|
Hi TL. I see people in this subforum like to discuss all kinds of things so lets discuss this.
Some time ago I stumbled into information about a certain doctor called Royal Raymond Rife that had its glory days during 20s and 30s of the previous century. I would say his story is similar to the one of Nikola Tesla (except Tesla managed to get some of his inventions into mainstream before being shut down by people afraid of him).
EDIT: My original topic was done too fast with not enough research. I have put all that in the spoiler tag a bit down, but here I will put better links with better info about all of this.
So a link to the story: http://www.examiner.com/holistic-science-spirit-in-national/incredible-cures-ignored-by-science-royal-rife-and-others
Science behind these devices: http://www.rt66.com/~rifetech/
A link to some current scientific research on Rife device (together with videos of experiments):
http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/music/aholland/PlasmaTwo.htm
This site also has great info: http://www.rife.de/
Link to recovered data about Rife life and work http://www.rife.org/.
+ Show Spoiler +EDIT: OK, I see this topic title is too provocative. I should have picked a better one. I here present a load of info for anyone that finds it interesting and wants to find out more. Then you can decide if there is more to it. EDIT: OK, the article fracked up with the virus cancer thing. But that does not invalidate the whole of it. it is explained in the article how Rife managed to give cancer to rats. Read the research papers instead of just screaming bullocks! EDIT: I wanted to make the title more interesting so I just put cancer in it, but if you read carefully this method actually cures a huge number of illnesses and those ARE viruses. The article in this link explains stuff pretty well, I recommend you to read all of it (EDIT: looks like the article is a bit too much conspiracy theory heavy and that seems to bother some people, look at the first link to see more science behind it): http://www.rense.com/general31/rife.htmLet me quote some of the more interesting parts: Royal Rife had identified the human cancer virus first...in 1920! Rife then made over 20,000 unsuccessful attempts to transform normal cells into tumor cells. He finally succeeded when he irradiated the cancer virus, passed it through a cell-catching ultra-fine porcelain filter, and injected it into lab animals. Not content to prove this virus would cause one tumor, Rife then created 400 tumors in succession from the same culture. He documented everything with film, photographs, and meticulous records. He named the cancer virus 'Cryptocides primordiales.' AND Rife ignored the debate, preferring to concentrate on refining his method of destroying these tiny killer viruses. He used the same principle to kill them, which made them visible: resonance.
By increasing the intensity of a frequency which resonated naturally with these microbes, Rife increased their natural oscillations until they distorted and disintegrated from structural stresses. Rife called this frequency 'the mortal oscillatory rate,' or 'MOR', and it did no harm whatsoever to the surrounding tissues. AND This principle can be illustrated by using an intense musical note to shatter a wine glass: the molecules of the glass are already oscillating at some harmonic (multiple) of that musical note; they are in resonance with it. Because everything else has a different resonant frequency, nothing but the glass is destroyed. There are literally hundreds of trillions of different resonant frequencies, and every species and molecule has its very own.
It took Rife many years, working 48 hours at a time, until he discovered the frequencies which specifically destroyed herpes, polio, spinal meningitis, tetanus, influenza, and an immense number of other dangerous disease organisms.
My opinion:
I believe this guy really found the cure for cancer and other illnesses, but what I am not sure if people who today sell instruments based on his discoveries are trying to cheat us or not. What I am really sad is that the mainstream science community is not trying to a part of this and help make this a mainstream thing that will benefit the whole of mankind.
Discuss the information given, not me. I didn't write anything presented on these links, I am just a messenger.
|
So yeah, I'm sure every dedicated researcher is in on this conspiracy. Because with todays knowledge, anyone with expertise in this area would be able to say if this was actually possible, or they could try it out themselves.
However I'm sure if you look up all doctors that were born in the 30's, you would see that most of them died. Cover up? Most likely.
|
Fascinating. It would be crazy to see if his research is documented and if there truly is any merit behind it. Really needs to be sourced
|
The thing with cures for stuff is that it's not in the interest of the people in power to find or use it.
If I cure you once for 500$ I get payed 500$.
If I find drugs or treatments that keep it at bay and sell it to you for 50$ a month, I'll get payed for as long as you live.
Numbers are pulled out of the air, but basically I'm saying subscription model vs one time pay.
It's a sad reality. This is one of the core problems with private medical company research. The only people interested in curing diseases are the people who have no control over finding cures.
|
Holy shit! I knew music had divine powers! =D
What's funny is I actually had a biology teacher in high school that believed we already found the cure for cancer along with a lot of other deadly diseases but people were just hiding it to make money off of those who were sick and had to pay for treatments and medicine. Looks like he wasn't far off after all huh? haha
|
this type of thread is an excellent shibboleth. divides the retards from the norms really well
|
seriously^^ how can anyone take stuff like that serious?
|
if a regular internet user can find this, why isnt it plastered all over the news >_>
|
highly skeptical.
quick google showed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife#Modern_revival.2C_marketing.2C_and_health_fraud
So no, he hasn't stood up to replication and peer review. Sadly.
And no, the argument that OMG THEY ARE HIDING THE CURE TO MAKE BILLIONZZ is bass ackwards because the person finding the cure would also make billions and there are equal amounts of money hungry sharks on both ends, supporting and subverting it, but if it works, the sharks supporting it will ultimately outnumber the other side.
Skepticism and Google, dont thrust into the interwebs without protection, or you might catch a bad brain virus.
Edit: for the trolls:
yes, wikipedia is full of shit sometimes, but the sources listed arnt. so go choke on a pig bladder.
|
The saddest thing about these cancer cure threads is its usually not a troll 
|
|
|
With so much to comment on...
There is no "human cancer virus". Cancer is "the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells in the body". There is no one things that causes cancer. It is caused by viruses, genetics, and the environment. This is known by every doctor and researcher in the world, and I imagine most educated people.
You can't destroy specific cells with sound. The principle does not carry over from shattering glass like a convenient Star Trek episode.
Silliness the whole way through.
(I wish it were appropriate to report threads like this).
|
It's cute how you think cancer is a virus.
An oncovirus can cause cancer because it increases mutagenesis, but that's about it => Less than 1/5th of cancers are thought to be linked to oncoviruses, and these viruses already have some very efficient treatment methods. The issue is screening, not treatment.
As for:
My opinion:
I believe this guy really found the cure for cancer and other illnesses, but what I am not sure if people who today sell instruments based on his discoveries are trying to cheat us or not. What I am really sad is that the mainstream science community is not trying to a part of this and help make this a mainstream thing that will benefit the whole of mankind.
So this article was enough to convice you that he had cured cancer? That was easy.
And now you're sad about the state of research without even having the slightest idea about what's being done?
|
Resonance? Really? Do you understand how resonance works and what you'd need to destroy "cancer cells" with it? It's not like cancer has a fixed frequency that you can just guess and throw the inverted frequency to destroy it. The frequency we emanate varies on a lot of variables all the time. You would have to not only be able to see exactly where each atom is, but also know where each one is moving to.
I call BS.
|
On April 08 2011 18:55 Zerokaiser wrote:
With so much to comment on...
There is no "human cancer virus". Cancer is "the uncontrolled growth of abnormal cells in the body". There is no one things that causes cancer. It is caused by viruses, genetics, and the environment. This is known by every doctor and researcher in the world, and I imagine most educated people.
You can't destroy specific cells with sound. The principle does not carry over from shattering glass like a convenient Star Trek episode.
Silliness the whole way through.
(I wish it were appropriate to report threads like this).
but, but, but, ... , the article says otherwise. SO U LIE! the interwebs are true.
|
On April 08 2011 18:58 VIB wrote:
Resonance? Really? Do you understand how resonance works and what you'd need to destroy "cancer cells" with it? It's not like cancer has a fixed frequency that you can just guess and throw the inverted frequency to destroy it. The frequency we emanate varies on a lot of variables all the time. You would have to not only be able to see exactly where each atom is, but also know where each one is moving to.
I call BS.
You're just mad that you didn't think of it first. I'm going to discover the resonance frequency for pandas and dissolve all but 2 of them, cornering the panda market and making myself a bajillionaire.
|
I have heard about this before, and find it interesting. Coupled with the fact that in Turkey they have baths with dolphins hampering cancer with the excapt same technique, by identifying the tumor as something bad and then "beam" it with theyre highly advanced sonar. They also do this among themselves.
And also, and more importantly what Jayve says, 500$ insta cure, or 50$ a month for 10 years cure ? Easy math for the big companys, wich also control education, scientific papers and the general proffessional consensus on the matter.
On the other hand, internet is full of bullshit, and cancer is not a virus ( so the spesific article is not on point). Further on, if this technique really does work on tumors, it would definatly work on human beeings and living organisms in general, and more easily that is. Hence the military would long ago have developed "sound-guns" or something similar, although the technique might require long exposure to the given resonance. I dont know.
Still, the dolphin thing is a fact, wich means there might be more to the matter than what i know.
|
I wonder how many of you read the article. Maybe I quoted the wrong parts. He is not using sound to cure cancer.
|
I'm no expert on biology, but cancer itself is a cell that doesn't stop dividing, not a virus. Some viruses can CAUSE cancer as was said in that article, but there are other causes. Subjecting someone to high amounts of radioactivity gives them cancer without the need for a virus.
That being said I'm a bit skeptical on this frequency business. Viruses are strings of DNA/RNA stuffed into a small container made of.. I don't even remember =P. Point being they're comprised of the same materials as human cells, they just happen to have a DNA/RNA sequence that causes cells to do crazy stuff when it confuses that DNA with the real cell DNA.
The resonant frequency stuff is simply oscillating molecules at the frequency they like to be shaken. Like pushing a swing at the frequency that it likes to swing at. Yes it breaks things apart or heats them up (microwaves oscillate water molecules at one of their resonance frequencies), but if you want to ONLY target one specific virus I don't see how you would do that. It's comprised of DNA which is just a specific sequence of 4 basic building blocks. There's no way to hit a resonance frequency for the virus DNA that doesn't also resonate with cell DNA. It's true that resonance frequencies will get shifted by their surroundings slightly like in NMR, but if NMR can't see viruses then I don't see how that guy in 1920s could do what he claims.
Don't know enough about biology to be convinced, but at the very least I'm sceptical that you can find a resonance frequency that only addresses one particular virus without damaging the surrounding DNA or tissue since there's nothing a virus has that human cells don't. At least as far as my extremely limited biology knowledge goes.
|
I tried to read the article but this is actually really really really old.. cancer virus? I can see why they'd thing that back in the day but no this is wrong and you shouldn't quote things from the internet because they're generally wrong
|
On April 08 2011 19:00 Stacks wrote:
I have heard about this before, and find it interesting. Coupled with the fact that in Turkey they have baths with dolphins hampering cancer with the excapt same technique, by identifying the tumor as something bad and then "beam" it with theyre highly advanced sonar. They also do this among themselves.
And also, and more importantly what Jayve says, 500$ insta cure, or 50$ a month for 10 years cure ? Easy math for the big companys, wich also control education, scientific papers and the general proffessional consensus on the matter.
On the other hand, internet is full of bullshit, and cancer is not a virus ( so the spesific article is not on point). Further on, if this technique really does work on tumors, it would definatly work on human beeings and living organisms in general, and more easily that is. Hence the military would long ago have developed "sound-guns" or something similar, although the technique might require long exposure to the given resonance. I dont know.
Still, the dolphin thing is a fact, wich means there might be more to the matter than what i know.
Couldn't find anything online regarding the dolphins. Are you able to supply a source?
|
I usually don't post, I'm more of a lurker, but reading things like this makes me weep for the future of humankind.
With a bit of basic search about cancer (hello Google and Wikipedia) you could see that cancer is not caused by a virus. Yes, viruses may increase the chance of it happening IN SOME CASES (the same as oil can increase a fire, but you can still make it with wood), but cancer "per se" it's not a virus.
But it's even funnier that people don't step to think about the implications of what you wrote. You say that every molecule has it's own resonance frequency. And live is based on the same bricks, it shares the same molecules from viruses to human being (and this is elementary-grade science knowledge).
So, can you image what will happen if you send a signal to destroy the molecules of a virus to the human body? I believe the xkcd of today is quite an appropriate description: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/pain_rating.png
|
On April 08 2011 19:01 -Archangel- wrote:
I wonder how many of you read the article. Maybe I quoted the wrong parts. He is not using sound to cure cancer.
Lol, did you read the article? The parts you quoted were the least ridiculous parts.
To pick a random piece:
"By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size."
Come on, man. Are you really this gullible?
|
On April 08 2011 18:58 VIB wrote:
Resonance? Really? Do you understand how resonance works and what you'd need to destroy "cancer cells" with it? It's not like cancer has a fixed frequency that you can just guess and throw the inverted frequency to destroy it. The frequency we emanate varies on a lot of variables all the time. You would have to not only be able to see exactly where each atom is, but also know where each one is moving to.
I call BS.
Actually human body parts have identified resonant frequencies. For example eyeballs resonate at 60-90Hz.
Doesn't seem completely impossible to identify the resonant frequency of a "cancer cell"
|
On April 08 2011 19:07 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:01 -Archangel- wrote:
I wonder how many of you read the article. Maybe I quoted the wrong parts. He is not using sound to cure cancer. Lol, did you read the article? The parts you quoted were the least ridiculous parts. To pick a random piece: "By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size." Come on, man. Are you really this gullible?
And are you really that skeptic? You know they invented a principal of a steam machine in ancient Greece?
But it was less useful to them then slaves so nobody would invest to make it into something more useful.
|
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.
|
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.
|
France352 Posts
oooouucch this op is so uninformed:
Cancer is not a virus diseas , cancer is an alteration of a cell genes wich result in the infinite replication of the given cell, then you got growing balls of cells into your body wich destroy it from the inside.
Genes alteration cause cancers, and it can be caused by viruses,
but once you got cancer you can exterminate all the virus you want in your body, it wont cure you ...
to be cured you need to remove or destroy all the altered cells
|
On April 08 2011 19:08 thesideshow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 18:58 VIB wrote:
Resonance? Really? Do you understand how resonance works and what you'd need to destroy "cancer cells" with it? It's not like cancer has a fixed frequency that you can just guess and throw the inverted frequency to destroy it. The frequency we emanate varies on a lot of variables all the time. You would have to not only be able to see exactly where each atom is, but also know where each one is moving to.
I call BS. Actually human body parts have identified resonant frequencies. For example eyeballs resonate at 60-90Hz. Doesn't seem completely impossible to identify the resonant frequency of a "cancer cell" 60-90hz? Wow you just told me the exact precise number of the frequency, amplitude and offset of the waves I need to emit to destroy anyone's eyeballs! brb gonna conquer humanity. No you didn't :p
|
On April 08 2011 19:10 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:07 Zerokaiser wrote:On April 08 2011 19:01 -Archangel- wrote:
I wonder how many of you read the article. Maybe I quoted the wrong parts. He is not using sound to cure cancer. Lol, did you read the article? The parts you quoted were the least ridiculous parts. To pick a random piece: "By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size." Come on, man. Are you really this gullible? And are you really that skeptic? You know they invented a principal of a steam machine in ancient Greece? But it was less useful to them then slaves so nobody would invest to make it into something more useful.
I weep for you. I also implore you to check any single fact, name, or reference mentioned in that article. Seriously though, digging into specifics shouldn't be necessary.
Not to be rude, but what is wrong with your brain?
|
On April 08 2011 19:10 -Archangel- wrote:
And are you really that skeptic? You know they invented a principal of a steam machine in ancient Greece?
But it was less useful to them then slaves so nobody would invest to make it into something more useful.
It didn't stand up to peer-reviews. So there's good reason to be sceptical. Also don't start with the typical conspiracy theories like "the reviewers were paid off by the big pharma".
|
This also reminds me of a news on TV about a guy that wanted to find a cure for cancer using radio waves but in the end managed to get water to burn with radio waves (it is on youtube somewhere).
I put a link to research papers about Rife discovery to the OP.
|
Seriously, do people not have the capacity to think independantly? Look at all the legs that this conspiracy rests on...
It seems like the whole medical peofession would have to be in on it. That means that when a doctors friends or family get cancer they do regular treatments to keep up the facade! A website breaks the story and instead of headlines around the world (and trust me, curing cancer will be a watershed in our history) there is no hype at all. Said author writes a story about it instad of patenting said wonder treatment and becoming the richest person on earth.
Anyway, I can't wait for your next installment on fairy dust powered cars 
|
France352 Posts
oooouucch this op is so uninformed:
Cancer is not a virus diseas , cancer is an alteration of a cell genes wich result in the infinite replication of the given cell, then you got growing balls of cells into your body wich destroy it from the inside (= tumors).
Genes alteration cause cancers, and it can be caused by viruses,
but once you got cancer you can exterminate all the virus you want in your body, it wont cure you ...
to be cured you need to remove or destroy all the altered cells
|
Sounds very very suspicious.
I always wonder who all these cover-up people are. Most conspiracy theories require hundreds if not thousands of them. Do they live their lives as normal people, loving their kids, keeping quiet even when their own kid gets cancer? It's just so far fetched that people would sit in some secret society that plans for the suffering of mankind, smoking their fat cigars and not giving a shit. Of course there are selfish people but there aren't that many psychopaths and a whole secret society of them sitting in some dark dungeon and plotting.. I don't see it happening.
Using some old invention to scam money from sick people seems more like normal selfishness to me. It doesn't require active action against inventions that would benefit humanity.
|
On April 08 2011 19:15 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:10 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 19:07 Zerokaiser wrote:On April 08 2011 19:01 -Archangel- wrote:
I wonder how many of you read the article. Maybe I quoted the wrong parts. He is not using sound to cure cancer. Lol, did you read the article? The parts you quoted were the least ridiculous parts. To pick a random piece: "By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size." Come on, man. Are you really this gullible? And are you really that skeptic? You know they invented a principal of a steam machine in ancient Greece? But it was less useful to them then slaves so nobody would invest to make it into something more useful. I weep for you. I also implore you to check any single fact, name, or reference mentioned in that article. Seriously though, digging into specifics shouldn't be necessary. Not to be rude, but what is wrong with your brain?
Not to be rude, but if your discussion is trolling and insulting you can just GTFO.
|
Laetril or Amygdalin (which is illegal in the US -- derives itself from the apricot kernel), is the best remedy to both prevent and put cancer in remission. Not everything the medical community prescribes is healthy, nor the best remedy. Just look at how the orthodox medical community in this country handles pregnancies. As with any medical intervention it is up to you to find the best available information and scrutinize all recommendations by the modern medical orthodoxy. I would hasten to add the major reason for the degradation in the medical community in regards to prescriptions and other common medical interventions is the fact that it has become much more expensive to get a product to the market thanks to the FDA. What used to take two years and much much less money, now takes upwards of 12 years and billions of dollars. That isn't cheap.
|
i cant help but reply this lol
seriously?? i believe anyone has done high school will see the obviousness?? i mean, virus lol???
and ya, if i ever support mod to close a thread (that is non one liner)on tl, this will be the first thread.
|
On April 08 2011 19:16 -Archangel- wrote:
This also reminds me of a news on TV about a guy that wanted to find a cure for cancer using radio waves but in the end managed to get water to burn with radio waves (it is on youtube somewhere).
I put a link to research papers about Rife discovery to the OP.
There's not really a polite way to say this, but you need to turn off the television, stop watching conspiracy videos on youtube, discontinue your magazine subscriptions, sit in your room and think for a couple of hours.
The idea that a fellow human being can be so foolish and mislead is cutting deep the other people in this thread. We want nothing but the best for your future, and that involves not believing everything you hear.
EDIT: Start by fact-checking any names, references, events, etc. mentioned in that article. You won't find much of anything that isn't just the Rife story itself. In fact, in my 5 minutes of "let's find something to give an example with" searching I found that the University of Heidelberg has never acknowledged Rife ever attending.
|
On April 08 2011 19:08 thesideshow wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 18:58 VIB wrote:
Resonance? Really? Do you understand how resonance works and what you'd need to destroy "cancer cells" with it? It's not like cancer has a fixed frequency that you can just guess and throw the inverted frequency to destroy it. The frequency we emanate varies on a lot of variables all the time. You would have to not only be able to see exactly where each atom is, but also know where each one is moving to.
I call BS. Actually human body parts have identified resonant frequencies. For example eyeballs resonate at 60-90Hz. Doesn't seem completely impossible to identify the resonant frequency of a "cancer cell"
It really does. To be able to target cancer cells and no other cells you would have to be very specific with the right frequency etc. This is impossible because the molecular makeup of the cells is constantly changing, with proteins, organelles and sub-cellular structural components (microtubules etc.) being constantly created and degraded, changing the cells resonance frequency. There is therefore no way of knowing what the resonance frequency of cells are, and its certainly not a single value as the OP suggests.
You would have the same problem with tumours, them being different sizes, shapes and in contact with different tissues would make their resonance frequencies vary, making them impossible to target.
|
On April 08 2011 19:12 thesideshow wrote:Show nested quote +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.
About the article, one thing I really dislike about it is that it uses every conspiration argument you could ever think about. Look at that :
Probably the only friends you'll have will be the patients and those progressive doctors who see change as an opportunity, rather than a threat to their established money-making monopoly. Those people will love you. But they don't call the shots.
What follows, now, is the story of exactly such a sensational therapy and what happened to it. In one of the blackest episodes in recorded history, this remarkable electronic therapy was sabotaged and buried by a ruthless group of men. It has re-emerged in the underground medical/alternative health world only since the mid-80's. This is the story of Royal Raymond Rife and his fabulous discoveries and electronic instruments.
Yeah "The blackest episode in recorded history" thanks for that, and i don't want to trash underground and alternative medicines, but that's what they are underground, alternative and not proven by science. So whether this is scientific and not underground or it's not scientific.
By the way not every researcher are bound to private companies. So yeah if someone cured cancer will would know about it.
Furthermore governments don't make money on cancer. I'll take the example of France even if it's kinda special (because of the universal welfare). Serious disease costs a lot to the french governments and to insurance company. So it's in there interest to find cures that cost less but on which they will get a bigger margin.
|
On April 08 2011 19:21 Sablar wrote:
Sounds very very suspicious.
I always wonder who all these cover-up people are. Most conspiracy theories require hundreds if not thousands of them. Do they live their lives as normal people, loving their kids, keeping quiet even when their own kid gets cancer? It's just so far fetched that people would sit in some secret society that plans for the suffering of mankind, smoking their fat cigars and not giving a shit. Of course there are selfish people but there aren't that many psychopaths and a whole secret society of them sitting in some dark dungeon and plotting.. I don't see it happening.
Using some old invention to scam money from sick people seems more like normal selfishness to me. It doesn't require active action against inventions that would benefit humanity.
I guess these are the same kind of people that recently got the whole world up on their feat because of the the impending doom of H1N1 and sold millions of cures for it and then nothing happened (even to those that didn't take it which would be the most of us). Actually there was a good number of people that had problems because of taking this cure. And again more people died because of normal flu.
|
A lot of people seem to have many misconceptions about cancer, as a biomedicine student I'll try to explain it as best as I can.
Cell division in the body is regulated by a protein called cyclin. Growth hormones bind to special receptor sites on the cell surface called RTK which initiates them to bind together (dimerize), this causes self-phophorylation of the each RTK protein. A relay protein will detect this change and cause a phosphorylation cascade to amplify this change. This will end the in the activation of a G-protein called RAS.
RAS auto-catalytic, meaning it will break down itself from activated RAS to the deactivated form. However mutations will cause this function to cease. The expression of RAS causes the transciption of cyclin. Cyclin binding to cyclin dependant kinase (CDK) will form a complex called mitotic promoting factor (MPF) and this will intiate cell division.
However, a mutation on RAS is not enough to cause cancer. The cell has it's own mechanisms to detect rapid cancerous growth. This is called contact inhibition, when two cells are too close the desmosomes will show a process called contact inhibition. This will involve the activation of G-proteins to intiate a transcription factor called P53, P53 promotes the synthesis of P21 which binds to CDK prevent cyclin to bind stopping cell division and promoting cell suicide.
To get cancer, you need a mutation on both RAS and P53. Cancer cells have no different frequency than regularly cells apart from the fact that they constantly divide. Most of the present day chemotherapy involves targetting this by feeding the body poisons that will most likely be uptaken by rapidly dividing cells (cancer cells).
No ressonance wave bullcrap will kill cancer cells.
|
It's completely different with H1N1, if it would have mutated in a killer virus and nobody prepared there would have been a lot of death and everybody would have shit on governments because they didn't make vacins and in our case it didn't mutate and everybody shit on governments because they took their precautions.
It's lose/lose.
|
On April 08 2011 19:03 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:00 Stacks wrote:
I have heard about this before, and find it interesting. Coupled with the fact that in Turkey they have baths with dolphins hampering cancer with the excapt same technique, by identifying the tumor as something bad and then "beam" it with theyre highly advanced sonar. They also do this among themselves.
And also, and more importantly what Jayve says, 500$ insta cure, or 50$ a month for 10 years cure ? Easy math for the big companys, wich also control education, scientific papers and the general proffessional consensus on the matter.
On the other hand, internet is full of bullshit, and cancer is not a virus ( so the spesific article is not on point). Further on, if this technique really does work on tumors, it would definatly work on human beeings and living organisms in general, and more easily that is. Hence the military would long ago have developed "sound-guns" or something similar, although the technique might require long exposure to the given resonance. I dont know.
Still, the dolphin thing is a fact, wich means there might be more to the matter than what i know. Couldn't find anything online regarding the dolphins. Are you able to supply a source?
The big companies obviously control the scientific papers and won't release it...
While there are studies that are paid for by corporations, and I don't really like it, it's not like the scientific community itself is owned by corporations. Scientists are free to research whatever they can get funding for, and that funding often comes from the state, individuals, etc. If results can be found it will be reported..
|
On April 08 2011 19:28 FranzP wrote:
and i don't want to trash underground and alternative medicines, but that's what they are underground, alternative and not proven by science
Alternative medicine is, by definition, medicine that has not been proven to work or been proven not to work.
You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work?
Medicine 
|
On April 08 2011 19:28 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:21 Sablar wrote:
Sounds very very suspicious.
I always wonder who all these cover-up people are. Most conspiracy theories require hundreds if not thousands of them. Do they live their lives as normal people, loving their kids, keeping quiet even when their own kid gets cancer? It's just so far fetched that people would sit in some secret society that plans for the suffering of mankind, smoking their fat cigars and not giving a shit. Of course there are selfish people but there aren't that many psychopaths and a whole secret society of them sitting in some dark dungeon and plotting.. I don't see it happening.
Using some old invention to scam money from sick people seems more like normal selfishness to me. It doesn't require active action against inventions that would benefit humanity. I guess these are the same kind of people that recently got the whole world up on their feat because of the the impending doom of H1N1 and sold millions of cures for it and then nothing happened (even to those that didn't take it which would be the most of us). Actually there was a good number of people that had problems because of taking this cure. And again more people died because of normal flu.
Do you really think they had a motive to hurt people when recommending the vaccine? I think reports were probably exaggerated but I have a hard time seeing governments around the world making this decision because they wanted to hurt their populations.
Glad I never took it though. Turns out there is a pretty strong connection between that vaccine and sleep apnea as well now.
|
On April 08 2011 19:36 Sablar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:28 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 19:21 Sablar wrote:
Sounds very very suspicious.
I always wonder who all these cover-up people are. Most conspiracy theories require hundreds if not thousands of them. Do they live their lives as normal people, loving their kids, keeping quiet even when their own kid gets cancer? It's just so far fetched that people would sit in some secret society that plans for the suffering of mankind, smoking their fat cigars and not giving a shit. Of course there are selfish people but there aren't that many psychopaths and a whole secret society of them sitting in some dark dungeon and plotting.. I don't see it happening.
Using some old invention to scam money from sick people seems more like normal selfishness to me. It doesn't require active action against inventions that would benefit humanity. I guess these are the same kind of people that recently got the whole world up on their feat because of the the impending doom of H1N1 and sold millions of cures for it and then nothing happened (even to those that didn't take it which would be the most of us). Actually there was a good number of people that had problems because of taking this cure. And again more people died because of normal flu. Do you really think they had a motive to hurt people when recommending the vaccine? I think reports were probably exaggerated but I have a hard time seeing governments around the world making this decision because they wanted to hurt their populations. Glad I never took it though. Turns out there is a pretty strong connection between that vaccine and sleep apnea as well now.
Not in relation to this subject, but why do you think the Government is some benevolent entity? Governments killed more than 200,000,000 of their own people in the 20th Century alone. The US Government conducted experiments on their own people, other countries people, and were an inch away from bombing their own people just to marshal support for an invasion of Cuba (Operation Northwoods), which thankfully Kennedy told the Joint Chiefs hell no. The Government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin (there was no attack on US vessels) and that got 58,000 Americans killed and untold Vietnamese. Governments care about power, not people. Always healthy to be skeptical when it comes to the institution.
PS: The Government were the same ones who pushed the Swine Flu vaccine in the 70s which killed more people than the flu itself. Then they do it again a few years ago. It's about control.
|
On April 08 2011 19:36 Sablar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:28 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 19:21 Sablar wrote:
Sounds very very suspicious.
I always wonder who all these cover-up people are. Most conspiracy theories require hundreds if not thousands of them. Do they live their lives as normal people, loving their kids, keeping quiet even when their own kid gets cancer? It's just so far fetched that people would sit in some secret society that plans for the suffering of mankind, smoking their fat cigars and not giving a shit. Of course there are selfish people but there aren't that many psychopaths and a whole secret society of them sitting in some dark dungeon and plotting.. I don't see it happening.
Using some old invention to scam money from sick people seems more like normal selfishness to me. It doesn't require active action against inventions that would benefit humanity. I guess these are the same kind of people that recently got the whole world up on their feat because of the the impending doom of H1N1 and sold millions of cures for it and then nothing happened (even to those that didn't take it which would be the most of us). Actually there was a good number of people that had problems because of taking this cure. And again more people died because of normal flu. Do you really think they had a motive to hurt people when recommending the vaccine? I think reports were probably exaggerated but I have a hard time seeing governments around the world making this decision because they wanted to hurt their populations. Glad I never took it though. Turns out there is a pretty strong connection between that vaccine and sleep apnea as well now.
What is government? A group of people.
People want power and wealth (usually because wealth brings power).
It is not that hard for huge pharmaceutical companies to pay of people in the government to do whatever they want.
Actually by this article and what happened to Rife they have been doing it for a long while now.
|
On April 08 2011 19:24 BurningSera wrote:
i cant help but reply this lol
seriously?? i believe anyone has done high school will see the obviousness?? i mean, virus lol???
and ya, if i ever support mod to close a thread (that is non one liner)on tl, this will be the first thread.
It's a discussion. There is no way the OP is uninformed with what cancer is, it is an interesting topic.
There are over 200 cancer types. Yes, viruses don't cause cancer in a general sense, but they "help" to cause it, but mutating cells in certain ways that can make it more likely to catch it. For instance, if you catch Hep B or C, the virus can mutate your cells in a way that is linked with liver cancer. What Rife did was destroyed certain viruses that cause certain illnesses, not cancer. You can catch a cancer causing virus and NEVER get cancer at all. There are better ways nowadays using modern day methods to cure cancer causing viruses without using Rifes methods, but there are so many factors that effect the ways we catch cancer, by just destroying the virus it will not stop you getting it.
|
Archangel... Pharmaceutical companies aren't human biology professors working at universities... Human biology professors working at universities are human biology professors working at universities...
Plus, first pharmaceutical company that sells cure for cancer will get more money than the government can offer (lol, like they can offer anything with their budget).
|
I apologize in advance, but a lot of these "Things" have been going on for years, with sloppy cover ups. 9/11 people remember but on the same day the pentagon was hit by a missile, people forget that. Magic Johnson went to EU got treated, and came back without "Aids" HIV, whatver you wnt to call it. they say it's not 'active" but in long ago previous statements they stated they can't find the virus in his system anymore.
People need to stop calling things conspiracy. Here's the fact, most governments know you're stupid and will cover things up yourself with no needed facts, you can be provided facts but still think information is false. That's how the world works, whistleblowers appear, then disappear forever.
Anyway gl guys this thread like a lot others here seem to get closed when it comes to these topics sadly. I wanted to comment on another similar to this but Mods closed it though it didn't turn violent? BP oil spill I think. gl hf.
|
On April 08 2011 19:48 Jombozeus wrote:
Archangel... Pharmaceutical companies aren't human biology professors working at universities... Human biology professors working at universities are human biology professors working at universities...
Plus, first pharmaceutical company that sells cure for cancer will get more money than the government can offer (lol, like they can offer anything with their budget).
No, it will not. Selling a huge amount of medication is more profitable then this.
This would just be one time sell of relatively inexpensive machines to hospitals and that is it.
|
On April 08 2011 19:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:36 Sablar wrote:On April 08 2011 19:28 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 19:21 Sablar wrote:
Sounds very very suspicious.
I always wonder who all these cover-up people are. Most conspiracy theories require hundreds if not thousands of them. Do they live their lives as normal people, loving their kids, keeping quiet even when their own kid gets cancer? It's just so far fetched that people would sit in some secret society that plans for the suffering of mankind, smoking their fat cigars and not giving a shit. Of course there are selfish people but there aren't that many psychopaths and a whole secret society of them sitting in some dark dungeon and plotting.. I don't see it happening.
Using some old invention to scam money from sick people seems more like normal selfishness to me. It doesn't require active action against inventions that would benefit humanity. I guess these are the same kind of people that recently got the whole world up on their feat because of the the impending doom of H1N1 and sold millions of cures for it and then nothing happened (even to those that didn't take it which would be the most of us). Actually there was a good number of people that had problems because of taking this cure. And again more people died because of normal flu. Do you really think they had a motive to hurt people when recommending the vaccine? I think reports were probably exaggerated but I have a hard time seeing governments around the world making this decision because they wanted to hurt their populations. Glad I never took it though. Turns out there is a pretty strong connection between that vaccine and sleep apnea as well now. Not in relation to this subject, but why do you think the Government is some benevolent entity? Governments killed more than 200,000,000 of their own people in the 20th Century alone. The US Government conducted experiments on their own people, other countries people, and were an inch away from bombing their own people just to marshal support for an invasion of Cuba (Operation Northwoods), which thankfully Kennedy told the Joint Chiefs hell no. The Government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin (there was no attack on US vessels) and that got 58,000 Americans killed and untold Vietnamese. Governments care about power, not people. Always healthy to be skeptical when it comes to the institution. PS: The Government were the same ones who pushed the Swine Flu vaccine in the 70s which killed more people than the flu itself. Then they do it again a few years ago. It's about control.
I'm not saying that the government doesn't make mistakes and stupid decisions. I'm just saying that they do things because they believe it's what needs to be done, or the right thing to do. Of course there will be individuals trying to cover their ass if they made a mistake, miscommunication and stress, but as an entity I have a really hard time believing that a government would actively try to cause suffering. Which covering up a cancer medicine would be a good example of.
Well, maybe some corrupt dictatorship that desperately needed money would do it to help their own country, but not a modern democracy that's at least somewhat working.
|
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.
|
On April 08 2011 19:48 WArped wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:24 BurningSera wrote:
i cant help but reply this lol
seriously?? i believe anyone has done high school will see the obviousness?? i mean, virus lol???
and ya, if i ever support mod to close a thread (that is non one liner)on tl, this will be the first thread. It's a discussion. There is no way the OP is uninformed with what cancer is, it is an interesting topic. There are over 200 cancer types. Yes, viruses don't cause cancer in a general sense, but they "help" to cause it, but mutating cells in certain ways that can make it more likely to catch it. For instance, if you catch Hep B or C, the virus can mutate your cells in a way that is linked with liver cancer. What Rife did was destroyed certain viruses that cause certain illnesses, not cancer. You can catch a cancer causing virus and NEVER get cancer at all. There are better ways nowadays using modern day methods to cure cancer causing viruses without using Rifes methods, but there are so many factors that effect the ways we catch cancer, by just destroying the virus it will not stop you getting it.
Its a discussion about a guy in the 30ies saying that he cured cancer, and all the consipary theories that anyone want to put in. I didn't see anyone answering the scientif posts up to now, like the one by Pwnographics, because nobody, except the expert, understand jack shit about how cancer works (yeah we, the not expert, understand but we can't explain what's really going on).
So noone will be able to have an rational conversation about whether it is true or not. All will be able to do is talk about consiparcy theories, which is not the topic of the OP.
|
On April 08 2011 19:54 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:48 Jombozeus wrote:
Archangel... Pharmaceutical companies aren't human biology professors working at universities... Human biology professors working at universities are human biology professors working at universities...
Plus, first pharmaceutical company that sells cure for cancer will get more money than the government can offer (lol, like they can offer anything with their budget). No, it will not. Selling a huge amount of medication is more profitable then this. This would just be one time sell of relatively inexpensive machines to hospitals and that is it.
Because when people get cancer, instead of getting chemotherapy, they get a prescribed doses of medicine for 5 years. wut.
Its like saying "cars are slower than teleportation devices, and because cars need to be replaced every year or so, THE GOVERNMENT HAS HIDDEN THE TELEPORTATION DEVICES FROM THE WORLD FOR THE PAST CENTURY AHHHHBRHRUGURHBVLKDFJSLKJ"
Yep, a perfect chain of logic.
|
Cancer virus?
I think/hope it is referring to a virus that can cause cancer?
This is only the cause of a small number of cancers though, many which can be treatable or preventable already.
And why don't i see his name mentioned in that article?
Oh and LOL at resonance.
|
On April 08 2011 19:54 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 19:48 Jombozeus wrote:
Archangel... Pharmaceutical companies aren't human biology professors working at universities... Human biology professors working at universities are human biology professors working at universities...
Plus, first pharmaceutical company that sells cure for cancer will get more money than the government can offer (lol, like they can offer anything with their budget). No, it will not. Selling a huge amount of medication is more profitable then this. This would just be one time sell of relatively inexpensive machines to hospitals and that is it.
then riddle me this: who's stopping an independant person from building these machines and selling them to hospitals?
|
|
|
The machines are apparently illegal in a lot of country because there's nothing that prove they work and selling something that doesn't work is fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife at the bottom).
|
On April 08 2011 20:05 FranzP wrote:
The machines are apparently illegal in a lot of country because there's nothing that prove they work and selling something that doesn't work is fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife at the bottom).
That is why I said I am not sure if people today that claim to use his machines are trying to fraud us or not.
It is hard to know just like with many other alternative medicine as mainstream usually fights against it or does not want to finance research (which you have to have to be legalized).
|
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.
|
On April 08 2011 20:15 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On April 08 2011 19:52 GertHeart wrote:
I apologize in advance, but a lot of these "Things" have been going on for years, with sloppy cover ups. 9/11 people remember but on the same day the pentagon was hit by a missile, people forget that. Magic Johnson went to EU got treated, and came back without "Aids" HIV, whatver you wnt to call it. they say it's not 'active" but in long ago previous statements they stated they can't find the virus in his system anymore.
People need to stop calling things conspiracy. Here's the fact, most governments know you're stupid and will cover things up yourself with no needed facts, you can be provided facts but still think information is false. That's how the world works, whistleblowers appear, then disappear forever.
Anyway gl guys this thread like a lot others here seem to get closed when it comes to these topics sadly. I wanted to comment on another similar to this but Mods closed it though it didn't turn violent? BP oil spill I think. gl hf.
HOOOO boy.
- The pentagon was not hit by a missile. There is unequivocal evidence that a plane hit it. Video footage with stills of a plane shaped and sized object. Huge amounts of debris which signified a large passenger plane, ie landing gear.
- Magic Johnson does not have AIDS he has HIV. HIV is the precursor to AIDS. It can be successfully stalled with heavy medication.
- Not everyone is stupid. Stop acting like you're the only sane person cause you see through the lies. Its obnoxious and terribly misinformed.
|
On April 08 2011 20:12 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 20:05 FranzP wrote:
The machines are apparently illegal in a lot of country because there's nothing that prove they work and selling something that doesn't work is fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife at the bottom). That is why I said I am not sure if people today that claim to use his machines are trying to fraud us or not. It is hard to know just like with many other alternative medicine as mainstream usually fights against it or does not want to finance research (which you have to have to be legalized).
why would you have to do research if his machines already exist. i though he already did the research..
now you would jsut have to prove it works, by actually healing people with it.
|
lol..
why would people who discover a cure for cancer want to hide a cure for cancer?
When a cure = billions upon billions upon billions of dollars worth of potential profit... hmm? If you're a pharmaceutical firm's R&D division and you just discovered the cure for cancer.. would you hide it?
Fuck no.
Seriously. Rational people in this thread have already explained why the 'science' behind resonance doesn't work this way, and there is nothing in the way of peer reviewed evidence to justify claiming this is a working cure.
Please, if any mods are reading this, take this thread down... it's embarrassing..
|
Also, did you know some found a way to make cars run on water? Amazing, right.
But oil companies want money, so the governments don't allow it.
Those damn governments, always trying to take away our money. I wonder why we even vote for them.
|
If you could actually kill cells with resonance, why haven't we seen any applications for it? I can imagine there would be plenty uses of it.
|
You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work?
Medicine.
Edit: credit to Tim Minchin's "Storm".
Edit 2: in case my point is not clear... what I am saying is that if this really works, someone would have set it up and made it work. Newspapers all over the world will be screaming this person's virtues. Politicians will be scrambling over each other to take photographs shaking this person's hand. Rich men everywhere will be flying to this person's hospital to get cured of cancer. NGOs like the MakeAWish foundation will solicit donations to bring 3 year olds with leukemia to this person's hospital. He or she will be heralded as the savior of mankind - imagine a world where all of us are free from disease! And so on.
OP, you say this alleged invention is being kept down because of the greed of the pharmaceutical corporations. I put it to you that it is this very greed that will cause it to rise to prominence despite competitors not wanting it to exist. The fact is that any profits a pharmaco can extract out of current cancer "treatment" will pale in comparison to the immense goodwill that same pharmaco will receive from the people for releasing the cure for cancer. People will trust this pharmaco more than any other, because it will be The One That Cured Cancer. Money simply cannot buy that kind of brand recognition.
The fact that this is not happening is a strong indicator that this cure does not exist.
|
Wow, you people are so full of yourselves, arguing for the sake of arguing. Get of your high horses and run a mannered debate on the subject or just plainly refrain from posting. Comments like "What is wrong with your brain" because someone is having another viewpoint on the matter is honestly saying a hell lot of more about you than the person the comment is directed to.
|
@Starparty
there's no reason in allowing someone to have an opinion in a matter that doesnt allow opinons.
if i had the opinion the world was flat would you prais me for having a different view on things?
|
They also found a real-life (dead) alien in mexico in the 30s... STARCHILD! Check it out http://www.starchildproject.com/
The guy there points out that scientists don't even know what some of the features of the skull are, and a few scientists even say it isn't human!
Conclusion?
PROOF of aliens
|
Lol, this thread is derailing heavily.
|
On April 08 2011 20:20 Gak2 wrote:Also, did you know some found a way to make cars run on water? Amazing, right. But oil companies want money, so the governments don't allow it. Those damn governments, always trying to take away our money. I wonder why we even vote for them.
I don't believe in any of these theories and how the government covers the "truth" up, but there are so many governments linked with large corporations. Both the government and the corporations have an interest in helping each other out and that can get in the way of the government doing the best job for the majority of the population. There's a reason that taxes are massively skewed towards helping out big earners, and corporation tax in the UK just went down.
One example:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/mcdonalds-pepsico-help-health-policy
|
On April 08 2011 20:16 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Lol, "Look it up, study it, understand it".
First you blabber something like this and then you go on proving you yourself have absolutely no clue whatsoever.
God I love the internets
|
On April 08 2011 19:28 FranzP wrote:Show nested quote +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 +
|
On April 08 2011 20:16 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
Yeah man why would you trust wikipedia for knowledge on a basic scientific concept. You should go to http://www.rife.org/otherresearch.html and read up on that stuff man, it sounds totally unbiased and legit.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
I realize that for you to believe this you would have to have a world view so different from me that I seriously doubt we can debate this in a meaningful fashion. Therefore I will not even try.
Good luck curing your cancer and different other illnesses with this wondercure!
|
On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer?
humans die, cancer doesnt.
|
On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:humans die, cancer doesnt.
Cells are the building blocks for a living organism are they not? Are cancer cells a foreign body looking for a host inside me or are they my own cells that have been mutated and changed by an outside factor, or on their own. So I guess only part of me dies?
I also think you don't quite understand what I was saying..
|
On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:humans die, cancer doesnt.
Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death.
|
On April 08 2011 22:04 Grend wrote:
I realize that for you to believe this you would have to have a world view so different from me that I seriously doubt we can debate this in a meaningful fashion. Therefore I will not even try.
Good luck curing your cancer and different other illnesses with this wondercure!
Agreed. I'm guessing most people defending that miracle cure are trolling though.
The article in OP is a laughable mix of conspiracy theories and scientific bullshit made up to impress uneducated people.
People using sick people's dispair to scam them is nothing new but still, it is sad.
|
On April 08 2011 22:04 Grend wrote:
I realize that for you to believe this you would have to have a world view so different from me that I seriously doubt we can debate this in a meaningful fashion. Therefore I will not even try.
Good luck curing your cancer and different other illnesses with this wondercure!
So true, if you're willing to go this far down the rabbit hole I'm not sure you can stop anywhere. Anyone interested in solid explanations with testable outcomes is going to be left scratching their head in wonder.
I'm surprised by how consistently these threads pop up. 9/11 conspiracy, HIV denial, Zeitgeist, 'Big Pharms' wants us dead. I'm surprised there still has been no thread on the Hollow Earth theory (and the possibility that the nazis escaped there with special technology after the end of WW2.)
|
Ok, these two parts are from the article that i found very, very vague. Can someone explain them?
No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature
Does he mean that for an example 2 water molecules have different electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature becouse i don't see that happening anytime soon. If he means 2 different molecules have different oscillations or energetic signature i can live with that but it still woulnd be very helpfull in curing cancer becouse cancer cells are made up from the same molecules as our own cells
Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together
How does that work. Does the beam become stronger or does it converge the light beams in one point? I thought resonance worked with waves. (well you can see light as waves or as photon particles)
|
I haven't read the whole OP but went through it, as the whole thread itself and no-one has mentioned antimalignocyt. I'm not into medicine at all, but there was a boom in Bulgarian media about Prodan Hristov's presumed cure for cancer. It's said to have healed thousands. I'm not sure if it true or not (I guess no-one really knows for sure). What I know is that the guy isn't allowed to sell it in Bulgaria, and that porn actresses are more interesting to the viewer and so the topic was forgotten so that the average viewer can see what he really wants to see. I guess humanity deserves this after all ...
|
its kinda lame that most of the people in here object to the 'visionary' part of this.
there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove.
scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science.
certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof.
so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed.
|
On April 08 2011 22:12 xM(Z wrote:
its kinda lame that most of the people in here object to the 'visionary' part of this.
there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove.
scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science.
certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof.
so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed.
You know what is needed? The ability to recognize and eliminate every carcinogen in the human body effectively. Once you can do that, you can cure cancer.
|
On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death.
And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well?
Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff. I like the idea and that this takes a different approach to the outlook on cancer and treatment. People who are just posting to say it's stupid, you might as well not post... If you don't have something meaningful or intelligent to say don't say anything at all -_-
On April 08 2011 22:12 xM(Z wrote:
its kinda lame that most of the people in here object to the 'visionary' part of this.
there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove.
scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science.
certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof.
so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed.
This is pretty much a more well thought out response of what I am thinking.
|
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff. I like the idea and that this takes a different approach to the outlook on cancer and treatment. People who are just posting to say it's stupid, you might as well not post... If you don't have something meaningful or intelligent to say don't say anything at all -_-
Not necessarily, there was a woman who had cancer. The cancer, or some of it, was removed and placed in a pi-tree dish? Many years later it had evolved to a point where it was a species/organism? (i really dont know the correct word for this) of its own. I don't remember the case study, I remember learning about it in biology. Possibly someone else has information on this.
|
On April 08 2011 21:59 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 21:14 vyyye wrote: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!That's deep.
I read something about it in some shitty book that wasn't even related to conspiracy theories. Here's something about a supposed Nazi base http://www.scribd.com/doc/25311/Hitlers-Antarctic-Base-the-Myth-and-the-Reality I found after a quick google search, I think it might just debunk it but yeah. You can also just google "Hitler UFO alive" or someshit, bound to come up with something.
People are dumb.
|
On April 08 2011 22:12 xM(Z wrote:
its kinda lame that most of the people in here object to the 'visionary' part of this.
there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove.
scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science.
certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof.
so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed.
Yeah it took years to prove that gravity bend light, but it was done rather easily by observing a solar eclipse.
The theory showed in the OP hasn't been validated or taken into interest by scientist since the 30ies... It's not being narrow minded to say that this is just not valid from a scientific point of view. And maybe the guy really believed he cured cancer 70 years ago, but's it's not the governments who shut his theories down it's just that his theories are wrong.
|
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:
Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.
Actually, there is. You see some of us believe that ideas like 'bad explanations', 'testable outcomes', 'growth of knowledge' are responsible for most of the progress human beings have made since the enlightenment. When someone posts a thread, with no peer review, justfied by only one giant cui bono against the medical establishment as it's only driving force - expect ridicule.
Half of us are dumb founded by your standards of justification and reasonably so. If I made a post "I'm better than Idra, it's just he wont take the time to play me" and I'm a bronze leaguer. No one in their right mind should say "Yeah, Idra won't take the risk in playing with him, think of the humiliation if he lost." People should say "shut the hell up and stop making stupid posts."
|
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well?
Yep. Unless they can somehow transfer themselves to another host. Kind of a sad analogy of what will happen with humanity and earth.
|
On April 08 2011 22:26 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Yep. Unless they can somehow transfer themselves to another host. Kind of a sad analogy of what will happen with humanity and earth.
Cancer is not contagious. If a tumor were to be transplanted to another host, it would be destroyed by the imune system.
|
On April 08 2011 22:29 KarlSberg~ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:26 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Yep. Unless they can somehow transfer themselves to another host. Kind of a sad analogy of what will happen with humanity and earth. Cancer is not contagious. If a tumor were to be transplanted to another host, it would be destroyed by the imune system.
I know but if you were to transplant a tumor from one person to another it would grow. Thats all I'm saying.
Edit: You're right, I was thinking of nude/genetically identical mice.
|
On April 08 2011 22:30 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:29 KarlSberg~ wrote:On April 08 2011 22:26 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Yep. Unless they can somehow transfer themselves to another host. Kind of a sad analogy of what will happen with humanity and earth. Cancer is not contagious. If a tumor were to be transplanted to another host, it would be destroyed by the imune system. I know but if you were to transplant a tumor from one person to another it would grow. Thats all I'm saying.
Edit: well yes, for identical twins/clones, that would indeed work 
|
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff..
Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat.
Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things?
Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
|
On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
It's because once you believe in a conspiracy to cover up the conspiracy, you're opening yourself to believe in just about anything happening in history.
|
God damn trolls. Go away.
I found the article very interesting and the concept behind it isn't really so far fetched. Given the article itself may be poorly written and have a few holes in it, but the underlying theme could be true.
Thanks for posting.
|
On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved.
|
On April 08 2011 23:01 TadH wrote:
God damn trolls. Go away.
I found the article very interesting and the concept behind it isn't really so far fetched. Given the article itself may be poorly written and have a few holes in it, but the underlying theme could be true.
Thanks for posting.
Did your liberal art class teach you that? Or are you a biologist?
How does one deem how far fetched something it with absolutely no background?
Heres something I found on the internet:
Energy can be created by altering the magnetic field strength of individual protons, because when protons are given an extra positive neutrino through positive beta decay of a radioactive substance, the extra strength of the charge carried by the protons will now be stronger than that of the electrons, and thus the magnetic pull will pull the electrons onto the nucleus where the two will cancel out into a neutron. Since we know that the mass of a proton + the mass of an electron is higher than that of a neutron, some energy must be created (remember we can relate mass to energy through E = MC^2).
This means, by altering the magnetic field of an extremely radioactive material, energy will be created in the forms of kinetic energy, which we all know will equal faster movement and thus be higher temperature. This can be used to heat steam and create electrical energy through moving a turbine (identical to that of a coal plant).
The reason why we do not use this technology is because of the vast benefits of governments hiding this technology. With radioactive substances (it doesn't have to be fission material, so it can be any radioactive substance even with a long half-life that is not dangerous) such as Rubidium 151, we can create "free" energy at little to no upkeep cost (only that of keeping the magnetic field running).
Do you believe this one may be true too, Archangel, and all those supporting the cancer theory?
|
Fun thing is...
This is from the 30ies and got covered up from the get go, no matter how big the political changes in the last 80 years were? That sounds scetchy.
Even better is...
Now everyone in the Internetz can read about it so it has to be true? From here on it gets plain retarded.
But hey... There are also people that honestly believe in Scientology.
|
On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets.
On April 08 2011 23:25 Velr wrote:
But hey... There are also people that honestly believe in Scientology. Coincidently or not. The whole concept of "curing with resonance" that this article cites. Is also used in Scientology!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapy
Coincidence? I think not! I'd bet Scientology can cure cancer!
|
On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
OK, I see nobody bothered to go through the second link i put there. The article is just a collection of stories and info about this scientist and his work. It is not about conspiracy theory. You people are taking things out of context.
If you want science behind it go read up on the second link.
|
On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved.
I find that hard to believe.
|
On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets.
Who has disproven it? Have any links on scientific research that has tried to duplicate his work, failed and explained why it cannot work?
|
On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets.
I don't really understand the start of your post. I'm not insisting on anything, I couldn't care less if this article has any backing to it or not... It doesn't affect me in the slightest, I'm just saying that I hate peole coming into a thread and posting "you're an idiot, this is wrong" and then leaving.
|
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.
|
On April 08 2011 23:29 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets. Who has disproven it? Have any links on scientific research that has tried to duplicate his work, failed and explained why it cannot work? Yes I have, I have told you before. And you have ignored me. Because you're not really willing to listen. You just wanna believe that sound waves can cure cancer no matter what, and you'll ignore anything! Talking to you is just like arguing with a door!
|
On April 08 2011 23:28 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. I find that hard to believe.
Go read up on it... It is a common fact that sailors were the first people to know that the Earth was not flat because when they saw a ship aproaching them they always saw the mast first and then the rest of the ship later, as if it were rising from somewhere, but that was just because of the curve of the Earth. Once they knew this, people looked into it and it became common knowledge to people with access to education. The only people who believed that the Earth was flat were the poor, who did not have schooling.
|
|
|
There's no cure for cancer yet because it's an incredibly complex thing to cure, not because the government doesn't want to cure it.
|
On April 08 2011 23:25 Jombozeus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:01 TadH wrote:
God damn trolls. Go away.
I found the article very interesting and the concept behind it isn't really so far fetched. Given the article itself may be poorly written and have a few holes in it, but the underlying theme could be true.
Thanks for posting. Did your liberal art class teach you that? Or are you a biologist? How does one deem how far fetched something it with absolutely no background? Heres something I found on the internet: Show nested quote +Energy can be created by altering the magnetic field strength of individual protons, because when protons are given an extra positive neutrino through positive beta decay of a radioactive substance, the extra strength of the charge carried by the protons will now be stronger than that of the electrons, and thus the magnetic pull will pull the electrons onto the nucleus where the two will cancel out into a neutron. Since we know that the mass of a proton + the mass of an electron is higher than that of a neutron, some energy must be created (remember we can relate mass to energy through E = MC^2).
This means, by altering the magnetic field of an extremely radioactive material, energy will be created in the forms of kinetic energy, which we all know will equal faster movement and thus be higher temperature. This can be used to heat steam and create electrical energy through moving a turbine (identical to that of a coal plant).
The reason why we do not use this technology is because of the vast benefits of governments hiding this technology. With radioactive substances (it doesn't have to be fission material, so it can be any radioactive substance even with a long half-life that is not dangerous) such as Rubidium 151, we can create "free" energy at little to no upkeep cost (only that of keeping the magnetic field running). Do you believe this one may be true too, Archangel, and all those supporting the cancer theory?
The fact that resonating sound waves can destroy things (like the wineglass) is what I was referring to.
And at least the OP posted a source, for all I know you wrote that.
Go troll somewhere else.
|
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.
Lol there are cars that run on water... The faster car running on water was clocked at 170mph, they use a system that heats a few quarts of water to create steam and then that runs the engive. From there on an aditional amount of water is heated to replace the evaprated water. It isn't extremely efficient, but obviously it can work.
On April 08 2011 23:32 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:29 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets. Who has disproven it? Have any links on scientific research that has tried to duplicate his work, failed and explained why it cannot work? Yes I have, I have told you before. And you have ignored me. Because you're not really willing to listen. You just wanna believe that sound waves can cure cancer no matter what, and you'll ignore anything! Talking to you is just like arguing with a door!
How about you just post a link or something instead of trying to argue...
|
I had a great laugh, thanks!
|
What sound waves?
You do not need sound waves.
Why is everyone so obsessed with sound waves. They are not the only one with frequency.
Anyways, I have updated the OP. I have posted another link to science without conspiracy as the original link is too conspiracy heavy. I should have read it better and not posted it in the first place, it not a good article (the one I read originally was made much better but I could not find that one so posted this one).
Also the title was a bit to sensationalist and has led to this discussion that was not intended. I wanted to hear about the possible science behind this all, not talk about H1N1, 9/11 or governments.
|
On April 08 2011 23:38 Ottoxlol wrote:
I had a great laugh, thanks!
See, this is the kind of stuff I was talking about ViB...
|
There has been speculation for years that apricot seeds kill cancerous cells and even some evidence to prove it. Don't feel like digging up articles, google it lol.
Point being that I would not be surprised if at least one of these magical cures is real and indeed being hidden from the masses in order to make more money.
|
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.
Shocking, right? I know, it's really hard to understand. And here's where the most shocking consequences come: if people die from cancer, the evil big coorporations stop making money from them. Because of that advanced "dead man can't pay" theorem. So if they could actually could cure cancer. They would still make money from health plans on their extended life times. And here's another surprise: people don't wanna die and would actually pay a lot of money for the cure!
Wow, who would have thought! They can actually make a buttload of money from the cure of cancer. Even more money than from hiding the cure. There's actually much demand from live people willing to pay from a cure than from dead people willing to pay for health plans!
|
On April 08 2011 23:40 Fisher wrote:
There has been speculation for years that apricot seeds kill cancerous cells and even some evidence to prove it. Don't feel like digging up articles, google it lol.
Point being that I would not be surprised if at least one of these magical cures is real and indeed being hidden from the masses in order to make more money.
Can someone tell me, with the exact figures and things, why it would be impossible to cure cancer because it's economically not viable? Or how much money people are making from cancer patients AND how they're suppressing the cures for cancer?
I can't believe that if there was a cure for cancer, it would never get publicised.
|
On April 08 2011 23:42 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:40 Fisher wrote:
There has been speculation for years that apricot seeds kill cancerous cells and even some evidence to prove it. Don't feel like digging up articles, google it lol.
Point being that I would not be surprised if at least one of these magical cures is real and indeed being hidden from the masses in order to make more money. Can someone tell me, with the exact figures and things, why it would be impossible to cure cancer because it's economically not viable? Or how much money people are making from cancer patients AND how they're suppressing the cures for cancer? I can't believe that if there was a cure for cancer, it would never get publicised.
Also if there is a pharma concern that has the knowledge and could have the patent / monopoly on cure for cancer, I doubt it wouldn't pay off for them.
Of course you can tell me now that there is some giant syndicate of all pharma concerns and state(s), but I seriously doubt that, too.
|
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said.
|
On April 08 2011 23:49 feaynnewedd wrote:
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said.
"Principle: High-frequency micro-ultrasound works through the generation of harmless sound waves from transducers into living systems. As the sound waves propagate through tissue, they are reflected back and picked up by the transducer, and can then be translated into 2D and 3D images.
Cancer Research: The advances in micro-ultrasound has been able to aid cancer research in a plethora of ways. For example, researchers can easily quantify tumor size in two and three dimensions. Not only so, blood flow speed and direction can also be observed through ultrasound. Furthermore, micro-ultrasound can be used to detect and quantify cardiotoxicity in response to anti-tumor therapy, since it is the only imaging modality that has instantaneous image acquisition. Because of its real-time nature, micro-ultrasound can also guide micro-injections of drugs, stem cells, etc. into small animals without the need for surgical intervention. Contrast agents can be injected into the animal to perform real-time tumor perfusion and targeted molecular imaging and quantification of biomarkers. Recently[when?], micro-ultrasound has even been shown to be an effective method of gene delivery.[3]
[edit] "
Wiki.
Cool, so it helps take pictures, awesome.
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)
|
On April 08 2011 23:40 Fisher wrote:
There has been speculation for years that apricot seeds kill cancerous cells and even some evidence to prove it. Don't feel like digging up articles, google it lol.
Point being that I would not be surprised if at least one of these magical cures is real and indeed being hidden from the masses in order to make more money.
The NCI did a study on that way back in the 80's. Out of 178 patients with cancer, not one was cured by it. The median survival time was 4.8 months.
On April 08 2011 23:31 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets. I don't really understand the start of your post. I'm not insisting on anything, I couldn't care less if this article has any backing to it or not... It doesn't affect me in the slightest, I'm just saying that I hate peole coming into a thread and posting "you're an idiot, this is wrong" and then leaving.
Sooo what about AccuWill in the AIDS Denialism? thread. Are we supposed to go "hmm yes interesting idea, lets investigate this" to someone who obviously doesn't know anything about the subject? What's wrong with calling a spade a spade?
|
On April 08 2011 23:49 feaynnewedd wrote:
high frequency ultrasound is actually used in the treatment of prostatic cancer.
'nuff said. And what does that have absolutely anything to do with resonance? HIFU simply burns tumors with heat!
|
am I retarded or is cancer not even a virus like it say it is in the article
|
On April 08 2011 23:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
am I retarded or is cancer not even a virus like it say it is in the article
Some cancers are caused by viruses, but no cancer is completely different from a virus.
|
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/Resonance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapy
From 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
|
Okay, so I did not say enough. High-frequency ultrasound is used to destroy prostatic cancer cells. It is applied through the rectum. What I meant by this is two things:
1. Nobody hides the cure for cancer from us. People who say they have a "Cure for Cancer" that "School Medicine" and the "Evil Pharmaceutical Companies" do not endorse because they do not make enough money with it usually want to make money themselves, albeit not by helping people however by scamming them.
2. There is no "Cure for Cancer" as "Cancer" describes myriads of different illnesses that causes terrible suffering for many, many people. Researchers and doctors all over the world are doing their best to treat these diseases. There cannot be a "Cure for Cancer", ever, because "Cancer" is not a disease.
Edit: Awww I shouldn't have posted in this thread. It is so stupid.
Edit2: I thought this resonance-thingy was something like ultrasound, but as it turns out, it is actually nothing at all. lol
|
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...
|
On April 08 2011 23:42 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:40 Fisher wrote:
There has been speculation for years that apricot seeds kill cancerous cells and even some evidence to prove it. Don't feel like digging up articles, google it lol.
Point being that I would not be surprised if at least one of these magical cures is real and indeed being hidden from the masses in order to make more money. Can someone tell me, with the exact figures and things, why it would be impossible to cure cancer because it's economically not viable? Or how much money people are making from cancer patients AND how they're suppressing the cures for cancer? I can't believe that if there was a cure for cancer, it would never get publicised.
Precisely.
And really, the one guy (or group) that comes forward and says 'hey we found a cure for everything, look we can prove it.' are going to get rich and be heroes. I'm highly doubting that -every single person- who is supposedly in the know about this is just sitting around laughing as organization X sends them a big check.
If this guy (who I don't think was even a legitimate doctor?) could find this in the 30's, I'd think the huge mass of giant research centers that exist today would be finding it in about 2 seconds... And good luck shutting all of them up.
It sounds to me like yet another inventor created yet another 'cure-all' machine. It's happened a ton throughout history. I'm sure the government does a lot of shady shit, but this is a bit too farfetched for me.
|
On April 08 2011 23:53 Jombozeus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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...
Maybe you should ask this question to local medical research doctors (I do not know the English name for these)?
I am not accusing anyone of anything. I didn't even write the article LOL. Maybe read where I said I am only the messenger so please do not shoot me :D
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On April 09 2011 09:04 dreamingwolf wrote: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
Chicken soup can also have a healing effect -- if you have a cold. Casts can have a healing effect -- if you have a broken bone. Why on earth does this mean that its not far-fetched that sound/soup/casts could cure cancer?
|
God I hate conspiracy theories. Today on a well child consult I had to go through a father who wouldn't vaccinate his child believing the conspiracy theories of a well known TV idiot spreading lies about medicine. That alone made me rage, obviously not at the father, he's only guilty of being ridiculously naive, but at the damn conspiracy theorizers that make people take stupid paths with no real evidence. In this case, evidence has grossly shown that the risk/benefit ratio for vaccinations favors benefit by a huge deal.
In this whole magnetic field curing cancer thing, it might work on some cell types. After all, ultrasound and infrared waves have been shown to have effects on biological functions of cells, particularly in the pain management area, by different mechanisms. However, if it were THAT simple, it would certainly be standard cancer treatment by now. I don't know the specifics about this, but I do know there's no way any real doctor/investigator would hold on to this information because farmaceutical companies are making their living off cancer therapies, that's just ridiculous.
As far as new cancer therapies, I'm pretty sure immunologic modulation and enzimatic modifications have made quite a few advances. I had a friend who worked on immunologic research on malignant melanomas, it was quite successful, if expensive to recreate.
Anyways, the point is: Researchers won't hide this for money, that's ridiculous, even more considering they'd be losing money by hiding it. Cancer has been and will be very difficult to treat, this is why the best way to fight it is screening and prevention (as in: Eat less fat, eat lower amounts of protein based foods, do not engage in unprotected sex, vaccinate as needed, don't spend life under the sun, stop smoking, don't drink as much, visit your doctor regularly, autoexamine your breast/testicles, etc.)
|
I really don't know much on the subject itself but I do recall hearing that drug companies are in fact not "making bank" as many would believe. Research costs are huge and for every awesome drug that goes through and turns a profit there are a decent amount that come to nothing except to throw away cash for all that research and testing. If drug companies had a magical cure they wouldn't be holding back because at this point in our medical knowledge its impossible to prevent cancer so there will always be a strong market for it.
|
Nanoparticles will probably be the future of cancer fighting. Gold particles can be used, which attach to cancer cell receptors, and there are various theorized methods to interact with the gold to destroy the cells - infrared light can cause the gold to heat up and kill the cell for example.
Most of these research stories can be found through google.
I believe there was also a story similar to the OP where nanoparticles were used in conjunction with ultrasound to resonate the particles and destroy the cell, but I'm having a hard time finding articles for it.
|
The technology available today to do what's described in the OP in trivial and easily affordable to reproduce. So the OP should clearly purchase the necessary equipment and find the magic "frequency" that cures cancer. You could be the richest man in the world or it's greatest humanitarian.
Or it's complete bullshit.
|
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=people with cancer in the world
There are 7.11 million deaths due to cancer per year, with average death probability being 1 in 8. That's 56 million cancer patients in the world every year at any time.
I would say that if you had a cure for cancer, that's a LOT of money you can make. You're not gonna save it to yourself to make a dime on some lesser drug that you're selling. Cure for cancer = money. Therefore I doubt anyone has discovered a "cure" yet ("cure" because cancer is a collection of things which cannot all be cured by one single method AFAIK, it's like curing all mental illnesses with the same drug, not gonna happen).
Also, curing cancer doesn't mean cancer will never appear on anyone again. If you find a cure, you just found an infinite cash cow, because people will keep getting cancer for whatever reason at the same rate as always.
|
"The fuel on which the body's cells run is called adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP must be created by all cells, including cancer cells, for energy. The biochemical process in which ATP is created is called oxidation phosphorylation and is oxygen-dependent. Healthy cells require the conditions of alkalinity and high molecular oxygen (O2) to produce ATP and function properly. In contrast, non-oxygen-respiratory organisms - like cancer cells - make ATP by fermentation phosphorylation, which requires the conditions of acidity and low oxygen to function, and actually produces additional acids."
Cancer is an overly acidic condition which is caused by a lack of oxygen. Lack of oxygen mainly comes from the consumption of too much dead lifeless food (fastfood, chips, cookies, cooked foods). This kind of food robs the body of oxygen at a very fast pace that the human body just can't keep up with. It's the equivalent of putting sugar in an engine.
All you have to do is keep your internal state alkaline and you can't get cancer.
|
On April 09 2011 13:55 HowitZer wrote:
"The fuel on which the body's cells run is called adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP must be created by all cells, including cancer cells, for energy. The biochemical process in which ATP is created is called oxidation phosphorylation and is oxygen-dependent. Healthy cells require the conditions of alkalinity and high molecular oxygen (O2) to produce ATP and function properly. In contrast, non-oxygen-respiratory organisms - like cancer cells - make ATP by fermentation phosphorylation, which requires the conditions of acidity and low oxygen to function, and actually produces additional acids."
Cancer is an overly acidic condition which is caused by a lack of oxygen. Lack of oxygen mainly comes from the consumption of too much dead lifeless food (fastfood, chips, cookies, cooked foods). This kind of food robs the body of oxygen at a very fast pace that the human body just can't keep up with. It's the equivalent of putting sugar in an engine.
All you have to do is keep your internal state alkaline and you can't get cancer.
isnt cancer hereditary?
|
On April 08 2011 18:47 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
this type of thread is an excellent shibboleth. divides the retards from the norms really well
:-) I totally agree... I never understood why people believe in all those conspiracy theories...
|
On April 09 2011 13:55 HowitZer wrote:
"The fuel on which the body's cells run is called adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP must be created by all cells, including cancer cells, for energy. The biochemical process in which ATP is created is called oxidation phosphorylation and is oxygen-dependent. Healthy cells require the conditions of alkalinity and high molecular oxygen (O2) to produce ATP and function properly. In contrast, non-oxygen-respiratory organisms - like cancer cells - make ATP by fermentation phosphorylation, which requires the conditions of acidity and low oxygen to function, and actually produces additional acids."
Cancer is an overly acidic condition which is caused by a lack of oxygen. Lack of oxygen mainly comes from the consumption of too much dead lifeless food (fastfood, chips, cookies, cooked foods). This kind of food robs the body of oxygen at a very fast pace that the human body just can't keep up with. It's the equivalent of putting sugar in an engine.
All you have to do is keep your internal state alkaline and you can't get cancer.
What medical journal are you taking this acidic cancer cell stuff from. Also, good luck keeping urself alkaline with fucking CO2 in your bloodstream.
|
Fans and air conditioners create chi vortexes, sucking the oxygen out of the air and killing anyone in a confined place without ventilation.
Drinking water while you're eating will dilute the acid in your stomach, making digestion less effective. It also washes all the nutrients away.
The average American eats 8 spiders a year in their sleep.
Calcium is an alkaline, and is drawn from the bone marrow to normalize the pH in your blood if it gets too acidic. This is why you should never exercise anaerobically; you'll get osteoperosis.
The radiation you get from standing in the sun on a clear day in 1 hour is as bad for you as living 100km away from the Fukushima plant. Wear sunblock (it blocks the sun).
On a related note, don't use microwave ovens. You'll get cancer.
Don't get vaccinations. You'll become autistic. (Even if you're autistic already, don't get vaccinations. Your autism will stay for a longer time, ie you'll live longer.)
|
On April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
The average American eats 8 spiders a year in their sleep.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/spiders.asp
On April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
Calcium is an alkaline, and is drawn from the bone marrow to normalize the pH in your blood if it gets too acidic. This is why you should never exercise anaerobically; you'll get osteoperosis.
And I hope you're kidding about this...
|
On April 09 2011 15:35 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
The average American eats 8 spiders a year in their sleep.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/spiders.aspShow nested quote +On April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
Calcium is an alkaline, and is drawn from the bone marrow to normalize the pH in your blood if it gets too acidic. This is why you should never exercise anaerobically; you'll get osteoperosis.
And I hope you're kidding about this...
His entire post is obviously sarcastic. You take exception to the spiders and calcium thing but let everything else slide? What???
|
This thread (read: Archangel) is hilarious. Bioresonance as a cure for the "cancer virus" is obviously a pseudoscience. I have no idea why someone with no actual knowledge of biology, cancer, resonance, et al would defend this so fervently.
|
On April 09 2011 11:00 mordk wrote:
God I hate conspiracy theories. Today on a well child consult I had to go through a father who wouldn't vaccinate his child believing the conspiracy theories of a well known TV idiot spreading lies about medicine. That alone made me rage, obviously not at the father, he's only guilty of being ridiculously naive, but at the damn conspiracy theorizers that make people take stupid paths with no real evidence. In this case, evidence has grossly shown that the risk/benefit ratio for vaccinations favors benefit by a huge deal.
In this whole magnetic field curing cancer thing, it might work on some cell types. After all, ultrasound and infrared waves have been shown to have effects on biological functions of cells, particularly in the pain management area, by different mechanisms. However, if it were THAT simple, it would certainly be standard cancer treatment by now. I don't know the specifics about this, but I do know there's no way any real doctor/investigator would hold on to this information because farmaceutical companies are making their living off cancer therapies, that's just ridiculous.
As far as new cancer therapies, I'm pretty sure immunologic modulation and enzimatic modifications have made quite a few advances. I had a friend who worked on immunologic research on malignant melanomas, it was quite successful, if expensive to recreate.
Anyways, the point is: Researchers won't hide this for money, that's ridiculous, even more considering they'd be losing money by hiding it. Cancer has been and will be very difficult to treat, this is why the best way to fight it is screening and prevention (as in: Eat less fat, eat lower amounts of protein based foods, do not engage in unprotected sex, vaccinate as needed, don't spend life under the sun, stop smoking, don't drink as much, visit your doctor regularly, autoexamine your breast/testicles, etc.)
A lot of the Vaccine disaster can be laid to blame on the study from the Lancet, which was complete fraud and a disaster for many, many people. But there's one thing they've really screwed up in giving Vaccines: they'd loading up too many at once. I know it's generally easier to give a kid the shots at once (less hassle), but there's a heavy tendency to give the kid the shots when they're in there & sick already. Thus, the kids naturally have a pretty rough reaction when you hit them with 4 vaccines at once, while sick. There's no easy (or necessarily very cheap) method to get around this, but it's definitely an issue that needs to be assuaged in a lot of parents. You can see a not-nice reaction in the faces of a lot of parents when talking about vaccines, because the ended up dealing with a fairly sick child for a solid week because of it. There really is a good deal of room for public education on this subject again.
On April 09 2011 12:36 Slaughter wrote:
I really don't know much on the subject itself but I do recall hearing that drug companies are in fact not "making bank" as many would believe. Research costs are huge and for every awesome drug that goes through and turns a profit there are a decent amount that come to nothing except to throw away cash for all that research and testing. If drug companies had a magical cure they wouldn't be holding back because at this point in our medical knowledge its impossible to prevent cancer so there will always be a strong market for it.
For patented medications, the "profit" margin per pill is roughly in the 90% range. There's a few exceptions, but for the most part, the costs in Pharmaceuticals is all capital. That's where a lot of the angst is about. Yes, it may only cost them 12 cents to make the pill, but it cost them 50 million to make the machinery and another 1 billion to do all of the research & testing (mostly the testing, actually; full phase 3 FDA testing can run up to 500 million in some cases).
Pharma is really in a no-win situation. In a lot of cases, they're effectively charging people to save their lives. In the other case, if they didn't, there'd be no one to fund the actual development of the medication and you'd be assuredly dead. They're actually pretty huge in charitable donations of medicines (roughly 300 million a year across the industry), but the prices for new medicines is pretty rough in the States. But on the flip side, we tend to get them far ahead of the rest of the world because, well, we pay retail price for them. (There's a whole lot of patent abuse/racketeering going on by a lot of countries when it comes to medicine, but let's not get into that)
But, I really never get the "the Man(!) is holding down the cure for cancer!" theories. Think how stupid, just on the face of them, they are. The profit potential to a cure for cancer is insane. As well pointed out already, 7 million new cases a year. Your market isn't going anywhere quickly. And if it could be cured with some common, every day substance, they'd just put it a special delivery device and sell it like they normally do, after the Phase 3 testing completed. It's just the way they work. Might be annoying, but if a cure for cancer did show up, they'd be marketing it like mad and selling it for as much as they could (and that'd be a lot, at the start). Actually, they could probably get away with 20k or more for a full-cycle of treatments. Considering the cost for radiation/chemotherapy alone, every insurance company would jump on the bandwagon like mad as well.
Still, "cancer" isn't one thing; there's so many forms that there won't be a "cure for cancer" but "cures for specific types of cancer" that'll be developed. Nanoparticle-delivery is going to be a big thing in the near future and holds a lot of promise. There is also very early stages of development for a way to prevent metastasizing of cancer cells. That holds huge promise (as it's really the spread of cancer that normally kills you), but it's also probably 10 years away from effective treatment regimes.
So, there's a lot out there, and there may be some cranks that were actually right (see the inclusion of Podiatry into "normal" medicine), but with extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary proof as well.
|
Regan introduced crack and HIV to black neighbourhoods to get them started. Government killed tupac and Biggie to ensure a never ending civil war between gangsters.
(Tupac actually alive in cuba)
|
As a fulltime cancer researcher, I have no patience for this kind of garbage conspiracy theories. Skepticism is the essence of learning. Don't believe everything you read.
|
On April 09 2011 15:44 StallingHard wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 15:35 LG)Sabbath wrote:On April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
The average American eats 8 spiders a year in their sleep.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/spiders.aspOn April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
Calcium is an alkaline, and is drawn from the bone marrow to normalize the pH in your blood if it gets too acidic. This is why you should never exercise anaerobically; you'll get osteoperosis.
And I hope you're kidding about this... His entire post is obviously sarcastic. You take exception to the spiders and calcium thing but let everything else slide? What???
I did not want to bother with the rest, the stuff I quoted just stood out for me and removed all credibility his post might have had. If it's sarcasm, it's really subtle if I have to go to snopes.com to get the hint (I assume most people haven't read the article I liked before I did so).
|
On April 10 2011 02:11 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2011 15:44 StallingHard wrote:On April 09 2011 15:35 LG)Sabbath wrote:On April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
The average American eats 8 spiders a year in their sleep.
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/spiders.aspOn April 09 2011 14:27 BottleAbuser wrote:
Calcium is an alkaline, and is drawn from the bone marrow to normalize the pH in your blood if it gets too acidic. This is why you should never exercise anaerobically; you'll get osteoperosis.
And I hope you're kidding about this... His entire post is obviously sarcastic. You take exception to the spiders and calcium thing but let everything else slide? What??? I did not want to bother with the rest, the stuff I quoted just stood out for me and removed all credibility his post might have had. If it's sarcasm, it's really subtle if I have to go to snopes.com to get the hint (I assume most people haven't read the article I liked before I did so).
I don't know, he got me at Chi vortexes. It was really blatant.
|
On April 08 2011 18:35 -Archangel- wrote:
My opinion:
I believe this guy really found the cure for cancer and other illnesses, but what I am not sure if people who today sell instruments based on his discoveries are trying to cheat us or not. What I am really sad is that the mainstream science community is not trying to a part of this and help make this a mainstream thing that will benefit the whole of mankind.
I find it really hard to discuss the material without involving you in the picture. It's amazing how easily you trust a source without validating it. Most of the flaws have already been picked upon by the rest of the community, so there's not much point in restating them.
If he could use natural frequencies to kill those cells, he probably can kill anyone. If you thought about it for a second, perhaps you would not have started this thread.
Anyway, your intentions are good. But you do need to reflect on your naiveness
Really suggest a mod close this ridiculous thread.
|
For a long time, I've always maintained that the pharmaceutical industry (at least in the USA) is corrupt - the people that sit on the FDA boards are the ones in charge of pharmaceutical companies and stand to profit from drugs. Whether there is a conspiracy here is something I don't know - but what I know is that there is massive conflict of interest in this industry.
Secondly, I believe that the world has gone too far in using drugs to treat illnesses. Recently, there have been reports in Europe about "superbugs", where drug-resistant diseases have developed. I think the world would do best to take a step back and consider whether too much drugs have been a good thing.
Thirdly, it looks like this "resonance treatment" is something inexpensive and side-effect free? I think any person has the legal right to choose whatever treatment they think is best for them. They alone should face the consequences of their decision. Also, no harm in trying?
Lastly, we have seen many theories dis-proven or shown to be incomplete (e.g. Newton). I'm not bagging him because I think he's the greatest scientist of all time. He was correct in that period of time with all the evidence he had. Not implying that Rife is correct, but certainly, I would love to see an investigation of the curing rates using his device.
|
Where to begin...
On April 10 2011 03:22 Azzur wrote:
the people that sit on the FDA boards are the ones in charge of pharmaceutical companies
Source or gtfo
Recently, there have been reports in Europe about "superbugs", where drug-resistant diseases have developed.
Recently? Where the fuck have you been, penicillin resistant bacteria began appearing in 1947, only four years after it went into mass production.
Thirdly, it looks like this "resonance treatment" is something inexpensive and side-effect free?
Let me give you a hint: If its too good to be true, and zero modern scientists are actively researching it, its for a damn good reason.
Lastly, we have seen many theories dis-proven or shown to be incomplete (e.g. Newton).
Newton's Laws are goddamn LAWS. They're neither disproven or incomplete. There's Newtonian thinking, but even at light speed F= goddamn m*a, or in more specific terms f=dp/dt.
I sound harsh because I fucking am. Learn science and come back. We live in the information age - educate youself.
|
|
|
On April 10 2011 12:40 cccalf wrote:Don't know if anyone has linked this yet. http://www.acutonics.com/Sounds like cutting edge stuff.
Are you kidding me?
"Our approach to wellness is rooted in the spiritual and wisdom traditions of Oriental Medicine, which recognizes that most diseases arise from a core blockage in our energy."
From the website. Intentionally trolling? Why isn't this thread closed yet.
|
On April 10 2011 08:09 DharmaTurtle wrote:Where to begin... Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 03:22 Azzur wrote:
the people that sit on the FDA boards are the ones in charge of pharmaceutical companies Source or gtfo Show nested quote +Recently, there have been reports in Europe about "superbugs", where drug-resistant diseases have developed. Recently? Where the fuck have you been, penicillin resistant bacteria began appearing in 1947, only four years after it went into mass production. Show nested quote +Thirdly, it looks like this "resonance treatment" is something inexpensive and side-effect free? Let me give you a hint: If its too good to be true, and zero modern scientists are actively researching it, its for a damn good reason. Show nested quote +Lastly, we have seen many theories dis-proven or shown to be incomplete (e.g. Newton). Newton's Laws are goddamn LAWS. They're neither disproven or incomplete. There's Newtonian thinking, but even at light speed F= goddamn m*a, or in more specific terms f=dp/dt.
I sound harsh because I fucking am. Learn science and come back. We live in the information age - educate youself.
Newton's laws aren't able to accurately define the acceleration of large astronomical bodies as of now. It's why there's so many theories (dark matter, etc.) which astronomers/astrophysicists are trying to prove.
EDIT: Relating back to OP. I'm going to look, but in the mean time, does anyone else have any sources relating to Rife's work. The article said he had a 100% success rate with 80~ or so patients, which seems too good to be true. Sadly, given that his downfall occurred in the 30s, I'm not really surprised of anything the article talked about.
|
On April 10 2011 08:09 DharmaTurtle wrote:
Newton's Laws are goddamn LAWS. They're neither disproven or incomplete. There's Newtonian thinking, but even at light speed F= goddamn m*a, or in more specific terms f=dp/dt.
I'm gonna be a little pedantic: the only difference between a law and a theory is the amount of people who support it. I am by no means suggesting that Newton was wrong, just that it is possible (albeit really unlikely) that he was.
|
On April 10 2011 13:22 StallingHard wrote:Are you kidding me? "Our approach to wellness is rooted in the spiritual and wisdom traditions of Oriental Medicine, which recognizes that most diseases arise from a core blockage in our energy." From the website. Intentionally trolling? Why isn't this thread closed yet.
They have classes where you can learn the art of acutonics for only $400 a class. Of course that's after you have purchased your first set of acutonics tuning forks for $700. This coming from the alternative medicine people who tell you that western medicine is driven by doctors who tell you you're sick so they can make money.
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gggInARkQUs/TLOhwU6JvEI/AAAAAAAABLs/1qRjXaOhdOo/s1600/snake-oil1.jpg)
Stuffs as old as time. People who want a cure for their ailments are sometimes desperate enough to leave their common sense at the door.
|
Where do these terrible threads keep coming from? First the 48/2(9+3) one, then planes on a treadmill and now this? Is this all the master plan of someone to troll the uneducated?
|
On April 08 2011 18:58 VIB wrote:
Resonance? Really? Do you understand how resonance works and what you'd need to destroy "cancer cells" with it? It's not like cancer has a fixed frequency that you can just guess and throw the inverted frequency to destroy it. The frequency we emanate varies on a lot of variables all the time. You would have to not only be able to see exactly where each atom is, but also know where each one is moving to.
I call BS.
The biggest problem with the cells of cancer, they are essentially made of the same material as our own bodies, therefor their Resonance properties would be very close to our resonance Properties one slip up and we become goo
|
This reminds me of a couple years back , an Italian doctor had a 75% cure rate for multiple sclerosis whos theory was that it was due to Iron overload.Of course after this i heard nothing else and the treatment appears to have been blackballed by the mainstream media.
http://www.gizmag.com/ccsvi-multiple-sclerosis-ms-cure-zamboni/13447/
An Italian doctor has been getting dramatic results with a new type of treatment for Multiple Sclerosis, or MS, which affects up to 2.5 million people worldwide. In an initial study, Dr. Paolo Zamboni took 65 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, performed a simple operation to unblock restricted bloodflow out of the brain - and two years after the surgery, 73% of the patients had no symptoms. Dr. Zamboni's thinking could turn the current understanding of MS on its head, and offer many sufferers a complete cure.
Multiple sclerosis, or MS, has long been regarded as a life sentence of debilitating nerve degeneration. More common in females, the disease affects an estimated 2.5 million people around the world, causing physical and mental disabilities that can gradually destroy a patient's quality of life.
It's generally accepted that there's no cure for MS, only treatments that mitigate the symptoms - but a new way of looking at the disease has opened the door to a simple treatment that is causing radical improvements in a small sample of sufferers.
Italian Dr. Paolo Zamboni has put forward the idea that many types of MS are actually caused by a blockage of the pathways that remove excess iron from the brain - and by simply clearing out a couple of major veins to reopen the blood flow, the root cause of the disease can be eliminated.
Dr. Zamboni's revelations came as part of a very personal mission - to cure his wife as she began a downward spiral after diagnosis. Reading everything he could on the subject, Dr. Zamboni found a number of century-old sources citing excess iron as a possible cause of MS. It happened to dovetail with some research he had been doing previously on how a buildup of iron can damage blood vessels in the legs - could it be that a buildup of iron was somehow damaging blood vessels in the brain?
He immediately took to the ultrasound machine to see if the idea had any merit - and made a staggering discovery. More than 90% of people with MS have some sort of malformation or blockage in the veins that drain blood from the brain. Including, as it turned out, his wife.
He formed a hypothesis on how this could lead to MS: iron builds up in the brain, blocking and damaging these crucial blood vessels. As the vessels rupture, they allow both the iron itself, and immune cells from the bloodstream, to cross the blood-brain barrier into the cerebro-spinal fluid. Once the immune cells have direct access to the immune system, they begin to attack the myelin sheathing of the cerebral nerves - Multiple Sclerosis develops.
He named the problem Chronic Cerebro-Spinal Venous Insufficiency, or CCSVI.
Zamboni immediately scheduled his wife for a simple operation to unblock the veins - a catheter was threaded up through blood vessels in the groin area, all the way up to the effected area, and then a small balloon was inflated to clear out the blockage. It's a standard and relatively risk-free operation - and the results were immediate. In the three years since the surgery, Dr. Zamboni's wife has not had an attack.
Widening out his study, Dr. Zamboni then tried the same operation on a group of 65 MS-sufferers, identifying blood drainage blockages in the brain and unblocking them - and more than 73% of the patients are completely free of the symptoms of MS, two years after the operation.
In some cases, a balloon is not enough to fully open the vein channel, which collapses either as soon as the balloon is removed, or sometime later. In these cases, a metal stent can easily be used, which remains in place holding the vein open permanently.
Dr. Zamboni's lucky find is yet to be accepted by the medical community, which is traditionally slow to accept revolutionary ideas. Still, most agree that while further study needs to be undertaken before this is looked upon as a cure for MS, the results thus far have been very positive.
Naturally, support groups for MS sufferers are buzzing with the news that a simple operation could free patients from what they have always been told would be a lifelong affliction, and further studies are being undertaken by researchers around the world hoping to confirm the link between CCSVI and MS, and open the door for the treatment to become available for sufferers worldwide.
It's certainly a very exciting find for MS sufferers, as it represents a possible complete cure, as opposed to an ongoing treatment of symptoms. We wish Dr. Zamboni and the various teams looking further into this issue the best of luck.
|
As for the rife machine there is a rife subforum on curezone.org forums , i doubt the posters there have had such impressive results but it might pay to check out , there could be a few success stories there.
|
Well according to myself and my panel of experts my computer, the Fridge and the AC unit you have in fact discovered a Conspiracy. huzzah ^_^! Of course now the NHK will come after you..
*cough* In all seriousness while it's an.. interesting concept it doesn't seem to hold up. I am all for testing out things and sure you know what I'd even try this out if I was a researcher but to be frank it's a tad insulting to many Doctors to be placed in this "We are going to kill you rather then simply curing you" box.
I am sorry but no company CEO in the world would be as short sighted as to let a cure for Cancer(any form) go untested or unused. Too much money, instant money. The thing that most recently caused the collapse of many major banks was in lay terms "Short term gains(with high risk)> long term gains" but these same evil ceo's are hiding a cure?
Nonsense. A person with a cure for Cancer would never have to work a day in his life afterwords, would pretty much have his or her choice of lifestyles and be able to fund such things for generations simply by the fame alone. No one would say no to that. No one.
|
On April 10 2011 18:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:This reminds me of a couple years back , an Italian doctor had a 75% cure rate for multiple sclerosis whos theory was that it was due to Iron overload.Of course after this i heard nothing else and the treatment appears to have been blackballed by the mainstream media. + Show Spoiler +http://www.gizmag.com/ccsvi-multiple-sclerosis-ms-cure-zamboni/13447/An Italian doctor has been getting dramatic results with a new type of treatment for Multiple Sclerosis, or MS, which affects up to 2.5 million people worldwide. In an initial study, Dr. Paolo Zamboni took 65 patients with relapsing-remitting MS, performed a simple operation to unblock restricted bloodflow out of the brain - and two years after the surgery, 73% of the patients had no symptoms. Dr. Zamboni's thinking could turn the current understanding of MS on its head, and offer many sufferers a complete cure. Multiple sclerosis, or MS, has long been regarded as a life sentence of debilitating nerve degeneration. More common in females, the disease affects an estimated 2.5 million people around the world, causing physical and mental disabilities that can gradually destroy a patient's quality of life. It's generally accepted that there's no cure for MS, only treatments that mitigate the symptoms - but a new way of looking at the disease has opened the door to a simple treatment that is causing radical improvements in a small sample of sufferers. Italian Dr. Paolo Zamboni has put forward the idea that many types of MS are actually caused by a blockage of the pathways that remove excess iron from the brain - and by simply clearing out a couple of major veins to reopen the blood flow, the root cause of the disease can be eliminated. Dr. Zamboni's revelations came as part of a very personal mission - to cure his wife as she began a downward spiral after diagnosis. Reading everything he could on the subject, Dr. Zamboni found a number of century-old sources citing excess iron as a possible cause of MS. It happened to dovetail with some research he had been doing previously on how a buildup of iron can damage blood vessels in the legs - could it be that a buildup of iron was somehow damaging blood vessels in the brain? He immediately took to the ultrasound machine to see if the idea had any merit - and made a staggering discovery. More than 90% of people with MS have some sort of malformation or blockage in the veins that drain blood from the brain. Including, as it turned out, his wife. He formed a hypothesis on how this could lead to MS: iron builds up in the brain, blocking and damaging these crucial blood vessels. As the vessels rupture, they allow both the iron itself, and immune cells from the bloodstream, to cross the blood-brain barrier into the cerebro-spinal fluid. Once the immune cells have direct access to the immune system, they begin to attack the myelin sheathing of the cerebral nerves - Multiple Sclerosis develops. He named the problem Chronic Cerebro-Spinal Venous Insufficiency, or CCSVI. Zamboni immediately scheduled his wife for a simple operation to unblock the veins - a catheter was threaded up through blood vessels in the groin area, all the way up to the effected area, and then a small balloon was inflated to clear out the blockage. It's a standard and relatively risk-free operation - and the results were immediate. In the three years since the surgery, Dr. Zamboni's wife has not had an attack. Widening out his study, Dr. Zamboni then tried the same operation on a group of 65 MS-sufferers, identifying blood drainage blockages in the brain and unblocking them - and more than 73% of the patients are completely free of the symptoms of MS, two years after the operation. In some cases, a balloon is not enough to fully open the vein channel, which collapses either as soon as the balloon is removed, or sometime later. In these cases, a metal stent can easily be used, which remains in place holding the vein open permanently. Dr. Zamboni's lucky find is yet to be accepted by the medical community, which is traditionally slow to accept revolutionary ideas. Still, most agree that while further study needs to be undertaken before this is looked upon as a cure for MS, the results thus far have been very positive. Naturally, support groups for MS sufferers are buzzing with the news that a simple operation could free patients from what they have always been told would be a lifelong affliction, and further studies are being undertaken by researchers around the world hoping to confirm the link between CCSVI and MS, and open the door for the treatment to become available for sufferers worldwide. It's certainly a very exciting find for MS sufferers, as it represents a possible complete cure, as opposed to an ongoing treatment of symptoms. We wish Dr. Zamboni and the various teams looking further into this issue the best of luck.
I can help you out there, as there has been a ton of reporting on this issue in Canada (we have a very high rate of MS compared to other countries, and also we like zamboni's).
Based on the current expert understanding of MS, the treatment is unlikely to be a cure, and at best would somehow alleviate the symptoms. Under this hypothesis, the current positive evidence is simply confirmation bias.
Others say that the treatment is a complete cure. However, the reported evidence suggests that at the very least it doesn't work for everybody. Also, there have been a number of tragic cases reported of people dying from complications of the very dangerous surgery needed for the therapy. So in the Canadian media at least, the position that proper scientific studies are needed to test the therapy has been vindicated. Various provincial governments are going ahead with funding for such studies.
All of this has been reported in our media, contrary to your claim that the subject has been blacklisted. And you could have figured all of this out with a simply google search.
|
Newton's Laws are goddamn LAWS. They're neither disproven or incomplete. There's Newtonian thinking, but even at light speed F= goddamn m*a, or in more specific terms f=dp/dt.
I sound harsh because I fucking am. Learn science and come back. We live in the information age - educate youself.
the entire field of quantum mechanics exists to explain behaviour that does not follow newtonian physics/classical mechanics...
|
What
the
fuck
-Archangel- you actually believe this bullcrap? Have you ever heard of peer-review? Don't you wonder why you haven't seen the work of Dr Rife in any journal?
I haven't bothered to read through all the replies, but I hope no one else believes in this bullcrap too.
|
On April 10 2011 17:58 Drxz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 18:58 VIB wrote:
Resonance? Really? Do you understand how resonance works and what you'd need to destroy "cancer cells" with it? It's not like cancer has a fixed frequency that you can just guess and throw the inverted frequency to destroy it. The frequency we emanate varies on a lot of variables all the time. You would have to not only be able to see exactly where each atom is, but also know where each one is moving to.
I call BS. The biggest problem with the cells of cancer, they are essentially made of the same material as our own bodies, therefor their Resonance properties would be very close to our resonance Properties one slip up and we become goo
Cells don't have resonance properties. The molecules, yes, the whole cell, no.
In the example, glass breaks because the harmonic waves build up energy in the glass (i.e. the energy from the sound waves incident upon it do not dissipate or radiate from the glass). Let's say I know what acoustic frequency the glass is really good at absorbing. This frequency depends upon both what it is made out of and it's shape. If I play this frequency kinda quietly, the glass will absorb it and vibrate at this frequency quite efficiently. However, if I play this frequency really loud, the glass will start to vibrate at what are termed the harmonic frequencies. So let's say the frequency it absorbs is f, the harmonic frequencies are 2f, 3f, 4f, etc. To get the glass to vibrate at the a frequency of 2f requires a lot more sound than just regular f. 3f requires more than 2f, 4f takes more than 3f, and so on.
Now, think about the same shape, but made of rubber. We already know intuitively what will happen. The rubber glass won't break, even if I play a sound at it's resonance frequency. But physically, why? The effect is called damping, it roughly translates into the rubber doing something else with the energy. In the rubber, the energy is dissipated through movement. The rubber glass will move and bend. When the glass in the first experiment tries to move and bend, it shatters, cause it's more solid. Your cells, on the other hand, are surrounded by water (which would dampen the applied energy if it were a sound), or, if you used electromagnetic waves (like these guys mention) you could only cause resonances in molecules, not the entire cell. And, like the glass, you need a lot of light to achieve this, in fact, you can only do this with lasers. And lasers were invented 20 years after this guy's work.
|
|
|
On April 10 2011 13:39 sureshot_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 08:09 DharmaTurtle wrote:Where to begin... On April 10 2011 03:22 Azzur wrote:
the people that sit on the FDA boards are the ones in charge of pharmaceutical companies Source or gtfo Recently, there have been reports in Europe about "superbugs", where drug-resistant diseases have developed. Recently? Where the fuck have you been, penicillin resistant bacteria began appearing in 1947, only four years after it went into mass production. Thirdly, it looks like this "resonance treatment" is something inexpensive and side-effect free? Let me give you a hint: If its too good to be true, and zero modern scientists are actively researching it, its for a damn good reason. Lastly, we have seen many theories dis-proven or shown to be incomplete (e.g. Newton). Newton's Laws are goddamn LAWS. They're neither disproven or incomplete. There's Newtonian thinking, but even at light speed F= goddamn m*a, or in more specific terms f=dp/dt.
I sound harsh because I fucking am. Learn science and come back. We live in the information age - educate youself. Newton's laws aren't able to accurately define the acceleration of large astronomical bodies as of now. It's why there's so many theories (dark matter, etc.) which astronomers/astrophysicists are trying to prove.
Yeah for some reason people who are so "passionate" about their knowledge of science fail to remember is that science is empirical in nature and exists to expand our understanding not just to define what is definitively right and wrong.
Scientific information is right until it's proven wrong as history has showed us time and time again. Just because Newton called it his "Law" doesn't make it any more definitive than if I were to make up my own.
|
|
|
On April 10 2011 13:48 LG)Sabbath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2011 08:09 DharmaTurtle wrote:
Newton's Laws are goddamn LAWS. They're neither disproven or incomplete. There's Newtonian thinking, but even at light speed F= goddamn m*a, or in more specific terms f=dp/dt. I'm gonna be a little pedantic: the only difference between a law and a theory is the amount of people who support it. I am by no means suggesting that Newton was wrong, just that it is possible (albeit really unlikely) that he was.
Newton was wrong though.
Completely and utterly wrong, it's kind of funny how arrogant dharma is about his lack of knowledge though :p
|
How was he "completely and utterly wrong?" His model works pretty well for classical mechanical systems, and that's why it's still taught. While it's not true at all times, for a set of assumed conditions (ie objects tangible by human hands) it's a good enough approximation that physicists don't neglect it.
|
Yes for certain systems Newtons laws are good approximations. That doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
|
On April 08 2011 18:47 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
this type of thread is an excellent shibboleth. divides the retards from the norms really well
This. But it's always surprising just how many retards there are that believe in these crazy conspiracy theories.
|
there was a guy who was able to cure 100% patients who had eye problems.. or no eye vision at all.. but countries didnt even considered his proposals, only japan tried, and then said, its gonna blow the economy... so.. *f.. the people*
i cant vouch for the story to be completely true, but something like that definately happened.
Also you dont have to be smart to understand countries are for exploit people, not to free from diseases, works..
|
On April 11 2011 04:06 ambient_orange wrote:there was a guy who was able to cure 100% patients who had eye problems.. or no eye vision at all.. but countries didnt even considered his proposals, only japan tried, and then said, its gonna blow the economy... so.. *f.. the people* i cant vouch for the story to be completely true, but something like that definately happened. Also you dont have to be smart to understand countries are for exploit people, not to free from diseases, works..
Wait a minute curing eye problems and blindness blows the economy? Also if your not putting up sources than why should I believe you?
|
|
|
Wow this is such a terrible thread. If the cancer 'virus' already has some kind of vaccine, there is simply no way in hell with the internet and modern communications that the information wouldn't get out into the public and start making instant headlines. Sure, people can be assholes at times, but the Nobel Prizes, fame and prestige offered by being the man responsible for the cure for cancer probably outweighs the grubby fat fingers of rich capitalist goons.
If this weren't true then how could you possibly explain the polio vaccines? You could make a lot of money off of keeping everyone stuffed with pills to delay the virus, and yet iirc the vaccine is FREE (At least in Canada) and offered to toddlers/newborns.
|
Didn't they already cure cancer with homeopathy? Pretty sure they did. But it was too effective and the CIA covered it up to protect the pharmaceutics industry's profits so that the illuminati can fund the NWO leader inauguration taking place on December 23rd 2012. No?
Please.
+ Show Spoiler [Moderately large, relevant picture] +
|
Haha thank you for that essay, Assimov is great.
On the other hand newtons laws -> classical theory of electromagnetism -> all matter is predicted to glow in the dark.
Which is pretty close to what I would call "completely wrong"
Then again that's more me trying to find an elegant way to back out of a lost argument.
So fine I concede :p
|
|
|
Are you serious? That's a video of God knows what with some random classical music played over it and someone claiming that the music is "destroying" the organisms. If you really want to sway people link sources in peer-reviewed publications or sources that at least show and try to explain the experimental set-up being used.
I could just as easily get a video of a nuclear test and play Tenacious D over it and claim that they cause nuclear explosions to happen~.~.
|
On April 11 2011 05:38 Jopz wrote:Are you serious? That's a video of God knows what with some random classical music played over it and someone claiming that the music is "destroying" the organisms. If you really want to sway people link sources in peer-reviewed publications or sources that at least show and try to explain the experimental set-up being used. I could just as easily get a video of a nuclear test and play Tenacious D over it and claim that they cause nuclear explosions to happen~.~.
I edited my post with what you asked.
|
OK, I have updated the OP with better links to better data that I have found in the meantime.
|
On April 11 2011 03:58 KlaCkoN wrote:
Yes for certain systems Newtons laws are good approximations. That doesn't mean they aren't wrong.
Actually, that does mean they're wrong. Something is only right when it is correct and accurate completely and totally in all cases.
Now, there are varying degrees of "wrong". 4.9999999 obviously isn't 5.0, but it's not that far from it either.
|
He used a double negative; he's agreeing with that.
|
On April 11 2011 06:12 -Archangel- wrote:
OK, I have updated the OP with better links to better data that I have found in the meantime.
Those links are just as full of incorrect science and incorrect or non-existent sources as all the original stuff. There is no new data at all, just more articles spouting the exact same stuff that has been so widely rejected by anyone who thinks about it critically and logically for one second. More people saying the wrong thing doesn't make it right.
Yes we know radiation kills or damages organisms. Does that have any relevence whatsoever to this resonant-frequency theory? No.
Yes we know glass can be destroyed by resonance from sound waves. Does that have any bearing on using electromagnetic waves to "resonate" cancer cells to death? I mean come on, what possible reason is there that it would?
Its the same bullshit over and over. People who have no idea what they are talking about grabbing hold of some big "sensation" because they can't find anything that is actually meaningful to do.
|
I am throughly amused by how the OP still has zero peer reviewed content.
An outdated blog at a small liberal arts college does not science make. The author of the blog is this guy
http://cms.skidmore.edu/music/faculty/holland/upload/Holland-CV.pdf
who, as you'll note, is a professor of MUSIC. He is a smart guy, speaks five languages, but his antics in a lab are far from evidence of anything.
|
On April 11 2011 06:35 Kasu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2011 06:12 -Archangel- wrote:
OK, I have updated the OP with better links to better data that I have found in the meantime. Those links are just as full of incorrect science and incorrect or non-existent sources as all the original stuff. There is no new data at all, just more articles spouting the exact same stuff that has been so widely rejected by anyone who thinks about it critically and logically for one second. More people saying the wrong thing doesn't make it right. Yes we know radiation kills or damages organisms. Does that have any relevence whatsoever to this resonant-frequency theory? No. Yes we know glass can be destroyed by resonance from sound waves. Does that have any bearing on using electromagnetic waves to "resonate" cancer cells to death? I mean come on, what possible reason is there that it would? Its the same bullshit over and over. People who have no idea what they are talking about grabbing hold of some big "sensation" because they can't find anything that is actually meaningful to do.
I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here.
Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use.
|
On April 11 2011 07:17 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2011 06:35 Kasu wrote:On April 11 2011 06:12 -Archangel- wrote:
OK, I have updated the OP with better links to better data that I have found in the meantime. Those links are just as full of incorrect science and incorrect or non-existent sources as all the original stuff. There is no new data at all, just more articles spouting the exact same stuff that has been so widely rejected by anyone who thinks about it critically and logically for one second. More people saying the wrong thing doesn't make it right. Yes we know radiation kills or damages organisms. Does that have any relevence whatsoever to this resonant-frequency theory? No. Yes we know glass can be destroyed by resonance from sound waves. Does that have any bearing on using electromagnetic waves to "resonate" cancer cells to death? I mean come on, what possible reason is there that it would? Its the same bullshit over and over. People who have no idea what they are talking about grabbing hold of some big "sensation" because they can't find anything that is actually meaningful to do. I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here. Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use.
Nope, looked at all (the new ones). They look exactly what they are - amateuish mock-ups of scientific articles. There are still numerous scientific inaccuracies and omissions, the sources are still missing or irrelevent. And (here is the biggest clue) if the article is filled with links trying to flog you something, its not a genuine scientific article. You don't need any scientific education to work that one out, just some common fucking sense.
Edit: Reading through it further you can find some unbelievably basic (if we assume the author has a scientific enough background to be entitled to write this stuff) mistakes. Loss of electrons makes a species negatively charged. Hydrogen is a metal.
The "extremely technical" page which offers an explanation "oriented to the scientific and research community" reads like a misspelled, barely understood, poorly connected copy of information from various wikipedia pages with the sole intention of confusing anyone who tries to read it.
Please, as someone who has seen a decent number of actual scientific papers, allow me to tell you that these websites aren't even close. "Scientific" and "talks about subjects that are considered scientific" are NOT the same thing.
|
Look I know you did look or read it. I found scientific data in some of those links. I do not understand it all but that is why I put all this info here.
|
On April 11 2011 07:17 -Archangel- wrote:
This technology is now being researched by plenty of people...
People like... music professors? Lol.
From your very first link to examiner.com:
"Rife invented the Universal Microscope with 5,682 parts. It was a miraculous machine that could see things smaller than waves of light (which was then and is still today thought to be impossible)."
....right. Not only is that sentence self-contradictory, electron microscopes have a much higher resolution than optical microscopes. And they've been around since 1933, Rife's time.
Your next link is written by a James E. Bare, D.C. That D.C. means he's a Doctor of Chiropractic. He's not a medical doctor, or an engineer, or even a research scientist.
http://nm-albuquerque.doctors.at/dr/james-bare-drjamesebaredc
I've yet to see a single MD, engineering PhD, or peer reviewed article support this load of bullshit.
|
On April 11 2011 07:46 -Archangel- wrote:
Look I know you did look or read it. I found scientific data in some of those links. I do not understand it all but that is why I put all this info here.
Lovely. The blind leading the blind.
|
LOLOLOLOL
Cancer is NOT a virus. That should be your first clue that something is wrong with this "hidden cure."
|
-Archtroll- wrote: Discuss the information given, not me. I didn't write anything presented on these links, I am just a messenger.
With all due disrespect Sir, this collection of yours is rife with bullshit. The "scientific" research on this nonsense is a real treat. Have you no shame?
I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here.
No, Sir, you should read the shit before assuming it was scientific. If you're unable to make the call whether it is indeed scientific or not (and you apparently are indeed unable to do so), you shouldn't claim it was.
Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use.
If you call a newspaper ad from 1993 and a random selection of dubious semi-ancient essays "research" then yes, I guess there exists "research" on this bs.
|
On April 08 2011 18:35 -Archangel- wrote:
I would say his story is similar to the one of Nikola Tesla (except Tesla managed to get some of his inventions into mainstream before being shut down by people afraid of him).
Oh come on with bullshit about Nikola Tesla.
Go please read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#Nobel_prize_and_Tesla
for a good start, and learn that the reason there is the stupid urban legend about Nikola Tesla is because of his eccentric personality and the fact he was claiming to have achieved something unbelievable every other day. That costed him his reputation and nobody listened to him anymore. That's it.
Now, you have seen The Prestige, or maybe you just played Red Alert and heard about how Soviet tried to use his invention about wireless electric transfer for military purpose or whatever, and you just repeat this prejudice that he was just "too genius" or even "dangerous" and that "they" "shut him down".
If you are trying to start a serious discussion, start with serious matter.
I think you see science as you would like it to be rather as how it is. Full of misteries, hidden genius, lost inventions, and fascinant forgotten experiment. Sorry, reality is more boring than people's imagination. If we had a way of curing cancer we would know it already. If Tesla had invented wireless energy transfer succesfully, we would know it one century after. It wouldn't actually make any sense that such a major discovery was possible at the time of Tesla and still not (re)discovered today.
|
|
|
Oh God. Sad article. People are so stupid.
|
The cure for cancer is being actively suppressed, if you don't believe it then do some research.
I was going to link you to some of the shows in my sig but I guess all the ones on cancer were before Christmas and got bumped off the archive ):
there's a reason everyone is dropping dead from cancer.
|
On April 11 2011 07:58 Dagobert wrote:Show nested quote +-Archtroll- wrote: Discuss the information given, not me. I didn't write anything presented on these links, I am just a messenger. With all due disrespect Sir, this collection of yours is rife with bullshit. The "scientific" research on this nonsense is a real treat. Have you no shame? Show nested quote +I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here. No, Sir, you should read the shit before assuming it was scientific. If you're unable to make the call whether it is indeed scientific or not (and you apparently are indeed unable to do so), you shouldn't claim it was. Show nested quote +Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use. If you call a newspaper ad from 1993 and a random selection of dubious semi-ancient essays "research" then yes, I guess there exists "research" on this bs.
-archtroll- hahahahahahaha
I didn't even notice it.
|
The Science behind the "story" from the OP is bullshit.
|
Canada7170 Posts
This thread is pretty much garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vD0Mn.gif)
