23 December 2005
Frequencies on this site are always expressed in the F165 scripting language as F165 programs are precise and can be easily converted for devices that lack automated capabilities. A common conversion is from an F165 program to frequencies for the FSCAN.
#F165 Sample Program
vbackfreq a 0.002478752 0 66.6
vbackfreq b 0.049787068 0 66.6
converge 0 0
12677.6 # protein
converge .17% .1
The repeat 5 command causes the program to cycle 5 times.
The dwell is time in seconds so 720 seconds means run for 12 minutes. It you repeated 5 times the total would be 60 minutes.
The FSCAN does not support multiple channels so ignore the scalar waves generated by vbackfreq commands.
The converge function is roughly equivalent to wobble for the FSCAN and converge 0 0 means wobble 0.
The converge .17% .1 command means wobble at .17% of the frequency at an
interval of .1hz. The FSCAN only wobbles with an interval of 1hz so
ignore the .1hz.
Multiply 1662 by .17% = 2.8hz for wobble.
Multiply 2774 by .17% = 4.7hz for wobble.
Multiply 248666 by .17% = 422.7hz for wobble.
19 December 2005
Christopher Bird reviewed Rife's work and was sent to investigate Gaston Naessens who constructed a microscope with resolution similar to Rife's. Naessens viewed the lifecycle of somatids, subcellular organisms that he thought were the basis of all life. Chronically ill patients always had abnormal somatid pleomorphic forms in their blood. He developed 714-X, a drug injected into a lymph node in the groin that normalized the somatid life cycle by enhancing the immune system.
With this approach he restored 750 out of 1000 cancer patients to health leading to his persecution and trial in Canada, a trial which he won. Christopher Bird provides a compelling narrative of trial proceedings in The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens.
What if there was a frequency program that could be used to plate zap lymph nodes that generated the same effect. This is an interesting topic of research which will be discussed at the Las Vegas Frequency Research Workshop.
16 December 2005
Examples cited in the Commons of the 6,000 products with aspartame
Felicity Lawrence, consumer affairs correspondent
Thursday December 15, 2005
In 1977 Donald Rumsfeld, now George Bush's defence secretary but then chief executive of the pharmaceutical company GD Searle, publicly stated that he would "call in his markers" to win a licence for aspartame, the sweetener that had been discovered by chance in Searle's laboratories, according to Roger Williams in the Commons yesterday.
Mr Williams, MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, said in an adjournment debate that there was much controversy about aspartame's safety at the time but "Rumsfeld appears to have honoured his pledge". In fact, "the history of the approval of aspartame puts public health regulators and politicians to shame".
The sweetener is now used in 6,000 products, from crisps such as Walkers prawn cocktail, to soft drinks including Diet Coke and Robinson's fruit squash, chewing gums such as Orbit, and vitamins pills and medicines. Yet the science on which it was given approval was "biased, inconclusive, and incompetent". "There is compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market."
On the day of his inauguration as president in 1981, with Mr Rumsfeld on his transition team, Ronald Reagan personally wrote an executive order suspending the head of the US Food and Drug Administration's powers on aspartame, Mr Williams further claimed. One month later Mr Reagan appointed a new head of the regulatory authority, Arthur Hayes, who granted a licence for the sweetener.
"The history of aspartame's approval is littered with examples showing that if key decision makers found against aspartame's safety, they were discredited or replaced by industry sympathisers, who were recompensed with lucrative jobs."
The MP said he was using his parliamentary privilege to highlight "the strong scientific evidence" that the components of aspartame and their metabolites can cause very serious toxic effects on humans, and that long-term aspartame use can cause cancer.
Method, system and device for producing signals from a substance biological and/or chemical activity
Benveniste; Jacques (Paris, FR); Guillonnet; Didier (Cagnes-sur-mer, FR)
The present invention relates to a method, a system and a device for producing signals from a substance, in particular electric signals, characteristic of the biological and/or chemical activity or the biological and/or chemical behaviour of said substance or an active element contained in said substance. The invention also relates to a method and a system for controlling said signals. The invention also relates to the applications of said method, system and device in particular to the production of active substances and to the detection of defined substances. Finally, the invention relates to signals linked to a biological and/or chemical activity thus produced by said method, system and device.
It is known from the research works of Jacques Benveniste, in particular those described in the patent application WO 94/17406 published on Aug. 4, 1994, that one can pick up, from a biological and/or chemical active element such as a chemical compound, a cell or a micro-organism, or from a substance containing this active element such as a purified preparation, a biological sample, or a living being, an "electromagnetic signal characteristic of the biological and/or chemical activity or of the biological and/or chemical behaviour" of said substance and/or said active element contained in said substance.
It is also known that it is possible to transform, in particular by means of a transducer, such an electromagnetic signal into electric signals. In the following text one also means by "electric signals characteristic of the biological and/or chemical activity or of the biological and/or chemical behaviour of said substance or of an active element contained in said substance" the electric signals derived by signal digitising and/or processing. In this expression the word "characteristic" is used in the meaning where the physical parameters of the electric signals are specific to the substance or to the active element contained in said substance and that the application of these electric signals, via a transducer, to a biological control system makes it possible:
(i) to induce a biological and/or chemical activity on said biological control system relative to that of the substance of origin or the active element it contains;
(ii) to reveal a characteristic of the substance or the active element it contains, at the origin of said electric signals.
The patent application WO 94/17406 published on Aug. 4, 1994, describes a method and a device for picking up "an electromagnetic signal characteristic of a biological and/or chemical activity or of a biological and/or chemical behaviour" from a biological and/or chemical active element such as a chemical compound, a cell or micro-organism, or from a substance containing this active element such as a purified preparation, a biological sample, or a living being.
Since then the inventors have discovered that it is possible to improve the quality of the electromagnetic signal picked up as well as the reliability of the method for producing these signals and that consequently it is possible to produce characteristic electric signals appropriate for industrial applications. The production of such characteristic electric signals implies an exceptional industrial importance.
It thus becomes possible to detect and characterise active elements present in low concentration or in very low concentration in a substance. As examples, it is thus possible to monitor the presence or absence of chemical compounds such as caffeine, ionophoretic-calcium, ovalbumin, propranolol or micro-organisms such as bacterium coli, streptococci, staphilocci whose presence is looked for.
It thus becomes possible to carry out remote tests at several thousands of kilometers since the characteristic signals are electric signals which can immediately be transmitted to the investigation centre of the control laboratory.
It is possible to modify the biological and/or chemical activity or the biological and/or chemical behaviour of a biological receptor system by submitting it to the effects of characteristic electric signals. It also becomes possible to produce new drugs such as solutions depending on signals from arnica, bradykinin, caffeine, nicotine. New production techniques for drugs can be implemented. For example, in the case of certain drugs such as antibiotics, anti-viruses, anti-parasites, anti-mitotics which, to act within bacteria, viruses or cells (tumour cells in particular), must breach the defensive barriers of the above, the signals of these drugs are applied directly into the heart of the bacteria, viruses or cells. In fact, the application of characteristic electric signals, via an appropriate transducer, generates magnetic fields which penetrate into the bacteria, viruses or cells and modify their chemical and/or biological behaviour.
It is possible to store the characteristic electric signals in data banks, using computer techniques. Then, the spread of therapeutic resources, from one point to the other on the planet, is instantaneous according to needs.
04 December 2005
The Linking Pathogen in Neurosystemic Diseases
Several strains of mycoplasma have been "engineered" to become more dangerous. They are now being blamed for AIDS, cancer, CFS, MS, CJD and other neurosystemic diseases.
Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 8, Number 5 (August-September 2001)
© by Donald W. Scott, MA, MSc © 2001
The Common Cause
Medical Research Foundation
190 Mountain Street, Suite 405
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3B 4G2
Tel/fax: +1 (705) 670 0180
A Common Disease Agent Weaponised
There are 200 species of Mycoplasma. Most are innocuous and do no harm; only four or five are pathogenic. Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain) probably comes from the nucleus of the Brucella bacterium. This disease agent is not a bacterium and not a virus; it is a mutated form of the Brucella bacterium, combined with a visna virus, from which the mycoplasma is extracted. [Mycoplasma fermentans is always seen in Lyme infections. When targeted with frequencies it produces undiagnosable Brucella infections. Both organisms must be targeted together along with several other pathogens.]
The pathogenic Mycoplasma used to be very innocuous, but biological warfare research conducted between 1942 and the present time has resulted in the creation of more deadly and infectious forms of Mycoplasma. Researchers extracted this mycoplasma from the Brucella bacterium and actually reduced the disease to a crystalline form. They "weaponised" it and tested it on an unsuspecting public in North America.
Dr Maurice Hilleman, chief virologist for the pharmaceutical company Merck Sharp & Dohme, stated that this disease agent is now carried by everybody in North America and possibly most people throughout the world. [Lyme infections are seen in over 80% of the people I test. Other researchers have similar findings.]
Despite reporting flaws, there has clearly been an increased incidence of all the neuro/systemic degenerative diseases since World War II and especially since the 1970s with the arrival of previously unheard-of diseases like chronic fatigue syndrome and AIDS.
According to Dr Shyh-Ching Lo, senior researcher at The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and one of America's top mycoplasma researchers, this disease agent causes many illnesses including AIDS, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome, Crohn's colitis, Type I diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, Wegener's disease and collagen-vascular diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and Alzheimer's.
Dr Charles Engel, who is with the US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, stated the following at an NIH meeting on February 7, 2000: "I am now of the view that the probable cause of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia is the mycoplasma..."
I have all the official documents to prove that mycoplasma is the disease agent in chronic fatigue syndrome/fibromyalgia as well as in AIDS, multiple sclerosis and many other illnesses. Of these, 80% are US or Canadian official government documents, and 20% are articles from peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The journal articles and government documents complement each other.
How the Mycoplasma Works
The mycoplasma acts by entering into the individual cells of the body, depending upon your genetic predisposition.
You may develop neurological diseases if the pathogen destroys certain cells in your brain, or you may develop Crohn's colitis if the pathogen invades and destroys cells in the lower bowel.
Once the mycoplasma gets into the cell, it can lie there doing nothing sometimes for 10, 20 or 30 years, but if a trauma occurs like an accident or a vaccination that doesn't take, the mycoplasma can become triggered.
Because it is only the DNA particle of the bacterium, it doesn't have any organelles to process its own nutrients, so it grows by uptaking pre-formed sterols from its host cell and it literally kills the cell; the cell ruptures and what is left gets dumped into the bloodstream.
II - CREATION OF THE MYCOPLASMA
A Laboratory-Made Disease Agent
Many doctors don't know about this mycoplasma disease agent because it was developed by the US military in biological warfare experimentation and it was not made public. This pathogen was patented by the United States military and Dr Shyh-Ching Lo. I have a copy of the documented patent from the US Patent Office.
All the countries at war were experimenting with biological weapons. In 1942, the governments of the United States, Canada and Britain entered into a secret agreement to create two types of biological weapons (one that would kill, and one that was disabling) for use in the war against Germany and Japan, who were also developing biological weapons. While they researched a number of disease pathogens, they primarily focused on the Brucella bacterium and began to weaponise it.
From its inception, the biowarfare program was characterised by continuing in-depth review and participation by the most eminent scientists, medical consultants, industrial experts and government officials, and it was classified Top Secret.
The US Public Health Service also closely followed the progress of biological warfare research and development from the very start of the program, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States were working with the military in weaponising these diseases. These are diseases that have existed for thousands of years, but they have been weaponised--which means they've been made more contagious and more effective. And they are spreading.
The Special Virus Cancer Program, created by the CIA and NIH to develop a deadly pathogen for which humanity had no natural immunity (AIDS), was disguised as a war on cancer but was actually part of MKNAOMI. Many members of the Senate and House of Representatives do not know what has been going on. For example, the US Senate Committee on Government Reform had searched the archives in Washington and other places for the document titled "The Special Virus Cancer Program: Progress Report No. 8", and couldn't find it. Somehow they heard I had it, called me and asked me to mail it to them. Imagine: a retired schoolteacher being called by the United States Senate and asked for one of their secret documents! The US Senate, through the Government Reform Committee, is trying to stop this type of government research.
03 December 2005
Smith R (2005) Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies. PLoS Med 2(5): e138
Richard Smith is Chief Executive of UnitedHealth Europe, London, United Kingdom. E-mail: email@example.com
Competing Interests: RS was an editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.
Published: May 17, 2005
Copyright: © 2005 Richard Smith. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry, wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 . In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming primarily a marketing machine and co-opting every institution that might stand in its way . Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians , and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become part of the cycle of dependency between journals and the pharmaceutical industry . Something is clearly up.
The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored Trials
The most conspicuous example of medical journals' dependence on the pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to discounting the claims of advertisers.
The much bigger problem lies with the original studies, particularly the clinical trials, published by journals. Far from discounting these, readers see randomised controlled trials as one of the highest forms of evidence. A large trial published in a major journal has the journal's stamp of approval (unlike the advertising), will be distributed around the world, and may well receive global media coverage, particularly if promoted simultaneously by press releases from both the journal and the expensive public-relations firm hired by the pharmaceutical company that sponsored the trial. For a drug company, a favourable trial is worth thousands of pages of advertising, which is why a company will sometimes spend upwards of a million dollars on reprints of the trial for worldwide distribution. The doctors receiving the reprints may not read them, but they will be impressed by the name of the journal from which they come. The quality of the journal will bless the quality of the drug.
(Illustration: Margaret Shear, Public Library of Science)
Fortunately from the point of view of the companies funding these trials but unfortunately for the credibility of the journals who publish them these trials rarely produce results that are unfavourable to the companies' products [7,8]. Paula Rochon and others examined in 1994 all the trials funded by manufacturers of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for arthritis that they could find . They found 56 trials, and not one of the published trials presented results that were unfavourable to the company that sponsored the trial. Every trial showed the company's drug to be as good as or better than the comparison treatment.
By 2003 it was possible to do a systematic review of 30 studies comparing the outcomes of studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry with those of studies funded from other sources . Some 16 of the studies looked at clinical trials or meta-analyses, and 13 had outcomes favourable to the sponsoring companies. Overall, studies funded by a company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the company than studies funded from other sources. In the case of the five studies that looked at economic evaluations, the results were favourable to the sponsoring company in every case.
The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine are funded by the industry . For the BMJ, it's only one-third partly, perhaps, because the journal has less influence than the others in North America, which is responsible for half of all the revenue of drug companies, and partly because the journal publishes more cluster-randomised trials (which are usually not drug trials) .