If I can be of any further help, don't hesitate to write.

Many regards,

X

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I diluted the bacteria to the point of there being roughly 100 cells per 0.1 ml, and applied these 100 cells to the surface of agar in petri dishes (in duplicate) containing the antibiotic. Control (non-exposed) dishes were also prepared. These petri dishes were exposed to each of the frequencies for 3 minutes. Two sets of petri dishes were prepared, and exposed to one or other set of frequencies (first set, designated 'A' = 473.5Hz, 947Hz, 1894Hz, 3788Hz and 7575.9Hz: the second set, designated 'B' = 568.2Hz, 1136.4Hz, 2272.8Hz, 4545.5Hz and 9091Hz). The petri dishes were then incubated overnight at 37 degrees celsius and colonies counted.

Results:

Number of colonies on control plates: 38 and 52

Number of colonies on 'A' plates: 61 and 47

Number of colonies on 'B' plates: 58 and 53

I appreciate that this is a small experiment, but I see no evidence of plasmid destruction based on the number of colonies formed on antibiotic-containing agar after RB exposure.

Experiment 2: is yeast (the simplest eukaryotic cell) influenced by RB emanations?

In this experiment, I inoculated Saboureaud broth with a 5% by volume sample of S. cerevisiae grown to saturation, and measured the optical density over time at 600nm. The rationale is that, as the cells multiply in the broth, the broth becomes more turbid and absorbs light more, so the optical density should rise. The cultures were of 10ml volume in 100ml conical flasks, shaken at 200rpm in a 30 degrees celsius incubator between measurements. The experiment was performed in triplicate. RB exposure comprised a sweep of 2,000Hz to 20,000Hz for a period of 5 minutes every hour. I chose this frequency range because I have found it to produce enhanced growth in mammalian cells in tissue culture (see later)

Results: 
Unexposed cells 
Time (hours)     Optical density (mean)     Standard deviation 
0                       0.321                       0.021 
1                       0.355                       0.007 
2                       0.404                       0.017 
3                       0.499                       0.023 
4                       0.693                       0.033 
5                       0.990                       0.068 

Rife-Bare-exposed cells 
Time (hours)     Optical density (mean)     Standard deviation 
0                       0.384                       0.008 
1                       0.354                       0.007 
2                       0.422                       0.005 
3                       0.515                       0.018 
4                       0.714                       0.012 
5                       1.034                       0.063 

If you plot the graphs, you'll see that there isn't much happening here.

Experiment 3: are mammalian cells responsive to the RB emanations? I initially started out with tumour cell lines which I exposed to 2000-2200Hz for 10 minutes, and, from this provisional crude experiment, found that they grew faster. So, I repeated this experiment with human fibroblasts, an immortalised cell line (CHO = Chinese hamster ovary) and LoVo (a human tumour cell line).

The procedure was simple: sub-culture the cells into 6 wells of a 24-well plate ensuring that they are sub-confluent, expose to sweep frequencies for 10 minutes, incubate overnight, and perform a neutral red assay. This assay is a measure of viability, in that viable cells incorporate the red dye. The accumulation of red dye is proportional to the number of viable cells in this assay (I checked by eye the cell number versus 'redness' and found it to be directly proportional)

Results:

I did quite a few of these experiments, and won't bore you all with the numbers, but essentially, fibroblasts would grow up to ~40% faster after exposure, CHO cells up to ~15% faster, and LoVo were unreliable for this experiment because of their tendency to clump together, although I suspect that they grow up to ~10% faster also. It appears that fibroblasts favour higher pulse frequencies, in the 10-15kHz range.

Finally, experiment 4 was to determine if the enzyme shrimp alkaline phosphatase (SAP) was affected by RB exposure.

I did this assay by using a substrate for the enzyme which, when acted upon by the enzyme (dephosphorylated), generates a purple colour with maximum absorption in the 520nm range. Exposure was to sweep from 2,000Hz to 20,000Hz for 1 minute between readings. Readings were taken every 5 minutes.

Results

Again I won't bore you all with the numbers. It appeared that RB exposure had absolutely no effect whatsoever on enzyme kinetics.

Discussion.

It would appear from the data that the only effect of the RB is to accelerate growth of mammalian cells, and the most responsive are cells which have retained some form of growth regulation (unlike tumour cells, which TEND toward uncontrolled proliferation). I would suggest that the intracellular target for the RB 'effect' is a protein - Lyn tyrosine kinase has already been suggested. A homology search between Lyn kinase and all yeast proteins revealed a number of close matches, but only for half of the yeast proteins. There was no yeast protein which matched Lyn kinase at its 'front end'. As yeast appears to be unresponsive to RB, I suspect that, if Lyn kinase is indeed electroresponsive, then the responsive domain is at the front end. The work with mammalian cells indicates that enhanced intracellular phosphorylation events are occurring in response to RB exposure (which then lead to increased cell proliferation). The interesting part is the frequency effect. It may be that the observed eradication of infections in humans and animals is due entirely to SELECTIVE (by frequency of pulsing) amplification of specific cell types; for example, high frequencies may enhance wound healing, as my results with fibroblasts indicates, while different frequencies may specifically stimulate cells of the immune system. Please note that Lyn kinase was isolated with respect to electro-responsiveness in B-cell leukaemia. It seems to me that the next logical step is to examine intracellular phosphorylation events in response to RB for a panel of selected proteins, but this will require serious funding. However, I am sure that it will result in publication in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. I have had some small success in this respect in other areas - I can forward my publication record to anyone interested.

Finally, I would like to repeat that my funding expires on April 9th (and I'm not funded for RB research anyway - I do this at night and weekends), so I will be unable to continue after this date unless funding materialises from God-knows-where.

Thanks for your patience.

K

Hi D

> I have found a consistent growth pattern to occur in ALL samples tested.
> Using an EM+ and also a BIORAY unit I have found the results to be the same.
> Both units however have a good track record in treating systemic Staph.,HIV,
> and Cancer with Univ.. lab results to verify effectiveness. My concern with
> this posting, and I called other list members by phone before writing this
> for their input, is that many list members lack experience in working with
> lab cultures and don't understand the MANY variables that are involved. In
> my testing thus far, I am also seeing a marked increase in the growth of
> treated cultures as compared to the control samples.
>
> NOW... this is where I am afraid Dr. G may have left some readers
> completely freaked out and wondering what they have done to themselves by
> using a Freq.. device.

The experiments I did were very preliminary, but I felt that I should report them as I'm out of the labs and unemployed after April 9th. It should be noted that the test cells were isolated and pure, as compared to a whole animal. The increases in growth that I observed only apply under these cnditions. For all I know (and this is what I suspect), the stimulatory effect on, say, a tumour of perhaps 10% might well be hugely offset by enhanced activity of the immune system. You'll note from my findings that fibroblasts, the normal cells involved in wound repair, grew 40% faster after an RB exposure. I suspect that the effects on the immune system are of an equal or even higher magnitude. Additionally, please note that the bacteria and yeast were completely unaffected by RB exposure in my crude experiments, so they would not pose a greater risk in a disease situation after RB exposure......probably....while the immune-stimulation may help enormously. The lack of destruction of DNA which I reported came as no great surprise - it would imply that RB exposure might cause cancer (due to DNA damage), which appears to not be the case.

> In my findings, if the culture is allowed to continue for several weeks a
> pattern appears. This is: Rapid growth for 7-10 days, followed by 5-7 days
> of a plateau, and at around 14-18 days the culture begins to undergo
> pleomorphism and/or dies. 

Which cultures? Liquid or solid? Which cells? Are they starved of nutrients? Bacteria growing in liquid culture show a characteristic lag in growth at first while they become 'accustomed' to their environment, followed by a very rapid growth as they consume the nutrients, followed by a cease in growth as all the nutrients are exhausted, followed by some cell die-off as a result of starvation and poisoning by their own waste products.

> These tests have also indicated a very specific dependance on frequency
> and duration of exposure. All control cultures remain alive and well
> with no change in growth or habit. Many factors are not addressed in
> these findings. Perhaps the rapid growth simply triggers an immune system
> response and our bodies are made aware of a problem.
> As I said, I don't have any answers at this time.
> However, I have achieved results using the DNA based frequencies and at
> this time feel that some of the conclusions presented by Dr. G may
> be a little premature and require more research before putting them to a
> public forum. MAY THE LIGHT BE WITH YOU!
> D 

I'd be very happy to continue research but, without a job or funding, I cannot. Therefore, I am (sadly) compelled to offer my RB equipment up for sale. This equipment comprises:

Lodestar signal generator (recommended in Jim Bare's book)
Uniden 510 with all Tom Young mods (inc. 24V conversion), with cpu heatsink and fan on output transistor
Palomar power amp (blue face)
Small home-made 24V supply for CB
Nevada 30A 12V supply for everything else
MFJ 949 with ext balun fitted inside case
Cheb phanotron
Cooling fans (mains-powered) everywhere, and all leads and connectors, as well as Jim Bare's book.

... this equipment was very expensive after importing it from the US. It's probably a better bargain for someone in Europe. If anyone is interested, make me an offer.

All the best

Dr. G
Dept. of Surgery
Clinical Research Block