Original 1999 Paper

The following paper is an abridged version of the longer one published in 1999 by Charlene Boehm, the inventor of the DNA frequency method. Some text from that original paper has been removed from this version because it is outdated, redundant, or not specifically related to the DNA frequency method.



A Look At the Frequencies of Rife-related Plasma Emission Devices

by Charlene Boehm


This is a story of an exploration with numbers.

The origin of the MORs (Mortal Oscillatory Rates of bacteria and viruses), originally discovered by Royal Rife during the first half of the twentieth century, has perplexed many people since that time. While it is generally acknowledged that some type of resonance phenomenon destroyed or debilitated the organisms, it has been difficult at best to pinpoint any association of specific frequency with what is physically affecting these life forms during the time of their debilitation or demise.

What exactly might be the destructive mechanism that is affecting each organism? Is it a resonance related to its full size, or perhaps that of the nucleus, mitochondria, or capsid? Is it a correlation with some type of biochemical resonance? Why does each organism seem to need a specific frequency? Could the phenomenon be related to its DNA, and if so, what is the resonance relationship? These questions and more have kept folks that use or explore Rife-related technologies awake into the wee hours of the morning on many occasions, and have been the focus of endless animated discussions.

This paper will explore some possibilities that might assist in shedding light on the resonance relationships.

These mechanisms of action require that some type of physical parameter be available that can be converted into frequency. Two major physics relationships, that of converting a length into frequency (or wavelength, to be more accurate); and that of converting mass into frequency, will be looked at in some detail.

While it is acknowledged that some of the concepts presented in this paper will be open to dispute, it was felt that the sheer number of correlations found with the audio frequencies currently being used begged a closer look. For that reason these ideas are being offered to the community of serious researchers as a springboard for further discussion. The concepts and frequencies discussed in this paper, and any materials eventually offered in conjunction with this paper, are in no manner intended to suggest treatment or cure for any disease or condition. Furthermore, this writer cannot assume any responsibility for enhancement of or degradation to physical health arising from use of the information presented in this paper.

The complete genome.

The developments in the past thirty to forty years in the field of genetics and molecular biology has resulted in an explosion of information available to anyone that cares to take a look. Information is widely available in medical and scientific journals, and extensive databases can also be accessed on the internet.

The length of any object can be thought of as having a resonant frequency by virtue of correlation with a wave-length. For instance, a person’s height has its own resonant wavelength and resultant frequency. Is it possible that an organism’s entire DNA genome could also possess a resonant wavelength and frequency related to its total length? Is there a way to calculate the entire length of an organism’s DNA genome? Thanks to explicit analysis of DNA structure, it is now accurately known how far apart the base pair molecules are spaced in that helix. If one knows exactly how many base pairs are contained in the complete genome, finding the entire length is a simple matter of multiplying the number of base pairs times the spacing. [For an explanation regarding structure and base pairs of DNA, see L. Stryer, Biochemistry, 4th ed., (W.H. Freeman, 1995), p. 75 ff., ISBN 0-7167-2009-4]

As a point of discussion, it must be pointed out that advanced x-ray analysis of crystallized DNA has shown that base pair spacing is not always consistent. There are some very localized areas that contain “squeezing” or “spreading” of the base pairs. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the classic Watson-Crick model of base pair spacing will be used, which is actually an average spacing over the entire length of the DNA genome. To use any other model for this discussion would make it hopelessly complex for these purposes. For further discussion on this subject, see Stryer, p. 788.

The dimensions of the B-helix, which is by far the most common DNA form for bacterial and eukaryotic life forms, tells us that:
a.One complete turn of the helix spans a distance of 35.4 angstroms on its axis.
b.There are 10.4 base pairs in each helical turn. [These measurements are given in Stryer, p. 791].

Therefore, the spacing of the individual base pairs on the axis would be 35.4 angstroms divided by 10.4, which equals 3.403846 angstroms. In scientific notation, this can be written as 3.403846 e-10 meters. The use of meters will now make it possible to convert this total length (or wavelength) to frequency.

Looking at an example from a real organism, the Rubella measles virus contains 9755 base pairs in its entire DNA genome. (For access to base pair information on viruses, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/static/vis.html).

9755 base pairs x the base pair spacing of 3.403846 e-10 meters = 3.32045 e-06 meters total length. This is a figure that can be used as a possible wavelength for the Rubella viral DNA.

To convert this wavelength to frequency, we turn to the physics formula:
velocity / wavelength = frequency
[See J. Cutnell & K. Johnson, Physics, 2nd ed., (John Wiley & Sons, 1992), pg. 698, ISBN 0-471-52919-2, or any good physics text].

In this instance we will use the speed of light: 299,792,458 meters per second as a velocity. (Further comments regarding the use of this velocity follow shortly).

Substituting the numbers into the forumla, we get 299,792,458 meters/second divided by 3.32045 e-06 meters = 9.02866 e+13 hertz.
This would be a possible theoretical resonant frequency for the Rubella DNA genome. It is interesting to note that this frequency falls at the high end of the infrared section of the electromagnetic spectrum (near visible light), and in the general area of the spectrum that Royal Rife had under consideration in his microscopic work.

To access this frequency in the audio range, an accurate and resonant way to accomplish this it is to repeatedly divide the frequency by 2. In music, this would be called going to a lower octave. Because there is no comparable term to “octave” in electromagnetic frequency terminology, the word “octave” will be used from this point onward to designate this /2 relationship (or x2 for an upper octave). It is a calculation that will be used often. Furthermore, dividing a frequency by 2 (i.e., translating it into the immediate lower octave) can also be visualized as doubling its wavelength in an exact and exceedingly precise manner.

Therefore, dividing the original Rubella resonant frequency of 9.02866 e+13 hz down by many octaves (i.e., doubling the wavelength many times) eventually brings us to a frequency at a representative octave low in the audio range: 164.23045 hz. This could be a possible resonant frequency of the Rubella genome in this low audio range.

To “debilitate” this frequency, the following mathematical relationship was considered: multiplying this resonant frequency by the square root of 2 (1.4142136).

A note is perhaps in order to the general reader: while these ideas are being presented in a manner to reach as wide an audience as possible, a brief explanation follows (involving the square root of 2 relationship) which will get slightly technical. One can proceed to the section following the starred line (if desired), with no interruption in content.

The general physics formula for the velocity of electromagnetic (EM) radiation through any medium equals the inverse of the square root of the product of the electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability. The formula reads (in the case of EM velocity through a vacuum, and also a good approximation for air):

velocity = 1/√ (ε0μ0)

where ε0 is the electrical permittivity, and μ0 is the magnetic permeability.
The permittivity and permeability are commonly known physics constants:
permittivity ε0 = 8.85418782 e-12 farads/meter
permeability μ0 = 1.2566370614 e-6 henrys/meter
[D. Lide, ed., Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 76th ed., (CRC Press, 1995), p. 1-1].

Applying these constants in the above formula indeed results in the velocity of light through a vacuum: 299,792,458 meters per second. Having this velocity figure makes it possible to compute electromagnetic frequencies (if the wavelength is also a known factor).

However, the next question arises: do electromagnetic waves travel through biological tissue at this velocity? Perhaps a new velocity can be computed from the formula above, using values for permittivity and permeability through biological media.

A representative figure for permittivity (ε) through body tissue is: 71 e-12 farads/meter. [See E. Hecht, Physics, Vol. 2, (Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1996), p. 664].

And the permeability (μ) through body tissue is for all practical purposes, the same as that of a vacuum: 1.25663706144 e-06 henrys/meter. [See R. T. Hitchcock & R. Patterson, Radio-Frequency and ELF Electromagnetic Energies, A Handbook for Professionals, (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1995), chart on page 27].

Applying these numbers to the above physics formula, the result is: velocity = 1 / √ [(71 e-12 F/m) x (1.2566370614 e-06 H/m)] = 105,868,288.9 meters per second as a representative velocity of electromagnetic energy through body tissue.

How does this figure compare with that of the speed of light through a vacuum?
Putting these two figures into a ratio gives:
299,792,458 meters per sec. / 105,868,288.9 meters per sec. = 2.831749347

If that ratio is divided in half, the result is 1.4158747, extremely close to 1.4142136, the value for the square root of 2. The next logical step would then be to explore the use of this ratio in computing possible frequencies for use in conjunction with body tissue (i.e., multiplying a frequency obtained with speed-of-light velocity by the square root of two).

*******************************************************************

The possible low-octave DNA resonant frequency for the Rubella virus (using the speed of light velocity) was 164.23045 hz, and multiplying that number by √2 = 232.256 hz. (The frequencies that are arrived at using the √2 multiplier will henceforth be referred to as a “debilitating frequency”).

Now if one uses the representative EM velocity through body tissue (105,868,288.9 meters per second), and recalculates the frequency associated with the Rubella viral genome wavelength (using the formula: velocity / wavelength = frequency), and then divides down by octaves as usual, one will come up with nearly the exact same frequency as would be arrived at by using the speed of light velocity, dividing the high frequency down by octaves, and multiplying the low octave by the square root of 2. (105,868,288.9 meters per sec / 3.32045 E-06 meters = 3.188371724 E+13 hz, which divided down by many octaves comes to 231.9845 hz, and is extremely close to the 232.256 hz debilitating frequency using the speed of light and √2 method).

Now, if we multiply the frequency 232.256 up by just one octave (x2), we get 464.5 hz. Interestingly, one of the frequencies used for Rubella with the plasma beam devices is 459 hz, only 4.5 hz away!

Because the plasma beam devices present the frequencies using a square wave (which contains a very strong showing of odd-numbered harmonics), it was thought that perhaps some of the early odd harmonics (such as 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, etc.) of a currently used frequency might also show a mathematical correlation with the DNA debilitating frequency suggested above. Such correlations could easily be determined using a computer spreadsheet. Here is one such example.

One of the frequencies used for “general” measles is 745 hz. Its 5th harmonic falls at 3725 hz (745 x 5 = 3725), which when divided down by 4 octaves (divide by 16) gives 232.8 hz. This is extremely close to the above debilitating frequency of 232.256 hz.

One could also look at it in this manner: multiplying the original DNA debilitating frequency up by four octaves, 232.256 hz x 16 = 3716.1 hz. This is close to the fifth harmonic of 745 hz (3725 hz). So at this juncture we might ask, is the fifth harmonic of 745 hz hitting an octave of the DNA “debilitating frequency” as described above, or at least very close to it?

The Rubella viral organism was used to present the basic concepts and procedures being used in this methodology. Another organism that gives even more information is Borrelia burgdorferi, which is associated with Lyme’s disease.

For convenience however, the formula for finding the genome-related debilitating frequency is recapitulated:

[299,792,458 m. per sec / (# of base pairs) x (3.403846154 E-10 m.)] = frequency
which, when divided down by many octaves to the low audio range, and then multiplied by √2, yields a baseline “debilitating frequency”.

The entire genome of Borrelia burgdorferi sains 910,724 base pairs. Using the spacing length of 3.403846 e-10 meters, this gives us a total genome length of 3.09996 e-04 meters, which converts to a frequency (using speed of light as velocity) of 9.670835558 e+11 hz. Dividing this down by octaves into the low audio range gives us 112.58 hz, and then multiplying by √2 yields a debilitating frequency of 159.217 hz.

Multiplying this number up by 2 octaves (x4) gives 636.87 hz. One of the frequencies currently being used for Lyme’s is 640 hz (under “hatchlings/eggs” in the frequency list website given above).

Another frequency currently used for this condition is 254 hz, and its 5th harmonic is 1270 hz, which divided down by 3 octaves (divide by 8) = 158.75 hz, almost exactly falling at the Borrelia representative debilitating frequency (abbr. “df”) of 159.217 hz. Remember, it is possible that a debilitating frequency may occur for an organism at any octave location up and down the entire spectrum!

Yet another frequency being used for Lyme’s is 432 hz and its upper octave 864 hz. The third harmonic of 432 hz = 1296 hz, which divided down by 3 octaves (divide by 8) gives 162 hz, also fairly close to the df of 159.217 hz.

Once again these are two more examples of the odd harmonics of currently used frequencies correlating with an upper octave of the debilitating frequency. It could also help to initially explain why more than one audio frequency is effective at targeting an organism.

At this point it also must be stated, there will always be variation in nature, now and forever. Organisms constantly adapt to their surroundings, and this is reflected in (or initiated by) changes in their DNA structure. Therefore, one can never assume that frequencies computed on the basis of genome wavelength will always and forever give accurate, hard and fast results. The numbers should be used only to guide us into the ballpark, so to speak.

Another aspect of Borrelia burgdorferi that turns out to hold considerable interest is that of the plasmids that the organism harbors. Plasmids are small, freely-circulating independent pieces of usually circular DNA that often (but not always) program information relating to the pathogenicity or virulence of the organism, and are present in nearly all (if not all) types of bacteria. After looking at the base pair information of 11 Borrelia plasmids thus far, the following frequency correlations have shown up (to save time and space, the entire mathematical procedure will be shortened):

1.  Plasmid cp26 containing 26,498 base pairs. Debilitating frequency (df) is at 171 hz, one octave up is at 342 hz, near currently used Lyme frequencies of 338 and 344 hz.

2.  Plasmid cp9 containing 9386 base pairs, df is at 241.4 hz, one octave up is 482.8 hz, near currently used frequencies of 484 and 485 hz.

3.  Plasmid lp28-1 containing 26,921 base pairs, df is at 168.3 hz, one octave up is 336.6 hz, very near currently used frequency at 338 hz.

4.  Plasmid lp28-2 containing 29,766 base pairs, df is at 152.2 hz, next 2 octaves up are at 304.5 and 608.9 hz, near the currently used frequencies of 306 & 610 hz.

5.  Plasmid lp28-3 containing 28,601 base pairs, df is at 158.4 hz, two octaves up falls at 633.6 hz, near the currently used frequency of 630 hz.

6.  Plasmid lp28-4 containing 27,323 base pairs, df is at 165.8 hz, two octaves up falls at 663.4 hz, near the currently used frequency of 667 hz.

7.  Plasmid lp36 containing 36,849 base pairs, df is at 245.9 hz, one octave up falls at 491.9 hz, near the currently used frequency of 495 hz.

8.  Plasmid lp54 containing 53,561 base pairs, df is at 169.2 hz, one octave up falls at 338.4 hz, almost exactly the same as the currently used frequency of 338 hz.



Charlene Boehm
August 6, 1999

Copyright © 1999 by Charlene Boehm

Disclaimer

The frequency information available from this website is provided for educational, experimental, investigational, and research purposes only. The information, along with any effects express or implied, have not been evaluated by the Unites States FDA or any other governmental agency. Use of, or experimentation with any frequency information offered at this website, is done at the user’s own risk. The website owner and cpsBioResearch LLC, assumes no liability or responsibility, personal or commercial, that may arise from use of the frequency information offered here. The information at this website is not intended to replace any function of any health practitioner, including but not limited to diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of any health-related condition associated with any life form. If you or any person or animal for which you are responsible has a medical condition, please consult with the health practitioner of your choice. Because frequency delivery systems are highly variable in design and output, cpsBioResearch LLC makes no claim or warranty, express or implied, that use of such frequency information will achieve any specific outcome. Furthermore, provision of frequency information is not intended to imply that use of it could affect any animal, plant, or human functionality or health-related condition or state of being, in any specific manner. Living systems are complex, and results from use of the frequency information offered here may vary.