|
On April 08 2011 23:41 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:32 ZaaaaaM wrote:
There wont be a cure for cancer, simply because there is too much economics behind it. Just like there will be no car running on water. Atleast not in the nearest future. You're missing one important part of economics. It's a very advanced concept that not many people understand. I'll try to explain it anyway. We experts call it the "dead man can't pay" rule. And it works like this: if someone is dead, they cannot pay you money.
That's not the entire story. If you earn more money from keeping someone alive rather than curing them, then the incentive will be to keep that person alive but not curing them. The total lifetime payout will be greater. For example, if it costs 10,000 to cure someone of cancer and nothing else vs. 1,000/month, then as long as the cancer lasts longer than 10 months, you've earned a profit.
|
On April 09 2011 00:08 Ghostcom wrote:
I get so offended by threads like these that I actually find it hard to put into words... What you are basicly accusing me, and every other doctor on the planet of doing is killing people for money...
Do you REALLY think that if a cure for cancer, and such a simple one at that, existed no one would utilize it? Do you even KNOW what it is like to tell another human that they are going to die and that there is absolutely nothing you, they or anyone in the universe can do? I'm not much for shooting the messenger, but I would be inclined to make an exception for you...
How would you even know if a cure existed. Very few doctors are doing drug research. If a pharma company crunched the numbers on a compound that could cure cancer and it wasn't profitable vs existing treatments, it would get shelved.
|
On April 09 2011 01:41 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:41 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:32 ZaaaaaM wrote:
There wont be a cure for cancer, simply because there is too much economics behind it. Just like there will be no car running on water. Atleast not in the nearest future. You're missing one important part of economics. It's a very advanced concept that not many people understand. I'll try to explain it anyway. We experts call it the "dead man can't pay" rule. And it works like this: if someone is dead, they cannot pay you money. That's not the entire story. If you earn more money from keeping someone alive rather than curing them, then the incentive will be to keep that person alive but not curing them. The total lifetime payout will be greater. For example, if it costs 10,000 to cure someone of cancer and nothing else vs. 1,000/month, then as long as the cancer lasts longer than 10 months, you've earned a profit.
That doesn't mean another company won't come along and start selling a cure, it's not like there's only a single party involved. Given this reasoning, people would never get over any *treatable* diseases since doctors/pharmaceutical companies would never make medicines effective enough to 'cure' a disease, which just isn't the case.
Edit: On April 09 2011 01:45 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:08 Ghostcom wrote:
I get so offended by threads like these that I actually find it hard to put into words... What you are basicly accusing me, and every other doctor on the planet of doing is killing people for money...
Do you REALLY think that if a cure for cancer, and such a simple one at that, existed no one would utilize it? Do you even KNOW what it is like to tell another human that they are going to die and that there is absolutely nothing you, they or anyone in the universe can do? I'm not much for shooting the messenger, but I would be inclined to make an exception for you... How would you even know if a cure existed. Very few doctors are doing drug research. If a pharma company crunched the numbers on a compound that could cure cancer and it wasn't profitable vs existing treatments, it would get shelved.
It would be priced appropriately (or at least the research would be published so that another company wouldn't be able to come along and claim it as its own), there are many types of medicines that are thousands of dollars per dose, which wouldn't be profitable (to recoup the research cost) at a lower price level.
|
On April 09 2011 01:41 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:41 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:32 ZaaaaaM wrote:
There wont be a cure for cancer, simply because there is too much economics behind it. Just like there will be no car running on water. Atleast not in the nearest future. You're missing one important part of economics. It's a very advanced concept that not many people understand. I'll try to explain it anyway. We experts call it the "dead man can't pay" rule. And it works like this: if someone is dead, they cannot pay you money. That's not the entire story. If you earn more money from keeping someone alive rather than curing them, then the incentive will be to keep that person alive but not curing them. The total lifetime payout will be greater. For example, if it costs 10,000 to cure someone of cancer and nothing else vs. 1,000/month, then as long as the cancer lasts longer than 10 months, you've earned a profit.
Correct, but if it was as general as a cure to cancer (all cancers). These people would be billionares regardless. I do believe most would not risk their lives to attempt to become even richer than that. And it is risking their lives because if it were to ever get out you can almost be sure that someone would have cause to go after them.
|
On April 09 2011 01:41 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:41 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:32 ZaaaaaM wrote:
There wont be a cure for cancer, simply because there is too much economics behind it. Just like there will be no car running on water. Atleast not in the nearest future. You're missing one important part of economics. It's a very advanced concept that not many people understand. I'll try to explain it anyway. We experts call it the "dead man can't pay" rule. And it works like this: if someone is dead, they cannot pay you money. That's not the entire story. If you earn more money from keeping someone alive rather than curing them, then the incentive will be to keep that person alive but not curing them. The total lifetime payout will be greater. For example, if it costs 10,000 to cure someone of cancer and nothing else vs. 1,000/month, then as long as the cancer lasts longer than 10 months, you've earned a profit.
And your missing a very important point. EVERYONE would have to be in on it. You really think that if someone found a magic pill to cure all cancer, that some company would have the power to just shut that down and keep it under wraps when the person publishes a scientific paper that will be peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists in the field? Also yea a company might want to charge someone $50/month rather than $500, but why do you think that company controls everything? Do you know how many research facilities are not run by that greedy "company?" Lastly.. do you have any idea how much money that scientist or team of scientists would stand to profit (not to mention their sponsors/grant givers) if they were the first to discover a cure for all cancer?
I guess my overall point is that..even in the pharmaceutical field there is competition... If a company discovered a cure, they would put all competitors out of business. So your logic is flawed. They would make way more because they would charge EVERYONE $500.. not just 1/10th of the people $50/month (since there is competition).
It is illogical to think there is some grand conspiracy like this. I myself believe in some conspiracy theories, but this is waaaay too much. Maybe on a small scale like I mentioned earlier they make decisions to get more money (over price as a field a certain drug, but come on people).
|
On April 09 2011 01:45 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:08 Ghostcom wrote:
I get so offended by threads like these that I actually find it hard to put into words... What you are basicly accusing me, and every other doctor on the planet of doing is killing people for money...
Do you REALLY think that if a cure for cancer, and such a simple one at that, existed no one would utilize it? Do you even KNOW what it is like to tell another human that they are going to die and that there is absolutely nothing you, they or anyone in the universe can do? I'm not much for shooting the messenger, but I would be inclined to make an exception for you... How would you even know if a cure existed. Very few doctors are doing drug research. If a pharma company crunched the numbers on a compound that could cure cancer and it wasn't profitable vs existing treatments, it would get shelved.
Or..or.. They could make billions more by putting all competition to shame and being the only company selling a cure rather than a treatment.. yes it would be less than if they sold a treatment..but that is assuming they are the ONLY ones selling it. Which they are not. Why are people looking at this so simply when it is much more complex than a certain number crunch a machine can spit out.. Do you have any idea how much the media attention would get the company as well, in there other endeavors? Sponsors and $$ would be flying in...
The scientific/pharmaceutic field is NOT hiding a cure.
|
How dare you compare someone in the mundane field of biology and medical sciences to the godly brilliance that was and is Nicola Tesla!
|
On April 09 2011 01:41 0mar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:41 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:32 ZaaaaaM wrote:
There wont be a cure for cancer, simply because there is too much economics behind it. Just like there will be no car running on water. Atleast not in the nearest future. You're missing one important part of economics. It's a very advanced concept that not many people understand. I'll try to explain it anyway. We experts call it the "dead man can't pay" rule. And it works like this: if someone is dead, they cannot pay you money. That's not the entire story. If you earn more money from keeping someone alive rather than curing them, then the incentive will be to keep that person alive but not curing them. The total lifetime payout will be greater. For example, if it costs 10,000 to cure someone of cancer and nothing else vs. 1,000/month, then as long as the cancer lasts longer than 10 months, you've earned a profit.
lol .... if you want to play the retardnomics, I can play too!
*ahem*
even if pharmaceutical companies have medicines/treatments in place that produce NICE profits, they are still profits SHARED because of the intense COMPETITION in the TREATMENT MARKET.
But if a company finds a cure... they would be the first, which means FIRST MOVER ADVANTAGE, ZERO COMPETITION, and ZERO SHARING of INCREDIBLE PROFITS! not only that! this company would become the centre of the WORLD'S GREATEST PUBLICITY, gain billions alone in BRAND BUILDING and FREE MARKETING and that alone probably doubles the potential gain from such a product.
also, other costs probably exist (laws against withholding treatments/cures/life saving research), and no rational firm could ever doubt that if any government/public ever found out that such a product had been withheld, they would be ANNHILATED, legally, publicly, and quite likely physically too!
So.. tell me again.. if you owned a company.. that discovered the cure for cancer... you would do what exactly?
|
On April 09 2011 01:54 onPHYRE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 01:45 0mar wrote:On April 09 2011 00:08 Ghostcom wrote:
I get so offended by threads like these that I actually find it hard to put into words... What you are basicly accusing me, and every other doctor on the planet of doing is killing people for money...
Do you REALLY think that if a cure for cancer, and such a simple one at that, existed no one would utilize it? Do you even KNOW what it is like to tell another human that they are going to die and that there is absolutely nothing you, they or anyone in the universe can do? I'm not much for shooting the messenger, but I would be inclined to make an exception for you... How would you even know if a cure existed. Very few doctors are doing drug research. If a pharma company crunched the numbers on a compound that could cure cancer and it wasn't profitable vs existing treatments, it would get shelved. Or..or.. They could make billions more by putting all competition to shame and being the only company selling a cure rather than a treatment.. yes it would be less than if they sold a treatment..but that is assuming they are the ONLY ones selling it. Which they are not. Why are people looking at this so simply when it is much more complex than a certain number crunch a machine can spit out.. Do you have any idea how much the media attention would get the company as well, in there other endeavors? Sponsors and $$ would be flying in... The scientific/pharmaceutic field is NOT hiding a cure.
ahhh.. you beat me to it... =( friggin ghostcom..
|
On April 09 2011 00:45 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:01 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:37 GreEny K wrote:
How about you just post a link or something instead of trying to argue... I already have. And he ignored it. This time I'll go even further. I'll post 2 links and spam many of the references linked to from wikipedia, as he's not willing to do that much work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapyFrom the second link: Lacking any scientific explanation of how bioresonance theory might work, researchers have classified bioresonance therapy as pseudoscience.[3] Scientific studies[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] did not show effects above that of the placebo effect. References 3 to 11, are as follows: + Show Spoiler +^ Galle M (Oct 2004). "[Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language]" (in German). Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 11 (5): 306; author reply 306. doi:10.1159/000082152. PMID 15580708.
^ Wüthrich B (2005). "Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis". J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 15 (2): 86–90. PMID 16047707.
^ Schöni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schöni-Affolter F (Mar 1997). "Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis". Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 112 (3): 238–46. doi:10.1159/000237460. PMID 9066509.
^ Wandtke F, Biorensonanz-Allergietest versus pricktest und RAST, Allergologie 1993, 16 S.144
^ Wille A, Bioresonance therapy (biophysical information therapy) in stuttering children, Forsch Komplementärmed 1999 Feb;6 Suppl 1:50-2
^ Hörner M,Bioresonanz: Anspruch einer Methode und Ergebnis einer technischen Überprüfung, Allergologie, 1995, 18 S. 302
^ Kofler H,Bioresonanz bei Pollinose. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur diagnostischen und therapeutischen Wertigkeit, Allergologie 1996,19 S. 114
^ Niggemann B, Unkonventionelle Verfahren in der Allergologie. Kontroverse oder Alternative? Allergologie 2002,25 S. 34
^ Schultze-Werninghaus,paramedizinische Verfahren: Bioresonanzdiagnostik und -Therapie, Allergo J, 1993,2 40-2 Hmm, most of these look to be in German which I cannot read. Those that I can understand have nothing to do with what Raymond Rife was using it for. Although I am glad you are finally trying to be a useful part of this discussion, if still not going further away then wikipedia. I gave a link to a site with lots of scientific data and one only needs to look through it, you gave nothing but this and some definitions of terms written by some people.
I think this is one major cause of the problem here - you need to be a LOT more skeptical - you appear to have blindly accepted everything written about Rife without looking over any of the evidence at all. I looked at the link and there is no "scientific data" supporting this theory whatsoever.
There are a whole range of random scientific papers, but none of them claims to be on Rife's stuff. The majority concern the effects of radiation on various microogranisms. Another example is an article on how an electron microscope works - how is this remotely relevent?
There are lab reports that are (apparently) from Rife's lab, none of which exhibit any evidence of his "mortal oscillatory rate" idea working.
The only definite claims which appear on either of the websites you linked are absolutely unsupported.
Oh, and there are numerous instances of info that is just plain wrong (choice examples being that cancer is a virus, and that disease is caused only by poor environment and food but not by germs), not to mention the improbability of the existence and success of such an enormous conspiracy.
If you just look at the sites it doesn't take long to get a rough idea of just how reliable all this stuff is and the answer is: not at all.
But you're probably trolling anyway...
|
On April 09 2011 02:05 dogmeatstew wrote:
How dare you compare someone in the mundane field of biology and medical sciences to the godly brilliance that was and is Nicola Tesla!
Well they both got the short end of a stick. But I agree Nikola Tesla contributed more (even if this invention of Rife was 100% proven to work). If he didn't get that stick I am sure he would have been the greatest person that ever lived (for example if his transfer of electricity through air got into common usage)
|
I find it interesting that a high percentage of these types of threads (and supporters) on here (and liquidpoker) come from eastern europe. I'm glad someone like onPHYRE decided to counter my developing stereotypes.
|
On April 09 2011 02:44 Kasu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:45 -Archangel- wrote:On April 09 2011 00:01 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:37 GreEny K wrote:
How about you just post a link or something instead of trying to argue... I already have. And he ignored it. This time I'll go even further. I'll post 2 links and spam many of the references linked to from wikipedia, as he's not willing to do that much work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapyFrom the second link: Lacking any scientific explanation of how bioresonance theory might work, researchers have classified bioresonance therapy as pseudoscience.[3] Scientific studies[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] did not show effects above that of the placebo effect. References 3 to 11, are as follows: + Show Spoiler +^ Galle M (Oct 2004). "[Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language]" (in German). Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 11 (5): 306; author reply 306. doi:10.1159/000082152. PMID 15580708.
^ Wüthrich B (2005). "Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis". J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 15 (2): 86–90. PMID 16047707.
^ Schöni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schöni-Affolter F (Mar 1997). "Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis". Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 112 (3): 238–46. doi:10.1159/000237460. PMID 9066509.
^ Wandtke F, Biorensonanz-Allergietest versus pricktest und RAST, Allergologie 1993, 16 S.144
^ Wille A, Bioresonance therapy (biophysical information therapy) in stuttering children, Forsch Komplementärmed 1999 Feb;6 Suppl 1:50-2
^ Hörner M,Bioresonanz: Anspruch einer Methode und Ergebnis einer technischen Überprüfung, Allergologie, 1995, 18 S. 302
^ Kofler H,Bioresonanz bei Pollinose. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur diagnostischen und therapeutischen Wertigkeit, Allergologie 1996,19 S. 114
^ Niggemann B, Unkonventionelle Verfahren in der Allergologie. Kontroverse oder Alternative? Allergologie 2002,25 S. 34
^ Schultze-Werninghaus,paramedizinische Verfahren: Bioresonanzdiagnostik und -Therapie, Allergo J, 1993,2 40-2 Hmm, most of these look to be in German which I cannot read. Those that I can understand have nothing to do with what Raymond Rife was using it for. Although I am glad you are finally trying to be a useful part of this discussion, if still not going further away then wikipedia. I gave a link to a site with lots of scientific data and one only needs to look through it, you gave nothing but this and some definitions of terms written by some people. I think this is one major cause of the problem here - you need to be a LOT more skeptical - you appear to have blindly accepted everything written about Rife without looking over any of the evidence at all. I looked at the link and there is no "scientific data" supporting this theory whatsoever. There are a whole range of random scientific papers, but none of them claims to be on Rife's stuff. The majority concern the effects of radiation on various microogranisms. Another example is an article on how an electron microscope works - how is this remotely relevent? There are lab reports that are (apparently) from Rife's lab, none of which exhibit any evidence of his "mortal oscillatory rate" idea working. The only definite claims which appear on either of the websites you linked are absolutely unsupported. Oh, and there are numerous instances of info that is just plain wrong (choice examples being that cancer is a virus, and that disease is caused only by poor environment and food but not by germs), not to mention the improbability of the existence and success of such an enormous conspiracy. If you just look at the sites it doesn't take long to get a rough idea of just how reliable all this stuff is and the answer is: not at all. But you're probably trolling anyway...
No, I am not 100% sure this is all true. But I am fairly convinced. This guy didn't get his awards for nothing, and I am sure if I really tried I could find info with more details about his life and work (probably would need to go beyond internet).
Also the basic idea has some merit, but needs to go through a scientific process. Maybe it already is somewhere.
Anyways I plan to give this whole thing a through look (which is one of the reason I opened this topic to find people that know something about this already or those that can prove to me without a doubt this is fake; so far I found none of both except that one guy that said his mother tried the therapy but his story is even more weird then the article).
But again, I need to mention (like 3rd or 4th time now) that I have no clue why are some of you focusing on me so much. I put info "out there" and I am not important after that. I am neither connected with either website and I am not selling the devices (I have not seen one in my whole life).
|
Holy crap, I can actually debunk this shit really quickly (at least, if you only read the first two paragraphs) for you, scientifically. The harmonic effects that they talk about are fucking difficult to achieve, not for sound, like their example, but to break bonds in the way that they're talking about, you need light, and for electromagnetic (light) waves, you need lasers, badly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_optics
First paragraph tells you the intensity you need, (don't worry about the actual number, just know that it's much more than you can make with a lightbulb).
If you'd like to know more: The energy to break chemical bonds requires light in the UV region or stronger (hence why you wear sunscreen with UV-protection, so the light from the sun doesn't break bonds of molecules in your skin, causing them to react with and damage DNA, which gives you cancer), so he would need a laser source which produces light in the 700nm or less range (i.e. you can't do this with a Maser or micro-wavelength laser). The first laser: 1961. Boom! Debunked.
But, to continue. Think about cancer and viruses. They don't all sit on the surface of your body, so the light needs to get into your body...DEEP into your body. So, assuming you don't cut the person open, you have to be able to see the cancer deep in the body. Then, you have to send in light which is scattered like mad by the cells and tissues in your body (if you want some general evidence for how scattering your skin is, take an LED and hold it up to your fingers, you can see a lot of red light coming through, but you don't see the outline of the bone, this is because the light that doesn't get absorbed "covers up" the gap created by the bone. Kind of like a ripple in a pond going around a log). All that scattering effectively prevents the beam from coming to a point where it would be strong enough to induce this harmonic effect. Plus, all these molecules are made up of the same frickin bonds! So, if you break bonds in one, you break em all! If you wanted to theorize destroying a particular cell, you would need to get into a level of phase control over your beam that isn't really even realizable today.
So, if you've stuck with me this far for some reason: since this guy didn't invent the laser 20 years or more earlier than he would need to, and because it's physically impossible to get enough light more than ~2mm into the skin, and because even now it's a total bitch to do that, and because you'd cook all the cells around it...I call BS.
|
On April 09 2011 03:50 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:44 Kasu wrote:On April 09 2011 00:45 -Archangel- wrote:On April 09 2011 00:01 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:37 GreEny K wrote:
How about you just post a link or something instead of trying to argue... I already have. And he ignored it. This time I'll go even further. I'll post 2 links and spam many of the references linked to from wikipedia, as he's not willing to do that much work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapyFrom the second link: Lacking any scientific explanation of how bioresonance theory might work, researchers have classified bioresonance therapy as pseudoscience.[3] Scientific studies[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] did not show effects above that of the placebo effect. References 3 to 11, are as follows: + Show Spoiler +^ Galle M (Oct 2004). "[Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language]" (in German). Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 11 (5): 306; author reply 306. doi:10.1159/000082152. PMID 15580708.
^ Wüthrich B (2005). "Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis". J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 15 (2): 86–90. PMID 16047707.
^ Schöni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schöni-Affolter F (Mar 1997). "Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis". Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 112 (3): 238–46. doi:10.1159/000237460. PMID 9066509.
^ Wandtke F, Biorensonanz-Allergietest versus pricktest und RAST, Allergologie 1993, 16 S.144
^ Wille A, Bioresonance therapy (biophysical information therapy) in stuttering children, Forsch Komplementärmed 1999 Feb;6 Suppl 1:50-2
^ Hörner M,Bioresonanz: Anspruch einer Methode und Ergebnis einer technischen Überprüfung, Allergologie, 1995, 18 S. 302
^ Kofler H,Bioresonanz bei Pollinose. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur diagnostischen und therapeutischen Wertigkeit, Allergologie 1996,19 S. 114
^ Niggemann B, Unkonventionelle Verfahren in der Allergologie. Kontroverse oder Alternative? Allergologie 2002,25 S. 34
^ Schultze-Werninghaus,paramedizinische Verfahren: Bioresonanzdiagnostik und -Therapie, Allergo J, 1993,2 40-2 Hmm, most of these look to be in German which I cannot read. Those that I can understand have nothing to do with what Raymond Rife was using it for. Although I am glad you are finally trying to be a useful part of this discussion, if still not going further away then wikipedia. I gave a link to a site with lots of scientific data and one only needs to look through it, you gave nothing but this and some definitions of terms written by some people. I think this is one major cause of the problem here - you need to be a LOT more skeptical - you appear to have blindly accepted everything written about Rife without looking over any of the evidence at all. I looked at the link and there is no "scientific data" supporting this theory whatsoever. There are a whole range of random scientific papers, but none of them claims to be on Rife's stuff. The majority concern the effects of radiation on various microogranisms. Another example is an article on how an electron microscope works - how is this remotely relevent? There are lab reports that are (apparently) from Rife's lab, none of which exhibit any evidence of his "mortal oscillatory rate" idea working. The only definite claims which appear on either of the websites you linked are absolutely unsupported. Oh, and there are numerous instances of info that is just plain wrong (choice examples being that cancer is a virus, and that disease is caused only by poor environment and food but not by germs), not to mention the improbability of the existence and success of such an enormous conspiracy. If you just look at the sites it doesn't take long to get a rough idea of just how reliable all this stuff is and the answer is: not at all. But you're probably trolling anyway... No, I am not 100% sure this is all true. But I am fairly convinced. This guy didn't get his awards for nothing, and I am sure if I really tried I could find info with more details about his life and work (probably would need to go beyond internet). Also the basic idea has some merit, but needs to go through a scientific process. Maybe it already is somewhere. Anyways I plan to give this whole thing a through look (which is one of the reason I opened this topic to find people that know something about this already or those that can prove to me without a doubt this is fake; so far I found none of both except that one guy that said his mother tried the therapy but his story is even more weird then the article). But again, I need to mention (like 3rd or 4th time now) that I have no clue why are some of you focusing on me so much. I put info "out there" and I am not important after that. I am neither connected with either website and I am not selling the devices (I have not seen one in my whole life).
Because you created the topic and said you believe in the machine's effects. It's your job to show us all why this isn't a load of bullshit, because as people have pointed out numerous times, it seems like a load of bullshit.
You're one of the very few people in this topic that actually believe it to work AND you're the OP. You're obviously going to get asked questions.
|
On April 08 2011 18:47 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
this type of thread is an excellent shibboleth. divides the retards from the norms really well
Awesome use of language......shibboleth... haven't heard that word in years! I'll bet most people have no idea what it means or where it is famous from ;p
Sorry but if there was a cure for cancer found in the 30's we would have it by now. There are thousands of charities around the world that take in millions and millions in donations, governments put millions in to researching cancer too.... if this research was valid, someone would have put it to use by now.
I read someone say "people in power don't want you to get the cure". Well thats just not true, its quite obvious you live in a country without social medicine! In the UK the doctors would literally give up their own life to find a cure for cancer, it costs the NHS stupid amounts of money to treat people and to pay for their care, if there was a simple cure, they would jump on it.
Only someone who live in a country where healthcare is a for profit industry would think that there is a cure they aren't telling us about. The rest of the civilized world took profit out of healthcare long ago, even the private hospitals in the UK aren't that expensive..... the government makes sure of that.
|
The company i work for has developed a targeted anti-tumour drug which is only active at the site of the tumour to locally restrict the blood supply. This way lies truth.
Finding a way to induce a tumor with a virus in a lab animal and then somehow translating that into virus' cause cancer. This way lies madness.
But yeah gotta be sceptical about this kinda stuff, labs back in the day weren't great. And anyone who ever studied science knows results from experiments can show multiple things.
|
On April 09 2011 03:50 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:44 Kasu wrote:On April 09 2011 00:45 -Archangel- wrote:On April 09 2011 00:01 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:37 GreEny K wrote:
How about you just post a link or something instead of trying to argue... I already have. And he ignored it. This time I'll go even further. I'll post 2 links and spam many of the references linked to from wikipedia, as he's not willing to do that much work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapyFrom the second link: Lacking any scientific explanation of how bioresonance theory might work, researchers have classified bioresonance therapy as pseudoscience.[3] Scientific studies[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] did not show effects above that of the placebo effect. References 3 to 11, are as follows: + Show Spoiler +^ Galle M (Oct 2004). "[Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language]" (in German). Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 11 (5): 306; author reply 306. doi:10.1159/000082152. PMID 15580708.
^ Wüthrich B (2005). "Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis". J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 15 (2): 86–90. PMID 16047707.
^ Schöni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schöni-Affolter F (Mar 1997). "Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis". Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 112 (3): 238–46. doi:10.1159/000237460. PMID 9066509.
^ Wandtke F, Biorensonanz-Allergietest versus pricktest und RAST, Allergologie 1993, 16 S.144
^ Wille A, Bioresonance therapy (biophysical information therapy) in stuttering children, Forsch Komplementärmed 1999 Feb;6 Suppl 1:50-2
^ Hörner M,Bioresonanz: Anspruch einer Methode und Ergebnis einer technischen Überprüfung, Allergologie, 1995, 18 S. 302
^ Kofler H,Bioresonanz bei Pollinose. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur diagnostischen und therapeutischen Wertigkeit, Allergologie 1996,19 S. 114
^ Niggemann B, Unkonventionelle Verfahren in der Allergologie. Kontroverse oder Alternative? Allergologie 2002,25 S. 34
^ Schultze-Werninghaus,paramedizinische Verfahren: Bioresonanzdiagnostik und -Therapie, Allergo J, 1993,2 40-2 Hmm, most of these look to be in German which I cannot read. Those that I can understand have nothing to do with what Raymond Rife was using it for. Although I am glad you are finally trying to be a useful part of this discussion, if still not going further away then wikipedia. I gave a link to a site with lots of scientific data and one only needs to look through it, you gave nothing but this and some definitions of terms written by some people. I think this is one major cause of the problem here - you need to be a LOT more skeptical - you appear to have blindly accepted everything written about Rife without looking over any of the evidence at all. I looked at the link and there is no "scientific data" supporting this theory whatsoever. There are a whole range of random scientific papers, but none of them claims to be on Rife's stuff. The majority concern the effects of radiation on various microogranisms. Another example is an article on how an electron microscope works - how is this remotely relevent? There are lab reports that are (apparently) from Rife's lab, none of which exhibit any evidence of his "mortal oscillatory rate" idea working. The only definite claims which appear on either of the websites you linked are absolutely unsupported. Oh, and there are numerous instances of info that is just plain wrong (choice examples being that cancer is a virus, and that disease is caused only by poor environment and food but not by germs), not to mention the improbability of the existence and success of such an enormous conspiracy. If you just look at the sites it doesn't take long to get a rough idea of just how reliable all this stuff is and the answer is: not at all. But you're probably trolling anyway... No, I am not 100% sure this is all true. But I am fairly convinced. This guy didn't get his awards for nothing, and I am sure if I really tried I could find info with more details about his life and work (probably would need to go beyond internet). Also the basic idea has some merit, but needs to go through a scientific process. Maybe it already is somewhere. Anyways I plan to give this whole thing a through look (which is one of the reason I opened this topic to find people that know something about this already or those that can prove to me without a doubt this is fake; so far I found none of both except that one guy that said his mother tried the therapy but his story is even more weird then the article). But again, I need to mention (like 3rd or 4th time now) that I have no clue why are some of you focusing on me so much. I put info "out there" and I am not important after that. I am neither connected with either website and I am not selling the devices (I have not seen one in my whole life).
The issue a lot of people have is that you are, as you say, fairly convinced - yet not a shred of evidence that stands up to even a cursory glance has been provided. Either you're keeping something conclusive back or you're prepared to believe something without any proof at all. Thats why some people seem to be attacking you.
As regards the awards I was unable to find out what any of them were for but I'd be very surprised if any of them were for this particular theory, as it wasn't even widely accepted at the time, let alone since. He is supposed to have invented a couple of scientific instruments so I'd guess somehting like that.
As regards the basic idea's having some merit, from everything I've learned in my physics/chemistry degree I'm pretty sure it doesn't have an iota, but as I can't claim to be an expert in all the required fields I can't categorically prove that.
|
This is really interesting and I don't think that its absolutely farfetched..
Music, after all, has the power to affect our mood and energy.
I also saw something on National Geographic about how a cats purr has a healing effect on its body. Here's a link about it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-do-cats-purr
|
On April 09 2011 03:50 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 02:44 Kasu wrote:On April 09 2011 00:45 -Archangel- wrote:On April 09 2011 00:01 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:37 GreEny K wrote:
How about you just post a link or something instead of trying to argue... I already have. And he ignored it. This time I'll go even further. I'll post 2 links and spam many of the references linked to from wikipedia, as he's not willing to do that much work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapyFrom the second link: Lacking any scientific explanation of how bioresonance theory might work, researchers have classified bioresonance therapy as pseudoscience.[3] Scientific studies[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] did not show effects above that of the placebo effect. References 3 to 11, are as follows: + Show Spoiler +^ Galle M (Oct 2004). "[Bioresonance, a study of pseudo-scientific language]" (in German). Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 11 (5): 306; author reply 306. doi:10.1159/000082152. PMID 15580708.
^ Wüthrich B (2005). "Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis". J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 15 (2): 86–90. PMID 16047707.
^ Schöni MH, Nikolaizik WH, Schöni-Affolter F (Mar 1997). "Efficacy trial of bioresonance in children with atopic dermatitis". Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 112 (3): 238–46. doi:10.1159/000237460. PMID 9066509.
^ Wandtke F, Biorensonanz-Allergietest versus pricktest und RAST, Allergologie 1993, 16 S.144
^ Wille A, Bioresonance therapy (biophysical information therapy) in stuttering children, Forsch Komplementärmed 1999 Feb;6 Suppl 1:50-2
^ Hörner M,Bioresonanz: Anspruch einer Methode und Ergebnis einer technischen Überprüfung, Allergologie, 1995, 18 S. 302
^ Kofler H,Bioresonanz bei Pollinose. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung zur diagnostischen und therapeutischen Wertigkeit, Allergologie 1996,19 S. 114
^ Niggemann B, Unkonventionelle Verfahren in der Allergologie. Kontroverse oder Alternative? Allergologie 2002,25 S. 34
^ Schultze-Werninghaus,paramedizinische Verfahren: Bioresonanzdiagnostik und -Therapie, Allergo J, 1993,2 40-2 Hmm, most of these look to be in German which I cannot read. Those that I can understand have nothing to do with what Raymond Rife was using it for. Although I am glad you are finally trying to be a useful part of this discussion, if still not going further away then wikipedia. I gave a link to a site with lots of scientific data and one only needs to look through it, you gave nothing but this and some definitions of terms written by some people. I think this is one major cause of the problem here - you need to be a LOT more skeptical - you appear to have blindly accepted everything written about Rife without looking over any of the evidence at all. I looked at the link and there is no "scientific data" supporting this theory whatsoever. There are a whole range of random scientific papers, but none of them claims to be on Rife's stuff. The majority concern the effects of radiation on various microogranisms. Another example is an article on how an electron microscope works - how is this remotely relevent? There are lab reports that are (apparently) from Rife's lab, none of which exhibit any evidence of his "mortal oscillatory rate" idea working. The only definite claims which appear on either of the websites you linked are absolutely unsupported. Oh, and there are numerous instances of info that is just plain wrong (choice examples being that cancer is a virus, and that disease is caused only by poor environment and food but not by germs), not to mention the improbability of the existence and success of such an enormous conspiracy. If you just look at the sites it doesn't take long to get a rough idea of just how reliable all this stuff is and the answer is: not at all. But you're probably trolling anyway... No, I am not 100% sure this is all true. But I am fairly convinced. This guy didn't get his awards for nothing, and I am sure if I really tried I could find info with more details about his life and work (probably would need to go beyond internet). Also the basic idea has some merit, but needs to go through a scientific process. Maybe it already is somewhere. Anyways I plan to give this whole thing a through look (which is one of the reason I opened this topic to find people that know something about this already or those that can prove to me without a doubt this is fake; so far I found none of both except that one guy that said his mother tried the therapy but his story is even more weird then the article). But again, I need to mention (like 3rd or 4th time now) that I have no clue why are some of you focusing on me so much. I put info "out there" and I am not important after that. I am neither connected with either website and I am not selling the devices (I have not seen one in my whole life).
Here's the way this thread has been going so far. Most people think your suggested cure is simply wrong. I'll admit that some of these people haven't contributed to the conversation However, quite a few people have posted reasonable scientific points, none of which you have refuted. Meanwhile the people who supported your points haven't provided any sound scientific points, certainly not any that have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Do you have a degree in molecular biology? Has anyone with such a degree supported this idea in the recent past (last 30 years)?
Let's face it, the only way Rife's conjecture could possibly be right would be if there was a wide-ranging pharmaceutical company conspiracy. This couldn't possibly work; the incentives just don't add up. In order to make this happen, the companies would have to pay almost every researcher millions of dollars. The individual incentives for curing cancer are enormous, from the inevitable Nobel Prize, to millions from a patent, to lectures, books and the like. Not only that, but there are "small" pharmaceutical companies right now that make almost no money off cancer treatments. A cure to cancer would instantly push them to the top of the industry.
For "big pharma" to stop this, they would have to top these incentives. In comparison, taking a possible small reduction in profits doesn't seem that bad, does it?
One of the key tenets of scientific inquiry today is the concept of peer review. Until you give us a peer-reviewed paper giving EVIDENCE for this conjecture, I see no reason why anyone should think they need to disprove it.
Moreover, by ignoring most of the sane voices in this thread, you seem to be inviting much of the abuse you are receiving.
None of this will convince you of anything, I'm sure; after all, your/random scientist from 1930's opinion is just as good as our facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
