Frequency Lists

What exactly is a frequency list?

In the broadest sense, a frequency list is a collection of frequencies that different researchers, therapists, device manufacturers, or user communities have associated with specific microorganisms, tissues, organs, symptoms, or other biological targets. Some lists contain one or a few frequencies, while others list longer sequences for each individual entry.

This is the first important distinction: a frequency alone does not constitute a complete therapy. The biological effect of an electrical or electromagnetic stimulus may also depend on its intensity, waveform, polarity, modulation, duty cycle, carrier wave, duration, field orientation, electrode placement and the properties of the tissue.

This is not limited to alternative devices. Modern bioelectromagnetic research also finds that the electrical properties of tissues vary with frequency. In Tumor Treating Fields, for example, the choice of an approximately 100–300 kHz range is part of the treatment mechanism. That does not validate any particular historical frequency list, but it does show that frequency is an important biological parameter.

Do cells and organisms have their own “frequency signature”?

In the history of frequency therapy, the idea often appears that cells, microorganisms, and larger organisms have characteristic oscillatory or resonant properties. Lakhovsky described the cell as an oscillating system, Rife spoke of the frequency selectivity of microorganisms, and Hulda Clark used her own frequency ranges for different substances and organisms.

This idea has strongly influenced the development of frequency lists. However, it is best to explain it somewhat more precisely. Modern biophysics confirms that cells and tissues have frequency-dependent electrical, dielectric, and impedance properties. Different membranes, fluids, and cellular structures respond differently to an electric field at different frequencies.

It would be an oversimplification to claim that every animal species has a single unchanging ‘identification frequency’, or that only one frequency remains after an organism dies. Such a model appears in some historical and bioresonance literature, but it is not a standard explanation in modern electrophysiology.

What about the well-known ranges for fungi, bacteria, viruses, and parasites?

Literature associated mainly with Hulda Clark and later frequency collections includes ranges in which frequencies for different groups of organisms were reportedly detected or used. These data are important for understanding the development of frequency therapy and some current databases, but we should not present them as a generally accepted microbiological classification.

The same applies to historical mentions of Rife's “BX” organism or its connection to cancer. This is an important part of Rife's research story, but his explanation of a universal cancer cause is not accepted in oncology today. Frequency lists are therefore most useful when we preserve not only the number but also the source, historical context, and the way the frequency was obtained.

From Rife's MOR to Hulda Clark: two very different paths to frequencies

Royal Raymond Rife and Mortal Oscillatory Rate

Royal Raymond Rife introduced one of the most recognizable concepts in frequency therapy history: Mortal Oscillatory Rate (MOR). In Rife's tradition, it referred to a frequency or a combination of electromagnetic parameters at which a specific microorganism would show a distinct response.

It is important to recognize that there is no single definitive table of ‘original Rife frequencies’ today. His devices, carrier frequencies, modulation and recording methods changed over different periods of his work. Accordingly, Electroherbalism describes the values in its Rife MORs collection cautiously as frequencies believed to originate from different periods of Rife’s work.

Hulda Clark: from individual ranges to the general 30 kHz zapper

Hulda Regehr Clark (1928–2009) strongly popularized the idea in the 1990s that different organisms and substances can be associated with specific frequency ranges. Her original frequencies were often significantly higher than the classical audio range and appear in collections also in converted forms.

At the same time, Clark popularized a simple zapper operating at approximately 30 kHz and the familiar 7–20–7–20–7 timing protocol: three seven-minute sessions separated by two twenty-minute breaks. This general protocol became so widespread that it is often confused with the concept of targeted frequencies.

These are two distinct concepts. The 30 kHz setting belongs to Clark’s general zapper approach, whereas her individual frequencies and ranges form a more targeted collection. Clark’s broad health claims have not been clinically validated to modern medical standards, but her influence on the development of home zappers and frequency lists is undeniable.

How did large frequency lists come about?

In the pre-internet era, frequencies spread through books, technical notes, private collections, and researcher groups. In the 1990s, however, online forums and so-called Rife list servers allowed users to start sharing their own frequency sequences and experiences with each other.

Exactly from this environment arose two collections that strongly marked the modern frequency community: NCFL and CAFL. Electroherbalism explains that NCFL was composed earlier as a collection of separate frequency lists from various sources. At the end of the 90s, they then tried to combine these lists and user contributions into one large collection – thus CAFL was born.

This explains one of the most important characteristics of CAFL: under one problem there can be a very large number of frequencies. The list was not created so that one laboratory would determine a single final value for each diagnosis. It was created as a consolidation of various sources, among which are historical frequencies, device frequencies, empirical values and later user contributions.

Why does the same frequency appear in many different entries?

In large consolidated lists, certain values – for example 20, 727/728, 784/787, 800, 880, 1550 or 10000 Hz – appear very frequently. This is partly due to the history of these databases: certain “general” frequencies have been used by different users and systems in many programs, so they have appeared in a large number of entries over the years.

CAFL XREF nicely shows this with a reverse view: instead of searching for a problem and getting frequencies, you search for a frequency and get all the entries in which it appears.

The most important frequency lists and collections

Today there are many different lists. Some overlap with each other, while others are intended for completely different devices or methods of use. It makes the most sense to understand them according to their origin and purpose.

CAFL – Consolidated Annotated Frequency List

CAFL is probably one of the best-known publicly available frequency collections. Its greatest strength is its scope: it brings together frequencies from many sources and preserves alternative sequences for the same entry. The drawback is that a user may face a very long list without knowing which values are original, later additions or solely empirical.

Electroherbalism describes CAFL as a “master list”, but at the same time clearly warns that in the past, data of questionable quality were also included. Therefore, CAFL is an excellent research and comparative collection, but it is not meaningful to automatically understand each entry as a clinically validated protocol.

NCFL – Non-Consolidated Frequency List

NCFL is particularly interesting for researching the source of data. We find Rife MOR values, historical lists, empirical muscle frequencies, mineral and metal frequencies, Clark values converted into the audio range, musical notes, and old “codes” of some generators in it.

Exactly for this reason, NCFL is less uniform, but historically very valuable. Sometimes it tells us more about where a frequency came from than a consolidated list, where multiple sources are combined under one entry.

AFCAFL – All-Frequencies CAFL

AFCAFL is an extended version of CAFL contributed by Roger Archibald. It is explicitly marked on Electroherbalism as experimental. It includes numerous additions and changes compared to the classical CAFL and is interesting for researchers, but it is not equivalent to a verified clinical data collection.

Rife MORs

The Rife MORs collection attempts to compare the values attributed to Rife's work in different periods, along with later Crane's and some modern values. It is particularly useful because it shows how strongly numbers can differ according to the time period and the technical design of the device.

Hulda Clark Frequencies

Clark's frequencies are a special system. Much of the original values are in the range of tens or hundreds of kHz. Since many older generators were unable to directly create this range, various methods of conversion to a lower range were developed. Electroherbalism, for example, has a collection of Clark's frequencies converted using so-called scalar-octave method.

TrueRife Frequency Files

Electroherbalism also publishes TrueRife files prepared by Michael Tigchelaar for use with specific functional generators and EMEM-type devices. This is a good example of why we always check the frequency list to see for which hardware equipment it was prepared.

Van Gelder Frequencies

Van Gelder frequency lists are associated with the history of dual-channel frequency-specific microcurrent therapy (FSM). They often separate a frequency for a condition and a frequency for tissue. This is not the same logic as with CAFL or ETDFL, and numbers are not meaningfully transferable between systems without critical evaluation.

Bruce Stenulson – Normalizing and Stimulating Frequencies

Bruce Stenulson collected and published so-called normalizing and stimulating frequencies, as well as numerous user experiences. These also primarily belong to the historical and experimental part of the field and are useful as additional references, not as universal standards.

Musical notes, brainwaves and other special lists

Frequencies of musical notes, binaural or brainwave rhythms, solfeggio frequencies, chakras and similar collections have a completely different origin than pathogenic frequency lists. They can be interesting for relaxation, sound, meditative approaches or research into nervous system rhythms, but they should not be automatically mixed with Rife MOR, CAFL or ETDFL.

ETDFL – Electro Therapy Device Frequency List

At frequency-therapy-healing.com, we most frequently use ETDFL for targeted frequency programs. The reason is primarily practical: the list is uniformly structured, sorted by medical terms, each entry contains a clearly defined frequency sequence, and the collection is regularly updated.

ETDFL states on its website that the project has been ongoing since 2006, that it involves 12 international bioresonance clinics, that the list is usually updated annually, and that it is used by more than 100,000 users of Rife devices. The current website offers ETDFL in 12 languages and allows searching through PDF or other digital versions.

How was ETDFL created?

Older ETDFL documentation explains that the project developed from CAFL or as a further refinement and adaptation of earlier lists for digital electrotherapy devices. Over the years, entries have been revised, duplicate terms removed, new entries added, and frequencies recorded with greater accuracy.

In ETDFL versions, frequencies are written in kHz or Hz. This is extremely important. In CAFL and NCFL, values are usually written in Hz, unless otherwise stated. When transferring numbers between lists, the user must therefore always first check the unit.

Of course, above all, with programmable zappers we can use frequencies from any frequency lists. Indeed, it often makes sense to use another source – for example, original Rife values, Clark frequencies, spine frequencies, solfeggio or other special systems.

Harmonics: why the fundamental frequency is sometimes not the whole story

A harmonic in physics and electronics is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency. If the fundamental frequency is 1,000 Hz, the 2nd harmonic is 2,000 Hz, the 3rd harmonic is 3,000 Hz, and the 11th harmonic is 11,000 Hz.

Harmonics also matter because some waveforms generate them naturally. An ideal sine wave contains mainly one fundamental frequency, while a square wave contains a series of higher, predominantly odd harmonics. Two devices displaying the same fundamental frequency therefore need not produce identical spectra if their waveforms differ.

Anthony Holland and 11th harmonic

In the modern Rife community, Anthony Holland has received much attention for his research into combinations of fundamental and higher frequencies during laboratory experiments. His work popularized the use of the 11th harmonic or ratio, in which the second used frequency is eleven times the fundamental frequency.

Holland and James Bare published a preprint in 2023 about pulsed electric fields in the range of approximately 156–162 kHz and the inhibition of growth of cells of acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Why does the same frequency list not work equally on every device?

One of the most common mistakes when working with frequency lists is the belief that only the number is sufficient. In reality, frequency is only one of the parameters of an electric or electromagnetic signal.

Contact generator

In contact devices, the signal is delivered through electrodes on the skin. Important factors include voltage, current, skin contact, polarity, waveform, and frequency. Two contact devices can produce quite different signals at the same frequency.

Plasma or EMEM system

Plasma devices use electromagnetic transmission and often a carrier wave. Historical frequencies developed for such a system are therefore not necessarily directly equivalent to the frequency we send without a carrier through contact electrodes.

Pulsed electromagnetic field

In PEMF and related systems, the shape of the magnetic pulse, field strength, repetition frequency, and coil geometry are important. This approach is technically different from a contact zapper or plasma tube.

Hz, kHz and MHz

• 1 kHz = 1,000 Hz
• 1 MHz = 1,000 kHz = 1,000,000 Hz
• 30 kHz = 30,000 Hz
• 728 Hz = 0.728 kHz
• 728 kHz = 728,000 Hz

The error in units can be larger than all other differences between lists combined. Therefore, a good frequency database must always clearly state in which units the values are written.

Which frequency list to choose?

There is no single frequency list that is best for all purposes. It makes more sense to choose a list based on the question we want to solve and the device we are using.

Five questions before using any frequency

• Where does it come from? Rife, Clark, CAFL, ETDFL, Van Gelder, user report or another source?
• In which unit is it written? Hz, kHz, or MHz?
• Which device was it intended for? A contact device, plasma device, carrier-wave system, PEMF device or something else?
• Is this the fundamental frequency or a converted value? Harmonics, octaves, modulation, and conversion are not the same thing.
• What is the level of evidence? Historical record, empirical experience, laboratory experiment, or clinically validated medical use?

Why doesn't FTH use all lists at once?

Because doing so would lose exactly what a frequency list is supposed to bring: clarity. If we combined CAFL, NCFL, Rife, Clark, ETDFL, Van Gelder and all user collections for every topic without distinction, we would often get tens or hundreds of frequencies without clear priority.

For most targeted frequency programmes on frequency-therapy-healing.com, we therefore use ETDFL as our main reference. We include other lists when there is a specific historical, technical or practical reason to do so. For distinct systems, such as solfeggio frequencies, brainwave rhythms or spinal frequencies, a relevant specialist source is appropriate.

Continue your research

Frequency lists are most useful when considered alongside their history and the way a particular device works. If you are interested in the development of Rife’s MORs, Lakhovsky’s ideas, Beck’s approach, Clark’s zapper and modern electromagnetic therapies, see our historical overview.