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

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: Bedlam

All living things vibrate at a certain frequency.

There's the first problem. No, they don't. That seems to have originated with theosophy, and it's totally wrong.

If the vibrations of specific viruses and cancer cells were measured and you found a way to increase their vibrations to shatter like a high pitch shatters a wine glass, then you can theoretically eradicate that biological thing inside the human body.

Again wrong. Yes, this is what Rife seems to have believed. No, it's not correct, and it's why his gadget doesn't work at all.

You also have to ask why wine glasses shatter. And that's because the glass has a shape and size that's got a nice mechanical resonance in a frequency you can hear (still, it's a high note), the glass is very elastic, and the glass is very brittle. You can't, for example, shatter a water balloon by singing at it because it's not brittle and it has a low 'q', that is, it doesn't dissipate flex as heat.

Now, a high pitched sound is a mechanical stress wave, because sound is a wave of pressure in a medium like air. A radio signal is not, nor is an electric field oscillating at audio frequencies, which is what you get from a Rife device for the most part. Radio signals don't cause mechanical failure of things, because they don't cause structures to flex. No resonance, no force, no shattering.

Now, I have seen some work on using hypersonics to shatter viruses that have rigid capsids, like tobacco mosaic viruses. If you look at the frequencies used, it's sounds in the GHz range, which calculates out to have a wavelength that matches the long axis of the virus in normal saline solution. But that's sound, and it's a proper wavelength, and it's a critter that has a rigid, brittle, elastic structure. Most viruses and bacteria do not.

I don't believe he was a con man. It takes many trials and errors before you find the right machine that would work flawlessly...kind of like T. Edison with his light bulb idea. Big Pharma didn't like Rife's idea one bit. If it had worked and that machine sold over the counter, the pharmaceutical industry would be less profitable. And if the Elite were following a path to NWO and depopulation, why would they want some crazy invention saving lives???

But his microscope and the 'Rife device' don't, in fact, work at all. And I assume Rife wasn't deluding himself about it. Thus he is a con man.

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
False...people are not surviving cancer more than before. Cancer treatments have a 99% fatality success. Sure the drugs kill the initial cancer, but then destroy healthy cells in the process thus killing the patient from the side effects.

People are living longer with better medications that fight diseases and viruses. Better surgical procedures etc...

Obviously you haven't studied metaphysics, quantum theory, and physics in general to dismiss my post. Kind of ignorant of you to be honest without even considering backing up your claim with facts and studies. T

(1) Devita et al. 1970 MOPP cures advanced Hodgkin's disease www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(2) 69-74% cure rate for pediatric ALL in 1990. It's better now, fortunately (80-90%+) www.sciencedirect.com...
(3) Success at treating disseminated germ cell tumors as reported in 1987 by Einhorn's group www.nejm.org...
(4) CMF Chemotherapy after surgery reduces the chance of dying of breast cancer, after 30 years follow up. as reported by the Milan group www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

It goes on. Even in heavily treated Hodgkin's lymphoma patients www.mercknewsroom.com... news.bms.com...&t=635534715857175898

Then in malignant melanoma the use of single agent anti-clta4 shows long-term and durable remission in 20-25% of patients www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... jco.ascopubs.org...

Then TIL treatment clincancerres.aacrjournals.org... jco.ascopubs.org... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So things are getting better www.cancerresearchuk.org...

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
False...people are not surviving cancer more than before. Cancer treatments have a 99% fatality success. Sure the drugs kill the initial cancer, but then destroy healthy cells in the process thus killing the patient from the side effects.

People are living longer with better medications that fight diseases and viruses. Better surgical procedures etc...

Obviously you haven't studied metaphysics, quantum theory, and physics in general to dismiss my post. Kind of ignorant of you to be honest without even considering backing up your claim with facts and studies. T

Proof please.
And no, I haven't studied metaphysics as there's nothing concrete to study, it's smoke and mirrors at best.

I have studied human physiology though and medical physics so there's no ignorance on my part at least.

a reply to: Skywatcher2011

Sorry to side with the debunkers but the Rife microscope is nothing else than the work of a con man.

It have all caracteristics, the main one is an uterly complex device that need the fine tuning of the "inventor" to work.

Also, not that it is impossible to resolve below wavelength of light. I have here a nice Nikon microscope and with a 100x Plan objective of N.A.=1.30 and N.A.=1.25 for the condenser, I can resolve at 550nm 263nm using oil immersion.
www.microscopyu.com...

But this is applicable for the far field, If you can adapt a normal optical microscope to "exploit" the near field, then you can go at much higher resolution than that. An example I know is using micro-ball of glass in direct contact with the specimen to "extend" the near field to the normal objective of the microscope. Field correction is probably necessary.

However the Rife microscope has NO characteristic of a near field microscope.

For the Rife device to kill cancer cells and pathogen, my initial analysis of the concept tell me that the "special" gas discharge lamp simply emit some UV that will simply kill whatever is exposed to it.

a reply to: PeterMcFly

Yeah, if you use evanescent waves you can resolve down to about 1/4 lambda, but even then for visible light you probably can't image a virus.

a reply to: 999zxcv

those foot pads are a crock of >?*&^

If you'd like to see/listen to some other real very promising cancer curing ....

Dr. Anthony Holland at a TED Conference. He brought video of the cancer being destroyed. It's truly fascinating and encouraging research and information.

Published on Dec 22, 2013 Anthony Holland: Associate Professor, Director of Music Technology, Skidmore College. DMA, MM, MM, BM; President: Novobiotronics Inc. [a nonprofit 501(c)(3) charitable and educational company]. Discovered the ability of Oscillating Pulsed Electric Fields (OPEF) to destroy cancer cells and MRSA in laboratory experiments. Expert in custom digital electronic signal design, synthesis and analysis for biological effects. Member: Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS), European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA). Postdoctoral work: Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA) Stanford University. Advanced Digital Synthesis and Analysis studies with: Max Mathews (the ' Father of Computer Music'), John Chowning (founding Director of CCRMA, Electronic Composer and Inventor (famed FM Synthesis Patent); Jean-Claude Risset (Electronic Composer and founding Director of the Digital Synthesis Division of the internationally renowned IRCAM center, Paris, France); John Pierce: former Director of Sound Division: Bell Laboratories.

originally posted by: Destinyone


Cure equals no incoming cash for drugs that all those patents companies hold on manufacturing. It would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

If you don't think Big Parma is one of the most important components of finance and power, Just as Obama...

Des

I just don't get this, how a cure is equal to no income from drugs? lets say someone is 20 years old they have cancer and they die,,,,no more money to be made off of them since they are deceased...yes the dr made moneny with the treatment the person received before they died

.now if they are cured of the cancer and live to the age of eighty...how many years of paying medical insurance payments (money for the insurance companies) how many times in those 60 years will they go to the drs...how many conditions will
this person be treated for with prescription drugs.....will they develop a chronic diseases over this 60 year span???

where is the logic??

a reply to: Wingz

He's a music theory doctor. So, you know, not so much a biologist or physicist.

He hasn't published on it. So, he can't pass a peer review.

Worse, if you read his description of it, he says "frequency machines" more than once, and seems really really vague on the differences between sound and electrical fields.

And, if I read it right, he's funding his development with crowd funding.

Yep, seems legit. BTW, he also is really confused about what's resonating and how. Wanders all over the point.

a reply to: Bedlam

The guy also seems to be getting his funding with indiegogo. VERY bad indication.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Wingz

He's a music theory doctor. So, you know, not so much a biologist or physicist.

He hasn't published on it. So, he can't pass a peer review.

Worse, if you read his description of it, he says "frequency machines" more than once, and seems really really vague on the differences between sound and electrical fields.

And, if I read it right, he's funding his development with crowd funding.

Yep, seems legit. BTW, he also is really confused about what's resonating and how. Wanders all over the point.

With regards to all of the above stated... Thats why I have more hope in what he's doing versus what a MainStream academic in the field is doing, mainly because they're already indoctrinated with certain belief systems (what will or what wont work).

When he brought the videos to the biology department and showed them, they said they had not ever seen anything like it before (around the 9 minute mark). Later on they showed the videos to a Cancer Researcher which results in them spending 4 months in a Cancer Lab and they attack a number of cancer cells (11 minute mark approx.). I'm not concerned with whether or not he quite understands it all (yet), I'm interested in his moving forward to get more answers.

With respect in regards to funding, would you prefer this to be backed by Big Pharma or Monsanto or (insert other large corp.)? I'm sure you'll agree that a Cancer patient really cares less if the discovery of killing cancer cells safely was made by a Music Teacher or an accredited scientist. They just want to get rid of the Cancer.

I am under the impression that Big Pharma (and other Medical Giants) care less about healing anyone and more concerned with treating the symptoms of a problem. For you know there is no money to be made if were all healthy and strong, yet a ton of profits in just handing out pills and irradiating our bodies.

Meh... don't get me started with our over-bloated medical/health care system.

originally posted by: Wingz
With regards to all of the above stated... Thats why I have more hope in what he's doing versus what a MainStream academic in the field is doing, mainly because they're already indoctrinated with certain belief systems (what will or what wont work).

If he can't tell the difference between sound and radio, then he's just flailing around. Although I note you didn't hesitate to stick "Doctor" in front of his name to add in that bit of validation. Did you know it was "doctor of music" at that point, or was it just to make him sound good? I mean, if you would rather have someone uneducated in the field doing research, or really anything CLOSE to it, why put that in? A humanity major doctorate isn't a big plus for this sort of thing.

With respect in regards to funding, would you prefer this to be backed by Big Pharma or Monsanto or (insert other large corp.)?

I'd rather it not be a scam, and developed by someone with a clue. This is like that "developed by a school teacher" crap for vitamin C pills. I have to wonder, too, what sort of research he's qualified to do with no biology training, no training in statistics or experiment design. It's going to be really tough/impossible for him to do proper testing, since he won't know how. And no one's going to buy into it, since he won't be up to doing the stats or experiment design to show it DOES work.

This is why you don't have concrete screeders doing semiconductor fab research. Despite their "not being indoctrinated".

The indiegogo funding is the fun part.

originally posted by: Bedlam

Did you know it was "doctor of music" at that point, or was it just to make him sound good?

Yes, I am aware of his status

I mean, if you would rather have someone uneducated in the field doing research, or really anything CLOSE to it, why put that in?

.

With respect Sir, you seem (to me), to be implying a conspiracy or something 'fishy' with a title (which would be wrong on your part). Whether or not that is true or not, it appears you seem to be sliding past (again with respect, as that's how I see it) that the Professor did present his findings to a number of those that are in the mainstream academia departments and was invited by a Cancer Research lab to further his experimentation.

But I do see your point also and I am always skeptical of any 'too good to be true' aspects or announcements and yet I'm also appreciative of being presented with different 'trains of thought' to challenge my view. And so with all this still being in the fetal-stage of exploration, I say perhaps it's too early to be judgemental and lets just see where this takes us..

originally posted by: Wingz
With respect Sir, you seem (to me), to be implying a conspiracy or something 'fishy' with a title (which would be wrong on your part).

It's a CT site posting tendency to insert 'Doctor' or 'PhD' to bolster a source's credentials whilst slipping past the part that the doctorate is in something totally inapplicable, or is honorary, or purchased.

If I was posting something authoritative from Dr Joseph Blow regarding the meaning of the recurring horse symbol in Frost's poetry in a literature forum, I think I'd either leave the 'Doctor' off or overtly state that Dr Blow is a doctor of, say, basketball theory. Otherwise, it's sort of implied that Dr Blow's academic expertise is in the subject being discussed.

So, yeah, it's a bit disingenuous.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That would be because cancer IS NOT A VIRUS Now I will be accused of being in the biased camp of science and in Big Pharma's pocket I am sure. So lets answer that.

(a) I'm a Pharmaceutical chemist, and I've done research into the genetic causes of certain types of breast cancer.
(b) Big Pharma does not pay me, no it's small, and medium sized Pharma that contract me.

The whole "Cancer is a Virus" idea will not go away. Much like a bad case of cancer.

I'd like to add my two cents here. There seems to be a whole sub-thread that developed around a misquote or typo in the OP. Rife did not think cancer was a virus. He believed he had discovered the virus which caused cancer. He named it the BX virus. He even cultured it and injected it into mice which subsequently grew tumors.

Also, from what I remember reading, he WAS working in UV. He would illuminate his subject with UV and convert the result to visible light allowing him to see objects much smaller than visible light would allow. Similar to how we hear bat sounds. He discovered that many of his subject would fluoresce at the right frequency of UV. He was experimenting with different light sources and frequencies when, at one point, he noticed that all of his subjects were dead. He tried another sample and when he tuned the output tube to that same frequency they all died again.

When he realized the potential of his discovery, he shifted his research from the microscopes to the cure for diseases that his discovery made possible.

a reply to: Kaiju

Again, many things cause cancer. Cancer is not a single condition. Radiation, chemicals, transcription errors etc. All these cause cancer. I can think of one that influences cancer, HIV, it destroys ones immune system, and as a consequence certain cancers take off, when usually they would not.

Is cancer a virus? No.
Can virus cause cancer? Yes.
Are all virus treated the same? No.
Are all cancer some form of uncontrollable reproduction that limit the cells functionality? Yes.
Can all cancer be treated the same because the process of cancer is the same? No.

Why? Because all of your cells are different types of cells and respond differently to different treatments. For example Radiation therapy will not do anything for leukemia, because there is no tumor to shrink.

Generally just considering "chemotherapy" a single treatment is also incorrect. Chemotherapy itself is comprised of several different treatment types, for several different types of cancer. My assumption is most people imagine it's the same process for everyone. Also this doesn't mean you have to be excluded from other forms of treatment, radiation and chemotherapy are often both used together.

If you really need to go any further into the debate if cancer is a virus, there is a pretty obvious thing to note: Surgery can cure cancer, by removing the tumor and disallowing the cancer to spread and corrupt other cells. No virus by definition can be cured with surgery. So cancer is not a virus.

a reply to: EnderMEM

To me this sounds plausible.

All one must accept is that money is the universal corrupter.

Where have we ever seen an exception to this rule?

Cancer is an enormously lucrative business.

I'm sure measures are taken to continue its success.

a reply to: imjack

I wonder who coined the term "cancer"? Was it a joint venture between the government and big pharma? Is "cancer" really just a virus and these two forces and making us believe it is something else so they can load a bunch of drugs (chemo) into the human body? YES>