To prove that parasites are at the root of a gluten allergy it is necessary to be able to eliminate them.

In this article series, Part 1-Clarification identified that parasites are the most probable root cause of a gluten allergy. Part 2-Quantification outlined a new methodology of finding parasites, one that is arrived at by blending pharmacology, parasitology and a muscle testing analysis in a process that is new to modern science.

The uniqueness of this new testing process allows us to find what has never been found – the parasites at the root of a gluten allergy – but uncovers a problem that has never been quantified up until now:

some of these parasites cannot be eliminated by the parasite medicines used in a muscle test to find them, either due to the medications not penetrating deep enough into the organ where the parasite resides or because the dosage you’re testing for is too high to be safe to take (e.g. 5-10x the safe dosage). Remember that muscle testing for an ultra-high dosage confirms the presence of a parasite but doesn’t guarantee that it’s safe to take that dosage.

On the surface then, we appear to be stuck. Without muscle testing parasite medicines, you won’t even know a parasite is causing your gluten allergy; when you do the muscle tests, all you’ve learned is that you have a parasite you can’t kill. And if medicine can’t eliminate them, common sense dictates that nothing can. Biomedicine (western pharmaceutical, western botanical AND eastern herbal) has been stuck at this stage for decades. Decades? Actually centuries. Well, let’s face it: for all of human history. It can be understood why the easiest alternative has been to believe that gluten allergies, and by extension all allergies are incurable.

But we should be able to reverse that thinking by finding a creative way to eliminate the parasites. Elimination is the key. As long as a species of gluten-loving parasite remains, it is possible to still appear to have a gluten allergy. Gluten is good stuff, parasites like it as much as we do.

Would it be possible, I wondered, to use vibrational frequency to accomplish what parasite medicines could not? Why not? At the atomic level nothing ever touches anything else. Matter at the cellular level involves a sharing of proteins and enzymes, which in turn involve the sharing of electrons. The role of a chemical or pharmaceutical is simply to provoke an electrical reaction. So do we actually need the chemical? Could what is essentially energy medicine be used to replace and even improve upon a chemical medicine? This seemed like a great place to start and so as not to have to reinvent the wheel, I wanted to know who else had done work in this field.

In alternative healing circles, the names Royal Rife and Hulda Clark seem to keep coming up in the context of using frequencies to eliminate parasites.

Rife Frequencies

There is a lot of mystique about the name Royal Rife (1888-1971) but at the core of it is the idea that he developed a way to use electrical frequencies to kill parasites. There is a deeper layer to his mystique that proposes he developed a way to cure cancer and was shut down by the government but I wasn’t interested in that. Anyone who knows me knows that I have no time for conspiracy theories.

To the point then: did his parasite elimination methodology work? The technique identified in Part 2 of this article series provides a simple way to see if any methodology is effective in eliminating a parasite. We can think of it as “where, what, how”. A gluten allergy can be understood within these parameters.

Where, What, How?

Where: Stomach (this can be muscle tested and identified to be on/strong/positive versus off/weak/negative).
What: Praz 11, to stick with the example we’ve been using. If Where (Stomach) tests for What (praz 11) the we can understand that this stomach has an intestinal fluke, since at the 600 mg x 11 dose, otherwise expressed as approx 75 mg/kg/day, Praziquantel is medically agreed to treat the human intestinal fluke).
How: You can try whatever How you like but after introducing it, we should be able to retest the stomach and no longer find the fluke. If we don’t, the how worked, great! But if we still find the fluke then the How didn’t work, and needs to be reevaluated.

Expressed in sentence form math, does the How get rid of the What from the Where?

What happens in modern medicine (traditional and alternative) is that we don’t typically have a where or a what, we jump to a how and see if the symptom goes away. Then we try different hows for the rest of our lives, waiting to “see” what works. A simple muscle testing analysis of Where/What/How can resolve this impasse. It can also be used to determine the effectiveness of some new treatment, and this is what I did for the fabled Rife frequencies.

Experimental Question: Did a Rife frequency (How) get rid of the intestinal fluke (What) from the stomach (Where)?

It was a simple matter to procure a copy of Rife’s research. He proposed that if you had a fluke, the following numbers needed to be introduced in a treatment format:

Parasites, Flukes, intestinal: 0.07, 0.32, 0.97, 2.38, 15.33, 46.37, 73.20, 87.52, 153.00, 415.70

To reproduce these numbers I found someone who had an intestinal fluke, and using a device called an electronic function generator, plugged Rife’s numbers into it and wired the frequency into their skin via medical conductive electrodes.

And nothing happened… Surely the Rife frequencies couldn’t be wrong, so I thought I must have done something wrong. After trying all the Rife numbers for “Parasites flukes intestinal: 0.07, 0.32, 0.97, 2.38, 15.33, 46.37, 73.20, 87.52, 153.00, 415.70″, I went in to try all the numbers for all the other flukes.

Parasites flukes blood: 0.14, 0.32, 0.87, 2.58, 17.50, 44.43, 72.50, 92.50, 151.00, 453.72
Parasites flukes general: 0.11, 0.32, 0.90, 2.53, 17.50, 47.43, 78.10, 90.00, 157.00, 425.41
Parasites flukes intestinal: 0.07, 0.32, 0.97, 2.38, 15.33, 46.37, 73.20, 87.52, 153.00, 415.70
Parasites flukes liver: 0.18, 0.40, 0.80, 5.50, 27.50, 45.37, 72.50, 92.50, 132.00, 478.50
Parasites flukes lymph: 0.18, 0.37, 0.80, 5.25, 13.98, 45.43, 72.50, 92.50, 351.00, 519.34
Parasites flukes pancreatic: 0.17, 0.32, 0.85, 2.75, 17.50, 47.30, 75.50, 97.50, 151.07, 451.04
Parasites flukes sheep liver: 0.15, 0.38, 0.93, 2.52, 31.20, 43.43, 68.50, 98.50, 149.28, 496.01

Then I tried all the numbers I could find, even non-Rife numbers like the silly so-called healing frequencies people make youtube videos about. It is noteworthy that not a single one of these numbers worked, or so much as muscle tested as if it was going to be effective against a single parasite in a single person, ever. To ensure I was being thorough, I spent months confirming that I had addressed all possible other variables: the wave form (e.g. Sine, Square, Pulse, etc), the voltage, the duration, and more technical aspects like the wave symmetry percentage and the phase orientation. Nothing worked.

In my experiments, there was no evidence that Rife frequencies were effective at eliminating parasites in anyone, ever. The numbers can be muscle tested in advance to see if they’re predicting to be useful. It is noteworthy that not a single number muscle tested as if it was going to be useful, which is the exact opposite of the idea that all Rife frequencies worked on all parasites all of the time. Supposedly Rife used his frequencies in conjunction with some external halogen light source to enhance the transmission of the waveform into the body. I tried that too… for the record, an enhancing carrier wave does not render an already-useless frequency less useless. The Rife Frequencies didn’t work.

If I were to give Rife any credit at all, I would wonder whether he was recording frequencies that worked while the parasite was on a microscope slide, since taking the organism out of the host would change things electromagnetically, and different numbers might apply. The problem with giving him credit for this is that it would be a functionally useless process, since if your parasite helpfully crawled out of your stomach and slithered under a microscope slide to wait to be killed, there would be many other lethal means at your disposal, and much less complex, including using a shoe. The challenge is to eliminate it while it’s still inside your stomach and I didn’t see any evidence in Rife’s methodology that indicated he had solved the problem of the underlying diagnostic limitation: without knowing what you have to begin with, how can there be a valid discussion about whether you’ve eliminated it? Without identifying the Where and the What, there is no feedback loop to confirm the How worked. 

This is relatively simple logic. I think what’s been happening in the late 20th and early 21st centuries is not that we have lost the capacity for logic when it comes to biomedicine but rather, that we didn’t have an understanding of muscle testing, so there was no simple means available to quantify vital biomedical questions, such as which parasites were in which organs to begin with. As a result, there has been no accurate basis upon which to found logical conclusions about the general or specific effectiveness of various proposed healing systems. In the absence of logic we depend on inconclusive tests and biased studies and with most of these, we’re working in the dark. Never having understood the issue to begin with, there isn’t even the means to know we’re in the dark – it’s simply what we think of as reality.

Without being able to reality-test an idea, rumour and public opinion become the new arbiters of truth. The public opinion that Rife frequencies somehow harbour a secret, lost knowledge about parasite elimination has no basis in fact. Rife’s Wikipedia page says that he “died embittered with the failure of his devices to garner scientific acceptance”. I don’t have any direct information about Rife’s embitterment but his methodology failed to garner my scientific acceptance and I had come into the process with a very open mind. Looking at a picture of one of his supposedly finished products, I have to say it looks more like a work in progress and that’s my impression of his results as well. Having said that, he seemed like a smart guy and was certainly a visionary.

Hulda Clark Parasite Zapper

Hulda Clark (1928-2009) made quite a splash in the 20th Century. 1) She is credited with inventing a portable parasite elimination device called the zapper, which supposedly was effective at eliminating parasites simply by holding it, 2) She published a series of books, most notably The Cure for all Diseases and the Cure for all Cancers, and finally, 3) She pushed a number of supplements and theories (metal toxicity, etc) that gave momentum to the modern nutraceuticals industry. She is generally thought of as a must-see stop on the alternative healing tour that goes around and around.

It is necessary to watch only one or two interviews of her to realize that although she was a sweet, caring woman, who had an inkling of the big picture, she wasn’t remotely troubled by details and was far too comfortable drawing sweeping conclusions for which there was no actual evidence. An example of this is her claim around the 5:00 minute mark in this video that black walnut shell eliminates all parasites, which is simply absurd. A Where/What/How analysis proves that black walnut doesn’t eliminate a single parasite in a single person ever. Since her practice was founded on these types of claims, it is clear that she was premature in drawing her conclusions, sometimes dangerously so, sometimes unethically so. Perhaps the final if tragic nail in the coffin of her reputation was that subsequent to publishing a book entitled The Cure for All Cancers, she herself died of cancer.

It was a simple matter to rule out her parasite zapper as ineffective, since an analysis of one yielded no muscle testing indication that it was likely to work, and analyzing the programming, which I could now easily do, demonstrated why: she either used Rife’s numbers, which were wrong, or made up her own numbers, which were also wrong.

There was nothing in Hulda Clark that I could use. At best she was a foot note to Rife, at worst, misguided.

The Wrong Numbers

So here was the science of frequency in a nutshell: Rife had the wrong numbers, Clark used Rife’s numbers and everybody who waxed poetic about healing frequencies referred to Rife or Clark, which told me two things: not only did nobody know what the right numbers were, but more importantly there was no methodology in use to know when a number was right or wrong.

At this point I could have drawn the conclusion that there were no right numbers but I kept coming back to the central idea that at the atomic level nothing touches anything else. That means that a chemical/pharmaceutical/herbal only works by provoking an electrical reaction. The electricity running through a wall socket is a 60 Hz sine wave. That’s a number. All electricity is numbers, everything can be quantified in numbers. For a chemical to work at all it had to be producing a frequency at the cellular/atomic level, which could be isolated as a number if only we had the technology to measure it.

Therefore there had to be a right number. And since Rife’s numbers didn’t work, they must simply be the wrong numbers. This didn’t make him wrong about the potential for frequency to work, just that he hadn’t solved the puzzle of how to make it work. And as it turned out, there were several reasons why Rife had the wrong frequencies. Besides using the wrong actual numbers, he had the wrong decimal places, was applying them in the wrong format for the wrong duration and was using the wrong methodology to begin with to confirm his findings (e.g. didn’t use a before and after muscle testing analysis (Where/What/How) cross referenced with pharmacology to quantify the species he was targeting).

It was easier to start over than try to fix Rife’s broken, ineffective system, so that’s what I did.

The Right Numbers

What eventually worked ended up taking several thousand hours of experimentation to arrive at and unsurprisingly was very, very technical.

Sometimes for days I worked from one morning through to the next and slept in my lab. I ran hundreds and hundreds of experiments, some of them for as long as 36 continuous hours and every step needed to be cross-referenced with a muscle test to determine whether I was on the right track.

Eventually I solved the problem. There were thousands of distinctions that needed to be made along the way, dozens of principles to discover and I was in completely uncharted territory so interpretation of the data was a constant challenge. It was often necessary to plot my findings on a logic truth table to be able to differentiate the reasonable from the unreasonable, the right from the wrong.

It turns out that there is a set of right numbers. It is a very small list and if used properly they work, meaning certain specific vibrational frequencies can cause a parasite inside your body to die without harming you in any way. Most importantly the frequencies are in a safe range, not the microwave or radio spectrum so they’re as safe as standing next to a grand piano.

By shaking the parasite (or more probably it’s brain) to death while it’s still inside you, the host, it is possible to end the cycle of the parasite unbalancing your health, and then your body heals itself. Here’s an example of a video of sound waves shattering a wine glass. In this example it is obvious that the sound waves harm the glass but not the experimenter. The same holds true with the correct vibrational frequency: it harms the parasite but not the host, and by a similar vibrational process.

The Details

Having discovered what the right numbers are, and how to implement them, I realize that I’ve learned a language of numbers almost nobody else is going to be able to understand. I’d like to explain the language to you but some of it is simply too complicated to outline in this context and some of it entails scientific and mathematical discoveries that are now proprietary.

Here is a short summary of the things that would need to be understood for the solution to be clear:

1) The number needs to be in the right frequency range to begin with.
2) The number needs to be calculated to the correct decimal place.
3) We need to deal with the matter of the human body being a non-linear, electrodynamic system, which always needs a different number in every new instance. When a muscle testing analysis was used to find every number with its decimal places for every new elimination round in every new person, it was absurdly time consuming so it was necessary to journey into deep finite mathematics to find the root of all random numbers. This isn’t a journey I have heard of anyone else returning from as that answer wasn’t in any textbook.
4) Then, more importantly, it was necessary to determine which multiple of that root number would bring the frequency into the range that was terminal for parasites, since the root numbers themselves were always too low to work.

And finally, the problems:

5) We need to understand and solve the problem of insulation, where even the right number won’t penetrate into an area too deep, too fascially contracted, too surrounded by fat or too insulated by bone.
6) We need to move away from the idea that each parasite needs its own frequency, which is false, and understand that the root frequency targets multiple parasites, which is true.
7) We need to use a Where/What/How muscle testing analysis as a before-and-after indicator of success to confirm the treatment is working as there can be multiple different species in a single spot, some of which may only express themselves the next day.
8) We need to address the problem that sometimes the body muscle tests as if all this has worked, but then the next morning the original parasite is back, alive and well, so every proposed solution needs to be verified the next day to see if it was an actual solution or simply an incidence of this electromagnetic masking problem.

And the result is that all of this can be expressed as a simple small group of numbers. For several reasons I’m not ready to publish the numbers I’ve come up with. Besides keeping the discoveries proprietary for the time being, there are challenges in making this work that very few people are going to be able to solve even if they had the right numbers:

Challenges

Besides finding the right frequency, which was outlined above, The following variables need to be understood and solved:

1. Magnetic field strength: Frequency only penetrates into the deep tissues to kill the parasites lodged there in the presence of a strong magnetic field at a minimum strength. This happens as a result of Maxwell’s equations where the strength of an electric field is amplified by a magnetic field. The pulse magnets generally sold in the marketplace today are hopelessly inadequate for this task.
2. Magnetic pulse rate: Pulsed (artificial) magnetic fields seem to work, stationary (e.g. natural) magnets do not unless they’re spinning on a gyroscope. The specific pulse rate of the magnetic field changes for each treatment round, and the only way you’ll know what it is in your own case is to muscle test the pulse rate against an organ point, and then bear in mind that it’s going to need to change again in 10-15 minutes, so it will need to be re-calibrated by another muscle test. This sounds simple but is a highly technical process and without getting it right every single time, the electrical frequency, which is different from the magnetic pulse rate won’t work, right numbers or otherwise.
3. Electrodynamic carrier wave: Even with the right frequency AND a correctly muscle tested magnetic pulse rate, the frequency needs a delivery mechanism called a carrier wave. This needs to be tuned to the correct range for the treatment to get deep enough to do its job: think ground penetrating radar. And then to where do you direct this carrier wave? Blanketing the whole body is ideal but cost may be a limiting factor: if something that covers the hand costs $100, coving the body could cost $5000 or more.
4. Feedback loop: Even if you’re using the right frequency, muscle testing the right magnetic pulse rate and have found an adequate carrier wave, and directed it to the exact area where the parasite is, you will need to have a diagnostic feedback loop with specific parasite medicines so that you know what you are treating to begin with and can understand when it is gone. This was covered in Part 2-Quantification and it’s importance cannot be understated.
5. Treatment Duration: Time is another major variable. Knowing when the parasite has died is not a static process, it is dynamic. Some take minutes to die, others can take hours. You need to keep testing to see when the treatment round is complete, and you need to use the feedback loop of muscle testing the medicines, outlined in point 4 above to know how to know when the parasite you’re treating is dead. Simply muscle testing the spot to see when it reactivates is insufficient as you may have simply (or not so simply) uncovered a different species in the same spot.
6. Multiple organisms: Sometimes different organisms within the same species will exist in different parts of the same organ, lungs for example, and will need to be eliminated in different treatment rounds. In other cases the same organism can exist in unconnected organs like liver and lungs. The carrier wave (point 3 above) can address this to a certain extent but only if you blanket the whole body in that waveform, and then cost becomes a factor.
7. Different species: Often different species will be stacked on top of each other so that the same spot, which you thought you had just cleared, will need a series of treatment rounds, each of which needs the correctly tested magnetic pulse rate, the correct carrier wave and the correct duration. This type of complexity only becomes apparent when we begin to understand that the human body can and does have multiple species co-contributing to an overall medical condition, never just one species. This concept is outlined in more detail in this article, and illustrates why thinking you have one parasite is such a naive attitude.
8. Hidden (from muscle testing) Parasites: Sometimes an organism will hide in the background and only present itself in a muscle testing analysis in the days after all other organisms have been cleared out. This is an illustration of the fact that a muscle testing analysis is simply picking up electromagnetic evidence of a parasite, and that the parasite needs to leave evidence of itself to be found electromagnetically. Simply hoping that a muscle test is a thorough indicator of existing parasite load doesn’t make it so.
9. Quantity of organisms to identify: The total number of organisms that can be differentiated from one another is around 200, not a huge number but it can be daunting at first when you’re counting up to 100 pills from 5 different bottles in a muscle testing analysis against different organ points.
10. Location of the organisms: In using a muscle testing analysis to find organisms, it should be remembered that absence of proof isn’t proof of absence. Are you testing the right point? There are about two dozen organ and gland test points, then multiple test sites within each organ, then tissue areas that don’t look like an organ but need to be tested anyway, then areas that host a parasite that is causing a symptom in an unrelated area.
11. The Layering problem: For some reason, using electromagnetism to eliminate parasites causes them to be eliminated in layers, not all at once. This is partly based on point 3 above, the carrier wave (e.g. how deep can it penetrate?). It seems that the concept of foreground and background apply here: whatever is in the foreground layer gets eliminated first, whatever is in the background is eliminated next. How many layers there are in a given organ will determine how many treatment rounds are needed – one is never enough. Fascial constriction is a factor in the layering problem as some layers are difficult to get at due to the parasite having wrapped the organ tissue around itself like a blanket.
12. Interpretation: The most challenging of all the details to surmount is the matter of knowing whether your conjecture about the data is accurate. This is always based on and therefore limited by the information at hand. There is actual truth at play here: you either do or do not have an intestinal fluke in your stomach, but how can we confirm this truth when a muscle testing analysis is a combination of logical deduction, hypothesis, empirical evidence, clinic experience and a motor skill that is itself somewhat subjective? Interpretation is part science, part art, and the proof has to be in the pudding: the symptom has to go away or you’re missing something. Constant, rigorous, self-questioning logic is the only way out of the morass of interpretation, and sometimes a little creativity is the only way out of what seems like a logical circular argument.

To use a familiar metaphor, if I had known how deep the rabbit hole was at the outset, I would have still jumped in but I would have packed a lunch…for 5 years, instead of assuming it would take a few days. Interpretation is probably the biggest of the challenges listed above and should never be taken for granted.

So WOW, it is an extraordinarily sophisticated process. This all felt simple when I was figuring it out, but now that it’s perfected to the point where it is repeatable, it is clear that even if I published the correct numbers as vibrational frequencies to the right decimal place, there are very few people who would be able, after reading this, to use them to reproduce my results. It not only requires a clinical mentality, it needs to be done in a clinical setting with a rather large quantity of clinical equipment and quite a few years of clinical expertise. In other words, it’s not likely to happen in your living room.

Now contrast this complexity with the grossly simple expectation that you can enter a Rife frequency into a Hulda Clark parasite zapper and expect that to kill every parasite in your body head to toe, and you have the problem in a nutshell. What has been tried for the last 60 or so years couldn’t possible have worked. Rife and Clark were at best like children pointing up at the sky, wondering if we can fly, but following their research is, to extend the metaphor, like following instructions on how to make paper planes when your life depends on flying. 

Like the science of aerodynamics, the science of electrodynamics is not impossibly complex, only extraordinarily so. It is definitely not simply a matter of finding the right numbers and holding two copper wires.

We can see now why it was easier to turn Rife and Clark into the subjects of conspiracy theories than understand that they were each incorrect. We can see now why nobody has ever been able to turn this into a repeatable science: without the extensive use of muscle testing to isolate the unknown variables along the way, this idea could never have flown.

Elimination

So once we’re past all those details and challenges, it’s quite simple. Parasites are at the root of a gluten allergy, celiac included. When you eat gluten, your gluten loving parasites excrete a particular blend of bacteria that is highly toxic to your body. We call the inflammatory response to the bacteria that a parasite excretes an allergy. The specific organism, or group of organisms can be identified by performing a muscle testing analysis which cross references one of 5 anti-parasite medications against your organ test points. Or you can test the medicines directly against the gluten using your own bioelectric field as the intermediary. But you can’t take those pills as the doses are generally too high to be safe. And since herbal anti-parasitics are less effective than medications, not more, the only possible move is into the field of electromagnetism.

To use electromagnetism to effectively eliminate your parasites, you will need to get the following factors right at each step of the process: 1) the correct frequency 2) to the correct decimal place, 3) in the presence of the correct magnetic field strength, 4) with the correct magnetic pulse rate, 5) and the correct carrier wave 6) for the correct duration 7) on the correct location 8) and be on the lookout for multiple organisms within each species, 9) multiple species within a location 10) and the same species in multiple locations; 11) understand you’re looking for up to 200 possible distinct species, 12) that they could be in non-tradition areas anywhere in the body, 13) that when you find them they will probably be layered in, 14) that you should continue to test the parasite meds so you know what you’re eliminating, 15) expect that you’re not going to find everything in one try, maybe not even in 10 tries, 16) make sure you use logic to link together your conclusions so you don’t float away into uncertainty and finally 17) use reality as a feedback loop, always ensure the symptom goes away after the treatment or else you’ve missed a parasite by overlooking one of the above factors.

To conclude the initial promise of the article series, if this process of using healing frequencies is used to eliminate the parasites causing a gluten allergy, it is possible to bring about the resolution to the symptoms we use the term ‘gluten allergy’ to summarize. In fact, healing frequencies are the only universal option, due to the limits of anti-parasite medication.

But is that the conclusion? What concludes the discussion around gluten opens up a conversation about what other food allergies might also disappear if we got rid of the parasites causing them. Milk? Eggs? Peanuts? Shellfish? Chocolate?

Yes…

And then what other medical conditions might parasites be contributing to? Well that’s the really interesting question.