This an archival site and out of date.
For current information please GOTO ResonantLight.com
RifeBare Resonant Light Wave Plasma Technology
Disclaimer:
The submissions for this particular page are provide for the purpose of
enhancing the universal knowledge of the use of the RifeBare
device. It is not to be construed as treatment but rather as observations
from the evaluation of the RifeBare device.The information I am offering
here should not circumvent anything prescribed or advised by a medical doctor.
My comments are based upon my observations and are offered only as a guideline
as what I would do for myself and within our volunteer group to evaluate
the RifeBare. Anything not completely understood by the reader should be
clarified before following this offering. Donald Tunney
A few Questions and Answers by Donald L Tunney
Prostate - PSA
Question, why should one person's psa count go up after 16 sessions
and the other go down after 7 sessions? both of these men are using the
beck device as well.
Response- PSA tests are not always accurate. 2 out of 3 can be incorrect.
However, there is an element of truth in the results of the testing insofar
there are cancer markers present to one degree or another. An increase of
PSA is "normal" for those who use the RifeBare - at least for
the first 4 to 12 weeks. Then the count will come down. Reason is that PSA
testing cannot distinguish live cancer from dead cancer. Cancer Marker tests
are similar in results to PSA testing
Cancer
Question - Besides using the RifeBare device for her cancer what
else should my Mother use?
Response - Other considerations for cancer could be use of Kombucha,
Hydrazine Sulphate, food grade Hydogen Peroxide, Ozone, collodal silver,
Essiac... to name but a few. Using the RifeBare once cancer matasticises
it is very *VERY VERY* important for that person be able to detoxify from
the killing off of the cancer . Do your homework and implement a detoxification
program BEFORE KILLING OFF the cancer with the RifeBare. Encourage your
medical professionals to work with you.
Question - I live in rather small bungalow and was wondering what
effect RBDT systems might have on other household equipment. Should I be
paranoid about having the RBDT in a room above a high efficiency gas furnace
in the basement? It could be within 10 to 20 feet through wood floors. The
metal housing and ducts of the furnace would act as a Faraday cage, but
certain resonant frequencies I suppose might have odd effects on the gas
system or other electronics.
Response - All good questions. You will NOT have any problems. We
have never experienced any changes or disruptions other than minor interference
to TV that is on an antenna. Also CB radios get interferance but the distances
are pretty close (less than 100 feet).
I estimate there are now near 5000 RB units world wide. To date not ONE
report of a medical mishap or equipment failure. This includes no reports
of damage to hard or Zip or Jazz or floppie drives or their media. Video
tapes have not been harmed eventhough they are within a two feet of the
RB
Prostate Cancer & The Roy Hall Device
From Stan - "I had a long talk with my doctor"!
22 Apr 97
---It is really nice to hear from you and I am encouraged by the efforts
of folks like you who are working on your doctors to encourage their curiosity
about RifeBare.
We have had two volunteers with prostate cancer. Bruce, our first terminally
diagnosed volunteer
went from a PSA of 8 to 2.7 within 90 days. Bruce has his own RifeBare now
and his PSA
since went down to 2.5 and his doctor can't explain why his cancer went
into a "spontaneous remission". He had been deemed terminal by
his doctors.
The second volunteer with a PSA of 200 reduced it to 50 within 6 weeks and
was feeling terrific while using the RifeBare. Dr. Murray C. left the group
for 10 days and when he returned he said he went in for chemo. At this point
our group was evaluating a commercially constructed rife type device built
by Roy Hall. After 7 weeks of using the Roy Hall device we could not show
any improvement to those attending with cancer. Although Roy Hall's device
did show promise in
terms of pain relief, arthritic swellings and attacking a wart virus - this
device did little or nothing for cancer. Just goes to show that all Rife
type devices don't work as well as others.
Murray continued to get worse and would not go back to the RifeBare sessions.
I believe he enjoyed the companionship of others within the group setting
and perhaps the "professional" appearance of the Roy Hall device.
Murray died January 25th. Another with cancer using the Roy Hall showed
no improvement and discontinued attending.
I believe there are two contributing factors to Murray's death. First the
chemo was too strong
for Murray's system and he could not detox the kill off as fast as the chemo
was working. The
tests Murray had, indicated his PSA was increasing week by week. His last
count was over 500.
We have in our group, currently 8 deemed terminal with cancer. Two volunteers
with lung cancer came from Ohio and spent 2 weeks with us attending our
sessions and learning what they could about our RifeBare. They returned
home last week and constructed their own device. While here, one who had
a cough and was spitting up blood in the phlegm every day - stopped coughing
the
blood within a week (two sessions). Overall, both "just felt better".
All our group with cancer have been told to get their affairs in order by
their doctors. All tell
me they are having a greater number of good days than they are bad - which
is a major change
in their quality of life and is, I believe, due to the RifeBare and learning
how to detox correctly.
The way things are today, anyone with a killer disease uses almost anything
that will work
and the RifeBare is no exception. So there isn't any proof that I havewhere
it is positive to say the RifeBare was the reason for ones improvement -
BUT - there is a substantial number of occurrences within our volunteer
group to lead me to believe the successes are NOT just a coincidence! ...after
note(in May 1997 we received the documentation from one of our volunteers
- CT scans immediately before and after - where they had a 50% reduction
in tumor mass using nothing other than theRifeBare device)
Have we shown the RifeBare will kill cancer? I say yes. Is it always successful?
- I say no. (there is still the need to ID the exact freqs and other combinations)
Will the RifeBare keep those with cancer alive? I can say that many can
survive. If we didn't get people already deemed terminal and / or who have
not responded to radiation and/or chemo, I know that our success rate would
climb.
There is a lot more to survival than just killing off the cancer. Some of
these things that come to mind are: - an individuals ability to detox -
the will to survive and their attitude - the ability to modify the body's
anaerobic environment which permits tumor cancer to grow, willing to change
life styles, changing diet ......
I believe in the compassion and wisdom of our medical doctors and with courage
and curiosity they will stumble into the world of RifeBare. It is unlikely
our doctors will hear about it in any positive way from their respective
associations.
My hope is for doctors to challenge their status quo as defined within their
training procedures.
Protocols must be challenged. Doctor's have a need to learn about other
"tools" like the RifeBare device.
Recognition for the need for wellness alternatives is being perceived at
a vaster level each day by lay people like myself. How difficult was it
for a doctor to change the thinking of his peers to accept that a bacteria
was responsible for stomach ulcers?
Is it so difficult for a medical doctor to believe that a water glass can
be destroyed by the resonance produced by the voice of a singer? Just because
the energy could not be seen does not mean it doesn't exist.
Medically, doctors have accepted that gall and kidney stones can be destroyed
by resonant energy! Are we so far away from the "rediscovery"
of resonant energy for other medical purposes? Once a shape of an object
is known, can it be destroyed by a resonant frequency? I say it can and
we are already here using this principle!
Let's pretend this device does not kill cancer. Would it not still have
a value if it "killed" or "prevented" a common cold
or flu? Would it have value if it just got you over your flu or cold
quicker and with less discomfort than normal? The effectiveness of the RifeBare
with "me" is 100% - as long as I use the device as soon as I feel
a cold or flu coming on.
"What if" you had a friend with Althiemers who couldn't walk 100
feet and was without feeling in his one side and in constant overall pain
and had no memory retention? What if this person used the RifeBare for a
few weeks and could now walk 4 miles at a crack, no longer had pain, could
chop wood and pile it? Wouldn't you be a bit curious as to why this person
has his life back?
How about healing over a full blown herpes (HSV) outbreak in 24 to 48 hours
- without medication? And would there not be something that can be said
if a person suffering from fibromyalgia for 15 years suddenly was almost
pain free in 14 days?
The RifeBare does all this and much more!
The winners will be the medical doctors who use this device as a tool.
The winners already are the "you's" and "I's" of the
world who have this technology.
The winners will be universal Medicare by reduction of costs due to shorter
and
more affordable cures and treatments.
The losers are the pharmaceutical companies - or are they? - now that CODEX
is coming on stream.
Can this technology be taken away from us. Of course it can .....but can
government stop us?
I say never.... because we have learned how to make RifeBare Technology
almost undetectable. And if we are forced into the basements and sheds and
warehouses of the world does anyone think the authorities are going to stop
us when they can't control illegal (or legal for that matter) drugs.
Yes Stan - the wisdom, compassion and stout hearts of our medical doctors
will make it possible for them to "see the light". I truly believe
they will carry the banner to government for accepting
the legitimacy of this wonderful, gentle healer. But it could well be the
you's and I's of the world will guide them to it.
#2. The Roy Hall Device
Does anyone know about the Roy Hall ready made device?
Does it produce good results, better than the James Bare device?
11 May 97
Hello Alasair - Hope this helps - It is a copy of an email I sent to someone
else.
Two key points were missed in the original letter to Paul - Dr. Murray C
(one of our volunteers) had a PSA of 200 when he started using the Rife/Bare
and it went down to 50 until he switched over to the Roy Hall Device. Murray's
PSA increased every test over the next two months that we used the Roy Hall
to the point "it went off the scale".
Secondly - I doubt that Roy Hall can produce a single individual that can
say their cancer mass has reduced and be able to sunstantiate it. (The RifeBare
has this validation).
-------
3/7/97 Don Tunney wrote:
This is written to provide you with what I was involved in and why I am
no longer involved with Roy Hall. I am responding to your email request
without malice to Roy Hall and to provide you with some of the details.
I worked with Roy Hall to assist him in development the device you are questioning
and I tested it using the same frequencies used with the RifeBare for two
months, four times a week with our group of volunteers. It seemed to put
out strong electromagnetic fields but it did nothing that I could see for
destruction of cancer or improvement of well being. Volunteers frequently
reported headaches which often carried on for a day or two. In favor of
the Roy Hal device I will say that our volunteers frequently reported relief
of arthritic and other pain - but that is normal with the RifeBare as well.
We had only one volunteer, Dr. Murray C with prostate cancer and was our
only cancer person.
In August 1996, Murray used the RifeBare device and began to feel better
over the next 3 months. He went away for two weeks and when he came back
after having chemo, we started using the Roy Hall device (in November) and
every week Murray got weaker and looked worse. I asked Murray to go back
to the RifeBare but for whatever reasons he wanted to stay with the Roy
Hall device. Perhaps it was because it looked so "official" -
no wires dangling etc or that Murray just enjoyed being with the group.
Murray passed away January 25th (1997). At no point did Murray look or feel
better during this two months with the Roy Hall device. Our only other cancer
volunteers, deemed terminal by their doctors and who did not use the Roy
Hall device, Bruce, Batyah and Beverly are alive and each has their own
RifeBare device. (Batyah passed away Aug 96 - Bruce and Beverly are still
alive May 98)
My involvement with Roy Hall ceased January 21st when the first commercial
device he made, to be constructed "as was the prototype", was
ready for sale. Roy told me 1 hour before the sale was to be made that he
made changes to the operation of the square wave in the unit that was to
be sold untested. When I said we couldn't sell something that was untested
he told me he, as manufacturer, "could do anything he wanted"
and that I had no say in the matter. I said this was dangerous and unacceptable
and that I couldn't distribute his experimental equipment under those conditions.
He said he would get someone else to do it for him and hung up the phone
on me. (James Muir of Living Proof Health Products - known for his Essiac
background now distributes the Roy Hall device) His Internet connections
are at http://www.minfox.com/essiac/ and http://www.essiac.net
In his Internet advertisement http://mars.ark.com/~suncoast/, Roy Hall states
(or once stated) his devices "are built the same as the one tested"
or something like that. Perhaps he is concerned the word is out about selling
untested devices?
In September, 1996 Roy Hall said he had "over 3000 hours developing"
this device. I introduced Roy Hall to this technology sometime in July -
until then he had never heard of Dr. Rife or the Batyah project. So if you
calculate, say 60 days from sometime in July to Sep there are 1440 hours
in total (24 hour days). Roy Hall told me all along he did all this development
by himself. So 3000 hours is certainly overstated.
3000 hours is what he states as his development time in his Internet advertisement.
(This of course matters little to whether the device works or not but it
made me wonder.) I heard of two electronics experts working over a period
of 7 years - could not replicate Rife's results with a plasma tube device.
Further, I know Roy Hall modeled his device on the technology of James
Bare. I say this because on at least 5 occasions he checked over the
RifeBare I was using - including the use of a oscilloscope for comparison.
So if his device works at all it is because of James Bare.
Roy Hall told me that if things "got too hot for building the devices
in Canada" that he would move elsewhere would leave the country. He
recently came over from England - so he has no known ties over here.
I have questions over Roy Hall's use of putting used parts into his devices.
He asked for my burnt out baluns at one point when he was building the prototype
so I gave him the five that I had. When it came time for the first unit
readied for sale - he asked me for more - and not thinking I gave him another.
He said he was rewinding them and using them in his devices and I was uncomfortable
about that because he can purchase new ones for $8.50US from MFJ.
The untested unit got passed off to an unsuspecting person who I know resold
it to someone needing one desperately.
The Roy Hall device as I knew it is not repairable by anyone other than
Roy Hall as some of the "purpose built" components are "potted"
- which means they sort of self destruct when you go to open them up. Now
imagine something your life is dependent upon quits working.
Roy Hall devices are built with filters to restrict TV and radio interference.
Perhaps this is the reason why the Roy Hall device was not successful with
Dr. Murray. Perhaps the RfeBare is successful because the signal is not
suppressed or filtered.
In my opinion, anyone who buys a Roy Hall device is taking a major risk.
I believe anyone wanting a sure thing would be much better off with constructing
a RifeBare - 1200 others can't be wrong. (As of June 1998 I estimate there
5000 world wide) The Roy Hall device may have it's merits and the fact it
is compact - but if it isn't proven to work for cancer why buy it? With
all that is happening with this technology developing I suspect a device
will soon appear that is proven, compact, affordable, repairable and reliable.
Personally I wish I had never gotten involved with Roy Hall. I was anxious
to see a simpler and more portable device being made available to the world
and towards this end I suppressed my instincts about Roy Hall and for that
I some regrets.
Don Tunney
#3. A Genuine Dr. Royal Raymond Rife device?
May 1997
I have liver cancer, Heptacellular Carcinoma. I just read "The Cancer
Cure That Worked - Fifty years of Suppression" and many articles now
and I am impressed. I am interested in learning more about the Frequency
Machine, it's potential treatment for the cancer I have, who is qualified
to use it, where, are those using it as Royal Rife did in l934 on the patients
cured at La Jolla, Ca., and testamonials from those currently using it now
in remission or cured. Which are the real machines apart from those seemingly
offered like mail-order specials?
---I doubt you will find an original Rife machine anywhere let alone one
that is functioning. Should you - please let me know where it is and who
has it. The device our volunteer group here on Vancouver Island Canada uses
is a RifeBare device (it is believed to simulate rife technology).
The operation and use of a RifeBare is strictly experimental as there are
no known protocols available to run it by. We have not had ANY negative
effects reported in over 3000 hours of volunteer time. Personally I have
close to 7-800 hours with the eleven devices I have constructed over the
past year and I have never felt better in my life.
All "rife" devices are not equal. I know that from experience.
By choice I use the RifeBare and after having over 300 volunteers and have
evidence of its effectiveness against carcinoma, I have no reason to change
devices.
Further, I suspect that all RifeBare devices are not equal because of the
method of operation and/or the way it was constructed.
Records from the original Rife device have not surfaced. Does the RifeBare
work - "most definitely".
Donald Tunney
Archive page from 1 Jun 98
RifeBare Home
page