A real CURE for AIDS, Hepititis, Cancer, Herpes etc, for less than the price of a night out!

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


The evidence was there! Do you honestly believe a quack snake oil salesman would receive the attention of the MAYO clinic ?Do you honestly believe a quack would be published and discussed in science magazines, newspapers,medical conferences around the world? Let me answer that for you...Of course not.

It seems to me that if people were being cured of AIDS for a hundred dollars or so in a matter of weeks, that they would tell their friends and they would tell others and the news would spread like wildfire and before long EVERYONE would know about this. SOME news outlet, paper or magazine would break the news and it would be widely broadcast in the media. Doesn't that make sense? Has anyone HERE been cured of AIDS or cancer?

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

The evidence was there! Do you honestly believe a quack snake oil salesman would receive the attention of the MAYO clinic ?Do you honestly believe a quack would be published and discussed in science magazines, newspapers,medical conferences around the world? Let me answer that for you...Of course not.

Yes, I do think a quack would receive this sort of attention from the Mayo clinic. Part of their mission is to research new avenues of therapy. This man (Rife) had a long history of research, so they thought it was worth looking into. When they looked into it, they found it to be bunk. Also, Rife's machines never garnered discussion in "science magazines, newspapers and medical conferences around the world".

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


oH really, The Smithsonian Institute, released this report on Rife's Universal Microscope in 1944.Here is the pdf file of the actual report.

www.rife.de...

www.rife.de...


A similar, yet different report was also released in the same year in the Journal of the Franklin institute.
edit to add
More quackery I presume.







[edit on 22-6-2010 by gatewaywithin]

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

oH really, The Smithsonian Institute, released this report on Rife's Universal Microscope in 1944.Here is the pdf file of the actual report.

www.rife.de...

www.rife.de...


A similar, yet different report was also released in the same year in the Journal of the Franklin institute.
edit to add
More quackery I presume.







[edit on 22-6-2010 by gatewaywithin]

If you'll read your own source, you'll see that the only thing either of those reports mention is his microscope, which has never been "repressed" and is essentially a high-objective light microscope. We use those in labs daily, it's not some secret, hidden technology. His scope is "powerful" enough to examine bacillus typhosus, something that a $50 children's light microscope can do today.

In neither of those reports did it mentions his "cure-all" technology. Probably because it's quackery.

Is the nulife site the best place to get one of these devices that works according to Bob Beck's principles?
Thanks.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Otherwise I'm afraid the tingling and muscle contractions the Beck unit causes will cause an amplified placebo effect, just because it's so dramatic. You'd have to have an equal level of "WTF" factor in the placebo cuff.

Well one would think with the cure success everyone is saying one would just need to monitor lets say 50 like cases and compare to a pool of other like cases that do not get the treatment.

So what are we talking here? If we monitored 100 people would there be a 90% plus cure? Or would it be less?

What people are saying is that incurable diseases are being completely cured, and that is big....really really big, but we see the results are still at the local level of just personal experiences.

Since there is a good number out there that have been cured I would think if they started a focus group and had their blood evidence showing before and after they would become a single voice that could not be ignored for very long.

Your holy peer review system have killed thousands upon thousands of people, just think VIOXX. Oops, well now tell me - where is the prosecutions, outrage and character assassinations? - But it's all about covering yourself - if anyone die from your treatment, well just too bad, as this is peer reviewed stuff.

Now with this wonderful foul proof system in place, please let me know how the procedure is to get anything into a clinical trial, petitions don't work - 11.000 plus patient testimonials don't work - In fact people suffering from autoimmune diseases are so desperate that they now made their own worldwide database.

The stuff works better than any peer reviewed medicine, and yet - everything is IGNORED!.

The only thing that peer review is good for, is to cover the MD's so in case a product like VIOXX slips out and people start to die, they will not be prosecuted, because the product have been peer reviewed, Whereas things like Beck devices only need to harm 1 person, and it's banned immediately by FDA. The day doctors learn to take responsibility of their job, is the day we all will be healthier, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

Ridicule have always been the means of the medical field. Just a thing like stomach ulcers was linked to stress, but when someone came up with the idea that it was a bacteria (H. Pylori) they were ridiculed, remember Dr. Semmelweis who introduced the hand washing, he was ridiculed as well.

Only when it's in the interest of big pharma, things seem to progress at a blistering phase, and by the way - could anyone please let me know where the peer review, double blind journal is for the "so important" vaccine against swine flu that is rotting everywhere???

Considering the financial burden and cost of alternatives we currently have for the treatment of Cancer and Aids.

An investment in one of these devices AND scrupulously following the procedures as defined by the inventor would potentially rid the world of these ailments.

That would be revolutionary !

People forget that Scurvy, caused by the lack of Vitamin C, killed many before it was determined that such a basic nutritional component lacking from our daily diet could translate to life or death.

I worked in the field of Hematology as a Bio Medical engineer and this device is essentially an electrical filter of the blood. For $20. in components I might add.

The bad stuff floating around in your blood such as parasites, viruses etc. is attracted to the good stuff simply by having an opposing charge on it's outer cell wall. This is the fundamental principle as to how and why this device works.

The AIDs virus attaches itself to good cells and overtakes them.
The same with Cancer.

So by weakening the charge of the walls of the bad cells, they are less apt to latch on figuratively speaking to your good cells.

This is a short blurb about the basic principles.

In a remarkable discovery at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, N.Y.C. in 1990, it was shown that a minute current (50 to 100 MICRO amperes) can alter outer protein layers of HIV virus in a petri dish so as to prevent its subsequent attachment to receptor sites. (SCIENCE NEWS, March 30, 1991 page 207.)

This very simple circuit is using one Chip, a small 8 legged commonly called a "One Shot" because it simply outputs a DC Square Wave at a low Frequency of 4 Cycles per second or Hertz. Half of the Earths.

This in turn is using the Three 9Volt batteries, in series to create 27 Volts, amplifies the signal to provide enough current to penetrate the 7 layers of the epidermis as well as the arterial walls.

It is very simply the most basic principles of Electricity , called Ohms law. Where

V = R*I ==== Where V is the Voltage provided by our Batteries

R ==== Or Resistance is the 7 or so layers of the Skin etc.

I ==== Is the current, which flows through the skin layers and eventually reaches the blood stream itself.

Thats why it requires a certain amount of Energy in which to reach the Blood stream. But the actual current is Micro amps, which is a millionth of an amp.


As I'd said, for $20. in parts ? It's a no brainer.
Even if it Doesn't work, whats $20 these days ? A pizza ?


Here's the schematic. 1 Chip, half dozen resistors, 2 Capacitors, 4 Diodes, a head phone jack and a switch.





Here's the Chip itself.





The Truth Shall set You Free !!


[edit on 22-6-2010 by nh_ee]

reply to post by Angeldust1199


Good post, here's a funny Fact....

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN OUTLAWED

The A.M.A. was found guilty in a U.S. Court of Law for violating the Anti-trust act a number of years ago. Dr. Morris Fishbine, President of the AMA, at that time, was sentenced to a prison term and the AMA was fined and admonished to cease and desist from their illegal activities. Fishbine didn’t serve his prison term and the fine was not heavy enough to worry the association so they have continued to operate in violation to the law ever since then. Therefore, they are an "outlaw gang."

The AMA is an illegally operating organization just like the FDA, WE THE PEOPLE do not need or want these types of organizations/mobs dictating how we live, we are not that stupid. My body is MINE and not government/corporation property any longer. I will do with it as I please.

I laugh at the ignorance of some people, it is soooooo funny.

www.whale.to... MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN OUTLAWED

Originally posted by Angeldust1199
Your holy peer review system have killed thousands upon thousands of people, just think VIOXX. Oops, well now tell me - where is the prosecutions, outrage and character assassinations? - But it's all about covering yourself - if anyone die from your treatment, well just too bad, as this is peer reviewed stuff.

There have been plenty of cases following the VIOXX scandal. (Litigation regarding VIOXX).

I have never claimed the pharmaceutical companies are wonderful. They rush through research (as in the case of VIOXX), they misrepresent new generation drugs, and they use deceptive marketing targeted toward the masses.

Despite all of this, it would be simply ignorant to say they haven't produced many effective drugs. Why has our lifespan continually increased? Why have cancer 5-year survival rates gone up across the board? Why are fewer children dying before their first birthday?

Now with this wonderful foul proof system in place, please let me know how the procedure is to get anything into a clinical trial, petitions don't work - 11.000 plus patient testimonials don't work - In fact people suffering from autoimmune diseases are so desperate that they now made their own worldwide database.

It's not hard at all to get something into a clinical trial. Private firms do it all the time. All you have to do is run a study with proper scientific controls and methods, and then submit it to a journal. It's as easy as that. It really makes you wonder why these naturopathic "doctors" don't submit their therapies to a study. The opportinities are out there, certainly. Several universities and medical schools have projects aimed at studying alternative therapies, and yet they don't get any takers from the alternative fields.

[quote[The stuff works better than any peer reviewed medicine, and yet - everything is IGNORED!.

It's not ignored. We just want data, not anecdotes.

The only thing that peer review is good for, is to cover the MD's so in case a product like VIOXX slips out and people start to die, they will not be prosecuted, because the product have been peer reviewed, Whereas things like Beck devices only need to harm 1 person, and it's banned immediately by FDA. The day doctors learn to take responsibility of their job, is the day we all will be healthier, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

Doctors don't create or research therapies. We simply don't have the time. I work, on average, 80 hours per week in patient care. When, exactly, am I supposed to be creating and researching new drugs? We have to trust that those creating the drugs are producing accurate data, which is why it takes nearly a decade for a drug to hit the market after creation, and why they must go through three human trial phases first.

Ridicule have always been the means of the medical field. Just a thing like stomach ulcers was linked to stress, but when someone came up with the idea that it was a bacteria (H. Pylori) they were ridiculed, remember Dr. Semmelweis who introduced the hand washing, he was ridiculed as well.

I don't recall Semmelweis being ridiculed for handwashing, and I don't recall there being ridicule when the idea of H. pylori came up. When someone brought up H. pylori, they did it through the proper channels. The questions was raised, research was performed, results were confirmed, and the data was published. Why is it so hard for alternative therapy pushers to do the same?

Only when it's in the interest of big pharma, things seem to progress at a blistering phase, and by the way - could anyone please let me know where the peer review, double blind journal is for the "so important" vaccine against swine flu that is rotting everywhere???

Sure, here are several:
H1N1 Novel Vaccine Study 1
H1N1 (and other strains) Study 2
H1N1 Study 3
H1N1 Study 4

Wow, that took an entire 5 minutes of searching on pubmed. Anything else I can spoonfeed you?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

I'm with Bedlam on this one. Rife and others like him are the definition of "snake oil salesmen" (granted, Rife is dead, so he's not much of anything anymore, I suppose). You simply CANNOT claim something is a "cure" or "treatment" when you have zero credible evidence to support the claim.

Definition of snake oil: A product that has been proven to not live up to the vendor's marketing hype.

JAMA recognizes over 200 possible causes for cancer; without having the actual causative factor the AMA usually recommends some form of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy has never had a success rate higher than 10% and is usually recorded at around 3%. Now that is the definition of "snake oil" and the clowns recommending this poison are the definition of "snake oil salesman".

I find it hypocritical how some require replicable data in a medical journal to accept a hypothesis, yet don't require the same data to form a negative opinion of that same hypothesis.

you simply CANNOT claim something is NOT a "cure" or "treatment" when you have zero credible evidence to support your claim.

A real professional would withhold judgment until replication is at least attempted, but if your waiting for clinical trials to start on a method of curing cancer that isn't expensive I would not hold your breathe. Why you say? Because in a monetary system where the bottom line is money not health, your not going to find too many interested in funding a profitless project. Don't take my word for this, walk into memorial Sloan-Kettering and tell the board of directors that you have an inexpensive cure for cancer, and watch as your laughed out of the building while the directors disperse in their private jets and expensive cars. These people are NOT in the business of helping people, simply because there is no money in a healthy populous!

Just as a side note, I know children who have better sense of morals than to chastise a dead person, let alone a medical professional...

Originally posted by arpanet
JAMA recognizes over 200 possible causes for cancer; without having the actual causative factor the AMA usually recommends some form of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy has never had a success rate higher than 10% and is usually recorded at around 3%. Now that is the definition of "snake oil" and the clowns recommending this poison are the definition of "snake oil salesman".

Do you have a source for those figures? The death rate for untreated cancers is nearly 100%. If chemotherapy only had a success rate of about 3%, that would mean the cancer death rate would be about 90-97%, which it isn't.

I find it hypocritical how some require replicable data in a medical journal to accept a hypothesis, yet don't require the same data to form a negative opinion of that same hypothesis.

You clearly don't understand science or logical, then. Why would I believe something si true until proven false? No one has proven nebulae aren't made of cotton candy. Do you believe that, too? The attitude of science is that nothing can be taken as true unless it is proven. Plain and simple.

A real professional would withhold judgment until replication is at least attempted, but if your waiting for clinical trials to start on a method of curing cancer that isn't expensive I would not hold your breathe. Why you say? Because in a monetary system where the bottom line is money not health, your not going to find too many interested in funding a profitless project.

Really? The NIH funded a ton of studies on the efficacy of giving B12 shots to cancer patients. It was found that B12 helped quite a bit, gave them energy, and reduced neuropathy. Now it's a standard treatment given in conjunction with others. Do you know how much I bill a patient for a B12 shot? Nothing. The cost is literally so negligible that the hospital has decided to just absorb the cost. In YOUR worldview, this study would never have seen the light of day, as it helps patients without providing profit. So, how do you explain it?

Don't take my word for this, walk into memorial Sloan-Kettering and tell the board of directors that you have an inexpensive cure for cancer, and watch as your laughed out of the building while the directors disperse in their private jets and expensive cars. These people are NOT in the business of helping people, simply because there is no money in a healthy populous!

So, your only evidence of an anecdote of a theoretical situation? Interesting.

You don't think a pharmaceutical company would jump on the chance to be the single company on the planet to "cure" cancer? You don't think that would create a massive trend of brand loyalty amongst patients and doctors for all their other drugs? And if they don't want to cure cancer cheaply, why did they create a vaccine to prevent cervical cancer? It's cheap, it's effective, and it is reducing the future cases of cervical cancer, which is a costly disease to treat. Why would they be shooting themselves in the foot, since this same company produces chemotherapeutics?

Just as a side note, I know children who have better sense of morals than to chastise a dead person, let alone a medical professional...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but being dead doesn't confer sainthood. Stalin is dead, too, and I personally spit on his grave a week ago at Red Square.

Thank you - for spoon feeding me - but where is the long term side effects study? - I didn't ask for observations - Usually the medical field, new products (that's what they are) have to go through multiple clinical trials which usually end up taking a decade or more, so as I stated please spoon feed me with more from your bible about the long term side effect study.

And will you explain to me what the term "there's currently no gold standard" covers?

And it's seems strange that you're so tied up in your work, and yet - you seem to have the time to enter all those discussions.

But when working with your clients you don't have time to pursue additional information? - well I think you have exposed someone very nicely! - have a nice day, and luckily my MD do have time to think for himself for which I'm very thankful.


Now how was it with the Semmelweis:

As a result, his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Other more subtle factors may also have played a role. Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands; they felt that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory


H. Pylori

It was not until the early 1980s, when two young Australian physicians, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren of the Royal Perth Hospital in Perth, Western Australia, again raised the possibility that bacteria caused ulcers. Fueled by their own persistence and enthusiasm–and initially ridiculed by their colleagues–Marshall and Warren established beyond any doubt that H. pylori plays a critical role in creating gastritis and ulcers.

science.education.nih.gov... ocument&Highlight=0,pylori

So now do I need to spoon feed you more - in order to find the word ridicule?

Originally posted by Angeldust1199
Thank you - for spoon feeding me - but where is the long term side effects study? - I didn't ask for observations - Usually the medical field, new products (that's what they are) have to go through multiple clinical trials which usually end up taking a decade or more, so as I stated please spoon feed me with more from your bible about the long term side effect study.

Please do the following for me. Position your mouse over the blue text in my previous post. Click the left mouse button (assuming you are using a PC). Then, read the text that pops up on your screen, especially for links three and four. You'll quickly see that these studies are both longterm (for the life of the vaccine) and clinical. How, exactly, would you propose we do an even longer cohort study on a vaccine that has only existed for a few years? The decade figure you have given is the length of time it takes from creation to market. This includes years of animal testing, and a few years of human testing. Phase IV trials are where you get longterm data, and this is performed once the drug has been cleared for marketing. Unfortunately, we have yet to master time travel, so we can't yet perform a 50-year study on a drug or vaccine that has only existed for 5 years at most.

And will you explain to me what the term "there's currently no gold standard" covers?

I'm not sure I understand your question. "Gold standard" would imply the treatment that the entire field has accepted as the best treatment. Most diseases have several treatment options, with one being the "gold standard" and the others being used for specific patients with specific conditions/allergies. Other diseases have several options with all of them being seen as equally effective, meaning there is no "gold standard".

And it's seems strange that you're so tied up in your work, and yet - you seem to have the time to enter all those discussions.

I know, it's wacky that I have this thing called "non-working days", huh? Hospitalists work 7-days on, 7-days off. I'm coming off of vacation currently and have a few more free days. Not to mention, I work a 12-hour shift, and am able to post before and after. You know that profesisonals aren't banned from posting here, right?

But when working with your clients you don't have time to pursue additional information? - well I think you have exposed someone very nicely! - have a nice day, and luckily my MD do have time to think for himself for which I'm very thankful.

Who said anything about not pursuing additional information? You suggested that doctors are to blame for bad drugs being created, and I explained that doctors don't create drugs, nor do we run confirmational trials. We simply don't have the means or time to. There are researchers whose sole job is to create and test drugs, and they are very busy. How would I do TWO person's jobs and still treat my patients?

Do you create and test every car you drive, or do you trust professionals to do it? Are you to blame for the Firestone tire controversy a few years ago? I mean, YOU bought the tired, YOU drove on the tires. Why didn't you make and test the tires yourself?

Now how was it with the Semmelweis:

As a result, his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Other more subtle factors may also have played a role. Some doctors, for instance, were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands; they felt that their social status as gentlemen was inconsistent with the idea that their hands could be unclean.

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory

You haven't provided any sources, just your own "version" of the story. Can you provide a link, preferably from an EDU site or textbook (many are available online through google scholar)?

H. Pylori

It was not until the early 1980s, when two young Australian physicians, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren of the Royal Perth Hospital in Perth, Western Australia, again raised the possibility that bacteria caused ulcers. Fueled by their own persistence and enthusiasm–and initially ridiculed by their colleagues–Marshall and Warren established beyond any doubt that H. pylori plays a critical role in creating gastritis and ulcers.

science.education.nih.gov... ocument&Highlight=0,pylori

So now do I need to spoon feed you more - in order to find the word ridicule?

Again, you've posted an anecdote of your version with no sources to prove the researchers were "ridiculed". They got funding from their hospital and government, so obviously they weren't maligned or blacklisted. I'm not seeing an issue here.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Do you have a source for those figures? The death rate for untreated cancers is nearly 100%. If chemotherapy only had a success rate of about 3%, that would mean the cancer death rate would be about 90-97%, which it isn't.

"….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life."—John Diamond, M.D.

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery." Prof. Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland.

"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy" NCI Journal 87:10

Those are just a few, I am sure I could really dig and find wonderful numbers about this poison. The problem is 5 months after admittance a patient is considered a cancer survivor, even if on the 6th month they die. The numbers are obscure from the beginning.

You clearly don't understand science or logical, then. Why would I believe something si true until proven false? No one has proven nebulae aren't made of cotton candy. Do you believe that, too? The attitude of science is that nothing can be taken as true unless it is proven. Plain and simple.

Sorry your right I guess I missed "logical" class in college, but I did take logic. So lets assign variables and work this out: (key: x=statement, a=true, b=false, c=data) if x+c=a then x=a, if x+c=b then x=b. Since there is no substantial data like you said then x can only equal x. Now comes the hypocritical part: you ridicule others for lacking substantial data to form their conclusion x=a and then you turn around and claim x=b while lacking the same data as x=a. I am not saying I walk around claiming everything to be true until proven false, I am merely stating that you cannot come to any conclusion without adequate data. Unless your a doctor that is, then logic doesn't apply to you! *rolling eyes*

Really? The NIH funded a ton of studies on the efficacy of giving B12 shots to cancer patients. It was found that B12 helped quite a bit, gave them energy, and reduced neuropathy.... The cost is literally so negligible that the hospital has decided to just absorb the cost. In YOUR worldview, this study would never have seen the light of day, as it helps patients without providing profit. So, how do you explain it?

I would explain it very simply so that you aren't lost: We are talking about cures and you have the audacity to bring up b12 shots that DO NOT cure cancer, but give energy back to the patient who was robbed of energy from chemo. in the first place? After months and thousands of dollars wasted on chemotherapy, I must bow to the NIH/hospitals for absorbing the cost of a b12 shot. These are stand up guys now, I would like to buy them a beer. (If I wasn't in so much debt, that is)

You don't think a pharmaceutical company would jump on the chance to be the single company on the planet to "cure" cancer?

I know this must be hard but think long term: the pharmaceutical company that cures cancer makes a quick buck one time, now with no more cancer how will they make money on cancer ever again? Simple THEY WON"T. Now replicate that for every disease, now the company is out of business! My little brother can grasp this...

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but being dead doesn't confer sainthood. Stalin is dead, too, and I personally spit on his grave a week ago at Red Square.

This isn't bad news, your comparing a medical doctor to Stalin; I can completely see the resemblance.

Back to the topic of this thread: I await the update from the people who have purchased these machines, I hope it does work!

Originally posted by arpanet

"….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a cure or even restored quality of life."—John Diamond, M.D.

"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy" NCI Journal 87:10

These two quotes, both supposedly by John Diamond and both supposedly in the 87:10 issue of JNCI, do not actually appear in the 87:10 issue of JNCI. They are no where to be found. John Diamond doesn't even have an article or review in that issue. If you're going to use quotes, please be sure they aren't made-up, first.

This issue, by the way, is from 1995, FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. Of COURSE the therapies were less effective back then! We've had at least three generations of chemotherapeutic advances since then.

JNCI 87:10

"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery." Prof. Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland.

This quote was made in 1956, before any modern therapies for cancer existed. Naturally, the immature therapies they had at the time were ineffective, which is why we needed to devise new techniques. Again, if you're going to use a quote, please research it so that you know it was give over 50 years ago.

Quote is from 1956

Those are just a few, I am sure I could really dig and find wonderful numbers about this poison. The problem is 5 months after admittance a patient is considered a cancer survivor, even if on the 6th month they die. The numbers are obscure from the beginning.

Do you have a source for that? The current medical standard that I, along with all of my classmates, the class before us, and the class after us (I don't know others beyond that scope from my school, though I assume they are still teaching similarly as my student follows the same guidelines I do) is that someone is a cancer survivor once they show either a lack of active disease, or are receiving treatment that is responding with remission.

Sorry your right I guess I missed "logical" class in college, but I did take logic. So lets assign variables and work this out: (key: x=statement, a=true, b=false, c=data) if x+c=a then x=a, if x+c=b then x=b. Since there is no substantial data like you said then x can only equal x. Now comes the hypocritical part: you ridicule others for lacking substantial data to form their conclusion x=a and then you turn around and claim x=b while lacking the same data as x=a. I am not saying I walk around claiming everything to be true until proven false, I am merely stating that you cannot come to any conclusion without adequate data. Unless your a doctor that is, then logic doesn't apply to you! *rolling eyes*

Unfortunately, whichever logic classes you took did not teach you properly. I am not claiming that x=b without c. I am claiming that x CANNOT equal a without c. When you have no c, x will never equal a to an acceptable measure. That doesn't mean x=b, it means x = not a. There's a difference between b and "not a". I would hope you had learned inductive logic alongside deductive logic, but apparently my hope was misplaced.

I would explain it very simply so that you aren't lost: We are talking about cures and you have the audacity to bring up b12 shots that DO NOT cure cancer, but give energy back to the patient who was robbed of energy from chemo. in the first place? After months and thousands of dollars wasted on chemotherapy, I must bow to the NIH/hospitals for absorbing the cost of a b12 shot. These are stand up guys now, I would like to buy them a beer. (If I wasn't in so much debt, that is)

B12 is given prior to chemotherapy to ensure the patient is strong and energetic enough to withstand side effects. It can also be given as a stand alone if the patient is being observed for active disease, or if some other therapy (such as antibody therapy) is being used. Cancer on it's own causes energy loss and fatigue. B12 combats that.

Perhaps you should learn a bit more about medicine before making sweeping generalizations about therapies you obviously know nothing about.

I know this must be hard but think long term: the pharmaceutical company that cures cancer makes a quick buck one time, now with no more cancer how will they make money on cancer ever again? Simple THEY WON"T. Now replicate that for every disease, now the company is out of business! My little brother can grasp this...

It's interesting that you simply ignored my point about a chemo producing company also producing the cervical cancer vaccine.

Brand loyalty is a powerful tool. If a company is known as the "cancer conquerer", people would be more likely to also prefer that company's blood pressure medications, anxiety pills, headache pills, or pretty much anything else they make. Why do you think companies are always targeting each other, saying Tylenol is better than Aspirin, which is better than Advil? Brand loyalty, that's why.

Originally posted by arpanet

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but being dead doesn't confer sainthood. Stalin is dead, too, and I personally spit on his grave a week ago at Red Square.

This isn't bad news, your comparing a medical doctor to Stalin; I can completely see the resemblance.

Back to the topic of this thread: I await the update from the people who have purchased these machines, I hope it does work!

Again, I'm sorry your anger has blinded you to my point. You implied that by being dead, Rife is immune to ridicule and that I should revere him, purely for being dead. If that were true, I should also revere Stalin, who is also dead. However, as I pointed out, being dead doesn't absolve you of your lies/crimes/sins.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


Unfortunately, whichever logic classes you took did not teach you properly. I am not claiming that x=b without c. I am claiming that x CANNOT equal a without c. When you have no c, x will never equal a to an acceptable measure. That doesn't mean x=b, it means x = not a. There's a difference between b and "not a". I would hope you had learned inductive logic alongside ded...

That is all fine and dandy but the fact that you are claiming this to be "snake oil" without data means you are drawing a conclusion to x without c it doesn't matter whether it be x = not a. The conclusion doesn't matter, whether it be x=a, x=b, x= not a, x= not b; without c your just pissing in the wind. Once again the hypocritical part: you ridicule others for coming to a conclusion without c, then you turn around and do the same thing! Now your claiming that you didn't do that? Your right I am the one who is not properly learned...