Rife Frequency Devices

Table of Contents

1. What the Presentation Said
2. Royal Raymond Rife and the 1930s Record
3. What Frequency Devices Sold Today Are
4. Frequency Treatments and Cancer: What Has Been Tested
5. Do Frequencies Kill Parasites, Bacteria and Viruses?
6. Membrane Potential, Coherence and the Body’s Electrical Signals
7. The Approved Contrast: Tumor Treating Fields
8. The Other Contrast: Electromagnetic Bone Growth Stimulators
9. What United States Regulators Have Said
10. Safety Findings
11. How the Claim Compares With the Research
12. What Is Not Known
13. Connections
14. Key Research Papers
15. Featured Videos

What the Presentation Said

Near the end of the presentation, the speaker described a Rife device that the clinic had recently added to its treatments. The points made were these:

• The device was said to use pulsed electromagnetic fields and to be designed to interact with the electrical fields of the body’s molecules — proteins, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA).
• The speaker called the approach frequency medicine and said it can disrupt the cell membrane of parasites, bacteria and cancer cells.
• The device was described as coming from Europe and as being based on research; no study, trial or author was named.
• The speaker said the treatment can modulate the immune system and restore a healthy membrane potential, which the speaker explained as the electrical charge across the cell membrane.
• The same treatment was said to disrupt parasites, cancer cells, viruses and bacteria at once.
• It was also said to modulate the nervous system, increase “coherence” and push cells away from chaos, which the speaker linked to better sleep, mood and a lower stress response, and to better stamina, vitality and patient outcomes.
• The speaker said the clinic pairs the device with extracorporeal blood oxygenation and ozonation, which has its own page in this series.

No figures — frequencies, treatment times, response rates or survival — were given for the device. The sections below take each of these points in turn and report what, if anything, has been tested.

Royal Raymond Rife and the 1930s Record

Royal Raymond Rife was an American inventor known for building optical microscopes. His documented scientific record in the indexed medical literature is small. The main item is a two-author preliminary communication published in December 1931 in the journal California and Western Medicine with the bacteriologist A. I. Kendall, titled “Observations on Bacillus typhosus in its filterable state” (Kendall and Rife, 1931). It reported microscope observations of the typhoid organism in what the authors called a filterable form — small enough to pass through filters that normally hold bacteria back. The communication was described as preliminary, and it made no claim about treating disease.

The devices sold under Rife’s name today rest on later accounts that he could destroy microbes and cancer by exposing them to a specific frequency for each organism. This page could not find those claims in any peer-reviewed paper by Rife indexed in PubMed:

• A PubMed search on 23 October 2026 for the phrases Rife machine, Rife therapy, Rife frequency, Rife generator, Rife device, Rife microscope and Royal Rife in titles and abstracts returned no records.
• An author search for Rife RR returned only the 1931 typhoid communication.
• No controlled study of a device built to Rife’s design, in people or in animals, was found.

The historical record of Rife’s microscopes and his later work exists mainly in books, newspaper stories and promotional material, not in the clinical literature. That record is not reviewed here, because this page reports only what can be traced to a primary source.

What Frequency Devices Sold Today Are

The products sold as Rife machines, frequency generators or bioresonance devices vary a great deal. Descriptions in a 2001 Federal Trade Commission complaint and a 2022 Food and Drug Administration warning letter (both covered below) give a picture of the kinds of devices on the market:

• Signal generators with hand electrodes or pads that pass a small electric current through the skin at frequencies chosen from a list said to match particular diseases or organisms.
• Plasma-tube or antenna units that emit radio-frequency signals into the room.
• Magnetic pulsers — a coil that produces a short magnetic pulse.
• Bioresonance or sound-vibration devices that are said to read the body’s own frequencies and send back a corrected signal.

What these products share is the theory: that each organism or diseased cell has its own frequency, and that sending that frequency into the body destroys it while healthy tissue is spared. The frequency lists differ from seller to seller, and no published study was found that tested whether any particular list matches any particular organism.

The one blinded, randomized test of bioresonance found for this page studied children, not cancer. In 32 children in hospital with long-lasting atopic dermatitis (eczema), a working bioresonance device and a sham device were compared on top of standard care, and the treatment “had no significant additive measurable effect” on skin scores, itch, sleep or blood markers of allergy; both groups improved with standard care (Schöni and colleagues, 1997).

Frequency Treatments and Cancer: What Has Been Tested

No clinical trial of a Rife device in people with cancer was found. The closest research is a separate line of work on very weak radio-frequency fields switched on and off (amplitude-modulated) at chosen “tumor-specific” frequencies and delivered through a spoon-shaped mouthpiece. It shares the idea of disease-specific frequencies, so it is the most relevant test of that idea that exists.

The first reports

• Finding the frequencies (2009). Researchers examined 163 people with cancer using a biofeedback method (changes in pulse during exposure) and recorded 1,524 frequencies between 0.1 hertz and 114 kilohertz. Twenty-eight people with advanced cancer were treated on a compassionate basis; 13 could be evaluated for response. One woman with breast cancer had a complete response lasting 11 months and another a partial response lasting 13.5 months; four people had stable disease. There was no control group (Barbault and colleagues, 2009).
• Liver cancer, single-group trial (2011). In 41 people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (the main type of primary liver cancer) and few remaining options, three one-hour treatments a day gave a median progression-free survival of 4.4 months and a median overall survival of 6.7 months. Fourteen people (34.1%) had stable disease for more than six months, and there were three partial responses and one near-complete response. No serious side effects were recorded. The trial was open-label with no comparison group (Costa and colleagues, 2011).
• Pooled case series (2021). The 41 trial patients were pooled with 18 people treated outside a trial and compared with historical controls from older drug trials. People with the mildest liver impairment (Child-Pugh A, n = 32) had a median overall survival of 10.4 months against 7.7 months in the historical controls. The authors described the design as a pooled case series with comparison to historical controls (Blackstock and colleagues, 2021).

Laboratory and animal work

• In mice carrying human liver-cancer tumors, the same research group reported that tumors shrank as cancer cells changed into slow, non-dividing cells, an effect it attributed to calcium flowing into the cancer cells through one type of calcium channel (Jimenez and colleagues, 2019).
• An independent test in mice by a separate French group exposed mice carrying human liver-cancer tumors both to a systematic scan of frequencies and to the frequencies published by the original group. The exposures “produced no detectable change” in the physiological signals the method depends on, and the authors concluded that no tumor-related frequencies were found (Veyret and colleagues, 2020).

What this line of research shows

The published human data are uncontrolled: one single-group trial and case series compared with historical patients. No randomized trial has been published. An outside laboratory could not reproduce the step on which the method rests — detecting tumor-specific frequencies. And these mouthpiece devices are not Rife devices: they use a different signal, a different delivery method and frequencies derived by a different method. None of this work tested parasites, bacteria or viruses.

Separately, a large registry study shows why the gap between “promising” and “tested” matters. Among people with curable, non-metastatic breast, prostate, lung or colorectal cancer, those who chose alternative medicine alone instead of conventional treatment had 2.5 times the risk of death of matched patients who received conventional treatment (Johnson and colleagues, 2018). That study did not separate out frequency devices; it measured choosing alternative treatment in place of standard care.

Do Frequencies Kill Parasites, Bacteria and Viruses?

The presentation said the device disrupts parasites, bacteria and viruses as well as cancer cells. For a device at the power levels of a consumer frequency generator, no study in people was found that measured parasite, bacterial or viral loads before and after treatment.

Electric fields can affect microbes in the laboratory, under specific conditions:

• In laboratory dishes, alternating electric fields delivered through insulated electrodes slowed the growth of two bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The effect depended on field strength and frequency, with the largest effect at 10 megahertz, and it added to the effect of an antibiotic (Giladi and colleagues, 2008). This was a controlled laboratory system in which the field was applied directly to the bacteria in a dish, not a device used on a person.
• Heat, strong electric pulses and ultraviolet light kill microbes, but these are high-energy methods used on surfaces, water, blood products or tissue in controlled settings, not low-power signals sent through skin electrodes.

No study was found in which a frequency device killed a parasite inside a human or animal host. The page on parasite cleanse claims covers how parasite infections are diagnosed and how the effect of a treatment is normally measured — by repeat stool, blood or tissue testing.

Membrane Potential, Coherence and the Body’s Electrical Signals

Part of the presentation’s reasoning rests on real biology. Every living cell keeps a voltage across its outer membrane — the membrane potential — created by ion channels and pumps that move sodium, potassium, calcium and chloride in and out. Researchers have found that:

• Many cancer cell types have a less negative (depolarized) membrane potential than comparable normal cells, and that this state favors cell division.
• Ion channels help control cell volume, migration and differentiation, and some researchers propose that membrane potential could one day serve as a marker for tumors, or be changed artificially to slow tumor growth (Yang and Brackenbury, 2013).

That research is mainly in cell culture and animals, and it works by changing specific ion channels — usually with drugs or genetic tools — and measuring the voltage directly. No study was found that measured cell membrane potential in a person before and after a Rife or frequency-device treatment, or that showed such a device “restores” it.

No published method for measuring “coherence” or chaos at the level of the cell, before and after a frequency treatment, was found. The presentation’s claims of better sleep, mood and stress response from the device were not linked to any study, and none testing a Rife device for these outcomes was found.

The Approved Contrast: Tumor Treating Fields

Electric fields are not a fringe idea in cancer care. Tumor treating fields are an approved cancer treatment that uses alternating electric fields, and the way they reached approval shows what testing such a device involves.

How they work

Tumor treating fields use low-intensity electric fields alternating at 100 to 300 kilohertz, delivered through insulated pads (transducer arrays) stuck to the skin over the tumor. In cell culture and in mice, these fields interfered with the formation of the mitotic spindle — the scaffold a cell builds to divide — and broke up cells that were dividing, while cells that were not dividing were left intact. The effect depended on frequency and on the direction of the field relative to the dividing cell (Kirson and colleagues, 2004).

The trials

• Recurrent glioblastoma (2012). In a randomized phase 3 trial of 237 people whose glioblastoma (the most common aggressive brain cancer in adults) had come back, tumor treating fields alone were compared with the doctor’s choice of chemotherapy. Median survival was 6.6 versus 6.0 months, a difference that was not statistically significant. Serious side effects were less common with the device (6% versus 16%), and quality of life favored the device in most domains (Stupp and colleagues, 2012). The trial did not show longer survival.
• Newly diagnosed glioblastoma: the EF-14 trial (2017). 695 people who had finished surgery and radiation with chemotherapy were randomized 2 to 1 to tumor treating fields (200 kilohertz, worn at least 18 hours a day) plus the chemotherapy drug temozolomide, or temozolomide alone. Median overall survival was 20.9 months with the device against 16.0 months without it, and median progression-free survival was 6.7 against 4.0 months. Mild to moderate skin reactions under the pads occurred in 52% of people using the device (Stupp and colleagues, 2017). The trial was open-label, with no sham device.
• Pooled studies (2023). A meta-analysis of seven comparative studies (1,430 patients) found a hazard ratio for death of 0.63 with the device added to standard care; people who wore it at least 75% of the time lived longer than those who wore it less (Ballo and colleagues, 2023). The analysis included non-randomized real-world studies.
• Lung cancer: the LUNAR trial (2023). In 276 people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer that had progressed after platinum chemotherapy, adding tumor treating fields (150 kilohertz) to standard drug treatment gave a median overall survival of 13.2 months against 9.9 months with drug treatment alone. Device-related side effects, reported in 71%, were mostly mild to moderate skin problems (Leal and colleagues, 2023).

Regulatory approvals

• The Food and Drug Administration approved the first tumor treating fields system on 8 April 2011 through premarket approval, the agency’s strictest review, for adults with glioblastoma that had recurred after chemotherapy.
• It approved use with temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma on 5 October 2015, based on the EF-14 trial.
• A chest version was approved on 23 May 2019 under a humanitarian device exemption — a pathway for rare conditions that requires evidence of safety and probable benefit rather than full proof of effectiveness — for unresectable pleural mesothelioma, used with chemotherapy.
• A version for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer was approved in October 2024, with concurrent drug treatment, in adults whose cancer had progressed on or after platinum-based chemotherapy.

The differences from a Rife device are concrete: one fixed frequency chosen from laboratory experiments, a measured field strength at the tumor, a named cancer, randomized trials with survival as the outcome, published side-effect rates, and use alongside standard treatment rather than in place of it. Even with all this, the recurrent-glioblastoma trial did not show a survival gain, and this is reported alongside the positive trials.

The Other Contrast: Electromagnetic Bone Growth Stimulators

The presentation said its device uses pulsed electromagnetic fields. One long-standing approved use of that technology in the United States is bone healing; no approved cancer use was found.

• The Food and Drug Administration approved the first non-invasive pulsed electromagnetic field bone growth stimulator on 6 November 1979. These devices are prescription-only, class III devices (the highest-risk category) that require premarket approval.
• Approved indications have included an established non-union (a fracture that has failed to heal), failed fusions, congenital pseudarthrosis, certain fresh fractures and use alongside spinal fusion surgery. The proposed mechanism is that the induced field opens calcium channels in bone cells and stimulates bone formation.
• In a 2020 review for its orthopaedic devices panel, the agency described the most common adverse events as skin irritation and pain at the treatment site, and described the effectiveness of these devices as variable, depending on the patients, the bone treated and how faithfully the device was used.

Independent reviews are cautious even for this approved use:

• A Cochrane review of four blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (125 people, mostly with tibial non-union) found a pooled effect that was not statistically significant (risk ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 4.48) and called the evidence “inconclusive and insufficient to inform current practice” (Griffin and colleagues, 2011).
• A 2024 systematic review of three randomized trials in fresh fractures (197 people) found no significant effect on bone healing (Picelli and colleagues, 2024).

So pulsed electromagnetic fields have a narrow, approved use with modest and debated evidence, in a setting — bone healing — unrelated to cancer, parasites or infection.

What United States Regulators Have Said

Only facts from primary government documents are reported here, and no seller is named.

• Federal Trade Commission complaint (2001). A complaint against a seller of devices that included products sold as a Rife frequency generator and personal-computer Rife units listed advertising claims that the devices treated cancer, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), hepatitis, chronic fatigue syndrome and other diseases, and deactivated viruses, bacteria, fungi and other parasites in humans. The Commission alleged that there were “no competent and reliable clinical studies demonstrating that respondent’s products are effective in treating or curing cancer” or any other disease, and that scientific proof did not show the devices killed or disabled viruses, bacteria, fungi or other parasites in humans.
• Food and Drug Administration warning letter (18 November 2022). The agency’s device center wrote to a seller of a sound-vibration bioresonance device advertised as resonating with stressed or cancerous cells and as a cancer treatment. The letter found the products adulterated because they had no premarket approval or investigational exemption, and misbranded because no premarket notification had been submitted. The device was not described as a Rife device, but it rests on the same idea of healing through matched frequencies.

Under United States law, a device sold to treat a disease needs Food and Drug Administration clearance or approval for that use. This page found no public record of such an approval for a Rife-type frequency device to treat cancer or infection, but it did not carry out a full search of the agency’s device databases, so that point is stated as not found rather than as a confirmed absence.

Safety Findings

• Direct effects of low-power frequency devices are not well documented. No safety study of Rife devices was found. In the related mouthpiece radio-frequency studies, the recorded side effects were fatigue and mouth soreness (mucositis), both of the mildest grade, and no patient in the pooled series stopped treatment because of side effects (Barbault and colleagues, 2009; Blackstock and colleagues, 2021).
• Implanted electronic devices. The Food and Drug Administration’s summary for the chest tumor treating fields system lists pacemakers and implantable defibrillators as a contraindication, because use with implanted electronics had not been tested and could cause malfunction. Devices that send current or fields through the body raise the same question for people with such implants, and no testing of Rife devices for this was found.
• Skin reactions are the main recorded side effect of the approved field devices: 52% with tumor treating fields in the EF-14 trial, and skin irritation as the most common event with bone growth stimulators.
• Choosing an untested treatment in place of standard care was associated with 2.5 times the risk of death in people with curable cancers in the registry study described above (Johnson and colleagues, 2018). This is the main documented harm linked to alternative cancer treatments as a group.

How the Claim Compares With the Research

• Electric and electromagnetic fields can affect cancer cells — supported, for specific devices. Tumor treating fields lengthened survival in randomized trials in glioblastoma and lung cancer and are approved. That evidence belongs to that device, its frequency and its delivery method, not to frequency devices in general.
• Cells have a membrane potential that differs in cancer — supported, in laboratory research. The claim that a Rife device restores it has no published test.
• Pulsed electromagnetic fields are a real, approved technology — supported, for bone. The approved use is fracture non-union, with modest and debated evidence; no approved cancer use was found.
• Disease-specific frequencies — supported only in part, by one research group. Uncontrolled human studies of mouthpiece radio-frequency treatment in liver cancer report some responses and survival compared with historical patients. An independent mouse study did not find tumor-specific frequencies. No randomized trial was found.
• The device disrupts parasites, bacteria and viruses in the body — no research found. Laboratory work shows that some electric fields slow bacterial growth in a dish. No study measured parasites, bacteria or viruses in people treated with a frequency device, and the Federal Trade Commission alleged in 2001 that scientific proof did not show such devices killed microbes in humans.
• Immune modulation, nervous-system “coherence,” sleep, mood, stamina and better outcomes — no research found for any Rife device.
• Based on research — not traceable. No study was named in the presentation, and no peer-reviewed study of a Rife device in cancer was found in PubMed.

What Is Not Known

• What any particular Rife or frequency device actually emits — frequency, field strength reaching the tissue, waveform — since products are not built to a shared standard and their output is rarely published.
• Whether the radio-frequency mouthpiece approach in liver cancer would hold up in a randomized, controlled trial, and whether tumor-specific frequencies can be found by researchers outside the original group in people.
• Whether any low-power device can change membrane potential in human tissue in a way that matters for cancer.
• The rate of harm from frequency devices themselves, since no safety reporting studies were found.
• How many people with cancer use these devices and whether they use them alongside or instead of standard care.
• Whether tumor treating fields help in other cancers now under study; this is being tested in trials.

Connections

• Cancer and Parasites
• Blood Ozone and Ultraviolet Blood Irradiation
• Parasite Cleanse Claims
• Parasites Carrying Bacteria and Viruses
• Toxoplasma and Brain Tumors
• Oncology
• Brain Cancer
• Hepatocellular Carcinoma
• Lung Cancer
• Mesothelioma
• Parasites
• Bacteria
• Electromagnetic Field Exposure
• Orthopedics

Key Research Papers

1. Kendall AI, Rife RR. Observations on Bacillus typhosus in its filterable state: a preliminary communication. Cal West Med. 1931;35(6):409-11. PubMed PMID: 18741967
2. Schöni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schöni-Affolter F. Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 1997;112(3):238-46. PubMed PMID: 9066509
3. Barbault A, Costa FP, Bottger B, Munden RF, Bomholt F, Kuster N, et al. Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009;28(1):51. PubMed PMID: 19366446
4. Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, Machado MC, Zanesco T, Surjan R, et al. Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(5):640-8. PubMed PMID: 21829195
5. Blackstock AW, Benson AB, Kudo M, Jimenez H, Achari PF, McGrath C, et al. Safety and Efficacy of amplitude-modulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. 4Open. 2021;4:3. PubMed PMID: 41550248
6. Jimenez H, Wang M, Zimmerman JW, Pennison MJ, Sharma S, Surratt T, et al. Tumour-specific amplitude-modulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields induce differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma via targeting Ca(v)3.2 T-type voltage-gated calcium channels and Ca(2+) influx. EBioMedicine. 2019;44:209-224. PubMed PMID: 31160272
7. Veyret B, Arnaud-Cormos D, Poque E, Poulletier de Gannes F, Hurtier A, Decourt R, et al. Search for tumor-specific frequencies of amplitude-modulated 27 MHz electromagnetic fields in mice with hepatocarcinoma xenografted tumors. Int J Radiat Biol. 2020;96(3):411-418. PubMed PMID: 31746658
8. Johnson SB, Park HS, Gross CP, Yu JB. Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(1). PubMed PMID: 28922780
9. Giladi M, Porat Y, Blatt A, Wasserman Y, Kirson ED, Dekel E, et al. Microbial growth inhibition by alternating electric fields. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(10):3517-22. PubMed PMID: 18663026
10. Yang M, Brackenbury WJ. Membrane potential and cancer progression. Front Physiol. 2013;4:185. PubMed PMID: 23882223
11. Kirson ED, Gurvich Z, Schneiderman R, Dekel E, Itzhaki A, Wasserman Y, et al. Disruption of cancer cell replication by alternating electric fields. Cancer Res. 2004;64(9):3288-95. PubMed PMID: 15126372
12. Stupp R, Wong ET, Kanner AA, Steinberg D, Engelhard H, Heidecke V, et al. [product name omitted] versus physician's choice chemotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma: a randomised phase III trial of a novel treatment modality. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(14):2192-202. PubMed PMID: 22608262
13. Stupp R, Taillibert S, Kanner A, Read W, Steinberg D, Lhermitte B, et al. Effect of Tumor-Treating Fields Plus Maintenance Temozolomide vs Maintenance Temozolomide Alone on Survival in Patients With Glioblastoma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318(23):2306-2316. PubMed PMID: 29260225
14. Ballo MT, Conlon P, Lavy-Shahaf G, Kinzel A, Vymazal J, Rulseh AM. Association of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) therapy with survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurooncol. 2023;164(1):1-9. PubMed PMID: 37493865
15. Leal T, Kotecha R, Ramlau R, Zhang L, Milanowski J, Cobo M, et al. Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2023;24(9):1002-1017. PubMed PMID: 37657460
16. Griffin XL, Costa ML, Parsons N, Smith N. Electromagnetic field stimulation for treating delayed union or non-union of long bone fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(4):CD008471. PubMed PMID: 21491410
17. Picelli A, DI Censo R, Tomasello S, Scaturro D, Letizia Mauro G, Smania N, et al. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on bone fractures: a systematic review update. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2024;60(6):989-994. PubMed PMID: 39387850

PubMed Topic Searches

1. PubMed: Tumor treating fields randomized trials
2. PubMed: Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields and cancer
3. PubMed: Bioresonance therapy
4. PubMed: Pulsed electromagnetic fields and fracture non-union

Other Sources

1. United States Food and Drug Administration, premarket approval P100034, tumor treatment fields stimulator, approved 8 April 2011. accessdata.fda.gov
2. United States Food and Drug Administration, premarket approval supplement P100034/S013, newly diagnosed glioblastoma, 5 October 2015. accessdata.fda.gov
3. United States Food and Drug Administration, humanitarian device exemption H180002, summary of safety and probable benefit, pleural mesothelioma, 23 May 2019. accessdata.fda.gov
4. United States Food and Drug Administration, news roundup, 18 October 2024 (tumor treating fields for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer). fda.gov
5. United States Food and Drug Administration, executive summary for the 8–9 September 2020 Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel, reclassification of non-invasive bone growth stimulators. fda.gov
6. United States Food and Drug Administration, warning letter to a device seller, 18 November 2022 (seller not named here; listed in the agency’s warning-letter database). fda.gov
7. United States Federal Trade Commission, complaint against a device seller, June 2001 (seller not named here; listed in the commission’s case records). ftc.gov

Featured Videos