Archive for January, 2012

Frequency Foundation 
had its debut launch with its first post back in April 2002 with almost weekly articles ranging from patches that stimulate energy in the weakest parts of your body to multivitamins, the risk of vaccination or of going to hospital, autism causes and even the reversal of aging.

A number of articles and blogs produced by Frequency Foundation refer to “frequencies” that can be used to solve a multitude of ailments ranging from influenza, measles, borne virus, mental illness and even the cancer “germ”. Mercury or fluoride can be eliminated, your hypothalamus can be stimulated or you could even affect bacteria in your stomach associated with the generation of fat. 

Each time these ailments and risks are described visitors are also provided with the opportunity to purchase a frequency for $10US. Alternatively visitors can purchase a $110 subscription to the Frequency Foundation.

These purchased frequencies are provided in PDF which can be re-generated on specific machines. For a more detailed understanding of how the technical elements fit together to “improve the effectiveness of frequency transmission” the “New ABPA Summer Sale” from June 23 2007 goes into considerably more detail.

On March 28 2010 the site moved where similar styles of articles were often output. Frequencies were no longer available for individual purchase but subscribers still had access to changes. In addition the new website provides service of Photo Analysis and ABPA/SC1 Transmission for $200. More detail on what this sort of service is can be found at http://frequencyfoundation.com/forms/PhotoAnalysis.pdf.

Royal Rife and how it is linked to Frequency Foundation

Even in these early days Frequency Foundation was careful to ensure that they had themselves covered with disclaimers:

What you see here may or may not be useful, helpful, or harmful and much of it will not be approved by the FDA. This is a research site and any information is for other researchers to use at their own risk. Consult with your physician for medical advice.

The hint to why such a disclaimer exists is likely due to the association with the technology and theories being used to create/generate these frequencies. The Photo Analysis PDF goes into more detail of this:

Royal Rife identified frequencies for eliminating pathogens using a high powered microscope that could examine living organisms with higher resolution than most microscopes available today. He could directly see frequencies killing pathogens and noticed that exact frequencies were required to generate the effect.

Many people need help identifying pathogen frequencies since Rife’s technology for visualizing living organism is not readily available. Frequency Foundation helps identify these frequencies for a specific individual by analysis of high resolution digital photos.

The Frequency Foundation uses advanced technology originally developed by the Department of Defense for broadcasting the same frequencies remotely using ultra-low frequency bands similar to those used to communicate through the earth to submarines.

Looking at Royal Rife on Wikipedia reveals a different perspective on Royal Rife’s work:

Royal Raymond Rife (May 16, 1888 – August 5, 1971) was an American nventor and early exponent of high-magnification time-lapse cine-micrography. In the 1930s, he claimed that by using a specially designed optical microscope he could observe a number of microbes which were too small to visualize with previously existing technology.Rife also reported that a “beam ray” device of his invention could weaken or destroy the pathogens by energetically exciting destructive resonances in their constituent chemicals.

Rife’s claims could not be independently replicated, and were ultimately discredited by the medical profession in the 1950s. Rife blamed the scientific rejection of his claims on a conspiracy involving the American Medical Association, the Department of Public Health, and other elements of “organized medicine”, which had “brainwashed” potential supporters of his devices.

Wikipedia continues later:

Interest in Rife was revived in the 1980s by author Barry Lynes, who wrote a book about Rife entitled The Cancer Cure That Worked. The book claimed that Rife’s beam ray device could cure cancer, but that all mention of his discoveries was suppressed in the 1930s by a wide-ranging conspiracy headed by the American Medical Association. The American Cancer Society described Lynes’ claims as implausible, noting that the book was written “in a style typical of conspiratorial theorists” and defied any independent verification.

In response to this renewed interest, devices bearing Rife’s name began to be produced and marketed in the 1980s. Such “Rife devices” have figured prominently in a number of cases of health fraud in the U.S., typically centered around the uselessness of the devices and the grandiose claims with which they are marketed. In a 1996 case, the marketers of a “Rife device” claiming to cure numerous diseases including cancer and AIDS were convicted of felony health fraud.The sentencing judge described them as “target[ing] the most vulnerable people, including those suffering from terminal disease” and providing false hope.In 2002 John Bryon Krueger, who operated the “Royal Rife Research Society,” was sentenced to 12 years in prison for his role in a murder and also received a concurrent 30-month sentence for illegally selling Rife devices. In 2009 a U.S. court convicted James Folsom of 26 felony counts for sale of the Rife devices sold as “NatureTronics,” “AstroPulse,” “BioSolutions,” “Energy Wellness,” and “Global Wellness.”

Several deaths have resulted from the use of Rife machines in place of standard medical treatment. In one case, a U.S. court found that the marketer of a Rife device had violated the law and that, as a result of her actions, a cancer patient had ceased chemotherapy and died.In Australia, the use of Rife machines has been blamed for the deaths of cancer patients who might have been cured with conventional therapy.

In 1994, the American Cancer Society reported that Rife machines were being sold in a “pyramid-like, multilevel marketing scheme”. A key component in the marketing of Rife devices has been the claim, initially put forward by Rife himself, that the devices were being suppressed by an establishment conspiracy against cancer “cures”.Although “Rife devices” are not registered by the U.S Food and Drug Administration and have been linked to deaths among cancer sufferers, the Seattle Times reported that over 300 people attended the 2006 Rife International Health Conference in Seattle, where dozens of unregistered devices were sold.

The long winded linkage to Agile

All of the blog entries, both in the old and in the new site, of the Frequency Foundation are done by a single person. This person is an original signatory and co-creator of the Agile Manifesto; the co-founder of the Agile method with 75% of the market share – Scrum. This person is none other than Jeff Sutherland.

Confirming a direct association is not difficult with the Frequency Foundation organisation directly re-routing mail to the Scrum Training Institute at 32 Appleton Street, Somerville, MA. Whois domain registration confirms this again.

Consent forms, submarines and photos

Delving further into some of the information and forms reveals some interesting insights into the quality of such frequency services. The consent form has some particularly interesting statements including:

Because of the lack of FDA or other federal or state government approval of tests, procedures or information provided, I understand that results can only be accepted for their entertainment value.

and “I am here”…

not as a government employee or agent of any type on a mission of entrapment or investigation.

Furthermore, there are references to the technology being used being similar to what submarines used to communicate through the Earth. If you look further into submarine communication the method that is being eluded to is Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Transmissions which has two bases connected together at a distance of 50 kilometers with their own power source. Due to the complexities of such sites only two actually existed in the world and with the US version now decommissioned the likelihood of such technology actually being used by Frequency Foundation is incredibly implausible (unless they are using the Russian one).

Most of the Frequency Foundation work seems to be based upon research done with microscopes and yet they ask for photo’s to be sent through to allow for remote analysis. Requirements for the photos are equally enlightening:

Take the photos with a tripod, as it doubles the resolution of the image.

Effectiveness is also directly related to the size of the file containing the photo. If you camera will generate a 2MB JPG file, that is 4 times as good as a 500k JPG.

A second digital photo of the whole body from head to toe is critical. If any of your body is out of the photo, pathogens will migrate to that area.

There is no denying, such use of a service can only be considered “entertainment” and at $200US that is a fairly costly form of entertainment.

The blog author’s personal opinion and unanswered questions

Personally I am confused as to why Jeff Sutherland has actually gone to some lengths to separate the two of these organisations. Even his linked in profile has no mention of Frequency Foundation. Is it a concern to him that his relationship with radionics and Royal Rife would impact on his reputation within the Agile community?

I have found only one single person (on multiple sites) who has extolled the virtues of Frequency Foundation. The organisation itself provides no direct references to substantiated scientifically confirmed results – even confirmed in writing if you look at the 6th point on the consent form.

The organisation is still selling Photo Analysis and ABPA Transmissions.

This is not a post to extol or demerit the virtues of Scrum, but if it’s founder is caught up in an environment that denies scientific tests, that is concerned by agents investigating him and has limited technical depth in simplistic things such as photo resolutions then what does that mean for the Scrum community?

I do understand that science theories such as Evolution were discredited by the mainstream population and even officially by the US government for a portion of time but we are talking about a science community that has recently tested and debunked this theory. A theory that has reached the courts and lost several times.

The believer in this theory, Jeff Sutherland, is still trying to sell his $200US solution to anyone desperate for an answer.

Are we being led by a knowledge founder that doesn’t believe in metrics; a leader that doesn’t stop when faced with facts? Does this call into question why Scrum is so slow to adopt change and new concepts?

Are we being led by a knowledge founder that peddles $200US entertainment solutions. Where does “working software” (solutions) fit in here?

How does this fit against the Scrum community’s ethic of openness? How does this fit against “We would rather say, ‘no,’ then make false promises.”

Are there any relationships between Scrum’s method of training and Frequency Foundation?

Is there any link to the Frequency Foundation and the split of  the Scrum Alliance and Scrum.org?

If you feel inclined please leave a response on your thoughts to these questions.

Author’s disclaimer

Opinions presented within this blog represent only the author and not the organisations that they currently or have ever worked for. The opinion of The Agile Revolution is represented within their podcast. 

The author doesn’t mind if you represent the FDA, a government authority, an agent, if you are on a mission or if you found it entertaining (for free).

Read Full Post »

The Smithsonian is the world’s largest museum and research complex with hundreds of affiliated museums.

The Stoosonian is much the same but switch up museum with people and thought leaders. It could be the collective noun for people focussed on building such a network focussed on leadership in the same guise that the Agile Alliance crowd marketed the Agile Manifesto.

If you haven’t heard of Stoos then you might have been on holidays and not reading or following the twitter streams in the Agile community. In just one week I heard about it from three separate sources so the community is certainly abuzz. And I hope rightly so.

So what is Stoos? Take a look at their opening statement at http://www.stoosnetwork.org

Reflecting on leadership in organizations today, we find ourselves in a bit of a mess. We see reliance on linear, mechanistic thinking, companies focusing more on stock price than delighting customers, and knowledge workers whose voices are ignored by the bosses who direct them. All these factors are reflected in the current economic crisis, increased inequity, bankruptcies and widespread disillusionment.

There has to be a better way.

In January 2012, a diverse group of twenty one people including senior executives, business strategists, managers, academics, and lean/agile development practitioners from four continents, met in Stoos, Switzerland. We believe that we uncovered some of the common characteristics of that better way.

Stoos SwitzerlandFrom the stoos network page there is a myriad of information that can be found from the closed sessions that were held. A good portion of content has started being posted on LinkedIn and on a variety of blogs and other mediums including #stoos on twitter. In fact, the wide variety of mediums does mean you have the traverse around a bit to gleam everything that is being talked about but without a doubt the social stream is incredibly active.

I spent a few nights taking everything in and having a look around. The hype from colleagues lived up to my initial delve and then I began to test the waters on a few questions that I had. My first concern had been the target Stakeholder list. Now let me start that I am highly impressed that the group took the effort to do this list, debate it and then re-evaluate it. But two things jumped out on that list (and a third now that I have received some responses):

  • The C-section (eg CIOs, CEOs, etc) are rated so low (before and after),
  • First line management is non existent (but maybe that is due to deviations in definition of middle management)
  • Shareholders are rated at 0

The reason why I was concerned in particular about the C-section being so low is that every time I have done an Agile transformation within an organisation it absolutely had to have C-section level buy-in. This wasn’t an optional element. It was critical to success. Without C-section level buy-in teams were left to do Agile in stealth. Sure they worked better than before but there was a upper bound of roadblocks that endlessly re-0ccured and never got addressed because there was no organisational focus on being Agile. Culture of the team subtly changed but without C-section buy-in the culture of the organisation would never change.

This is critical to not miss. Agile, to get the benefit, requires cultural transformation. The Leadership problem is no different – in fact it is more often then not Leadership that drives culture. I’m not just talking about first line managers but also middle managers, CIOs and CEOs.

I then did a deep dive at the problem analysis done. The Stoos problem mind mapAgain I want to take a moment and congratulate the Stoos team on the job they did on generating this starting diagram. I would imagine they spent a few hours on this and as a starting map I think it covers most of the key points. To get it past 80/20 right it would have likely taken the whole two days.

If you take a look at the top two (not necessarily by priority) root causes you see shareholders and C-section management as the cause.

So my concern is that without doing something to address those two root causes that all this effort might be in vain.

Side note: would love to see the 5 whys applied to the root causes because they aren’t base root – eg Why are leadership skills missing in today’s managers?

Now I posed the question of C-section being non targeted in the twitter stream and was given a couple of nice links which is great information and a step in the right direction but again isn’t the root cause. The root cause as in the article is lack of education – and who do we need to educate? – the C-section, shareholders, and future to-be C-managers. Which is why I am happy that educators are high on the target audience. So there is hope, but maybe not in my lifetime.

What I love about the Stoos community thus far:

  • They are responsive, they are listening and they have some beautifully deep thinkers in there. A few of the questions that popped up in my mind today whilst I was a road-trip I was amazed to have found others ask and have had answers/responses to.
  • There is an appreciation that the command and control culture is thousands of years old – this is a very deeply embedded behavioural human trait. I am curious if it is neurologically driven somehow.
  • There is an appreciation that we actually have the answers on how to lead – it is just that for some reason it is not disseminating as expected. This is where I think some deep thinking root cause analysis needs to be directed towards.

As a test I asked a friend of mine who leads a team of ten about their leadership.

Do you think you are a leader or a manager?
A little of both. More detail then given.

How do you think your team perceives you – more as a leader or a manager?
Probably a manager.

Why did you go into management as a field?
For the money.

Not because you enjoy working with people?
No. I was smart, it was expected of me to progress that way.

How much time do you spend learning of new leadership and management techniques?
None. I have no time for that sort of stuff. I am too busy. 

So if you weren’t so busy you would spend some time learning how to be a better leader/manager?
Probably not. 

I could have continued going on to find the root cause but at that time my friend was starting to get the picture that I wasn’t playing nicely. Getting honest answers on this is going to be hard but we need to get some broad understanding (ie real metrics lean start-up style) to make sure we are going to make a dent in this massive global problem.

So lastly I want to say thank-you to the Stoos group for having the guts to tackle this and to make a great start on it. I am pleased that the group has such a diverse set of thinkers but would love to see a few other thoughtleaders included in the list – my pick would be someone who represents motivation (eg Dan Pink), someone for crowdscourcing (eg Dan Tapscott) and someone from the field of Neuroscience (to be honest Peter Burrows wouldn’t be so bad as he conceptually understands Agile and more importantly has some interesting team dynamic theories).

Keep it up and don’t take this blog as a big rant of criticism – the good certainly way outweighs the bad.

Read Full Post »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 920 other followers