This Device Cured Cancer But BIG PHARMA Destroyed It! Must Read.

page: 12
74
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


OK. Here is a perfect example.... this article got onto the second page of our national news paper...


www.sportscoach.netmx.co.uk...

Look at the heading..... Real athletes don't feel good vibrations


Please note: The machines were designed to be purely eccentric and anaerobic in nature. Strength and conditioning causing similar effects to climbing . So people with heart conditions could train safety. No designer at the time was claiming it to be an aerobic exercise discipline.


As a lecturer in exercise prescription at the Institute of Human Nutrition and Health in a University. This was basic general knowledge.


Once that is understood, the comments made are highly unethical and were obviously made to confuse / deter laypeople from even trying them.



These machines are now use to fight obesity and by athletes alike. Which so much positive research coming through. It has even spread to children's hospitals.

All my work within the field of obesity and stroke and muscular dystrophy etc... is done free of charge.




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
You guys interested might like to watch this guys take on how it worked.


Photos - www.rife.org...
John Bedini also did quite a bit of work on Rife as well.
johnbedini.net...
edit on 5-3-2014 by Freezer because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Freezer
John Bedini also did quite a bit of work on Rife as well.


Of that I have no doubt. Second line.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


dug into authenticated mainstream researchers of rifes era. does harvard meet your standards?
rifes microscope claims were not to out of line from other work going on....before it got dropped in favor of electron microscopy work

From Plattsburgh Daily Press 1/4/1938
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. Under the "eye" of a new Harvard microscope, the most powerful of its typein the world, a speck of ore dust looks like a boulder many times the height of a man. The microscope can magnify objects up to 50,000 times their normal diameter although its practical range is in the 4,000-6,000 magnification....The microscope was designed by Professor L. C. Graton, of Harvard's laboratory of mining geology, in collaboration with Dr. E. B. Jane, Jr.......

nyshistoricnewspapers.org...=1935&city=Plattsburgh%2C+N.Y.&date2=1945&words=MICROSCOPE+microscope+mic roscopes&searchType=basic&sequence=0&index=4&county=&rows=20&proxtext=microscope&y=12&x=11&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1

these guys work is confirmable on other sites but the direction was mineral studies.
in addition to graton at harvard, lucas at bell labs claimed to have even more powerful equipment

to answer previous questions: to overcome resolution, wavelengths were in the UV range, chromatic aberration was handled by using prisms to create monochromatic beams that were polarized. all buzzwords used in rifes description of his equipment.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by robobbob
 


Rife was not imaging in UV. Second line.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Skywatcher2011

jaytay
here is another : ham radio operator finds cure for cancer.

en.wikipedia.org...

video
cnettv.cnet.com...


From your wiki link for those who want a quick read here:

American Inventor: John S. Kanzius (March 1, 1944 – February 18, 2009)

Invention: He invented a method that, he said, could treat virtually all forms of cancer,with no side effects, and without the need for surgery or medication...called Kanzius RF Therapy

Kanzius RF Therapy:
-an experimental cancer treatment that employs a combination of either gold or carbon nanoparticles and radio waves to heat and destroy cancer cells without damaging healthy cells
- using nanoparticles to be preferentially bound to cancer sites, cancer cells could be destroyed or induced into apoptosis while leaving healthy tissue relatively unharmed

Btw, nice find


Wow, this deserves a thread of its own.

John Kanzius did this with Dr. Steven Curley who supplied John with the nanoparticles in the first place.

Read this article for details:
www.cbsnews.com...

Now, John died and Dr. Curley took over the research and the machine has performed on a level no other cancer treatment has, it's been outstanding.

Now read what happens:



A cancer research pioneer used computer software to spy on his ex-wife as they went through a bitter divorce, prosecutors have said. Dr Steven Curley, 57, from Missouri City near Houston, Texas, faces 20 years in prison if convicted of the charge of unlawful intercept.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

WOW, now they are attempting to put the man in prison for LIFE. He is on the verge of curing cancer and all this over nothing. I think he is being shut down.

Trial delayed to this month:
eriepacity.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

UnderGetty

Pardon?...I know for an absolute fact that there is no basis for this to work whatsoever...


Yeah, that arrogant statement pretty much sums up the hubris of "doctors" these days. A few hundred years of research and they think they know everything. Sorry, they know the know everything.

I'm no self proclaimed medical expert like you, but luckily for everyone, the principle is simple enough for even a Luddite like me to grasp. The basis by which the Rife machine works is harmonic frequencies. That's it. Find the harmonic frequency of a molecule, cell, virus, the earth (read Tesla), and you can transfer energy to the object to the point where is destructs.

I think I even experienced this myself at the park recently while pushing one of my kids on a swing. Small, well timed pushes resulted in an accumulation of energy.

It's the exact same principle behind acoustic weapons, just different frequencies and mode of delivery.

It's the exact same principle behind how voltage intensifiers work, so you'e probably sitting within feet of the principle in action. Then again, that just can't be. Because you know for an absolute fact that the principle of harmonic amplification doesn't exist.

Or is your statement more along the lines of medical professionals 50 years ago knowing for an absolute fact that smoking was beneficial for pregnant women? Or medical professionals 40 years ago knowing for an absolute fact that Thalidomide was a wonderful morning sickness treatment. Or medical professionals 30 years ago proclaiming that there was absolutely no need to screen blood for pathogens. Or medical professionals 20 years ago proclaiming that the language of DNA was so well understood that any DNA they didn't understand must surely be non coding (junk). Or medical professionals 10 years ago proclaiming that since they know everything there is to know about DNA encoding (and that there was only one encoding), that it's safe to tinker with the DNA of organisms and release them into the wild.

Since you're a self proclaimed medical expert, I'm inclined to lump you with the other medical experts who litter western medicine.


If you equate arrogance to proven science then yes, that statement would be seen as arrogant however, it is just fact.

And do you see the irony in your second sentence about the simplicity of comprehension? It's this simplicity of your comprehension that allows you to believe such nonsense is real.

Forgive me if I'm being arrogant but the knowledge and factual evidence I have accrued over decades working in physiology and medical physics tells me conclusively that Rife is useless.
I've known this since I first heard about Rife in the 1980's and guess what?
Unlike your other examples it still rings true. Rife "therapy" does not cure cancer.

Think about what you've written about harmonic frequencies being able to target specific molecules.
Which molecules specifically would you target?
How many, and what type of molecules are in a cancer cell?
How different are they to the molecules in a non-cancer cell?
How would these frequencies differentiate between the same molecules in different cells?
How would these frequencies make it through all of the tissues with no damage to them (since these would contain similar molecules)?
These questions works on a cellular level too.

Why are you trying to make out that I've said I didn't believe in the principle of harmonic amplification by the way?
Can you point out in my post where I've said that please?


Can you also show me anywhere where Rife is proven beyond any scientific doubt to work as I've asked in my previous post?

I'm afraid if you can't answer any of the questions (which are extremely simplified, I can ask more at a greater level if you wish) then I'm inclined to lump you to into the woo bin.
Sorry.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I just showed you verified proof that contemporaries were using equipment usable at X6000 and max X50K (pg 206) and that's all you got?

well if rife couldn't do it, boy I bet the Smithonian was pissed when they found out.
archive.org...
click on "Full Text" link and "read online" pg 212

or internet explorer archive.org.../206/mode/2up

every one of rifes few articles keeps hammering, quartz prisms, quartz lenses, quartz slides. the description of his quartz selector prisms specifically noted as going from IR to UV (pg208). awful lot o' quartz for a guy not working some UV. rife does say his scope can be used for normal work and had a standard microscope built into it



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

robobbob
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I just showed you verified proof that contemporaries were using equipment usable at X6000 and max X50K (pg 206) and that's all you got?


The limits of resolution of a microscope are set by the wavelength you image at, and the aperture. It's why you can get far better resolutions with x-rays and electrons. All I got is physics. And Rife wasn't using a wavelength at which he could resolve a virus, nor get the magnifications he was claiming. Why do you think Rife's Rube Goldberg microscope bore any relationship to the article you linked? You can't arrogate the legitimacy of one to Rife by association.



well if rife couldn't do it, boy I bet the Smithonian was pissed when they found out.
archive.org...
click on "Full Text" link and "read online" pg 212


The Smithsonian's got Spock's ears, too, doesn't prove that Vulcans exist. Did you take off your Rife colored glasses and actually read the thing? You ought to ask - what sort of publication is this, where did the information come from, and who says? Did anyone vet that, and has anyone tried to reproduce it? If you had, you'd know it's not a refereed journal, it's a compendium of articles. And the Rife part mostly comes from Dr Rosenow or Rife himself, and is in spots straight quotes from Rife's schtick. BTW, if you read it carefully, you'll find that they never say it can image a virus. They're looking at cocci.




awful lot o' quartz for a guy not working some UV. rife does say his scope can be used for normal work and had a standard microscope built into it


Ever hear him state he's using UV? No. He does state that he "stains the viruses with light", and the Smithsonian article collage you keep linking to does as well. Red, blue, green. Not UV. No description of having to use photo plates for the images. Unless, of course, Rife could SEE in UV.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


I am aware that the report were collections based on provided information. however, the work was not just compiled by someone at smithonian, additional commentary is included and they were not sufficiently disturbed by the claims and thought them sufficiently valid to be included. By publishing, the institution provides some credibility to the work. In addition, with the wide array of academic readers, presumably containing many hundreds of physicists and optical professionals, any claims thought to be garbage would have created an immediate backlash and a torrent of criticism.

on the importance of contemporaries: their work is well documented and accepted and shows what was physically possible at that time.
1) your primary argument of that resolution below 1/2 is not possible. On pg 205, last line, Graton achieved resolution of objects of 1/10 and throughout the article both Lucas and Graton call the accepted theoretical limits wrong. statements backed by verified experimental results. something I suppose somebody should get around to reconciling one day.
2) the established researchers achieved magnification ranges in the same range rife claimed.

by 1 and 2 above, part of rifes claims are shown by other researchers to have been physically possible instead of simply unfounded and fraudulent claims.
that leaves one claim open. did he achieve resolution in the higher ranges? Graton and Lucas independently achieved res at X6000. Bernard at X7500. if item 1 is true, then rifes claim does not blatantly violate physical laws. if so, then it becomes a technical question of how it was done.

UV. Several months ago I was researching rife and found an article purporting to be an interview with him. In it, he mentioned that for certain work he used 2 polarized collimated UV beams. I have not been able to locate the article so I was hesitant to put those claims in rifes mouth. but considering the clear references to his choice of optical materials, and work of contemporaries, such a method is not demonstrably false. an interesting side note, in researching I encountered an internet site claiming to sell a rife microscope "kit" advising on the use of "window glass" for some of the components. one thing is for certain, the rife name has almost become synonymous with fraud.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by robobbob
 


Have youseen a lot of other people vindicating the authors' claims of better than 1/4 lambda? Recall this was 1945, a lot of water's under the bridge, and not only do I not recall being able to image better than that, it doesn't make sense to be able to image a lot tighter than the size of the photons you're imaging with.

If you could, there would be a mad revolution in chip masking.

And again, the reference you're quoting is a compendium of articles often written by the people making the claims.





top topics
 
74
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join