen years...at a dinner given by Dr. Milbank Johnson. Also in the article, "frankly dubious about the perfection of a microscope which appears to transcend the limits set by optical science, Dr. Johnson's guests expressed themselves as delighted with the visual demonstrations given by Dr. Rife and Dr. Kendall."

Your Dr. Rosenow reference fails to also state that the article first was reported in the Staff Meeting of the Mayo Clinic of 1932.

You also failed to include the article from the San Diego Tribune-Sun from Thursday June 13, 1940 where "Rife to Be Teacher of Police Course in Microscope Detection". "...Rife will conduct a criminal laboratory course, starting next week at the San Diego police Department, Police Chief Clifford E. Peterson, announced today...particularly helping with chemical analysis of evidence and clues and use of powerful microscopes...when he donated for use at the laboratory several of his valuable scopes with lens capable of high magnification."

Also, does this sound like no one believed in his scopes. How about the demonstrations he gave at California Institute of Technology in November, 1931. From a personal letter written by Lyle Porter, President of Spencer Lens Company, November 27, 1931.

"Mr Roy R. Rife 712 Electric Bldg. San Diego, CA

"Dear Dr. Rife: Just a short personal line to tell you that you have made a very favorable impression on the scientific people in and around Los Angeles. We recently heard about a demonstration that you made at the California Institute of Technology and many of my friends connected to the educational institutions have spoken to me about the demonstration.  It certainly has them all 'agog'."

I also wish to extend to you my sincere thanks for the very kind interview and time that you gave to a very dear friend of mine, namely, Dr. Charles Chamberlain of the University of Chicago. Dr. Chamberlain is well liked and loved by all who know him and you have made an old man very, very happy."

This entire article is based on cancer therapy machines that Rife did not even know about and you have completely left out, either deliberately or because of a lack of actual research, everything that has been stated by reputable people and institutions regarding Rife's microscopes. Is California and Western Medicine, December 1931, Volume XXXV, No. 6 also another invalid source of science?

The treatment devices and the building of powerful microscopes are separate and one does not discredit the other.