It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 14
96
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
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>


It was Hippocrates who coined the term cancer and described several different types.
That was around 2400 years ago.
It was also described in ancient Egypt over 1000 years prior to that.
I don't believe there were any pharmaceutical companies around then.




posted on Apr, 6 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
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>


Does it matter what it's called? To the average person? No.

Does it matter to the scientific community to differentiate them? Yes.

Why? Because cancer can be cured with surgery and should not be approached as a virus, because no other virus can be cured by surgery. This definition alone should please you buddy.

There is hardly any short of other reasons it's not considered a virus, but I'm explaining the most simple application to consider because your stance is endlessly trying to relate it to "Big Pharma" and is heavily pushing disinformation in the process under the conclusion "something is awry".

From an objective perspective, considering it a virus, when it can be cured by methods that don't cure any other virus, is not an assest in its classification at all, and would only lead to potentially worse treatment.

Basic biology suggests it's not a virus, no Doctor claiming it is understands basic biology.

All cells in your body experience mitosis or meiosis cell division. Cancer is when this functionality goes nuts and reproduces at a high rate. Nothing external is needed to make this go wrong, that is just a fact, it can happen on its own because cell division is a standard part of your bodily processes.

A virus is only EVER described as something external, entering your body, for example when someone sneezes on you. It then infects you and reproduces inside of you, and it even has its own DNA. Can one of these cause cancer? Yes. Why is it objectively important to seperate the concepts? Because they are not the same and information about virus will not change information about cell division processes.

In short, curing whatever virus caused your cancer, won't stop cancer from happening. You have to address that on its own. And what it's called won't change that, short of if you just named every single ailment on Earth a virus, when you break your leg, you call it a virus, etc, would only cause confusion of treating two different conditions appropriatly.

In conclusion, having different names for different conditions is important, and to be blunt, how are you not sure Big Pharma isn't the one pushing the information you found that cancer is a virus? That concept on it's own is heavy disinformation, and they probably got you right where they want you.

To go back to the sneezing example one more time, as a nail in the coffin, all virus can be considered contagious or infectious. When's the last time you heard of someone catching cancer, from another person? Never. Injecting rats with cancer cultured pork, and using advanced lab equipment to get the rats body to accept foreign bodies "as their own" and then causing cancer is not even close to the way a virus infects you in reality, and many people have unsuccessfully tried to reproduce this in brave humans. The human immune system obliterates foreign bodies to that nature, and even though it's not biologicaly impossible to spread cancer, it is for us. Now a virus on the other hand is incredibly easy to spread. The mosquito bites person A with a virus, and then person B is infected.

Finally, to add insult in injury, how do you cure most virus that CAN be treated?

With drugs.
edit on 6-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Kaiju

Again, many things cause cancer.


How sure are we that they are the direct cause of cancer? Maybe radiation and poisons weaken or alter cells which makes them susceptible to infection? It's also very possible that Rife only found and worked with one source of cancer. But even if he had found the solution to just one type of cancer, his discovery would be important.



posted on Apr, 7 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kaiju

Saying cancer has many causes isn't wrong. But it's not excluding the fact it can require NO CAUSE.

Being susceptible to infection still has no bearing on the fact cancer ISN'T INFECTION. It's your own body misbehaving. Infection increases risk of cancer, but for the love of God just read my last post. Damaging cells absolutely increases risk, this is how Rife managed to give the rats cancer in the first place, and is also why people treated with chemo have bad immune systems. The critism of chemo is simple, it increases risk of cancer AND infection, but until a more effective means can be found, the critism is useless unless you simply want no treatment.

AT BEST chemo is "reseting" your immune system in the efforts it will stop cancer. It IS NOT just destroying it. It destroys everything. "Everything" is part of the problem when your whiteblood cells are programed to think cancer is "okay".

I agree his treatment methods are interesting, I also find large problems with his ability to link the success of them.

That being said, I think any alternatives to chemo are "interesting" because of the critism above, but there isn't a chance in hell that you will convince me it hasn't been proven to work. This is also why I reference the surgery cure as it has no increase risk.

That being said, I just handed Gold to the OP, as I'm sure he will now endlessly tell people chemo causes cancer. Too bad it's irrelevant unless you HAVE cancer.
edit on 7-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

It still has a cause, be it transcrition error or just crappy genetics (a certain mutation in BRCA1 and/or 2 genes for breast cancer for example)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Kaiju

We are VERY sure. Read the science.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

It has to be mutually applicable.

If it's genetics every cell in your body should be cancerous, unless you're ONLY talking about risk, then you're right.

Transcrition errors are just unavoidable, this is also why we evolve. When I say it has NO CAUSE I'm referring to that exactly. Because even if they can/have exactly map the cancer genome, your body has a 'chance' to "opps" and cause cancer.

Your body's ability to repair DNA is incredibly more likely to hold the key to the cure/cause of cancer as your body recognizes transcrition errors and trys to fix them. This means that the error still has no cause, however some people GET CANCER and their body just defeats it before it's noticed. Something notable can objectively come out of that.

If anything though, this is the main reason everything is weighed in "risk". You just make it more likely, or less likely. It will never have a foolproof method of causing it, for the same reason it can require NO cause. The cancerous cells themselves have chance to have transcrition errors and create normal cells. It's just super unlikely they all have this same error at the same time, so it would never realistically "stop" from that.
edit on 8-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 05:05 AM
link   
It sounds like the dr. Clark zapper to me. Dr. Hulda Clark invented a simple 30 kHz frequency generator which she called "the cure for all diseases".



posted on Apr, 9 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: iasenko

I don't doubt that she got the idea from Rife. Hers is every bit as effective.



posted on Apr, 14 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Kaiju

We are VERY sure. Read the science.


So if HPV can cause transcription errors, why not the BX virus?



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: iasenko

Hulda Clark = charlatan of the worst kind.



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
i jave a very simple question :

IF as claimed in sources used as cites in this thread , mr rife " produced the first virus microscope in 1920 " can anyone produce primary sources to veryify this claim ?

i ask - because the follow on claims have a substantial chronological gap and leave a period of over 15 years during which time mr rife was alledgedly " free to work " before being " persecuted " and his " work destroyed "

which begs the question - where have all the publications dor the period 1920 ~ 1936 gone ?????????????????

there was [ even according to mr rifes supporters ] no reason to " suppress or persecute " his work in the early years

so - why is there no primary source for the claims

journals etc from the era are held in archives and on microfiche at thousands of libraries

so why is mr rife not credited with the first virus image ?????

thst credit goes to ruska and kroll [ 1931 ] - so why in 11 years did no one publish rifes alledged work ????

simple question



posted on Apr, 15 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape



IF as claimed in sources used as cites in this thread , mr rife " produced the first virus microscope in 1920 " can anyone produce primary sources to veryify this claim ?


I know microscope a lot (optical) and have studied Rife microscope as a curiosity. You won't find any serious source or paper because there is none.

The device have all characteristics of a con man's work, uterly complex, non reproducible because only the inventor can "adjust" such a precision device... It used a complex optical setup and many prisms configured as magnification device.

The only optical microscope able to image below diffraction limit is by use of near field imaging, and Rife microscope is not one of them.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
To the OP, and I know this is an ancient thread.

Some of my own and anecdotal observations of walking a parallel path to Rife, without
Knowing about it. To cut a very long story short, a few years ago I was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor after I started having some very severe neurological symptoms. The doctors all felt sorry for me, but there was nothing to be done. The tumor is a type that grows on the nerves in the base of the skull, so it cannot be treated without a 90% chance of killing me. Some of the neurological defects was that I would just stop breathing, cannot open my eyes, etc.... The doctors thought it is fine, just gradually becoming a vegetable....

However, all my life I have been one of those mad-scientist types. one day I discovered I can open my eyes for a few seconds by pressing on certain pressure points on my face. Putting continuous pressure on those points would only work for a few seconds before my eyes vlosed again, so I set out designing a device giving me minute electrical shocks every few soconds on those positions, and hey, all of a sudden, my eyes stayed open.... The doctors just lauged it off....
A few months later I kept on ending up in the ER after losing conciousnes and then getting severe seizures. The first 2 times it happened, was just sent home when I woke, and after a lot of tests, but no answers. When it happened for the third time, I started making observations and after I ended up another couple of times in the ER and then sent straight home, and lots of further research, I came up with a hypothesis pf what was going on, so I started designing a new device that would help me there.

From the simle device with electrodes I used to keep my eyes open, I went on to a device using magetic pulses to do the same thing. After discovering that it was the phrenic nerve getting compressed by the tumor, causing my brain not to get cnfused signals about the state of my diaphragm, I designed another device to keep my breathing going on the same principles... Some doctors are very interested, but they all tell me that their burocracy doesnt allow them to do further research... Between the lines it is easier to send me to a psychiatrist that will (and has) place me on lots of SSRI's so that I dont worry when the next attack happens..... Since I came up with my devices, I have thrown out the psychiaters meds, and now it has been more than a year since I ended up in the ER.

My devices works in the same way as Rife's devices, and even though the tumor keeps on growing, it seems as though my devices can stimulate new neural pathways to function. i cannot comment on the "explosion of cancer" cells that he observerved, but from my own experience, I think there is a lot more that can be done with electro-medicine than what our traditional medical systems believe. Slowly electro-therapy is starting to make headways again, like in cardiac pacemakers, vagal-nerve stimulators, phrenic-nerve stimulators, etc,...

However, the fact is that for the vast majority of doctors, and for big Pharma, it is easier to put you on a bunch of pills for the rest of your life, than spending money on a relatively simple electrical device that can keep you going.

Juat the fact that I can write this, even though i still have huge problems with double vision, etc, is a testimony for me at least, that there is a lot more about electromedicine that what traditional medicine would like us to believe.



posted on Jun, 11 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Hellhound604

Excellent post
There is always too much conspiracy involving Big P...and I commend you for your scientific research.



new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join