Recently, I have received several questions about what electronic devices are useful for eliminating infections. My answer might be of general interest. I can only comment on devices I use regularly.
From: Jeff Sutherland
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:40 AM
To: ‘Research Colleague’
Subject: RE: What Electronic Devices Do You Find Useful?
I use three devices regularly, an FSCAN, an F155, and Stenulson’s EM5C+. The 6C+ you mention is a slightly enhanced version. (I have no financial interest in any of these devices and am only a user.)
The F155 cost $300, Stenulson’s systems cost about $2000, and the FSCAN costs close to $4000.
The F155 seems to be a better treatment device than the FSCAN due to the programmability of the device. However, it does not do diagnostics like the FSCAN. You must run it with a computer or a Palm Pilot.
The FSCAN runs by itself but it is far preferable to run it by computer. Particularly since the FSCAN has a diagnostic capability that the other devices do not with its DIRP function (which detects resonant frequencies of micro-organisms). The computer software generates charts and graphs when running DIRP so you can see peaks that may be microorganisms and then you can treat at those peaks. Interpreting the peaks is not a trivial exercise as there are artifacts induced by ions and other factors.
I determine frequencies for myself with a Cameron Aurameter, a dowsing device, which is extremely accurate for me but may not work for everyone. If you have a method to determine frequencies, the F155 device is the obvious choice because of its excellent electronics, ease of programming, and effects you can generate with the device through programming. And it is inexpensive.
I bought the EM5C+ in order to get a more powerful device than could penetrate deep into tissue, particularly for prostate treatment. My tests indicate that it is about 10 times as powerful as the FSCAN on the lowest setting, and over 1000 times as powerful on the highest setting. It only treats up to 10000HZ, however, so you cannot treat directly in the Clark frequency range which I can do with the FSCAN or F155. Because this is a powerful device, it should only be used with care by a knowledgeable person. Although I have never seen the device cause any harm, there are anecdotes about side effects caused by rapid killing of a serious infection. A Herxheimer’s Reaction can sometimes be a powerful effect and you must be able to moderate it.
Treating Lyme disease requires identifying all the co-infections and knocking them out simultaneously. The F155 is most effective for this if you have all of the exact frequencies. This is because it is easy to write a program that will treat many different frequencies simultaneously. Finding those frequencies may be a difficult job and may take a long period of trial and error.
I believe malaria could be effectively treated with any of these devices. The strategy is to determine the exact frequencies for each stage of the life cycle of the parasite. There may be different frequency sets for different strains. And then you must use plate zapping, otherwise you cannot get enough energy transfer into internal organs where the parasite can hide.
This raises another question about the EM6C+ device. By itself, you must adjust frequencies manually, which is very tedious. It is best driven by an F155 device. So that would suggest that getting an F155 device first might be the best course if you can only get one.
I have not had direct experience with other devices so I can’t really comment on them. I selected the Stenulson device because of its ability to do direct contact without harming the skin. I felt safer with that device than an RF unit.
I hope this doesn’t raise more questions than it answers.
Regards,
Jeff Sutherland