|
On April 09 2011 00:43 Wonderballs wrote:
I didn't read too much of this thread, but two great motivational reasons for not coming forward with it are:
A: Jobs, researchers would be out of funding.
B: Population control. Yeah that's right China and India.
Its a terrible form of population control. Most people who develop cancer are way older than the normal child producing age. The jobs thing is stupid because if it worked you would just live off of the money you make from selling it.
|
On April 09 2011 00:37 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:53 Jombozeus wrote:On April 08 2011 23:49 feaynnewedd wrote:
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said. Btw Archangel, reply to my question about that free energy conspiracy in the last page ^^, do you believe that can be true, too? Sounds pretty legitimate, right (lol) Do you have a link for it? What scientist are behind it? Is it only a theory or does it work? Any research papers or anything? Unlike you I got all that in my links in the OP.
That website has some research papers on it. I can't find one that proves that this machine does what it says it does. Maybe you can direct me to it, or link it in the OP?
|
On April 09 2011 00:37 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:53 Jombozeus wrote:On April 08 2011 23:49 feaynnewedd wrote:
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said. Btw Archangel, reply to my question about that free energy conspiracy in the last page ^^, do you believe that can be true, too? Sounds pretty legitimate, right (lol) Do you have a link for it? What scientist are behind it? Is it only a theory or does it work? Any research papers or anything? Unlike you I got all that in my links in the OP.
The legitimacy of this question is ruined if I show you the source, because then you'd be able to do research of your own and there is no point to me asking you. I'm just asking, what is your reaction if you read that, assuming that there ARE citations of scientific papers and scientists on this research.
|
Well you can't just cure cancer, it's just a label for 5billion different diseases.
|
On April 09 2011 00:43 sh02hp0869 wrote:
Medical reaseach-centers are not all maneaged by big business, evil states etc. they come in diffrent size shapes and are run in diffrent forms. If there was a conspircy it would require an enormous amount of corrupt politician, businessman, scientist not to mention financiers to keep a secret in this magnitude.
That everyone would just stay quiet seems very unlikely. Wisselblowers has sacrifice for much less then for a speculative cure for cancer.
There are plenty of these devices on the market that supposedly use this method to cure illnesses. But if they work I have no clue and I would not buy one until I studied how it works first (or know people that it helped)
|
On April 09 2011 00:46 Jombozeus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:37 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 23:53 Jombozeus wrote:On April 08 2011 23:49 feaynnewedd wrote:
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said. Btw Archangel, reply to my question about that free energy conspiracy in the last page ^^, do you believe that can be true, too? Sounds pretty legitimate, right (lol) Do you have a link for it? What scientist are behind it? Is it only a theory or does it work? Any research papers or anything? Unlike you I got all that in my links in the OP. The legitimacy of this question is ruined if I show you the source, because then you'd be able to do research of your own and there is no point to me asking you. I'm just asking, what is your reaction if you read that, assuming that there ARE citations of scientific papers and scientists on this research.
I am not stupid, I will not believe this if I cannot read more about it. I cannot answer your question unless to tell you that based on what you wrote and my lack of knowledge in that field of science I cannot say if it is true or not.
|
On April 09 2011 00:01 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +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
I don't think he ignored it, you edited it into the post. He most likely did not see it...
|
On April 09 2011 00:46 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:37 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 23:53 Jombozeus wrote:On April 08 2011 23:49 feaynnewedd wrote:
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said. Btw Archangel, reply to my question about that free energy conspiracy in the last page ^^, do you believe that can be true, too? Sounds pretty legitimate, right (lol) Do you have a link for it? What scientist are behind it? Is it only a theory or does it work? Any research papers or anything? Unlike you I got all that in my links in the OP. That website has some research papers on it. I can't find one that proves that this machine does what it says it does. Maybe you can direct me to it, or link it in the OP?
And why are you asking me this? I have no connection to that web site either.
I just opened this thread to tell people about this. After that you can decide if it is true, bogus or needs more research. That first link has more then just research papers (I've seen scans or original lab writings from 20s and 30s but I am not an expert in the field and do not understand what it says on them).
But I am hoping all this info will make some experts curious to look into it further and maybe they can then share this discovery with the world as some claim that it should have been already if it was true.
|
|
|
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...
Majority of the people on this thread are definitely over playing the conspiracy theory of pharmaceutical companies covering up cures for their own profit. Definitely, agree with you there.
But nonetheless, pharmaceutical companies do play the power game to keep their hold on their territory, in order to secure their profit. Throwing all kind of stuff at consumers to have 'em buy their pills. Nobody can rationally argue that Americans aren't over-drugged.
|
On April 09 2011 00:43 Wonderballs wrote:
I didn't read too much of this thread, but two great motivational reasons for not coming forward with it are:
A: Jobs, researchers would be out of funding.
Hardly every researchers would be out of job. Cancer is not the only deadly disease out there.
medical sienties project are always a mix of people with diffrent experties in there field. There is biological analyser, biochemist, doctors, chemist etc.
And somthing tells me that the major scienties in the making of a cure for cancer would be very happy and EXTREAMLY rich.
B: Population control. Yeah that's right China and India.
Could but there are pobleby better ways to control population growth. China already regulate population growth.
|
On April 09 2011 00:54 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 00:46 Wohmfg wrote:On April 09 2011 00:37 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 23:53 Jombozeus wrote:On April 08 2011 23:49 feaynnewedd wrote:
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said. Btw Archangel, reply to my question about that free energy conspiracy in the last page ^^, do you believe that can be true, too? Sounds pretty legitimate, right (lol) Do you have a link for it? What scientist are behind it? Is it only a theory or does it work? Any research papers or anything? Unlike you I got all that in my links in the OP. That website has some research papers on it. I can't find one that proves that this machine does what it says it does. Maybe you can direct me to it, or link it in the OP? And why are you asking me this? I have no connection to that web site either. I just opened this thread to tell people about this. After that you can decide if it is true, bogus or needs more research. That first link has more then just research papers (I've seen scans or original lab writings from 20s and 30s but I am not an expert in the field and do not understand what it says on them). But I am hoping all this info will make some experts curious to look into it further and maybe they can then share this discovery with the world as some claim that it should have been already if it was true.
I'm asking you because you believe that this machine cured cancer (you say that in your OP). Among your criteria for believing in the free energy theory that Jombo posted was that there had to be research papers backing the theory up. I'm simply asking for you to point me to these papers regarding the Rife machine because I assumed you had read a paper and decided that the machines can cure cancer.
I was genuinely curious. There's no point posting a topic about something, and as soon as someone asks you to help them understand you act like it's not your problem.
|
Anyone here remember when DMSO ( dimethyl sulfoxide) was considered an alternative treatment for cancer? The use of it as such is probably what let to this relatively famous event at my hospital (before I practiced there). The event inspired an X-Files episode, and was investigated for years after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Ramirez
|
I think TL moderators should use this thread to separate out the posters who break the "Don't be stupid" Commandment and ban them all. I'm so tired of these completely un-backed conspiracy theory threads.
|
Again, gotta be highly skeptical of this 'cure'.
For one, the word cure is over-used. U can't simply say there's a cure for a disease, because pathogens (bacteria, virus, etc) are much more complicated in the way they work.
and two, coming from #1, AIDs isn't something u can simply have cure for. Didn't take my time to watch the vid, but most likely the 'cure' would be something along the line of entry inhibitor chemicals, that can be effective in slowing down HIVs from replicating, but doesn't actually kill the HIV itself.
The closest thing to 'cure' for HIV is vaccination, but even that won't be available for at least 1 or 2 decades to say the least, despite the rise in various new techniques of producing vaccines.
|
On April 09 2011 01:02 GullyFoyle wrote:Anyone here remember when DMSO ( dimethyl sulfoxide) was considered an alternative treatment for cancer? The use of it as such is probably what let to this relatively famous event at my hospital (before I practiced there). The event inspired an X-Files episode, and was investigated for years after. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Ramirez
That is the craziest thing I've seen in a while!
|
you've misunderstood what cancer is and I understand why
some forms of cancer can be initiated by a virus but it is not by any definition a "virus", a more proper way of speaking about cancer by the way is to think of it as "cancering cells"
tumours form all the time i.e. cells "cancer" (as a verb).
there are normally mechanisms for dealing with the problem though and they vary in each specific case depending on what type of cell is "cancering" and what tissues surround the "cancering" cell.
any type of research that says music is a broad spectrum cure for cancer can definetly be disregarded
|
|
|
As stated many times... cancer is not a virus.. but w/e I am not going to get into that. As far as curing cancer with "sound," I just wanted to make one point. There are so many different types of cancers with so many different causes that finding an all encompassing cure is so unlikely that its irrational to even look. Most companies are attempting to find cures for certain types/groups of cancer.. whether by region, aggression, or even cause. But it is unlikely that something will be found to cure "all" cancer because of the nature of the disease. Also modern medicine/chemotherapy/surgery is a very effective "cure" for many people, depending on the type of cancer and stage it was discovered.
Edit: Also the conspiracy stuff behind the pharmaceutical and research fields is very over blown.. Are there cases where companies have made decisions based on money (over pricing, or not allowing the release of a cheaper alternative)? Sure, I am positive you can find some evidence of that... But I promise you the entire FIELD is not hiding some "magic" cure for cancer.. and many people that work every day of their lives at finding such a cure (such as my father, again not a cure for ALL cancer, just certain types) would be insulted to hear you claim anything even close to that.
I am a medical school student, not a doctor, so take anything I said with a grain of salt.. but come on.. how can you really believe like 80% of that article (I am not claiming every bit of it is false)?
|
You can't cure HIV once you have got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
