Talk:Royal Rife

message: The article states that "Rife's claims about his beam ray could not be independently replicated, and were discredited by independent researchers during the 1950s.[7][8]" 
Neither of the two sources cited seem to mention any attempts to replicate the alleged findings, or these "independent researchers in the 1950s".  This statement in one form or another has appeared in the article since at least https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Rife&oldid=273211790 , and I've looked through the article history a bit but haven't managed to find any reference given for it that actually, y'know, refers to it.  Where is this claim coming from?  
The mention of "the 1950s" might relate to the State of California Public Health Department hearing in 1958, which led to the devices being banned from the market.  (I've only been able to find unreliable sources for that, too).  Apparently that did involve investigation by independent labs, so it might be what the statement about "independent researchers during the 1950s" refers to.  But if so, there's no mention of it in the article.
Anyone got a proper source for this claim, please? If not, maybe it should come out. It may be true, but usual Wikipedia rules are that you can't have things you don't have references for.  (Last time I put a "citation needed" on this,  took it off again and said to post on the talk page and ping them.  So here you are, Valjean, and I'm sorry I didn't see the message before  :-D ) Wombat140 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. I have totally reworked the content from both sources and gotten rid of that old wording. The matter is covered quite well elsewhere in the article, so that wording is unnecessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, good job! I also added a direct citation for the Electronics Australia article (it was available on archive.org), not sure if I did it right or not.  Wombat140 (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any source for the statement that it didn't replicate? 

message: There are a few other articles that it might make sense to have in "See also", now that there are solid references for what, exactly, Rife claimed to be doing.  Medical applications of radio frequency, Electrotherapy (as it is or as Electrotherapy#History), and/or Pulsed radiofrequency#Therapeutic_uses might make sense.  Mind you, as the article currently stands, Electrotherapy or Electrotherapy#History might not be justified - there were, in fact, contact high-frequency current devices based on Rife's work being used quite early on, 1950s, but I'm not sure I have a Wikipedia-type reference for that at the moment!  :-D  And the later devices might come under Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine), which is already there, rather than Electrotherapy or Electrotherapy#History.  Wombat140 (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuck them in.  And removed "Ruth B. Drown" as there seems to be nothing linking her and Rife except that she made vague mentions of the word "radio" (in a way that gave the impression that she didn't know what it meant) - she seems to have been more in the radionics line, distance healing by sympathy and what not.  Wombat140 (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories and see-alsos 

message: Bibliography section is empty. Either remove the heading, or if the heading has to remain, remove the spurious "=" Thanks 76.14.122.5 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022 

message: advancements in RF radiation research show biological interactions beyond thermal effects. For example, the FDA-approved TheraBionic treatment, which employs RF radiation at power levels up to 1000 times lower than those emitted by cell phones, effectively treats inoperable liver cancer through non-thermal interactions at the cellular or molecular level. This includes resonance effects, disruption of cellular signaling, and potential modulation of the immune system. This challenges the traditional view that non-ionizing radiation is biologically inert except for its heating properties. 35.140.28.63 (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, what it actually has is a Humanitarian Device Exemption, which doesn't require proof of effectiveness.  Still, interesting, and unlike some things that have been mentioned on this page this is obviously along the Rife machine lines, though it doesn't use those words.  It seems like, there are a few articles from respectable-looking medical news sites mentioning pilot studies with this thing showing some benefit and no side effects - e.g. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210730/Study-shows-safety-and-efficacy-of-radio-wave-therapy-for-liver-cancer-patients.aspx https://www.thelancet.com/article/S2352-3964(19)30342-1/fulltext https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-07-radio-wave-therapy-safe-liver-cancer.html - but I'm not sure whether that's considered 'notable' enough to put a brief mention of in this article, perhaps as something like 'ongoing research' - I know Wikipedia has particularly strict rules about what's 'established' enough to mention about medical research.  Would this be considered 'notable', does anyone here think?  Wombat140 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA-approved TheraBionic treatment