In a healthy person, twitching eyes and blurred vision can be caused by a parasite infection. My cat had a chronic eye infection that repeated prescription of antibiotics by the vet would not cure. In 1995, my eyes started twitching and occassionally I got some blurred vision.

Zapping will start parasites moving around and some of them cannot be killed without an exact frequency. Particularly in the head, the Clark herbal program will not always eliminate them.

After seeing an opthalmologist (who could find nothing) and experimenting with this infection for a couple of years I concluded that the cat and I both had the same parasite infection. My doctor concluded that I had either a psychological problem or was allergic to cats (these guys/gals are really idiots sometimes). I had an allergy clinic retest for allergies to cats which was negative.

After a few years of experimenting with the FSCAN (I did not have the expertise that I have now), I happened on a frequency, 455700 at a ski resort in Utah in 2001 that immediately cleared my eyes. I went home and cleared up the cats eyes right away. The cat was so happy, she would repeatedly ask me for more FSCAN treatments.

So I was six years with a lot of aggravation due to the limitations of modern medicine.

I also needed to identify the other frequencies for this parasite. There are typically four stages in the life cycle and all must be dealt with simultaneously or the infection reappears. Plate zapping with the optical nerve is also particularly helpful.

For those without an FSCAN and the capability to quickly identify exact frequencies, a parasite infection in the eye will often cause a fuzzy spot on eyeglasses. Eyeglasses serve as a petri dish for growing the parasite. Today, I would get a sample from the glasses and send it to the Smokey Mountain Parasitology Lab for identification rather than dealing with the average physician who is really not equipped to deal with such infections. Typical lab capabilities may be useful for getting your cholesterol readings but not capable of culturing or identifying most of the chronic infections that people are suffering from.

It is important that people with parasite problems who wear eyeglasses get a sonicator and regularly clean them in the sonicator. Some of these parasites are very contagious and simple washing of the glasses will not always eliminate them.

There are many pathogens that will not be killed with a Clark zapper because you need the exact frequency to eliminate them.

That said, I use a zapper called a Terminator II by Don Croft that is small enough to be wearable on a regular basis. It is particularly good as a protective device when in a contagious zone. Any airline flight is a contagious zone for multiple pathogens.

I have tested the effect of using a standard Clark zapper while treating with an exact frequency for a pathogen with the FSCAN. It seems to increase the efficiency of the FSCAN treatment by about 60%, i.e. if the FSCAN alone is 100%, add the Zapper and you get 160%. Treatment time needed will decrease proportionally.

Uffe Ravnskov, M.D., Ph.D. has an enlightening summary of the research on cholesterol lowering drugs on the web. Statin drugs are the only ones that work, reduction in mortality is a few percent at most, reduced cholesterol is not the cause of reduced mortality, and side effects may be worse than the treatment. See his web page and a recent letter in the British Medical Journal:



BMJ 2002;324:789 ( 30 March )

Conclusions from the heart protection study were premature

With reference to the news item by Kmietowicz, in their press release the directors of the heart protection study did not mention that their results were substantially worse than in the previous Scandinavian simvastatin survival study (4S) (table).

The way the results were presented exaggerates the benefit for the individual patient. The most interesting figure is survival because most myocardial infarctions heal with minimal cardiac dysfunction, if any. Tell a patient that his chance not to die in five years without statin treatment is 85.4% and that simvastatin treatment can increase this to 87.1 %. With these figures in hand I doubt that anyone should accept a treatment whose long term effects are unknown. For example, it was claimed that the study presented uniquely reliable evidence that simvastatin is not carcinogenic. But the study went on for about five years only, just like other statin trials. It is not possible to say anything about the risk of cancer because it takes decades to disclose chemical carcinogenesis in human beings. Heavy smoking, for example, does not induce lung cancer in five years. All the statins and also the fibrates have proved carcinogenic in rodents, and it scares me that, if the new American guidelines for cholesterol treatment are followed strictly, half of mankind may take statins in a few years and for the rest of their lives.

Low cholesterol concentrations have been related to depression, cognitive impairment, and suppression of the immune system. Does a reduction of 1.7 % in mortality balance these risks? As in the previous trials, the effect of simvastatin was independent of the initial cholesterol concentration; patients with low concentrations benefited just as much (or just as little) as patients with high concentrations. The best results were seen in patients older than 75 years, an age group in which the lowest quartile of cholesterol concentration had the highest total and cardiovascular mortality.

That statin treatment works in patient and age groups in whom a high cholesterol concentration is not a risk factor for cardiovascular disease shows that the benefit is not the result of cholesterol lowering. High or low cholesterol concentrations are markers for other, more important disease factors; they are not causal factors themselves.

Uffe Ravnskov, independent researcher.

Magle Stora Kyrkogata 9, S-22350 Lund, Sweden [email protected]

The New England Journal of Medicine will relax its conflict-of-interest rules. But Dr. Jerome Kassirer, the former editor of the Journal, says he had no problem finding independent authors.

Conflict of Interest?

ABCnews.com, 12 June 2002

The New England Journal of Medicine will announce Thursday that it has given up finding truly independent doctors to write and review articles and editorials for it, as a result of the financial ties physicians have with so many drug companies in the United States The Journal says the drug companies’ reach is just too deep. In 2000, the drug industry sponsored more than 314,000 events for physicians — everything from luncheons to getaway weekends — at a cost of almost $2 billion. On top of that, many doctors accept speaking and consulting fees that link them to drug companies.

No publication in this country influences the way your doctor treats an illness more than the New England Journal of Medicine. Since 1812, the Journal has scrutinized and published thousands of clinical studies. These “review” articles on drug therapy that can be pivotal. They tell doctors the strengths and weaknesses of new medications for everything form high blood pressure to obesity to cancer.

Now, the Journal will allow these critical evaluations to be written by people with financial ties to drug companies…

To: [email protected]

From: “jsutherland”

Date: Fri Jun 14, 2002 4:12 pm

Subject: Re: [F-Scan] Comments on FSCAN Rife/Clark frequency ranges

Max,

My standard approach at this time is to use the Aurameter to detect frequencies, treat at those frequencies, test with the Aurameter that the treatment is working, stop treating when the Aurameter indicates treatment is done, and observe that all symptomology is completely gone at end of treatment.

This works better than 95% of the time for me.

If I do not get immediate results, I will then use DIRP to identify peaks in the regions indicated by the Aurameter. I will treat at those peaks and use the Aurameter to indicate if the treatment is working. Typically, one out of several small peaks identified by the DIRP scan is the organism I am after. I rarely have any large peaks any more because I am monitoring myself on a daily basis.

As for treatment in the Rife range <10000HZ, I get the same effects. However, consistent with some of Dick Loyd's comments, if I treat in the Clark range for parasite's, I seem to get quicker effect, perhaps because the frequency is more specific. However, there is an anomaly here. Treating at one octave does not eliminate resonance at another octave according to the Aurameter. In fact, the only way I have found to completely eliminate candida from my system is to treat at all the octaves of the organism until the Aurameter indicates there is none remaining at every octave. For parasites, I have recently gone to treating in both the Clark range and the Rife range simultaneously. For example, this afternoon I had a cold cup of Starbucks mocha on my desk and took a sip. It bothered my stomach (which is not unusual for a cold cup of Starbucks). I suspected bacteria (usually there is bacteria in the milk) and tested with the Aurameter and found a parasite (I have seen some nasty parasites infections in the past from the milk in Starbucks coffee). Parasites in milk are very nasty if they have gone through the pasteurization process because heat (and a microwave) will not kill them. They have evolved heat resistance. On the other hand, this may have been passed on by a Starbucks employee and presumably be not as virulent. In any event, I want it gone now. The Aurameter immediately identified a typical four-stage parasite:
475757, 378648, 277571, 157324

I then divide by 512 to get frequencies in the Rife range:

307, 542, 740, 929

I am currently treating for 20 minutes each at:

475757, 378648, 277571, 157324, 307, 542, 740, 929

If you recall previous posts of mine on the Rifers list, the adults are at the high frequency and eggs at the low. I go down frequencies to eliminate body burden. I then go up to eliminate eggs, then larva, and then adults before they can produce more eggs.

All symptomology is gone as I write so I expect to be free of the parasite by the end of treatment. I’ve thrown away (sigh) the remains of a good cup of Starbucks mocha.

Why didn’t I use DIRP? Well in this case, my FSCAN is attached to my home computer and I am at my office some miles away. The leads to the FSCAN are running under the input wells of two BioPhoton Integrators with my photos in the output slot. I connected over the internet using www.gotomypc.com to my home computer and set up the FSCAN software to run the treatment and broadcast via the BioPhoton Integrators.

This works so well and so consistently (all symptoms are gone and stay gone) that I use this approach for almost all treatment. For a really nasty infection I fire up my EM6+ and blast it locally, then use the broadcast approach to finish the job.

When I get home tonight I may hook myself up and run a DIRP scan.

Jeff Sutherland

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. Daily Dose. June 4, 2002

[email protected]

Mayo Clinic physician Dr. Mostafa Fatemi often wondered why unborn babies tended to flinch violently at the instant their ultra-sound portraits are taken. He found out by placing a tiny hydrophone inside a woman’s uterus during the procedure. The device registered NEARLY 100 DECIBLES-as loud as a subway train or a jet!

Fatemi says clinicians may want to aim their ultrasound probes more carefully, away from the child’s ears so as to avoid this obvious trauma. I’m not sure how they’re supposed to accomplish this, since unborn babies are encased in fluid which would make such a sound carry equally throughout the womb.

For years, I’ve been arguing that ultrasound threatens the health of a developing fetus. But the incidence of ultrasound has increased and it is now standard procedure in almost every pregnancy. Nowadays, it would be considered downright negligent not to perform it. After all, what if the little tadpole had a deformed ear lobe or something even worse, such as six toes on one foot (like Marilyn Monroe!). Under those “extreme” circumstances, the parents would certainly opt for murder-excuse me, termination of pregnancy-right? Just think, without ultrasound, they wouldn’t have known the “awful” truth…

Both of my children have hearing that’s less acute than mine. Since they were born in the 50s, I can’t blame ultrasound. I blame immunizations (and rock-n-roll). But my grandchildren are a different matter. If their childhood hearing is off only ten percent, that’s enough to cause problems that may be interpreted as “learning disabled”-a euphemism for stupidity. This small, early deficit in hearing will almost certainly lead to early presbycusis-a hearing problem associated with old age that might now happen at 40, not 70. If even one person in ten develops this disability, it will be a tragedy of immense proportions.

Ultrasound is so universal that most physicians don’t bother to question its safety. However, 40 years after its introduction, disturbing questions are being asked, while the perpetrators of this tragedy remain silent. Three independent studies in 1993 alone have cast doubt on the safety of the procedure. Lancet, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the New England Journal of Medicine have all sounded the alarm. At best, routine scanning makes no difference in the health and well-being of babies and, at worst, could do significant harm…

Every mechanism in the human body down to the orientation of the DNA is ultimately based on electromagnetic fields interacting. The Dotto Ring was created by the Italian scientist Gianni A. Dotto, who was born in Venice, and was son of a prominent engineer who was the designer of two hydro-electric generating plants on both the American and Canadian sides of Niagara Falls.

Dotto became an American citizen and maintained his apparatus at the University of Dayton, Ohio, where he experimented with cancer treatment. According to Dotto, the magnetic charge of the genetic code is maintained at the proper level by the electrical property of the double helix, which functions as a common transformer; where the voltage of the primary and the secondary winding is proportional to the number of the turns of the coils.

If the DNA double helix of a cancer cell has a lesser number of turns than the DNA double helix of a normal cell; consequently, the number of base pairs per turns will be greater. Greater base pairs per turn of the double helix and eagerness of completing the outer electron orbiting of the atomic structure of the nucleous leads to a greater capability of reproduction of the DNA.

By applying to the human body voltage, EMF and magnetic intensity similar to the value existing in the DNA of normal cells (in the human between the ages of 35 and 55) a voltage of 45 to 70 millivolts maintains a linearity of 10 base pairs per turn in the double helix (Crick-Watson). The DNA of the cancer cell adjusts itself to the proper level of functionality, regardless of cell condition, since absorbed energy will be inversely proportional to the existing cell energy level.

Different researchers using different approaches and different theoretical assumptions have achieved affects on cancer cells. A common thread is that an electromagnetic field has been used to achieve this. My experience leads me to believe that pre-malignant cells can be returned to normal function and malignant cells can be prevented from achieving mitosis with properly applied low power electromagnetic fields.

Electomagnetic fields will be used in the future to detect abnormalities (which the FSCAN can do today) and the same fields used to diagnose a condition will be used to treat the condition successfully. Today, we use such fields in MRI and other devices extensively for diagnosis. We need to apply this same approach to treatment. This is the future of medicine. The Tricorder in Star Trek is not science fiction, but a demo of what is to come.

Medication error is the fourth leading cause of death in this country so our government should be concerned about medical safety, right? Wrong!

Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe has written a penetrating article on Memorial Day about Dr. Alastair J.J. Wood, who had already been selected by the White House to take over the FDA, an organization that has been leaderless for quite some time. Robert Goldberg, a pharma promoter, wrote in the conservative National Review online edition that if Wood became commissioner, the FDA would be so tough on drug manufacturers that the government’s message to patients would be “Drop dead.” Wood not only was contaminated by his concern for medical safety, he actually sat on an FDA panel reviewing Pfizer’s Zyrtec, Schering-Plough’s Claritin, and Aventis’s Allegra and recommended that they become over the counter drugs. This could have cost the pharmas tens of millions of lost profits!

So we have a rather schizophrenic response from those who are concerned that patient safety would restrict drugs from early release costing them billions in future profits and even worse, free prescription drugs for over the counter purchase at reduced price giving a haircut to current profits. Is Wood for more drugs or less drugs? It doesn’t matter, he’s bad for business.

The power of the Internet is that the White House actually reads this stuff and they dumped Wood immediately.

Hamilton, Gary. Dead Man Walking. New Scientist 2303:30-33, 11 Aug 2001

As an example of microorganisms causing disease (or perhaps not!) check out an interesting article on H. Pylori and ulcers. As usual, the situation is more complex than modern medicine is easily able to deal with, although the bottom line here appears to be that H. Pylori is bad, even though it may have some good effects.

The human ecosystem needs to be investigated as a rainforest of microorganisms with complex ecological balances. The epidemiology of the internal human system is a new science that needs to be launched, funded, and studied to answer many of the open questions of the day. What really causes heart disease? Why do statin drugs decrease the risk of some heart disease while increasing ther risk of other types of heart disease? Why can’t we prevent or cure cancer? If we had a cure, cancer survival rates would be going up dramatically and they are definitely not as shown in a previous posting. Why is medical error the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer? And on and on. The list of unanswered questions is endless.