Re: yet another question on frequency use
As I wait for my F165 to arrive, i have been working out a course of action, trying to find the root issues to target. Sort of had a revelation today about the rash on my hands and eyes, i thinks its mites, either scabies or demodex. My immune system is powerless to stop them, some say because of yeast overgrowth...
Sugar consumption makes them go wild.
JAB
Almost nothing works better than the Beck Protocol for raising the immune system. Especially if you aren't certain of what pathogens you have. I had a skin infection that was itchy. It would keep breaking out over and over. Never found out exactly what it was but it is now gone thanks mostly to the Beck Protocol.
Hulda Clark has a mite frequency, and so does CAFL. If I use a CAFL frequency, do I just enter it as shown or do I have to translate it somehow.
JAB
Just enter it as shown. You can't always tell how they arrived at these frequencies.
I may have this wrong, but I thought i read that the CAFL frequencies are lower, designed for plasma rife devices, but that the F165 does better with the higher
Hulda Clark frequencies?
JAB
Yes. If you look at the CAFL Frequencies they are almost all below 10,000 Hz. In the range of an EMEM. This is my assumption on the CAFL.
http://www.rifelabs.com/
if this is true, is it necessary to somehow convert the CAFL frequencies?
JAB
No, because F165 will go to all the frequencies. You could experiment by doubling them to the next octaves and other methods but why do that when you have
Hulda Clark and other frequencies to try. Many of CAFL frequencies seem to be Crane frequencies. He worked with Rife and later lowered the frequencies to work on simple frequency generators.
I think the CAFL frequencies work better for me with the EMEM. Many of these frequencies may not kill pathogens directly like a Rife device but may somehow stimulate the immune system. I haven't tried the F165 with these frequencies using the pad method. I did use them with a Mini FG pad device.