I started to write a note on a recent article about Linus Pauling and realized it needed a preface. Linus was one of my mentors and he had a distinctively different view of medicine than the average physician. He was probably the smartest and most knowledgeable person I have ever worked with and was really bent out of shape because he shared some of his data on DNA structure with Watson and Crick and they got the Nobel Prize. He, of course, already was the only person on the planet who had singlehandedly received two Noble Prizes, but he felt strongly he deserved a third for discovering the structure of DNA. I could never figure out whether this was a character flaw or whether he was right. He was right about most things.

Linus used the scientific method to innovate and break new ground. Most work in science is reworking old ground and making minor improvements. Doing a major overhaul of any scientific theory is risky. When you stick your neck out, you take a lot of flak, and Dr. Pauling was very controversial, particularly among the medical profession.

“Part of the scientific method is that the investigator be willing to accept all the facts. He must not be prejudiced; prejudice might keep him from giving proper consideration to some of the facts or to some of the logical arguments involved in applying the scientific method, and in this way keep him from getting the right answer. If you were to say, “I’ve made up my mind, don’t confuse me with a lot of facts,” you would not be applying the scientific method.” Linus Pauling

Quite often I share some data with another scientist or engineer and the response is, “That is so out of the conventional context of scientific thinking, how could it possibly be true?”

Facts are facts and people regularly ignore, dismiss, or suppress pieces of data that do not fit in to their preconceived notions. Thinking is useful to discover patterns in facts, which can then be used to infer the result of future experiments, i.e. predict future facts. Thinking is useless to science if it is illusion, and when you ignore, dismiss, or suppress odd pieces of data, you use your thinking to build a sand castle of imagination, the basis of “conventional wisdom.” Illusion is great for authors, playrights, and movie makers, but not so great for scientists. For example, as I noted previously, a recent journal article by John Bailar, M.D, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Public Health at the University of Colorado, pointed out there has been no significant decrease in the death rate from cancer in the last 20 years. Similar information has been published on mammography not providing any reduction in the breast cancer death rate, and so forth. Thus we are in illusion about the nature of the disease, the mechanisms of tumor growth, and the treatment of the problem.

Another important priniciple in the scientific method is that experiments must be able to be replicated by different individuals. So if you find yourself immediately discounting a set of data that is important, and that it upsets your applecart in some way, then if you practice the scientific method you owe it to yourself to replicate the experiment and prove it wrong or right. As many innovators have discovered, the most interesting and important data is the data that does not fit the current scientific paridigm because that is exactly where new breakthroughs occur.

So virtually all great scientific breakthroughs punch holes in conventional scientific thinking and show that the old way was, as least in some sense, an illusion. As Thomas Kuhn has pointed out in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” scientists often hold on to old illusions until they die and a new generation has to come along to adopt new science which does a better job of explaining or incorporated new facts. Peter Drucker points out the same phenomenon in “Innovation and Entrepreneurship.” Any new innovation is at high risk of the “cuckoo” effect. The cuckoo lays it eggs in other birds nests. If the other bird realizes this, the eggs are destroyed. Any organization instinctively tries to eliminate anything new and unusual that appears in its midst, and scientists are not exempt from this psychological problem.

This is particularly true in medicine, which is still more of an art than science. Despite the lip service given to “evidence based medicine,” i.e. medicine based on replicated studies in the major journals, over 80% of medical practice is not evidence based. And many practices that have been proven to be useless in the journals are still practiced extensively. As the Institute of Medicine has noted, many practices which kill hundreds of thousands of people every year have been clearly documented in the literature as bad practices, yet people and insitutions ignore them. Tradition has been more important than medical safety.

We need innovation in medicine and it will not come from business as usual!

I had dinner at Flora’s Restaurant (delicious Canadian mussels and slow cooked lamb) in Arlington, MA, at the bar where there was a vase of purple lilacs. My eyes were irritated and watering and since I’ve been tested as allergic to lilacs, I suspected them. When I got home the frequency 485797HZ was needed for both me and my spouse. Just to check to see if this really was from lilacs, I went outside and picked a white lilac off a bush in my yard and its frequency was 486877HZ, pretty close to the purple lilacs. Treating for the former frequency, I got a positive indication and it cleared up my eyes. I put a blood smear slide on the FSCAN imprinter and got a strong indication from the Aurameter that it was in my blood and traveling to other organ systems in my body.

After treatment, my eyes started watering again. I tested my shirt and it tested positive for lilac pollen. So my shirt was reinfecting me. Apparently, these allergens easily get into your clothes!

Firing up the EM6+, I ran the handheld plasma tube over my body like a security agent in the airport waving the metal detecting wand. Using the Aurameter as an indicator of effectiveness of the plasma tube near various parts of my body, I confirmed that the lilac allergens where traveling to various organ systems. If you make sure live pollens are not resident in organ systems throughout the body, you will completely avoid the tired and run down experience that allergic individuals suffer on a regular basis.

Timing of New Black Box Warnings and Withdrawals for Prescription Medications

Karen E. Lasser, MD, MPH; Paul D. Allen, MD, MPH; Steffie J. Woolhandler, MD, MPH; David U. Himmelstein, MD; Sidney M. Wolfe, MD; David H. Bor, MD

Context: Recently approved drugs may be more likely to have unrecognized adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than established drugs, but no recent studies have examined how frequently postmarketing surveillance identifies important ADRs.

Objective: To determine the frequency and timing of discovery of new ADRs described in black box warnings or necessitating withdrawal of the drug from the market.

Design and Setting: Examination of the Physicians’ Desk Reference for all new chemical entities approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1975 and 1999, and all drugs withdrawn from the market between 1975 and 2000 (with or without a prior black box warning).

Main Outcome Measures: Frequency of and time to a new black box warning or drug withdrawal.

Results: A total of 548 new chemical entities were approved in 1975-1999; 56 (10.2%) acquired a new black box warning or were withdrawn. Forty-five drugs (8.2%) acquired 1 or more black box warnings and 16 (2.9%) were withdrawn from the market. In Kaplan-Meier analyses, the estimated probability of acquiring a new black box warning or being withdrawn from the market over 25 years was 20%. Eighty-one major changes to drug labeling in the Physicians’ Desk Reference occurred including the addition of 1 or more black box warnings per drug, or drug withdrawal. In Kaplan-Meier analyses, half of these changes occurred within 7 years of drug introduction; half of the withdrawals occurred within 2 years.

Conclusions: Serious ADRs commonly emerge after Food and Drug Administration approval. The safety of new agents cannot be known with certainty until a drug has been on the market for many years.

JAMA. 2002;287:2215-2220

The chart above is an FSCAN DIRP chart generated by scanning in Rife frequency range from 1-10000HZ at an increment of 1HZ. This scan contains octaves of resonance of every microorganism in the body, as well as resonances from ions in the body. Distilled water will resonant at specific frequencies, for example.

When this chart was presented at the Future of Health Technology Conference at the MIT MediaLab last September, some of the leading scientists on the planet had a chance to review it. They immediately pointed out that intrepreting this frequency data is a complex task akin to spectral analysis of physical specimens. Resonance is a periodic phenomenon which occurs at octave and harmonic frequencies. Often an offending organism causing a clinical problem is a very small peak in the midst of other larger peaks, and so forth.

This has caused some members of the RIFE community to view the DIRP function on the FSCAN an useless. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack if you simply scan across the entire frequency spectrum. However, it you know what you are looking for and where to find it, the FSCAN can pinpoint the exact frequency or frequencies for you in many cases.

I use the DIRP function as a crosscheck on frequencies obtained through the Cameron Aurameter as indicated elsewhere in the FSCAN FAQ. In addition, there are some cases where multiple strains of an organism with slightly different frequencies are causing clinical symptoms and treatment is not successful unless you hit every strain. The DIRP function has been useful in this regard.

Finally, when all else fails, I have done a scan an interval in the chart above, for example 1-200HZ and began treating every peak looking for positive clinical effects. This was helpful in flushing out problems and getting information needed to attack them more precisely. For example, most people will have tinea parasites in them from athletes foot or jock itch infections and may have had the infections almost from birth (maybe infected at birth!). These infections have been topically treated with many different medications. As a result, they are resistant to almost every treatment and have moved away from the feet or groin into more hospitable parts of the body where they are safe. The brain is a favorite habitat. Also, they have established a symbiosis with other organisms like candida yeast which makes it impossible to eliminate the parasite without eliminating the yeast and vice versa. And the parasites and the yeast suppress the immune system so they are relatively invisible to your normal biological defense mechanisms. Scanning and treating in the 1-200HZ ranges, flushing out the organisms, clearing away the underbrush of random viruses and bacteria, enabled me to obtain enough information to deal effectively with this problem. My conclusion is that tinea infections should never be treated topically because the cure is worse than the disease.

For more charts and graphs, as well as pictures of blood after FSCAN treatment, see Dick Loyd’s Royal Rife site.

An important contribution has been made to the area of frequency medicine by Hulda Clark, who discovered “plate zapping.” She found that putting a microscopic slide of a specific tissue into the magnetic field of the electrical circuit caused power transfer to occur primary at the site of similar tissue in the human body. By putting a microscopic slide on the FSCAN imprinter, I found the same effect could be achieved.

Therefore, if you have a bacterial infection in the lung and you know the exact frequency, you can put a lung tissue slide on the imprinter and treat your body at that frequency with the FSCAN and get quicker and more effective results on the lung tissue. With the right clinical procedure with the FSCAN, it should be virtually impossible to die of pneumonia except due to medical error.

If you know the exact organism and can put a microscopic slide of the organism on the imprinter as well, you get a double barrel effect.

It is important to realize that other tissue in the body gets less energy transfer. Because of this, I treat the whole body first, then go to specific organs where I know there are problems.

If I have positively identified the organism, I can put the microscopic slide of the organism on the imprinter and be sure that the organism will be eliminated throughout the body with sufficient treatment at the right frequency. This is rarely the case, however, and in the case of a pleomorphic organism like a parasite with four distinct life cycle stages, you must have slides of each stage to get the desired effect, along with the exact frequency of each stage.

Finally, many if not most parasites release other organisms when killed, particularly candida. I often put a candida slide on the imprinter when treating parasites and Hulda Clark has extensive recommendations for slides of other organisms in her Syncrometer Science Laboratory Manual.

I’m getting a lot of email asking questions about the FSCAN which I mentioned in several previous postings. Since the same questions are coming from many different sources, I’m beginning to build an FSCAN Frequently Asked Questions document.

A study of the Rife literature referenced in the rifers list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rifers/) will indicate that Rife may have achieved positive results with the frequency devices he built because of harmonics in the transmission of radio frequency wave forms. Using square waves generates many harmonics which my tests indicate destroy parasites and other microorganisms more effectively than sine waves.

In the case of positive offset of the waveform, Hulda Clark has observed that this inhibits microorganisms, whereas a sine wave which goes positive and negative may actually enhance the growth of some organisms. My tests indicate that positive offset is more effective so I always use it for both Clark and Rife frequencies.

Rife frequencies, or we should say Rife/Chrane frequencies since Chrane used frequencies below 10000 HZ because of the limitations of his hardware, are no different than Clark frequencies in my view. They are clearly, at least in most cases, lower octaves of the Clark frequencies for the same organism. I use square wave DC offset for Rife frequences as well. If I do not get positive tests results with a Clark frequency and a lower octave of that frequency in the Rife range, I assume that I do not have the exact Clark frequency of the organism. This is a good check on the accuracy of the frequency being used.

I am using one of the older FSCANs depicted in the photo above with the three switches on the back to set square wave and offset. I always have the middle switch up and the other two down. The producers of the FSCAN point out that accurate square waves may not be generated at frequencies higher than 100KHZ. While that may be true, my tests indicate that better effects are achieved by setting the device for square waves in the Clark frequency range, indicating that even a crude square wave is better than none at all. When in Rife mode, I always turn amplitude full up unless it is physically uncomfortable. Higher amplitude means more power transfer and quicker effect.

There are a number of good parasitology web sites at universities around the country. The thumbnail above is from a set of excellent images by Steve Upton at Kansas State University. All of these sites are careful to disclaim any alternative treatments and are careful to refer you to physicians. As one site says, the physicians and veterinarians are the ones making the big bucks to diagnose and treat these infections.

Well, let me relate a typical experience in this regard. A physician came to me for a consultation on a chronic bowel problem that her physician could not treat and told her nothing was wrong with her. I detected a parasite and sent her home with an FSCAN to treat it. She got immediate relief the first day and being a typical physician, set out to find someone who could diagnose and treat her “properly.” After visiting several physicians without success, she asked me what to do. I said you have a parasite infection, find a physician who is competent to detect it and insist that he find it. Finally, she found a physician practicing complementary medicine who sent a stool sample off to one of the two labs in the country that seem competent to diagnose these conditions (Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory). She brought back the detailed analysis with a picture of the parasite and the recommended antibiotics which had been tested against the parasite and found effective. Antibiotic treatment gave her some relief but has not eliminated her problem. This is not uncommon.

I’m not into relief. I’m into total extermination of the offending critters and have dealt with dozens of parasite infections successfully, i.e. clinical symptoms are immediately eliminated and they do not return. In some cases I have laboratory data from Massachusetts General documenting success. Dealing with parasites requires a very careful analysis and treatment strategy that will not become part of mainstream medicine for many years. The technology is not available and even if it were, the time and care required to deal with it properly would not be financially viable in our current health system. In any event, here are my latest observations on a very elusive microorganism that is as difficult to find and root out as Taliban in the caves in Afghanistan.

To: [email protected]

From: “jsutherland”

Date: Sat May 4, 2002 4:48 pm

Subject: Parasite infections

Someday soon, I will update my parasite frequency list because it has grown to a couple of dozen common parasites. However, I have been working for months to track down a very elusive beast which has

to be treated for at least six frequencies or it simply grows back.

The frequencies were remarkably similar to some of Paul Jone’s frequencies for carpel tunnel which have been useful to me. Paul’s frequencies eliminated carpel tunnel pain but needed to be applied every month or so.

This parasite will migrate all over the body to get away from any treatment applied and is particularly painful in joints and feet.

It may be a tapeworm, which when blasted breaks apart. Most parasites have four stages in the life cycle that must be killed simultaneously. This has at least 6 different forms to eliminate.

My frequencies were: 375 443 566 686 777 876

These were found in blood, chest, stomach, hip, and feet in particular. Feet and hip were particularly painful after I blasted it out of hiding in a localised infection. This is a parasite that gets into the blood stream and can travel easily anywhere in the body.

Pain was completely eliminated with 10 minutes of treatment at each frequency with an EM6+ handheld plasma tube at the 150 power output setting.

My wife tested positive at the same frequencies.

A completely independent person in another state appears to have: 383 498 588 666 765 888

This suggests to me the following concerning the Paul Jone’s frequencies:

1. They eliminated my carpel tunnel pain because they were close to the right frequencies for the parasite causing the pain for enough of the stages.

2. They had to be repeated every month or so because they did not cover all the phases of the life cycle adequately at precise enough frequencies for my strain of the parasite.

Observations:

1. To be most effective, i.e. quickly and totally eliminate the parasite, the frequencies must be exact (within 1 Hertz).

2. Different strains will have frequencies that are 10-50 Hertz from one another. Some mechanism for detecting effectiveness by scanning across the range of frequencies is required to zero in on exact frequencies.

Jeff Sutherland

Linus Pauling was a mentor of mine and a sponsor of the Center for Vitamins and Cancer Research that I co-founded at the University of Colorado Medical School in 1980. He was a great supporter of Vitamin C for all that ails you. There are many recent research papers showing reduction in heart disease, increased longevity, and so forth from taking more than 10 times the government recommended amount of Vitamin C. One of the arguments against taking large amount of Vitamin C was the risk of kidney stones. That debate has been laid to rest by a large study showing no increase in kidney stones from Vitamin C and a significant reduction in kidney stones from increased Vitamin B6.

Your physician will probably never tell you about this so you must fend for yourself. Read the research!

Intake of vitamins B6 and C and the risk of kidney stones in women

Curhan, G. C., Willett, W. C., Speizer, F. E., Stampfer, M. J.

J Am Soc Nephrol 10:4:840-845, Apr 1999

Abstract

Urinary oxalate is an important determinant of calcium oxalate kidney stone formation. High doses of vitamin B6 may decrease oxalate production, whereas vitamin C can be metabolized to oxalate. This study was conducted to examine the association between the intakes of vitamins B6 and C and risk of kidney stone formation in women. The relation between the intake of vitamins B6 and C and the risk of symptomatic kidney stones were prospectively studied in a cohort of 85,557 women with no history of kidney stones. Semiquantitative food-frequency questionnaires were used to assess vitamin consumption from both foods and supplements. A total of 1078 incident cases of kidney stones was documented during the 14-yr follow-up period. A high intake of vitamin B6 was inversely associated with risk of stone formation. After adjusting for other dietary factors, the relative risk of incident stone formation for women in the highest category of B6 intake (> or =40 mg/d) compared with the lowest category (<3 mg/d) was 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.98). In contrast, vitamin C intake was not associated with risk. The multivariate relative risk for women in the highest category of vitamin C intake (> or =1500 mg/d) compared with the lowest category (<250 mg/d) was 1.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 1.64). Large doses of vitamin B6 may reduce the risk of kidney stone formation in women. Routine restriction of vitamin C to prevent stone formation appears unwarranted.

Yesterday morning was a perfect morning for running. The sun was streaming through my window as I put on my heart monitor getting ready for a cross country run. Pollen counts are very high and I set my FSCAN to transmit 485653, 483644, 488777, and 486563 for 5 minutes each. I put the electrode wires under my BioPhoton Integrator which will broadcast the frequencies to me as I run. There are two steep hills that will peak out my heart rate. In previous years, I have avoiding running at all during high pollen count days.

This is a great laboratory experiment, fully instrumented and wireless, running on a beautiful morning. I feel absolutely no effects from allergens. I have to slow down a little going uphill to keep my heart rate in the sweet spot. Getting back to my house I break off a maple tree branch and test it. The frequency is 488777. Back in the house, I test positive for pollens so I treat with the FSCAN until I no longer test positive. This was a short run to test the pollen defense strategy and my energy level is as high as before I started running.

Survey of Doctors’ Experience of Patients Using the Internet

Henry W. W. Potts1, PhD; Jeremy C. Wyatt2, DM FRCP

Background: There have been many studies showing the variable quality of Internet health information and it has often been assumed that patients will blindly follow this and frequently come to harm. There have also been reports of problems for doctors and health services following patient Internet use, but their frequency has not been quantified. However, there have been no large, rigorous surveys of the perceptions of Internet-aware doctors about the actual benefits and harms to their patients of using the Internet.

Objective: To describe Internet-literate doctors’ experiences of their patients’ use of the Internet and resulting benefits and problems.

Methods: Online survey to a group of 800 Web-using doctors (members of a UK medical Internet service provider, Medix) in September and October 2001.

Results: Responses were received from 748 (94%) doctors, including 375 general practitioners (50%). Respondents estimated that 1%-2% of their patients used the Internet for health information in the past month with no regional variation. Over two thirds of the doctors considered Internet health information to be usually (20%) or sometimes (48%) reliable; this was higher in those recently qualified. Twice as many reported patients experiencing benefits (85%; 95% confidence interval, 80%-90%) than problems (44%; 95% confidence interval, 37%-50%) from the Internet. Patients gaining actual physical benefits from Internet use were reported by 40% of respondents, while 8% reported physical harm. Patients’ overall experiences with the Internet were judged excellent 1%, good 29%, neutral 62%, poor 9%, or bad <1%. Turning to the impact of patient Internet use on the doctors themselves, 13% reported no problems, 38% 1 problem, and 49% 2 or more problems. Conversely, 20% reported no benefits for themselves, 49% 1 benefit, and 21% 2 or more benefits.
Conclusions: These doctors reported patient benefits from Internet use much more often than harms, but there were more problems than benefits for the doctors themselves. Reported estimates of patient Internet usage rates were low. Overall, this survey suggests that patients are deriving considerable benefits from using the Internet and that some of the claimed risks seem to have been exaggerated.

(J Med Internet Res 2002;4(1):e5)