Hi Bob. I am hoping that you might have some knowledge of or insitsites regarding Frequency Specific Microcurrent therapy. I read the book “Frequency Specific Microcurrent in Pain Management” by Carolyn McMakin and thought I might look into it further. It sounds plausible based on on my experiences with using RIFE and PEMF. Any input will be from you is always appreciated.
Hi @compudoc
I’m not bob but I’m also interested. McMakin uses, as I remember, organs/symptom specific “exact” frequency-pairs to treat. I’ve heard that it help quite some people.
What I see critical: a) the devices cost a lot, b) i have to throw a way the electrodes and c) I can’t really do it over the days for long hours.
I see the difference of applying PEMF over long hours. I remember Bob writing somewhere that PEMF is better than currents running in an unspecific, not determinable way through your body.
I think Microcurrent does something, but I can’t judge the impact in comparison to PEMF/ICES. I would assume it does less.
In that regard I have a question to you: What are your experiences with RIFE in regard / comparison with ICES and what for a RIFE device do you use? I never did feel something from the RIFE device I have used. The “scan” function of the machine I used (Rifetech Plasma) then was totally inconsistent and worthless.
Note: Edited spelling mistakes
Hi @compudoc, I agree with @hcf’s comments. I have not studied FSM specifically because I have two concerns with the (a) claims and (b) basic method:
DISCLAIMER: The following is only my opinion. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. As a citizen of the United States, I have a constitutional right to voice an opinion. If you don’t want to hear my opinion, stop reading NOW.
1- I have not seen evidence that one specific frequency has the claimed effects, whereas similar but slightly different frequencies do not. To demonstrate this claim compellingly, you would need repeatable, quantitative data with measurable biological effects, and I have not seen this. Has anyone seen anything like this? If so, please reply with a reference. That would be very helpful and I would love to be proven wrong. It would need to look like this (just one example):
To benefit a specific, quantifiable biological condition:
10.5 Hz works great!!
but:
10.4 Hz does not work
and
10.6 Hz does not work
Note that it is crucial to show that only one specific precise frequency works, but all other frequencies do not.
Note also that I am not saying that FSM does not work. I am only challenging the claim that the “F” needs to be “S”.
If it can be independently repeated, data showing that only one specific frequency works would be compelling evidence that one specific frequency is essential to achieve the desired biological effect. Has anyone, anywhere, ever seen any reliable data like this? If so, please reply with a reference!
2- My second concern, as @hcf points out, is that electrical currents through tissues, specifically those driven by conduction between electrodes (conductively coupled is the technical term) tend to move through paths of least resistance, and they do not tend to follow straight lines from electrode to electrode. The path of current flow looks more like a lightning bolt, randomly forking and branching. Cells and tissues that are randomly in the path get huge amounts of current, but tissues only a small distance away may get no current at all. My technical opinion is that this approach is much less efficient and effective than the use of inductively-coupled stimulation for inducing effects more uniformly on large volumes of tissue.
My final concern is that individual variability seems to be quite considerable. People seem to me to have great differences in their sensitivity and responsiveness to electro-magnetism. I think it is very unlikely that one specific frequency works the same way for all individuals.
My Observations:
Having studied this for a few decades, this is what I think I am seeing:
Frequency of electromagnetism (simple “frequency”, pulses per second) kind of matters, but does not need to be precise. For non-excitable tissues (not muscle or nerve) the frequency can be over a broad range, something like, for example 1 Hz up to 100 Hz or more for reduction of inflammation in orthopedic tissues, just as an example that I have observed hundreds of times.
Frequency is more important when dealing with excitable tissues (muscle and nerve), but still seems to work over a range and does not appear to need to be precise to have the desired biological effect. It is more likely that different ranges of frequencies will elicit collateral effects on excitable tissues, such as, for example, causing brain wave entrainment in frequency bands thought to influence sleep, awareness, irritation, etc.
3 Likes
Hi @hcf,
I’ve used Spooky2 RIFE for years and have had great results so far. I had a gum/jaw infection (the whole upper left jaw/gums were infected) I used RIFE plasma and remote and It slowly went away after about a week. I used RIFE remote for my sister’s skin cancer on her eye lid and she reported that it started shrinking and the dissapeared. I’ve had many good results with friends and family over the years. I’ve never tried a plasma scan. I have done scalar scans and they seemed to work for me.
SFM treatments max time is 90 minutes per session. I’ll let you know how/if it works for me.
I’ve also used biomagnetic pair therapy and it also has worked for me.
I’m also trying out a new homeopathy modality (The Banerji Protocals). The problems I have had with clasical homeopathy are it take to long to figure out the correct one remedy that will work. The best results I’ve seen with the clasic version have been when a panel of homeopathists work together to figure out the proper remedy for an individual.
I,ve sent many C5’s and M1’s to family members as well as using them on myself every night. The only problem I found that it has not worked on is PAD (peripheral artery disease).
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I never figured out what the rationale behind the frequencies and “Spooky2 Remote” should be. That certain frequencies should heal a systemic issue is very abstract to me.
Some say that it is supposed to be a total fraction of a resonance frequency that resonates with the DNA or RNA length of a given virus, etc. But here the problems start: Royal Rife could not have known or verified this in a human lifetime, if the results take days or weeks or multiple minute or hour long session with the “right” frequency to work.
The scan is even more obscure to me. There are lots of scanning devices sold in the market and lots are total scam. Some are seen as giving some hints, but even that is obscure to me, because if you want to interpret something into something else, the human mind plays you.
Do you have further insights into these issues?
have heard anecdotes in forums about rife, but nothing specific nor progressive in a shared journey.
wish we had more reliable data in this field of magnetic magic… it’s always great to see when these types of therapies help/heal people, but wish the scientific community would put half of the effort they do on conventional drugs on magnetic type therapies. i know, i know… there’s no proprietary advantage and opportunity in what works well for us in nature for them to spend the time.
things that make you go hmmmmm
This is what they claim and it sounds nice. But I never saw an explanation that goes beyond that claim. If they would have one, they would probably get the Nobel Price 
Best,
Hans
Hi, I’ve been using Rife for several years and have great success with it. The main exerience I can point to from my own experience was when I had an impacted tooth and the infection spread to my entire top left jaw. I used Rife for it both reote and plasma and over time it the infection gradually went down until it was gone. Over a month later (still using remote) and a small piece of tooth pushed thru my gum (yesterday) and the small amount of bleeding that had persisted stopped. Most of the energy healing modalities seem to work really quickly except PEMF microcurrent. But RIFE seems to work. It also worked for my sister who had skin cancer on her eyelid. It slowly started shrinking and then disappeared. I was using remote for her. I use Spooky2 RIFE equipment. Also, I have several gallon jugs of water that I imprinted with frequencies and they all taste different to me. I used frequencies for liver maintenance and kidney maintenance for my cats and they always drink the the one for liver maintenance and barely touch the one for kidney maintenance.
Hi Bob, I noticed that they use square waves so they also have the harmonics generated for that specific frequency.
Hi hcf, The remote uses quantum entanglement; what ever frequencies the DNA in the finger/toe nail are receiving the DNA wherever it is in the world also receives. The database for the frequencies has been expanding since Royal Rife invented it. He invented a microscope that he could use to watch the virus or what cells while he exposed it different frequencies until he found the one that resonated with it (killed it). He worked with cancer cells as well. The experiment continues. Find the correct resonant frequency and it works. That is my understanding and it makes sense to me.
yes, and it is possible they do not even account for that.
That sounds interesting. Do you place them near to the RIFE devices? Is it a cold plasma you use?
Best,
Hans
i believe there’s a difference in taste for water… for each frequency used, a different taste… that’s interesting.
if you were to treat water remotely (worth an experiment), does the water taste different in the same way as of locally/directly? I’d imagine it would and would be another indicator of rife working remotely
I use a BZtronics (Life frequencies Pro X8)computer program for putting frequencies into water. I’ve used their program for a couple of decades and given it out to family and friends; they all seem to like it and use it for themselves, plants and pets.
Hi Bob,
There are double blind studies done with FSM. You can see some of them at this web site
https://gordonmedical.com/frequency-specific-microcurrent-fsm/
Go to the other articles section. Some go into details of the amount of current and the frequencies.
I am curious if the B5 can be used for FSM experiments.
Second question first: The B5 is not designed for delivering FSM, so it can probably not do anything similar to FSM.
First question: “Bob, can you check these papers…”
Answer: yes and no. I am absolutely crushingly busy lately, so it would be next month before I could even glance at them. But this is a teachable moment for everyone on this forum because any intelligent person can, with some work, learn a bit about how to evaluate scientific work. So, if you have an interest and a few spare hours of time…
First, read the abstract of the papers in question. You must understand what they are testing. It could be a lot of different things, but for FSM I think the two most important are.
1- Does FSM work better than placebo or nothing at all. In this case, they would be testing one or just a few settings against no signal. No matter what the outcome of this kind of test it, it does not demonstrate the unique feature of FSM, namely that specific frequencies work while others do not. An experiment that does not compare different but similar frequencies only shows that microcurrents are beneficial, and tells us nothing about the uniqueness or the precision of the frequencies involved.
2- They compare very specific frequencies against different but similar frequencies, all other parameters being equal, and their data show that one specific frequency or a specific set of frequencies works well compared to both a different frequency and sham/placebo/no-frequency.
If they did #1, then no big deal, we have known that microcurrents can be beneficial for tissues for over a century.
If they did #2, then that is very promising. Now you need to check for (a) repeatability and (b) bias.
First check: do any of the papers show that the experiment can be repeated by someone else, and will yield the same results? If so, has the experiment been repeated by someone with no financial interest in FSM (third-party verification)?
Basically, if they can show that:
- one specific frequency works, but other similar frequencies do not
and - the results can be repeated by someone else who does not have a financial bias.
then they really have something here and we need to look at it much more closely.
If not, then I would need to be presented with more compelling evidence, as outlined above, before I would give it more consideration.
But basically, anyone can try their hand at this, so if you are interested, rip into it and tell us what you see!