Nobel Prize winners prove that Royal Rife was right all along

So, after all Royal Rife was RIGHT and the Royal Rife Universal microscope probably DID work all along ... the mainstream science against him was WRONG all along.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29536525


Now, are the rest of Royal's discoveries also RIGHT? hmm.

I'd love to have one of these microscopes.

Will this work to prove or disprove the germ theory?

CS, your thoughts?

how does this prove or disprove anything?

magic_gro wrote:how does this prove or disprove anything?

The germ theory has been disproven over and over again using phase contrast microscopy. This was shown in the late 1980's and 90's. However, the truth doesn't sell billion of dollars worth of drugs. So I wouldn't expect any amount of data to change public perception as long as big pharma practically owns the media.

magic_gro wrote:how does this prove or disprove anything?

to answer you, and also to clarify my point that the new discovery by these 3 scientists about causing the specimens to give off their own light is not new, and how using such microscope can not only observe germs but also help us destroy them, i quote:

He found he could see the individual pathogens better by illuminating them with a light frequency that matched their own resonance frequency and causing them to glow. When he intensified the frequencies, he observed the pathogens either bursting or going inanimate.

http://www.rife.de/

teacup, you are quoting from another website. I am failing to link the contents of the first page you linked with Rife machines...

or with Royal Raymond Rife for what matters...

I want to believe. But I can't find any evidence. Please make it easier on me...

The website is fine, it must be getting blocked at your location/country/ISP.

here's a quote from another spot

Quote:
Furthermore, the luminescent and or fluorescent color ( narrow band of wave lengths ) of the bacterium or virus was unique, just as the wave length that made it fluoresce. In other words, Rife had found a way for the specimen to self illuminate with a light emission of one color. Therefore no color correction was required. There were, however, some exceptions where the microbe would luminesce and or fluoresce with two different colors, but one would generally be much brighter than the other. When focusing the image using the brighter wave length emission a dim halo around the object's image would be seen from the now out of focus dim luminescent and or fluorescence emission wave length. Two other potential apparent reasons Rife did not use color corrected objective lenses in his

from http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com/AppAH.html

None of your links is getting blocked for me.

You first posted a link from BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29536525

What is your thesis on what that link from BBC proves? Please only quote the BBC page pointed to by that link. Any quote from any other website doesn't help me understand your original post apropos of that link.

Thank you!

bump.

all i am saying is this goes to show how science has dogma... Rife had a microscope that worked but the mainstream ignored him... and lead him to develop theories that the mainstream ignores. now they say this is a new discovery, but it aint. just how columbus discovered a continent that had already been discovered.

i am wondering about Rife's findings and if these should now be taken more seriously that we have modern proof that his microscopes did indeed work, maybe the theories he came up with (using his amazing microscope) also work

How potentially the Rife microscope worked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foIWltOShO0    very informative explanation ...
he also talks about "dark adjusting" your eyes.  which is also interesting... and he explains how the Rife Ray device which was able to destroy the cells selectively.

now, the mainstream is accepting that getting cells to floresce is used in microscopy, next step is to see if the rife Ray device can be re-invented and start using it to destroy cancer cells or specific germs selectively.