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

page: 6
270
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by RogerT


Who suggested you should believe that?
It is being widely used, as evidenced by the posts on this very thread


Luckily, anonymous anecdotes don't a scientific process make.


What's that got to do with your assertion that it isn't being widely used?




Which attitude would you prefer your treating physician have:

a) "I haven't seen sufficient evidence that therapy X works, so I am not comfortable providing it to my patients until that evidence is made available."

OR

b) "Well, a bunch of people on the internet said this works. There aren't any papers, peer-reviewed data sets, or longterm cohort studies, but what the hell? Anonymous people on the internet don't lie, do they?"



Personally, I don't have a treating physician. I 'just said NO' to the drug pushers a long time ago and surprisingly my health immediately improved and has continued to do so since.

If I did have a treating physician, I'd prefer the one who had the integrity to recommend something they had tried and tested personally: someone who had the courage to take a look at something that is reported widely as working, regardless of pharamaceutical sponsored trials and studies.

Anyway, you seem to have no problem recommending a therapy with a less than 3% cure rate that kills about a quarter of those that are ignorant of the safer and superior alternatives. (please see my DIY Cancer Cure thread for links to studies by 'your lot' that confirm these numbers).


Of course, if you did that, you'd probably lose your doctor's license. Perhaps there's a clue there




It's exceedingly hard to lose your license. You can use any experimental therapy you wish, as long as you don't violate ethics (first do no harm, etc.) and the patient has given full consent.

Nice sweeping generalization, though. I suppose all of us have our own biases, you and I both included.



I know ATS members have posted many, many examples of allopathic medical professionals who have been ostracised, prosecuted and live's ruined once they summoned the courage to speak out about personal research into alternative therapies. I won't bother to side-track the thread by posting my own list, it's not relevant.



Saying that pharmaceutical companies are "suppressing it" doesn't make any sense, as old home remedies are still very popular, despite marketing efforts by pharmaceutical companies.
Why wouldn't this become main stream?


I think these questions have been answered a thousand times here on ATS. Regardless, it's outside the scope of the thread. The question is 'does it work or not'. Popularity in a media led world does not infer efficacy, especially in the health industry. As a doctor peddling a sham of a treatment with a less than 3% true cure rate, you should know that better than anyone!





Why don't you try reading the data and research that has already been done (some posted here) and challenge that!



I just read the links in the OP. There is no data or research posted. The three links are interviews with Beck, descriptions of his methods, and that's it. No patient profiles, no percent successes, no blood titers, no histological samples...nothing. Just interviews and claims of suppression.

It's awfully hard to debate the data when no data is given.



The very first link, in the first sentence of the OP links here: Lab Test Results of HIV inactivation by electric current
from patent 5,139,684 ( Kaali & Schwolsky 8-18-92)


In conclusion, these experiments which have been repeated several times, and those using the CEM-SS cell line, indicate at a statistically significant level that direct electrical current at biocompatible amperages for discrete exposure time intervals can attenuate the ability of HIV-1 to infect normally healthy cells which are susceptible to the HIV-1 AIDS virus.


That's my last spoon-feed. Do some work if you're interested lazy-bones!


edits to fix quote arrays

[edit on 20/6/10 by RogerT]




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Here is a old article regarding the MAYO clinics use of radio freqency to effectively destroy kidey cancer.Please give us your professional opinion.
Thank you sir.

www.medicexchange.com...

Hope the link works ...i am new

www.mayoclinic.org...

edit to add link

www.mayoclinic.org...

www.mayoclinicproceedings.com...

[edit on 20-6-2010 by gatewaywithin]

[edit on 20-6-2010 by gatewaywithin]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


RogerT, you've not responded to a single one of my points, and instead have resorted to ad hominems, anecdotes, and accusations. I'm not sure which therapy you're referring to as having a 3% success rate, but none of the therapies I've ever prescribed are that unsuccessful. Sorry to disappoint.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Here is a old article regarding the MAYO clinics use of radio freqency to effectively destroy kidey cancer.Please give us your professional opinion.
Thank you sir.

www.medicexchange.com...

Hope the link works ...i am new


The technology in this article uses heat, not vibration or electric frequency. The healthy tissue is spared by cooling the probe, not due to any specific frequency of resonance, as suggested in the OP.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
The concept of this doctors work is an interesting one and one that in fundemental theory may be effective. The immediate thing that comes to mind is I believe the electric device was called a DC device and then went on to describe an AC device which is a scaryly significant mistake. But I havn't seen the plans so I don't want to poo poo it from that. Basically its describing a device that is surposed to electricute the pathogens without harming the human. It seems the biggest problem with this sort of method has been left out which is how to get the electricity to travel through all parts of the body. Electricity travels on the path of lest resistance and that usually means the shortest path. With such a small current (in the milliamps range) this is a significant problem leaving many pathogens untouched.

I was enjoying this post and its ideas untill I got near the end and I was reminded of the consequence of people making claims before they have been proven. I was reminded when I read the OPs mum has Cancer. And that is the cost, the cost is the hopes and dreams of the terminally ill. Whats worse is the biggest zealots of these unproven idears are the sick themselves as they are the ones who put in the time and the ones that are desperate for hope.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Then why not stick a soldering iron on it, why is it radio freqency that they are using? thanks for your professional opinion.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by gatewaywithin
 


You can't cool a soldering iron quickly enough, and it isn't precise enough. These vibration/heat devices are very small and very precise. To see a good picture of one, look up "nanoknife". It's a fairly new technology that is gaining ground quickly as a means of removing encapsulated tumors. The ATS Member "Maybe...Maybe Not" knows much more about this technology than me, as I am not an oncologist.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
From the parameters of current specified... 3.9Hz and in the microamp range, this is simply a microcurrent stimulation. Microcurrent is freely transmitted in the body. I'm unsure how milliamps on the skin could accurately modify to deliver a certain frequency of microamps by resistance factors of the skin. Not enough science on that. I am a physician who treats people with microcurrent very often. I've used it since 1980. Although it's a potent pain reliever for musculoskeletal and some neurological situations, and I have no doubt a local healing agent but none of my patients have reported cancer cures, disease remissions or other degenerative disorder reversals. I have been using it acupuncture style over acu-points or through silver backed conductive electrodes. 10Hz, 25 microamps, sharp square wave, alternating polarity every 2 seconds (see the work of Dr. Wing and the tsunami effect). I've read Pickers book "The Body Electric" and agree with his conclusions. INFO: see Pickers other book about the perils of Electro-smog and get that cellphone away from your head!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Chuffer
 


I have a Clark zapper. They are easy to build. Just a 9v battery, leads, and the copper hand holds. www.zapperlab.com...
Paper towels on the hand holds help conduction too.
I have a friend who does a detox foot bath. Then I come home and do a cleanse. Kills what ails me fast.
When I am only a little ill, I do the home zap.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by RogerT
 


RogerT, you've not responded to a single one of my points, and instead have resorted to ad hominems, anecdotes, and accusations. I'm not sure which therapy you're referring to as having a 3% success rate, but none of the therapies I've ever prescribed are that unsuccessful. Sorry to disappoint.


I responded to every one of your points.

Debating with you is about as useful and one-sided as going to see a 'treating physician' lol, but then again, I've yet to meet an allopathic doctor who was willing to open up their mind and really listen to something that challenged their chosen vocational vehicle.

What's wonderful, is that many people reading this thread simply don't care about your opinions, and will actually take action based on what is reported as working by their peers.

What is sad, is that many people will only do this after your colleagues have got done butchering them and destroying the better part of their immune system and organ integrity with ineffective cut-burn-poison, raping their bank accounts, and then sending them home to die.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by gatewaywithin
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Here is a old article regarding the MAYO clinics use of radio freqency to effectively destroy kidey cancer.Please give us your professional opinion.
Thank you sir.

www.medicexchange.com...

Hope the link works ...i am new


The technology in this article uses heat, not vibration or electric frequency. The healthy tissue is spared by cooling the probe, not due to any specific frequency of resonance, as suggested in the OP.


The OP suggests nothing of the sort, but nice try



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT


I responded to every one of your points.


No, you didn't. You referred me to the OP, where you give references to interviews, not data. The only "data" given in the patent file is referring to their own work, which was never reviewed. I can make up numbers that support ridiculous claims, too, if I never have to submit them to peer review.


Debating with you is about as useful and one-sided as going to see a 'treating physician' lol, but then again, I've yet to meet an allopathic doctor who was willing to open up their mind and really listen to something that challenged their chosen vocational vehicle.

What's wonderful, is that many people reading this thread simply don't care about your opinions, and will actually take action based on what is reported as working by their peers.

What is sad, is that many people will only do this after your colleagues have got done butchering them and destroying the better part of their immune system and organ integrity with ineffective cut-burn-poison, raping their bank accounts, and then sending them home to die.


I work in public health, meaning my salary is essentially unchanged if I write one prescription or a thousand, perform one procedure or a thousand, or see on patient or a thousand. I don't see why, given my career choice, you think I'm doing this "for the money" or "raping bank accounts".

Why is it so hard for you to understand that I want solid, longterm data before I subject a patient to a therapy? It's easy for you to say you would use therapy X or Y when you have never had someone's life in your hands. I am in this sort of situation on a daily basis. Why on earth would I suggest an unproven treatment to a patient who could very well die if the therapy is inneffective, let alone harmful?

It's very easy for you to play armchair quarterback, but try actually working in health care. It's much different than you seem to think it is.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

The OP suggests nothing of the sort, but nice try


From the OP:


Preferred electrifiers must generate a 3.9 Hz (not critical) biphasic sharp-rise-time square wave, +/- 27 volt peak adjustable output, 50% duty cycle, capable of delivering several milliamperes into a low resistance load at skin surface (+/- 2000 ohm impedance) which after losses in tissue resistance delivers the necessary 50 to 100 microamperes through flowing blood.

This suppressed medical discovery is proving to neutralize or eliminate all parasites and their mycotoxins, fungi, viruses, microbes, germs, pathogens, bacteria, or any other foreign invaders in blood without drugs.


This suggests that a specific frequency (3.9Hz) can be used to "eliminate" pathogens without harming self-tissue.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by BungleX
The concept of this doctors work is an interesting one and one that in fundemental theory may be effective. The immediate thing that comes to mind is I believe the electric device was called a DC device and then went on to describe an AC device which is a scaryly significant mistake. But I havn't seen the plans so I don't want to poo poo it from that. Basically its describing a device that is surposed to electricute the pathogens without harming the human. It seems the biggest problem with this sort of method has been left out which is how to get the electricity to travel through all parts of the body. Electricity travels on the path of lest resistance and that usually means the shortest path. With such a small current (in the milliamps range) this is a significant problem leaving many pathogens untouched.

I was enjoying this post and its ideas untill I got near the end and I was reminded of the consequence of people making claims before they have been proven. I was reminded when I read the OPs mum has Cancer. And that is the cost, the cost is the hopes and dreams of the terminally ill. Whats worse is the biggest zealots of these unproven idears are the sick themselves as they are the ones who put in the time and the ones that are desperate for hope.


The Beck Zapper 'electrocutes' the blood as it passes the electrodes. Beck realised that many pathogens were 'hiding' in lymph and other areas and not affected by blood electrification, so developed the magnetic pulser to induce eddy currents in these tissues to achieve the same aim.

Once you read the paper, (I posted a link on page 4 i think), you should get clear on the AC DC thing. Also, don't confuse the Beck system of passing a current through the blood with frequency generators, they are different animals, although apparently both extremely effective.

PS. Don't worry about my mum. She's in good hands and doing very well, feeling better than she has for years, and very happy she doesn't have a plastic bag glued to her belly to drip excrement into, which would have been the case by now had she followed the advice of her 'treating physician'.

[edit on 20/6/10 by RogerT]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another Vodka
From the parameters of current specified... 3.9Hz and in the microamp range, this is simply a microcurrent stimulation. Microcurrent is freely transmitted in the body. I'm unsure how milliamps on the skin could accurately modify to deliver a certain frequency of microamps by resistance factors of the skin. Not enough science on that. I am a physician who treats people with microcurrent very often. I've used it since 1980. Although it's a potent pain reliever for musculoskeletal and some neurological situations, and I have no doubt a local healing agent but none of my patients have reported cancer cures, disease remissions or other degenerative disorder reversals. I have been using it acupuncture style over acu-points or through silver backed conductive electrodes. 10Hz, 25 microamps, sharp square wave, alternating polarity every 2 seconds (see the work of Dr. Wing and the tsunami effect). I've read Pickers book "The Body Electric" and agree with his conclusions. INFO: see Pickers other book about the perils of Electro-smog and get that cellphone away from your head!


The body electric is Becker's book. Just clarifying.

According to Kaali and Lyman, the required current to disable pathogens is 50-100 micro amperes, so 25 at the skin would not be sufficient.

Beck suggests a necessary period of 2 hours per day for 3-6 weeks, so it's not going to be something you can easily do 'in-house'.

Why not get one of these devices and add it to your repertoire? Lend it out to your patients and post the feedback for us here.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Why is it so hard for you to understand that I want solid, longterm data before I subject a patient to a therapy? It's easy for you to say you would use therapy X or Y when you have never had someone's life in your hands. I am in this sort of situation on a daily basis. Why on earth would I suggest an unproven treatment to a patient who could very well die if the therapy is inneffective, let alone harmful?

It's very easy for you to play armchair quarterback, but try actually working in health care. It's much different than you seem to think it is.


Shame on you.
My mum was given a death sentence of 6 months to a year by your colleagues, after having failed first round of cut-burn-poison. She is now staying in my home undergoing alternative treatment.
You know this, as you have posted in both my threads on the subject, yet you call me an armchair quarterback.
I'd say I care a hell of a lot more about my mum than you do about your patients, but that would be an unsubstantiated assumption, so I leave that up in the air.

And you know very well that your 'solid long term data' which you will insist must be peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals, only comes from pharma sponsored sources.
If you don't know this, then perhaps you should educate yourself by reading some of the plethora of information made available by your colleagues who've 'seen the light' and 'left the fold'.

Best.
R



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I removed this post as I'm bored of clarifying plain english to someone who appears incapable of deciphering it.

[edit on 20/6/10 by RogerT]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Why is it so hard for you to understand that I want solid, longterm data before I subject a patient to a therapy? It's easy for you to say you would use therapy X or Y when you have never had someone's life in your hands. I am in this sort of situation on a daily basis. Why on earth would I suggest an unproven treatment to a patient who could very well die if the therapy is inneffective, let alone harmful?

It's very easy for you to play armchair quarterback, but try actually working in health care. It's much different than you seem to think it is.


Shame on you.
My mum was given a death sentence of 6 months to a year by your colleagues, after having failed first round of cut-burn-poison. She is now staying in my home undergoing alternative treatment.
You know this, as you have posted in both my threads on the subject, yet you call me an armchair quarterback.
I'd say I care a hell of a lot more about my mum than you do about your patients, but that would be an unsubstantiated assumption, so I leave that up in the air.

And you know very well that your 'solid long term data' which you will insist must be peer reviewed and published in prestigious journals, only comes from pharma sponsored sources.
If you don't know this, then perhaps you should educate yourself by reading some of the plethora of information made available by your colleagues who've 'seen the light' and 'left the fold'.

Best.
R


None of the research projects I've worked on and led were funded by pharma companies. They were exclusively NIH and DoD grants, as are a large majority of basic science projects.

Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit, too.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
None of the research projects I've worked on and led were funded by pharma companies. They were exclusively NIH and DoD grants, as are a large majority of basic science projects.
Perhaps you should educate yourself a bit, too.


Same bed.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

I guess electronics is not your thing. No worries, it's not mine either.
The quote actually states that the frequency is NOT CRITICAL, and the 50 to 100 microamperes is what does the job. The word NECESSARY is the clue there


In order to attain 50-100 microamperes, your power source must be producing a given number of coulombs per second. These cycles can (and often are) measured in Hz. This is why I pointed that out.





new topics

top topics



 
270
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join