#is just so telling for how the selective blindness of these institutions enable each other to stay silent

[ferociouslycreativemystery]

.

[slingsendarrows]

To His Coy Master

“I have often reflected on upon the new vistas that reading opened to me. I knew right there in prison that reading had changed the course of my life. As I see it today, the ability to read awoke inside me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive…My homemade education gave me, with every additional book I read, a little bit more sensitivity to the deafness, dumbness, and blindness that was afflicting the black race in America.” — Malcolm X “The Autobiography of Malcolm X”

Photo by Will Small

It never ceases to amaze the length, and breadth white people will go to willfully deny history in as much as it tells them the truth about themselves. I don’t blame them. It is a bitter pill to swallow owning up as a member of a people that has wreaked such havoc and extended so much unmitigated violence. Your domination in pursuit of betterment for your people and racial superiority was at the unquantifiable expense of others.

Now, before we get bogged down in the mire of wilfully confusing terms, let me resentfully explain what I mean by the words I am using. I say resentfully because expounding upon the injustices heaped upon my people requires I justify my position and take care not to offend the sensibilities of those I am addressing. It is dormant trauma indicative of the master/slave dichotomy I still have yet to shed. For it is only the oppressor that necessitates the oppressed exercise restraint and caution in stating and expressing his grievances, however vile and repulsive, adjusting for nuances and individual circumstances as if his subjugation wasn’t abrupt, violent, and complete. What is the virtue of incremental progress if the oppressor committed the original sin with absolute expediency? But, I digress.

“White people” or “white men,” refers to the collective white man, woman, and child as befits the ideologies of white supremacy, meaning those originating from Europe and the inheritors of their ancestors’ misdeeds. I will not deign to account for individual acts or attitudes of “good” white people because it is irrelevant. It is a tactic the oppressor uses to detract from the larger truth about himself.

Also, in speaking collectively, I will use the masculine pronouns, reflexive and otherwise, in an umbrella fashion similar to holy writ, signifying patriarchy as the apex of privilege and tyranny. Occasionally, I may address collective “white people” as women and men, specifically. “Master” is not restricted to those who owned slaves in actuality but those who propagated ideas of white superiority and black subjection.

Finally, and for what I hope will be the last time, privilege is a Russian doll ladder in that some have more than others in the broader context of the hierarchical structure as well as within each rung. Privilege is the exemption from specific experiences due to the inherent characteristics of race, ability, sexuality, gender identity, sex, socioeconomic status, etc. I have privilege within my rung as educated, able-bodied, cis-gender, and heterosexual. I shall leave it there.

I know you are, but what am I?

There are things you can’t unsee. I can neither unsee injustice nor abide civility for civility’s sake. Living as a black woman person is a burden, but one I am learning to carry with pride. You live in the depths of a valley with a clear perspective of the surrounding landscape. I look about me these days, and I yearn to be free. Natural freedom, not granted, but inborn and awakened through the conscious effort. Freedom rising from truth and understanding, painful though it may be. But master, I must tell you the truth about yourself, for I see now, as Malcolm X stated, you love yourself so much you’re often surprised to discover we do not share your “vainglorious self-opinion.”

Bettmann Archives/Getty Images

The cyclical nature of oppression angers me: outcries and marches, cosmetic salves for change, and disingenuous support that lasts just long enough for us to return to business, as usual. I don’t want to mince words anymore. It no longer serves to be palatable. You must swallow whole my incredulous raging despair and dubious hope for change. You will taste every unpleasant bite as I tell you the unflavored truth about yourself. I will not be distracted by dog-whistle racist dismissals of reverse-racism and black supremacy. Pipe down! You know I do not have the power to alter a fraction of your daily existence fundamentally.

For all your talk of progress, history shows very little of significance and import has materially changed. Individual achievement is pointless if institutionalized racism persists, unimpeded since the advent of colonial conquest when you left your lands to “discover” ours. It matters little that some of us make it if most of us continue to suffer the same injustices bereft of reprieve through education, wealth, and status. In short, your surface efforts at woke-ness and allyship are of little use if, in your white homes and white spaces, you propagate or remain silent in the face of racist sentiments and ideologies.

I reason real change calls for radical action. The how eludes me. Real change requires rooting out the problem in its entirety, a problem so deeply ingrained and pervasive it infects every facet of our daily existence. It is institutionalized. But our subjugation was so final we forgot our names. We have been in the wilderness far too long, thirsting for understanding and starving for identity. You hope we never figure out our freedom was never a matter for your consent.

In the midst of my hungering, I have awakened to two fundamental realizations: 1) we are and have only ever been as free as you have allowed us to be, 2) truth comes through knowledge of self, and knowledge of self comes through self-education.

It’s been a long, long time coming, but I know change is gonna come.

During moments of considerable racial unrest, you remind us to be grateful for the crumbs that fall from your feasting tables and make it into our mouths. With each protesting hamster-wheel cycle for change, you erroneously juxtapose our grievances against your apparent signs of progress, as if the two are analogous. You caution against violent reactions when your institutions murder us, and you selectively misquote our advocates out of context to suit your purposes and invalidate our rage. The conversation inevitably becomes about how we are not decent people, and our behavior courted death; therefore, we deserve to die. There is no need to mourn, much less to protest. Still, during our tear-gassed and rubber-bulleted peaceful protestations, you implore us, once again, to be patient. Someday we’ll all be free. Incrementalism over expediency!

Photo by Charles Moore

You ask us to remember Abraham Lincoln and his hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers. Do we not recall the numerous, albeit contradictory, supreme court decisions that have brought us thus far? Lyndon B. Johnson and his predecessors awarded us civil rights, benefitting the electorate with the sacrifice of black bodies. The matter of reparations is a non-starter — sins of the father, and all that; it’s in the past. See our constitutional amendments, white abolitionists, James Meredith, northern white liberalism, and lest we forget, the progressive black achievement permitted in your industries and society.

But the fact that we’re still witnessing black firsts 400 years later is not a sign of progress; it is the opposite.

Our schools teach the efforts and white generosity of Abraham Lincoln liberated black people in America. However, a cursory glance at your records will show this is factually incorrect. I am tired of being reminded to pay homage to the “Great Emancipator,” whom we remember, in large part, due to this astounding act of condescending deference. Master Lincoln is an excellent example of your self-conceit that our freedom is yours to grant or deny. And to add insult to injury, you congratulate yourselves for it. The overarching white supremacist belief you can deign to give us freedom is a glaring reminder we are only as free as you enable us to be. Your love for this lie is so profound; you pull it out each time issues of race arise. But Lincoln, a white man, freed you! He might have been black too.

So let’s set the record straight.

Lincoln did not free slaves out of moral imperative but political expediency. A cursory study of his papers and thinking at the time show he was willing to maintain slavery if it meant keeping the Union intact because “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Before the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a carefully maintained 1:1 ratio determined the slavery status of newly admitted states. This balancing act was codified when Maine and Missouri sought admittance; the former was free, and the latter legally permit slavery. The law also prohibited slavery north of the Mason-Dixon line.

At the onset of the Civil War, Missouri demographically split between confederate and union allies. In 1861, witnessing Missouri’s descent into chaos, Union Major Generals Fremont and Hunter issued emancipation proclamations calling for the execution of those found guilty of taking up arms against Union and the confiscation of their property, including freeing their slaves. Shortly after that, Lincoln fired the generals and annulled the proclamation. He issued a Second Confiscation Act in July 1862, allowing for the confiscation of slaves owned by the rebels, freeing them at the discretion of the court.

District of Columbia. Company E, 4th U.S. Colored Infantry, at Fort Lincoln

Slaves were commodities of considerable economic value. Slaves were mortgaged collateral and settled debts. Losing slaves would result in a substantial financial loss for southern masters. The Union knew that, so they exploited it. Freeing slaves robed the Confederacy of its free and disposable labor, eliminating the possibility of slaves fighting against the Union army at the behest of their rebel masters. Lincoln did not issue the Proclamation of 1863 because he thought black people were inherently equal and deserving of justice under the law. Asked about his decision-making process, he stated, “…if I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that…” The Civil War did not end slavery in acknowledgment of black equality. Slave emancipation crippled the Confederate economies and, in so doing, weakened the southern rebellion. Emancipation was a means to an end.

Lincoln could not conceive of a nation with black people as equal if not, primary stakeholders. Nevermind their backs built the wealth of the country. Now that the problematic part of nation-building over, he could simply return them from whence they came and be done with it. He thought it better to return black Americans to Africa and failing that, create a whole separate nation unto themselves.

Reportedly the only known photo of a black American Union soldier and his family. (Library of Congress)

In 1854, before the Civil War, Lincoln stated, at a speech in Illinois, his “…first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them back to Liberia.” It was the only foreseeable solution to the race issue. He considered the coal-mining prospects of the Chiriqui region in modern-day Panama an option for deportation and resettlement. Still, the idea met fierce abolitionist opposition when he tested it on a sample slave population in Delaware. He supported a congressional bill that would “…aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent […] as may desire to emigrate to the Republic of Haiti or Liberia or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine.” After signing the Second Confiscation Act, in August 1862, Lincoln invited a delegation of five prominent black men to the White House to clarify that white and black people cannot coexist; therefore, separation was the most direct path to peace. He wanted their support for a mass black exodus.

Liberia presented a logistical nightmare. The Chiquiri coal was worthless, and the land in dispute with Costa Rica. Approximately 450 black people moved to an island off the coast of Haiti, of which almost 25% died of poor nutrition and illness before the remainder returned to the U.S. Defeated, Lincoln, considered deporting “the whole colored race of the slave states into Texas.” Days before his death, he stressed, “I can hardly believe that the South and North can live peace unless we can get rid of the negroes…I believe it would be better [for the whites] to export them to some fertile country…”

Getty/Library of Congress

In conclusion, asking me to celebrate a white master for granting me what is rightfully mine is ludicrous — honoring him for a decision that only benefitted me as a secondary consequence of his primary purpose is the height of white arrogance. It merely cements you don’t believe freedom is ours by right; it is yours to give in the manner befitting your white sensibility stretched out over the expanse of time. Time to legitimize the numbing effect of revisionist history and position us in gratitude toward master’s acquiesce and tolerance, however slow. Master is doing his best. After all, his wife, at a time, condescended to teach Frederick Douglass to read and write.

And yet, here we remain, yearning for crumbs off of master’s table. Asking, begging, pleading, for what is ours.

The real nightmare scenario for white supremacy is an actualized black mind, educated and conscious of its pervasive and pernicious effects. Global black unity jellies the white man’s spine in fear of retribution for his crimes. It is why you champion incremental progress and hail peaceful protest as the height of moral discourse. You only understand violence for violence is what it took to achieve your dominance. You cannot conceive of any other possible outcome, and you cannot revise history with enough “good” white people committing “good” white acts to cover the rancid stench. You know it stinks, and since you cannot find a solution outside your oppressive playbook, you must deny, obfuscate, distract, appease and roll the ball down the road of historical replay.

To that, I now turn a deaf ear. We must educate ourselves about our people and history if we are to be truly free. We cannot depend upon you to what is right. You have made it abundantly clear.

[khalilhumam]

What Do We Know about the Cost-Effectiveness of Aid Spent on Climate Mitigation?

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/what-do-we-know-about-the-cost-effectiveness-of-aid-spent-on-climate-mitigation/

What Do We Know about the Cost-Effectiveness of Aid Spent on Climate Mitigation?

We don’t know as much as we should about the real-world costs and effectiveness of climate mitigation projects in low- and middle-income countries. This blog looks at what we do know and finds that real-world cost-effectiveness appears to be orders-of-magnitude different between projects even in the same sector. If this is so, then a tighter focus on cost-effectiveness could shift investments to more effective strategies, yielding substantial gains in emissions mitigated. At present, only two funders report systematically on expected and actual project-level emissions impacts, and there is almost no gold-standard evaluation evidence. To enable policymakers to learn as quickly as possible about the most- and least-effective approaches, all funders should routinely publish their anticipated and real-world mitigation and costs at project level.

What do evaluations say about aid spent on climate?

Since 2012, development agencies have consistently spent around US$10 billion per year on aid with a principal emissions mitigation objective, as well as a proportion of the rising spend channelled through multilateral institutions. That figure rose gradually from less than a billion dollars in 2000. What does the evidence say about what that spend is achieving? To answer this question, ideally we’d want independent impact evaluations of real projects associated with reliable costs data. In areas of development policy like education and public health, the last 15 years have seen a huge growth in the number of evaluations that meet this standard. But unfortunately, such evidence is very thin on the ground for emissions mitigation interventions in low- and middle-income countries. In 3ie’s repository of over 3,700 impact evaluations relating to development, just eight are tagged with “climate mitigation.” This compares to 795 evaluations tagged with “child health,” 347 evaluations tagged with “access to education,” 394 evaluations tagged with “social safety nets,” and 38 evaluations tagged with “water pollution,” for example. A 2018 systematic review of economic studies of the cost-effectiveness of different emissions mitigation interventions found only 50 studies that met its inclusion criteria, of which just two reported effectiveness and real-world costs for low- or middle-income countries. These studies report very low cost estimates for anti-deforestation and reforestation interventions in Uganda and Malawi—good news certainly, but not sufficient evidence on which to judge the relative cost-effectiveness of the very many different mitigation options available to low- and middle-income countries.

Engineering estimates of cost-effectiveness

Whilst full evaluations are in short supply, at first glance it can appear that we know plenty about the cost of different options for achieving emissions mitigation in low- and middle-income countries. The most comprehensive and high-profile attempts to measure this involve the construction of marginal abatement cost curves (MACCs). Figure 1 shows the most famous MACC, produced by McKinsey in 2010. It is an engineering estimate of the cost per tonne of reducing emissions for various available technologies based on the difference in cost per unit of installed capacity between a reference technology and a greener alternative, as well as the potential total abatement that could be achieved by employing each technology. The curve pictured is global but is a weighted average of more sectorally and geographically specific cost curves.

Figure 1. Global GHG abatement cost curve beyond business-as-usual – 2030

Source: Version 2.1 of the McKinsey Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve

MACCs are also produced for particular countries or regions to help policymakers identify the best mitigation options to pursue. Figure 2 is an example from 2013 produced by the World Bank for Nigeria. This MACC predicts huge cost-savings as well as large mitigation potential for technologies 1 and 2, energy efficient lighting off- and on-grid. It also predicts low costs of $1 per tCO2e mitigated for technologies like concentrated solar power (technology 21).

Figure 2. MACC for Nigeria (selected low-carbon interventions)

Source: Low-Carbon Development: Opportunities for Nigeria

Although MACCs provide a useful starting point for estimating the cost-effectiveness of different mitigation options, they are based on models that are blind to many non-engineering determinants of real-world cost-effectiveness, like behavioural response. Most importantly, they may be based on unrealistic assumptions. The so-called “efficiency-gap” puzzle—why investment in energy efficiency is so much lower than the rational level according to such models—is increasingly being resolved with the realisation that real-world returns to efficiency investments are much, much lower than the models predict.

Agency-reported results of climate effectiveness

So, if there are not enough independent evaluations to tell us how cost-effective different mitigation options might be in the real world, what evidence of a lower quality do we have, besides pure engineering estimates like MACCs? The richest potential source of data in this middle-ground of reliability is self-reported cost-effectiveness data from development agencies and international finance institutions. For example, one of the key performance indicators for programmes funded using UK International Climate Finance (ICF) is emissions mitigation, and cost data for these programmes are publicly reported. Unfortunately, although the UK government reports top-level annual results including tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions mitigated for ICF programmes (31 million tonnes between 2011 and 2020, we are told), disaggregated, programme-level data are not systematically reported. This is a picture mirrored at other development agencies and at financial institutions, where annual reports often claim levels of emissions mitigation, and cost data are easy to find, but disaggregated emissions mitigated per project are not made available. This is a missed opportunity that must be rectified in order for the development community to learn collectively, as quickly as possible, what is working well and what is not. Some important examples of good practice can be found. The Green Climate Fund reports expected emissions mitigation and costs for approved funding proposals, enabling an initial analysis led by our former colleague Arthur Baker last year. Similarly, the World Bank Climate Investment Funds’ (CIF) Clean Technologies Fund (CTF) reports anticipated cost-effectiveness for its mitigation programmes. In addition, the CTF reports emissions mitigation progress to date. This data is a rich source of evidence on the real-world performance of different emissions mitigation options in low- and middle-income countries, with programme-level data reported for 82 projects across 15 different groups of technologies. By recoding GCF programmes to cohere with the specific technology categories used by the CTF, we have created an aggregated dataset of first-cut or “naïve” cost-effectiveness estimates for programmes funded by both funds. Figure 3 shows expected cost-effectiveness for mitigation programmes in various sectors funded by either fund. This estimate is calculated simply by dividing total programme costs by projected emissions reductions. We refer to it as naïve as it takes these estimates at face value: it is possible that projected estimates ignore some more speculative and potentially large emissions impacts of projects—though we argue that if this is the aim, such estimates should also be included probabilistically.

Figure 3. Expected cost-effectiveness of GCF and CTF programmes by approach (log scale, cost [USD] per tonne of CO2 equivalent averted)

Authors’ own calculations from CTF and GCF results data. TR = transport, EE = energy efficiency, RE = renewable energy, FOLU = forestry and other land use

What is striking from looking at this data is that even the anticipated costs for programmes are different by orders of magnitude both within and between sectors. Figure 3 uses a log scale in order to be legible, but that should not detract from the impact of the data being reported. It is striking that some groups of projects are expected to be tens or hundreds of times more cost-effective than others. This is true whether you consider total project cost, as above, or only the money invested by the funds themselves, before co-financing.

What can we learn from this analysis?

Within and between specific approaches to mitigation, there are order-of-magnitude differences in expected cost-effectiveness on this naïve measure. Some of the categories used by the CTF are too general to permit much analysis of relative cost-effectiveness because projects are likely to be very different from each other, for example those categorised as “Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency.” However, other categories are more specific. For example, the sustainable forestry programmes identified cost between $10 and $13 per tCO2e mitigated. This is a low and consistent cost. The minimum programme cost data reveals cost-effective interventions in every sector analysed. Even in transport, where programmes are generally high-cost, one funded intervention is expected to mitigate emissions at a cost of $31 per tCO2e mitigated. The most striking takeaway from the combined CTF and GCF data is the amount of variation in cost-effectiveness of programmes both within and between sectors. The most cost-effective on-grid solar project had a total project cost of $0.83 per tCO2e mitigated, whereas the least cost-effective cost $238 per tCO2e. This is a more than 200x difference in cost-effectiveness. Similarly the mean cost per tCO2e mitigated for an anti-deforestation programme was $5.68, whereas the mean cost for a mass transit programme was $1,288, again a more than 200x difference. Of course, as with any climate-mitigation intervention, these projects all have different development co-benefits. Some difference in cost-effectiveness on the single dimension of emissions reductions is explained by different levels of contribution to economic growth, public health, and so on. Further, some differences in cost-effectiveness are explained by the need for action across multiple sectors to achieve the volume of emissions reductions necessary to avert potentially catastrophic climate change. It is also the case that the CTF has targeted transformative change as its main objective, rather than the narrow cost-effectiveness attributable directly to individual projects. However, given all projects were selected to target transformative change, it is unclear how much difference in cost-effectiveness this objective explains. Furthermore, if transformation is the goal, then reporting could and should be changed such that expected emissions reductions data capture that. Overall, whilst co-benefits or transformative change would explain some variation in cost-effectiveness, the orders- of-magnitude variation we see seem more difficult to explain (given that these are, by definition, mitigation projects).

Lessons for policymakers and development agencies

Our analysis should not be construed as criticising the GCF, CTF, or the CIF in general. In fact, these funders are ahead of others in thinking about and reporting cost-effectiveness. Further, as we cover above, they started from a position of almost no evidence on climate mitigation effectiveness. Both funds have served as a learning lab, experimenting with different approaches to what works in emissions mitigation and adaptation in low- and middle-income countries. They deserve credit for making these estimates and their decision-making available for feedback; and, given the learning potential, other climate mitigation funders should follow suit. Cost-effectiveness has not been the CTF’s main goal to date. However, cost-effectiveness is one of the six core principles that govern the CTF’s investment decisions. As a recent review of the CTF’s operations noted, the CTF and concessional finance for climate change in general is entering a new phase, where many of the approaches to mitigation are no longer novel. In this new phase, across the international financial institutions and development agencies, a higher priority should be placed on cost-effectiveness at the design stage, and in the learning outcomes targeted by evaluation. If “transformational” impacts beyond the project are part of the rationale, the probability and impact on wider emissions should be included in an analysis. Development agencies and multilaterals need to know how well they’re doing on cost-effectiveness in order to make the best use of the limited mitigation funds available. Those numbers need to be publicly available to increase knowledge transfer and increase quality through independent scrutiny. That’s especially important if our limited knowledge to date suggests order-of-magnitude differences in cost-effectiveness between projects. We are working on a policy paper that explores what we know about the cost-effectiveness of emissions mitigation interventions in low- and middle-income countries, which will be available soon. Watch this space for more.

[conners-clinic]

The Suppression of Challenging the Status Quo

What if you had spent more than two decades of your life in painfully laborious research – and in doing so, you discovered an incredibly simple, electronic approach to helping literally every disease on the planet? That would be great; you’d be a hero, a rich hero! Your discovery would help end the pain and suffering of countless millions and change life on Earth forever. Certainly, one would think, the medical world would rush to embrace you with every imaginable accolade and financial reward imaginable. You would think so, wouldn’t you?

Unfortunately, arguably the greatest medical genius in all recorded history suffered a fate literally the opposite of the foregoing logical scenario. In fact, the history of medicine is replete with stories of genius betrayed by backward thought and jealousy, but most pathetically, by greed and money.

In the nineteenth century, Semmelweiss struggled mightily to convince surgeons that it was a good idea to sterilize their instruments and use sterile surgical procedures. Pasteur was ridiculed for years for his theory that germs could cause disease. Scores of other medical visionaries went through horrible ridicule and even losing their ability to practice for simply challenging the medical status quo of day, including such legends as Roentgen and his X-rays, Morton for promoting the absurd idea of anesthesia, Harvey for his theory of the circulation of blood, and many others in recent decades including: W.F. Koch, Revici, Burzynski, Naessens, Priore, Livingston-Wheeler, and Hoxsey.

Orthodox big-money medicine resents and seeks to neutralize and/or destroy those who challenge its beliefs. Often, the visionary who challenges it pays a heavy price for his heresy.

The Cancer Fundraising Sham

So, you have just discovered a new therapy, which can eradicate any microbial disease but, so far, you, and your amazing cure isn’t very popular. What do you do next? Well, certainly the research foundations and teaching institutions would welcome news of your astounding discovery. Won’t they be thrilled to learn you have a possible cure for the very same diseases they are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars per year to investigate? Maybe not, if it means the end of the gravy train. These people have mortgages to pay and families to support. A friend of mine, a cancer researcher at a major university, recently told me that when he questioned his authority about their purpose he was told, “We’re not here to find a cure for cancer, we’re here to get our next grant.”

Regardless of what you may believe, all the Walk-for-a-Cure and cancer fundraising does is feed countless organizations with voracious appetites and no desire to solve the problem that feeds them. Let’s get real for a moment, if you owned a drug company and your researchers came to you with a discovery that a new rain-forest herb cured lung cancer, an Indian spice that cured brain cancer, a common herb mixture that cures most cancers, and an electrical frequency device that cures all cancers, you’d have a choice: 1) declare it to the world and bankrupt the corporation putting thousands of individuals with families out of work turning the entire pharmaceutical industry into an unnecessary hoax, or 2) tell them to figure out a way they can synthesize a byproduct that can be patented and thereby make the company extremely profitable and destroy any evidence that may reveal the simplicity of the cure.

I can understand that we live in a capitalistic culture; I understand that profits must be made and people need to feed their families. I do NOT understand the evil conspiracies to forcefully shutdown and shut-up anything and anyone revealing the truth. Hollywood couldn’t write a better story.

Rife Technology

Here follows the story of exactly such a sensational therapy and what happened to the man who discovered it. It was a dark time in medical history when doctors and clinics would claim all sorts of “cures” and new devices popped up to solve all our ills. Many were nothing more than snake oil salesman, attempting to steal from the hurting population. But many were sincere, sacrificing their lives to find help for their patients. Royal Raymond Rife was of the latter variety, and his discovery of the benefits of light frequency, a remarkable electronic therapy, was sabotaged and buried by a ruthless group of men who, under the pretense of protecting the innocent would squash anything that they could not financially profit from. Rife’s work would re-emerge in the underground medical/alternative health world only since the 1970’s when it was re-introduced by some physicists. This is the story of Royal Raymond Rife and his fabulous discoveries and electronic instruments.

If you have never heard of Rife before, prepare to be angered and incredulous at what this great man achieved for all of us only to have it practically driven from the face of the planet. But, reserve your final judgment and decision until after you have read this.

Of course, some may regard this as just an amusing piece of fiction. However, for those who are willing to do some investigating on their own, there will be mentioned several highly-respected doctors and medical authorities who worked with Rife as well as some of the remarkable technical aspects of his creation. In the final analysis, the only real way to determine if such a revolutionary therapy exists is to experience it yourself. The medical literature is full of rigged “double-blind” clinical research tests, the results of which are often determined in advance by the vested corporate interests involved.

Royal Raymond Rife’s Story

Royal Raymond Rife was a brilliant scientist born in 1888 and died in 1971. After studying at Johns Hopkins, Rife developed technology which is still commonly used today in the fields of optics, electronics, radiochemistry, biochemistry, ballistics, and aviation. It is a fair statement that Rife practically developed bioelectric medicine himself. He received 14 major awards and honors and was given an honorary Doctorate by the University of Heidelberg for his work. During the 66 years that Rife spent designing and building medical instruments, he worked for Zeiss Optics, the U.S. Government, and several private benefactors. Most notable was millionaire Henry Timkin, of Timkin roller bearing fame. Timken was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame on September 19, 1998.

Because Rife was self-educated in so many different fields, he intuitively looked for his answers in areas beyond the rigid scientific structure of his day. He had mastered so many different disciplines that he literally had, at his intellectual disposal, the skills and knowledge of an entire team of scientists and technicians from a number of different scientific fields. So, whenever new technology was needed to perform a new task, Rife simply invented and then built it himself as was necessary for many scientists of his day.

Rife’s Inventions

Rife’s inventions include a heterodyning ultraviolet microscope, a micro-dissector, and a micromanipulator. When you thoroughly understand Rife’s achievements, you may well decide that he had one of the most gifted, versatile, scientific minds in human history. By 1920, Rife had finished building the world’s first virus microscope. By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size. With this incredible microscope, Rife became the first human being to actually see a live virus, and until quite recently, the Universal Microscope was the only one which was able view live viruses.

Modern electron microscopes instantly kill everything beneath them, viewing only the mummified remains and debris. What the Rife microscope can see is the bustling activity of living viruses as they change form to accommodate changes in environment, replicate rapidly in response to carcinogens, and transform normal cells into tumor cells.

Rife and Frequencies

But how was Rife able to accomplish this, in an age when electronics and medicine were still just evolving? Here are a few technical details to placate the skeptics. Rife painstakingly identified the individual spectroscopic signature of each microbe, using a slit spectroscope attachment. Then, he slowly rotated block quartz prisms to focus light of a single wavelength upon the microorganism he was examining. This wavelength was selected because it resonated with the spectroscopic signature frequency of the microbe based on the now-established fact that every molecule oscillates at its own distinct frequency.

The atoms that come together to form a molecule are held together in that molecular configuration with a covalent energy bond which both emits and absorbs its own specific electromagnetic frequency. No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature. Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together.

On November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation’s most respected medical authorities honored Royal Rife with a banquet billed as “The End To All Diseases” at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson.

The result of using a resonant wavelength is that micro-organisms which are invisible in white light suddenly become visible in a brilliant flash of light when they are exposed to the color frequency that resonates with their own distinct spectroscopic signature. Rife was thus able to see these otherwise invisible organisms and watch them actively invading tissues cultures. Rife’s discovery enabled him to view organisms that no one else could see with ordinary microscopes.

More than 75% of the organisms Rife could see with his Universal Microscope are only visible with ultra-violet light. But ultraviolet light is outside the range of human vision; it is invisible to us. Rife’s brilliance allowed him to overcome this limitation by heterodyning, a technique which became popular in early radio broadcasting. He illuminated the microbe (usually a virus or bacteria) with two different wavelengths of the same ultraviolet light frequency which resonated with the spectral signature of the microbe. These two wavelengths produced interference where they merged. This interference was, in effect, a third, longer wave which fell into the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This was how Rife made invisible microbes visible without killing them, a feat which today’s electron microscopes cannot duplicate.

Rife Identifies Cancer

By this time, Rife was so far ahead of his colleagues of the 1930’s, that they could not comprehend what he was doing without actually traveling to San Diego to visit Rife’s laboratory to look through his Virus Microscope for themselves. And many did exactly that.

One was Virginia Livingston. She eventually moved from New Jersey to Rife’s Point Loma (San Diego) neighborhood and became a frequent visitor to his lab. Virginia Livingston is now often given the credit for identifying the organism which causes human cancer, beginning with research papers she began publishing in 1948.

In reality, Royal Rife had identified the human cancer virus first…in 1920! Rife then made over 20,000 unsuccessful attempts to transform normal cells into tumor cells. He finally succeeded when he irradiated the cancer virus, passed it through a cell-catching ultra-fine porcelain filter, and injected it into lab animals. Not content to prove this virus would cause one tumor, Rife then created 400 tumors in succession from the same culture. He documented everything with film, photographs, and meticulous records. He named the cancer virus Cryptocides primordiales.

Virginia Livingston, in her papers, renamed it Progenitor Cryptocides. Royal Rife was never even mentioned in her papers. In fact, Rife seldom got credit for his monumental discoveries. He was a quiet, unassuming scientist, dedicated to expanding his discoveries rather than to ambition, fame, and glory. His distaste for medical politics (which he could afford to ignore thanks to generous trusts set up by private benefactors) left him at a disadvantage later, when powerful forces attacked him. Coupled with the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in purging his papers from medical journals, it is hardly surprising that few have heard of Rife today.

Meanwhile, debate raged between those who had seen viruses changing into different forms beneath Rife’s microscopes, and those who had not. Those who condemned without investigation, such as the influential Dr. Thomas Rivers, claimed these forms didn’t exist. Because his microscope did not reveal them, Rivers argued that there was “no logical basis for belief in this theory.” The same argument is used today in evaluating many other alternative medical treatments; if there is no precedent, then it must not be valid. Nothing can convince a closed mind. Most had never actually looked though the San Diego microscopes…air travel in the 1930’s was uncomfortable, primitive, and rather risky. So, the debate about the life cycle of viruses was resolved in favor of those who never saw it (even modern electron microscopes show frozen images, not the life cycle of viruses in process.)

Nevertheless, many scientists and doctors have since confirmed Rife’s discovery of the cancer virus and its pleomorphic nature, using darkfield techniques, the Naessens microscope, and laboratory experiments. Rife also worked with the top scientists and doctors of his day who also confirmed or endorsed various areas of his work. They included: E.C. Rosenow, Sr. (longtime Chief of Bacteriology, Mayo Clinic); Arthur Kendall (Director, Northwestern Medical School); Dr. George Dock (internationally-renowned); Alvin Foord (famous pathologist); Rufus Klein-Schmidt (President of USC); R.T. Hamer (Superintendent, Paradise Valley Sanitarium; Dr. Milbank Johnson (Director of the Southern California AMA); Whalen Morrison (Chief Surgeon, Santa Fe Railway); George Fischer (Childrens Hospital, N.Y.); Edward Kopps (Metabolic Clinic, La Jolla); Karl Meyer (Hooper Foundation, S.F.); M. Zite (Chicago University); and many others.

This was an excerpt from Dr Conners’ book, Stop Fighting Cancer and Start Treating the Cause.

Free Download Buy the Book

via News – – Conners Clinic