OK veritas - I'll take you up.
I personally think it sounds like quackery, though that's not to say the Rife was a quack himself. The original piece (as you put at the beginning
of the thread) appears to have make quite a few basic errors, and also over simplifies what is a very, very complex subject.
Although it may have been a widespread belief in the 30s that cancer was caused by a virus, almost no one thinks that now - although viruses are
considered to be a factor in quite a few types of cancer. For example having once had Epstein-Barr virus is considered a risk factor in Hodgkin's
lymphoma. Cancer is in fact:
....a disease where cells grow out of control and invade, erode and destroy normal tissue. The driving forces behind the development of cancer are
damaged genes. The gene damage is often caused by environmental factors like smoking.
There are over 200 different types of cancer that can occur anywhere in the body. They all have different causes, different symptoms and require
different types of treatment. Cancers develop because of a complicated interaction between our genes, our environment and chance. Have a look at our
information on reducing your risk of developing cancer.
Source:
www.cancerresearchuk.org...
It's well worth having a look round that site, it's got some good, easy to understand stuff in it.
So when it is claimed that Rife was attacking the "cancer virus" (Rife called this BX) with sound waves it makes me very suspicious. If there
isn't a cancer virus then what was he treating? Also the very fact he reckoned he could "see" the virus was due to his "special" microscope. It
was special because it had a magnification of X17,000! Specialists now put the
theoretical limit on optical microscopes as X1500 and the best
in the world are X1250. So how did he produce such a wonderful machine? We will never know, but I think it must be taken with a pinch of salt.
I think the way the original piece describes viruses as crystalline as very dodgy. What exactly is crystalline about them? Are bacteria and mould
also crystalline? If not how does his machine work on them?
Why did Rife never write any peer reviewed papers on his discovery? Even patenting his special microscope would have made him very rich and famous
indeed. We are told that 16 patients were "cured" but cancer is usually a lot more complex than cured or not cured, what were the full results? Did
he use a control group of patients being treated by another method? It also says that he worked with "leading researchers" - well leading
researches always publish papers in renowned journals, that's what makes them leading researchers. Also why did none of these researchers continue
his work if it worked so well?
My main problem with the whole thing is the idea that this technology is being "suppressed". Who is suppressing it and why? I have absolutely no
doubt that pharmaceutical corporations are only interested in profit alone and nothing else, just like all corporations. However why would they
suppress this technology for 70 years? If this was really a viable cure for cancer then why wouldn't they develop the technology and become the
richest most powerful company on the planet? There is simply no logic behind this.
The other major flaw in the suppression argument is that the
great majority of cancer research is carried out by non-profit organisations -
charities, universities, government bodies etc. These organisations (such as Cancer Research UK) are set up purely to find a cure for cancer, nothing
else. Their scientists are some of the leading minds in the world, usually working for a lot less money than they could make in the private sector.
So why, why, why would they suppress a "cure" for cancer? Especially one with apparently no side effects. It makes no sense.
I think you have got to conclude that the reason nobody has taken up this technology in 70 years is that there is no evidence it works.