The GX and the XM are essentially the same functionally when using them to generate frequencies to be monitored using the Pulse biofeedback method.

The Pulse uses the heart rate to monitor the body's response to that frequency, so can be used to find frequencies that calm the body (healing) as well as those that get rid of pathogens (killing).

The GX also provides the current/phase angle method of detecting resonance. This method is not monitoring the body's response, instead looking for frequency resonance directly from the area subjected to the current.

The major difference between an XM and GX biofeedback scan preset is the selection of what method to use -- BPM/HRV vs. Current/Angle. Of course one will want to tweak the ranges to match the method accordingly, so this is the second major difference. Otherwise most other variables could be the same.

The GX method does not have the ability to detect healing or killing frequencies per se. It only detects resonance. Therefore by default, all frequencies reported would be ideally the killing variety.

As for grade scanning, it has no diagnostic capability. If you get no hits, you are not good to go. Either your scan was not conducted correctly or your threshold was higher than the resulting data collected. This may just mean that the frequencies you tried to grade are totally wrong for your body. Since the database is not a complete map of all frequencies to disease, nor can we say that it is correct and accurate, this method of thought is flawed from the get go.

When grading via the Pulse, the baseline is the heart. So one can grade say 500 Hz then 500,000 Hz and the baseline does not change and you can get good data from grading those two frequencies. Never mind that grading is better the more data you feed it (written about this elsewhere).

However, when grading via the GX, the baseline is the prior frequencies scanned. The GX method inherently has a natural curve response as the body has a higher capacitance the higher the frequency used. So grading 500 Hz then 500,000 Hz will incorrectly be biased toward 500,000 Hz. Grading using the exact same methodology as the pulse is not viable in my opinion via the GX for this reason.

John will have to come up with a way to make grading using the GX method viable. One method is to actually scan the entire frequency range from smallest to highest frequency in the list to be graded, use the entire scan range to derive valid data, then selectively pull out the frequencies of interest and sort them. Useful perhaps in a selectively short list of meaningful uses.

However, given that the GX can scan all the way up to 18 MHz in 6 minutes or so, grading looses value. People still grade because they believe they can use it to diagnose and determine if they have addressed an issue. This is a very bad mistake.

Grading a bad batch of frequencies will still sort and report back data -- all bad. Biofeedback is a statistical operation. This is the only way we know that any frequency reported back is going to be useful or viable.

If you grade a ton of frequencies, the odds that the frequencies that sort to the top are resonant increases. If you scan all frequencies, then the odds are even better as to get back nothing that resonates under this model means that no frequency will apply to your condition and you need to look elsewhere to solve a problem.

Grading is a trap, one designed for those who believe they can control everything. Hint, trying to control everything is a source of disease for many.

The original and still only truly viable means of using grade scan, was to sort a list of frequencies that were too numerous to be ran as a single program. In this way, one could reduce the list to a manageable set to test for efficacy. Efficacy was not guaranteed, nor is the lack of efficacy mean that all is clear based on the frequency program names that were graded.

Spooky2 GeneratorX

Author: Jeff Kaczor