We Dont Share Your Info
Hulda Clark Frequencies vs Royal Rife Frequencies
There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the differences between the frequencies that Hulda Clark identified and used and those that were discovered and used by Royal Rife using his Universal Microscope.
While Rife correlated Cancer with a virus which he identified and confirmed with his microscope (and named the “BX” virus) and found its resonant frequency to be 1,604,000 Hz, Clark instead found that the human intestinal fluke parasite was the cause of Cancer. The purpose of this section is not to dispute which is correct but simply to discuss the frequencies that each of these researchers identified and why they may have identified them.
The resonant frequency that Clark identified for the human intestinal fluke (fasciolopsis buskii) was 434,000 Hz. There is no harmonic correlation that I have found between these two frequencies. Frankly, I would find it strange if there was. These two researchers were involved in very different research. Hulda Clark was very solid in her conclusion that every disease could be correlated to one or more parasites. Rife on the other hand was a pleomorphic microbiologist and optical engineer, he never claimed to cure anything.
Rife was investigating the microbiology of the subject of what was causing tumors and cancer growth while Clark was attempting to correlate the existence of a parasite in ones system to pushing your body out of homeostasis and into a state more conducive to having cancer. If she stated it this way she wouldn’t have been so controversial so her words were more focused on “This is a Cure for Cancer”!
The most important thing for you to understand is how to use and what instruments you can use the various frequencies on whether they are Clark frequencies, Rife frequencies, or from some other source. Clark frequencies range from 81,000 Hz for slime mold up to 878,000 Hz for bird mites but most of the common parasite frequencies that she identified fall into the range from 300,000 Hz to 450,000 Hz. These frequencies are unfortunately out of the range of MOST of the pad type generators on the market today but the key word there was ‘most’ and I’ll get more into that in a minute.
To utilize the Clark frequencies on the common pad type generators that are only capable of running audio frequencies (lower than 20,000 Hz) the most common method of frequency conversion has throughout the last 20 years been simply dividing the frequency by 2 and again by 2, and again by 2, etc. until the frequency is in the desired range which a researcher was seeking. This is commonly called the “octave method” because it essentially lowers the octave of the frequency. Now you know where a lot of the frequencies were derived from which are used in the parasite programs for common pad frequency generator devices! This method can also be used to increase the frequency by multiplying by 2’s to reach a higher octave useful for a ‘transmitting’ type of frequency device.
Is there a better method of converting these higher frequencies?
This gets a bit more technical but I’ll include it for those who just like to know. Another method which is highly respected among researchers was developed by Dr. Jeff Sutherland. This method involves dividing (or multiplying if a higher frequency is desired) the frequency by a scalar harmonic. The way it works is to divide the frequency by e raised to the 6th power. e is Euler’s constant and it is actually on some more scientific calculators specifically for calculations like this (ex). For the example above of the human intestinal parasite frequency of 434,000 Hz. Divide this by e6 equals: 1075.8 Hz. If you look for the ex function on a scientific calculator you’ll be able to calculate this (don’t even bother trying in longhand!).
Why not run the exact frequencies if you can?
It’s true, you can run these exact high frequencies if you have a generator that is capable of this (such as the GB4000). There is one caveat that you should know about this though. Royal Rife once stated that the resonant frequency of a particular organism would not in itself kill it! It could in fact thrive while ‘bathing’ in this frequency and this makes sense if you think about it. This is it’s resonant frequency so it should thrive in this environment so what makes this frequency deadly to it?
What really seems to make the resonant frequency deadly to an organism is being overpowered by it and increasing it’s energy so much that it explodes and this seems to be easier to attain while matching the resonant frequency. The way I see it Royal Rife and Hulda Clark achieved this in uniquely different ways.
Royal Rife did not use square waves in his original research, instead he was using a very unique waveform that was created because of the type of frequency generating technology of the era. The combination of the sine waves generated by his vacuum tube amplifiers with the lower frequency oscillator (Gating Oscillator) caused a sharp voltage spike on the leading edge of his frequency pulses.
The bottom line: this was a very unique waveform and it worked. Today’s so called ‘Rife Machines’ mostly use simple square waves, maybe that’s why they don’t always work so well!
How may have Hulda Clark achieved her results? Instead of the complex waveform that Rife used she simply pushed up her frequency pulses higher into the positive range. The base of a wave is called the ‘trough’ and the peak is called the ‘crest’. While Rife’s waves had a trough in the negative range and a crest in the positive range (but had it’s unique shape described above), Clark’s waves were shifted upwards (called “positive offset”) so the trough is in the positive range but simply ‘less positive’ than the crest. So she was pushing more energy by simply increasing the power while Rife was using a special type of wave!
This sums up some of the differences between frequencies that you are likely to run across to eliminate Parasites so you can see another perspective. The most versatile machine that I’ve found for running any of these frequencies (without any of the mathematical conversions that might drive you crazy) is the GB4000 Frequency Generator at www.FutureFrequency.com and while they do have a model that uses the positive offset effect that Hulda Clark used I prefer the regular model and the use of the Gating feature. The MOPA is the best amplifier.