Cancer Cured... in 1934? AMA fought against the cure? Cancer is a micro-organism? What the...?!

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I don't have any direct links on me at the moment. The one my father has is sort of his own invention, but he started off with just some research onto Royal Rife's Circuitry (which you should google if you want to look into it).

Mostly all it is, is copper bars that you hold onto with your hands, or strap onto your foot for example (if you had some kind of infection in the foot), and it is hooked up to the computer. You tell the program what disease it is, and the database will find what frequency to set it to, and it'll send it through the copper bars, into your body.

Treatment usually lasts for 45 min to an hour, but multiple treatments are optimal.

Sorry I can't help much at the moment as I have to leave, but the name of the program is called "FreX" frequency I believe. Someone in Australia designed it, if I remember correctly.

Thanks for the information, Lionhearte. I'll do a search on FreX.

Like to draw your attention to this way of using radio waves to kill cancer cells

presscore.ca...

"This technology may allow us to treat just about any kind of cancer you can imagine," Dr. Curley told Stahl. "I've gotta tell you, in 20 years of research this is the most exciting thing that I've encountered." Read more: www.cbsnews.com...

Originally posted by DjDoubleD
Well it always gets back to the same point of duality... it fell into meaninglessness because it was a POS derived from faulty theorizing/money-hungering or that it's something so easy-to-make/non-profitable it was made to never see the light of day.

And yet there should still be some actual proof of its existence. There isn't.

Having come across some of the latter in my own research, especially into Nikola Tesla (the majority of the research I did into this man I did AFTER I wrote the paper on him, this man deserves songs of praise!) I may be biased towards believing that anything (cure, invention, etc) cheap, easy and not easily patented poses a threat to any existing power/profit-making structure. This structure being a cross-section of the pinnacle of political and corporate interests.

I have my reservations about Tesla. He has something of an undeserved cult following. I'm not saying he wasn't very intelligent or that he didn't do great things, but you have to understand that the man was a little batty. Anyway, that's for another time and place.

Had Rife actually invented what he is claimed to have invented, then there is no reason why it wouldn't be patentable. Sure, radiowaves themselves aren't patentable, but his treatment and the machine used to deliver it certainly would have been. A cover-up makes no sense in that regard, since it would have been quite simple and easy to make money off of.

While Dr. Rife may not have 'cured' cancer, his research may have provided impetus for other researchers to follow up on. But once we stop looking for novel ways of doing things and fall into accepting the status-quo as the best we got/best we could ever get, I think humanity doesn't just stop moving forward, that's moving backwards..

The only thing Rife actually did was invent a microscope. He had nothing to do with cancer. And science is constantly looking for novel ways to do things! How else do you think we get funding?

Also, I looked up that article you noted. It's pretty strange to say the least. Also found this, which explains it from a bit more of a modern perspective.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Like to draw your attention to this way of using radio waves to kill cancer cells

presscore.ca...

"This technology may allow us to treat just about any kind of cancer you can imagine," Dr. Curley told Stahl. "I've gotta tell you, in 20 years of research this is the most exciting thing that I've encountered." Read more: www.cbsnews.com...

"a) cancer was caused by a micro-organism;
b) the micro-organism could be painlessly destroyed in terminally ill cancer patients; and
c) the effects of the disease could be reversed."

Let's assume cancer is caused by a microbe and this machine destroys this microbe that causes cancer, how does this process reverse the effects of cancer? Once a cell becomes a cancer cell, there is a mutation in the DNA where it becomes a undying cell. Meaning, the mutation effects the telomere, the key component for cell aging process. Only way to eliminate cancer cell is to kill it or a miracle that mutates the cell back to it's original DNA sequence.

The Kanzius Machine on the other hand kills cancer cells. It just needs to somehow identify and mark the cancer cells only. It has potential and hopefully one day this can be used. Too bad John passed away in 2009 by cancer...

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Like to draw your attention to this way of using radio waves to kill cancer cells

presscore.ca...

"This technology may allow us to treat just about any kind of cancer you can imagine," Dr. Curley told Stahl. "I've gotta tell you, in 20 years of research this is the most exciting thing that I've encountered." Read more: www.cbsnews.com...

"a) cancer was caused by a micro-organism;
b) the micro-organism could be painlessly destroyed in terminally ill cancer patients; and
c) the effects of the disease could be reversed."

Let's assume cancer is caused by a microbe and this machine destroys this microbe that causes cancer, how does this process reverse the effects of cancer? Once a cell becomes a cancer cell, there is a mutation in the DNA where it becomes a undying cell. Meaning, the mutation effects the telomere, the key component for cell aging process. Only way to eliminate cancer cell is to kill it or a miracle that mutates the cell back to it's original DNA sequence.

The Kanzius Machine on the other hand kills cancer cells. It just needs to somehow identify and mark the cancer cells only. It has potential and hopefully one day this can be used. Too bad John passed away in 2009 by cancer...

I know nothing to less about cancer, just wanted to draw attention to a modern method that can get rid of the chemo and radiation aspects.

Originally posted by NuroSlam

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by NuroSlam
Like to draw your attention to this way of using radio waves to kill cancer cells

presscore.ca...

"This technology may allow us to treat just about any kind of cancer you can imagine," Dr. Curley told Stahl. "I've gotta tell you, in 20 years of research this is the most exciting thing that I've encountered." Read more: www.cbsnews.com...

"a) cancer was caused by a micro-organism;
b) the micro-organism could be painlessly destroyed in terminally ill cancer patients; and
c) the effects of the disease could be reversed."

Let's assume cancer is caused by a microbe and this machine destroys this microbe that causes cancer, how does this process reverse the effects of cancer? Once a cell becomes a cancer cell, there is a mutation in the DNA where it becomes a undying cell. Meaning, the mutation effects the telomere, the key component for cell aging process. Only way to eliminate cancer cell is to kill it or a miracle that mutates the cell back to it's original DNA sequence.

The Kanzius Machine on the other hand kills cancer cells. It just needs to somehow identify and mark the cancer cells only. It has potential and hopefully one day this can be used. Too bad John passed away in 2009 by cancer...

I know nothing to less about cancer, just wanted to draw attention to a modern method that can get rid of the chemo and radiation aspects.

Newsflash: using radiowaves to irradiate cancers is a form of radiation therapy.

reply to post by NuroSlam


Nuroslam,
The Kanzius machine is the activated gold nanoparticle cure I mentioned, basically cooks anything you can get the nanoparticles to converge on. I do think it's a lot better than what people use now, but still more intrusive than activating your own body's defense through epigenetics. More and more cancers are actually cured today. I ran into a friend for the first time in a few years recently, and he had been diagnosed with and had cured his cancer naturally since I'd seen him.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Yes, I agree it is a form of radiation, but far less damaging

reply to post by wcitizen


I agree with you. There are so many potential and actual natural cures out there. Pharmacy companies cannot make any real money from natural products, otherwise, if people learnt of them they would just go out and pick the herbs for themselves. (same as energy but another thread). I have studied herbs on and off for over 40 years. I have cured many illnesses. What I have learnt is that there are so many herbs which have the ability to cure and heal. Living in many different countries and even trying to bring my own collections of herbs with me as medicine I realised that even the same herb in a different country will have a completely different vibration and not assist. God, the universe or whatever your believe, provides a natural herbal/plant cure usually from the vibrational area you spent or lived most of the time. Saying that it also depends on the origin of the problem.

Even though I have studied natural remedies for over 40 years I am amazed that the US and The EEC want to stop the sale of natural products. Next you will find that the pharmaceutical companies will be allowed to profit from this.

There are natural herbs, fruits and vegetables used for many hundreds if not thousand of years. Why are we spending billions in reseach that many times proves more harmful. I am not saying 100% of pharmacy medicines are bad, some have shown excellent possibilities for the future. My point is we should be investigating and investing our money in more natural resources.

reply to post by peacefulwarrior3


Same reason why Marijuana is illegal when addictive opiates like oxicodon and vicodon are legal.

Originally posted by peacefulwarrior3
reply to post by wcitizen

 

I agree with you. There are so many potential and actual natural cures out there. Pharmacy companies cannot make any real money from natural products, otherwise, if people learnt of them they would just go out and pick the herbs for themselves. (same as energy but another thread). I have studied herbs on and off for over 40 years. I have cured many illnesses. What I have learnt is that there are so many herbs which have the ability to cure and heal. Living in many different countries and even trying to bring my own collections of herbs with me as medicine I realised that even the same herb in a different country will have a completely different vibration and not assist. God, the universe or whatever your believe, provides a natural herbal/plant cure usually from the vibrational area you spent or lived most of the time. Saying that it also depends on the origin of the problem.

Even though I have studied natural remedies for over 40 years I am amazed that the US and The EEC want to stop the sale of natural products. Next you will find that the pharmaceutical companies will be allowed to profit from this.

There are natural herbs, fruits and vegetables used for many hundreds if not thousand of years. Why are we spending billions in reseach that many times proves more harmful. I am not saying 100% of pharmacy medicines are bad, some have shown excellent possibilities for the future. My point is we should be investigating and investing our money in more natural resources.

This is in fact quite far from the truth. I work in the area of natural product synthesis and I can assure you that it is a booming area of pharmaceutical research. Most organic chemists you come across will be involved in natural products in one way or another. Indeed, quite a large portion of drugs being put through clinical trials contain natural products (or natural product derivatives) as their main ingredient. The difference is that big pharma aren't interested in selling fruit or herbs. A lot of R&D goes into drug discovery from natural sources. Discovery and structural elucidation of marine sponge products is a big area at the moment, for instance. Another one is elucidating the active ingredients in various herbal remedies.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


lol, so what kinda sources do you find credible? naturalnews.com........

It is 100 % fact that HPV causes cancer, if you think otherwise then you are not worth speaking to. Go out and live a little. Gather some real world experiences and get your head out the chemtrails.

The AMA fights against every cancer cure that comes along, and there have been many. They cling to slash/burn/poison aka surgery/radiation/chemo, because they are only somewhat effective, and thus generate lots of money. The cancer industry is very, very lucrative, and there is more money to be made by treating cancer than by curing it. As Dr Joel Wallach, author of Rare Earths; Forbidden Cures says, the doctors who treat animals make a living trying to keep them from getting sick in the first place, the doctors who treat people make a living making you better once you get sick. He grew up on a farm in Missouri, and asked his elders why they put mineral blocks out for the cattle, but did not take minerals themselves. He was told, basically, "shut up, kid." Now you know a good part of the answer...

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by mnmcandiez

 

It is 100 % fact that HPV causes cancer, if you think otherwise then you are not worth speaking to.

Are you familiar with the terms "correlation" and "causation"?

Can you explain how exactly HPV "causes" cancer?

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by mnmcandiez

 

It is 100 % fact that HPV causes cancer, if you think otherwise then you are not worth speaking to.

Are you familiar with the terms "correlation" and "causation"?

Can you explain how exactly HPV "causes" cancer?

Have you hear of the term, 'research'? You should do some.

Dr. Ian Fraser does his research through the university I attend. I've seen quite a few of his lectures relating HPV and cervical cancer. And then there's the nobel prize he got for his work in the area.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Everything in the universe, living or dead, and its own resonant frequency. If you apply this exact resonant frequency to the object or organism, it will begin vibrating until it literally shatters itself. You've all seen the wine glass and the opera singer demonstration. Same deal for microbes.

Too bad this is total bs. Of course, you'd expect that sort of thing from "Educate Yourself".

I've often wondered where that story got started. It isn't true at all. My guess is that it's a trope from Theosophy.

Oh, and you might dig up Rife and ask him how he's resolving features with his far-field microscope smaller than 1/2 the wavelengths of the light he's using to image with.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


If you say that HPV causes cancer with 100% certainty, you should be able to back up that claim.

I am not claiming that HPV does not cause cancer, I am claiming ignorance on the topic. I have read about correlations between HPV and cervical cancer. However, I do not have any articles that detail how HPV actually CAUSES cervical cancer.

Do you have any links, or a short explanation of how this happens?

ETA: According to a document on the FDA website, it is the persistent infection that increases the risk of cancer. The virus is not inherently cancerous. It seems it is a combination of HPV and whatever keeps the person from being able to fight off the HPV. Hence why correlation is a more apt term than causation.

Identifying and typing HPV is an
important tool for following patients with persistent HPV infection. Repeated sequential transient
HPV infections, even when caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated
with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer .
A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of H PV on repeated testing is
highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of
developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the
virus, that determines the cancer risk.

- www.fda.gov... classification Petition - Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Nested Polymerase Chain
Reaction (PCR) Detection Device

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

If you say that HPV causes cancer with 100% certainty, you should be able to back up that claim.

I am not claiming that HPV does not cause cancer, I am claiming ignorance on the topic. I have read about correlations between HPV and cervical cancer. However, I do not have any articles that detail how HPV actually CAUSES cervical cancer.

Do you have any links, or a short explanation of how this happens?

ETA: According to a document on the FDA website, it is the persistent infection that increases the risk of cancer. The virus is not inherently cancerous. It seems it is a combination of HPV and whatever keeps the person from being able to fight off the HPV. Hence why correlation is a more apt term than causation.

Identifying and typing HPV is an
important tool for following patients with persistent HPV infection. Repeated sequential transient
HPV infections, even when caused by "high-risk" HPVs, are characteristically not associated
with high risk of developing squamous intraepithelial lesions, a precursor of cervical cancer .
A woman found to be positive for the same strain (genotype) of H PV on repeated testing is
highly likely suffering from a persistent HPV infection and is considered to be at high risk of
developing precancerous intraepithelial lesions in the cervix . It is the persistent infection, not the
virus, that determines the cancer risk.

- www.fda.gov... classification Petition - Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA Nested Polymerase Chain
Reaction (PCR) Detection Device

edit on 11-6-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)

I don't say anything with 100% certainty. If I did, I sure wouldn't be any good at my job.

Firstly, I am not required to provide the proof here at all. I can, however, do some research for you if you'd like, but you're just as well doing it yourself. Go to Google scholar and type in HPV + cancer. You'll get a number of hits.

Also, correlation and causation are terms that go hand in hand in this context.

ETA: I did a little bit of a search and came across this:

jcp.bmj.com...

and this:

www.sciencedirect.com...

and this:

www.pnas.org...

and this:

www.nature.com...

and finally, this:

jnci.oxfordjournals.org...

Of those, you will only be able to read the last one. However, you will still see the word 'causation' a lot in the abstracts of the first few.

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

I don't say anything with 100% certainty. If I did, I sure wouldn't be any good at my job.

I appologize, I had responded and quoted another user and didn't realize you were someone else. That is where the 100% quote came from.

Anyway, thank you for the links, I became interested in HPV when the vaccines became popular. It intrigues me that such a widespread virus causes cancer in a relatively small percentage of people who are infected. I don't have time to read the articles right now, but I wanted to post to apologize for putting words in your mouth.

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed

Originally posted by hypervalentiodine

I don't say anything with 100% certainty. If I did, I sure wouldn't be any good at my job.

I appologize, I had responded and quoted another user and didn't realize you were someone else. That is where the 100% quote came from.

Anyway, thank you for the links, I became interested in HPV when the vaccines became popular. It intrigues me that such a widespread virus causes cancer in a relatively small percentage of people who are infected. I don't have time to read the articles right now, but I wanted to post to apologize for putting words in your mouth.

Quite alright and thank you forth post

When you have time, you should read the last one. It's a review that goes rather in depth.