Need Backup in an Argument Against Quackery

[C. jejuni]

First sorry if this is to some extend kind of against the rules, especially considering that technically this thread is debating pseudoscience. I just need someone with "scientific credentials" to backup my argument.

The issue is about a certain Royal Raymond Rife's apparatus supposedly able to measure the so called "biofrequency" of a person, or anything to begin with. Coffee supposedly also has a frequency (interestingly otherwise processed food allegedly measures at "0 hz").
My opponent also claims that from this the health of a person may be deduced, but this is irrelevant to my plea here.

My argument is obviously that it's complete hogwash and it's just picking up noise.

Which exact range of the frequency spectrum ought to be measurable is unclear. A "study" conducted by the founder of Young Essential Oils talks about frequencies just a few hz in, while my opponent is generally talking about several mhz. It may just be a misunderstanding.

Given the pseudoscientifical background, I was obviously not able to find any hard data. Some people involved in other quackery are criticising a product by another company in the same vein here, but he seems to be concerned about their scientific credentials.

Either way I just need you to show that this thing cannot work as intended and that thus the idea completely lacks any substance. Alternatively you can just point me towards credential sites who deal with the issue.

Or you can laugh at this and straightforward reject it. That would send a clear enough message I think.

 

[mfb]

If you measure precise enough, you can measure all sorts of frequencies (more precise: a broad spectrum) of processes somewhere in a human body (both mechanical and electrical). That does not mean that they would have any relation to anything interesting. There are certainly some frequencies that are relevant - your heartbeat, for example. But I guess that's not what "biofrequency" means.

Or you can laugh at this and straightforward reject it.

You can certainly laugh at any claims related to a "biofrequency".
There is absolutely no indication that any of those claims would be backed by proper experimental data.

Anyway, we are the wrong forum to discuss those crackpot theories.