Understanding Vibrational Frequency: Cracking the Sound Code

We’ve all heard about vibrational medicine and the internet is full of sound videos that claim they play a frequency that will heal you if you listen to it. Then there are the energy entrepreneurs, a new breed of salesman who pedals products (lamps, light pads, zappers, mysterious boxes that sit on your countertop and other fine doodads) with claims of healing powers that make snake oil seem potent by comparison.

But interestingly enough, in the realm of particle physics at least some of these claims are possible. Here is a link to an article about researchers at Arizona State University who are trying to find the correct vibrational frequency to kill a virus. By the same reasoning, it is possible to kill a parasite with a frequency that targets it, but not you. This is called the Terminal Frequency of the parasite. I’ve been doing some research in this area with the intention of finding an alternative to the use of medications in parasite elimination, and I think I’ve finally come up with something.

The complexity (or the simplicity, once you get it right) in using vibrational physics to kill a parasite (this field is also known as particle physics or as I fondly think of it, parasitical physics) lies in isolating the parasite’s correct terminal frequency in the same way a sound frequency can break a wine glass. To understand how this is even possible, we first need to understand Hertz as a unit of measurement of vibration. I’m not going to include a bunch of Cartesian math diagrams because they’re needlessly theoretical. Instead, let’s use something everyone understands: music. Specially, the hertz of middle C on a piano.

Standard units of frequency:

Sound is actually very fast. What is meant by 1 Hertz is that the sound is vibrating at 1 oscillation per second. Think of a piano string vibrating when you play middle C. Middle C vibrates at 261.625565 times per second, so it is said to oscillate at 261.625565 Hz.

  1. MicroHertz (µHz): these are the 4th to 6th decimal places after the 261 in the Hz quantity of middle C (e.g. 261.625565 Hz)
  2. MilliHertz (mHz): these are the 3 decimal places after 1 Hertz (e.g. 261.625 Hz)
  3. Hertz (Hz): 1 Hz is 1 million µHz (e.g. 261 Hz)
  4. KiloHertz (kHz): 1000 Hz (e.g. 0.261 Hz)
  5. MegaHertz: 1000 kHz (e.g. 0.000261 Hz)

They’re each different ways of looking at the same number. We pick the one that best describes the range we’re talking about. Think of this in monetary terms: you wouldn’t use cents to describe what’s in your savings account (at least I hope not) any more than you would use units in the millions to count the change in your pocket. This is why middle C can be expressed 5 different ways but is best expressed in Hertz.

To illustrate this visually, you don’t need to understand math, just size. This is because understanding Hertz doesn’t happen mathematically, it happens when you get the number right. But to appreciate the complexity of getting the number right, you need to understand how big the numbers are.

The Range from 1µHz (microhertz) to 1 kHz (kilohertz)

1 MegaHertz (1 trillion microHertz)

Getting the Frequency Right

Accurately identifying the terminal frequency of a parasite without a muscle testing analysis would be impossible. It would be like guessing the correct number on a 13-digit combination lock. If you simply guessed, taking into consideration all the possible frequencies within the zero to 10 MHz (and disregarding everything over 10 MHz), there are 10 trillion possibilities. Your odds are better for winning the lottery and the problem is, this isn’t a game, it’s your health.

So instead you try going number by number, one at a time. If you had a function generator and turned the dial over each one of those 10 trillion possibilities, at 1-second per possibility, it would take you around 318,000 years to cover each frequency. But to know you’ve selected the correct frequency, you would need to linger on it long enough for it to kill the parasite. Like an opera singer shattering a wine glass with her voice, you would need to expose the parasite to the correct frequency for anywhere between 5 seconds and 1 day. It takes longer because life doesn’t sit still like a wine glass (I even know some people whose wine glass doesn’t sit still very often…) So if you lingered on each of the 10 trillion possible frequencies for 1 day to ensure you’d given it a chance to work, you would need around 27.4 billion years, or a little under twice the age of the universe, which is thought to be 13.8 billion years old.

So going one at a time won’t work… 

What we need is a deciphering key and this is where muscle testing comes in. A muscle testing analysis that cross references the element the parasite feeds off of (it’s how we find the parasite to begin with) with the body’s bioelectric field fluctuations speeds things up significantly. Considering that we get a muscle testing “hit” at roughly every 100 Hz in symmetrical progression, there are roughly 10,000 frequencies within the 0 to 10 MHz range that do test well against any given parasite (each parasite then has it’s own 10,000 possibilities). That’s a lot but not too many. If 1 frequency were identified every minute you could generate a list of 10,000 frequencies in 14 days, if you didn’t mind being muscle tested 12 hours a day.

However, then we’re back to the same question: which of those 10,000 frequencies is the terminal frequency for the parasite (e.g. which one kills it)? And if we linger on each frequency for 1 day you’re still at 27.4 years to see what would kill that one parasite. This isn’t practical.

Ordinarily, one doesn’t reinvent the wheel but instead, uses what others have already come up with. That was my next thought…

The History of Killing Parasites with Sound


You can’t have a conversation about killing parasites using sound frequency without talking about Royal Rife and Hulda Clark. They are the two main historical figures in the field. They both published their data so I was able to check their proposed terminal frequencies against the parasites I was already finding in a muscle testing analysis. For the sake of commonality I was cross-referencing the same periodic element sample that I used to find the parasite to evaluate whether their proposed frequencies appeared effective. e.g. If Silicon (Si) indicates the common roundworm (Mebendazole 100mg) then we should be able to compare Si with the various hertz that Rife and Clarke claim is terminal for the roundworm and get a correlation.


What I found, in short, was that their frequencies didn’t work. Specifically, a muscle testing analysis failed to indicate that a single frequency either of them published would be effective in eliminating a single parasite that I could find. I tried about 20 and then stopped, as data with less than 5% accuracy isn’t worth talking about.

The reason their numbers didn’t work, it turned out, is that every parasite has it’s own unique frequency, and that frequency is further modified once the parasite moves into the host. Specifically, I have found that there appears to be a dynamic interaction between the host’s bioelectric field and the parasite’s bioelectric signature. The terminal frequency changes according to those two variables that by definition will be different in every new case (always a different host and/or always a different parasite).

If 10 people have the common roundworm, they can all have a different element toxicity, which can vary from one host to the next based on which bacterial overgrowth they have (metal toxicity always indicates bacterial overgrowth) but they will all test for the same parasite medication (100 mg of mebendazole, for example), so the parasite medication is our common frame of reference. However all 10 hosts and all 10 parasites will have their own unique sound frequencies, so the terminal frequency for the common roundworm will have to be unique in each new instance.

It’s too bad that neither Rife nor Clarke figured this out because it might have allowed them to understand that they shouldn’t have been claiming specific frequencies would work on everyone but instead, that a unique frequency had to be identified in every new case. This would at least have made their results more credible and repeatable, and allowed their work to receive more global recognition instead of ending up as the pet project of conspiracy theorists or a cautionary tale which has been their respective fates.

But those are the pitfalls of experimenting in biophysics (which is essentially particle physics plus biology) without relying on a muscle testing analysis to ensure accurate results.


We need muscle testing to ensure we’re gathering data that is specific to the person being tested. What works for one person may not work for another. This is indicated in each person’s muscular response to fluctuations in their own bioelectric field, which can in turn be accurately interpreted by an experienced practitioner (e.g. that’s what a muscle test is).

So if your correct frequency is identified for your specific parasite, theoretically sound can kill it in the same way an opera singer breaks a wine glass. If that potential comes to pass, and can be implemented on a widespread level it will make anti-parasite medications unnecessary and revolutionize how we understand and relate to illness.

If you want to see a cool video about how this works, check out this recording of Royal Rife isolating the terminal frequency for a paramecium bacteria. This would be easy if the parasite in your pineal gland would crawl out of your brain and slide under the microscope you keep next to your function generator, but since that’s not going to happen, identifying the terminal frequency for an internal parasite is exponentially more complex.

The Benefit of Replacing Parasite Medicines

If sound frequencies can be used to replace antiparasitic medications, it will solve a number of problems that currently exist with parasite medications:

Cons of Parasite Medication

  1. Parasites are difficult for labs to find, so the assignment of a prescription is difficult for your Doctor to legally justify.
  2. Medications can be expensive: anywhere from $50 to $5000 or more, depending on what the medicine is.
  3. Medications aren’t always regionally available. For example Mebendazole treats roundworm and Albendazole treats hookworm. Mebendazole is for sale in Canada but not the USA, Albendazole is available in the USA but not Canada so Canadians can’t get rid of hookworm and Americans can’t get rid of roundworm. This is an example of how the innocent public has to suffer because of what appears to be drug company politics.
  4. Medications sometimes take a month or more to order.
  5. Medications all cause side-effects to some degree or other.
  6. Medications can sometimes give rise to other health concerns.
  7. Medications often require that time be taken off work.
  8. Medications are contraindicated during pregnancy.
  9. Medications at some doses are contraindicated for children or seniors.
  10. Medications sometimes need to be taken for months, whereas sound frequencies can sometimes work within hours.

Pros of Using Sound Frequency

  1. Frequency therapy is more or less free (there are smartphone APPs to play the right sound once you know what that sound needs to be).
  2. Frequency therapy causes only a fraction of the side effects of medication. Any side effect you do feel will be parasite die-off only.
  3. There is no wait-time to start treatment.
  4. There are no health concerns with playing a sound.
  5. Frequency therapy can be used during pregnancy – it won’t hurt the mother or the baby any more than listening to music would.
  6. Frequency therapy is safe for infants and the elderly.
  7. Frequency therapy won’t interfere with any other medication you’re on.
  8. Frequency therapy can be done during cancer therapy without concern for minimizing the effectiveness of the cancer treatment.
  9. Frequency therapy can work in hours as opposed to the days or months antiparasitic medicines take to work.

There is no question that if the terminal frequency for a parasite can be identified, frequency therapy is infinitely preferable to taking a medication.  The challenge is accuracy: can the correct terminal frequency indeed be identified?

I was waiting to publish this article until I had conclusive data on the matter and that time is now: I have been repeatedly successful at eliminating parasites with sound. And to reiterate, while Royal Rife’s and Hulda Clark’s experiments were the inspiration for my looking into this field, I wasn’t able to repeat a single one of their results and had to reinvented the wheel. Having done so, I can see that they went astray in several different areas, but their main misconception lay in assuming different parasites and different people would all benefit from the same terminal frequency.


What I have arrived at was figured out independently by using a muscle testing analysis, cross referenced with the same periodic element sample that was being used to find the correct dosage of parasite medication. So for those of you who are interested in the science of sound therapy, you should understand that the elements are the key to finding both the dosage of medication and the sound frequency. To repeat my results you will need to have a mini-periodic table, this can’t be done by thinking about it or guessing.

Having now arrived at this understanding, I’m ready to start having a dialogue with my readers about the issue, and with some of the people who consult with me on their parasite problems.


The summary of how this works is as follows:

  1. A parasite can be identified by muscle testing for a heavy metal (pure element) toxicity.
  2. Once the element is isolated, it can be used for multiple purposes. The main three are below. The element…

Purpose 1: should be cross-referenced with a prescription antiparasitic medicine so there is a common frame of reference as to which parasite is under observation.
Purpose 2: should be used in conjunction with a function generator and the host’s bioelectric field to identify a frequency that may be the terminal frequency for the parasite.
Purpose 3: can, if you want, be detoxed by chelation, but while that may minimize some of your symptoms, it will fail to address the bacteria that are making the element stick to you, and those bacteria are coming from a parasite you don’t know you have, so this is a reminder that metal detox is only effective on the symptoms, not the cause.

We can layer the data as follows, and we now have two options for eliminating the parasite, instead of one: 


This overview still doesn’t intrinsically provide a solution for the 10 trillion possibility problem. Based on the occurrence of a positive muscle testing response every 100 Hz, a muscle testing analysis will still only reduce the 10 trillion possibilities to 10,000 options for any one parasite. That’s still too many. And even the 100 Hz interval may not be accurate, it’s probably closer to a 1 Hz interval. The real question is this: which, of all the possibilities that a muscle testing analysis indicates is the correct frequency, is the most correct frequency? e.g. Of all the correct answers, which is the most efficient?

And then the next questions follow: how long do you need this exposure for? At what volume? Does it have to be direct or indirect exposure? Can it be electric exposure or does the frequency need to be transmitted into a sound, and played on a speaker? If so which kind of speaker? Do earbuds work? I’ve worked all these variables out.

Sound works better than electricity. Good quality speakers work better than cheap ones. Direct exposure, not indirect. Earbuds do not work – hearing the sound isn’t the issue, the sound waves need to be directed at your body. So far I’ve identified frequency ranges that work in less than 10 hours of exposure. Theoretically that should be further reducible to 1 hour, then 10 minutes, then 10 seconds. The moment of death for the parasite only takes 1 second. Given time, these details will become apparent. It was Rife’s and Clark’s claims that their terminal frequencies worked in less than 10 minutes, and who knows? Maybe they both did it. The problem is that even if they both did it, and even if I publish the frequency range that I’ve found to be successful, can you the reader repeat these results?

My feedback is that to do so, in addition to assembling $10,000 of equipment (periodic table set, pharmacology testing kit, function generator, etc), you’d need to be very comfortable in each of the following fields:

  1. Particle physics (parasitical physics)
  2. Organic Chemistry
  3. Organ Physiology
  4. Parasite Microbiology
  5. Pharmacology
  6. Molecular Nutrition
  7. and of course, Muscle Testing

And the fact is most people, even specialists aren’t comfortable in more than 2 of them, let alone all of them. But in general, my readers have enough grounding in each field to grasp the outline and I hope this summary helps to clarify what is under discussion.

Defining terminal frequency for a parasite is not impossible but to reproduce my results would require fluency in the above fields.

I’m not suggesting what I’ve outlined here is easy, and depending on your experience in the above fields, it may not be a realistic do-it-yourself project.

But I want you to realize that it is possible. There are terminal frequencies for each parasite and if you can find them and use them, you won’t need parasite medications anymore.

This changes things.

Convenience Links:

One thought on “Understanding Vibrational Frequency: Cracking the Sound Code

  1. Wow LC, excellent advanced use of the muscle testing! Just a thought, once you get to the 10K frequency options, you could “batch test” them to rapidly reduce the options. For example, you could identify half of the frequency set and test for whether the particular frequency, for the particular parasite, in the particular person (and adjusting the test for any other relevant factors) was in that half of the frequency set. If not, you move to the second half and verify. You can continue this deductive process by halves and arrive at a specific result in about 15 steps (with some cross checking of course). You can then check that frequency with the specific patient, just to be certain, and arrive at a distinct frequency in minutes. Granted, you may need to subdivide further for even greater specificity, but the deductive use of muscle testing in this fashion in extremely large lists of options has worked well for me over the last 15 years. Another factor to consider is whether the individual client “needs” the terminal frequency, or if they can benefit more fully (and thus prompt the body to eliminate the parasite on its own or with nutritional/medicinal help) from a stimulative frequency for the entire body. These stimulative frequencies tend to be easier to identify as they often are wishing the range of human hearing, or just outside. That reduction alone eliminates millions of frequency options, and potentially offers additional benefit to the client. Just some initial thoughts to consider. You are doing the heavy lifting of deep muscle testing application, an I really commend you for it. There aren’t too many of us out there pushing the boundaries on the science. Keep up the great work!

Leave a Comment