|
On April 08 2011 20:52 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 20:16 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 19:55 VIB wrote:
Archangel: resonance. Look it up, study it, understand it. If you understood what it was, you wouldn't have made this thread. It's completely illogical and targeting the complete layman. No one will take it seriously. There is no such thing as resonance killing cancer. Doesn't exist, doesn't makes sense, it's not how it works, not at all. If you are so sure of this I am sure you can easily give me good links to prove to me you are right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance O.o It's very simple concept. Object emits a wave, you emit the exact opposite, both cancel each other. Everything that moves emanates waves. Every object emits a wave because it's particles (molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles) are all moving. Big problem is, each atom in your body has a different one. And they don't move regularly. They change, so the waves they emit are always changing. To cancel the waves you'd need to know exactly how each of the wave of each sub-atomic particle is. And how they are changing. Seriously, wikipedia? Site that anyone can edit and write what the hell they want?! it is a good reference for cultural things and films/comics/games and such but not for things like this.
Seriously, http://www.rife.org/otherresearch.html? Site that some random person can edit and write whatever the hell they want?!
how can you call people out for using a site like wikipedia because of the possibility that it has false information while blindly believing a random site
|
On April 08 2011 20:52 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 20:16 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 19:55 VIB wrote:
Archangel: resonance. Look it up, study it, understand it. If you understood what it was, you wouldn't have made this thread. It's completely illogical and targeting the complete layman. No one will take it seriously. There is no such thing as resonance killing cancer. Doesn't exist, doesn't makes sense, it's not how it works, not at all. If you are so sure of this I am sure you can easily give me good links to prove to me you are right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance O.o It's very simple concept. Object emits a wave, you emit the exact opposite, both cancel each other. Everything that moves emanates waves. Every object emits a wave because it's particles (molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles) are all moving. Big problem is, each atom in your body has a different one. And they don't move regularly. They change, so the waves they emit are always changing. To cancel the waves you'd need to know exactly how each of the wave of each sub-atomic particle is. And how they are changing. Seriously, wikipedia? Site that anyone can edit and write what the hell they want?! it is a good reference for cultural things and films/comics/games and such but not for things like this. Oh god.... yea right. Someone sabotaged the definition of resonance (which everyone learns on high school) in wikipedia just so no one knows cancer was cured. It's a conspiracy! And no one noticed it!!!
You know another source to learn what resonance is? School! Go back to school!
You're hopeless archangel. You were proven wrong countless of times. You're either trolling or just a lost cause.
|
Cancer is not a virus as there is no universal vector transmitting it. It's just cell that stop dying, don't work anymore and keep reproducing themselves. Because of that each of these cells are slightly different, so one would have to use a somewhat large bandwith to kill the cells, resulting in collateral damage.
So basically, it would be the same as chemio, killing everything around. Either it's weaker, meaning it would be less efficient. Or it's stronger, and the damage to healthy cells would be even worse, and people generaly can't leave without the organs which get cancers (or it would be too easy).
I'd rather bet on the nanoparticles path, the works of Naomi Halas and thousand of scientist around the world.
edit : well i'm kinda biaised since i'm doing a phd in nanotechnologies with medical applications.
|
On April 08 2011 20:58 m00nchile wrote:
I haven't read the whole thread so pardon me if I'm repeating what's already been said, but I'd like to chime into this debate since I personally saw this treatment on my mother. She was combatting cancer and looked into alternative ways of treatment as a suplement to regular medicinal methods.
Now, the first thing that struck me as a non bollocks about this was, the scanner showed the same things as the tests she had undergone at her onkologist. Also, her doctor never tried to coerce my mother to abandon her regular treatemnts. When she had undergone the radiation and chemo treatement, I also noticed she had far fewer side effects as the other patients with a similar diagnosys (I drove her to hospital daily), also, when her treatement was over, her tumor was still deemed inoperable, but after 2 months of exclusive resonance therapy, it shrunk enough for the operation to be doable, so now she is cancer free and recovering from the procedure.
In retrospect, the shrinking of her tumor could be attributed to residual effects of the radiation treatment, but the minimal side effects (no nausea, no loss of taste, minimal fatigue) and accuracy of the scanner made me a believer. Not that I'd advise someone to forgoe the regular treatments, but I'd strongly encourage anyone with the misfortune of being is such a situation to suplement the medical work with resonance therapy.
So the machine also reduces the side effects of chemo and diagnoses the cancer? If anything, that would make me more skeptical.
|
The majority of the people on teamliquid dismiss such findings that don't fit with the conventional truth based on their preconceived notions. They don't understand that every little finding that they base their life on is actually someone else's idea about reality. They don't put under question why they believe what they believe. Just because it is accepted by the majority of the science people doesn't necessary mean is true in every other case. You have to assess in terms of probability. You can say there's a high probability or a lower one. If you are talking in absolutes then you don't understand the concept of what I'm saying .
The idea of conspiracy, alternative medicine, alternative history and so forth isn't some sort of a thing that you can just shout to your friends at a coffee break or in a thread on teamliquid. It takes a little bit of a research (more than just reading for 2 mins on a thread), reading about it (that means both sides),delving into the subject for some time, experimenting if it's possible depending on the case and after you've spent some considerable time with the subject you can say if it's highly likely or not.
Saying that you don't believe it or not is irrelevant and not the final point. You have to do your own research.
|
I just wanted to comment on people who claim 'big pharma' wants to 'keep people addicted' to a treatment but not actually find a cure.
That's ridiculous. The publicity and funding for a company that finds something like a cure for cancer would be decade-topping.
Not to mention, at the very least, they could charge for the cure what they'd expect to make for the treatment. I.e. treatment $50 a day, cure $10,000.
|
On April 08 2011 20:42 thesideshow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:28 FranzP wrote:On April 08 2011 19:12 thesideshow wrote:On April 08 2011 19:10 Jombozeus wrote:
So this is basically saying, if I'm at a classical concert and some guy hits a high C sharp, my body can potentially explode into a billion pieces? Better start soundproofing my room with acoustics. At very low frequencies your internal organs will start to mash about in your body and cause damage. It won't be caused by resonnance but by the power of the sound. Like a shockwave from an explosion, if there is too much pressure yeah you could sustain internal injury but it's not because of resonnance. Actually it can. Vibrations can cause bodily damage, that's why suspension systems in vehicles have to take that into account. Some references: + Show Spoiler +
They certainly can. But you'll notice that those vibrations do not cause very specific proteins to be destroyed. They cause massive damage. The vibrations are not preferentially selecting certain proteins and not others.
You can certainly use vibrations to hurt people. But you cannot use them to specifically target a protein or amino-acid chain. It simply doesn't work that way.
Proteins are not solid. They are not fixed in shape. Even proteins that have a shape aren't locked into position the way that molecules in glass are. Proteins are dissolved in a fluid medium. They are constantly changing what frequencies they will resonate with. As such, it is impossible to create a vibration that will specifically target certain proteins and not affect others.
On April 08 2011 20:52 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 20:16 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 19:55 VIB wrote:
Archangel: resonance. Look it up, study it, understand it. If you understood what it was, you wouldn't have made this thread. It's completely illogical and targeting the complete layman. No one will take it seriously. There is no such thing as resonance killing cancer. Doesn't exist, doesn't makes sense, it's not how it works, not at all. If you are so sure of this I am sure you can easily give me good links to prove to me you are right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance O.o It's very simple concept. Object emits a wave, you emit the exact opposite, both cancel each other. Everything that moves emanates waves. Every object emits a wave because it's particles (molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles) are all moving. Big problem is, each atom in your body has a different one. And they don't move regularly. They change, so the waves they emit are always changing. To cancel the waves you'd need to know exactly how each of the wave of each sub-atomic particle is. And how they are changing. Seriously, wikipedia? Site that anyone can edit and write what the hell they want?! it is a good reference for cultural things and films/comics/games and such but not for things like this.
So you're saying that the entire article on resonance is wrong. That the entire article contains no useful information about what resonance is.
I could understand if you were citing a particular paragraph or some such. But the accuracy of Wikipedia has been tested to be about as accurate as a regular encyclopedia. Most trolling on Wikipedia consists of wiping articles or inserting nonsense crap into them that can be easily detected and removed. Rarely is an entire article completely and totally wrong.
Just because it is accepted by the majority of the science people doesn't necessary mean is true in every other case. You have to assess in terms of probability. You can say there's a high probability or a lower one. If you are talking in absolutes then you don't understand the concept of what I'm saying .
Is it "possible" that there's a grand global conspiracy keeping the cure for cancer out of people's hands? Yes. But it's also "possible" that I'm a brain in a jar being fed sense data. It's possible that everyone on Team Liquid except me is a Turing-Test winning AI designed for the purpose of making this website appear to have a large community.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And saying that there's a global conspiracy that has successfully kept the cure for cancer to itself, while never having broken even a little bit, is a very extraordinary claim indeed.
|
On April 08 2011 21:04 Angel[BTL] wrote:
The majority of the people on teamliquid dismiss such findings that don't fit with the conventional truth based on their preconceived notions. They don't understand that every little finding that they base their life on is actually someone else's idea about reality. They don't put under question why they believe what they believe. Just because it is accepted by the majority of the science people doesn't necessary mean is true in every other case. You have to assess in terms of probability. You can say there's a high probability or a lower one. If you are talking in absolutes then you don't understand the concept of what I'm saying .
The idea of conspiracy, alternative medicine, alternative history and so forth isn't some sort of a thing that you can just shout to your friends at a coffee break or in a thread on teamliquid. It takes a little bit of a research (more than just reading for 2 mins on a thread), reading about it (that means both sides),delving into the subject for some time, experimenting if it's possible depending on the case and after you've spent some considerable time with the subject you can say if it's highly likely or not.
Saying that you don't believe it or not is irrelevant and not the final point. You have to do your own research.
Yeah.. no.
There's a point of fucking stupid that I don't have to research to dismiss. That includes Holocaust denial, Hitler being alive in the Arctic making UFOs, the Earth is flat and so forth. You might think you have it all figured out, but you don't. You could call it being rational.
Frankly, if I was going to start believing in shit I've never believe in I'd rather just find a religion, rather find a bloody divinity than a conspiracy against mankind by mankind.
I can't quite understand what you're trying to get at with probability. "I think, therefore I am", and that's all we fucking know. There's a small, however tiny, chance that there's nothing more, or there's much more. Are you really saying everyone is supposed to research everything before having an opinion on it, simply because there's a tiny chance everything might be true, however unlikely? I got a lot of books to read then, I hear alchemy is interesting.
Why do people online have this weird notion that they understand the world much better than the rest? Thus they sit ery comfortably on their high horse and with their monocle. Goddamn man.
|
On April 08 2011 21:07 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 20:42 thesideshow wrote:On April 08 2011 19:28 FranzP wrote:On April 08 2011 19:12 thesideshow wrote:On April 08 2011 19:10 Jombozeus wrote:
So this is basically saying, if I'm at a classical concert and some guy hits a high C sharp, my body can potentially explode into a billion pieces? Better start soundproofing my room with acoustics. At very low frequencies your internal organs will start to mash about in your body and cause damage. It won't be caused by resonnance but by the power of the sound. Like a shockwave from an explosion, if there is too much pressure yeah you could sustain internal injury but it's not because of resonnance. Actually it can. Vibrations can cause bodily damage, that's why suspension systems in vehicles have to take that into account. Some references: + Show Spoiler + They certainly can. But you'll notice that those vibrations do not cause very specific proteins to be destroyed. They cause massive damage. The vibrations are not preferentially selecting certain proteins and not others. You can certainly use vibrations to hurt people. But you cannot use them to specifically target a protein or amino-acid chain. It simply doesn't work that way. Proteins are not solid. They are not fixed in shape. Even proteins that have a shape aren't locked into position the way that molecules in glass are. Proteins are dissolved in a fluid medium. They are constantly changing what frequencies they will resonate with. As such, it is impossible to create a vibration that will specifically target certain proteins and not affect others.
Touché.
|
The article is completely invalid. It makes a ton of claims, and supports none of them and makes no counterarguments. I would love to know how a "beam ray" device is capable of penetrating the skin, and targeting specific cells, and only killing those cells. The science behind that would be pretty cool, but there is absolutely know science anywhere in the article. And I don't think that its possible. Secondly, say that every cell has its own "frequency" and that frequency theory works (which it doesn't btw), what causes that frequency? You say molecules on the cell, I say generally all cells carry the same molecules within them. So it would be know different than chemotherapy in that sense. This beam radiation would still kill your own cells + your cancer cells. Because, what are cancer cells: They are YOUR cells with unrestricted growth. So technically, to kill cancer cells, it would also have to be able to kill your own, healthy, cells.
IDK, the more I Think about the article the more i find wrong with it. I believe its a bunch of bullocks personally.
Plus cancer is caused by many things, not just one "Virus". There is no "human cancer virus". Most cancers appear spontaneously because of genetics/bad molecular luck. Your could live in a bubble your whole life, eat only sterilized food and water, and exercise everyday (and take your vitamins) and still get cancer.
|
No, I am saying that this was not the link I was asking him to give me. A general text on resonance is not a proof of his words, especially not from a site like wikipedia.
On the other had we got a scientist that existed and had machines (that you can see in the pictures), got awards for his works and discovered amazing things only to get shot down and his work destroyed.
Does that not make anyone think why would anyone want to destroy his work?
You know that Tesla's laboratory also got destroyed?! And later his work got stolen just like of dr Raymond.
If Tesla didn't leave us some of his inventions in time before they came down on him I am sure a lot of people would be saying same things about him...
|
On April 08 2011 21:04 Angel[BTL] wrote:
The majority of the people on teamliquid dismiss such findings that don't fit with the conventional truth based on their preconceived notions. They don't understand that every little finding that they base their life on is actually someone else's idea about reality. They don't put under question why they believe what they believe. Just because it is accepted by the majority of the science people doesn't necessary mean is true in every other case. You have to assess in terms of probability. You can say there's a high probability or a lower one. If you are talking in absolutes then you don't understand the concept of what I'm saying .
The idea of conspiracy, alternative medicine, alternative history and so forth isn't some sort of a thing that you can just shout to your friends at a coffee break or in a thread on teamliquid. It takes a little bit of a research (more than just reading for 2 mins on a thread), reading about it (that means both sides),delving into the subject for some time, experimenting if it's possible depending on the case and after you've spent some considerable time with the subject you can say if it's highly likely or not.
Saying that you don't believe it or not is irrelevant and not the final point. You have to do your own research.
I don't want to derail the threads so if you wanna PM that's fine, but what conspiracy theories and alternative medicine and history have you decided to be true, that most people wouldn't believe? Or what do you think is way more likely to be true than not, when most other people would think it's a joke?
The thing with things like in the OP is that everyone wants to believe in some magic bullet. A magic bullet that will cure cancer, a magic bullet to make you rich, a magic bullet to make you powerful and successful, a magic bullet to get you laid, a magic bullet to run a car for free.
Magic bullets don't exist.
|
On April 08 2011 21:04 Angel[BTL] wrote:
The majority of the people on teamliquid dismiss such findings that don't fit with the conventional truth based on their preconceived notions.
Source?
They don't understand that every little finding that they base their life on is actually someone else's idea about reality.
I base my life on the kinematic equations. 
They don't put under question why they believe what they believe.
And you're different because...?
Just because it is accepted by the majority of the science people doesn't necessary mean is true in every other case.
What other case? In cases where cancer is a virus?
You have to assess in terms of probability.
Not really.
You can say there's a high probability or a lower one.
Probability of cancer being a virus is pretty nill.
If you are talking in absolutes then you don't understand the concept of what I'm saying .
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. On a more serious note, cancer being a virus is a pretty boolean thing.
The idea of conspiracy, alternative medicine, alternative history and so forth isn't some sort of a thing that you can just shout to your friends at a coffee break or in a thread on teamliquid.
No. It takes place on national TV (vaccines causing autism).
It takes a little bit of a research (more than just reading for 2 mins on a thread), reading about it (that means both sides),delving into the subject for some time, experimenting if it's possible depending on the case and after you've spent some considerable time with the subject you can say if it's highly likely or not.
Time that I'm sure you've spent.
Saying that you don't believe it or not is irrelevant and not the final point. You have to do your own research.
No.
No.
Goddamn no. I trust the PhD who dedicates his entire life to formulating the goddamn kinematic equations. I accept them because they make sense and they parallel my life pretty well.
Now, if a guy called Einstein came along and said "Hey, the rules are changed if things start moving at the speed of light" I would say "In my life nearly nothing moves at the speed of light - I have no frame of reference on this matter." [PUN INTENDED.] If other scientists come along and say, "This Einstein guy is a genius. He's completely correct!" I will assume he's correct because I'm not as smart as them. Peer review is a beautiful thing.
tl;dr - I don't have to have my own chem lab or read up on some crazy 1930's researcher to believe that he is wrong. I trust in the scientific system because I believe that if a scientist actually someday cures cancer, he won't allow his company to stop him from publishing his results.
|
It always amazes me how much people overestimate their scientific literacy. You don't have the bona fides to "do your own research," period. All you're doing is choosing to invest faith into something with absolutely no scientific backing for whatever reason (counter-culture, being a Luddite, bias). Don't kid yourself and pretend your google search is research, it isn't.
|
When I see "Royal Rife Technologies" I think of L. Bob Rife from Snow Crash.
Sounds like Raymond was counting on 1.) Few people having access to any of those five special microscopes and 2.) Technology never advancing enough to prove him wrong.
|
Cancer cells are identical to "regular" human cells, or at least for resonance purposes, only that they replicate quickly and without constraints. The claims of this "scientist" are ridiculous and preposterious, this thread should be closed to stop this blatant misinformation.
|
I don't think this guy knows how cancer works. If this cure was available it would be possible to give it to the public already. And there are cures for cancer, but there are different types of cancer so its hard to get rid of all of them. And cancer makes too much money for someone to cure it.
|
On April 08 2011 21:38 Mafs wrote:
I don't think this guy knows how cancer works. If this cure was available it would be possible to give it to the public already. And there are cures for cancer, but there are different types of cancer so its hard to get rid of all of them.And cancer makes too much money for someone to cure it .
What?
You make more money if you find a cure for cancer:\
Btw some kinds of cancer are caused by viruses. Most of them not though
|
Maybe we are the cancer?
On a side note, I believe that the question of Cancer should be "Can we cure cancer now?" as oppose to "Is cancer curable?" Giving that we predominantly treat cancer with radiation therapy because of the cancerous cells inability to repair itself like a normal cell can once damaged. Sure, we can blast a localized area of a persons body in an attempt to kill the cancer in that area, sure we might be ahead of the cancer and get it before it goes anywhere else, however, if the cancer has traveled through the blood stream or lymphatic system, it's going to be the same game all over again soon in a new location. I'm not trying to say we should stop, and I do believe eventually we will find ways to prevent or control and even cure cancer in the future. I'm kind of skeptical whether or not we can do that now. I think there is a large degree of luck involved in people being cured for cancer, which is awesome when they are, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying people should give up, not in the least, I know I wouldn't. I just don't think our technology can compete as well as it could with more research and development. I think the odds of us curing cancer in the future is good, at the moment, I think more work needs to be done.
|
On April 08 2011 21:14 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:04 Angel[BTL] wrote:
The majority of the people on teamliquid dismiss such findings that don't fit with the conventional truth based on their preconceived notions. They don't understand that every little finding that they base their life on is actually someone else's idea about reality. They don't put under question why they believe what they believe. Just because it is accepted by the majority of the science people doesn't necessary mean is true in every other case. You have to assess in terms of probability. You can say there's a high probability or a lower one. If you are talking in absolutes then you don't understand the concept of what I'm saying .
The idea of conspiracy, alternative medicine, alternative history and so forth isn't some sort of a thing that you can just shout to your friends at a coffee break or in a thread on teamliquid. It takes a little bit of a research (more than just reading for 2 mins on a thread), reading about it (that means both sides),delving into the subject for some time, experimenting if it's possible depending on the case and after you've spent some considerable time with the subject you can say if it's highly likely or not.
Saying that you don't believe it or not is irrelevant and not the final point. You have to do your own research.
Yeah.. no. There's a point of fucking stupid that I don't have to research to dismiss. That includes Holocaust denial, Hitler being alive in the Arctic making UFOs, the Earth is flat and so forth. You might think you have it all figured out, but you don't. You could call it being rational. Frankly, if I was going to start believing in shit I've never believe in I'd rather just find a religion, rather find a bloody divinity than a conspiracy against mankind by mankind. I can't quite understand what you're trying to get at with probability. "I think, therefore I am", and that's all we fucking know. There's a small, however tiny, chance that there's nothing more, or there's much more. Are you really saying everyone is supposed to research everything before having an opinion on it, simply because there's a tiny chance everything might be true, however unlikely? I got a lot of books to read then, I hear alchemy is interesting. Why do people online have this weird notion that they understand the world much better than the rest? Thus they sit ery comfortably on their high horse and with their monocle. Goddamn man.
Is that a real conspiracy theory? That's actually amazing!
Anyways, I'm surprised this thread has lasted this long, much of what the OP has pasted is clearly pseudo-science at best; moreover, big pharmaceutical companies would profit immensely from a cancer cure, as it'd be literally priceless and all the arguments to support an insanely high price (so hard to make, have to recoup billions of investment R/D, very rare 'ingredients', etc etc) are pretty evident. Of course, this could be wrong and hiding a "cure" for cancer (which seems to me to imply far too much of a 'one size fits all' mentality) might very well be profitable.
But I don't think it's possible, even with the worst of intentions, to hide a cure for cancer, not with the billions poured into research in dozens and dozens of independent groups and companies, each of which has an economic and publicity incentive that would instantly elevate them to the pedestal of 'greatest scientists ever'.
On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer?
That's deep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
