Agile Forest

Find your path to agility with Renee Troughton

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

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

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).

25 thoughts on “Frequency Foundation and Agile

  1. Agile Scout says:

    WOW… this is certainly interesting indeed. One would wonder…

    Entrepreneurship is fantastic. Trying something out… seeing whether people will buy it or not… if it fails. Try again… or try something different.

    Maybe since the Frequency Foundation didn’t catch hold, it was “on to the next thing.” … maybe that next thing was “Scrum.” And, it did catch hold.

    One could not read this without considering the ideas around “Selling Snake Oil.” At least, I certainly had that thought. Is the assumption of this article to say that this is the case?

    Agile and Transparency. My next blog post.

    1. Jordan says:

      Maybe the old man has a Snake Oil Refinery and just sells the same basic oil with different labels on the package (eg, Scrum, Frequency Sets, etc).

      Lots of folks out there selling various ointments — Kanban, Craftsmanship.

      Whether they contain any actual snake ingredients is anyone’s guess

  2. Mike says:

    So , Renee, what you are saying, without saying it, is that if Jeff Sutherland is a quack in this ELF thing – which as you describe, is clearly quack-like. And if he goes to great lengths to isolate it from his Scrum work , then clearly he has something to hide. Perhaps you are contending that if this stuff is quackery then perhaps Scrum (or at least his participation in it) is also questionable or improbable and perhaps software process quackery.

    If that is what you are saying – then be brave, show real courage and say it.

    Otherwise, butt out of the dude’s private life. I’m sure there are things in your life that don’t add up and perhaps you might not be keen for those to be dragged into your professional life and for questions to be asked.

    Question Scrum, rip its practicality to shreds, choose not to participate in either of the certification pyramid schemes, be genuinely disinterested in the clearly political nonsense of the Scrum Alliance. You know, practical things about the professional. When you delve into other aspects of a person’s life – for which you frankly were not invited to or for which personally you are not involved (you failed to mention whether you actually tried to buy this frequency stuff for personal need – I’m assuming you didnt).

    This is not a defence of Jeff (who I know only in passing ) , nor even of Scrum – it is a defence of an individual’s right to privacy and staunch opposition of what i perceive to be potentially destructive intrusion for no reason beyond being controversial.

    Please tell I’m wrong on any of this – but do it without digging up my past or other stuff I do.

    (you may find that I have a masters in human rights law – would that somehow negate the value I bring to people as a coach?)

    1. Jordan says:

      Jeff has listed his interest in this activity on his LinkedIn page, and is apparently making no particular effort to hide this.

      Jeff is a widely quoted author, and if believes in junk science, then the community deserves to know that.

      This has nothing to do with his sex life or anything else — this has to do with whether his views on management and medicine are trustable, and whether he applies the scientific method to either or neither endeavor.

      1. Tobias Mayer says:

        Software development is not science. And it is not medicine. It is a craft, a trade if you like. You may as well compare llamas to lampshades, after all they both start with L.

      2. Jordan says:

        Ah yes. That explains those “Computer Science” and “Management Science” degrees.

        Making bald unasserted pronouncements is meaningless Tobias. It’s a bad habit you’ve learnt from Jeffries and Sutherland.


    2. Hi Mike,

      Thanks for popping in. I have merely tried to state the facts as they are and deliberately avoid opinion excluding the questions and thoughts that I had when I read through the detail.

      As I mentioned in the post this is not a blog to extol or praise Scrum. I happen to be a fan of Daily Stand-ups and of the concept of inspecting and adapting. But I also happen to see that Scrum doesn’t move with the times and fails to recognise weaknesses inherent within it. I wonder, as mentioned in the blog, if this is symptomatic of a greater personal style.

      Frequency Foundation is not a hidden thing. It is not a personal thing. It is an organisation selling a product. This is out there publicly and is not a private topic so don’t hide behind the “privacy” statement.

      1. Tobias Mayer says:

        > But I also happen to see that Scrum doesn’t move with the times and fails to recognise weaknesses inherent within it.
        Can you cite evidence for this (excuse me) quack theory?

        Renee, Scrum is not a fixed thing, and is not owned by anyone. It is essentially a growing and emerging way of working that adapts from circumstance to circumstance. I consider myself a proponent of Scrum, and I am very far removed from most of Jeff Sutherland’s original ideas — as are many in this community. We inspect, we adapt, and we contextualize Scrum.

        Neither Jeff Sutherland nor Ken Schwaber have set themselves up as gurus, or cult leaders of any kind. That some sycophants choose to place them in such a position is their own folly. You seem to be following suit with this article, but setting Jeff up as a guru in order to knock him down. Shame on you. And how does one write an “exposure”, when there is no evidence of secrecy. Jeff’s just a guy. Did you even discuss this with him first, to find out more about his interest? I see no evidence of that here.

        By the way, I use Chinese Herbal Medicine, and have relied on Homeopathy in the past. You can discredit me now, if you like.

    3. Agile Scout says:


      Always enjoy your candidness about things.
      I may have to somewhat disagree with you here.
      As it pertains to “public figures” and journalism, unfortunately public figures put themselves in a higher position of scrutiny.
      Certainly the president of the USA gets all his dirty laundry dug into.

      Now, the question is: “Is Jeff Sutherland a public figure of trust?”

      If the answer is “Yes,” then what Renee did isn’t out of the ordinary from journalism.

  3. Hi Tobias,

    The Scrum Rulebook is owned by Jeff and Ken. They have set themselves up to be the custodians.

    I never said it was an exposure.

    I never said I don’t believe in New Age medicine either. If you asked me I would say I like Raw food, but do I have any proof – No. Do I try to sell my thoughts on Raw food – No.

    A personal belief is not the same as an organisation that is trying to profit from it.

    1. Agile Scout says:

      Agree with you here. They are leaders/public figures/custodians. +1

      1. Jordan says:

        Yes. The only question is do they quack or not.


  4. Jordan says:

    BTW a must read section of the FF blog:
    “I went home with the virus and infected my wife. The next morning she had intestinal problems. I went home at noon and cured her. I then cleared myself of all viruses every night as soon as I came home to avoid reinfecting her. I still had the problem of sitting in meetings every day with infected people.

    An allday meeting last Tuesday demonstrated clearly the clinical pathway of this flu. As soon as I had symptoms (runny nose, chest constriction, or sneezing), I left the meeting, detected the frequency, cleared it from my system and went back into the meeting. By the end of the day, I had this frequency set. ” — Dr Jeff Sutherland, PhD

    Note the dateline — around the same time when Scrum went big.

    I assume the bald, unsupported, grandiose statements in the quote speak for themselves.


  5. Tobias Mayer says:

    @Jordan, computer science and software development/product development are two completely different fields. Scrum was originally designed for the latter.

    Management science is utter nonsense, and largely discredited.

    1. Jordan says:

      Yes, Scrum was designed by a verifiable eccentric apparently, who’s credibility is quite dubious. What was your point again?

      Your last sentence is typical FUD which we’ve covered many time and again and is as usual discardable.



      “The official rulebook”

  6. Tobias Mayer says:

    @Rennee, I’ve never heard of the Scrum Rulebook. What is it, do you have a link? I can’t find it on Google. Many authors write about Scrum, you know, it doesn’t mean they own it 🙂

    I’m really at a loss to understand what you are trying to prove with your article. It just seems vindictive. Let Jeff be a quack, who cares? He’s just a guy who had a good idea back in 1993. Many brilliant people have taken that good idea and run with it, emerging it into a beautiful framework for personal and organizational change. That’s what Scrum is. It’s not some snake oil that can be sold to a bunch of suckers — despite the Scrum Alliance’s best intentions!

    It would be better if we all stop looking to blame others for our own failures to implement Agile ideas, and looked inward, thinking about what we ourselves can do to improve the world of work.

  7. Tobias Mayer says:

    @Renee please note that is a publication, and peculiar to that organization. The Scrum Alliance (so we hear) are poised to bring out a series of “Scrum Guides” written by many different authors. Each one is as valid as the next. No one owns Scrum, despite various organizations’ efforts to do so.

    I have my own Scrum Guide, here: It has tens of thousands of views, so I guess some people find it valuable. It doesn’t make me right. It doesn’t make me a leader.

  8. Ginn says:

    Renee, thankyou for sharing these facts. I must admit my first impression was “here we go – lets give the pot a big stir”. But looking more closely this is quite disturbing and insidious. Giving false hope to sick or dying people and extracting money from them is morally repugnant.

    This is the sort of information that should be publicly disclosed and discussed. Even if this and Scrum have no relation I’d still want to know this, just like
    I’d want to know if a potential business partner was convicted to fraud.

  9. Jay Conne says:

    Cross-posting from InfoQ group:

    Hi Jordan – I talked to Renee tonight, learned about this thread on her blog and here on InfoQ and read it thoroughly for the first time.

    There are many people who are competent in some domains (AKA compartments) and not in others. I agree that selling quackery and false hopes is a matter of character and not irrelevant. Action matters jabber does not – selling is action. Many people believe in all kinds of mysticism including religions. But do they act on it or just pay lip service to what is offered as a false moral standard? Not having the integrity to not have those contradictions is rare. In this case, selling false hope with a rationalization of placebo effect does not hold up – I know this was never claimed – I’m just precluding a possible way to wiggle out of the facts of the matter.

    I know Jeff and Ken and know the history of dysfunction (to be kind) in the Scrum, and for that matter, Agile community. I have hosted a number of talks Jeff did for the Boston Chapter of the ACM at MIT. In one he made the outrageous claim that the most masterful martial artists can fly across the room in some fashion that appeared just nuts. And he said it with a straight face! Was he testing how gullible the audience was? And if so, why? In my mind it completely undermined my confidence in his judgement in general.

    From the 2nd hand information I read in these blogs, there is no reason to respect or buy the FF claims or products. This not withstanding the FDA references considering that lots of people die waiting for the FDA to give them permission to purchase what people in other countries find life saving. It’s simply an abuse of government coercive power in the name of the people – we’ve seen that abused concept before! So FDA approval is totally irrelevant. Evidence of fraud is relevant. The claim of the assertions not being independently verifiable is relevant. One must apply the scale from Certain to Probable to Possible to Unlikely to Disproven or just contradictory.

    But now let me get to the other issue. I have used Scrum successfully for many years in my consulting and coaching of teams. I independently think about and take responsibility for everything I recommend and the definition of every term I use. Scrum I redefine from the “framework” usage by the Scrum community and founders to call it an “interaction model”. That is the a model for interaction between members of a cross-functional creative SW dev. team and between that team and those paying them for their creative work. In addition I use a very prescriptive model of Scrum/Story board that delivers many simultaneous dimensions of insight in one view. This, in the manner of that master of visual communication of information, Edward Tufte, who I have also hosted at at two Boston ACM seminars in past years. So with the first-hand responsibility I bring to applying Scrum in an appropriately contextual manner, I am most grateful for the Scrum model as a base to build upon – and for the market conditioning other have done for me.

    So for all those reasons, I would never discredit Scrum as not working. On the other hand. I do it using my carefully defined terms and carefully presented with the WHY for every nit. And I expect no one to follow my advice unless it makes sense to them with their fullest integrity and independent judgement. I find it a truly great tool to manage focus, teamwork, rapid value delivery, transparency to all stakeholders, plus continuous learning and improvement. And you are right, it is not a science AND it is not a pseudo-science.

    Jay Conne
    Lean/Agile/Scrum/XP Coach and Trainer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: